The Home and Public Schooling Question

Before reading Romanowski's article, I had never given home schooling much thought. My stereotype of home schoolers was that they were white religious zealots living somewhere in the mountains far away from society; however, clearly this is not the case. NPR even recently had a blurb a week ago about an African American family choosing to home school their children because they were not satisfied with the education they were getting in the local public school.

This week's articles made me think more about the purpose of schooling. What is the aim of education? If it is to help make well-rounded individuals reach their full potential and be able to participate constructively in a democratic society, then there really is no one magical program to meet the needs of every individual child.

The Romanowski article mentioned some reasons for making the choice to home school: arguments about content; improved family relationships; religious/moral/ethic/value training,;and individualized, flexible pedagogy, and improved self-worth/concept - all good arguments. Questionable points that need to be addressed include whether home schooled children are exposed to enough diversity, whether they are being taught by someone qualified, and whether they have access to important resources and enrichment opportunities. This article also raises concerns about the parental stakeholder spoke on the wheel - what are a parent's rights?

The case study about Jane discussed the purpose of grading. Does grading encourage students to learn for the purpose of gaining knowledge? What exactly are we sayig by assigning grades to student work? Do grades motivate students to try to do better? What message are schools sending when they grade students? Are grades really constructive? I'm not sure. If I think of my own experience as a student, I want feedback that lets me know whether I am "getting" something or not. I want to know if I have understood something adequately and correctly. I much prefer dialogue (written comments or suggestion or questions) feedback on my work. I want to know what I can do to improve. I genuinely enjoy learning for learning's sake. The end-in-mind is never numeric.

It does take more time to provide this depth of constructive information to each student. Teachers are already burdened with administrative minutia; how could they take on more work in the current system? Herein lies one problem with education as an institution - it serves the masses, not the individual.

Jones piggy-backs on this issue by discussing how schools serve to prepare students for tests and conformity. I like the way he made an analogy to the movie "Pleasantville's" boring black and white world. Teaching to the test really does lack color and creativity and individuality. Public schools provide a cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all structure determined by state policy not teachers, parents, or students. There's really little student or teacher ownership, or what Keefe and Jenkins call a "culture of collegiality" in education and learning.

Keefe and Jenkins also identify the importance of learners growing in knowledge and self-awareness which later "leads to wisdom, personal happiness, and collective responsibility." Their idea of "personalized instruction" is similar to some of the home schooling arguments; however, in order to implement such a strategy, class sizes would have to be dramatically decreased and the coordination or organization (small cooperative learning groups) would need some definition as to goals, strategies, and scope.

Education needs to be child-centered, meaningful, and flexible. Why does something that sounds so easy end of being so difficult? I think this leads us back to Fullan's points about culture. In that case, is home schooling just about taking control of one's own learning culture?

More on Change and Culture

Poor Kate. She's got alot on her plate right now. After reading the case study I felt like Kate, overswhelmed and unfocused. An important idea that came up in class was that in situations like these, the first task is to focus and prioritize. Problems can't be solved unless they are first acknowledged and categorized. Once we identify the problems and put them in order of importance, then the work of figuring out a plan of action can be started. Hopefully as a principal she would be able to identify and prioritize independently. Next she needs to be a leader in the sense that she shares the idea/solution-generating with some of her colleagues and teachers. Delegating responsibility would not only help her with time management, it would also empower and educate other teachers.

Professor Domine called this "renewal." We shouldn't feel that we must individually solve each school problem. I think this idea of getting "fresh incite" is essential for all of us. I can think of several examples of teachers who could really use some renewal in their teaching. Continuous learning and sharing ideas stimulates growth and improvement, but what about the teachers who don't think they (or the school) need to change or improve? This is where things get tricky.

Barth's article suggests we first become aware of the culture around us and then discuss the "non-discussables." I agree with Professor Domine's idea of needing excellent interpersonal skills. Life is about people skills. If you can't make friends in the sandbox, you're never going to realize your big sand-castle plans. I would also add that in a democratic setting, we must be prepared for the possibility of being over-ruled. Our approach to change needs to be team-driven.

Making Change Happen

Fullan's point that "one of the keys to successful change is the improvement of relationships" speaks volumes. It's one thing to find an answer or develop a great idea, and it's quite another to make it happen. I continually wrestle with the question of what I can do to improve education. One professor, realizing my angst over feeling powerless, implored me to do what I could, but not expect to see quick change or progress. She reminded me that even though I felt I alone did not have the capacity to enact change, my work in my classroom was still something; and that collectively all of these small somethings would add up over time. I still think this professor has a good point, but in consideration of Fullan's emphasis on the interpersonal aspects of the "how," I now see that part of my work needs to be in the diplomacy of establishing connections with other stakeholders. Without other people, it is virtually impossible to see change to fruition. If I cannot move others to understand and support whatever "need" I identify, then the idea stops with me. I suppose that our collective group of Montclair students is a beginning. While most of us are in a scattering of different districts, like a web we are spreading out our beliefs and ideas for change. Those of us alone in a district will perhaps have to work harder than in districts where there are several of us to team up to do the lobbying for a change in school culture.

A few thoughts about Eisner's article

Eisner's article led me to reflect on the purpose of schooling. I feel I need to know what the expected outcome is so that I can work backwards in trying to figure out a plan of how to achieve the desired goal. Oftentimes it seems like the current purpose of school is to get student's to pass certain tests, but as Eisner reminds us, a better aim is to provide an experience through which students develop the skills necessary to live "personally satisfying and socially productive lives."

To better understand this I am trying to re-imagine my life. What do I think I should have gotten to enable me to have all that I currently want? Starting with the question of what I want, my answer is to be self-actualized - to know myself, to understand myself in the context of the wider society/world, to like myself, to be able to provide for myself (food, clothing, shelter, transportation, continued education, some entertainment/leisure money), to be kind to and understanding of others, to be able to communicate. In other words, I want to be a well-rounded individual who knows enough that I can be employed doing something I enjoy and can interact and form relationships with others. I think that can be narrowed down to employable skills, social skills, and some knowledge of the world.

With the above in mind, I suppose I am saying that schools should serve as providers of access to these skills. In an effort to avoid raising our young to be self-centered idiots, like Parker notes, then it is the school's responsibility to facilitate teaching of the benefits of community, tolerance, and democracy. Where should this fit into the curriculum? This shouldn't be a separate course; it is something that should be infused in every class and throughout the entire school culture. School shouln't just be about content, it should also include a forum to allow students to explore, understand, and evaluate their values.

What did I learn?

One specific time in my education that I remember clearly was my Freshman Seminar with Professor Johanna Glazewski. "Nothing New Under the Sun" was a look at ancient Greece and a reading of The Odyssey and The Iliad. At that time I learned that the world was a big place and history was long and that I loved learning about all of it. Professor Glazewski enchanted me with her knowledge and enthusiasm and inspired my intellectual curiosity. It was at that moment that I knew I would be a student for my entire life. The one thing I wish I had learned at that time was that I should follow my heart and interests and not succumb to the pressures to just make money. I wish I had learned that there were jobs and careers in doing what I loved that would present themselves later instead of single-mindedly thinking that working on Wall Street should be my career goal. Obviously this has changed - I am finally a teacher - but I wasted ten years before finally getting here.