In fifth grade, we learn about the system of checks and balances, and perhaps know what a voting booth looks like. Even before then (especially in this year's election), we can identify political candidates, and perhaps know why there are political cartoons featuring elephants and donkeys. But is that the point? We can't expect kids to hear about politics, government, and freedom in history class when all they're surrounded by are rules, standards, and fill-in-the-bubble tests.
How can we expect the citizens of tomorrow to know what they're up against, and know how to be active, committed, daresay patriotic citizens if they have spent the last eighteen years of their lives being told their opinions don't matter? We can't.
We need a system of education that is based around the way that children naturally learn - through exploration, imitation, and experimentation. We have to stop concentrating on making every student adhere to the same standards, because we risk the danger of breeding a society of clones.
Saturday, December 6, 2008
A Real-Life Example of Democratic Teaching
For a real-life example of how teaching can not only be effective but be essential to the progress and development of a school for today's "information age", please read the following excerpts from an essay written by a student of a so-called "free school" in Framingham, Massachusetts. At the Sudbury Valley School, students are given the same voting rights as the teachers, and build their education "naturally and organically". Surprisingly, they don't use the budget to buy candy.
"There isn't much disagreement that a school is supposed to develop the intellectual potential and moral character of children and, at the same time, to prepare them to perpetuate the culture and to function as citizens in the community. There's really a two- fold function that any educational system undertakes in any culture a personal and a social function. These two have to work in harmony in order to make a viable school.
Usually educators start by saying, "What is it that we want to achieve on the social side?" That's where we start as well, by asking, "What kind of people are needed in this era in history to make this country function?" And in order to answer this, we have to evaluate carefully what is going on in our society.
When we first opened, in the sixties, people had just started waking up to the fact that the United States was entering the post-industrial era. That was a new phrase back then; today it's commonplace. A new social and economic environment was being created in this country, that went beyond the factory, beyond the industrial revolution, and looked toward a different kind of economic system, the key to which was the idea that repetitive routine work would no longer be done by human beings.
Such transformations don't happen overnight. But we have always felt that our society is moving inexorably toward a future in which people will have to be imaginative, to find new ways to lead productive lives. This requires every child to grow to be creative, to be responsible, to have initiative, and to be self-starting. All these phrases are widely used in educational circles today, because by now everybody has realized it. Every school talks about producing people who will have these attributes.
A second, no less important, requirement in this country is that people have to know how to function as free citizens in a democracy. It used to be that when we talked about this, people would say, "What do you mean, you have to learn how to be free? What's the big deal?" Nowadays, it's a lot easier to explain what we mean, because within the last few years half of the world has suddenly rid itself an unspeakable tyranny, and there are literally hundreds of millions of people out there who do not have a clue how to function as free citizens in a democratic society where they all have to share in decisions, where they all have to make compromises, where they all have to make political judgments, day in, day out . Today, all you have to do is look across the ocean and you can see that it is no easy task to learn all this.
So all in all, any school has a very challenging, two-pronged task: to produce creative, self-starting, imaginative, responsible people, and also to produce people who know how to be free and know how to function in a democracy."
[...]
"Where does the social part fit in, that has to do with living in a free society? The only way to accustom children to democracy is to practice it. There's no escaping that conclusion. We certainly aren't going to teach them by telling them the virtues of democracy. To take people you've been pushing around for twelve years in the authoritarian environment of traditional school, and sit them down for fifty minutes of talking about this being a free country, and what freedom is about, and what their rights are, is laughable. The only way to bring up free citizens is to make them free citizens from day one. And there's no reason not to. There's no reason for a school not to be an operating democracy. There's no reason for four-year-olds not to have the same voluntary access to decision-making as fourteen-year-olds or thirty-four-year-olds.
When we opened the school, we were told that there's no way to give four-year-olds a vote. People predicted that within a year we'd be closed. "They're kids. They'll buy candy with all the budget. They'll do something crazy. You can't give kids responsibility. They're not capable of thinking about the future." What is there to say, decades later, when a school that has been run by the School Meeting, in which every child regardless of age has the same vote as every adult, a school that started out in 1968 with a per-pupil cost equal to that of the public schools and today is operating at less than half the per pupil cost of the public schools? Never a moment's reliance on government money, grants, or fund raising. So much for kids who spend all the money on candy! There isn't a person who graduates from the school who doesn't understand what it means to be a responsible member of the community. And there isn't an adult in the school who is uncomfortable with the fact that they share their power equally with the children.
All this sounds like a lot of abstraction. Is this really a school? Of course it's a school! It's a school that really makes sense for where we're headed as a society. The only problem is, it doesn't feel like a school. We're back to the culture shock. Sudbury Valley doesn't have all the road signs that people have been used to in schools.
So let me end with the following observation to help bridge this culture gap. People come to SVS and see it as being in "perpetual recess," and it gives them a little twinge and perhaps they start worrying. But just remember this: these schools that we all grew up in, with their classes, their curricula, their SAT's and Achievement Tests and Placement Tests, their grade levels and exams, these schools are relative newcomers to the scene! They're only about one-hundred-fifty years old. They were started by people who sat down and thought about education and said, "This is the kind of school we need to create a great industrial society." And do you know what happened? People in the 19th century used to walk into those "newfangled schools" and experience culture shock! They'd say, "This is a school? My kids could be spending their time productively out in the fields on the farm. They could be apprenticing as tradesmen, or as craftsmen, or doing all sorts of useful things. You mean to tell us that taking kids and sitting them at desks and having them write on chalkboards, that's a school? You're calling that education?" They had just as weird a feeling then as people have today looking at Sudbury Valley! It took many, many years for people to get used to the industrial-age schools which are so accepted now!" [...]
