Asking for a Miracle: Implementation of Effective Literacy Instruction

This will be my last blog entry. Overall, the theme of my blog was a questioning of the ways in which effective literacy instruction can genuinely be implemented in the American classroom. While the theories of education specialists like Victoria Purcell-Gates, Gloria Ladson-Billings, and Lisa Delpit are arresting and thought provoking in their own right, how can their ideas on education properly take hold in a system that is as battered and broken as that of the United States?

Ultimately, a complete and utter overhaul of the American educational system needs to take place, one in which each individual who chooses to enter the teaching profession receives a standard level of superior training. This training should provide all prospective instructors an arsenal of knowledge specifically designed to help them navigate what is a very tough, albeit very underappreciated, profession.

I think one has to read the variety of educational theory currently in circulation with a discerning eye; many ideas have been put forth on what should be done in education and who should be doing it, but there is often little talk about how to effectively put theory into practice. What can then end up happening is that any one school or district can have different teachers employing a variety of different teaching approaches from one classroom to the next. Some of these methods may be good and others no so good. The end result is that widespread benefit of successful teaching methodology is not seen, since not every child in the country is made privy to it.    

In light of this, I did feel that (in their own unique way) Moses, Freire, and Hirsch all offered solid, concrete steps that must be taken in education in order to generate concrete, positive change. Though Hirsch raised the ire of many in his day by suggesting that American students be taught a standard, national curriculum, one that could be construed as exclusionary and only Western European in content, he did make a valid point in observing that the shared, cultural knowledge of U.S. inhabitants is slipping drastically. He wrote this in 1988. However, during the week of this past 4^th of July (2011) holiday, the Marist Poll revealed that only 58% of Americans could name the date that America declared its independence, and younger Americans were cited as being least likely to know the correct answer” [italics mine] (Marist Poll online, 2011). Furthermore, the poll also showed that 1 in 4 Americans were unable to name the country from which the U.S. declared independence.

When I heard this news on the eve of the 4^th of July, I wondered exactly how many Americans around the country had no clue as to what they were actually supposed to be celebrating. I then couldn’t help but think of the sentiments of Hirsch, that there are certain baseline facts that every American needs to know. In my international experiences, I have found that citizens of many other countries can speak with great confidence and knowledge about their country’s history, government, and overall cultural heritage. Why should standards here be any less? Though the problem with Hirsch’s theory primarily lies in the type of content he proposes for American cultural literacy, the content can be greatly changed and expanded upon. Nevertheless, the point Hirsch makes about the rampant lack of cultural knowledge extant in the American public is a valid one.

I would like to have had an exploration of teacher training programs and practices be a part of our course curriculum. After all, teachers who are not well trained (and this is a serious problem I think is overlooked far too much in discussions about education reform) cannot teach any methodology well. What would it take to ensure that each teacher who enters education has an excellent command of the rules of grammar and Standard English, did not go into teaching because s/he “couldn’t think of anything better to do” or just “wanted the summers off”? From politics, to money, to teaching training, a vast number of factors must come together to ensure that all children in every classroom are consistently on the receiving end of teaching that is interesting, informed, inspired and inspiring.

Through the Lenses of Many: Appreciating Multiple Literacy Practices

Part I

Critical literacy (CL) is a response to injustice and the production of illiteracy in which students and teachers work together to give meaning to what students are learning. This is achieved through providing students with the choice to either accept or decline any academic information given them based on how significant they find a subject to be. Further, critical literacy challenges students to think for themselves and not blindly accept and regurgitate all academic information that is thrown at them.

Of all the writers we’ve covered this term, renowned critical literacy theorist Paulo Freire best breaks down the characteristics of (CL) in his seminal work Pedagogy of the Oppressed. In it, he writes that critical theory works to end the cycle of the “banking approach” to education, one in which students are considered nothing more than blank and empty receptacles who contribute nothing to the classroom and need only to be filled with the expert knowledge of the instructor. In this pedagogical model, “knowledge is a gift bestowed by those who consider themselves knowledgeable upon those whom they consider to know nothing. Projecting an absolute ignorance onto others, a characteristic of the ideology of oppression, negates education and knowledge as processes of inquiry” (Freire, 1997, pg. 53).   

