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
My Foundations of Education by Mind Map: My Foundations of Education

1. Equality of Opportunity

1.1. Achievement and Attainment of Marginalized Population

1.1.1. Students with special needs

1.1.1.1. In 1975 Congress passed the education of all handicapped children law which included 6 basic principles: the right of access to public education, individualization of services, least restrictive environment, broadened services provided by the schools, general guidelines for identifying disability, and principles of primary state and local responsibilities.

1.1.1.2. By the mid 1980's it was argued even though the law had good intentions, it produced adverse effects such as over-identification of students with disabilities.

1.1.1.3. In the 1980's the regular education initiative called for mainstreaming children with disabilities and called for inclusion of almost all children into the mainstream.

1.1.1.4. Critics of REI claimed that this type of inclusion was unfair to both regular and special students.

1.1.1.5. Disability studies theorists argue that handicapping conditions are for the most part socially constructed and the vase majority of children labeled as handicap can be better served in mainstream settings.

1.1.1.6. As we move ahead in the 21st century it is important that educational researchers provide evidence to inform placement decisions.

1.2. Coleman Study

1.2.1. Difference among schools are not powerful predictors of differences in student outcomes.

1.2.2. Where an individual goes to school has little effect on the students cognitive growth.

1.2.3. The road to equality of opportunity does not go through the school house door.

1.2.4. If student body composition has a major effect on student learning, then the implication is that poor students should go to school with middle class students to equalize their opportunities.

1.2.5. Research was conducted in the 1970's on the effects on magnet schools on student learning, arguing that they were innovative and learner centered which would make a difference in student learning.

1.2.6. Optimists still believed in the efficacy of education to provide equal opportunities to all students.

2. Philosophy of Education

2.1. Pragmatism (also referred to as progressive)

2.1.1. General Notions- we learn best through applying our experiences and thoughts to problems. Educators should start with the needs and interest of the child in the classroom, allow the child to participate in planning the study, use project method or group learning, and depend heavily on experiential learning.

2.1.2. Key Researchers- John Dewey, George Sanders Pierce, William James, Frances Bacon, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau

2.1.3. Goal of Education- Dewey stressed the importance of the school as a place where ideas can be implemented, challenged, and restructured, with the goal of providing students with the knowledge of how to improve the social order. It should function as preparation for life in a democratic society.

2.1.4. Role of Teacher- the teacher assumes the position of facilitator rather than the authoritarian figure from which knowledge flows. The teacher encourages, offer suggestions, questions, and helps plan and implement the course of study. He or she writes curriculum and must have a command of multiple disciplines.

2.1.5. Methods of Instruction- hands-on problem solving, experimenting, and projects, often having students work in groups. Rote memorization is replaced with individualized study, problem solving, and the project method.

2.1.6. Curriculum- the disciplines are brought together to focus on solving problems in an interdisciplinary way. An integrated curriculum is believed to provide the most effective means to balance between traditional disciplines and the needs and interest of the child.

3. Politics of Education

3.1. Conservative

3.1.1. William Graham Sumner- believed social evolution was a process the enabled the strongest individuals to survive

3.1.2. Individuals and groups must compete in the social environment to survive; human progress depends on individual drive

3.1.3. Social problems caused by the individual; individuals have the capacity to earn or not to earn their place within a market economy

3.1.4. The presidency of Ronald Reagan represented political ascendancy of this view

3.1.5. Believes that schools should ensure that all students have to opportunity to compete individually in the educational marketplace; individual effort is rewarded

3.1.6. Return to basics; traditional academic curriculum; accountability measures for students and schools

3.2. Traditional

3.2.1. View schools as necessary to the transmission of the traditional values of U.S. society (hard work, family unity, individual initiative)

3.2.2. Believe that schools should pas on the best that what was and what is

3.2.3. Traditional visions encompass the right liberal to the conservative spectrums

4. Curriculum of Pedagogy

4.1. Historical Curriculum Theory

4.1.1. Social Efficiency

4.1.1.1. Pragmatist approach developed in the 20th century.

4.1.1.2. This approach centers around the belief that different groups of students, with different set of needs, should receive different types of schooling.

4.1.1.3. This emerged from the visions of Dewey and his idea of flexible curriculums. It was developed by Franklin Bobbit in 1913.

4.1.1.4. The basic assumption of social efficiency is that different groups of students should receive different curricula.

4.1.1.5. The development of the social efficiency curriculum was connected to the scientific management of schools.

4.1.1.6. Based on the writings of Fredrick Taylor which focused on the management of the factory system, the administration of schools started to mimic this type of social organization with the primary focus of efficiency, time on task, and the social division of labor.

