Opinion on best practices for Secondary Education

To determine what the best practices are to teach secondary mathematics, the following areas need to be look at: growth and development, and motivation.

During the secondary years, students’ growth and development involves moving cognitively from concrete thinking to developing abstract thinking skills. Students need activities that require them to think about concepts that cannot be directly observed through the senses. Students are also undergoing personal development to develop their identity. This is accomplished through conflict, exploration, and commitment to their findings.

As for motivation, it is ideal for students to be mastery-oriented. This cannot be accomplished if their deficiency needs are not met, look like a fool in front of their peers, and are extrinsically motivated. For classroom motivation, teachers need to provide excessive feedback and attribute student success to their effort. Students need to have a low fear of failure, develop learning goals, attribute their success to effort, know that ability is improved through hard work, and learn self-regulated learning skills. As for meeting deficiency needs outside the classroom, teachers will need assistance from outside agencies so the student can receive help. If there is a deficiency need that is not being met in the classroom, teachers must urgently identify the problem and correct it.

Students, at any level of education, are changing. Since teachers are supposed to be one of the most stable adult figures in the students’ lives, teachers have a requirement to guide students through those changes. With proper guidance, students will become the adults we want them to become.

Teacher-Centered vs. Student-Centered Teaching

Before I address my thoughts on the topic, I think I need to define the topics as I understand them. Student-centered teaching is an approach to education focusing on the needs of the students, rather than those of others involved in the educational process, such as teachers and administrators. When choosing mathematics examples, the examples need to relate to each student. If the example does not relate to each student, new examples need to be composed so each student has an example to which they relate. Teacher-centered teaching is when the teacher makes the goals for the students, presents the material for the students to learn, and provides the activities for them to learn.

I am in favor of teacher-centered learning. Due to NCLB and state-required topics that needed to be covered in every secondary subject, there is little time to simply look at what the student wants to learn. The I-STEP requirements do not care about focusing on the needs of the students, just on the needs of meeting state requirements and NCLB. It is teacher’s responsibility to make sure that these needs are met and the teacher needs to set the pace to make sure that all state standards are met. There is no room for the student to set the pace. That is why schools are offering “A” and “B” levels of courses (for example: Algebra II may have sections called “Algebra IIA” and “Algebra IIB”, with each letter designating the pace at which the course is presented.)

However, teacher-centered learning does not remove the teacher’s responsibility of relating the material to the needs of the student. The teacher needs to find examples that the students can relate to. In Algebra II, if there are students are interested in skateboarding, then the teacher should relate a parabola to a half-pipe and how the change in a quadratic equation changes the shape of the parabola/half-pipe.

Also, teachers need to let students make discovers together in teacher-centered teaching. Teachers need to allow students to work on group problems so they can interact in an academic setting, and mentor each other to accomplish the goal of solving problems. A stronger student who understands the material can help a weaker student who needs more help. The weaker student may relate the stronger student, and seek advice of the stronger student. The stronger student can state how they were able to understand the material, which can help the weaker student. After the students work on the problem together the teacher can assess what the student accomplished, and can either approach the topic in another way to meet the student’s needs or move on to something else. In either case the teacher decides what the students needs, but the decision is based on what the students have learned.

I advocate teacher-centered learning where teachers determine what exercises the students would be able to relate to students working in groups to develop their skills. Using this method the state and NCLB standards are met, and hidden curriculum issues like social-building skills are developed.

Opinion on Assertive Discipline

As a reserve military cop and as "a big guy", I believe I have the ability to assert myself on students to resolve a discipline problem. I could get into some one's face and be like a basic training instructor if the situation demanded it. However, secondary students are not basic trainees. It is my impression (from the description of assertive discipline in the textbook) that the teacher does not act like a drill instructor, but it comes close. I believe when teachers act this way, it gives the "air" in the classroom uncomfortable to learning. If I had to do this to the student, the rest of the classroom time would not be fit for learning, and this feeling would last for several days.
As for putting the offending student's name on the board, that is ridiculous at the secondary level. That is done for elementary students, not secondary students. Putting names on the board should rank up there with wiping students' butts, an absurd act.
I think that classroom management and discipline is going to be my biggest challenge. I know my textbooks suggest ways to handle a situation, to me it seems like theoretical knowledge. I know that classroom management is a class I will be taking next semester, but from past experience I have had little success learning from the assigned instructor.
To whoever, reads this, please give me advice in the comment section.

Setting a standard on essential knowledge

I am in favor of having the state board of education setting a standard on “essential knowledge”. It is of my opinion that to be citizens of this world (let alone of the United States) people need to have a certain level of knowledge and understanding to relate with whomever they come into contact. However, I think setting a standard for all students is very optimistic, impractical, and impossible.

As an aspiring mathematics teacher, I would like to see all students take two years of algebra. From personal life experiences, to function in current middle-class society, people need to have basic algebra skills to look over their taxes, calculate sales tax, and keep various types of inventory. Granted, most people would think that the listed matters can be accomplished through add, subtract, multiply, divide, and technological devices. On the other hand, algebra is about grouping like items and developing logical skills. These logical skills are used in life outside of applied mathematics.

There would be another group of people who would want to raise the bar above my expectations and say that trigonometry should be a required skill for all citizens. They may state that trig is necessary for communications and traveling/navigations. It is true that trig is used to help people develop logical skills and is used in the mentioned activities, but trig’s logical skills are based in algebra and these activities do not require trig anymore. With the advent of the modern cell phone, trig in communications is not needed for citizens. Modern maps and GPS eliminate the need to use trig to calculate routes of travel. Being able to read a map is important, so should that skill be a standard for “essential knowledge” in social studies?

Setting up a standard on essential knowledge seems practical for middle-class students who have normal (and +1 standard deviation) IQ scores and no special educational requirements, but so many students fall outside these parameters. They should not be set to this standard. Students who do not fall within this parameter should have a different standard. They may need a higher or lower standard, depending what is being required of them. People of all levels of intelligence and income levels play an important part in society, whether they are a brain surgeon or a trash collector. Society needs these people, but I do not think society would place the same basic educational standards on these people.

With that being said about creating different levels of basic educational standards for different people, why is our state government making students take the same standardized test and requiring them to have the same basic levels of skills. State leadership knows that there are varying levels of class, intellectual capacity, and language skills in its residents, so why is their one I-STEP? That is a stupid question, it is money. I-STEP requires approximate $30.2 million annually to administer the test (http://www.ista-in.org/display.cfm?articleid=103). The price tag could reach in the billions if every student was to be evaluated, given a standard, and given an appropriate revision of the I-STEP. This type of assessment is impractical. Therefore, one standard is set for all students.

Would it be great that all students could be held to the same standard? Sure. Would setting a specific standard affect the individuality of the student? No. Does individuality make setting a standard impossible? Absolutely! Issues regarding race, class, gender, and mental capacity make it impossible to set the ideal standard. It would be great if this could happen, and it seems that government officials would like for it to happen, but to do so would be optimistic, impractical, and impossible.