My boyfriend's younger brother attends this school, and whenever he mentions his education, it is always in a positive light. Students can meet with any teacher they like, about whatever subjects they like, in order to pursue subjects that interest them. It does shock me, however, when Erik leaves for school at 11:45am and returns after 5pm - students are required to spend five hours per day at school, but it can be any time during the school's hours of operation. It also amazes me that students frequently get the opportunity to travel to other schools like SVS in Oregon, North Carolina, and Belgium.
In reading the many articles featured on the SVS website, I really began to embrace the concept of what they call "post-industrial teaching". It's true! Our present educational system, although it has experienced a bit of evolution in terms of curriculum and technology, is designed to teach students to be part of the "system". I may sound like a hippie, but with these concepts in mind, I can't deny that perhaps traditional schooling no longer prepares kids for the "real world" the way we think it does.
"There isn't much disagreement that a school is supposed to develop the intellectual potential and moral character of children and, at the same time, to prepare them to perpetuate the culture and to function as citizens in the community. There's really a two- fold function that any educational system undertakes in any culture a personal and a social function. These two have to work in harmony in order to make a viable school.
Usually educators start by saying, "What is it that we want to achieve on the social side?" That's where we start as well, by asking, "What kind of people are needed in this era in history to make this country function?" And in order to answer this, we have to evaluate carefully what is going on in our society.
When we first opened, in the sixties, people had just started waking up to the fact that the United States was entering the post-industrial era. That was a new phrase back then; today it's commonplace. A new social and economic environment was being created in this country, that went beyond the factory, beyond the industrial revolution, and looked toward a different kind of economic system, the key to which was the idea that repetitive routine work would no longer be done by human beings.
Such transformations don't happen overnight. But we have always felt that our society is moving inexorably toward a future in which people will have to be imaginative, to find new ways to lead productive lives. This requires every child to grow to be creative, to be responsible, to have initiative, and to be self-starting. All these phrases are widely used in educational circles today, because by now everybody has realized it. Every school talks about producing people who will have these attributes.
A second, no less important, requirement in this country is that people have to know how to function as free citizens in a democracy. It used to be that when we talked about this, people would say, "What do you mean, you have to learn how to be free? What's the big deal?" Nowadays, it's a lot easier to explain what we mean, because within the last few years half of the world has suddenly rid itself an unspeakable tyranny, and there are literally hundreds of millions of people out there who do not have a clue how to function as free citizens in a democratic society where they all have to share in decisions, where they all have to make compromises, where they all have to make political judgments, day in, day out . Today, all you have to do is look across the ocean and you can see that it is no easy task to learn all this.
So all in all, any school has a very challenging, two-pronged task: to produce creative, self-starting, imaginative, responsible people, and also to produce people who know how to be free and know how to function in a democracy."
[...]
"Where does the social part fit in, that has to do with living in a free society? The only way to accustom children to democracy is to practice it. There's no escaping that conclusion. We certainly aren't going to teach them by telling them the virtues of democracy. To take people you've been pushing around for twelve years in the authoritarian environment of traditional school, and sit them down for fifty minutes of talking about this being a free country, and what freedom is about, and what their rights are, is laughable. The only way to bring up free citizens is to make them free citizens from day one. And there's no reason not to. There's no reason for a school not to be an operating democracy. There's no reason for four-year-olds not to have the same voluntary access to decision-making as fourteen-year-olds or thirty-four-year-olds.
When we opened the school, we were told that there's no way to give four-year-olds a vote. People predicted that within a year we'd be closed. "They're kids. They'll buy candy with all the budget. They'll do something crazy. You can't give kids responsibility. They're not capable of thinking about the future." What is there to say, decades later, when a school that has been run by the School Meeting, in which every child regardless of age has the same vote as every adult, a school that started out in 1968 with a per-pupil cost equal to that of the public schools and today is operating at less than half the per pupil cost of the public schools? Never a moment's reliance on government money, grants, or fund raising. So much for kids who spend all the money on candy! There isn't a person who graduates from the school who doesn't understand what it means to be a responsible member of the community. And there isn't an adult in the school who is uncomfortable with the fact that they share their power equally with the children.
All this sounds like a lot of abstraction. Is this really a school? Of course it's a school! It's a school that really makes sense for where we're headed as a society. The only problem is, it doesn't feel like a school. We're back to the culture shock. Sudbury Valley doesn't have all the road signs that people have been used to in schools.
So let me end with the following observation to help bridge this culture gap. People come to SVS and see it as being in "perpetual recess," and it gives them a little twinge and perhaps they start worrying. But just remember this: these schools that we all grew up in, with their classes, their curricula, their SAT's and Achievement Tests and Placement Tests, their grade levels and exams, these schools are relative newcomers to the scene! They're only about one-hundred-fifty years old. They were started by people who sat down and thought about education and said, "This is the kind of school we need to create a great industrial society." And do you know what happened? People in the 19th century used to walk into those "newfangled schools" and experience culture shock! They'd say, "This is a school? My kids could be spending their time productively out in the fields on the farm. They could be apprenticing as tradesmen, or as craftsmen, or doing all sorts of useful things. You mean to tell us that taking kids and sitting them at desks and having them write on chalkboards, that's a school? You're calling that education?" They had just as weird a feeling then as people have today looking at Sudbury Valley! It took many, many years for people to get used to the industrial-age schools which are so accepted now!" [...]
