Educational+equity+discussion

===Use this page to discuss any aspect of the Kozol, Haycourt, and Wineburg readings that you found important. You are responsible for two postings by 9/11/08. The first should be a direct response to the readings. I want to especially encourage you to think about the implications for your social studies teaching. The second post should respond to someone else's comment on this site-- the aim is to launch a discussion that will continue in our classroom. Please type your name after each comment! Prof. Scott===

September 7, 2008 I believe that the common message, or link, between the Kozol, Haycock, and Wineburg articles is that students are going to be receptive and learn based on the materials and information we provide them with. The Kozol article makes the case that inadequate equipment, unsafe and dilapidated learning environments, and low teacher and administrative expectations that only “teach to the test,” constitute the low level of success among New Jersey’s urban schools. In support of Kozol’s argument, Haycock highlights the fact that we seem to “take the students who have less to begin with and then systematically give them less in school.” She further emphasizes the critical need for “clear and public standards,” so that all students are presented with the same challenging material. Finally, Wineburg presents the argument that what shapes students’ (historical) perceptions and interpretations is based largely on the way in which the material is presented. Wineburg’s argument relates to both Kozol and Haycock tremendously. If we take what Wineburg says about the issues of gender in history, and apply them to the way information is being presented in urban schools, then an important parallel can be drawn. The parallel is such that just as students believe history to be predominately male, the more students are taught to the test and presented with less, the less they will absorb, retain, and grow as learners. As a future teacher, I recognize that a lot can be learned from these articles. First, in order to accurately portray history to my students, I need to work on reconstructing my own gender-centric perceptions of the field. Second, I am taking away from these articles an understanding of the importance of tailoring instruction to each individual student, not so that the standards are lowered or the material becomes watered down, but rather so that all my students receive the same stimulating academic experience that will enable them to achieve at their highest possible level.
 * Julie Fowler**

September 8, 2008 I guess the Julie's are on the same page for these readings. After reading each of the articles I kept asking myself the question "If and when I am in a similar situation what do I need to do to ensure that my students do not fall behind?" I came to many of the same conclusions that you did, Julie, like throwing away my own inaccurate perceptions and making sure each individual is engaged but also that I need to tackle the inaccuracies and self-confidence issues the students may have formed long before they stepped foot into my class head on and help the students start from a place where they can learn important things that they will carry with them long after they leave as well.
 * Julie Eller**

September 8, 2008 In looking at the similarities between the Kozol and Haycock articles what stands out to me the most are the negative feelings presented by students. In both articles, students talk about the low expectations which they meet with from these individuals and how that makes them feel. Such as in the Kozol article when Chilly, the girl from Cambodia shares her frustration with the counselor dissuading her from working towards being a lawyer because her English is not good enough. Other students show their frustration at the subject matter which they realize is inferior compared with that being covered in other schools. Giving them material, as Julie puts it, that is “watered down” does not help them grow or motivate them to achieve. In “Picturing the Past” Wineburg notes that numerous past studies show boys as tending to perform better then girls in history. He notes that these studies fail to consider “the possibility that such differences reflect curriculum that pays little attention to the lives of women,” (p. 115). This seems to point to boys’ higher achievement as being related to their ability able to connect to the subject matter. This reiterates to me the importance of presenting social studies content such as history in a way which students can connect to. Whether it be presented the perspective or role of females in a particular period or event, showing another viewpoint such as that of an overlooked minority group, or showing how the past is connected to themes seen in the present. Towards the end of the article Wineburg also states that merely presenting students with competing accounts or perspectives is not enough. As he puts it, “We have in mind here a vision of history classrooms where students learn the subject by rewriting it,” (pg. 131). We need to aid students in considering conflicting point and rewriting history themselves. For this reason in my future teaching I want to expose students to varying perspectives along with giving them the tools through which to consider and analyze them. One good way would be to help students learn how to read and gather information from primary sources. One could chose primary sources with varying levels of difficulty so that even the students with lower reading or literacy levels could do these activities. By presenting students with primary sources that offer conflicting accounts students would have to make sense of the information and come up with their own conclusions, which could then be compared with those in their history textbooks. Teaching students how to approach such primary sources to gather information could also be a good opportunity to work on reading or literacy skills. Thus using primary sources could provide a good opportunity to help students develop essential skills without making them feel they are receiving watered down or low level instruction.
 * Moira Lertora**

