Carlene's Blog
Wednesday, April 20, 2016
Thursday, April 14, 2016
Shor
Empowering Education
By: Ira Shor
Quotes
This piece was definitely a
good last reading for the semester. It touched upon almost everything that we
have talked about or read about from the other authors. It was also a good
piece to gain some insight from for being a teacher. The word pedagogy was used
a billion times, and I was really confused until I looked it up.
1. “A curriculum that does
not challenge the standard syllabus and conditions in society informs students
that knowledge and the world are fixed and are fine the way they are, with no
role for students to play in transforming them, and no need for change” (page
12).
In this quote Shor is
expressing how schools need to challenge students because when they are not
challenged, they are not growing in any way. Students need to be shown that
their education, and their life, can mean something. If the curriculum
presented to them doesn’t allow for any creativity or thought, then they are
most likely not going to develop their own thoughts and opinions. This quote
reminded me of Johnson’s reading. Johnson argued that in order for there to be
any change in the world, people had to first acknowledge the problem and “say
the words”. Students need to be given the opportunity to discuss their thoughts
and ideas, and they shouldn’t be taught that there is no need for change.
2. “Students learn that
education is something to put up with, to tolerate as best they can, to obey,
or to resist” (page 26).
In this quote Shor is
explaining that when students are taught with no participation from them, they
begin to see education as something they just have to get through. Often times,
they start to resist the education. This relates to Finn’s reading and Anyon’s
study of the different social classes. In the working class schools, where there
was no collaboration from the students, the dominant theme was resistance. The
students would be violent, there would be vandalism, and behaviors would get
out of control. Shor argues that students need to be able to work with their
teachers in order to get the most out of their education instead of seeing as
“something to put up with”.
3. “In traditional
classrooms, teachers routinely begin by defining the subject matter and the
proper feeling to have about the material rather than by asking students to
define their sense of it and feeling about it, and building from there” (page
29).
In this quote Shor explains
how students are often told how they should feel about a subject. The teacher
introduces a topic by explaining whether it is good or bad, or how the students
should think or feel about the topic. This Shor argues that this doesn’t allow
for any critical thinking or creativity in students. They should be given the
opportunity and the chances to form their own thoughts and opinions on topics.
I liked the examples Shor gave in the reading of when he would introduce a
topic to his students and then have them write about it before he went into
detail. This gave the students a chance to put together what they were
thinking, form an opinion, and then gain knowledge from their teacher about the
subject.
Point to Share:
Since our class focuses a
lot on social justice issues, I liked how this was also brought up in the
reading. A teacher that Shor quoted from said, “Children often can be heard
saying ‘But that’s not fair.’ They understand the importance of dealing
equitably with each other” (page 45). This is so true. I probably hear kids
saying that at work every day. They really do understand when things aren’t
right. Whether someone got more crackers than them or someone got to play with
a toy longer, children will always call them out. I think adults need to do
this more often. As Johnson would suggest, and I think Shor would agree, we
need to bring up the problems, and find a way to change them.
Sunday, April 10, 2016
Kliewer
Citizenship in School: Reconceptualizing Down
Syndrome
By: Christopher Kliewer
Reflection
Once I got a few pages into
this reading, I really enjoyed it. It has only been since this semester that I
have given much thought to special education. Being in an inclusive classroom
for service learning has even made me consider wanting to teach special
education. I think the issues that Kliewer talks about are very important. Not
all people with Down syndrome are the same, just like how not all people
without disabilities are the same. Some students would very well benefit from
being in a general education classroom rather than being secluded in a special
education classroom. They would learn so much more and be at their greatest
potential.
I thought all of the examples/stories
that Kliewer used really showed how individuals with disabilities can succeed
without being thought of as less than others. Specifically, the story of
Christine switching to general education classes at a public high school was
very inspiring. When she first started at the school, she brought with her so
many negative labels about what she couldn’t do. By the time even just one year
was over, she had improved in every category. If students with disabilities
were given the chances and opportunities to succeed, then they would. In my
service learning classroom there are 7 students with IEPs. I have been in the
classroom now for over seven weeks, and in that short period of time I have
seen so much growth in all of those students. One girl is on her way to taking
steps without her walker, and another is counting to 12 when his IEP goal is
only to count to 8 by June. Seeing these students succeed really emphasizes for
me why I want to be a teacher.
