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.
Throughout this week and past weekend, I have been reading a lot about labeling in schools, equal education opportunity and social barriers to it, and a lot of problems in schools. Many of them seem unsolvable by schools alone. There is no way to separate society's influences from anything--teaching, education, technology, or science. It feels like such a cage. But is it not the goal of education to help students reach fullest potential in the society they live in? Can schools create new societies? I don't think so.
As a teacher, how do I uphold my morals while still teaching children to function in a society that I consider flawed and needing improvement and unfair and maybe immoral? Do I have any right to impose morals on my students not with intention but merely by living my own code of honor and integrity? Acting in ways that I deem are important for good character? Every author has a voice, and every teacher and every student does too. Do I get to keep my voice as a teacher? Or by entering the profession am I forced into being a certain way?
These are big questions and at this point, I really don't have an answer. I may have an answer I think is right, but is it really right? My answer is every teacher is a unique person and they should embrace that, but sometimes in teacher education I feel peer pressure to not fully be myself because it makes parents touchy. How will I be able to earn the respect of my colleagues if I deny my true self? Do I have to deny my true self in order to earn their respect? How can educators talk about individualized education and respecting each student as the unique person they are if they themselves are asked to fit a certain mold?
I feel that with increased testing, labeling, and top-down management of education, the individuality of both teachers and students is sacrificed to meet societal demands. I do not think this is right. But how can I stand up to this wrong if I get the same impression from fellow colleagues?
One argument from Ayers Ch. 2 is that by labeling students, we demand they learn something they feel no need to learn. My question to this is how can we meet the demands of our job--teaching kids new things they do not know--without making them feel like they are learning something they do not care about and will have no need for in the lives they see themselves leading? Ayers also argues that viewing students as deficit in some area and teaching to fix the deficit leads, unintentionally, to decreased self-esteem. How can we help students learn more without doing this? I get the impression Ayers considers these two negative effects inevitable with the continued pursuit of a deficit model.
Ayers rants about lesson plans again in Ch. 2, arguing that the daily lesson plan embodies the deficit model. I disagree. I view a lesson plan as nothing more than guidelines for the day that can and will be altered to better serve the students' needs. Ayers seems to think that teachers ignore reality for the sake of a lesson plan. This is, of course, ineffective, and I think that many if not most teachers recognize that. Am I wrong? Is the lesson plan really deified in public schools?
Ayers had some great ideas for how teachers can implement regular observation of the whole person in their pedagogy. I think I will try some of them. He also had some good ideas for showing students that you and their fellow classmates appreciate their individuality. However, his idea about bringing in a cultural artifact is not practical for middle school. If you tell a middle school student that we essentially are going to have a show-and-tell, they will feel degraded by the idea. I need methods for accomplishing the same goal in older grades without students being offended. Any ideas? Have you heard of some ways other middle school teachers have accomplished this? Can you refer me to some teacher's blog?
I was having a conversation with my husband last week about what makes teaching so different a profession from others. Since the beginning of this quarter, I have had trouble separating not only my different classes but also my personal and, such as it is, professional life.
It seems like every class I take leads me to upholding the same strong principles of what my mission is as a teacher and how I view science education. It also seems like my personal life and musings are greatly impacted by what I am learning. I have worked very hard at keeping and maintaining the two spheres of my life as separate. I do not let personal problems get in too big a way of work problems and prior to this quarter, I have always been able to leave work and its emotions at work.
My husband defines himself not as a construction manager but as a left-leaning moderate, an environmentalist, a pragmatist, an explorer, a friend, a husband. His work is important to him, but it does not define him at home. My father is a pilot, a retired Air Force officer, but he defines himself as a thinker, a skeptic, a person of faith, a husband and father.
I feel like I cannot separate my private identity and definition of who I am from my role as a teacher. In everything I do, I aim to teach. Be it helping my husband cook or sharing gardening advice with a girlfriend or helping classmates understand how to use compasses and read topographic maps. I am always teaching. What is it about being a teacher that makes it such a crucial piece of my identity? I am a teacher, a wife, a caretaker, a thinker, a skeptic, an Obama-ite, a student, a person seeking faith, an adventurous soul, a lover of learning. I am not just a teacher, but it is a key descriptor of my identity.
From what I have heard from other educators, being a teacher remains part of your identity even after you have taught for decades. Will I ever be able to return to a clear distinction between my personal and professional spheres? I was so proud of that separation. I considered it a strength. And now it seems that I have lost that strength. I have not lost my identity, just the ability to clearly separate two different pieces of my life that, I think, are better separated. If I am struggling now, when I am just learning how to be a teacher, how debilitating will it be when I am actually teaching? Or is it a blessing I don't have the ability to recognize yet?
