Timeline Completed

Here is the link to my completed timeline :

http://www.timetoast.com/timelines/educational-foundations







 Although I put my sources right in my timeline and they will be cited in my paper I will also add them to this post.

IUPUI. The Wechsler Intelligence Scales.Retrieved from http://www.iupui.edu/~flip/wechsler.html.

Lane, David.(2007 June 1). History of the Normal Distribution. Retrieved from http://cnx.org/content/m11164/latest/.

National Association for Gifted Children. (2008). A Timeline of Key Dates in Gifted and Talented Education. Retrieved from http://www.nagc.org/index.aspx?id=607.

Robbins, Jennifer H. (May 2010). An Explanatory History of Gifted Education: 1940–1960.  Pp. 1-10. Retrieved from https://beardocs.baylor.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/2104/7946/Jennifer_Robins_phd.pdf?sequence=4.

Writing Circle 4

In the last writing circle my group discussed different organizational methods on how to write our papers.  I know that some people are telling their story and history first then connecting it to their research.  Originally I had my paper divided up into sections and would explain my assumptions from that section and then talk about the research that backs it up.  Another way suggested to go about it was to talk about the history and research first and then go back and make connections through personal experiences.  I don't think there is a right or a wrong way to go about it but different organizations may work better for different topics.

Another thing that helped me with my research is mine and Katie's discussion on meritocracy, since it also relates to her topic.  According to Spring, "meritocracy is a concept of society based on the idea that each individual's social and occupational position is determined by individual merit."(Spring 2011 p.270)  Giftedness relates to meritocracy because gifted children are getting ahead of other children based on their intelligence.  In my opinion meritocracy is good in a way because it recognizes that more intelligent people could be more capable but it also disadvantages the less intelligent.  I think all students should have the option to learn and grow with the same methods but just at their own pace.  

Katie also asked me the question is IQ the only way to recognize giftedness? Although I do believe that IQ tests are good indicators of intelligence, it is not the only option.  Testing for Howard Gardner's multiple intelligences could also be used to test for giftedness.  His idea is that everyone has degrees of his multiple intelligences but they vary. (Santrock p.117) This backs up my assumption that it may help students to just be in domain specific gifted classes that only cater to their one or couple gifted areas.

Santrock, John W. (2012). Adolescence. New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc.

Spring, Joel (2011). The American School: A Global Context from the Puritans to the Obama Era. New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc.

Writing Circle 3

I just wanted to reflect on some things I started to understand in Thursday July 5th's class due to my discussion with Dr.Shutkin and talking with my classmates.  Going into talking with Dr. Shutkin I had a million questions and I tried to make an outline of what my paper would be about, but that just led to a million more questions.  But what he helped me to understand is what I was missing.  I felt like my topic was too broad and it would take years to research all of the questions I have about gifted programs and still never come to solid answers.  What he helped me to realize is that I was just asking questions and not going off of my own lived experiences and assumptions from being in gifted programs.  So what I am going to do right now is state my larger question and then state my assumption about it to help direct my research better.

A. How do we pick gifted students? What does it mean to be gifted?

I think gifted students should still be chosen using IQ tests, but maybe have special gifted classes for students who excel in specific subjects.  I know that this idea is not very economical but we need to find ways to foster an individuals giftedness.  I believe this is necessary because throughout my gifted program I saw kids struggle in the areas they weren't extremely gifted in and it probably deterred them from what they were very good at.  I also saw kids that did not get into the program probably because they lacked in a certain area.  I think a special class catering to their specific "gift" could have helped them.  Maybe a pullout type program would be most beneficial so that they could just go to the advanced class that best fit their attributes.  This exemplifies my idea that being gifted means excelling or having a talent in a certain subject.  An IQ test can still determine giftedness in many areas.  If we are looking for giftedness in the arts or music it may be better to use a different test.  However I feel that sometimes children who excel at music are often good at math.  Certain subjects tend to be grouped together based on how one learns.

