Standards

I am going to comment this week about standards, not because I think it is more important than it is to discuss race. Instead I feel like I have written and discussed race at length in this class and others.

Linda McNeil's chapter about standards was very eye-opening and helped me think about them in a new way. Before I entered the school of education I knew very little about standards, outside of the fact that on the surface it appeared that they prohibited teachers from crafting their curriculum around what they believed to be important. After this semester, and particularly this reading, I know have a clearer understanding of not just how damaging standards are not only to teacher freedom relating to curriculum development, but also how threatening they are to student development.

The first line of the chapter crystallizes everything that is wrong with standards: "Standardization reduces the quality and quantity of what is taught and learned in schools," (505). Doesn't this statement counter lawmakers' original intentions? After reading this chapter, it the exact opposite of appears to me that standards became a problem shortly after their introduction because those that wrote the standards, lawmakers and administrators, did not consult teachers (this would not be shocking knowing that the Bush Administration pushed for and passed No Child Left Behind, and we all know they have a truly exemplary record on asking experts for advice). Perhaps the most striking piece of information taken from this chapter amplifies my statement above. McNeil argued that by "shifting...decision regarding teaching and learning away from communities and educational professionals and into the hands of technical experts following a political agenda," we have created a damning environment for teachers and students (510). The notion that experts should not be involved in the decision to create standards, nor were they had significant influence in determining what those standards actually are is like having a plumber tell an engineer how to do his job. Malarkey!

Beyond the political implications of standards and course requirements, there are actually serious consequences in the classroom. McNeil also discussed how teaching toward not only limits the willingness of teachers to venture into more challenging curriculum, but underestimates their students. In some cases, teachers do not want to dabble in what can be confusing material for fear that their students may not understand it. The problem is that their student actually could understand it and in fact, are almost thirsting for something outside of "the basics."

Also striking, but not surprising (my cultural foundations course really took the shock out of this issue) is the fact that teachers conduct classrooms that are so authoritarian that controversy and discussion are all but silenced. In addition (this actually floored me), according to McNeil, "one teacher even said he had eliminated student research papers because at a time of volatile political debate he found that students doing their own research could become 'self-indoctrinated,' that is, they came to their own interpretations on the subject," (512). I may be new to this, but did the Reichstag just burn down and was the Fuhrer swept into power? Perhaps this is my naivete, but McNeil also suggests that some teachers are so insecure in their delivery that they refuse to admit they may not know something about their subject. At the risk of sounding too political, isn't this the sort of "Dead Certain" (supposedly a good book about the Bush Administration's war policy) attitude that we have lived through for the last 8 years (and thankfully rejected on November 4th when "The Wild Wordsmith of Wasilla," [kudos to Dick Cavett's column on nytimes.com] was sent back to Alaska)? I would like to think that I know enough basic content to teach a class of hormonal teenagers, but I know I don't know everything (not even close) and if they present me with questions and information that I am unsure of, I am going to be damn sure to let them teach me.

Liberal Arts

The chapters for this week were similar to what I am learning in my cultural foundations class. Perhaps most important to me was a line by Peter McLaren in Chapter 27, on page 413: "Knowledge acquired in classrooms should help students participate in vital issues that affect their experience on a daily level rather than simply enshrine the values of business pragmatism." As someone that is passionate about ALL of the liberal arts, I find them much more valuable than some of the technically, standards driven curriculum in today's middle and high schools.

Before I go on, I will say that I understand that I realize that not everyone understands the importance of liberal arts and I certainly recognize that not everyone cares about subjects like 19th century English Literature or Pre-colonial America. But as a social studies teacher, I will be charged with developing strongly informed citizens and rigidly gray subjects are part of that growth. Sadly not all of my students will turn out to be intellectually driven writers that spend their lives raging against the machine. But I would like to say that the students I taught that turn out to be welders or sales clerks or hair stylists at least got some sort of empowerment and critical thinking skills from my class. Now on to why I think the liberal arts are valuable.