My boyfriend's younger brother attends this school, and whenever he mentions his education, it is always in a positive light. Students can meet with any teacher they like, about whatever subjects they like, in order to pursue subjects that interest them. It does shock me, however, when Erik leaves for school at 11:45am and returns after 5pm - students are required to spend five hours per day at school, but it can be any time during the school's hours of operation. It also amazes me that students frequently get the opportunity to travel to other schools like SVS in Oregon, North Carolina, and Belgium.
In reading the many articles featured on the SVS website, I really began to embrace the concept of what they call "post-industrial teaching". It's true! Our present educational system, although it has experienced a bit of evolution in terms of curriculum and technology, is designed to teach students to be part of the "system". I may sound like a hippie, but with these concepts in mind, I can't deny that perhaps traditional schooling no longer prepares kids for the "real world" the way we think it does.
Monday, December 1, 2008
I've Got Those Recession Blues...
Well, as stated on CNN, FOX and most local news stations, we, as the U.S.A., are officially in a recession. What was looming and predicted to happen is now a fact of life for the time being, and while it seems scary and uncertain, I believe that we as a country have no choice to come out of this stronger, and perhaps with a better sense of purpose as to what life should be about.
I still find it rather amusing that we need days like today as wake up calls to change our lifestyles. It seems to me that many people are not happy in their day to day lives, but yet they don't quite know how to fix it. More and more we are tied up in our financial struggles because we are an extremely prosperous nation that sometimes tries to overextend our limits of just how much we can really handle, both as a nation and on the personal familial level. We get the best job we can, the biggest house and the best vacation home as well, and then we work like dogs to pay off all the mortgages and loans and cost of heat until we just burn out. Or lose out, depending on how much work and money you can get. Maybe it's just me, but the "next big thing" lifestyle has never appealed to me; I'm not striving to go out and be a big showoff or enjoy the finer things in life, though if that happened I could live with that, but it also is a blessing because I am truly content with having less.
But now that I am an almost graduate, just about two weeks shy of getting my degree, I wonder just how tough it is going to be to get a job. Music education is already at such a disadvantage in our school systems, how will it fare when even more schools get shut down and programs are cut? I am hopeful and afraid for what is around the bend, but it's the good work that we do at school that helps us prepare for the curveballs life throws our way. I just hope someone will pay for me for thinking!
I still find it rather amusing that we need days like today as wake up calls to change our lifestyles. It seems to me that many people are not happy in their day to day lives, but yet they don't quite know how to fix it. More and more we are tied up in our financial struggles because we are an extremely prosperous nation that sometimes tries to overextend our limits of just how much we can really handle, both as a nation and on the personal familial level. We get the best job we can, the biggest house and the best vacation home as well, and then we work like dogs to pay off all the mortgages and loans and cost of heat until we just burn out. Or lose out, depending on how much work and money you can get. Maybe it's just me, but the "next big thing" lifestyle has never appealed to me; I'm not striving to go out and be a big showoff or enjoy the finer things in life, though if that happened I could live with that, but it also is a blessing because I am truly content with having less.
But now that I am an almost graduate, just about two weeks shy of getting my degree, I wonder just how tough it is going to be to get a job. Music education is already at such a disadvantage in our school systems, how will it fare when even more schools get shut down and programs are cut? I am hopeful and afraid for what is around the bend, but it's the good work that we do at school that helps us prepare for the curveballs life throws our way. I just hope someone will pay for me for thinking!
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Liberalism: A Mental Disorder?
Over this passed weekend I have been dealing with a lot of unnecessary stress due to politics. My Uncle in Texas, who is a extremely conservative Republican, continues to send me emails about conservative psychiatrists who have been diagnosing people with liberal beliefs as "mental patients".
I wrote back, asking for him to please stop pressing his beliefs upon me , to only get a reponse back saying that he was trying to teach me how to think like an intellectual. I was told that I had a small frame of reference due to my lack of years of experience. He told me that if I am in my 20's and I don't vote liberal that I don't have a heart, but if I am in my 40's and I don't vote conservative that I don't have a brain.
My Uncle is a college professor, and he also teaches elementary piano, but does that mean that he has the right to "teach" everyone a lesson? There was nothing two-sided to anything that he told me at all, and the fact that he is a teacher bothers me. When is enough, enough? What if I were a student in one of his classes and he said all of this to me? How could a student deal with a radical of high authority who bullies them intellectually?
I wrote back, asking for him to please stop pressing his beliefs upon me , to only get a reponse back saying that he was trying to teach me how to think like an intellectual. I was told that I had a small frame of reference due to my lack of years of experience. He told me that if I am in my 20's and I don't vote liberal that I don't have a heart, but if I am in my 40's and I don't vote conservative that I don't have a brain.
My Uncle is a college professor, and he also teaches elementary piano, but does that mean that he has the right to "teach" everyone a lesson? There was nothing two-sided to anything that he told me at all, and the fact that he is a teacher bothers me. When is enough, enough? What if I were a student in one of his classes and he said all of this to me? How could a student deal with a radical of high authority who bullies them intellectually?
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Cus We All Could Use A Little Laughter
So with the stress of the semester hitting all of us, below is a link that should certainly get all of you laughing.
Scarlet Takes A Tumble
This video really doesn't connect at all to what we have been talking about in class, but I felt that we could all use something to brighten our day.
Scarlet Takes A Tumble
This video really doesn't connect at all to what we have been talking about in class, but I felt that we could all use something to brighten our day.