PART II

Throughout the duration of this class, many of the readings spoke to me, some far more positively than others. Since one of the foci of our learning has centered on the idea that literacy involves far more than just mastery of reading and writing, I wanted to take the opportunity in this next to last blog to present in a format that is not heavily writing based. In the words of James Gee, “literacy is more than reading and writing…Once we see this multiplicity of literacy (that we read and write different sorts of texts in different ways), we realize that when we think about reading and writing, we have to think beyond print” (Gee, 2003, pg. 28). As so, this week, I present a media centered blog, one that explores languages, their value, the way in which they are learned, and honoring the diversity of learners.

In the book No Kinda Sense, Michael Stubbs begins the early part of his chapter by stating “It is difficult to overestimate the importance of people’s attitudes and beliefs about language.” He further drives home his point by stating that linguists, as part of their professions, “accept that no language or dialect is inherently superior or inferior to any other, and that all languages and dialects are suited to the needs of the community they serve” (Stubbs, 2002, Kindle Edition). After reading these words, and particularly after viewing the A.M. Baggs video in the first week of class, I began seriously thinking about the true meaning of language and some of the forms of it we see everyday. Generally speaking, on a daily basis, each of us sees various forms of language in any number of different arenas, including film, print, and television. How much is the depth and diversity of language truly appreciated on a societal level? Aside from the beauty of different “official” languages that are spoken around the world, such as French, Italian, Spanish, German, Chinese, Japanese and Russian (to name just a few), prior to taking this course, I had given little thought to the sheer variety of language that I am exposed to each and everyday. How much are various forms of communication truly valued among educators, rather than dismissed? I now present examples of individuals who are literally learning language right before our very eyes. You will most likely be quite familiar with the language learner in the first clip!

 http://youtu.be/T_NQp4VghX4

This second clip is not famous, with the exception of a viral following on the internet. That being said, pay close attention to the way in which genuine communication is taking place between these two boys. In the case of both clips, language ability is writ large, as it is in the cases of most students who enter the American school system and an American classroom setting. The question, then, is how can language ability in schools be honored, honed, and built upon, rather than crushed, misused, and dismissed? In her chapter “Learning From Diverse Learners,” Catherine Luna presents the U.S. as a culture “in the grips of deficit thinking,” a circumstance that limits the diversity of learning abilities and backgrounds that can be found in any number of student bodies” (Luna, 2002, pg. 597).  

http://youtu.be/T_NQp4VghX4

Meanwhile, we also explored ways in which being taught in an unwelcoming, non-progressive, and culturally limited academic environment can have an adverse effect on a student’s learning. In chapter 3 of No Kinda Sense, Lisa Delpit concludes that if schools are going to be successful at teaching children, their curriculums must in some way reflect the children, their lives, and the worlds that interest them. Though Delpit was referring to the academic needs of many African American students for the purposes of her article, in truth, her sentiment is applicable to all students of all races. If publicly schooled children are generally taught through “workbooks and textbooks that make no reference to their lived experiences” and they see little connection to their “cultural lives and personal interests,” why should learning be considered compelling (Delpit, 2002, Kindle Edition)?

In one installment of Calvin & Hobbes, one of my most treasured and adored cartoon strips, Calvin, the main character, shows his prowess in figuring out exactly what is expected of him when writing in an academic setting. Under normal circumstances, Calvin, who is extremely bright, fails to do well in school because he finds it extremely uninteresting. Though he generates any number of innovative ideas and activities in the hours he spends outside of the classroom, in the classroom he is another person entirely. As Delpit would say, Calvin finds no reference to his personal interests or cultural life when he sets foot in a classroom.  Calvin’s schoolteacher is a prime example of a transmissionist, banking approach educator who has little interest in the true identities and interests of her pupils.

However, in the strip below, Calvin has astutely (and hilariously) cracked the code of what type of writing goes far in a scholarly arena.

 

Figure 1. Calvin & Hobbes by Bill Watterson, 1993

Finally, in April of this year, The New York Times reported on a worse case scenario incident in which the cultural background, communication methods, and literacy practices of a professor were not appreciated or recognized, and this came at an extraordinarily high and tragic price. Since April, the story of Antonio Calvo has garnered widespread and national attention.

