After reading, A Feminist Perspective, I realized that when I have had “caring teachers,” I have enjoyed my classes more and had a greater interest in learning. The reading described caring teachers as putting the students’ needs first. Also, caring is a two way street. A caring teacher cares about his students and tries to relate to them and encourage their learning. But, a teacher can only do so much for the students. When the students care about the teacher as well, then a relationship can form between the students and the teacher. When this happens, students may develop a genuine interest in learning. The article also described what a caring teacher might do when a student cheats. Rather than penalizing the student for cheating, the teacher would try to help the student understand his own actions and reasons for cheating. In other words, the teacher will try to help the student get back on the right track. This concept shows a great deal about a caring teacher’s character. Even though the student broke the rules, the teacher’s main focus is to help the student learn from his mistakes and be successful. Students may cheat for one reason or another and some students may cheat over and over again. When teachers just punish students by giving them a zero or through other consequences, they may become discouraged. Sometimes students just need encouragement and individual help to overcome different situations. As a future teacher, my only concern with this concept is what if the school has a policy against cheating and it is unacceptable to help students individually after breaking the rules, rather than punishing them through grade deduction. Does the teacher follow these rules? Or is it more important to help the student through these situations? And, what if the teacher does choose to help the student without grade deduction, and then the teacher gets in trouble for breaking the school rules? What then?
I would also like to respond to the Noddings article. Overall, I agree with the ethics that are governed by 'caring.' I was interested to see that the author mentioned the word "agape." A colleague of mine in our church just recently taught on agape love, a platonic unconditional love, typically reserved for the type of love God shows man in his acceptance of humanity regardless of what man does. The first part of agape involves imparting worth and value to the cared-for. With this foundation laid, the carer can then move into the life of the cared-for without conditions, as he has already placed immense value on the cared-for. I would posit that this is the type of attitude we should have toward our students as we teach.
I however, also felt the same way the author did at the conclusion of the reading. What shall we do? Shall we violate rules, doing so in the best interest of our students, as we are governed by care ethics? Or should we stick to the rules, lest we jettison our integrity in the classroom? I think there is a more important question we need to ask first: what world beliefs do you have regarding education and care ethics? The answer to this question will surely dictate the approach you take to tough situations in the classroom.
I found this chapter to be incredibly though provoking. It introduced the terms consequentialist and nonconsequentialist. Consequentialists use the principle of benefit maximization, which is the thinking of attempting to maximize the good in a situation (Ms. Jones lying to Mr. Pugnacious in order to protect Johnnie). Whereas nonconsequentialists use the priniciple of equal respect for persons, or "Do unto others as you would have other do unto you." (Ms. Jones feeling bad about lying because does not like being lied to, so shouldn't she show the same respect to Mr. Pugnacious?).
While I was reading this chapter I was trying to determine which type of thinking I have used, I use, and that I will use. I feel, however, that everyone uses both thinking in every situation and that it's just a matter of which one "wins out" so to speak. For instance, Ms. Jones used consequentialism when deciding on what to tell Mr. Pugnacious, however, she still felt guilty about it do to her nonconsequentialist thinking. I confidently feel that in Ms. Jones situation I would have acted the same way, but was that necessarily the most ethical response? My question then, is who is actually qualified to decide what is the most ethical decision in any given situation? Or is there anyone?
Caring should be an aspect of every day life and of every profession. It should not be the sole responsibility of females when rearing children or interacting with them. I really enjoyed how this article addressed that men are caring as well and if they were raised more similarly to females they may not condemn males who act caring. While thought provoking I feel that it addressed a lot of pertinent questions such as: Why does caring seem to be the sole role of women? Is there more than one way of showing someone that you care? (the section about "tough love" for students and how to address it), and how does caring impact students and teachers? I really enjoyed how the bureaucracy of education was addressed because that often goes unnoticed. However, I do wonder how we as teachers are supposed to work with our students in a caring and effective way if it isn't common to teach the same students for more than one year. In the end it mentioned breaking school rules. While this seems to be a in the worst interest for the teacher yet the best interest for the students I think that there are legal ways to go about changing these rules. For example, if there is a rule that doesn’t benefit students then by all means get the support of your fellow teachers, parents, and students and legally change the rule. This avoids potential ramifications.
I found the Noddings article to be very intriguing. I for one agree with the caring guide to ethics. It is my belief that teachers are there to help students succeed and grow as individuals. I have a hard time wrapping my head around the idea of sending students to in-school suspension for acting out in class. What good will that do the student? They have to go sit in a classroom in silence and work on a worksheet or project that they most likely do not understand. I believe that the better response is to talk to the student and listen to their needs. I believe that it is the teacher’s responsibility to help try and figure out what the root of the student’s misbehavior stems from, even if that means the teacher working with the school counselor.
I believe the teacher had it right in the article when they decided to ignore the rule of missing a day means receiving zero on a student’s work. I agree that it is the teacher’s job to encourage students to do the necessary work in order to understand the material and succeed. After a while penalties do not faze students. I do not view this decision to ignore the rule as unethical. It was a harmless rule to ignore. Teachers need to create the rules that will work best for their students and their classroom. The question then arises, when does ignoring a rule become unethical? If there is a rule that a student can not charge their lunch, yet a student comes to school without money and without a packed lunch do you let them go hungry and obey the rule or do you let them slide and add a charge to their account? If a student comes into school without a proper uniform because their parents could not afford new pants, do you send them to the office or let it go unnoticed? I for one am all about student success above all else. I believe that rules sometimes hinder student growth, but I do wonder when it becomes unethical to ignore the rules?
Although I am aware of the feminist perspective and their universal stance on major issues, I have to say I had no idea of their specific objections to traditional ethics. However, it makes perfect sense that there is largely something missing in the two inclusive ethical systems, namely because they overwhelmingly center on our rationality. I appreciate the feminists’ approach of including the significant role emotions and our personal lives play in how we weigh decisions, essentially because recognizing anything less is insulting.
To say that we choose our paths and live our lives as strict outputs of rationality implies that we are merely one dimensional – that our personal histories, beliefs, attachments (etc.) have no bearing on our decisions whatsoever. Without allowing our multidimensional-selves to factor in, what kind of world are we living in? Based on the people I know, and the bubble I live in, it is hard for me to believe that our ethical decisions stem solely from our rationality.
If ethical decision making is approached exclusively through scientific means, perhaps Kant’s ethics of duty and utilitarianism would appear more aptly suited. However, applied tangibly to the world around us, it is difficult to deny the impact of human emotion, belief and history when taking into account ethical decision making. Perhaps if we assume these facets are foundational, then could the variable in the resulting action be the diversity of human emotion, belief and history?; that the question isn’t whether these aspects of our selves are intrinsic, but whether the extreme disparity among us denotes the difference in how we each respond to ethical decisions.
I really enjoyed reading the article on Carmen "Feminist Perspective". One part in particular really resonated with me. The author spoke of how spending more time with the same group of students would allow teachers to become more familiar with the students and better able to understand them. I completely agree with this. When I was in High School I had the same teacher for English three years in a row. Having him for that amount of time allowed him to really get to know all of us on a personal level, because of this deeper understanding of each student he was better able to help us. He not only helped all of his students grow intellectually, but also socially and morally. I find myself on the fence when it comes to the situation about breaking the rules. I understand why the teacher broke the rule and for the most part agree that the rule should be changed, but I personally feel that she could set a better example for the students if she would go through the proper channels and challenge the rule and try to convince the school to change it. I just feel that by her outright breaking the rule is setting a bad example that if you don't like the rules its o.k to just ignore them.
In chapter one, Strike and Soltis begin to explain the differences between consequentialist and nonconsequentialist ethical theories. At first, the theories seemed easy, but as I continued to read I realized that they were much more complex. Consequentialist ethical theories believe "that the rightness or wrongness of an action is to be decided in terms of consequences" (Strike & Soltis, 11). Basically, a teacher will make a decision based on what will maximize good outcomes. In comparison, nonconsequentialist ethical theories tend to abide by the "golden rule". That is, they do unto others as they would have others to do unto them. I quickly realized that these theories weren't so cut and dry. There is much more to them than meets the eye. Let's use lying as an example. Even though a teacher may "never" lie, can he/she really expect someone to live by the same code? Or if he/she does tend to lie, would it be okay by them if they were lied to? It is not as easy to live by the "golden" rule as one might think it is. For consequentialist theorists, can they realistically think through all of the possible outcomes and decide which one will have the greatest benefits? I found this hard to believe. As teachers, we do the best we can. If we make a decision, we must follow through with it and accept the consequences that may arise from our decisions. I may agree that Ms. Jones did the right thing by lying to Mr. Pugnacious, but there still may be some negative outcomes from her decision. Johnnie may be taught to fight "like a man" and once again try to beat up the other children, but Ms. Jones's decision saved Johnnie from being beaten by his father. We learn to accept the good with the bad in these cases and hope that no matter what happens, we made the "best" decision.
I believe that out of all of the readings, the NEA code of ethics really spoke to me. While I went through the reading, I took notes of what I thought really spoke to me. The item that stood out the most was located in the preamble. The first few lines of the preamble of this code says "The educator, believing in the worth and dignity of each human being, recognizes the supreme importance of the pursuit of truth, devotion to excellence, and the nurture of democratic principles”. I 100% believe that as a future teacher, this should be at the core of our teaching knowledge. Unfortunately, like most individuals, I have seen many teachers who taught without having this is mind. After reading this, it made me begin to think about why exactly some teachers just don’t really care. Maybe they were not fortunate enough to have a class such as this in their own teacher education to point this out. It also made me really sit back and think about the fact that I am thrilled to become a teacher. I want make sure that each of my students as well as their families leaves with their dignity intact. I know that in my early childhood years my mother was belittled by at least one teacher (that I am aware of), when my mother shouldn’t have experienced this. She was only looking out for what was best for me. I want to teach my future students nothing but the truth and I know that this is sometimes hard given our Public School Systems and the way that they are run, but I know that it is possible. I am also the type of individual who strives for nothing short of excellent in no matter what I do, so when it comes to having my classroom it will be run with the utmost excellent attitude that I can have with each circumstance that is thrown my way. Living in a democratic society will allow me to do all of the above things, and it makes me even more excited and proud that I have chosen education as my profession. I believe that these few lines will have a significant impact on me when I do start teaching. I know for a fact that I will have them written down on a post-it note, stuck somewhere that I can sneak away and remind myself on the hard days that this is why I love teaching.
I thought that Chapter 1 was very interesting and a good introduction to ethics. I have never taken a class on ethics before so this chapter was a good overview of the ethics of teaching. I liked in the beginning when the authors said that ethical thinking and decision making are not just following the rules. It is easy to assume that as a teacher, you have to base all of your decisions on the rules that are stated. This is not the case for every situation, and there will be times when the rules can take second priority.
I also thought it was interesting when the authors stated that it is essential to have a rational ethical thinking that goes beyond personal beliefs and values. I find this to be extremely difficult and wonder how this is accomplished. Whether we are aware or not, I think it would be hard to separate our own beliefs and values when having to make a rational, ethical decision or look at a situation in such a way. It may not even be a conscious thing when we do, but I am not sure how to not incorporate personal beliefs and values into our thinking.
Another point I thought was interesting was when the authors said that all ethical arguments begin with an arbitrary and unprovable assumption. This caught my attention and made me think about how I have seen this in my own life. If people do not agree on the beginning assumption, it is very hard to proceed to argue about the main point or argument. In conversations I have had with people where we do not agree on initial assumptions, the talk seems to go in circles and it is very hard to get much accomplished.
My question would be: Can people reach valid conclusions if they do not agree on initial assumptions? How can we avoid problems that arise when we do not agree on them? Can that be avoided?
I wanted to respond to the Noddings article. I found the article to be very insightful as an introduction to ethics. I was unaware of the various theories of thought surrounding ethics and it was helpful to see some of the foundations of the study of ethics. All of these helped me to grasp what exactly ethics in teaching may entail. I was very interested in the care/feminine perspective shared by the author. I related to this theory very closely as a mother. I have experiences the carer feelings almost exactly as described. I had never really considered how the reactions of the person I am caring for affect me, but, after contemplating about it I found that the way my daughter reacts to my care does have a huge influence on me. It is very discouraging when I am not able to figure out what is wrong with her and it affects the way I feel about myself as a carer, even if it is just in that instance. As a teacher this must be the same, we need to know that what we are doing is making a difference to have the determination to continue caring for and teaching our students. I agree that teachers need to have a caring attitude as described by the author. If a person does not truly want to help kids learn and grow as a person they probably need to find a different profession. While I agree very much with this theory my question is: Is it possible for a teacher to achieve this kind of caring for each of her/his students with the current federal mandates? As the author points out classes are usually too large and there are so many rules and standards to follow, it seems unlikely a teacher could help students according to the care theory, even if they wanted to.
I would like to respond to the Noddings article as well. The article itself was very informative in the sense of giving me a greater understanding in how it is that ethics corresponds to such areas as teaching. One of the things I thought to be very interesting in considering teaching is how it is very often in teaching that the carer plays the significant role without as much effort back from the cared for. I definitely agree with Noddings in the sense that it is the little things that the cared for respond with that keep the carers efforts high. As he talks about it is the thoughtful question or the response to posed questions that keeps teachers energy up. The other thing I thought was very insightful was about the teachers wanting students for more than one year. I am a firm believer that to really get to know a person one must have shared experiences and have known someone through many different trials and times in their lives. For teachers or carers to do appropriate caring and be successful in educating their students, it will take time to get to know your student personally. As for me, all through high school it was the teachers I had for more than one year that I was really able to talk to and be comfortable in class with.
The other portion I found extremely interesting was about the unexcused absences and appropriateness of breaking rules for the good of your students. I also would be someone who would rather have the students make up the work and receive full credit than to be punished for missing a day of class. The question that comes to my mind then is how can schools make such rules when ethics have such a big part in how teachers feel about letting students make up assignments? Would it not be better and more beneficial to the school as a whole to let teachers make the decision which is in the best interest of their classroom as a whole?
I was very impressed after reading the Noddings article. The article has a strong emphasis on caring, which I have been fortunate enough to have as a common characteristic through much of my education. When a strong sense of caring is present, the student is given the support they need to truly delve into the information. The teacher showing the students that they care helps to create a strong foundation that the student can use to base their efforts as they take in the given material. There also must be some sort of attempt by the student, resulting in a relationship that is formed when the students care about the teacher as well. This allows room for genuine interest in the topic, creating an interest in the topic.
