Education is like...

Education is truly like climbing a staircase. When a student first begins school, they are at the very bottom of the staircase. As the student begins to progress through school, their education increases. As their education increases, we can think of them as taking a step in the staircase. Steps closer to the bottom of the staircase can be consider "foundational". As teachers, we always try to get our students to use previous steps as a foundation, but tell them to NEVER stop climbing. Students can move forward and backwards on the staircase, however it's up to teachers to build the student's knowledge and push them further up the staircase. We, as educators, should never allow the students to settle at a certain stair.

For example, when teaching math, its great to see a student do simple problems such as 5+4=9, but how about pushing them to the next level and trying something more challenging. A child should never be satisfied being at a certain stair. We should encourage our children to push themselves and climb the staircase of education.

As students progress into higher grade levels, they should be closer to the top of the staircase. In some cases, teachers will have students who regress down the stairs. In various cases, teachers will have students who can't make it to the next level. However, it's our job to provide the encouragement, support, and knowledge to get that child back up the stairs and to the next level. This staircase is infinite, and ultimately educators should NEVER let their students stop climbing. Just when you think you've learned it all, there's always another stair to climb.

Overall, the staircase is symbolic of a child's education. The top of the staircase represents higher education, the bottom of the staircase represents little to no education. As educators, we constantly want to build upon our students' knowledge and get them higher up on the staircase. We are the ones who allow them to further themselves. It's a process that involves climbing and pushing the limits. Teachers and students should never want to settle, because there is always another level to be reached.

This course opened my eyes to a lot of topics in education. I would say the three topics that stuck out to me the most were UDL, bilingual education and place-based education. UDL is something I never knew about until I entered this course. I think it is wonderful that schools are trying to become inclusive. At the same time, I'm apprehensive about it. I never thought about teaching special education students, and I'm scared that I won't be effective for them. Therefore, being aware of what's going on and knowing that having special education students in my classroom is possible, I'm becoming more mindful of how to suit them.

In addition, before this course, I never realized how much debate their was about bilingual education. It seems like educators are uncertain on how to best suit bilingual students. After hearing about immersion programs, and how it holds a "sink or swim" philosophy, I know I will advocate for anything BUT that in my school system. I don't think its appropriate that we ask the student to drop their native language, and learn English. I'm in favor of a two-way program where they are allowed to use their native language, and English. I wouldn't want to undermine a student's culture by having them ditch their native language all together.

Lastly, place-based education had a serious impact on me. Until that topic, I never realized how our planet was functioning. It's almost as if some of the people on this earth, have NO concern for the planet at all. I will be the first to admit that I was ignorant to things going on around us. However, as I became aware of how much damage we are doing to this planet, I will be the first to educate my students on how important it is to preserve the planet. I want them to gain an appreciation for nature, before I ask them to save nature. If I can allow my students to love the planet, I know they will fight to save the planet. Therefore, I would like the opportunity to take learning outside of the classroom and allow them to experience nature firsthand.

From my blog, I learned a lot about myself and what I valued. As I had to write about certain topics, and then share my opinion, I became aware to what I truly valued. It was important for me to identify certain values so I know what I will and won't incorporate into my classroom. In addition, it allowed me to gain knowledge into certain topics that I will be able to comment on in the future. From my classmates, I learned how differing opinions could yield to more knowledge. As I read the different responses of my classmates, I became mindful to a variety of opinions. They pointed something out that I didn't know or didn't think about. They ultimately showed me how beneficial it can be to communicate with other teachers later on. What works for one teacher, may also work for me but I will never know unless I consult him or her.

How Can Teachers Prevent Gender Inequality in the Classroom?

A person's sex is a biologically determined factor. However, a person's "gender" is a social construction. Statements such as "Tom is so confident, he will make a great leader" and "Courtney is so caring she will work so well with children" can be considered gender stereotypes. Gender stereotypes exist in a variety of social institutions and public schools are no exception. The problem with statements such as these, is that it leaves an impression on a child of what they can and can not do. Should girls be made to feel like they need to stay home and take care of kids? And should boys feel that if they aren't strong they will be looked as a "sissy"? Absolutely not, however sometimes teacher are not consciously aware of the stereotypes they are creating. Unknowingly, teachers are treating boys and girls differently and establishing things they are capable and incapable of doing. To combat gender inequality, there are a few things teachers can do to ensure girls and boys are treated alike.