Tolerence, Education, and Prop 8
With the results of Proposition 8 in California looming over our country and my conscious, and the Supreme court agreeing today to at least hear the challenges of Prop 8, I could not help but look into what educators thought of all of this, and if education has anything to do with it
Supporters of Prop 8 have said the idea of same-sex marriage could be integrated into all aspects of school lessons, not just sex-ed. One example used is of a math book containing a word problem that tells the story of "Johnny's two mommies" going to the store or celebrating an anniversary. They are concerned this will infiltrate literature, vocabulary, social studies, science, math and all the subjects that kids learn.
I realize I was brought up in a pretty Liberal environment, and that my close connection to gay culture can leave me at time possible biased, but I believe as an educator, and human being these kinds of ideas of limiting groups abilities is wrong and against what educators stand for.
Are we not the ones trying to expand the minds, views and tolerance of our students? I can find understanding in why certain peoples religious beliefs skew the image of the homosexual individual, but isn’t part of religion also love and tolerance for fellow human. By eliminating a whole group of people from school curriculum are we not teaching hate instead of acceptance?
I consider this to be no different than when schools began integration, or text books used “ethnic” names in their text, as well as the California Supreme Court's 1948 decision to overturn a ban on interracial marriages.
I recommend everyone read the comments by pro 8 writers and decide if that is the America you want for the future. Let's stop these kinds of propositions now before it gets out of hand. When future generations look back on us let's be remembered as expanding rights and accepting people. Let's not be the people blocking the schoolhouse door.
I found an commercial for the Prop 8 supporters that depicts a young girl coming home and telling her mother that she learned in school that two prince’s could marry and that she could marry a princess.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SKZgF804O0
This commercial is ridiculous in that there is nothing about Prop 8 that is connected to public education in any way. There is also nothing in California state law that would require the teaching of marriage in any of its forms. Also most State laws (California being one) allows parents to opt students out of lessons they find to be out of keeping with their personal beliefs. The "Yes on 8" advertisements suggesting that students will be taught about same-sex marriage if the proposition fails are untruthful and ridiculous.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SKZgF804O0
Supporters of Prop 8 have said the idea of same-sex marriage could be integrated into all aspects of school lessons, not just sex-ed. One example used is of a math book containing a word problem that tells the story of "Johnny's two mommies" going to the store or celebrating an anniversary. They are concerned this will infiltrate literature, vocabulary, social studies, science, math and all the subjects that kids learn.
I realize I was brought up in a pretty Liberal environment, and that my close connection to gay culture can leave me at time possible biased, but I believe as an educator, and human being these kinds of ideas of limiting groups abilities is wrong and against what educators stand for.
Are we not the ones trying to expand the minds, views and tolerance of our students? I can find understanding in why certain peoples religious beliefs skew the image of the homosexual individual, but isn’t part of religion also love and tolerance for fellow human. By eliminating a whole group of people from school curriculum are we not teaching hate instead of acceptance?
I consider this to be no different than when schools began integration, or text books used “ethnic” names in their text, as well as the California Supreme Court's 1948 decision to overturn a ban on interracial marriages.
I recommend everyone read the comments by pro 8 writers and decide if that is the America you want for the future. Let's stop these kinds of propositions now before it gets out of hand. When future generations look back on us let's be remembered as expanding rights and accepting people. Let's not be the people blocking the schoolhouse door.
Post-Modern-ism wtf?
We are drilled in Critical Pedagogy II that Critical Pedagogy is not a method but a Postmodern teaching philosophy. What exactly does that mean? Do we ever discuss what postmodern means? Why would be promote a teaching philosophy when we don't fully understand the vocabulary we absorb and blindly use? How can I understand what postmodernism is when I don't think I know what being Modern is?
The conceptualization of postmodernism is certainly a journey, which I have chosen to embark upon. I can honestly say that I have only began to touch the surface of a complex, fragmented, and multifaceted philosophy. My journey began because I became increasingly frustrated by merely uttering words while explaining a phenomenon that felt organic and natural to myself. I felt that my education was incomplete because I didn't know that I knew what it meant to live, teach, and learn through a postmodern education. Many times this frustration lead to an all out assault on the tenets of Critical Pedagogy. In addition to this frustration was the conflict that arose from my religious and spiritual beliefs. The ideas of universality, absolute truth, and resolution were tightly ingrained in my identity and my reality. Consequently, The concepts, notions, and ideas promoted by postmodernism at times not only challenged by faith and world view but created anxiety, tension, and at times anger and hostility. Such feelings were simply not directed towards postmodernism but also myself, society, and being. The process of learning, relearning, and unlearning continues to be a hard fought and sometimes painful undertaking. For centuries society has relied upon the powerful wisdom of sages, teachers, intellectuals, philosophers, and artists. Through there music, art, and prose people searched for answers to questions unknown. I remember vividly a segment from a popular movie titled "Hitchhikers guide to the universe". The segment highlighted how the human beings are always looking for the the answer to the ultimate question. Eventually human beings develop the largest and smartest computer that answers the ultimate question and tells them the answer is 46. However, the computer never tells them the ultimate question. Instead it directs them to discover the ultimate question. This movie illustrates the notions of postmodernism. A modernist seeks to answer the ultimate question and uses religion, art, and prose, to communicate the answer. In the process the modernist clings to the past to search for clues, and interprets art to seek meaning. The emphasis is placed upon logic and rationality. However, one may also argue that I am over simplifying the nature and origins of modernism. While I may be not giving much credit to the modernist platform I do credit some modernist movements for their liberatory power. Like postmodernism, modernism is hard to define because one can argue that modernism declared war on itself several times during the course of world history. However, modernism continued to seek homogeneity under the disguise of unity, absolutism through truth, and equality through universalism. Modernism provides an end to the means and instills a sense of hope for citizens to aspire too. Such a notion leaves many citizens vulnerable to manipulation, control, and oppression. What was once was the powerful progenitor of democracy, liberation easily became a new, clandestine, and power mode of oppression. Such power can be witnessed in the art and music of stalinism and nazism. One can certainly argue that such perversion can be witnessed in elements of the capitalist American society. For example, the advertising industry, Americana music, political campaigns, military recruitment, and education.
