Simplifying my life
13 years ago
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Reflections.
I came into this course as a tabula rasa. I was a nervous blank slate that didn’t know what to expect. I have never received any formal instruction on urban education, nor have I really been immersed in the urban education environment. I suppose that some of my own social and cultural naivety came into play with this very reluctance. I was, however, very excited to learn something new. I am generally always interested in making the unfamiliar… less unfamiliar. I wasn’t sure whether to expect anything different than what I have experienced so far in my other teaching courses; I frankly hadn’t considered how urban education could be any different.
Before this class, I didn’t know if methodology and curriculum were treated any differently than in rural/suburban schools, nor did I know whether or not students behaved any differently. I was anticipating the Hollywood stereotypes of urban education to somehow be proven correct. They weren’t. I was anticipating my car getting broken into after a miserable trek into Newark. It didn’t. I was anticipating my own worst fears coming true. They didn’t. Name any white suburbanite apprehensions- I had them all and they were all proven wrong.
I suppose that in large part, I learned about my own fears and anxieties towards urban education- the "assumptions" and "culture collage" projects helped me grapple with them. I learned how these negativities can not possibly contribute to the teaching field in a positive manner, and how acting upon these inferior impulses cripples me before I can even teach. I learned that there were some different aspects of the urban environment contributing to urban education that you would never really find in suburbia- how you have to roll with the punches at times when the resources aren't provided.
I am no longer scared to teach in Newark; I am no longer scared of being scared. I went into this class thinking I would never want to teach in an urban setting, and by the end of only four weeks I am seriously considering it. These children are students, just like any child anywhere else. They need to be perceived as talented learners with limitless potential, just like any child anywhere else. I need to be the teacher that provides for them, just like I would provide for any other child anywhere else.
The Urban Educator’s Institute was an incredible experience. Interacting with the students, faculty and administration of the schools we visited shed a lot of light on the potential of Newark students. It also proved how worthy teacher collaboration is- it seemed as if in order to make things happen at times, teachers absolutely had to band together to achieve their objectives. This is certainly an ethos I need to solidify in my communicative-professional life. It was truly an invaluable experience in Newark- a place-based educational experience.
The course, although shortened and intensified, was extremely informative. Our professor was extremely real and relatable- she seemed to be a bastion of knowledge and yet completely open to learn from her students. I particularly enjoyed the articles offered, most notably Bulman’s piece and The Annenberg Promise. I found the course material itself to be flexible, because I was able to apply other readings from previous courses into my blogs as well. The readings were identifiable, and I will surely reference them in the future. Incorporating blogs and websites into the mix provided a unique way to approach the material being presented to us. The website was also extremely efficient in provoking collaborative learning. I also found that publishing our work via the Internet allowed us to uniquely synthesize and dig deeper into the material. Honestly, I didn’t have any qualms with this course. I found it extremely rewarding because it was transformational- it allowed me to carry away with me a different mind-set than I had arrived with.
Before this class, I didn’t know if methodology and curriculum were treated any differently than in rural/suburban schools, nor did I know whether or not students behaved any differently. I was anticipating the Hollywood stereotypes of urban education to somehow be proven correct. They weren’t. I was anticipating my car getting broken into after a miserable trek into Newark. It didn’t. I was anticipating my own worst fears coming true. They didn’t. Name any white suburbanite apprehensions- I had them all and they were all proven wrong.
I suppose that in large part, I learned about my own fears and anxieties towards urban education- the "assumptions" and "culture collage" projects helped me grapple with them. I learned how these negativities can not possibly contribute to the teaching field in a positive manner, and how acting upon these inferior impulses cripples me before I can even teach. I learned that there were some different aspects of the urban environment contributing to urban education that you would never really find in suburbia- how you have to roll with the punches at times when the resources aren't provided.
I am no longer scared to teach in Newark; I am no longer scared of being scared. I went into this class thinking I would never want to teach in an urban setting, and by the end of only four weeks I am seriously considering it. These children are students, just like any child anywhere else. They need to be perceived as talented learners with limitless potential, just like any child anywhere else. I need to be the teacher that provides for them, just like I would provide for any other child anywhere else.
The Urban Educator’s Institute was an incredible experience. Interacting with the students, faculty and administration of the schools we visited shed a lot of light on the potential of Newark students. It also proved how worthy teacher collaboration is- it seemed as if in order to make things happen at times, teachers absolutely had to band together to achieve their objectives. This is certainly an ethos I need to solidify in my communicative-professional life. It was truly an invaluable experience in Newark- a place-based educational experience.
The course, although shortened and intensified, was extremely informative. Our professor was extremely real and relatable- she seemed to be a bastion of knowledge and yet completely open to learn from her students. I particularly enjoyed the articles offered, most notably Bulman’s piece and The Annenberg Promise. I found the course material itself to be flexible, because I was able to apply other readings from previous courses into my blogs as well. The readings were identifiable, and I will surely reference them in the future. Incorporating blogs and websites into the mix provided a unique way to approach the material being presented to us. The website was also extremely efficient in provoking collaborative learning. I also found that publishing our work via the Internet allowed us to uniquely synthesize and dig deeper into the material. Honestly, I didn’t have any qualms with this course. I found it extremely rewarding because it was transformational- it allowed me to carry away with me a different mind-set than I had arrived with.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Culture Collage
Top Left: This section of the culture collage deals greatly with one of my two very distinct identities that was developed over the past decade. I played in a band with four of my closest friends from high school; we were able to create, perform and record original music, travel and spread the word of Folly. This personality helped frame the way in which I approach my life; it embodied communication with other tribes and cultures unbeknownst to me; it also acted as the much-needed catharsis and outlet used to rid myself of the general anxieties of young adulthood. At times, I spent every waking and sleeping second with four guys in a van- driving immeasurable distances to play for strangers. Photos here include the Folly members- Arben, Geoff, Anthony, Agim and I- and a shot taken at one of our final shows. They are embedded over a lyrics sheet, CD sticker and postcard from two of our albums we recorded for Triple Crown Records, entitled Insanity Later(a reference to Seinfeld) and Resist Convenience...
