Social and Cultural Contexts of Assessments

“When test scores go up, we should worry, because of how poor a measure they are of what matters, and what you typically sacrifice in a desperate effort to raise scores.”

Alfie Kohn

Alfie Kohn- "The Case Against Tougher Standards"


Although this was a short reading, I had to read it a few times to retain Kohn's points and arguments because he had many.  I appreciate how Kohn, like Kliewer, called out so-called professionals at the beginning of the reading in relation to just who are the experts in education.  It seems like these "experts" use terms and catch phrases to vocalize what school reform should be such as "accountability" and do whatever is in their power to further change policies to ensure their vision be implemented in the classroom.  If most educators are reluctant and unhappy in teaching this way, it provides such a negative climate in schools.  I have witnessed seasoned teachers become very frustrated with having to "teach to the test".  I have heard a few say out loud that these tests have taken the imagination and creativity out of teaching.

 It is difficult to tell Democrats and Republicans apart because, professionally speaking, they fall into a role of politician above anything.  Unless this Democrat or Republican taught,  he/she does not have the proper, first-hand  knowledge to say what works for students and what doesn't.  Even I as a teacher often struggles with what works in the classroom and what doesn't.  There is constant reflection happening as to what changes can be made to help students learn. These tests insinuate a one-size fits all approach to teaching and learning.  It just isn't realistic. Clearly some students will have an advantage in these standardized tests while others are disadvantaged but as a whole, these tests are ineffective in assessing student knowledge that is meaningful and useful for the students.  

The Five Fatal Flaws piece was useful because it put the arguments of why standardized testing doesn't work into organized sections.  As I was reading them, I thought that they were all equally valid and individual pieces to the larger puzzle of what makes these tests such a bad idea.  I think most educators realize it gets motivation wrong and that the pedagogy consists of certain skills and as a result is often very dull and non-creative.  It was refreshing to see the words in print.  Even though I was at private schools for five years we still had standardized testing.  It didn't seem to be as important to a student's educational snap shot but nonetheless was still present.  The people at the top of the pyramid want high scores from tests that reflect a lot of meaningless information but fail to see how limited these tests truly are.


Below is a link to a very interesting video by Kohn in relation to rigorous, test oriented schooling:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aviOJ9DVcyo&feature=watch-vrec

Politics of Inclusion- Facilitation

Facilitation based on Christopher Kliewer's Citizenship in School: Reconceptualizing Down Syndrome 



Agenda:

4:15-4:30: Check-In

4:30-4:45: Final Project Discussion

4:45-5:15: PowerPoint (terms, cases, groups, and suggestions from resources)

5:15-6:15: Discussion on Reading

6:15-6:30: Break

6:30-7:15:Beyond F.A.T. City (Parts 1 & 2)

*These times changed within actual facilitation- Thank you all for being flexible and for the wonderful conversations


Websites used to prepare for facilitation:

http://techinclusion.tripod.com/page3.html

http://www.specialednews.com/educating-children-with-special-needs.htm

"Language and Power"

Richard Rodriguez- "Aria"
Virginia Collier- "Teaching Multilingual Children"

I really don't like stating the obvious but today I will and say that these two readings were very different.  I felt frustrated for Rodriguez after reading this portion of "Aria" because one of the most important aspects to his life, his family, changed over the power struggle of language.  There are solutions for the issues Rodriguez dealt with in Collier's "Teaching  Multilingual Children".  Rodriguez had a way of bringing me into the reading with his vivid descriptions.  I felt as if I was in his family home watching first hand as the dynamics of his family changed.  I can only describe it as a once lively, fun family atmosphere changed to a much more quiet dwelling.  There was this imaginary scale and as his family experiences were dwindling, it was gained on the school side.  It is frustrating that there had to be a loss/gain scenario.  It only seems right that the two institutions would better the other and work together as opposed to against each other.  If only the teachers and administrators in Rodriguez's school had some of the knowledge found in Collier's article.  I love when Collier writes, "One must teach in two languages, affirm the cultural values of both home and school, teach standardized forms of the two languages but respect and affirm the multiple varieties and dialects represented among students in class, be a creative and flexible teacher, serve as a catalyst for discovery as students learn to operate effectively in their multiple worlds, be able to mediate and resolve intercultural conflicts, keep students on task."  This sounds like a teaching setting rich in respect, understanding, and learning.  The teachers in Rodriguez's environment were focused too much on the teacher's needs.  Collier's quote echoes with an environment focused on the learners.


Quote: By Richard Rodriguez discussing the transition to speaking English
"No longer so close; no longer bound tight by the pleasing and troubling knowledge of Our public separateness. Neither my older brother nor sister rushed home after school anymore."

I believe Rodriguez is going along with his belief that for him English is a public language and Spanish is a private language.  I think he means private in the sense that it was something that kept his family unique to others that do not speak Spanish.  They were able to tell inside jokes in the language they knew so well that much of the population would not be in on.  It is a shame that so much was lost.  The last line claiming his brother and sister did not rush home anymore is powerful because it shows how some transitions can have very negative and real effects.

Where Rodriguez's teachers lacked an ability to appreciate the value of his culture and language, Collier's article shows just the opposite.  She writes, "the key is the true appreciation of the different linguistic and cultural values that students bring to the classroom".  I don't know why a teacher would go into this profession with any other view.  If we as educators truly care about the best interests of our students then we must include their opinions, cultural values, ideas, and individual experiences into their learning environments. There has to be a shift as to what we value in education.  It is like saying the only point of education is to gain skills that may or may not be used in the real world.  If we are to have a true Democratic classroom, changes must be made.  It reminds me of Shapiro in the sense that those in power of curriculum, resources, and agendas have the power to "widen the focus of the educations lens" for these students but instead, they do not.

