Kelly Brelsford

Kelly Brelsford

Brain Based Research and Learning

Brain based research is essentially the basis for brain based learning. Brain based learning is a learning theory based on the structure and function of the brain. The main principal is that as long as the brain is not prohibited from fulfilling its normal processes, learning will occur.

The commonly cited core principles of brain-based learning are:
• The brain is a parallel processor, meaning it can perform several activities at once, like tasting and smelling.
• Learning engages the whole physiology; everything that affects our physiological functioning affects our learning.
• The search for meaning is innate; it is survival oriented and is a basic function of the brain.
• The search for meaning comes through patterning. Patterning is the meaningful organization and categorization of information. The brain is designed to perceive and generate patterns, and it resists having patterns imposed.
• Emotions are critical to patterning; everything we learn is influenced by our emotions.
• The brain processes wholes and parts simultaneously. Although there is evidence of brain laterality, the concept that each hemisphere of the brain controls specific functions, the two halves are definitely interactive.
• Learning involves both focused attention and peripheral perception; the brain absorbs information that it is aware of as well as underling information that is not explicitly given.
• Learning involves both conscious and unconscious processes; information that is perceived peripherally enters the brain without the learners’ cognizance.
• We have two types of memory: spatial and rote. Spatial memory allows for instant memory of experiences. Rote memory is designed for storing relatively unrelated information.
• We understand best when facts are embedded in natural, spatial memory, which is best invoked through experiential learning.
• Learning is enhanced by challenge and inhibited by threat.
• Each brain is unique, and uniquely organized.

Brain based research and learning effects education in terms of curriculum development, instruction, and assessment. Curriculum must be designed to immerse the students in what they are learning and be designed around their interests. Thematic instruction utilizes this principal. Teachers are encouraged to structure learning around problems that students can relate to their lives. Instruction in areas outside the classroom and team learning are also encouraged. As far as assessment, students are allowed to monitor their own learning progress through understanding their own learning styles and preferences.

Three instructional techniques associated with brain-based learning are:
• Orchestrated immersion: creating learning environments that fully immerse students in an educational experience. A complex learning environment that is highly interactive in which students can perform at multiple levels allows them to make connections to create meaning. An example of orchestrated immersion could be to place students in an environment that simulates Paris to immerse them in the French language and culture.
• Relaxed alertness: attempting to eliminate fear in learners, while maintaining a highly challenging environment. A personal sense of well-being allows students to more freely explore new thoughts and connections.
• Active processing: allowing the learner to consolidate and internalize information by actively processing it. Students process information in a way that is personally meaningful to them, understanding information rather than memorizing it.

Criticism
The primary critical element of brain-based research and learning seems to be that articles relating to brain-based curricula are most often not written by neuroscientists (neuroscience is the biological science of the brain). Normally the authors of such articles are cognitive (cognitive science is the behavioral science of the mind) scientists or educational-futurists. Critics felt that a more appropriate title for brain-based learning would be mind-based learning.

School Choice and Vouchers

School Choice and Vouchers

School choice is given another alternative with the use of the voucher. If a parent is dissatisfied with the district in which they are assigned, the voucher provides them with a way to improve their child’s education. In the voucher system, parents are given the funds from the city, state, or federal government that would have gone to the public school for their child, in the form of certificates or scholarships. These go into what is essentially an educational savings account, and money is withdrawn to pay for tuition at the parents’ school of choice. This can be any participating public or private school. At the heart of the debate concerning school vouchers are the issues of the separation of church and state, a parent’s right to a say in their child’s education, and the future of American education overall. Vouchers encourage schools to reform in order to attract the parents who have vouchers. Vouchers allow parents to place their children in schools with curricula suited to the parents’ needs or children’s goals.