Bottom Left: This section is a continuation of the Folly identity, which melts into my teaching identity on the right (middle of the collage, heart of the whole). Included is a photo of us in our 15-passenger Ford Econoline van, where we spent the bulk of our time on the road. Also included is an illustration of my imagination- running from the dinosaur featured in Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure, located off Rt. 10W in southern California. It rests on the fringe of Folly lyrics and Sudoku puzzles- my favorite brain game. In the corner is a flyer from a Folly show in Wichita Falls, Texas- far from home. Did you know that “Don’t mess with Texas” is the slogan used for their anti-littering campaign? I didn’t know that until I went there. To its right is a picture my fiancé cut out of the Star Ledger of a Cambodian veterinarian’s arm bitten off by a crododile; taped to it is a fortune cookie message reading, “This instant is the only time there is.” I feel that these two materials speak well for living a life void of fear. They promote the idea of carpe diem- seize the day. You never know what’s going to happen, right? One day, you could be caring for a sick crocodile- doing your job- and get your arm eaten off. Also, sometimes we tend to harbor so much on the past and the future that we forget about the life going on at the moment. The teaching identity, as previously alluded to rests in the middle of the collage for a reason. I feel that everything going on around the collage was influential in my reasons and commitment to educating. I used George Carlin’s head, taped to a Farside cartoon, because a) George Carlin is my favorite comedian, and a social observer and prophet of exploitation and b) because Farside cartoons foolishly tell it like it is. I feel that teachers should be both humanely silly and savagely provocative; hence the “teacher-animal.” The cheeseburger suggests that I love them, which is true, but it also shows you how impossible it is to find a cheeseburger that looks that tasty...
Bottom Right: This section offers up the alternate identity that contributed to my role as an educator. Contrasting to the transient, nomadic singer in a band is my life back home. A map of New Jersey underpins my family and heritage. It represents solid ground, strong foundations- my past and my future. Photos included in this section are my younger sister Julianne, a little-me swimming with my father, and my fiancé Katie. The members of my family, like the guys in Folly, have helped me learn and grow. I am who I am because they are who they are. Also included are Kramer, George, Elaine and Jerry- from my favorite show, Seinfeld. This “show about nothing” best depicts the way I perceive a life about everything. The face pasted on the “young American” is my face from my William Paterson University ID, which pretty much speaks metaphorically for my insane college experience. The word “faces” is included because a former professor once told me that you could learn everything you need to know about someone just by looking at their face. “Change” is included because I always felt like leaving and returning to home while traveling in the band required me to adapt my life to each surrounding, even if it was to and from the seemingly static “home...”
Top Right: Extending the motif of family in this section are photos of my two older, influential brothers. When I think about how I came to be the way I am, I always refer to this picture taken at High Point State Park of the crazy brother- Patrick- and the normal brother- Peter. I consider myself a little bit of both. My mother and father, at young ages, are situated next to and below their hometowns- Clark and Garfield. They met at Montclair State College, while studying to be teachers. This seems odd now that I study teaching at the school directly responsible for my existence. To the immediate right of the red hiker of the Long Trail decal is my hometown- Wantage, New Jersey. I have a certain pride for Sussex County that even overrides the pride I have for New Jersey itself. I love it “up there.” I would live there for the rest of my life if I had the choice...
Bottom Left: This section is a continuation of the Folly identity, which melts into my teaching identity on the right (middle of the collage, heart of the whole). Included is a photo of us in our 15-passenger Ford Econoline van, where we spent the bulk of our time on the road. Also included is an illustration of my imagination- running from the dinosaur featured in Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure, located off Rt. 10W in southern California. It rests on the fringe of Folly lyrics and Sudoku puzzles- my favorite brain game. In the corner is a flyer from a Folly show in Wichita Falls, Texas- far from home. Did you know that “Don’t mess with Texas” is the slogan used for their anti-littering campaign? I didn’t know that until I went there. To its right is a picture my fiancé cut out of the Star Ledger of a Cambodian veterinarian’s arm bitten off by a crododile; taped to it is a fortune cookie message reading, “This instant is the only time there is.” I feel that these two materials speak well for living a life void of fear. They promote the idea of carpe diem- seize the day. You never know what’s going to happen, right? One day, you could be caring for a sick crocodile- doing your job- and get your arm eaten off. Also, sometimes we tend to harbor so much on the past and the future that we forget about the life going on at the moment. The teaching identity, as previously alluded to rests in the middle of the collage for a reason. I feel that everything going on around the collage was influential in my reasons and commitment to educating. I used George Carlin’s head, taped to a Farside cartoon, because a) George Carlin is my favorite comedian, and a social observer and prophet of exploitation and b) because Farside cartoons foolishly tell it like it is. I feel that teachers should be both humanely silly and savagely provocative; hence the “teacher-animal.” The cheeseburger suggests that I love them, which is true, but it also shows you how impossible it is to find a cheeseburger that looks that tasty...
