Shoes You Can Believe In

All,

If you've seen me around campus or elsewhere in the recent past, you may have noticed that I have a wealth of shoes. If you don't know me personally, I'll briefly describe a few of my favorite pairs for your benefit. I have a pair of (RED) converse hightops with white words with "(red)" crosshatching them, I have some awesome brick red and yellow chacos (with the toe-strap, no less), and two pairs of "custom" Air Force I's. One of those pairs of Air Force I's is glossy with a Superman-themed color scheme:


and the other pair is a black/red Obama design:

So, what does this have to do with anything (obviously you're pretty jealous right now)? Good question. I wore my Obama Air Force I's today, and it got me thinking (DANGER Will Robinson! DANGER!). It got me thinking about two things in particular: the idea of Obama vs. the actuality of Obama and his campaign slogan: "Change you can believe in."

I'll start with the idea of Obama versus the actuality of Obama. Like a lot of my college peers, this past presidential election was my first opportunity to actually be involved in the election of our Commander-in-Chief. What an exciting prospect that is! I'd sat through enough news commentary in my previous 19 years to get me excited about actually having a voice (however soft it is) in the future direction of the nation. I'll say it up front, I didn't vote for Obama in the 2008 election (I "threw away" my vote on Bob Barr), for various reasons. One, I was under the false impression that I was libertarian at the time (even though I'm registered "unafiliated") and have since done enough soul-searching to figure out that I'm closer to the liberal end of the spectrum on most issues. And two, I was more or less bitter that people were voting for or against Obama merely based on his race, and didn't want to associate with this demographic. I know that my second reason means I shouldn't have voted at all to keep from voting either for or against Obama, but there's no way I could feel as entitled to bitch and moan after the election if I didn't participate (I wish more people fell into this category, maybe poll turnout would be higher).

Having gotten that off my chest, I'd like to say that I was genuinely happy when Obama was elected president. It was exciting to see our first African-American president take the podium at his inauguration, especially one so young, vibrant, eloquent, and that had such an air of progressivism about him. Now that excitement is really wearing off. That's where his campaign slogan: "Change you can believe in," comes into play. Sure, I can believe in that change, but I haven't really seen it or the steps necessary to facilitate that change. The idea of Obama (which his campaign did a great job shaping and promoting) was of a young, progressive, go-getter that was going to right the ship. The actuality is that Obama (in my opinion) is so hell-bent on trying to make bipartisan politics work (read: please everyone) that it has impeded progress. He's made many promises about human rights and has yet to deliver (see here). All of this is not to say everything is Obama's fault and he's a terrible president. All I really mean is that I personally was so enamored with the idea of "Change you can believe in," that the letdown hurts a bit more.

A great example of how "Change you can believe in," has failed in education is the Race to the Top initiative. It is Obama's way of "reforming" No Child Left Behind, where special federal funding is being redistributed to help schools that are falling behind, based on the standards set by No Child Left Behind as well as "Adopting standards and assessments that prepare students to succeed in college and the workplace and to compete in the global economy." (From the Race to the Top Fund official website) Sounds good, right? The schools that need the most funding will be getting it, and I like the idea of preparing students for college and the workplace, but there's a problem. Obama has also spent time extolling "21st Century education" as the next step in public education. "21st Century education" is a buzz phrase thrown around to denote student's competency using technology and Web 2.0. You can't have it both ways, Mr. President. If we want to truly stress "21st Century education" in the classroom, we must move away from paper and pencil standardized tests that pervade schools due to No Child Left Behind and take a more progressive approach. Progressive education, I would argue, is about very personalized lesson plans (more or less being phased out by pre-written lesson plans conforming to "experts'" interpretation of the standard course of study), and objective, formative assessments based on those lesson plans and students' needs. Why not set aside some of the Race To The Top fund for states that create progressive curricula and their own way of assessing these curricula? So, Mr. President are you going to push cookie cutter lesson plans to compete with other countries on standardized tests, or are you actually going to make good on your push for "21st Century education" and reform?

