Closing, for now...Well,

Well, creating this blog has certainly been an experience. And I started it with a very strong sentiment in one direction.

However, after really reviewing the information, I began to realize that my nationalistic ideals are just not practical. As nice as they are--just like Hirsch's wishes expressed earlier in this blog--they just don't work. Take for instance, my idea about a strict grading rubric and heavy standardization. Well, we later came to find through the writings of Gutierrez and others that the "sameness as fairness" idea just doesn't pan out--especially with the cultural diversity of the USA.

Furthermore, as I review my blog, one can noticeably see a softening in my attitudes toward the readings as my preconceived notions are eroded.

So, the nationalistic theme? What about my title? It became clear in my 3rd or 4th post that we really weren't ever in the business of defining what literacy was, or even trying to create a way to establish it amongst a diversity of students. Rather, we were pushed to become more aware of the bumps in the road that we will face as teachers--and address ideas as to how we might get around or overcome those obstacles.

Also, I became astutely aware that the American education system seems to think it is absolutely amazing, and that by the proliferate writing of individuals who believe they are key changers in the system we may effect change. However, as I look to other governments, and converse with other foreign friends, I find that the illusion which I believed in is exactly that: illusion. We are failing as a nation to properly educate. Whether that be a function of our culture, or our system, I don't know; and warrants further investigation--which may constitute future posts for this blog.

For the time, however, this blog will not be active in the weekly sense. Perhaps, as more information and coursework become available, if it/they is/are salient and worthwhile, then it is likely you may find more here in the future.

Over the course of this blog, I had hoped to define some essence of literacy and how we as Americans can rally together to reach a common goal. However, given the current dichotomy of opinions, the struggle we have with the powers that be, and the mindset of parents--it is unlikely that this sort of a change, no matter how badly we teachers wish it, will happen anytime soon. There is no doubt that I will continue to think about the themes we've discussed, and apply them to my new career. Furthermore, if anything, this blog has helped me sort through some of my own ideas about teaching--and perhaps it has done the same for those who have read it.

All I can really define now is this: that I hope my ideas continue to change and grow regarding education, and that, at some point, we might find ourselves a united public with some common educational background: not because it is forced upon us, but because we want to learn and make the changes in our own lives to become a nation in unity of purpose; that even when the lesser vote loses an election, the official takes care of ALL constituents, and that constituents support and believe the elected won with good reason; that the education of our children will flourish and move on to greater and more provoking depth of thought and action; and that I might somehow be part of the change.

Outrage against Rigidity

Well, I can't say it's the first time I've had an emotion that I wanted to express in a title. The standardizing of our education seems to be reaching an all time low, and the biggest issue I have at the moment is that one of the last pieces we've read for the semester is from a well established teacher in New York, Lynn Astarita Gatto. The piece is entitled "I don't buy it", and finishes with the sentence: "When will teachers, administrators, and teacher educators realize literacy cannot be bought (Success Guaranteed Literacy Programs, Larson 2007; Chapter 5)?" A topic already touched on earlier this year was that of the economic drive entering education through privatization and competitive markets. Well, in this article we see the result.

The majority of teachers within the district Gatto works in rely heavily on the books provided by her school (and bought by administrators from education companies, mind you!) to teach what the state and district requires, whereas Gatto relies on her experience teaching to create a learning environment that engages students and taps into their deeper learning (Ibid, p. 76). In such defiance, her literacy coach (hired by the district) is leading her to use certain literacy programs provided by a specific company--and most likely (my point of view here) this literacy coach will get a kickback from the company later (Ibid, p. 73). Gatto is a nationally renowned teacher, and most certainly well known in her field within New York. She has a very high success rate with her students, and they score well above average on high stakes tests. So, why change?

In part, I think it's because, for whatever reason, young, fresh, new people in business/work believe their ideas are best. No matter what. They have little respect, nowadays for the established traditions and methods--even if there's a tried and true method to the "madness". Interestingly enough, Gatto's method has been highly influenced by the theory of education elaborated by Freire in his book originally published in 1968 in Portuguese. Though inherently socialist in method, phrase, and point (and ironically fights against the established "banking" education so heavily relied on in Soviet and other socialist regimes), it points to the individual education of people as rational thinkers, and not as receptacles (Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, 1997; p. 60, 61).