DEVELOP GENDER NEUTRAL LANGUAGE:
Unknowingly, teachers seem to favor the use of "he" and "him" when presenting examples, instead of "she" and "her". Does the teacher do this purposely? No. However, a teacher needs to alternate between male and female examples. All learning material needs to be scrutinized to ensure there is gender equality. If examples contain all males, this can lead to a type of thinking that males are dominate because they are always the ones presented doing various activities. It seems like a silly thing, however it can have a serious impact on the minds of children.

USE THE LATEST BOOKS AND MATERIALS:
There are new books/materials that have been conceptualized by the NCERT and other publishers that use positive female and male examples. In past years, textbooks have always made males out to be the doctors, and females to be the nurses. Furthermore, they have made the females out to be the ones who clean, and males the ones who work. Therefore, females have begun to feel that there are some occupations they are NOT meant to do. They develop an attitude that they are inferior to males, and are inhibited from doing various things. We don't want our children to begin questioning if girls can be pilots, bus drivers, or police officers. Also we don't want boys to ask if they can be dancers, nurses, or hair-dressers. Newer textbooks and materials present males and females in positive examples that break down stereotypes.

DO NOT SEAT BOYS AND GIRLS SEPARATELY:
Segregating boys and girls, so that they sit with the same gender is not a good idea. Especially if the teacher plans to hold and create various discussions, this could be detrimental. Girls are often shy, and teachers need to call on them to participate. Boys don't hesitate to participate, and they often spark the discussion. Therefore, incorporating boys and girls together will prevent the girls from remaining silent and letting the boys take the lead. This mixed-gender seating arrangement is meant to make the classroom feel equal. If teachers segregated the sexes, she may focus on one sex more than the other. In addition, you don't want create a tone in the classroom that boys are "different" than girls. Both girls and boys needed to be looked at and treated alike.

GIVE EQUAL ENCOURAGEMENT ABOUT EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES, ETC:
More often than not, society views that males should play sports and girls shouldn't. However, there is no law that says what girls can do and what boys can do. This attitude has been created by society, and it can easily be torn down. A boy shouldn't feel like a "wimp" or "sissy" if they want to participate in theater. Also, a girl shouldn't be seen as "masculine" or a "tom-boy" because she likes to play various sports. Teachers need to be mindful of their students interests and they need to be encouraging. If a boy expresses they want to draw and paint, there is no reason a teacher should act negatively. In addition, if a girl is interested and loves football there should be a great amount of encouragement. Teachers need to be unbiased when it comes to their students interests. They need to encourage them to follow their passions regardless of what society deems as masculine and feminine. The same goes for careers. If a boy decides he wants to become a dancer, there should be no hesitation from the teacher to encourage that.

In my opinion, I think gender inequality is a huge issue in schools. I believe our society has developed a cruel attitude towards genders. I really hate the terms "tom-boy", "wimp", "sissy", "baby" etc. I truly believe our stereotypical ways come from society's way of life in the 1930's to 1960's. In that time period, RARELY did women work. Women were meant to stay home, clean, cook and take care of the kids. Men needed to work to make a living, and they were known to be more educated. However, we are in a completely different generation today. There shouldn't be any restrictions, barriers, or stereotypes of what each gender can do. This time period is completely different. Biologically, we have different body parts, etc. That doesn't mean men can't do "feminine" things, and girls can't do "masculine" things. We need to STOP creating stereotypes for our children. Females shouldn't be made to feel inferior, just as men shouldn't feel superior. Teachers need to start treating their students as equals. I remember in my 5th grade classroom, my teacher would always call on boys to help her lift things or bring things upstairs. That just shows that she portrayed the girls in the classroom as weak and incapable. There is no reason she couldn't have chosen a girl. In the 5th grade, boys aren't insanely strong and muscular, they aren't even fully developed. Little things, such as this, is what creates various gender stereotypes.

