Close Topic Options

The Impact Of Science On Society - Page 2

Actually, the inclusive classrooms that No Child Left Behind has allowed to further progress has done more good than bad. They have teacher's aids that come in and held the children with disabilities, and a child has to reach a certain level before they are allowed to enter a mainstream class.

I took a Teaching Special Education, Inclusion in the Classroom course last semester, and I think it's a wonderful idea. We watched several videos that followed some of the first children who were mainstreamed in a serious inclusive program, and they had wonderful results. It expressed concerns of parents with mainstream children about the person slowing the class down, and it showed that it really wasn't an issue.

There's a teachers aid or a paraprofessional that will come into the classroom to work with that student one on one. Plus, teachers will group the more advanced student in the class with the inclusive kid, if the other student is willing, and so it gives the advanced student something productive to do.

Not to mention, it prepared a lot of these kids for the differences they would see in the real world. Not all children who are in the No Child Left Behind are "stupid" as it was put. A lot of them don't have a great grasp on English, and need that extra help, but they are quite intellegent. Some of them only struggle with a couple of subjects, but are brilliant in other subjects.

Honestly, I think inclusive is a wonderful way to add diversity in the classroom. There were several student testimonials from students who had experienced having a special education student in their classroom, and they said they learned more than they probably would have without that student in the classroom. They learned what it was like to be in our diverse world, and it's something they probably would not have experienced until they were out of school. Children are more tolerant when they are exposed to the differences at a younger age and learn to grow up with it.

Besides, by taking away a students right to learn in a regular classroom, if they have the capacity, then is that not taking away another student's freedom? The process to get an ESE student placed in a mainstream classroom is extremely extensive. They do not just put every student in there, because not every student can handle it. It's not right to say that just because a student was born with downsyndrome, they are not allowed the benefit of learning like a regular child, if it is possible. That's unfair to them. Most inclusive students leave the classroom for a couple of subjects if they show a huge problem with it.

Society Science Impact The

The system Ambria has described is an ideal situation. However, when districts have 28 or 30 kids in an elementary class already, they will not likely hire more paraprofessionals and teachers. The budget is not there. In the 'real world' for many districts, this is completely impractical. The district in which I grew up received the second lowest funding per capita in Colorado. Colorado is about 48th or 49th in funding education.

I am not talking about punishing slower learners or imprisoning them in a 'dumb class.' I am saying that the top 20% and the bottom 20% of almost every class is being cheated, because the education available in the class does not meet their needs. Why not have multiple classes that teach the same curriculum, but that teach at different paces? A fast first-grade reading class might be able to spend two weeks reviewing phonics, and eight weeks reading books to apply that knowledge. A slower first-grade class could spend six weeks reviewing phonics, using short stories to apply the teaching, and then read a short book for 2 weeks once the class has grasped the concept. It's about teaching to the needs of the student.

I also think No Child Left Behind is a great idea; however, with the shambles of the current school system, it does not represent the sweeping change it promised. It's mostly more red tape for an overcrowded, underfunded system that changes very slowly. If No Child Left Behind included a congressional budget initiative that would fund the hiring of more paraprofessionals and the retraining of all teachers, then it would work. As it is, it will work in some isolated instances, but the culture of education will not change for a long time. It's just another program.

The Impact Of Science On Society UFO & Writing Art Education Sciences

With the way this thread has evolved, I'm not sure if I should be starting a new thread instead of just adding this post. But then, I don't think I've got enough posts yet to actually branch the thread.

I feel it incumbent upon me to point out that budget does not equal education. I know it is important, but it is not the biggest deciding factor in the quality of education.

I live in California, at the south end of San Jose (Silicon Valley). Many of the school districts in this area are running out of budget despite the fact that they get more and more per student each year. Schools have been remodeled only to be closed the following year because of budget cutbacks. Lotto was instituted twenty or more years ago with the strict mandate to fund schooling by providing books and materials. Yet they are having trouble paying for teachers and facilities when teacher salary is going up slower than the new funding that is brought in each year. In the local area, the public schools that are the best are actually some of the lowest funded districts. How is that possible?

Also consider that private schools manage to give a better education with fewer students per teacher on less overall per student. How can they do that? They run it like a business and make sure that the parents are involved. After all, when people are paying for something, they feel obliged to be involved.

In the public schools where the students are doing best, the biggest factor is having parents be involved. If parents are involved, everything else will fall in line or fall by the wayside. No matter how technical, how ergonomic, or how optimized a school is, it is a poor excuse for child care unless the parents are involved.

Page 2 Society Science Impact The

I agree that funding is only one factor in our current educational crises. My educational ideas are not based on funding so much as what Covey would call a paradigm shift. The money needs to cut through the bureaucracy of the state and district levels and reach the classroom. Teaching and nursing are unique careers in the sense that they require a significant investment in education, but pay much less than most jobs that require college degrees. If I had worked my way up in the warehouse where I worked two years ago, I would have been making more doing that than teaching.

The entire focus of the educational system has been diverted from the needs of the general body of students to the needs of the vocal minority. Rather than dividing and teaching students in a way most beneficial to most of them, we continue to consider every student 'normal' for fear of discrimination. In a way, we are 'normalizing' every physical or mental disability, every behavioral or psychological abnormality, and every difference among students, thus denying the need for any special education. Political correctness does not advocate helping students overcome any problems, because to ADMIT a problem would be unjust labeling. Therefore, if we are to save face with the ACLU and like-minded individuals, we cannot truly help those under our educational stewardship.

ANYWAY, I want to take this discussion in another direction, relating directly to the original thread. The advancement of the profession of education has brought us to a point where the goal is not to teach students to be successful. If English teachers knew how to be successful, published writers, they would be doing it themselves and making money. Most are not. If music teachers knew how to make it in the music industry, they probably would. Most don't. If business teachers knew how to create a successful business that makes great profit, they probably would. Most haven't.

My point is that we rely on those who do not practically apply their knowledge to teach our children how to achieve their goals. Teachers actually teach children to be teachers more than anything else. Our pattern of paying teachers less than the average population has resulted in most of the people with potential to be successful in their fields choosing not to teach. Why would they? More on this later.

This is one of my favorite topics!