reflection paper#19

A Dame school was basically an early elementary school in English speaking countries. They were made up broadly for the first century of colonial development. They were usually taught by females and the schook was held at the teachers house. Dame schools varied in purpose. Some functioned as day care centers, administered by uneducated women, while others provided the students with a good start in the basics of learning reading, writing, and arithmetic. Dame schools in Colonial England had no desk, blackboards nor maps. Perhaps the only school supply they possessed was the Hornbook. Parents had to pay for their children’s education. Only the wealthy children were able to attend school. The Dame School was what a person might today refer to as an informal day care center. Parents left their children with a female neighbor(a "dame," as such ladies was then called) who taught the children simple material such as things being taught in day care centers today. The children were taught letters (abs’s), numbers and prayers while the dame did what she usually did at home. Judging from my point of view, sending a child to Dame school was like leaving him/her with a babysitter only back in the colonial time there was no such thing as a babysitter. To them, a babysitter was considered to be a teacher even to the little infants who were incapable of learning anything. Dame schools as appose to high schools were much like day care centers. High schools today consist of primarily older students who are steps away from becoming adults. One massive difference is that most public high schools do not require an annual tuition because the country pays for it, as it is part of the country’s education program. Unlike the Dame schools, high schools today offer a wide variety of school supplies such as text books, globes, and white boards with dry erasers. I believe the development in the colonial Time from dame schools to high schools changed for the better. Even though they are two different types of schools, Dame schools were elementary and high schools consisted of older students, I think the improvement was very important and has a huge impact on the way education is today in most public schools.

quiz#11

reflection paper#17

The difference between colonial New England educations with present day education fluctuates in a number of ways. First and for most, colonial education was much more developed in a since of wanting to learn what was being taught. I don’t think attendance really mattered to them or was even taken regularly because of the vast capacity of students in a single class room. The classrooms were like church assemblies compared to the way classrooms are now in present day education. The school term in New England was rarely four months in a year. Now-a-days teachers are able to take attendance and mark off who is absent or tardy. school lasts for about ten months, with an exception of days off, spring break, and winter breaks. Religion was very important to the Puritans. In New England, with an exception of Rhode Island, the Puritan or Congregational Church was practically the State Church. In no other part of America had religion taken a hold on people as it did in New England. Before education came religion. The New Ministers were important men of reflective learning and taught to their churches in honesty and true sincerity. As for religion in schools now-a-days, it’s rare that you’ll find it. Unless the school’s curriculum is Christian based the only time you’ll hear the Lord’s name is in the Pledge of Allegiance. Schools in the present day don’t put so much emphasis on religion and I really don’t know why. I’m still attempting to figure out how that became of a change. How did religion just turn away from education when it was basically the foundation of it all? The teaching styles of present day education I believe is way more advanced compared to the way it was in colonial times. Not to say that teachers today and teachers back then didn’t have any knowledge of teaching, but I believe both were trained according to what there was to know for the learning of the students during each certain time period. The teachers in New England were often students of divine nature who stood tall above the rest and sometimes the minister of a local church. Even the innkeeper was at one point capable of teaching. That goes to show you that almost anyone was sought out to do the teaching job. Today, an individual has to go through a number of steps before becoming a certified teacher. What ever the ministers and divine students knew was what they taught to the class. Today, teachers educate the students on things the state sets out for them to learn and comprehend in order to move on to the next grade. The difference between colonial education in England and education now were very different from each other. Thank God for technology.

