Concluding Post: An Open Letter to my Students

To my students, past, present, and future,

My name is Ashley Wright, and I was, am, or will be, your teacher. What does this mean? Well, superficially, it means that I teach you to play a musical instrument, teach you math, or who knows? Perhaps I will teach you something else. More importantly, though, it means that I am helping to determine who you become as an adult, modeling appropriate behaviors and problem solving skills, and teaching you things like accountability, responsibility, and dedication. These are skills and attributes that will help you throughout your life, and it is these skills that are most important for me to teach you.

You, as one of my students, are anywhere from very young (3 or 4), a teenager and learning how to drive, or an adult, and working to fit learning a new skill into your busy schedule. You might begin learning violin or viola with me, or you might have already taken for several years. Maybe you've gone on, to take lessons at a more advanced level in college. I teach a wide variety of students, but many of you begin lessons with me around ages 7 or 9, and continue for several years. It's wonderful to see the bright eyed enthusiasm when you first begin, and I love working with you through the difficulties around a year of playing, when you don't think you're making the progress you should. You think you're stagnating, but I can see the progress, as you learn how to practice more efficiently, and then you break through that wall and I rejoice with you as your learning takes off again.

In all of my teaching and learning, I have rhythms, and go through cycles. For a time, I may learn a lot about playing piano, so I can better accompany my students, and then I might switch gears and learn a lot, very suddenly, about goats, as one of my animals has some emergency I have to take care of. My teaching goes through similar cycles: sometimes we focus on rhythms, sometimes on intonation, sometimes on musicality, sometimes on improvisation. As we cycle through these different learning experiences, we become more well-rounded than we were before.

My road to begin teaching in this manner has been long and winding, but began when I was very small. It began when I started to learn these things. There have been a number of strong influences on my development as a person, and two big influences were my violin teachers. I began taking violin lessons when I was seven, from Linda Vasey. Linda taught me about working through difficulties and sticking with something. Especially now, as I am a teacher, live in another state from Linda, and have not taken lessons from her for several years, I am learning more from Linda then ever before, as she battles breast cancer. It's that ability to stick to it that I learned so well from Linda, and that I hope you learn from me.

Shortly after I started lessons with Linda, I started playing in the orchestra under Colleen Wheeler, and later took luthier (violin repair) and string pedagogy classes from her. Colleen taught me about accountability and responsibility. That I had a commitment to the group and to my students, and it was my responsibility to follow through on it. Last year, I learned this lesson from her in a very difficult way. I had asked Colleen to come up to Washington (she lives in Oregon) to hear my students play at an event called Junior Festival. We needed judges, and Colleen agreed to judge. Colleen agreed months in advance, but when it came down to it, she backed out, leaving us in the lurch less than two weeks before the event. I couldn't believe that the woman who had taught me so much about accountability and responsibility apparently did not learn her own lessons. In the end, we found another judge, and the event was a success, but Colleen's flip-flopping on me was devastating to our relationship. I could no longer trust her. How could she let my students down in this way? That was not behavior that I had learned from her, or come to expect from her.

Linda and Colleen also taught me about the rhythms and cycles of teaching. I usually had my private lessons with Linda, but sometimes Colleen would take over; if Linda was ill, or had an unexpected rehearsal, or maybe they just thought I would benefit more from Colleen's instruction. We started out mostly in Suzuki (so I started teaching with Suzuki), but in my many years with them, they also had me playing from a variety of other books and sheet music. Our focus would shift and change as time went by, which allowed us to focus on one thing at a time, and really improve it, but over time I became strong in a variety of skills. This made me a more rounded musician. Similarly, when I teach, I, too, focus on one or two skills at a time, but after a few weeks or months, will shift focus, and my students will also become strong in a variety of skills. Hopefully, in more skills than I was strong in.

Another important influence in my life has been my work toward a career in zookeeping. This started in high school, when I started volunteering at the Oregon Zoo, and working with the keepers there. They taught me about the importance of being thorough and careful, but then also about the importance of being efficient. We had a schedule to keep to, after all. I worked hard to become a zookeeper, going to Colorado State University for my undergraduate degree in Zoology. While in college, I volunteered at a raptor rehabilitation center. It was there that I learned how to butcher animals. This may seem unrelated, but I really hate working with dead animals. It took a lot of dedication to get over my dislike, in order to learn the required skill, and I learned how to work past my preferred inclinations. There are a lot of things in life that need doing, that might not be our idea of fun, but we have to figure out how to do them anyway. The raptor center taught me how to do that.

And finally, after graduation, I landed a job here in Washington, working at the Point Defiance Zoo and Aquarium's Wild Wonders Outdoor Theater. I should mention here, that I have one great fear in life: a crippling stage fright. While working in the theater, I was expected to participate in the show production. I loved handling the animals, releasing them and catching them, bringing them out to the stage, and back to their enclosures. But I was also expected to learn one of the speaking parts, and finally the time came when I couldn't put it off any longer: I had to go on stage. When it came time for me to walk on, they had to push me on – I couldn't make myself walk out there. We had audiences from just a few people, to over a thousand. By having to participate in one of the speaking parts of the show, I eventually conquered my fear of public speaking. I still get nervous, my hands shake, and I forget my lines, but I know I can do it, and with enough practice it becomes second nature.

This was an important thing for me to learn about, as a vital part of being a musician is performance. I've never been nervous while playing in a group, but put me on stage by myself, and watch out. However, this allows me to empathize with you, my students. I can tell you about how nervous I get when I perform a solo, and how I work to combat it. I also know, through my experiences, that the best way to work through this fear is by doing it, a lot. I offer you a lot of performance opportunities, so you can get used to your own reactions to being on stage, and learn how to work around it. Sure, a lot of you get nervous, and sometimes there's a less than stellar performance or forgotten parts. But this teaches us to work through our problems, to confront them, and then become better people because of them.

While I do not have a career in zookeeping, working toward it taught me about working hard, striving for a goal, and working through obstacles. These are important things for me to be able to do now, owning my own business, and they will be important things later in my life, as well as later in your life. There are always difficulties and struggles, but if we know how to work through them, we can attain our dreams.

