Epiphany..

Response to:

Assignment J

Frans H. Doppen Teaching and Learning Multiple Perspectives: The Atomic Bomb (2000).

Melinda Fine “You Can’t Just Say The the Only Ones Who Can Speak Are Those Who Agree with Your Position”: Political Discourse in the Classroom (1993).

This week's reading really hit home...

In Dramaturgy in American Theatre, Susan Jonas writes,
"Theater could be a dazzling conduit of lofty aims:…Well rounded education that introduces students to a variety of different disciplines and fosters familiarity with a broad canon of ideas as well as critical and associative thinking…The ability to recognize and desire to seize the infinite opportunities to pursue knowledge"

Isn't this also what Doppen (paraphrazing Levstik) is begging for? A school history that no longer "ignores historical thinking by presenting unitary sanitzed version of what happened in the past?"

At the end of my undergraduate studies my colloquium maintained that if students were to become "dramaturgical thinkers" they would be able to enter a historical world.

Upon writing that statement, I believed that educators having students engage in Dramaturgical inquiry was the solution to "surface social studies" (social studies education that, simply tried to chronologize or "make sense of the past") I believed that dramaturgical inquiry was a way of looking at history through worlds. Examining characters and groups of people through the environment that surrpunded them learning what a macaroon tasted like or what the Tarantella looks like. ( references to A Doll's House)

Maybe I wasn't nuts... However, reading these articles made me realize I was missing one huge component
Empathy... what a novel idea!

My dramaturgical approach to social studies education wasn't any better than those already proposed! I was, in a more convoluted way, still subscribing to top-down information presentation, devoid of student opinion.

Fine's statment on Facing History, "guid[ing] students back and forth between an in-depth historical case study and reflection on the causes and consequences of present day prejudice, intolerance, violence and racism." made me realize that I should be a hell of a lot more conscious about blending my two passions, dramaturgical inquiry and teaching social justice issues. I should be consistantly be tapping into the push pull between modern psyche and canonized worlds. All with the goal of bringing-in an appalling large number of students who statistics show, "fail to see the relevance of the subject to their own lives." (Doppen).

Now...

I write briefly on The Cornell West Quote:

"The democratic idea (that we are all equal in the eyes of God) is one of the grand contributions of the age of Europe even given the imperial expansion, the colonial subjugation og Africa and Asia, the pernicious and vicious crimes against working people and people of color and so forth. So ambiguous a legacy means-- we have got to keep two ideas in our minds at the same time. The achievements as well as the downfalls. The grand contributions and the vicious crimes."

I think this dichotomy between man as good and man as bad perfectly examines the two distinct ways that people approach the teaching of social studies. I find that so rarely do teachers address both the "vicious crimes" WHILE paying tribute to "grand European contributions". This begs the question... can it be done?

I think both articles give it a go... but neither really succeeds at addressing the HOW to fuse the two. Pro and con lists? active debates? socratic seminars? constant linking of the past to the present? Cause and effect lists? 

I STILL think puppets.

ADDENDUM:

I have selected this post for two reasons. 

1) I did not complete Assignment L

2) As it was noted in the title the readings sparked a real turning point. 

I have actually retooled a few of the phrases in the text for my graduate school applications.

I am what I think you think I am.

Im not that you think I am, I am not what I think I am…

I am what I think, you think I am.

A tongue twister much more true than the one about Sally and her Sea Shells.

In this article S-O & Q-H are intensely concerned with how students interpret the social mirror and how this interpretation, impacts their identity formation.

I agree with S-O & Q-H in that identity formation is a "process that is fluid and contextually driven" However, I also agree with Parham, in that identity formation is both a linear and cyclical. When looking at these definitions it leads one to believe that there might possibly be a predictable ebb and flow in identity formation.

While the formation of identity is painfully individual with little prediction, it is also socially constructed.
S-O & Q-H are spot-on when they comment on cultural constructions such as, "food, entertainment, religion, music and friendship" are choices that can "provide insight into relative comfort and affiliation with the points of cultural contact." The choices that students make in regard to each of these things are CERTAINLY influenced by the environment around them.


I began to think about the "negative" and "hostile" mirroring from society that happens so commonly for immigrant communities. After a little research I remembered a study done by, NYU professor Josh Aronson that attempted to link student reaction to stereotype activation with academic performance.
To summarize the study:
A selection of students were asked to write their race at the top of a paper and others were not. The minority students who were asked to identify their race before performing a test, performed worse than those who were not asked to identify race. This begs the conclusion that when racial stereotype is activated (writing race on the paper) students feel it and respond to it... and this is negatively represented in their performance.
Pretty heavy stuff!

