Issues, Perspectives and Directions in Education

Rather than comment on your Summerhill/On the Side of the Child posts, which were all very good, I’d like to use this space for some summary comments on what you’ve done and (I hope) learned this semester.

First, I think you should all be very proud of what you’ve accomplished here. Over the course of the semester, these posts have gotten more and more interesting, polished, and insightful. One of the differences between undergraduate work and Masters level work is that in your graduate work you ought to be making arguments – taking a stand, backing a position with reasons, expressing your own reasoned opinion based on a good grasp of the research. (Writing experts would say that undergrads ought to be achieving the same, but not all university classes are able to set, and meet, this expectation.) In these blog posts, you’ve increasingly done this – and the arguments have gotten better and better, more and more interesting. Personal reflections have gotten more and more closely related to texts and to the bigger issues. In MSE-PD terms, you’ve polished your voices.

You should all pat yourselves on the back for your mastery of blogging, too. Keep in mind that, now that you’ve got it down, this is a technological skill you can keep using. Some teachers keep a classroom blog that parents can see, as a way of communicating what’s going on. Others use blogs as a way for students to share their own writing. It’s a useful media inasmuch as it makes writing genuinely public — and therefore more meaningful than when it’s only for a teacher and a grade. Worth considering.

I hope you’ll carry with you the habit of paying attention to the national news on education and reflecting on how that relates to what you’re doing in your classrooms, seeing in your schools, reading in the professional development literature. Like good writing, it indicates that you have a “mastery” of your field.

And above all, I hope you’ll carry with you the habit of asking deeper questions about what you’re doing, what schools are doing, what schools and teachers are all about. It could be argued that what makes education a genuine profession (in contrast to a technical vocation) is that it serves aims beyond the immediately practical, or does so at its best. Education, it has been said, is about “human becoming”, or human potential –what we are not yet but hope to be. Keep at it.

It has been a pleasure working with all of you. Best wishes in your future endeavors! And if you’re ever on campus, stop by.

Brandon Johnsen

As I read the two readings this week, I found myself recalling why I went into teaching. In William Ayers’ On the Side of the Child, you could take many of his passages in the reading as quotes to why you would go into teaching. I love the fact that he tries to always look at teaching through what is best for the student or child. So many teachers often forget that aspect because they are thinking about what is best for themselves or what is eaier for themselves.

One of the besr parts of the reading was when Ayers talks about classroom environment. He talks about a classroom as an area where children need to learn how to live with the individuals in the class. He descrbes it so well in terms of having respect for one another even if you don’t care for many of their work habits, ways of thinking, etc. This is exactly how children grow up being respectful to all. So many children that either have no siblings or are much older than their siblings do not grow up knowing what it is like to respect and share their areas with others. This is a skill that needs to be developed at a young age and will be carried with them for the rest of their life. Kudos to Mr. Ayers on that one!

When looking at what Neill has written and his theories of education, I agree with him to a certain point. The one thing that I totally agree with is that NOT ALL CHILDREN LEARN THE SAME WAY. The traditional style of teaching just does not appeal to some kids and will cause them to shut down. However, I believe that there is something to that style of teaching. The traditional style of teaching is what a lot of universities and colleges use as their main method of teaching. Kids need to realize this, espcially those in the high school level. That being said, I understand that not all kids go to college. So, we must be able to teach these kids in a way that is different and appealing. A way that grabs their attention and causes them to think outside the box. I stress to my seniors that I’m a firm believer that not all students are college students, but what I do say to them is that if you are not going to college, you need to have a serious and detailed plan of what you want to do and how you want to do it. If not, you are going to find yourself on the outside looking in when you wonder where you went wrong. Neill takes it a bit far with a few of his comments, like the one about how education kills children. But I get what he is doing in regards to trying to grab our attention.

            Every teacher should read, William Ayers, On the Side of the Child to remind, rekindle and renew the reasons that most of us became teachers.  Page 62 “And a teacher needs a heart to fully grasp the importance of that gesture, to recognize in the deepest core of one’s being that every child is precious, each an original, the one and only who will every trod this earth, deserving enlightenment, freedom, and the best a teacher can give – respect, awe, reverence, and commitment.”  Most of the passages and examples in the first half of the book (Summerhill Revisited:  The Challenge of Freedom and the second half Summerhill:  A Radical Approach to Child Rearing) basically discuss teaching the whole child and how unsuccessful the American schools truly educate it’s youth. 

