Blogging is definitely an experience you need to try once before deciding to use it in your classroom. I have been writing posts over the last few months and following other blogs on education. I have decided that I don't think I will use it in my classroom if I do teach in kindergarten as I would like. I am not sure that I really get how to use a blog. I like to follow other blogs and see what is out there for education, but I  am not comfortable with having one of my own. I am not sure what the benefits would be for children so young. I can see how it would be beneficial to help keep parents informed of things going on in my classroom and posting fun activities and such that we have done.  Some of the benefits of blogging are that it is easy to keep up with current events going on in education and to get ideas from other teachers on lesson plans, suggestions for behavioral management for the classroom and individuals, crafts, and ideas for policies and procedures for my classroom. It also had ideas for new teachers to survive the first year. One blog had information that helped me understand some of what is going on with the "No Child Left Behind" and other policies.
     Some of the negative aspects for blogging to me are that it is hard to find time to keep up with it as is really needed to have a successful blog page, It can be overwhelming trying to keep up with other pages that you are following as well. It definitely takes time and dedication to have a good blog page. I would need to have more time to research and find ways to implement a blog page in my classroom. It would also require me to have more technology in my classroom than most kindergarten classes in my small community have access to. I would have to get permission from the superintendent to do one in my classroom and permission from parents if I am going to post pictures or names of the students. I am not sure it would be worth the time and effort it takes to set up and maintain a blog. It has been an interesting project to do this over the past few months, but not one that I would really continue.

Education from 1980-2000

     Public education has taken many turns over the last two centuries but it seems that we just keep ending up in the same place. The fight in the 19th century was for education to teach the students to be prepared to join the work force, and now in the 20th century, we have evolved right back to that same point. Why is it that corporate America thinks that they need to have a hand in how education is managed? If it is to be a free public education then the student should have a right to decide if they want to learn the things necessary to join the corporate team or gain an education that will prepare them for another field such as theater. Over the last two centuries, it has become apparent that the main goal of tax supported public schools was to get students ready for the workforce. We have seen two major reforms over the last two centuries that involved trying to model public schools after corporations and the marketplace. These reforms have been led by public officials, educators, and business leaders in the name of improving schools. Their main goal was to produce graduates that could form a literate workforce to help the companies compete in the global marketplace. I also ask how we are to compete if all the children are allowed to study is the basic mathematics, science, and language arts? Is there not more to business than these basic subjects? If we do not have need of business classes, theater arts, music, and vocational classes such as automotive skills, then how is the economy going to expand. We need some of the elective classes that are being cut out in order to increase the time for learning the subjects that are so heavily tested nowadays. Teachers are judged on performance of these tests but are not given the opportunity to voice what or how these subjects should be taught and tested on. We have to rely on people who are not experts in education. The main ingredient missing in this takeover of education by corporate leaders, is the teaching and learning. The biggest irony  of corporate influence over the last two centuries is that in the 19th century, the influence was for  more vocational courses and less academic courses. The idea was to provide the skills necessary for students to be able to leave school and join the work force as productive employees and citizens. The push in corporate influence in the 20th century has been the opposite of the 19th century. Now there is a push for more academic courses and almost complete removal of all the vocational courses in most schools. Now all we do is spend our time teaching to the test. There has not been solid evidence that all this testing will lead to productive workers in the global marketplace today. Does all this testing, required curriculum, and the pay to perform for teachers really get teachers to teach better or students to learn better? Are we developing literate, active, and morally sensitive citizens with all this reform in education? Can we really get students to become independently thinking citizens that want to go out and become workers in the corporate workplace?

