For this study, two schools were selected based on their many differences as well as their similarities. Both schools selected are American public schools, serving their local communities. Additionally both schools are taught with a traditional model of education, with teacher instruction during the day followed by at home practice. However, there is where the similarities end.
In School A, the interview was conducted with the principal of a small overseas Department of Defense elementary school. The number and age of the students are determined by the current American military member needs. At
this time the school has 30 students, ranging from kindergarten to fifth grade. These students are divided into three multiage classrooms serving K-1, 1-2, and 3-4-5 students. The ratios of teachers to students change based on the needs of the community, with current levels as follows, 2/12 in K-1, 1/10 in 1-2 and 1/8 in 3-4-5. In addition to serving a small community, this school follows all training and requirements as applied to all DoDs schools internationally, with the financial and time support as needed to meet current policies.
In School B, the interview was conducted with a special education teacher in a small town American high school. While the school has a traditional four year structure, the specific department has students who may stay until they turn 21 years old. The student population of the overall school is approximately 1000, however the students involved in this department can range from 30-60, depending on the needs of the students and the subject being taught.
The students in this department range from full time severely handicapped student to students with learning disabilities attending for one subject per day. For this reason the department has 6 teachers, with ratios ranging from a 1/20 to 1/1 as based on the needs of the children in their Individual Education Plan. As a small public school, funding for classroom upgrades and training depends on budgeting and fundraising.
With many differences, it was surprising to see many similarities in educational thoughts. When discussing 21st century skills both identified the need to understand technology, as well as School A identifying a need for problem solving skills and foreign language and School B identifying a need to communicate effectively. When discussing important skills and subjects students need, School A identified reading and literacy as well as problem solving skills; in the same areas, School B identified math, English and second language skills as well as a need to identify the strengths and weakness of the child in order to help them balance their individual learning. Both
schools identified these varied skills as necessary for students who must learn to thrive in a worldwide community.
This sentiment is expressed by Richard Newman in the textbook Teaching and Learning in the 21st century: Connecting the Dots. As he states, “These endeavors have focused on defining the essence of21st-centuryskills and have helped make one thing rather clear: for students to be able to function successfully in the global economy, they will need to think critically and be able to utilize a range of tools to enhance communication and collaboration” (Newman, 2013, Sec 1.1 para 6 line 2-5).
Each of these schools identified use of technology as important for teaching and learning in the 21st century, however they have a very different access to technology in their schools. School A has the advantage of being a part of a worldwide school system, with the financing to supply Smartboards to all classrooms, as well as providing keyboarding and computer lessons for the students, and having wi-fi throughout their building for teacher use. This practice coincides well with the NET-S policy of technology use. School B however, has more limited means of technology, with teachers having an Ipad available with limited apps available for teacher and student use, and wi-fi available
for teachers. While technology is not required to teach, there are many advantages to having access to
many forms of technology in the classroom. According to a study done by Paula Siene, “Teachers claim when students are engaged in digital literacy activities, the students see these tools as exciting and unique, but often not as schoolwork. Teachers also claim students become more creative in their thinking” (Siene, 2012, para 1, line
4-6).
When discussing issues they face, and how teaching has changed, a theme emerged as a consideration for both schools. School A identified homogenized education as a concern, and discussed the changes of No Child Left Behind as well as other policy changes. School B discussed the challenges of educational policy and the tendency
for education to follow teaching fads and abandon previous practices. In this way it can be seen how developments intended to enhance education can prove to be a hindrance. As stated by Richard J. Murnane and John P. Papay “…teachers are concerned that the incentives created by some provisions of the law have elicited unintended responses that reduce the quality of education provided to at least some children” (Murnane and Papay, 2010, page 2, para 1, line
4-6). In learning to work with these changes and restrictions, the schools seemed to agree on their methods; these policies often need to be pushed to meet the needs of individual children. The challenge comes in trying to bend the spirit of the law to include the children who the policy does not benefit, without breaking the letter of the law.
With these many differences and similarities to consider, there are a few things that become clear. Technology has changed society, and as such should be allowed to aide in teaching and learning to create an expanded educational system. Many 21st century skills are abstract, such as the ability to problem solve and communicate, while others are more concrete such as and ability to utilize technology and communicate in a global economy. However, in spite of the new skills that are necessary, traditional subjects still have an important part of daily life, and therefore a role in the educational system. Educational policy is intended to aid the students; however it can create challenges for teachers as well. These changing policies need consideration as they are implemented in order to make certain that the students are always come first.