Furthermore, I STRONGLY disagree with uni-sex schools and classrooms. Women need to work alongside men and gain the confidence. If we segregate males and females for education, we aren't preparing students for the real world. I think this type of schooling would further the gender stereotypes rather than reduce them. Men need to be able to recognize the abilities of women, just as much as women need to realize they can work alongside men. If women are segregated into one classroom, then what happens to their confidence when they need to work with men? They may be confident and strong in front of other women, but would this carry over when working with men? The same goes for men, would they be so confident and used to working strictly with men, that anything a women says is irrelevant? Segregation of the sexes is not the answer, we can't run away from the problem to solve it.

Gender Equality in the Classroom

Gender Inequalities in the Classroom

Place-Based Education and it's Benefits

What is Place-Based Education? 
Place-Based Education is an approach to education that immerses students in their communities/surroundings for the study of math, language arts, social studies, science and more. In other words, this type of education encourages teachers to get students out of the classroom and into their communities to learn. This type of education fosters student's connections to various places and makes "the wall between school and the community become much more permeable".

The Benefits of Place-Based Education:
Some may ask, why turn to this type of education? Why not keep the kids in the classroom and stick to a textbook? Is it really necessary to have the kids go out into the community to learn? To answer these types of questions, let's look at the benefits of place-based education.

(1) Place-Based Education Energizes Teachers: 
A second grade teacher in Hanover, New Hampshire took a year long program on how to use place-based education. Through her experience, she gained confidence in her leadership skills. In addition she was inspired and energized to use the 32 acre-forest behind the school as a learning ground for her students. The teacher has become inspired by place-based education and has encouraged other teachers in her school to turn to this practice. Currently, her school has re-arranged their curriculum to use the forest as the ground for learning. This type of education gave her the push to strive for change and continue to grow her knowledge as an educator.

(2) Place-Based Education Transforms School Culture:
Dennis C. Haley Elementary School in Roslindale, MA has become a whole new place due to place-based education. Students have utilized the school-yard and a local nature center. Through this, they have created gardens, analyzed insects, studied weather patterns and more. The teachers see the students becoming more motivated and thinking critically. They are truly becoming scientists and observers.  Students and teachers have developed a new passion for learning science. This school has become a top choice for students in the Boston area. The school is beginning to flourish due to place-based education.

(3) Place-Based Education Helps Students Learn:
Through research, students in place-based education seem to be outperforming their non-place-based peers. In other words, those who have been exposed to place-based education are consistently out-performing peers who have NOT been exposed to place-based education. Students that have been exposed to place-based education have become increasingly engaged and enthusiastic about learning. As place-based education exposes them to more experiences and more places, they are becoming enthusiastic for the material they are learning. There is a correlation between place-based education and academic achievement.

(4) Place-Based Education Connects Schools and Communities:
This type of education allows students to go out into the community and explore. By doing this, students are becoming active members in the community. Therefore, the wall between school and the community is broken down. Students bring up issues to community leaders that have been ignored. Therefore, students are helping make the community a better place.

(5) Place-Based Education Encourages Students to become Environmental Stewards: 
Allowing the students to go outdoors and explore issues in their local environments, makes them more environmentally aware. By doing research and studying various environmental issues, students become more mindful of the environment. In today's society, we are deeply involved in consumerism. We are destroying the Earth and using all of our natural resources. Therefore, this type of education can produce the change that this planet needs. We need people who are aware of the importance of the environment and who will protect it. This type of education allows students to have a deeper understanding of nature and the environment.

(6) Place-Based Education Invites Students to become Active Citizens: 
Young generations are the future of our society and our country. Therefore, it's important to allow children to assert that they are citizens as well. Place-based education allows students to have the opportunity to "share their knowledge, perspectives and insights with regard to important community issues". It is training them to become good citizens in the future, and to voice their opinions and contribute to the greater good of society.

Place-based education allows students to create their own knowledge. Students become more engaged, motivated and begin to think critically. It gets students out of the classroom and exposed to relatable, real-world problems.

The Benefits of Place-Based Education

Place-Based Education

Paulo Freire vs. Montessori

Paulo Freire, has the "Banking Concept of Education". This concept of education emphasizes narration and memorization. The teacher is the narrator, who speaks to the students. The students are the memorizers, who need to retain and repeat the information given. Therefore, the students become "containers" that are "to be filled by the teacher" (Freire 1). In terms of banking, the students are "depositories" and teachers are the "depositors". The teacher "makes deposits" which the student receives, memorizes, and repeats (Freire 1).