B. Is pushing a child into a gifted program a good thing?

 My opinion on this is no.  My sister and I were in a gifted program but my brother was not.  I feel that if my brother was forced into the program he would have struggled and I have seen that happen through a few of my friends.  I do think pushing a child into gifted is wrong but I can kind of see why parents do it.  What parent wouldn't want more individualized attention and better teaching techniques?  I feel if there was a way for teachers to bring that curriculum into every classroom but adjusting to the level of the class it would be wonderful.  I don't think that only the gifted children should get the advantages.

C. Do gifted classes really help in the long run?

I have two opinions on this question.  My gut answer is yes.  It has been shown to help children to not drop out due to boredom.  In my personal experience it gave me great confidence and study techniques.  But like I said before I think that experience should be available to all children.  However my second opinion is no because I do think I'd be where I was today even without my gifted program.  I think other factors along the way like family and motivation helped equally as much or more.

Now that I have my assumptions I can really explore and compare them to the history and how my assumptions came to be.  I suggest that anyone who hasn't yet to state your beliefs so you aren't wandering aimlessly like I was in this research.

Is NCLB Failing Gifted Students?

Katie sent me an interesting article on the funding of gifted programs.  It is evident that over the years less and less funding is given to the gifted students.  Another professor who teaches the Adolescent class for the AYA students even attested to this claim.  Dr. Young stated in class the other day that No Child Left Behind is targeted to the children who are just below average on the standard curve.  She claimed that it almost disregards students on the extreme ends of the spectrum like students with learning disabilities or giftedness. This quote in the article really stood out to me:

"The effort to leave no child behind is a major threat to high-ability students, whose cognitive and affective needs are increasingly falling by the wayside from default" (Kenney, 2007).

I understand that not having gifted programs fails to improve and build upon gifted students attributes.  But that fact poses another question.  I wonder if gifted programs help students in the long run.  Do gifted programs really help students to become better more developed assets to society?  Do these programs increase the likelihood of a gifted student to go on and do better things or does it just prevent boredom while in grade school?  How much is not having these programs actually a major threat?

Gembar, Sarah E. Gibbs, Greg K. Ph.D.(May 2010). The "Quiet Crisis" Continues. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED531602.pdf.

Timeline

Here is the link to my timeline

http://www.timetoast.com/timelines/educational-foundations

Competing in the Global Economy

The discussion in class on Tuesday about competing in the global economy reminded me of a Time Magazine article I read in another class called The Case Against Summer Vacation.  Basically the article concludes that U.S students fall behind in the summer because their vactions are so long.  Students in low SES situations fall behind because they are not having some of the out of school educational opportunities that a child from a higher SES family may have such as going to the zoo or summer reading programs.  I know as a child I was always engaged in some learning opportunities in the summer and I still came back not remembering everything I had learned from the previous year.  That is why children who are even less fornuate fall even further behind.  The thing that intriqued me the most about this article was this chart:

As it shows U.S. children spend much more instructional time in the classroom but with less school days.  On the other hand countries like South Korea and Denmark spend less instructional time with about ten more days and their math scores are much higher.  What do you think about this data?  Should we be looking at what those types of countries are doing in order to compete in this global economy?  I wonder if we could find out what they are doing instead of just relying on standardized testing.  It is just so suprising to me that U.S. children can spend so much time in the classroom and have such lower scores than other countries.

Von Drehle, David. (2010, July 22). The Case Against Summer Vacation. Time Magazine. Retrieved from
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2005863-1,00.html.

Writing Circle 2

This writing circle really helped clarify what direction I want to go with my research project.  I need to start thinking about the questions: what does it mean to be gifted, what are the benefits of gifted programs, and how did gifted programs emerge?  My group has been really great in helping me realize what problems may also come along with gifted programs.  What types of limits should be put on programs like these?  I believe that there needs to be limits on these programs but I am not sure if school districts are adequately enforcing these limits.  Should strongly opinionated parents be able to push their children into gifted programs? We also discussed the notion of moving children up in grades if gifted programs are not an option.  One story from my group members indicated that a girl was moved up but then had to repeat that grade she moved up to.  But in this case it seemed as if her parents pushed her teachers to allow her to move up.  Another story indicated that another student who moved up flourished.  So in the long run I think if the student is truly competent then moving up may help them but if they are not it may actually hurt them in more ways than one.  The big question here then becomes what measures these competencies?  Should we educate children based on age or competencies?  I feel that if we started educating children solely on competencies it would create a lot of conflict and hostility among students and parents.  If a child who is six is in a kindergarten level class but many of their friends are in a first or second grade level class it may create the feeling of inferiority at a very young age.  Now that I have a lot of questions posed about gifted programs I need to find more research to support or maybe give some explanation for my questions.  If anyone has any ideas in history that can relate feel free to let me know.  I can find a lot of information about when gifted programs were formed but I still need more insight on the reasons for their formation.