Reflection Paper# 18

As mentioned in most of the articles on early day education, education has always been the center of everything. From Ancient Egyptian education to colonial New England; and even present day U.S. Education, education has been placed on a high pedal stool. I agree with the whole concept of education being viewed as a vehicle for improving society at large because education is the key to success. In order for anyone to do or become anything in life I believe knowledge must be present. If Roman children were not educated at home before they borrowed some of the ancient Greek system of education, I think the children would have to start from the very beginning of what there was to learn. Because they were taught by their parents when there were no school houses, the teachers were able to begin their learning from where the parents left off. If a father was able to read and write, he taught his son to do the same. The sons were also instructed in physical training, to prepare them for war. War played a vast part in society in Ancient Rome. The men who fought were well experienced and knew what they were up against. They had the training they needed growing up so taking part in war wasn't a scare to them. Thanks to education there were Roman soldiers in the society. I believe society today is the way it is because of education. Doctors, Lawyers, teachers, firefighters, chiefs etc, all were educated in order to be good at what they do. Just as children in ancient Roman times were instructed to reverence for the gods, respect and obey authority, and to be truthful at all times, schools today teach children the same thing so that they will know that society is filled with people who deserve respect. All these teachings of morality and respect to themselves and those of higher power helped prepare the Roman students for the life of living as members of a community when they became older and where finally away from home. Education is very important in every society. People are constantly being taught new things that they didn’t know before. A good educational grounding prepares anyone for learning more easily any task that they may attempt to part-take in the future. Any thing that is learned whether it’s from school or from a person’s everyday life is irrelevant to what we learn in normal education. Education is the core to every society and over all it is needed and very important.

reflection paper#16

Rhetoric is said to be one of the most ancient regulations in the human race. It is the effective use of language and the art of making persuasive speeches. Oratory, which was the art of public speaking, fell hand in hand with rhetoric. As mentioned in an earlier reflection paper, the Romans goal in education was indeed to gain the ability to become a spokes person. A rhetor was a teacher who taught students to make speeches on a given theme such as taking part of a source in action or just simply engaging in an economic debate or competition of some sort. Rhetoric along with grammar was the first to secure a position for a firm basis for further progress or development of the Romans. With this being so, culture was then identified with the art of using language with ease and aptness. In Roman they had what they called an Orator school in which a selected group of young men attended after they had completed both their primary and secondary schooling. The young men came from wealthy families and were ordained to become successful Politian and people of the jury. The Oratory school was very expensive but worth the expense because it taught the boys to speak well in public with cogency and confidence. In order to do this, the boys had to put up arguments at the right time and learn certain orations by heart so that they were able to recite portions of it in the future. I think rhetoric had a vast relationship with Roman education because it was basically what Roman children aimed to do. They wanted to be leaders and to be a leader one must be able to give out speeches to the public. A leader should be able to speak amongst all times of people from politicians, doctors, other speakers of great excellence and even amongst the mediocre civilians of the land. While the Roman students were being taught to make speeches on a given theme they advocated a course of action which was called declamatio. The rhetorical specialty of declamatio conquered the schools, fascinated the elderly people, and gave style to both oratory and literature. Rhetoric played a huge role in Roman education and their relations changed the lives of the students.

Reflection appaer# 15

The education systems between Rome and Athenians differed in many ways. Roman children were taught at home by their parents. Fathers taught their sons in Roman laws, history, ethnicity, and trained them physically so that they were well equipped for war in the future. Meanwhile mothers taught their daughters to pin, knit and sew for both themselves and the family. The goal of education in Rome was to be effective speakers and thus the children attended school every day from sunrise to sunset. They rested, but only for lunch then they would go back to school in the evenings. In contrast to the Roman educational system, in Athenia school attendance was optional and wasn’t authorized by the government. Children went to school up until about the age of 14. If education wasn’t given by the parents the child wasn’t expected to support the parents when they became old of age. Nurses and the elders of the land educated the children to respect and honor the gods. At an early age this was instilled in the minds of the children of Athenia. Around 220BC, borrowing some of the Greek’s educational system, the Romans begin to send their children to school with the father’s permission, at ages 6 and 7. At that time schools were then being paid for. Poor students didn’t attend school; rather they were taught outside the homes. Children who were taught outside of the home were sent to a house to get group-tutored. Those that were taught inside the homes were erudite by intelligent slaves who were skilled in teaching. Children that were really poor simply stayed at home and were taught by their parents. Roman and Athenian students both studied writing, reading and arithmetic, however they didn’t have the same school supplies. Roman students read from scrolls and books, they wrote on boards filled with wax and used small pebbles to solve math problems. In contrast, Athenian students learned the letters from written Greek alphabet and passages from well known poets. They were to memorize and recite them all. Just as the Roman students used pebbles for counting, Athenian students did the same. Athenian students had one extra subject over Roman students, which was music. They played the lyre (a musical instrument of ancient Greece consisting of a sound box made typically from a turtle shell) and performed at festivals and events. The Roman and Athenia education shared a vast variety of things in common, but they were completely different.