I was surprised how little I could find on the web about multilingual classrooms that had any real value.  All the other topics we have discussed had thousands of web pages dedicated to them.  The best site I could find is below:

http://www.pippinpub.com/s0887510957_Sampler.pdf

EdCamp 2012

My experience at EdCamp 2012 was a very good one.  I was greeted by a friendly team of coordinators who I later found out were principals and teachers.  They told me to go get a coffee and bagel after handing me a bag of free swag that included a t-shirt and water bottle.  I love free stuff! I sat down and within a few minutes a teacher from the Lincoln School sat with me and we chatted for a while on our own experiences.  It was great hearing her experiences and relating them to my own.  It was then time for the day to begin.  The speaker was fairly brief and explained that we get to choose which workshops we would like to attend.  I chose Tools for a Flipped Classroom and Preparing Students for a Global World.  

Tools for a Flipped Classroom was an informative workshop that provided many resources for teachers that are interested in flipping their classrooms.  The resources discussed are websites with technology that teachers can access to "flip their classrooms".  During the workshop, it also became apparent that these resources can not only be used on a teacher to student model but also an administration to teacher model.  One principal said he uses some of these websites for professional development.  This workshop didn't focus much on specific content/ lessons that can be used with the technology but did give a few websites that offer lessons.  The list below includes websites discussed:

www.camtasia.com

www.screencastomatic.com

www.screenr.com

www.mathtrain.tv

www.tuxpaint.org

www.learnzillion.com

The second workshop, Preparing Students for a Global World, was very interesting.  The leader of the workshop, Sara,  is a Fifth Grade Social  Studies Teacher who has such a passion for teaching.  She travels the world and has created the very impressive website http://innovationonearth.com/    She claims that teachers can teach globally in four steps which are explained in detail on her website.  She has blogs set up on her website that detail her many fellowships in the Ukraine, Turkey and China.  Sara also has iMovies that her students have created based on concepts taught in the classroom.  She taught the workshop how to make an iMovie.  Sara also explained other resources including E-Pal's, Geo, Ed Modo and Quad Blogging.  While I don't think I will use all of these, Quad Blogging and iMovies are ones that I plan to.  I had the pleasure of sitting with her at lunch and plan on future communication with her.  

All in all, this was a great day and I can't wait to go next year!

  

Check-In

Hi All-

I hope all of you made it through Hurricane Sandy with no damage.  Since I am a devout lover of food I was disappointed I couldn't bring the tacos in but will make it up to all of you.  Other than that it has been a relatively calm week.  I have just been cleaning and starting to pack for my move.  Hope you are all doing well.  :)  

Rachel

Elizabeth Meyer-Gendered harassment in secondary schools: Understanding teachers’ (non) interventions

Meyer writes that gendered harassment "includes any behavior that polices and reinforces traditional heterosexual gender norms such as (hetero) sexual harassment, homophobic harassment, and harassment for gender non-conformity." (pg.1)  I noticed the words: polices, traditional, and non-conformity within this quote and knew that these were intentionally placed into the quote.  I have realized from many of these readings that the language in which an idea is stated has a lot of worth.  The reality of this quote is that this is done all the time and from my experiences many people look the other way.  I remember reprimanding a couple boys last year at lunchtime for using a very derogatory term towards another boy.  After telling them that their words were cruel, I immediately walked them down to the principal.  In my thoughts, I believed these students would be in a lot of trouble and lose a privilege.  I was surprised to see them ten minutes later at recess throwing the football around.  To this day, I am not sure what was said in the office to those young boys.  If it were my classroom, I would have taken a privilege away as stated in the class rules.  I realize that the loss of a privilege is nothing compared to the hurt caused by some students but I don't think administration would let me take it any further for fear of parental involvement.  I think that if one of the students hit another student there would have at the least been a one day suspension.  Why does physical bullying override any kind of mental or emotional bullying? I know that all kinds of bullying are damaging but in my opinion, emotional bullying can be worse.  No student, teacher or principal should encourage an environment where students are allowed to judge, discriminate, and act cruelly towards anyone.  

If teachers and principals want the students to act with compassion, understanding, and kindness, they can't allow this to be the elephant in the room that no one wants to address.  I read in Meyer's article that some of the teachers felt they had to hurry up and cover the material.  These teachers felt very pressed for time and clearly stated that they don't address this close-minded behavior from some students towards other students.   One teacher claims, "I don’t stop name-calling if I’m too tired, if there are set things I need to get through in a lesson. I know my lesson is going to take 60 minutes, I’ve only got 70 minutes to deliver it, I’ve got 10 minutes to waste. Right now my job is being a teacher and I have to get through the math before the end of the year. It’s not on my priority list."(pg.9)  I don't know why these people choose teaching as a profession if they don't want to address what some of their students have to face from their peers.  How can a student retain knowledge and concepts in the classroom when their heads are filled with the fear and anticipation that someone will bully them for being who they are? Meyer raises the idea that perhaps some teachers and administration allow and dismiss certain things in the classroom based on their own beliefs.  I believe that this does occur and it is disturbing.  This relates to the barriers that Meyer describes in the article.  These barriers can be a lack of support from principals, lack of formal education, inconsistent response from colleagues, fear of backlash from parents and a negative community response.  If the community has an issue with teachers addressing bullying in the classroom, then perhaps what is valued in the community needs to change.  We can not sacrifice the younger generations for fear of what narrow-minded individuals will think.  As teachers, we must be advocates for all students.  These barriers reminded me of the quote by Jasmine Guy.  She said, "I don't much care who is gay or straight or married or not. I mostly notice if they are brave enough to confront bigotry."  From this article, I have the opinion that there are many teachers and administrators that are not brave enough to confront this.

