Class Analysis
I set high academic standards for each class that I teach and encourage my students to expose themselves to their true potentials. I set vigorous and challenging curriculum and feel successful at reaching my students in the classroom.
I have taught several classes and all grade levels, but primarily teach Freshman and Junior English. Regardless of the students’ age or grade level, all students enter my classroom well behaved, compliant and productive. Students are aware that they are expected to graduate, succeed in society and be productive adults. Each year, over ninety eight percent of the students earn their high school diploma and the vast majority of them strive for a higher education. The curriculum is created for the college bound student and designed to teach students proper habits that are applicable to their lives. Students are conditioned to view school as more than an educational foundation, but also as a means of discovering and deciding which direction they plan to take in their future. (I prefer to use the words conditioned, not trained). Educational opportunity, and the resources to be successful are available for all of the students, and the students enter every classroom with the understanding that the benefits of their education is a decision only they can make. The curriculum is designed with emphasis on critical and higher order thinking, and enables students to have a sense of ownership and responsibility in how they apply their education.
Based on the socio-economic status and high levels of achievement and performance, it is difficult to deny the support of the correspondence principle, but it is difficult to determine its deliberation. I can say that students are prepared for their future role as a university student and eventually a white collar professional, which is confirmed with the evaluation of the district’s rigorous curriculum. The parent, student, school relationship is customary, and there is active involvement between the three. Parents are communicated with efficiently by the school, individual teachers, coaches, other school leaders, technologically and through the students. This generates a circular approach and universally directs the students towards a successful life and lifestyle. Students generally see the adults in the community as a supportive team that want the them to do well academically. Students then feel the need to please those adults that demonstrate a genuine level of compassion and effort about their successes. Eventually, students themselves strive to want the same end result and begin to evaluate and judge their own levels of success, but still seek approval and praise for their measurable accomplishments. Expecting students within a community to follow established values will maintain social class boundaries, but it does not necessarily prove that it is done intentionally by the school district. What a community focuses and spends time on will usually be the end result. School districts that take pride in tradition, and focus on sending a continued message to value education and take daily life seriously, will often achieve just that.
This concept of unification has created a disturbance and raised the question of how mainstreaming affects the curriculum's educational merit. Does mainstreaming a course create true, equal opportunity to all students instead of only those that have proven to the ‘most academically capable’? Or, does it prevent certain students from reaching their true potentials and pursuing their academic interests? Is it fair that only a select few are chosen to be better prepared for college, and are they being treated superiorly? Or, is it fair to place students that are counterproductive in an environment that can negatively impact and possibly alter the outcome of another human being’s future?
With these questions, applicable to an ever changing curriculum and society’s function as a whole, I have not arrived at a concrete decision. My order in my work place society, at this specific moment, is not to question anything. I have been provided with the framework, and the requirements for each class I teach, and I do my best to target the individual needs of my students by creating lessons that are meaningful for my student’s lives, in the world of the novel being taught, and in the world surrounding us. The curriculum presented to the students is filled with white male authors, but that does not mean that I cannot introduce correlating forms of literature to widen the student’s perspectives and/or make the unit applicable and interesting. Fortunately, it is routinely rewarding to spark interest in my students and inspire them to put forth an effort regardless of the course requirements and demographics. Though I may start each class abrasively and even distant, my students and I eventually develop a mutually respectful relationship where they are comfortable taking risks, speaking and supporting their opinion. Once a routine is established, typically within the first few weeks of school, then an environment conducive to learning carries on naturally. Again, though I start each school year presenting one demeanor that sets my individual expectations, the boundary, the line that is to never be crossed existed before my students arrived. It is naturally understood and accepted that as a teacher, I am the authority, and as a student, that is not to be questioned. With very few exceptions, this has never been an issue I have had to address.
In regards to the curriculum, I myself take advantage of the high standards and utilize the available resources accordingly. Because my students are conditioned to learn as they are told, I do my best to introduce concepts and methods that guide them to make their own choices and set their own standards for learning. I use the technology to spark student interest and allow them to question and research concepts related to those being taught to them in order to gain a deeper level of understanding. This level of responsibility lies heavily on some students, but eventually, students comprehend how they learn, how to enjoy learning and how to use their surroundings as a way of discovering this. In conjunction to facilitating individualized curriculum in my classroom, I teach students to use each other as resources so they can direct and guide their peers. When students model interest, it becomes contagious; other students want to know what other students know. This indirectly instills the idea of competition. Instead of focusing on the drastic inequalities that exist in regards to ability level in my classroom (which I understand are not that drastic in comparison to the larger picture), I try to work around it by using this process of self inquiry and modeling. I can teach students how to construct and apply the basic components that the MMC requires, but still lead them to achieve a higher potential.