The Caravel = Dial Up

Response to:

Assignment G

Suarez-Orozco & Qin-Hilliard - Globalization: Culture and Education in the New Millennium (2004) 

National Council for the Social Studies - Teaching and Learning Concepts (2001).

Think about it, the ship that could sail both ways and a this, "transoceanic conquest, communication, and trade from 1492-1565." (Coatsworth) made us realize, "huh there's a  whole other world out there." With time, the ships improved (cable modems) and that "other world" suddenly became so much more accessible... and then so much more tangible...and then so much more stereotyped..... and finally, so much more misunderstood.

With this current BOOM of information at our fingertips, we (as "global citizens") are embarking on new territory. Just like back in the good olde, age of exploration, we find ourselves at a time when, "the other" is right there in front of us.  However, opposite to the exploration age, in 2008 we now have[progressive and vocal] scholars like Suarez-Orozco and Qin-Hilliard (S-O & Q-H) to express the idea that this time, we need to treat this mashing of culture (also known as globalization) differently. Scholars that say managing these perceived differences, addressing multitudes head on, and monitoring the formulation of young people's new identity are important things to think about. 

Now do these NCSS Teaching and Learning Concepts say the same thing?: Lets look.

Well I think they got some of S-O & Q-H main "big ideas." 

1) There are pros & cons to globalization,

•  "there are corrosive developments such as globalization's threats to century-long traditions, religious identities, authority structures, values and worldviews." (S-O & Q-H, 7)
  
• "In 1960 the average Chinese expected to live 34 years. By 1999 the life expectancy has risen to 70 years." (Rodrik, 2002 - S-O & Q-H, 11).

2)Interdependent global economy and the internationalization of economies are realities.

• ".. under the fate of globalization the fate of billions of people increasingly rests in the hands of the arbiters of global capitalism." (S-O & Q-H).  
  
• "The rate at which countries grow is substantially determined by their ability to integrate with the global economy" (Lawrence Summers 2003 - S-O & Q-H, 10) 

I also like the NCSS's tips for practical application. I think statements like: "utilize primary sources from other countries" and "include internationally experienced persons" would actually be helpful for teachers who are foreign to this crazy idea of "globalization."

But I think it is more important to note that S-O & Q-H bring up, "Globalization's increasing complexity necessitates a new paradigm.... the mastery and mechanical regurgitation.... should give way... to cognitive flexibility and agility." In other words.... "The Banking Method won't work... but [James] Banks will".

Does this idea line up with our American, Standardized education?

While I think the simple fact that the NCSS devotes a whole section to "teaching globalization" is bad-ass I do think that both the recommendations and the explanation (as well as S-O & Q-H's article) lack an important component...

How much of this "globalization" is actually "westernization" in disguise?" 

S-O & Q-H address the idea in endnote 18, "is globalization simply modernization, Is it Westernization in fast-forward? Is it "imperialism" now driven by the extraordinarily high octane of American Hyperpower?" This is something to REALLY think about when designing a "globally conscious" curriculum. How much of it really is global and how much is inherently western... all the way down to your "backwards design scaffolding"

ADDENDUM:

I have chosen this post for two reasons

1) Despite the serious need for grammatical and metaphoric retooling, I think this is a decent reflection and synthesis of the "standards" (teaching and learning concepts) and the writing on global education.

2) I like how this post reflects my thinking prior to my introduction to the "James Banks" Cheat Sheet of globalized education standards and the Hanvey article

STILL long winded

Assignment D: 

Response to: 

Kahne & Westheimer “Teaching Democracy: What Schools Need To Do” Kahne & Westheimer “What Kind of Citizen? The Politics of Educating For Democracy” (2003).

Rahima Wade “Service Learning For Social Justice in the Elementary Classroom: Can We get There from Here?” (2007).

Which one of these programs best "fits with" my personal philosophy and conception of citizenship. To be blunt (and a pain-in-the-ass)... I dont know.

I know that I perked up after reading a few of the Kahne & Westheimer's sentiments ("We say that we value a democratic society [but] our schools have moved far from this central mission"). But then, I threw my packet across the room when other things were stated ("...school-based programs embrace a vision of citizenship devoid of politics... community service and character education initiatves... aim to promote service and good character, but not democracy")

Don't the two go hand in hand??
I understand that this article advocated for us to push past "simple character education"... HOWEVER, The creation of "good" (while individual) citizens is still an important building block to a better democracy.