Maybe that "Change [I] can believe in," is yet to come. At least when I lay down tonight to go to sleep I can rest knowing that I wore some pretty kick-ass Nikes. Any "Change[s] you can believe in" that you have yet to see and are passionate about? Let me know. Get it off your chest. Feels good, man.

-Jason

Friday's Musings

All,

I've been doing a lot of thinking about the mixed messages I'm receiving at the moment, and more specifically about the mixed messages I'm receiving about instruction received in college classrooms, and how instruction "should" look in the K-12 classroom. Education professors (for the most part) seem to be stressing collaborative education techniques (both within the staff and within the students) and a progressive model of education as a social process that should be guided by student inquiry. That's not to say that they're trying to instill within Education majors their own philosophy. Instead, I would describe what they're doing as influencing students to think of themselves less like a "sage on the stage," and more of themselves as a "guide by the side." The message of my Education professors is steeply contrasted with the actual practices I've seen from professors and what's been recounted to me from friends and acquaintances. Far and away university professors employ stand and deliver style lessons. Maybe this really is the best way for young adults to learn. I don't know; my focus is on early adolescent education. There is little (constructive) social interaction or learning going on in large lecture halls beyond comparing answers to an example problem, and I see this as a problem. I'm no logistics whiz, so I can't offer any solutions on how to effectively reduce class sizes and increase social learning at the collegiate level. I see the pervasiveness of the stand and deliver style of lessons as counterproductive to widespread implementation of "progressive" education techniques in K-12 classrooms.

As School and Society (ELP 344) taught me, universities have had, and continue to have a lot of sway over public K-12 instruction. A little history, and some logic hopefully brings you to the same conclusion. In the early parts of the 20th Century, universities wanted to become more exclusive, and so helped encourage and implement tracking of middle and high school students of sorts and helped develop the system of standardized tests that have evolved into the SAT and ACT. These tests and the exclusivity of universities would seem to be the root of our country's amorous relationship with standardized tests and the college application process. Beyond that historical extrapolation we have the fact that in order for one to be "successful" in America one must earn a college degree. Though it is not necessarily the fault of higher education that a college diploma has become essential to be hired for most jobs, their influence on students is far-reaching. Students see a college diploma as the end of our education and the beginning of our careers. I'm not going to get into how education never ends, even when school does (at least, not today), seeing as you've probably heard it all before. By all measures, a college degree has become the tangible end goal of K-12 Education (psssh...who needs to actually learn anything when you have this awesome piece of paper with your name and some Latin on it?) and therefore inexorably influences how students view education, and more along the lines of this post, how teachers run their classrooms.

Education is by design a cyclical process. Teachers, who were once students, learned material in a certain fashion, and they in turn (sweeping generalization, I know. Sorry Mrs. Johnston.) teach it in much the same way. From what I've read and experienced in my years in the public education system, is that nowhere is this cyclical nature more apparent than in grading policies. I remember reading about grading practices in my Introduction to Middle Grades Education class (ECI 309) and how there is little valuable research on this aspect of education, but what research there is on the subject shows that teachers' grading practices most often mirrors grading practices of their former teachers. It is logically sound, then, to infer that teachers not only employ the grading techniques of their former teachers, but also their general instruction procedures. And so, it seems that we are stuck in a rut as far as true innovation, especially in regards to technology, in classroom instruction is concerned. Of course, part of this problem is only compounded by the ever-increasing amount of material that teachers are expected to cover and the data-driven obsession with standardized testing.

Maybe I'm naive in writing this post. I haven't exactly done a lot of traveling in and observation of American classrooms. So, as far as my "evidence" goes, it's limited at best. I don't know exactly where I've taken us on this post, but it's somewhere. I don't know, I just find it funny that universities are at the cutting edge in so many areas: technology, sciences, etc, and yet the teaching methods are so antiquated. It makes me scratch my head and wonder. Anyway, that is all. Have a good weekend everybody.