Gatto designs her coursework according to the needs of individual students, and the needs of the classroom as a whole. By circumventing the conventional, she is able to use other materials to elicit a desire to learn--not from textbooks designed to make children learn, but by causing the children to seek information themselves. She brings numerous non-text books to the classroom for her students--and that at many levels!! She is familiar with all of them, and uses them to suit the needs of all her students (Larson 2007, p. 81). This is, in my mind, the ideal teacher--making personal sacrifices of her own pocket to get the reading materials her class needs.

For me, as a social studies educator, I want to follow this example. It will be hard to provide numerous texts for my classes and multiple levels of reading, but worthwhile. As a high school teacher, vs. Gatto who is an elementary teacher, I believe my struggle against the high stakes tests will be harder--as well as with my administration and other faculty. However, in order to create discussion that incorporates all levels of my students abilities, the pressure rests on me to "produce": produce conversation, salient response (written, oral, and formal letters) to current political issues, past issues, and historic circumstances and applications.

Indeed, what Gatto does is what I define a distinctly American education--it is different than any I have seen around the world. The QUALITY of our teachers must improve. The fact is that some are not as good as others--just like students. But that is part of the tangible reality that makes life so interesting! We need to be alive, and not robots slaving for a system or "standardization" that eliminates the bumps in the road.

Let's hope teaching can regain it's status and freedom.

Pros and Cons within Liberating the Classroom and the Teaching Mindset...

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.

American Preoccupation

Well, it's finally come to pass. We've talked about gender identity. I told my wife (who is German) and she just looked at me incredulously, and then laughed.

She posed the question: "why do you talk about that in class?" Which was immediately followed by another question: "aren't you supposed to be learning to teach?"

I laughed, and as my neurons fired off intellectual answers and long explanations relating to my past experiences and knowledge of our school system; however, in favor of answering her question directly (she hates long-winded answers), I simply told her that it related to students I might have in class.

She retorted by saying that the gender identity of a student was none of the teacher's business--that a teacher is to teach, and parents are to handle the personal lives of students. This really hit a nerve with me, because I'm not a fan of teachers becoming surrogate parents--which some believe they are (if not in word, then most certainly in deed). We engaged in a lengthy discussion last week about the merits, or demerits of taking class time to discuss the issue.

I will say, that from the readings we've had from Bronwyn Williams, Jane Stanley, and F. Maher, I have a better understanding of the repercussions of subject matter in the classroom for boys and girls. However, I am still unanswered as to why we focus so much on this issue in the USA; whereas in Europe, from what I gather talking to my German, British, and Swedish friends, the issue is rather untouched. Teachers are rather very highly trained in how to handle situations and a classroom setting and to encourage critical thinking and cover government mandated material in an engaging way! In fact, the process is about twice as long as ours--the prestige at least double--and the practical instruction makes our student teaching look like teddy bear time.

What are the underlying reasons for our preoccupation with "educating" students rather than giving them practical experience, and expounding up on that?

By the way, the topic of gender, if you haven't noticed, is not one of my favorites. I am a theater minor, in undergrad, and have long been exposed to multi-gender people, transexuals, and gender indefinite people. I just don't understand why it's so important to talk so much about--what does the talk avail? Awareness? Theory is VERY different to practice. Unfortunately, it's becoming very clear to me that so many people seeking jobs today are over educated, and under practiced. Most of my classmates have never held hands with a transexual, or have a friend that decided to start crossing "gender lines." It's obvious just reading their posts to the whole topic.

I guess I'm edgy about it because I want to teach, and to do it well. I don't want to talk about how well I will teach. Furthermore, for those who are in a minority, this whole "talk" thing really tastes badly of a "culture of power" attempting to engage in conversation with one another about a topic they have no practical knowledge of--whether it be gender lines, race culture, or discrimination. I remember trying to engage in questions like this with some of my friends in my undergraduate classes... My black friends. They hated it.

This whole discussion is just annoying. No offence to my instructor; who is understanding, from a remote place in Alaska (which certainly has its cultural intrigue as well), and well versed. I'm glad we're having it--the experience will likely prove invaluable as "preparation".