             This text reminded me of a couple of other books of similar ideas, stated differently: The Love and Logic series by Dave Funk.  Funk’s work of teaching with Love and Logic reminds me of some of the approaches and philosophies of the Summerhill School.  To me, Summerhill School and Love and Logic are more than “ways to educate” instead they are “ways to live”.  Funk discusses his “Four Key Principles:  Self concept, shared control, empathy with consequences, and shared thinking” (Getting Special Needs Kids Ready for the World, page 12-13).

             Self-Concept from Love and Logic “include feelings of being valued, capable, and unique”.  Self-Concept directly relates to Summerhill’s Radical Approach to Teaching on pages 69-70 where Ayers begins to discuss the “difficult” child and how “The difficult child is the child who is unhappy.  He is at war with himself; and in consequence, he is at war with the world.” 

             Shared Control from Love and Logic discusses students being in control of themselves and their situations, consequences and outcomes.  Funk would argue that if control is taken away from someone that a power struggle is inevitable.  Ayers believes that students must have shared control of their own learning, for the student who does not have control will not learn.  “And the child who wants to learn (long division) will learn it no matter how it is taught.”

             Empathy with Consequence from Love and Logic states that there basically has to be some type of natural consequence in order for someone to learn.  Learning from experience forces a connection between what has happened and what will happen.  Ayers tells the story about Vivien from Summerhill who continued to break windows.  There were not any consequences as Vivien told on himself.  In fact, Vivien continued to break windows until he felt he had broken enough.  There was not an adult in charge that gave Vivien a consequence.  Vivien came up with his own consequence of paying for the windows.  Vivien ended up getting some assistance with his payment plan.

             Shared Thinking from Love and Logic states that “When teachers interact with students in such a way that thinking rather than reacting is taking place, instruction is much more easily accomplished.  The more thinking students do, the more investment and ownership they have in the solution.”  Ayers devotes an entire section in the book, which some may argue is the philosophy of the entire Summerhill School.  Ayers section on Self-Government discusses how the voices of the students are paramount in the success of the school.  “Each member of the teaching staff and each child, regardless of his age, has one vote.  My vote carries the same weight as that of a seven-year-old.

             In conclusion, the foundation for which Summerhill is built, seems to more appropriately reflect the workplace and many “real-world” places.  So I wonder, why are we continuing to “make the child fit the school”, instead of “making the school fit the child?”

Sam Veit

This week’s reading brought together many of the previous readings for this class for me. The first reading that came to mind as I was reading was Philip Jackson’s writing on mimetic versus transformative teaching. This passage in Ayers’s section took me back to that:

Students can resist by refusing the pacifying stance of inert vessels to be filled up by all-knowing experts, deciding to demand an education, to seize one rather than to politely, passively receive one. And teachers can try to resist becoming monitors in a large sorting machine; they can take their students’ lives seriously, attempt to challenge and nourish them in the same gesture, work and work and work on behalf of their students’ growth and well-being (Ayers & Neill, 27).

Here, and throughout this book, Ayers and Neill clearly argue for education to fall heavily on the side of the transformative. Ayers’s is resisting the idea that school is a place where students go to be infused with knowledge. Rather, he argues, education should be seized and teachers should do their best, not to ensure that their students meet specific content standards, but to nurture students as they grow.

On the Side of the Child also took me back to Dewey’s Experience and Education, so much that I went back to it and re-read the short section, “The Nature of Freedom”. Much of Neill’s description of Summerhill reminded me of Dewey’s ideas about making school relevant to the student rather than just preparing them for college or work, but I wondered what Dewey would have to say about the amount of freedom students at Summerhill had. Dewey writes, “There can be no greater mistake, however, than to treat such freedom as an end in itself. It then tends to be destructive of the shared cooperative activities which are the normal source of order.” (Dewey 63) This seems like a strong caution against freedom, but he follows it up by saying,

For freedom from restriction, the negative side, is to be prized only as a means to a freedom which is power: power to frame purposes, to judge wisely, to evaluate desires by the consequences which will result from acting upon them; power to select and order means to carry chosen ends into operation.

