Some of the things that I learned from the class were different uses of technology, about different professional websites, and how to create a curriculum.
During this class, I tried to get out of my comfort zone and try out some new ways to deliver an assignment. I had never used VoiceThread, Prezi, or created a Podcast. By having exposure to these, I see many uses for them in a classroom. One VoiceThread, you can have discussions with the students and they can give feedback to others. For Prezi, older students can create cool looking presentations. I would probably use a Podcast to place on my teacher website. It could explain a lesson, an assignment, etc.
I was also able to do some researching on professional websites like Edutopia and Free Technology for Teachers. They had great ideas that would make things so much easier in the classroom and ideas of things you can do in the classroom.
I am also more comfortable if I would need to create a curriculum. In the past, I always had someone guiding me along the way, telling me what I had to do. Now, I can work with others to help create a curriculum. I just need to remember the "golden rule:" if we figure out the goal we have in mind, we just work backwards from there to find out what students will be doing and what we will be teaching to get the students to that goal.
I am hoping to keep this blog to be able to talk with other people about teaching, curriculum and different ideas that we can share.
I think having a blog among teacher is out district would be a great idea! We don't always get to see each other and this would be a great place to share ideas, clarify things that are going on, etc. I may mention this to my administrator. I think it would be great to have a place where we can share our ideas.
Wednesday, September 10, 2014
Monday, September 8, 2014
Key Ideas
One of the key ideas that Jacobs talks about is that teachers should determine what it is that they want students to know and be able to do before creating an activity. By knowing what our end result should be, it is easier to plan. Teachers will know what the objectives are and what they expect their students to know and accomplish. If teachers don't have an end point, how will they know when to stop teaching? How will they know when students have learned what was suppose to be taught? How will they know when the standard has been met? If teachers design their lesson backwards, then they will know what they want the results to be, making it easier to create a curriculum.
Another key idea that Jacobs talks about is to modernize our education. She says that we can't modernize it by using computers instead of typewriters. We need to start with the basics; we need to start evaluating our assessments. If we revise our assessments, we will know what standard we want our students to meet. Once we have revised the assessments, then we move on to the content and the skills that are being taught. If we only revise the assessment, we won't be teaching the right skills for students to learn to pass the assessments. Again, if we start at the end and work backwards, it will be easier. How can you create a curriculum if you don't know what you want your students to gain from it? If we change our assessments to standards-based, it will be a step in the right direction. Then we will know what we have to teach to our students so they can meet the standard.
A question that Jacobs asks is "Are the students in the United States being prepared for the present and the future...? When I was in school, which wasn't that long ago, I was taught the same way school is taught now, and there are a lot of people that I know that are successful, so why can't we keep teaching this way? We can't because the world is constantly changing. When I think of changing technology, I think of cell phones. You buy a cell phone and within six months, they have a new version of your phone and yours is considered ancient. If the world is changing this quickly, we need to try to stay up to speed, so our students can be ready to face college, or the employment world, once they leave high school. I feel that our students are "ready" for the future, but there is so much more that we can show them so they are truly ready. We can introduce them to different careers, different ways of learning, different ways to showcase their learning, etc. Students need to be introduced to multiple things to make them a well-rounded learner. They need to be challenged more. If they can show that they know how to add 4 digit whole numbers, have them explain their steps and why they are doing those steps. The more we get our students to think, the more they exercise their brains, the more successful they will be.
Jacobs says that one way we can upgrade our curriculum is by doing the following: change the schedule, change the grouping pattern of learners, change the grouping pattern of professionals, and change the space. If we change the way a school day looks, our students might be more successful.
