Critical Pedagogy In Practice – Jody

         You know that saying about your outlook on life…the one that goes “is your glass half-full or half-empty?” It’s supposed to be an indicator of your attitude…do you have a positive or hopeful outlook, or a negative and hopeless outlook? Well, someone recently told me that my glass often seems to be half-empty, and it made me stop and think… I have a wonderful family and some very special friends. Every day I go to work to a job I love; teaching. I teach the most wonderful and wisest people on Earth; children. I work with some of the most eternally optimistic people there are; teachers. I have been given the opportunity to be in this program with a dynamic group of dedicated professionals who constantly challenge me to be more and to critically examine my beliefs and practices; the members of our cohort and our professors. I am so grateful to have had all of these wonderful people and opportunities come into my life, but after that comment, I questioned myself and my outlook; thinking that perhaps I was not appreciative enough for all of the wonderful things with which I have been blessed. I believe that, like almost anyone, I am guilty of this on occassion, but for the most part I am very aware and very appreciative of these blessings, and the many others with which I’ve been bestowed. But, on the other hand, while I believe that I should give thanks for, and appreciate the good in my life, I do not think that it is my job or my purpose to blindly accept or be naive and unquestioning, or to never “make waves” or “ruffle anyone’s feathers.” This goes even more so for teachers because as such we have an obligation to our students to be more questioning and more political than most. In my last post I said, “Politics in education, blah, blah, blah…” When I made that reference, I was trying to be slightly tongue in cheek about the politics of education, or more specifically, politicians in education. I feel very strongly that politicians should stay out of education, and stay firmly planted in what they know best; pandering… oops, I mean government policy. I believe that teachers should be very involved in the politics of education, both within their own schools, and in the making of policy whether it be county, state, or national. That being said, I do not believe that teachers should always look at their “glass” as half-full, as there are definitely times when we should realize that our “glass” is in fact half-empty and we should make no bones about letting people know it. We cannot be naive and assume that politicians are going to wondrously solve our problems for us. We have to be vigilant and proactive in making them aware of the needs in education and setting them straight when they are not doing what we know to be best for education and for social justice. This means that we have to be critical of what they propose and of what they are doing, and also remember that teachers and politicians do not make good bedfellows as they ultimately have entirely different agendas. Judy Smith (p 476) snatched the thoughts right out of my head when she said, “It is not okay just to be a ‘dedicated’ teacher – one who does all the right things and yet accepts things the way they are.” Yes, we should always be hopeful, for how do we teach each day if we do not have hope. Yet, we also must be critical, as Kimberly Min (p 501) says,
         ”Teaching has the potential to be transformative. It can create positive change in the lives of all–tolerance, awareness, respect, meaning, and fulfillment. But teachers and students must cast a critical eye to make learning reflect their realities and aspirations. As committed, critical, and active agents within schools, students and teachers must create change. By questioning our own views and preconceptions, by critiquing our own practice and pedagogy, and by allowing our reflections to turn into positive action, we create social justice.” 
           One of the many things I have learned through our readings and reflections is that, yes, we should be critical and examining and questioning, and sometimes know that our “glass” is half-empty, and then actively seek ways to fill it. Teachers must not always be blindly and ”hopefully” accepting, but instead they must be wise, and brave, and fierce when times call for it.