This passage which links freedom to power of judgement sounds very much like the mission of Summerhill. While many of Neill’s strategies do sound wacky (for instance, allowing a boy to break 17 windows and making no efforts to stop him) his notion of freedom is a lot like freedom as we think of it in this country. Neill writes, “Freedom means doing what you like, so long as you don’t interfere with the freedom of others. The result is self-discipline.” (Ayers & Neill, 129) In both Dewey and Neill’s case, there is an acknowledgement that each individual does have unlimited freedom, but that freedom comes with consequences. In Dewey’s case, it is a learning experience to be allowed to suffer the consequences of exercising too much freedom. In the case of Summerhill (and our own democracy) there is a system in place that forces individuals to pay the consequences when they screw up. Summerhill’s  system could, in some ways, be viewed as more effective since the focus is on fixing what you messed up rather than the punitive nature of our laws, and I have to say, I like this approach. I previously worked at a school where kids who made bad choices in school were given the option to either be punished or fix what they did wrong. Most of them chose to fix what they did wrong and the amount of personal growth I saw in these students was sometimes astounding. In my current job, students are not given this choice and most poor choices are punished with lunch detention, after school detention or suspension. When students have detentions, they are expected to sit quietly and do absolutely nothing for the duration of the detention – they aren’t even allowed to work on homework! What is a kid supposed to learn from that? The only thing I can imagine that this prepares them for is prison!

There were many, many things I enjoyed about this book, but I really appreciated the way that Ayers interpreted Neill’s writing. Ayers took Neill’s ideas and wove them into contemporary educational issues to highlight some of the major faults in how, as educators, think about our students. I particularly liked Ayers’s take on the constant labeling that goes on in schools today. Students are labeled in many ways, from the clinical (ED, LD, CD, GT, “at-risk”) to the not-so-clinical (“slug” “lazy” “nice”), and this has been true in any school I’ve ever been in. The clinical labels have always puzzled me becauseI don’t think that most teachers can really define them, yet somehow, saying that a student is “CD” or “ED” usually ends most conversations that teachers have regarding “difficult” students.

The not-so-clinical labels  are the reason why I don’t eat lunch in the teachers’ lounge. Ever.

Lindsey Dederich

Rarely do I read something that completely throws me.  It’s not that I didn’t understand this week’s reading.  I simply don’t know what to think about it.  Some parts awoke a new passion within me.  I thought about things that I have never thought about before, not because they weren’t important, but because the issue had never been raised.  But then other parts just plain frustrated me.  I couldn’t get over the contradictions I was reading.  In the end, I found this reading provoked and challenged much thought and emotion. How very freeing ☺

Ayer’s first part was by far my favorite.  Usually I highlight when I read but I found myself wanting to highlight the first couple of pages word for word so I had to resort to the back-up “star” method instead!  Still, there were a lot of stars.  I connected with his statement “that the schoolhouse is both window and mirror into any social order” (11).  I thought this statement pinpointed perfectly the discussions and readings we’ve been having this entire semester.  We’ve talked about race, socioeconomic classes, and democracy, all of which play monumental roles in society and consequently schools.  In fact, page 15 addresses this issue again.

I love Ayer’s discussion of fragmenting the child.  I hate when teachers say, “that’s not my job.”  I understand that the workload is heavy and the responsibilities can be daunting and undeserved but being a “social worker, a psychologist, a minister” (17) is apart of our jobs whether we like it or not.  Ayer’s challenges teachers to be “whole” because children come to us expecting it.  They are whole, at least for now, and we need to be engaged and in motion with our students.  “Self-knowledge is essential to teaching towards freedom” (25).

Another section of Ayer’s discussion that I particularly enjoyed was that of Rosa Parks.  After reading it, I felt similar to when I read about the events leading up to Brown.  It is a reminder that no event is ever independent of itself.  Rosa Parks did not simply decide she wasn’t going to move on the bus one day.  She had been involved in acts of civil rights for a long time before she made her historical decision.  I thought of this many times this week as students approached me with unfinished work or poor attitudes.  Their work and behavior is not and cannot be separated from their other classes or their home life or their social life.  When you take a look at the big picture, my class just doesn’t hold much value for some kids and, quite frankly, that’s ok.  Jacob just saw his dad beat his mom and then get arrested.  Yeah, I can see how the format of this bibliography isn’t that big of a deal.