Reflection on education in America 1950-1980

     The time period from 1950 to 1980 was one full of crusades. It was a time of unrest as people demanded  equal education and civil rights. Schools were considered separate and unequal in the type of education given to minority students. Segregation was a huge factor in the unrest that dominated this era. World War II has just ended and the baby boomers are being educated in how to prepare for nuclear attacks, and being propelled in education toward a technological future. But for the minority students. it is a time of inequality and segregation. During the 1950's the crusade for equal education for all became a leading component. Many felt that in order for all students to get the education that was supposed to be provided to every student we needed to see an end of segregation. In 1950, many had to risk their lives in order to fight for equal education opportunities.  Joseph Albert Delaine was one of those that lost a lot in an effort to gain equality for his children. He filed a lawsuit against the local schools that would not provide school buses for his children. He lost his teaching job. His wife and other family members lost their jobs, His home was burned, he was shot at, His church was burned down and he was forced to leave the state. Just because he tried to get the bus to pick up his children for school each day. He was just one among many that suffered persecution for trying to improve the education given to African American children. The 1950's and 1960's was a time of  telephone threats, lynch mobs, hanging ropes, threats, insults, assaults, and rogue cops, along with many other hate crimes. Many people felt that  public school was a vital part of American culture and was vital in their children's lives. They wanted a higher education for their children to allow them to attain a higher level of living. Ethnic minority groups and women began to fight for a change in education that would close the gap in educational opportunities. The Brown v. Board of Education  of Topeka case would lead to great changes for desegregation of schools. In 1954 Chief Justice Earl Warren declared that separate educational facilities were inherently unequal. This led to desegregation in schools. However, it would take many years to see real progress in this area. Many minority teachers lost their jobs even though they were better educated than many white teachers. Courts failed to enforce the new rulings of desegregation. Women would still feel the segregation in schools well into the late 1970's. The 60's brought the Civil Rights Movement and many students striking or boycotting in an effort to gain bilingual schools and classrooms, more homework, advanced-placement courses at the local colleges, more humane treatment from teachers, and curriculum reform that would include more of their cultural history.
    President Lyndon Johnson was a big supporter of the minority students. He was a teacher before going big into politics.He started the Head Start Program and made funding available for low cost college loans for disadvantaged students.  He also passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, which was a precursor of the "No Child Left Behind" Act of today. There was also the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which banned discrimination on the basis of race in all federally funded programs. Schools and states could lose their funding for noncompliance with the law of desegregation.
     The 1970's saw a change in education for English Language Learners after a group of Chinese American's sued for programs to help them. This brought about the ESL program and the ELL programs that gave these students help to learn the language and gave families extra support as well. Feminist leaders fought for more rights for young women in education as well. They wanted equality in athletics, and in vocational classes, as well as more opportunities for college degrees and for funding to help pay for that higher education. The 1972 Title IX  prohibits programs from receiving grants if there was any discrimination based on gender. Then 1976 began the time frame of the crusade for equal opportunity for children with disabilities. About this time period, there was also a surge of new text books and materials to allow the accommodation of almost 70 languages and $68 million dollars was allocated for bilingual programs.
     As all this change was going on, there was a surge of white students leaving the urban schools and enrolling into suburban schools so that they did not have to go to school with the minority students. This left the urban schools with  bigger minority groups and more poverty in the communities, while the suburban areas became richer. As we approached the 80's, the question is raised of rather we can have both equality and excellency in education, or will integration become a tragic failure that would lead to general deterioration in standards and school work? What is your opinion? Stay tuned for my next post where I will discuss Ronald Reagan's "Excellence in Education" program.