Gifted Students

I was really interested in the reading of Educational Foundations Part 2 particularly the parts about gifted students in the classroom. As I said before being in a gifted program all throughout elementary school I have pretty strong opinions on gifted programs.  But before doing the reading my opinions were solely based on the experience I had.  I figured some people could have wonderful experiences and some people could have horrible experiences in gifted programs.  But the main problem the book indicates is that high achieving students may not be benefiting from inclusion classes and may actually benefit from gifted programs.  It was also interesting to me that high achieving female students received the least attention from their teachers.  Therefore maybe being in a gifted program would get them more attention because they would be amongst many gifted children.  I also really liked the term of self fulfilling prophecy that meant students perform in the way teachers expect.  So if students in an inclusive classroom are only expected to meet a standard level by their teacher then the gifted students would not be challenged to their ability.  Another aspect about gifted programs brought up in class today was about how there is so much focus put on special needs children when gifted children make up the same percentage but on the other side of the normal curve.  Do they deserve the same amount of attention in school?  Or should we leave them be since they are already performing above school standards?

Although I do advocate for these programs I do feel like they have some flaws.  For instance I have some friends that were never in the program but in high school were much smarter than I was.  Should there be testing every year to see who belongs and who doesn't?  A sole test in kindergarten shouldn't be the tell all.  I also had some friends in the program who really struggled and their parents did not take them out.  Should you have to sign a contract when participating in a gifted program that if you fall below standards you must go back to your original classes?  These are some questions and flaws I found in the gifted program I was in.  Does anyone else had or heard of any other experiences?

Writing Circle Analysis

My writing circle gave me some ideas to expand upon on the notion of women in the classroom especially in areas of math and science.  Are they at a disadvantage? What is the ideal female student like today? What did it used to mean to be a female in school?  What are the possibilities for female students in the future?  These are some important questions to ask.  I am by no means a hard core feminist, but I have noticed through being a math major that being a female interested in mathematics or engineering is somewhat of a minority.  Then while going through the readings I realized that they reiterate some of the problems females have as students. In Educational Foundations the authors talk about how research has concluded that girls are frequently denied an equal education simply because of their gender.  The notion of having more same sex schools also came up in our writing circles.  This follows along with the notion in Chapter 6 that discusses that most schools are organized to meet the needs of white males. This includes things like curriculum, instructional techniques, and learning styles. But the big question is would females benefit more from a same sex school due to learning aspects or would it hurt them and society to be more segregated?  Another response to my ideas about women in education was that Kaestle was the only one during that time who mentioned women during that time and when he did it was only in a short paragraph.  This definitely shows the lack of women's role in education back then.  In the beginning of forming my ideas about females in schools I thought they only lacked advancement opportunities in subjects that seem more male dominated but after reading Part 2 of Educational Foundations, its authors make me begin to think that females are still in somewhat of a disadvantage in all aspects of education.  Do you agree?  Or do you think they are taking it too far?

Reflection from 6/25

Something that really intrigued me today was one of the first things Dr. Shutkin pointed out in class.  That was the absence of women's ideas, opinions and presence in the research.  It is astonishing to think that women's suffrage did not end until 1920, which wasn't that long ago.  Many people's grandparents or great grandparents who are still living today have seen so many political and educational changes.  I really enjoyed reading about Kaestle's discussion about the role of women in society.  The central roles for women were to provide a sanctuary for hard-working husbands, to manage the household intelligently, and to nurture children.  Although women have made progress from just having to take care of a family I still think their are some limitations or stereotypes for women today when being educated.  Since I am a women and so interested in mathematics I am a huge advocate for women to get involved in math and science.  However since we still have some lingering ideals that only boys can be good at those subjects or that girls are supposed to be the nurturing ones we run into road blocks.  Are these ideas about nurture the reason for why more females become elementary school teachers?  Are these ideas holding women back from participating in math and science professions?  In my opinion we need to break this barrier and let students gravitate to their own interests not to societies expectations.  Stereotypes are a hard thing to break.  But who knows maybe in the future we will have even more male elementary teachers and nurses or more women engineers and mathematicians?