Reflection papaer#14

Aristotle was an important man in his own time. He wanted to classify all things, not only in a way that would make it expedient to store and retrieve information, but in the correct way -- the very system that is built into the universe. The Great Chain of Being is made up of God, Angels, Demons, Man, Animals, Plants, Materials; each having their own characteristic. The Great Chain of Being was said to be a metaphor served to express the indescribable plentitude of God’s creation. Every link that came from the chain was a speck of God’s creation. The great chain of being was sometimes called the ladder of creation. In this ladder came what they called Phylogenetic Scale. This scale was made up of different types of animal categories. Each category had its own individual rank and designation. Aristotle’s version of the great chain of being titles his “God” as the unmoved mover. Aristotle terminated that there must be a first, unmoved mover in order to explain every other motion that is of existence. He believed that there was something in the beginning of the creating of motion that caused it to be of existence. He also stated that if motion were not everlasting, then that time didn’t always exist. Time is what determines motion and as Aristotle said, the concept that time has not always been in existence has never been proven. Motion cannot stop and if it does something must cause it to discontinue. Therefore if there was no unmoved mover, there would be no motion. Basically from what I grasped from that section of the article, Aristotle believed that God is the initiator of creation and without him there would have been no creation. He believed that there is only one unmoved mover and that the unmoved mover that causes motion to be of existence is indeed eternal. I agree 100% with his concept of the unmoved mover. In order for something to be present there has to be something or someone that positioned it to be there. God is sturdy and is above all that is frail. If God was fragile he would be breakable, and that’s basically the point that Aristotle made when he elaborated on the unmoved mover. Aristotle’s four causes were of great importance and inquired into the nature of causes. The whole conception of it was to point out that a person does not understand a cause only when they can say it what it is, however they grasp the primary cause when they are able to know and understand the principles of the cause, thus being able to explain it into what they inquire.

Reflection papaer#13

Plato was a supporter of Socrates. He was much attached and felt profoundly and ethically influenced by him. Most of what he knew came from Socrates but, Plato was said to be a more virtually systematic thinker than Socrates had been. He established his own school of philosophy and was filled with an abundance of ideas. I believe his ideas were rather mind consuming and indeed did have a huge impact on the modern western educational system. His doctrine of forms discussed several important concepts such as knowing virtue, knowledge, justice, social life and etc. One specific concept in which that caught my attention as I read the doctrine was Plato’s Meno. The Meno was a traditional dialogue which was Socratic (having to do with the Socratic Method) in Tone. It introduced a branch of philosophy that investigates the origin, nature, methods, and limits of human knowledge. The Meno elaborated on the Greek notion of virtue, which is basically, to my understanding, a certain talent or skill a certain individual has the ability to perform. This talent or skill has some particular respect and admiration. One example in the article that was used towards this concept was the virtue of a baker. The baker’s virtue is what enables him to bake good bread. One special skill that I have is to braid hair and my moral excellence is what allows me to compete in any hair show and win with flying colors. Plato also developed idealism which is basically the theory that reality is based on absolute truths and not materialism. Idealism is one of the oldest systematic philosophies in western culture. My definition of it is when someone has the predisposition to correspond to things in an ideal form, or as they might or should be rather than as they are, with emphasis on values. Idealism fundamentally points out things straight out of the mind. I can honestly say that when I read Plato’s idealism I thought of myself. Being the ideal person that I am, I found myself agreeing with most of Plato’s theories. If there’s one thing that I dislike more than anything, with an exception of mayonnaise of course, it’s when people go around the bush (an expression meaning take time to get to the point of a situation or subject). If something needs to be said then I believe it should be said. Sometimes I tend to base the truth on my opinions which is not always in consent with the truth, but people still ask for my opinion and I never decline their request. Plato taught that the truth is in all things. He believed that we were not born with our minds as clean blank slates but with instincts and skills. We came into the world with the ability to learn and reminisce on those things in which we have learned. Overall I think that Plato’s ideas greatly influenced the future of public education.