In the end, though, I think we really divulge from the issue at hand. Literacy--it's clear that we're not engaging the idea of actual literacy, but more of a cultural and societal understanding of literacy, from the top down, and bottom up. We are preparing ourselves for what MIGHT lie ahead. We are trying to pin down some esoteric, theoretical ideal and put it into practice--after we've talked the sh*t out of it.

I'm interested to find out the impacts this class will have on my teaching at large, and on my future classes. I imagine that my perspective will be wider and more encompassing, yet my directives even more clearly establishes... Let's see...

"sameness as fairness"

So, I just want to say that i find this whole "sameness as fairness" intrigue regarding the education quality given to "economically disadvantaged students " really just sounds like political jargon and ineffective issue labeling, similar to "colorblindness"; which causes more harm than good.

In our class this week we've really grappled with a lot of ideas regarding sameness as fairness--but one theme really strikes through all others. Unfortunately, it is not a theme acknowledged by any of the chapters or articles we've addressed. It is this: that the fairness (whether it be student to student, or student to district, or student vs wealthier student in another district) in a classroom setting is ultimately up to the teacher and the decisions he or she makes.

We have read about how state efforts at creating a "same" classroom experience/education level by the instituted statewide tests and curriculum mandates destroy the exploration of creativity and "deep" learning in students which allows them to excel at far more than a multiple choice test. We've seen that preparing students solely for passing state tests produces a result more similar to lab rats than engaged human beings. Probably most notable, is the Abbot v. Burke case in New Jersey.

Here are 4 links to explore for some more info:

http://www.edlawcenter.org/ELCPublic/AbbottvBurke/AbbottHistory.htm

http://blog.nj.com/ledgerarchives/2009/05/the_history_of_abbott_v_burke.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/nyregion/new-jersey/15abbottnj.html?_r=1

http://www.schoolfunding.info/states/nj/lit_nj.php3

In summary, urban schools were not producing "quality graduates", nor performing well on state tests. Therefore, the Abbot district (a "minority", low income district) filed a suit against the state about how tax money was spent. True, property tax was the fundamental basis for school funding--and you can see where that goes. More to the point is that for the past 30 years, NJ has been struggling with the financial issue of providing the "same" education to all the students in NJ. Millions of dollars have been spent; misappropriated, misused, insufficiently allocated, and improperly calculated. The result is heralded by "progressive" speakers and educators as an example of diversity and equity. For parents in the system, and critical readers, it's not that clear. In fact, the book cover looks great... but we all know the old saying...

Do we have an interest in this country for producing quality students that engage the world around them with efficacy and reason? Or are we more concerned about "looking good", "pleasing the rabble-rousers", and "passing state assessments"? There seems to be a HUGE amount of fear regarding the last three points when it comes to being a teacher. If I, as a teacher, cause any political stir regarding a minority, or ONE of my students fails a state test, or I pay little attention to my "image" as a teacher and involve myself politically in a cause which is antithetical to my peers' and students' parents' point of view--I may very well think about moving... Somehow, I think we've become more concerned with appearances, and less with the heart of the matter.

American Education: Evaluation vs Practicality

My professor once reflected that "after all these years of common schooling, we still have no real way of knowing if students are learning." That's a pretty profound statement. Just thinking through it is giving me some trouble. That would mean that: A) our conception of evaluating learning is not accurate; B) that the previous thought of students 'learning' as being directly related to their marks (in Western culture, largely in the past several hundred years) is incorrect; and C) therefore many high potential students have been foiled and great achievements lost.

Personally, I can't say that I have read "a lot" about evaluation, what it means, where we get our standards from, or even about the "philosophy" behind it. Having said that, I want my readers to know that even though I might not be fully literate in the subject, I have begun to form opinions about it.

Largely, it seems to me that our overall goals in education are misleading (at the surface level), and inaccurate at the practical level. Allow me to explain. Patricia Carini, the founder of the Prospect Center, has said "Until as educators and citizens we make room and time and educational arrangements that allow us to recognize, value, and draw forth this dimension of the children we educate, we will continue to be overwhelmed by their variety and diversity (Starting Strong, 2001; p171). " The statement "this dimension" refers to the individual talents and creativity of students, or the ability of expression given to each human being. In school, we cram everyone into the same mold and expect standardized results. If one thing has been proven throughout history, it's that people are not "standard" and that EVERY human that has lived is an individual. In support, I'd like to quote Catherine Luna from her essay in the Journals of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 45:7, entitled: "Learning from Diverse Learners".