If we put students on learning pathways, they get introduced to careers that they are interested in. This way they can determine if this is something that they want to do when they are older or if they wouldn't like it at all. By being introduced to a career early, they won't have to go through college, work a few years in the career they chose, and then realize that they don't like it. Then they go back to college to try to find something else they would like. We need to have our students experience the different career choices. We need to put them in a hospital, if they want to go into the medical field, or put them in a potato field if they want to be an agricultural farmer. We need to change the way we prepare our students, so they can be successful once they leave high school. The school days could be extended, giving more learning opportunities; the teachers wouldn't be limited on time. If we have longer days, we could have short weeks. Students could go to school from Monday to Thursday. On Fridays, they could take online classes, college classes or go out in the community and gain some work experience. The high school in Fort Kent offers a program that allows their high school students to take a certain amount of college classes a semester. This gives the students an advantage for when they go to college because (1) they will have almost a whole year done when they graduate and (2) they will have experienced college classes, so they will know what to expect. We can change the grouping of the professionals by try to get more male teachers to teach at the elementary level and more women to teach at the high school level. Also, instead of always having teachers teaching, have professionals come into the school to teach the kids something. Having a different face and a different way of teaching can help students be more successful. They may create a connection to a different teacher and want to learn more from them because they find them interesting. The more exposure that students have to different people teaching them things, the more experiences they will gain. To change the space of learning may be a little more difficult. One change could be that students are at home listening to the lesson being taught instead of being in the classroom. The students could be out working in the fields they are interested in, instead of sitting in a classroom. Changing the grouping of pattern learners worries me a little. I am worried about the second grade student who is reading at a middle school level being grouped with middle level students. Socially and emotionally, this isn't a good idea. If students are to be grouped according to their learning abilities, I feel that they should be grouped at an elementary level, a middle/high school level. Elementary students should be no where near middle and high school students. How would that second grader feel? How would the middle level student feel? I understand that if they are ready to be learning at that level then they should be, but this is why we have differentiated instruction. Within a classroom, or small learning groups, teachers should be able to challenge all levels of learning in their classrooms.
By challenging our students and giving them many learning opportunities outside of the classrooms, I hope we are getting them ready for the future.
Another key idea that Jacobs talks about is to modernize our education. She says that we can't modernize it by using computers instead of typewriters. We need to start with the basics; we need to start evaluating our assessments. If we revise our assessments, we will know what standard we want our students to meet. Once we have revised the assessments, then we move on to the content and the skills that are being taught. If we only revise the assessment, we won't be teaching the right skills for students to learn to pass the assessments. Again, if we start at the end and work backwards, it will be easier. How can you create a curriculum if you don't know what you want your students to gain from it? If we change our assessments to standards-based, it will be a step in the right direction. Then we will know what we have to teach to our students so they can meet the standard.
A question that Jacobs asks is "Are the students in the United States being prepared for the present and the future...? When I was in school, which wasn't that long ago, I was taught the same way school is taught now, and there are a lot of people that I know that are successful, so why can't we keep teaching this way? We can't because the world is constantly changing. When I think of changing technology, I think of cell phones. You buy a cell phone and within six months, they have a new version of your phone and yours is considered ancient. If the world is changing this quickly, we need to try to stay up to speed, so our students can be ready to face college, or the employment world, once they leave high school. I feel that our students are "ready" for the future, but there is so much more that we can show them so they are truly ready. We can introduce them to different careers, different ways of learning, different ways to showcase their learning, etc. Students need to be introduced to multiple things to make them a well-rounded learner. They need to be challenged more. If they can show that they know how to add 4 digit whole numbers, have them explain their steps and why they are doing those steps. The more we get our students to think, the more they exercise their brains, the more successful they will be.
Jacobs says that one way we can upgrade our curriculum is by doing the following: change the schedule, change the grouping pattern of learners, change the grouping pattern of professionals, and change the space. If we change the way a school day looks, our students might be more successful.
If we put students on learning pathways, they get introduced to careers that they are interested in. This way they can determine if this is something that they want to do when they are older or if they wouldn't like it at all. By being introduced to a career early, they won't have to go through college, work a few years in the career they chose, and then realize that they don't like it. Then they go back to college to try to find something else they would like. We need to have our students experience the different career choices. We need to put them in a hospital, if they want to go into the medical field, or put them in a potato field if they want to be an agricultural farmer. We need to change the way we prepare our students, so they can be successful once they leave high school. The school days could be extended, giving more learning opportunities; the teachers wouldn't be limited on time. If we have longer days, we could have short weeks. Students could go to school from Monday to Thursday. On Fridays, they could take online classes, college classes or go out in the community and gain some work experience. The high school in Fort Kent offers a program that allows their high school students to take a certain amount of college classes a semester. This gives the students an advantage for when they go to college because (1) they will have almost a whole year done when they graduate and (2) they will have experienced college classes, so they will know what to expect. We can change the grouping of the professionals by try to get more male teachers to teach at the elementary level and more women to teach at the high school level. Also, instead of always having teachers teaching, have professionals come into the school to teach the kids something. Having a different face and a different way of teaching can help students be more successful. They may create a connection to a different teacher and want to learn more from them because they find them interesting. The more exposure that students have to different people teaching them things, the more experiences they will gain. To change the space of learning may be a little more difficult. One change could be that students are at home listening to the lesson being taught instead of being in the classroom. The students could be out working in the fields they are interested in, instead of sitting in a classroom. Changing the grouping of pattern learners worries me a little. I am worried about the second grade student who is reading at a middle school level being grouped with middle level students. Socially and emotionally, this isn't a good idea. If students are to be grouped according to their learning abilities, I feel that they should be grouped at an elementary level, a middle/high school level. Elementary students should be no where near middle and high school students. How would that second grader feel? How would the middle level student feel? I understand that if they are ready to be learning at that level then they should be, but this is why we have differentiated instruction. Within a classroom, or small learning groups, teachers should be able to challenge all levels of learning in their classrooms.