The general question for Meyer's research was why don't teachers intervene consistently when students report biases and/or bullying.  I think the articles does a good job answering this question through the teacher's responses and experiences but there was one thought nagging me throughout the article.  Isn't it our job, duty, and responsibility to automatically do this? If we as teachers place a value on a student's physical well-being, why isn't there an equal value on emotional or mental well-being?  It seems like common sense to me.  While I agree from the reading that teachers that have had proper training are able to address these issues in the classroom, I don't think that is the only criteria in stopping this.  I have always felt that certain people should teach.  I strongly feel that if someone has their own biases towards members of society, they should not be in a classroom.  I am not sure if we need new policies on bullying but I do know that actually enforcing the ones we have would make positive changes.



Here is the link for the Anti-Bullying Resources page on GLSEN.org

http://www.glsen.org/cgi-bin/iowa/all/antibullying/index.html



Here is a link from a video I found very interesting.  This man's testimonial is very eye opening and thought provoking:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f91_zIaP0Hs

GLSEN Reflection

I found many useful resources on www.GLSEN.org.  GLSEN ,or, Gay, Lesbian, & Straight Education Network  empowers people and provides a community.  It is very positive and the members empower students and teachers to bring about a safe and secure environment for everyone.  The "Unheard Voices" page was very powerful.  These testimonials were very personal and I think the participants are brave to share their stories so that it may change the discrimination that so many have to deal with.  Some of the stories made me sad while other made me angry.  I couldn't believe a Marine that is brave enough to die for his country couldn't serve because he is attracted to and in love with a man. The other story that I believed to be meaningful was the "LGBT Family Rights" by Terry Boggins.  He brought up so many valid points in the two minute clip and it reminded me of  Dr. August's article.   I was curious to see who was on the GLSEN Board of Directors and noticed that the occupations of the members are varied and many members are employees of powerful companies such as Wells Fargo, HBO, and Cisco.  I noticed that there are no chapters of GLSEN in RI, hopefully that will change one day.  The statistics were disturbing especially the fact that 8 out of 10 LGBT students faced harassment at school.

“Anti-Teaching: Confronting the Crisis of  Significance” by Michael Wesch


I enjoyed this reading for its many positive points on education.  I also felt insightful after reading it because there were many useful ideas presented that we as educators can implement in the classroom.  Wesch's overall argument is a good one.  He writes, "The problem with education today is the problem of significance itself.  Students-our most important critics- are struggling to find meaning and significance in the education." (pg.5)  This quote gave me an a-ha moment because it tied everything together for me.  The institution of education that we have at the moment clearly needs reform.  While I realize standardized testing is here to stay for the moment, there are other things that educators can do in the classroom to give students experiences that offer personal meaning.  It reminded me of Johnson by the way he practices what he preaches in the classroom.  Both of these writers provide a classroom that is "democratic" and reflects on their students' needs.  Wesch wants his students to ask meaningful questions and strives to provide an environment that allows them to think outside the box.  This is important for students to make connections to the world around them in their own terms.  I believe that is when a student is truly interested and "gets it". 

I immediately watched "A Vision of Students Today".  It started off eerie with the song playing and empty classroom.  It then became jaw dropping as students were shown and started raising their notebooks with the alarming facts on the realities of being at this state college.  I felt very fortunate because this was not my experience as an undergraduate at RIC.  The most I had in a classroom was 30 and all my professors knew my name after two weeks.  It was sad to read the information the students surveyed on themselves such as the debt they will be in, money spent on text books not read, and the lack of sleep they get.  It was clear that the students related more to the technological world than the reality right in front them. It is scary that these students were getting very little out of some of the classes they were in. Some of these students will be in debt from taking some classes they get very little out of.  That in itself is alarming.  The link for "A Vision of Students Today" is below. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGCJ46vyR9o 


Another quote from the article that I found interesting was as follows: "As for myself, I have increasingly focused less on simply trying to convey good information and more on inspiring good questions. It struck me that all learning begins with a good question, and if we are ultimately trying to create “active lifelong learners” with“critical thinking skills” and an ability to “think outside the box” it might be best to start by getting students to ask better questions."(pg.6)  This quote stuck out to me because I have been reflecting lately on all the key terms and teacher jargon that go around as best practices but which ones are truly implemented to help all learners.  If we as teachers want our students to think critically it will have to be on the students terms and experiences, not what some "experts" think.  It had me thinking about how teachers can become more involved with curriculum writing and how what is important for our students should be brought to the table when considering curriculum reform.  I don't know if curriculum reform will happen anytime soon but we can start in our own classrooms.  I believe it is important for educators to realize it is a changing world and to find ways to connect with their students if the curriculum doesn't reflect what is important. 

It is important for students to have a purpose for their own education and to take ownership of it.  Wesch writes, "when students recognize their own importance in helping to shape the future of this increasingly global, interconnected society, the significance problem fades away."(pg.7)  I think that human beings like to have a mission so to speak and a reason for doing something.  I think Wesch is claiming that when students are given a mission or personal reason for doing something, they will take the challenge.  One aspect to a global, interconnected world is the use of technology in the classroom.  I think any teaching tool is good when used in a way that the students will find meaning and truly learn.  I am still not clear on Wesch's standpoint on using technology but based on his article and video, I think that he would be for it if students found meaning in it.  I added a link for a very well-written article on technology in the classroom. 