"A flexible, responsive pedagogy based on an educational discourse that values diversity may help us accommodate a wide range of students' abilities, and thus avoid the need for labeling and for special treatment. Tn addition, by interpreting our students' academic difficulties not as symptoms of their individual failings but as indicators that we need to examine tile teaching and learning in our classrooms, educators can take responsibility for and work to interrupt tile silencing cycle of narrow norm and academic failure that these students' stories reveal."

Where does this take us? I believe that the grading system is indeed flawed. However, I find it EXTREMELY difficult to say that we have to incorporate EVERY individual's particular learning abilities into an individually tailored education. It requires so much work, so much time--and in the end, a lot of money. Both Luna and Carini in their thought process strictly challenge the status quo, and even go as far as to mention things such as allowing a student to present a piece of artwork rather than a paper as a final presentation of what she has learned (Luna, page 601). Though this really displays the creativity and thought of the student, and might in fact have significant meaning to her, it does not accurately define her thoughts and understanding to others in a definite fashion.

Moving forward, we've also read pieces by Lisa Delpit, again, and from another author, Asa Hilliard; both of whom challenge the general understanding behind the grading process. What defines basic vocabulary, word difficulty, and reading comprehension at a yearly level (The Skin That We Speak, 2007; p. 98)? A very valid claim, might I add!

It all comes to a point--that it seems as though the further into the future we have come as a country, and as a Western conglomerate of nations, the more we box things and label them in order to deal with the ensuing diversity that human growth naturally produces. That this happens in schools is both understandable, and unfortunate. P. David Pearson, in Adolescent Literacy, 2007, has formulated a table showing the "clients" of our American education system (Adolescent Literacy, 2007; p. 262). It has three columns, naming client, decisions/questions, and assessment tools. For instance, for policy makers: how well are our students meeting public expectations? Assess by looking at trends, over time, on aggregated data--norm referrenced tests are fine. For taxpayers: how well is our money spent on education? Assess by trends and aggregated data over time--standardized tests again.

So what we have in the end is a battle between the individualist ideal of making sure students are learning--which can only be achieved through dedicated teachers will little constraint to meet political expectations--and the social concern of whether or not policy and tax dollars are properly implemented and spent. Parents and teachers know if students are learning--because they are directly associated with the students--but the subjects and the "box" that we define as "important" is not necessarily where a particular student truly flourishes and has the ability to enrich the human populace.

Fundamentally, I believe that our education system is "okay", but needs to find a more individualistic method of grading that can still meet the needs of parents, administrators, and taxpayers. Furthermore, I believe that we must CHANGE the way we think about success in schools. What has happened to the understanding that one may not be gifted in sciences, but can be a very talented "and proud" tradesman (which may indeed incorporate some science)? Or, as Sir Ken Robinson illustrated in a short thesis he presented for TED, that a young girl might not be abnormal in behavior, but a dancer--and she went on to have an illustrious career in the Royal Ballet, to coreograph "CATS" and marry Andrew Lloyd Weber. We get so fixated on core classes and subject material that we miss the potential in students to change the world. That, I find, is unacceptable, and must be amended.

NATIONAL FAILURE!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ndpe5u0d954

Check this out, they fired all the teachers because the graduation rate was less than 50%--if you look at the stats, students didn't even attend for a full year!!!

So the Prez approved it!

Wow...

So, then they realized they had to hire new teachers... so they re-hired all of them... Ridiculous!!

How much money was spent in this process rather than getting more funds for the kids?

This is a joke... Really...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moKo88EcUNg

(I can't embed, sorry, it's not allowed...)

Neoliberalism, Neoconservatism, the Public Sphere, and YOU!!