Bottom Right: This section offers up the alternate identity that contributed to my role as an educator. Contrasting to the transient, nomadic singer in a band is my life back home. A map of New Jersey underpins my family and heritage. It represents solid ground, strong foundations- my past and my future. Photos included in this section are my younger sister Julianne, a little-me swimming with my father, and my fiancé Katie. The members of my family, like the guys in Folly, have helped me learn and grow. I am who I am because they are who they are. Also included are Kramer, George, Elaine and Jerry- from my favorite show, Seinfeld. This “show about nothing” best depicts the way I perceive a life about everything. The face pasted on the “young American” is my face from my William Paterson University ID, which pretty much speaks metaphorically for my insane college experience. The word “faces” is included because a former professor once told me that you could learn everything you need to know about someone just by looking at their face. “Change” is included because I always felt like leaving and returning to home while traveling in the band required me to adapt my life to each surrounding, even if it was to and from the seemingly static “home...”
Top Right: Extending the motif of family in this section are photos of my two older, influential brothers. When I think about how I came to be the way I am, I always refer to this picture taken at High Point State Park of the crazy brother- Patrick- and the normal brother- Peter. I consider myself a little bit of both. My mother and father, at young ages, are situated next to and below their hometowns- Clark and Garfield. They met at Montclair State College, while studying to be teachers. This seems odd now that I study teaching at the school directly responsible for my existence. To the immediate right of the red hiker of the Long Trail decal is my hometown- Wantage, New Jersey. I have a certain pride for Sussex County that even overrides the pride I have for New Jersey itself. I love it “up there.” I would live there for the rest of my life if I had the choice...
Utopian Realism and Anarchism in Education
David Halpin refers to “utopian imagination” as broadening the possibilities of education policy. He attempts to break free from the either-or ideology and envisage the and-also alternative to implementing change while adapting existing structures. I found this idea rather rewarding, for it allowed me to view utopia as something that was not impossible, but rather tangible and existent. The term, which Halpin believes carries a negative connotation due to its seemingly unattainable achievement, can rather be perceived as a rationale applicable to thirst or quest for hope in education. It does not necessarily have to depict a perfect or ideal situation or context that we will strive for and yet never achieve.
I found it particularly rewarding that Halpin writes about Tom Bentley, who is sort of a neo-Ivan Illich. Bentley takes alternative education- the exposure away from school- into consideration, and much like Ferrer and Godwin seeks to provide students the ownership of their minds. In a way, utopian education theory and anarchism are relatable. Anarchism similarly carries a heavily negative connotation according to conservatives and even progressives. Why, however, do we not allow ourselves to at least consider its offerings? Anarchism is a logical belief system that has a large breadth of validity. There is even a certain aesthetic beauty in a society not organized by a coercive state. It sounds like modern conceptions of democracy, doesn't it?
Anarchism perhaps carries the weight of thematically free democracy far more than a hierarchal empire should. We don’t necessarily internalize this, because we were taught otherwise; we rather internalize that our domestic efforts in public education are as much a noble cause as the foreign act of going to war (conflict) with a defenseless nation to instill a puppet government they wish not to support (Vietnam). Noam Chomksy states, “If you quietly accept and go along no matter what your feelings are, ultimately you internalize what you’re saying, because it’s too hard to believe one thing and say another” (Chomsky, 1992). The whole “for God and country American dream” idealism appears crippling, if not useless; it is an alternate utopia that I have grown quite weary of over the years. However, I am guilty for formerly making it familiar and idealistic. Can I step away from this now and scrutinize the dominant paradigm, allowing for ideas like anarchism to be applicable? Can I apply those ideas to social hierarchies such as public education?
A coercive nation yields coercive teaching. It is in the very indoctrination of children that radical education reformists such as Godwin, Illich and Ferrer crafted their work. Anarchism is said to potentially free the minds of the people, provided that reason could be solely possessed above the domination of any ruling class. Halpin points out that Bentley believes that “more and more learning…will have to take place in the contexts where knowledge is actually used and valued, rather than, as is the case mostly now, in recognizable sites of instruction" (Halpin, 1999). Halpin is perhaps making the connection between instructional spaces and dominion. To radical anarchist education reformers, any mass schooling was discouraging and controlling, because the power of the state rested on a submissive population. Public education in America today is only a slight exception to this idea, as best illustrated by Russian novelist Leo Tolstoy who claimed America’s public education system to be “the least bad” attempt to mass-school children (Spring, 1998).
Spanish anarchist Francisco Ferrer recognized that the hierarchical structure of capitalism requires certain types of character traits in individuals to conform to monotony and boredom in an obedient manner. In The Origins and Ideals of the Modern School, Ferrer stated “Children must learn to obey, to believe, and to think according to the prevailing social dogmas. If this were the aim, education cannot be other than such as it is today” (Spring). This implies that it is unrealistic to believe that national schooling would be a means of significantly changing the conditions of the lower classes. Since it was the existing social structure which produced the poor to begin with, poor urban/rural public education stigma matriculates by making the culturally submissive class believe that economic improvement depends completely on the individual effort within the existing structure. Meanwhile, the state covertly exists to protect the interests of the rich middle/upper classes. The utilization of extrinsic motivation and anonymous authority provide that children won’t even know who to rebel against if they decided to do so. Marginalized poor children and special needs children in Urban areas are essentially inept in the stratagem of external (Federal and State) influence on education.