In a high school you are dealing with a group of humans who are going through Adolescence. By definition, Adolescence is the most selfish time EVER (vernacular intentional). The thoughts of ME ME ME and a student's adhearence to their "percieved inner fable" dictates every choice.
At this stage in life, when students are defining how and where they fit in, and what ROLES they play. Why not take that self-involvment, shape it in a positive way with character education and community service and explain the importance of the ME within______ (a system, a group, a community). By making sure that before students think about policy/politics, they understand (on an adult level) that their very adult actions affect others on an adult level... a departure from the grade school "golden rule"

While I had some trouble with the reading. I think one of the most valuable things I gleaned from the Kahne & Westheimer article was a strengthend vocabulary to explain service-learning.
Terms that were solid and clear and really resonated with me:
"commitment to participate" -

"commitment to and capacity for democratic participation" -

"Positive experience while working toward a solution" -
The whole idea of a positive first experience is SO crucial. (it works the same
way when introducing kids to ANYTHING new)

"join with other people" -
Not just "work with" but join.

"engage...effectively in volunteer service" -
Effectively... key word... you can throw a kid into a soup kitchen but it doesn't mean they're goign to refrian from spirring in the soup.

---
Onto Wade:
Oh this was just delightful. I couldnt help but smile at both the writing style and the vignettes of "star elementary teachers fostering tomorrow's activists - too cute.
To be honest, the paper was a rather solid statement on service-learning's role in the elementary classroom and truly helped me answer my initial question of, "at what level is this going to work?.
BUT, the imagery of these 2nd graders grilling the director of food services was too freaking great.

I remember doing the activities spoken about in my schooling (writing an "op ed" letter about businesses being open on MLK day, advocating for the school's "no hat rule" to be ammended). However, I don't remember them being framed as "social-justice."

I think this happens often in elementary ed. The larger connection is lost.. I understand that it isn't until about age 12 that kids begin to be metacognitive and THINK about their thinking.

However as teachers, in our facilitation and activities, how can we make a better connection of ideas for elementary students? How can we bridge the gap between the op ed piece and the larger ideas in "active citizenship, social justice and participant democracy"

I'm thinking... puppets?

Why does the tower have to be made of Ivory?

Response to:

Assignment C:

E Wayne Ross - Diverting Democracy: The curriculum standards movement and social studies education. (2000).

Assorted NCLB readings.

This week's readings got me a little down.   After a decent amount of introspection, I deducted that this unfamiliar sadness could possibly be attributed to the incredible"debbie downer" writing style executed by Ross.  Not only was he hum and glum about National standardization but he came across almost equally as fed up with local/grassroots standardization as well. He was even self deprecating with his "brief and incomplete chronology" of the funding behind neoconservative academics', "attempt to control the social studies curriculum."  I think he may have been going for a sense of urgency and DIRE NEED... but all I got was bummed out.

 I have decided the second reason for my brief bout with depression was not was not because I ran out of kettle corn 1/2 through the NCLB, but rather because, as an aspiring teacher I began to wonder what my role is at all. Where the hell my unique voice fit in.  I like to think as a fairly intelligent human and somewhat "trained" educator I might be allowed some free reign over what is happening in "my" classroom. Ross' reading and NCLB took away that blissful optimism and even the idea of "my" classroom. Instead, it was replaced it with a strange bound feeling. (Yes I am about to go all "METAPHOR" on you) The feeling is as though my hands are tied loosely behind my back, in a knot I SHOULD, with all my 4H training be able to get out. But I have no wiggle room. I also have no guts. This could probably be attributed to my innate fear of  the 4 administrative watchdogs (with alarmingly deep pockets) that are circling all my creative curricular ideas.

I took a few minutes after the reading to process, reflect and "cycle back up." I re- read the prompt and though... huh... what can I do... even with bound hands? (END OF METAPHOR.. I promise)

I concluded 2 things.

1) That I can report. I and all other teachers are the ones in the trenches... The Ross article and the NCLB report lacked a teacher's voice. Both pieces stated statistics and studies. This got me thinking...... What if teachers began reporting? What if  policy makers didn't have to rely on large sweeping cross-sectional studies that are bound to overlook at least one type of educational population?  What if teachers did smaller studies on classroom experiences and student reaction to variable content and unique curriculum? What If we as teachers begin to provide "in the field" quantitative data, case studies and theory that then could inform these sweeping notions of "leaving children behind."

2)  This  increase in national standards might not be such a bad thing. What if... we view it as a challenge to our creativity? As I read these articles I still had a very hard time succumbing to the idea that NCLB and other nationalization efforts were infringing on my CURRICULUM. While I will allow that the revised standards and the testing that accompanies them dictates certain SKILLS and CONTENT, I view curriculum as HOW one presents these skills and content. Therefore, I believe that the second responsibility that teachers have is to teach as Seixas put it, "the common national historical vocabulary." as creatively as possible. Teachers must not allow a student's critical eye to become less sharp. 

However, it is most import that teachers do not feel "powerless to stop" this NCLB freight train because NCLB is not what is going to do the most damage. Instead, with their creativity and passion, teachers should fight against vague language and empty statistics that might (as past-experience has told us) rule future education policy decisions.