While I found Ayer’s thought provoking and challenging, I found Neill’s thoughts simply challenging!  Many of Ayer’s ideas were based off of Neill and I found myself agreeing with many of those same ideas.  His hypothesis that the happy child is a good child I don’t think can be argued with.  His presumption that our schools are failing children is obviously correct.  It was some of the large, encompassing statements that I found myself struggling with.  For example, Neill’s states that “on very few occasions, I have had to send a child away because the others were finding the school hell because of him” (98).  In the same breath, Neill discusses his democratic society and the community’s strong self-government.  By definition, a democracy is one that takes all views into account.  The fact that Summerhill was a boarding school minimized its chance at a real democracy and the fact that it kicks students out basically squashes it.  Kicking kids out because they are bad is a contradiction in itself.  Neill states “no culprit at Summerhill ever shows any signs of defiance or hatred of the authority of his community” (94).  My guess would be that the boy who was “a violent bully, destructive, and full of hate” (98) had to have some animosity towards his peers in authority.

“One boy was in school for ten years and didn’t play a game, and he was never asked to play a game” (114).  I don’t have a problem with the first part of this statement; some boys and girls have no desire to play games.  It’s the second part where Neill states that the student never got asked that gave me an unhappy feeling.  Sometimes I think children are waiting for an invitation.  An invitation to be silly or wise or athletic or accepted or wanted.  I guess I can’t get over the “every man for himself” mentality.  To go 10 years without an invitation to play does not seem like something worth bragging about.

While I obviously enjoyed Ayers, his thoughts wouldn’t have been possible without Neill.  Both men challenged me in new ways.  I find myself walking around school thinking about new and interesting ideas.  I also find myself looking at my students differently and at the work I give them differently.  Overall, while frustrating, these readings were rewarding.

Alyssa Voigt

Love and Freedom

My first impression of On The Side of The Child was, “You’ve got to be kidding me.” My knee jerk reaction caused me to reject all that Bill Ayers was saying, but more to what A. S. Neill had to say about his own philosophy on child development and child rearing. After finishing the book, my opinion had a chance to develop and accept many of his ideas as feasible.

The book begins with a dialog by Williams Ayers and the description and justification for his ‘new kind of school.’ The main focus was to create a school that fits the child. A student should be viewed “as three-dimensional creature- a person much like themselves-with hopes, dreams, aspirations, skills, and capacities; with a body and a mind and a heart and a spirit; with experience, history, a past, a pathway, a future” (43). Neill and Ayers were critical of how our country organizes its schools by teaching children indifference, emotional and intellectual dependency, and a hierarchy of authority. “American education fails all students some of the time, and a large number of students all of the time” (15). Ayers accounts this failure to our countries continued battle with racism.

When it comes to curriculum, Neill should leave it up to the children on when and what they want to learn. “[The children] will seek out the lessons they need when, and only when they need them” (16).

Labeling students is a negative because they focus on deficits and not their interests. We also begin to stereotype and group students into these labels and expect the same from them all. Ayers tries to prove this point by using fiction like Lord of the Flies and “The Onion.” In Neill’s Summerhill school, punishment and fear are non-existent. Instead a policy of love is shown. If there is love, there is happiness, which leads to few behavior problems. Teachers tend to be all about power and coercion. We force kids to do things they don’t want because it is for their own good.

The samplings of Summerhill were much more enjoyable to read, and started to shape my opinion in a more favorable light with where he was coming from. Before I read this section, I thought this guy is living in a fairy land where no kid can do wrong. Currently I have a class where all four students are diagnosed with emotional behavioral disorder (EBD). One student in particular is a social outcast. Anything that doesn’t go his way and he becomes violent, verbally abusive, and potentially harmful to himself and others around him. This particular class gave me doubts about the success of Neill’s school. After finishing the book and realizing that he had to expel a student lessened my fears. Including common sense into the philosophy of ‘live and let live’ on page 122 helped too.

Neill’s basis for this school is built on love. If a student is loved, then there is happiness, and that is the ultimate goal. Summerhill is a boarding school in England where students and adults are equal. The students and staff follow the same rules which are created by the whole school community. Each student and faculty member has an equally worthy vote. Students are not required to go to class and do not take exams. They learn when they want to learn.