Presently, accountability and standardization raise the bar for students to globally compete, as teachers are forming their lesson plans to fit the demands of forged policy rather than to meet the minds of their students. Critical analysis is giving way to cognitive factuality, and children are simply not applying their feeling and emotions into their research and writing. Similarly, poor children and “needy cultures” that are geographically bound to urban and rural areas desperately need more funding and are clawing at the facility of public education rather than fighting to own their own education. It is a conundrum of sorts- the very puzzle that plagues the efforts of educators- the more you know, the more dominant you are. However, this separation of knowledge is proportional to the amount of power between two opposing forces. Knowledge in this context is anti-utopian; it is actually oppression.
Sources:
*Chomsky, Noam. Anarchy in the U.S.A. Interviewed by Charles M. Young. Rolling Stone. May 28, 1992.
*Halpin, David. Utopian Realism and a New Politics of Education: Developing a Critical Theory without Guarentees. Journal of Education Policy, 14(4), 345-361.
*Spring, Joel. A Primer of Libertarian Education. Black Rose: 1998
I found it particularly rewarding that Halpin writes about Tom Bentley, who is sort of a neo-Ivan Illich. Bentley takes alternative education- the exposure away from school- into consideration, and much like Ferrer and Godwin seeks to provide students the ownership of their minds. In a way, utopian education theory and anarchism are relatable. Anarchism similarly carries a heavily negative connotation according to conservatives and even progressives. Why, however, do we not allow ourselves to at least consider its offerings? Anarchism is a logical belief system that has a large breadth of validity. There is even a certain aesthetic beauty in a society not organized by a coercive state. It sounds like modern conceptions of democracy, doesn't it?
Anarchism perhaps carries the weight of thematically free democracy far more than a hierarchal empire should. We don’t necessarily internalize this, because we were taught otherwise; we rather internalize that our domestic efforts in public education are as much a noble cause as the foreign act of going to war (conflict) with a defenseless nation to instill a puppet government they wish not to support (Vietnam). Noam Chomksy states, “If you quietly accept and go along no matter what your feelings are, ultimately you internalize what you’re saying, because it’s too hard to believe one thing and say another” (Chomsky, 1992). The whole “for God and country American dream” idealism appears crippling, if not useless; it is an alternate utopia that I have grown quite weary of over the years. However, I am guilty for formerly making it familiar and idealistic. Can I step away from this now and scrutinize the dominant paradigm, allowing for ideas like anarchism to be applicable? Can I apply those ideas to social hierarchies such as public education?
A coercive nation yields coercive teaching. It is in the very indoctrination of children that radical education reformists such as Godwin, Illich and Ferrer crafted their work. Anarchism is said to potentially free the minds of the people, provided that reason could be solely possessed above the domination of any ruling class. Halpin points out that Bentley believes that “more and more learning…will have to take place in the contexts where knowledge is actually used and valued, rather than, as is the case mostly now, in recognizable sites of instruction" (Halpin, 1999). Halpin is perhaps making the connection between instructional spaces and dominion. To radical anarchist education reformers, any mass schooling was discouraging and controlling, because the power of the state rested on a submissive population. Public education in America today is only a slight exception to this idea, as best illustrated by Russian novelist Leo Tolstoy who claimed America’s public education system to be “the least bad” attempt to mass-school children (Spring, 1998).
Spanish anarchist Francisco Ferrer recognized that the hierarchical structure of capitalism requires certain types of character traits in individuals to conform to monotony and boredom in an obedient manner. In The Origins and Ideals of the Modern School, Ferrer stated “Children must learn to obey, to believe, and to think according to the prevailing social dogmas. If this were the aim, education cannot be other than such as it is today” (Spring). This implies that it is unrealistic to believe that national schooling would be a means of significantly changing the conditions of the lower classes. Since it was the existing social structure which produced the poor to begin with, poor urban/rural public education stigma matriculates by making the culturally submissive class believe that economic improvement depends completely on the individual effort within the existing structure. Meanwhile, the state covertly exists to protect the interests of the rich middle/upper classes. The utilization of extrinsic motivation and anonymous authority provide that children won’t even know who to rebel against if they decided to do so. Marginalized poor children and special needs children in Urban areas are essentially inept in the stratagem of external (Federal and State) influence on education.
Presently, accountability and standardization raise the bar for students to globally compete, as teachers are forming their lesson plans to fit the demands of forged policy rather than to meet the minds of their students. Critical analysis is giving way to cognitive factuality, and children are simply not applying their feeling and emotions into their research and writing. Similarly, poor children and “needy cultures” that are geographically bound to urban and rural areas desperately need more funding and are clawing at the facility of public education rather than fighting to own their own education. It is a conundrum of sorts- the very puzzle that plagues the efforts of educators- the more you know, the more dominant you are. However, this separation of knowledge is proportional to the amount of power between two opposing forces. Knowledge in this context is anti-utopian; it is actually oppression.
