Well, where should I begin? Are you serious? Kids can't learn or don't want to learn if we can't relate the message or details to them. This is the problem with kids today. They whine, what about me?, how does this affect me?, why should I do this?....Me Me Me Me. Guess what, I'm teaching this lesson, I've assigned this material, so do it. I am so sick and tired of hearing this argument, that kids can't identify with materials so they don't see any need to learn it. I loved this line "Students-our most important critics-are struggling to find meaning and significance in their education". How about learning for the sake of learning? How about having knowledge in many areas? If you study and learn it, maybe you'll find out that it does pertain to you. Put in the effort. That's the problem with this generation, they're looking for instant satisfaction and they'll only do things once they find out "whats in it for them". Mr. Wesch, a college professor, took a survey of his students and found out that less than half did the assigned readings and only 26% of the students perceived the readings to be relevant to their lives. This seems to me, more like lack of responsibility versus lack of significance. Their parents must be paying for their education.
The author states that one issue that is a significant problem and is permeating our everyday lives is the notion that "some students are just not cut out for school". I'm not sure I agree that this is a crisis. He changes the word "school" with "learning" for the wow factor. I do believe not all kids are school material. The traditional means of school with the 4 main core subjects and notes and projects, and papers. Some are more suited for craft learning. Trades vs Books. I do believe all students can learn just not what a traditional classroom offers. I don't find this to be a crisis at all. "If our students are not cut out for school, perhaps we have made the mold too narrow or inflexible, or more likely, just not meaningful enough to inspire a student to fit in." Not every child is a round peg fitting into a round hole. Not every child is school material. And guess what, life will present them with many situations that are not inspiring, or they may find boring; get over it, deal with it, what are they going to do, bury their head in the sand. I become so annoyed with my students when I'm trying to teach them something and all they have to add to the lesson is, this is boring, why do we have to learn this stuff? I know that being a teacher we have many hats to wear. We are mothers, fathers, guidance counselors, police officers, peace makers, salesmen, nurses, psychiatrists, psychotherapists and entertainers. But It's not my job to make sure every day that you're entertained.
I do agree with helping them develop into critical thinkers, to ask insightful questions that would foster an desire for more knowledge. And I agree with this statement "education has become a relatively meaningless game of grades rather than an important and meaningful exploration of the world in which we live and co-create. Thanks to our Education Commissioner, grades are very important. The students grades and progress will affect a teachers pay and evaluation. I would love to have the time to do a little more exploration with my students, but at the junior high level and high school level there are certain things that must be covered and not enough time to get it accomplished. I'm sure at the college level there is a bit more wiggle room to play with. And that's another thing, do you know how difficult it is for a 12-13yr old to see the global impact of anything. They live in a mirrored world, where its all about them. "The best learning almost always occurs in the absence of a teacher, for it is then that learners are free to pursue with great passion the questions that are meaningful and relevant to their own lives". Really? Sounds like an acid trip, "hippie" speak. Maybe OK for college students, but junior high kids need a lot of guidance.
I know there are many problems within the eduction system today, we're bombarded with it almost every day. But I'm not sure lack of significance is one of them. Lets teach the kids to open their minds to all knowledge whether it relates to them or not. I think that's the greater lessen, the sooner they learn that life isn't all about them the more successful they will be.
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Monday, October 17, 2011
Keepin it Real vs. Acting Real
To start off I have to say that I enjoyed this article, not only because I've witnessed this behavior in and out of the classroom but because it sheds light on something that many people don't understand, acting white vs. being black. I am one of those people. I'm not always open minded on certain subjects, even though I try. But this one I don't understand. Why would anyone choose, and it is a deliberate choice, to speak, at times, incoherently and alienate themselves from mainstream society, causing them to become, in essence, an outcast. Who wants to be labeled a thug or dumb or unacceptable?
The author writes about Delpits research "All of these teachers were able to teach in classrooms the rules for dominant Discourse, allowing students to succeed in mainstream America who were not only born outside of the realms of power and status, but who had no access to status institutions"(pg.48) This was in reference to Black teachers teaching in majority black schools. Whats wrong with this? Why wouldn't a teacher give his or her students the necessary keys to success? The job of a teacher is to make sure their students have the fundamentals in order to, not only succeed in mainstream America but also be perceived in a positive light as an upstanding citizen. These tools that are taught go a long way towards accomplishments within the power of culture.