4.2. Sociological Curriculum Theory

4.2.1. Functionalist Theory

4.2.1.1. Derived by the work of Emile Durkheim in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

4.2.1.2. Concerned with the role of schools in combating the social and moral breakdown caused by modernization.

4.2.1.3. Durkheim argued that schools had to teach students to fit in a less cohesive modern world.

4.2.1.4. Modern functionalists stressed to role of schools in preparing students for the complex roles necessary in a modern society.

4.2.1.5. Functionalists believe that in the 20th century schools began to move away from teaching through memorization to the general task of teaching students how to learn.

4.2.1.6. Functionalist believe that schools teach the general values and norms essential to a modern society.

5. Schools as Organizations

5.1. Major Stakeholders

5.1.1. State Senator-

5.1.1.1. Paul Bailey

5.1.1.2. Mae Beavers

5.1.1.3. Mike Bell

5.1.1.4. Janice Bowling

5.1.1.5. Richard Briggs

5.1.1.6. Rusty Crowe

5.1.1.7. Steven Dickerson

5.1.1.8. Todd Gardenhire

5.1.1.9. Mark Green

5.1.1.10. Dolores Gresham

5.1.1.11. Ferrell Haile

5.1.1.12. Thelma Harper

5.1.1.13. Lee Harris

5.1.1.14. Joey Hensley

5.1.1.15. Ed Jackson

5.1.1.16. Jack Johnson

5.1.1.17. Brian Kelsey

5.1.1.18. Bill Ketron

5.1.1.19. Sara Kyle

5.1.1.20. Becky Duncan Massey

5.1.1.21. Randy McNally

5.1.1.22. Frank S. Nicely

5.1.1.23. Mark Norris

5.1.1.24. Doug Overbey

5.1.1.25. Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey

5.1.1.26. Kerry Roberts

5.1.1.27. Steve Southerland

5.1.1.28. John Stevens

5.1.1.29. Reginald Tate

5.1.1.30. Jim Tracy

5.1.1.31. Bo Watson

5.1.1.32. Ken Yager

5.1.1.33. Jeff Yarbro

5.1.2. House of Representatives

5.1.2.1. Rausmesh Akbari

5.1.2.2. David Alexander

5.1.2.3. Joe E. Armstrong

5.1.2.4. Bill Beck

5.1.2.5. Harry Brooks

5.1.2.6. Kevin Brooks

5.1.2.7. Sheila Butt

5.1.2.8. David Byrd

5.1.2.9. Kent Calfee

5.1.2.10. Karen D. Camper

5.1.2.11. Dale Carr

5.1.2.12. Mike Carter

5.1.2.13. Glen Casada

5.1.2.14. John Ray Clemmons

5.1.2.15. Jim Coley

5.1.2.16. Barbara Cooper

5.1.2.17. Martin Daniel

5.1.2.18. John J. DeBerry Jr.

5.1.2.19. Berry Doss

5.1.2.20. Keving Dunlap

5.1.2.21. Bill Dunn

5.1.2.22. Jeremy Durham

5.1.2.23. Jimmy A. Eldridge

5.1.2.24. Jeremy Faison

5.1.2.25. Andrew Farmer

5.1.2.26. JoAnnne Favors

5.1.2.27. Craig Fitzhugh

5.1.2.28. John Forgety

5.1.2.29. Brenda Gilmore

5.1.2.30. Tilman Goins

5.1.2.31. Marc Gravitt

5.1.2.32. Curtis Halford

5.1.2.33. G.A. Hardaway

5.1.2.34. Beth Harwell, Speaker

5.1.2.35. David Hawk

5.1.2.36. Patsy Hazlewood

5.1.2.37. Gary Hicks

5.1.2.38. Matthew Hill

5.1.2.39. Timothy Hill

5.1.2.40. John B. Holsclaw Jr.

5.1.2.41. Andy H. Holt

5.1.2.42. Dan Howell

5.1.2.43. Bud Hulsey

5.1.2.44. Jamie H. Jenkins

5.1.2.45. Darren Jernigan

5.1.2.46. Curtis G. Johnson

5.1.2.47. Sherry Jones

5.1.2.48. Roger Kane

5.1.2.49. Kelly Keisling

5.1.2.50. Sabi Kumar

5.1.2.51. William Lamberth

5.1.2.52. Mary Littleton

5.1.2.53. Ron Lollar

5.1.2.54. Harold M. Love Jr.

5.1.2.55. Jon Lundberg

5.1.2.56. Susan Lynn

5.1.2.57. Pat Marsh

5.1.2.58. Judd Matheny

5.1.2.59. Jimmy Matlock

5.1.2.60. Gerald McCormick

5.1.2.61. Steve McDaniel

5.1.2.62. Steve McManus

5.1.2.63. Larry J. MIller

5.1.2.64. Bo Mitchell

5.1.2.65. Debra Moody

5.1.2.66. Antonio Parkinson

5.1.2.67. Joe Pitts

5.1.2.68. Mark Pody

5.1.2.69. Jason Powell

5.1.2.70. Dennis Powers

5.1.2.71. John Ragan

5.1.2.72. Bob Ramsey

5.1.2.73. Jay D. Reedy

5.1.2.74. Courtney Rogers

5.1.2.75. Bill Sanderson

5.1.2.76. Charles Sargent

5.1.2.77. Cameron Sexton

5.1.2.78. Jerry Sexton

5.1.2.79. Johnny Shaw