For the duration of this summer term we have been studying the repercussions of teachers not teaching to the needs of students, teachers not understanding or appreciating the cultural identity, language, and mores of students, and teachers all but dismissing the talents and knowledge that children bring to the classroom. What happens when these very trespasses are done to a teacher of another culture? The story of Princeton professor provides a significant amount of food for thought. A link to the story can be found here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/22/nyregion/after-suicide-firing-of-princeton-lecturer-is-questioned.html

I'm Not Buying It! No Sale, Not Ever!

“So you’d like me to go from being an outstanding teacher to a mediocre one?”

(Gatto, 2007, pg. 73). 

When teacher Lynn Gatto begins her chapter on success guaranteed literacy programs with the above line, it is almost as if she performs several feats in uttering one sentence. Not only did Gatto describe herself challenging the views of a specially hired, “transmissionist trained” Reading First specialist, she also threw down an educational gauntlet of sorts, demanding that students always be taught literacy in a stimulating and effective way. By refusing to adopt the educational methods of the Reading First literacy approach, a program she describes as something “each teacher [in her district] is mandated to use,” Gatto made it clear that she would continue to teach in the manner in which she thought best, no matter who it upset (2007, pg. 74).  

That Gatto was able to take this stand with impunity is refreshing, as is her discussion on the way in which she teaches her own students. After sharing that her personal teaching theory is “grounded in the work of Vygotsky” as well as Nystrand’s “substantive engagement,” (2007, pg. 75) Gatto describes a classroom rife with “dialogic discussion” and inquiry-based/immersion learning.

It was wonderful to read about the enthusiasm and passion that Gatto brings to her classroom, along with a teaching approach that does not intellectually “oppress” children. If Paulo Freire were alive today and were able to look in on Gatto’s classroom, he might proclaim her teaching to be libertarian in application, one that gives students a voice, recognizes their strengths, and promotes a constant sense of conscientizacao. In Gatto’s words, important aspects that underline her teaching include planning carefully, selecting appropriate materials and activities across the curriculum, and always considering students’ needs.  Above all else---at least for the purposes of the chapter we read---the school mandated Reading First curriculum is essentially verboten in Gatto’s classroom.

That being said, within the first few paragraphs of Gatto’s piece, I realized that she was coming from a rather privileged position, one in which she could professionally afford not to implement the literacy program her school district had mandated. Gatto could also afford to publicly make her displeasure with Reading First known, both within the school and in national, scholarly publications. As a veteran of the teaching profession with tenure, a thirty-year plus track record, numerous teaching awards and a professionally produced documentary in circulation, Gatto can let her voice be heard with little risk of personal repercussions, such as losing her job. However, newer teachers entering the teaching profession, particularly in the educational and economic climate of today, do not have such luxury, nor can they afford to blatantly go against school mandate in the same manner Gatto did.

To a large degree, Gatto is a rogue teacher, and, in reading between the lines of her text, there is the sense that she is not sharing all that happened to her in the aftermath of her refusal to teach the Reading First curriculum:

So far, my “Don’t” attitude and “I do not use it” conduct have not been challenged by my school administration…I must admit, in the last sixteen years I have transferred out of four schools because of the frequent changes in administration, which left me to work with principals who lacked peda-gogical vision and leadership skills. Since my district comprises thirty-nine elementary schools, I have had little difficulty transferring to the schools of my choice (2007, pg. 77).

 Though it is good that Gatto has been able to change from school to school as she sees fit, what type of message does this send to perspective, new, and young teachers?  And what about all the children Gatto regularly leaves behind? With her gone from their lives, they ineluctably go back to being taught using mediocre teaching methods. Somehow, choosing to go rogue and then changing schools whenever administrators begin to turn against you somehow doesn’t seem to be the most efficient approach to changing the educational system. Suppose one is in a position where s/he doesn’t have such a choice? Administrators and fellow colleagues alike can make life quite terrible for talented but less established teachers who refuse to follow rules and protocol.  