Today, I am just finishing up my latest cycle in my life, and just beginning another. I am mere days away from finishing my Master of Arts in Education from Michigan State University, a process that took much of my time, energy, and attention over the past two years. At the same time, I'm just beginning my next cycle of my life, as I am pregnant with my first child. While I look forward to having more free time to pursue other areas of my life now that I will be done with school, I know those days are short-lived. Soon, my days will revolve around caring for a new life. But I know that with the help of my husband, and with all that I have learned about working through difficulties and sticking to priorities, that we will come out of this cycle of our lives as better people.

Throughout all of these changes, I continue teaching, and continue learning: about my students, my instrument, music, and life. I continue teaching with different rhythms and cycles, and enjoy the variety this offers my students and myself. When I first began teaching, I taught using the Suzuki books. I introduced a couple extra books, here and there, as supplements; books to teaching special skills and techniques, like shifting a double stops. After a few years of this, I started to realize that you could equally benefit from playing “fun” music: music from movies, or pop songs written for violin or viola. We spent a few months one summer, everyone playing their favorite “fun” music, and you learned so much. We had complicated rhythms to work out, difficult key signatures, tricky fingerings, and accidentals galore. A lot of the music you were playing was far more difficult than the music I would have assigned to you. And yet, you were practicing it, and making huge progress as a result. I continue to periodically return to this “fun” music.

About a year ago, I discovered another method book: Strings Fun and Easy. I have had a lot of fun working with this one with you, and I've been starting students in third position for it. This makes a number of problems disappear, at least in the early stages, and helps us focus on music rather than posture. The music is also completely different from anything I had previously taught, includes a wide range of major and minor keys, and styles like jazz, dance, classical, polkas, and fiddle tunes. I can see myself returning to this book in a future cycle of my teaching.

I just recently acquired another method book, this one the Pascale Method. It seems too easy and elementary for most of you, but I am going to try it with an Introduction to Violin Group Class. This new phase of my teaching will get its trial run this summer, and I can't wait to see how things work out. I may end up changing some of the exercises, so that students begin playing in third position, but I would like to try it as published, first.

In the future, I would like to try the O'Connor Method, which is supposed to use American music, as well as a variety of styles. I feel like it would be a good complement to the Suzuki books, which do tend to be a bit narrow. In order to try this method book, and start yet another cycle of my teaching, I simply need to acquire the book and familiarize myself with it.

I tend to go through cycles with my learning, too. Before I began my master's degree, I took piano and guitar lessons for a time. I discontinued them when I went back to school, but I see myself coming back to them in a future cycle. For the time being, once I am done with school, I will begin my next phase of learning, in taking voice lessons. The voice can be a very useful instrument, and I would like to be able to better demonstrate something to you using my voice. Once I feel more confident singing, I may cycle back around to piano, guitar, or bagpipes (another instrument I have taken some lessons on), or I might learn a new instrument. I also might find that I need to focus my time, energy, and attention on learning how to care for an infant, and so might put other cycles of my learning on hold. Whatever the future brings, I know I will continue my cycles of learning, and using the skills my life has taught me, be able to tackle any challenge.

So, to you, my students, I offer this advice: learn as much as you can from every experience that you can. You may think you come to my house only to learn a musical instrument, but there is so much more to every experience. Every encounter you have can teach you about love, happiness, pursuing your dreams, career goals, and all of those essential skills in every life. I hope you learn as much about dedication, accountability, and responsibility, as I learned from my teachers throughout the years. I hope I also teach you how to have fun while you're working hard, and that the rewards of hard work outweigh the costs. These are the most important life lessons I could ever teach you, as everything that is worthwhile in life takes a lot of work. So, don't be afraid to work hard, but also, don't be afraid to be flexible and let your plans change. Life takes us in many directions, and you never know where you'll end up.

Ashley Wright

Cycle 5: What Does a Good School Look Like?

I enjoyed reading about Harlem Children's Zone, however,  more things than just education contribute to poverty.  It's a good indicator, but we do have an entire society designed around a very few people making a LOT of money, some making a bit, and quite a few living under the poverty line.  I think schools could help, but I think more will be needed to really address poverty.

Firing teachers because their students don't perform up to "standards"?  Really?  If that were the case with me, I would have very few students indeed!  And it's not my fault - teachers can't be held THAT accountable if their students just are not applying themselves.  Besides, those standards and standardized tests are rather pointless.  Did they look at any data to determine how accurately a "passing" score on a standardized test correlated to success later in life?  They don't.  My sister is brilliant, perhaps genius level.  She probably aced those standardized tests.  She also failed out of a couple of colleges, is 29 and still living with my parents.  She can barely hold down a job, and has yet to have even a boyfriend.  Is she a success?  Not in my opinion.  I probably did just passable on those same exams, but I'm 27, married, own my own home and my own business, have the farm of my dreams, and am moments away from my Master's.  I've never gotten below a C in a class, or below a B in a class that I actually attended.  Personally, I'd consider myself successful, though I'm always working to improve.  It would be more helpful if, instead of analyzing test scores, they tracked their graduates for the next 10-15 years of life, and rated their success in a number of different areas of life, more than just whether or not they could pass a test, or even how much money they made.  Life, after all, is about more than money.

I really enjoyed reading about Central Park East and its founders.  I think they are on the right track, and have written down their "Habits of Mind" to use with my own children.  Those are the sorts of questions that I began pondering in college, but never before then.  When I was thinking about these things, no matter the class, I felt like I was really learning and stretching my brain.  I also agree with them on the issue of depth versus coverage.  It IS important that students have a breadth of knowledge, but when it comes right down to it, I would rather my students know a lot, and be able to do a lot, with a few different topics of interest, then be taught a little about a ton of topics, none of which they remember or can do anything with.  Granted, when I have my kids, and they're really interested in one thing, we'll learn all about that one thing.  But then we'll learn about things that connect to that one thing, and hopefully that way they'll gain more breadth as well as depth.  For example, if a kid is really interested in trains, we'll learn all about trains.  We'll build model trains, we'll take train rides, but then we'll learn about the history of trains: how they developed, and how they influenced the development of different nations, which could lead to an interest in history.  We'll learn about how different trains work, which will lead to physics, which could lead to an interest in other sciences.  All of knowledge is connected, so even starting with only one interest, we could go very far indeed, just following the connections.  However, it is impossible for anyone to know everything - there's just too much knowledge in the world.  It's been developed by millions of people over hundreds of lifetimes, so expecting every child to know it all is asking the impossible.  But if they can start somewhere, and develop and grow that knowledge, understanding, and skill, then they can take it far.