     In my continued study of the history of education, I have been reading up on the period from 1900-1950. It has really opened my eyes to how blessed we are to be living in this time period of education. We might be seeing a lot of reform going on right now with the common core standards that are being implemented in education, but the early 1900's was a mess in regard to education. The main goal for this time period was to "Americanize" the immigrant children that were pouring into the school systems. It was a time for schools and teachers to teach the students the knowledge and skills needed to participate in what was a democratic industrial society.  It was now a law that children were to attend  elementary school and many went on to high school. America was now famous for its free public education and we were ahead of other leading European Nations. Junior High Schools were implemented to handle the large amount of immigrant students and to train children as young as twelve for the work force. Meanwhile, there were many that felt it was time to change the way children were being educated. It was time for more practical studies that would prepare them for the work industry and less of academic courses. This led to the use of IQ testing to determine where the student needed to be placed in education. It would help identify the student's innate, fixed intelligence. Administration would use the results to determine if a student was to go on in the academic studies, or be placed in a program that best fit their abilities toward industrial work or other areas.
     About this time, philosopher John Dewey  campaigned  that children learned by doing instead of by reading about it. He developed an educational system that was a more child-centered and individualized approach. It was built to emphasize a child's interest and culture. This reform was implemented in Gary Indiana by a former student of Mr. Dewey, a William Wirt. It was met with mixed emotion at the time but later became very successful in that area. It was based on alternate periods of study and work.  It failed in New York due to parents feeling that it was preparing their children to go out and get jobs in the factories while they wanted their children to go on to higher education and jobs as doctors or lawyers. It was too bad that this approach did not succeed at the time. It might have changed the direction that education seemed to keep taking. Vocational tracking was still the big push thanks to the IQ testing and later the SAT testing that was developed to test for college acceptance.
     During the 1950's, the focus was on "real life" education, With this change in education came great disatisfaction. There was a claim that education had be reduced student effort, lowered standards, and reduced achievement as well. There was a cry for change in education again. With the Russian launching of the satellite Sputnik, there came a greater push for this reform. Congress passed a law that provided for higher education in the areas of mathematics, science, and foreign language. There was a big reduction in illiteracy  and more children attained an education.  But education still had a long way to go. In 1910, most children were still found at work in factories instead of in a classroom. When asked, many would rather work in the factories than be in unsafe, boring classrooms. Progressive leaders pushed to reform schools into places that would exercise a student's body as well as the mind, teach them by doing hands on learning, and explore the world around them. This lead to the introduction of William Wirt again. He developed a curriculum that would always keep the students moving and not let them have time to be bored. It gave an opportunity to the students to have a rich school experience. It was a split-shift system of Work-Study-Play where the students would learn skills for jobs, then academics, and then play time as well. It was a well-rounded program that met the need of all students and their talents instead of just a few. It was designed to help everyone be successful in academics as well as a working man. There was even a program to help the community members and hopefully meet a need for teaching parents how to manage better at home.
      There was great opposition once again to the "Gary Plan" in New York so it was never successful in their schools. They eventually went on to develop their own texts and curriculum that would focus on "Americanizing" the students. Only English would be spoken in the schools and Christian influence ruled. This became a time of segregation once again. It became harder for children to cross that cultural divide between school and home. IQ testing would build an even wider gap in educational segregation. It was thought that the scores could determine a student's knowledge by ethnicity, race or class. The testing was biased and only given in English so many children failed it. Many Mexican American students as well as Native American students were classified as slow learners or mentally retarded. Some were never even given the test. It was just determined that because of their race, they were bound to fail or only be able to succeed as an industrial worker. This was considered to be another form of segregation as the students' were educated to prepare for the industrial job market instead of higher education.
      Then came yet another push for educational reform. Arthur Bestor, a university professor and author, felt that students were being spoon-fed  information and not being given the chance to develop their own thoughts, or evaluations of the data. How could they come to any conclusions about the material when it was all handed to them and there was no thinking required. He pushed for a return to the basic core subjects of academics. The american school system was in a continuous cycle between progressive education and traditional forms of education. But there was also still the problem of little funding, buildings overcrowded and in disrepair, teacher shortage due to the war,  and cultural bias that needed attention. In 1958, President Eisenhower signed a bill known as the National Defense Education Act that would give huge amounts of money every year to education. It was a push to compete with Russia and reform our school system so that more scientists and mathematicians would be produced. This era would be known as the time of mass education but not of equal education.
     I cannot imagine how hard it would have been to be a teacher at this time. It seemed that ideas were always changing on how you should be teaching and there was a huge responsibility on the teacher to not only teach academics but also hygiene and basic life skills. The teacher often had to take the role of a parent as well as an educator. It must have been hard for the student as well to not know the language and be tested only to be told what you were going to learn so that you could get a job in something you might not have even been interested in. Many were denied the opportunity to expand their learning and find what talents they might have had in the arts, mathematics, or science. They were simply told that they would take courses that would prepare them for the work force. Our education system might have problems now, but at least students have an opportunity to explore different avenues of learning.  What is your opinion?