Sources:
*Chomsky, Noam. Anarchy in the U.S.A. Interviewed by Charles M. Young. Rolling Stone. May 28, 1992.
*Halpin, David. Utopian Realism and a New Politics of Education: Developing a Critical Theory without Guarentees. Journal of Education Policy, 14(4), 345-361.
*Spring, Joel. A Primer of Libertarian Education. Black Rose: 1998
Affective Projections vs. Cognitive Babble
Word-play. Mind-speak. Some rambling. Some “academic writing.” Regardless, the words digress heavily into uncharted and unprovoked avenues that will scatter the audience about accordingly. Inherent struggle representative through trying to balance emotional and factual knowledge. Can words be organized to represent some scattered thoughts and still be used academically? Must admit that this is “all over the place.” Unfocusedis what a college professor would offer as a conclusion to the chaos. These bouncing words. I also admit that the mind is “all over the place” with the thoughts, even when engaged within standardized formalities of writing. The mind wanders and wonders, never quite reaching a destination, always bobbing and weaving the jabs, looking for something. All is transitory. Everything is vanity. Not trying to restrain the mind from writing. Not trying to restrain how far this writing goes. Don’t want to know myself by the end of it all. No I. No My. No Me.
Performance + Wordiness + Vague + Incoherent + Unfocused + Playful = My writing.
Performance + Wordiness + Vague + Incoherent + Unfocused + Playful = My life.
Higher academia, eh? Been bombarded again and again with the “progressive” concepts of dynamic curriculum, collaborative learning, social responsibility, facilitating and guiding, Dewey and the gang, philosophical inquiry, classroom innovations of technology, higher-order thinking questions, explicit modeling, positive reinforcement, and on and on and on. And on... All of these measures seem to be advocated as if they are apologies for the “failing” educational system. They are perhaps Edgar Allan Poe’s “Silver Bells.” They are the optimistic future of a system that can change and will change. Must change. They seem to read as reparations for a society gone down the drain through schooling. ‘What a world of merriment their melody foretells!’ A shoddy platform. Change you can believe in. CHANGE. The old-timers, the geezers… they will tell you that if you think the glass is half-full, you can change anything. And on and on… and so forth.
Read as a laundry list, however, these terms can clang and bang and smash and crush. Inalienable rights of reactionary educators that should be not allowed but fixed guarantees. Are they perhaps Poe’s “Iron bells?” Do they provoke change from deep-pitted anger, detachment, and resentment? There is certainly a ‘melancholy menace in their tone.’ They might not actually be the research-paper theses of an optimistic young teacher. Hypocritically quoting iconic dead educationists. The negative reinforcer. Compromise his integrity for his whole life, never complain or question. Grow numb to the consistent subjection of drilled morality. Indifferent to change. Comfort in living life according to a template of black and white, yes or no, this-way-or-that-way. A pawn wielded beyond his power, as an expendable commoner. Usable. Expendable.
IS THERE A WAY FOR BOTH BELLS TO RING AT ONCE?
Performance + Wordiness + Vague + Incoherent + Unfocused + Playful = My writing.
Performance + Wordiness + Vague + Incoherent + Unfocused + Playful = My life.
Higher academia, eh? Been bombarded again and again with the “progressive” concepts of dynamic curriculum, collaborative learning, social responsibility, facilitating and guiding, Dewey and the gang, philosophical inquiry, classroom innovations of technology, higher-order thinking questions, explicit modeling, positive reinforcement, and on and on and on. And on... All of these measures seem to be advocated as if they are apologies for the “failing” educational system. They are perhaps Edgar Allan Poe’s “Silver Bells.” They are the optimistic future of a system that can change and will change. Must change. They seem to read as reparations for a society gone down the drain through schooling. ‘What a world of merriment their melody foretells!’ A shoddy platform. Change you can believe in. CHANGE. The old-timers, the geezers… they will tell you that if you think the glass is half-full, you can change anything. And on and on… and so forth.
Read as a laundry list, however, these terms can clang and bang and smash and crush. Inalienable rights of reactionary educators that should be not allowed but fixed guarantees. Are they perhaps Poe’s “Iron bells?” Do they provoke change from deep-pitted anger, detachment, and resentment? There is certainly a ‘melancholy menace in their tone.’ They might not actually be the research-paper theses of an optimistic young teacher. Hypocritically quoting iconic dead educationists. The negative reinforcer. Compromise his integrity for his whole life, never complain or question. Grow numb to the consistent subjection of drilled morality. Indifferent to change. Comfort in living life according to a template of black and white, yes or no, this-way-or-that-way. A pawn wielded beyond his power, as an expendable commoner. Usable. Expendable.
IS THERE A WAY FOR BOTH BELLS TO RING AT ONCE?
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
"Space: The Final Frontier"
I was thinking more today about the effects environments have on education- how space plays a huge role in the psychological and social expansion of a child’s educational parameters. Some typical generalizations bounced about the pate for a moment- the suburban high school I attended, which was situated within the rolling green foothills of northwestern New Jersey, came to mind. I pictured myself walking out of the main entrance to catch the bus, facing a panoramic window of High Point monument, the totem pole of Kittatinny Mountains, on a wall of whimsical farmland pastors. Picture that Irish Spring commercial when the guy cuts the soap... that’s the comfort and ease you felt going to high school in Wantage Township.