I LOVE the portfolio requirement for graduation!  Exactly what I think every student should be required to present.  I also love that their "senior division" has more independent study, internships, and students stay as long as they need to in order to finish their degree.  They're preparing them for life after school.  The simple, but more flexible schedule, is also great.  A lot of times, science labs take more than 40 minutes to complete, so having the option of 2 hours, all on science, is awesome.  And this allows for discussion about what they learned, questions they have, concerns, issues that develop, how this relates to their lives, and on and on.  This is the valuable discussion that there's never time for in a standard public school, but is so important, and this school has made it possible.

Even making decisions on curriculum and content as an entire school is better, and allows more freedom, than having these decisions handed down from policy makers and politicians.  While I would prefer to see teachers have complete freedom, I recognize that a certain amount of continuity is important, too, so this practice of making decisions as a school would provide that.  However, since it's the teachers themselves making these decisions, they are more meaningful and authentic than the ones that your average public school contends with.

I also like that they call in outside experts so often: to help them deal with issues like racism, as well as to decide if the diploma candidates have what it takes to make it in life.  And yet, they're able to do all of this on the same amount of money, per student, that a normal high school does.  Awesome.  Seems to me, they're eliminating a lot of the management and support staff, having the teachers fill several roles.  With a small school and small class sizes, they're actually able to handle the extra duties.

And they let these faculty discussions be learning experiences for the kids!  That, too, is great.  It teaches them effective conflict resolution skills, which are so important, especially since it sounds like their kids would be more inclined to use more injurious methods.

Eisner, for me, hit it home by saying, "If we are going to use proxies that have predictive validity, we need proxies that predict performances that matter outside the context of school. The function of schooling is not to enable students to do better in school. The function of schooling is to enable students to do better in life." (p 329).  So true.  I feel that the portfolios that students in CPESS are required to present fill this role, of predicting performance outside of school.  It would be very interesting to see a study tracking CPESS's graduates and their success rates in a variety of contexts, too.

It's very true that I still obsess too much over what grade I will be getting.  I should be focusing on what I am learning (though thankfully, I'm doing more of that than I used to), but the bottom line of my grade is still there.  I hope, that by homeschooling my kids, I can help them have a better learning orientation than I have - a focus on the process and learning rather than a focus on a superficial grade.

I really appreciate the list of questions he proposes, that we should be asking about our schools.  He does more than say that our schools have a problem - he suggests part of a solution for it.  I found myself mentally answering his questions about my own teaching, and revising how I go about some of it.

Noddings' writing about the aims of education made me realize just how important aims are.  Not being a traditional school teacher, I've always written off much of the jargon of objectives, aims, and standards.  I never felt like they did anything for me as a student, and have never used them in my teaching.  However, after reading Nel's work, I realized that not only have aims not been discussed in decades, but that I really am continually thinking about my own aims in my teaching.  My aim is to help my students become competent violinists (or violists or cellists) who know how to analyze pieces and their own playing, so they no longer need a teacher, but are effective practicers and performers.  Not only that, but I also want to help them enjoy their music, and learn to live life as worthwhile human beings.  Having articulated that, now I can evaluate how my teaching helps me accomplish this or not.

So, what should a good school look like?  To me, a good school should resemble CPESS and Dewey's Laboratory Schools, in that it is individualized and flexible, seeks always to bridge the gap between society and the child, and has authentic learning and assessment.  How we go about creating this kind of school is a different matter.  Schools like CPESS seem to work well, but there are likely many more models that would also work just as well.  One example is a Montessori school, which was developed separately but seems to incorporate the same ideas.  This Huffington Post article highlights a lot of what we have been talking about, while bringing Montessori into the picture.  I know that I will be taking this knowledge with me as I begin the adventure of homeschooling my children, in effect, creating our own little school.

Cycle 4: How Should Curriculum Be Created?

Let me start off by saying that I firmly believe that each individual teacher should have complete and total control of the curriculum they teach.  I really liked learning about teachers as "curriculum gatekeepers" last cycle, and I think this is how it should be.  Having said that, I know that this cycle is supposed to be from a wider angle, focusing on the nation as a whole.  I do know that students do move, as I have gained and lost several over the years to moves, so for this reason I can see the need for a greater level of consistency throughout the nation.  However, where our country and public education is currently at - with national standards that are so very specific, and standardized tests, takes this consistency too far.

Perhaps, it is only because of my perspective in the education field that I have these views.  As a private violin teacher, I hold all of my students to basic standards - posture, intonation, rhythm, and theory.  There are established ways you play a stringed instrument, and that is the way it is done.  The wrist must be straight, not only for proper playing, but to prevent carpal tunnel and tendinitis.  Established notes, what western music is based around, must be mastered.  Rhythms, again, what western music is based upon, must also be mastered and played correctly.  The ways that music fits together, what signs and symbols mean, must all be learned.  When you think about it, there is quite a lot that I have to teach.  However, beyond that, I have absolutely no restrictions at all.  I am self employed, so have no bosses telling me to teach in a certain way.  I can use whatever methods, music, or techniques I want.  I can set up my studio in a way that works for me and my students, and I can choose what style I want to teach (classical, fiddle, rock, jazz, etc).  Since I also teach one student at a time, I am also able to tailor each lesson to the specific student, rather than forcing an entire class to learn the same thing.  Indeed, I am always looking for new ways to teach, and find myself going through cycles of how I teach, which helps to keep me fresh, and provide a more well-rounded education for my students.

All of that explained, I believe that should be the way that all of education is handled.  There should be some set standards that all students reach, nationwide, to help give students consistency as they go from teacher to teacher, school to school, or even across the country in moves.  However, beyond these basic set standards, teachers should have the authority to dictate how they will teach.  We need to trust our professionals to do their jobs.  When I hire a technician to fix my hot water heater, I don't try to tell him how to do his job.  Similarly, I do not feel it is our place to tell teachers how to do theirs.