     I have recently started reading a new book titled, "School, The story of American Public Education." It is sectioned out into four areas of the building of education. The first section that I just finished talked about the years 1770-1900. This was an era where the school system was still being developed in the United States. It was known as the starting era of the "Common School". In the pre-revolution era there were not many schools available to attend. If there was a school in a town or community, it was usually payed for and supported by the families that could afford to pay to send their children to school. Often, the girls were sent to "dame schools" to learn their letters and discipline.  Most teaching came from the Bible. If you were a boy and came from a privledged family, you might have been sent to a grammar school where you learned mathematics, Latin, and philosophy. If you were wealthy enough, you might have even made it to college or university. At this time, most Americans had received enough education to be able to read something such as the newspaper, and were able to prepare their taxes. Some could still only sign their name.  There were some men such as Thomas Jefferson that felt that America needed an educational system. He felt that it was important for man to be educated in order to make informed decisions in choosing the rulers of the country. He tried to establish a law requiring 3 years of education for all children and the opportunity for advanced education for those  aristocrats that could serve the country such as he had done. Some problems with his plan is that he felt that girls should only be taught how to sew and take care of their families and home. He also totally excluded the slaves in his plan. Jefferson's plan for education did not pass at the time, but other important leaders would later continue with the idea of education for all. Horace Mann was one of those great men. He set out to set up a school system that would be free and available for everyone. He started a new system of education known as the "common schools." It was a system of free schooling for everyone and taught the same common body of knowledge so that every child had an equal opportunity to be successful in life. It was to be funded by the tax dollars that citizens paid each year, and it was to be governed by the state. This is where he gained opposition. Citizens did not want the states to have control and they did not want a heavier tax burden. Mann was also responsible for getting better textbooks, seating, chalkboards and other needed materials as well as better school buildings with adequate lighting, heating, and other necessities.
      Religion also began to play a bigger role in education at this time. There was a huge debate over what religion should be focused on in the schools. Many Catholic parents felt that their children were being taught Protestant methods and beliefs and that their own religion was being persecuted. Bishop John Hughes demanded that public money be made available for the Catholics to start their own schools. This led to a huge public uproar with other religions wanting their share as well. This eventually led to the development of the New York City Board of Education. One of the first such boards that would develop throughout the country. The Catholic  citizens eventually created  their own funding and started private schools of their own. This was the start of the major alternative school system in the US.
     At about the same time, the African American citizens were starting to demand an education for their children as well. They wanted an end to segregation and wanted better schools with better materials.  This led to a court case against the City of Boston by  Benjamin Roberts in behalf of his daughter Sarah. It eventually made it all the way to the  state legislature.  This court case led to the 1855 Massachusetts law abolishing segregation in their schools. This law was later part of the Brown v. Board of Education lawsuit that ended segregation in all public schools.
      There was so much reform going on in this time period in regards to education. Women were now being educated to become teachers in the West as it expanded. There were more schools in the United States than in any other country.  It seemed that the dreams of Thomas Jefferson and Horace Mann were off to a great start. I can't wait to see how the next era of education goes as I continue to read this book. Stay tuned and I will let you know what I discover as I read about the new public school system.

My approach to teaching.