Matt Hudock I really appreciate how all of you are seeking answers to these problems, rather than simply bemoaning them. Though you have plenty of actual, assigned work to do here is an interesting critique of Kozol masquerading as a review of his latest book. Again, this is purely for personal enrichment. http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200803/kozol

Grace Patterson I was interested in this review because I was horrified enough by the bleakness of the Kozol article that I thought "There must be another side to this story." While at times I found Ms. Tsing Loh to be awfully self congratulatory, I think she has a good point that many critics of public schools are not really involved with them. Kozol admits that he was only in Camden for a few days. I went to a private high school where parents frequently bemoaned the state of public education, but were horrified at the idea that their offspring would ever spend time with public school children. Let someone else send their kids there and fix things, seemed to be their general attitude. I think Mr. Kozol also ignores some complexities. In Baltimore city, teachers are payed more than in almost any other Maryland district. More money is alotted per child than in the county. The poverty is just so oppresive that throwing money at the problem doesn't seem to help (although it is certainly better than the low amount of money per student at Camden schools.) Haycock may be right that higher standards are the key to improvement, and they certainly make a huge difference, but they also cause teachers to complain that they have to "teach to the test." Standards can be almost impossible to reach when students arrive after being passed through the grade before without learning the material. I don't really know if there is one major answer to the many problems in the education system, like Kozol and Haycock seem to suggest. The answer may be a combintation of many things. Money helps, standards help, parental involvement helps, but sometimes even those are not enough when an area is deeply poverty stricken. There are probably much larger societal changes that need to take place that are outside the realm of the school system. Educating teachers to be prepared for challenges in difficult school districts is an excellent way to start. Passionate, highly qualified teachers make a huge difference. Mentors for new teachers are also a good idea. There are any number of strategies that can be tried in low performing schools. They key is for everyone involved, from legislators, to principles, to students, to concerned outsiders like Kozol., to actually step up and start brain storming solutions to increase equity in education, instead of dercrying the injustice of society and instructing others to do their moral duty and fix things.

On a side note, I have grown up believing that schools should be community based. None-the-less, Kozol makes a good point that it is deeply unfair that Cherry Hill and Camden have such different schools because of their different tax bases. Does anyone have thoughts about how this can be reconciled?

I have experienced something close to what Grace has. In my last few years of high school one of the other districts on was running into trouble and there was serious discussion about the students of that school being bused into ours. Since the district in question was one who performed academically lower than our school, parents as well as students did not want the busing to happen. I saw first hand the difficulty of both sides. Students from the troubled district should be afforded the same opportunities as the ones from our school, but also the education of our students should not be compromised. It is a difficult situation when districts are not comprable and that in the end it is the students and society that suffers. The next world leader, or great scientist may be in one of these areas and won't get the chance to learn and perfect their trade. They lose a chance at a shining future and we lose the chance of having that individual making a positive change in the world. I have no ways for this to be reconciled, but I think prejudice plays a large role in why there are such differences in communities, and hopefully by resolving those, we can change and equalize things a bit more. Melissa Zakalik