The main focus of this
chapter was citizenship in schools. I thought Kliewer definitely brought his
point across using the various stories. No one deserves to be excluded from
something, especially from an education. Kliewer said, “The movement to merge
the education of children with and without disabilities is based on the belief
that to enter the dialogue of citizenship does not require spoken, or indeed
outspoken, language. Rather, communication is built on one’s ability to listen
deeply to others” (Page 73). I think this quote is a good representation of
Kliewer’s argument.
This piece definitely
relates to August’s idea of safe spaces. Students with disabilities need to
feel like they are accepted and that they belong. One of the students that
Kliewer talked about, John, moved from one city in California to another where
he was more accepted. John’s sibling said, “It’s safe – what he calls a ‘safe
space’. Like a lot of people in Mendocino, he’s accepted for what he is, not
what he isn’t. And he can concentrate on what he can do, instead of being shown
or being told what he can’t do” (Page 86). John was able to succeed in a place
where he felt he belonged, in a place where he was safe.
Point to Share:
I think it’s important for
people to focus on strengths rather than the things someone can’t do. Just
because someone has been labeled with a disability, doesn’t mean they can’t do
anything. I liked a quote from the girl Christine that Kliewer talks about, “I
have Down syndrome, but I am not handicapped” (page 93).
Monday, April 4, 2016
Social Justice Event
Transforming the Teaching Profession: Learning from
Teachers of Diverse Populations
Dr. Sonia Nieto
For my social justice event
I attended a talk by Dr. Sonia Nieto. The talk was called “Transforming the
Teaching Profession: Learning from Teachers of Diverse Populations”. The event
took place Monday April 4th in the Student Union Ballroom, and there
were probably about a hundred people there. This was a really great talk, and
I’m glad I chose this as my event to attend. The event was a 20th
anniversary lecture since Dr. Nieto spoke on diversity at RIC 20 years ago. At
the beginning of the presentation, a video was shown of her lecture 20 years
ago. The topic then was also about social justice in education, and the topic
today was about how social justice in education has changed since then. Dr.
Nieto discussed social justice in education is “a set of beliefs, attitudes,
dispositions, and behaviors about teaching and learning and about students.”
Social justice in education is needed now more than ever in schools, but it is
hard to accomplish and it takes commitment. Dr. Nieto said there are three barriers
of social political context of schools and society. These include, societal
barriers, school-based barriers, and ideological barriers. I agree with her
because without these barriers, there would be a much greater chance at social
justice in education. From the readings we have done in class and from my
service learning experiences, it is obvious that these barriers exist. Dr.
Nieto talked about two of her books, “Why We Teach” (2005) and “Why We Teach
Now” (2015). In both of these books, she had various teachers write essays
about why they teach. The responses ranged from teaching to define identity to
teaching and fighting back. The responses and the teachers that Dr. Nieto
talked about were interesting to see how social justice in education has
changed over the years. One of the teachers that Dr. Nieto spoke about was Mary
Ginley. Many of the comments that Mary Ginley made really stood out to me.
Specifically she wrote about her experiences with a fifth grade boy who told
her he was going to be a good dad because he had her as a teacher, after his
own dad had been physically abusive to his mom and verbally abusive to him.
Mary Ginley recounted this as a reason that she teaches. She said, “There are
kids who need good teachers.” These kinds of stories also help me realize why I
want to be a teacher.
Dr. Nieto talked about what is the same and what is different in education since her first lecture 20 years ago, and I found it really interesting.
What's the same:
- A sense of mission
- Empathy for students
- Courage to question conventional wisdom
- Improvisation
- Passion for social justice
What's different:
- High stakes testing frenzy
- A changing vocabulary
- Blaming
- Privatization
- Quick teacher prep
- Abandonment of public education
Dr. Nieto talked about what is the same and what is different in education since her first lecture 20 years ago, and I found it really interesting.
