skip to main |
skip to sidebar
I thorougly enjoyed Ayers's chapter on curriculum adaptation. When I learned previously this quarter that teachers did not get to come up with their own curriculum because they "don't have the expertise" (pish-posh, if you ask me) I was floored. That was one of the things I was most looking forward to about formal education that I could not get from most environmental education jobs.
I have written curriculums for camps before for my environmental ed jobs, but many of the curriculums I just have to work with. I thought, foolishly, that as a teacher in "real" schools I might have the liberty to create my own curriculum. I think it is just ridiculous that teachers cannot write their own curriculums. I'm all for objectives and goals, but how a teacher meets those goals should be up to him or her. I must honestly say that I doubt there are science curriculum writers who choose school science curriculums that understand science and all its intricacies better than me, an experienced scientific researcher and holder of--gasp--a science degree!
My guess is the science curriculum writers have Doctorates or PhDs in education or even more likely, they are private corporations with only the goal of making money, as the curriculum writers are in Perlstein's book Tested. The best person to write a science curriculum is a scientist. Partnering with an educator would be wise, however. I think the best teachers of science are scientists themselves, not education experts. Relying on non-scientists to dictate science standards and science curricula is what has destroyed science education in the United States. Who writes the science curriculum in collegiate studies? Scientists. And despite the failure of K-12 education in the science arena, our universities are still considered the best place in the world to study science, according to Ong in an article I read for a different class. If we bring scientists into public education of children maybe we'll be able to enhance science education in K-12.
Currently, the science education in K-12 in much of the U.S. is absolutely abysmal, though I hear it has made some progress recently (not convinced yet). I had one--ONE--good science teacher in my years of public education. And I didn't get her until the second-to-last year of my public education. And guess what, she was a scientist. She had a degree in Microbiology and had pursued undergraduate research and I think she started grad school in science before switching to education.
Few K-12 teachers have an expertise in science. In our cohort of 22, there are two of us (I asked in Jan's class first week) and only one who has a BS--me. But for scientists like myself, who sacrifice wages and prestige in the science world in order to improve the science education for the broader populace, why am I not allowed the freedom to write a science curriculum I consider to succeed at reaching goals set in the state?
I graduated with a 3.67 GPA and bubbling complimentary references from nearly every professor I had from a solid Honors and Interdisciplinary Science Program designed by the university to meet the needs of frequent employers of program graduates. I was the dream graduate for many jobs in science research. The only science course I did poorly in (did not get an A or a B) was Organic Chemistry. Through my research, I caused policy changes in three states. My undergraduate thesis is considered one of the primary sources on ecological conditions conducive to invasion of butterfly bush on the U.S. West Coast. My research has been peer-reviewed (science researchers) published in prestigious horticultural journals. I was offered four--FOUR--free rides to different Masters in Science programs just on the basis of one presentation I gave at a conference. How can any science curriculum writer say that I have no right, no skill, no talent, no ability relvant to writing a science curriculum? How can they say I "lack the expertise"? It's insulting.
Granted, some people may not feel like these are true measures of my scientific prowess because I was educated in a traditional way, a wrong way, a not as-good way-according to many articles we have read this quarter. I must argue that just because I succeeded in the education system I experienced-and not one that was more inventive-is no strong argument against the reality of my success. We learn about these innovative ways of teaching in order to understand that some of the more traditional ways of educating do not work well for all children, not to throw traditional methods out the window. Traditional methods work well for some kids, and there is no shame in that. A teacher must have a toolkit of teaching methods and pedagogy ideas in order to reach all students, not be confined to just the new stuff or just the old stuff. No teaching method should ever be totally thrown out the window because it probably worked for someone and could work again.
Ayers wrote much about how no pre-written curriculum is good enough to equate to a good education for all students. He mentioned repeatedly that a teacher should just throw out the written curriculum and start with a theme. Many of his ways of making the curriculum meet students at their level reminded me of Interdisciplinary Curriculum writing we did in our Middle School class. I think they make total sense. I think it is best to have a theme for your curriculum and form activities from that theme and then match activities to standards set by those who set standards (policy-makers?). This method will be more relevant to your students and more interesting for the teacher and his/her class. So here's the first big question: is that legal? Can a teacher really do that? If he/she can, then I am less insulted. The second big question: how? How can we make the curriculum meet students at their level while at the same time satisfying standards and not losing our jobs for taking such extravagant liberties (sarcasm)?
Spring asks: "Should children in public schools be exposed to ideas and values that are contrary to the beliefs of their families?"
My answer is yes, how else will students develop their own world views? Public schools should expose children to ideas and values--opinions--that contradict their family's beliefs if for no other reason than to give kids necessary tools to form their own unique identity. Public schools should not teach, however, that kids parents are necessarily wrong. These contradicting values should not replace values held by students' family values, but just be there for comparison and questioning's, second-guessing's sake.