Some Thoughts on Chapter 4 of The American School

One of the most prominent arguments for the common school was that the children would be educated in a common school house to create a common culture and reduce class conflict.  I completely understand this argument because educating them with the same political and social ideology should help them to have the same ideals.  However I couldn't help but wonder if there was ever hostility between social groups stemming from the common school or if teaching common beliefs ever made topics more controversial.  If the children were all taught the same ideology in the common school they still had to come home to their families that could have had completely different ideologies.  It seems to relate to what happens in schools today.  A child can be taught something in school that their parents disagree with.  It is often shown that even though a child may rebel in adolescence they often times in the long run follow the ideology of their parents.  The point I am trying to make is that if the student and their family doesn't agree with some of the ideas taught in the school then they will be less likely to learn from them. I find it intriguing that the common school movement had the "belief that human nature can be formed shaped, and given direction by training within formally organized institutions."  I believe this is true but only to some extent because it is not only institutions that form human nature. When people study adolescent development they often look at Bronfenbrenner's Ecological Systems Theory.  This theory talks about how development is influenced by several environmental systems. For instance the micro-system which directly affects the adolescent is made up of elements like their school, family, and peers.  So the belief of the common school in order to create a single ideology seems impossible to me.  It appears that while schooling can solve a lot of problems it involves a lot of other aspects to change someones ideals.  I would assume if the students are taught common ideals at school and if the families have different ideals from each other this would cause some controversy and inconsistency for the students. Does anyone else see how teaching common beliefs could maybe create tension?

The other part of the chapter which I found interesting was the challenges Mann faced regarding the decisions about religion in education.  It certainly was a thin line to walk in fear of not making people mad.  On one hand he did not want to be opposed to religion in education in fear of being called anti-religious.  But on the other hand if he was linking religion to education he had to choose which religion it would be based off of.  Religion in schools was very important to many people of this time.  So it was obvious that he had to figure out how to add religion into the school teachings. I look at this and think how different it is from our schooling today.  If we had to reintroduce religion into schools today it would be an uproar and is impossible.  It just demonstrates how far we've come in education and how it has differed.

Santrock, John W. (2012). Adolescence. New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc.

Some Reflection from 6/22

As I enjoyed our class discussion about the reading, I couldn't help but think about our discussion about the blogs, writing circles, and research paper.  I found myself wanting more clarity and direction.  When in reality maybe strict direction is not always a good thing.  I realized I have gone through most of my schooling following directions and doing what I was told.  Whether it be through math homework or even research papers there was always a clear path to follow.  This provides learning on a narrowed specific level.  So then it dawned on me that this class is for our own learning benefit to investigate our educational lives.  Not having set specific guidelines about what to write will allow us to think more freely and not be on a single minded track.

I must admit it does scare me a little to not be guided in a single direction.  But on the other hand it intrigues me.  I feel I am able to look at my educational past in many different ways.  The problem with many projects that have a clear path is that if you lock in on a topic it can end up not being as substantial as you originally thought.  Or you may end up wanting to take a different approach and then can't because of the guidelines.  I am glad there is more freedom in our research.  I find it nice that blogging about our discussions, and readings will provoke interesting thoughts and questions.  I can already see through reading the readings that I have inquiries and relations about how the education I had came to be.  I look forward to building on my knowledge throughout this research.

