Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Week 6: Jigsaw Group (“One of the most important goals of the public…

- - - - Politics As the Answer
        
        "Choice advocates in the first generation saw politics as the problem in education and the market as the solution. By the third generation, only the naive and the misguided speak of solutions in the realm of education policy. If politics is the problem, then politics, albeit a different politics, is a large part of the answer." (Vieteritti, 2005, p.150)
        
        This believes that politics disrupts the educational system by everything new that they are trying to put into it compared to the religion side of education.
        
        I disbelieve that polotics disrups the educational system, because i feel like the politics add a whole other side of compatition and that will only better the system.
        
        The Next Market
        
        “It is what parents think that will matter. Children will attend a particular school because their parents believe it to be the one that best accommodates their particular wants and needs—be it a district, charter, independent, or religious school. These choices will not be limited to families that are well off. The next generation of schooling will promote both liberty and equality. That will be a great improvement over what we now have.” (Viteritti 156)
        
        Children don't know which school has the best education but their parents can find that out and send their kids their.
        
        This makes sense because kids are way smarter than there 4 or 5 year old child which means the difficult decisions should be made by them.
        
        "The availability of funding for disadvantaged families could encourage the pastors from African American and Latino churches to open their own schools, as many already have despite overwhelming financial limitations," (Viteritti p.155).
        
        Other than financially becoming a problem the other religious schools want to become more popular.
        
        This makes sense because any type of school should want more kids in their program and want to help out anyone who needs it, thats what religion is for.
        
        I feel like its only right fo the school to not try and become popular but focus on becoming great first with the students it has no and then looking to become more popular.
        
        "A voucher program would enable them to do so. Moreover, in a world characterized by publicly supported choice, these same parents would have more options from which to choose than they now do." (Vieteritti, 2005, p.154)
        
        Over 400 Catholic schools shut down due to financials and that parents cannot afford it anymore.
        
        "IF we are to believe the surveys taken of parents whose children participate in public voucher and private scholarship programs, three factors attract them to the participating schools: academic standards, safe environments, and, to a lesser extent, religious values," (Viteritti p. 151).
        
        This survey will make things easier compared to the religion education and scholarships give kids an extra advantage.
        
        I believe that giving kids an extra advantage will make a huge difference and will make the nation work a lot better because it will give those young adults the confidence they need to succeed
        
        This makes sense because the schools just want to help the kids and their families out a little bit and give them an advantage.
      - The Market Concept
        
        "The central principle animating his argument was freedom." (Viteritti, 2005, p.139)
        
        “Furthermore, the voucher concept failed to resonate with the very population that stood to gain the most from it, the poor. It was bad enough that vouchers became associated with a Republican president who was determined to eliminate the welfare state that many poor people believed served their needs; politicians who represented the poor automatically lined up against any plan that would challenge the public schools. To most people the market concept was an inaccessible abstraction.”(Viteritti 139)
        
        The voucher was more for poor people to try and help them out in a slightest way.
        
        This makes sense because you want to help out as many people as you can so you look better as a program, which could lead to having more students which could lead to having more money coming into your school.
        
        I feel like once you hit rock bottom the slightest help will go a long way.
        
        "Friedman wanted to give all parents a voucher so that they could choose their children's school from an assortment of public, private, and religious institutions. He believed that the ensuing competition would force the closure of low-performing institutions, and the appropriation of public funding for nonpublic schools would create a market of new educational providers." (Vieteritti, 2005, p.138)
      - An Emerging Consensus
        
        “The other major finding to emerge from the choice research speaks more directly to the normative demand for granting school choice to disadvantaged families. Parents whose children participate in choice programs believe their children are better off than they were in district-run public schools. This is true across the board, for all types of programs that have been studied—charters, vouchers, and private scholarships.” (Viteritti 149)
        
        This wants to help families with disabilities and are poorer than most which will give their kids the same advantages as those financially unstable
        
        This wants to help students become equal and give ever body the same oppertunities.
        
        “Granting parents the opportunity to choose the schools their children attend is a worthy goal in itself, especially in a society in which choice is a function of income (itself a correlate of race and class).” (Viteritti 148)
      - The Demand For Equality
        
        "By the last decade of the twentieth century, the civil rights movement that had given hope to poor and minority parents reaped, instead, disappointment," (Viteritti p. 142).
        