By challenging our students and giving them many learning opportunities outside of the classrooms, I hope we are getting them ready for the future.
Wednesday, September 3, 2014
Persistent Issue
An issue that I think my school has is tracking student progress. There is always talk about it, but it seems like no one does it. After doing a little research, it seems like tracking student progress is beneficial to the student. They get the see how they are progressing throughout a unit.
Instead of getting assignments or tests back with a numerical grade on it, teacher could place a "grade" of 1-4. With this "grade", the students can track it on a chart that is posted on a wall, in their folders etc. These charts can be used to show parents how their child has been progressing throughout the school year. When students know their charts are going to be displayed, they try harder.
Teachers can, and should, check student progress during a lesson also. They shouldn't keep moving through the lesson without stopping to give feedback or to see if students are understanding the material. Teachers can check students' understanding by asking them to show them their understanding on a scale of 1-4. 1 being they don't understand and 4 being that they understand and can demonstrate their learning. By having this quick check, teachers can help students on the spot and not when its too late into the lesson. For example, if a student doesn't understand the second step in long division, then they won't be able to complete the problem. If the teacher stops and ask if they are understanding the material, they can help at the second step instead of moving on the finish the problem.
The only issue that I think tracking would pose would be honesty. Students are going to have to be honest when they track their progress or hold up their fingers to show their understanding. If a student says that they understand the material, but they actually don't, then they are actually hurting themselves. A solution to this would be to give entry or exit tasks as well. This way the teacher will be able to see where the students are solving the problems wrong.
Instead of getting assignments or tests back with a numerical grade on it, teacher could place a "grade" of 1-4. With this "grade", the students can track it on a chart that is posted on a wall, in their folders etc. These charts can be used to show parents how their child has been progressing throughout the school year. When students know their charts are going to be displayed, they try harder.
Teachers can, and should, check student progress during a lesson also. They shouldn't keep moving through the lesson without stopping to give feedback or to see if students are understanding the material. Teachers can check students' understanding by asking them to show them their understanding on a scale of 1-4. 1 being they don't understand and 4 being that they understand and can demonstrate their learning. By having this quick check, teachers can help students on the spot and not when its too late into the lesson. For example, if a student doesn't understand the second step in long division, then they won't be able to complete the problem. If the teacher stops and ask if they are understanding the material, they can help at the second step instead of moving on the finish the problem.
The only issue that I think tracking would pose would be honesty. Students are going to have to be honest when they track their progress or hold up their fingers to show their understanding. If a student says that they understand the material, but they actually don't, then they are actually hurting themselves. A solution to this would be to give entry or exit tasks as well. This way the teacher will be able to see where the students are solving the problems wrong.
Tuesday, September 2, 2014
Common Core
After reading the articles about Common Core, I am not sure where to stand, for or against. At first I was for Common Core. My principal explained it so well. It sounded like students will be more successful with the Common Core than what was in place before. She talked about "learning pathways" that students could take. If students were interested in nursing, they would take a lot of science classes and maybe attend the vocational school's nursing program. Or if someone wanted to go into business they would take math and computer classes. This all sounded so great!
Then I read Diane Ravitch's article. It changed my mind. She makes Common Core sound like educators had nothing to do with the making of it. She makes it sound like it was all political. She talked about how NCLB and Common Core rely on standardized tests. There are some schools that would only teach to the tests. If the students were going to be tested on math and literacy, that is all they taught. How can we get students to become well-rounded learners if they aren't learning about science, social studies, arts, P.E., health, etc.? What if some of those students were our next astronauts, scientist, or historians? They would have never gotten to experience all those subjects that would have made them great.
