Okay, who took all the answers?

I have fallen away from the blog for a good long while, but it isn't because I've stopped reading. The problem? I am on overload. In the past six months I have read about social justice, culturally responsive teaching, white privilege, YA lit in schools, grammar, phonology, and a multitude of other "stuff" that is too varied to even make any sense.

Here's what I've learned: I HAVE SO MUCH MORE TO LEARN!

The questions in my brain are boiling over and causing me to doubt myself in every aspect of teaching. Here are some questions that I am struggling with now that I have the luxury of time to reflect on my confusion:

1. How can I effectively teach in a classroom with diverse populations without compromising standards and test scores?
2. Can I be culturally responsive if I don't even recognize my own "invisible" culture that I am silently expecting others to conform to?
3. How can it be that some schools get tons of funding but the ones that really need funding go without enough desks and lack teachers because of low pay and furlough days?
4. If research can support using high-interest literature in the classroom, why do school districts mandate outdated, culturally irrelevant texts?
5. If teachers are supposed to teach students "where they are" but also teach everyone ALL of the information on the test, how does that look? 
6. Does grammar REALLY matter once you are out of school? I mean, if you know how to use it, does it matter if you know the rules and terminology?
7. If students can't read, how can we expect them to reach unrealistic standards on tests mandated by people who don't teach or even KNOW any kids?
8. How can I teach students when my boss has a boss who has a boss wants data collection, meeting minutes, lesson plans, test prep, mock testing, and a plethora of other crap that interferes with instructional time? EXPLAIN IT TO ME!!!

So where do I go for these answers? I read enough to answer one question, but I walk away with three new questions? Who has the answer key and why isn't anyone sharing??

GCTE Affinity Spaces Presentation

I had the privilege to co-present this with some great classmates and colleagues. You can contact any of us for more information and/or resources. Caitlin, Hannah, or Kacee

Segregation based on social class?

Response to HER Classic: Student Social Class and Teacher Expectations: The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy in Ghetto Education by Ray C. Rist

I find myself blogging about this reading with mixed emotions. Because this article was originally published in 1970 (I believe) and reprinted in 2000, I thought there would be little useful information worth my time. I was wrong, which brings me to the conflicted part of responding to this article. If I am reading an article written before I was born, shouldn't I feel like I am reading something from another time and place? I think I should feel that way. I didn't. I felt like Ray Rist was talking about teachers today. Maybe not exactly, but it was close enough for me to double check the publishing date and his credentials. Dr. Rist is, in fact, quite reputable. 

If you haven't read the article, I recommend taking the time to do so. If time doesn't permit at the moment, I will give you a quick run down: Rist was part of a study from 1967 to 1970 that followed three groups of African American students in a public school system from kindergarten to second grade. Two other researchers participated, so this article from Rist focused on his results from the school and students with which he worked. Basically, he found that one of two things was true: 

1. The teachers were brilliant and knew without testing them which students had the potential for success based on the limited knowledge gained in the first five days of kindergarten and some paperwork completed by some of the parents (such as employment of the parents, address, educational background, etc.).
2. The teachers were biased (consciously or otherwise) and segregated the students based on socioeconomic status of parents and "tracked" students based on perceived potential leading to inequitable teaching and grouping of students that continued through the study.

Okay, so I am willing to admit that these teachers did not do this maliciously or intentionally. Rist suggests that these teachers were actually good teachers, though perhaps misguided. Here is my issue (and it really isn't even an issue with the article or Rist): Why did I feel like I was reading a recent article? Has the school system changed so little that we haven't recognized that public education is perpetuating injustice based on social class?

Funny, but not really. Ironic, maybe?

Here is my question to you: If separate but equal was deemed inherently unequal in Brown v. Board of Education,  did the United States find a way around that by creating school boundaries? I mean, if all the kids in one area go to the same school, aren't we just segregating students based on their zip code socioeconomic status? As in, the nice houses in nice districts generate high property taxes, which, in turn, generate more revenue for those districts. The federal and state governments are not fully funding education mandates (in my opinion), forces local districts to fund locally. Here is a school in an affluent Atlanta district that managed to have $50,000 in PTA funds "stolen." How the heck did the PTA manage to raise so much that someone thought $50 grand wouldn't be missed? Other schools barely make it, while others are giving money away. How is that equitable? How is that an equal education? Schools giving away iPads versus schools without enough funds for class sets of books. Where is the equity in that?

