What first attracted me to writing this last class blog on this particular topic is that my mother was the daughter of migrant farm workers in Arkansas, and my father picked cotton on the family farm from the time he could walk [yes, literally] until he left home at age 18. He told me once that my grandfather had him get up and pick cotton all day in the hot sun when he'd gone out with his friends and drank whiskey at age 16 the night before. Dad drove home in the family car, but he did not rememer driving home. When my grandfather saw the state of his car and my filthly slumbering dad, he had Dad and his brothers clean up the car, then hit the fields. My father never drank another drop of whiskey. He did pick a lot more cotton!
In addition, I teach in a very rural area. At times, I've asked students where they were the day before and gotten a "Balin' hey," reply. We actually have "Drive your tractor to school day" and "Ride your horse to school day" out here in the sticks for certain school pride weeks. Also, I grew up in Texas; I left at the age of 22 to move to Tennessee. So, you can see how this course link subject hit "close to home" as it were.
I was, quite frankly, appalled by the video on the course link entitled "Hidden Problems of Child Farm Workers" under this blog. I watched a little girl working in an onion field in Texas who had the flu and could hardly talk. Her whole family was working on the farm at the time. I saw a 17 year old young woman who had dropped out of school because she was having to work so much on the farm that she did not have any time to study.
I read and read and seemed unable to stop reading. Having just taken a 19th century French literature course last semester, child labor in coal mines and factories during that time is not something that was new to me. However, the fact that young children are not protected under child labor laws when working on the family farm or on a farm where their parents work [in this day & age!] astounds me. Yeah, I know, I read . . . I understand that there are laws in place that protect kids from hazardous materials, tractors, and other dangers of the farm up to a certain age (see the link posted below for more on this). And, I am grateful for the protection NCLB gives even homeless children in that they are supposed to be educated by law in this country. But, I feel sure that abuses do still occur, espeically when children's parents work on a farm and need the extra money that their children's wages can supply just to suvive--i.e., pay the rent and eat.
That said, I know I have had numerous kids in class whose jobs help feed their families. Sure, their jobs are not always on the family farm, but they feel great loyalty to thier families, especially to single parents, grandparents, and younger siblings who are struggling just to have enough to eat. School attendance and homework truly pale in light of big issues like having your electricity cut off , being evicted, or buying groceries.
My students are high school aged. It makes me sad to see some of them with such large responsiblilities at their ages, but children carrying that sort of load is just maddening. There is no way for children to get off the migrant farm and into a safe job without completing their education. It seems to me that without Congress changing these laws, this country is allowing children to be abused by the system. If a parent left their child in the sun all day for 10 hours until they were sunburned while they had the flu, it would be considered child abuse. Why is this ok if it happens on the family farm or on a farm where a parent works?
The link provided below gives a very succint overview of child labor laws as it advocates for children. Check it out:
http://www.stopchildlabor.org/USchildlabor/fact1.htm
Signing out,
GC
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Blog #4 Multiculturalism/Centrist Curriculum
Hello friends,
In my last post, I believe I advocated for a "centrist curriculum" without knowing what the heck I was doing. It just fit; it felt right. As stated in my Blog #3, I believe that although we are one nation, we are a multiculutral nation. This is a country that was shaped by many people; therefore, it belongs to all of them, to every race and creed imaginable. And, we should not only acknowledge contributions to American society other than European contributions, we should celebrate them, along with the heritage that Europe has given this nation. Including one does not negate the other! How absurd and funny a thought, in my opinion.
The readings that go along with this blog did not change my attitude about multicultural education one bit; I just learned the name forwhat I believe is the best approach: "centrist curriculum." It is not only the subjects of history and literature that need to include the contributions and works of non European cultures; it is every subject matter taught in public schools from math to music and everything in between the two.
I believe strongly in clearly delineated common standards, scope, and sequence for each grade level in elementary school and in clearly delineated common standards, scope, and sequence for leveled subject areas in secondary education. Certain concepts and skills need to be mastered at every educational level no mater what the student's ethnic or cultural origins. In my district, we are spending many professional development days working on just that.
Acceptance and tolerance of others with bliefs and traditions different than one's own need to be taught at every step along the way as a natural part of the education process. However, I love the idea from the readings about being sure to let students form their beliefs and opinions, and I love the idea of having students present contributions of cultures different than what they conceive as their own familiar ethnic culture to the subject matter being studied.