The job of the student is nothing more than to receive and fill their depository. The students lack creativity, and become robotic. They are allowed to learn what is given to them verbally. This concept of education insists that the teacher is superior to the student. The students come in knowing "nothing" and the teacher knows "everything" (Freire 2). The teacher is key to the learning process. Without the teacher, the students would be unable to gain an education. The students will never be required to think critically and consider reality.

Overall, this concept of education views the students as "passive". They learn what is presented and given to them. The educator's role, "is to regulate the way the world 'enters into' the students" (Freire 4). They will continuously present information to try to "fill" their students.

Montessori, has a very unique and different approach to education. Maria Montessori, believes that children have an "inner guide" that makes them naturally eager to learn. The teacher, child and environment create a learning triangle. The room is designed to promote independence, "freedom within limits" and a sense of choice. The child, through individual choice, makes use of environment to develop him or herself, with the teacher there as a guide.

The Montessori philosophy also promotes multi-age grouping. This approach allows older students to teach and guide younger students. In addition, the room is designed so that students can move from subject area to subject area. They are not constrained to a desk and they can take as much time as they want with a particular material.

Overall, in the Montessori philosophy, the child works at their own optimum level. The child is given the freedom to make their own choices regarding their learning. The teacher is always there to guide and to assist, "their purpose is to stimulate the child's enthusiasm for learning and to guide it, without interfering with the child's natural desire to teach themselves and become independent". The child takes learning into their own hands by manipulating what is given to them.

The Montessori and Paulo Freire philosophies are very different. Montessori would strongly reject Freire's banking concept. Freire sees the child as passive in the learning process, they retain what is narrated to them. However, Montessori disagrees with this. She sees children as very active in their learning process. They have an "inner guide" to learn, and with this natural eagerness, they will manipulate their environment in ways to encourage learning. Freire puts a lot of emphasis on the teacher. "The teacher knows everything and the student knows nothing" (Freire 2). However, Montessori believes that teachers are just guides in the learning process. Their job is to stimulate the enthusiasm to learn and to guide it. Overall, their main difference is based on their philosophy about how learning happens. Freire thinks children are containers that are filled with information narrated to them. Montessori views children as active and naturally eager to learn. She doesn't see the teacher as the crucial component to learning.

I personally agree with Montessori over Freire. I don't like how Freire makes students seem so robotic and lethargic. I don't believe Freire gives students enough credit. He puts too much emphasis on the teacher and not enough faith in the students to learn by themselves. I can't imagine how boring and demeaning this philosophy is for students. I envision students drooping in their seats, bored out of their minds, just starring at the teacher in front of them. Montessori allows students the freedom to make choices and learn for themselves. She has faith in the idea that they have a natural eagerness to learn. She wants to make them independent and prepare them to function in society. Freire makes students dependent on the teacher, as they are the source of all information. Freire doesn't allow students to think for themselves or make decisions. Montessori is more student-centered. The environment is created to facilitate learning and provide as much assistant to the students as possible. I like to believe that students don't NEED me to learn. They can use me as a guide, but I am not the source of all their information. I want them to feel that they can be independent and learn without my voice. I couldn't imagine just viewing them as containers that I am "filling" with information.

Introduction to Montessori

What is Montessori Style?

Teaching Montessori

 freire_the_banking_concept_of_education.pdf 

My Educational Philosophy

After reading and learning about educational philosophies, I wondered, what is my philosophy? In trying to find the answer, I took a quiz about educational philosophies. The point of this quiz was to allow me to see which philosophy I rated most highly in. It turns out, as no surprise to me, I rate most highly in the HUMANISM philosophy of education.

This was NO surprise to me, because as I researched and read about educational philosophies, I connected most with the humanism philosophy. I don't view my students as "information processors", they aren't computers and I could never compare them to one. In addition, I don't see my students as lab rats whose behavior can be shaped by rewards and punishment. Instead, I see my students as having the potential to become the best they can.

As I was reading about humanism in my textbook, I came across a quote I really liked. The quote is, "...young children should be taught with kindness and gentleness. Children are to be nurtured, not scolded or abused". I believe that EVERYONE is inherently good. No one is born with inherent thoughts to hurt or harm, that comes from their environment. Any "bad" qualities a student may have, are most certainly learned through experience.  Therefore, a teacher's job is to create a nourishing and encouraging environment to emphasize and bring out the good of the students.