Maybe Rist caught onto something early, and it takes a while to change the system. Or maybe there has always been inequity in public funding and education and just the marginalized population changes. I don't know. But it seems to me that the education funding formula perpetuates injustice against those who can least afford it. The "gap" between the haves and have-nots gets bigger every generation. Who will we marginalize next?

We can't all be just the same, can we?

Response to Chapter 1 of Un-Standardizing Curriculum: Multicultural Teaching in the Standards-Based Classroom by Christine E. Sleeter

Initially, I thought this blog would be something I updated regularly. Then the summer ended, and I did not read anything of value for an entire month (maybe longer). Now the fall semester has started, and I am compelled to share my opinions again. And this time I am fired up in a good way. Finally, someone out there gets it and offers solutions! Here we go!

First of all, I read just the first chapter of this book, but I REALLY want to find some time to finish it. Secondly, this book has nothing to do with technology in the classroom. Third, no one is required to read this post, so I hope I don't get to crazy with this!

On the second page of the chapter (page 6), Sleeter writes:

"Paradoxically, the use of standards-based reform as a way of eliminating inequity has resulted in homogenizing the curriculum, even while classrooms in the United States have become more diverse." 

I think this is the most profound public statement available to support my opinion that standardized tests measure a moment of student learning rather than long-term comprehension and application of knowledge. How can a test that is meant to treat every student the same actually be appropriate for every student? Thank you, Ms. Sleeter!

How can we gauge student learning if we aren't asking for more than A, B, or C? As I read this chapter, I made notes in the margins. Looking back, I see a theme in my comments and questions.  Here are just a FEW of my comments: 

• Can we have well-rounded education when we don't look at all of the students in a population? 
• There is more to learn than what can be measured on a test! 
• To educate a society each group needs justice and equity in offerings, so how do we do THAT? 
• Aren't all standards based on normalcy, stereotypes, and averages? How is that equitable? 
• Is the inequality in education a race or economic issue? Or is there a correlation with socioeconomics and race? Is that a two strikes against one group? 
• Does standardized testing perpetuation cultural models? 
• How can federal agencies issue mandates that they cannot fully fund? 
• How can teachers be accountable for outcomes when they don't have a voice in the process? 
• Is education reactive or proactive to societal needs? 
• Why aren't educators the driving force behind reform? 
• School choice is another means of bias against low-income students who do not have the means to enact their school-choice rights.

So, Sleeter obviously hit the spot on all my hot-button issues. She does breakdown the chapters to read to answer some of these questions, but overall she is on the money. We can't expect every students to respond to the material in the same way. We don't teach clones. We teach individual students. Until we accept responsibility for ALL of the students in our classrooms, we aren't living up to our promise to provide a free and appropriate education to all students! (I am pretty sure I read that somewhere in IDEA, but it is definitely on this site, too.)

Social justice as defined by Wikipedia:

Social justice is justice exercised within a society, particularly as it is exercised by and among the various social classes of that society. A socially just society is based on the principles of equality and solidarity, understands and values human rights, and recognizes the dignity of every human being.

Human rights. Equality. Dignity. This should be how we approach education.

Obviously, I have my own opinions about public education. I do want to say that I am a strong proponent of public education for all students, just in case it wasn't obvious. I think it is important for lawmakers, politicians, parents, and teachers to realize how important these issues are to the future of our country. Until we offer every student a quality education, we aren't serving students equitably. Every time we de-value a student and his or her experiences, we are sending them a message. And it isn't one that I am willing to support. Every child matters, and it is time we started treating them that way.

The Grammar Game: Does this make me a filmmaker?

While it isn't the coolest or most appealing video ever made, I learned something. Now, you can, too. Write like you know what you said. My new favorite line. Ever.

Seriously, this is a quick lesson on how to correctly use its, it's, their, they're, your, and you're in your writing that you're doing for people.

Updated at 6:25 p.m. for quality control, and your viewing pleasure.
(Translation: I completed some edits and uploaded this as a YouTube file.)