Those who are in support of the voucher system have many different beliefs as to why. The issue of school choice is centered on money. Wealthier families can afford to send their child to a private school with a great reputation and a strong tradition of successful educational outcomes. Poorer families do not have this luxury. They cannot afford the tuition for these schools, thus their only choice is to send their child to their town’s public schools, regardless of their reputation. Another issue related to money is the actual tuition cost. Parents who are paying for their child to attend a private school have to pay tuition. This tuition cost is paid on top of the taxes they are paying to the public school that their child is not even attending. The vouchers allow the parent to invest only once in their child’s education, instead of the former option.
Competition is also a strong motivator for change. The voucher system provides competition for public schools, and they need to strive for higher efficiency to keep their school successful and productive. It holds them to a higher standard of accountability. Private schools are also a much more expensive option to the public school, yet often chosen regardless because of their reputation for success. Measures of character and academic success are typically higher in private schools. Private schools have accountability, in that if they do not perform to the highest possible standard, they will no longer have students enrolling. Public schools do not have this same accountability, for no matter how poorly they are performing, they will still have a high level of enrollment. Private schools also place a bigger emphasis on life skills and values that benefit social, along with academic, success.
Private schools are, more often than not, filled with children from more affluent families. This leads to an essentially segregated school with very little diversity. The introduction of vouchers allows a more diverse population of learners to enroll in the school, as income would no longer be a barrier. Vouchers, overall, are allowing the disadvantaged child a chance at a better education.

On the opposing side of the argument, since most of the schools in the program are religious, government funding violates the 1st amendment separation of church and state. Over 95% of the vouchers assigned go to religious institutions. Once the government begins to fund religion-dominated education, it is only a matter of time before it begins to fund other religious institutions. This opens the door to a religious dominated society, with the potential to be heavy in discrimination and lack individual freedoms.
Vouchers are put in place to help parents choose what they think is a better education for their child. It is taking the child out of a public school that the parents consider substandard and putting the funds into a school of their choice. Thus, this is essentially taking more money out of already struggling and poorly funded public schools. These schools are already behind in their resources, having trouble affording books, technology, staff support, and security, among many other variables. Taking money away from the schools is only serving to make a bad school worse.
Private schools are chosen for a better reputation than public schools. In reality, they are not held to the same standards as public schools. Public schools are held to strict government regulations, therefore there is tighter control on their teaching methods, curriculum, and system of education.
Private schools establish their own criteria for admitting students to their school. They can make eligibility for entrance into the school difficult for students, effectively cutting out those they do not deem acceptable to their standards. Public schools do not have this option. They have to provide an education for all those eligible that live in their district. Private schools can, and have, discriminated on the basis of prior academic achievement, standardized test scores, interviews with applicants and parents, gender, religion, behavioral history, special needs, and income. Thus, funds from the government should be allocated to these schools that accept all students, even the challenges, as opposed to the schools that have the option to discriminate. Private schools also control their tuition rate. They could easily increase their tuition, making more money for themselves and continuing to make it difficult for a poorer family to attend.
According to the National Education Association, there is no link between educational improvement in students and their use of a voucher to attend a private school. Nor is there any validity that the vouchers create a competitive marketplace and force public schools to improve. The most dramatic improvements occurred in areas where funds were used to improve teacher quality and extra help for students who need it. These areas, including Texas and Connecticut, used this technique and did not have a voucher system in place. Vouchers and voucher-based measures have been placed before voters in 13 states and District of Columbia 22 times. Voters rejected public aid to private schools in each and every vote. In these decisions, two out of every three voters cast a no ballot in response to private schools procuring public aid.
The debate about vouchers is just part of an overall debate. This debate, the most important of all, is how to improve education for all children. Vouchers are just a small piece of the reforms being put in place in an attempt to give our children a better chance at an education. They may not be the best or most effective, but there are some supporters. The systems will continue to thrive until what is considered a better alternative is adopted.

Comments Re: Issues Presented by the Participants of the October 21 Rowan Class

The Current State of Gifted and Talented Education

Creativity tops the chart of Bloom's Taxonomy. Renaissance men (e.g., DaVinci, Druer) were artists and scientists. So, where's the "talented" part of the title fit in? Do we now reserve this title only for academic achievers?