Overall, if I made a change in the class(es) I teach, it would be to eliminate the push for common everything. I understand and respect the aspect of teacher accountability, but the common assessments have created a watered down, sugar coated curriculum, even more so than adopting the MMC and mainstreaming our core classes. Overall, common assessments evaluate students on basic concepts, and eliminate the ideas of advancing and understanding literature as a piece of subjective history. No longer will students be assessed on the basis of comprehending human existence, and how and why society came to be, but instead are reduced to the simplicity of who and what. If students forget, or are never taught, the purpose of literature, if they are not exposed to what was happening locally or internationally during the author's lifetime, or evaluate experiences in the author’s own life, then they will never find a purpose in their own education. Instead, they will regurgitate facts and call it knowledge. If students cannot use other pieces of literature and apply these larger concepts down a chronological timeline to understand the evolution of human existence, then they will never see the quality or the value in learning. Instead, they will be introduced to society without being able to formulate their own thoughts, or articulate these thoughts into their own words. I would love for common assessments to utilize a cross curricular approach, and to assess a cross curricular approach. Students are conditioned to see each subject separately and do not master the ability to make those connections.
I wish that teachers would teach beyond the test. Fine, teach to the test, but why not put forth the effort to go beyond it? That way, students would still be exposed to the requirements, but continue to benefit academically. Right now, at GLCS, we are in the process of identifying an owner for each English class we offer. Freshman, Sophomore, Junior, and Senior English, AP Literature, Language and Composition, Newspaper and Creative Writing will all be assigned to one teacher who then becomes responsible for aligning the curriculum with the state standards and benchmarks and then creating/choosing the lesson plans for each class. Though other teachers will be teaching classes “owned” by other teachers, they must generally follow the required documents for the course. This has been a slightly frustrating process. In terms of reaction, I have to wait to climb the social ladder before I offer my complete opinion. It is clear that educators recognize that the altering state standards hinder potential in the classroom; however, this recognition has resulted in no action. There are concrete ideas discussed that could be beneficial and improve the situation, but with no implementation or follow through. Unfortunately, there is currently a widespread mentality in the district that education and educational requirements change so often that putting forth an effort that exceeds the bare minimum is unnecessary. I do not want to have to teach a class based off of lesson plans that do not exceed the bare minimum. I feel as though anyone not owning a specific class even though they are teaching it has been reduced to something paralleling a substitute or temporary teacher. Even those that feel like I do in regards to the process are meeting resistance, taking an isolated approach and applying ideas only to their own classrooms, or are wearing the same brand of shoes I am and are not comfortable saying anything at this point in their career. It is what it is and we have to go with it…even if we disagree or know something is not quite right? This is unfortunate, but what approach do we take to meet realistic and compromised terms? How do we word our concerns without risking the loss of a secure position? It will be interesting to see how everything falls into place. Ironically, the mentality of the teaching community supports the idea of rebelling or resisting the social structure more than the community of students.
I have taught several classes and all grade levels, but primarily teach Freshman and Junior English. Regardless of the students’ age or grade level, all students enter my classroom well behaved, compliant and productive. Students are aware that they are expected to graduate, succeed in society and be productive adults. Each year, over ninety eight percent of the students earn their high school diploma and the vast majority of them strive for a higher education. The curriculum is created for the college bound student and designed to teach students proper habits that are applicable to their lives. Students are conditioned to view school as more than an educational foundation, but also as a means of discovering and deciding which direction they plan to take in their future. (I prefer to use the words conditioned, not trained). Educational opportunity, and the resources to be successful are available for all of the students, and the students enter every classroom with the understanding that the benefits of their education is a decision only they can make. The curriculum is designed with emphasis on critical and higher order thinking, and enables students to have a sense of ownership and responsibility in how they apply their education.
Based on the socio-economic status and high levels of achievement and performance, it is difficult to deny the support of the correspondence principle, but it is difficult to determine its deliberation. I can say that students are prepared for their future role as a university student and eventually a white collar professional, which is confirmed with the evaluation of the district’s rigorous curriculum. The parent, student, school relationship is customary, and there is active involvement between the three. Parents are communicated with efficiently by the school, individual teachers, coaches, other school leaders, technologically and through the students. This generates a circular approach and universally directs the students towards a successful life and lifestyle. Students generally see the adults in the community as a supportive team that want the them to do well academically. Students then feel the need to please those adults that demonstrate a genuine level of compassion and effort about their successes. Eventually, students themselves strive to want the same end result and begin to evaluate and judge their own levels of success, but still seek approval and praise for their measurable accomplishments. Expecting students within a community to follow established values will maintain social class boundaries, but it does not necessarily prove that it is done intentionally by the school district. What a community focuses and spends time on will usually be the end result. School districts that take pride in tradition, and focus on sending a continued message to value education and take daily life seriously, will often achieve just that.
This concept of unification has created a disturbance and raised the question of how mainstreaming affects the curriculum's educational merit. Does mainstreaming a course create true, equal opportunity to all students instead of only those that have proven to the ‘most academically capable’? Or, does it prevent certain students from reaching their true potentials and pursuing their academic interests? Is it fair that only a select few are chosen to be better prepared for college, and are they being treated superiorly? Or, is it fair to place students that are counterproductive in an environment that can negatively impact and possibly alter the outcome of another human being’s future?