-Jason

Keeping my word...this time

All,

As you saw if you visited my blog last night, I did not post like I promised I would. Like I said then, I'm sorry, and so I'll say it again: I'm sorry. So, since I got done with classes relatively early today, everyone else from my suite is in class for the moment, and I don't have Duck Hunt to distract me, I'll make up for yesterday's lack of a post. To do so, I'll write a double post, if you will. Just to tell you in advance, I'll be combining ideas 1 and 2 from Monday: my take on the first day of classes and the philosophies and implementation of syllabi on the first day of class, as they relate to each other. I think I'll take some time, do some more reading, note taking, and observation before I post on topic 3 (PLCs as a means for in-house professional development run by special educators for general educators). One, it's kind of a beast of an idea, and two, I don't feel I know enough about either PLCs or the special education system to proffer an educated or implementable system. With that said, let me begin.

Part I

My take on the first day of classes

I have no clue how many of my facebook friends read this blog and check my status updates (I know they can be twitter-like at times, sorry), but on Sunday night my status read:

New khakis? Check. Button-up shirt and sweater vest? Check. NC State logo bow tie? Check. Textbooks? psshh...who needs those? Tomorrow's gonna be a good day.

If you can't tell from that status update, the amount of "academic" and "big" words I use, and the topics of my post, I'm a pretty big nerd. I love school (well, not all the time) and I think that's part of the reason I want to be a teacher, I don't want to leave school, ever. The prospect of walking into a classroom on the first day of a semester and starting the process of acquiring new skills and knowledge is exciting to me. Maybe I'm weird, who knows?

When I look at the first day of classes each semester and my attitude towards them, not much has changed since the first days of school each year in Elementary school. As you can gather from the above quote, I still dress up. I enjoy getting dressed up, and the first day of classes is another opportunity (read: excuse) to do so, but it goes beyond that. I think that it makes me different in a class of 300. It sends the right message to my professors, and while it may put some of my peers off, at least they'll be able to spot the nerd easily and avoid me if they so choose.

Maybe it's just in the College of Education or just in the smaller classes I've taken during my time here at NCSU, but there seems to always be time allotted for icebreakers on the first meeting of class. I usually am not that enthusiastic about them to start with, but by the end I see the value in them and appreciate the fact that the professor is making an honest attempt to not only get us to learn each others' names, but also to learn our names as well. Obviously, playing an ice-breaker type game in a class of 300 is a logistical nightmare, but it is what it is. I genuinely appreciate the effort of these teachers, and it's usually a nice transition into note-taking or whatever the class entails, so if nothing else it's a little bit of social time before one is expected to sit quietly.

This is my sixth semester here at NCSU, and in the past five semesters I can't remember one where I actually introduced myself to each of my professors, and especially not on the first day. I actually felt that it would benefit me and my professors, and again, make a good impression if I made the effort to do just that this semester. What I've learned is that professors tend to enjoy talking to students one on one, they are not nearly as intimidating as they look at the front of the lecture hall, and they may even remember your name and face. Everything I just said didn't come as a surprise and they're things I've always known, but having them reinforced is always nice. In introducing myself to my Geology professor (a 300+ person class), I learned that not only does he have a multitude of online resources on the course website for me and other students, but he also has material on his website specifically for K-12 Science teachers, a resource I may just use in the future. He also took a second to offer his (positive) opinion on the textbook used to teach Geology at the middle school level, which hit home with me (yes, I still remember those skinny Prentice Hall books that changed every unit) and showed me how dedicated he is to Science education at all levels. And to think, this guy has taught (by his calculations) somewhere near 25% of NCSU students/alums since he began here roughly thirty years ago. It's kind of mind-boggling to me.

I guess my love of school, and all that comes with it (excitement, dressing up, enjoying ice-breakers, and talking with professors) stems from how energizing I find school to be. I have not always been energized by school at all levels, but now that I'm in a program I'm truly passionate about and enjoy spending free time learning about school has become a lens to focus that energy and interest in Education. The first day of classes embodies this to me. I love learning new things, and the first day you walk into a class you know that you're going to learn something new, even if it's just what the professor looks and acts like or how the guy who is sitting next to you really doesn't need to eat at Taco Bell. Ever.

