According to Emdin, co-teaching does not only mean teaching with another professional. He feels that co-teaching involves working with a group of students to teach a particular lesson. In this instance, the students create a lesson plan, with the teachers help, and teach content in a way that would best benefit themselves and their peers. After the lesson, the teacher used the students’ techniques to best teach the class in further lessons.

I am not quite sure how I feel about this method of co-teaching, although there seem to be a handful of strengths. One strength is that student co-teaching allows students who do not share the same culture as the class, school, etc. express their needs in a productive way. Since it may be hard for them to verbally express the supports they need from the teacher and peers, this activity allows them to become the teacher and model what they think best fits the class. These students also feel that what they have to say is important and valued in the classroom. The teacher asks the students to use their skills and knowledge of themselves, the world, and the content, to create a lesson that she will take ideas from! For many students, that though in itself boosts their educational confidences.

While this is the case, I feel that student co-teaching has some limitations. Although the teacher models her lessons after what students have done, this lasts one lesson, unless otherwise addressed. If you do this continuously, what separates a co-teaching lesson from a presentation? Like many things, continuous usage of this teaching technique lessens its fun and “value”. After two or three lessons, students may feel that there is no point in co-teaching. They will see students standing in front of the room, teaching content, just like they would in a typical presentation. I feel that the best way to create a classroom community where everyone’s voice is valued is through activities from Galligher and Christenson. These activities promote student choice while also connecting their lives to content. By doing so, students see that they have a great amount to offer. Their education is led by each student’s individuality. This method can easily be used throughout the year without it being a drag for students. Although students are drawing from their lives, every prompt, novel, etc. can be different and create lifelong learners and writers.

            I am not surprised that there is so much negativity surrounding PARCC testing. Each year, both students and teachers struggle with the “importance” of standardized testing. While teachers are forced to rush through the curriculum and cutting out lessons unimportant to the test, students feel the stress and pressures prevalent in the school community and may start to recognize a deficit ideology in themselves. As a result, something which seems good in theory is not good in practice. If there is such negative talk around education, what do students learn in the classroom? The answer according o the readings is virtually nothing. To me, it appears that the only things students learn are how to memorize and recall information and “passing” a test. According to Dr. Johnson’s essay, about 80% of teachers have students who think negatively of the exam, whether about their performance or the test in general. Because students are almost unable to express themselves and their interests in the typical classroom, they believe that the education system is out to destroy them. This idea is also prevalent among diverse learners (special education, ELL’s, etc.). The PARCC test illustrates the ideals of American society. The questions and directions are not geared for all types of learners, rather, questions and directions focus on those in power. If a student cannot read and understand the questions, how can they do well?

            What really strikes me is the relation between PARCC testing and common core standards. Generally speaking, the common core writing standards give freedom to both teacher and student. Upon first glance, it seems that the creators of said standards have the students’ best interests in mind. In other words, the non-content specific standards allow students the freedom to express themselves. While this may be the case, the current education system appears to find more consolation knowing that they are drilling facts into students. They think that setting children up to be at the same level is more productive than allowing them to think and explore. These readings made it apparent that there is a need for ongoing discussion about the disadvantages of such tests and the benefits of critical thinking and literacy.

I find the idea that low-income families do not care about education highly unsettling. Just because a family does not appear at open houses, parent-teacher conferences, or sit down and help their children with schoolwork does not make them careless. Likewise, students from poor families do not act passively in the classroom because they do not care. The home situation for poor families is just as diverse as wealthier families: some parents work multiple jobs and are rarely home, some cannot find work, and some speak a language other than English. As a result, there is some discomfort when they are asked to enter a school where everyone is “expected” to be white. In other words, every member of the school community is expected to possess resources and qualities that could place them in the favored, upper-middle class society. If a parent does not speak English they may feel targeted and self- conscious about their abilities to fit into the school community. Their children can also feel this discomfort around their peers. They may feel uncomfortable talking about there home lives with those in their class because they, like their parents, may feel targeted. If they know they are different, why would they speak up? In regards to their schoolwork, poor students may perform below their ability because they may have to take care of younger siblings, work after school, or suffer anxieties about their lives and families.

            I agree with Blad’s belief that “[t]he social and educational inequities in the U.S. must be our targets for repair – not our students”. The placements we give poor families in our society disrupts a student’s abilities to learn and make the most out of their education. Although they have the ability to succeed and do well in school, environmental factors bring them down. They feel that because they cannot get out of the rut we put them in, there is no use in excelling in their education; the opportunities they dream of will never be given to them. As Blad states, teachers unintentionally demoralize their students by initially giving them 100% on an assignment and them taking points away from them because they did something wrong. Continuously seeing the evil red pen on a corrected assignment forces students to believe their differences, i.e. language, resources, etc, are their enemies, even if they cannot be changed. As a graduate of Classical High School, which had students of all class and cultural backgrounds, I know for a fact that very low- income students have the ability to succeed in school and follow their dreams. As a result, it is the teacher’s job to boost a student’s morale and embrace their differences.

I feel that the author of “To High School English Teachers (and All Teachers)” and Christensen mirror each other in the idea that teachers should resist “teaching so that students acquire fixed content and instead foster students as ongoing learners”. In one of her writing assignments, Christensen mentioned how she asked students to interview a person who “reads without words”. This assignment brought students into a new world of academia; they were able to recognize that what they are learning to do in the classroom is a skill that remains important past classroom walls. While fishermen read the water and hairdressers read hair and anatomy (Christensen 5-6), they also write in their professions. For example, a fisherman writes whether or not people can consume tuna and salmon, while a hairdresser writes and creates a new style for his or her clients. Students develop ideas about learning that may not have existed beforehand: learning is never ending, there is allows time and opportunities to learn.

This assignment also lets students and teachers know that there are many ways of learning and writing that vary from person to person. If I assign a writing prompt, I do not have to assign a specific structure. I can leave conventions and structure up to the individual student. While I may hold expectations for them, writing in a way that fits individual learning styles gives students the opportunity to hold expectations for me. If there are no deficit views of language, writing, and reading, as the blog poster explains, then it is simpler to create a classroom curriculum “that helps students make sense of the world, that makes them feel smart” and educated (Christensen 7). Student differences and individuality become the main focus of the classroom and what is important to them becomes the main theme. From the point of view of a native English speaker, there are specific mechanics and conventions that students should learn and understand to become successful in schools driven by inequality. Although this is true, there are many bi-lingual, and even tri-lingual students in the typical, everyday classroom. Each of these languages posses their own unique mechanics and conventions that become prevalent in student writing. Our job as educators is to take this set back into consideration, explaining that some errors are ok because they follow their “natural” pattern and showing them how those same mechanics are used in modern English writing.