5.1.2.80. David Shepard

5.1.2.81. Eddie Smith

5.1.2.82. Mike Sparks

5.1.2.83. Billy Spivey

5.1.2.84. Mike Stewart

5.1.2.85. Art Swann

5.1.2.86. Bryan Terry

5.1.2.87. Curry Todd

5.1.2.88. Joe Towns Jr.

5.1.2.89. Ron Travis

5.1.2.90. Johnnie Turner

5.1.2.91. James Van Huss

5.1.2.92. Terri Lynn Weaver

5.1.2.93. Dawn White

5.1.2.94. Mark White

5.1.2.95. Ryan Williams

5.1.2.96. John Mark Windle

5.1.2.97. Tim Wirgau

5.1.2.98. Rick Womick

5.1.2.99. Jason Zachary

5.1.3. State Superintendent

5.1.3.1. (Commissioner of Education)- Candice McQueen

5.1.4. Representative on State School Board

5.1.4.1. Mr. Lonnie Robert

5.1.5. Local Superintendent

5.1.5.1. Dr. Janine Wilson

5.1.6. Local School Board

5.1.6.1. Jeff Whitmore- Chair

5.1.6.2. Mark Clark

5.1.6.3. Tommy Holland

5.1.6.4. Joyce Eady

5.1.6.5. Sarah Raby

5.1.6.6. Alice Palacio

5.1.6.7. Voilet Harry, Liaison

5.2. Comparison of Other Country's Educational System

5.2.1. France

5.2.1.1. Centralized educational system- The central government controls the educational system.

5.2.1.2. Two public school systems- One for ordinary people and one for elite. The US educational system is inclusive in its purposes.

5.2.1.3. George Male (1992) described the French educational system as "excessively verbal."- Students are taught to frame ideas almost as an end onto itself.

5.2.1.4. French systems objectives- To produce a small number of highly qualified intellectuals. The US system promotes equality of educational opportunity for all children.

5.2.1.5. The French believe in a set of examinations that sort out the academically talented from the less academically gifted, whereas the US promotes equality for all.

5.2.1.6. Effort to democratize the system have not succeeded.

6. History of U.S. Education

6.1. Education Reform Movement/ Education for Women and African Americans

6.1.1. Emma Hart Willard, CAtharine Esther Beecher, and Mary Lyon opened schools for females during the early 1800's.

6.1.2. The movement for female education spread in the East and quickly through the Midwest from 1833-1865.

6.1.3. Prior to the Civil War education for African Americans was severely limited. In 1846 African American Benjamin Roberts filed a legal suit in Boston over the requirement that his daughter attend a segregated school. The court ruled that the school had the right to establish separate educational facilities for whites and blacks. At this point African Americans were encouraged to establish their own schools.

6.1.4. After the Civil War the 13th Amendment freed 4 million slaves and the 14th Amendment gave them full citizenship. In the equal protecting clause important legal decisions regarding education was applied to protect against discrimination. In 1868 the Freedman's Bureau helped to establish historically Black Colleges.

6.1.5. In 1955, Brown vs. The Board of Education court ruling ordered desegregation in schools "with all deliberate speed."

6.2. Historical interpretation of U.S. Education/ Democratic-Liberal

6.2.1. They believe that the history of U.S. Education involves the progressive evolution of a school system committed to providing equal opportunities for all.

6.2.2. Historians Ellwood Cubberly, Merle Curti, and Lawrence A. Cremin support this view. Cremin believes as more students from diverse backgrounds went to school for longer periods of time, the goals of education became more diverse.

6.2.3. Democratic-Liberals tend to interpret U.S. history optimistically, however they believe the evolution of the nation's schools has bee flawed. They do not see equity and excellence as irreconcilable, but with tensions between the two, resulting in necessary compromises.

