"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.