“It amounts to a massive transfer of social wealth from middle-class, working-class, and low income people to the extremely rich. Neoliberal governments and corporations accomplish this in a number of ways: through the radical transformation of collective property into private property, breaking unions and lowering wages and benefits, commodifyfng everything from peasant lands to natural resources, privatizing public goods and services (from water to education), and using international banking and finance institutions to control national economies through debt and the credit system to appropriate the wealth of working people.” [Education Policy, Lipman, 2008, p. 47]


The public sphere, if we look at the quote above, includes our government and its land holdings and the public arena, the freedom to protect one’s wages and working status, government services and our private wealth. Government is, in essence CREATED to protect these things. Jean-Jaques Rousseau posits that government is intended to protect interdependence and maintain equality—which men naturally (in the good of their hearts) desire. Thomas Hobbes posits that men are evil, and government is subjected to in order to protect the possessions and limited liberties one desires. John Locke argued that Government is established by mankind to mitigate the desires for “life, health, liberty, or possessions”—his definition of possessions deriving from one’s labor (the harder you work, the more you should own). All three of these revolutionary men—and all liberals—rely on government for PROTECTION from others. However, in what we see in neoliberalism is a “weak state” that is in the pocket of corporations eroding our public sphere.

The public sphere is where we, as a people, come together: to enjoy nature in parks, to learn in schools, to contend in debate, to demonstrate belief, to vote for our ideals, and enjoy the rewards of our labor and donations to/for our government (taxes). As the pleasures of these dissipate, we find ourselves bitter and pointing fingers—but the fundamental question is regarding our family: how do the children raised in our homes see the USA? How do they apply what they have learned to their own family, community, state, and nation? If they don’t believe that these things are important, even above themselves, then we have hope only to watch this “great experiment” fade away and crumble to dust. The public sphere is meant to be protected by our government. The public sphere ought be DESIRED by the people, vehemently!! The public sphere, in turn, protects us, educates us, exposes us to other thought, and is a PIVOTAL FRAME OF REFERENCE AS AN AMERICAN. Indeed, I believe that the public sphere has a great deal to do with defining the American experience and identity.

The neoliberalist movement is geared at turning education in to the private sphere, as the competitive edge of capitalism will produce better results because the state is intended to be “weak” (Educating the "Right" Way, Apple, 2001, p. 38,39). The end result of which will produce a stronger system (Educating the "Right" Way, Apple, 2001, p. 39). This is entirely economic, and not political at all—as noted in the readings and by Professor Tuck in her PowerPoint. Supposedly, in the opposing playing field we have neoconservatism, taking the side of resuming nationalism, rigid morality, high standards, and education reform (Educating the "Right" Way, Apple, 2001, p. 47-49). This is, in fact, not an economic opinion at all, but political! Hence we have a platform that can be preached from “two” sides, aimed at the deception of the American People. Both programs are denigrate to the history of the United States, and both aim at control of the US population, and both are aimed at subjugating the People of the USA to fiscal and educational slavery.

The Government is becoming a social class, separate from the rest of the USA, and an exclusive class with little regard for the actuality of life in the USA. It is a hegemony of fiscal power from those in the culture of power, who draw on our emotional needs (neoconservatism) in order to reinforce their own fiscal neoliberalism. Thus, with the inception of No Child Left Behind—fully focused on drawing from our neoconservatist ideas as a populace, we passed the bill and made it law—one that was impossible to meet (acknowledged by nearly every teacher one can read). This creates a market (one I believe was predicted, modeled, and prepared for) in which private sectors can pick up where the Government cannot. Hence we now have pre-packaged curricula, which are purchased with government funds by principals and ushered into schools via “policy”(Adolescent Literacy, Beers, Probst, 2007, p. 3).

Our government is, in essence a neoliberal machine Moreover, the “weak state” idea on page 38 of Apple’s (Educating the "Right" Way - 2001) chapter clearly shows the lie that the government is actually feeding us—seeing that the conglomeration of federal power since the civil war has been exponential; especially in the past 60 years since WWII. We now have Government Motors, a SOCIAL healthcare plan, and a federal government that overrides state legislation on a regular basis. How does all of this tie back into teaching?

