COURTNEY’s Neighborhood

  Sir Ken Robinson contends that “creativity is as important as literacy and should be treated as such.” Our schools are currently designed, like he said, in a hierarchy, in which specific skills, namely math and science, are valued over others. Sir Robinson mentioned a couple reasons why having this hierarchy is ridiculous.
One of the reasons why an academic hierarchy is absurd is because people cannot accurately assign value to skills that may or may not be valuable in 30, 20, or even 10 years. If we cannot accurately assess what skills children will need for the future than how can we place a value or emphasis on any particular skill now. Another important point Sir Robinson made was the stress we place on children to be right and not make mistakes.
 Children, and people in general, need to be willing to make mistakes in order to create, or even learn, something new and original. This rejection to make any mistakes stifles creativity probably more than any one thing in our schools and in society. We need to find new ways to praise children’s efforts and ideas, and less ways to assess them on their mistakes. Sir Robinson also mentioned the declining value of a college degree or what he called, “academic inflation”. This knowledge is very important to educators. If employers no longer value “just” a college degree, then what do they value? 'Formal education' has become both compartmentalized and commodified. 

For all the following reasons I agree with Sir Robinson that we need to rethink the fundamental ways we educate children and begin to see the vastness of human capabilities:

• The purpose of education shouldn't be to get into college.

• Believe in high standards does not mean education has to be standardized.

• We don't need to reform education -- we need to transform it.

• Creativity is a part of not apart from intelligence.

• We don't grow in to creativity, we get educated out of it.

          There are several points in Arne's Duncan's speech of which I dissent, however the overarching purpose: a plead to realize the urgency through which educational reformation must take place, is immediately and timelessly relevant.

“By almost any standard,” Duncan told a Columbia University audience of students, teachers, and faculty, “many if not most of the nation’s 1,450 schools, colleges and departments of education are doing a mediocre job of preparing teachers for the realities of the 21st century classroom.” While this statement is unequivocally true, Duncan's failure to state what specific component is 'mediocre' renders the potential effectiveness of the statement itself-at best mediocre.  The abstractness of this earlier, 'mediocrity' claim is indicative of the circumlocutory speech that merely calls for, rather than offers a solution. Duncan does, however, reference what he considers 'pristine' models of schools of education. The shared characteristic that contributes to each of these programs' effectiveness is the central emphasis of a practicum or field experience.

To this end, I consider myself blessed to be a part of an equally propitious program- Mississippi Teacher Corps. Being able to immediately introduce the practical components of 'Advanced Methods in English' to my seventh grade class only two days after receiving instruction, both actualizes coursework and prevents instruction from becoming at all theoretical. Taking this course in preparation, rather than in conjunction with teaching would not have rendered the same lucrative advantage.

In especially the 21^st century, teacher roles and responsibilities are ever-more demanding. At a time when teachers are required to not only instruct, but moreover be TST coordinators, committee coordinators, parent-teacher coordinators, behavior incentive activity coordinators, academic and behavior interventionists, as well as psychologists and/or (at times) social workers, not to mention literacy and exceptional education specialists - preparation today needs to require students to teach while receiving training. Preparation should include training in how to differentiate instruction and how to provide advisory services to students. The best training in this type of individualized education is not conceptual, but rather requires the teacher to regularly implement and actualize differentiated instructional practices with each of their students.

Critics of teacher preparation programs say that current teacher-training programs are too heavily steeped in theory and not useful in the classroom. They say that those who teach in schools of education are clueless about how to reach children with dyslexia, attention deficit disorder, Asperger’s syndrome or other learning challenges. To this end, Duncan understands that the only way to evaluate a teacher-training program is to look at how the teachers perform once in the classroom; the only way to do that is to measure how the students are doing.

With so much scrutiny aimed at measuring student performance from kindergarten to high school, many education schools never get around to asking the high-stakes questions about how well teachers are doing in their profession, where they received their training, how much they learned, and what can be improved. Until we start scrutinizing this part of the process, and look at who is teaching the teachers, we’ll never empower students to reach their academic potential and create a workforce that is globally competitive.

though i think arne duncan's speech on "teacher colleges" was pretty well-crafted, i don't know if i truly still understand the concept of a teacher's college.  before i get into explaining why perhaps the most important thing could be to fund these institutions, i think i need to see if i actually believe in what they are aimed at doing.