Calling All Dream Keepers

Prudence Carter- Keepin' it Real: School Success Beyond Black and White

This was an interesting read by Carter which summarizes her experiences and qualitative data found in a study conducted in Yonkers over a 10 month period.  The article was opened with a quote by Mark Gould which I found to go along with much of what Delpit writes.  Interestingly enough, she instantly describes the "culture of power" phrased by Delpit herself.  I believe Carter's overall stance on the culture of power is that "they" control curriculum, how a person should present self and how the overall society is presented.  She also described practices represented in different cultures.   One area of study that has always been interesting to me is how certain cultures regard one gesture as respectful while another culture may regard something as disrespectful.    The following quote discusses a trip to South Africa and the result of a lack of cultural awareness:

 Quote#1:
 "Several White teachers of Anglo and Afrikaans backgrounds described their initial displeasure with many of their Black students of Xhosa, Zulu, and other ethnic backgrounds who refused to look at them while being disciplined.  Unbeknown to the teachers, the students' cultures taught them that no eye contact was a sign of deference to elders ."(pg.48)

This made me mad because while the students were acting in a way they were use to and what they considered submissive, they were getting in deeper trouble by the teachers.   It was odd to me that these teachers didn't do more research or inquiry as to the practices implemented with the meaning of them and the forms of reprimand the students are use to.  The fact that the South African teacher knew eye contact was a symbol in the culture of power and often stood for confidence was meaningful because it spoke for her own understanding of different cultures .  I think the notion that these students did not make eye contact speaks volumes about what is within a culture and why. I think this is an example of a conflict that was avoidable.   

The in depth look at cultural capital in different forms was meaningful to me as I start to put these different pieces of the puzzle together.  Embodied capital are the "schemes of appreciation for music, art or an elite sport. "  Objectified capital are "inhered in things such as books, artwork, and music collections."  Lastly, institutionalized capital "helps one attain professional success by attaining credentials and higher degrees." With Bourdieu in mind, it is with these capitals that will bring a student to a higher success in the world.  There will be some kind of social and economic kick back.  My question as a teacher is how can students from a Black or Latino background or low socio-economic status  gain access to these in a meaningful way that will add to the experiences in the classroom? I know the answer starts with the teacher and student collaboration in the classroom but how can we implement these things so that all students will have a chance to access these capitals.  There must first be consistency of what is being taught from district to district.  The curriculum will have to mirror all students and not just those that fall into the culture of power. 

One of the students in the study said something very interesting.  Moesha challenged the notion of language.   I think she is trying to say that language differentiates people.  She considers "Black English"useful at certain times but claims that Standard English shows intelligence.  I think she, at a young age, know that it symbolizes what she needs to succeed.  She is considered a cultural straddler because she acts one way with her friends but then acts differently at school and work.  She has gained a cultural capital of knowing how to act in certain situations.  She has adopted this dual linguistic capital that will help her in both social and professional situations.  She knows when to "code switch" and does successfully.  Below is a quote from Moesha discussing this:

Quote#2:
"See I know people who can act ignorant as anything, but they are also smart, and can also talk in an intelligent way. It's just that when you talk with your friends, you talk in a certain way, or when you're at work or wherever at, you have to act intelligent". (pg.61)

The above quote goes against what Adrienne, another student, claims.  Adrienne believes that Black English is silly and not useful.  She is often called "white girl" from her black peers and feels isolated from them.  I felt bad reading how her peers make fun of her but am not naive to think it wouldn't happen.  I know that if she took part in  Black English and other things valued by these Black peers this would not happen.  I think she is taking a risk but is doing so in order to gain access to cultural capital represented in the culture of power. 

Quote #3:
"Not only are these underpaid civil servants expected to produce literate populations but they are also asked to serve as entertainers, psychologists, surrogate parents, and confidants..." (pg.  73)

I am going to put myself out there and say that entertaining my students is a fun aspect to teaching.  I think it depends on the individual teacher and what their philosophy of teaching is.  The students get enjoyment out of seeing their teacher in this light and often consider them "real".  The word entertain can mean so many things but that is how I view it.  There is also the idea that many teachers don't mind at all listening to their students "growing pains".  I had an open door policy for all my students and if something was bothering them they could always come see me.  I felt honored that they would trust me in such a way.  But like I wrote earlier in the paragraph, all teachers may not like doing such a thing depending on their own teaching
philosophy.  While I don't think it is my place to "parent" a child, it sure is my place to tell a child when they are acting disrespectful and like a parent try to help that child with his or her actions and find out the underlying meaning or reasons for such actions.  I think it is the parent's responsibility to care for the child in the home but the teacher can play a role in that.  The same goes for a parent involvement in the classroom.  I feel like many of the strategies for parent involvement in the classroom are superficial.  This is a concept I have been interested in since I started teaching five years ago.  Below is a useful article discussing  parent/teacher collaborations. 

http://www.educationoasis.com/resources/Articles/working_with_parents.htm

Gerri August, Making Room for One Another

This reading was interesting to me because it was so real.  The overall question was, what is the result when a child is raised by lesbian parents?  The answer was revealed through a description of various dialogues and interactions that took place in Zeke's Kindergarten class focused on a boy named Cody with assistance from his classmates and family.  I believe Dr. August claims that students from a nuclear family will not have to walk on egg shells when referring to their own families because this has been the preconceived idea of what a family is. This would take the pressure off a student when creating a family portrait or sharing experiences about his/her family.  A student from a nuclear family with a mom and a dad would not have to be consciously aware of how to word something ahead of time.  This,seems to me, like a very stressful situation for a youngster.  The idea that a family can only be a mom and a dad was argued in the reading with evidence to back up the reality that a family is not a cookie cutter, uniformed institution.  If the child sees in textbooks or other resources in the classroom that a family is a mom or dad, he/she will surely question his/her own family structure.  A teacher's own biases towards one family structure versus another will directly affect a child's experience.  If the teacher does not view or accept a non-dominant family structure, the child will feel left out and cast aside.  The classroom discourse will have to match the reality that a family can be many things.  If a child from a non-dominant family has to keep up with the classroom discourse as it is, he or she will ultimately have a very negative experience in school and may have a negative view on society at such a young age. 
In a way, I can relate this to Finn when he says "the status quo is the status quo because people who have the power to make changes are comfortable with the way things are".  If we as teachers have the vital task of creating a democratic classroom, we will have to challenge the status quo and micro manage our classrooms in a way that will benefit children from dominant and non-dominant family structures.  If we as teachers are political as many people suggest, we will somehow have to change the language of these politics. 