Modernism tried challenging and reinventing itself many times which helped keep society relatively heterogeneous. However, postmodernism goes beyond simple rejection and questioning. Postmodernism is about living through challenge, tension, difference, and diversity. There is a skepticism about accepting hierarchy, establishments, and absoluteness but and acceptance towards challengeing the status quo, intense transformation, and critical reflection. One must be aware however that there is no single definition or conceptualization about postmodernism. Postmodernism is a very open, playful, and radical philosophy that takes contemplation. Another, tenet of postmodernism especially in education is problem posing. Paulo Friere coined that term by stating that students and teachers must redistribute power among teachers and students. In addition the goal of the teacher is to engage students in the process of problem posing. In postmodernism questions are more important than answers. Such a mindset can have intensely powerful results in education. Rather than me tell you exacally what post modernism actually is I suggest reading "Introducing Postmodernism: A graphic guide to cutting edge thinking".
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Boys and Girls
A common feeling that I get towards multiculturalism is that all people should be treated equality. I feel that we must embrace the differences between people. The differences are what make us unique and what bond people with similar differences together.
We haven't talked much about the difference of gender. To me there is an obvious difference between the male and female sex. In my elementary practicum class, you can tell major differences between the little boys and the little girls. The girls "seem" to be well behaved but when they misbehave, they go about about it in a "sneaky" matter. The boys on the other hand don't "seem" to be as well behaved as the girls. Boys at this age are generally more rambunctious then the little girls. However when the boys misbehave they are not "sneaky", they will misbehave directly in front of your face.
I could write forever about the differences between the male and female sex. As we get older it just becomes more evident. Should boys and girls be treated differently in the classroom? Some parents send their children to an all boys school or an all girls school, I personally believe it's important for boys and girls to interact especially during their younger years.
If we need to treat boys and girls differently in the classroom, do we need to take sexual preference into consideration? There are many little girls in my elementary practicum that look and act like little boys. They have boy haircuts and wear clothing from the boys department. How do we treat these students, like girls or like boys? Should we not be biased by gender?
Multiculturalism in College
My sister Stacy is a first year student at St. Peter’s College in Jersey City. For those of you who know the area, you know it is not the best place to be by yourself, especially at night. My sister has been having some difficulties with her roommates and the other students at the school. At St. Peter’s, Stacy is the minority. Her roommates happen to both be black. If you knew my sister in high school, you would know that she is not racist in any way. She was friends with all types of people and accepted everyone. At her college, she is the one being discriminated against. Because she is one of the only white people, everyone judges her the second she walks in the door – despite her bubbly personality and pretty smile.
Is this fair? We are talking so much about multiculturalism and how important it is for us to accept other cultures and ideas. But what if the other cultures do not accept us or do not want to be accepted? You can try and try and try to accept everyone until you are blue in the face, but nothing will be accomplished if both parties are not willing.
It is extremely frustrating for not just my sister, but for me –especially being on the outside of the issue. Stacy feels she cannot step out of line or say anything that could be interpreted the wrong way for fear that her roommates will gang up on her. If she tries to transfer out of her room because she does not get along with the girls, immediately it will be viewed as a black vs. white situation. She is so upset about what is happening that she wants to transfer. Should my sister have to leave the school because she is willing to be friends but the others will not accept her? Why should she have to pay for the other’s unwillingness to be multicultural?
Is this fair? We are talking so much about multiculturalism and how important it is for us to accept other cultures and ideas. But what if the other cultures do not accept us or do not want to be accepted? You can try and try and try to accept everyone until you are blue in the face, but nothing will be accomplished if both parties are not willing.
It is extremely frustrating for not just my sister, but for me –especially being on the outside of the issue. Stacy feels she cannot step out of line or say anything that could be interpreted the wrong way for fear that her roommates will gang up on her. If she tries to transfer out of her room because she does not get along with the girls, immediately it will be viewed as a black vs. white situation. She is so upset about what is happening that she wants to transfer. Should my sister have to leave the school because she is willing to be friends but the others will not accept her? Why should she have to pay for the other’s unwillingness to be multicultural?
Monday, November 17, 2008
Attitudes Towards Diversity
In one of the articles I found it talked about Diversity and Learning Outcomes. One of the sections in the article really focused on the three main attitudes that students have about diversity and inequality. These characteristics or attitudes are raised when controversial material is being discussed. In this article, Nancy Davis (1992) identifies resistance, paralysis and rage as the three common types of reaction towards diversity.
Students who fall under the paralysis heading often see these hierarchical systems as fact, or as concrete ideas. They have this attitude of acceptance and the thought that "this is just the way it is". Alternatively students under the enraged heading are often in situations that classify them as disadvantaged. They direct their anger at students who they perceive are more advantaged then they are. This is a situation that is very recognizable. To be blunt, if you are a poor kid from the city, you are going to have some anger directed towards the rich kids of the suburbs who's parents give them whatever they want. This is something that can be translated into the adult world as well. If we are disadvantaged in any way, whether in academic, social or job situations, we have some tension towards the people who are more advantaged then we are.
The last classification is the resisting attitude. Students under this heading either deny the importance of inequality or blame individuals for the inequality. Many of these students have been misinformed by the media, or by other means of communication. It always seems to be anyone's fault but their own. Young students may have not made the decisions that have brought them to the unfair situations they live in now, but they also continue to make the decisions and stereotypes that keep them in the same place.