As I look around my classrooms (maybe not my education classes so much), I don't see the same enthusiasm from my peers. It bothers me that I find school such an exciting time and place, but others see school as the end product. As a diploma only. Please, leave a comment and let me know that I'm not the only one that enjoys school. Feel free to tell me why you think my attitude is uncommon, or at least I perceive it to be. I don't care, but please someone tell me I'm not the only one that feels this way about school. Or am I?

Part II
Syllabi: Student-Teacher Contract or Waste of a First Day?

I guess the subtitle under Part II is a little misleading, because I think one would be hard-pressed to find a teacher that didn't subscribe to the idea that their syllabus is a means for expressing their expectations for students and giving the students an idea of what they can expect from them. In that sense it's an informal contract, although I'm pretty sure if there was a discrepancy between grading procedures as described in the syllabus and how grading procedures were actually implemented, one would be able to use the syllabus as a means to right said discrepancy. With that being said, it is the implementation of syllabi and their effect on the first day of classes that has me thinking (Danger, Will Robinson! Danger!).

There was a stark difference in Dr. Blanchard (Introduction to Science Education) and Dr. Kimberley's approach to their syllabi, and I wondered why this could be, since their philosophies on syllabi (at least, according to what they said implicitly and explicitly) are roughly equivalent. It was Dr. Blanchard that actually gave me the notion to think of syllabi as student-teacher contracts, as she used those exact words during class on Monday. She also went on to say that she won't expect any more of us than what she outlined in the syllabus, and she may even expect less (only if we're lucky), but there are clear expectations for both herself and students alike on paper and in front of us. And, besides showing us where to find it on her Vista page and giving us a cursory look at what it contains, we didn't really talk that much about it. In fact, she explicitly told us that reading it over was our job and that she expected questions about it next class meeting. Now, compare that with Dr. Kimberley (who I have thoroughly enjoyed in the two times I've sat in Witherspoon), who used the first class meeting for reading the syllabus to us. He even said something along the lines of: "here's where I assume you can't read." Which is funny, yes, but also sad. We wasted a whole fifty minute lecture period going over class procedures and whatnot. In my opinion, it's a waste.

If syllabi are really to be seen by both teachers and students alike as contracts for each other's expectations of how the class is to run, then both must take them seriously. For students it's a free class period to nap, do homework, text, browse facebook, or a myriad of other things. And, I can't with any accuracy say what they are to teachers as a whole, so I won't. Basically, all that's to say that if teachers expect us to read and absorb the information on the syllabus, don't waste a class period reading it aloud to us. Professors give students an easy out for not reading it: they just read it to us. The flip side of that is that when a professor hands out/shows one where to find their syllabus on the web and tells/asks/implores that one read it carefully, then actually do it. This will save both sides a lot of headaches down the line, and while students (myself included) may not like jumping right into lecture our first day back it may just put the class on track for the professor to cancel class the day/night of the Carolina game or on a random day during the semester (music to every one's ears).

Think about it, chew on it, spit it back out, do what you want (if anything) with the above post. I hope this was worth the wait. I feel as if I put in a double dose of effort and words in this post so, even though I didn't keep my original promise from Monday, hopefully this makes up for it.

-Jason

p.s.- Just a quick plug: if you're going into education, are currently a teacher, or going into any sort of business where you'll be working with others, then reading Building a Professional Learning Community at Work: A Guide to the First Year is something I'd recommend. It's written by Parry Graham and William Ferriter (a Wake county teacher whose blog I follow entitled The Tempered Radical). Check it out (or, if you go to State, you can borrow my copy when I'm done reading it). It's relatively cheap and so far it's been a good read for me and it seems as if it will continue to be a good read.

Hello World

I've never been one to write a journal or a diary. I've tried it a couple times, but it has never become a habit. So...why should I expect a dabbling into the world of blogs to be any different? I hope that this excursion will be less of an attempt to make my day-to-day or even week-to-week experience more accessible and transparent to the online community and more a forum for me to post my ramblings and thoughts and give people both inside and outside my normal circle of acquaintances and friends a chance to reply and throw their two cents in. With that sentiment out of the way, let me begin.