ADDENDUM:

I chose this one for 3 reasons

1) This reading got me AMPED about teacher action research. I really began to wonder about how working teachers might be able to effectively report their observations. It ends up that there is a whole section of books on that in the library... 

2) I think that a lot of my service learning project had to do with this reading. I was sharply attuned to the fact SLP's should really attempt to rock some standards so that they are not deemed "other" and pushed aside.

3)The idea that standards shouldn't inhibit creativity  became part of my "pedagogical philosophy" and also made my personal statement.

Round two - A War

Kick ass book. I found myself reading and saying huh... wish I had known that sooner.

This is me answering the prompt question re: "key players and ideas" and then I am going to hop up on my soap box.

The Committee of Ten (late 1880's) : Tried for a balance between individualism and social responsibility with an 8 year sequence - Albert Bushnell Hart.
Committee of 7 (1896): Prepare them For College! -Thinking properly "not about accumulation of information" - The 4 Blocks
1920's & 1930's: "Golden years for advocates of core and issues-centered education" (49) However there was great discussion about this from the anti-progressives who heralded the values of "traditional education"
NCSS (early 1920's): Teachers College, formed in a time of unsteadiness when "Social studies was up for grabs" (36)
The Rugg Version: - Social Justice! (to oversimplify)
WWII: The idea of duty permeated America, "Social studies Mobilize for Victory"- NCSS report. Education became out of necessity: "defense workers, increased attention to geography and war related topics" (70)
late 1940-50:"Let's settle down now" Back to traditional... attacks on progressive, modern content. (97)
Newer Social Studies (1960's) - fed by civil rights, lasting impact of cold war, Vietnam, Huge interest in education and teaching - Paul Goodman (136)
MACOS - Man: a Course of Study (1970's): Federal funding went to this program... and schools were expected to use it... not good. (145)
Hirsch -What every American Needs to Know (1987): Public was still there but there are a bit of a loss for a direction. "political correctness and fragmentation" (161)
Directionlessness -> Traditional History and STANDARDS: For a book published in 2004 I wanted more.


"What should we teach the children?"
What the hell kind of title question is that? I get it.... it fit's with the history of contending content. HOWEVER, upon further inspection, it seems to assume that "the children" are passive lumps which we (as educators) may fill with knowledge. Rather than creating active participants and encouraging students to form their own experiences from which they may learn... we are rocking the gate-keeper roll and imparting "wisdom" from on high. I find the question very "non-freire-ian" as well as a sentiment which I don't necessarily believe the overall text supports.

Round one - Global Eh?

Response to:

Assignment A

Knight Abowitz & Harnish - Contemporary Discourses of Citizenship (2006).

Banks et al. - Democracy and Diversity (2005).

I suppose on the surface I was aware that there were differing theories on how to present the idea of American citizenship to students. However, I had never before thought critically about the origins of related thought and how they related to my practice

Abowitz and Harnish outlined the main points of, Civic Republican Citizenship, Liberal Citizenship, Cultural Citizenship, Trans-National Citizenship. Consistently while presenting these differing theories, Abowitz and Harnish emphasized the importance of a citizen's overarching commitment to the "common good." The authors' thoughts on critical discourse, civic literacy and a citizen's questioning of allowed voice hinted at a conclusion that reflected a civic commitment to not only a nation but rather a global community.

In his writing Banks didn't hint, he stated, loud and clear that he believed global citizenship should be taught in schools. After synthesizing Abowitz's and Harnish's descriptions of differing citizenship theory, Banks advocated for global citizenship as a means of communicating the importance of active involvement in government. His thoughts are that educational systems should subscribe to a curriculum that teaches American youth the importance of "membership" while not limiting them to a nation-specific view of belonging.

Banks, Abowitz and Harnish mention the push-pull between the diversity of Americans and the attempt to have students subscribe to an overarching set of ideas. I think the most incredible point Banks presents truly addresses what Abowitz and Harnish seemed to be grasping for. Banks suggests that we as educators bring civic education away from the American arena and make it a conversation about global issues. In doing this he states that students will begin, "linking their community [issues] to the larger world " (Banks 12).

These readings spurred me to look critically at how I have presented the idea of "a citizen" to students in the past, I have to say that Banks and I seem to be on the same page. I often use the UDHR and the Convention on the Rights of the Child in my planning but I never realized that what I originally deemed Human Rights Education could also be seen as Citizenship education.

Addendum:

Oh, I was so cute.

I chose this one because it really is a good illustration of where I came from. 

 Here I am linking my social justice background and human rights knowledge to Citizenship edu... little did I know that there was so much more :) Talk about a lightbulb moment.