Ravitch also stated that our students are the most over-tested students in the world. So, what are the other high-preforming countries doing differently? Their students are successful and preforming great on standardized tests.
One thing that Common Core or standardized test measures is the child's home life. Some of these students come from foster families, a home with one parents, some are hungry, and some haven't bathed, some come from low income families. Some students come from homes with two, loving parents, homes with books, plenty of food, and clean clothes. These students are going to perform differently on a test than the students that are hungry. Some how, this needs to be incorporated on how we evaluate out students.
Ravitch also stated that the Common Core will take 12 years to show any effect. In 12 years our government will be moved on to something else!
So, is the Common Core good, or bad?
Then I read Diane Ravitch's article. It changed my mind. She makes Common Core sound like educators had nothing to do with the making of it. She makes it sound like it was all political. She talked about how NCLB and Common Core rely on standardized tests. There are some schools that would only teach to the tests. If the students were going to be tested on math and literacy, that is all they taught. How can we get students to become well-rounded learners if they aren't learning about science, social studies, arts, P.E., health, etc.? What if some of those students were our next astronauts, scientist, or historians? They would have never gotten to experience all those subjects that would have made them great.
Ravitch also stated that our students are the most over-tested students in the world. So, what are the other high-preforming countries doing differently? Their students are successful and preforming great on standardized tests.
One thing that Common Core or standardized test measures is the child's home life. Some of these students come from foster families, a home with one parents, some are hungry, and some haven't bathed, some come from low income families. Some students come from homes with two, loving parents, homes with books, plenty of food, and clean clothes. These students are going to perform differently on a test than the students that are hungry. Some how, this needs to be incorporated on how we evaluate out students.
Ravitch also stated that the Common Core will take 12 years to show any effect. In 12 years our government will be moved on to something else!
So, is the Common Core good, or bad?
Tuesday, August 12, 2014
Chapter 6 response-Foreign language
Something that I read in Chapter 6, made me take my life experiences for granted. The chapter stated "...while learning a second language is standard in other industrial countries, only 50 percent of U.S. high school students study a foreign language." This really made me think back to when I was little. The first language I spoke was French. I grew up on the Canadian border. My mother is from Edmundston, New Brunswick and my father is from Grand Isle, Maine. They both speak French and English, but French was the language that was mostly spoken in my home. When it was time for my older sister to go to school, she didn't know a word of English. At the time, the schools didn't want us speaking French. So, my sister went to school only speaking French. This was very difficult for her, but she had a great teacher and a great ed. tech in the room. Her classroom teacher didn't know French, but the ed. tech did. Coming from a French community, we had French class everyday. My sister's teacher took this opportunity and had my sister teach the class French, she really enjoyed this. So, when it was my time to go to school, my parents made sure that I knew English. I will admit, when it came to French class, I was a little bored until the material got harder, which would have been in high school when I took advanced French. This French was more Parisian French than St. John Valley French, which I was use to. So, while I was in school, I had a French class from grade K-12. I never thought that this was a "gift" that I had been given. I grew up being fluent in two languages. This was normal to me because everyone around me was in the same "boat" as I was. When I got to college, I took the CLEP test and did so well that they credited me for 3 French classes.
Working in the community, where I grew up, we always had customers that spoke French, so being fluent was a plus when trying to find a job in Madawaska. But, I still didn't think that it was something special I had because it was something I had done my whole life, it didn't feel special to me. Now that I am older, I am seeing the French language dwindle and a second language isn't being taught as much as it use to. When I got to middle school, the school district offered a French immersion program that parents could enroll their child in. It was popular at first, but didn't last more than 10 years before parents weren't interested anymore. In the school that I work at now, the French teacher started teaching the elementary students French, which was wonderful. But, because of cuts, we only have a half time French teacher now and the younger students won't get exposed to French as much.
After reading the quote above, it made me realize that my heritage and being able to speak two languages is something that I shouldn't take for granted. This is something special that I have. It is part of who I am. I feel like I should be more of an advocate to get others to learn a different language. You don't know how much of gift it is until you need it or you see something like the quote above.