Having mentioned No Child Left Behind, and the erosion of the public sphere, this leaves us to posit the position of the teacher in this endemic mess. The public sphere includes schools, as I mentioned before, and also, I believe attending these schools is a quintessential part of having an American Experience. The loss of funding and increase of unreachable standards is changing our school system into a breeding ground of ignorance and dissociation because teachers are forced (in order to keep their jobs) to follow rigid test prep guidelines in order to meet Annual Yearly Progress reports. If we look back in history, teachers have always been bottom rung and not valued as much as it should be. And fundamentally, no matter what is said of teachers, our profession, or our standards: It is proven that individual teachers are the single variable that can induce success, or engender failure (Pressley, et al., 2008, p. 15). Therefore, as a teacher speaking to other teachers and parents, I URGE you to make sure students are aware of the educational climate in which they are being raised, to instill them with a sense of responsibility and duty for their country and for families. As this pivotal character in the education of young people, we must therefore use the incredible power given to us for our own ends--which are, in sum, the betterment of the futures of the children we teach. Otherwise, we would not have become teachers at all. State mandates and federal expectations are not infallible, and we must raise our voice in opposition to the mandated expectations and educate children in the way they should go.

"Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it." -- Proverbs 22:6

More on getting educated, and becoming American...

"In My Language" by A. M. Baggs

Well, this week has been a really cranky one! Not only have my wife and I accomplished a second move last week (we moved as I was beginning classes over 5/23-5/29), but in grad school we've begun to really tackle some more literacy issues...

The above video is a presentation by an autistic woman raising awareness of her methods of communication and thought. There have been many ideas passed back and forth--primarily there was a sense of awe and amazement that the first half of the video can be so coherently defined in the second half by the very same person who appears rather insane. Personally, I believe the video is amazing, but as good as it is at making me "aware" it doesn't bring me to the point of seeing ELL students in the same light as students with cognitive and physical disabilities. The cultural difference in ELL students can create a communication issue--so often, in English immersion, they are give the same treatment and low level follow up as special ed. This, we (my classmates and I) all agree on. Interestingly, an author we read this week follows this same thought: "deleterious consequences of the tracking practices common in schools (labeling students and relegating them to particular types of instruction) and of the pervasive linear view of literacy development (until the basics are mastered, reading and writing activities that require critical thinking cannot be introduced)." [Mari Hanenda, in Literacies Of and For a Diverse Society, 340--no publishing year in handout]

Picking up on the cultural literacy, mentioned of so much importance in my previous post--it seems that we only built on it this week. Again, raising the question of "what is American"? Clearly the ideal has been redefined in the past 70 years of American history, and we now embrace other cultures so much and strive for their existence and permeation to such an extent we have gone beyond having our own identifiable culture as a Nation. Canada has pretty much done the same thing, as has the UK. Most other nations have not--does it have to do with the fact we speak English? I mean, most nations have a defined language, culture, and national identity that is promoted within their schools and society. Why don't the USA, the UK, and Candada?

To build on this, have a look at this short chapter: Baker on Trilingualism. In this article, the author diagnoses 3 general forms of English for the average American: a home English, a formal English, and a professional English. Frequently, we switch between these seamlessly depending on our social surroundings--which is yet ANOTHER comment on language... The author of this piece illustrates how to engage students with different backgrounds--and it is truly brilliant.

For any of you who have been to Ellis Island, I would seriously have a look at what it took to become American. For a long time--one had to be literate in his own language in order to Immigrate. Interestingly, this builds on the foundations we have found in other readings in our course so far--particularly the idea that knowing one's own language (being literate) is a better reference than solely English immersion.

Unfortunately, some of the pictures from Ellis Island cannot be found on the web in a short time. It's truly amazing, what is represented there about the process of becoming American--and I believe there are parts of it we can cling to, while retaining our desire to reach and educate many. Fundamentally, I think the issue lies in the hearts of teachers and their goal for the students.

Can we even define when someone's literate?

Well, this is a difficult point to address, but I think that the scope will become more clear as the readings progress, and I and my fellow students become more acquainted with each other and become a little more personal in out interactions. So, this is actually a blog written for a class with Dr. Eve Tuck: “Issues in Literacy for Diverse Learners”. It’s important to add, though, that this is an opportunity to voice some concerns about the American populace as a whole, and the direction of our country since the 1940s; for better and for worse. In working with this blog, two of the fundamental pieces will be: Hirsch, Jr., E.D. Cultural Literacy: What Every American Needs To Know; New York, Vintage Books, (1988), and Delpit, Lisa, Other People’s Children: Cultural Conflict in the Classroom; New York, The New Press, 1995. Other pieces will be built into this work, and cited accordingly. Admittedly, some of the readings have been photocopied, so being specific with pages might, in some cases, not be possible. In such cases, I’ll be sure to mention that fact. But given the publishing information upon mention should suffice.