        Helped the poor from worse to a little better which made it a little bit better to live in and made them have high hopes for their future.
        
        This just wanted to give the poor something to look forward to and of coarse they just wanted to help anyone who needed it.
        
        "Targeted choice made public funds available to disadvantaged people so that they could purchase private goods to which they supposedly were entitled- all of which would contribute to the better good of society. Middle-class parents, after all, enjoy educational choice as a matter of course, either because they can afford private schools or because they have the residential mobility to move to communities with good public schools." (Vieteritti, 2005, p.143)
        
        Wanted every family to have the same chance to give their kid the best education as possible and giver everyone an equal chance to graduate and become whoever they want to be.
        
        I agree with this because every student should have the same oppertunites as the next and no child should be treated differently.
    - - The public schooling system was a way to get better education and a way for "everyone" to fit in.
      - I agree with this because if your going to want more people to fit into your school your going to have to open a lot of doors and become more socially diverse.
  - - - “One-room schools went from more than 200,000 early in the century to near zero in 1972. The decline in the total number of school districts appears to have been largely accounted for by the decline ofrural, one-room schools. Most one-room schools were the only school in the district,6 so consolidation of several one-room schools almost always meant consolidation of several districts” (Fischel 178).
        
        “Age grading is an idea whose origins were once hotly debated.5 What is not debated about age grading is that it was first adopted incities.2 Cities had sufficient population density to enable a large num- ber of children to be assembled in a single school building and dividedby age group into classrooms of homogenous age groups” (Fischer 183).
        
        “Cities had sufficient population density to enable a large number of children to be assembled in a single school building and divided by age group into classrooms of homogenous age groups.”(Fischel, 2009, p. 182)
      - Many historians of public schools would assign a different direc- tion to the role of property values. They would rightly point out that one of the most frequent objections to consolidation that rural voters voiced was that removal of the old district school would reduce their property values.
        
        Weighing the benefits of a small, one- room district (democratic control, shorter distances, the possibility of part-time schooling) against the costs of remaining outside the system (the less-specialized instruction, the difficulty in accessing high school) almost all voters eventually agreed to the necessary school district consolidations.
        
        “But tax savings were seldom realized by consolidating schools and restoring the larger student-teacher ratios in an age-graded setting."(Fischel, 2009, p. 181)
      - Having a uniform Carnegie-unit schedule allows reasonable comparisons of cover- age, if not accomplishment, by students from various schools. It makes it easier to integrate new students who transfer from another school into ongoing courses, and it simplifies the preparation of teachers who change jobs.
      - Age grading is relevant to school district consolidation because it required coordination between classes within the same school and among other schools. All of the teachers in a multigraded school had to agree to the curriculum in each grade
        
        “Age grading required regular attendance, and its logical culmination was high school. Ungraded one-room schools were cheaper not just because the teacher and building were less expensive, but because students could take as much or as little as they wanted of what the school had to offer” (Fischel, p. 182).
      - “A student who missed two weeks of school was in this setting a far greater liability to the rest of the class. The teacher would have to spend time with the truant to get him up to the level of the rest of the class, and this attention subtracted from the overall pace of the class” (Fischel, p. 183).
        
        Kids that missed class had to make up that world and became part of the bottom of the class and looked at as a weak link
        
        This does make sense to me because it was the same way at my school and i'm sure it was the same way everyone else that has students missing assignments, which it truly puts them behind when they miss assignments because they wont know what going on in the future.
    - - “In regard to equality, vocational education has a direct impact upon a child’s future ability to garner the resources required to compete effectively in our modern economy. Presumably, we are concerned that each of us, within a modern democratic society, has equality of opportunity. If this is true, then we should worry whether some children are unfairly advantaged over others in acquiring the skills necessary for equal opportunity.” (Murray 2009 p. 49)
      - “1) parents advocate measures to reduce funding for schooling in their own district; 2) they move away from their current residence to a district in which lower property taxes are paid; or 3) they ally themselves with like-minded citizens within their community to break away from their current district and thus form their own school district, or join one in which they will pay less in property taxes (Kozol, 1987: 54–6).”
      - “Secession involves a pair of conditions: 1) it is the redrawing of political boundaries in such a way as to allow for a change in jurisdiction over a territory and 2) the new political unit takes territory with it. School district secession meets both of these requirements in the most basic sense.”
        