There was so much in this book to comment on, but with limited space I can only focus on how much my mind had changed from the cover to the back page. I thought Neill was a nut, but now he makes a lot of sense. I don’t believe schools should use this model; and with our standards, tests, GPAs, and various other prerequisites for life would make this impossible. However, I do think teachers and parents can use this model in their classroom and family settings, to an extent. Along with thinking of that one student who would, no doubt, be expelled; I thought about a fellow teacher who thrives on the power. He could be called, ‘The Punisher’ in some social circles on the playground. I wonder if this would be a good Christmas present for him.

Chris Persick

William Ayers talked about treating children as equals in the book On the Side of the Child. Ayers starts out by talking about his teaching experiences and how he sees teaching as a way to become equals with children and by setting them up for respect for themselves and others.

I like the way he quotes a teacher about comparing a person to a two-vented volcano.  He says that there is a creative vent and a destructive vent and basically what he’s saying is by opening one vent the other closes. I agree with this somewhat.  I have given my students many times the freedom on a project or a class period but that doesn’t always mean they will still not become destructive.  I believe that by giving a child too much freedom, their destructive vent is also triggered and then you have two fell blown volcanoes erupting.

I do, however, like the way he relates everything back to respecting each other and by doing that they will be “equals” and will be in more control of themselves.  I like the way he explains this concept but I do not necessarily always agree with this.  I feel that I personally have very much respect for my students and give them as much “freedom” and open thoughts as possible….but….like I stated earlier, sometimes this backfires in your face and you’re ended up more disrespect then before.  Maybe I do not completely understand how to handle the respect going both ways the way he explains it because to me, it is important to be authoritative at times in order to receive the respect deserved as an elder.

Growing up, I was taught that you always respect your elders even if they are not your favorite person.  If you thought you were being disrespected by an elder, then you talk to your parents, and they will take care of it.  It was never ok to take care of the situation yourself because most likely you would be showing disrespect to this person and that just wasn’t tolerated.  Some children these days do not have any respect for elders like they should.  I have had students in the past look at me, (younger students that have not been through my grade level yet) when I discipline them in the lunch room or at recess like….Who are you to tell me what to do?  I just cannot believe the blatant disrespect that some children show towards adults without even thinking twice.  This of course is not all children.

On page 32, Ayers talks about how a classroom should be an environment where there should be mutual respect, everyone should be learning to “live” with each other and their habits, and how this can be tough but it “should be” the overall goal for a classroom.  I agree with his statements, but at the same time, I don’t agree with how he worded this.  I feel that his language is a bit harsh, but I guess he gets his point across so I shouldn’t argue.   Also on page 32, he talks about how the majority of “behavioral issues” are a direct correlation to the teacher and school policies.  I do not and will not ever believe this.  I was actually quick upset and offended when I read this.  I do agree that some students are affected in different ways by the school and their own teacher which may alter their behaviors, but children are always “behavioral issues” because of this.  There are many children that are born with medical, emotional, and yes, behavioral issues.  Some children need to have medication to regulate their behaviors and like I said, a certain teacher may affect a child’s attitude but they are not the CAUSE of it.

Later in the book, Ayers talks about how treating children as equals from the beginning of their lives will help them later in life.  I found this information quite interesting as I am raising a 7 month old baby at home right now.  He talks about how you should not always so “NO” to a child because that will make them rebel.  He says that you should let them explore things and that will allow them to get to know different items and then get disinterested in them.  I agree with the fact that they will rebel the more you discipline an action, but to let them explore everything sounds a bit dangerous to me.  I cannot see letting my daughter chew on electrical cords just to explore them when this can be quite a danger.  He did say that you have to be smart about it and if it is dangerous, just remove them from it without causing a big scene, so I guess that’s what I’ll be trying from now on.

Overall, I think this book was an easy and interesting read.  It gave me a lot of new outlooks on things and new ways to handle certain situations at home and with my students.

Melissa Sweger

This weeks reading On the Side of the Child-Summerhill Revisited written by William Ayers, brought to light a lot of though provoking ideas.  It was interesting to compare what was going on in Summerhill to what is going on in a traditional classroom of today.  When reading this book, one can not help to think of their own personal teaching philosophy and compare it with that of the philosophy at Summerhill.