MATTHEW LEWIS Reading "Picturing the Past," by Wineburg, I feel that the article adequately exposes the fact that young students are brought up in education thinking that men were dominant in the aspects of daily life. In all honesty, young pre-adolescents, upon hearing "Pilgrim," or "Settler" think of males first because the term itself is always associated with masculinity. Teachers need to re-emphaisze the ideas of "Pilgrim Women," and "Female Settlers," and even "Girl Hippies." It is also worthy to mention that so many history textbooks discuss the executive and military branches of government, all of what I can recall from secondary school as talking about male figures. But students should be taught that women like Harriet Tubman, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Rosa Parks all paved the way for gender and racial equality as much as any male. I don't know why the people doing the study had a "hunch" that there would be a same-sex bias in the drawings. Textbooks aside, TV shows, movies, and other entertainments depict men more frequently in history, and kids see and believe this. In Kozul's article I am stunned by the fact that the "Journal" believes that money is not one of the forefront issues in education, or lack theorof today. I am a proponent (through seeing it myself) that schools that invest in their students by buying proper technologies, have central heating and air, and have enough space for the student population, get more out of their students than schools who do not. As seen in the high school in Camden, an entire science lesson is doomed from the beginning because of lack of proper equipment. As sad as this sounds, I cannot blame Cherry Hill for not wanting to desegregate with the Camden schools. Cherry Hill would have to go through a huge education rebuilding phase that could and would harm the progress of its own students, especially in the short run. I also strongly believe that a teacher who is paid well is one who pays attention to detail and genuinely works hard to get success out of his/her students. If a teacher is underpaid and has to work another job just to make rent, why would he/she put forth a good effort in educating her kids? I thought I knew bad until reading through this article. Woodrow Wilson's dropout rate is 58%! That is astonishing! Another thing that stood out for me was on page 160 that "One counsler serves 3,600 children in the elementary schools." This is a shame because students are supposed to have a connection and comfortability with counslers at a young age, but how in the world is it possible for one counsler to give equal attention to all the students. Unfortunately, but truly, in the case of Camden, it does come down to money and economics. Not just in the school, but in the need for lower taxes and the need for an industrial rebound. If parents can earn enough money to support their families, they can afford to send their kids to school without the threat of dropping out. Haycock does a nice job on focusing on the teacher themselves, and their abilities rather than the abiltiies of the students themselves. I agree with the fact that students are not challenged enough. I definitely felt challenged in high school because I took the hardest classes I took. However, when I came to college there were definitely several holes that I had to fill along the way that I had no base knowledge for. WHile by the time students reach high school it should not be the teachers' priority to have to teach students how to read and write, or other basic fundamental skills, the truth is that some have to. These students should all be offered an after school program to help build fundamental skills to where they should be. Although this article brings up the fact that some teachers are underqualified, I believe that not enough attention is brought to the fact that some teachers are not teaching subjects of strength. Teachers should be teaching material that they specialize in so that their students recieve the best education possible.

September 8, 2008 I loved pages 130 and 131 of the Wineburg article, especially the point about how contributory history never challenges the overall narratives of history (why //do// we focus on the history of rum?) and also the point about how the ideal history classroom is one where “students learn the subject by rewriting it.” While I agree that this is a very exciting idea, how can it be implemented? How could students construct their own view of history when the field (as far as I’ve seen) is dominated by text books that have their own agendas and iron-clad narratives? I suppose one route to engaging students in the project of “rewriting history” is to set up a history classroom in which the students are seen as “historians in training.” Like Moira, I think that with this approach students could not only be held to high standards that challenge them (the point of the Haycock article) but also learn critical thinking and information literacy skills like researching and understanding sources’ biases. Hopefully this type of history classroom would make the study of history an empowering thing. . . and as we read in the Kozol article, empowerment can be hard to come by in some places. To be honest, the Kozol article left me wondering how problems the size of Camden’s can be solved—what goes on in the city’s public schools is certainly part of it, but how can the economic and social components of the whole mess be solved?
 * Adam Plaiss**

September 8, 2008 Kozel presented some great arguments about the educational systems that are in place. Maybe it is because of my social science background that I appreciate an article about the structural bias towards those in high poverty, urban schools. Too often, individuals (in this case the students) are solely to blame but this article takes the stance that the funding towards urban education is far less than it is among suburban schools. This results in the failure of the educational system in the urban areas. I only consider this a failure due to the high drop out rates, which can be partly attributed to the lack of facilities, qualified teaching staff, equipment, and so on. One part that struck me was the irresponsibleness of some of the teachers, which is too common in schooling and more so in urban schools. The teacher really is the ultimate resource because it is no lie that the success of a student is related to the quality of the teacher. As stated in both Kozel and Haycock’s readings, good teaching is what matters most. Take the science teacher (pg 139, Kozel) who persisted with having the students find the answer to the lesson plan, “water forms a circle that spreads out until it teaches the circumference of a container.” The problem was that the students did not have the right equipment, but I would also have to blame the teacher for not accomplishing the goal of the lesson. Too often, teachers will be very strict to their perfectly outlined lesson plan and won’t deviate from it. Why did the teacher not perform the experiment before the class? Or why did the teacher not find some piece of equipment that had a wider circumference to show the class as a whole. We all need to accept that although we may think the class understands our objective, the students may truly have no idea what is going on. It is then our job to rewind and refocus the lesson. The Wineburg article also shows how there can be a lack of teacher’s expertise (as well as a lack of recognition of women’s achievements in texts.) As learned in educ413, new teachers often teach too closely to the text, without much variation. By giving the students a chance to understand many different perspectives, it increases their critical knowledge of the subject, and decision for themselves to choose which story to focus more on. It gives variety to the subject and can give the many needed opportunities to students who learn differently.
 * Debbie Strnad**