For example, in French, when we study food, music, politics, or holidays, students can research and present francophone contributions to the world from all over the world, not just Europe, but the Carribean, Africa, Vietnam, etc. When we study linguistics, students can research the Germanic, Greek, and Roman influences on French. There are strong German roots in the community where I teach. I have many students whose grandmothers have very thick German accents. I have students taking French whose first language is Spanish and whose ancesors come from Cuba but migrated from the Basque region between Spain and France to Cuba. Even in studying what appears to be one culture, one language, many cultures may be brought into study and celebration for their contributions to both francophone and American cultures because, in my opinion, there is a centrist culture.
We all live and work together in one big cosmopolitan nation. As to social control, I work in a district that is very diligent in trying to serve all of its students equally without giving "control" to one social or economic group. Our school board works hard at serving all of our students a "heapin' helpin'" of quality education without undue control except to make sure national, state, and district standards and scope and sequence are well organized and followed in all schools.
The link below outlines steps to a very centrist approach, although I don't think they knew that's what they were doing anymore than I did!
http://www.edchange.org/multicultural/curriculum/steps.html
Signing off for now,
GC
In my last post, I believe I advocated for a "centrist curriculum" without knowing what the heck I was doing. It just fit; it felt right. As stated in my Blog #3, I believe that although we are one nation, we are a multiculutral nation. This is a country that was shaped by many people; therefore, it belongs to all of them, to every race and creed imaginable. And, we should not only acknowledge contributions to American society other than European contributions, we should celebrate them, along with the heritage that Europe has given this nation. Including one does not negate the other! How absurd and funny a thought, in my opinion.
The readings that go along with this blog did not change my attitude about multicultural education one bit; I just learned the name forwhat I believe is the best approach: "centrist curriculum." It is not only the subjects of history and literature that need to include the contributions and works of non European cultures; it is every subject matter taught in public schools from math to music and everything in between the two.
I believe strongly in clearly delineated common standards, scope, and sequence for each grade level in elementary school and in clearly delineated common standards, scope, and sequence for leveled subject areas in secondary education. Certain concepts and skills need to be mastered at every educational level no mater what the student's ethnic or cultural origins. In my district, we are spending many professional development days working on just that.
Acceptance and tolerance of others with bliefs and traditions different than one's own need to be taught at every step along the way as a natural part of the education process. However, I love the idea from the readings about being sure to let students form their beliefs and opinions, and I love the idea of having students present contributions of cultures different than what they conceive as their own familiar ethnic culture to the subject matter being studied.
For example, in French, when we study food, music, politics, or holidays, students can research and present francophone contributions to the world from all over the world, not just Europe, but the Carribean, Africa, Vietnam, etc. When we study linguistics, students can research the Germanic, Greek, and Roman influences on French. There are strong German roots in the community where I teach. I have many students whose grandmothers have very thick German accents. I have students taking French whose first language is Spanish and whose ancesors come from Cuba but migrated from the Basque region between Spain and France to Cuba. Even in studying what appears to be one culture, one language, many cultures may be brought into study and celebration for their contributions to both francophone and American cultures because, in my opinion, there is a centrist culture.
We all live and work together in one big cosmopolitan nation. As to social control, I work in a district that is very diligent in trying to serve all of its students equally without giving "control" to one social or economic group. Our school board works hard at serving all of our students a "heapin' helpin'" of quality education without undue control except to make sure national, state, and district standards and scope and sequence are well organized and followed in all schools.
The link below outlines steps to a very centrist approach, although I don't think they knew that's what they were doing anymore than I did!
http://www.edchange.org/multicultural/curriculum/steps.html
Signing off for now,
GC
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Blog Entry #3 re: Multiculuralism/Pithissippi
After reading about assimilation, multiculturalism, and cultural pluralism, my head feels like it is spinning. Nevertheless, I will try to organize my thoughts around all of what I have read with emphasis on the web sites given by Dr. Y for this blog entry.