            In the journey to becoming an elementary teacher, I have had to do some deep thinking on what style of teaching methods I would use. Would I use the executive approach to teaching, the facilitator approach, or the liberationist approach? I believe that I will use the executive approach the most in my classroom as I tend to want control of what is happening around me, what the students are learning, and how the students are learning. I feel that it is very important for younger children to have rules and procedures in place on the first day that they step into a new classroom. It is necessary to have lesson plans that are detailed and specific to what is expected for those children to learn. I am hoping to teach kindergarten and these children need to know what is going to happen next, as well as what exactly is expected of them or they get confused and upset. The goal of education is to prepare students to the current norms and conventions of society. This means that children need to learn to follow rules and procedures to function successfully in the community around them. It will be my job as their teacher to help them learn how to do this.

            As I have studied the three approaches to teaching, I have opened my mind more to the possibilities of incorporating at least one of the other approaches to go with my executive approach. I am starting to think that I could easily include the facilitator approach to me teaching methods.  I feel it is necessary to encourage each student’s potential in regards to learning. Each child is so different and learns in their own way so it would be necessary for me as the teacher to find that student’s learning style and help make it possible for them to learn. It would be easy to find each child’s need and interest when it comes time to develop lesson plans for the month and accommodate them as much as possible. If I don’t include some of the facilitator approach into my classroom, I am afraid the students’ will find the classroom to structured and boring. It is necessary to find things that will catch their attention and give them the desire to keep learning. As a facilitator, I will help the students learn by finding ways to learn myself as well. I love to learn new things and look forward to helping my students learn these things as well. I think that as I try to combine the two approaches of executive and facilitator, I will learn so much more of what it takes to help the students reach their potential. I will be able to have my structure and classroom management; however, I will also be able to have the discovery of new things, as well as creating new life experiences for every person in the classroom. I will be able to  be compassionate, caring, and lead the children toward their own learning and still have the ultimate say in what is being studied and have the classroom management that is so necessary with young children.

As a teacher, would I ever be able to use the liberationist approach in my classroom?

      I have struggled to decide how I would develop my teaching methods as I move closer to my goal of having my own classroom one day. I have learned of many methods that would be effective in teaching but I am not sure what one exactly will work best for me. I have been studying the three approaches of executive, liberationist, and facilitator over the course of this semester. I find that I would in all reality apply all three approaches in my teaching approach at one time or another depending on the requirements of the curriculum and the students at that time.
      I have been considering what it means to me to be a liberationist. To me, a liberationist is about liberating the mind, using imagination and creativity to develop further knowledge in myself and my students, and to create a sense of wonder and understanding.  The liberationist approach aids one in acquiring skills of thinking, deliberation, imagination, and the knowledge to search and investigate for greater understanding for oneself. This type of approach is a great way to push  for higher efficacy of achievement and thought. The teacher would present the material and the students would then work to reach greater understanding of that material.
     There are sure to be some difficulties in using this approach with students. First, it does not focus on the student's life experiences, instead, there is focus on the depth and breadth of the student's learning. It is up to the teacher to help the student become informed and how to make informed decisions based on the material that they have learned from. Democracy must be taught along with other core instruction. The liberationist approach relies on the teacher and educational material to teach the students the necessary skills to deal with difficulties and how to problem solve so that they can become model citizens. This can be a lot of pressure on a teacher who is not organized and ready for such learning. The teacher must keep himself/herself well educated and up on current needs of the students and the world around them in order to successfully aid the students in reaching their goal.
     There is some benefits that come from using this approach. The biggest benefit is that it will require deeper thinking skills from the student and the teacher.Often students will work in groups to help facilitate deeper learning, understanding, creativity, and conformity with what is real and true in the world around. This approach also leans toward the understanding that there is human goodness in everyone.