What I value the most is that, "there is a natural tendency for people to learn". All a teacher needs to do is BELIEVE in the students. I truly believe a person is biologically programmed with the desire to learn. However, a student will only learn if a teacher provides a nourishing, caring and supportive environment. There is an unlimited amount of potential for students, it's up to the teacher to create an environment that will support and guide that potential. Student's can't learn on their own, if they could, a teacher wouldn't be needed. It's important to recognize that student's have the desire to learn, and it's the environment a teacher creates that is ESSENTIAL to their learning.

In the future, I will do my best to create a fear-free, encouraging environment for my students. A student's emotional well-being is critical in terms of their learning. I believe students will do their best in a safe, caring environment. Each of my students has an unlimited amount of potential, and I promise to strive to get them to reach their full potential. I will eliminate any bias I may have towards my students, because I know they can grow and change. My classroom will be a judgment-free zone, that will allow the students to feel comfortable. I truly believe that I can bring out the good in my students, by showing them how much I care for them. This philosophy really touches upon all my values I hold as a future teacher. I would recommend anyone to take the self-assessment quiz to learn about their philosophy as a teacher.

What is Mainstreaming and Should Schools Do It?

"Mainstreaming" is a term that was coined in the 1970s. It describes the practice of educating students with disabilities and non-disabled peers in the same classroom. The purpose of mainstreaming is to make classrooms inclusive. However, should schools implement this practice? This is a hotly debated topic. There are proponents that argue for this and many who argue against it. Therefore, I want to look at the advantages and disadvantages of this practice and offer my personal opinion.

To begin, one advantage for special needs children is that this offers them the opportunity to be in a more natural environment. As a student with disabilities, they are often segregated and alienated into a room by themselves. Mainstreaming would allow them to be in a more natural environment with peers surrounding them. This practice prepares them for the "real world", when they are expected to function alongside non-disabled peers. This proves to them they can function and perform alongside their non-disabled peers. This also encourages children with disabilities to learn certain life-skills especially those involving socialization. It encourages them to socialize and participate in activities with their peers. In addition, mainstreaming allows children with disabilities to excel academically by presenting challenges. These challenges no matter how big or small, allow a student to advance. Also, expectations in traditional classrooms are higher than self-involved classrooms and therefore students may achieve greater success when held to higher standards. In addition, research has shown that when students with disabilities are incorporated in a mainstream classroom they often exhibit higher self-esteem. The students no longer see themselves as "separate" or "different". They see themselves as one of their peers and it makes them feel like they aren't any different.

However, there are some that see potential drawbacks and disadvantages to mainstreaming. One concern is that the special education students that are mainstreamed are unlikely to receive the specialized services they need. Many fear that children will not get the one-on-one attention they need.  In addition, some are arguing that mainstreaming is just a way for schools to save money by downsizing special education services. They see that schools are doing this as a budgetary measure and not whats for the best interest of the students. Also, many are concerned with the "appropriateness" of the education children with special needs may receive. Many teachers have little to no training in special education and may place unrealistic demands on special needs children. The advocates against inclusion are fearful that teachers don't have the proper training, resources or other supports necessary to teach students with disabilities. The biggest concern that anti-mainsteaming advocates have is that the disabled children will be disruptive and hinder the learning of their non-disabled peers. In addition, a lot of concerns are centered around hearing-impaired students. Many advocates argue that mainstreaming will cause a significant communication barrier for deaf children and this will lead to lower self-esteem and isolation for these students. Lastly, anti-mainstreaming advocates point out that teachers are being constrained by curricula and syllabi more and more. They fear that the inflexibility of the curriculum won't allow them to accommodate for students with disabilities.