But, these basic set standards, how are they to be decided?  Certainly not like they are by the State Board of Education in Texas.  While reading this article, I found several objections to how they do things.  First of all, the members of the board were otherwise completely unrelated to education or children.  What place do a dentist, a Christian activist, law professor, and an insurance salesman have deciding what our nation's children (or even just their state's children) should know?  And while educators carefully wrote out the document, the board went through and changed it to the point where the writers felt they had weakened a once strong document.  The board has the authority to add things as well as remove things, making the hard work the teachers put into drafting the standards null.  Further, I strongly feel that the TEKS are just too specific.  Dictating that all children should learn about Thurgood Marshall, Billy Graham, Newt Gingrich, William F Buckley Jr, and Hillary Rodham Clinton, but not Bill Martin Jr. or Edward Kennedy.  Being this specific does not allow individual teachers the ability to follow their own interests or strengths, let alone their students'.

While knowing how NOT to do things can be very powerful and informative, it is not enough.  How should we do things?  I found the Ralph Tyler reading to be an interesting set of ideas on curriculum construction, however, I objected to his criticism of specialists determining what students should know.  His argument was that these specialists were assuming that all students would go on to further study their fields, so expected too much of every day students.  He argued for a more general education, without assuming that students would continue on to specialize in a field.  I would rather assume that every child will specialize in every subject than assume that none of them will specialize in any of them.  Because then you are left without any specialists, which is what I think makes our society function.  Kids never know what they will do when they grow up.  I always knew, and here I find myself in a completely different field than I "knew" I would be in my entire childhood!

Rather, deciding on set subjects every child should have a working knowledge of (history, English, science, and math are the current "core" subjects and a great starting point), then deciding what each child should be able to know and do in each, seems to be the way to go.  However, unlike current standards, which are very specific, I think they should be much more general.  For example, rather than having standards at each grade level, having standards for graduation I think is sufficient.  And these standards, I believe, should be things that every person should be able to do, rather than overly specific.  For example, for history and English, students could be required to be able to write a persuasive or informative essay or paper on the causes and effects of a particular event (their choice) in history.  That way, students can follow their interests, and choose whether to learn about the civil war, American revolution, the civil rights movement, World War I or II, or anything else.  But they would be learning how events are related and how to find these connections, which I think is more important than memorizing what some one has determined are the 6 causes of the Revolutionary War.  Standards that are this general will be worked on throughout the school years, as all teachers will have their minds partially on them, and if students were to keep portfolios of their work throughout their years, rather than take tests, they could better show their mastery of these basic standards.

For my resources, I thought I would include curricula from the homeschooling standpoint, as it is more relevant to me, and with the way our education system is set up, I find those resources to be less than helpful.  However, I found the same problems with the various homeschool curricula.  They mostly seemed to be public school at home, with the same busy work and design to meet standards.  However, this research was informative - it brought home the point that I will need to develop my children's curricula myself, based on their needs and interests, as I had originally planned to do.  As a teacher, I don't feel at all intimidated about teaching my own children.

The one exception to the homeschool curricula that are public schools at home, that I found, was the Robinson Curriculum.  However, this had such a high degree of religious references that I would not feel comfortable using it.  In addition, it completely de-emphasized the role of the parent as teacher, as it is a self-education program.  I can see the value in it, but I also feel that an important part of education is interaction with a teacher.  Perhaps this comes from my bias as a private teacher, but one of my problems with public education is the limited interaction students get with their teachers.  I would hardly want to worsen what I see as a problem.

Other homeschool curriculum websites I explored included the Rainbow Resource Center, the Calvert School, Pearson Homeschool, Time4Learning, and Core Curriculum.  I think the curriculum I was happiest with was actually the Khan Academy, which I explored after watching the TED talk.  When my children and I run into problems learning something, we'll definitely be checking out Khan Academy, and it's been bookmarked on my browser.

A great resource that I've been using as I've been learning about homeschooling here in Washington State is WHO: Washington Homeschool Organization.  They have all the legalities (which, in my opinion, are minimal), as well as homeschoolers' rights.  Such as, there are no curriculum requirements, no lesson plans that have to be declared, and while annual assessments are required, the only people that need ever see those are the person proctoring the assessment and the family.  The only way I'll have to provide those to the school district is if I later decide to enroll one of my children in the public school.  I love that I will have complete freedom and ability to tailor my children's education to their needs and interests.  Other websites that summarize the ins and outs of homeschooling in Washington state include Barb Shelton's website and the OSPI website, though neither of these is as informative as WHO.

Cycle 3 - Should the Curriculum Address Controversial Issues?

While childhood is a special time, it is by no means pure and innocent, even with young children.  Many young children have older siblings, and from my own experience, older siblings do not always care how innocent or pure a younger sibling is.  In any case, even young children come into every classroom with countless questions, many of which their teacher probably does not want to address.  But, as teachers, it is our responsibility to address especially these questions, as these not only teach our children how to be tolerant and accepting, but also teach our children how to grapple with difficult issues.

As teachers, we have a responsibility to children to teach them about these difficult, controversial issues.  Teaching young children about homosexuality and giving it validation reduces bullying later in school years, as well as tells homosexual children that they are okay just the way they are.  Perhaps, if homosexuality education had occurred early in the lives of children we learned about who had committed suicide, they would still be alive today.

Because of the ramifications of homophobia on youth today, homosexuality is a controversial issue, and it will be until appropriate measures are taken in education. If we can begin teaching young children, with books like Heather Has Two Mommies, and getting them talking about their thoughts and feelings early, perhaps in ten or twenty years, homosexuality will not be a controversial issue. If everyone is committed to opening the doors of communication and teaching all children to treat all people with respect, then one day, teenagers will not be committing suicide because they're bullied for being gay.

According to the reading on AIDS we had, kids want more information about HIV and AIDS, and the best way to get them that reliably is to educate them in the schools.  However, even with education, it was shown that behaviors don't change.  Now, personally, I'm not sure what to do about this, as I was always a good kid.  I received a moderate education in AIDS and STD's, I suppose, but I was also pretty clueless, and just didn't date.  Not being in the public schools, or having kids of my own, I don't really have anything to compare our reading to.  I do know that my children will learn about sex from an early age, as we live on a farm, and STD/AIDS/HIV education will have to be part of that.  I do think that meaningful conversation is an important part of such education, and that was something that I never got in schools.  We had the lecture, watched a movie, and probably had a reading from a textbook, but conversations were not part of the equation.  Perhaps that is the missing ingredient that will help lead to behavioral changes in at-risk youth and individuals.