I agree with Debbie’s statements. Teachers are the ultimate resource not only because teachers distribute knowledge to students, but also because teachers serve as a form of guidance and as a model for their students. However, the harsh truth is that, as Kozol stated, there are going to be many instances of teachers who are not diligent and do not share the same enthusiasm as you for teaching. The most important point is to not get distracted by that and make your best effort to help students accomplish as much as possible Debbie, also, touched on the lack of expertise that teachers obtain. Kozol made the point that highly educated teachers (for instance, a teacher that comes from a high level university) do not always make the best teachers. What does make a good teacher? In my opinion, a teacher needs to be well-rounded, meaning that they not only know the material that they are teaching, but they are socially inclined and understanding of his or her students. The last point that Debbie brought up was the lack of flexibility from teachers. I work at an after-school tutoring program and everything there is so systematic. Teaching (and life in general) is not like that. There are constantly distractions and understandable reasons for deviating from the original lesson plan. RANDY VON STEUBEN (9/10/08)

I thought the Wineburg article was interesting as the information it presented showed a quality that I believe is necessary to be an effective history teacher. As a teacher you need to be versatile in your knowledge of the content you're presenting. In doing this you should be able to present information outside the realm of that same time period from the Renaissance up through World War 2 that focuses on the same events, and the same figures. Kids get the same information in history so often it likely turns some of them off of the topic entirely. If you're able to present them with something challenging that they've never seen before its very likely that you'll increase student motivation in your classroom. In terms of the Haycock article I liked the presentation of the statistics as statistics are something that just generally interest me. The most important part of the Haycock article to me was where it said that low expectations are boring kids and causing them to begin to just tune things out. What they're saying really makes a lot of sense, and I can't blame students who become bored or see their self confidence suffer when they're handed the most rudimentary and repetitive of assignments. Adolescents want to prove themselves. As an effective teacher you should be able to stoke this motivation with a challenging and diverse presentation of information. I found the Kozol article the most thought provoking out of the three as it challenged an idea that is still pretty prevalent in my opinion. How much does the money matter? The article makes a convincing argument when it says that it matters a lot. Money helps put kids in environments that are conducive to their learning. Money provides supplies such as textbooks, calculators, science equipment and other materials necessary to help learning. To those that say its on the teachers more than it is the environment the kids are in, and the materials that they're provided with the article makes a very good point that its money that hires quality teachers. There will always be variables when it comes to educating students that fall outside the realm of the school's control. Socioeconomic issues in the home, and in the neighborhoods that students come from are things that schools unfortunately may not be able to triumph over in some cases. However if money is provided to give students buildings that they're comfortable in, materials that help supplement their work, and well paid motivated teachers who know their content areas it would without a doubt be more beneficial than just sitting back from the sidelines and saying "we can't help, its on the parents and the students."
 * Shane Jensen (9/8/08)**

I agree a lot with what Shane is saying here. From elementary to middle and then high school, students are given the same information in history. Granted, as the student gets older the classes get harder and the information is presented more extensively, but the concepts/events/people are redundant. As discussed in "Picturing the Past," teachers need to be conscious of the fact that they can be more versatile in giving information. Including minor characters in history, more prominent women, overlooked events, etc. can only help expand the horizons and interests for students in history courses. As Shane mentions, and as Haycock emphasizes, students need to be challenged so that they are prepared for college and/or the workplace. Offering diverse and challenging material for the students can be beneficial in motivating students to become indulged in the material and find connections between history and contemporary times. MATTHEW LEWIS