Wow...twenty per cent (20%) of high school dropouts are gifted and talented. That is a significant problem that needs fixing.

A question to argue for gifted and talented education: What ability level would you like your surgeon to have?

Some people believe that "all children are gifted." I am one of them, assuming we are talking about people that do not have severe cognitive disabilities. I also believe that each person is remedial in some area(s) as well.

Modifications to No Child Left Behind in the Obama Era

One of the four pillars for change mentions "building data systems" to assess student strengths and weaknesses. As I mentioned in last week's class, my "day job" is all of a sudden seeing a surge in requests for Data-driven Decision Making trainings. This could be why.

Yes, we get it...health care, swine flu, Afghanistan, and the recession take precendence over education. Still, that is not an excuse for the lack of change taking place. Where is the "vision?"

Charter Schools

We saw that charter schools often crop up in the city districts. We also saw that charter schools in New Jersey cities tend to score below the state average yet above each of their respective city's public schools. Keep this in mind when reading news articles. Two years ago, a local newspaper ran an article about the failing scores of a local city charter school. The article could have just as easily been written about how the charter school outperformed every other city school in the district...I doubt such an article would have sold as many newspapers, though.

Separation of Church and State

Our founding fathers purposely wrote a very confusing amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Teach, don't preach. The fine line between the two has haunted our schools with over a half-century's worth of lawsuits.

Guess what Congress does before starting a session to determine what to do about the outcome of prayer-in-school lawsuits? (They say a prayer.)

Year Round Schools

In addition to fitting more students into a year round school, districts can also cut back on staff. In a case of split sessions, a teacher can work with the last periods of session one and the early periods of session two.

Catch 22: To run year round schools that extend beyond 180 days, you need millions of additional New Jersey tax dollars for salaries, utilities, etc. To raise millions of New Jersey tax dollars to extend the school year, you can not disrupt the summer tourism trade.

The Current State Of Gifted and Talented Education

The current state of gifted and talented education in the United States is a rocky one. Many opinions and viewpoints hover over the fact that No Child Left Behind is indeed leaving behind our most talented students, while others argue that pushing for Gifted and Talented programs is promoting an elitist group, maybe quite similar to the population that the Eugenic Psychologist Francis Galton hoped for. But is pushing for smarter children and enhancing those who are already gifted such a bad idea? With the shortage of science, technology, engineering and mathematics workers, one would certainly think not! Think back to the video with John Stossel, “Stupid in America” and the young man who was 18 years old and could not even read. Obviously, the school systems were not helping him earn a desirable place in society, so would it be so bad to further a gifted child’s abilities who could in turn accomplish ten times more?

With No Child Left Behind’s idea of having each student proficient by the year 2014, and closing or penalizing those schools who do not meet annual yearly progress, how is this not leaving behind those students who do achieve or who are beyond proficient? The act is blatantly hurting those children with the will and the skills to succeed in a school system, especially those who are affected by children who fail to care about their education, or those who are just not good test takers. If teachers are solely concentrating on those students who are struggling or lagging behind, just to have their school meet annual yearly progress, what are they doing with the students who are high achievers? These students tend to be ignored and, consequently may become bored with their daily school routine and quite possibly find ways to “spice it up” by acting out or becoming the class clown. Aside from boredom, a student’s scores may slip from advanced to proficient. According to Susan Goodkin in an article she wrote for the Washington Post in 2005, she claims that her school’s standardized test scores reflect “the schools' inattention to high performers, they show that students achieving ‘advanced’ math scores early in elementary school all too frequently regress to merely ‘proficient’ scores by the end.” But, as some educators and supporters of No Child Left Behind may see it, proficient is just enough to get by and make annual yearly progress. When lumped into one phrase, Ann Sheldon, executive director for of the Ohio Association of Gifted Children says it the best “These [gifted] kids don't really count for anything in the federal accountability system” (2007). In turn, more parents and their students are opting to pull their children out of the public school system and send them to private schools where they can receive the one on one attention they deserve.