Summerhill was a school that was created for children to be free.  Some people within the community referred to it as the “go- as- you-please-school.”   The creaters want to mold a school around the children, not the children around the school. Nobody tells the children what to wear or what to do.  Children were simply free to be themselves.  In essence kids could solely focus on just being a kid.  The one an only real rule they had at Summerhill was that children were free to do whatever they wanted just as long as it did not impede on other people’s freedom.  School lessons are optional at this school, children can participate in them or not.  One point that was very evident from the reading is that everyone at the school was treated as an equal.  It did not matter if you were 5 or 45.  At this school no matter if you are a student or staff, the same rules must be followed.

The children at Summerhill grew up to be who they wanted to be.  So many times in today’s society children want to choose a certain career path because of their parents, or peers.  At Summerhill that was not the case, they had a true identity that allowed them to do what they truly wanted to do, and be successful at it.

I found it very interesting that there was no real timetable at the school, with the exception the teachers.  To me this seems a little backwards, if they are preaching this idea of freedom to the children, why wouldn’t the adults have that same freedom.  I was a little confused at this.

One of the main questions that came up while I was reading this book and was never quite answered was, how do kids get enrolled at Summerhill?  Were they enrolled by the parents?  Was it that those students could not handle a traditional school setting?

I agreed with many parts of Neill’s philosophy.  Our society as a whole does not allow for children to just be children.  Parent’s seem to just be shoving their kids through their childhood.  Children never really have time to sit and really play.  They are rushed from one activity to the other.  Children and parents now days put these activities far above any school work that needs to be done.  I find it interesting when a student uses the excuse “I could not finish my homework because I was at football or dance practice.”  You have to think to yourself that somewhere along the line this is deemed as acceptable at home. Half of the time if you really sit down and talk to the kids, they don’t even want to be in some of the activities they are in.  They are forced by their parents to do so, in hopes that their child might be the next Michael Jordan, or Brett Farve.

I really agreed with the participatory democracy section in Chapter 7 of the book.  I always like to give my students a choice with things.  I allow them to create the rules on the first day of school.  When we are separated into groups for literacy circles, those groups pick the particular rules. They choose what books they are going to read at their reading level.  I allow them the freedom to sit where they want to sit.  However there is a limit to the choices a give.  I feel that kids often thrive upon getting to choose for themselves, much like I like having my choice of doing things.  I think however that you have to set up boundaries within those choices.   I recently attended a conference and listened to a speaker by the name of Chick Moorman.  A lot of his presentation was about giving choices.  I brought back a lot of things from the conferences like putting those choices back on the students for them to take responsibility for themselves. Using the language of choice within your classroom also helps to create ownership.  I now often have kids tell me “I chose not to do my homework last night because I lied to my parents.”  “I chose be disrespectful to my group calling names.”  It seems so silly, but it works.  The kids are now putting the responsibility on themselves first, before blaming others which they were so accustomed to.   Choice is a powerful thing!

Although I enjoyed reading this book and found many thought provoking topics in it, I myself, would have a very hard time sending my own child to a school like this or having to work in a school like this.  It is just hard to think that your kid may never learn multiplication or long division, because they are not interested in it.  That is great if they were guaranteed never to have to use those skills in life; however that probably would not be the case.  I believe that the basic skills need to be taught to students in order for them to function in society.   I think that the ideas sound very good and obviously worked for those particular students. A school like this is beneficial to some, but not all students.   Some students now days have zero structure at home, that they come to school looking for some sort of structure or direction in life.

Amy Ketter

Jacob Soule

“Schools kill the life of children.”  Those are harsh and debatable words.  With that being said, A. S Neill was on to something.  I have witnessed many students become tired of the systematic ways in which our schools operate.  Is the traditional method ideal and effective for some?  Yes, it does work for some.  That is why they are successful.  The uniform ways in which traditional schools operate would appeal to somebody who thrives with structure, organization, and regularity.  The problem is, not every student thrives with this model.  Not every adult thrives with this model.  Many individuals need to change things up.  Many people can be very productive when they “go with the flow.” Unfortunately our society often rejects these ideas and looks at individuals as nonconformists which often this leads to a clash.  This clash is often looked at as negative behavior by that student and the cycle begins.