In the article, the teacher is faced with the dilemma of whether or not to abide by the rule of not taking work on unexcused absence days. I believe that the teacher did the correct thing in deciding to bypass the rule, encouraging the students to get their work done. This act did not cause any harm to anyone, instead encouraging the students to learn the material and get the points. Circumstances such as these lead to questions such as when is it an acceptable time to bypass a rule? Should the principle or parents be involved? It is the job of teachers to create a lesson based on the unique characteristics of the class, making it plausible that the class will have to ignore or even rewrite some rules as it fights to form it's identity and an understanding of the material.
I wanted to comment on the first chapter of The Ethics of Teaching. This is my first ethics course in a non-religious setting, and the approach of the course and the text is very different. I did take a course on ethics at my Catholic high school, but it was very slanted toward the morality of the church, so it’s interesting to look at ethics from a more objective perspective. However, I think that sometimes we can run the risk of being too objective. In my opinion, it is really difficult to subscribe completely to either the consequentialist or nonconsequentialist mindset. To be entirely consequentialist, it seems that it would be easy to justify behavior if it can be shown to benefit someone else. This can be a dangerous “slippery slope,” as shown by the example of the sadists torturing a victim. However, nonconsequentialists who follow the Golden Rule can run the risk of acceptance of inappropriate behavior in a different way, in that ethical decisions become too situational, because it places the responsibility on oneself to decide what is universally acceptable. One has to wonder: Is it wise to subscribe completely to one theory or another? Or is it necessary to use some combination in order to make ethically sound decisions? I would lean toward the latter. However, this may make difficult ethical decisions all the more difficult to deal with, since there would be no set guide to the decision-making process. -Katie Kuvin
I read the article "Caring: A Feminist Perspective" and really liked the last two sections about caring. First of all, the Current Analysis of caring, I liked the part where it talked about not only what the carer contributes to a relation, but also what the cared for contributes to a relation. As a future teacher I think this is something important to remember about my students. Not only am I contributing as the teacher, teaching the students the information and being responsible for making sure they actually understand and take in all the information they are required to, my students are going to have to put in a great deal into the relation. They are going to have to digest the information, "learn" it and not just memorize it, make sure they let me know if they aren't able to understand the it, as well as be tested over this information.
I found this article to be very interesting and informative on the idea of caring. one question brought up while reading this was how would moral life be defined if people who were responsible for homemaking, nurturing, and childrearing came up with it. I believe that each individual has their own thought to what moral life is. For example, I believe that moral life is the idea of seeing good in everyone and wanting to help others in need. On the other hand, I know people who jduge moral life on how much money you make, sexual orientation, how you feel about certain topics like abortion. Every person has their own view on what moral life is and to ask whether or not people who were the homemakers of the house would have changed things, doesn't make much sense to me. Every person will act how they want to act and define things like moral life and caring in their own way. Another question that I found interesting was whether females more often than males really do exhibit a more "caring and responsibility" orientation. My opinion with this is that I do feel women and men both exhibit caring and responsibility orientation but I believe society has made it to where you view it more in women than in men. Therefore, it is easy to assume men aren't caring and do not possess a nurturing attitude. Overall, I found this article interesting to read and I do question whether or not history and experiences help you to define moral life and caring? For example, people of different socioeconomic classes, do they view moral life the same?
While reading the Caring: A Feminist Perspective article I tried to relate it to what I have seen in my life. Fall quarter I'd say I had a women teacher that was very caring. I use the term caring to refer to what the article talks about. She didn't have the typical rules that teachers usually have like strict deadlines and missing class rules. She was very understanding of each individual's lives and if someone was a week late on an assignment she would not take any points off if they eventually got it done. This attitude of my teacher really made me enjoy the class and made me want to learn, I felt she actually cared about each of her students and wanted to do anything she could do to help us succeed. The way she taught us also made me want to be that same type of caring teacher to my own students one day. I find it interesting how the article mentions that the ethical action to take is not always to obey the rules. I use to always think that ethics had to do with following rules but I guess in the case of teaching it also deals with what is best for the students. Now if a teacher, like the one I had, started noticing the students taking advantage of her system that is suppose to help them what would she do? Does taking the students success at interest always come out positively or are there risks?
I am responding to the Noddings article. I liked the Caring perspective and the article. It is important to address students as a whole person than it is to pump them full of test answers. I think the education system is currently set up to make efficient workers rather than cultivating an individual. In the long run, memorizing equations will only help a few individuals. It is far more important to inspire curiosity, how to learn, and socialization.
I found the way gender differences addressed to be insightful. If people are brought up to engage in both the traditional feminine and masculine tendencies, then they can be a whole person. Kindness or practicality should not be split into certain categories of people.
I think the education system should be altered. The atmosphere created by test scores equating to intelligence and potential is especially harmful for the different kinds of intelligence students may have. Learning should move far beyond strategies for timed tests. I think Jaime Escalante is correct that teachers need extended contact with their students. This would encourage community and understanding within the students instead of enforcing competition for the best grades, test scores, etc.
Nodding Article I agree that caring should be part of ethics. It is natural for humans to care so I don't see how that aspect can be eliminated from ethical decisions. I also agree that the individual rights and aspects of an individual person should be considered as well. How can we say that one ethical decision made by someone for a group is right for each individual in the group? Everyone is different and a decision that is ethical for one person may not be ethical for someone else. Individuality is important. I think that had ethical theory had been developed by women or women and men together, it would have been different. Caring would have been placed in a more important role I believe, simply because women would have found it to be more important. That's not to say that men don't think it is important but just they think other aspects carry more weight. I don't feel that caring can be the only aspect of an ethical decision because ethics is so much more complex. But I really don't see how caring can be left out of an ethical decision because I feel that if I am making a decision without considering how I might feel or care about a person I wouldn't be making a fair decision. I guess the situation of how caring fits in to ethics is kind of confusing and diluted but I definitley feel its important. Overall, I enjoyed this reading. It made me think about different things and how I view ethics and making ethical decisions. I had to think about what role caring and individuality will play when I make decisions. I agree that they play a role but I just have to figure how large of a role.
I really enjoyed reading this article, and I specifically liked learning about the ethics of caring. After reading about the ethics of caring, I feel like I definitely use this theory on a daily basis. I think that it is extremely important for all teachers to use an ethic of care when dealing with their students. I feel that students learn best when they are comfortable in their environment and in order for that to happen students need to be able to form caring, personal relationships with their teachers. The student needs to feel that they have a positive relationship with the teacher and vice versa, there needs to be a reciprocal relationship between the two. When I think back on my schooling and teachers I have had, I think I have performed the best in classes where I felt the teacher truly cared about my success in the class.
I also really agreed with the section of the article that discussed the idea of extended contact. As a child, I had the same teacher and classmates for first and second grade. I really think it was a beneficial experience because my teacher was able to really get to know me, as well as my classmates, during those two school years and we were able to really get to know me, where she is currently a major mentor in my life. I think every child in a classroom leaves a lasting impression on a teacher and I feel that good teachers should leave lasting impressions on their students. I know I have the best memories of my best teachers and it is because of the wonderful relationships I was able to form with them, which would not have happened if my teachers had not been caring towards me and the rest of their students. I also think the greater amount of time a teacher is able to spend with a particular group of students the better the students will learn because the teacher will be able to cater to their individual learning styles after getting to know them over several years.
My one major question after reading the Noddings article, as well as the two chapters in the book, has to do with the ethical theories. What I am not sure about is how to determine what ethical theory a person might be using. After reading everything, I feel like many of the ideas overlap between theories, which makes it difficult for me to understand how someone can be using just one.
In the Noddings article, I liked the idea of spending longer time with group of students to understand them, and therefore be able to care for them and sympathies with them more effectively. I aggress that getting to know them on a personal level, and therefore being able to understand their wants and needs and where these feelings come from would be a very useful tool for a teacher. However, I know that it is not likely or even sometimes possible for a teacher to spend more than one school year with a certain group of students. This being said, I think that it is important for teachers to make a serious effort to get to know their students, so that they can gain this understanding that usually comes with time. In terms of the section about breaking the rules, I can understand that they broke the rule because they disagreed with it, and thought that it should be changed. However, I think that it would have been better for the teacher to go about it differently, and find a way to get their point across without breaking the rule in front of students. By doing so the teacher is setting an example to the students that rule breaking is ok. Although I do believe that at times some rules and regulations are not the way they should be, I personally believe that one should deal with these through the proper and legal channels, and not blatantly go against rules in front of students.
In the article "Caring: A feminist Perspective" the author talks about the contribution of the cared-for and how important it is to the carer. Before reading this article I never thought about the role the cared-for has on the carer. When looking at this from a teachers perspective. When students are engaged in the learning process and are responding, interacting and showing enthusiasm toward the subjecting, the teacher will feel appreciated and successful. When this does not occur in a classroom, teacher burnout is a common occurrence.
In a classroom the teachers responsibility is to educate their students, but when students are not engaged teachers may get burned out. When this happens the teachers effectiveness declines and the students education follows. A students education is effected by the teacher in many ways so is it ethical for a teacher to allow their students lack of interest effect their ability to educate? Even if the teachers are not receiving positive feedback, does this give them the right to let their desire to teach decline?
After reading a Feminist Prospective, I realized the importance of connecting to children. The teachers that had the biggest impact on my life, I felt very close to in the classroom. If you aren't close and comfortable with the teacher, then it greatly reduces the quality of reading. I like the articles ideas on the idea of cheating. Instead of punishing the child over and over again, talk with the child about what he or she has done. Lets be honest, everyone has tried to cheat at least once in their lifetime. It is something every kid has to experience and go through in order to learn from it. It is the teachers job to help the children become successful in life and not just in the classroom. I believe punishing should still be done, but the teachers need to connect to the children as they do it. Find out why the student is cheating. Maybe the student is having difficult times at home and needs someone their for support. I believe this is where the teacher neeeds to step in to be that person their for them in life. This can only happen if you connect to the students. The teacher also needs to be very careful on connecting to a few of the students and forgetting about others. Make sure that you are fair to all students and try to get to know each and every one. This will all lead to much better atmosphere for learning.
The question that I have after reading the article is, where do you draw the line? Teachers can only connect with children so much and don't want to pass that line where it becomes uncomfortable for both parties involved. How do you know exactly where to draw that line? It is a very fine line I believe that is hard to figure out all the time.
I found the article on caring particularly interesting, and it made me think both of past experiences as a student as well as my future as a teacher. During kindergarten through 2nd grade, I was part of a multi-age program that kept me with the same few teachers for 3 years. I really enjoyed the continuity and I think it was a great approach to teaching. Sometimes we worked by grade level with individual teachers, and at other times all learned together. There was certainly a greater sense of community in the classroom than in any other class I've been in, and the environment felt very caring. I loved school. This was also the case in college, where I took several classes with the same professor who was also my advisor - I felt I did my best work there as a result of the incredible level of caring and attention from the professor. In other cases, where a teacher was not particularly caring and just conveyed information to the class, I felt quite alienated and unmotivated. For me then, caring and personal committment to studetns is absolutely requisite in the classroom. This is very much attached to my personal feelings/opinions, however, so I wonder what is truly appropriate in terms of parent, school district, and general public opinion on how schools and classrooms should be run. My inclination will always be to consider each student individually, to teach compassionately, and to place less emphasis on rules for rules' sake. But is this realistic? Schools seem more and more constricted by regulation and accountability, which to me seems very much at odds with an ethic of caring.
I would like to comment on the Noddings article. I believe that a lot of what was said in the article is accurate to teaching. I teach private flute lessons to 9 middle and high school students and as I was reading, I was thinking of their lessons and how I approach each and every lesson as well as what gives me satisfaction as a teacher. It is very true that I do not need a "thank you" as a sign of appreciation for what I am teaching. However, I do need to see progress and caring for what I am teaching them. It makes me feel like I am contributing to their education of music and flute playing. I also agree with the statement in the article regarding ethics and how they do not consider the individual all the time. I feel that as a society we are constantly trying to generalize, stereotype, and put people in boxes. Each one of us is unique and so are the students that we teach. As a teacher, we have to consider how each individual student learns, as well as their personality, history, family life, etc. The list really goes on and on. It is up to us as teachers to get to know our students so that we can educate the best that we can.
One question that I have regarding the article is how can we get students to be in our classroom for more that one year? I personally love the idea of being able to teach students for three years so that not only can you educate them best intellectually, but you can also really get to know their personalities and teach them to the best of your ability. As a music educator, I have the luxury of teaching students for their full four years in high school. However, if this could apply to other areas of study, I think it would greatly improve eduction.
Like many of the other students, I hope to incorporate a caring approach in my classroom after I graduate. I will be able to better connect with my students. I have found throughout my educational experience that I have learned more from teachers who did not apply a hard line approach in their classes. Personally, these teachers have still instilled a sense of self-discipline that is necessary to succeed in many classes. However, I knew they personally cared about my success. I believe my future students will succeed if I let them know how much I care about their educational accomplishments.
Overall I found the readings to be interesting and though provoking. However, what struck me the most was the idea of utilitarianism. According to the text, utilitarianism is the idea “that social policy ought to be determined by what produces the greatest good for the greatest number.” It is an idea that falls under the theoretical umbrella of consequentialism and the principle of benefit maximization. Basically, it’s the idea that whenever a choice needs to be made, it should be made in a quantitative way that benefits the most amount of people. This is a relatively new concept to me, and one that I find very interesting. It is also a concept that I currently do not see in application in our educational system and in greater society as a whole. It seems like an idea that favors a collective well being over the individual well-being, and therefore not a popular western social approach. I immediately think of capitalism, and how it inherently benefits the individual, with little emphasis on the ‘other’ people. Since our educational system is inherently tied to capitalism and therefore a reflection of capitalism, I think that utilitarianism relatively absent in our schools. Producing the greatest good for the greatest number would be to provide excellent education to all American children, and not just those near the top of the social strata.
In response to the Noddings article, it was hard to tell whether the author was describing a caring atmosphere like the title indicates, or a nurturing atmosphere. All the maternal aspects which are described in the main section of the article describe what it takes to raise and nurture a child. There are a few aspects which can be transferred to the classroom, but I sensed a more of a nurturing approach rather than a caring approach.
There are many ways a teacher can care about their students. I knew throughout grade school that all of my teachers cared, but not one of them cared the same way as another. Not one of my teachers were anything like the methods outlined in this article. Personally, I'm not sure I would work so well if I had a teacher like that for one of my classes. It would be very uncomfortable if my teacher was acting like a parent. I don't require that attentiveness 24 hours a day, I got enough of it at home. Without knowing your students or their backgrounds, this nurturing approach could backfire, because the student would not respond to another nurturing figure in their life.