Quote#1:
Dr. August is discussing Cody, a student in the ZK, in which most of the qualitative data is based on:

"Cody came into the ZK with keen perceptions of personal social risk.  Although he readily, even eagerly identified with his Cambodian heritage, Cody worried about his color, his adoption, and his family structure". 

The first thing I thought when I read this was it seemed to be a lot of pressure put on a little boy.  He came in knowing that the things he said and the way he acted could be used against him in a social setting by his peers.  The advantage this boy had was being placed into a classroom with a teacher that had a wonderful approach to dealing with the diversity in which he received in these youngsters.  I don't believe Cody's worrying was an innate response.  I believe that somehow he perceived himself as different.  This may have happened by hearing other students' responses in the classroom.  By hearing other students say mom and dad, he may have thought "that is different from me".  By realizing he is different in some ways from the other students, he may not have wanted to take the risk and offer information that the children may criticize. 

Quote#2:
Zeke is talking to Cody in the classroom after Cody becomes offended by what a classmate says to him:

"But Cody you do have to know that sometimes you're going to be on the side that has less, right? Because it's your own brain and that's what you were thinking, right?

I know that Zeke used this statement as a response to a situation in class but based on the other things Zeke said I believe he meant much more.  I think he was doing what some of the readings we've done in class urge teachers to do.  That is to give the students "weapons" that they can use in life to get what the culture of power keeps from them.  He tells the child that he may in fact be in a situation where he will have "less", but to carry on with what he truly believes is right.  I think this was a wonderful response to this situation.

Quote#3:
Zeke was asking the students for information on who Martin Luther King Jr. was.  Many of the children made things up. 

"Still, Zeke persisted in enlisting the students' participation."

I have read many times in these course readings that the gap is widened by the lack of participation and experiences that come from each individual student.  Zeke challenges this by constantly seeking out the thoughts, opinions, and ideas from his students.  Even with the young age of these children, he provides them with an environment in which they can have a voice and it directly helps this positive teaching environment. The language in which he teachers is much different than many other classrooms because he challenges the beliefs of the culture of power.  



The following article was interesting to me.  It asks the question, "what happens to children raised by gay parents?"

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/sectionfront/life/what-happens-to-kids-raised-by-gay-parents-488758/

Cultural Contexts in an Election Year
Shapiro, "Policies Without Meaning"


This was an interesting read and brought up many issues from an administration that I knew little about.  Overall I found that while the Clinton administration brought a few new, positive changes, it was more or less a continuation of negative policies towards teaching and learning.  One of the positive changes that was made was a shift in resources for Early Childhood and various Head Start Programs.  This was great to read since it has been lacking across the board for some time.  There was also a recognition of the inequalities that take place in the public schools for programs and resources.  While it is nice for there to be recognition, the larger question is what will be done about it?   There was also a claim that encouragement was placed on the local level to be  more flexible.  I found this interesting that the people with the power expected those with little power to be flexible when they aren't able to call any of the shots.  There were also new college loan initiatives.  At first I thought this was a good thing, but as I continued reading I realized that these students would be trained for their roles in society outside of what their true talents and calling may be. 

Shapiro has many key arguments in this article that generally relate to one another.  One is that the "attempt to redefine the value of education primarily in vocationally related terms is misguided".  I believe that he is claiming redefining education for students to go out into the work force is another way of further corrupting the educational system.  There was a focus, during this administration, to prepare future generations to be globally competitive.  This, in my opinion, will set Americans further and further apart away from a common goal.  The whole idea of training students to go out and become part of a Corporate system just seems wrong.  As educators, the goal has always been to train students for the greater good of society, for citizens that can co-exist in a Democratic way.  Making education "global" and competitive goes against the original values of education.  Another argument is in relation to performance standards.  The article that I chose to compare/contrast to Shapiro goes into detail of Mitt Romney's opinion on performance standards.  Romney is a big supporter of performance standards and standardized testing in schools and claims they make education better.  I believe Shapiro would enthusiastically disagree with Romney.   Shapiro claims that performance standards emphasize the "uncritical, uncreative character of public education".  In my opinion, these performance standards and the NCLB act have done precisely what they claim to protect students from.  Children are being left behind and have been for some time now. 

After I read Matthew Tabor's article titled "Mitt Romney's Views on Education" I felt agitated.  I couldn't believe that a man that is suppose to be educated so well can be so narrow- minded when it comes to the core values of our country.  Romney promises, that if elected, he will catalog all the schools to see which students and teachers are working and which are not.  The insinuation that education is in such a poor state due to students and teachers not working seems ludicrous.  Clearly, this gentleman would benefit from seeing the whole puzzle and not isolated pieces of it.  It is like Shapiro addressed the Clinton administration, "This is time for you and those in your administration to widen the focus of your educational lenses." I believe Shapiro would claim the lack of creativity and student experiences in the classroom mixed with performance standards are some of the main underlying issues in our schools.  Romney also points out that he helped start a program where parents must go to parental education classes in poor performing schools.  While I think parental involvement is a wonderful thing, he went about it the wrong way.  It seems to be an in your face approach putting the bulk of the blame on the parents. 

It is now clear to me that education is political.  It is sad that those that have the power misuse it.  I wish that somehow as a society we could rise above all of it and make positive changes for future generations.  The correlation between depressed students and uncreative schooling is shocking but after reading these articles makes more sense as to how it has become such a sad situation for our youngsters.  The link below is a video of Mitt Romney.  It echoes some of what I discussed in my blog as well as other topics.