        “It is a government’s obligation to provide compulsory education for its future citizens because it crucially shapes children and prepares them to be autonomous persons and viable citizens.”(Murray, 2009, p. 53)
        
        “There is no principled reason why school district secession proposals should be exempt from the first requirement of minimal realism. If certain members of the community or the school board promote secession, they should not only show why such a break is necessary, but also should demonstrate that it is going to be viable in the immediate future.”
        
        It's the government responsibility to make sure the students get the best education they can possibly et.
        
        I think this makes sense because other than the student actually trying and caring for their education who else is going to teach these kids.
        
        I believe that a student who wants to learn will learn. and a student who doesn't care will only learn things at their home life.
      - “There is another more principled and convincing justification for school district secession, which unfortunately is sometimes referred to in a confused manner by actual secessionists. Many concerned parents are alarmed by their own impotence in affecting the decision-making process within school districts. These citizens believe that school district secession will allow them options for more direct democratic control over their children’s education.”(Murray 2009 p.57)
        
        “Even when poorer districts tax themselves at much higher rates than richer districts to better fund their home district’s schools, they still must make do with fewer resources because of their more impoverished tax base” (Murray, p. 48).
      - “One disturbing pattern is reflected in the demographics of the groups that attempt school district secession. In the overwhelming majority of attempts at redrawing the boundaries of school districts, its advocates are mainly Caucasian, fairly to very affluent, and currently joined in the same school district with a community of a racial or ethnic minority, whose members garner a much lower per capita income.”
        
        “These citizens believe that school district secession will allow them options for more direct democratic control over their children’s education.”(Murray, 2009, p. 57)
        
        The more options the better, and the more they will be allowed to put more control into their education.
        
        I believe you are only helping the students by giving them more options and letting them choose and have the freedom to go wherever is most comfortable for them.
        
        This makes sense to me because theres only so many people that have control of the students education other than themselves, and that of coarse the school and also the students parents or gardians.
      - “Some readers may resist my calling school district secession by that name. Their hesitance is more than likely rooted in what appears to be a weak analogy between the attempt by a people or nation to break from a large political unit in the name of attaining full sovereignty over all political and economic matters, and the effort by a small group of citizens exercising what amounts to ‘white tax flight’.” (Murray 2009 p.52)
        
        Over the past 25 years,there have been a number of separate efforts at breaking away from LAUSD,not only by San Fernando more generally, but also by Hollywood and Carson.
        
        This doesn't make sense because if they have a good thing going for them why can't they just stick together and become well known together instead of trying to break away and try and take all of the fame for themselves.
        
        I think the key to success is having other there with you willing to have your back when you fall. If you make a mistake and you fall and you don't have anyone there to save you then your don for good and thats how a lot of schools go out of business.
- - - - -Public schools are necessary to promote cultural adhesion and foster individual growth, thus creating a more productive society. Moreover, the schools want and need to promote a free marketplace of ideas. Morals or values are a fundamental part of any culture and are necessary to the well-being of the individuals within that culture
        
        Everyone was welcome and everyone's ideas were welcomed and talked about.
        
        This makes sense because when you are bringing outside experiences into the classroom it helps give the student more options to think about and lets that student grow more mentally on a specific subject.
- - - - “This paper will analyze the Court's attempts at resolving the delicate balance of maintaining an effective public-school system that neither alienates nor establishes one religious’ group over another.” (Fuller, 1994, pg. 87)
        
        “In order to understand a public-school system's effectiveness, one must first know what a public-school system should effect, thus, part II of this paper will discuss the purposes of public schools and how the Supreme Court has applied the Establishment Clause to help accomplish those purposes.” (Fuller, 1994, pg. 87)
        
        “This section will suggest that because defining religion is so difficult, the Court should revise what constitutes establishment and incorporate a coercion standard such as that used in freedom of speech analyses.” (Fuller, 1994, pg. 88)
        
        "Promoting democratic principles did not mean that religion needed to be absolutely excluded. Instead, religion was viewed as a necessary component of "good government." Moreover, schooling was seen as a means of transferring religion, as well as the happiness of mankind." (Fuller, 1994, pp. 90)
        
        Every school around the nation had to be a Christian and understand their ways and believe in god, and they thought that if you did this you would get a better education.
        
