My Foundations of Education

Plan your projects and define important tasks and actions

Get Started. It's Free
or sign up with your email address
Rocket clouds
My Foundations of Education by Mind Map: My Foundations of Education

1. Schools as Organizations

1.1. Major Stakeholders

1.1.1. US Senators

1.1.1.1. Richard Shelby

1.1.1.2. Doug Jones

1.1.2. US Representative

1.1.2.1. Mo Brooks

1.1.3. State Senator

1.1.3.1. Arthur Orr

1.1.4. State Representative

1.1.4.1. Seat Vacant

1.1.5. State Superintendent of Ed

1.1.5.1. Ed Richardson

1.1.6. Rep on State School Board

1.1.6.1. Cynthia Sanders McCarty Ph.D

1.1.7. Local Superintendent

1.1.7.1. Bill Hopkins

1.1.8. Local School Board

1.1.8.1. Jimmy Dobbs

1.1.8.2. Tom Earwood

1.1.8.3. Adam Glenn

1.1.8.4. John Holley

1.1.8.5. Paul Holmes

1.1.8.6. Billy Rhodes

1.1.8.7. Mike Tarpley

1.2. Elements of Change

1.2.1. School Processes

1.2.1.1. Elusive and difficult to define but powerful

1.2.2. School Cultures

1.2.2.1. Requires time, effort, intelligence and good will

1.3. Structure of U.S. Education

1.3.1. Goverance

1.3.1.1. Governed by States

1.3.1.1.1. Decentralized down to school district level

1.3.2. Size and Degree of Centralization

1.3.2.1. 1930's - 128,000 public school districts

1.3.2.2. 2010 - 13,709 public school districts

1.3.2.2.1. Schools becoming larger but number of pupils per teacher is decreasing

1.3.2.3. Negative impact on on diversity of schools and students

1.3.3. Student Composition

1.3.3.1. Becoming more diverse with a trend toward increasing residential segregation

1.3.4. Degree of "Openness"

1.3.4.1. All children entitled to enroll and remain until they graduate

1.3.5. Private Schools

1.3.5.1. Attract students from affluent families

1.3.5.2. Less bureaucratic because they compete for students

1.4. Comparisons

1.4.1. France - more centralized

1.4.1.1. Government controls everything down to classroom level

1.4.2. Soviet Union

1.4.2.1. in transition

1.4.3. Germany

1.4.3.1. Tests children and sorts them

1.4.4. Finland

1.4.4.1. High level of achievement

2. Curriculum and Pedagogy

2.1. Explain a curriculum theory which you advocate (humanist, social efficiency, developmentalist, or social meliorist).

2.1.1. Developmentalist

2.1.1.1. Seems like it would be best to focus on the student rather than society as a whole. If we teach each student on the individually basis, then when the individuals get out into society they will make society a better place because they will be better people.

2.2. Types of curriculum

2.2.1. Humanist

2.2.1.1. Idealist philiosphy

2.2.1.1.1. Based on traditional liberal arts

2.2.2. Social Efficiency

2.2.2.1. Pragmatist approach

2.2.2.1.1. Performance testing

2.2.2.2. Considerable research and debate

2.2.2.2.1. Should it be the same for everyone or variable and flexible

2.2.2.3. Most dominant

2.2.3. Developmentalist

2.2.3.1. Needs and interests of the student rather than society

2.2.3.2. Emphasizes process of teaching as well as content

2.2.4. Social Melorist

2.2.4.1. Teach students to think and help solve societal problems

2.2.4.2. Contemporary critical curriculum theory

2.2.4.3. Responsible for what is taught in US schools

2.3. Political Power

2.3.1. Pluralist Model

2.3.1.1. Note controlled by any one group but decisions are made through the input of many groups

2.3.2. Political Elite Model

2.3.2.1. Small number of powerful groups dominate and have disproportionate control over political decision making

2.4. Sociology of Curriculum

2.4.1. Focus on not only what is taught by why it is taught

2.4.2. Prepare students for the complex roles in modern society

2.5. Philosophy of teaching

2.5.1. Mimetic tradition

2.5.1.1. Based on the viewpoint that the purpose of education is to transmit specific knowledge to students

2.5.1.2. Didactic Method - Lecture or presentation

2.5.2. Transformative tradition

2.5.2.1. Different set of assumptions about the teaching and learning process

2.5.2.1.1. Change student in a meaningful way

2.5.2.2. Conversations between student and teacher

2.6. Stratification of Curriculum

2.6.1. Ability grouping and curriculum tracking

3. Equality of Opportunity

3.1. Impact educational outcomes

3.1.1. Class

3.1.1.1. The longer someone is in school there is more of a financial need - favors wealthier families

3.1.1.2. Directly related to achievement and to educational attainment

3.1.1.3. Direct correlation between parental income and children's performance on achievement tests

3.1.2. Race

3.1.2.1. Highly stratified by race

3.1.2.2. Direct impact on how much education is likely to achieve

3.1.3. Gender

3.1.3.1. Even though women are often rated as being better students than men, less likely to attain the same level of education