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8gNLgQrwy0

Empowering vs. Domesticating

Uncovering the Hidden Curriculum
Patrick J. Finn - Literacy with an Attitude: Educating Working- Class Children in Their Own Self- Interest   

Argument:
Finn claims society offers, in their own belief, an equal literacy program throughout all public educational institutions.  Finn very much disagrees with this idea and counteracts with his opinion that in fact the different approaches to learning are split into two systems.  The first system is empowering education, which is directed to the upper-class.  This enables a student to be creative and a problem-solver.  The second system is domesticating education.  This sounded like something in the animal world to me and gave me a negative feeling just reading it.  As I went on, it was discovered domesticating is based on no creativity, fact-based learning.  I believe it was what Bartolome was referring to when she was discussing "dehumanization". My interpretation of these is that empowering education provides a student with knowledge on how to run a factory while domesticating education teaches a student how to work in a factory.  It just seems very unfair and judgemental.  I don't think Finn believes it is an evil conspiracy but rather something that has been adapted to over time.  People automatically take their place in the world.  It goes back to what we have discussed in class where the ones without power notice the inequality.  It is so easy for an upper-class student to yell about the all inequalities, but most of the time after, he/she just goes on with their lives again.  Finn claims that if a working-class student received empowering education it would be "literacy with an attitude".  The fear from those in power is that these students will realize the injustices that are taking place and will perhaps act on it.  This reminded me of the lack of literacy for slaves so that the slaves would not rebel against the "owners".  Finn believes there could be non-violent social change.  I agree with this completely.  Teachers will be the allies to these students during their fight for equality.  Educators will provide these students with potent weapons" in their struggle for a better deal.  I was reminded of Delpit while reading about these potent weapons.  I believe she also wants teachers to form an alliance with students.  As a teacher and Graduate student, it was powerful reading the perspectives of others "in my boat".  Often times we judge how well something works by how well it worked for us individually in the classroom. I know now that I have to break out of this cookie-cutter, one size fits all mentality. 


Quote#1:

"The status quo is the status quo because people who have the power to make changes are comfortable with the way things are"

Those in power have the capacity to change what they would like to change.  So that brings me to the conclusion that all that is happening now is for the self-preservation of the "elite".  It is scary and sad that there is this hierarchy presented in society that must somehow be broken  from the top down.  If we are such a "Democratic" nation, how has this been allowed to carry on?  What do we truly value as a society? I thought we valued equality but it is apparent those with the power to change take that ability away from those willing to do so. 

Quote #2:

"Creativity and personal development were important goals for the students at the affluent schools"

While I think this is a wonderful thing, it presents a problem when all students aren't given these opportunities.  It reminds me of a student I had four years back.  He was very bright and artisitic.  This young man was from a "lower- class", urban backgound.  His parents moved from the Dominican Republic when he was a toddler.  His test scores would have shown otherwise to his intelligence but as an eduactor I looked past that.  He had the smashing good looks all the girls adored.  He was quite charismatic for a young man.  The most interesting thing though was how he dealt with his problems.  Every morning I gave my students a journal prompt and they had the choice between the prompt or free write.  Atleast twice a week, he would draw a cartoon.  These cartoons were based on whatever he was dealing with in his private life and I felt blessed that he shared these with me.  Throughout the two years I taught him, I tried to modify the lessons so that his gift would be recognized.  Thinking back he didn't really do the assigment the way I asked.  I  have realized it doesn't matter that he didn't do what I asked.  He did the assigment better. 

 
Quote #3
"This would make literacy dangerous again."

The above quote is from Finn's perspective on what would happen if the lower to middle -class students had a political investment for learning literacy.  Finn discusses what would happen if the teachers really did form an alliance with these students for proper equality.  To the status quo, this would be very dangerous.  They may lose the power that they claim to be their own through innuendos and inequality throughout curriculum.  It would perhaps be a truly free nation.  Free from injustice and inequality. 


Hyperlink:
I found a review for Patrick Finn's "Literacy with an Attitude".  I agree with the reviewer that it is outstanding in the sense of its straightforwardness.  I plan on reading the full text this semester. 

http://wwu.academia.edu/RosalieRomano/Teaching/27429/Review_of_Patrick_Finns_Literacy_with_an_Attitude_2e

A Story I Always Liked and Wanted to Share

What do teachers make? 
"The dinner guests were sitting around a table discussing life. One man a CEO decided to explain what's wrong with education. His opinion was that how can a kid learn anything from someone that decided to be a teacher as a career. He said the following quote to his guests, "Those who can do, those who can't teach". He said to a guest, "Ned you're a teacher, what do you make?". Ned who had a reputation for honesty replied, "you want to know what I make? I make kids work harder than they thought they ever could. I make a c plus feel like a Congressional Medal of Honor. I make kids sit through a forty minute class when their parents can't make them sit for five without an Ipod. I make them question. I make them apologize and mean it. I make them have respect and take responsibility for their own actions. I teach them to write then I make them write. I make my classroom a place where all kids feel safe. I make my students stand and place a hand over their heart and say the Pledge of Allegiance. I make them understand that if they use the gifts they were given, work hard, and follow their hearts they can succeed in life. Then, when people try to judge me by what I make, I can hold my head up high and pay no attention. You want to know what I make? I make a difference.

One Step Closer- Blog Post #3

More Than Lesson Plans:  Bartolome, "Beyond the Methods Fetish"

Argument and Beyond: Bartolome argues that today's methods are not a realistic approach to teaching children from different cultural backgrounds.  She backs this argument up with a lot of evidence and alternative processes to teaching and learning.  This author also claims that much of our methods we use have a blanket effect as to whom is truly in power and the various tactics used to ensure this will remain as it always has been.  Bartolome urges teachers to fight the power quite literally and take control back of our classrooms and do what is right.  I think that as educators we all want to do what is right.  Delpit provides us with evidence from research that we can use for the "change" while Johnson made an attempt to do so.  For the first time during these readings, I started to read the "hows".  This author provided us concrete practices that can be implemented in the classroom that have been proven to work.  I find it both absurd and reassuring that these articles were written twenty years ago and are finally starting to be used in the classroom.  One of the methods they discuss is cooperative learning.  I used cooperative learning at least three times per week with a heterogeneous setting.  This truly seemed to work because I often saw my "underachieving" students take leadership roles and in essence teach the others in the group.  I wanted so badly to go over in front of the groups and give these students a high-five, but I waited until after class.  I learned as much from this as they did.  I don't know when we as teachers started to think our practices are automatically the best practices and I think Bartolome echoes throughout the article that we must continue our quest for learning as this directly correlates to our teaching.  It is like that saying goes, "learning is talking teaching is listening".  We need to listen to our students and listen to those that know how to reach these learners.  Perhaps we do have to fight the power after all. 