One of the phrases that stood out to me is on pg.50 "Dominant cultural capital provides students with access to certain attitudes, styles, preferences, and tastes that enable their entry into high status social groups, organizations, or institutions. It armors students with awareness". Every culture has their dominant capital and the goal is or should be the same. To be a functioning and contributing member of society. Why is it that many black people don't see this? I see and hear how the entertainment personalities reach today's youth. Saggy pants, large medallions around their neck, and improper English. But guess what, their success is limited to less than 1% of the African American population. That act won't work for everyone. In the meantime learn how to speak,act and dress properly.
I do understand that many kids feel that in order to get along with their peers in the neighborhood they must act like the culture around them. But when did speaking appropriately and in complete sentences become a symbol of white supremacy? "Acting white refers to their refusal to adhere to the cultural default setting in US society, to what is seen as normative or "natural" (pg.53) Why is this? Is it that many African Americans don't like white people so they prefer to be as opposite of them as possible?
I grew up watching The Cosby Show and Benson, which portrayed African American men, women and children as educated, successful and well spoken. Where they "acting white"? I don't think so. I would find it insulting as a person of color if anyone suggested the way I dress, act, speak or my hobbies was against who I really was and that I was betraying my culture. I find it demeaning and derogatory to label anyone of color who dresses appropriately, listens to anything but rap or hip hop and who is cultured as a traitor to their race or a counterfiet African American. If one wants to act this way in their neighborhood and among their family and friends, so be it. But in the real world it doesn't cut it. I wouldn't hire anyone who came into an interview and spoke they way some of the individuals in the article spoke or dressed. It's not racist or close mindedness, its common sense. If people who want to buck the norm and go so opposite of it then expect to be labeled regardless of your intelligence, because America is an establishment built on judging a book by its cover. Its wrong to do so, but you must learn the lingo.
The author writes about Delpits research "All of these teachers were able to teach in classrooms the rules for dominant Discourse, allowing students to succeed in mainstream America who were not only born outside of the realms of power and status, but who had no access to status institutions"(pg.48) This was in reference to Black teachers teaching in majority black schools. Whats wrong with this? Why wouldn't a teacher give his or her students the necessary keys to success? The job of a teacher is to make sure their students have the fundamentals in order to, not only succeed in mainstream America but also be perceived in a positive light as an upstanding citizen. These tools that are taught go a long way towards accomplishments within the power of culture.
One of the phrases that stood out to me is on pg.50 "Dominant cultural capital provides students with access to certain attitudes, styles, preferences, and tastes that enable their entry into high status social groups, organizations, or institutions. It armors students with awareness". Every culture has their dominant capital and the goal is or should be the same. To be a functioning and contributing member of society. Why is it that many black people don't see this? I see and hear how the entertainment personalities reach today's youth. Saggy pants, large medallions around their neck, and improper English. But guess what, their success is limited to less than 1% of the African American population. That act won't work for everyone. In the meantime learn how to speak,act and dress properly.
I do understand that many kids feel that in order to get along with their peers in the neighborhood they must act like the culture around them. But when did speaking appropriately and in complete sentences become a symbol of white supremacy? "Acting white refers to their refusal to adhere to the cultural default setting in US society, to what is seen as normative or "natural" (pg.53) Why is this? Is it that many African Americans don't like white people so they prefer to be as opposite of them as possible?
I grew up watching The Cosby Show and Benson, which portrayed African American men, women and children as educated, successful and well spoken. Where they "acting white"? I don't think so. I would find it insulting as a person of color if anyone suggested the way I dress, act, speak or my hobbies was against who I really was and that I was betraying my culture. I find it demeaning and derogatory to label anyone of color who dresses appropriately, listens to anything but rap or hip hop and who is cultured as a traitor to their race or a counterfiet African American. If one wants to act this way in their neighborhood and among their family and friends, so be it. But in the real world it doesn't cut it. I wouldn't hire anyone who came into an interview and spoke they way some of the individuals in the article spoke or dressed. It's not racist or close mindedness, its common sense. If people who want to buck the norm and go so opposite of it then expect to be labeled regardless of your intelligence, because America is an establishment built on judging a book by its cover. Its wrong to do so, but you must learn the lingo.
