student success and motivation

I previously focused on the consumption as a primary means of motivating students. I felt that one of the societal problems we are dealing with is that students have everything they need, and that is why they don’t need to learn. I still think this has validity, but need to explore different perspectives. I recently read a blog here (http://blog.dennisfox.net/index.php/archives/2006/03/12/levels-of-analysis-in-student-motivation) and was challenged to think a little bit more deeply. Dennis Fox identifies that blaming students for not working hard is an individualistic, pull yourself up by your own bootstraps type attitude, and ignores any societal problems. So far I have spoken mostly about a consumerist government policy, the societal problem that has become the credit market, and other problems in education.
I am most in touch with the school in which I work. Through conversations with other teachers dealing with the same problems I am, another issue is that we set students up for problems. Our elementary school model has become one where classes are in constant rotation. There are often 2-3 adults in every classroom and 15-20 students. A teacher, an aide, and a parent volunteer make up the adults. These students move from 5th grade to 6th grade, and instead of being in a similar environment where learning is at stations and there is movement and small group learning, they are sent to a classroom that has primarily one teacher, maybe an aide (if the teacher is lucky), and 20 or more students. Students are asked to transition from an active and well monitored classroom, to a classroom with more student independence and less oversight.
Higher level students may make this transition well, but lower level students who need to be stimulated in concrete, visual, and abstract ways will often falter. So how can my school get a better transition? One of the issues is funding. More teachers and aides are needed, and parent classroom volunteers are vital. Our brand new classrooms are great, but if they are overfilled, a new shiny classroom quickly loses its luster.
This is just one more aspect of the problem. Solutions seem a long way off.

Lead Toy problem perspectives

In the past few months, Nancy Nord, the director of the Consumer Product Safety Commission has come under fire for being in bed with toy companies. This relationship, Democrats say, is leading to a lack of close inspection of toys, and to massive recalls of toys due to lead based paint, which puts children in danger.
Politics being the main agenda at this point, in most articles like this Washington Post article, the journalist is quick to point out Nord’s connection to the Bush administration. Democrats are also quick to rename the CPSC as “Can’t Protect the Safety of Children”. This is politicizing at its best, but does nothing to solve the problem.
Aside from slandering Nord, the Democrats called for spending more money to hire more product testers so more toys can be checked more quickly. It seems like a quick and easy solution, but requires more tax dollars.
Nord’s solution is to work with companies, not against them, and let the CPSC continue to do their job, but give more feedback to toy companies and let the companies do more policing of themselves. This doesn’t seem like the brightest solution, but has merit in a free market economy. You can be sure that Mattel’s execs are doing their best to figure out how to get lead free toys.
According to doctors, one of the best ways to reduce lead poisoning, is with good nutrition. My wife was listening or reading a program that mentioned that lead follows the same path in the body as calcium. If a child has insufficient calcium, the lead will quickly move to where the calcium should be, and take its place in the bone. This causes many long term problems, but would be solved if children had enough calcium in their diet (http://www.nsc.org/issues/lead/leadnutrition.htm).
Does this become a justice issue? Kids who most likely have the poorest nutrition, and less supervision which gives them the freedom to put toys in their mouths are the children of the poor. This could lead to a disproportionate number of lead poisonings to occur in children who live in poverty. One doctor apparently argued it would be cheaper to fund supplemental milk for poor children than it would to dump millions into the CPSC.
The three perspectives show that the problem is not simply funding or the director being in bed with companies. This could be an issue of haves and have nots, but that story rarely gets spoken on evening news.