Although I took it for granted at the time, growing up and going to school in this setting was an amazing experience. I didn’t really notice it until I went away for college and even later on when I went away to tour with Folly, that I was truly blessed to grow up where I did. The university life seemed loud, chaotic, uncertain, and fast; the tour van was by no means an exception to these characteristics. They both heavily contrasted the quiet and slow-paced era of my childhood and adolescence, where everything seemed secure and limitless. We didn’t have “gun violence” nor did we even have local law enforcement. Does that speak for the ease of our education? I mean, doesn’t that make sense? Perhaps our world was balanced- huge and explorative and yet geographically isolated enough to provide us the psychological confidence we needed to grow… Doesn’t that seem logical- a relaxing environment equals an expansive experience within that environment?
I then tried to step out of my stability and picture what it would be like to apply that same rationale to living in a violent urban environment. I thought of how the routine fear of living your life must make living and learning an inherently routine struggle. Schools in areas take in children from hostile neighborhoods- where crime and poverty are not an option, but rather daily realities- and have to teach these children within that fearful environment. Audre Lorde wrote in The Transformation of Silence into Language and Action, “…we have been socialized to respect fear more than our own needs for language and definition, and while we wait in silence for that final luxury of fearlessness, the weight of that silence will choke us.”
I also considered that urban areas may actually produce populations of intrepidity. Are these areas perhaps fearless? Constant exposure to human depravity may saturate and numb these children. In Culture Jam, Kalle Lasn wrote, “The blunting of our emotions is a self-perpetuating process. The more our psyches are corroded, the more desensitized we become to the corrosive. The more indifferent we become, the more voltage it takes to shock us. On it goes, until our minds become a theatre of the absurd, and we become shockproof” (Lasn 23). Do these children live their lives under an alarming blanket of awkward indifference to their surroundings? Does this contribute to achievement in schools?
I would also contend that a natural setting is a causal agent against literacy. When students allow fear to become so incumbent in their mind-set, they immediately set limitations on what they can read and write. As Lorde offers, the fear chokes them. Before they even begin a task, they may set boundaries on that task out of fear of failure. They’re passive because they are fearful that they won’t achieve- much like how they are numb to the reality that they may not even live to see another day. So they remain silent- but why are they holding it back? For what? For when? In a similar way to how they buy into the projection that they are bound to fail in life, they buy into the fact that they are destined to fail as readers and writers. Perhaps this is why Gary Busey refers us to the acronymic definition of fear: “false evidence appearing real.” If writing and reading assignments play on students’ fears to separate their thought from action, their reading and writing becomes detached- thoughtless, powerless and diseased.
Although I took it for granted at the time, growing up and going to school in this setting was an amazing experience. I didn’t really notice it until I went away for college and even later on when I went away to tour with Folly, that I was truly blessed to grow up where I did. The university life seemed loud, chaotic, uncertain, and fast; the tour van was by no means an exception to these characteristics. They both heavily contrasted the quiet and slow-paced era of my childhood and adolescence, where everything seemed secure and limitless. We didn’t have “gun violence” nor did we even have local law enforcement. Does that speak for the ease of our education? I mean, doesn’t that make sense? Perhaps our world was balanced- huge and explorative and yet geographically isolated enough to provide us the psychological confidence we needed to grow… Doesn’t that seem logical- a relaxing environment equals an expansive experience within that environment?
I then tried to step out of my stability and picture what it would be like to apply that same rationale to living in a violent urban environment. I thought of how the routine fear of living your life must make living and learning an inherently routine struggle. Schools in areas take in children from hostile neighborhoods- where crime and poverty are not an option, but rather daily realities- and have to teach these children within that fearful environment. Audre Lorde wrote in The Transformation of Silence into Language and Action, “…we have been socialized to respect fear more than our own needs for language and definition, and while we wait in silence for that final luxury of fearlessness, the weight of that silence will choke us.”
I also considered that urban areas may actually produce populations of intrepidity. Are these areas perhaps fearless? Constant exposure to human depravity may saturate and numb these children. In Culture Jam, Kalle Lasn wrote, “The blunting of our emotions is a self-perpetuating process. The more our psyches are corroded, the more desensitized we become to the corrosive. The more indifferent we become, the more voltage it takes to shock us. On it goes, until our minds become a theatre of the absurd, and we become shockproof” (Lasn 23). Do these children live their lives under an alarming blanket of awkward indifference to their surroundings? Does this contribute to achievement in schools?
I would also contend that a natural setting is a causal agent against literacy. When students allow fear to become so incumbent in their mind-set, they immediately set limitations on what they can read and write. As Lorde offers, the fear chokes them. Before they even begin a task, they may set boundaries on that task out of fear of failure. They’re passive because they are fearful that they won’t achieve- much like how they are numb to the reality that they may not even live to see another day. So they remain silent- but why are they holding it back? For what? For when? In a similar way to how they buy into the projection that they are bound to fail in life, they buy into the fact that they are destined to fail as readers and writers. Perhaps this is why Gary Busey refers us to the acronymic definition of fear: “false evidence appearing real.” If writing and reading assignments play on students’ fears to separate their thought from action, their reading and writing becomes detached- thoughtless, powerless and diseased.
Monday, June 9, 2008
"Coach"
“The truth is, however, that the oppressed are not ‘marginals,’ are not living ‘outside’ society. They have always been ‘inside’ the structure which made them ‘beings for others.’ The solution is not to ‘integrate’ them into the structure of oppression, but to transform that structure so that they can become ‘beings for themselves.’”