The Executive Approach to Teaching

     As a student, I have had many teachers that have used the executive approach to teaching. It has been very beneficial to me as I am one that likes structure and organization. I have a hard time trying to achieve that type of structure in my own life however! I call it the joy of having teenagers! Anyway, on to what I was originally discussing about the executive approach to teaching. I had many teachers that could walk that fine line of being a great executive but also hinging on the boarder of facilitator. I feel that it is necessary to have high structure and teacher directed learning, but it is also necessary to have time for the students to direct the learning or education becomes mundane and boring. I see the executive approach every day at school. One classroom is very structured. It is necessary for the young age of the children but there is no room for flexibility. It is structured for each minute of the day and is followed almost to the point of frustration. I have been in a classroom where you can see the dazed looks of the children but the teacher just keeps going "because it is in the lesson plans so it is going to be taught today!"  The executive approach covers classroom management where it is necessary to cover the curriculum in a way that promotes successful learning. It means that a teacher must know the students and their level of readiness to learn. It means organizing material to engage them in learning that is productive.
     I have been in classrooms that are directed with more of  a facilitator approach and to me it is to disorganized. The students seemed unsure of what they were to be doing most of the time. It seemed to be a free period for many to catch up on other classes. That is why I feel it is necessary to have an executive approach to my classroom. It needs to be organized and structured in a way that the students know what is expected of them throughout the day. They know what will be taught that day and what is expected of them to learn from it. There also needs to be a little bit of facilitator included so that the children do not become bored with school. There should be some fun and opportunities for the students to learn about subjects they are interested in. There are benefits to classrooms using the facilitator approach. One is that the students gain better comprehension of the material and if it has not been gained, the teacher can go back and reteach until there is comprehension. The teacher is able to give quick corrective feedback, reinforcement of subject material,  and reteach anything not understood.
    As the classroom size keeps increasing, the teacher needs to have more structure in how it is organized and material taught for comprehension.

Facilitator Teaching Approach

     I have been studying the different approaches to teaching lately  and wanted to  reflect on what I feel a facilitator teaching approach is. A facilitator is one who helps the students own the learning process by becoming a learner as well. The teacher as a facilitator will need to develop a rapport with the student and how better to do that than become a student of learning as well. As a positive role model for the students in the classroom, the teacher will need to model what learning is all about. I feel that often it is necessary for the teacher to learn right along with the students. We cannot always know everything but as a facilitator it is important to have as extensive knowledge as possible. We must be constantly learning new things to keep up with our students.  We can give the students more empowerment  as we direct them in exploring more about the subjects at hand.
     A facilitator teacher must be able to  ask questions and focus on the philosophy that true learning can only take place when the student is able to discover the answers for himself. If the teacher can ask open-ended questions in such a way as to guide students to think more creatively and critically to find the answers for themselves, then that is a successful teaching approach. One must seek and involve the students opinions as this will also open the door for more brainstorming and in-depth discussions. The student's life experiences should always be taken into account and a great facilitator will realize that life experience's value to the student. A facilitator is warm, compassionate, intelligent, skilled in interpersonal communication, and treats everyone with respect while demanding it in return.
     A classroom using the facilitator approach would be one in where everyone's opinion was valued and listened to with respect. Learning would be directed more by the students and what they wanted to know more about. However, the teacher would still have ultimate say in what is directly studied. The teacher would provide the materials necessary for learning as well as imputing a reflection on his/her own principles on the class. The classroom might be more free flowing than that of an executive approach, but it can also include some of both approaches to benefit the learning of the students. It is often necessary to have some structure and rules in order to promote the creative life experiences that can be the drive behind the facilitator approach.
     This approach can be easy to implement into a classroom when students are working on group projects involving learning new material such as careers and development. They can use their life experiences to help other students with their project development. For example, one student might share knowledge of working in a nursing home with another student looking at becoming a nurse. Then that student can expand on that knowledge with extended research. This is not something that teacher would have known anything about without researching also. Some drawbacks to the facilitator approach is that it needs to be more free-flowing than a normal structured routine of an executive approach. It is more student directed so it will often be more unorganized, messy, and loud.
     Overall, the facilitator approach seems to be one that would easily fit into a classroom level of middle school or high school age students. It would be harder to implement into a kindergarten classroom where more organization and structure is needed to keep so many little children on task and receiving appropriate learning instruction time.

