Thursday, February 24, 2011
HTML
I'll have to admit I have zero experience with HTML language. When I build a website, I use a visual basic program so that I can avoid using HTML. However, I'd be interested in learning about any potential uses for HTML that can benefit me in teaching in my content area.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Creative Commons
An English garden is such a beautiful site! As a gardener, this is the standard that I aspire to reach. I love the way one plant blends into the next and that there's more garden than lawn! Each year, my garden beds change just a bit, giving me something new to experience each season. The photo with this post is courtesy of Creative Commons and Rodney Burton. What a great way to share information!
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Legal Concerns
Lately my concerns about teaching center around dealing two very different topics: IEPs and the rapidly changing state of the educational systems in our state and country.
Specifically, I worry about how a general education teacher has the ability to effectively teach to his/her general ed students while keeping in mind all the issues of those students who have IEPs. Since these are legal documents, the educational goals outlined in them MUST be followed or legal ramifications may follow. I also wonder how IEP compliance effects the educational goals of non-IEP students. I think that my main fear is that I won't be able to effectively teach to both groups of students at the same time.
On the issue of our state and federal education systems, I am very concerned about the changing standards/laws regarding teacher compensation, achievement/experience and tenure. It seems hard enough to understand the myriad conditions that currently exist throughout our country, but trying to understand the implications of the things that are being proposed such as merit pay and state bills that limit unions is difficult for me.
Specifically, I worry about how a general education teacher has the ability to effectively teach to his/her general ed students while keeping in mind all the issues of those students who have IEPs. Since these are legal documents, the educational goals outlined in them MUST be followed or legal ramifications may follow. I also wonder how IEP compliance effects the educational goals of non-IEP students. I think that my main fear is that I won't be able to effectively teach to both groups of students at the same time.
On the issue of our state and federal education systems, I am very concerned about the changing standards/laws regarding teacher compensation, achievement/experience and tenure. It seems hard enough to understand the myriad conditions that currently exist throughout our country, but trying to understand the implications of the things that are being proposed such as merit pay and state bills that limit unions is difficult for me.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Court Case Review
Citation: Tinker v Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969)
Topic: constitutional rights of students in U.S. public schools
Issue: The issue involves the question of whether or not the school’s disciplinary actions violated students’ First Amendment rights.
Facts: In December 1965, Mary Beth Tinker (13), her brother John (15) and their friend Christopher Eckhardt (16) wore black armbands to their schools (respectively, their middle and high schools) in protest of the Vietnam War in an effort to support the Christmas Truce called for by Senator Robert F. Kennedy. School officials adopted a policy against armbands. The students chose to violate the policy and were suspended until early January 1966. The ICLU and eventually the ACLU approached the children’s families and eventually the case made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Findings: The Court reached a 7-2 majority in favor of the students. Justice Abe Fortas wrote in the majority opinion that students and teachers cannot be expected to “shed their constitutional rights to freedom or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”
Rationale: Justice Fortas and the judges of the majority based their opinion on the statement above and the Fifth Circuit Court’s Burnside v Byars decision which states that public school officials may not prohibit students’ expression unless it “materially and substantially interferes” with the educational requirements and/or environment of the school. Justice Fortas also noted that the school acted to avoid the controversy involved in an unpopular political statement but felt that to do so successfully, a school and its officials must have a goal higher than simply wanting to avoid controversy of unpopular statements and the behavior must interfere with the operation of the school. Since the Tinkers and Eckhardt did not cause a disruption, their right to expression was upheld as constitutionally protected speech/expression.
Implications: The implications of the case have resulted in the ‘Tinker Test,’ which uses the case’s material disruption doctrine as a test against student expression or speech. Interestingly though, at least three subsequent First Amendment cases that have cited Tinker have favored school authorities even if they did not violate the material disruption doctrine. These three cases are briefly:
o Bethel School District No 403 v Fraser (1986): Public school officials suspended a student for giving a speech laced with sexual innuendo at an assembly. The Court ruled in favor of the school due to its fundamental function of inculcating values in students.
o Hazelwood School District x Kuhlmeier (1998): Public school authorities censored two articles in the student newspaper - one concerning teen pregnancy and another the effects of divorce on children. The Court ruled in favor of the school due to its legitimate pedagogical concerns in relation to school-sponsored student expression.
o Morse v Frederick (2007): Public school authorities suspended a student for displaying a banner at an extracurricular event that read "Bong Hits 4 Jesus." The Court ruled in the school's favor determining there is no First Amendment protection for pro-drug student expression.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Brown, Steven M., and Howard J. Bultinck. "From Black Armbands to Bong Hits for Jesus: The 40th Anniversary of Tinker." Phi Delta Kappan 90.10 (2009): 737. MasterFILE Premier. EBSCO. Web. 2 Feb. 2011.
Pike, Kenneth R. "Locating the Mislaid Gate: Revitalizing Tinker by Repairing Judicial Overgeneralizations of Technologically Enabled Student Speech." Brigham Young University Law Review 2008.3 (2008): 971. MasterFILE Premier. EBSCO. Web. 2 Feb. 2011.