Although some states, such as Ohio have either cut or not improved funding for gifted and talented programs, other states such as Minnesota and Kentucky have made great bounds to ensure that their gifted student population is receiving the attention and recognition they need by increasing spending and opening up accelerated programs in mathematics and science. New Jersey is also making strides in gifted and talented education; mandating for early identification, curriculum modifications, and early intervention among others. In addition to this flip side, it is true that the No Child Left Behind Act does provide schools with the option to “apply for grants to recruit and train teachers to work with special-needs students, including gifted students” (Ludwig, 2003). The Jacob J. Javits Act provides funding for gifted programs, oversees gifted education in the United States, provides for research on gifted and talented education, and as of 2003 had a federal budget of $11.25 million. So, there may be light at the end of the tunnel, but when are our gifted students and parents going to reach it?

References

Goodkin, S. & Gold, D.G. “The Gifted Children Left Behind” (2007). http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/26/AR2007082600909.html

Goodkin, S. “Leave no Gifted Child Behind” (2005). http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/26/AR2005122600553.html

“Jacob J. Javits and Talented Students Education Program” (2008). http://www.ed.gov/programs/javits/index.html.

Ludwig, S. “Providing for Gifted Children Through the No Child Left Behind Act” (2003). http://www.dukegiftedletter.com/articles/vol4no1_connex.html

Ramirez, E. “For Talented Students, Challenges Grow” (2007). http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/2007/11/02/gifted-students.html

An Alternative to Public Schools: The Debate over Charter Schools

The concept of a Charter School began in New England during the 1970’s.  An educator by the name of Ray Budde suggested that groups of teachers be given contracts or “charters” by their local schools boards to explore new approaches to teaching and education.  According to the Public School Review, Charter Schools were a step in a much needed school reform direction.  Advocates of Charter Schools saw this new reform as a opportunity for choice and responsibility not only for the students but for all involved- teacher, administrators, and parents.  Philadelphia, Minnesota, and California were among the first places where Charter Schools were instated showing success in what they stood for- an effective alternative to the standard public school in the district giving students a choice in the education.

Charter Schools are public schools that are funded through the district in which they are located.  Districts were Charter Schools are located must pay per-pupil to the Charter School to maintain the expectation of a free public education.  One of the strongest arguments against Charter Schools involves the delegation of funds from a district to the Charter School.  According to research studies on the location of Charter Schools, they typically open up in low SES areas with struggling schools.  While the intention of a Charter School may be warranted- offering students another learning venue, these Charter Schools are taking money away from the struggling school, creating an even worse situation for the original public school.

Charter Schools tend to give more authority to the teachers and students to make decisions concerning their education.  While I agree that a school is everyone’s domain and that decisions should be a collective democracy, I also believe in structure in a school system and hierarchy.  There are some decisions that must be made from administration- with suggestions from teachers and students. Charter schools are typically free to hire or fire personnel, design curriculum, and promote specific values.  Each specific charter may vary, because each state has different education laws and each charter school is designed to be unique in focus or student clientele- e.g. focus on math, science, or the arts. However, all charters describe school goals, how the school will be run, the amount of public money it will receive, and the degree of freedom it will be given.  Instead of being accountable for compliance with state rules and regulations that public schools are under, Charter Schools are accountable for academic results and for upholding their charter.

An article posted by education.com describes Charter Schools as addressing the needs to individual community needs where the charter is enforced.  Less regulation means there are many different kinds of charter schools.  Charter schools may serve gifted students, low-income families, or religious communities.  By serving a specific type of student, the diversity gap widens among schools.  Educators and politicians argue about whether it is good to have large differences between schools.

