Response to "Unemployment Training"

This article really struck home to me. At first when I was reading this article I got really angry and then the more I read, I saw truth in it. It really angered me at first, because I am a product of an Urban school system, and I do not see myself like that. I like to believe that I have a good work ethic and I will find a job and keep it.  But this article made me doubt that based on the education I have had. Maybe I am an exception to students who went to urban schools, because I don't believe that I have those ideologies about work and school. Does that make my friends exceptions to the article, too, seeing as my friends and acquaintances don't have those ideologies either and they also grew up in East Hartford?

One of the things I noticed about the schools in the article was that the teachers and the school systems seem to have no or very low expectations of students in urban settings. I believe that is one of the problems in urban school systems and especially in this article. Teachers just do what they have to do to get the students through the school system. But if you believe in the students and try and teach them work ethics, students might do better, they might even rise above the teacher's expectations. Under the showing up section, they talk about rewarding inaction and uninvolvement, but why not expect more than just attendance? Under the 'make me' section, it says that students believe the staff and faculty run everything, but why not give the students some autonomy and let them make some decisions? Maybe students would care more if they had a reason to care. 

In the section "noncooperation", the author discusses how schools do not try to improve communication among students. But I have seen peer-mediation groups be successful in urban schools. Also during my student teaching, they were using a program called "Second Step" which had a variety of student problems that might arise, and had examples that the students could act out. I used it when a problem arose in my class and it actually worked. It provided students an outlet, and they were able to express how they were feeling. It did work to solve problems. 

One paragraph said, "Urban schools accept the notion that their job is to make students learn, not simply to do everything possible to encourage them to learn." Why are urban schools not encouraging students to learn? I have a lot of unanswered questions after reading this article and I feel really frustrated. 

Where is science?

So I am still not sure what to write in this blog, if it is my feelings and/or reflection or responding to the reading. For this blog, I have decided to write what I am feeling in terms of teaching science now. Science has never been my strong point for me. But after student teaching, I realized how much I do like it (even if I need to get better at it). I student taught in 5th grade in East Hartford, where not much science was being taught. Actually, they were starting a new science program that year, but none of the 5th grade teachers had actually started teaching the new program, let alone open the boxes. I took it upon myself to start the program in my class (and open the boxes!) and began teaching science to 5th graders. I realized how important science is, how little my students knew about science and how eager my students were to learn science. The students were so interested in science and it made me think that even if science is not taught regularly, it is the kind of thing that can be taught at any point in the classroom. Those kids and their enthusiasm for science when I taught it was part of the reason I wanted to take this class. Science is so vital and every child needs to learn science. 

Now I am in a kindergarten classroom in Mansfield, and science is not being taught at all. It frustrates me to see this in a district that is suburban when I thought it was just an urban problem. Where exactly is science being taught? I want to learn more about science so I can include it in any class that I am in.