In answer to the first question, yes, I'm going to focus solely on Chapter 31 in this little blog (and no, not because it's longer, more because I find race more interesting than standardization). Moving right along, the thing I find really interesting in this article is that it focuses on making sure we all know that we're bringing our own cultural biases and predispositions toward race into the classroom. It also mentions how woefully unprepared most teachers are when it comes to the question of race. But I can't help thinking that all of my Curriculum and Instruction classes have at least spent some time talking about race, and some of them seemed to use it as their only criteria of knowledge. This might be the fault of the article's age, or maybe the faculty in question, but I couldn't help but be a little shocked at how some of the scenarios played out (which was good, in a way, as it kept me reading).
Take Derek's exile, for instance. Obviously most of the teachers labeled him as a "problem" rather than a student with some problems. And while I can understand being frustrated with a kid that really doesn't want to listen to you, I really doubt anyone in the classes I've had would make the jump from suspension to expulsion in less than a day, much less label someone (out loud, no less) as "damaged goods". The thing is, we've been trained to deal with things of this nature, and I think we can all relate (at least a little) to a kid who can't manage to fit into someone else's boundaries of good behavior. This became especially noticeable to me after the article listed all of Derek's strengths...my first reaction to his inability to keep his attention on the teacher and his need to lead was to think "Well...put the kid in a group setting more often, and let him use those leadership skills effectively." I realize that this isn't the panacea for Derek's case, but at the same time, all I'm noticing in terms of teacher response is a bunch of authority figures constantly telling this kid that he's wrong (with the obvious exception of Carrie). That's just not going to go well, you know?
As far as dealing with race in the classroom goes, I think, as a prospective English teacher, I've got it fairly easy. If I can work in a book like Octavian Nothing or Native Son (or even Dubliners), it almost begs for a lesson on race as a social construction. One of the great teaching moments I've witnessed recently was when a professor of mine had all the white students in his class raise their hands, and then put them down if they had German, Irish, Scandanavian, or Italian ancestry. He then went on to say that everyone who put their hands down (the vast majority of the class...think something along the lines of 20:1 and you won't be far off), would not have been considered white a mere 100 years ago. I'm not sure if I could get away with that in a high school (or middle school) setting, but I think it's a poignant example of the fluidity that the concept of race carries with it...and I think that's probably one of the most important things we can get across about race in the classroom (but heck, what do I know, I'm a six-foot white male, I obviously just expect my opinions to be heard and respected because of my color, gender, height and [somewhat] deep voice).
Questions for easy discussion:
1. This article takes place in New York City, where there are more stereotypes per capita than there are pigeons. What does this mean for those of us in Milwaukee, a city with admittedly fewer pigeons but plenty of stereotypes to go around?
2. Jervis spends a decent amount of time focusing on Don, and how his power as a white male dominated many discussions. Can Jervis criticize him effectively even though she didn't voice her own (conflicting) opinion to his face? Is she suggesting that it's a bad thing for white males to voice their opinions, since she argues that their expectation of being heard and respected overrides the opinions of others? Shouldn't everyone, including white males, have that expectation?
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Kids Teaching Themselves
The Educational Leadership article did a very nice thing for me. It gave me the opportunity to blog about an article that didn't inherently irritate me.
The idea of creating a problem based learning exercise in order to increase student test scores in a school is a work of sheer genius. Not only does it have the desired effect of increased test scores; it also accomplishes what I consider to be the ultimate goal of teaching: giving students the opportunity to take responsibility for their own education. In creating their own strategies for improving their scores, these students have set the stage for a successful continuing education. Those of us who move beyond the classroom into the real world realize that education is a continuous process; those who want education to end when high school (or even college) ends are setting themselves up for failure. The high school or college degree doesn't mean that one's education is complete, it merely means that the student is at a point where he can begin to teach himself.
The idea of creating a problem based learning exercise in order to increase student test scores in a school is a work of sheer genius. Not only does it have the desired effect of increased test scores; it also accomplishes what I consider to be the ultimate goal of teaching: giving students the opportunity to take responsibility for their own education. In creating their own strategies for improving their scores, these students have set the stage for a successful continuing education. Those of us who move beyond the classroom into the real world realize that education is a continuous process; those who want education to end when high school (or even college) ends are setting themselves up for failure. The high school or college degree doesn't mean that one's education is complete, it merely means that the student is at a point where he can begin to teach himself.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Bilingual Education
Okay, I'm going to try really, really hard to see both sides of this. Bear with me, as this may involve some slight bending of the rules of reality.