In my opinion, I'm not an advocate for "full inclusion". I think students with disabilities need time to receive specialized services to help them. Therefore, I think students with disabilities should spend a good portion of the day in the mainstream classroom and in a "specialized" classroom. I am most fearful that teachers won't have the proper training and that special needs students will get lost in the classroom. I fear that all the teacher's attention will be given to the special needs students and those who are struggling won't receive the proper help. I think this can then lead to hostility towards the special needs students, as students become aware that all the teacher's time is spent with those students. I love the philosophy of "mainstreaming" and "inclusion". I think its wonderful to not treat students with disabilities any different. However, at this point in time I don't think this is practical. I still would like to see more research conducted to prove that this is a good idea. I wouldn't want to implement "full inclusion" and then 30 years from now have people advocating for special education classes again. I really do want to give students with disabilities an equal chance and an equal education. However, I also want to make sure this is the best thing for every student. I'm concerned for both the students with disabilities and their non-disabled peers. Therefore, I recommend we, as future educators, take baby steps. I think we should incorporate students with disabilities into the mainstream classroom for half the day before totally submerging them in this.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Mainstreaming in the Classroom

Mainstreaming Special Education in the Classroom

Concerns About and Arguments Against Inclusion

How Should Schools Approach Bilingual Education?

Until reading about bilingual education, I never realized how much contraversy revolved around the topic. It seems that educators are divided on what is the best way to serve students, and there is a lot of debate over bilingual education. Proponents of bilingual education emphasize that it's useful to teach children in their native language, and it has a lot of benefits. It helps children to stay connected with their heritage, and some also believe its helps the child better succeed when learning English. Bilingual education opponents on the other hand, argue that having the child taught in their native language hinders the child's development of the English language. There are various approaches used when a student's primary language is NOT English. However, which way is best? I want to examine the various ways, and then provide my opinion on what I think bilingual education should be like.

One way schools approach students whose primary language is NOT English, is through immersion programs. Immersion programs, in my opinion, have a "sink or swim" philosophy. There are different types of immersion programs, however these programs are most focused upon developing English language proficiency through direct contact with the language. These programs are meant to immerse students in the American way of life, starting with the language. In this type of program, all students are taught as if they have the same cultural background and values. A lot of educators believe that by constantly exposing the students to English, they will assimilate to the culture and language much faster. Overall, in these programs students are expected to learn English as best as they can with very few resources provided.

Another way schools approach bilingual education is through transitional programs. Transitional programs teach some subjects to the student in their native language, and gradually switch the language of instruction to English after a few years. There are two types of transitional programs, early transition and late transition programs. Early transition, teaches students in their native language in kindergarten and first grade, and then the transition to English comes in the second and third grade. Late transition programs, lengthen the instruction in their native language until elementary and doesn't start the transition to English until late elementary school, early middle school. Some studies prove that a late transition program has better results than an early transition program. However, most importantly transitional programs prove that students who are being taught in their native language, are not delayed in their acquisition of English as people argue. Students taught in their native language are able to perform at the level of English proficient students or better.

Lastly, schools may approach bilingual education using the paired bilingual education, or the two-way bilingual education. These programs are very similar and alternate teaching using the student's native language and English at different times of the day. In other words, instructions are given in the student's native language and in English at different times during the day. The only difference between the paired bilingual program and the two-way program, is that the two way program also teaches a second language to native English speakers.  These are ultimately the most popular types of programs, and when implemented correctly that are extremely successful.

In my opinion, I favor the transitional program the most. However, I am not against the paired bilingual and two-way bilingual programs. I definitely oppose the immersion program. I think immersion programs are very degrading and can lower the self-esteem of an English language learner. I think this type of program is very conforming, and doesn't allow the student to hold on to their original heritage. If a student isn't able to keep up or understand, then they will lose motivation. I couldn't imagine having a test handed to me in English and have no idea what it is asking. I think these programs treat the students as if they have the same values and are from the same backgrounds, and thats certainly not the case. What I liked about the transition, the paired bilingual, and the two-way programs is that they allow the student to hold onto their original language and heritage. These programs don't force the students to conform to English and forget everything else. I think these programs allow children to have higher-self esteem. If they are given a test in their native language, and can do well, it proves to them they have the capacity to understand the material. It's not like the immersion programs, where they receive a test in English and believe they can't grasp the concepts and lose all motivation. I think these types of programs allow the children to see that their struggles are because of the language barrier, and not due to their capacity to learn. Overall, bilingual education is a highly debated topic. After doing some research, it has help me define my stance in the issue. I hope this post educates fellow aspiring teachers on the different approaches to bilingual education.