quiz#9

reflection paper#12

After Sputnik, the Civil Rights movement and the protest against the war in Vietnam had a huge impact on school's curriculum. Reformers passed judgment on the cold war curriculum that highlighted academics at the expense of social reality. Criticism came from certain individuals who felt school curriculum was not academically sound. Among the foremost critics decrying the ills of progressive education were Hyman Rickover and Arthur Bestor. They called for an end to "student-centered" and "life-adjustment" subjects and return to more rigorous study of traditional courses. While the arguments raged, the launching of Sputnik by the Soviet Union in 1957 put at least a temporary closure on the debate. The U.S was involved in a space race with the Soviets, a race to educate scientists and engineers, a race toward the first moon landing. Those arguing for a more rigorous, science-and math-focused curriculum won the day. With the new child-centered curriculum called “open classroom” the students in elementary schools were able to decide whatever it was they wanted to learn at the time as long as it was education based. By high school students explored an exciting array of electives such as Multicultural Education, Peace Studies, Ecology, and Women’ Study. Sputnik was the first artificial satellite. Its launching marked a decrease in civilization in the west in the Cold War. American schools were left to blame for the U.S. crash in beating the Soviets into space. Prominent university academics were enlisted to develop a more thorough curriculum, especially in the more challenging subjects such as math, science and foreign languages. Perhaps before Sputniks launching these subjects weren't taken critically by the students or weren’t as effective. After the launching, courses were rationalized so that students would focus not on memorization but on learning to think like mathematicians or scientist. Problems and issues pushed students to develop higher-order thinking skills. The propagation of electives in the 1960s and 1970s led to superficial course options and less rigorous curriculum. Coupled with meager test scores and the publication of decisive reports and books, America’s schools began eliminating electives and increasing the number of fundamental courses mandatory for graduation, sometimes referred to as a core curriculum. In many schools today, the curriculum is defined by the states. School efficiency is determined by standardized tests so that the government can keep track of what’s going on in our public schools. In doing this, the government is said to be more involved and complex towards all schools.

reflection paper#11

The impact that Socrates ideas had in the modern western education was very peculiar and strange, at least from my understanding of the readings. Even though he is well known in history for his great ideas, Socrates actually wrote nothing. He was more of a teacher that never taught in a classroom. He only spoke to groups of people who were willing to gather around and listen to all that he articulated. Most of our comprehension of Socrates comes from the works of Plato (427-347). Since Plato had other trepidations in mind than simple chronological precision it is usually impossible to determine how much of his thinking actually originated from Socrates. An elenchus (known as a logical refutation or an argument that refutes another argument by proving the contrary of its conclusion) was identified as the elenctic Method or the Socrates Method, according to the Notes of Socrates. He believed that happiness was moral excellence and through a chain of discussions he tried to develop an understanding of other people’s ethic and get them to recognize whatever it was he was implying. In Elenctic discussions or arguments, one person would claim knowledge of a certain subject or element, stating a thesis, which, through a series of questions, Socrates would scrutinize. Socrates would never state a conclusion - the questions he asked, on the other hand, would take different components of the individual’s argument, and make them seem rhetorical or stupid. The conclusions of most of these discussions were always temporary because it was always left waiting to be disapproved during a future elenctic argument. The concluding goal of the Elenchus was to typify virtue - since everyone had good quality in them and Socrates truly believed that it should be revealed. Socrates thought that if one could ever correctly define justice, he would have the definition of the absolute justice and his explanation of justice would always hold true for every creature in the universe. As for the examined life, the article was basically about the charges that were put down against Socrates and his trail. In conclusion, Socrates was an ancient philosopher who was really open and expressed what he felt so that all would able to hear him. I think his life was basically an open book that he wanted everyone to read. He had a great impact in modern education and that is why he is well know and talked about till this very day.