On the one hand, we have the English Only crowd. Basically, from what I understand, these folks seem to think that if people are not taught in Standard English and only Standard English, they'll continue to use their own native language as a crutch that will only inhibit their learning at higher levels, since higher level learning is generally less and less friendly to the bilingual education crowd. They presumably believe that there is no inherent value to a native language other than English in the United States, since English is the dominant language that we see everywhere. Only by assimilating to the English-speaking culture of the United States can children be assured of success. As far as that goes, it sounds vaguely logical. It does, however, gloss over some fairly big points. First off, most of American people are not Native Americans, so to designate English as the native language of English is a logical fallacy. That said, it is the dominant language...but it's not so dominant that other language groups don't make up a seriously substantial part of the population...and they vote. Next, the idea that these alternate language groups don't have anything to offer the English-speaking culture is also something along the lines of patently ridiculous. The fact that we have a whole major related to bilingual business practices tells me that bilingual education is something even stereotypical conservatives should be able to relate to. And if that's not enough, I'll end this little rant with the most powerful three-word argument of all time: Come on, seriously?
In the interest of fairness (and because I'm pretty sure the pro-bilingual crowd might be taking a bit too narrow a focus too), I'll take a look at the other side. The bilingual education crowd has this nice idea that non-native speakers of English should be taught English alongside their own native tongue, thereby empowering them to use their unique cultural perspective in an English-speaking setting to effect social change (count the buzzwords people, I just said something important). While this is well and good (great, actually), I notice that the article doesn't mention anything about native speakers of English using bilingual education to socially empower them. I mean...if the interest is social justice, then everyone should be equal, right? So...bilingual education should include, for example, non-native English speakers from Mexico learning English alongside Spanish in...say, L.A. These same schools hopefully (and probably do) involve native English speakers learning Spanish alongside English. If it helps minorities to be socially empowered by knowing two languages, I imagine it'd help them even more if the majority could speak several of those languages as well. That way, instead of this article sounding like it wants to use bilingualism as a weapon against the cultural elite, we'd have an education system that sounds more like a community of equal people getting along...which just sounds nicer, you know?
On the one hand, we have the English Only crowd. Basically, from what I understand, these folks seem to think that if people are not taught in Standard English and only Standard English, they'll continue to use their own native language as a crutch that will only inhibit their learning at higher levels, since higher level learning is generally less and less friendly to the bilingual education crowd. They presumably believe that there is no inherent value to a native language other than English in the United States, since English is the dominant language that we see everywhere. Only by assimilating to the English-speaking culture of the United States can children be assured of success. As far as that goes, it sounds vaguely logical. It does, however, gloss over some fairly big points. First off, most of American people are not Native Americans, so to designate English as the native language of English is a logical fallacy. That said, it is the dominant language...but it's not so dominant that other language groups don't make up a seriously substantial part of the population...and they vote. Next, the idea that these alternate language groups don't have anything to offer the English-speaking culture is also something along the lines of patently ridiculous. The fact that we have a whole major related to bilingual business practices tells me that bilingual education is something even stereotypical conservatives should be able to relate to. And if that's not enough, I'll end this little rant with the most powerful three-word argument of all time: Come on, seriously?
In the interest of fairness (and because I'm pretty sure the pro-bilingual crowd might be taking a bit too narrow a focus too), I'll take a look at the other side. The bilingual education crowd has this nice idea that non-native speakers of English should be taught English alongside their own native tongue, thereby empowering them to use their unique cultural perspective in an English-speaking setting to effect social change (count the buzzwords people, I just said something important). While this is well and good (great, actually), I notice that the article doesn't mention anything about native speakers of English using bilingual education to socially empower them. I mean...if the interest is social justice, then everyone should be equal, right? So...bilingual education should include, for example, non-native English speakers from Mexico learning English alongside Spanish in...say, L.A. These same schools hopefully (and probably do) involve native English speakers learning Spanish alongside English. If it helps minorities to be socially empowered by knowing two languages, I imagine it'd help them even more if the majority could speak several of those languages as well. That way, instead of this article sounding like it wants to use bilingualism as a weapon against the cultural elite, we'd have an education system that sounds more like a community of equal people getting along...which just sounds nicer, you know?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