As far as bending/breaking rules in the name of caring; I completely disagree with it. Students need to know that rules are there for a reason. Teachers also prepare students for the real world, and if they see an authority figure breaking a rule, where does that action end? How many more rules are we willing to break? Where does it end? Caring also involves doing things you might not want to do. Punishment, for instance. If a student finds that they can get away with missing class, then they will find what other rules they can bend or break without punishment. A teacher needs to obey the rules under which they are governed. Whether we like them or not, it sets a fair example to the students. Is that not caring about the students? Where do the lines of caring and nurturing get blurred? Could that grey area do more harm than good for students?
While I was reading the first chapter in The Ethics of Teaching, I realized that I have a very black and white way of looking at things and I am not sure if this will be an asset or a downfall when dealing with ethics. I really never see the grey sides of situations and that in every situation there is a definite right answer and wrong answer. An example of this would be while I was reading the first case about the new teacher reading the paper from the athlete who had plagiarized the entire paper and she was wondering what she was going to do in dealing with this case. Should she turn him in for obvious plagiarism or should she let him pass so that he could go on to make tons more money in the NBA than that teacher would ever make teaching and forget this paper and the things he learned in this class in a matter of days? I was thinking while I was reading this case that the obvious thing I would do, no questions asked and what I think anyone should do in this type of situation would be to turn in the student and let this student deal with the possible consequences to the situation that he created. In my mind, there is no question, the black and white thinking scheme again. The student had many opportunities to come to the teacher for help and as an athlete he would have had access to tons of tutoring, so it is completely his fault that he copied the paper. The teacher is simply doing her job by turning him in. There is no grey area in my mind about this. One could ask if the teacher is doing the right thing for the kid by turning him in and teaching him to deal with consequences or would she be doing better for him by letting him pass and go onto a career in the NBA? Since this case is an ethics question, obviously there is no clear cut answer for everyone and for all cases like this because everyone would judge this case differently. But hopefully in this class, we will learn to decipher in situations what to value more, what is best for the student or what is "right". This I feel is at the heart of teaching ethics.
I found the readings in the Strike and Soltis book to be really interesting. I had never examined the logic behind my ethical thinking before this reading. I have to admit, though I have now thought about it I still think this topic is very ambiguous and am critical of whether or not there really is an objective ethical knowledge. Once the theories of nonconsequentialist, consequentialist, hedonist, utilitarianist were defined I concluded that I use all of these in varying ways to justify my actions. I look forward to examining case studies where difficult decisions must be made that may reflect issues I will face in my own career. I found Chapter 7 to be really interesting. It was the first time I have seen a postscript in that format. Using a conversation of criticisms of their book to justify their decisions seemed odd. However, I think their statements in defense were fair and I am glad the book does not incorporate religion or an expansive explanation of philosophers.
As well as the vast majority of the class, I am responding to the Noddings article. Attention is discussed as an essential aspect to morality and care. Simone Weil describes attentive very similar to what I would describe as empathetic. The individual must see the human in suffering as a person just like oneself. Put yourself in their shoes, feel their pain, and genuinely care about what they are going through. This makes me think of the label we so quickly place on the different groups in our society. I think one of the hardest aspects of teaching is holding back from making assumptions based on a label. It is so easy to assume that one student isn't as smart as another because he doesn't speak English well and has a hard time communicating. Instead, as a teacher you must put yourself in that student's shoes and determine what you can do to help him/her succeed. As quoted in the article, Milton Mayeroff describes caring as "taking responsibility in the growth of another." As teachers we are personally taking the responsibility of pushing each student to the height of his/her abilities. The question I pose is brought up briefly at the beginning of the article when discussing sacrificing the happiness of a small group for the happiness of the whole. As I stated in agreeance with Mayeroff, it is our job to care for each student and treat the success of each individual as our own responsibility. However, what should we do when the happiness/success of the entire class is greatly raised with the exception of one student? If we are to help that single student, the happiness of the entire class diminishes. As a teacher do we sacrifice one for the betterment of the whole as society does? Or would that be breaking the moral code? But isn't holding the other students back for one student also breaking that moral code?
While reading noddings article about "caring teachers", I found myself reflecting on times I had a caring teacher and the strong relationship we had. Those were the teachers that enjoyed sharing interests with his/her students. Caring teachers strive to help their students to be successful and make gains during the course of the year. My favorite teachers took the extra time to help me understand concepts, promoted a good classroom climate, and helped students learn from their mistakes.
Students know if their teacher genuinely cares about their academic achievement and success. The non-caring teachers typically kick-out out students for bad behavior, not participating in class, and show little interest in their students outside of the content area. Teachers need to let their students see them as real people who enjoy helping them become successful citizens.
The case in the first chapter about the student athlete cheating on his final paper in order to meet a qualification to maintain athletic eligibility one of the most relevant readings in a class. In my high school a football player was given special treatment (in this case extra points) in one of his academic classes. I felt than and feel now that Cynthia should report the student for academic misconduct and that the student at my high school should have lost his athletic eligibility since he did not earn his grade. This is in alignment with nonconsequentialist thinking where the duties and principles are more important than the consequences. Although people should not receive special treatment, my question would be, what is a better way to handle academic misconduct than the case in the text or even OSU's?
The part of the article that really stuck out to me was the part about teachers that spend time with their students; teachers that may have a group of students for more than one class. When I was in high school I had Mrs. Miller for my studyhall teacher as a freshman, my English teacher my sophomore, I was her teachers aidmy junior year, and she was my public cpeaking I and II teacher my senior year and I was her student aid again. Needless to say that she and I spent a great amount of time together. She learned many things about me and I about her. She developed a great interest in me; she would help me edit papers, give me letters of reccomendation for colleges, and even helped me through some personal things. Most teachers are not like that. She was not like that with just me. She is the definition of a devoted teacher. She pours her entire self into her job. She may be a tough teacher but she never demands something from her students that is too unreasonable. She was strict and her classes were always a challenge, but she pushed her students. She wanted everyone to work and hard and receive good grades. If for some reason the whole class did poorly on a test she took that as the class was not ready for the test and she would throw the tests out and we would start over.
When this act of caring and devotion is showed to students then students cannot help but work hard is return. They want to show their teacher that they are up to the challenge and that they appreciate his/her devotion to the class. I think that when a teacher cares about his/her classroom then the students automatically care about the teacher and their class. They want to work just as hard to learn and receive the good grades just like the teacher is working hard to be a good teacher and show compassion to the students.
I guess my question would be as a teacher is there such thing as caring too much? Can a teacher get in trouble for medling in a students life too much, like blurring the lines between teacher and becoming a parent?
I think that Noddings makes a valid point when he says that different students require variable quantities and types of attention. It was particularly intriguing when he brought up the fact that students who do not respond to one teacher’s care may need the care of another. However, I do not think that the rest of the article is an accurate portrayal of this belief. Many of the example scenarios in both this article and the Strike/Soltis textbook involve one teacher and one student (and perhaps a parent or principal.) Noddings’ words make me think that it is important take a step back and view our own actions in the context of the school and life as a whole. While each teacher does have a responsibility to be ethical, it is the overall life experiences that are going to determine whether or not a person is “acceptable.” I wonder if the care theory and other models of ethics put too much pressure on individual teachers, when it would be more beneficial to examine a teacher’s role as part of a greater whole.
I enjoyed reading the Noddings article, "Caring: A Feminist Perspective". I found myself agreeing a lot with the author, specifically when she addressed the message that students should get from their teachers. "We care for you, and because we care, we will persist in helping you to master the material that is our common responsibility." This is why I think that caring is absolutely necessary in schools. It is impossible to create a comfortable environment where students are able to excel, without any ethics of caring. Teachers must do what is best for each student, and in order to do this, they must build relationships with their students and truly care for them. I feel that the majority of my teachers throughout elementary school were carers and this really shaped my view of education at an early age. I think that caring needs to be included in ethics. I will definitely be a carer when I am a teacher, even if it means that I will have to break some rules and face the consequences.
I believe that fairness is at the core of all of the readings for this week. If you have ever been treated unfairly it is due to the fact that the teacher was not bound to you through a responsive and caring relationship. These instances can create a distaste for the subject that the teacher is assigned to instruct. It is important to remember as an ethical teacher where you stand on bullying your students. In the idea of the Golden Rule presented in the readings this is of course the most vague of concepts and is open to a vast community of issues. Just how would you like to be treated? In one sense you would hope that the teacher is open to the issues of the modern student. A human can not be expected to understand the rounded perspective of a youth within the 45 minutes of a day that you have with them. After the end of a period of time you will get a sense of who that student is within the confines of the educational institution. It is important to know that you are not their peer or their friend. You can be friendly but you must be devoted to ensuring the student is being treated like a person who is capable of learning within the school walls and it is up to the teacher to bridge the gap between the social student and the learning student. One important question to ask is how, as a teacher you are to deal with the ethical landslide of the social student that will inevitably learn something about being a respectable adult from those adults they are in contact with? I hope that this class will dive into the issue of Bullying in the school system and how to register the levels and the importance of putting a stop to it as soon as it happens, I feel this is where the issue of respect and caring can have its most influential battles.
As a social worker dealing with "at risk youth" I have spent countless hours interacting with numerous teachers throughout various school districts in Franklin County. I mention this because as I read the Noddings article I found myself looking back wondering how many times I came across a teacher that employed the ethics discussed in this article. It saddens me to think that over the past 11 years, the number is likely fewer than 10. The Noddings article focuses on key ideas that I feel are missing from many of today's classroom. Primarily caregiving, I feel there are two primary factors that have caused today's teachers to remove themselves from a caregiving role. First and foremost is standardized testing. One district in particular, seems to have a very systematic regimen for what they expect teachers to "teach" all for the sake of obtaining higher school ratings. In this manner a teacher becomes very formulated and rigid. A by product is that any student that disrupts the class is seen as a "problem" and and referred to services. Teachers no longer have the time to investigate what might be going on in the home or explore what stress the child might be dealing with. Instead they choose to seek help from outsiders (such as myself) to address the issues. In turn this leads the student to feel inconsequential and fosters distrust. The other problem I see is the generational gap that is occurring more frequently in classrooms across the county. I feel that the older generation of teachers have difficulties relating to today's students and the various issues their students are dealing with outside of school. I'm not sure how a district might go about changing this problem outside of workshops or continuing education classes that focus with the different needs of today's students. As a future educator I will no doubt make use of many of the ideas presented by the Feminist Caring Perspective. I do believe that as teachers we are extensions of the family unit. We may not be biological family members but we ARE responsible for shaping the moral and social development of each and every student we come in contact with on a daily basis. It is our duty to act in a manner that not only promotes the education of an individual but also allows that student to truly understand that the person entrusted with this job is invested in the child for who they are and what they wish to become.
I wanted to focus on the scenario that was stated in chapter one with the athlete who plagiarized. First, in the book, it states that “Ethics concerns what kinds of actions are right or wrong, what kind of life is a good life, or what kind of person is a good person” (Soltis, pg.5). Many people also believe that ethics are “really questions of personal values or the values of the group to which one belongs” (Soltis, pg. 4). In my opinion, there is a norm for ethics, and anyone who crosses that boundary is often considered “wrong” in their beliefs or opinions. “When someone behaves in a way that is different from how people ought to behave, an ethical standard is violated” ( Soltis, pg. 5). Going back to the scenario with the athlete who plagiarized, the student had to maintain a C average to retain his scholarship and to stay on his college basketball team. The scenario was asking if the teacher, Cynthia, should report him to the dean or not. If she does not report him to the dean, she would be going against the academic code. If she does report him, the student may lose everything that he has worked hard for. In my opinion, people are different in their beliefs, and people deserve a second chance. As a teacher, I believe that I have my own way of thinking, and because my beliefs or opinions may be different than others, I do not think that I am violating the “ethical standard.” In this case, I would not only think about myself, but I would think about the student, and if this scholarship and his team was a huge motivation in his life that kept him going. I would also think about money issues, if he had financial problems and needed a scholarship to help him. In addition, I would look at how stressed the student may be to be borderline in the class, and made the mistake of plagiarizing, as people do make many mistakes in their lives. Although in this situation, the teacher only had 48 hours to turn in final grades. I would have quickly contacted the student and told him that he needed to fix his paper. I would also tell him that if he needed help he could have come to me for ideas. I would not turn in the student based on one mistake that could ruin his future. I personally do not like to see anyone get left behind or get severely punished because of a mistake. I believe that people should not follow the “norm” just because everyone thinks it is right. I believe that people should do the right things based on their own beliefs as long as it is not hurting anyone else.
My question is, as a teacher, would you in this case report the student as the academic code states to, or would you keep it to yourself and try to figure out a solution to the situation? Also, why do you think that many people worry about going against the "norm of ethics" even if it leads to a positive outcome?
In Nodding’s “Caring: A Feminist Perspective I believe that she brings up a lot of well thought out points. Towards the end of this chapter she brings up the idea that ‘teachers want to produce acceptable persons - persons who will support worthy institutions, live compassionately, work productively but not obsessively. ... To shape such persons, teachers need not only intellectual capabilities but also a fund of knowledge about the particular persons with whom they are working.” This quote really made me think about teaching in my future classroom. When teaching my students I will not only be teaching them knowledge and skills they will continuously build on later in school but as a teacher you should also be teaching these students the respect and other skills that are not ‘traditionally’ taught inside the classroom because along with the school and academic skills they need they also need these skills that they may not be receiving at home. In Chapter 1 of The Ethics of Teaching it goes in to this as well by addressing the situation with Ms Jones, Johnny, and his father. Ms. Jones needs to be teaching Johnny real life skills that he can be using to defuse and avoid fights because he is obviously not getting this type of support and guidance at home from his father who is going to “show him how a man fights.” As future teachers this is something we will need to address, maybe not on a daily basis but we will have to deal with situations like this and we will need to know how to handle them and what to do when placed in them.
