Two Issues

While reading the article titled "Unemployment Training" by Martin Haberman I felt increasingly uncomfortable and annoyed. I disagree with some of his reasoning and mostly felt that he offered little insight into how to fix the issues he described. I agree with Haberman's outline of how schools function. I agree that in some cases current schooling does not foster positive development of children ultimately entering the work force. What frustrated me and made me uncomfortable was that he was making serious generalizations that he did not support with facts. He lumps ALL poor urban children in the same category as unmotivated and disrespectful individuals. In order to make such arguments valid he needed to include some hard data. In a couple sections he offered some insight into possible turn-over rates and attention spans, but where did he get his information? In order to make these assumptions I feel that he needed to name specific school districts across a variety of states to make his case more valid. Of course, the point was that what we do in school is not preparing kids for the real world. I believe this theory is not only applicable in urban settings, but is true in suburban and rural settings too. In addition, I do not feel that it is entirely on the teachers' shoulders as he suggests. There are many extrinsic factors outside of school that contribute to student attitudes and success rates. These include but are not limited to, family life, parent involvement, community, money, etc. So, while I think there are many aspects of urban and suburban/rural schools that can change, it is most important that teachers learn about each of their students and mold the curriculum to allow success.

This week in the first grade classroom I worked in I had a conversation with the teacher about a possible frog unit. I am in Windham and due to its history with frogs I thought it might be appropriate to do a springtime frog life cycle unit. She said that it was excellent that we could obtain a frog habitat with tadpoles for an inexpensive price, so I jumped in and started talking about how the kids could use the science process skills (at least first grade appropriate ones.) She told me two things at this point in the conversation: that there is no time in the day for in-depth science activities(ones the kids would actually learn from) and that she knows the students are going to fail the science CMT because of this. I was so disheartened by her defeatest attitude and it was made even worse when she told me her focus in college was in SCIENCE!!

It is really difficult to persevere when negative attitudes float around a school like a virus. However, having heard these sentiments so many times I still want to, and am determined to, include quality science(not to mention social studies) in my classroom. The ball needs to get rolling and maybe I can help in whatever district I end up in. I'm not sure how I am going to do it, but if I value it-it will happen.