Controversy Over Bilingual Education Programs

English Immersion Programs

Transitional Programs

Paired Bilingual Programs

Two Way Bilingual Education

Does Poverty Affect Classroom Engagement?

There are a lot of things that can distract a child and not allow them to be engaged in learning. You would think maybe the child has a disability, maybe the child's parents are fighting, maybe the child didn't get enough sleep. However, is poverty and living in poor conditions a reason that children aren't as engaged in the classroom? When researching this question, it seems that their are 7 differences displayed by children living in poverty compared to children living in more comfortable situations. These 7 differences explain why children living in poverty aren't as engaged in the classroom as others. I've decided to research this question because I work with a lot of children that come from poor living situations. The kids always tell me they think they are "dumb" or "not as smart as their friends". Over time, I've begun to wonder is the individual to blame or is it their living situations that are causing them to perform poorly.

To begin, one main difference between a child living in poverty and a child living in a comfortable household is their health and nutrition. A child that is in poverty may not be able to be seen by a doctor. Therefore, children may not get proper diagnoses or medications. The article explained that health problems (such as ear infections), can affect attention, reasoning and learning. In addition, a proper nutrition is vital to a child's performance in school. Children living in poverty may experience poor nutrition. They may not receive necessary vitamins and minerals, or they may not be able to eat at all. This makes it much harder for a child to listen, concentrate and learn.

In addition, another difference between a child living in poverty and a child living in a comfortable setting is their vocabulary. The article makes an interesting point that children living in poverty are not exposed to as many words than those in middle and upper class families. The article provided statistics saying that children in low-income families are exposed to 13 million words by age 4, those in middle-class families are exposed to 26 million words by age 4, and those in upper-class families are exposed to 46 million words by age 4. Therefore, as you can see a child in poverty may not know a lot of the words a teacher uses in the classroom. When a child isn't familiar with words, they don't want to read, they tune out and often think school is not for them. Also, they shy away from participation because they don't want to be mocked by their peers.

Furthermore, another difference is the child's effort. Those who are living in comfortable situations seem to exhibit more effort in the classroom than those who are living in poverty. However, this isn't because the child is lazy. It is because poverty has caused a lack of hope and optimism in the child. Poverty is known to cause depressive symptoms in children. Teachers may think the child is lazy and unengaged, when in reality they are giving up because they have no hope for themselves.

Continuing on, another main difference is the child's hope and growth mind-set. Research shows, that a child living in poverty sees the future as containing more negative things than positive. These children hold lower expectations of future outcomes compared to children in comfortable living situations. If children think failure is likely in the future, they won't bother to try in school. Therefore, their mind-set affects their learning greatly.

Another main difference is cognition. A child in poverty often performs lower on tests of intelligence and academic achievement than their peers. A child in low-income families often have cognitive problems, such as short attention span, high distractibility, etc. A child that struggles cognitively is likely to act out or shut down. Therefore, when the child acts out or shuts down their education suffers.

The second to last difference is relationships. A child in poverty is likely to experience disruptive home relationships than those children living in a more comfortable situation. Children that live in poverty may receive more reprimands than positive comments, if their caregivers are stressed they are less likely to get their child a positive comment. Therefore, children in poverty see that adults at home have failed them, so they believe that adults at school will also fail them. A child living in poverty is more likely to act out in class because of the instability of home and they don't have appropriate social-emotional responses.

Lastly, another main difference is distress. Children living in poverty experience greater amounts of chronic stress. Stress affects brain development, academic achievement, and social competence. Stressed children will exhibit two behaviors, an angry assertiveness, or a passive "leave me alone". In other words, the child may exhibit anger or may appear disconnected. Either behavior, aggressive or passive, is detrimental to the child's education. Those who are angry are more likely to talk back, get sent to the principal's office and more which takes away from their learning time. Those who want to be left alone, are often disconnected and not even paying attention.