Kids often operate in a total different way outside of school.  Often times schools reject what seems to be the norm for students.  Now I do agree that there is a time and place for everything.  I would go as far to say that often time kids can be outright disrespectful.  With that being said, do we have to go to the extremes that we do to keep kids from doing what is important to them?  Is there a median that can be met?  Ayers said that schools”insist that matters of real importance to students be banned as too controversial.”   I have witnesses this first hand in our school district.  We often spend so much time in staff meeting discussing items like: “kids are being disrespectful by wearing hoods in the hallway,” “how do we get them to never use their cell phones,” “The senior skit was inappropriate and those kids should be held accountable.”  We tend to spend so much time in trying to change kids from what they view as normal, we end up missing opportunities to make connections and allow students to be free and offer input. 

Ayers says that we cram knowledge down students throats and often times teach them to hate books.  We turn school into a nuisance to them, and often times borderline students begin to reject the ideas and activities that school offers.  When is the last time you heard a 10^th grader say; “I love school.”  Even some of the best of students seem to go through the motions to get their diploma, and then move on to better things.

I know I sound like I am advocating an overhaul of the entire education system. Well, in ways I am.  In other ways I would just like to see a change or adjustment.  I believe becoming more open to our students ideas will only create a more desirable learning environment.  Schools are place for students to learn.  We have to embrace the kids for who they are and give them the best educational experience.  I do believe that students have declined in their respect for adults and “things” in general.  I also think this is related to many things other than the things that we spend so much time trying to change.  Kids act out when they do not agree or like the way something is being done.  The world is changing around us, yet education remains very similar to the past in many ways.  Is it time for a change?

The final sections in Susan Eaton’s book, The Children in Room E4, wraps up a long, sixteen year struggle for equality in Hartford’s schools. For over a decade and a half the Connecticut government had been told repeatedly to change their approach to educating those students in the impoverished inner city. Intertwining the personal stories of Jeremy and his classmates has given us a chance to connect at a personal level, and to see the effects public policy has on 3^rd and 4^th grade students.

Eaton begins this part of the book with her continuing study of Ms. Luddy’s class. Ms. Luddy takes her students on her annual trip to a suburban school district, Marlborough. Here she notes the commonalities and differences between the suburban whites and the urban black students. Here the students in her class get to experience how different it is for other kids. They get the rare experience of playing outside, much less on a playground. The students at Marlborough didn’t drill for any standardized test. They did their own exploring, using outside experiences like trips they’ve taken or relatives who live around the country.

It was in this section where I was reminded of the power of knowledge. Easton quotes Horace Mann, “ ‘Education, then, beyond all other devices of human origin, is the great equalizer of the conditions of men – balance wheel of social machinery’” (277). It is more likely the norm for someone in poverty to be uneducated than educated. Usually with knowledge comes a greater income.

Though Sheff had won in court, their battle did not end. Eaton explains that many of the original prosecutors have gone back to court accusing the state of not following through with the previous ruling. To make a long and important story short, the prosecution settled with the state to avoid possibly losing the whole battle. With this settlement more magnet schools would be created and more funding would go toward it’s public school choice program.

After all was said and done in the past sixteen years, Hartford is almost where it left off. After the retirement of quality teachers, and the beginnings of racial tensions with the new staff; test scores fell back to where they were.

Despite the negatives, there is a sliver of a silver lining. Ms. Luddy was awarded the teacher of the year. Jeremy was given a scholarship to attend a challenging and diverse private school near West Hartford. T.J. was the other lucky student out of Ms. Luddy’s class who was able to attend Hartford Magnet Middle School.

Out of this last section, I found the afterword to be the most interesting. Seeing that test scores improve for students who are poor if they jus t attended a school that was considered middle class intrigued me. Also, desegregation in Texas schools showed that black students in desegregated schools scored higher in achievement, and the effect on white students was not statistically significant.

Poverty and isolation in the inner city are two huge factors that are leading to an unequal education. Education is what these kids need to get out of poverty and isolation. This may seem obvious, and I think it should, but according to Eaton, progress is either stalled or making very little headway.

Chris Persick