Trager, Duffy B. "New Tricks for Old Dogs: The Tinker Standard Applied to Cyber-Bullying." Journal of Law & Education 38.3 (2009): 553-561. Education Research Complete. EBSCO. Web. 2 Feb. 2011.
Zirkel, Perry A. "The Rocket's Red Glare: The Largely Errant and Deflected Flight of Tinker." Journal of Law & Education 38.4 (2009): 593-602. Education Research Complete. EBSCO. Web. 2 Feb. 2011.
Raskin, Jamin B. "Student Speech The Enduring Greatness of Tinker." Human Rights: Journal of the Section of Individual Rights & Responsibilities 35.3 (2008): 24. MasterFILE Premier. EBSCO. Web. 2 Feb. 2011.
Topic: constitutional rights of students in U.S. public schools
Issue: The issue involves the question of whether or not the school’s disciplinary actions violated students’ First Amendment rights.
Facts: In December 1965, Mary Beth Tinker (13), her brother John (15) and their friend Christopher Eckhardt (16) wore black armbands to their schools (respectively, their middle and high schools) in protest of the Vietnam War in an effort to support the Christmas Truce called for by Senator Robert F. Kennedy. School officials adopted a policy against armbands. The students chose to violate the policy and were suspended until early January 1966. The ICLU and eventually the ACLU approached the children’s families and eventually the case made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Findings: The Court reached a 7-2 majority in favor of the students. Justice Abe Fortas wrote in the majority opinion that students and teachers cannot be expected to “shed their constitutional rights to freedom or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”
Rationale: Justice Fortas and the judges of the majority based their opinion on the statement above and the Fifth Circuit Court’s Burnside v Byars decision which states that public school officials may not prohibit students’ expression unless it “materially and substantially interferes” with the educational requirements and/or environment of the school. Justice Fortas also noted that the school acted to avoid the controversy involved in an unpopular political statement but felt that to do so successfully, a school and its officials must have a goal higher than simply wanting to avoid controversy of unpopular statements and the behavior must interfere with the operation of the school. Since the Tinkers and Eckhardt did not cause a disruption, their right to expression was upheld as constitutionally protected speech/expression.
Implications: The implications of the case have resulted in the ‘Tinker Test,’ which uses the case’s material disruption doctrine as a test against student expression or speech. Interestingly though, at least three subsequent First Amendment cases that have cited Tinker have favored school authorities even if they did not violate the material disruption doctrine. These three cases are briefly:
o Bethel School District No 403 v Fraser (1986): Public school officials suspended a student for giving a speech laced with sexual innuendo at an assembly. The Court ruled in favor of the school due to its fundamental function of inculcating values in students.
o Hazelwood School District x Kuhlmeier (1998): Public school authorities censored two articles in the student newspaper - one concerning teen pregnancy and another the effects of divorce on children. The Court ruled in favor of the school due to its legitimate pedagogical concerns in relation to school-sponsored student expression.
o Morse v Frederick (2007): Public school authorities suspended a student for displaying a banner at an extracurricular event that read "Bong Hits 4 Jesus." The Court ruled in the school's favor determining there is no First Amendment protection for pro-drug student expression.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Brown, Steven M., and Howard J. Bultinck. "From Black Armbands to Bong Hits for Jesus: The 40th Anniversary of Tinker." Phi Delta Kappan 90.10 (2009): 737. MasterFILE Premier. EBSCO. Web. 2 Feb. 2011.
Pike, Kenneth R. "Locating the Mislaid Gate: Revitalizing Tinker by Repairing Judicial Overgeneralizations of Technologically Enabled Student Speech." Brigham Young University Law Review 2008.3 (2008): 971. MasterFILE Premier. EBSCO. Web. 2 Feb. 2011.
Trager, Duffy B. "New Tricks for Old Dogs: The Tinker Standard Applied to Cyber-Bullying." Journal of Law & Education 38.3 (2009): 553-561. Education Research Complete. EBSCO. Web. 2 Feb. 2011.
Zirkel, Perry A. "The Rocket's Red Glare: The Largely Errant and Deflected Flight of Tinker." Journal of Law & Education 38.4 (2009): 593-602. Education Research Complete. EBSCO. Web. 2 Feb. 2011.
Raskin, Jamin B. "Student Speech The Enduring Greatness of Tinker." Human Rights: Journal of the Section of Individual Rights & Responsibilities 35.3 (2008): 24. MasterFILE Premier. EBSCO. Web. 2 Feb. 2011.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
What Makes a Good Presentation?
Overall, I feel a good presentation must, first and foremost, inform its audience. A successful presentation may also entertain while it informs. Hopefully, too, this entertaining conveyance of information also holds the audience's attention. That being said, I think that the actual mechanics of accomplishing these very subjective things will depend on the presenter, the subject matter and the audience. Just as with our writing, we must keep in mind our voice, our subject matter and our intended audience when we make a presentation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)