If a child asks "Are you right or are my parents right?" A teacher's good response might be "I think we might both be right." Or "What is right and wrong is not totally black and white. There are subtleties--differences--that exist. You must learn to navigate the gray and make your own choices." Or "I want you to think about that and decide for yourself what you believe, even if it is neither my belief nor your parents' belief." Or "I can't answer that, because you are the only one who can decide what/who you think is right. Your parents and I give you resources, references, to start with, we cannot make the journey for you."
Another important point is that often the stuff schools avoid teaching/discussing stem from or are serious social dilemmas. If we ignore issues by refusing to broach them in school, we do nothing to encourage resolution and if the problems continue to be ignored for a long time, they will fester, just like problems in relationships, and there will be a sudden, powerful, potentially scary implosion that could very well turn the world as we know it upside down, or destroy something that is valuable. Where would our students be then?
As Dewey says, teachers cannot possibly prepare students for every event that might occur in the future. It is their job to give them foundations of good character and broad understanding, or at least open-mindedness, that will make it possible for the students to handle situations well. I think it is far better for the human species' future to encourage critical thinking and problem solving rather than issue dogmatic ways of doing things, or commands, or whatever. I think that there have to be at least some visionaries in future generations, for if there aren't, progress will halt and human adaptation will stagnate.
I was ill the last half of last week and was unable to attend my Contexts of Learning and Schooling class and will use this space today primarily to comment on the readings for that class and will only briefly discuss the readings from Becoming a Professional class.
McIntosh reading
I thought McIntosh had a good point—that though people recognize racism and sexism, they do not recognize the privileges they have that reinforce the existence of –isms. However, I disagree with some of her list of things in the white privilege knapsack.
First, I think it is important to point out that white privilege is not a global phenomenon. There are countries where being white is considered a bad thing, where fair-skinned individuals are treated unfairly and are often demeaned. The first two areas that come to mind are parts of Africa and the Middle Eastern nation-states.
Second, in the modern U.S. meritocracy, your skin color does not dictate whether or not you can make something of yourself. I am not going to dispute that it is easier for whites to succeed, but that does not mean those with brown or black skin cannot succeed. I think the U.S. is still a meritocracy, albeit a prejudiced one.
Third, the 17th point on the list “I can criticize our government and talk about how much I fear its policies and behavior without being seen as a cultural outsider” is not true for me. I am a liberal, and in high school in the southeastern U.S. in Germantown, TN, my views made me a cultural outsider. This freedom to criticize the government and fear its policies is not a universal truth for whites in the nation. It occurs only in certain circles—generally ones that share your political views or that are at least moderate.
Fourth, natural selection is a reality. Advantage and disadvantage will exist in society no matter what we do. I am addressing physical inability but also lackluster social skills. People who are physically unable will always be at a disadvantage because nature dictates that we need to be able to use our bodies effectively. Does this mean they should be isolated from the world? No, because humans are sentient, conscious beings and though individual survival is important, species survival is more important.
People who are socially abnormal will also always be at a disadvantage because in every society, nature dictates that the main goal of life is to reach sexual maturation and reproduce successfully. Those who lack social skills are not desirable mates because humans are communal beings and need to be able to interact successfully with each other in order to survive.
People like to think that there are other purposes to our existence, and there are, but when it comes right down to it survival of your genes is the goal according to nature. That said, there are natural disadvantages and there are society-invented disadvantages. McIntosh is primarily addressing society-invented disadvantages and it is right to challenge these just as it is right to try to include physically unable individuals and to help socially-challenged individuals integrate themselves into society.
Delpit reading
I found this reading very interesting. I had not thought about different cultures preferring to learn from objects or from people due to cultural values of connectedness. I have learned throughout this quarter to try to see my teaching through the lenses of students who have a different background than me, but this article told me one important difference to just know of rather than search for. The comments about literacy being perceived differently were invaluable to me as an educator.
Also, the discussion of analyzing solely text without examining context as well was enlightening. I know as a scientist that one must always consider the bias of the writer—in a way, the same thing as context—but I also see reading being taught out of context in most schools. I did not learn to understand the context, the bias, until later in my schooling.
Delpit illustrates the importance of learning the context from the beginning of literacy education for certain groups. Standardized tests generally do not consider context. In taking the PSAT, SAT twice, ACT, LSAT and GRE, I do not recall a single question asking me to determine bias of an article or what context the article was written in—probably because the answer to that cannot be multiple choice because it is open to interpretation.
The points about what people in white vs. Athabaskan Indian culture ask when a child is born—what color hair? How many toes? vs. Who came?—were really interesting. I had not thought about how white culture from the beginning is a decontextualizing culture. It was illuminating. Because Native Alaskans from the beginning are more concerned with the whole person, more respect is granted to children; they have more of their own authority, in a way.
Native parents test children’s faith in themselves by telling them something that is the reverse of what that child’s observations tell them. By encouraging children to rely on their own good sense, Native parents respect a child’s decisions about school more. Some of the practices that result from this respect challenge teachers attempts to help children learn.
My question is: what should a teacher do to reconcile a conflict like this? How do they try to gain an understanding between the two adults so that the child can learn what he or she needs to learn? Is just a dialogue, a conversation, required, or must a teacher do more? I see methods that a teacher can use with her students in the article, but what about the parents?