        This doesn't make sense because if you didn't believe in God what were you suppose to do? Even if you are way smarter than the average student you aren't allowed to go to school on that simple reason which is not fair or socially justice at all.
        
        I disbelieve that this should be how things are run and I'm glad we switched, I believe in God but not everybody else has too and thats okay, You should still leave the door open for others thoug so You can have a booming bussiness.
        
        I disagree with this, if a school wanted to start its own beliefs they would have just as much to back them up as a Christian school would.
        
        They want to get to know the school and the neighborhood around it first before they walk in and act like they know everything and try to critique that school.
        
        this makes sense because its basically like studying for a test and you know if they got something wrong while they were trying to tweak there system they would've said "Should've gotten your facts straight first."
      - Its become much easier to teach the kids a science and something physical then just a belief
      - This makes sense because for kids the question "why" comes up a lot when your just trying to tell a kid something but when you can actually show them something through science and hw things actually work then they can get a better understanding.
- - - - I believe that this is the right and only way to look at education. A student is simply only going to learn if he or she cares about the subject. The rest will be forggot after the test is taken
- - - - This didn't just stop at the United States everyone around the world wanted to get in on the action.
      - This makes sense because if it helped out America and was a success you might as well not stop there and keep going to the rest of the world.
      - This makes sense because if you want to not only improve as an individual but as a company and get yourself out there the ore the better.
    - - These tests wanted to compare each-other around the world and try to see where they can improve on.
        
        The tests not only wanted to improve but it rated the school and showed what their weaknesses were and how to fix those weaknesses.
    - - In other words, they just made it up. “We assert that these are the skills people need to have,” they seem to be saying, “and we assert that schools should be held accountable for how well students learn these skills.” (Labaree, 2014,5).
        
        They want to see what skills they learned in school and what skills they already had before they stepped foot into the classroom.
        
        I agree that this system will work because you can not only get a rate of how that school is doing in teaching their students but you also get a feel for the neighborhood and what that can be like, whether its rough or peaceful.
        
        This makes sense because you get to compare what they already knew walking into the classroom and what else they learned and they leave the classroom.
        
        I feel like I understood this the most out of everything in the article because it just makes the most sense in the fact that you are literally testing what you knew before and how much you know after if any.
  - - - Everyone started to like thee tests and realized how use-full they truly were.
        
        I agree with this because you have to test your product to see how useful it is before you put it in every school in the country or world.
    - - Bush liked the idea of improving our educational system so he did what he thought was going to do the best job of that.
      - This makes sense because obviously a president is going to do what only he thinks is gong to help the country and not only that make himself look like a better president.
    - - This doesn't make sense because I feel like if you truly are making the schools better by this test then you should be making the kids smarter too as the program develops and then those kids are smarter and get good jobs and make the world a better place.
        
        I disagree with this because your only doing this to improve the school, which means your eventually trying to improve the kids knowledge. Yes it might take money to get to get that point but sometimes you have to spend money to get more of it.
      - I believe if the test gets better the students and the school will too which will help America dramatically for those who want a good education and want a good life.
      - I feel like this would improve not only America but the world because if everyone is going to take it then the same situation will appear for every country which is that the students should be smarter
- - - - They want to see if they can still remember what they need to know to get a good high school education
      - This doesn't make sense to me because of coarse they will forget most things and only remember what is important to them.
      - I don't believe that this will make the system or tests better because you aren't really testing schools knowledge you just testing that individuals memory which could be misleading.
      - This surprised me because I didn't think they would test veterans for a high school test.
    - - I AGREE that younger adults will certainly remember more than the elderly but still not remember everything that was taught to them.
    - - They started testing adults to se if they still remember what they learned in high school, and applying it to everyday life like they were told they would.
      - Again I don't believe this will work because of the same reason as testing the elderly, your just testing their memory and not the high school or whatever school your trying to test.