With these questions, applicable to an ever changing curriculum and society’s function as a whole, I have not arrived at a concrete decision. My order in my work place society, at this specific moment, is not to question anything. I have been provided with the framework, and the requirements for each class I teach, and I do my best to target the individual needs of my students by creating lessons that are meaningful for my student’s lives, in the world of the novel being taught, and in the world surrounding us. The curriculum presented to the students is filled with white male authors, but that does not mean that I cannot introduce correlating forms of literature to widen the student’s perspectives and/or make the unit applicable and interesting. Fortunately, it is routinely rewarding to spark interest in my students and inspire them to put forth an effort regardless of the course requirements and demographics. Though I may start each class abrasively and even distant, my students and I eventually develop a mutually respectful relationship where they are comfortable taking risks, speaking and supporting their opinion. Once a routine is established, typically within the first few weeks of school, then an environment conducive to learning carries on naturally. Again, though I start each school year presenting one demeanor that sets my individual expectations, the boundary, the line that is to never be crossed existed before my students arrived. It is naturally understood and accepted that as a teacher, I am the authority, and as a student, that is not to be questioned. With very few exceptions, this has never been an issue I have had to address.
In regards to the curriculum, I myself take advantage of the high standards and utilize the available resources accordingly. Because my students are conditioned to learn as they are told, I do my best to introduce concepts and methods that guide them to make their own choices and set their own standards for learning. I use the technology to spark student interest and allow them to question and research concepts related to those being taught to them in order to gain a deeper level of understanding. This level of responsibility lies heavily on some students, but eventually, students comprehend how they learn, how to enjoy learning and how to use their surroundings as a way of discovering this. In conjunction to facilitating individualized curriculum in my classroom, I teach students to use each other as resources so they can direct and guide their peers. When students model interest, it becomes contagious; other students want to know what other students know. This indirectly instills the idea of competition. Instead of focusing on the drastic inequalities that exist in regards to ability level in my classroom (which I understand are not that drastic in comparison to the larger picture), I try to work around it by using this process of self inquiry and modeling. I can teach students how to construct and apply the basic components that the MMC requires, but still lead them to achieve a higher potential.
Overall, if I made a change in the class(es) I teach, it would be to eliminate the push for common everything. I understand and respect the aspect of teacher accountability, but the common assessments have created a watered down, sugar coated curriculum, even more so than adopting the MMC and mainstreaming our core classes. Overall, common assessments evaluate students on basic concepts, and eliminate the ideas of advancing and understanding literature as a piece of subjective history. No longer will students be assessed on the basis of comprehending human existence, and how and why society came to be, but instead are reduced to the simplicity of who and what. If students forget, or are never taught, the purpose of literature, if they are not exposed to what was happening locally or internationally during the author's lifetime, or evaluate experiences in the author’s own life, then they will never find a purpose in their own education. Instead, they will regurgitate facts and call it knowledge. If students cannot use other pieces of literature and apply these larger concepts down a chronological timeline to understand the evolution of human existence, then they will never see the quality or the value in learning. Instead, they will be introduced to society without being able to formulate their own thoughts, or articulate these thoughts into their own words. I would love for common assessments to utilize a cross curricular approach, and to assess a cross curricular approach. Students are conditioned to see each subject separately and do not master the ability to make those connections.
I wish that teachers would teach beyond the test. Fine, teach to the test, but why not put forth the effort to go beyond it? That way, students would still be exposed to the requirements, but continue to benefit academically. Right now, at GLCS, we are in the process of identifying an owner for each English class we offer. Freshman, Sophomore, Junior, and Senior English, AP Literature, Language and Composition, Newspaper and Creative Writing will all be assigned to one teacher who then becomes responsible for aligning the curriculum with the state standards and benchmarks and then creating/choosing the lesson plans for each class. Though other teachers will be teaching classes “owned” by other teachers, they must generally follow the required documents for the course. This has been a slightly frustrating process. In terms of reaction, I have to wait to climb the social ladder before I offer my complete opinion. It is clear that educators recognize that the altering state standards hinder potential in the classroom; however, this recognition has resulted in no action. There are concrete ideas discussed that could be beneficial and improve the situation, but with no implementation or follow through. Unfortunately, there is currently a widespread mentality in the district that education and educational requirements change so often that putting forth an effort that exceeds the bare minimum is unnecessary. I do not want to have to teach a class based off of lesson plans that do not exceed the bare minimum. I feel as though anyone not owning a specific class even though they are teaching it has been reduced to something paralleling a substitute or temporary teacher. Even those that feel like I do in regards to the process are meeting resistance, taking an isolated approach and applying ideas only to their own classrooms, or are wearing the same brand of shoes I am and are not comfortable saying anything at this point in their career. It is what it is and we have to go with it…even if we disagree or know something is not quite right? This is unfortunate, but what approach do we take to meet realistic and compromised terms? How do we word our concerns without risking the loss of a secure position? It will be interesting to see how everything falls into place. Ironically, the mentality of the teaching community supports the idea of rebelling or resisting the social structure more than the community of students.