This week, we had two assignments that asked us to think about why we want to teach. One was a slideshow of images that illustrated why we want to teach. The other was an educational autobiography asking a LOT of questions about what made me feel safe and secure or most at war with my school, the teachers and actions that influenced my view on the role of teachers, the aims of education, and my decision to teach.
I have been asked to write a paper on the pedagogy I plan to implement, but never have I been asked so repeatedly in so many different ways why I want to be a teacher. As I thought about my reasons and experiences that led me to this decision, I learned a lot about what has really influenced my thinking on education and teaching and what I have seen that I definitely do not want to replicate. I thought a lot about what has led me to this path all weekend. And, interestingly enough, my other classes--non-ed classes included--helped me solidify my reasons for teaching.
I am taking a full course load this quarter in order to meet a certain number of post-bac credits to put me ahead a notch on the pay scale. All of my classes are so interdisciplinary I have a hard time remembering which class and its readings and discussions helped me formulate specific thoughts in my brain. It's a strange experience for me. I have never had a harder time keeping what is occuring in my different classes separate.
I do not think this is a bad thing. I think it is a good way to learn, but it is unnerving at the same time. Obviously, I have not experienced interdisciplinary education that is so interdisciplinary before. It is exciting that I see issues raised in all my classes that are relevant in at least one other class. It makes me more motivated to learn to an almost damaging extent. I have found it harder to keep my professional life as a student separate from my personal life and have sacrificed some elements of my personal life in order to learn more about what it is we're studying in class. I hope I develop some new way of controlling myself or I will eventually disappoint my husband.
I have to ask myself though, is this new interdisciplinary experience due simply to the way I am being taught and the way I am learning, or is due more to the fact that I am now viewing education in a different light because I have the lens of a teacher now, not just a student? It could also be that education encompasses so many disciplines, knowledge, methods, and ideas that now that I know how all-encompassing it is, there is no way for me to view new knowledge as separate from the way I view education as a teacher.
Well, my professor wanted me to think and ask hard questions of myself as an educator, and that is definitely happening. It kind of hurts my brain.
Consistently throughout Chapter 1 of To Teach I was struck by how much Ayers descriptions of teaching mesh with my perceptions of parenting. I am not a parent, but I was blessed with two wonderful parents and have had numerous discussions about what it means to be a good parent. I want to be prepared for when I do become a parent, and I like advice from people I consider wise.
Mr. Ayers discussed discovery learning and how important it is for excellent teaching and the first thing that came to my mind was that his description of and zealousness towards discovery learning is like learning via the scientific method--through student-led inquiry, not content lectures. As a prospective science teacher, I am a firm believer that the best way for pupils to really understand science is to do science. There is far too much scientific knowledge to cover in one lifetime, and covering as much content as possible should not be the basis of science education. I see the purpose of my job as a middle school science teacher will be to teach the scientific method, to have kids use the scientific method as the foundation for all studies in science class. It is more important for a person to understand a process than to be able to regurgitate content. It will serve them much better in life and will help the United States maintain a scientific edge if every person who goes through the public school system can use the scientific method. There are infinite possibilities for what a person can learn if they have a process down pat that is based on the precept of learning more. The goal of the scientific method is to learn more, to be a constant challenge to what is considered fact, to help change humanity's understanding of nature and the world. This infinite possibility of learning more and helping others learn more for their entire lives is what attracts me to teaching. If I am able to run my entire science class curriculum via the scientific method, then I will learn new things every year, and that is what will hold me in teaching.
If, however, teaching continues to be deskilled by school administrations as Ayers argues, "Teaching...is constantly being deskilled, made into something to be performed mechanically, without much thought or care, covered over with layers of supervision and accountability and bureaucracy" there will be little to attract anyone to the field. The smartest people in a society (who also have a good personality and passion for teaching) should be the ones educating the children, the future of the nation, not the ones of least intelligence. If teachers continue to be automated via scripted curriculums and other mechanisms, you might as well have a robot lecturing students rather than an individual judging each child's needs, interacting with students and altering curriculum based on perceived needs of students to give each child the best education he/she can. The best teacher is also a good thinker and learner his/herself. I teach because I love inquiry. I am a zealously curious person and I want to share my fascination with all the mysteries of the world with others. I love "some piece of the world enough that" I "want to show that love to others." And I heartily agree that writing a lesson plan is not a difficult thing "an astonishingly simple, entirely overblown, and not very useful skill."