The three approaches to teaching.

     What are the three approaches to teaching and which one would I use? When asked this question, I was not sure. In exploring each approach, I learned more about each approach. The executive approach is more of an authoritarian style of teaching. The teacher believes that it is necessary to have a firm control over the class. There are expectations and rules that must be adhered to at all times for the classroom to run smoothly. There is a seating chart and desks are in a uniform row or block that cannot be changed. Students are expected to remain in their seats at all times and absolutely no talking unless called upon by the teacher. There is little or no praise given to the students and discipline is strict.
     The next approach is the Facilitator Approach where the students are valued as a person more than someone to be controlled. It is most often used by a teacher that is more of an authoritative teacher. This teacher likes control and organization but also incourages independence in the students. The teacher is willing to explain the rules and why they are necessary. The students are encouraged to give verbal opinions and discussions and it is okay to interupt the teacher to ask relevant questions. Most authoritative teachers are warm and nurturing but will give out discipline in a firm manner. The student is often guided by the teacher through a project but not lead. The students are free to make choices and decisions regarding the material that they want to learn. The student is important to the teacher and is encouraged, praised, and treated with respect.
     The last approach is the Liberationist Approach, It allows the students to make their own choices on what they want to learn. If a child wants to learn how to build a computer instead of learning history, then it is acceptable for that student to research and carry out the project. It is believed that this will allow the students to think, imagine, investigate and create on their own. The teacher is there more for providing encouragement, to listen, to suggest, and to give support to the student.
     I feel that it is necessary to blend the three approaches to have a successful classroom. There needs to be structure, independence, caring , and creativity to have a solid bases for learning in today's world. I plan to have more of a blend between executive and facilitator as this will work best with younger children. I will try to apply the liberationist approach to some of my class studies as even young children need to be taught to make decisions for themselves and be able to do so in a manner that will promote success.

My season of change and lessons learned!

     I am often asked why would I want to go into teaching with all the changes going on and with the pay so low right now. I struggle to know how to answer that question as I am often asking myself the same thing. The last two years have been one change after another. I have often sat back and wondered if I have yet learned all that I needed to know so that this journey may end. The answer is a big NO! I started out over twenty years ago as an Agriculture Education major but did not finish due to marriage and children. I often thought of going back to finish but had one excuse after another. Now all these years later, circumstances have made it necessary to go back to school to get some sort of education so that I may provide for my children and myself. I had  done some substituted in all grade levels and have worked full time in elementary education for the past 10 years where I  made the discovery that I had no desire to teach middle or high school students. However, I did discover that I loved working with the younger ages, especially Kindergarten age. I also discovered that I enjoyed working with the students with learning difficulties as well as having a daughter with some mild disabilities and having had to be her advocate over the years. I was not sure that I wanted to teach though. I had heard to  many teachers talk about all the changes coming and how horrible the pay was so I kept trying to think of what else I could go back to school for. My heart keeps bringing me back to teaching elementary children even when my mind is telling me to run the other way. I love working with the little ones and seeing their beautiful smiles each day. I love being an example to them and knowing that they have at least one person that cares about them in their life. Many children do not have that. I want them to know that they have a safe place to come to each day. That I will listen, comfort, love, guide, and teach them. I want to be that advocate for them when they are struggling to learn and need someone to notice that they need an extra boost in a direction that can help them learn. I can't save the world or change all the mess in it, but I can try to make a difference in one child's life and help him or her believe that he /she is a wonderful, capable, beautiful person too.
     So, this is the reason I have decided to become an elementary education teacher with an emphasis in special education. Along this path of discovery and change, I have learned to grow and expand myself. I have learned that I can go without sleep for days, my children will survive if not fed big home-cooked meals each night, and my brain will not explode due to stress and overload! Somehow I survive each semester and take one more giant step toward that day when my season of teaching will finally be in front of me. I can't wait to see how I learn and grow from that experience!