I’ve gathered from the Strike/Soltis reading that there must be a healthy balance in decision-making depending on the particular situation, which is roughly based on the NEA Code of Ethics. To answer the question in the reading about what else could Ms. Jones have done with Mr. Pugnacious, I would strongly argue that the downfall of her parent meeting was due to a lack of confidence and personal fears in the situation and towards Mr. Pugnacious. Despite the threatening behavior, a calm, level-headed perspective on the situation in question should have been conveyed in a more persistent way before “a lie” could even have the chance to come out. The fact that Ms. Jones did lie however is a natural, human response to pressure such as that due to intrinsic value or as just a simple reaction. Realistically, if this issue with Johnnie has been a prior issue, one would venture a guess that not just Ms. Jones would know about this behavior. The principle, the guidance counselor, etc, would most likely have the story behind Johnnie as well. My point is that Ms. Jones could have implored their assistance in the parent meeting to reinforce her point, or perhaps quite the opposite. It occurs to me that the principles behind consequentialists and nonconsequentialists and not necessarily as differing as the book proclaims. I would venture to ask that can one use both as a guide rather than analyzing what past decisions made fit into the molds? Should both views work in tandem with one another to justify choices? -Matt Zabiegala
The article I chose to reflect on was the 'Feminist Theory.' It definitely made me see that I do think that women care more in some aspects. This is definitely not the case in every situation however many women do carry a sensitive gene. While looking into the perspective aspect of caring within the classroom I do think that a caring teacher makes for a more effective teacher. There are as well some restrictions that come along with being a caring teacher. The article discussed the situation if a student were to cheat and to talk with the student about why they cheated and why it is not okay. However while dealing with this, the student does need to face some kind of disciplinary consequences. If we as teachers maintain an overwhelming caring attitude for our students we could potentially lose respect from our students. As teachers, we build special relationships with our students and they begin to almost be our children however it does remain important to keep the discipline in the classroom to maintain order and structure.
After reading the Noddings article I began thinking about this idea of experience, worldview, and moral orientation. Noddings presents these ideas as "worldview or moral orientation" suggesting the two are interchangeable. I think one's moral orientation is strongly affected by their worldview, but not necessarily determined by it. However, for the purposes of the article and this discussion I can see why it was grouped together; I will use the term moral orientation to describe the code of ethics that a person is inclined to follow. I first want to address how experience does play a role in a person’s moral orientation supporting the "military mind" argument. My sister and I are about three years apart; we grew up in the same Christian household with the same loving, caring parents. Our parents followed Martin Buber's "I-Thou" mode and our parents genuinely wanted to see us learn - in the case of the cheating student, my parents would have been the ones who helped us learn from our mistakes. I am in school to become a dance educator in public schools and I very much see myself as following in this idea of the care ethic. My sister is a social worker at a day care for the elderly where she spends 110% of her energy attending to every physical, emotional, and social need of her "friends" (clients) as well as their families. Both of us had a shared experience and developed the same sense of moral orientation, the same that our parents raised us up in. However, I'm not convinced this is aways the case. What about children who grow up in abusive homes, struggle through dropout factory schools, and never experience anyone who emotes the caring ethic? Noddings mentions that teachers need certain responses from their students to keep from burning out, but I would argue that students need responses form their teachers in order to not burn out. That would mean then that every student who never sees the caring ethic in a teacher, parent, or role model would never display the caring ethic themselves. But this just isnt true. So, my question then is how much of the caring ethic can be attributed to the experience and how much is simply innate in humans? Is this caring ethic already inside of every human and it is simply displayed more often when it is nurtured?
I found the article "Caring" A Feminist Perspective" to be very interesting. I especially enjoyed reading Noddings' perspective of caring and teaching. I agree that in a lot of ways teachers are similar to parents. Teachers want to help their students grow to be acceptable persons. I agree that teachers must have strong relationships with their students in order to gain students' trust. Noddings mentions that the same teacher or group of teachers should work with students for multiple years in order for the students and teachers to establish mutual trusting relationships. While I believe it is important for teachers and students to have strong relationships, I do not think it is necessary for teachers to move up with their students year after year. Rather, I believe that it is good for students to experience different teachers with different teaching styles. Additionally, is is really realistic for a teacher to teach a different grade every year?
I also think it is interesting how it can be morally okay to break a school rule. I agree with Noddings that it is not in the best interest of students to simply not complete an assignment because they will not receive credit. Rather, I believe that they should be expected to make up the material that they missed so that they do not fall behind the rest of the class. I think that there are other cases in which breaking, or bending a school rule is acceptable. For example, my aunt used to teach at an elementary school in Tennessee in which one of the school rules is that the students are expected to be quiet majority of the day. My aunt allowed her class to talk openly more than the other teachers and therefore everyone said that she had the loudest classroom. In this case I also agree that it is okay to bend the rules of the school because it is good for students to have social interactions with their peers. While students are mainly in school to learn material, they are also learning socialization.
In response to the Nodding's article, I agree that there is (generally) a gender barrier correlated to the amount of 'maternal thinking' that goes on in teaching. Before I read this article, I was recently discussing this issue with my brother who is a middle school band director. His co-teacher is a female, and when discussing classroom management and problem children he commented, "Our gender's definitely make a difference in the way we interact with students. She is the mother of the band....I can't act as compassionately as she can with certain students and they go to her for that reason."
Stereotypically I agree that female teachers have more maternal characteristics and tend to care on a different level. I do think male teachers absolutely have this caring quality, but it may not be as straightforwardly presented as a female teacher. I think it is important for all teachers to carry this 'maternal' caring attitude in the classroom since often times teachers spend more time with students during the school year than their own parents do. It is important that students form relationships built on trust with adults they spend a large part of their time on. When students and teachers know each other well, teachers will gauge how the students learn the best, and students will be more successful. I do think that there are gray areas in rule breaking. There seems to always be a 'special situation' and some form of exception. When does it end? What is the cutoff point? It is absolutely a challenge for teachers to make these sorts of decisions with students and choose what situations to react to and what situations to let go. How do teachers maintain a nurturing attitude and care about students and their well-being yet keep a clear set of rules with no exceptions that treats students and situations fairly without losing student trust?
I found the Noddings article very interesting. I found through experience in high school that the teachers that really knew me and I had great respect for were those that I had for more than one semester. Seeing these teachers over a greater time span allows both the teacher and student to realize their own strengths and weaknesses through regular interaction.
Also, it is crucial that teachers teach students as individuals, not as a number. This interaction often leads to mutual respect between the student and teacher. Students come from many different backgrounds. As teachers we must acknowledge this and adapt our teaching to our students, making it possible to give them the best education we can.
My professors in college I would say have been some of the most caring people I've been taught by yet. After a couple of quarters with one professor, she got to know me and my work/study habits pretty well. She would give out grades for our exams, homework, and attendance but she also took attitude and effort into consideration for our final grade. I found myself more engaged in her class because there was a level of respect created because of her understanding. She genuinely wanted us to learn the material, not just to spit out information onto a worksheet. I find that approach to learning the most effective, which is unfortunate since there are some teachers that teach for good test scores and not to benefit the students long-term.
I guess I would like to know where the line is drawn between parent and teacher. What roles of the parent should the teacher take on, if any? As a carer, should teachers be teaching manners and other life skills?
I would like to comment about the first chapter in "The ethics of Teaching."
I like how the chapter started out by saying "Ethical Thinking and decision making are not just following the rules. " Then start out with an example of an ethical decision needed to be made.
Being in Chynthias situation with a start athlete who plagerized I really wouldnt know what I would actually do until I was actually int he situation. I guess the right thing to do is go to the department since he did plagerize. Anyhow, i would also like to know why he plagerized. Is something happening in the family or just didnt think he could do well enough on his own, or just to remain an atlete. Maybe he plagerized bc he needs to make sure he does well so someone can take care of the family in the future. I would most definitely be sure to talk to the student before making any decisions at all.
I guess i would like to know if Cynthia was too pass him plagerizing if she would somehow get in trouble someday if she was caught?"
Through reading the Noddings article I formed an opinion that it is extremely important for a teacher to be caring and help develop their students in other ways than just academically. A teacher spends many hours with her students and it is impossible to say that she will not have an impact on them in other ways than just school work. Because of the time that the teacher will spend with her students I think it is essential that she helps development as "acceptable people." When children are growing up they spend more time with their teachers in their classrooms than they do talking with their parents at home. I think teachers have the obligation to be caring towards their students and help develop them as people; doing this as an aid to the parents not a replacement. There is more to life than academics so I believe that teachers should be teaching that as well, how to be leaders and how to love and serve others. This is what is important in life and should be part of the focus in our academic settings. -Megan Conway
While reading chapter one in the text, I was intrigued by the introduction of Immanuel Kant. I have heard the "treat others how you would like to be treated" phrase my entire life. Kant suggests that this moral rule should be universal. Therefore, if the rule is implemented, I will implement the rule to others as well as expecting the same rule to be implemented to me. For example, If I lie then I can expect to be lied to. Kant then refers to the Ms. Jones scenario and asks whether she should have treated Mr. Pugnacious as she would wish to be treated rather than lying to him. Although I agree with the Golden rule, I disagree with this. Mr. Pugnacious is an alcoholic and obviously abusive father. He himself is not following the "Golden rule" when he beats his child. Therefore, assuming the equal respect for persons idea, then he is not showing any respect for his son. This to me seems as though Ms. Jones was the only one showing equal respect for her student by lying to his father. She wanted to protect the student the best way she knew how.
I think that breaking the golden rule by lying in order to protect the well being of another is acceptable and was not considered by Kant.
In response to Noddings, I feel the caring is a very important characteristic in a teacher. In our educational system where children spend as much, if not more time in school with their teacher as they do at home, it is critical that their teacher be someone who can help them build character as well as knowledge. Parents act as a sort of parent whild a child is in school, so to expect them to only impart the knowledge of how to read and write without influencing the child in other way is impossible. A learning environment which is caring is more condusive to proper learning that an incredibly strict, military-like classroom. Caring teaches children to build healthy relationships. Being cared for teaches a student to care for others in return. -Katie Petrolo
I want to respond to the Loeown article. While I found it to be a bit exaggerated, I found many of the things said to be true. I especially see the difference of money and class to be prevalent in the resources our public schools have. I remember learning something of social class in high school although admittedly not a lot. I grew up in a relatively poor school district in the Circleville area. I did not really compare my school to other schools while in high school. It was not until I moved to Columbus for college and was introduced to school districts in the Columbus suburbs that I realized how different my education had been from the richer districts. In my district we have elementary schools that are over one hundred years old and literally falling apart. What is sad is that I know many districts are even worse off than mine was. I was amazed when I saw the beautiful Dublin Coffman school buildings and the resources those kids have. I did feel a sense of injustice that there could be so much of a difference in public schools. I feel I did not even get close to the education I would have gotten at a school like in Dublin and that was all because of the financial situation of the people where I lived. While I know most of us are aware of the discrepancies in public schools, I feel it is something, like social class, that should be talked about more. I think this is a really relevant subject for teachers because the school district we work in greatly affects what resources we have access to which in turn can affect how well our students do on standardized tests and how well we are able to educate our students overall. Schools are funded through property tax and that is why there is such a difference. My question is: How do you think richer districts would react to equal distribution of property tax funds to every school district? I know there are flaws with this, but say that each district is allotted a certain amount of money for each individual student and that is how money is allocated. Do you think people from richer districts would put up a fight? Do they have a right to?
The concept of “we” that was discussed in the Rorty article fascinated me. I struggle with the idea that we need to not emphasize that everyone is human and can therefore relate to one another, but instead focus on growing to relate to one another. Rorty makes is seem as though individuals can only relate to those that are similar in personalities, ideals, or cultures. Rorty emphasizes that once individuals begin to understand those similar to them then they can branch out to understand those different than themselves. To me it seemed like Rorty placed an emphasis on culture as the way to understanding others. It seems to me that Rorty ignores the fact that individuals can relate on other levels, especially life experiences.
I believe that life experiences play a bigger role in understanding individuals above culture, gender, and ethnicity. Individuals who have gone through similar experiences, crises, or life events tend to be able to relate to those individuals on a more personal level. I think it is important to understand what someone has gone through to understand why they are the person that they are in society, for good or for bad. In that sense I believe that people can say that we are all human and can relate to one another. Sure we come from different backgrounds and cultures which in deed can make it hard to relate to, but we are all human and go through similar life events that a lot of us can relate to no matter what our culture.
My question is did Rorty focus more on culture as being the premise for understanding individuals, or did I read into it too much? And if he did, what was his reasoning for making culture the emphasis of understanding others? I do agree with the idea of growing to understand each other, but I do not agree with the fact that humans can not relate on the sole fact that they are human.
In the Democracy of Education article by John Dewey he says, “Just because education is the most personal, the most intimate, of all human affairs, there more than anywhere else, the sole ultimate reliance and final source of power are in the training, character, and intelligence of the individual. He goes on to discuss how we are driving innovative and intelligent individuals away from teaching because we are restricting them from using their innovation and intelligence. I 100% agree with this point. When you take away a teacher’s power to be creative and to be innovative in their lessons you take away the critical thinking aspect of teaching. The job becomes a textbook and must be followed in order to remain.
If teachers were allowed to think outside of the box and try new ways to reach children I whole heartedly believe that you would see more individuals going into the other professions. Individuals would be able to use their strengths and abilities and apply them in the classroom. I agree with John Dewey’s point that we have freed individuality to some degree, but that we have not freed intelligence. We do not allow our teachers to use their full intelligence nor do we allow our students to use their intelligence. Students today do not want to think and it can be seen from early education through higher education. I believe that we have crippled these students because as education stands they do not need to think, they need to memorize. The question is then, how will be create this change? How can we free students and teachers of intelligence? How can we provide the next generation with the ability to think critically and use their imagination?
In the Noddings article, the notion of caring in teaching is addressed and I feel this is a major issue to be discussed. We, as teachers, will probably interact with our students often times more than their parents. This brings up the question "how much, as educators, should we/do we influence the lives of our students?" As for music education, I will most likely have the same students from fifth grade through their senior year of high school. This is both a blessing and a curse in the sense that I will be able to watch my students grow and develop as individuals, however, after eight years they are out in the world. I fell that with this case, caring is a must in order for them to be independent members of society. There must be a balance between caring and education and this I feel was best demonstrated by my favorite teachers from high school. They did care about my education and individual well being while still considering the interests of all the other students as well. A school is a community and as in all communities, harmony is achieved through balance.
After reading, A Feminist Perspective, I realized that when I have had “caring teachers,” I have enjoyed my classes more and had a greater interest in learning. The reading described caring teachers as putting the students’ needs first. Also, caring is a two way street. A caring teacher cares about his students and tries to relate to them and encourage their learning. But, a teacher can only do so much for the students. When the students care about the teacher as well, then a relationship can form between the students and the teacher. When this happens, students may develop a genuine interest in learning.