- Paolo Freire, from Pedagogy of the Oppressed
I started a new job this past semester, working for the Teacher Education Advocacy Center here on campus. I was hired as a “writing coach,” to tutor provisionally accepted Teacher Ed. Undergrads who had for whatever reason shown weaknesses in their writing (via ‘Portrait of a Teacher’ application essay and writing prompt during an interview). Basically I was granted some authority on whether or not the students I saw were ready for the next step, to become fully accepted into the program. This was a very unfamiliar position, a destablizing irregularity, and an awkward pressure was put on me to “clear” the students whose writing is “ready.”
Inherently troubling this position is the fact that I don’t necessarily agree that writing predicts the value and worth of a student’s intellect. I believe that some students are “good” writers and some are “bad,” according to a rigid assessment, but I wouldn’t be so quick to use those categorizations in any punitive manner. One way or another, there is a genius behind every pen. Also, everyone struggles with their writing and has certain areas that will always need work. I am certainly no exception to this rule, and even though I assumed the position of "coach," I am very much an ongoing student to the writing process (forever). I underpin this rationale in my methodology- every student I see is a genius whether they know it (or show it) or not. I am simply a peer, or a friend even, who can only do what I know how to do in order to help.
At first, I was not convinced that I could have any long-term impact in the brief meetings I had with these students. Instead, I hoped to instill confidence in their writing, and tried my best to thwart an intrinsic drive for these students to repetitively write. Exposure is KEY. I utilized positive reinforcement and praised their writing, regardless of how “bad” it allegedly appeared, and I explicitly modeled my struggles in writing- I actually showed one student a completely red-marked essay I got back from one of my more dilligent English teachers. I made it clear that I certainly could not or would not fix their writing, but I would rather indicate what they could continue to work on. Just like most things in life, writing is a self-serving quest for transformation.
I was nervous of what to expect at first, but I grew accustomed to ways in which I could utilize writing exercises based on the obvious areas of their writing that seemed problematic. I also engaged with them in philosophical questioning on writing style, rituals and approaches to prewriting, as well as ways in which students structure their work. I initialized each of our discussions with “What do you think is wrong with your writing?” (I borrowed that from the TV show Nip/Tuck) I then provided examples of how I feel nothing is ever wrong with writing, how writing should never be graded, and how literacy involves much more than our ability to read and write under pressure. As Freire believed, these students come to me as “beings for others,” and it is somehow my dominion that dictates their future. I loathed the position of decision, and I believed that there was a certain decency in imperfection.
Everyone who came to me was in some way defiant. I understood this and sympathized completely with how they must be feeling. To break this ice, I told them a brief story about how I was placed in a “basic reading” course upon entering college. Here I had been, an avid reader all my life and an argably decent writer, in an 8am class with 15 football players and 10 stoners/drunks, trying my best to accept some humility and turn it into a beneficial situation. The class’s three credits would not even count for graduation, and I was not allowed the decency in knowing why I had been placed in it. What did I do wrong? Was I not able to read well? Was I not as smart as I thought? I was not marginalized, for I belonged to the system and acted within it, and yet I was still heavily discouraged by being categorized so.
When students came to see me they had most-likely been told that something was wrong with their writing, which has noticeably discouraged them. Their mannerisms were anxious; their tone appeared somewhat insolent and standoffish. Basically in their presence I could feel the strange aura in the air: “I would rather be anywhere but here.” I tried to reassure them that whatever was "wrong" was most likely fixable in time. However, I also let them know that if they felt comfortable with their writing, the way they transcribe their thoughts, and wish not to compromise the integrity of their voice, style, methods, etc., they could surely deny me the access to change anything if they wished to do so. I made sure they knew that I am only constructively critical and suggestive, but I am in no way the bastion of writing knowledge I may appear to be in this "coach" position. I gave them the option, something I don’t think they were accustomed to, to heed my advice or challenge it.
So what could I do? Here I was, differing greatly in opinion to the system- the standardized writing assessment and the literate authority figures above me (the ones who inevitably pay me and expect me to play by the rules). I wanted all of these students to pursue teaching, to become an active agent in their own path as an educator… Who was I to stop them? I wish to equate this to teaching in an urban area. The admonished and impoverished children who do not have a finely honed writing strategy and ritual need differentiated instruction and passionate coaches to work at developing their writing. They need teachers to model their own frustrations with writing. These children are fully capable of applying their intellect to the paper, if only they are granted the time and compassion indebted to the task.
I feel as if I have to act within the hierarchies of education, within the corporate frameworks, in order to exploit them. I would have to “creatively maladjust,” as Herbert Kohl puts it, and embody the art of not becoming what other people want me to be and learning, in difficult times, to affirm myself while at the same time remaining caring and compassionate. This concept, set forth by Martin Luther King Jr. adhering to social injustices of race and militarism, refers to the rejection of conforming to a system all while belonging to it. In Kohl’s recollections, the educational system much mimicks the structure of society, especially concerning privilege and racism. Differing from adjusting to a culture, which speaks more so of the harmony between the self and the environment, maladjusting is the ability of self to act within a dynamic and contradictory environment in order to integrate cultures. Students must not be the "beings for others," but must rather thirst for the ownership of their own minds. They must maladjust to the robotic expectations we push upon them, learn to become transformational and critical, and become "beings for themselves."