These classifications definitely helped me figure out the more psychological aspect of what students might be thinking towards diversity. I found it really interesting and I have identified with all three of these classifications in my own experiences with friends, and even myself. The important thing is to be aware of these classifications and if possible try to break them down in our own classrooms one day.
Students who fall under the paralysis heading often see these hierarchical systems as fact, or as concrete ideas. They have this attitude of acceptance and the thought that "this is just the way it is". Alternatively students under the enraged heading are often in situations that classify them as disadvantaged. They direct their anger at students who they perceive are more advantaged then they are. This is a situation that is very recognizable. To be blunt, if you are a poor kid from the city, you are going to have some anger directed towards the rich kids of the suburbs who's parents give them whatever they want. This is something that can be translated into the adult world as well. If we are disadvantaged in any way, whether in academic, social or job situations, we have some tension towards the people who are more advantaged then we are.
The last classification is the resisting attitude. Students under this heading either deny the importance of inequality or blame individuals for the inequality. Many of these students have been misinformed by the media, or by other means of communication. It always seems to be anyone's fault but their own. Young students may have not made the decisions that have brought them to the unfair situations they live in now, but they also continue to make the decisions and stereotypes that keep them in the same place.
These classifications definitely helped me figure out the more psychological aspect of what students might be thinking towards diversity. I found it really interesting and I have identified with all three of these classifications in my own experiences with friends, and even myself. The important thing is to be aware of these classifications and if possible try to break them down in our own classrooms one day.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Multiculturalism
With the presidential election this year, there has been an extreme emphasis on multiculturalism in society. Now that we have an African American president, one may argue that some cultures may be pushed aside due to a different kind of custom in the White House.
In class we talked about the concept of multiculturalism and how important or not important it may be to our students. I view our world and society as one big classroom filled with different cultures, individuals and ideas. Together, we must work as a community and learn from each other. Because the world can be related so closely to the concept of a classroom, why can’t we relate multiculturalism within a classroom to the bigger aspect of multiculturalism in the world?
We can focus on diversity in our classrooms, but maybe the classroom is just the catalyst for making EVERYONE aware, not just our students. There are many full grown adults that have issues with diversity and different customs. For example, I cannot tell you how many times during the election process I heard conversations in which people would express that they were fearful of having a black president, simply because they were unsure of others’ ethnicity and customs.
As far as I am concerned, we are all one big community. Like the communities we stress about every day in our classrooms, we must work together to honor the differences we each bring to the table. Think about how boring our lives would be if we all believed in the same things. Variety is the spice of life and as teachers we have the opportunity to foster that in our students right from the start.
In class we talked about the concept of multiculturalism and how important or not important it may be to our students. I view our world and society as one big classroom filled with different cultures, individuals and ideas. Together, we must work as a community and learn from each other. Because the world can be related so closely to the concept of a classroom, why can’t we relate multiculturalism within a classroom to the bigger aspect of multiculturalism in the world?
We can focus on diversity in our classrooms, but maybe the classroom is just the catalyst for making EVERYONE aware, not just our students. There are many full grown adults that have issues with diversity and different customs. For example, I cannot tell you how many times during the election process I heard conversations in which people would express that they were fearful of having a black president, simply because they were unsure of others’ ethnicity and customs.
As far as I am concerned, we are all one big community. Like the communities we stress about every day in our classrooms, we must work together to honor the differences we each bring to the table. Think about how boring our lives would be if we all believed in the same things. Variety is the spice of life and as teachers we have the opportunity to foster that in our students right from the start.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
"Change We Can Believe In"
Throughout the semester, especially with this past election, we discussed the importance of change in a community. Rebuilding how our government nationally and internationally, educational funding and testing, and creating a new unified health care system, all some of the promised changes. I found it interesting in watching the speech from the new President Elect Senator Barack Obama, how many of these changes that were talked about throughout all the campaigning are now going to be executed.
As many of you know, I did support Senator John McCain in this election for many reasons, and of course was disappointed in the results. However, I was recently inspired to embrace this new change. In a conversation with an Obama supporter and close friend, she mentioned that now she personally is motivated to make changes in her life because of the support and plans for Obama's change in America. This kind of surprised me. Instead of thinking about how this change will affect me megatively, I have now evolved myself to think, "How can this change benefit me and my life?" as well as "How can I work with these ideas to change the world for others".
This election has personally changed me. I have learned so much about my own political beliefs as well as those of others and now plan to accept the changes into my own life. If many Americans can hold onto this "Change We Can Believe In" we can individually make changes in our own lives that will overall effect the change in the country. Although I did not vote for Barack Obama, I really look forward to seeing what he does in our country, and I'm inspired to stand up for my own beliefs because he was able to challenge America to change!
As many of you know, I did support Senator John McCain in this election for many reasons, and of course was disappointed in the results. However, I was recently inspired to embrace this new change. In a conversation with an Obama supporter and close friend, she mentioned that now she personally is motivated to make changes in her life because of the support and plans for Obama's change in America. This kind of surprised me. Instead of thinking about how this change will affect me megatively, I have now evolved myself to think, "How can this change benefit me and my life?" as well as "How can I work with these ideas to change the world for others".
This election has personally changed me. I have learned so much about my own political beliefs as well as those of others and now plan to accept the changes into my own life. If many Americans can hold onto this "Change We Can Believe In" we can individually make changes in our own lives that will overall effect the change in the country. Although I did not vote for Barack Obama, I really look forward to seeing what he does in our country, and I'm inspired to stand up for my own beliefs because he was able to challenge America to change!