6.2.4. Democratic-Liberals believe that the U.S. Educational System must continue to move closer to both ideals of equality in excellence without sacrificing one or the other too dramatically.

6.2.5. Democratic-Liberals tend to interpret U.S. history optimistically, however they believe the evolution of the nation's schools has bee flawed. They do not see equity and excellence as irreconcilable, but with tensions between the two, necessary compromises result

7. Sociology of Education

7.1. Functional Theories

7.1.1. These sociologist begin with the big picture of society that stresses interdependence of the social system; they examine how well the parts are integrated together.

7.1.2. Society is viewed as a kind of machine where one part communicates with another to produce the dynamic energy necessary to make society work.

7.1.3. Emile Durkheim believed that education in all societies was of critical importance in creating moral unity. Moral values were the foundation of society in his opinion.

7.1.4. From a functional point of view educational reform is intended to create structures, programs, and curricula that are technically advanced, rational, and encourage social unity.

7.2. Effects of Schooling on Students

7.2.1. Knowledge and Attitudes- generally it is found that the higher the social class background of a student, the higher his or her achievement level. In schools where students are compelled to take academic subjects and where there is consistent discipline, student achievement levels go up.

7.2.2. Employment- research shows that large organizations require high levels of education for white collar, managerial, or administrative jobs. Schools acts as gate keepers who will get employed at high status occupations.

7.2.3. Education and Mobility- in general most American's believe that more education leads to economic and social mobility; individuals rise and fall based on their merit. Hopper (1971) made the point that there is a difference between educational amount and educational route. Where people go to schools affects the mobility. More prestigious institutions may act as a mobility escalator.

8. Educational Inequality

8.1. Sociological Explanation of Unequal Achievement

8.1.1. Functionalists sociological theory

8.1.1.1. Concerned about the existence of profound inequalities.

8.1.1.2. Believed that the role of schools is to provide a fair meritocratic selection for sorting out the best and the brightest regardless of family background.

8.1.1.3. Functionalists theory of a just society- one where individual talent and hard work are more important than ascriptive characteristics.

8.1.1.4. Functionalists expect that the schooling process will produce unequal results, but the results should be based on individual differences not group differences.

8.1.1.5. It is possible that even with equal opportunities there could be patterns of  unequal results even though they believe it is highly unlikely.

8.1.1.6. They believe it is imperative to understand the sources of educational inequality to ensure the elimination of structural barriers to provide all groups a fair chance to compete.

8.2. School-Centered Explanation

8.2.1. This suggests that school process are central to understanding unequal educational performance.

8.2.2. School financing between affluent and poor districts made a difference.

8.2.3. More affluent communities are able to provide more per-pupil spending than poorer districts.

8.2.4. Public schools are financed through a combination of revenues from local, state, and federal sources. The majority of funds come from state and local taxes and local property tax.

8.2.5. More affluent communities have higher property values and are able to raise more money for schools than poorer communities with lower property values.

8.2.6. It is believed that school financing equalization is a moral imperative to provide more equality and funding.

9. Educational Reform

9.1. School-Based Reform

9.1.1. Schools to work programs.

9.1.1.1. In the 1990's school-business partnerships evolved into school to work programs with the intent to extend a vocational emphasis to non-college-bound students and build skills necessary for successful employment.

9.1.1.2. President Bill Clinton signed the school-to-work opportunities act of 1994. This provided seed money to states and local partnerships of business, labor, education and community organization to develop school to work systems.

9.1.1.3. States and their partnerships were encouraged to design the school-to-work system that made the most sense to them.

9.1.1.4. Each was intended to provide every US student with the following: relevant education, skills, and valued credentials.

9.1.1.5. Each school-to-work system had to contain three core elements: school-based learning, work-based learning, and connecting activities.

9.1.1.6. These programs were well intentioned, but many researchers suggested that they often failed to fulfill their promise.

9.2. Community Reform

9.2.1. Full Service in Community SChools

9.2.1.1. In order to attack education inequality there must be a plan to not only educate the whole child, but also the whole community.

9.2.1.2. Dryfoos's model of full service schools like Canada's Harlem Children's Zone and Newark's broader boulder approach are models of community-based reforms,

9.2.1.3. Full Service Schools focus on meeting students' and their families educational, physical, and social needs in coordinated way between school and community services.

9.2.1.4. Schools serve as community centers within neighborhoods that are open extended hours to provide services like adult education, health clinics, recreation facilities, drug and alcohol programs, and tutoring services.

9.2.1.5. These are designed to target and improve at risk neighborhoods. Their aim is to prevent problems  as well as support their neighborhoods.

9.2.1.6. The research of Anyon argues that to repair the social and economical problems of society we must improve public education.