Like Shane, I found the statistics presented in the Haycock article valuable and interesting. Quality statistics can bring a lot to an article, especially one in the field of education where reformers and politicians are pushing more towards empirical data and research. One part of the article that was of particular interest to me was the passage on predicting college success. Haycock stated that "The quality and intensity of high school coursework are the most important determinants of success in college-more important that class rank or college admissions tests." In quite a few of my psychology classes in college, I heard about how the SAT's were the best predictor of college success, and Haycock has presented new evidence to combat this statement. This article shows the reader that setting equally high goals for all students throughout their academic careers can have far reaching effects, and it has compelling statistics throughout. Adrienne Saltz

September 9, 2008
 * Doug Selfridge**

=
I thought the readings provided a lot of excellent points about teaching that I have never thought of. I found the reading entitled “Picturing the Past” to be the most compelling, most likely because it is the one I could relate to the most. The amount of attention that things such as women’s rights or the hippie movement receive in a history classroom compared to that of World War I is crazy. Granted, all three are important historical events, but the changes that occurred during the sixties probably have more effect on our future students than something like WWI. I definitely agree with the author that we need to start making some more balanced curriculum that not only focuses on the giant historical events that occur, but the ones that turn out to be the most important to the society we live in today. High schools, mine included, have been so focused on things such as wars, etc. that some of my friends who are history majors can't stand learning about anything else.=====

=
The reading by Kozel was an interesting assessment and everything he wrote made sense and was well backed up. However, he seems to act like money is everything and what happens inside the home is irrelevant. I think it is the fact that most poor school districts not only have little money, but the families that live in these poor areas also are not as focused on their child’s success in school because they have so much else to worry about. Clearly money has a lot to do with it, but to put all the blame on a lack of funding and poor teacher preparation is a little harsh. My point is, there are many students in the nation that have every resource availible to them to succeed, but due to a lack of direction from //home//, success is not always the case.=====

Doug makes a great point regarding "Picturing the Past." Wars tend to be the only thing many students leave high school history classes with any vague knowledge. Personally, I was always bored with redundant lectures on the causes of wars, including statistics and important "male" leaders. I liked learning about all of the details that the textbooks forgot to mention-the disgusting gory stuff or the role of young people and women. Many of my best girl friends love talking about how much they hate history, but I know it's because they never had the opportunity to make a personal connection to the subject. As social studies teachers, it is necessary to look beyond the textbook and curriculum to make history interactive and relevant. At my field placement last spring I heard countless students tell me how pointless history was to their future. Then one day the teacher brought in an Obama article and got everyone pumped up for the upcoming election. He was able to tailor his lesson to engage the students and segway into the topic he wanted to cover. It was inspiring to watch a room full of disenchanted kids get really excited about class. -Kelly Welsh

September 9, 2008 While reading Kozol’s article, I couldn’t help but feel as thought the students and the situations they were presented with were “doomed” from the start. Due to their dire financial situation, the schools in Camden were deprived of the most basic needs for learning. It was no surprise that the article points out that schools with the highest spending have the highest achievements. I was surprised that the //Journal// would even attempt to refute something like this; it only seems natural that schools who can actually afford computers, books, and decent salaries for their teachers will (most literally) have more to work with. I thought it was really interesting how Kozol pointed out how there are different expectations for different students. This was demonstrated in the disappointing account of Chilly and her guidance counselor. I believe that this was a crucial moment in her life, and that her guidance counselor let her down. How can we expect students to be motivated unless we maintain confidence in them and support their aspirations? Rather than addressing the various obstacles that the guidance counselor believed Chilly faced, and perhaps offering insight in how to overcome them, he simply dismissed her. While I do not defend such an action, this also comes back to problems like insufficient numbers of guidance counselors, and an ultimate lack in resources. I also feel that the Kozol article, in light of the various issues it presented in the Camden community alone, was important for us to see. As discussed in previous education classes, it is necessary for teachers to be aware of the factors that students bring with them into the classroom, in this case, homelessness, poverty, etc. This can definitely play into behavior and academic performance, and is something to take into consideration. While this should not be used as an excuse for poor grades or bad behavior, I believe that it allows us to get a more well-rounded understanding of our students. Kozol’s article seems to beg the question as to how we can hold different students, just because of socioeconomic issues, to such different standards. To say the least, it just doesn’t seem fair that students lacking in educational resources and teachers are not helped in some way if they do not perform well on standardized tests. In Haycock’s article, she expresses the importance of having set standards that all students should be held to, and a curriculum devised around them. Another point that she raises is that we, as teachers, must continually motivate our students and present them with a challenging curriculum, which seems to get lost when over-emphasis is placed on the test performance in hopes of funding. Not to mention that teaching to the test probably leads to boredom and frustration with material. Haycock presents a formula that will help us devise a curriculum and teaching pattern to help our students succeed, as compared to what some schools are forced to do to attain essential funding. The Wineburg article was also eye-opening in discussing the interpretation students may have of historical people and events. I think it is important, as future educators, to be aware of the different personal ideas and misrepresentations/biases that students may bring into the classroom regarding historical people and events. Given this information, it is important that teachers should try to present a more well-rounded account of the past, including all members of the given society.
 * Amanda Hulme**