For the duration of the article, I was excitedly waiting to hear about the moment when Gatto and her fellow teachers banded together, unanimously agreed to teach their students in a more progressive and inquiry-based manner, and subsequently turned around the test scores and literacy skills of students. In other words, I was waiting to see how Gatto lead her colleagues to Beat the System, but from within. But the moment never came. With a teacher as gifted as Gatto, I never felt that she was particularly interested in sharing her teaching methods with colleagues and working with them to truly make a difference in education as a united group.

For the duration of the article, I got the strong sense that Gatto views herself as a one woman show and a star teacher, but she never takes on a leadership role to “rally the troops” and get everyone, rather than just her, teaching in the best way possible. As educators, it does little good to only be off on our own doing good things for students. In this educational climate, now more than ever, teachers need to collectively support and help one another.

On a personal note, for the duration of my own teaching experience, I have had the luxury of teaching in a setting where I was able to employ an inquiry-based, progressive instructional approach without the use of state mandated textbooks or programs. The inspired and inquiry-based teaching approach I have always employed is somewhat similar to the one that Gatto created.  The curriculum at my school was entirely teacher generated and its quality heavily depended on the skills and talents of teachers. Suffice it to say, effective teachers at the school did an incredible amount of work on a daily basis, constantly coming up with new curricular ideas and devising innovative implementation methods. The teacher autonomy was wonderful, but there is a catch---the school I speak of is private, and I know that the rules of instruction that work well there would not work at all well in most public schools.  

Because Gatto commences her teaching units by immersing students in a theme, begins instruction with the children’s questions (rather than her own or those given in a textbook), has students engage in hands-on, project based learning and extensive, reflection driven writing, she appears to not run a “banking based” classroom. In Freirian theory, the banking approach to education is one in which the road to learning is paved with rote memorization and children are viewed as empty depositories which teachers must fill with knowledge. In Freire’s words:

In the banking concept of education, knowledge is a gift bestowed by those who consider themselves knowledgeable upon those whom they consider to know nothing. Projecting an absolute ignorance onto others, a characteristic of the ideology of oppression, negates education and knowledge as processes of inquiry. The teacher presents himself to his students as their necessary opposite; by considering their ignorance absolute, he justifies his own existence. The students, alienated like the slave of the Hegelian dialectic, accept their ignorance as justifying the teacher’s existence---but, unlike the slave, they never discover that they educate the teacher (Freire, 1997, pg. 53).

In all my various academic experiences, both in the United States and abroad, I’ve discovered that having a true Freirian educational experience, one that essentially approaches education from a libertarian perspective and thus promotes authentic thinking and consciousness in students, along with genuine and meaningful time to work and reflect, is an exquisite find indeed. On the rare occasions this has actually happened to me, I’ve felt like I’ve unexpectedly stumbled over the Hope Diamond.

And now for a Freirian homage, put together by Suzanne McDougall, formerly of Antioch (please excuse the small spelling error in one of the frames of the video):

http://youtu.be/KEaH64uhaN0

Literacy in the 21st Century: Arithmetic, Writing, and Civil Rights

Developed in response to the established and accepted status quo in American society, critical literacy theory proposes that students employ comprehensive reading, writing, thinking, listening, speaking and evaluating skills in an effort to effectively communicate and succeed in everyday, real-life situations. In other words, there is no one path to literacy, and, in order to be a full, functionally literate, and contributing member of society, a number of communication forms must be fluently mastered by individual students.

In his landmark work Radical Equations: Civil Rights from Mississippi to the Algebra Project, former Civil Rights activist Robert Moses presents literacy as a Civil Rights issue. After discussing the deeply visceral experiences he had fighting for Black Voting Rights in the racially stratified south of the 1960s, Moses likens that fight to the current struggle for Black Educational Rights in 21^st century America. In discussing the American political climate of the 60s, Moses writes, “In those days, of course, the issue was the right to vote, and the question was political access” (Moses, 2001, pg. 4). Currently, the fight for equal opportunity in education is very much a Civil Rights issue, and, in many ways, is directly linked to the American Civil Rights movement. Once African Americans were legally recognized as legitimate and ‘equal’ American citizens and the right to vote won, levels of racial hatred and discrimination that were already rampant in this country were by no means lessened. Though it was no longer legal to officially discriminate against a person based on skin color, racial segregation could still be achieved through factors such as the ‘White Flight’ phenomenon, implementation of restricted covenants in affluent neighborhoods, and particularly high tax brackets instilled in top-level school districts.