Quote #1:

"The usually assume that 1) they as teachers are fine and do not need to identify, interrogate, and change their biased beliefs and fragmented views about subordinated students. 2) Schools, as institutions, are basically fair and democratic sites where all students are provided with similar if not equal treatment and learning conditions 3) children who experience academic difficulties ( especially those from culturally and linguistically low-status groups) require some form of "special" instruction since they obviously have not been able to succeed under "regular" or "normal" instructional conditions."(pg. 174) 

I was one of these teachers my first few months of teaching.  This was until I had a 25% percent Latino demographic in my classroom.  I had to find a way to teach these learners.  Some of them were newly English speaking learners while others were bilingual their whole lives.  The responsibility would surely be on me as administration said to be myself and love the kids like I had been.  While it's important to care for and respect your students it isn't enough.  These children had the right to a safe and secure learning environment which would bring them to their greatest potential, but how? It was  a combination of cooperative learning, author chair ( they choose the format of writing based on a theme with the first drafts being graphic organizers and then get to "tell" their story the way they choose), and many other things that I tried.  Some strategies were very successful while others were not.  There was a lot of reflection happening and I had to admit to myself that I need to change the way I teach to meet these learners.  It is not an easy thing to do, but it is the right thing to do.  I can't stand the word normal so I have an issue with that.  It is all about perspective in my opinion.  Who are we to say what it regular or normal? 

Quote #2:

"Teachers working on improving their political clarity recognize that teaching is not a politically neutral undertaking." (pg. 178)

When I read Johnson, I started to pick up on these political foundations in the educational institutions.  Delpit certainly confirmed this for me with her "culture of power".  To be frank, it just isn't fair.  This goes against everything in our hearts as educators.  We are suppose to teach children, ALL children.  But how when the stakes are against them and the people in charge set up a system that will ensure that these students remain where they are.  As teachers we will have to take over our own classrooms for these students.  Is there any other way but to be a rebel?

Quote #3:

"More recent research offers alternative models that shift the source of school failure away from the characteristics of the individual child, their families, and their cultures, and toward the schooling process". (pg. 181)

There is much to be said about such a small quote.  First, I am glad that research has been done in this context although it was twenty years ago.  I can only hope there is research being conducted now by the people in power so that actual changes will occur.  It isn't fair to blame families for what has happened.  Every single one of us has heritage and culture and it is our right to maintain that.  This should be viewed as a positive thing, not a reason to blame.  So perhaps it is our views as a society that must change first.  The "culture of power" is what needs to change.  All of us should be given the same fighting chance.  It is so close-minded to think otherwise.  I know that all teachers including myself have much more learning to do in these matters. 



The link below was entertaining to me for the simple fact that I didn't know there was a male privilege feed on Twitter.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/14/white-male-privilege-twitter_n_1884502.html


I found the link below useful in regards to various lessons that have been implemented in the classroom.

http://www.tolerance.org/activities

 

 

I

 

 

 

 

I am consistently confronted at the

beginning of each semester by students who are anxious to learn the latest teaching

methods

— methods that they hope will somehow magically work on minority

students.3 Although my students are well-intentioned individuals who sincerely

wish to create positive learning environments for culturally and

linguistically subordinated students, they arrive with the expectation that I will

provide them with easy answers in the form of specific instructional methods.

Everything Isn't Always What it Seems- Week 2 - Delpit

Lisa Delpit "The Silenced Dialogue: Power and Pedagogy in Educating Other People's Children"

Argument:

Lisa Delpit's general argument is that White teachers educating Black children isn't quite working out for the Black students.  I think her argument is that White teachers often times don't want to listen to the idea that their methodologies are not benefiting the black learners.  They may "hear" it when someone proposes the idea but don't actually listen.  Therefore if they don't want to listen that their system is not beneficial to all they won't have to change their flawed system.  There are so many smaller ideas under her main argument but one I found interesting is the idea that we all want the same conclusion.  As educators of any race, the main goal is to make these students well-rounded citizens that can go out and maintain a profession geared to each unique individual.  If as educators we all have this goal then why can't these two sides come together?  I wish that Delpit's five rules for the culture of power was a mandatory read for all those involved in education from the curriculum writers to the faculty and staff of all schools.  Perhaps then this would shed some light as to what is really happening in our education system.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/11/black-teachers-may-not-be_n_1587896.html

I found the link above to be interesting because it contradicts what I have read so far in both Delpit's and Johnson's articles.  In essence, the article claims there is a larger gap in black and white students on campuses with more Black professors.  The articles claims that hiring Black and Hispanic teachers to relate better to their student counterparts goes against equality.  I am against this statement very passionately.  There are things that must happen before we can even approach that statement.  Now this isn't to say I think all Whites belong in a "White" group and all Hispanics belong in the "Hispanic" group.  I think there has to be a place in the middle.

Quote #1:
This is from a Black woman principal in a Doctoral program that resides on the West Coast:
"If you try to suggest that that's not the way it is, they get defensive, then you get defensive, then they''ll start reciting research."