I think that every student that leaves high school should be fluent in a different language. I am not saying to take two foreign language classes and be done with it. They should be fluent in a foreign language. We can't be cutting foreign language classes from schools. It will give our students such great opportunities and open more doors for them once they are out of school. They will be more of a global learner if they knew more than one language.
Working in the community, where I grew up, we always had customers that spoke French, so being fluent was a plus when trying to find a job in Madawaska. But, I still didn't think that it was something special I had because it was something I had done my whole life, it didn't feel special to me. Now that I am older, I am seeing the French language dwindle and a second language isn't being taught as much as it use to. When I got to middle school, the school district offered a French immersion program that parents could enroll their child in. It was popular at first, but didn't last more than 10 years before parents weren't interested anymore. In the school that I work at now, the French teacher started teaching the elementary students French, which was wonderful. But, because of cuts, we only have a half time French teacher now and the younger students won't get exposed to French as much.
After reading the quote above, it made me realize that my heritage and being able to speak two languages is something that I shouldn't take for granted. This is something special that I have. It is part of who I am. I feel like I should be more of an advocate to get others to learn a different language. You don't know how much of gift it is until you need it or you see something like the quote above.
I think that every student that leaves high school should be fluent in a different language. I am not saying to take two foreign language classes and be done with it. They should be fluent in a foreign language. We can't be cutting foreign language classes from schools. It will give our students such great opportunities and open more doors for them once they are out of school. They will be more of a global learner if they knew more than one language.
Monday, August 11, 2014
"The Myth of Charter Schools" response
"...we are led to believe, teachers will be caring and highly skilled...the schools will have high expectations and test score will soar; and all children will succeed academically, regardless of their circumstances."
This may be true of charter schools, but it also true of public schools. Teachers in public school care, are highly skilled, children succeed academically and have great test scores. There is nothing different that a student in a charter school will receive than a student in a public school. The only difference is money. I can't speak for teachers in charter schools, but I know that the teachers I work with will spend hours at school preparing for the next days or week. They will spend their own money on projects they want to do in their classroom because the school doesn't have money for it. They will spend time in the summer preparing their classroom, creating lessons, taking classes and going to workshops so they can better educate themselves so their students can succeed. Just because you need to pay to go to a charter school doesn't make it better than a public school.
"...teachers are the most important factor determining student achievement."
Teachers are an important factor for students to achieve, but so are parents, administration, and the students themselves. If the students don't care about their education and aren't determined to learn new things, the teachers can't be blamed for this. If you get a student that doesn't care about school and doesn't want to learn, the teacher has to find a creative way to make that student care and want to learn. Will this happen in a charter school? Do public schools care more about the student's achievements?
" that (Geoffrey) Canada kicked out his entire first class of middle school student when they didn't get good enough test scores to satisfy his board of trustee."
REALLY! If this was running a public school, we would have looked over the tests to see where we can improve our teaching. We wouldn't kick students out of school because they got low test scores! If we would do that, the school I work in would have A LOT less students. How can students learn and feel successful if they are going to get kicked out of school because of a low test grade.
Working in a school that has a low socio-economic population and having students with little motivation is a struggle some days, but we won't kick kids out because of test scores, it's not fair. I can't imagine a charter school dealing with some of the things a public school has to deal with. Like, lice, clothing children, feeding them breakfast, giving them snacks, giving them sneakers, winter boots and winter jackets, etc. Would a charter school do this?
"If one uses student gains or losses as a general measure, then those who teach the neediest children-English-language learners, troubled students, autistic students-will see the smallest gain, and teacher will have an incentive to avoid districts and classes with large numbers of the neediest students."
Teachers should not be measured according to student growth. I think of some of the students I work with and they are behind grade level when I start working with them. So, to try to get them on grade level, or above, to get the them ready for their next school year, is a struggle. These students need to do more work than their peers to try to get caught up to them. It is possible to get them on grade level, but its a lot of work and dedication from the students. Maybe the school they work in may have some incentive for the teachers who have had growth in their classroom. But, I feel that student growth shouldn't be the only thing that teachers get judged on. I feel, that if the state starts to "grade" teachers on student growth, a lot of good teachers will leave teaching, and less and less people will want to go into education because of this.