Here in Washington State, school districts have two options about AIDS education.  They can either use the state's KNOW curriculum, or another curriculum that has been reviewed by the state.  While the KNOW curriculum has a document for 5th and 6th grade (here) but nothing younger, it does state in that document that in grades K-3rd, children should be taught to avoid needles found on the playground or elsewhere and to not touch others' blood.  They're also supposed to be told that HIV and AIDS is a very serious disease that affects some adults and teenagers, but that young children rarely get it.  They also don't have to worry about playing with kids whose parents have it, or those few children that have it themselves.  This is good, but I think the two should be connected - children should be told not to touch other peoples' blood because HIV is transmitted through blood, but that's why it's okay to play with kids whose parents have HIV - it can't be spread by coughing or touching, like a cold can be.

Again, I don't have any experience teaching these topics to my students, and students don't exactly walk in to their lessons and ask about AIDS. However, I know my own children will, and I've always felt that every question of every child deserves, if not an outright answer, at very least a response. I may not have all the answers, but I can certainly help my children to find the answers, and we can discuss them together as a family, about what they mean. I am also grateful that I have homosexual friends, so my children can learn from an early age that families come in all sorts of packages.

Another topic that I believe falls into the category of controversial is religious education in public schools.  Now, obviously, private schools can do what they like on religion, and many parents choose to send their children to Catholic or Protestant private schools, in which prayer or mass are a daily part of the school routine. But what about in public schools?  When I was in high school, one of my favorite classes was Religion and Philosophy.  It was a one semester course, in which we discussed multiple types of philosophies and multiple religions.  I felt this was a valuable use of my time and education, allowing me to thoughtfully consider other viewpoints.  I feel that I am a much more considerate and tolerant person because I know a little about other religions.

As a non-Christian, I am definitely in favor of the separation of church and state, and would protest if prayer or Christian worship, or any worship, were required in public schools.  But I would like to see even more education about religions in public schools, and not just the mainstream ones.  This New York Times article, Universal Faith, explores the idea of "dual purpose," that is, things that can be used for secular and religious purposes.  They discuss installing foot baths in a Michigan high school so Muslim students can wash their feet before their prayers.  However, these foot baths are to be functional, utilitarian foot baths that anyone can use, unlike the "ornate ablution fountains like those outside mosques."  The article claims that this is an example of dual purpose, but I don't think so.  How many times did you wash your feet, in the middle of the school day, in high school?  I never did.

Rather than looking for dual purpose, I think it comes down to equal accommodations.  Accommodations can be made for religions, like the foot baths, if every religion is able to claim accommodations.  And this is where I think we run into the problem, because our government can't decide to only endorse a few religions, or that certain ones don't count.  If just one student wanted an accommodation for their obscure religion, if any accommodations are given for any religions, than that student has to be granted theirs.

So, while I think religions should definitely be taught about in schools, "Teaching religious ideas as an academic subject can, of course, be a prime example of dual use, since such ideas may be studied critically without embracing them," schools that are designed around one religion, like the Ben Gamla Charter School and Khalil Gibran, need to be organized, funded and run by a private organization, not the government.  Further, I think that deciding to offer accommodations to one religion, while admirable, can be a sticky business that quickly gets out of control.

In short, controversial issues like HIV/AIDS, homosexuality, and religion should be discussed in classrooms to promote critical thinking and problem solving skills, tolerance, and acceptance.  Overall, more needs to be done in these areas, and earlier rather than later.  By the time children reach middle and high school, when many have decided they are "ready" for controversial issues, children's viewpoints are already pretty solid if not well defined.  In order to adequately promote tolerance and acceptance, children need to be taught about these controversial issues when they are still very young, including answering their questions as they arise.

Cycle 2: What Should Schools Teach? How Should They be Held Accountable?

As I read the article on Quest to Learn, I'm reminded of something I've been learning the last few years, and this article keeps circling around.  The difference between schools and games isn't even that it's more fun to play games.  It's the relevancy.  Games are relevant to kids; they're like real life.  You're solving problems and applying information to life-like situations.  In school, you're listening to a lecture, or reading a sterile text from a textbook.  These activities are not even remotely relevant to kids, if they ever were.  However, when teachers go the extra mile, and design real-life problems for their students to solve, they gain the relevancy factor, and students realize their work really does have meaning and purpose.  All without the use of "fun" games.

For example, the brilliant idea of the Studio Schools.  Putting students' minds to work on real, actual problems in the real world, requiring them to learn new knowledge and skills while applying them, and finding that not only are students motivated to succeed in that environment, but they do fantastically.  That test scores of students previously in the lower percentiles rose to the top quartile - that's impressive, and I don't know of another school system, or even teacher, that can boast that kind of improvement.  Furthermore, it's preparing students for life after school in a way most schools do not today.  They leave their Studio School with not just a high school diploma, but real work experience, that they can use to help them find a job, or provide relevancy to their college work.

While Hirsch did have many things to say that I agreed with, for the most part, he seemed outdated, to me.  Whenever I get a reading that is more than 20 years old, I have to ask: How relevant is it now?  And I found that the vocational curriculum that Hirsch was complaining about is the same vocational curriculum (like shop, small engine repair, jewelry making) that my parents had access to, and I never did.  In fact, just the other day, my husband and I were lamenting that those classes are no longer offered.  If nothing else, I'm sure they kept a number of students in school, who otherwise saw no reason to stay.  While my mother would have stayed, whether or not she got to make a bunch of pretty bracelets (which I still have!), there are, and were, a lot of kids that without something obviously useful, find no reason to attend.

I do have to admit that I immediately looked up Tales of Shakespeare and Adventures of Ulysses, and found them available on Amazon, much to my delight. Personally, I love the classics, and hope that my children will, too, and perhaps these children's books will help foster that love.  However, I am not going to require my children read them.  If they really only want to read The Babysitter's Club or The Black Stallion, then I believe intelligent conversations about the books, the problems and issues that are raised and solved, can help discover other interests.  Perhaps they will lead to the classics, or maybe they lead to something completely different.

