Response: PAULO FREIRE: CHAPTER 2 OF PEDAGOGY OF THE OPPRESSED

Everything about this chapter spoke to me, despite its rather dark and preachy tone (almost 'end of days' tone). I appreciated the authors call to action to stop oppressing students and turning them into drones that are here to recite information and spit out what the teacher wants, at their own expense. I think it is interesting when the author relates students to citizens on welfare, and how these people have never been outside of society, but always inside and a part of it, because the oppressor desires to change the minds of those being repressed, not the situation which repressed them in the first place.

Another interesting point the author brought up was the banking concept of education. This is essentially when teachers simply deposit, and students receive patiently and recite back. The author argues that it is this method of teaching that dehumanizes students, and that creates filing cabinets and catalogs in students heads instead of spaces for creativity, critical thinking, and true knowledge. 

Response: Secondary Standards-Based Grading and Reporting Handbook

When I took my classroom management class last quarter, we discussed the very hot topic of "zeros." It seemed like the class was split down the middle between pro giving out zeros and against giving out zeros, so we discussed it and I still am skeptical about the practice. The article also touches on this, showing two sets of scores averaged out into grades, with one set including a zero and one set that took the zero out. Obviously, the score with no zero had a higher grade than the set that factored the zero. However, every time this issue comes up, the question is asked: in the score that factors the zero, is this grade is an accurate reflection of that students progress and success? And my response to this is always, yes (apparently the wrong answer), this is an accurate reflection, and there are two reasons why:
1) How does a student get an actual zero? The only plausible answer to this is that the student literally turned in a completely blank assignment, or just didn't turn in anything at all. This results in a zero. Why? Because that student showed zero work, zero progress, zero comprehension. However, I am a big believe in students who look like failures because I was one myself. If a student doesn't turn something in, or turns in a blank assignment, talk to that student immediately. There is no reason a teacher shouldn't find out why this student is slacking, and there is no reason not to give that student another chance, with help and guidance if they need, to do the assignment and turn it in again.
2) Why are the assignments so heavily weighted? If a student has three grades, and one is a zero, hopefully there are going to be more than three grades in the grade book for that term, and hopefully the teacher is a decent person and allows the student to make up the assignment, or do some extra credit. So actually, if there are zeros being factored in or sneaking out of your students grades, this is a problem with the teacher, not the student. I strongly believe that you get out what you put in. To me, factoring zeros out of a students grade is cheating. However, allowing that student to make up the assignment is not cheating, it's good teaching. Taking out zeros is not a motivational tool, this to me is negative reinforcement, and creates students who know that there are zero (ha) consequences to failing an assignment, or just skipping the ones they don't "feel like" doing.

Response: Assignment Template

The most exciting part of this article to me is how useful and applicable it is to our literature unit lesson plans. This also connects heavily to Readicide, which is a book I am reading for another class. One thing I know now is that as teachers we need to spark an interest in reading for our students, and helping students connect that to good writing. Building a scaffold for our students is so important to help them be successful readers without reducing reading material for students who are struggling.
A couple interesting points from the text: Allowing students to make a connection between the text and their personal life. This helps students become invested in the reading. Also, teaching students how to look at and evaluate and see their biases from an objective point of view. Setting purposes to reading can help students to have a goal to fulfill, but it can also hinder students ability to focus on the reading as a whole.
I never have liked the idea of teaching students how to skim read- I feel like this isn't completely necessary to all students.
One issue that was brought up in the article was vocabulary, and I feel strongly, and I am sure research does as well, that this is connected to good reading and writing. We probably pick up at least half of our advanced vocabulary from reading, but it might be harder to connect to the real world than picking it up from conversation.