First, with regard to "The Challenge of 'Multiculturalism' In How Americans View the Past and the Future" by Samuel Taylor, I think that Taylor makes a very important point by the end of his paper when he says that many of the youth of the United States know who Harriet Tubman was and what she did when they cannot always tell someone who Winston Churchill was or what he had to do with the U.S. However, the fact remains that Churchill did not live in the U. S., and Harriet Tubman did. Does that mean that Churchill is not important in our country's history? Of course Churchill is important, but how many children know who Louis XVI was?
The name and roman numerals might give away the fact that Louis was a French king, but would students know or remember that without him the American Revolution might not have happened for lack of funding? I highly doubt it. For someone like me who knows that part of my ancestry is French, the fact that a huge part of the debt imposed on the French people of his day was due to his monetary donations to our American revolution is important. Since I know that part of my ancestry is English, the fact that Winston Churchill was Prime Minister of England, our ally in World War II is worth remembering. If my ancestors had been slaves, you can bet I would remember Harriet Tubman's accomplishments far more readily than I would remember George Washington's military prowess. If I were of Japanese American decent, I would never forget reading about Japanese internment camps in this country.
The P. J. Tobia post entitled "Pithissippi Burning: Race, White Nationalism and American Culture," that gives comments regarding the H. A. Covington novel entitled The Brigade and the posts regarding the Tobia post SCARE me. Yes, I meant those capital letters. This makes me even more grateful than I already was for freedom of the press in this country because some of what is written is, again, QUITE SCARY. I'm grateful people are writing their hate before acting on it. At least we can say we have been forewarned and take precautions. When Tobia uses the term "train wreck," it brings tears to my eyes because as Abraham Lincoln said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." Jesus Christ said that "No man can serve two masters." I hate to think of the United States of America as a "train wreck" not united "divided against itself." Neither skin color nor ethnic origins have anything to do with being an American in my opinion.
Lastly, I must briefly comment on "Why Multiculturalism is Wrong." Simply put, multiculturalism cannot be wrong, in my opinion. I do agree with the author that we cannot be limited to the definition of culture as only nation states being valid cultures. There are, truly, more cultures in this world than I could possibly count. My immediate family has its own culture that does not blend well with my brother's family for very long, but we are tolerant of each other's views.
Similarly, there are several familial and ethnic cultures in the classes I teach and in the school where I teach. There are prejudices; there is racial hatred; there is hatred of anyone who is not heterosexual by a large part of the student population. I address these issues and advocate tolerance and acceptance of those who are different than ourselves. My friend Maria, whom I call the Harriet Tubman of Cuba, has worked hard to bring many relatives to this country; and to my knowledge, she has been successful in petitioning for at least four of her relatives to come here and obtain freedom. She just called me, always a DELIGHT!
Maria gave me permission to relate this story in this blog. In a few days, 4 more members of her family for whom she has tirelessly filled out paperwork will meet with U.S. government officials in Cuba to try to gain access to these shores. For doing this, the Cuban government, according to Maria, will no longer allow this mother, father, son, and daughter to have gainful employment in Cuba. In addition, the government will confiscate their home; they will be homeless. I have seen my beautiful teacher friend hold her head up high while hearing racial slurs slung at her in the hallways at school by some students who want no culture represented at their school but their own. Yet, she is one of the most American Americans I know, and I am so proud to know her, to call her not just "colleague," but "friend." She is so American, she shames me. And, I have to ask myself if I would be willing to give up gainful employment and shelter for the slim hope of becoming an American . . . Is this family of four hopefuls more American than I am?
This country is a country made up of immigrants from all over the world. Its history belongs to all of them since before we were a country. Its history belongs to Native Americans, Chinese Americans, Japanese Americans, European Americans, Mexican Americans, Cuban Americans, unborn Americans, and Americans yet to come to these shores. Well, you get the idea. Yes, we are all one nation, and we are multicultural. It is important to teach our entire history, not the history of one culture over another. Our country's story has not always been pretty. It has sometimes been a very bloody "train wreck" of a story, but raw and ugly as it sometimes is, it is also the beautiful words on the Statue of Liberty which say, " . . . Send me these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" This is a nation with the history of an open door that no other nation has. We are one nation; we are multicultural! Can I get an AMEN? I hope so!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Liberty#Inscription
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/REV/LOUISXVI.HTM
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1726.html
First, with regard to "The Challenge of 'Multiculturalism' In How Americans View the Past and the Future" by Samuel Taylor, I think that Taylor makes a very important point by the end of his paper when he says that many of the youth of the United States know who Harriet Tubman was and what she did when they cannot always tell someone who Winston Churchill was or what he had to do with the U.S. However, the fact remains that Churchill did not live in the U. S., and Harriet Tubman did. Does that mean that Churchill is not important in our country's history? Of course Churchill is important, but how many children know who Louis XVI was?