I particularly liked Hirsch's last paragraph, about the dichotomy in education between skills and knowledge.  It's one thing that I learned in one of the courses I took about teaching science: that the knowledge and facts of science are inseparable from the skills of how to do science.  Actually, I'm sure without meaning to, Hirsch just argued for Dewey and the way he advocated children learning by doing.  In learning by doing, you are not trying to separate the knowledge from the skills, but rather, you're developing them both concurrently and also learning how they are connected.

Considering their focus on applicable skills and work experience, I have a feeling that Hirsch would have major problems with both Quest to Learn and the Studio Schools.  It seems to me that the Studio Schools are taking those vocational classes that Hirsch had such issue with, and creating a school around them.  As for Quest to Learn, it is centered around technology and real problems, rather than the classics or his "extensive curriculum."

While the idea of an "extensive curriculum" that all children would know of their culture sounds appealing, at least in theory, I do not see a way possible to decide what all that should entail.  Perhaps Hirsch has some ideas in some of his books you mentioned in the introduction.  To me, it seems that the most efficient and effective way to accomplish this, is not through specified readings or anything else, but in conversations with others.  When children talk to adults, they absorb a lot of information as well as the culture, and are constantly asking why.  Perhaps what is needed is for children to have more interactions with a variety of educated adults that treat them as equals, and give their "why" questions the time, thought, and consideration they deserve.  I'm not trying to insinuate that current teachers do not do this, but they have 25-30 students in their classroom, and so much curriculum they're required to get through.  In contrast, many parents that I know do not spend this time with their children, and perhaps that makes the difference.

I know that when I have children, I will be homeschooling them, and we'll start as soon as they are able to talk.  Talking with them, about current or past events or issues, and holding in-depth conversations with each other in front of our children.  Our children will be enrolled in a variety of activities in which they are encouraged to hold conversations with educated adults.  Combine these discussions with reading a variety of sources, and I feel our children will receive an excellent cultural education.  We receive our local newspaper on a weekly basis, and usually read at least some of it.  When we have kids, we will likely read even more of it.  In addition, I plan to take our kids up to our local library every week, for them to pick new books to read.  This should provide Hirsch's "extensive curriculum," while in-depth studies my children undertake, based on their own interests, will provide both Hirsch's "intensive curriculum" as well as satisfy Dewey's focus on the child's interests and tendencies.


I greatly enjoyed reading the Siskin chapter, which surprised me, because I was expecting something as dry and outdated as Hirsch.  Instead, I found myself reading a modern piece that had me constantly nodding my head and saying "well, yes, of course."  As a music teacher, I found this piece exceptionally relevant and applicable, but at the same time scary.  While I could understand their actions, the teachers in Kentucky that banded together and got music on the standardized tests really made me feel uncomfortable.  They did to music exactly what had already been done to the "core" subjects: they took something that was inherently exciting, dynamic, interesting, valid, and intoxicating, and transformed it into something that could be regurgitated onto a multiple-guess test.  They killed it.  It's no wonder to me that I've never enjoyed history, since I've only had one, maybe two teachers, that ever made it anything more than something to be tested on.  But I've very seldom taken a test on music.  Sure, I had "scale tests" in high school, and I took a semester of college theory, but those were after years and years of music for music's sake, educated by private violin teachers like myself.

One of my favorite times to teach my students is after they have mastered the basic skills, and we're getting ready for a performance.  I ask them, "what's the point of music?  Why do you play violin?"  Usually they answer something along the lines of "I like it," or occasionally "my parents say it's good for me."  That's when I get to ask them if they've ever heard that music is the universal language, and tell them about when I was a kid, playing a Bruch violin concerto for a bunch of other students.  I had this elaborate story worked out, and I bring out a little book I put together.  The first page has a picture I drew, with color coded words that correlate to parts of the piece.  I tell them about my story I created for just the first page of this piece: there's a sunrise, and a forest, but then there's a thunder and lightning storm, and a fire, and all the woodland creatures are running for cover.  And I flip through the rest of the book, which is comprised of the drawings the other students did for what they thought my piece was about, with no knowledge of my story.  Pictures of thunder and lightning storms, funerals, wildfires with animals fleeing for cover, and even a castle.  And I get to introduce the concept of putting the music into music - more than just the notes, rhythms, and bowings.  The part that trying to create a standardized test to test EVERY student with, is guaranteed to leave out.

I thought I would look for links related to music standards, and I found several.  The National Association for Music Education has some very advanced standards, that I know are not considered required for every student.  However, personally, I see no reason why they shouldn't be, and my kids will definitely be able to meet these standards.  There is also a very interesting website, musicstandards.org, that details all of the music standards for all 50 states.  What I found to be particularly interesting were Washington's music standards (since I'm in WA), and apparently, "the arts—including dance, music, theater, and visual arts—are defined as core content areas in Washington’s definition of basic education," and furthermore, are supposed to be "core academic subject areas" under federal law.  This assertion does not coincide with my own experiences and observations, as well as those examined in Siskin's article.  Finally, I found the American String Teacher's Association and all of their standards.  They have ASTACAP - ASTA Certificate Advancement Program - in which they detail standards for all major stringed instruments, from beginner through very advanced.  They also have a number of books, particularly their String Syllabus, Vol. 1, 2009 Edition (towards bottom of page).  These resources, available to anyone, are invaluable to string teachers, and should be used by everyone deciding music standards.

This Washington Post article makes different points than what I have, but has the same overall message: national standards and testing is screwed up, and it's screwing up our entire education system.  National high-stakes testing has forced teachers to teach to that test, which has reduced our education system to a mad scramble to "pass a test."  It's turned amazing teachers that could do so much, into people that are struggling to keep their jobs because not all kids are the same, but our system expects them to be.  I think it's a crime that we try so hard to make every child the same, when it is their differences that makes them so great, and has made our country great.