Weblog 1: Class Survey

My name is Emily Bertagnolli and I am from Eastlake, Ohio.  The best e-mail to reach me at is ebertagnolli15@jcu.edu. I am currently enrolled in the School Based M.Ed. program for AYA Mathematics.  The license I will receive will be for 7-12 mathematics.  I am interning at St. Ignatius starting in the fall.  I have two mentor teachers so I will get to see aspects of two different classrooms which I am excited about.  I think the classes I will be teaching at Ignatius will most likely be an algebra class of some sort and a more calculus based class like Algebra II/ Trig with limits.  If I could teach any mathematical subject it would definitely be calculus. My undergraduate degree is a BS in Mathematics from The Ohio State University and I also have a Human Development Family Sciences minor.  One of the things I look forward to while teaching is to be involved in the extra-curricular activities.  I love volleyball and I played in high school.  I also coached some summer leagues which was always so much fun!  I hope to be able to help with that at St. Ignatius!  Some other things about me are that I have a sister who goes to Arizona State and a brother who is a senior in high school.   Like most people I enjoy spending time with my family and friends whether it be by the pool, out to dinner or just hanging out.  I have worked at a restaurant called Trader Jack's Riverside Grille since I was 16.  I started out at a hostess and now waitress on occasion if someone needs me to work for them. Hope that helps you guys to get to know me a little better!

If I am interested in topic and have an opinion about it I have no problem taking intellectual and creative risks in a classroom.  I will usually say what I think is appropriate, state my opinion, or comment on something I can relate to.  However if I have to present on something I am not certain of that makes me a little nervous.  As a student I am normally pretty active when it comes to oral class participation.  I think the more one engages in the conversation the more they will take out of the discussion.  Adding my opinions and ideas helps me to understand the material better.  If I am not orally active in class it is usually because I have no experience with the topic or don't understand it.  I will never pretend to know about something I don't just to dispute or agree with someone else.  I like to form my own opinions based on the things I learn. When it comes to assignments I am always prepared and do my readings and homework on time.  But I must confess that being a math major I did not have to do a lot of writing or reading.  So all of my courses this year will definitely put those skills to the test.  The best way for me to learn anything is to write it down and then keep going over it.  I usually will make note cards with the most important information so I am able to repetitively go through them and weed out what I already know. I could not have survived my undergrad without excessive amounts of note cards.  Another thing that helps me to learn is class discussions.  If the professor engages the students it helps me to understand the material better than if they just lecture.  The first thing I do when I don't understand something is ask questions.  I have never been afraid to get help when I needed it and I think that is one thing that has made me successful so far.  Like I said before I am still unsure and slightly paranoid of my writing ability since I haven't written many papers in the past three years at Ohio State.  I am open to any constructive criticism to improve my writing for this course and others. 

One of the most formative memories that has helped me to where I am today is of my AP Calculus teacher.  Out of any teacher that has ever taught me in my life the material he taught I retained the best.  Granted he was a very smart man but he had a way of simplifying mathematics so everyone could understand.  Another formative memory I have is being in a gifted or "zenith" program in elementary school.  These programs in some districts are either loved or viewed as pointless.  But I firmly believe that if anyone who thought they were pointless truly knew how they impacted children they wouldn't think that.  In this program I was giving presentations in the 2nd grade and by the 6th grade I was giving 20 minute talks.  It really helped to build my confidence, foster my creativity, and demonstrated proper study techniques that I still use today.  One significant concern that I feel is facing the field of education today is when teachers teach just what is on standardized tests.  I agree that there are specific things people need to learn but teaching for tests does not introduce the students to anything that may intrigue them.  As a future math teacher I think that students need to see the purpose in mathematics to become interested and not just learn straight forward problems that will appear on the OGT.  That leads me into another concern that faces specifically teachers teaching math and science.  Any math teacher hates to hear the dreaded question "why will I ever need this?"  If a student does not understand or is bored by the subject they will have no desire to learn.  As a teacher I want to be able to interest my students and help them to see how math is important in so many ways. To take away from this class I think it is important to engage in discussion.  I think that since this class is discussion based it will help us all to be more broad minded and learn things from each other.  It is important to discuss concepts like why we teach the things we do so we can have better understand our roles as educators. In our discussions I hope everyone avoids having a closed mind.  I hope to learn from everyone's experiences, and opinions to make my thoughts more well rounded.

We all know the educational system is not perfect.  It never was and never will be.  But my question for Dr. Shutkin and the class is kind of broad and open ended.  If you could change one thing about education what would it be?