In closing, the debate over Charter Schools is growing on the state and federal level.  The current presidential team and the federal department of education is taking a closer look at the effectiveness of Charter Schools and whether or not students are benefiting from them.  As global competition becomes a reality, it is important that all schools- public, charter, and private graduate well rounded citizens who can become innovators of the future.  It is a waste of time and energy to run schools that do not produce. 

The Shift from Gifted and Talented

“Gifted and talented” (G&T) refers to educational programming designed to meet the needs of “students, children, or youth who give evidence of high achievement capability in areas such as intellectual, creative, artistic, or leadership capacity, or in specific academic fields, and who need services and activities not ordinarily provided by the school in order to fully develop those capabilities.” (National Association of Gifted Children) More simply stated, children who are exceptionally bright, wise beyond their years, and in need of greater than ordinary educational challenges. To put into perspective the magnitude of this brilliance, imagine the range of intelligence quotient or “IQ” scores. It is estimated that the average adult has a recorded IQ of approximately 100, Albert Einstein 165, and the pupils qualifying for G&T status generally have an IQ of 140 or above.

Beyond these astounding numbers there is much debate over the necessity of G&T programs. Many feel that these programs are unnecessary, elitist, and a burden to the taxpayer. After the 2001 passing of the No Child Left Behind Act, the federal government announced a “shift in focus” for the G&T programs. Seemingly, that shift is a result of the greater allocation of funds to special education compared to mainstream and gifted programming. In a recent article by Time Magazine (2007), it is stated that “America spends an estimated 8 billion dollars per year on educating the mentally retarded versus an estimated 800 million nationwide on gifted programs.” A concern arising from the dust cloud of this legislation is that if by 2014 no child should be left behind, should any child be inhibited?

Creating another barrier to the advancement of G&T programs is the notion that individuals born with such exceptional intelligence will establish at the very least a proficient level graduate status. Furthermore they should not receive added attention that is not needed. Some believe the assisted separation of high achievers from the low achievers widens the achievement gap and resembles an “elitist” community. Levy and Palley state “it would be unfair to ‘reward’ or offer ‘extra’ services to those children who were ‘lucky’ enough to be born with high academic potential. Supporting this attitude is a belief that with such natural intellectual advantages, gifted students do not need help” (2003).

In defense of G&T programs it has to be said that such academic anomalies cannot be left unnoticed or without support to harvest their intellectual potential. “In an era when policy makers have expressed concern for the future needs of our society and stressed the importance of education that could help the United States keep our economic advantages, it is curious that the federal government has done little to ensure that the educational needs of these children are addressed” (Levy and Palley 2003). What if by stifling a child with such gifts, we might prevent an individual from reaching their potential of a scientific or mathematical breakthrough? Perhaps these discoveries ideally could shine as the end of physical and mental disabilities ailing students at the opposite end of the learning spectrum.

It would seem that the current state of G&T programming is bleak. I believe the focus of our country is centered on attaining mediocrity and basic-level proficiency rather than nurturing the minds of our advanced youth. To those that argue for the struggles of our lower achieving students the question must be asked: What of our predeceasing cultures who removed ailing beings from the general population as a means to protect the continuity of their society? What about the idea that competition and supreme performance delivers nearly flawless results? And finally, is there not a fear that if the scales of funding are heavily tipped in favor of the unfortunate, that our country may fall from the global race of scientific, mathematical, or technological fields?

Separation of Church and State

Separation of Church and State

Ashley Prim

"Separation of church and state" is a common metaphor that is well recognized.  Equally well recognized is the metaphorical meaning of the church staying out of the state's business and the state staying out of the church's business.  As a result of the very common usage of the "separation of church and state phrase," most people incorrectly think the phrase is in the constitution.  Thomas Jefferson originally coined the phrase “wall of separation between the church and the state” in a letter to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802.  His purpose in this letter was to assuage the fears of the Danbury, Connecticut Baptists, and so he told them that this wall had been erected to protect them.  The metaphor was used exclusively to keep the state out of the church's business, not to keep the church out of the state's business.