Even in this short quote there is a lot to be said.  First, there is the idea that there are two groups in this quote.  The two "they's".  It goes back to Johnson when he quotes the very famous King saying "can't we all just get along".  She divides White educators into one group and Black educators into another group.  Now while I may have had an issue with this ten years ago, I am not so naive to think this is wrong now.  These two groups that are trying to work towards the same goals are getting defensive.  It is not possible for these two groups to come together for the benefit of Black students when there is a contest going on.  It should be a meeting of the minds not a war for whom is correct.  Secondly, there is this idea that research is one size fits all.  It just doesn't make sense! Perhaps instead of all this research we should be focusing on actual experiences of what goes on in the classroom.  Lastly, there is this idea that we are getting defensive and it is causing a wider gap.  I think this goes back to Johnson when he claims we don't have to love or even like each other.  We simply must value each other's experiences and views so that we may work with one another.

Quote #2:
"The rules for the culture of power are a reflection of the rules of the culture of those that have the power"

This is a valuable quote because it's saying those that have the power get to make the rules that we all must live by.  If someone has the power they can say what they want and don't necessarily have to value anyone else.  If the same people stay in power we will never have the ability to change.  Delpit claims we must start from the top and this is directly linked to just whom is at the top.  We must somehow get diversity and those that value all cultures in this culture of power.  But how?  If the rules of the culture of power are made to keep those that they benefit in power how will things ever be different?  For the first time in my life I am giving some serious thought to these issues and getting mad in the process.

Quote#3:
This was a quote a Native Alaskan teacher discussed in her English class.  The class was discussing how come people judge others based on the kind of "English" they use.

"We listen to the way people talk, not to judge them, but to tell what part of the river they come from.  These other people are not like that.  They think everybody needs to talk like them.  Unlike us, they have a hard time hearing what people say if they don't talk exactly like them.  Their way of talking is called Formal English.  We have to feel a little sorry for them because they only have one way to talk".

This quote is very meaningful when discussing appreciating other's differences.  In our country, there are many ways to speak English.  I don't know why some would view this as a negative thing.  Is one way to speak more "American" than another?  Is this why there are negative connotations with the dialects and accents from different regions of our country?  The person that said this simply listens to accents/dialects to know where someone is from with no judgement.  I think that is commendable in a world with so much bias and discrimination.  This is where we should all be in a "civilized" society.  So then that question comes up.  Are we as civilized as we think we are? And by we I mean White, middle-classed people.

In response to the article by Allan G. Johnson "Privilege, Power and Difference"

     The first thing I noticed when reading this article were how many a-ha moments there were.  I knew about most of these issues going in but didn't realize everything that goes along with them.  There are so many things happening in our society currently pertaining to who has the upper hand and why.  This article enlightened me as to the "why's".
     I enjoyed reading how the author practices what he preaches, as he is a sociologist who designs and teaches courses based on  issues in privilege and differences within our society.  From his tone in writing, I gather he has spent much time in his life thinking about these issues although he claims to be from a privileged background being a heterosexual male.  This was something he managed to write a few times within the article.  Each time he stated why he is privileged I thought how ludicrous it sounded that people would be judged on what ethnicity, gender,  or sexual orientation they are and not for who they are as a unique individual.  
      The beginning of  Chapter one was very engaging and brought me into the article as a reader ready to be enlightened.  He describes the Rodney King incident and quotes the often times parodied phrase "can't we all  just get along".  It seems like a reasonable quote in which many people could get behind.  I respect Johnson for blatantly writing that at this point in society the answer to that question is no.  There is too much that has to be changed in our way of thinking for such a thing to take place.  I think I enjoyed this article so much because that is the underlying tone of this article, that much has to change.
      Another area of this article I found to be useful in thinking about privileges and differences is how the author is against sugar coating that the media and other institutions finds acceptable.  It seems so simple to most of us if we can't talk about what is really going on how will we ever move forward and change things.  If people think things, shouldn't they be able to say them, this is a free country right? We have to acknowledge the pink elephant in the room in order to do anything about it.  Johnson says it well when he claims, "if we can't talk about it we can't do anything about it".
      Johnson brings up an interesting point when he claims we don't have to love or even like each other.  I think that as humans we should tolerate each other but it has to go beyond that, we must respect and learn from each other's "differences".  If Johnson is right and we are innately social beings, then with all this hostility and hatred of things that are different from ourselves are we working against a basic principle that is biological.  I have never seen a young child at a playground shun another child for looking different.  So it must be learned right? I have heard some people say children are not prejudice because their brains aren't fully developed and these traits develop later in life.  As there is no set scientific proof for that statement, I am not buying it.
     There is quite a bit of text dedicated to gender inequality.  There is quite a double standard in our society that has become the rule book for common practices in the home, workplace, and how society views things in general.  Johnson referred to this as "conferred dominance".  Calling someone a mama's boy is an insult while calling another daddy's princess has no negative undertone in meaning.  There should be equal meaning in both statements, not a negative for one and a neutral meaning for the other.
      The bullet list at the bottom of the article summarizes many things he discusses in the main article while adding new ones.  The author describes privilege, power and difference within the realm of gender, ethnicity, social class and sexual orientation.  It's as if he states the issues we have as a way to say this is what is wrong and this is what we need to change.  All of us.  Whether you are the one in privilege or the one being denied it, this affects all of us.  Perhaps instead of the focus being what we have in differences, maybe we as humans should find all we have in common.
   
   

   

Introduction

I know the first post should be an introduction to who I am so here goes:

Who are you? Rachel Smith (formerly Packer- still kind of a newlywed :) )\
Where do you teach? I was currently laid off in a mass layoff with about 8 teachers at St. Rocco School.  I worked as the Middle School Math Teacher for two tears.  Before St Rocco School, I worked at St. Matthew School for three years as their Literature/ Math Middle School Teacher.
Why you decided to do a  masters in ASTL? Professional Development/ Certification
What do you do in your spare time? I love spending time with my family! I have a wonderful daughter and husband and we stay busy! We go on short trips often and love to visit the local festivals, museums and fairs.  I also love live music and various concert venues.  My family and I also love playing sports together and staying active. I also like trying new restaurants.