3.1.3.2. Gender differences have been reduced

3.2. Coleman Study 1982

3.2.1. Differences among schools do make a difference

3.2.2. Jencks - annual increment attributable to Catholic schooling was tiny

3.2.2.1. Differences do exist between public and Catholic schools are statistically significant, but in terms of significant differences in learning, the results are negligible

3.2.3. Chubb & Moe

3.2.3.1. Private schools seem to do it better

3.2.4. Borman and Dowling

3.2.4.1. Where an individual goes to school is often related to her race and socioeconomic background, but the racial and socioeconomic composition of a school has a greater effect on student achievement than an individual's race and class

3.3. Human differences do not cause social stratification; Social stratification causes human differences

3.3.1. Full system of social stratification emerges only when parents can see to it that their children inherit or acquire a social level equal or superior to their own regardless of innate ability

3.4. Forms of social stratification

3.4.1. Caste

3.4.1.1. Agrarian societies where social level is defined in terms of some strict ascriptive criteria such as race and/or religious orth

3.4.2. Estate

3.4.2.1. Agrarian societies where social level is defined in terms of the hierarchy of family worth

3.4.3. Class

3.4.3.1. Industrial societies that define social level in terms of a hierarchy of differential achievement by individuals

3.5. School characteristics vs Student Outcomes

3.5.1. Strong positive correlation between school quality and student achievement

3.5.1.1. Conservative and liberals - Expression of meritocracy

3.5.1.2. Radicals - Expression of oppression

3.5.2. Very weak relationship between school characteristics and student outcomes

3.5.2.1. Meaning degrees simply credentialize students

3.5.2.1.1. Content of what they have learned is not significant

3.6. Coleman Study - 1966

3.6.1. Found that organizational differences between schools were not particularly important in determining student outcomes when compared to the differences in student body compositions between schools

3.6.1.1. Peer group association could be more important than number of books in library

3.6.2. After review, it was concluded that where an individual goes to school has little effect on his or her cognitive growth or educational mobility

3.6.2.1. Finding were challenged by Coleman Study - 1982

4. Educational Inequality

4.1. School-centered explanations for educational inequality

4.1.1. School Financing

4.1.1.1. Vast difference between affluent and poor districts school funding

4.1.1.1.1. More money paid on property taxes in affluent areas give more money to their schools

4.1.2. Effective School Research

4.1.2.1. Untangle the ways that school processes affect student learning

4.1.2.2. Characteristics of effective schools that help to explain why their students achieve academically

4.1.2.2.1. Climate of high expectations

4.1.2.2.2. Strong and effective leadership

4.1.2.2.3. Accountability processes for students and teachers

4.1.2.2.4. Monitoring of student learning

4.1.2.2.5. High degree of instructional time on task

4.1.2.2.6. Flexibility for teachers and administrators to experiment and adapt to new situations and problems

4.1.2.3. Differences in what is termed school climates affect academic performance

4.1.3. Between School Differences

4.1.3.1. Bernstein

4.1.3.1.1. Suggests that schools in working class neighborhoods are more likely to have authoritarian and teacher directed practices

4.1.4. Within School Differences

4.1.4.1. Different groups of students in the same schools perform very differently

4.1.4.2. Tracking students

4.1.4.2.1. When curriculum based on different groups, then each group receives different educations within the same school

4.1.5. Gender and Schooling

4.2. Sociological Theories of Education

4.2.1. Functionalists

4.2.1.1. Believe process will produce unequal results

4.2.1.2. Believe unequal outcomes are the result of unequal educational opportunities

4.2.1.2.1. Must understand inequalities and remove them

4.2.1.3. Foundation of liberal educational policy in U.S.

4.2.2. Conflict theorists

4.2.2.1. Believe that the role of schooling is to reproduce rather than eliminate inequality

4.2.2.2. Concerned with both equality of opportunity and results

4.2.2.3. Want more radical measures

4.3. Student-Centered explanations for educational inequality

4.3.1. Genetic Differences

4.3.1.1. Most controversial

4.3.1.2. Arthur Jensen

4.3.1.2.1. Compensatory programs were doomed to failure because they were aimed at changing social and environmental factors when the root of the problem was biological

4.3.1.2.2. Argued that African-Americans are less intelligent genetically than whites and will do less well in school

4.3.1.3. Hurn

4.3.1.3.1. Demonstrated that although there is evidence that a genetic component to human intelligence exists the most significant factor affecting intelligence is social

4.3.2. Cultural Deprivation Theory

4.3.2.1. Working class and nonwhite families often lack the cultural resources and start school at a significant disadvantage

4.3.2.2. Attacked by critics because it removes responsibility for school success and failure from schools and teachers and places it on families

4.3.3. Cultural Difference Theory

4.3.3.1. Part of an oppress minority

4.3.3.2. They do not blame working-class and nonwhite families for educational problems but forces such as poverty, racism and discrimination

4.4. Types of Cultural Difference Theories

4.4.1. John Ogbu

4.4.1.1. Argues that African-American children do less well in school because they adapt to their oppressed position in the class and caste structure