I respectfully disagree with both Amanda’s and Kozol’s views concerning the best ways to go about fixing education issues in poorer communities. I believe that ideas found in articles such as Kozol’s are obstacles to the changes we truly need in our education systems. Uneven spending becomes a crutch which some educators blame all of their failures on. The truth is without much more broad based reforms, there is no realistic amount of money that will solve the issue. Adam Holstein

I, like Adam, believe that even though there are clear differences between the money in schools, it cannot be the sole culprit for failure. I have read studies that when money is thrown at schools with poor levels of achievement, they still are unable to remedy their problems. More money in a school will not help some of the most fundamental skills that are learned early on. What needs to be targeted is the quality of teaching that is occurring in the lowest levels of schooling, increasing the number of Head Start Programs, stronger relationships with parents to get them involved in the educational system, and an increase in the number of vocational programs because not everyone is made for higher education and that needs to be understood. David Anderson

September 10, 2008
 * Adam Holstein**

The Jonathan Kozol article gave good examples of inequalities in our country which any society that embraces liberty will have to one degree or another. However, the most important question that needs to be addressed is how to go about fixing the problem. The author’s solution as I understand it is simple; more money equals better results. The author makes a clear contrast with the News Journal that argues money will not solve the problem. So certainly the impression the author leaves the reader is that it’s all about the money, as he offers no other solutions in this excerpt. Therefore, if Kozol’s argument is correct we should see the states that spend the most on education as having the best results. While this article was written in 1992, we know today that the districts that spend the most on education do not necessarily have the best result. The District of Colombia for example, spends one of the highest amounts per student but has some of the worst results in the Nation. In addition, many of the private schools in this country are able to provide a better education than their public counter parts with less funding. For example, St. Marks, the private high school in Newark spends about 9,000 per student, where as Delaware public schools receive over 10,000. He offers no evidence that increases in funding will answer the problems of working class urban education systems in this country. He does, however, argue that the conservative arguments found in the Right leaning News Journal are bigoted in nature. Kozol wrote, “Much of the resistance it appears derives from a conservative anxiety that equity equates to leveling (Kozol, 172).” In other words, white conservatives don’t want poor blacks to reach their level in society so they underfund their schools intentionally for that purpose. What he does not explain is that Right Wing ideals support reforms in education such as vouchers and charter schools, which would allow for poor black kids to go to school with their suburban white children in private schools. Conservatives also support ideas like paying teachers based on the job they do rather than how much education they have. They also would like to give principles more ability to fire tenured teachers who don’t actually teach. If the author is like most liberals, he would oppose such common sense solutions to our education problems. However, inner city black democrats in 2008 are becoming more attracted to the conservative ideas of school vouchers, charter schools, and the weakening of teachers unions. Whereas, the suburban liberals continue to sound very much like Kozol did 16 years ago, arguing all they need to fix the problem is more and more money.