Studying history, geography, behavioral sciences, and most importantly literature empowers students by helping them develop critical thinking skills. When I was in high school I just don't remember being forced to think critically about certain social problems (like race). I am not sure if this was the result of poor teachers, or my own unwillingness to really focus on what we were studying. Probably the latter. I grew up in a mostly-white, middle class town. The schools I went to were 99% white and middle class. As a result, I really did not witness racism or blatant discrimination. So perhaps I just didn't catch it when I had to study issues where it played a central role. This was true until I took my first liberal arts class in college. It was a modern literature course. We had to read 9 books analyzing different social issues. For example, we read Babbitt, by Sinclair Lewis, a social critique of early 20th century corporate America. We also had to read There Eyes Were Watching God, by Zora Neale Hurston and Light in August by William Falkner. These two books crystallized racism for me. They not only taught me more about the issue than any book or lecture, but also taught me how to think critically and really reflect on what racism is and how I would like to work to reverse it.

I hope to teach high school American History. Learning about the actual events is important, but I would almost like to turn it into an American studies class by incorporating literature that brings important social issues to life. Therefore my students will be able to do what Paulo Freire recommended and Eric Gutstein implemented in Chapter 29: read not only the word, but the world.

English Only

The chapter titled "English Only: The Tongue-Tying of America," presents an extremely important perspective. I always thought the argument that people who immigrate to the U.S. must make learning English their first priority. This is particularly true of students. The author is correct when he stated: "the persistent call for English language only in education smacks of backwardness in the present conjuncture of our ever-changing multicultural and multilingual society" (p 379). The reality is that if conservative policy makers and some educators continue to make this argument, they are taking a narrow-minded approach. If we force English Language Learners to learn material in English because, damn it, "they live here and need to learn to speak the language," we are not providing them with the best atmosphere to learn. For instance, a 10th grade Global Studies student may be able to understand the material if it is taught to her/him in their native language. But if we rigidly force them to try to learn not only the material, but also the language it is being taught in, that is a grave disservice.

In addition to the English only business, the chapter also discussed another pitfall that I am going to try desperately to avoid in the classroom. Peter McLaren argued that "minority students who 'populate urban settings...are more likely to be forced to learn about Eastern Europe in ways set forth by neo-conservative multiculturists than they are to learn about the Harlem Renaissance (which I personally find fascinating), Mexico, Africa, the Caribbean, or Aztec or Zulu culture,'" (p 377). Learning about Eastern Europe is important (if for no other reason than because the standards say it is), but I would argue that it is no more important the Harlem Renaissance or Aztec culture. My point is that teachers should know their audience and try to adapt the curriculum to make it interesting to their students. I understand that teaching about the really cool parts of let's say American History, is hard to fit into the standards driven curriculum, but teachers must try to be flexible in their delivery.

Race

The chapters for this week were interesting, but not really that surprising. Particularly the chapter devoted to African-American boys. I am not in the classroom yet, but I can picture some of the "verbal disparagement and...harsh dressing down of kids" by some teachers that may not be comfortable dealing with diversity or have accepted some of the stereotypes that are presented on television and in movies (page 317). Too often these teachers are commanding respect from their students, but they are unwilling to return the favor. This is not the 1950s. We cannot rule the classroom with Principal's office threats and yardsticks. Instead teachers must be up-front with their students early on and enthusiastically show them respect.

I was kind of thrown off by the following quote on pages 320-321: "in the final analysis the focus is all too often on individual maladaptive behavior and black mothering practices as the problem rather that on the social structure in which this endangerment occurs." If teachers make this sort of argument about why they are having trouble reaching or controlling African-American male students, they are forgetting about what they signed up to do. I am not sure how I will react to teachers that say, "I am not a babysitter, my job is to teach math. If kids don't get it because they are disruptive or they have problems at home, well that is their problem, not mine." That may be what their union contract says they have to do, but if they believe their job is not to work with children, then I think they are in the wrong profession.

The chapter about Asian-Americans as the "model minority" was also riveting. When conservative commentators brag about how Asian-Americans were able to pick themselves up by their bootstraps, and therefore other minorities should be able to do the same, they are desmonstrating their ignorance. In reality, people that carry prejudices appreciate Asian-Americans because they believe Asian-Americans have lived up to the white status quo and have not fought to change parts of society. This while African-Americans and Hispanics continue to be painted as inferior. The truth is that this is not and should not be about skin color. It has more to do with poverty and power. If we can provide the impoverished with real opportunities for advancement, racial stereotypes and prejudices may begin to melt away.

These are tired stereotypes that will hopefully run their course. All students deserve opportunity and it is the responsibility of teachers to provide them with that opportunity. Race should not matter.

