It’s good to see how Americans are engaged in their education, and that part of the debate is defining what being “American” is.
The central theme of my blog considers literacy and the idea of what it is to be an American, and the videos we have watched this week, combined with the readings, clearly illustrate what is going on in the foreground and background in the USA regarding education: both in standards and in practice. Fundamentally, the goal is to get students to “think critically, act responsibly, and lead effectively, and live humanely.” I quote my alma mater, Wabash College, here. How do we get students to achieve the level of learning desired, and what possibilities are available to do so? What are the obstacles? We’ve read three readings this week from Adolescent Literacy, 2007, edited by Beers, Probst, and Rief: chapters 13, 15, and 18. We’ve also read pages 3-22 from Robert Moses’, Radical Equations, 2001, besides viewing the following links:
http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/02/09/3872703-when-the-tea-party-cheers-the-literacy-test, and
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/328/video.html (the second half, starting at about 12:30). These sources cover, conservatively, the enormous expanse of the cloud of ideas that focus on producing engaged, critical students, the possibilities, and the pitfalls thereof; here, we’ll look at the ideas presented about each of these major topics as they relate to literacy, and ultimately, the connection to what defines American education.
Focusing first on the idea of critical thinking and literacy, let’s look at what some of the current themes about the conditions under which student critical thinking and literacy take place. It’s pretty clear that motivation is a key aspect of the learning environment which allows critical thinking, and learning to take place. “Who enjoys feeling dumb all the time (Beers, et al., 2007, 239)?” As teachers, we need to engage students so that they can approach a topic from a standpoint they are comfortable with—from grounds they feel secure coming from. Robert Moses displays an excellent use of this in his lifetime, from being a civil rights activist (regarding the vote), and being a math educator (PBS video Link). Another author, in Adolescent Literacy, defined several other factors that would produce a deep learning environment: multiple texts / multiple layers, topic conversation (vs. broad topic “lecture” coverage), and creating connections between each day, lesson, topic and year, as well as in and out of school (Beers, et al., 2007, 278, 281, 284).
Fundamentally, if we take a step back from these things, we can easily see that these few matters are COMPLETELY common sense, but in the current teaching environment with NCLB and other program initiatives and blah-blah, losing the oversight of effective education is not unheard of nor uncommon (Beers, et al., 2007, 275). With regard to making the said environment for learning possible, there are several considerations that need to be addressed, and NOT overlooked. The first is oneself. If you cannot judge yourself and discipline yourself, you will not have discipline in your classroom—nor will you have the opportunity to keep the overview of your teaching environment. Others will judge you, and characterize you more severely than you do yourself, and instead of dictating your own classroom topics and procedures—they will be dictated by others (administrators). Structuring class to address the important ideas covered—and link the major ideas to the overlay of themes and facts (high stakes test important) will definitely create a unit in which students will come away with a deeper understanding of the ideas involved (Beers, et al., 2007, 234-235).
A more radical way of thinking in the ELA classroom could apply a completely different approach to writing; an approach in which the teacher learns the students (a theme in my class responses for quite a while), and adjusts the instruction methods for individual students with each successive unit. Of course, the process described by Linda Rief in Adolescent Literacy steers students in a certain direction, and doesn’t allow them free reign; however, it does give a just process through which students can approach writing and comprehension. Being a highly structured environment, the approach Rief takes towards her students in Estonia, as well as in the USA, guides the students through the writing process step by step; sometimes in an “unconventional” way. Again, her approach, and the other approaches presented are largely common sense (Beers, et al., 2007, 190, 201). The process takes students on a journey about what writing is (thinking, expression), establishing style (in writing and understanding there is not one process to define writing), giving them an audience, good models, critical and peer response, voice, and—for the teachers—a method of grading based more on process than product (Beers, et al., 2007, 191-193).
Again, these are more a surface glance at “education reform”. But it is a dire need—Robert Moses addresses it as well in his book on pages 17 and 18: students themselves must show that they are desirous to learn, and dispel any notions to the contrary. It is not merely for teachers to reach out to students in many ways, but for the students to step up to the plate as well (Radical Equations, 2001). This latter point touches on the pitfalls of the aforementioned classroom ideas. Most of the pitfalls so far mentioned in our class unit are from influences beyond school walls; whether they be standards pressure from administration, government or media, or if they are pressures from parents about performance or subject matter or hearsay. Specifically mentioning the No Child Left Behind program, many teachers claim they don’t have the time to converse for a class period about a classroom topic because they have so much material to cover. Some even claim that their students don’t have the intellectual capacity to be involved in a literate conversation about class subject matter (Beers, et al., 2007, 281). However, if this is the case, something is already very wrong!
Primarily, much of what it boils down to is time: time to create lessons; time to learn one’s students in order to implement the best strategies; time to change planned units and established lessons based on class progress and learning capability; time to incorporate everything for the feared “standardized test”. The other pitfall that teachers will often face is discrimination—conscious or unconscious. The videos we watched are a clear expression of that. The “Tea Party” movement within the right wing of US political ranks has recently mentioned it would like a literacy test to qualify voters. Just such a test was abolished 50 years ago by President Johnson (Maddow, Feb 2010). Though not targeted at the general population of the USA (speakers of English), it defines literacy as speaking, reading, and writing English: the traditional standard of English literacy. However, the subject is clearly doused in racial tension—though most likely, not intended to be outwardly racist—but nationalistic. This is just a “warning” of a potential pitfall involved with engaging students—arousing any form of racism or segregated thinking amongst students is all too easy; particularly social studies students, as politics is inherent in classroom discussion.
Furthermore, race as a potential pitfall can be seen from the eyes of Robert Moses. The clear definition between poor and/or minority students and middle class and/or white students and education is obvious. It is also very dangerous (PBS NOW, 2007). As a teacher, by avoiding the subject, the problem is exacerbated. NCLB indirectly targets minority students as well, though lack of funding to needy areas (ibid), especially looking at how the environment of some schools has deteriorated: no librarian, no books in the library, library in disrepair, no computer technician, or technology in the classroom, and etc. Also focusing on the job market, and educating to meet job needs according to race and expectation (Moses, 2001, 9-11). These are unacceptable actions coming from our teachers and administrators—again it falls to us, as individuals, to judge ourselves and see if we are letting these issues go by untreated in our own classrooms, or if we can somehow combat a negative system in place through positive curricular changes.
Fundamentally, as educators, we need to provide a varied curriculum and a morphing method of assessment to effectively teach, as well as refusing to let standardized tests measure our success or failure in educating our students. I’m speaking largely from the words of Beers, et al., 2007 on page 286 and 287, but they are my feelings as well. They have been for years. Truly, the possibilities of an educator for engaging students are almost limitless, and the ability to resist pressure is also available. It will take inventiveness, humility, willpower, and a great level of discernment to bring about the changes we are aiming for—but I believe we can! One of the things about an American education is that some teachers really want to engage and reach their students to change their lives. We can see this in the example of Linda Rief in Estonia (Beers, et al., 2007, 189, 190). She changed her students’ lives by engaging them, involving them in their own education; which was something they’d never done. An American education is unrivaled at the graduate level—but we’ve been decaying in our undergraduate, and more specifically in our high school and middle school programs. We’ve got to fight the good fight, bring inventiveness and ingenuity to our classrooms, and re-establish teaching as an honored profession. This opportunity, in negative, and positive light, as well as the ways to overcome, are, in themselves, distinctly American.