I agree with Adam H. I don't think that throwing money at schools with poor funding will fix the problem. Granted, more money will help improve the overal education system of urban areas, but it is not a quick fix that Kozel makes it to be. Teachers and administrators need to be educated in how to spend the funds wisely and how to demand more of their students once they get the necessary supplies. Maria Guarni

Sept 10, 2008** “Camden, New Jersey, is the fourth-poorest city of more than 50,000 people in America (Kozol,137).” Lacking nearly any basic educational resources, it comes as no surprise that Camden’s public schools are in shambles. Underpaid teachers are left struggling to teach curriculum without proper supplies like textbooks and computers. At a young age, many students are being passed onto the next grade without mastering basic reading, writing and math skills. By the time they reach high school they are labeled ‘failures’ because they cannot pass state proficiency exams. In fact, the highest dropout rate in Camden High School “is in those first two years (144).” Clearly, it is unfair to expect underfunded schools in poverty stricken areas to earn the same test results as rich suburban areas. After finishing “Children of the City Invincible,” I honestly don’t see how public schools in Camden and Cherry Hill will ever be equal. School integration would have to start at a young age so that students could enter middle and high school with the necessary skills to succeed. Kozol, a spirited advocate for equal education, makes powerful points which help me recognize all of the resources I took for granted growing up an exceptional public school system. When I am a future educator, it will be very important to engage all students, regardless of socioeconomic status, and encourage them to reach their potential.
 * Kelly Welsh

Adrienne Saltz September 10, 2008 "In girls' minds, women in history are blurry figures; in boys minds they are virtually invisible. On educational grounds, it poses, we hope, a challenge (Wineberg, 133)." This was part of the last paragraph in Wineberg's article, and it left me with a sense of hopefulness. There are some things that we as teachers will not be able to change. We cannot change a student's financial or family circumstances, we cannot dramatically change the curriculum, nor can we change the amount of money our district, school or classroom receives each year. What we can change is how we approach our discipline and our students each day. The development of such skills as analysis and critical thinking are fostered by capable teachers that deviate from the provided textbook. I liked that Moira said that presenting students with the task of essentially rewriting history could be empowering, but I also feel that this concept is empowering for educators. Too often I think that the hard and fast rules (and curriculum) that are provided by each district or school can seem limiting and uninspiring for both teachers and students. Wineberg is offering up a challenge but also an opportunity for creativity and growth in the modern social studies classroom.

Melissa Zakalik September 10, 2008 Kati Haycock’s article struck a cord with me because it made me realize that everyone needs to be pushed. By setting high goals that are within striking distance of the students it motivates them to achieve. She points out that students who are expected to perform at a higher level actually do perform higher, while those who are expected to perform at a very low level do perform at that level. Educators are responsible for this because their assignments for these students ask things many grade levels below their capabilities. She says that “ample evidence shows that almost all students can achieve at high levels if they are taught at high levels” and that “some students require more time and more instruction.” I think she means that all students should be challenged, that rising meet the demands of a higher level is an important part in teaching students that they are capable of higher learning and achievement. I think she also means that the challenges are not universal and that attention must be paid to the individual to meet their needs. I always knew that money had a very strong impact on the school districts, but I never realized how much comparisons can hurt students. The high school district I went to school was on the Cherry Hill side of the spectrum, so I was fortunate enough not to experience what the Camden school students have. It must be extremely difficult to grow up in an environment where you know that you are not receiving all that you should and because of that you may be at a significant disadvantage for the rest of your life. This type of realization may lead to the extremely high dropout rate and the rise of crime. If you are taught and experience from a very young age that you are not capable of the same things as other students from different areas it makes it easy to dropout. Children of all ages should not be led to believe that they are not worth as much because their area is not as wealthy. Teachers should recognize this and set high standards so that the students know that someone believes in them. Sometimes all it takes for a student to turn their life around is to know that someone else has faith in them (I got that from the //Freedom Writers//). Each of these three readings presents a significant problem in America’s education system. The one good thing about having the problems recognized and presented is that as a society we can fix them. Since Americans have caused the problem, it is up to us to change and improve upon them. And as the next wave of educators I think we need to recognize these conditions of the academic world and do our best to prevent them from entering into our classrooms. Even though it will be only a small change in the system if our class of future teachers does our best to equalize the amount of time devoted to studying prominent and important women as men, to use the resources in creative ways to make a difficult situation better, and to set high standards for all of our students, it will be a change and that is a step in the right direction.