ReplyDeleteThe article also described what a caring teacher might do when a student cheats. Rather than penalizing the student for cheating, the teacher would try to help the student understand his own actions and reasons for cheating. In other words, the teacher will try to help the student get back on the right track. This concept shows a great deal about a caring teacher’s character. Even though the student broke the rules, the teacher’s main focus is to help the student learn from his mistakes and be successful. Students may cheat for one reason or another and some students may cheat over and over again. When teachers just punish students by giving them a zero or through other consequences, they may become discouraged. Sometimes students just need encouragement and individual help to overcome different situations.
As a future teacher, my only concern with this concept is what if the school has a policy against cheating and it is unacceptable to help students individually after breaking the rules, rather than punishing them through grade deduction. Does the teacher follow these rules? Or is it more important to help the student through these situations? And, what if the teacher does choose to help the student without grade deduction, and then the teacher gets in trouble for breaking the school rules? What then?
I would also like to respond to the Noddings article. Overall, I agree with the ethics that are governed by 'caring.' I was interested to see that the author mentioned the word "agape." A colleague of mine in our church just recently taught on agape love, a platonic unconditional love, typically reserved for the type of love God shows man in his acceptance of humanity regardless of what man does. The first part of agape involves imparting worth and value to the cared-for. With this foundation laid, the carer can then move into the life of the cared-for without conditions, as he has already placed immense value on the cared-for. I would posit that this is the type of attitude we should have toward our students as we teach.
ReplyDeleteI however, also felt the same way the author did at the conclusion of the reading. What shall we do? Shall we violate rules, doing so in the best interest of our students, as we are governed by care ethics? Or should we stick to the rules, lest we jettison our integrity in the classroom? I think there is a more important question we need to ask first: what world beliefs do you have regarding education and care ethics? The answer to this question will surely dictate the approach you take to tough situations in the classroom.
Chapter 1:
ReplyDeleteI found this chapter to be incredibly though provoking. It introduced the terms consequentialist and nonconsequentialist. Consequentialists use the principle of benefit maximization, which is the thinking of attempting to maximize the good in a situation (Ms. Jones lying to Mr. Pugnacious in order to protect Johnnie). Whereas nonconsequentialists use the priniciple of equal respect for persons, or "Do unto others as you would have other do unto you." (Ms. Jones feeling bad about lying because does not like being lied to, so shouldn't she show the same respect to Mr. Pugnacious?).
While I was reading this chapter I was trying to determine which type of thinking I have used, I use, and that I will use. I feel, however, that everyone uses both thinking in every situation and that it's just a matter of which one "wins out" so to speak. For instance, Ms. Jones used consequentialism when deciding on what to tell Mr. Pugnacious, however, she still felt guilty about it do to her nonconsequentialist thinking. I confidently feel that in Ms. Jones situation I would have acted the same way, but was that necessarily the most ethical response? My question then, is who is actually qualified to decide what is the most ethical decision in any given situation? Or is there anyone?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCaring should be an aspect of every day life and of every profession. It should not be the sole responsibility of females when rearing children or interacting with them. I really enjoyed how this article addressed that men are caring as well and if they were raised more similarly to females they may not condemn males who act caring. While thought provoking I feel that it addressed a lot of pertinent questions such as: Why does caring seem to be the sole role of women? Is there more than one way of showing someone that you care? (the section about "tough love" for students and how to address it), and how does caring impact students and teachers? I really enjoyed how the bureaucracy of education was addressed because that often goes unnoticed. However, I do wonder how we as teachers are supposed to work with our students in a caring and effective way if it isn't common to teach the same students for more than one year. In the end it mentioned breaking school rules. While this seems to be a in the worst interest for the teacher yet the best interest for the students I think that there are legal ways to go about changing these rules. For example, if there is a rule that doesn’t benefit students then by all means get the support of your fellow teachers, parents, and students and legally change the rule. This avoids potential ramifications.
ReplyDeleteI found the Noddings article to be very intriguing. I for one agree with the caring guide to ethics. It is my belief that teachers are there to help students succeed and grow as individuals. I have a hard time wrapping my head around the idea of sending students to in-school suspension for acting out in class. What good will that do the student? They have to go sit in a classroom in silence and work on a worksheet or project that they most likely do not understand. I believe that the better response is to talk to the student and listen to their needs. I believe that it is the teacher’s responsibility to help try and figure out what the root of the student’s misbehavior stems from, even if that means the teacher working with the school counselor.
ReplyDeleteI believe the teacher had it right in the article when they decided to ignore the rule of missing a day means receiving zero on a student’s work. I agree that it is the teacher’s job to encourage students to do the necessary work in order to understand the material and succeed. After a while penalties do not faze students. I do not view this decision to ignore the rule as unethical. It was a harmless rule to ignore. Teachers need to create the rules that will work best for their students and their classroom. The question then arises, when does ignoring a rule become unethical? If there is a rule that a student can not charge their lunch, yet a student comes to school without money and without a packed lunch do you let them go hungry and obey the rule or do you let them slide and add a charge to their account? If a student comes into school without a proper uniform because their parents could not afford new pants, do you send them to the office or let it go unnoticed? I for one am all about student success above all else. I believe that rules sometimes hinder student growth, but I do wonder when it becomes unethical to ignore the rules?
In regard to Caring: A Feminist Perspective:
ReplyDeleteAlthough I am aware of the feminist perspective and their universal stance on major issues, I have to say I had no idea of their specific objections to traditional ethics. However, it makes perfect sense that there is largely something missing in the two inclusive ethical systems, namely because they overwhelmingly center on our rationality. I appreciate the feminists’ approach of including the significant role emotions and our personal lives play in how we weigh decisions, essentially because recognizing anything less is insulting.
To say that we choose our paths and live our lives as strict outputs of rationality implies that we are merely one dimensional – that our personal histories, beliefs, attachments (etc.) have no bearing on our decisions whatsoever. Without allowing our multidimensional-selves to factor in, what kind of world are we living in? Based on the people I know, and the bubble I live in, it is hard for me to believe that our ethical decisions stem solely from our rationality.
If ethical decision making is approached exclusively through scientific means, perhaps Kant’s ethics of duty and utilitarianism would appear more aptly suited. However, applied tangibly to the world around us, it is difficult to deny the impact of human emotion, belief and history when taking into account ethical decision making. Perhaps if we assume these facets are foundational, then could the variable in the resulting action be the diversity of human emotion, belief and history?; that the question isn’t whether these aspects of our selves are intrinsic, but whether the extreme disparity among us denotes the difference in how we each respond to ethical decisions.
I really enjoyed reading the article on Carmen "Feminist Perspective". One part in particular really resonated with me. The author spoke of how spending more time with the same group of students would allow teachers to become more familiar with the students and better able to understand them. I completely agree with this. When I was in High School I had the same teacher for English three years in a row. Having him for that amount of time allowed him to really get to know all of us on a personal level, because of this deeper understanding of each student he was better able to help us. He not only helped all of his students grow intellectually, but also socially and morally. I find myself on the fence when it comes to the situation about breaking the rules. I understand why the teacher broke the rule and for the most part agree that the rule should be changed, but I personally feel that she could set a better example for the students if she would go through the proper channels and challenge the rule and try to convince the school to change it. I just feel that by her outright breaking the rule is setting a bad example that if you don't like the rules its o.k to just ignore them.
ReplyDeleteIn chapter one, Strike and Soltis begin to explain the differences between consequentialist and nonconsequentialist ethical theories. At first, the theories seemed easy, but as I continued to read I realized that they were much more complex. Consequentialist ethical theories believe "that the rightness or wrongness of an action is to be decided in terms of consequences" (Strike & Soltis, 11). Basically, a teacher will make a decision based on what will maximize good outcomes. In comparison, nonconsequentialist ethical theories tend to abide by the "golden rule". That is, they do unto others as they would have others to do unto them. I quickly realized that these theories weren't so cut and dry. There is much more to them than meets the eye. Let's use lying as an example. Even though a teacher may "never" lie, can he/she really expect someone to live by the same code? Or if he/she does tend to lie, would it be okay by them if they were lied to? It is not as easy to live by the "golden" rule as one might think it is. For consequentialist theorists, can they realistically think through all of the possible outcomes and decide which one will have the greatest benefits? I found this hard to believe. As teachers, we do the best we can. If we make a decision, we must follow through with it and accept the consequences that may arise from our decisions. I may agree that Ms. Jones did the right thing by lying to Mr. Pugnacious, but there still may be some negative outcomes from her decision. Johnnie may be taught to fight "like a man" and once again try to beat up the other children, but Ms. Jones's decision saved Johnnie from being beaten by his father. We learn to accept the good with the bad in these cases and hope that no matter what happens, we made the "best" decision.
ReplyDeleteI believe that out of all of the readings, the NEA code of ethics really spoke to me. While I went through the reading, I took notes of what I thought really spoke to me. The item that stood out the most was located in the preamble. The first few lines of the preamble of this code says "The educator, believing in the worth and dignity of each human being, recognizes the supreme importance of the pursuit of truth, devotion to excellence, and the nurture of democratic principles”. I 100% believe that as a future teacher, this should be at the core of our teaching knowledge. Unfortunately, like most individuals, I have seen many teachers who taught without having this is mind. After reading this, it made me begin to think about why exactly some teachers just don’t really care. Maybe they were not fortunate enough to have a class such as this in their own teacher education to point this out. It also made me really sit back and think about the fact that I am thrilled to become a teacher. I want make sure that each of my students as well as their families leaves with their dignity intact. I know that in my early childhood years my mother was belittled by at least one teacher (that I am aware of), when my mother shouldn’t have experienced this. She was only looking out for what was best for me. I want to teach my future students nothing but the truth and I know that this is sometimes hard given our Public School Systems and the way that they are run, but I know that it is possible. I am also the type of individual who strives for nothing short of excellent in no matter what I do, so when it comes to having my classroom it will be run with the utmost excellent attitude that I can have with each circumstance that is thrown my way. Living in a democratic society will allow me to do all of the above things, and it makes me even more excited and proud that I have chosen education as my profession. I believe that these few lines will have a significant impact on me when I do start teaching. I know for a fact that I will have them written down on a post-it note, stuck somewhere that I can sneak away and remind myself on the hard days that this is why I love teaching.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI thought that Chapter 1 was very interesting and a good introduction to ethics. I have never taken a class on ethics before so this chapter was a good overview of the ethics of teaching. I liked in the beginning when the authors said that ethical thinking and decision making are not just following the rules. It is easy to assume that as a teacher, you have to base all of your decisions on the rules that are stated. This is not the case for every situation, and there will be times when the rules can take second priority.
ReplyDeleteI also thought it was interesting when the authors stated that it is essential to have a rational ethical thinking that goes beyond personal beliefs and values. I find this to be extremely difficult and wonder how this is accomplished. Whether we are aware or not, I think it would be hard to separate our own beliefs and values when having to make a rational, ethical decision or look at a situation in such a way. It may not even be a conscious thing when we do, but I am not sure how to not incorporate personal beliefs and values into our thinking.
Another point I thought was interesting was when the authors said that all ethical arguments begin with an arbitrary and unprovable assumption. This caught my attention and made me think about how I have seen this in my own life. If people do not agree on the beginning assumption, it is very hard to proceed to argue about the main point or argument. In conversations I have had with people where we do not agree on initial assumptions, the talk seems to go in circles and it is very hard to get much accomplished.
My question would be: Can people reach valid conclusions if they do not agree on initial assumptions? How can we avoid problems that arise when we do not agree on them? Can that be avoided?
-Sarah Tidwell
I wanted to respond to the Noddings article. I found the article to be very insightful as an introduction to ethics. I was unaware of the various theories of thought surrounding ethics and it was helpful to see some of the foundations of the study of ethics. All of these helped me to grasp what exactly ethics in teaching may entail.
ReplyDeleteI was very interested in the care/feminine perspective shared by the author. I related to this theory very closely as a mother. I have experiences the carer feelings almost exactly as described. I had never really considered how the reactions of the person I am caring for affect me, but, after contemplating about it I found that the way my daughter reacts to my care does have a huge influence on me. It is very discouraging when I am not able to figure out what is wrong with her and it affects the way I feel about myself as a carer, even if it is just in that instance. As a teacher this must be the same, we need to know that what we are doing is making a difference to have the determination to continue caring for and teaching our students.
I agree that teachers need to have a caring attitude as described by the author. If a person does not truly want to help kids learn and grow as a person they probably need to find a different profession. While I agree very much with this theory my question is: Is it possible for a teacher to achieve this kind of caring for each of her/his students with the current federal mandates? As the author points out classes are usually too large and there are so many rules and standards to follow, it seems unlikely a teacher could help students according to the care theory, even if they wanted to.
I would like to respond to the Noddings article as well. The article itself was very informative in the sense of giving me a greater understanding in how it is that ethics corresponds to such areas as teaching. One of the things I thought to be very interesting in considering teaching is how it is very often in teaching that the carer plays the significant role without as much effort back from the cared for. I definitely agree with Noddings in the sense that it is the little things that the cared for respond with that keep the carers efforts high. As he talks about it is the thoughtful question or the response to posed questions that keeps teachers energy up. The other thing I thought was very insightful was about the teachers wanting students for more than one year. I am a firm believer that to really get to know a person one must have shared experiences and have known someone through many different trials and times in their lives. For teachers or carers to do appropriate caring and be successful in educating their students, it will take time to get to know your student personally. As for me, all through high school it was the teachers I had for more than one year that I was really able to talk to and be comfortable in class with.
ReplyDeleteThe other portion I found extremely interesting was about the unexcused absences and appropriateness of breaking rules for the good of your students. I also would be someone who would rather have the students make up the work and receive full credit than to be punished for missing a day of class. The question that comes to my mind then is how can schools make such rules when ethics have such a big part in how teachers feel about letting students make up assignments? Would it not be better and more beneficial to the school as a whole to let teachers make the decision which is in the best interest of their classroom as a whole?
I was very impressed after reading the Noddings article. The article has a strong emphasis on caring, which I have been fortunate enough to have as a common characteristic through much of my education. When a strong sense of caring is present, the student is given the support they need to truly delve into the information. The teacher showing the students that they care helps to create a strong foundation that the student can use to base their efforts as they take in the given material. There also must be some sort of attempt by the student, resulting in a relationship that is formed when the students care about the teacher as well. This allows room for genuine interest in the topic, creating an interest in the topic.
ReplyDeleteIn the article, the teacher is faced with the dilemma of whether or not to abide by the rule of not taking work on unexcused absence days. I believe that the teacher did the correct thing in deciding to bypass the rule, encouraging the students to get their work done. This act did not cause any harm to anyone, instead encouraging the students to learn the material and get the points. Circumstances such as these lead to questions such as when is it an acceptable time to bypass a rule? Should the principle or parents be involved? It is the job of teachers to create a lesson based on the unique characteristics of the class, making it plausible that the class will have to ignore or even rewrite some rules as it fights to form it's identity and an understanding of the material.