I have mixed thoughts about Arne Duncan's feelings on schools of education. I agree with him that schools of education need to add rigor (I'm so sick of hearing that word used at work, but it does apply here). There's obviously some truth to the idea that schools of ed are a joke. To that end, I support the general idea of measuring effectiveness of various individual programs and shutting down those that do not produce effective classroom teachers.

I also agree with his point that teacher preparation programs need to include more hands-on practical training with feedback from veteran teachers as mentors. I would go a step further, though--those mentors need to come from a teaching background in the type of community where their apprentice teachers will be teaching. In other words, education professors who have never taught in a critical-needs school should not be evaluating student-teachers working in such a school. If there's anything I've realized in the last few months, it's that my high school bears no relation to the school where I work--it's a completely different environment, with different challenges. So if student-teachers are to get good feedback, it needs to come from a professor who has already gone through the same experiences to the greatest degree possible.

I'm more skeptical of Duncan's argument that content-area knowledge needs to be a prioritiy in schools of education. Now, I know that I was fortunate to receive both a K-12 and a college education that were better than most. But I wasn't an English major in college, and I still don't feel that my problems in the classroom stem from a lack of knowleldge within my subject area. Perhaps if I were teaching English III or IV, where students are reading novels, or another subject area, like history or science, where the focus is on content as much as skills, I would feel differently. But as it is, I would benefit far more from a course on how to teach reading skills than a literature seminar on various American novels.

My main concern with Duncan's argument, though, is that his emphasis on data analysis--which I absolutely agree is a valuable tool--may lead to the kind of focus on standardized tests that is causing me to tear my hair out every day. He's talking about data analysis on two levels. One, within the individual classroom. This I agree with--using data analysis to assess how well the students are grasping particular objectives, for example. But I'm concerned about the other data collection purpose--to compare performance across classrooms. This can only be accomplished through standardized testing. And that's why I have a problem with it. Teaching to a test is dangerous not only because teachers risk teaching concepts in so specialized a way that they have little meaning outside that particular test, but because it's so hard to make it interesting and engaging for students. And it is really, really stressful. Is there no other way to differentiate between good and bad teachers?

Oh, what I wouldn't give right now to be an MTC alum, happily sitting at a table at Bofield's, in this very video.

TWO DAYS.

Anyway.

Like everyone else, I loved Pete's speech. What an accurate summary of everything I feel on a daily basis. I laughed out loud at the line about Things I Would Rather Do/Have Done to Me Than Teach. For the past few weeks, it has been getting harder and harder to get out of bed and go to work. Lately, I feel like I've been having to put in an unusual amount of mental effort to get excited about my lessons. It's always nice to be reminded that that's just part of the deal.

His story of speaking at the funeral of one of his students was very humbling. First, it was so clear how important this student was to Pete, and how devastating her death was. I do care about my kids, but I don't know if I've had the kind of impact on them that Pete must have had to be asked to speak at his student's funerals. An honor you would never wish on anyone.

Laughter and tears aside, the real insight of Pete's speech is something that I know a lot of us have been thinking about lately--how just plain hard teaching is, and how it doesn't necessarily reward hard work. As Pete said, sometimes you work really hard, and it just blows up in your face. I've already had this experience numerous times this semester--I planned a great lesson, I killed myself to get a particular assignment graded quickly, and the kids don't respond or even notice. So many of us MTC-ers are classic overachievers, good at everything we do. And we see success as a function of hard work. But that just doesn't work with teaching. It's hard to have daily failures, and nowhere to hide when you do. So it's nice to be told by someone who has done this for two years that we are doing something, even if it doesn't look like it.

One last thing: as all the inside jokes (and laughter in response) show, this is one hell of a bonding experience. I think my favorite part of the video was just imagining our class in the same place in a year and a half. I'm so happy to be going through this with such a good bunch.

