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.