Chris Clarke September 10, 2008 I found the Temple article to be the most intriguing for several reasons. Even in the beginning exercise of picturing in our mind that historical figures they were talking about, I fell right into the trap of picture picturing a male pilgrim and a cowboy settler. From that point on I began to think about why I pictured them like I did. Continuing the article I learned that this was a common and expected occurrence. The experiment they did with school children I found extremely interesting because it illustrated to me just how many cliche images there are in all of our own minds when it comes to history. From there I began to think about who was responsible for putting those images into my mind. Was it the big cartoon illustrations in my elementary school classrooms? Or was it the paintings and descriptions given by my American history textbook. There was no simple answer, but no matter what, we have been conditioned thoughout our educations to percieve these figures in these ways. Another reason I became deeply interested in this article was the way in which it mentions women in American history textbooks. The article mentions how these texts regulary place women's roles in history in little boxes off to the side of the normal text. I have always thought this myself as I am reading my text books. It's like they are asking us not to care or worry about women in history. I know I never read those boxes as I'm sure many others don't. I have always thought that if they really wanted my to care about that information, they would have included it within the body of the regular text. The lesson that I took away from the two other articles were that students are only as good as the tools that we give them to succeed. Of course it is important that they their parents value education and assist them in their learning. But to place students successes or failures soley on the parents is to run away from our responsibility as teachers. It is up to us to give them what they need. This doesn't necessarily mean money or resources, to secure these is the responsibility of the administration, state, and government. As teachers it is our job to use the tools we have to the best of our ability. It is up to us to set expections and standards and to challenge students. Sure the state can set state standards, but they are only as good as the teachers who use them. If we do not challenge our students, then who will? Students need a reason to learn and goals to work toward. Also, we may not be able to give students the money they need, but the most important commodity we can offer them is our time. As Haycock states, there will always be students who need extra help and it is up to us as teachers to give them that resource. After all the legislation has been passed and the money distributed, we will always be the ones who have the most power when it comes to influencing students, we have to make sure that we do everything we can.

Chris Clarke September 10, 2008 In response to Adam H.'s post, I agree that although money is very important in education, more money does not always lead to better schools. I believe that the important aspect is not how much money is spent, but how this money is spent. There are plenty of schools and districts around the country that are given an abundance of money, buy spend it in irresponsible and wasteful ways that are detrimental to the students. For instance, a lot of money came towards my high school and a sizable chunk of it was spent on our football stadium. How the money is spent can make a huge difference in how successful a school is. I would say that one area where I disagree greatly with Adam is the political aspect that he incorporates into the discussion. When I got into this major I had no idea how highly politicized education was. From many readings and discussions throughout college I have slowly learned that there are far too many political factors that control the destinations of our youth in the school system. Adam's post discusses the standpoints of conservatives and liberals on education. I am not attempting to dispute any of the claims he has made on either side. I know that he is a conservative thinker as much as I am a liberal. But I think we would both agree that education is not nearly as high on the list of our country's priorities as it should be. There are some issues like separation of church and state of abortion that will naturally be partisan issues because different groups want different things. But when it comes to education we all have common goals, and we should work together in spite of our differences to achieve them.

September 10, 2008** After reading the articles, it still amazes me that in the age that we live in, where there is so much wealth and knowledge in our society, that there still exists pockets of such poverty. These pockets, like Camden and Jersey City are not in far out regions of our country, but in our backyard and next to extremely affluent areas. The statistics about the differences in funds and ratios was astounding. Although it is understandable that the differences in capital used is directly related to taxes that are collected in that district. There will always be a clear difference in taxes raised in a wealthy suburb compared to the inner city but what should be a policy of our government is to try and reduce this gap in funds available. One of the other major themes that I noticed within these articles was that of teaching to the tests. I agree that there should be national standards that all students and schools are accountable for but there must be an understanding that it assumes all students receive equal opportunity. These statistics make it clear that this is not the case at all. With the system that is in place now, rote memorization is the skill that is aquired instead of skills that will translate to later grade levels and the real world.
 * David Anderson