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.