reflection paper#10

One task that keeps teachers busiest is what Philip Jackson terms “gate keeping”. The original definition of a gatekeeper is a person in charge of a gate, usually to identify, count, supervise, etc., the traffic or flow through it. From the text book’s point of view the gate would be the topic and/or open discussions being discussed in the classrooms and the keeper, of course, would be the teacher. In the classroom as gatekeeper the teachers must determine which student will speak, when, and for how long. The teachers also determine the basic flow or direction of the communication in the classrooms. The gate keeping function influences the classroom rules by allowing the students to recognize that there are specific rules and regulations to aide b in the classroom. Classroom communication patterns do not train the students to be active, inquiring, independent learners. Rather, the students are expected to become quiet and reflexive, to think quickly, to rely on memory, and to be dependent on the teacher. I doing so, students become more aware of class rules and therefore become more interactive. With the gate keeping function I believe the students will learn to have respect not only for their teacher but for their classmates as well. When the teacher has opened up a class discussion, the students will know that they must work together according to the interaction patterns. When the classroom does not have a fixed pattern it affects both teachers and students. As stated in the text, although questioning signals curiosity, it is the teachers, not the learners, who do most of the questioning. The typical student rarely asks an academic question. When they do ask questions it’s usually a “May I use the rest room?” or “May I sharpen my pencil?” type of question. The teachers usually feed into the disarray and waist valuable learning time asking the students’ questions like “Didn’t I just send u to the bathroom” or “How sharp does your pencil need to be before you actually start doing your work?” Students are not given much time to ask, or even answer, questions. Teachers usually wait less than a second for student comment and answers. As they go through the grades the teachers interact less and less with the students. Perhaps the challenge new teachers should keep before them is finding a way to turn their gate keeping role into a benefit for the students, instead or hindrance.

Reflection paper#9

The first school and Ancient Egyptian Education had a number of things in common. Education to them both was viewed as a prized possession. They valued its every aspect and the moral attitudes and views of life that came along with it. The inventive goal of the Sumerian school was as the book (History begins at Sumer) termed “professional”. The Sumerian school established this goal for the training of the scribes. In obtaining this goal, the scribes would be able to suit the economic and directorial demands of the land. They followed this goal throughout its existence; in doing so the school became the center of the Sumerian culture. Similarly, the Art of learning, reading and writing was one of the most overriding forces in the ancient Egyptian civilization education just as it was to the Sumerian school. Almost all of today’s knowledge about the ancient Egyptians came from the work and art of the ancient Egyptian scribes. Most of the Egyptian’s ancient principles came from certain texts, so-called Books of Institution and Wisdom Literature. The advice given in these texts were addressed and taught by elders of the royal scribal classes to the younger men of those same classes. Throughout the years the concepts became recognizable to all levels of Egyptian civilization. In comparison, Sumerian professors equipped the oldest dictionaries known to man. Semitic conquerors, which I’m guessing ranked beneath them, borrowed the dictionaries and highly admired the Literacy, which they deliberated and replicated long after the Sumerians had become extinct. As for literacy and ingenious characteristic of the Sumerian curriculum, it consisted primarily in studying and imitating the large, various group of literacy symphonies. Formal vocational training also existed along with scribal and at-home teaching. In ancient Egyptian education an official would take on his son as a helper, so that the son would have "on the job" training and the sequence become habitual. My thoughts on teacher’s effectiveness today are that the classrooms are more set up with suited material for the students. The teachers are much more laid back compared to the professors that taught at the Sumerian School. They were all about discipline and getting class work done, however in most schools teachers are not here for the learning of the children but rather just to get a paycheck.