This was my second time watching this speech, I originally watched it before I came in this summer. I thought that I understood what Pete was saying in his speech the first time that I watched it, but I now know that I had absolutely no idea what he was saying. Now that I have been in the classroom and have experienced the topics that he is discussing, I now more clearly understand what Pete is saying.

I am glad I watched this a second time because he was able to put into his experience into a 13 minute speech. It is hard to really describe to anyone outside of teaching and outside of the program what we are really going through. One of my favorite things that Pete said during his speech was that this is one profession that working hard does not necessarily define success. The funny thing about that is one would think that you can get by with last minute planning or just making lessons up as they are happening, but the kids read into that so easily. Therefore, you have to take time to plan and to try and make good lessons, even if they are a failure.

Pete also talked about losing a student and how much that incident impacted him, both as a teacher and in his life. This, as morbid as it is, is one of my biggest fears. Almost once a week I think about what would happen if I lost a student. The students and I are becoming more comfortable in one another and they are beginning to confide in me more and more. I do want this, because I had high school teachers there for me to confide in and I want my students to feel free to talk to me without pushing them into opening up. As silly of a concern as it may sound, I am really afraid that I am going to get close with a student and they are going to end up in a drug deal mishap in Memphis on a weekend and become a casualty. I have too many kids that do and sell drugs for something like that not to happen.

I am glad that Pete shared that moment with his class, and thanks to Ben, with the world on youtube. Like Pete mentioned, sometimes I feel like I'd rather be punched in the gut five times than to go to school but I hope that after Thanksgiving I will be energized and ready to teach again. 

Secretary Arne Duncan's article was enlightening but it made me have even more mixed feelings about teaching, I am enthused and worried, proud and ashamed, love and hate my job. Sometimes, as Duncan stated, I do feel like an unsung hero but often I feel like I am not fulfilling expectations, mostly my own.

Duncan writes, “Teaching has never been more difficult, it has never been more important, and the desperate need for more student success has never been so urgent.” When I first began I would have been motivated by this sentence. I would have felt that I could be the one that would teach kids, they would understand everything, and my life would be great. I quickly realized that this was an idealistic way of thinking and it ended up bursting my bubble a bit. I don't really know why I assumed that my students would share my love for reading and they would enjoy every minute of my class. This was apparently a silly assumption because the majority of my students either can't read or those that can hate reading. I think that I am slowly becoming a better motivator in my classroom and the students are SLOWLY starting to change their tune about English. Although, I did have a student ask me, “Ms. Breaux, why do we have to read in here, it has nothing to do with English.”

This comment was discouraging, and I know that I am a first year teacher, but my students should understand why reading is important to English class. Comments like this make me worry that I am not a very good teacher. And again, this makes me have mixed emotions about teaching, especially after reading this article. The Senator points out that “Teaching is one of the few professions that is not just a job or even an adventure—it's a calling. Great teachers strive to help every student unlock their potential and develop the habits of mind that will serve them for a lifetime. They believe that every student has a gift—even when students doubt themselves.” Am I a great teacher? I can easily answer “no” because I am discouraged too easily by the stupidity of students. Is teaching my calling? Everyday I am beginning to believe that it most certainly is not. Do I think that every student has a gift? I can finally answer “yes” to this question. I believe that every person whether it be a bum on a street or a cardiovascular thoracic surgeon has some type of gift. Most of the kids do not have the gift of reading well, but I can see that each and every one of my students are talented in some area or another. I need to be able to harvest these talents and use them to my advantage.

I think that only the great teachers are really able to harvest every students talents and I hope with all of the new teacher positions coming available in the next few years that there will be new teachers who are able to understand and touch every student. Maybe I am not confident because I am still in the first few months of teaching and I have not seen the results that I wanted to see, and I hope over time I am able to become a better teacher with fewer worries. 

I agree on the whole with most everything Duncan has to say. I remember saying a lot of those things several years ago during my Rotary interview. Teaching has been too long like working in a fast food joint. It was a low-paying job that was easy to get, one that too often turned the preparation of wholesome sustenance into a slipshod assembly-line process...and more times than not ended up with too many of the people one would least want handling something important doing exactly that.

I do not know Pete, but his speech was so incredibly witty and honest, even while hitting on the big important questions, that I thoroughly enjoyed listening. 