In what can be construed as an echo of the sentiments of E.D. Hirsch, Moses states “the most urgent social issue affecting poor people and people of color is economic access” (2001, pg. 5). He goes on to say that “the absence of math literacy in urban and rural communities throughout this country is an issue as urgent as the lack of registered Black voters in Mississippi was in 1961” (2001, pg. 5). His solution? The Algebra Project, a national, non-profit organization Moses founded with the specific goal of providing quality education to public school children with a specific focus on mathematical mastery.

Founded in 1982, the Algebra Project makes perfect sense in that it attempts to achieve equality and promote personal success through education and the public school system. Moreover, in his effort to instill educational change, Moses carefully constructed a specific and content driven mathematical curriculum rather than just stopping at a proposal of only “what should be done” to promote positive change. In the almost twenty years since The Project was founded, it has been adopted in over 200 schools and, at least in Chicago, has been aligned to correlate with common core state standards (The Algebra Project, 2011). In this sense, Moses has navigated one of the most difficult aspects of educational reform----adapting a different, more effective curriculum to already instilled district standards. Therein lies the promise of the program. A pitfall comes in not having the program adopted in each and every school district that needs it. In order for an educational initiative to truly work, all those in need must have access to it.

Figure 1. “Inch By Inch” (Smithsonian Institution, 2011)

In “Writing Commonsense Matters,” Linda Rief discusses writing as a pathway to critical literacy, and she argues that “good writing is not defined by one set of criteria but differs depending on the kind of writing” (Rief, 2007, pg. 193). She also calls on educators to provide students with “choice, time, and models of good writing” (2007, pg. 2). Her solution is that students be directly engaged in The Process of Writing in an effort to learn and appreciate the different roles that writing plays in everyday life. Like Moses, Rief has her eye on the prize of having students become more well rounded and comprehensive in their academic abilities, a skill which will ultimately serve them well in society as a whole.   

In “Making It Matter Through the Power of Inquiry” and “Effective Teachers, Effective Instruction,” Wilhelm, Smith, and Allington collectively call for teachers to be trained and allowed to work in a manner that actually fosters, rather than crushes, student intellect and literacy ability. Wilhelm and Smith talk about the necessity of intellectual “flow” in a class and primarily focus on the education of boys in the classroom, while Allington talks about the dynamic of an effective teacher’s classroom. All three authors present an argument that primarily showcases ways in which teachers can ideally be trained to be consummate and accomplished educators. In a nod to Deborah Dean’s genre theory (the theory that children must be taught according to the values of many different types of writing), Wilhelm, Smith, and Allington ask that teachers “expand notions of text and curriculum and what counts as meaningful reading and learning” (Wilhelm and Smith, 2007, pg. 236). If all American public school teachers can adhere to this teaching approach and foster the varied writing and literacy skills of children, the academic skills of countless students across the nation would skyrocket. However, the pitfalls of such a literacy proposal lies in having each and every public school teacher properly trained according to a more Genre Theory related academic approach.

While all the readings of this week talked about teaching methods that would ultimately improve the academic and intellectual skills of U.S. citizens, the pitfalls lie in the ways such teaching approaches could be nationally implemented.

  

ROMANCING THE TWEEN

When I first looked at the title of Jane Stanley’s article, “Practicing for Romance: Adolescent Girls Read the Romance Novel,” I initially thought her focus would be on the traditional Georgette Heyer, Johanna Lindsey, LaVryle Spencer “bodice-ripping” type of book.

On a personal note, during exam study weeks in high school and middle school, my girlfriends and I would skim through the pages of classic, historical romances in search of any passage that contained the words, “Oh, God.” We would then read the over-the-top and deeply unrealistic sex scenes---which were invariably replete with a longhaired, broad chested and incredibly muscular hero—laugh like hyenas, and then go back to studying. It was a great stress reliever and provided something of a change to the books we normally read with great voracity, including historical and contemporary memoirs, the Gothic novel, Victorian and Edwardian literature, bio and autobiography, drama, mysteries, and thrillers.