I may be biased, but ultimately, I feel that the Studio Schools and music teachers have a much better way of holding students, teachers and schools accountable, than standardized tests.  All those tests can tell is if you were good at taking that kind of a test that particular day, but there's so much more to any subject.  For subjects where product-based accountability like what is found in the fine arts and the Studio Schools isn't possible, I don't think there should be any real effort to hold anyone accountable.  I've thought for a couple of years now, that if we just let teachers do their thing, and gave them the reins, they could do some truly amazing things with their students.  But politicians and lawmakers keep sticking their noses in, telling teachers what, when, how, and why they should teach different topics.  What would be better is let education be more like the free market we have with capitalism.  The teachers and schools that are successful will attract more students, and so would become more successful.  Everyone has different ideas of what makes a success, so different teachers and schools would attract the students that were interested in their kind of success.

Cycle 1: What is Curriculum? What is its Purpose?

Reading about Donovan was very difficult for me. I used to really not think much about curriculum, schooling, or even education in general. I had a vague idea that someday, I would probably have kids, and they would attend whatever the local public school was. That's what I did (though my parents probably looked at the schools when they bought their house, as they already had all 3 of their children), and I turned out fine. But then I began my MAED, and the more I learned, the more I realized: I hate the current system.

It seems completely out of whack, to me, that it is not educators, parents, or even the students themselves who are deciding what they should learn, but lawmakers. Sure, educators develop the specific curriculum, but it is lawmakers, through federal and state learning standards, legislation like No Child Left Behind, and standardized tests, that are determining what each and every child should learn. As if all children are the same, or should be the same.

Reading about Donovan was just one more brick to add to my argument for individualized instruction. And I don't mean the “individual education plans” that my local public school uses. In those IEP's, they slightly modify the curriculum that all the children go through, so that a student can be something approximating successful. No, I mean that every child should be learning what they actually need and want to learn, rather than what a lawmaker has decided.

If I were Donovan's mother, and had all the money I needed to do this (I realize this is hardly ever the case, but one must start somewhere, and where better than the ideal?), I would begin by never putting Donovan in public school. At least, not at first. I would hire a specialist to work with Donovan one on one, if I was unable to do it myself. We would work on mastering the simplist of skills. Skills that Donovan would need to get through life. How to push a specific button when he needed something. Perhaps one for changing (or later, maybe even bathroom?), one for food, one for drink, a panic button for emergencies, maybe a button for sleeping. Of course, not all the buttons would be able to be learned at once, but those would be the first set of goals.

At the same time, Donovan would get at least twice daily therapy. Physical therapy, to help him gain control of his movements, music therapy, to try to connect to his brain, and art, to let him color, and hopefully create another kind of connection.  For example, this art and music lesson might be a good one for a child like Donovan.  Of course, it would have to be modified, but he would be able to listen to the music, close his eyes (even if they were open, with his impaired vision, it might not matter), and draw what the music sounds like to him.  No, he wouldn't be able to do the final steps, but just actually doing something would be beneficial, and at some point, some neural connections would be created.

Having stated that I think that Donovan did not belong in a public school setting, I find myself perhaps changing my mind, due to this article.   "[Online Learning] does not prepare a person with a disability to go out into the world, and it does not help persons without disabilities to recognize the presence and contributions of those who may look, think, or act differently from them," (KosAbility: Vouchers, Parental Choice, and Students with Disabilities; Deejay Lyn).  While the author does concede that online learning frees a child with disabilities from being bullied, it doesn't prepare them to cope with that behavior for the rest of their lives.  Yes, children bully other children, but they learn that behavior from the adults in their lives, which means that adults bully other adults.  And isn't it far better to learn how to deal with hurtful behavior from others, when you are safe at home, in your parents' care, than "out in the world"?  Yes, a child like Donovan will never be able to be self-sufficient, but many children with disabilities will.

This is a tricky case, but ultimately, I think it comes down to being a balancing act.  How to teach a child like Donovan to interact with other human beings (group/public school setting) versus how to give him the resources and support he needs, which I really feel requires a one on one relationship.  It seemed like Donovan's school was working on this balance, by having an aide with him all of the time, but I am concerned about such an aide's qualifications.  Do they have an advanced degree in education?  A psychology degree? A degree or qualifications in physical therapy?  I think the likely answer is no, to all three, but it seems to me, that in order to be truly successful, Donovan's aide would need at least that many qualifications.

I can see the value in having a child like Donovan in a school setting: other kids and the teachers are providing stimulation that he can't receive at home. However, I really don't see the benefit in trying to teach him about seeds, fruit, and juice, if the teacher cannot even tell if Donovan even noticed. It seems to me, that first, Donovan must be taught to respond.

A case like Donovan's truly is a difficult one, and very sad. But making him go through the motions (or not) of learning academic content, just to provide parental hope? It doesn't make sense, to me. Certainly, if a child progresses and it can actually be determined when he or she notices something, efforts should be made to include some kind of academic content, with an emphasis on discovering the clues to when the child has grasped an idea. The school that Donovan was attending seemed to be heading in the right direction, but I think too little was done, too late.

Now, I'm not saying that a child should only learn academic content they will actually use later in life. For one thing, a child that actually knows what they want to be when they grow up (and not change their mind another dozen times), is very rare indeed. I was close to that, as a child. I spent my early years knowing I wanted to be a veterinarian when I grew up. In high school, I realized I preferred my animals alive and healthy, and decided I wanted to be a zookeeper. Today, I am a music teacher, but I have a small farm of chickens, ducks, goats, alpaca, my horse, some pet birds that live inside the house, and a couple of fishtanks. So while I'm not a veterinarian, I'm kind of like a zookeeper.

There were a lot of classes I took, that I really don't remember much from. I can't remember much of anything from calculus, I'm nearly clueless how to diagram a sentence, or identify the different kinds of sentences (volunteering in a 3^rd/4^th split class has taught me a lot of how much I don't remember), history is mostly a blank, and I don't remember how to multiply DNA in a sample of tissue. These are all skills or knowledge I learned in school, some very young, others as late as high school or college. But I haven't used them, so I have forgotten it. Does that mean that I should not have learned those things? Not necessarily. I know that I gained other skills from learning those things. Life skills, like writing, focusing, and how to learn. Could it have been more meaningful? I think so.