Reading this article about charter schools made me angry. I can't believe that they would kick students out because of low test scores, or that they think that the teachers at their school are better than public school teachers. I can't speak on behalf of charter school teachers, but I know that public school teacher put in a lot of time and effort into their planning, correcting homework, creating test and lessons, etc. (Which I believe a charter school teacher would do the same). A teacher's day never ends when the students leave to go home and a lot of people don't see the extra time put in so their child can get a good education.
This may be true of charter schools, but it also true of public schools. Teachers in public school care, are highly skilled, children succeed academically and have great test scores. There is nothing different that a student in a charter school will receive than a student in a public school. The only difference is money. I can't speak for teachers in charter schools, but I know that the teachers I work with will spend hours at school preparing for the next days or week. They will spend their own money on projects they want to do in their classroom because the school doesn't have money for it. They will spend time in the summer preparing their classroom, creating lessons, taking classes and going to workshops so they can better educate themselves so their students can succeed. Just because you need to pay to go to a charter school doesn't make it better than a public school.
"...teachers are the most important factor determining student achievement."
Teachers are an important factor for students to achieve, but so are parents, administration, and the students themselves. If the students don't care about their education and aren't determined to learn new things, the teachers can't be blamed for this. If you get a student that doesn't care about school and doesn't want to learn, the teacher has to find a creative way to make that student care and want to learn. Will this happen in a charter school? Do public schools care more about the student's achievements?
" that (Geoffrey) Canada kicked out his entire first class of middle school student when they didn't get good enough test scores to satisfy his board of trustee."
REALLY! If this was running a public school, we would have looked over the tests to see where we can improve our teaching. We wouldn't kick students out of school because they got low test scores! If we would do that, the school I work in would have A LOT less students. How can students learn and feel successful if they are going to get kicked out of school because of a low test grade.
Working in a school that has a low socio-economic population and having students with little motivation is a struggle some days, but we won't kick kids out because of test scores, it's not fair. I can't imagine a charter school dealing with some of the things a public school has to deal with. Like, lice, clothing children, feeding them breakfast, giving them snacks, giving them sneakers, winter boots and winter jackets, etc. Would a charter school do this?
"If one uses student gains or losses as a general measure, then those who teach the neediest children-English-language learners, troubled students, autistic students-will see the smallest gain, and teacher will have an incentive to avoid districts and classes with large numbers of the neediest students."
Teachers should not be measured according to student growth. I think of some of the students I work with and they are behind grade level when I start working with them. So, to try to get them on grade level, or above, to get the them ready for their next school year, is a struggle. These students need to do more work than their peers to try to get caught up to them. It is possible to get them on grade level, but its a lot of work and dedication from the students. Maybe the school they work in may have some incentive for the teachers who have had growth in their classroom. But, I feel that student growth shouldn't be the only thing that teachers get judged on. I feel, that if the state starts to "grade" teachers on student growth, a lot of good teachers will leave teaching, and less and less people will want to go into education because of this.
Reading this article about charter schools made me angry. I can't believe that they would kick students out because of low test scores, or that they think that the teachers at their school are better than public school teachers. I can't speak on behalf of charter school teachers, but I know that public school teacher put in a lot of time and effort into their planning, correcting homework, creating test and lessons, etc. (Which I believe a charter school teacher would do the same). A teacher's day never ends when the students leave to go home and a lot of people don't see the extra time put in so their child can get a good education.
Monday, August 4, 2014
Chapter 10 response
This chapter talked about have a "green" school and teacher students about sustainability along with their core subjects. This sounds like a great idea. I really think that something like this would work in rural areas, especially in farming communities. The students could learn about the ins and outs or farming, they could create a school farm, and they would learn how to create a sustainable future for generations to come.
This may also work in bigger cities. Students could learn about the damaging effects that pollution has on the environment. They could learn how to change their city's use of carbon and how they can create a "better, healthier" city to live in.
I ma not sure how many school would be interested in this type of school, but it sounds like a great idea. If we want a clean and healthy place for our future generations to live, we need to do something about it now. Teaching our students about sustainability may be the way we need to go.
This may also work in bigger cities. Students could learn about the damaging effects that pollution has on the environment. They could learn how to change their city's use of carbon and how they can create a "better, healthier" city to live in.
I ma not sure how many school would be interested in this type of school, but it sounds like a great idea. If we want a clean and healthy place for our future generations to live, we need to do something about it now. Teaching our students about sustainability may be the way we need to go.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)