4.4.1.2. African-American families and schools socialize their children to deal with their inferior life chances rather than encourage them to internalize those values and skills necessary

4.4.1.3. Must deny their own cultural identities and accept dominant culture

4.4.1.3.1. Burden of acting white to succeed

4.4.2. Bourdieu

4.4.2.1. Points out ways in which class and cultural differences are reflected in schools

4.4.2.2. Affluent families give their children access to cultural activities and social capital

4.4.2.2.1. Gives educational inequalities

4.4.3. Lareau

4.4.3.1. Working class families use a natural growth model of child rearing that encourages children to be independent and play on their own

4.4.3.2. Middle class families use concerted cultivation that rigidly plans children's time

4.5. Relationship between families and schools are not isolated from each other but are intertwined

4.6. Schools are part of a larger complex process in which social inequalities are transmitted across generations

5. Educational Reform

5.1. School-based Reforms

5.1.1. Charter Schools

5.1.1.1. Public schools that are free from many of the regulations applied to traditional public schools. In return they are held accountable for student performance.

5.1.1.1.1. Swap red tape for results

5.1.1.2. Charter is a performance contract that details the school's mission, program, goals, etc.

5.1.1.3. Paid with tax dollars and must be open to all students in the school district

5.1.1.4. Can be started be almost anyone

5.1.2. Vouchers

5.1.2.1. Have been challenged many times in court

5.1.2.1.1. Do not violate because vouchers go directly to families instead of religious schools

5.1.3. School-Business Partnerships

5.1.3.1. Business can pledge management assistance and training

5.1.3.2. Little evidence that they have improved schools

5.1.4. Privatization

5.1.5. School-to-Work Programs

5.1.5.1. Extend vocational emphasis to non-college bound students and to stress the importance of work based learning

5.1.6. Teacher Education

5.1.7. The Effective School Movement

5.1.7.1. Assist Schools in using achievement data

5.1.7.2. Provide district wide professional development aimed at improving teacher knowledge and skills

5.1.7.3. Help schools align their curriculum and instruction to state learning standards and assessments

5.1.7.4. Target those students and schools with the most need for district wide help

5.1.8. Teacher Quality

5.2. Societal, economic, community, and political reforms that impact education

5.2.1. State Intervention and Mayoral Control in Local School Districts

5.2.1.1. Accountability - state regulations or oversight

5.2.1.2. Focus on rewards and sanctions

5.2.1.3. Under state takeover, student achievement gains have fallen short of expectations

5.2.2. School Finance Reforms

5.2.2.1. Potential to improve schools for low income and minority children but by themselves they are limited in reducing the achievements gaps

5.2.3. Full Service and Community Schools

5.2.3.1. Focus on meeting students' and their families educational, physical, psychological and social needs in a coordinated and collaborative fashion between school and community services

5.2.3.1.1. Schools function as community centers

5.2.3.1.2. Designed to target and improve at risk neighborhoods

5.2.4. Connecting School, Community and Societal Reforms

5.2.4.1. Essential supports

5.2.4.1.1. Leadership as the driver for change

5.2.4.1.2. Parent-community ties

5.2.4.1.3. Professional capacity

5.2.4.1.4. Student centered learning climate

5.2.4.1.5. Instructional guidance

5.2.5. Harlem Children's Zone

5.2.5.1. Provides programs for parents in Harlem before their children are even born

5.3. Waves of Reform

5.3.1. Early to Mid 80's - Issues of accountability and achievement

5.3.1.1. Increased graduation requirements

5.3.1.2. Tougher curriculum mandates

5.3.1.3. Increased standardized testing

5.3.2. Late 80's - Structure and processes of the schools themselves

5.3.2.1. Local and school levels

5.3.2.2. Achievement, assessment and accountability

5.4. Federal Involvement in Education

5.4.1. Start school ready to learn

5.4.2. Increase graduation rate to 90%

5.4.3. Leave grades 4, 8 and 12 demonstrating competency in challenging subject matter

5.4.4. U.S students first in the world in math and science achievements

5.4.5. Every adult in America literate

5.4.6. Every school in America free of drugs and violence

5.5. Goals 2000

5.5.1. Systematic approach to educational reform that was comprehensive and focused on coordinating state policy with restructured governance

5.6. No Child Left Behind

5.6.1. Annual testing

5.6.2. States and districts are required to report school by school data on test performance

5.6.3. States must set adequate yearly progress goals

5.6.4. Schools that do not meet goals are labeled In Need of Improvement

5.6.5. Schools must have highly qualified teachers for core academic subjects

5.7. Race to the Top

5.7.1. Primary goal was to aid states in meeting the various components of No Child Left Behind

5.7.2. Awards states for improving student outcomes and closing achievement gaps

5.8. Approaches to Reform

5.8.1. Neo-liberal approach

5.8.1.1. Stresses independent power of schools in eliminating the achievement gap for low income students

5.8.2. Broader Bolder approach

5.8.2.1. Stresses that school level reform alone is necessary but insufficient and that societal and community level reforms are necessary