Response: Team/co-teaching

In the article "Speaking of Teaching" we see the actual experiences and successes of team teaching. I liked the way the article was set up. However, it seems like team teaching is a tough effort, and one small issue can completely tip the scales. With this, both teachers have to learn to collaborate and compromise completely on every aspect of teaching, which I can see being quite a challenge for many people (see: group projects). Having to agree on grading, assessment material, curriculum, approach, strategy and time management seems like the main priority, and the hardest part. However I do see many benefits for students based on what was related in the article. If things go smoothly, students get multiple perspectives on topics and lesson material, and hopefully students also get to see a model disagreement, and how to be respectfully understanding of someone who has different views and opinions. Team teaching allows for professional debate for teachers, and I can also see a benefit in teaching with someone who you may not agree with on everything.
The second article was a great follow up to this. Having a clear and concise layout of co-teaching methods made visualizing the first article easier. The first method, "one teach, one support" I did not like at all. The power dynamics are too unsteady and it seems like one job required much more planning and responsibility than the other, and doesn't give much opportunity for true collaboration between teachers. I have had teachers who used the parallel teaching method, of one teacher focusing on the whole class while the other drew small groups into another room for more focused teaching. This was something I enjoyed in elementary school when I was on the student side. I felt that this allows teachers the opportunity to focus more on one-on-one, or gathering a small amount of students who need help with the same thing, as a focus group. In the elementary classroom we also did station teaching, which allows more freedom for the students and the teachers, but keeps power dynamics equal. Team teaching is just the all-out, and I can see the benefits to this, but it also seems like the most difficult for the teachers and students.

Response: "Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts Instruction in Grades 6-12"

Before reading this article, the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) were only a set of guidelines spread out and organized by the federal government in an attempt to organize curriculum and allow teachers more freedom in the classroom. I always felt like CCSS were put in place to balance the effects of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) act. NCLB pushed teachers into a corner and made teachers feel as if their only option was to teach to the test, in order to keep jobs and  state funding in tact. However one aspect of the CCSS I did not like was the push to boost a public image of schools. The way the public regards a school should be reflected through individual student success and class success as a whole. I understand how CCSS can help students be more successful in opening up learning veins for teachers, but the "public image" needs to be about tangible proof.
The text did draw a bit on how 21st century life is much more complex, busy, and challenging in some ways than previous centuries, "with the demands of learning and living in the 21st century based on a knowledge economy" (Beach, Thein, Webb, 2012). It has become common knowledge that students now have more stress and a heavier workload than ever before in modern education. My own brother who is 5 years younger than me started learning algebra in the 3rd grade, where I didn't start until the 6th, in middle school. Education and curriculum are constantly changing, and at a rapid pace. Parents are unable to help students on homework come 9th grade, so forget going to a parent for help on you 11th grade calculus.
Overall, I believe that CCSS allow teachers to evolve with the curriculum, yet still have a say on what they teach, and how. Leaving this door open for teachers is critical to their own success as a teacher, and their students. I understand that everything from location to socio-economic status can change a students learning experience, and even their success. However CCSS can help teachers mold the curriculum to the student, instead of being handed pre-made material that every teacher is required to teach, no matter who is in their classroom.

Response: "Discussion in a Democratic Society"

Democratic discussions are significantly important in the classroom, but hardly ever are they the ideal situation described in the article. The only times I have experienced a classroom discussion that made me feel like I was whitewater rafting was my senior year of high school when we had a class debate on abortion- and the adrenaline wasn't from excitement so much as fear and anxiety. However, that being said, I think that these kinds of fear and anxiety-inducing discussions are important (especially for students like myself, who experience social anxiety that renders open discussions difficult to participate in). It is vital for students to feel this sort of tension in a discussion or debate. I believe this connects students to the world in a real way. A discussion will never be perfectly diplomatic and PC and exciting for all involved. There is always some kind of stake- whether it be emotional or based on values, experience, etc.- for those interested and invested. However, it is these stakes that create the opinions and new views that we open ourselves to in classroom talks.
The article addresses the four purposes of discussion and it occurred to me that I had never had any experience really learning how to have a meaningful discussion in a classroom until college, and it's something I felt lacked in high school. High school should have prepared me but what it did was teach me that the best and only way to have a discussion was if it was being facilitated by hovering adults and a carefully written selection of questions and prompts meant to facilitate "appropriate"  and "fair" dialogue. Which means to me now that the school was aiming to be PC and nothing else. These purposes boil down to being open-minded, fair, and staying informed and unbiased when justifying opinions.