1. Why do we have public schools?
[Their are various reasons why we have public schools. Some reasons are obvious. One being that our society needs a "common ground" system of education. All 3rd graders should have equal opportunities and exposure as 3rd graders (students at any grade level) in the next county or state. Another obvious reason is if education wasn't "free" many of our children wouldn't be able to go...children are the next generation....if they aren't educated...we can expect failure as a nation.
2. What kind of power do teachers have in public schools?
Teachers' powers are very limited. They're limited by administrators, principles, and parents. The greatest power a teacher has in a public school lies within their ability to strike an interest in their students, motivate them to ENJOY learning and to embrace education as a NECESSITY and privilege in their lives. Once a teacher gains that power over his/her class, then the power can have a ripple effect on the rest of the school...and maybe even extend further than that. (all i can think about is that movie: Freedom Writers)
3. Where does the curriculum come from?
???I don't know...did a little research in the book and on the internet...but not sure of the correct answer so instead of BSing it....i'll leave this one alone.????
4. What is the difference between the hidden and the overt curriculum?
On page 87 of our text, it is stated "The idea of a hidden curriculum functions most usefully as a device for identifying those systematic side effects of schooling that we sense but which cannot be adequately accounted for by reference to the explicit curriculum." The definition of overt is "open to view". The biggest difference I'm gathering is that the [b]hidden curriculum is the bigger picture, the effects schooling has on students, what their education experiences do for them in the long run and the overt curriculum is the basic actual set of standard points the students are expected to learn. I'm a little fuzzy on the contrasts here and knowing me I've probaly got it completely backwards so please reply and help me out! thanks!

I think public schools are the most important thing ever. They are just as important to us as prisons, and hospitals are. And they are free to students, for the most part. Public schools definitley give students a chance at understanding the real world. They get to learn about all different levels of diversity such as economic, racial, sexual, spiritual, religious, and many more diversities among them. If we didn't have public schools, I would hate to think of the experience of diversity that would be lacking in most kids lives. Teachers have the power they allow themselves to have to a certain extent. I know some teachers who stand around complaining that they have no power and all they can go by is the curriculum set out for them. And I know teachers who are positive and creative, teachers who never quit.These are the teachers who are powerful. They take the curriculum and they put there own experticise into it.

First of all you girls have some great ideas and I like the points being brought up. The fact of the matter is that we have public schooling because it is the law. We are all required by law to enroll our children/students into class when the time comes age wise. This also brings up an interesting question which i believe was brought up by our very own teacher......How can we call ourselves the land of the free and base everything we know off of this freedom if you are required by law to go to grade school? This is obviously a whole different discussion and topic we could all rant and rave about but that's not what this post is about. What i wanted to say is that i believe not only should our students be enrolled in school but i also believe they should experience public school specifically even if just for high school so they can experience the total package which is our world. What do i mean by this you might ask? When i say experiencing the total package i mean that public school not only teaches and is meant to mold young minds into the next president, or teachers, or PR moguls......I mean public school uniquely from private schools offers diversity, new and challenging social situations, males and females working in the same classroom, social hierarchy (whether its right or wrong), and a simple taste of whats to come in a mixed up world during college and the eventual real world.

While it would make sense, Candace, for us to have a “common groundâ€

Rachel brought up a topic that has been on my mind a lot lately and that is that though we have standards and policies in the public education system, all the way up to the university level, there are bound to be differences in each state and even region due to the fact that the states are meant to organize education. On some level, this seems to be a good thing, but on other levels, especially on a college level, it is in my opinion an issue. I know when I graduate with a degree in elementary education I will be most equipped to teach in North Carolina, however, I do not want to teach in North Carolina. I would like to teach in Seattle, Portland, or somewhere along the upper Western coast of the United States. It is troublesome to me to think that although I will be a certified teacher, my certification from Norht Carolina could hinder my ability to get a job in that part of the nation. So this brings up the question of should we have more standards in our education, especially at a univeristy level? I think we should, but then what about at the elementary level? I'm not really sure as of yet whether that would be a good thing. One could argue both sides, and if anyone feels they have a good argument for either side, please share.

I'm also not planning to teach in North Carolina. I would like to teach in Virginia, or somewhere up north. I haven't decided, but I know that getting National Board Certification will help a teacher like me get a job anywhere I want. Otherwise, I would just have to take the state board certification test. As for the Standard Course of Study, yes, I wish it could be a little more universal. I'm a Social Studies Major, and the NCSCOS says I have to teach a lot of North Carolina history in my class (I'm a middle school major). I wish I could focus more on US history and world history but also talk about North Carolina, but maybe not as much. I think a student should learn about North Carolina, but not spend a whole year on it, because I know that they won't all live in North Carolina for their whole lives. I guess I just wish that the SCOS was a little more flexible and I didn't have to plan every single lesson around it. I haven't had enough experience in public school education to know if it's a good thing or a bad thing. But during my last internship, my master teacher had his whole year planned out by the school board on what to teach and when. Personally, I'd like a little more creative freedom.

I agree with wanting more freedom within standards. My sister is a high school teacher, and sometimes her lesson plans have to be approved. She tries to do creative lessons to get the students involved but sometimes administrators watch her more closely because she is a new teacher, and her students seem to be having fun. I am an English major, and I hope I can create lots of activities for my students to get them involved more. For example, I want to get away from the "norm" of books that are read in high school, and branch out to newer "classics". The state does not say that we have to read certain books, however they do say we have to cover certain topics. Why not cover these topics while reading different books? I brought this up in one of my other classes and funding was the answer to my problem. Public schools don't have enough money to purchase a new class set of books. I think this is sad. How are we expected to keep students involved in school, and interested if we don't have the money to meet these needs? I would gladly pay for certain classroom items myself...that is, if teacher were paid more....