Marilyn Monroe: Iconic America

 

Abby, Hannah, and I worked on a photo analysis project together on Marilyn Monroe. Similar to our previous project on Frosted Mini Wheats, we analyze the message sent by this image and the aspects that made it an iconic image of Marilyn. We discuss various elements of the photograph, such as color, position, angle, and the subjects (Marilyn and the dress). A separate page offers additional details on Marilyn's iconic status. Enjoy the classroom applications we offer for high school students. Be sure to leave comments to let us know how we can improve the project.

In the end, does it really matter?

FINAL Response to The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future (Or, Don't Trust Anyone Under 30) by Mark Bauerlein

Here's the deal. Bauerlein complained a lot in this book. So much so that I was ready to call him up since he teaches here in Atlanta. I get that he has his own agenda and opinions, but one of the basic writing principles is to combat readers from saying, "Yeah, but what about (fill in the blank)?" I got encouraged from a few pages when he wrote about the ArtShow: Youth and Community Development. Then he ruined it when he complained about the work not carrying over into the kids' attitudes about school. Come on already, Bauerlein. Stop complaining and offer some solutions.

I have shared in previous posts how conflicted I feel about technology. I still feel conflicted. After a ton of reflection, I have come up with a few more questions.

1. This is a question I have already posed, but here it is again. Are teachers part of the technology problem? I mean, the printables from the teacher handbooks are all about finding the answer to fill in the blank. Those are easier to grade. Teacher use them. 
2. Is the problem that teachers are only working for summer break? Obviously, I don't think the answer is an unequivocal, "YES!" I do, however, think there are far too many teacher who hate their jobs, and it shows in their teaching.
3. If we are to complain about technology stupefying a generation, shouldn't school systems STOP pushing edutainment software that promises to improve test scores?

Obviously, I had to do some pop culture research about how people feel in regard to technology in schools. I stumbled across this gem:

Please watch the entire video, otherwise my comments won't make sense. 

Maybe Ellen earned auto correct. But today's kids haven't earned anything. I like that Ellen equates writing to thinking. Awesomeness. Ellen gets it. When she brings up cavemen and communication, she does miss the idea of visuals and pictures as language. Cavemen had primitive iPads if you consider their hieroglyphs as app icons. They communicated for a purpose, which is explained well in this site I found called Caveman Communications. This guy gets it. He admits that he is a caveman, primitive. He also gets that getting back to basics is the way to go. (Okay, maybe he doesn't completely say that, but that is my take-away from him.) My point is that this Caveman offers some solutions.

But getting back to Ellen. She has a good point about iPads for kindergartners. If pediatricians recommend limiting screen time each day, why are schools pushing it as a significant part of the curriculum? 

As I am writing this, I can't help but think of the Pixar movie, Wall-E.  Is this where our future is headed?

About 2 minutes in, there is an incredibly brief scene of babies in bouncy seats watching the screen (Ellen's point about iPads?), becoming brainwashed with branding. Face-to-face communication does not exists. You talk to the person next to you via screen messaging. There is no human interaction. I get that Bauerlein is giving me a grown up version of Wall-E, but I need solutions. I know there is a problem. I am walking away from The Dumbest Generation even more dejected than before about the challenge of engaging students to become critical analyzers of the information they consume. 

I wonder if technology in the classroom is just this generation's hot topic. Back in my school days, administrators still used corporal punishment. Then it was class size and test scores. Every few years there is some reason for American kids performing poorly on tests. We don't keep up with the rest of the civilized world. I don't think technology in the classroom is destroying the American work ethic. History is. We teach kids that each generation more advanced than the previous. But are we really just teaching them to mindlessly follow along and accept whatever information they are fed? 

While this push back text offered plenty of stats to support a decision to utilize less technology in the classroom, I don't think it is realistic. Kids are too "plugged in" to their devices. If teachers come in and tell them they are the dumbest kids ever, teachers might as well hang it up. The trick is to find an appropriate curriculum that balances student-centered technology with learning-centered education instead of entertaining students with short sound bytes and watered down handouts. The problem is more far-reaching than Bauerlein would have his readers believe.


In the end, does Bauerlein have a point? We all know what he is telling us. He just dazzles us with enough statistics that make teachers want to nose dive from their mountains of federal mandates right into the falling test scores.