The phrase separation of church and state did not come into the educational picture until the Supreme Court ruled in 1947 during the hearing of Everson vs. Board of Education.  The court was asked to decide whether tax revenues could be used to transport students to private Catholic schools.  A New Jersey law had allowed reimbursements of money to parents who sent their children to school in buses operated by the public transportation system.  Children who attended Catholic schools also qualified for this transportation subsidy.  A taxpayer filed suit saying that the Board should not be able to reimburse parents of children who attend parochial schools with the taxpayer dollars—seeing that taxes were there to support public schools.  The court rejected this complaint stating that taxes were being used for a public purpose—educating children.  The fact that the use of the money coincided with someone’s personal desires did not render the law unconstitutional.

In West Virginia, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Board of Education vs. Barnette (1943), that no one could be compelled to say the Pledge of Allegiance.  In Engle vs. Vitale (1962), the court decided that teachers and school administrators, as agents of the state, could not lead students in prayer.  In Lee vs. Weisman (1991), the court expanded its doctrine in Engle and declared that outside clergy could not be brought in to say prayers at official school events.  The court created the Doctrine of Coercion, which stated that the rights of nonreligious students were violated if religious activities took place in a public place, even if they were not forced to participate.  Finally, in Santa Fe the court ruled in the case of Independence School District vs. Doe an expansion of the coercion doctrine that stated students could not lead prayers at official school events.  In 2003, the court dismissed the case about the Pledge of Allegiance being a religious doctrine.  However, if they had ruled in favor of this, the words “under God” would have to be removed from the Pledge.

Currently, the law has been broken down into two sides, what is prohibited and what is not.  According to current legislation, the law prohibits schools from requiring students to recite prayers in class and at high school games, from promoting any one denomination or religion at the expense of another, from banning the wearing of religious clothing and symbols, from praying before Board of Education meetings.  The law allows some benedictions and prayers at graduation ceremonies.  The law also allows the teaching of certain aspects of religion, such as in history, literature, comparative religion, etc.  Student religious clubs, moments of silence, prayer outside of the school building are all permitted.

The pros and cons of separation of church and state are still widely debated.  Specifically, there seems to be two sides to the debate of prayer in school.  Those who favor prayer in school feel as though to ban school prayer diminishes the religious freedom of students who would like to pray and forces them to act according to the dictates of a non-religious minority.  They also feel that a simple and voluntary school prayer does not amount to the government establishing a religion, any more than do other practices common in the U.S. such as the employment of Congressional chaplains or government recognition of holidays with religious significance.  School prayer would result in many societal benefits. The public school system is tragically disintegrating as evidenced by the rise in school shootings, increasing drug use, alcoholism, teen pregnancy, and HIV transmission. School prayer can help combat these issues, would instill a sense of morality and is desperately needed to protect our children.  School prayer would address the needs of the whole person. Schools must do more than train children’s minds academically. They must also nurture their souls and reinforce the values taught at home and in the community.  School prayer would allow religious students an opportunity to observe their religious beliefs during the school day. The U.S. Supreme Court has urged school cooperation with religious authorities for “it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs.”

Those who are not in favor of prayer in schools feel as though their rights are being violated in the opposite sense.  This party feels that school prayer violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which provides that government shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.  Since public schools are government funded, prayer led by school officials or incorporated into the school routine amounts to government-established religion.  They also agree that prayer in schools violates the separation of church and state.  These supporters feel that public schools are intended for education, not religious practices.  Also, it is felt that school prayer may lead to intolerance. Public prayer may highlight religious differences of which students may have been unaware. Those students who abstain from school prayer may be ostracized.  Critics feel that school prayer is inherently coercive and cannot be implemented in a way that is truly voluntary.  They also agree that the public school system is created for all students and supported by all taxpayers.  It should therefore remain neutral on religious issues over which students and taxpayers will differ.