I have to agree a lot with Dewey, that education has to start with the child. It has to begin with their innate and developed interests and skills. If my teachers had let me learn about the history of music, or animal care, and slipped into this, the context of what was going on elsewhere in the world, I would likely have learned and retained a lot more. I would have cared. With my own students, they begin lessons because they want to play violin. We start with some very easy songs, but I like letting the students choose which ones they will play on any given lesson. Once they get near the end of their first book, they get to choose what kind of music they want to play. Often, they pick music from movies, or from pop culture, and this music is often much more difficult than the next song they would have played if they continued with classical music. But they are motivated to learn that song, so their playing ability soars through the roof as they learn to master complex rhythms, weird notes, and more complicated technique.

I see myself as a bit of a blend of the four curriculum traditions, as nearly every teacher does. I am like Dewey and the experientialists, in that I think education should begin with the child. I am like the intellectual traditionalist, in that I find great value in the classics. As a child, I always loved Jane Eyre, Pride and Prejudice, and several other classic novels. When given a choice, I would often choose those. If my teachers had offered to teach me how to write using Sense and Sensibility, or diagram one of her sentences, I think I would have jumped at the opportunity. In college, I loved learning how to analyze chords using Bach's chorals, and someday, I might study Mozart's scores to learn how to compose. My children will definitely be encouraged to take on these classics, but I stray from the intellectual traditionalist, in that I will not force them on my children (or students).

I am like the social behaviorist, in that I find the skills of tomorrow very important for our students to be learning today. Children need to be taught what they will need to succeed in life; things like how to do laundry, cook, type, or garden. But most importantly, they need to know how to interact with others in a productive manner, including skills like interviewing, apologizing, and even proper email etiquette. Some of these things are taught in school, many should be taught at home, but oftentimes, they're not, and I see many adults that do not have these basic life skills. Rather than make these skills part of an implied curriculum, I think they should be explicit, like when schools offered home-ec.

The critical reconstructionist came as a surprise to me. I had thought that was when students were asked to create connections and big ideas between seemingly separate facts and skills, to reconstruct their knowledge. I had never heard of them being about activism and righting wrongs. I think this is important, and I see the need for it, but it's not my passion. It doesn't personally speak to me. Maybe it's because that I used to try to be an ecological activist, but I just got worn out. Instead, I've decided to focus more on my world. Perhaps it is selfish of me, but I find more value in focusing on my little farm, my husband, my learning, and eventually, my kids.

So, with a student like Donovan, as with any other student, it has to begin with the experientialist and social behaviorist. Begin with what Donovan is actually capable of, and teach him behaviors that will be essential all his life. From there, you can try to incorporate the great works or classics, even if only in the form of being read to, watching, or listening to. Eventually, it would be great to help Donovan to become an activist for people with disabilities; however, it seems unlikely that he would ever be able to get there. A high-functioning disabled person, like Temple Grandin or Helen Keller, can learn to become activists, as they both did.

Introduction

My name is Ashley Wright.  I came to the world of teaching in a bit of a roundabout manner, and so my teaching situation is a bit unique.  You could say that it all started when I was very young, but I'll skip to a bit later, to leave out the more boring stuff.

In late middle school, I was a very active child with a very active lifestyle.  I played violin and oboe, taking lessons and playing in orchestras and bands, rode horses and showed in the Pinto circuit, participated in Girl Scouts (my mom was the leader, so I REALLY participated), and excelled in school.  I loved reading and animals, and wanted to be a veterinarian when I grew up.  I also attended classes on repairing violins, and LOVED it.  So I wasn't terribly surprised when my violin teachers asked if I wanted to participate in their Teacher Training classes.  Did I want to be a teacher?  No.  Absolutely not, actually.  I didn't want my career to have even the slightest thing to do with violin, but it wasn't that I hated violin.  I loved it.  But I saw my teachers, constantly teaching, rehearsing, performing, and practicing, with no life outside of violin.  I saw the stress this caused them, and never wanted to be stressed about my music.  I loved music, and wanted that love to continue, so I never wanted it to be a job to me.

But I figured, it couldn't hurt, so I joined the Teacher Training class.  And I should note here, that when I say that they asked me if I wanted to do it, it was probably closer to, "Ashley, you're here every Friday afternoon.  We're doing a Teacher Training class then, and you're going to participate."  I was a good kid that did as I was told, so I did.  I enjoyed it, but still did not see it as a career.

Fast forward to a year after I graduated from college.  I had changed my mind in high school, deciding I'd rather work with animals that were alive and healthy, so I wanted to be a zookeeper.  I got my Bachelor's in Zoology from Colorado State University, volunteered and interned during high school and college, the works.  When I graduated, I got a temporary position at Point Defiance Zoo and Aquarium here in Tacoma, WA, in their Wild Wonders Outdoor Theater.  I worked cleaning up after their show animals, presenting shows, handling animals, and answering a lot of visitors' questions.  Overall I loved it, but I was limited to 1,000 hours a year.  In May of 2008, those hours ran out, and I found myself working part time at Petsmart.

For those of you that don't know, part time retail does not pay rent.  Not even close.  And if you get a second job, you have to limit your availability, so you get even fewer hours - it's a vicious cycle.  So I got to thinking about what else I could do, and the one thing I kept coming back to was teaching.

I started teaching private violin lessons, driving to my students, just one day a week, to help make ends meet.  While teachers in either public or private school settings tend to be overworked and underpaid, private teachers, at least music teachers, tend to make pretty good money, so it was a good way for me to make extra money without taking up too much of my time.

Now, almost 5 years later, I'm still teaching private violin lessons, but have expanded to include viola and cello.  I signed a 3 year lease on a studio in Puyallup, and I'm very excited for it to be up in May.  In June, I'll be teaching completely out of my house outside of Buckley, WA, where I can keep a close eye on all my animals.  In addition to my horse, I have alpaca, goats, chickens, and ducks, and can't wait to be able to re-start my garden this year.  I'll be finishing up my MAED this spring, so I should be able to get some plants in the ground in May, which is about the time the sun comes out here.

Throughout my work on the MAED, some of my courses have required me to have access to a conventional classroom, so I've been volunteering at my local elementary school on Friday afternoons.  Last year, we had fourth graders, but this year, it's a split 3/4 class.  It's been very challenging for me to work with more than one student at a time, but I've learned a lot.  Most importantly, I've learned that despite all the uncertainty, I really love doing what I'm doing and never want to work in a conventional school setting.  In addition to helping my own teaching, my work on the MAED is helping to prepare me for homeschooling my kids.