I wanted to comment on the first chapter of The Ethics of Teaching. This is my first ethics course in a non-religious setting, and the approach of the course and the text is very different. I did take a course on ethics at my Catholic high school, but it was very slanted toward the morality of the church, so it’s interesting to look at ethics from a more objective perspective. However, I think that sometimes we can run the risk of being too objective. In my opinion, it is really difficult to subscribe completely to either the consequentialist or nonconsequentialist mindset. To be entirely consequentialist, it seems that it would be easy to justify behavior if it can be shown to benefit someone else. This can be a dangerous “slippery slope,” as shown by the example of the sadists torturing a victim. However, nonconsequentialists who follow the Golden Rule can run the risk of acceptance of inappropriate behavior in a different way, in that ethical decisions become too situational, because it places the responsibility on oneself to decide what is universally acceptable. One has to wonder: Is it wise to subscribe completely to one theory or another? Or is it necessary to use some combination in order to make ethically sound decisions? I would lean toward the latter. However, this may make difficult ethical decisions all the more difficult to deal with, since there would be no set guide to the decision-making process.
ReplyDelete-Katie Kuvin
I read the article "Caring: A Feminist Perspective" and really liked the last two sections about caring.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, the Current Analysis of caring, I liked the part where it talked about not only what the carer contributes to a relation, but also what the cared for contributes to a relation. As a future teacher I think this is something important to remember about my students. Not only am I contributing as the teacher, teaching the students the information and being responsible for making sure they actually understand and take in all the information they are required to, my students are going to have to put in a great deal into the relation. They are going to have to digest the information, "learn" it and not just memorize it, make sure they let me know if they aren't able to understand the it, as well as be tested over this information.
I found this article to be very interesting and informative on the idea of caring. one question brought up while reading this was how would moral life be defined if people who were responsible for homemaking, nurturing, and childrearing came up with it. I believe that each individual has their own thought to what moral life is. For example, I believe that moral life is the idea of seeing good in everyone and wanting to help others in need. On the other hand, I know people who jduge moral life on how much money you make, sexual orientation, how you feel about certain topics like abortion. Every person has their own view on what moral life is and to ask whether or not people who were the homemakers of the house would have changed things, doesn't make much sense to me. Every person will act how they want to act and define things like moral life and caring in their own way.
ReplyDeleteAnother question that I found interesting was whether females more often than males really do exhibit a more "caring and responsibility" orientation. My opinion with this is that I do feel women and men both exhibit caring and responsibility orientation but I believe society has made it to where you view it more in women than in men. Therefore, it is easy to assume men aren't caring and do not possess a nurturing attitude.
Overall, I found this article interesting to read and I do question whether or not history and experiences help you to define moral life and caring? For example, people of different socioeconomic classes, do they view moral life the same?
While reading the Caring: A Feminist Perspective article I tried to relate it to what I have seen in my life. Fall quarter I'd say I had a women teacher that was very caring. I use the term caring to refer to what the article talks about. She didn't have the typical rules that teachers usually have like strict deadlines and missing class rules. She was very understanding of each individual's lives and if someone was a week late on an assignment she would not take any points off if they eventually got it done. This attitude of my teacher really made me enjoy the class and made me want to learn, I felt she actually cared about each of her students and wanted to do anything she could do to help us succeed. The way she taught us also made me want to be that same type of caring teacher to my own students one day. I find it interesting how the article mentions that the ethical action to take is not always to obey the rules. I use to always think that ethics had to do with following rules but I guess in the case of teaching it also deals with what is best for the students. Now if a teacher, like the one I had, started noticing the students taking advantage of her system that is suppose to help them what would she do? Does taking the students success at interest always come out positively or are there risks?
ReplyDeleteI am responding to the Noddings article. I liked the Caring perspective and the article. It is important to address students as a whole person than it is to pump them full of test answers. I think the education system is currently set up to make efficient workers rather than cultivating an individual. In the long run, memorizing equations will only help a few individuals. It is far more important to inspire curiosity, how to learn, and socialization.
ReplyDeleteI found the way gender differences addressed to be insightful. If people are brought up to engage in both the traditional feminine and masculine tendencies, then they can be a whole person. Kindness or practicality should not be split into certain categories of people.
I think the education system should be altered. The atmosphere created by test scores equating to intelligence and potential is especially harmful for the different kinds of intelligence students may have. Learning should move far beyond strategies for timed tests. I think Jaime Escalante is correct that teachers need extended contact with their students. This would encourage community and understanding within the students instead of enforcing competition for the best grades, test scores, etc.
Nodding Article
ReplyDeleteI agree that caring should be part of ethics. It is natural for humans to care so I don't see how that aspect can be eliminated from ethical decisions. I also agree that the individual rights and aspects of an individual person should be considered as well. How can we say that one ethical decision made by someone for a group is right for each individual in the group? Everyone is different and a decision that is ethical for one person may not be ethical for someone else. Individuality is important.
I think that had ethical theory had been developed by women or women and men together, it would have been different. Caring would have been placed in a more important role I believe, simply because women would have found it to be more important. That's not to say that men don't think it is important but just they think other aspects carry more weight. I don't feel that caring can be the only aspect of an ethical decision because ethics is so much more complex. But I really don't see how caring can be left out of an ethical decision because I feel that if I am making a decision without considering how I might feel or care about a person I wouldn't be making a fair decision. I guess the situation of how caring fits in to ethics is kind of confusing and diluted but I definitley feel its important.
Overall, I enjoyed this reading. It made me think about different things and how I view ethics and making ethical decisions. I had to think about what role caring and individuality will play when I make decisions. I agree that they play a role but I just have to figure how large of a role.
In response to the Noddings article:
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading this article, and I specifically liked learning about the ethics of caring. After reading about the ethics of caring, I feel like I definitely use this theory on a daily basis. I think that it is extremely important for all teachers to use an ethic of care when dealing with their students. I feel that students learn best when they are comfortable in their environment and in order for that to happen students need to be able to form caring, personal relationships with their teachers. The student needs to feel that they have a positive relationship with the teacher and vice versa, there needs to be a reciprocal relationship between the two. When I think back on my schooling and teachers I have had, I think I have performed the best in classes where I felt the teacher truly cared about my success in the class.
I also really agreed with the section of the article that discussed the idea of extended contact. As a child, I had the same teacher and classmates for first and second grade. I really think it was a beneficial experience because my teacher was able to really get to know me, as well as my classmates, during those two school years and we were able to really get to know me, where she is currently a major mentor in my life. I think every child in a classroom leaves a lasting impression on a teacher and I feel that good teachers should leave lasting impressions on their students. I know I have the best memories of my best teachers and it is because of the wonderful relationships I was able to form with them, which would not have happened if my teachers had not been caring towards me and the rest of their students. I also think the greater amount of time a teacher is able to spend with a particular group of students the better the students will learn because the teacher will be able to cater to their individual learning styles after getting to know them over several years.
My one major question after reading the Noddings article, as well as the two chapters in the book, has to do with the ethical theories. What I am not sure about is how to determine what ethical theory a person might be using. After reading everything, I feel like many of the ideas overlap between theories, which makes it difficult for me to understand how someone can be using just one.
- Kristen Calaway
In the Noddings article, I liked the idea of spending longer time with group of students to understand them, and therefore be able to care for them and sympathies with them more effectively. I aggress that getting to know them on a personal level, and therefore being able to understand their wants and needs and where these feelings come from would be a very useful tool for a teacher. However, I know that it is not likely or even sometimes possible for a teacher to spend more than one school year with a certain group of students. This being said, I think that it is important for teachers to make a serious effort to get to know their students, so that they can gain this understanding that usually comes with time.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of the section about breaking the rules, I can understand that they broke the rule because they disagreed with it, and thought that it should be changed. However, I think that it would have been better for the teacher to go about it differently, and find a way to get their point across without breaking the rule in front of students. By doing so the teacher is setting an example to the students that rule breaking is ok. Although I do believe that at times some rules and regulations are not the way they should be, I personally believe that one should deal with these through the proper and legal channels, and not blatantly go against rules in front of students.
In the article "Caring: A feminist Perspective" the author talks about the contribution of the cared-for and how important it is to the carer. Before reading this article I never thought about the role the cared-for has on the carer. When looking at this from a teachers perspective. When students are engaged in the learning process and are responding, interacting and showing enthusiasm toward the subjecting, the teacher will feel appreciated and successful. When this does not occur in a classroom, teacher burnout is a common occurrence.
ReplyDeleteIn a classroom the teachers responsibility is to educate their students, but when students are not engaged teachers may get burned out. When this happens the teachers effectiveness declines and the students education follows. A students education is effected by the teacher in many ways so is it ethical for a teacher to allow their students lack of interest effect their ability to educate? Even if the teachers are not receiving positive feedback, does this give them the right to let their desire to teach decline?
After reading a Feminist Prospective, I realized the importance of connecting to children. The teachers that had the biggest impact on my life, I felt very close to in the classroom. If you aren't close and comfortable with the teacher, then it greatly reduces the quality of reading. I like the articles ideas on the idea of cheating. Instead of punishing the child over and over again, talk with the child about what he or she has done. Lets be honest, everyone has tried to cheat at least once in their lifetime. It is something every kid has to experience and go through in order to learn from it. It is the teachers job to help the children become successful in life and not just in the classroom. I believe punishing should still be done, but the teachers need to connect to the children as they do it. Find out why the student is cheating. Maybe the student is having difficult times at home and needs someone their for support. I believe this is where the teacher neeeds to step in to be that person their for them in life. This can only happen if you connect to the students. The teacher also needs to be very careful on connecting to a few of the students and forgetting about others. Make sure that you are fair to all students and try to get to know each and every one. This will all lead to much better atmosphere for learning.
ReplyDeleteThe question that I have after reading the article is, where do you draw the line? Teachers can only connect with children so much and don't want to pass that line where it becomes uncomfortable for both parties involved. How do you know exactly where to draw that line? It is a very fine line I believe that is hard to figure out all the time.
I found the article on caring particularly interesting, and it made me think both of past experiences as a student as well as my future as a teacher. During kindergarten through 2nd grade, I was part of a multi-age program that kept me with the same few teachers for 3 years. I really enjoyed the continuity and I think it was a great approach to teaching. Sometimes we worked by grade level with individual teachers, and at other times all learned together. There was certainly a greater sense of community in the classroom than in any other class I've been in, and the environment felt very caring. I loved school. This was also the case in college, where I took several classes with the same professor who was also my advisor - I felt I did my best work there as a result of the incredible level of caring and attention from the professor. In other cases, where a teacher was not particularly caring and just conveyed information to the class, I felt quite alienated and unmotivated. For me then, caring and personal committment to studetns is absolutely requisite in the classroom. This is very much attached to my personal feelings/opinions, however, so I wonder what is truly appropriate in terms of parent, school district, and general public opinion on how schools and classrooms should be run. My inclination will always be to consider each student individually, to teach compassionately, and to place less emphasis on rules for rules' sake. But is this realistic? Schools seem more and more constricted by regulation and accountability, which to me seems very much at odds with an ethic of caring.
ReplyDeleteI would like to comment on the Noddings article. I believe that a lot of what was said in the article is accurate to teaching. I teach private flute lessons to 9 middle and high school students and as I was reading, I was thinking of their lessons and how I approach each and every lesson as well as what gives me satisfaction as a teacher. It is very true that I do not need a "thank you" as a sign of appreciation for what I am teaching. However, I do need to see progress and caring for what I am teaching them. It makes me feel like I am contributing to their education of music and flute playing. I also agree with the statement in the article regarding ethics and how they do not consider the individual all the time. I feel that as a society we are constantly trying to generalize, stereotype, and put people in boxes. Each one of us is unique and so are the students that we teach. As a teacher, we have to consider how each individual student learns, as well as their personality, history, family life, etc. The list really goes on and on. It is up to us as teachers to get to know our students so that we can educate the best that we can.
ReplyDeleteOne question that I have regarding the article is how can we get students to be in our classroom for more that one year? I personally love the idea of being able to teach students for three years so that not only can you educate them best intellectually, but you can also really get to know their personalities and teach them to the best of your ability. As a music educator, I have the luxury of teaching students for their full four years in high school. However, if this could apply to other areas of study, I think it would greatly improve eduction.
Like many of the other students, I hope to incorporate a caring approach in my classroom after I graduate. I will be able to better connect with my students. I have found throughout my educational experience that I have learned more from teachers who did not apply a hard line approach in their classes. Personally, these teachers have still instilled a sense of self-discipline that is necessary to succeed in many classes. However, I knew they personally cared about my success. I believe my future students will succeed if I let them know how much I care about their educational accomplishments.
ReplyDeleteOverall I found the readings to be interesting and though provoking. However, what struck me the most was the idea of utilitarianism. According to the text, utilitarianism is the idea “that social policy ought to be determined by what produces the greatest good for the greatest number.” It is an idea that falls under the theoretical umbrella of consequentialism and the principle of benefit maximization. Basically, it’s the idea that whenever a choice needs to be made, it should be made in a quantitative way that benefits the most amount of people. This is a relatively new concept to me, and one that I find very interesting. It is also a concept that I currently do not see in application in our educational system and in greater society as a whole. It seems like an idea that favors a collective well being over the individual well-being, and therefore not a popular western social approach. I immediately think of capitalism, and how it inherently benefits the individual, with little emphasis on the ‘other’ people. Since our educational system is inherently tied to capitalism and therefore a reflection of capitalism, I think that utilitarianism relatively absent in our schools. Producing the greatest good for the greatest number would be to provide excellent education to all American children, and not just those near the top of the social strata.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the Noddings article, it was hard to tell whether the author was describing a caring atmosphere like the title indicates, or a nurturing atmosphere. All the maternal aspects which are described in the main section of the article describe what it takes to raise and nurture a child. There are a few aspects which can be transferred to the classroom, but I sensed a more of a nurturing approach rather than a caring approach.
ReplyDeleteThere are many ways a teacher can care about their students. I knew throughout grade school that all of my teachers cared, but not one of them cared the same way as another. Not one of my teachers were anything like the methods outlined in this article. Personally, I'm not sure I would work so well if I had a teacher like that for one of my classes. It would be very uncomfortable if my teacher was acting like a parent. I don't require that attentiveness 24 hours a day, I got enough of it at home. Without knowing your students or their backgrounds, this nurturing approach could backfire, because the student would not respond to another nurturing figure in their life.