Sunday, October 9, 2011
August, Making Room for One Another
Like some of you have posted, I too found the first chapter a bit difficult to follow. I had to read it a couple of times to get the full meaning. Having said that, this reading by Gerri August, is the assignment Sarah and I will be teaching for Tuesdays class, so I'm going to be brief with my blog. Hopefully Sarah and I are on the same page as August.
"And as members of a dominant social structure, children from nuclear family constellations, who see themselves reflected in the explicit and implicit curriculum, add their particular chapters to the written and verbal chronicle of family with little or no fear of social penalty". I feel that this is what August wants to get away from. One group that dominates every situation; confident and in control with little regard or at times respect for others who have not traveled the road of least resistence. She isn't saying she wants these dominant social cultures to lose thmesleves or their perspective on issues, she just wants other voices other opinions to shine through with as much confidence and bravado as the dominates.
August writes about creating as Zeke did, a democratic classroom, where students of all constellations feel confident and safe to express and talk about all issues. While I believe most teachers strive for this, I find it increasingly difficult at the Middle School level. I've tried dynamic dialogical moments in my classroom, only to have it fall on deaf ears. Middle School kids, many and not all, are very apathetic and self centered. They find it difficult to see anyone elses side of an issue especially if it's not their side. I'm wondering how well Zeke would do with 7th and 8th graders. I do admire his skill and perseverence but feel things would not work out so well in different grade levels.
Monological vs. Dialogical. This is what Sarah and I hope to illustrate on Tuesday. I believe August, when describing a monological lesson is suggesting that it is the status quo, where the thought, lessons and opinions of the dominate group are the only things being spoken or learned, everything is about uniformity "monologicality pulls all voices toward the normative socio-political center, promoting uniformity among utterances". It represents the culture of power, which pervades every aspect of our culture. Dialogicality "pushes voices out from the normative socio-political center, promoting diversity among utterances". Every democratic classroom should strive for that, but like I stated earlier, it's very difficult at the junior high level for anyone to utter or think something that is not the norm, and forget about saying aloud, Otherization will take over causing a student to feel powerless and alienated.
"Education in a democracy cannot earn its ethical grade"until we define the kind of society we have in mind"(Dewey, 1966) But who decides? The status quo, the cultural norm, the power of culutre? Isn't this what we've been talking about this semester, trying to figure out how to solve the problems? August writes that children need to be made aware that there are differences around them and that they must be taught how to respect and accept that there are differences among them. This is a collective effort but it becomes difficult when dealing with children who are so over confident and who have been taught and believe that their way is the only way. I'll bet most families are monological families and that is a difficult mold to break.
"And as members of a dominant social structure, children from nuclear family constellations, who see themselves reflected in the explicit and implicit curriculum, add their particular chapters to the written and verbal chronicle of family with little or no fear of social penalty". I feel that this is what August wants to get away from. One group that dominates every situation; confident and in control with little regard or at times respect for others who have not traveled the road of least resistence. She isn't saying she wants these dominant social cultures to lose thmesleves or their perspective on issues, she just wants other voices other opinions to shine through with as much confidence and bravado as the dominates.
August writes about creating as Zeke did, a democratic classroom, where students of all constellations feel confident and safe to express and talk about all issues. While I believe most teachers strive for this, I find it increasingly difficult at the Middle School level. I've tried dynamic dialogical moments in my classroom, only to have it fall on deaf ears. Middle School kids, many and not all, are very apathetic and self centered. They find it difficult to see anyone elses side of an issue especially if it's not their side. I'm wondering how well Zeke would do with 7th and 8th graders. I do admire his skill and perseverence but feel things would not work out so well in different grade levels.
Monological vs. Dialogical. This is what Sarah and I hope to illustrate on Tuesday. I believe August, when describing a monological lesson is suggesting that it is the status quo, where the thought, lessons and opinions of the dominate group are the only things being spoken or learned, everything is about uniformity "monologicality pulls all voices toward the normative socio-political center, promoting uniformity among utterances". It represents the culture of power, which pervades every aspect of our culture. Dialogicality "pushes voices out from the normative socio-political center, promoting diversity among utterances". Every democratic classroom should strive for that, but like I stated earlier, it's very difficult at the junior high level for anyone to utter or think something that is not the norm, and forget about saying aloud, Otherization will take over causing a student to feel powerless and alienated.