          Blah, Blah, Blah… That’s how I feel about politics in education. I just read the Obama-Biden education plan and it sounds great except we’ve heard it all before. Also, this plan seems to have been written when they were still campaigning. I want to see the plan they have now that they are actually in office. I am currently teaching in a school where we get one ream of paper per month, there is no money for toner for the copiers, and we are told to turn off the lights in the classroom whenever possible…and I’m not talking when we leave the room! So now they want to talk to us about extra training for teachers of science and math and recruiting math and science degree graduates to the field of teaching… like they’ll automatically know how to “teach it”, not to mention the great pay that will draw them away from those high paying jobs with the big corporations? Oh, and don’t forget that they want to close chronically underperforming schools (or initiate a process for doing so…. I wonder how long that will take… and where do those children go…. I guess they can just take a cab to a school in the burbs?) and they want to address the “dropout crisis” by passing legislation to provide funding to school districts to invest in intervention strategies in middle school – strategies such as personal academic plans (do they mean IEPs for every child? I see more paperwork in our future!), teaching teams (Do they mean collaborative teams or co-teaching, or what?), parent involvement (didn’t know that needed to be funded), mentoring (novel idea to get pay for this!), intensive reading and math instruction (so, what is it we’ve doing?), and extended learning time (tell me more???). Also, there will be double funding for the main federal support for afterschool programs (I guess we’ll be able to afford this with all the money we save teaching in the dark?), and don’t forget the outreach programs like GEAR UP, etc. (I guess we’ll have to start collecting aluminum cans and recycling paper….oh yeah, what paper?!). Then there is the piece about Supporting English Language Learners. I am so glad that we now know that all we have to do is make those schools accountable for making sure these students complete school!!! I only wish we had known…and exactly what is the consequence…oh right, we’ll close them down. And what about the stance on testing? They say they will reform NCLB by funding it; isn’t that an oxymoron? I thought the only way to reform NCLB was to throw it out! In the very next sentence they say they don’t think that students should be spending their time preparing to fill in bubbles on tests, but then turn around and say they will not only fund NCLB but improve it to track student progress to measure readiness for college and the workplace and they also say they want to improve the NCLB’s accountability system to support schools that need improvement (didn’t they say they would punish them by closing them down???). They then move on to the issue of testing teachers. Teachers will have to take a “voluntary” national performance assessment (wonder if they’ll have to pay to take it?) so that they are sure every new educator is trained and ready to walk into the classroom and start teaching effectively. Is this another gatekeeper test? I see many contradictions throughout this plan. 
        Alright, I’m being cynical…I know it. But this plan has ideas that have not been well thought out. I want this administration to be successful, but I also want realistic nuts and bolts, I want paper for the copiers, I want computers that aren’t being underused due to lack of repair funds, and I want electricity! These are basics for any school, and until our government can show us they can give us those basics don’t talk to me about pie-in-the-sky plans. And don’t talk to me about funding that is never going to materialize, and if it does, will most likely be misused or redirected (like the SPLOST money for technology that in light of all the recent budget cuts, will most likely be used for unintended purposes). How is it that the cost of K-12 education in the United States is approximately 500 billion dollars per year, or 10,000 dollars per student per year, and we cannot afford paper? There is something seriously wrong with this picture! I think charter schools may be a big part of the answer. I work in two schools, one charter and the other non-charter. They are both great places with wonderful faculty and administration and I am proud to be a part of each, but they are fundamentally different. One is very service and community oriented, and the teachers have a major voice in educational and budget decisions. Funny thing about the charter school, we have plenty of paper and no one has asked us to turn off the lights… except in an effort to reduce our eco-footprint! I think this president wants what is good and right for our education system, but I think he needs to start listening to the people who know; the teachers. I also think that teachers need to stop being so cheerful and accepting of everything that is handed down to them and start speaking up and demanding practical reforms that will work. I want this administration to stop and think before acting. I want it done right this time. I do not want another colossal debacle like NCLB that has completely reshaped teaching for the worse. So we have a president we like, now is the time to start making demands. It is not the time to be complacent and let someone else do our thinking for us…again!
       Here is a flip-side…another perfect example illustrating why politicians shouldn’t be allowed to make decisions about the funding and policy of education! Like I said…Blah, Blah, Blah!
http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/edreform/edreform.htm 

     Our discussion was very interesting, and I learned a lot. I would never have thought that Ebonics was considered a language; I’ve always considered it a dialect. But then I do consider Creole a language, so why not Ebonics too? Sounds fair to me. It is very interesting to me to see how territorial people are about their language. I remember hearing of the French and their fears that English would consume their language and their culture. Then I look to the north and see how the Canadians have had such intense debates, and ultimately become divided as a people, over the French and English spoken in their country. I personally think that being bilingual is a wonderful thing, and something to be proud of no matter what the language. What I fear for our country is that language may become a divisive tool used to create further divides between its people, who all have a rightful place here. As a teacher, I believe it is my job to develop the understanding and acceptance of all of the ways we are different, be it through language, or any other way. I’m not sure how to phrase this, but I don’t know if being strident is the best way to win this battle. Look where it got Canada, the French speaking population absolutely hates the English speaking population, and vice versa. I think it might be better to be assertive, tenacious, and maybe even implacable, and yet not divisive. I can’t bear to think that we would hate so much over language. It makes me think of men going to war over land. That land will be there long after we have all died and turned to dust, belonging to no one. I had put a poem on my blog last week and then I took it off, but again I think it is appropriate. Please look below and read.

       This chapter brought to mind many of our book talk discussions. Ayers book delved into the topic of becoming more involved in our students’ lives to better understand them and their learning interests. O&L’s comments on “Complaints about Parent Involvement” certainly rang true. I have heard many teachers over the years who have complained about lack of parent involvement. I’ve even heard teachers say that they cannot be responsible for their students’ learning if the parents won’t accept some responsibility. It is so easy to dismiss the pressures that parents may be dealing with, or even perceive their uninvolvement as lack of interest when it may infact be as O&L states “respectful distance.” I’ve had parents who I had to gently pursue to get them involved, and in the end found them very willing to be involved. I guess the most important message I will take away from this chapter is to not let our preconcieved notions stand in the way of building bridges to our students parents and their lives outside of school.
       I found the Parent Topology interesting. It gave many ways to involve parents on different levels in the school. Interesting also to read about letting parents close, but not too close (my words). That was my take on the boundaries we set for parents between “professional” work and “support.” I’d never thought of it quite that way, but it is very true. Their observation about not educating parents in the ways to question conventional practices was thought provoking also. It is one of those swirling thoughts that I had never fully clarified in my mind, but it is also very true. Another important point I noted was the author’s distinction between empowering and bridging. I had never considered the terms in quite that way, but it makes sense and is something we should clearly understand.     