As far as bending/breaking rules in the name of caring; I completely disagree with it. Students need to know that rules are there for a reason. Teachers also prepare students for the real world, and if they see an authority figure breaking a rule, where does that action end? How many more rules are we willing to break? Where does it end? Caring also involves doing things you might not want to do. Punishment, for instance. If a student finds that they can get away with missing class, then they will find what other rules they can bend or break without punishment. A teacher needs to obey the rules under which they are governed. Whether we like them or not, it sets a fair example to the students. Is that not caring about the students? Where do the lines of caring and nurturing get blurred? Could that grey area do more harm than good for students?
While I was reading the first chapter in The Ethics of Teaching, I realized that I have a very black and white way of looking at things and I am not sure if this will be an asset or a downfall when dealing with ethics. I really never see the grey sides of situations and that in every situation there is a definite right answer and wrong answer. An example of this would be while I was reading the first case about the new teacher reading the paper from the athlete who had plagiarized the entire paper and she was wondering what she was going to do in dealing with this case. Should she turn him in for obvious plagiarism or should she let him pass so that he could go on to make tons more money in the NBA than that teacher would ever make teaching and forget this paper and the things he learned in this class in a matter of days? I was thinking while I was reading this case that the obvious thing I would do, no questions asked and what I think anyone should do in this type of situation would be to turn in the student and let this student deal with the possible consequences to the situation that he created. In my mind, there is no question, the black and white thinking scheme again. The student had many opportunities to come to the teacher for help and as an athlete he would have had access to tons of tutoring, so it is completely his fault that he copied the paper. The teacher is simply doing her job by turning him in. There is no grey area in my mind about this. One could ask if the teacher is doing the right thing for the kid by turning him in and teaching him to deal with consequences or would she be doing better for him by letting him pass and go onto a career in the NBA? Since this case is an ethics question, obviously there is no clear cut answer for everyone and for all cases like this because everyone would judge this case differently. But hopefully in this class, we will learn to decipher in situations what to value more, what is best for the student or what is "right". This I feel is at the heart of teaching ethics.
ReplyDeleteI found the readings in the Strike and Soltis book to be really interesting. I had never examined the logic behind my ethical thinking before this reading. I have to admit, though I have now thought about it I still think this topic is very ambiguous and am critical of whether or not there really is an objective ethical knowledge. Once the theories of nonconsequentialist, consequentialist, hedonist, utilitarianist were defined I concluded that I use all of these in varying ways to justify my actions. I look forward to examining case studies where difficult decisions must be made that may reflect issues I will face in my own career.
ReplyDeleteI found Chapter 7 to be really interesting. It was the first time I have seen a postscript in that format. Using a conversation of criticisms of their book to justify their decisions seemed odd. However, I think their statements in defense were fair and I am glad the book does not incorporate religion or an expansive explanation of philosophers.
As well as the vast majority of the class, I am responding to the Noddings article. Attention is discussed as an essential aspect to morality and care. Simone Weil describes attentive very similar to what I would describe as empathetic. The individual must see the human in suffering as a person just like oneself. Put yourself in their shoes, feel their pain, and genuinely care about what they are going through. This makes me think of the label we so quickly place on the different groups in our society. I think one of the hardest aspects of teaching is holding back from making assumptions based on a label. It is so easy to assume that one student isn't as smart as another because he doesn't speak English well and has a hard time communicating. Instead, as a teacher you must put yourself in that student's shoes and determine what you can do to help him/her succeed. As quoted in the article, Milton Mayeroff describes caring as "taking responsibility in the growth of another." As teachers we are personally taking the responsibility of pushing each student to the height of his/her abilities.
ReplyDeleteThe question I pose is brought up briefly at the beginning of the article when discussing sacrificing the happiness of a small group for the happiness of the whole. As I stated in agreeance with Mayeroff, it is our job to care for each student and treat the success of each individual as our own responsibility. However, what should we do when the happiness/success of the entire class is greatly raised with the exception of one student? If we are to help that single student, the happiness of the entire class diminishes. As a teacher do we sacrifice one for the betterment of the whole as society does? Or would that be breaking the moral code? But isn't holding the other students back for one student also breaking that moral code?
Caring: A Feminist Perspective
ReplyDeleteWhile reading noddings article about "caring teachers", I found myself reflecting on times I had a caring teacher and the strong relationship we had. Those were the teachers that enjoyed sharing interests with his/her students. Caring teachers strive to help their students to be successful and make gains during the course of the year. My favorite teachers took the extra time to help me understand concepts, promoted a good classroom climate, and helped students learn from their mistakes.
Students know if their teacher genuinely cares about their academic achievement and success. The non-caring teachers typically kick-out out students for bad behavior, not participating in class, and show little interest in their students outside of the content area. Teachers need to let their students see them as real people who enjoy helping them become successful citizens.
The case in the first chapter about the student athlete cheating on his final paper in order to meet a qualification to maintain athletic eligibility one of the most relevant readings in a class. In my high school a football player was given special treatment (in this case extra points) in one of his academic classes. I felt than and feel now that Cynthia should report the student for academic misconduct and that the student at my high school should have lost his athletic eligibility since he did not earn his grade. This is in alignment with nonconsequentialist thinking where the duties and principles are more important than the consequences. Although people should not receive special treatment, my question would be, what is a better way to handle academic misconduct than the case in the text or even OSU's?
ReplyDeleteThe part of the article that really stuck out to me was the part about teachers that spend time with their students; teachers that may have a group of students for more than one class. When I was in high school I had Mrs. Miller for my studyhall teacher as a freshman, my English teacher my sophomore, I was her teachers aidmy junior year, and she was my public cpeaking I and II teacher my senior year and I was her student aid again. Needless to say that she and I spent a great amount of time together. She learned many things about me and I about her. She developed a great interest in me; she would help me edit papers, give me letters of reccomendation for colleges, and even helped me through some personal things. Most teachers are not like that. She was not like that with just me. She is the definition of a devoted teacher. She pours her entire self into her job. She may be a tough teacher but she never demands something from her students that is too unreasonable. She was strict and her classes were always a challenge, but she pushed her students. She wanted everyone to work and hard and receive good grades. If for some reason the whole class did poorly on a test she took that as the class was not ready for the test and she would throw the tests out and we would start over.
ReplyDeleteWhen this act of caring and devotion is showed to students then students cannot help but work hard is return. They want to show their teacher that they are up to the challenge and that they appreciate his/her devotion to the class. I think that when a teacher cares about his/her classroom then the students automatically care about the teacher and their class. They want to work just as hard to learn and receive the good grades just like the teacher is working hard to be a good teacher and show compassion to the students.
I guess my question would be as a teacher is there such thing as caring too much? Can a teacher get in trouble for medling in a students life too much, like blurring the lines between teacher and becoming a parent?
I think that Noddings makes a valid point when he says that different students require variable quantities and types of attention. It was particularly intriguing when he brought up the fact that students who do not respond to one teacher’s care may need the care of another. However, I do not think that the rest of the article is an accurate portrayal of this belief. Many of the example scenarios in both this article and the Strike/Soltis textbook involve one teacher and one student (and perhaps a parent or principal.) Noddings’ words make me think that it is important take a step back and view our own actions in the context of the school and life as a whole. While each teacher does have a responsibility to be ethical, it is the overall life experiences that are going to determine whether or not a person is “acceptable.” I wonder if the care theory and other models of ethics put too much pressure on individual teachers, when it would be more beneficial to examine a teacher’s role as part of a greater whole.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading the Noddings article, "Caring: A Feminist Perspective". I found myself agreeing a lot with the author, specifically when she addressed the message that students should get from their teachers. "We care for you, and because we care, we will persist in helping you to master the material that is our common responsibility." This is why I think that caring is absolutely necessary in schools. It is impossible to create a comfortable environment where students are able to excel, without any ethics of caring. Teachers must do what is best for each student, and in order to do this, they must build relationships with their students and truly care for them.
ReplyDeleteI feel that the majority of my teachers throughout elementary school were carers and this really shaped my view of education at an early age. I think that caring needs to be included in ethics. I will definitely be a carer when I am a teacher, even if it means that I will have to break some rules and face the consequences.
I believe that fairness is at the core of all of the readings for this week. If you have ever been treated unfairly it is due to the fact that the teacher was not bound to you through a responsive and caring relationship. These instances can create a distaste for the subject that the teacher is assigned to instruct. It is important to remember as an ethical teacher where you stand on bullying your students. In the idea of the Golden Rule presented in the readings this is of course the most vague of concepts and is open to a vast community of issues. Just how would you like to be treated? In one sense you would hope that the teacher is open to the issues of the modern student. A human can not be expected to understand the rounded perspective of a youth within the 45 minutes of a day that you have with them. After the end of a period of time you will get a sense of who that student is within the confines of the educational institution. It is important to know that you are not their peer or their friend. You can be friendly but you must be devoted to ensuring the student is being treated like a person who is capable of learning within the school walls and it is up to the teacher to bridge the gap between the social student and the learning student. One important question to ask is how, as a teacher you are to deal with the ethical landslide of the social student that will inevitably learn something about being a respectable adult from those adults they are in contact with? I hope that this class will dive into the issue of Bullying in the school system and how to register the levels and the importance of putting a stop to it as soon as it happens, I feel this is where the issue of respect and caring can have its most influential battles.
ReplyDeleteAs a social worker dealing with "at risk youth" I have spent countless hours interacting with numerous teachers throughout various school districts in Franklin County. I mention this because as I read the Noddings article I found myself looking back wondering how many times I came across a teacher that employed the ethics discussed in this article. It saddens me to think that over the past 11 years, the number is likely fewer than 10. The Noddings article focuses on key ideas that I feel are missing from many of today's classroom. Primarily caregiving, I feel there are two primary factors that have caused today's teachers to remove themselves from a caregiving role. First and foremost is standardized testing. One district in particular, seems to have a very systematic regimen for what they expect teachers to "teach" all for the sake of obtaining higher school ratings. In this manner a teacher becomes very formulated and rigid. A by product is that any student that disrupts the class is seen as a "problem" and and referred to services. Teachers no longer have the time to investigate what might be going on in the home or explore what stress the child might be dealing with. Instead they choose to seek help from outsiders (such as myself) to address the issues. In turn this leads the student to feel inconsequential and fosters distrust.
ReplyDeleteThe other problem I see is the generational gap that is occurring more frequently in classrooms across the county. I feel that the older generation of teachers have difficulties relating to today's students and the various issues their students are dealing with outside of school. I'm not sure how a district might go about changing this problem outside of workshops or continuing education classes that focus with the different needs of today's students.
As a future educator I will no doubt make use of many of the ideas presented by the Feminist Caring Perspective. I do believe that as teachers we are extensions of the family unit. We may not be biological family members but we ARE responsible for shaping the moral and social development of each and every student we come in contact with on a daily basis. It is our duty to act in a manner that not only promotes the education of an individual but also allows that student to truly understand that the person entrusted with this job is invested in the child for who they are and what they wish to become.
I wanted to focus on the scenario that was stated in chapter one with the athlete who plagiarized. First, in the book, it states that “Ethics concerns what kinds of actions are right or wrong, what kind of life is a good life, or what kind of person is a good person” (Soltis, pg.5). Many people also believe that ethics are “really questions of personal values or the values of the group to which one belongs” (Soltis, pg. 4). In my opinion, there is a norm for ethics, and anyone who crosses that boundary is often considered “wrong” in their beliefs or opinions. “When someone behaves in a way that is different from how people ought to behave, an ethical standard is violated” ( Soltis, pg. 5). Going back to the scenario with the athlete who plagiarized, the student had to maintain a C average to retain his scholarship and to stay on his college basketball team. The scenario was asking if the teacher, Cynthia, should report him to the dean or not. If she does not report him to the dean, she would be going against the academic code. If she does report him, the student may lose everything that he has worked hard for. In my opinion, people are different in their beliefs, and people deserve a second chance. As a teacher, I believe that I have my own way of thinking, and because my beliefs or opinions may be different than others, I do not think that I am violating the “ethical standard.” In this case, I would not only think about myself, but I would think about the student, and if this scholarship and his team was a huge motivation in his life that kept him going. I would also think about money issues, if he had financial problems and needed a scholarship to help him. In addition, I would look at how stressed the student may be to be borderline in the class, and made the mistake of plagiarizing, as people do make many mistakes in their lives. Although in this situation, the teacher only had 48 hours to turn in final grades. I would have quickly contacted the student and told him that he needed to fix his paper. I would also tell him that if he needed help he could have come to me for ideas. I would not turn in the student based on one mistake that could ruin his future. I personally do not like to see anyone get left behind or get severely punished because of a mistake. I believe that people should not follow the “norm” just because everyone thinks it is right. I believe that people should do the right things based on their own beliefs as long as it is not hurting anyone else.
ReplyDeleteMy question is, as a teacher, would you in this case report the student as the academic code states to, or would you keep it to yourself and try to figure out a solution to the situation? Also, why do you think that many people worry about going against the "norm of ethics" even if it leads to a positive outcome?
In Nodding’s “Caring: A Feminist Perspective I believe that she brings up a lot of well thought out points. Towards the end of this chapter she brings up the idea that ‘teachers want to produce acceptable persons - persons who will support worthy institutions, live compassionately, work productively but not obsessively. ... To shape such persons, teachers need not only intellectual capabilities but also a fund of knowledge about the particular persons with whom they are working.” This quote really made me think about teaching in my future classroom. When teaching my students I will not only be teaching them knowledge and skills they will continuously build on later in school but as a teacher you should also be teaching these students the respect and other skills that are not ‘traditionally’ taught inside the classroom because along with the school and academic skills they need they also need these skills that they may not be receiving at home. In Chapter 1 of The Ethics of Teaching it goes in to this as well by addressing the situation with Ms Jones, Johnny, and his father. Ms. Jones needs to be teaching Johnny real life skills that he can be using to defuse and avoid fights because he is obviously not getting this type of support and guidance at home from his father who is going to “show him how a man fights.” As future teachers this is something we will need to address, maybe not on a daily basis but we will have to deal with situations like this and we will need to know how to handle them and what to do when placed in them.