What's the same:
- A sense of mission
- Empathy for students
- Courage to question conventional wisdom
- Improvisation
- Passion for social justice
What's different:
- High stakes testing frenzy
- A changing vocabulary
- Blaming
- Privatization
- Quick teacher prep
- Abandonment of public education
So I could probably relate
this lecture to every author we have read this semester, but I’m going to focus
on Finn, Johnson, and Kozol. When Dr. Nieto talked about school-based barriers,
she mentioned how resources in schools are not based on need. Those schools
that have the opportunity to attain resources do, and those who don’t have
those opportunities don’t have the resources. In Finn’s article he talks about
the differences in social classes in schools. Obviously, the working class
schools don’t get as many resources as the AP or EE schools, when sometimes the
working class schools are the ones who need the resources the most. At the end
of the lecture, Dr. Nieto talked about how future teachers cannot go in with
“rose colored glasses”. They need to know what they are getting into. I related
this to Johnson. Topics of diversity and social justice are ones that need to
be talked about in order for any change to be made. Johnson would argue that we
need to “say the words” and talk about the issues if we want to see positive
changes around them. When Dr. Nieto discussed ideological barriers to
sociopolitical context of schools and society, she mentioned that they are both
individual and institutional. Kozol talked about both the individual and
institutional problems in education. Dr. Nieto and Kozol would agree that these
include biases and stereotypes about race, ethnicity, culture, social class,
and ability. Dr. Nieto discussed how there is an idea that intelligence is
fixed and unchanging. They would also both agree that this is an idea that
needs to be changed.
This is a link to Dr. Sonia
Nieto’s website where she has information about herself, information on her
books, and educational resources.
This article is about how
teachers can be advocates for social justice in the classroom, while still engaging
in best practices in teaching core subjects to their students.
This is a clip of a talk
that Dr. Nieto gave a few years ago on diversity and thriving in schools.
Seeing her in person, I think she was a great speaker, and I’d be interested to
hear another lecture from her.
Saturday, April 2, 2016
Saturday, March 26, 2016
Finn
Literacy with an Attitude
By: Patrick Finn
Hyperlinks
In these chapters of Finn’s
book, he shares a study that was completed by Jean Anyon who observed five
schools in New Jersey that were of different social classes. Anyon compared these
schools based on how the teachers taught and how the students learned in the
classroom. It was interesting to read these comparisons and to think about how
they were similar or different from my school growing up, and the school I am
doing my service learning at.
At the end of chapter 2,
Finn said, “Anyon’s study supports the findings of earlier observers that in
American schools children of managers and owners are rewarded for initiative
and assertiveness, while children of the working-class are rewarded for
docility and obedience and punished for initiative and assertiveness” (page
20). Why should the social class of students, and the jobs their parents hold,
determine what kind of education they are getting? This article I found explains
how social class affects children. As discussed in Finn’s book, children of
working class families are typically behind those students who grow up in
affluent families. Families of high-paying jobs can afford to send their
children to expensive schools, and buy their children extra things that may
help them succeed. They may even have more time to spend helping their children
with homework. On the other hand, students who grow up in working class
families may not be getting that same support from their families, sometimes
just due to lack of resources. Finn argues that these students need to be
taught in a way that will allow them to bring about change in the world.
Another point that Finn
brings up is the way teachers and students communicate. In the more affluent
schools, students are invited to find answers themselves, and do problems their
way. The opposite is true in schools with working-class students. When one
student made a suggestion for a different way of doing something, the teacher
responded, “No you don’t. You don’t even know what I’m making yet. Do it this
way or it’s wrong” (page 10). There are definitely differences in the ways in
which teachers communicate with their students and vice versa. This article
gives an explanation behind this. The author shared a study that found,
“…middle-class parents were more likely to coach their children to assert
themselves in class. They were also more likely to get involved in classroom
problems. Working-class parents, on the other hand, were less likely to
encourage their children to ask questions and more likely to emphasize
obedience and deference to teachers”. This reminded me of when Delpit discussed
the differences in how people of authority ask questions and talk to students.
As Delpit explains, children from working class families are more often told
rather than questioned, and they learn to obey right away, while children from
middle-class or upper-class families share their opinions and are also asked
their opinions.