Real American Poetry
The article by Walcott has certainly got me thinking alot about the usefulness of bringing RAP into the classroom. As music educators we must be aware of how our previous held notions, ideas, and conceptualizations impact the structure we create for our students. Often times we as teachers confine ourselves into boxes. Such boxes represent our comfort, knowledge, values, ideals, and previous experiences. To many teachers remain within their box that inevitably entraps them in a conservative mindset. Consequently, we not only force our culture onto the diverse cultural representation that manifests itself in our classrooms. This week at my practicum sitet I witnessed critical pedagogy alive within the classroom. As a members of the community we challenged our previous experiences, notions, and concepts. Through the tension we began a lifelong journey to rediscover and define the nature of music, performance, and creation.
At the begining of the year my co op indentified the students who she considers to be disruptive and disengaged. The week before I started my lesson I noticed that one the the "trouble makers" was trying to express himself musically and creatively. Unfortunately, his ideas were pushed aside and the teacher continued with her lesson. As a result of the teacher imposed silence, the student began to disrupt the lesson. Instead of opening to classroom and allowing him to share his musical idea she stripped him of his drum and proceeded to silence him completely.
On monday this particular boy became fully engaged in the lesson due to the progressive structure that governed the community. All voices were free to sound and for once in their academic career they were asked what music is theirs? what is music? Who makes music? why does it occur? Every student in the class had something to contribute, share, and communicate to the community. During the time we set aside for sharing, this "troubled" boy share a deep and profound statement. "Music is culture expressed through sound" he later explained that all to often people try to force their culture and music onto other people as if it is better than theirs. I pondered about this occurance and realized that this experienced reaffirmed by commitment to CP and a liberatory education.
At the begining of the year my co op indentified the students who she considers to be disruptive and disengaged. The week before I started my lesson I noticed that one the the "trouble makers" was trying to express himself musically and creatively. Unfortunately, his ideas were pushed aside and the teacher continued with her lesson. As a result of the teacher imposed silence, the student began to disrupt the lesson. Instead of opening to classroom and allowing him to share his musical idea she stripped him of his drum and proceeded to silence him completely.
On monday this particular boy became fully engaged in the lesson due to the progressive structure that governed the community. All voices were free to sound and for once in their academic career they were asked what music is theirs? what is music? Who makes music? why does it occur? Every student in the class had something to contribute, share, and communicate to the community. During the time we set aside for sharing, this "troubled" boy share a deep and profound statement. "Music is culture expressed through sound" he later explained that all to often people try to force their culture and music onto other people as if it is better than theirs. I pondered about this occurance and realized that this experienced reaffirmed by commitment to CP and a liberatory education.
The Whole Picture
In the reading of Charlene Morton's article, it seemed clearer to me that although we read about five different "cases" of multiculturalism, all must be considered to address the issues of how we label and just how far, or how shallow, we reach into what I am now thinking as "the other side." The other side is being able to completely divorce personal experience from the experiences of others, which is what we are attempting to do through the practices of multiculturalism. We must consider the many different ways of approaching the concepts of hegemony and the majority rule (or what is referred to often as Western thought in this article) and the ways that they affect our teaching and true connection to other peoples' worlds.
From Elliott to Woodford to Kincheloe and Steinberg, we wrestle with the different ways in which we approach change in our ways of thinking of race, creed, socio-political affiliation, etc. These issues must be brought up organically by inquiring minds, however, or the assumptions of what music might "mean" to one person (namely, the teacher) would be passed along to his or her students with every intention of NOT passing along these given labels. What the focus should perhaps be is the study of the big picture of time and place and personal experience. We must still be wary of labeling one example of a means for describing the whole since we come from so many diverse backgrounds that one can hardly begin to break down just what it is that makes up our whole. David Elliott, in his quest of breaking down barries through his takes on pluralist multiculturalism, pushes for us to learn "self-understanding through 'otherstanding.' " It is the notion that we are so diverse and many labeled, that once we begin to kind of shed our protective skin of personal identity, we are able to dig into specific musical cultures that can't be so easily defined by white or black, urban or rural, etc.
Critical Multiculturalism gives us the tools to take all the material that we have been given and to try to construct meaning for ourselves, but the tools that we have been given also limit our understanding of how multi-layered the concepts of identity truly become. We often put ourselves in a box of understanding, with walls we come to know as truths and strongholds. But when, in fact, we realize that the labels that we use to try to unlabel stereotypes, we realize that the box is merely a construction of our mind. Our willingness to explore deeper into what makes us who we are then would become opened, making it incredibly difficult to try to appease all citizens of the human race. What connects us are not the identities of where we have come from-which include the labels that we have no control over- but rather, shared experiences and organic learning help plant new seeds for interpretation that goes beyond barriers without even trying. To try and label it would destroy it. It is only when have been able to step away from a situation that we begin to break it down into little compartments, but in the moment, we are not classifying our thoughts as contingent of what makes us "us," but rather who I am in all my parts. The willingness of the mind to becomes free and ever-changing is a process that takes more unlearning than learning. Each situation is unique and can only be labeled by the experiences of those who we in the moment and had no bias for the free exchange of thoughts.