As you can see, poverty leads to so many aspects that affects a child's learning. Initially someone may hear "poverty" and assume it's just about having little to no money. However, as you can see poverty leads to poor nutrition and health, poor relationships, lack of hope, lack of effort and more. More often than not, I think teachers may think the child is lazy and doesn't want to participate or they are acting out to be a "brat". However, as you can see this isn't the case at all. Those who are living in poverty are suffering in various aspects of their lives. It's not that they are lazy, it's that they are dealing with so much at home and it's being reflected in the classroom. This article was fascinating to me because it really analyzes what poverty leads to and how that then affects the child. For example, I would've never made the connection that poverty leads to poor vocabulary and that's why a child may shy away from participating. I think this article is important for all educators to read. It explains why those who come from poor economic backgrounds are not engaged. Teachers need to stop accusing a child of being a brat, a pest, an instigator, etc and needs to start looking at factors that are causing them to act this way.

How Poverty Affects Classroom Engagement

With So Many Job Possibilities, Why Become a Teacher?

With so many job possibilities, why would one consider becoming a teacher? What is so appealing about the profession? What does the job entail? Why would it be so satisfying? In researching this question, I came across an article that had 21 reasons to become a teacher. The article opened with a quote presented by a Harvard professor, Rosabeth Moss Kanter. She suggests that, "the happiest people among us are those solving the toughest problems and 'making a difference' in people's lives". A teacher does both, they encounter difficult problems and they most certainly make a difference.

Among the reasons listed in the article to become a teacher are, "to encourage children to dream big", "to positively impact the future of our world", "to live with a deep sense of purpose", "to be the one caring adult in a child's life", "to give and receive unconditional love", "to give back", "to experience the joy of working with kids everyday", "to help the underdog" and more.

In analyzing these reasons, what is better than encouraging a child to dream big? This could only lead to greater success for future generations and a self-fulfilling feeling on your part. Continuing on, those who are afraid for our future, concerned about future generations, and want a say on where our world is going, teaching is for you. Being a teacher allows you to have some control over the future. If you can instill values that you treasure in your students, then they will bring those values into the future. People must be mindful that the students in school now, are the future of our country. Do you want to sit back and complain about the future of our society? Or do you want to act and make a change? If you want to make a change, become a teacher. Furthermore, teachers live with a deep sense of purpose. They don't need to ask "why is my job so important?", they already acknowledge and can see it. If it wasn't for teachers, our society would fall apart. No one would be able to receive an education to sustain themselves. Teachers have a purpose to wake up everyday, they must go and educate younger generations. In addition, many people in the world today had to become independent at a very early age. More often than not, kids are being born into this world without a caring adult around. To become a teacher, means you could become the one person that cares about a child. These children will admire you, and will never forget how you took the time to show how special they truly are.

Reflecting upon this article, the article truly shows the different benefits of teaching. Its a helping profession, that allows you to make a difference everyday. I think the article really captures how meaningful it is to be a teacher. Teaching is much more than the curriculum, the lesson plans, the worksheets. You're a role model, an inspiration, a guide, and most importantly a life-changer. The profession is so rewarding, and this article conveys the various rewards. I believe as a teacher, you can never look back at what you did and be unhappy. Even if you changed the life of one child, you accomplished a great deal. Overall, become a teacher to change a life, encourage a child, be a role model, and look back with absolute satisfaction.

21 Reasons To Quit Your Job and Become A Teacher

Get to Know Me!

Hi Everyone,

My name is Nicole, I'm currently studying at Salem State University with the dream of becoming an elementary teacher. Initially, I began college with the intent to become a nurse. I knew I always wanted to help others, especially children. However, as I progressed I couldn't ignore my passion for kids, and my passion to teach. I came to the realization I didn't want to help sick children, I wanted to help children get an education. My love for the school atmosphere is undeniable. My pride and love for learning is something I want to convey and pass on. The thought of having a classroom of my own to decorate and personalize makes me ecstatic. Truly, I want to make children love school and learning as much as I do. Besides teaching, I also have a passion for playing soccer, running, spending time with my family, and trying new things. Last year, I ran my first half marathon in honors of Children's Hospital Boston, and I plan to run it again this year. When I'm not playing soccer, I'm a coach to all the kids in my town. I have experience coaching from kindergarten, all the way up to U-15.  I'm up to any challenge and love venturing out. I can't wait to endure this journey of becoming a teacher!

http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/addressing-different-learning-styles
Here's a link that explains how to teach to children with different learning styles. I know myself, that I am a tactile learner, and like to learn things hands-on. I thought this link was very useful, but no two children may be the same. It helps you organize your units so you have components that'll be helpful for all sorts of learners.