Identity

The chapters for this week's reading were extremely important and insightful. Particularly striking was Janie Victoria Ward's discussion about race. The most blunt and perhaps telling was Ward's perspective about the way African-Americans view education. She argues, "For some black students, doing well in school is equated with 'selling out' or becoming non-black; thus for them, 'the burden of acting white' was too high a price to pay for academic success," (259). I was aware of this as a problem in the black community (the press made this an issue in the lead up to the 2008 Democratic Primary because many African-Americans were allegedly not satisfied with Barack Obama's blackness), but never saw it crystallized quite like this. This is sad. It is as if some elements of the African-American community choose to shun white culture by not conforming to this, but all they are doing is sabotaging themselves and the futures of their children.

HOWEVER, this is not to say that this is their fault. Actually, it is quite the contrary. Perhaps if our political leaders were not set on glorifying the American ideal, and instead chose to accept some of our faults, we would be able to better reach less ambitious students. For example, in my 8th and 11th grade history courses we spent countless days focusing on the battles of the Civil War. But the only time devoted to slavery--the actual cause of the Civil War--was 2 days. We watched the movie Glory and did not have a discussion about either the movie or the issue. That is absolutely PREPOSTEROUS. It was not until college that I focused significant time reading or discussing slavery.

One other example is the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. This often gets dropped because of time constraints, but I think this issue is far too important to simply cut out. In neither 8th, nor 11th grade did we even discuss this issue in class (beyond Martin Luther King Jr., and most of that was spent talking about his assassination). Instead we devoted significant class time to the Vietnam, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the counterculture. Again this is ABSURD! These are important issues that must be reconciled in Middle and High School history classes.

The same could be said of passing up the women's movement. My 11th grade history teacher was great and really connected with me. But even when I was in his class, I could tell that he was not reaching the girls in the class. His tone was vulgar and focused on the "white male" issues. The women's suffrage movement in the 1910s-1920s and its liberation movement counterpart in the 1960s-1970s were simply footnotes in his curriculum. Do I blame him? Partly. This was 10 years ago, so I don't know if it was part of standards, but he still should have covered this much more in depth than he had.

The real point of me raising these specific examples (beyond my desire to rail on my middle and high school teachers) is that if teachers gave students a reason to pay attention, they may. A white middle school teacher teaching a predominantly African-American class about America's glorified, idealistic past is a bit of a stretch for most of those kids. If it is a poor, urban school, those kids probably do not look at America's finest hours and ideals as all that fine or ideal. In fact, they see the raw hand that they have been dealt and may want to shove it up America's backside. We need to find a way to reach kids that are different from us.

Classroom Management

Our group is focused on classroom management and dealing with parents, guardians, administrators, etc.  While conducting my research, I discovered that the most effective way to combat misbehavior is through positive reinforcement and relationship building.  I always knew that positive reactions were much better than negative ones, but I was unaware of the importance of strong teacher-student relationships.  As I look back at my time in school, this makes sense.  I typically did well in classes when I had a strong relationship with the teacher.  It was typically not a personal relationship, but I was at least able to recognize that the instructor cared about my education.  

I know this is not a middle school example, but when I was getting my undergrad, I was coasting through school and did not put a lot of time into developing my skills.  When I wrote my first paper in a class, my professor recognized my weakness as a writer.  He invited me to his office to discuss my writing.  He really lit a fire under me and made me realize the importance of this skill. That attention really helped me because it demonstrated that I was not alone.  Teachers at all levels need to give their students attention and help them grow.  This is especially true for students that are at-risk.  Often disruptive students suffer from a lack of self-confidence in either their social or academic abilities.  If teachers can help them overcome their anxieties, they can eliminate misbehavior.

Half-Empty

The chapters for this weeks reading were interesting, but I particularly enjoyed reading Chapter 11, The Future of Middle Level Education:  Optimistic and Pessimistic Views.  I must say that I agree with glass half-empty outlook.  My outlook on a lot of issues is usually pessimistic, (it is something that I try to change) but, in this case it is certainly more realistic.  The two serious risks outlined in the text include the introduction of standards and the privatizing of public schools.  

