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.

Who's the problem and where's the solution?

Intermediate 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


A couple of disclaimers are necessary before I go any further with this blog:

1. It has come to my attention that my posts are "lengthy," so don't feel obligated to read them unless you are grading them. Read to enjoy it, not out of obligation.
2. If it hasn't been clear yet, I have not committed to a side on the debate about technology in the classroom. I think it is overused. I think kids engage less critically in their lives (in broad terms). I think there is more to the problem than technology. Make of that what you will.

Now, back to The Dumbest Generation. I am bothered by the chapter "Online Learning and Non-Learning." I feel like Bauerlein is blaming the kids for not knowing how to appropriately use technology. Kids don't know how to use anything until you teach them. I had encyclopedias in my house as a kid (I know, I'm old), but I didn't know how to correctly "use" them until I learned about plagiarism and copyright in school. So why doesn't Bauerlein place any of the blame on educators for not keeping up with the kids? Aren't we supposed to be one step ahead of those we teach? If kids don't know how to cite resources from the Internet or figure out the validity of a website, I think teachers are the problem. If kids use the Internet to connect to the world, educators should teach them to connect responsibly.

I do agree with Bauerlein and his stats about the massive amounts of money spent on technology in schools. It seems wasteful to funnel funds to technology if it isn't helping kids get "more educated." It is great to have computers and Internet in every classroom; but if you shove 40 kids into a class, does it matter how many computers you have? There is definitely a crisis in education, and I don't think technology and its use are the root of the problem.

I also wonder this: if test scores didn't change when school went "digital," doesn't that mean technology is NOT the problem? I think there are lots of problems that have NOTHING to do with technology! Aarrgghhhh! I feel like Bauerlein is so busy bashing technology in schools instead of offering any practical solutions. Maybe there is more wrong with kids and schools than the Internet.

Bauerlein brings up some valid concerns about language acquisition in the digital age. If kids only text, email, and play video games, where do they learn communication? I get that he thinks kids get the watered-down vocabulary of popular culture. But I think it is even worse. Kids are lacking in communication in general. Like basic communication. Like making an actual phone call. Or learning to interact in an interview for a job. Digital natives are lacking in some basic skills, and I think educators the part of the problem. They expect students to come to school on day one with an advanced skill set, so they neglect to teach the basics from day one. If you miss the basics in elementary school, kids are at a deficit when they hit middle and high school. Since Bauerlein wants to bash technology in schools, spread the love and bash elementary applications, too.

In order for me to commit to a side of the debate, I need more than endless statistics thrown in my face. I want to hear about possible solutions and changes. I want to hear promise and compromise. I want to know that people are doing more than sitting around complaining. I guess I am frustrated with Bauerlein because he is doing a lot of trash talk without taking off the researcher hat and spouting some solutions. If he doesn't start offering me a ray of hope in this book, I might cry.

Success with Non-Traditional Texts

Response to:

• Apps in Education, a blog
• "Telling Stories with Video" by Carl Young and Sara Kajder
• "Empowering Children as Critics and Composers of Multimodal Texts" by Phyllis Whitin and David J. Whitin

I feel like I am complaining a lot about technology in the classroom, and I haven't committed to a side in the debate. Maybe it is bad. Maybe it isn't.

I decided to research a little to see what I could find in support of non-traditional applications of technology in the classroom. First of all I thought about non-traditional texts (like cereal boxes, movies, still photographs), but then I thought about popular technology. This response is a little bit of both. I started with the thought, "There's an App for that!"

I came across this pretty cool blog that breaks down apps by subject. A fairly practical list, it includes a variety of categories and price points. If we all know that kids are using their phones, can't we use it for their benefit (and ours)? If Reading Rainbow has an app, shouldn't we just accept technology as part of the curriculum? I think successful educators embrace the tools available. And apps are available. This blog, Apps in Education (linked above), offers twenty applicable apps for the English classroom. These twenty have been reviewed for usefulness and list the cost associated with each. Half of the apps reviewed are free, and the remaining ones range from $0.99 to $3.99. Additionally, nearly 80 unreviewed apps are listed. WOW! And that is just for English!

While trying to find classroom applications for new technology, I ran across this article which offers a variety of alternatives, ten to be exact, for the traditional book report. There are some limitations to integrating technology as a requirement (I would guess), but as long as the appropriate resources are available during class time successful implementation is possible. I do wonder how long it will be before all students are expected to have access to the Internet and a computer at home. These technologies seem prevalent; but when I observed in a local high school in the spring, a number of students required access to the classroom computers before or after class to complete/correct/print required assignments. Students completed potions of the assignments on their phones, but they lacked the other components necessary to turn in an assignment. The article I talked in a previous post, talked about blogs as a location for "publishing" homework. That seems like a practical solution in this case.

Here is another article which encourages the use of technology in the ELA classroom. Written by two assistant professors, this article is short, sweet, and to the point. Their ideas are in line with the content of ENGL 7741 here at KSU.  

Students writing with multimodal tools, such as digital video editors, should use them selectively, intentionally, and it ways that leverage the unique capacities of the tools and media to accomplish a specific goal. As in print-centric writing tasks, the principles of choice and form matter, as does the larger context in which the writing is situated. To be fully literate, students must know how to use tools, but more important, they must also know which forms of literact will best support their purpose for a given audience and a specific context.  ~From "Telling Stories With Video" by Carl Young and Sara Kajder

There really isn't much to say about it because Young and Kajder sum things up nicely. I like how easy this article was to read and how straightforward they were with content. It is work the two-minute read.

One of the projects I was part of during this semester analyzed product packaging and its intended message. I ran across "Empowering Children as Critics and Composers of Multimodal Texts" after we completed the project bookmarked it as a site for reference. It is a study of cereal in the classroom. Basically, fifth grade students analyzed packaging and advertising of a product and created skits, ads, and PowerPoints to market the product themselves. I mention this article because the study was with FIFTH GRADERS. If they can critically engage with cereal, high schoolers should be able to do even more. I think that introducing students to multimodal texts earlier in the academic lives could encourage them to engage more critically in the future. The take away for me is that students need to be consumer AND producers of their language: multimodal texts.

The main point that I am trying to make with this seemingly unrelated group of articles is that technology isn't going away. The Internet is a great resource for teachers AND students if we teach everyone to use it responsibly. Nearly every educational article I could need to support methods in my future classroom is a few keystrokes away. If I am going to teach the digital natives, I need to be fluent in their language. Maybe we can all just learn from each other. Or maybe not.

At this point, I think it is about advocating responsible use. As Young and Kajder imply, you have to know the system before you can work the system. And it works both ways.