The name and roman numerals might give away the fact that Louis was a French king, but would students know or remember that without him the American Revolution might not have happened for lack of funding? I highly doubt it. For someone like me who knows that part of my ancestry is French, the fact that a huge part of the debt imposed on the French people of his day was due to his monetary donations to our American revolution is important. Since I know that part of my ancestry is English, the fact that Winston Churchill was Prime Minister of England, our ally in World War II is worth remembering. If my ancestors had been slaves, you can bet I would remember Harriet Tubman's accomplishments far more readily than I would remember George Washington's military prowess. If I were of Japanese American decent, I would never forget reading about Japanese internment camps in this country.
The P. J. Tobia post entitled "Pithissippi Burning: Race, White Nationalism and American Culture," that gives comments regarding the H. A. Covington novel entitled The Brigade and the posts regarding the Tobia post SCARE me. Yes, I meant those capital letters. This makes me even more grateful than I already was for freedom of the press in this country because some of what is written is, again, QUITE SCARY. I'm grateful people are writing their hate before acting on it. At least we can say we have been forewarned and take precautions. When Tobia uses the term "train wreck," it brings tears to my eyes because as Abraham Lincoln said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." Jesus Christ said that "No man can serve two masters." I hate to think of the United States of America as a "train wreck" not united "divided against itself." Neither skin color nor ethnic origins have anything to do with being an American in my opinion.
Lastly, I must briefly comment on "Why Multiculturalism is Wrong." Simply put, multiculturalism cannot be wrong, in my opinion. I do agree with the author that we cannot be limited to the definition of culture as only nation states being valid cultures. There are, truly, more cultures in this world than I could possibly count. My immediate family has its own culture that does not blend well with my brother's family for very long, but we are tolerant of each other's views.
Similarly, there are several familial and ethnic cultures in the classes I teach and in the school where I teach. There are prejudices; there is racial hatred; there is hatred of anyone who is not heterosexual by a large part of the student population. I address these issues and advocate tolerance and acceptance of those who are different than ourselves. My friend Maria, whom I call the Harriet Tubman of Cuba, has worked hard to bring many relatives to this country; and to my knowledge, she has been successful in petitioning for at least four of her relatives to come here and obtain freedom. She just called me, always a DELIGHT!
Maria gave me permission to relate this story in this blog. In a few days, 4 more members of her family for whom she has tirelessly filled out paperwork will meet with U.S. government officials in Cuba to try to gain access to these shores. For doing this, the Cuban government, according to Maria, will no longer allow this mother, father, son, and daughter to have gainful employment in Cuba. In addition, the government will confiscate their home; they will be homeless. I have seen my beautiful teacher friend hold her head up high while hearing racial slurs slung at her in the hallways at school by some students who want no culture represented at their school but their own. Yet, she is one of the most American Americans I know, and I am so proud to know her, to call her not just "colleague," but "friend." She is so American, she shames me. And, I have to ask myself if I would be willing to give up gainful employment and shelter for the slim hope of becoming an American . . . Is this family of four hopefuls more American than I am?
This country is a country made up of immigrants from all over the world. Its history belongs to all of them since before we were a country. Its history belongs to Native Americans, Chinese Americans, Japanese Americans, European Americans, Mexican Americans, Cuban Americans, unborn Americans, and Americans yet to come to these shores. Well, you get the idea. Yes, we are all one nation, and we are multicultural. It is important to teach our entire history, not the history of one culture over another. Our country's story has not always been pretty. It has sometimes been a very bloody "train wreck" of a story, but raw and ugly as it sometimes is, it is also the beautiful words on the Statue of Liberty which say, " . . . Send me these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" This is a nation with the history of an open door that no other nation has. We are one nation; we are multicultural! Can I get an AMEN? I hope so!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Liberty#Inscription
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/REV/LOUISXVI.HTM
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1726.html
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Blog #2 re: Religion in Schools: The Debate . . . & Library of Congress Artifact
With regard to "Religion in Schools: The Debate Heats Up 2009" and "Library of Congress Artifact," I do not believe that anyone should be made to swear allegiance to the American flag or to any other person or thing at school or at any meeting or event in the United States of America, a republic, a FREE country.