ReplyDeleteI’ve gathered from the Strike/Soltis reading that there must be a healthy balance in decision-making depending on the particular situation, which is roughly based on the NEA Code of Ethics. To answer the question in the reading about what else could Ms. Jones have done with Mr. Pugnacious, I would strongly argue that the downfall of her parent meeting was due to a lack of confidence and personal fears in the situation and towards Mr. Pugnacious. Despite the threatening behavior, a calm, level-headed perspective on the situation in question should have been conveyed in a more persistent way before “a lie” could even have the chance to come out. The fact that Ms. Jones did lie however is a natural, human response to pressure such as that due to intrinsic value or as just a simple reaction. Realistically, if this issue with Johnnie has been a prior issue, one would venture a guess that not just Ms. Jones would know about this behavior. The principle, the guidance counselor, etc, would most likely have the story behind Johnnie as well. My point is that Ms. Jones could have implored their assistance in the parent meeting to reinforce her point, or perhaps quite the opposite.
ReplyDeleteIt occurs to me that the principles behind consequentialists and nonconsequentialists and not necessarily as differing as the book proclaims. I would venture to ask that can one use both as a guide rather than analyzing what past decisions made fit into the molds? Should both views work in tandem with one another to justify choices?
-Matt Zabiegala
The article I chose to reflect on was the 'Feminist Theory.' It definitely made me see that I do think that women care more in some aspects. This is definitely not the case in every situation however many women do carry a sensitive gene. While looking into the perspective aspect of caring within the classroom I do think that a caring teacher makes for a more effective teacher.
ReplyDeleteThere are as well some restrictions that come along with being a caring teacher. The article discussed the situation if a student were to cheat and to talk with the student about why they cheated and why it is not okay. However while dealing with this, the student does need to face some kind of disciplinary consequences. If we as teachers maintain an overwhelming caring attitude for our students we could potentially lose respect from our students. As teachers, we build special relationships with our students and they begin to almost be our children however it does remain important to keep the discipline in the classroom to maintain order and structure.
After reading the Noddings article I began thinking about this idea of experience, worldview, and moral orientation. Noddings presents these ideas as "worldview or moral orientation" suggesting the two are interchangeable. I think one's moral orientation is strongly affected by their worldview, but not necessarily determined by it. However, for the purposes of the article and this discussion I can see why it was grouped together; I will use the term moral orientation to describe the code of ethics that a person is inclined to follow. I first want to address how experience does play a role in a person’s moral orientation supporting the "military mind" argument. My sister and I are about three years apart; we grew up in the same Christian household with the same loving, caring parents. Our parents followed Martin Buber's "I-Thou" mode and our parents genuinely wanted to see us learn - in the case of the cheating student, my parents would have been the ones who helped us learn from our mistakes. I am in school to become a dance educator in public schools and I very much see myself as following in this idea of the care ethic. My sister is a social worker at a day care for the elderly where she spends 110% of her energy attending to every physical, emotional, and social need of her "friends" (clients) as well as their families. Both of us had a shared experience and developed the same sense of moral orientation, the same that our parents raised us up in.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I'm not convinced this is aways the case. What about children who grow up in abusive homes, struggle through dropout factory schools, and never experience anyone who emotes the caring ethic? Noddings mentions that teachers need certain responses from their students to keep from burning out, but I would argue that students need responses form their teachers in order to not burn out. That would mean then that every student who never sees the caring ethic in a teacher, parent, or role model would never display the caring ethic themselves. But this just isnt true. So, my question then is how much of the caring ethic can be attributed to the experience and how much is simply innate in humans? Is this caring ethic already inside of every human and it is simply displayed more often when it is nurtured?
I found the article "Caring" A Feminist Perspective" to be very interesting. I especially enjoyed reading Noddings' perspective of caring and teaching. I agree that in a lot of ways teachers are similar to parents. Teachers want to help their students grow to be acceptable persons. I agree that teachers must have strong relationships with their students in order to gain students' trust. Noddings mentions that the same teacher or group of teachers should work with students for multiple years in order for the students and teachers to establish mutual trusting relationships. While I believe it is important for teachers and students to have strong relationships, I do not think it is necessary for teachers to move up with their students year after year. Rather, I believe that it is good for students to experience different teachers with different teaching styles. Additionally, is is really realistic for a teacher to teach a different grade every year?
ReplyDeleteI also think it is interesting how it can be morally okay to break a school rule. I agree with Noddings that it is not in the best interest of students to simply not complete an assignment because they will not receive credit. Rather, I believe that they should be expected to make up the material that they missed so that they do not fall behind the rest of the class. I think that there are other cases in which breaking, or bending a school rule is acceptable. For example, my aunt used to teach at an elementary school in Tennessee in which one of the school rules is that the students are expected to be quiet majority of the day. My aunt allowed her class to talk openly more than the other teachers and therefore everyone said that she had the loudest classroom. In this case I also agree that it is okay to bend the rules of the school because it is good for students to have social interactions with their peers. While students are mainly in school to learn material, they are also learning socialization.
In response to the Nodding's article, I agree that there is (generally) a gender barrier correlated to the amount of 'maternal thinking' that goes on in teaching. Before I read this article, I was recently discussing this issue with my brother who is a middle school band director. His co-teacher is a female, and when discussing classroom management and problem children he commented, "Our gender's definitely make a difference in the way we interact with students. She is the mother of the band....I can't act as compassionately as she can with certain students and they go to her for that reason."
ReplyDeleteStereotypically I agree that female teachers have more maternal characteristics and tend to care on a different level. I do think male teachers absolutely have this caring quality, but it may not be as straightforwardly presented as a female teacher. I think it is important for all teachers to carry this 'maternal' caring attitude in the classroom since often times teachers spend more time with students during the school year than their own parents do. It is important that students form relationships built on trust with adults they spend a large part of their time on. When students and teachers know each other well, teachers will gauge how the students learn the best, and students will be more successful. I do think that there are gray areas in rule breaking. There seems to always be a 'special situation' and some form of exception. When does it end? What is the cutoff point? It is absolutely a challenge for teachers to make these sorts of decisions with students and choose what situations to react to and what situations to let go. How do teachers maintain a nurturing attitude and care about students and their well-being yet keep a clear set of rules with no exceptions that treats students and situations fairly without losing student trust?
I found the Noddings article very interesting. I found through experience in high school that the teachers that really knew me and I had great respect for were those that I had for more than one semester. Seeing these teachers over a greater time span allows both the teacher and student to realize their own strengths and weaknesses through regular interaction.
ReplyDeleteAlso, it is crucial that teachers teach students as individuals, not as a number. This interaction often leads to mutual respect between the student and teacher. Students come from many different backgrounds. As teachers we must acknowledge this and adapt our teaching to our students, making it possible to give them the best education we can.
My professors in college I would say have been some of the most caring people I've been taught by yet. After a couple of quarters with one professor, she got to know me and my work/study habits pretty well. She would give out grades for our exams, homework, and attendance but she also took attitude and effort into consideration for our final grade. I found myself more engaged in her class because there was a level of respect created because of her understanding. She genuinely wanted us to learn the material, not just to spit out information onto a worksheet. I find that approach to learning the most effective, which is unfortunate since there are some teachers that teach for good test scores and not to benefit the students long-term.
I guess I would like to know where the line is drawn between parent and teacher. What roles of the parent should the teacher take on, if any? As a carer, should teachers be teaching manners and other life skills?
I would like to comment about the first chapter in "The ethics of Teaching."
ReplyDeleteI like how the chapter started out by saying "Ethical Thinking and decision making are not just following the rules. " Then start out with an example of an ethical decision needed to be made.
Being in Chynthias situation with a start athlete who plagerized I really wouldnt know what I would actually do until I was actually int he situation. I guess the right thing to do is go to the department since he did plagerize. Anyhow, i would also like to know why he plagerized. Is something happening in the family or just didnt think he could do well enough on his own, or just to remain an atlete. Maybe he plagerized bc he needs to make sure he does well so someone can take care of the family in the future. I would most definitely be sure to talk to the student before making any decisions at all.
I guess i would like to know if Cynthia was too pass him plagerizing if she would somehow get in trouble someday if she was caught?"
Through reading the Noddings article I formed an opinion that it is extremely important for a teacher to be caring and help develop their students in other ways than just academically. A teacher spends many hours with her students and it is impossible to say that she will not have an impact on them in other ways than just school work. Because of the time that the teacher will spend with her students I think it is essential that she helps development as "acceptable people."
ReplyDeleteWhen children are growing up they spend more time with their teachers in their classrooms than they do talking with their parents at home. I think teachers have the obligation to be caring towards their students and help develop them as people; doing this as an aid to the parents not a replacement.
There is more to life than academics so I believe that teachers should be teaching that as well, how to be leaders and how to love and serve others. This is what is important in life and should be part of the focus in our academic settings.
-Megan Conway
While reading chapter one in the text, I was intrigued by the introduction of Immanuel Kant. I have heard the "treat others how you would like to be treated" phrase my entire life. Kant suggests that this moral rule should be universal. Therefore, if the rule is implemented, I will implement the rule to others as well as expecting the same rule to be implemented to me. For example, If I lie then I can expect to be lied to. Kant then refers to the Ms. Jones scenario and asks whether she should have treated Mr. Pugnacious as she would wish to be treated rather than lying to him. Although I agree with the Golden rule, I disagree with this. Mr. Pugnacious is an alcoholic and obviously abusive father. He himself is not following the "Golden rule" when he beats his child. Therefore, assuming the equal respect for persons idea, then he is not showing any respect for his son. This to me seems as though Ms. Jones was the only one showing equal respect for her student by lying to his father. She wanted to protect the student the best way she knew how.
ReplyDeleteI think that breaking the golden rule by lying in order to protect the well being of another is acceptable and was not considered by Kant.
In response to Noddings, I feel the caring is a very important characteristic in a teacher. In our educational system where children spend as much, if not more time in school with their teacher as they do at home, it is critical that their teacher be someone who can help them build character as well as knowledge. Parents act as a sort of parent whild a child is in school, so to expect them to only impart the knowledge of how to read and write without influencing the child in other way is impossible. A learning environment which is caring is more condusive to proper learning that an incredibly strict, military-like classroom. Caring teaches children to build healthy relationships. Being cared for teaches a student to care for others in return.
ReplyDelete-Katie Petrolo
I want to respond to the Loeown article. While I found it to be a bit exaggerated, I found many of the things said to be true. I especially see the difference of money and class to be prevalent in the resources our public schools have.
ReplyDeleteI remember learning something of social class in high school although admittedly not a lot. I grew up in a relatively poor school district in the Circleville area. I did not really compare my school to other schools while in high school. It was not until I moved to Columbus for college and was introduced to school districts in the Columbus suburbs that I realized how different my education had been from the richer districts.
In my district we have elementary schools that are over one hundred years old and literally falling apart. What is sad is that I know many districts are even worse off than mine was. I was amazed when I saw the beautiful Dublin Coffman school buildings and the resources those kids have. I did feel a sense of injustice that there could be so much of a difference in public schools. I feel I did not even get close to the education I would have gotten at a school like in Dublin and that was all because of the financial situation of the people where I lived.
While I know most of us are aware of the discrepancies in public schools, I feel it is something, like social class, that should be talked about more. I think this is a really relevant subject for teachers because the school district we work in greatly affects what resources we have access to which in turn can affect how well our students do on standardized tests and how well we are able to educate our students overall. Schools are funded through property tax and that is why there is such a difference.
My question is: How do you think richer districts would react to equal distribution of property tax funds to every school district? I know there are flaws with this, but say that each district is allotted a certain amount of money for each individual student and that is how money is allocated. Do you think people from richer districts would put up a fight? Do they have a right to?
The concept of “we” that was discussed in the Rorty article fascinated me. I struggle with the idea that we need to not emphasize that everyone is human and can therefore relate to one another, but instead focus on growing to relate to one another. Rorty makes is seem as though individuals can only relate to those that are similar in personalities, ideals, or cultures. Rorty emphasizes that once individuals begin to understand those similar to them then they can branch out to understand those different than themselves. To me it seemed like Rorty placed an emphasis on culture as the way to understanding others. It seems to me that Rorty ignores the fact that individuals can relate on other levels, especially life experiences.
ReplyDeleteI believe that life experiences play a bigger role in understanding individuals above culture, gender, and ethnicity. Individuals who have gone through similar experiences, crises, or life events tend to be able to relate to those individuals on a more personal level. I think it is important to understand what someone has gone through to understand why they are the person that they are in society, for good or for bad. In that sense I believe that people can say that we are all human and can relate to one another. Sure we come from different backgrounds and cultures which in deed can make it hard to relate to, but we are all human and go through similar life events that a lot of us can relate to no matter what our culture.
My question is did Rorty focus more on culture as being the premise for understanding individuals, or did I read into it too much? And if he did, what was his reasoning for making culture the emphasis of understanding others? I do agree with the idea of growing to understand each other, but I do not agree with the fact that humans can not relate on the sole fact that they are human.
In the Democracy of Education article by John Dewey he says, “Just because education is the most personal, the most intimate, of all human affairs, there more than anywhere else, the sole ultimate reliance and final source of power are in the training, character, and intelligence of the individual. He goes on to discuss how we are driving innovative and intelligent individuals away from teaching because we are restricting them from using their innovation and intelligence. I 100% agree with this point. When you take away a teacher’s power to be creative and to be innovative in their lessons you take away the critical thinking aspect of teaching. The job becomes a textbook and must be followed in order to remain.
ReplyDeleteIf teachers were allowed to think outside of the box and try new ways to reach children I whole heartedly believe that you would see more individuals going into the other professions. Individuals would be able to use their strengths and abilities and apply them in the classroom. I agree with John Dewey’s point that we have freed individuality to some degree, but that we have not freed intelligence. We do not allow our teachers to use their full intelligence nor do we allow our students to use their intelligence. Students today do not want to think and it can be seen from early education through higher education. I believe that we have crippled these students because as education stands they do not need to think, they need to memorize. The question is then, how will be create this change? How can we free students and teachers of intelligence? How can we provide the next generation with the ability to think critically and use their imagination?
In the Noddings article, the notion of caring in teaching is addressed and I feel this is a major issue to be discussed. We, as teachers, will probably interact with our students often times more than their parents. This brings up the question "how much, as educators, should we/do we influence the lives of our students?" As for music education, I will most likely have the same students from fifth grade through their senior year of high school. This is both a blessing and a curse in the sense that I will be able to watch my students grow and develop as individuals, however, after eight years they are out in the world. I fell that with this case, caring is a must in order for them to be independent members of society. There must be a balance between caring and education and this I feel was best demonstrated by my favorite teachers from high school. They did care about my education and individual well being while still considering the interests of all the other students as well. A school is a community and as in all communities, harmony is achieved through balance.
ReplyDelete