Beginning with Hirsch, his first chapter, and the first appendix of the aforementioned book, we’ll start with the scope of what a person ought to be familiar with in order to be literate. Hirsch created a list of topics, phrases, events, people, and dates with which he believed people in the USA ought to be familiar with in order to be literate. It’s a long list, but one that clearly reflected the events in America up to 1988. The list is 22 years old, and as for myself, being 27 (turning 28 this year), I was astonished to be familiar with most of the things on Hirsch’s list. But furthermore, it’s what Hirsch is attempting to put into words that I’m more fascinated with. What is worth knowing? What connects us as Americans? Clearly, to Hirsch, the defining moments of US history, and English literature are the key points around which our “culture” revolves, and are the things that link us as Americans. Does that still apply today? What is worth knowing?, I posit again. This question is central to the idea of literacy because, in order to properly understand phrases, events, and people, metaphorically or directly referred to, one must have a basic conception of those phrases, events, and people in order to understand the context and meaning of the written piece.

Hirsch’s prompt for the book was likely the dissociation of Americans, and the growing gap in actual literacy and communication of ideas from the multitude of cultures comprising the ever growing United States. Fundamentally, he comes to the point that the common literary and conversational topics of members of this country ought to form some sort of secondary culture that links people of diverse backgrounds together (Hirsch, p. 21). Many will disagree with me, but I believe that in order for our nation to function as a cohesive whole, this “second culture” ought to be accepted as primary by the inhabitants of the USA, placing the country and it’s state as a union first, and one’s personal culture and background second. Surely, one’s identity is defined by how he is raised, but if we are all radically invidualistic, we can never even begin to attempt to communicate across the lines defined by our diverse cultural backgrounds.

This is where the notion of “what ought to be known to be literate” comes into play. It is obvious that no true list of any subjects can be defined in order to “create” a substantive culture that would define the USA from any other country. However, there are elements that can be pursued by teachers (and parents) to achieve certain ends, allowing children to grow into a defined “American” adult with a rich cultural background and the ability to effectively communicate with his elders, peers, and those younger than himself: a standardized reading level, a similar course of study throughout tutelage from grade school through secondary school, and a strict grading and performance rubric. The application and involvement of various cultures in the aspects I have just brought up will prove to be the most difficult of tasks, since there are so many cultures within the USA today that wish to clearly define themselves as an individual group first, and as American second. This gives rise to radical differences in culture within the classroom which need to be addressed by teachers; thus, the individual teacher’s ability to integrate all students into a given curriculum effectively will make or break the teacher, and the students.

Moving forward, this is where Delpit’s book comes into play. She brings to the forefront 5 issues of awareness regarding the existent “culture of power” in our current government, communities, and school system (Delpit, p. 24). Different cultures have different methods of conveying authority, as well as accepted ways of dress, speech, and physical conversation which convey not only social status, but authority. Given the number of different cultures in the average classroom in the USA, and the even more diverse methods of communication within these cultures—it creates a stunningly difficult platform on which to build unity and a unified ideal of Literacy. In fact, in today’s day it is likely more important for educators and families to be familiar with other cultures (cultural literacy) than with a unifying written and oral literacy in America because of the growing gap mentioned before (2 paragraphs ago). Since the cultural literacy scope is so enormous, it presents an even more difficult platform for parents, teachers, and children; therefore I would argue that at least on a state level, a consistent, rigid, and uniform rubric be developed.

Though, I have no experience within the teaching field, and the application of these theories… They sound good. Practically, I’m not sure how it would be implemented within our democratic society with so many diverse points of view. Hopefully, as the class continues reading, we’ll learn more together (if you read my blog at all), and bring more to the table about the practicality of these issues. Hopefully, some links to my Alma Mater (Wabash) will be included, as well as to my current university (SUNY New Paltz). Videos, pictures, and even audio, I hope, will be added. I am personally very moved by this whole topic, and hope that by the end of my class some resolution and peace will be found about this issue.