Upon closer inspection of Stanley’s chapter, however, I saw that she referred to books such as Conklin’s P.S. I Love You and Francine Pascal’s Sweet Valley High Series, works that could easily be crossed categorized as tween fiction or tween “chick-lit,” but not necessarily romance in the truest sense of the genre. In her chapter, Stanley laments the fact that many adolescent girls---a number of whom are already reluctant readers---have such an affinity for teen romance novels. In her words, “these novels teach girls to put boys’ interests above their own, and that, by and large, they show only the lives of white suburban middle-class families. In fact, in all this middle-class abundance the only thing impoverished is the range of options available to the female protagonists in these stories” (Stanley, 2008, pgs. 169-70).

The main issue Stanley has with teen romance fiction is that it is potentially damaging to girls’ sense of self and self worth in the absence of a man, appeals to the “lowest common denominator of reader,” and “instructs girls that the quest for romance is in and of itself a career” (2008, pgs. 170-71). 

Though Stanley’s chapter was certainly engaging, there were a number of factors absent from her argument. Though she does discuss the findings of two separate studies and states that the reading of romance fiction for one group of girls is “an important component in the…construction of gendered identity” (2008, pg. 172), she does not mention the plethora of other contemporary cultural factors that influence identity well before girls are choosing their own reading material. Such factors include film, television, pop music, and music videos, all of which illustrate and promote overt gender roles. Furthermore, though Stanley does refer to this in passing, parents play an extremely important role in the type of reader their children grow up to become. Any child who is read to and read to regularly and exposed to a variety of literary genres will very likely become an avid and wide-ranging reader. Stanley mentions the fact that a significant number of girls who were studied by Christian-Smith were particularly devoted to romance literature because “their mothers were avid romance readers” (2008, pg. 174). With this in mind, whenever one looks at literacy patterns in students, the role of parents (in addition to schools) must be acknowledged and, perhaps, more included in academic argument.      

Stanley did not really explore the cognitive, and behavioral development levels of her study subject, that is the female adolescent. As a teacher of middle school age children, I have had a tremendous amount of experience with this age group and know that, at 11 and 12 years of age, girls are just beginning to become interested in the opposite sex after years of finding them “gross.” The same can be said of adolescent boys regarding girls. At this age, girls are naturally becoming interested in romance fiction, but in my experience, they are highly, highly open and interested in other literary genres----particularly if they have access to teachers who are voracious readers, knowledgeable about young adult literature, and know how to “sell” a book to kids, be it fiction or non-fiction.

I felt that Stanley inadvertently did not give adolescent girls their due credit. Just because a child reads something does not mean that s/he takes it at face value and lacks an ability to be discerning about the believability of a text. Children know when to “take the best and leave the rest” when a situation calls for it, and reading romance novels is no exception.

In both of the studies that Stanley mentions, teachers are described as “giving in” to student desires to read romance, despite the fact that this subverted their delivery of “pedagogized literacy” (2008, pg. 170) In reading this, I couldn’t help but think of Gloria Ladson-Billings in The Skin We Speak, and her anger over the fact that so many teachers unknowingly give kids “permission to fail” by not acting more pro-actively in challenging teaching situations (Ladson-Billings, 2008, Kindle Edition).  

 

How is it that none of the teachers mentioned in Stanley’s article saw reluctant readers’ interest in romance novels as a wonderful thing and a rare opportunity for a tremendous teachable moment?

In her chapter ‘No Kinda Sense,’ Lisa Delpit talks about the great deal of time she spent in a middle school that is 98% black. After observing students and noticing how interested they were in hair care, Delpit saw a need for an effective, cross-curricular unit on African American hair. She saw an opening for a teachable moment and then designed a full-unit based on student interest. In her words, “the object is not to lower standards or just teach what is interesting to the students, but to find the students’ interests and build an academic program around them” (Delpit, 2008, Kindle Edition).