- Paolo Freire, from Pedagogy of the Oppressed
I started a new job this past semester, working for the Teacher Education Advocacy Center here on campus. I was hired as a “writing coach,” to tutor provisionally accepted Teacher Ed. Undergrads who had for whatever reason shown weaknesses in their writing (via ‘Portrait of a Teacher’ application essay and writing prompt during an interview). Basically I was granted some authority on whether or not the students I saw were ready for the next step, to become fully accepted into the program. This was a very unfamiliar position, a destablizing irregularity, and an awkward pressure was put on me to “clear” the students whose writing is “ready.”
Inherently troubling this position is the fact that I don’t necessarily agree that writing predicts the value and worth of a student’s intellect. I believe that some students are “good” writers and some are “bad,” according to a rigid assessment, but I wouldn’t be so quick to use those categorizations in any punitive manner. One way or another, there is a genius behind every pen. Also, everyone struggles with their writing and has certain areas that will always need work. I am certainly no exception to this rule, and even though I assumed the position of "coach," I am very much an ongoing student to the writing process (forever). I underpin this rationale in my methodology- every student I see is a genius whether they know it (or show it) or not. I am simply a peer, or a friend even, who can only do what I know how to do in order to help.
At first, I was not convinced that I could have any long-term impact in the brief meetings I had with these students. Instead, I hoped to instill confidence in their writing, and tried my best to thwart an intrinsic drive for these students to repetitively write. Exposure is KEY. I utilized positive reinforcement and praised their writing, regardless of how “bad” it allegedly appeared, and I explicitly modeled my struggles in writing- I actually showed one student a completely red-marked essay I got back from one of my more dilligent English teachers. I made it clear that I certainly could not or would not fix their writing, but I would rather indicate what they could continue to work on. Just like most things in life, writing is a self-serving quest for transformation.
I was nervous of what to expect at first, but I grew accustomed to ways in which I could utilize writing exercises based on the obvious areas of their writing that seemed problematic. I also engaged with them in philosophical questioning on writing style, rituals and approaches to prewriting, as well as ways in which students structure their work. I initialized each of our discussions with “What do you think is wrong with your writing?” (I borrowed that from the TV show Nip/Tuck) I then provided examples of how I feel nothing is ever wrong with writing, how writing should never be graded, and how literacy involves much more than our ability to read and write under pressure. As Freire believed, these students come to me as “beings for others,” and it is somehow my dominion that dictates their future. I loathed the position of decision, and I believed that there was a certain decency in imperfection.
Everyone who came to me was in some way defiant. I understood this and sympathized completely with how they must be feeling. To break this ice, I told them a brief story about how I was placed in a “basic reading” course upon entering college. Here I had been, an avid reader all my life and an argably decent writer, in an 8am class with 15 football players and 10 stoners/drunks, trying my best to accept some humility and turn it into a beneficial situation. The class’s three credits would not even count for graduation, and I was not allowed the decency in knowing why I had been placed in it. What did I do wrong? Was I not able to read well? Was I not as smart as I thought? I was not marginalized, for I belonged to the system and acted within it, and yet I was still heavily discouraged by being categorized so.
When students came to see me they had most-likely been told that something was wrong with their writing, which has noticeably discouraged them. Their mannerisms were anxious; their tone appeared somewhat insolent and standoffish. Basically in their presence I could feel the strange aura in the air: “I would rather be anywhere but here.” I tried to reassure them that whatever was "wrong" was most likely fixable in time. However, I also let them know that if they felt comfortable with their writing, the way they transcribe their thoughts, and wish not to compromise the integrity of their voice, style, methods, etc., they could surely deny me the access to change anything if they wished to do so. I made sure they knew that I am only constructively critical and suggestive, but I am in no way the bastion of writing knowledge I may appear to be in this "coach" position. I gave them the option, something I don’t think they were accustomed to, to heed my advice or challenge it.
So what could I do? Here I was, differing greatly in opinion to the system- the standardized writing assessment and the literate authority figures above me (the ones who inevitably pay me and expect me to play by the rules). I wanted all of these students to pursue teaching, to become an active agent in their own path as an educator… Who was I to stop them? I wish to equate this to teaching in an urban area. The admonished and impoverished children who do not have a finely honed writing strategy and ritual need differentiated instruction and passionate coaches to work at developing their writing. They need teachers to model their own frustrations with writing. These children are fully capable of applying their intellect to the paper, if only they are granted the time and compassion indebted to the task.
I feel as if I have to act within the hierarchies of education, within the corporate frameworks, in order to exploit them. I would have to “creatively maladjust,” as Herbert Kohl puts it, and embody the art of not becoming what other people want me to be and learning, in difficult times, to affirm myself while at the same time remaining caring and compassionate. This concept, set forth by Martin Luther King Jr. adhering to social injustices of race and militarism, refers to the rejection of conforming to a system all while belonging to it. In Kohl’s recollections, the educational system much mimicks the structure of society, especially concerning privilege and racism. Differing from adjusting to a culture, which speaks more so of the harmony between the self and the environment, maladjusting is the ability of self to act within a dynamic and contradictory environment in order to integrate cultures. Students must not be the "beings for others," but must rather thirst for the ownership of their own minds. They must maladjust to the robotic expectations we push upon them, learn to become transformational and critical, and become "beings for themselves."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