In School A, the interview was conducted with the principal of a small overseas Department of Defense elementary school. The number and age of the students are determined by the current American military member needs. At
this time the school has 30 students, ranging from kindergarten to fifth grade. These students are divided into three multiage classrooms serving K-1, 1-2, and 3-4-5 students. The ratios of teachers to students change based on the needs of the community, with current levels as follows, 2/12 in K-1, 1/10 in 1-2 and 1/8 in 3-4-5. In addition to serving a small community, this school follows all training and requirements as applied to all DoDs schools internationally, with the financial and time support as needed to meet current policies.
In School B, the interview was conducted with a special education teacher in a small town American high school. While the school has a traditional four year structure, the specific department has students who may stay until they turn 21 years old. The student population of the overall school is approximately 1000, however the students involved in this department can range from 30-60, depending on the needs of the students and the subject being taught.
The students in this department range from full time severely handicapped student to students with learning disabilities attending for one subject per day. For this reason the department has 6 teachers, with ratios ranging from a 1/20 to 1/1 as based on the needs of the children in their Individual Education Plan. As a small public school, funding for classroom upgrades and training depends on budgeting and fundraising.
With many differences, it was surprising to see many similarities in educational thoughts. When discussing 21st century skills both identified the need to understand technology, as well as School A identifying a need for problem solving skills and foreign language and School B identifying a need to communicate effectively. When discussing important skills and subjects students need, School A identified reading and literacy as well as problem solving skills; in the same areas, School B identified math, English and second language skills as well as a need to identify the strengths and weakness of the child in order to help them balance their individual learning. Both
schools identified these varied skills as necessary for students who must learn to thrive in a worldwide community.
This sentiment is expressed by Richard Newman in the textbook Teaching and Learning in the 21st century: Connecting the Dots. As he states, “These endeavors have focused on defining the essence of21st-centuryskills and have helped make one thing rather clear: for students to be able to function successfully in the global economy, they will need to think critically and be able to utilize a range of tools to enhance communication and collaboration” (Newman, 2013, Sec 1.1 para 6 line 2-5).
Each of these schools identified use of technology as important for teaching and learning in the 21st century, however they have a very different access to technology in their schools. School A has the advantage of being a part of a worldwide school system, with the financing to supply Smartboards to all classrooms, as well as providing keyboarding and computer lessons for the students, and having wi-fi throughout their building for teacher use. This practice coincides well with the NET-S policy of technology use. School B however, has more limited means of technology, with teachers having an Ipad available with limited apps available for teacher and student use, and wi-fi available
for teachers. While technology is not required to teach, there are many advantages to having access to
many forms of technology in the classroom. According to a study done by Paula Siene, “Teachers claim when students are engaged in digital literacy activities, the students see these tools as exciting and unique, but often not as schoolwork. Teachers also claim students become more creative in their thinking” (Siene, 2012, para 1, line
4-6).
When discussing issues they face, and how teaching has changed, a theme emerged as a consideration for both schools. School A identified homogenized education as a concern, and discussed the changes of No Child Left Behind as well as other policy changes. School B discussed the challenges of educational policy and the tendency
for education to follow teaching fads and abandon previous practices. In this way it can be seen how developments intended to enhance education can prove to be a hindrance. As stated by Richard J. Murnane and John P. Papay “…teachers are concerned that the incentives created by some provisions of the law have elicited unintended responses that reduce the quality of education provided to at least some children” (Murnane and Papay, 2010, page 2, para 1, line
4-6). In learning to work with these changes and restrictions, the schools seemed to agree on their methods; these policies often need to be pushed to meet the needs of individual children. The challenge comes in trying to bend the spirit of the law to include the children who the policy does not benefit, without breaking the letter of the law.
With these many differences and similarities to consider, there are a few things that become clear. Technology has changed society, and as such should be allowed to aide in teaching and learning to create an expanded educational system. Many 21st century skills are abstract, such as the ability to problem solve and communicate, while others are more concrete such as and ability to utilize technology and communicate in a global economy. However, in spite of the new skills that are necessary, traditional subjects still have an important part of daily life, and therefore a role in the educational system. Educational policy is intended to aid the students; however it can create challenges for teachers as well. These changing policies need consideration as they are implemented in order to make certain that the students are always come first.