"Education in a democracy cannot earn its ethical grade"until we define the kind of society we have in mind"(Dewey, 1966) But who decides? The status quo, the cultural norm, the power of culutre? Isn't this what we've been talking about this semester, trying to figure out how to solve the problems? August writes that children need to be made aware that there are differences around them and that they must be taught how to respect and accept that there are differences among them. This is a collective effort but it becomes difficult when dealing with children who are so over confident and who have been taught and believe that their way is the only way. I'll bet most families are monological families and that is a difficult mold to break.
Monday, October 3, 2011
Schools have Bureaucracy and Superman had Kryptonite
Stan Karps response to the Waiting for Superman Documentary gives hope that there are people out there who really know whats going on. He mentions the teacher bashing that has become a national phenomenon is damaging this public institution. One of his comments that I found most interesting is this negative view of teachers and the public schools has exploded since our country's financial systems have unraveled and now lie in shambles. Its as though the government leaders got together and tried to find a scapegoat for all the national failures, "hey I have an idea, lets attack the teachers and their greedy unions, that should take the heat off us for awhile".
Most of the opponents of teachers and the public school system have upside down priorities as Karp explains, its not about the child it's about the profit. Cutting school budgets and giving tax breaks to the wealthy as Karp tells the audience has happened in his state of New Jersery, is the new motto - "do more with less". People, uninformed, uneducated and bitter people, believe schools have failed soley because of bad teachers and the unions who protect them. Ignoring as Karp suggests that poverty is one the most insideous obsticles to a quality education and a motivated child. How can schools combat poverty and inequality? Karps research showed that poverty in America is at 23%.
The buzz around schools districts is the whole idea of "privatization". Many systems have privatized schools busses, secretaries, maintaince and crossing guards. Karp speaks of state and local governments privatizing the classroom. Will this help the students, will it combat poverty, homelessness, hunger, lack of motivation, lack of parental involvement? Privatization equals money for the wealthy. The culture of power will never end if this is ever invoked. Karp states" by taking the learing out of the classroom and putting into the hands of the bureaucracy means unequal access for many".
Karp quotes a Stanford study of charter schools stating that only 17% get better scores on the standarized tests but more than double that do worse than traditional public schools. Also in the Stanford study they found out that those 17% were highly selective on who would and should attend. Karps response to standarized tests is "if we spent as much time, effort and money on getting kids out of poverty vs the time, money and effort that is put into testing students - we would actually be ahead of the game". Than what would gov't agencies do?
Karp speaks of educational tragedy and the clueless disrepect towards classroom teachers as detremental to a productive and cohesive public institution. The bureaucracy doesn't get it, they are unaware,(by choice) of what it takes to run a successful school or what it takes to be a teacher. If this trend and attitude don't change then not only are teachers in trouble but so is a whole generation of students.
Most of the opponents of teachers and the public school system have upside down priorities as Karp explains, its not about the child it's about the profit. Cutting school budgets and giving tax breaks to the wealthy as Karp tells the audience has happened in his state of New Jersery, is the new motto - "do more with less". People, uninformed, uneducated and bitter people, believe schools have failed soley because of bad teachers and the unions who protect them. Ignoring as Karp suggests that poverty is one the most insideous obsticles to a quality education and a motivated child. How can schools combat poverty and inequality? Karps research showed that poverty in America is at 23%.
The buzz around schools districts is the whole idea of "privatization". Many systems have privatized schools busses, secretaries, maintaince and crossing guards. Karp speaks of state and local governments privatizing the classroom. Will this help the students, will it combat poverty, homelessness, hunger, lack of motivation, lack of parental involvement? Privatization equals money for the wealthy. The culture of power will never end if this is ever invoked. Karp states" by taking the learing out of the classroom and putting into the hands of the bureaucracy means unequal access for many".
Karp quotes a Stanford study of charter schools stating that only 17% get better scores on the standarized tests but more than double that do worse than traditional public schools. Also in the Stanford study they found out that those 17% were highly selective on who would and should attend. Karps response to standarized tests is "if we spent as much time, effort and money on getting kids out of poverty vs the time, money and effort that is put into testing students - we would actually be ahead of the game". Than what would gov't agencies do?
Karp speaks of educational tragedy and the clueless disrepect towards classroom teachers as detremental to a productive and cohesive public institution. The bureaucracy doesn't get it, they are unaware,(by choice) of what it takes to run a successful school or what it takes to be a teacher. If this trend and attitude don't change then not only are teachers in trouble but so is a whole generation of students.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)