My name is Jason Belch (for those of you who may not know me), and I'm a student at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, North Carolina. I'm a twenty year old junior studying Middle Grades Education focusing in Mathematics and Science. That means, upon completing my degree and the licensure process I will be teaching 6-9 graders. Why this age, you ask? Because, like many others, my experience during this time period kinda sucked. If it hadn't been for some great teachers, parents, and friends I would not have turned out as I have today. This time period is critical in any person's development, and to be a part of shaping future generation's development is an opportunity and challenge I can't pass up. Plus, as I have witnessed in my time in the public school system, the middle grades are the time when academic gaps are opened and widened; a time when it is crucial to have passionate teachers in the classroom.

I'm passionate about kids. Period. I've spent the last four summers working with children from ages 5-17 from widely varying socioeconomic classes, and have found the experience to be extremely rewarding. Watching faces light up as you teach someone a new skill or sing a silly song are experiences I won't ever forget, and given my career choice something I will be seeing more of. We've all heard the rhetoric extolling "children are the future," and I totally buy in to that. But, beyond the fact that the children I will be teaching are the future venture capitalists, lawyers, doctors, teachers, firemen, policemen, etc of the world is the simple truth that no matter how much you are able to teach a child, he or she will teach you just as much.

Right now it is "dead week" at NCSU and so I'm finding a good bit of extra time to catch up on watching every single episode of Star Trek: TNG, looking at funny pictures on the internet, and following friends on facebook. But, I have also had the time to use the internet for more constructive purposes as well. I've spent my fair share of time listening to iTunes U podcasts from La Trobe University in Australia and reading Bill Ferriter's (a Wake County middle school teacher's) blog entitled "The Tempered Radical," both of which I would highly recommend as they're free and extremely informative. While reading one of Mr. Ferriter's blog entries entitled "The Impact of Market Norms on Education..." (to read it, click here), I couldn't help but think about its implications, and how they squared with what one of my professors recently said.

To paraphrase what Dr. Beal (my professor for a Curriculum and Instruction class) said in our last class of the semester: "if you're not passionate about and have a generally positive view of early adolescents and are unwilling to do all of the following and more: immerse yourself in early adolescent culture, be innovative in your lesson plans, blur subject definitions by creating interdisciplinary projects, continually reflect on, improve, and adapt your teaching methods, and completely throw yourself into a challenging career, then you should leave the College of Education completely, or move to Elementary or High School education." I wholeheartedly agree with her sentiment, but it is a rather idealistic viewpoint. I don't mind idealistic viewpoints, as I hold a lot of them myself, but Mr. Ferriter's blog entry referenced above tempers a roughly equivalent viewpoint with that of the reality of teaching in America's education system.

It's no secret that the reform of America's education system is being driven by standardized assessments. It is our sense of competition that is placing new emphasis on standardized test scores in hopes of surpassing other countries' scores. As Mr. Ferriter is quick to point out, it is this new emphasis on test scores that has driven education from a profession driven by social norms to a system driven by market norms. I agree with Mr. Ferriter's opinion that because of this shift, Obama's sentiments regarding the rewards of teaching as antiquated. Teachers are expected to increase their students' test scores, not build the kind of meaningful relationships and environments that benefit students outside of test-taking environments.

As a prospective teacher, I'll be thrown into a professional environment where I'll be expected to help students master material for summative assessments and be dictated what I'm to teach and in what order. While the meaningful relationships with students will still be there, the restraints placed on curriculum will become increasingly tight. As a prospective teacher, reading Mr. Ferriter's blog entry "The Impact of Market Norms on Education..." leaves me wondering: is going into an education system being bashed over the head with accountability for test scores that much different than becoming a cubicle jockey and being beat over the head with personal sales figures? As Mr. Ferriter, a highly respected and generally optimistic teacher, said: "I'm not working for a cause anymore. I'm working for myself." With a veteran teacher with numerous warm and fuzzy stories to tell about the rewards of teaching making such a statement, then what is a prospective teacher to think?

After reading my paraphrasing of what Dr. Beal had to say and Mr. Ferriter's blog post, if you have any answers for me, please let me know. I'm still searching.