In the case of the studies Stanley presents, all teachers involved could have viewed student interest in romance as an opportunity to teach an entire unit on the romance novel, one designed to appeal to both boys and girls. The unit could begin with a history of the romance novel, discuss the importance of setting using film excerpts and photographs, cover different examples of romance novels through the ages, including books by Jane Austen and the Brontes, have students write and act out their own romance scripts and perhaps do a class parody of the genre, and end with a reading of a modern, paranormal romance, such as the Twilight series. Throughout this unit, teachers could guide students in analyzing and critiquing the romance genre, talk about the stereotypes that exist, and explore ways in which characters could be improved upon. The teaching possibilities really are endless. 

In contrast and in closing, in his article ‘From Video Games, Learning About Learning,’ James Gee discusses his foray into a world he had previously known nothing about, that of the video game. Gee was officially introduced to the video game after witnessing his four-year-old son playing on numerous occasions. Though, like teen romance fiction, the video game has also been criticized for its negative factors, including gratuitous violence and lack of intellectual value, Gee presents the video game in a positive light and presents his readers with its educational merits. In his words, he had a “revelation,” and concluded that video games “require the player to learn and think in ways in which [he] is not adept” (Gee, 2003). Gee goes on to say that he found the experience of playing his son’s game “life-enhancing” and an eye (and mind) opening experience.

Can the same not be said for the teen romance novel in the classroom? If taught and presented correctly, the reading of the romance novel can also be a mind and eye-opening experience, one that exposes students to the history and make-up behind one of the biggest literary genres on the market today. The opportunity is there. The moment just has to be seized. 

Is What's Fair to Some Fair to All?

In each of the readings this week, we explored the ineffectiveness of the  “sameness as fairness” educational approach and read about specific instances in which it simply did not work. Examples include holding all students to the same academic standards, presenting them with a “one-size-fits-all” curricular approach, and having the same learning expectations for all children, regardless of their culture, skills, and language abilities.

·      Gutierrez illustrated her point by taking us into California schools and examining ways in which literacy teaching methods for ELLs “ignore the repertoires of practice students bring to learning environments” (Gutierrez, 2007, pg. 111).

·      Purcell-Gates brought attention to the ways that the under-privileged and illiterate can be virtually dismissed from an educational environment and deemed “too ignorant” to be worthy of an education. 

·      Ladson-Billings discussed the ways in which under-performing children are often given “permission to fail” when teachers are unsure, unwilling, or unable to teach in a culturally responsive manner (Ladson-Billings, 2002, Kindle Edition)

·      Jackson and Cooper presented actual, concrete curricular approaches that have historically helped certain schools close the achievement gap. Their overall point was that, in order for any educational approach to work, it must be based on a Pedagogy of Confidence, or the idea that any and all students can learn (Jackson and Cooper, 2007, pg. 247).

From a political perspective, I believe that fairness in schooling is tremendously difficult to achieve, primarily because there are so many wildly differing viewpoints on what equates fairness. To the politician, “fairness” might mean whatever needs to be done to win re-election. This might include privatizing schools and implementing substandard curriculum that ultimately compromises a child’s education. However, if this means another few years in office and seeing that political allies are stroked, well, to the politician, what could be more fair than that? To the culturally responsive theorist, fairness might involve teaching children in ways that might be offensive to the gender responsive education theorist. Meanwhile, the ELL learning specialist might disagree with the “fairness” approach favored by both the gender and culturally responsive instructors.

I think that fairness begins with all individuals being allowed to compete on a level playing field. However, such a circumstance is all but impossible in the United States as long as individuals exist on such vastly different socio-economic levels. In such a climate, the middle and upper classes, or the “haves,” will always have a stronger voice, more power, and more influence than the lower classes, or the “have nots.”  

Fairness in schooling can only come when each and every school in the nation, public, private, parochial, and charter, is prepared to operate on a curriculum that is foundationally designed to formulate and hone the academic and social needs of children. It might be necessary for a highly effective and comprehensive standard curriculum to be developed and implemented at a national level, and the curriculum can then be finessed, adapted, and broadened as needed within each school. Theoretically, in this approach, not only would each child be given the opportunity to receive a standard, high quality education, more specific teaching theory, such as culturally responsive instruction, could be employed as needed. In order for true fairness in schooling to take place, it has to happen in more than a few schools in a few states. In order for the education arena to be truly “fair,” the fairness must be authentic, far-reaching, and, most of all, comprehensive.   