However, I do not see that a moment of silence at the beginning of the school day is teaching religion. Students and adults have the right to do anything that they want to do during this brief moment as long as they are silent. Do I pray? Sometimes, yes. Do my studentsw know whether or not I am praying? No, they do not. One can easily pray with one's eyes wide open, without folding of the hands or other traditional prayer gestures. To pray in front of my students would be for me to teach religion; that is something that, in my opinion, is a parental right/responsibility and one with which neither I nor the government (and school is an extension of the government) have the right to interfere.
Sometimes, during the moment of silence, I am going down my mental "to do" list. At other times, I am thinking about how to clear up some point of confusion for my students regarding the lesson from the day before. My point is that the moment of silence, in my opinion, teaches that people should be reflective; it does not teach religion. And, while it is not the schools' responsibility in a free republic to teach children religion or to teach them exactly what to think, it is the schools' responsibility to teach children to think, and the moment of silence give students and adults time to think about whatever they choose!
With that said, I must address the Texas State Board of Education's debate over whether or not discussing any weaknesses in Darwin's theory of evolution would lead to the teaching of creationism. My opinion is that questioning is one thing we teach in school. Without questioning the agreed upon scientific theories of the day leading to further experimentation, we might not realize today that the world is round instead of flat. Teachers do not need to teach religion, creationism or otherwise in public schools.
However, allowing students to question and experiment is part of what school is all about, or as C. Rogers points out (see link below), experiential learning is about allowing the learner to self-direct, to experience, and to make learning something that brings about "personal growth"; in my mind, the moment of silence and being able to question any theory or exercise one's right to pledge or not to pledge give the learner power over his/her own learning, personal changes, and personal growth.
http://tip.psychology.org/rogers.html
However, I do not see that a moment of silence at the beginning of the school day is teaching religion. Students and adults have the right to do anything that they want to do during this brief moment as long as they are silent. Do I pray? Sometimes, yes. Do my studentsw know whether or not I am praying? No, they do not. One can easily pray with one's eyes wide open, without folding of the hands or other traditional prayer gestures. To pray in front of my students would be for me to teach religion; that is something that, in my opinion, is a parental right/responsibility and one with which neither I nor the government (and school is an extension of the government) have the right to interfere.
Sometimes, during the moment of silence, I am going down my mental "to do" list. At other times, I am thinking about how to clear up some point of confusion for my students regarding the lesson from the day before. My point is that the moment of silence, in my opinion, teaches that people should be reflective; it does not teach religion. And, while it is not the schools' responsibility in a free republic to teach children religion or to teach them exactly what to think, it is the schools' responsibility to teach children to think, and the moment of silence give students and adults time to think about whatever they choose!
With that said, I must address the Texas State Board of Education's debate over whether or not discussing any weaknesses in Darwin's theory of evolution would lead to the teaching of creationism. My opinion is that questioning is one thing we teach in school. Without questioning the agreed upon scientific theories of the day leading to further experimentation, we might not realize today that the world is round instead of flat. Teachers do not need to teach religion, creationism or otherwise in public schools.
However, allowing students to question and experiment is part of what school is all about, or as C. Rogers points out (see link below), experiential learning is about allowing the learner to self-direct, to experience, and to make learning something that brings about "personal growth"; in my mind, the moment of silence and being able to question any theory or exercise one's right to pledge or not to pledge give the learner power over his/her own learning, personal changes, and personal growth.
