Field Trip

      I had the opportunity to go to the discussion about practicum and clinical experience in the education programs. It was a really interesting experience to be apart of as a student. I thought that maybe it was going to be more of a lecture type of setting. Instead it seemed to be a discussion between professors and advisors in the education programs here at UT. It was an open dialogue with Dr. Ball about the positive and negative aspects of practicum experience of the education programs. It appeared that they are looking to maybe change the make up of the program for the secondary and elementary programs. There was a lot of comparison to the Special Education program. The main discussion was about how SPED is able to get more practicum and classroom experience before their year of student teaching. Also the program is more specialized with the students requirements for their major. All the students are put through the same types of classes. This is different than the Elementary Education program. They discussed whether there should be more specific requirements for ELED students in regards to their undergrad major. I kind of agree with this part of the discussion. I think there could be some major benefits to have more specifics for major requirements. One benefit would be that all ELED students would be together with their education before coming into the program. This could also make sure that students were taking the required classes that would be beneficial for teaching Elementary Education. A downside could be that it could limit the flexibility and options for students. Because I know right now a student could major in English and then maybe later go ahead and add on a Secondary focus and have the option for teaching both with a few more classes added. If the requirements were the same for every students it could take away these options. The discussion also came up about mentors for education students. It was questioned that if mentors of higher scores will create higher quality teachers. Or was it just the matter of having a good mentor that would create good teachers? Was it better to find teachers with higher scores or teachers they knew would be good mentors? There wasn't really a resolution to these questions. Rather the questions were put on the table and then the discussion led elsewhere. Another interesting discussion that came up was the fact of grading their education students. A few teachers mentioned how they wanted to find ways to decrease the focus away from grades and just to learning so that students would focus more on their subject and retaining the information. This part of the discussion reminded me of many of our class discussions. We have talked many times in my classes about how shifting the focus from grades for students and to retaining the information. Unfortunately I wasn't sure how you would grade education students without the arbitrary assessments that are needed. I feel like it would take a lot of one on one interaction to grade students without having to do exams, papers, and quizzes. I think it could be possible to observe students as they student teach and observe to realize how they are doing. Yet, this would require a lot of work from professors. Then the conversation shifted to a very interesting topic. They started to talk about dealing with racism, poverty, and sexuality in the classroom. I had thought about talking about racism and poverty in the classroom but I hadn't thought about sexuality before. They talked about how it is important for teachers to create a safe environment for their students. This means that even if you do not agree with it morally doesn't mean that you can't create a safe environment for your students. Teachers many times set the tone for the classroom. Many times teachers are the first ones to put students in categories of "boys and girls". Just by the way we address the classroom or ask them to line up. It was an interesting topic that made me think about the ways I would have to rethink about organizing and addressing my classroom.
    There was one statement that just made me worry, "This program was innovative 25 years ago...is it still meeting needs or is it stagnant now". It made me feel like once again maybe there was a better way to go about trying to teach students to teach. Then I felt like I wasn't going to be prepared as well as I should be. I'm not sure it was the best for me to hear all this questioning about the process I was just beginning. Yet, I realize that everything has to grow and this means that we must constantly be reevaluating our processes to become stronger. I felt a little strange sitting in the room with all these important professors and adults and just being a young student. At first I felt as if I really didn't belong in the room. It was fun to be a fly on the wall of such an interesting conversation though. It was fun to see that there are people who are passionate about this process and are busy to make it better.