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...