I still have to find a copy of the Ruby Payne book, but in the meantime….For anyone interested in learning more about Paul C. Gorsky:

Interview with Dr. Paul C. Gorsky:

http://www.edchange.org/publications/interview-connections.pdf

The Question of Class:

http://www.tolerance.org/teach/magazine/features.jsp?cid=777

Good Intentions Are Not Enough:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/7526706/Intercultural-Education-A-Decolonizing-Intercultural-Education-PAUL-C-GORSKI

View With a Grain of Sand

By Bettina

We call it a grain of sand,

but it calls itself neither grain nor sand.

It does just fine, without a name,

whether general, particular,

permanent, passing

incorrect, or apt.

Our glance, our touch means nothing to it.

It doesn’t feel itself seen and touched.

And that it fell on the windowsill

is only our experience, not its.

For it, it is not different from falling on anything else

with no assurance that it has finished falling

or that it is falling still.

The window has a wonderful view of a lake,

but the view doesn’t view itself.

It exists in this world

colorless, shapeless,

soundless, odorless, and painless.

The lake’s floor exists floorlessly,

and its shore exists shorelessly.

The water feels itself neither wet nor dry

and its waves to themselves are neither singular nor plural.

They splash deaf to their own noise

on pebbles neither large nor small.

And all this beneath a sky by nature skyless

in which the sun sets without setting at all

and hides without hiding behind an unminding cloud.

The wind ruffles it, its only reason being

that it blows.

A second passes.

A second second.

A third.

But they’re three seconds only for us.

Time has passed like a courier with urgent news.

But that’s just our simile.

The character is invented, his haste is make believe,

his news inhuman.

     After reading your many posts and comments I started thinking about perspectives and knowledge and how much there is to know and how little we can really know about one another. I had recently read this poem and I thought it somehow appropriate. Our perspective is our own, but that doesn’t make it reality.

         Nice to read something that says so clearly what I have always felt but couldn’t quite verbalize. I agree with the author that intelligence is something that varies from culture to culture, and that different types of intelligences are valued by different cultures. I feel that it is very foolish of us to try to measure intelligence through one test, or any test. My job depends on testing in more ways than many teachers, and I often find myself at odds with the way that we label children through a series of tests, when I so strongly believe that all people have their own intelligences or “gifts” (thanks Maria). I think that most teachers recognize the wrongness of relying on test scores to label our students. We are forced into using a tool that doesn’t really fit. It’s ironic really, we want to measure our students’ intelligence or achievement so we invent a tool to measure what they have learned, then teachers change what they would normally teach so that they can make sure their students “learn” the right things. It’s an endless spiral of nonsense. The reason I love to teach in the advanced learning program is not because I get to teach “smart” kids, I like to teach in that program because I actually get to teach the way I know I should be teaching. I get to focus on process and thinking skills, not product. We get to spend significant amounts of time learning to examine our thinking through discussion and doing.  I constantly tried to do this in the regular classroom for all of my students, but it was always getting crowded out by the “have-to’s” … you know… the standards. I tried to find new and inventive ways for my students to learn this very specific information, but it sometimes seemed to suck the life right out of my teaching! I am so happy to be able to have the time to explore with my students, and it is weird how many students really find it daunting to have to really think simply because they never had enough time to devote to it. Do I think it is fair that only those students that tested into the program are offered that type of teaching? No, I think all children should have that opportunity, but until we find a way to have a voice in making changes, I will try to have an impact where I can. 

     I had read Ruby Payne’s “Framework of Poverty” about six years ago. At the time I found it interesting and informative, but I also found that it made many generalizations. In all fairness though, I find it hard to read articles critiquing or criticizing something that I have not read more recently. Do I agree with some of the points that these articles are trying to make? Certainly, but I also do not agree with the way that the author brings up Payne’s contributions to Bush’s campaign as a way of discrediting her.  I am often annoyed by authors who judge people solely on their political affiliations, choosing instead to use other criteria to make those judgments. Just as I found it abhorrent when William Ayers was judged for his past political connections, I find it just as offensive in this case. I am perfectly capable of making those distinctions on my own and don’t need the authors to predispose my opinions with their own biases. I looked up Gorski, on my own, and found that he has written a couple other articles that sound interesting. I’ll investigate him a little further and refresh my memory on Ruby Payne, until then my opinion on this is still out.