I found more connections in
this piece than just Delpit. In the beginning, Finn talked about the haves and
the have-nots. This is something that Kristof touched upon. He talked about how
the haves usually grow up to be haves and the have-nots similarly continue to
be have-nots. Finn talks about how the have-nots struggle when the haves are
getting the better opportunities. I also found connections to McIntosh. The
students in the middle-class and upper class schools may or may not realize
that they are privileged over those students in working-class schools. They have
more resources available to them, and they are being taught a completely
different way. However, this may not always make them privileged because maybe
the way in which working-class students are taught is really the better way for
them.
Point to Share:
I think it’s obvious that it’s
inevitable that students will group up in different social classes, and that
they will attend different schools. However, there’s no reason they shouldn’t be
given the same opportunities at a quality education. How can teachers help
students learn to their fullest potential in the environment they live in?
Sunday, March 20, 2016
This American Life, Herbert, website
This American Life, Herbert: Separate and Unequal,
Brown v. Board of Education website
Argument
The reporters in “This
American Life, The Problem We All Live With Part I and II” argue that
integrating schools is the best way to close the achievement gap, and give
black students the same access to quality education as white students. In Part
I, they discussed the school district of Normandy in Missouri. Teachers in this
district “didn’t care”, and the district was on probation for 15 years. The
students who lived in this district would benefit from an integration program
because they don’t deserve not to get a quality education just because of where
they live. Everyone should have the same opportunity. The reporters placed
emphasis on how obvious it is that integration works, but districts are
avoiding it. In Part II, they discussed a district in Hartford, Connecticut where
families could choose integrated schools, but it wasn’t forced. The students
who went to the integrated schools did better than when they were at their
public schools. However, since the integrated magnet schools were on a lottery,
many people couldn’t get it so they were stuck at the public schools that they
wanted to get away from in the first place. The reporters argued that we need
people of credibility to be talking about the importance of integration so
people will start taking it seriously. Instead, more work is being done to fix
segregated schools instead of integrating schools because that is the more
comfortable option.
Bob Herbert argues in his
article, “Separate and Unequal”, that “Schools are no longer legally
segregated, but because of residential patterns, housing discrimination,
economic disparities and long-held custom, they most emphatically are in
reality.” People will say that schools are no longer segregated by race, when
in reality, many other factors are causing that to be true. Herbert points out
that many people stay away from integration because it’s difficult and because
they resist bringing about issues of race. However, it has been shown in the
past that integration programs are what actually help students succeed and do
better. Herbert said, “Everybody’s in favor of helping poor black kids do
better in school, but the consensus is that those efforts are best confined to
the kids’ own poor black neighborhoods.” As it was pointed out by the reporters
in This American Life, if students are surrounded by other students who are all
behind in school, then they are all going to stay behind in school. It is
important to take steps to help all students do well, no matter their race,
economic background, district they live in, etc.
Brown v. Board of Education
was a 1954 Supreme Court decision that, “stripped away constitutional sanctions
for segregation by race, and made equal opportunity in education the law of the
land.” Since the decision education has been made “equal” for all students. This
can only be done with integration. Every student, regardless of race, should be
given the opportunity to have a quality education.
I saw many connections in
these pieces to Kristof’s “U.S.A., Land of Limitations?” In districts where
integration programs are not an option, these students are not being given an
equal opportunity at quality education. Just because they live in a certain
area, they have to go to a bad school. Kristof said, “Remember that
disadvantage is less about income than environment.” Some kids are stuck in a
place where they see no room for improvement. They haven’t been given the
opportunity to try something new or see a different way a living. There could
be much better possibilities for them if they were only given the chance to
explore those possibilities.
Points to Share:
This was the most
eye-opening week for me. The two listening episodes especially made me think. I
think it’s important to teach all kids, but especially those living in poor districts,
that there is more out there. But, in order to teach that to them, there has to
be opportunities for them to explore those possibilities. Integration programs
are a great example of this. I loved that the listening episodes were so recent
because it just shows how relevant this issue is, and that there are actions
being taken to help all students.
One quote from Part II that
struck me was when one girl was talking about going from 1% white high school
to a 75% white college. She talked about how people were so friendly and nice
and she said, “You don’t know if it’s genuine because you’re not used to it.”
It’s sad to think that people have to question the kindness of people because
it’s something they’ve never seen before.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)