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