He articulated a feeling that I have been experiencing lately very well.  Though I do not feel that I have been blessed with any noteworthy talents are aptitudes, I have found that in my life my success (or lack of) has been directly attributable to the amount of passionate work that I have been willing to invest toward a goal.   Pete acknowledges the reality of teaching in an experience most of us can relate to.... sometimes you work really really hard.... and it all just blows up in your face.   Sometimes I find it very difficult and discouraging to have such a deep desire to be of real benefit and value to these kids ..knowing they deserve so much better... only to find that many of the forces working against them are completely out of my control.  

I guess for me right now success cannot be so clearly defined by immidiate academic outcome, but by my willingness to get up every morning early and stay up every night late trying to create meaningful experiences and lessons for my students.   I hope that the simple fact right now that I do have nights where I can't sleep... with my mind too full of worries for my students.... no longer in general terms but in terms of names and faces and individual weaknesses. 

I hope that if I keep my heart in the right place, and continue to plan my lessons as if it might be the one day that someone is listening..... that perhaps my being here can be of some value to someone other than myself.  It was great to here some of my own feelings articulated in such a witty and honest way, by someone with more experience and insight than myself. 

I really enjoyed hearing Pete Nelson reflect upon his experiences in Teacher Corps.  I felt that Pete's speech properly reflected the emotional roller coaster that teaching is on a daily basis.  In just 13 minutes Pete was light-hearted, serious, pensive and reflective.  He did a bit of soul-searching and he may have shed a tear or two.  Perhaps most importantly, he laughed.  I think that anyone in a serious profession learns quickly just how important laughter is to your survival.  Not seeing the humor in situations will simply lead to frustration and, very quickly, will affect your teaching.

Pete's speech reminded me of the famous speech that Jim Valvano gave at the ESPY awards in 1993.  As he reflected on his life, Valvano noted that "There are three things that we all should do everyday.  Number one is laugh: you should laugh everyday.  Number two is think: we should all spend some time in thought.  And number three is that you should have your emotions moved to tears, could be happiness or joy.  If you think about it, you laugh, you think, and you cry; that's a full day.  You do that 7 days a week and you're going to have something there."  I probably feel this array of emotions over a 50 minute span six times a day (maybe even seven since strong feelings have been known to creep up even during planning period). It would be nearly impossible to say that the day of a teacher is not full.  In fact, I think that this fullness is what catches up to a lot of people very quickly.  It is incredibly important to find a healthy balance between being detached and not feeling any of these emotions and of feeling each of these emotions so acutely that you are quickly overwhelmed.

I really liked two things in particular about Pete's speech.  The first thing that I really liked was that he did not sugarcoat his speech.  Whenever we read or watch something about a teacher in a "bad" school or working with tough kids we inevitably have a magical breakthrough moment at which point inspirational, gospel-like music is cued and in no time we will be in the midst of a montage featuring formerly troubled students working together in harmony (and usually cleaning up some graffiti in the process).  I have never been a part of a video montage and in my first 4 months working in a critical needs school I have seen no evidence of anyone else magically hearing inspirational music playing the background of their classroom as students miraculously changed their attitudes.  Pete was very upfront about the job he did: he showed up and gave it his best shot on any given day.  That's real life.

The second thing that I really liked about Pete's speech was the way he "summed-up" how he felt about his affect in general.  In two years had he changed his students? had he changed his school? had he, in any way, changed the educational experience of students in the Delta?  I love that his answers to the these questions were ambiguous.  No,  certainly had not changed the state of education in Mississippi.  He had not even changed the state of education in his county, or even the town in which he worked.  In spite of this, he had made a difference.  No matter what a person's feelings are towards emergency certification or filling teacher vacancies with inexperienced teachers who are only required to teach for two years, you would be hard pressed to say that doing what we are doing- regardless of our "success" as measured by grades and statistics and state test results- we are making a difference in the lives of young people.  Reminding myself that by consistently showing up for school I am giving my students at least one person that they can rely on each day helps with the mindset that not every failure or success has to be measured objectively.  Other things can be counted during the day; according to Jimmy V you really only need to get to three.