I'll begin with standards.  In addition to unloading undue levels of stress onto students, they are causing severe headaches for teachers.  It will be a challenge for me to begin teaching and discover that I am unable to cover some very important curriculum.  Curriculum that may not directly lead to the child's development, but can develop some long term skills.  For instance, as a Social Studies teacher it is important for students to learn about the causes of the American Revolution (for the 2nd or 3rd time).  However, is it more important to forgo some of the social issues of the 1960s?  We have the technology to teach students about these issues.  Video footage from the period is priceless.  Not to mention the curriculum itself goes a long way in explaining some of the situations the nation finds itself in now.  I fear spending too much time on the "Disney" curriculum is only helpful if we are shooting for rote memorization, not critical thinking skills.

One, additional point that I have little evidence to support, but it is just my thought.  I have discovered that expert teachers hate teaching to the textbook, but with the introduction of standards, does that not almost force them to do so?  

The author also discusses commercialization.  If our government starts to sell off our public schools to corporate sponsored private schools, we will set out country back a  generation.  Can you imagine what going to (or teaching at) Rufus King High School, sponsored by Dow Chemical or Pfizer Pharmaceuticals would be like (I realize this wasn't mentioned in the reading, but being a pessimist, I fear the worst)?  It would be as if we were creating robots that are taught to be slaves for the great American dollar.  This would be absolutely counterproductive.  We now try to instill in our students the confidence that they can do great things by encouraging them to think outside the box and fight oppression.  If the corporate world grabbed ahold of schools and set their agendas, college for students would be shunned, rote skill development that only profited corporations would be allowed, and instead of fighting oppression, it would be imposed.

Youth

The chapters for this week were very insightful.  When I was in school I remember hearing things about "how terrible the youth of America are" and "kids are killing kids everywhere, what is going to happen when they are adults, if they make it there?"  The press made it sound like armageddon.  That has about as much credibility as some of those 1950s ads about how cool cigarettes are.  My favorite was this one:  "Of all leading filter cigarettes, Kent filter's best.  If you try Kent with that in mind, I think you'll agree with many other thinking people that have hanged to Kent.  They find it makes good sense to smoke Kent, and good smoking too."  Sorry that was off topic and may foreshadow how I will be as a teacher, but this is a blog.  Back to the topic.  I have wondered for awhile now and was reintroduced while I was reading, did all of these kids actually kill each other and not reach adulthood, or did they all go to prison, or did they not commit violent crimes they were supposed to?  Sarcasm aside, it is refreshing to get a perspective that runs counter to the tired argument that has been pushed for the better part of the last 3 decades (although, unless I have not been paying close attention over the last 8 years, it appears that this issue has taken a backseat).

Usually I am not one that pushes for media bashing, but it was certainly necessary in this case.  The repeated references to Newsweek, Time, and the Los Angeles Times were insightful.  When this article was written it appeared that they lacked a certain journalistic integrity.  They were and continue to be wrong to overlook the role that poverty plays in troubled children.  Politicians (unfortunately neither Presidential candidate seems to mention issues that do not affect middle class white people) and the press needs to increase awareness about the constraints poverty puts on children.  

In our classrooms, it is imperative that we create a positive environment for these children.  If they are going to be in schools, we need to make it worth there while.  Education can be the silver bullet in fighting poverty.  If we can provide young people with the opportunity and confidence necessary to succeed we can overcome not only teenage violence and pregnancy (which has been greatly over hyped), but more importantly poverty.

The chapter that focused on parents that basically decided to literally and figuratively pimp out their kids was also very informative.  I know Giroux was just using pageants as an example of how far society has fallen, but there are certainly other examples.  When I was reading this, I could not help but think of that stupid show that was on Bravo a few years ago, Showbiz Moms and Dads.  For those of that have not seen it, it was about these crazy parents that drove around New York and Los Angeles with their kids bringing them to auditions, rehearsals, and pageants.  Here is a description of one family's experiences (it is not pretty):

THE NUTTERS 
Duncan Nutter relocated his wife and seven children from their rural home in Vermont to a tiny two-bedroom apartment in New York so the family could pursue acting careers in the big city. But not everyone made the move willingly, and tensions in the Nutter home are high. With acting gigs being few and far-between, Duncan is forced to take a low-wage job as a theater usher to support the family. Living on top of each other in cramped quarters, tempers reach a boiling point and some family-members openly rebel, determined to leave acting behind and return to their old life in the country. 

Are you kidding me?  He moved his entire family into a 2 bedroom apartment in New York?!?!  I lived in a few one-bedroom apartments in Chicago and if the Nutter's were anything like my apartments, I could not imagine living in a 2 bedroom with 8 other people.  Whenever this show was on I wanted to leap through the television and strangle these idiotic parents.  Enough with the rant.