Spring readings
In chapter 4, Spring states that by 2035, Hispanics will become the largest minority group in the U.S., larger than blacks. I thought this had already happened. Or is the percentage of Hispanics only bigger in certain regions? I found the distinctions between Hispanic and Latino useful. I also thought the concept of La Raza was very interesting.
I am curious about another term you hear sometimes—Chicano and Chicana. Where do those come from? Are they slurs? I hear people calling themselves that sometimes, but blacks use slurs in friendship too. I want to know, as a teacher and a person, what I should call Spanish speakers and people from Mexico, Central America, and South America. Should I just refer to their nationality: Chilean, Peruvian, Brazilian, Costa Rican, etc? I have always wondered what people prefer to be called and why. How do I find this out in my classroom without embarrassing students?
Spring also discusses socioeconomic statistics and states that the highest percentage of foreign-born individuals living in poverty are from Central America. He then goes on to say that this staggering number (23.4%) could be helped if the U.S. works to strengthen the economies and educational systems in Central America. Is this not an Imperialist, colonial idea? It seems like citizens of Central American nations would resent U.S. interference in their economies and educational systems. It is not really our place, is it?
I was surprised by how even in the 20th century, Asians, Mexicans, and Native Americans were denied citizenship and forced to study in segregated schools. I did not know that segregation of minority groups other than blacks was maintained through at least the mid-century and in some cases, the 1970s. The pop culture images of Asian Americans (coolie, model student, deviant, yellow peril) made me wonder if Mexican Americans and other minority groups were classified in such a way. There is a pop culture image of black males, but I cannot think of one about Mexican Americans.
In answer to the questions at the end of the chapter, no, public schools should not consciously attempt to eradicate native languages of non-English speaking students. Yes, public schools shoud attempt to preserve the home language of non-English speaking students to an extent. It is impossible for schools to preserve every home language in diverse schools, so I think the rule of a certain number of students speaking the same mother tongue must be present to offer a class is valid.
I do not think public schools should consciously attempt to change or Americanize immigrant student cultures, however if the majority American culture is not taught to the students, teachers are providing students with a disadvantage. Individuals need to be able to function and succeed in the majority society without having to sacrifice their own cultures. I think it is the school’s job to acknowledge different cultures and learn about them but not to preserve minority cultures. It is the people who are part of that culture who must preserve it.
In chapter 5, Spring discusses collectivist vs. individualist nations and I was surprised that Russia was not on the list for collectivist nations. I was also surprised that so many African nations were on the list of collectivist nations. I do not know much about Africa, and though I have an understanding that tribal culture is important on the continent, I did not ascribe collectivist cultures to African nations necessarily. I was also surprised that Italy was on the list for most individualist nations. I do not usually think of Italy as individualist because familial emphasis is so strong.
The illustrations of how Asian students interpret pictures and questions differently than European students was really interesting. It is very valuable as an educator to understand that certain cultures base answers on relationships they see between things depicted in pictures rather than on similarities between different things.
I was shocked by the federal emphasis on English being the only federally legal language of pedagogy. I cannot believe even in this day and age that our nation’s leaders do not value bilingualism. The CIA and defense departments want people to know different languages. I am surprised that the need/desire for bilingualism for national defense does not translate, especially under the Bush administration, into encouraging bilingualism in public schools.
The article by Greene about encouraging imagination as a way to build community was very interesting. I attended a lecture by Marcus Borg, a Christian historian and theologian, on Friday about the value of mysticism in modern Christianity and what mysticism really is, anyway. The awareness, the consciousness that Greene spoke of sounds an awful lot like making yourself open to mystical experiences. Placing yourself in situations where you are more likely to feel a sense of connectedness to every other thing and person on the plant and aware of the greater more that Borg calls the Sacred.
Greene expressed fears that today's students are emerging from schooling robotic and alienated. Neither of these are good, but I think a lack of community feeling is a bigger problem than people becoming robotic. I think it is very hard for people to allow themselves to become robots. I believe there's a natural aversion in all of us to deny the truths of our existence, to be unfeeling. The more alarming thing to me is how alienated and disconnected people feel in this modern world. Whenever I feel alone, I am always deeply saddened, and it hurts a lot to feel alone in the world.
Greene argues that by allowing children to imagine, encouraging students to imagine their world differently than it is for them presently, these children will overcome powerlessness. I do not think solely being able to imagine the world in a different way will restore power to children because of social forces at work maintaining a balance of power. But without being able to imagine a different world, people will never be able to upset the unfair balance of power that makes them powerless. Before one can effect great change, one must be able to imagine great change.
I have nothing to say about Sapon-Shevin's article about creating community because I agreed with pretty much everything she said and found her examples of ways teachers create community useful. I feel that the two most important things she said are:
Time spend creating community is never wasted time.
Teachers, if they want to create a real community, do not dismiss or ignore touchy issues that come up in their classroom, they address them head on because if they don't, students will see differences and injustices anyway and will be merely frustrated and will not feel like their community is complete.