"Rarely is the questioned asked: Is our children learning?"---George Bush, 1/11/00

 From an academic standpoint, i.e. looking solely at the results of tracking and assessment in American schools, I agree with this statement. In my opinion, standardized test results are not always a good indication of what children know and the depth of their knowledge. However, that being said, I think that one real way of knowing if students are learning is to talk to them and actually observe what is happening in schools today.

During the spring semester of 2011, I observed in an alternative high school in Tippecanoe County, Indiana. Though my original goal was to generate curriculum for pregnant teens and teen parents based on what I observed (there is a high teen pregnancy rate among students at the school), my objective quickly changed once I actually got into the classroom at A.I.M (the name of the high school).

The classroom at A.I.M. consisted of one very large room filled with three long rows of computers. In fact, one might initially think that s/he is in the computer lab. Students are expected to come in each day for three hours (either from 8 to 11 or 12 to 3), sit in front of a computer, and work on an academic software program called PLATO. Aside from a person who was hired to help children with any math questions they might have, there is virtually no teaching instruction. The principal of the school and teacher’s assistant sit in the back of the room for the duration of the school day. At A.I.M. the computer serves as an instructor, and the PLATO program is not particularly engaging or informative. On any given day, a number of students are asleep at their desks or chatting with one another within minutes of arriving.

When I asked kids at A.I.M. what they felt about the academic format as it is now, the responses I got included “We’re not learning anything,” “This program is boring me to sleep,” “I miss having actual teachers,” and “Could you (Ms. Collins) please teach us so that we can learn from a real, live teacher?”

These kids were more than able to voice that they were not learning in school. Moreover, when I worked with many of them one on one, I found that they were retaining very little, if any knowledge, from one PLATO test answer to the next.

While A.I.M. is an alternative school, and, in theory, shouldn’t be an indication of a “norm,” I am sure there are many more schools like it in America. Furthermore, I know that the standards of learning at the umbrella high school of A.I.M. also does not teach students in the best manner possible. From this experience, I concluded that  getting into schools and observing classrooms is a way to gauge whether or not children are learning. In reference to some of the articles we’ve read during the course of the past few weeks, there are numerous indications that education is so often affected and manipulated for political purposes, many students suffer. For example, in “The Silenced Dialogue,” Lisa Delpit talks about the deep alienation that many faculty members of color feel when talking to white colleagues about the needs of minority students. More often than not, white colleagues are unwilling to listen to what their minority counterparts have to say if it goes against what they feel they already know. This form of dismissiveness and superiority---that is, a minority teacher being silenced when talking about the needs of minority students—is not an uncommon occurrence. Ultimately, ignoring the voice of multi-cultural faculty members ultimately affects how students are taught. Thus, the knowledge students receive is compromised.

Meanwhile, Lipman and Apple wrote about neoliberalism and neoconservatism, and in so doing, illustrated how incredibly political the educational arena has become. Both neoliberals and neoconservatives have entirely different views of what education should be, and both groups are on a continual quest to pass various policies, bills, and laws in an effort to realize a certain educational vision. Meanwhile, nothing seems to be really addressing the needs of children, and, in the end, many students in American schools are not learning much. Thus, looking at educational policy and how politics affect daily school life is another way of measuring the knowledge that students receive (or not).

It is hard to say where we should go from here, but in terms of my personal vision for American schools, I believe that the public school system should remain, but, in an ideal world, be completely reorganized and restructured to far better suit the needs of children. The American public school system should feature the following:

·      Equal access to education for all, regardless of race, class, gender, and socio-economic status

·      This quality of education should be free for all

·      A mutually agreed upon, high-quality, academic program for all

·      Equal quality of education and training for teachers

·      Trust in teachers from schools and parents

·      High standards set for all students

·      Special support should be provided for children who have difficulty with academics

·      There should be early recognition and prevention of learning problems when possible, i.e. a pro-active, rather than reactive approach should be employed

Finally, I believe that we can let go of teaching students for the sole purpose of doing well on standardized tests. Standardized tests should not be issued multiple times a year, and, ideally, should only be administered no more than twice in one academic calendar. Finally, I believe that NCLB, at least as it is currently structured, should be let go.