http://tip.psychology.org/rogers.html
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Blog Entry #1 Innovators & Makers
Ok, teacher triggers/movers & shakers in the world of education, here come my thoughts on the first bit of John Taylor Gatto's book Weapons of Mass Instruction that I've finished, as well as the PBS site on education innovators and Gatto's site with regard to the "real 'makers' of Public School" featuring my personal choices of John Dewey [what school teacher doesn't love the Dewey decimal system? - different Dewey: ah, I digress] as an innovator and Henry Ford as a maker. First, I see the "innovators" as (primarily) good, civic-minded folks who truly want to initiate change for the bettering of schools and youth. On the other hand, "makers" are depicted as power-hungy, money-hungry elitists who want to keep a system of haves and have enough to satisfy and keep compliants (who feed & foster the haves). In other words, the makers like Henry Ford have wanted changes in the American public school system that help to foster the fruition of their own coporate/financial goals, a school system that breeds good factory and assembly line workers who do what they are told when they are told without questioning authority. In addition, makers like Ford are depicted as wanting the school system to teach kids to be consumers of their products. Do I believe there is some truth in this? Well, I doubt that the makers weren't consciously selfish and preying on America's youth, but yes, you bet. Otherwise, why do we not have safe, ecologically sound electric cars by this point in history? Yes, I choose Henry Ford as a maker because I truly believe that industries as big as the automotive & oil industries not only want, but do have a say in how schools are run. If ideals are taught in schools that fuel (pardon the pun, I couldn't resist :-) ) these industries, these industries and their CEOs keep getting richer. If I am speaking too politically and stepping on toes, I apologize. I cannot write about this and be totally apolitical as, in my opinion, the Gatto book is political. School systems are political. I choose John Dewey as an innovator because he believed that "education should be based on the child's psychological and physical development, as well as the world . . . ," and this is a philosophy I buy into wholeheartedly as a teacher.
Gatto is right when he talks about reading being fundamental to education. He mentions that schools have left off teaching reading phonetically. I believe he is right that the best readers are taught using phonetics. Do I also believe in using whole language methodologies? Yes, of course! However, do we throw away the proverbial "baby with the bath water?" No, how truly absurd a thought! Throwing out phonetics as a methodology for teaching reading is, in my opinion, throwing out something fundamental in the baby's makeup. As a teacher of English and foreign lanugage, I see kids who can't read aloud and pronounce the words, kids who can read aloud but don't know what they have read, and kids who can only read silently and absorb what they read. Then, there are the kids who can' hardly read at all & hide the fact through a veil of beligerance. This is sad. To me, this says that we must teach using both phonetics and whole language methodologies. I use this example in teaching to say that some of what the makers want is good. What do I mean by this? Memorization of facts such as multiplication tables and spelling/phonetic rules is not only adviseable but necessary. Without the basics, it is impossible to move on to higher order thinking skills. Kids need to be able to trust their teachers when they are told that memorization of some things is not only adviseable but crucial to their continued wellbeing in American and global society. We use the basics in order to form those higher order skills. For instance, we must use basic mathematic memorized skills in order to know when we are being manipulated by false statistics. We must be individualized and free-thinking enough to speak out when we see manipulation through false advertising/statistics, etc., and WE MUST TEACH OUR YOUTH TO DO SO!
http://eduscapes.com/tap/topic69.htm
Gatto is right when he talks about reading being fundamental to education. He mentions that schools have left off teaching reading phonetically. I believe he is right that the best readers are taught using phonetics. Do I also believe in using whole language methodologies? Yes, of course! However, do we throw away the proverbial "baby with the bath water?" No, how truly absurd a thought! Throwing out phonetics as a methodology for teaching reading is, in my opinion, throwing out something fundamental in the baby's makeup. As a teacher of English and foreign lanugage, I see kids who can't read aloud and pronounce the words, kids who can read aloud but don't know what they have read, and kids who can only read silently and absorb what they read. Then, there are the kids who can' hardly read at all & hide the fact through a veil of beligerance. This is sad. To me, this says that we must teach using both phonetics and whole language methodologies. I use this example in teaching to say that some of what the makers want is good. What do I mean by this? Memorization of facts such as multiplication tables and spelling/phonetic rules is not only adviseable but necessary. Without the basics, it is impossible to move on to higher order thinking skills. Kids need to be able to trust their teachers when they are told that memorization of some things is not only adviseable but crucial to their continued wellbeing in American and global society. We use the basics in order to form those higher order skills. For instance, we must use basic mathematic memorized skills in order to know when we are being manipulated by false statistics. We must be individualized and free-thinking enough to speak out when we see manipulation through false advertising/statistics, etc., and WE MUST TEACH OUR YOUTH TO DO SO!
http://eduscapes.com/tap/topic69.htm
Monday, June 7, 2010
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
