One thing that the “Read, Read Read” application did well
was describe the atmosphere of her classroom.
By citing the diversity of her classroom (about 30% of her class is made
up of special education students, who struggle with “severe emotional needs”
and academics) while also expressing support for each of them, she makes me
want to support her. She explains that
she loves how each of her students, regardless of their intellectual or
behavioral capabilities. She also
explains why she needs each of the items that she is requesting funding
for. However, one thing I wish she did
better was explain what each of the items that she plans on purchasing is. She explains that she needs to purchase a “kidney
table” for reading instruction, and plans on buying a “Flaghouse Sensory Play
Set” for her special education students, but I do not know what these items are
or how they would benefit her
students. This would be one thing that
she can improve upon in her application.
The “Back to Basics with Math Toolboxes” application was very effective in describing the financial struggles of her classroom. She explains that her school is in a rural, low-income neighborhood, and that “a considerable portion of the children [are] of native Hawaiian and/or Pacific Island ancestry.” She does not want economics to be the deciding factor of whether or not her students will succeed in school. She also does really well in describing her personal teaching philosophy, and that through hands-on activities and mathematics discourse, her students would “positively increase their engagement during whole-group and small-group instruction.” This gives me a better idea of what type of a teacher she is. I would have preferred if she gave information on what exactly was in the math toolboxes, and how specifically they would be used in instruction. She talks a lot about discussion, but not enough about how the toolboxes themselves would have been beneficial in her classroom.
The third application, “Guided Inquiry Project,” explained the financial necessity of her classroom. She detailed how her school district transitioned to an Apple-only policy, which got rid of the Chromebooks she had, which in turn made instruction much more challenging for her. She also did well in explaining why she needed the iPads to improve her instruction in class, detailing the data-driven lesson plans and how it would help to enforce the type of instruction she is pursuing in her classroom. However, she failed to describe her students in a captivating and meaningful manner. She uses buzzwords and phrases like “economic status” and “having a safe environment in the classroom is a must,” and I by no means intend to make light of those situations. They are important factors and should definitely be taken into consideration. That being said, I do feel like she didn’t do well enough in describing her students as people, rather than a characteristic.
The “Back to Basics with Math Toolboxes” application was very effective in describing the financial struggles of her classroom. She explains that her school is in a rural, low-income neighborhood, and that “a considerable portion of the children [are] of native Hawaiian and/or Pacific Island ancestry.” She does not want economics to be the deciding factor of whether or not her students will succeed in school. She also does really well in describing her personal teaching philosophy, and that through hands-on activities and mathematics discourse, her students would “positively increase their engagement during whole-group and small-group instruction.” This gives me a better idea of what type of a teacher she is. I would have preferred if she gave information on what exactly was in the math toolboxes, and how specifically they would be used in instruction. She talks a lot about discussion, but not enough about how the toolboxes themselves would have been beneficial in her classroom.
The third application, “Guided Inquiry Project,” explained the financial necessity of her classroom. She detailed how her school district transitioned to an Apple-only policy, which got rid of the Chromebooks she had, which in turn made instruction much more challenging for her. She also did well in explaining why she needed the iPads to improve her instruction in class, detailing the data-driven lesson plans and how it would help to enforce the type of instruction she is pursuing in her classroom. However, she failed to describe her students in a captivating and meaningful manner. She uses buzzwords and phrases like “economic status” and “having a safe environment in the classroom is a must,” and I by no means intend to make light of those situations. They are important factors and should definitely be taken into consideration. That being said, I do feel like she didn’t do well enough in describing her students as people, rather than a characteristic.