As evidenced by Giroux's article and other examples the kids really get screwed here because their parents apply all of this unnecessary pressure forcing them to grow up, then when their body clock catches up with their actual age they have to go to psychiatrists as adults (I know that is a leap, but really what are the psychological repercussions of forcing children to become adults long before they are ready?).  As a teacher, what is our role if we confront situations like this?  I understand we have a responsibility to the children, but is it ethical to call parents out on their obvious mistakes?  I realize society does not say they are committing child abuse in the traditional manner, but they are certainly harming their children.

http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/g/good-night-and-good-luck-script.html

http://www.bravotv.com/Showbiz_Moms_&_Dads/Extras/About.shtml

Adolescence

Chapter 2 by Jeanne Brooks-Gunn and Edward O. Reiter was an interesting and very useful examination of the pubertal process. While I was reading the first part of the chapter, I thought it was going to be a struggle, but once the authors got beyond some of the physical changes and into the results of the changes it began to take on a new meaning. I must say that I was initially a little shocked by the lack of research that has been done on this topic. However, it does make sense given the willingness of many adults to shun the topic. It is too bad because that sort of behavior is then passed down to their children, so they begin to believe puberty is taboo and are unwilling to talk about it.

There were some obvious parts to the chapter. Specifically about girls maturing earlier than boys and the fact that boys are only really willing to discuss their changes in the abstract (typically within the comfort of large groups in the lockeroom setting), while girls are willing to speak more openly, but only with their mothers or close friends. However, there was a lot of information I was unaware of. Particularly interesting is the section devoted to explaining the challenges encountered by early-maturing girls and late-maturing boys. For instance, I was completely ignorant of the fact that early maturing girls are more likely to suffer from an eating disorder because they go through the weight-gain stage before their classmates that have not begun puberty. Or how late-maturing boys suffer from low self-esteem levels. But given the emphasis put on sports among young males it makes perfect sense. Related to this is how early-maturing boys are much more likely to be misogynistic because they achieve the "prestige" of physical and emotional growth. Then as a result, they develop sexual-stereotypes. Obviously I did not think about this when I was in middle school, but now when I do think back to some of the people I went to school with and their behaviors and experiences, it crystallizes.

I have not started teaching in middle school, but I will try to keep some of this information in the back of my mind when I am in the classroom. I remember I had a music teacher (I think he may have been a long-term substitute) in middle school that had absolutely no clue how to handle young children. He was completely unaware of and insensitive to the changes young people experience. When there were outbursts in class or casual "immature male" conversations, he would react by losing his cool, then the rest of the class fed on this. It was as if he expected us to be much older and mature than we were. It is important for teachers to understand what sort of changes her/his students are experiencing and react sensitively.

Oppression

Kumashiro's article about oppression was quite eye-opening. As someone who has just been introduced to some of the challenges teachers must confront (I have a BA in History and just returned to school this semester), oppression appears to be as significant, if not more, than others. It was honestly not something I put a whole of thought into when I was making the decision to become a teacher.

The author offers 4 methods to mute oppression in the classroom. On the whole, I agree with Kumashiro's idea to use the classroom as an opportunity to change minds and push students to approach diversity from a fresh perspective. He argues that teachers have a responsibility to educate all students about the dangers of continued oppression, but he paints a somewhat bleak picture educators. After each section of building up his argument, he tears it down by stating the weaknesses of the method. I realize this is important, but it is not exactly a ringing endorsement. I almost feel like to implement these ideas, I will have to (sorry for the cliche) walk on eggshells in the classroom.

Final thought about the article: Reading this article from the perspective of a future Secondary Ed teacher, the one point that the author did not discuss (or at least, I did not catch it) is the timing. I understand that this is important for teachers of all levels to understand, but this should be a primary focus of Elementary Ed teachers. If they do not energetically combat oppression in young children, stereotypes and prejudices can become ingrained their minds. Thus, creating a much steeper challenge for Secondary Ed teachers.

One final thought: To confront oppression, I would try to weave some of these issues into my curriculum. Most "otherness" can be addressed in a U.S. History course. The author uses many examples, but repeatedly discusses Asian-American oppression. In a U.S. History course, we could discuss the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. Then we could pivot to a discussion about not only some of present-day issues confronting Asian-Americans, but how this sort of behavior by the powerful is a pattern.