From Elliott to Woodford to Kincheloe and Steinberg, we wrestle with the different ways in which we approach change in our ways of thinking of race, creed, socio-political affiliation, etc. These issues must be brought up organically by inquiring minds, however, or the assumptions of what music might "mean" to one person (namely, the teacher) would be passed along to his or her students with every intention of NOT passing along these given labels. What the focus should perhaps be is the study of the big picture of time and place and personal experience. We must still be wary of labeling one example of a means for describing the whole since we come from so many diverse backgrounds that one can hardly begin to break down just what it is that makes up our whole. David Elliott, in his quest of breaking down barries through his takes on pluralist multiculturalism, pushes for us to learn "self-understanding through 'otherstanding.' " It is the notion that we are so diverse and many labeled, that once we begin to kind of shed our protective skin of personal identity, we are able to dig into specific musical cultures that can't be so easily defined by white or black, urban or rural, etc.
Critical Multiculturalism gives us the tools to take all the material that we have been given and to try to construct meaning for ourselves, but the tools that we have been given also limit our understanding of how multi-layered the concepts of identity truly become. We often put ourselves in a box of understanding, with walls we come to know as truths and strongholds. But when, in fact, we realize that the labels that we use to try to unlabel stereotypes, we realize that the box is merely a construction of our mind. Our willingness to explore deeper into what makes us who we are then would become opened, making it incredibly difficult to try to appease all citizens of the human race. What connects us are not the identities of where we have come from-which include the labels that we have no control over- but rather, shared experiences and organic learning help plant new seeds for interpretation that goes beyond barriers without even trying. To try and label it would destroy it. It is only when have been able to step away from a situation that we begin to break it down into little compartments, but in the moment, we are not classifying our thoughts as contingent of what makes us "us," but rather who I am in all my parts. The willingness of the mind to becomes free and ever-changing is a process that takes more unlearning than learning. Each situation is unique and can only be labeled by the experiences of those who we in the moment and had no bias for the free exchange of thoughts.
Talking To, or Talking At?
From my first days in elementary school to present day Westminster, I have been experiencing the never-ending issues surrounding teachers and the way that they teach their classes. It is understood by myself and most likely many, that each person has their own way of doing things. As we have previously studied and are still studying, everyone has their own style of learning as well as their own style of teaching. It may just be me, but I do not believe that talking at a classroom full of students constitutes as teaching them.
I find that the older I get, teachers really don't seem to care about the way they teach their classes. Its always one man for himself--which it should be--but I don't see how caring less about the student benefits the teacher. I know that I respect a teacher more in a lecture based class if there is dialogue about what is being lectured. Talking at people is no way to be respected, you must speak with them in order to get a response.
I find that the older I get, teachers really don't seem to care about the way they teach their classes. Its always one man for himself--which it should be--but I don't see how caring less about the student benefits the teacher. I know that I respect a teacher more in a lecture based class if there is dialogue about what is being lectured. Talking at people is no way to be respected, you must speak with them in order to get a response.
Monday, November 10, 2008
The Music in Schools Argument
We are forever trying to boost the opinions of the arts in our schools. As I was rereading the Woodford text, I came across the section in Chapter Four that talks about the New Right hijacking the public sphere and its institutions. The quote talks about music and arts being the "soft" subjects.
"By 'soft' subjects I am referring to the nineteenth century notion of 'formal discipline' or the belief that general mental faculties were like muscles that could be strengthened through application to certain difficult or 'hard' subjects such as Latin or Mathematics. Today's 'hard' subjects are language, mathematics, and the sciences-- the one that are most susceptible to quantitative assessment and that are deemed useful in business and the workforce. To many peoples utilitarian way of thinking today, and particularly that of the New Right, subjects such as music and philosophy are not sufficiently 'concrete' to be of much use to anyone." (Pg. 60)
This argument for music in our schools will go on forever until we either get knocked out all together or we get more recognition for what music can accomplish. What is deemed useful in the work place can be learned in a music classroom just as well as any other place. The subject matter may not be of much use, but thinking critically and creatively are great assets to any workplace. Employers look for people who can think outside the box and who can come up with solutions that both work well and are imaginative. This creativity can be learned in a music classroom just as well as it can be learned in another setting. I'll take a step out and say that creativity is associated more with music and the arts than it is with math or science.
Another thing that I wanted to point out is that the New Right deems music and philosophy as not much use to anyone. In fact they are of very good use. Philosophy helps us to think critically and look at things in new and different ways. By learning about the different ways of thinking it moves us to challenge and question all the things that have come before us and that in a way is teaching us how to live in a democratic society.
"By 'soft' subjects I am referring to the nineteenth century notion of 'formal discipline' or the belief that general mental faculties were like muscles that could be strengthened through application to certain difficult or 'hard' subjects such as Latin or Mathematics. Today's 'hard' subjects are language, mathematics, and the sciences-- the one that are most susceptible to quantitative assessment and that are deemed useful in business and the workforce. To many peoples utilitarian way of thinking today, and particularly that of the New Right, subjects such as music and philosophy are not sufficiently 'concrete' to be of much use to anyone." (Pg. 60)
This argument for music in our schools will go on forever until we either get knocked out all together or we get more recognition for what music can accomplish. What is deemed useful in the work place can be learned in a music classroom just as well as any other place. The subject matter may not be of much use, but thinking critically and creatively are great assets to any workplace. Employers look for people who can think outside the box and who can come up with solutions that both work well and are imaginative. This creativity can be learned in a music classroom just as well as it can be learned in another setting. I'll take a step out and say that creativity is associated more with music and the arts than it is with math or science.
Another thing that I wanted to point out is that the New Right deems music and philosophy as not much use to anyone. In fact they are of very good use. Philosophy helps us to think critically and look at things in new and different ways. By learning about the different ways of thinking it moves us to challenge and question all the things that have come before us and that in a way is teaching us how to live in a democratic society.
Non-Bias Views for the Greater Good
For two and a half hours each Wednesday evening, at the Baruch College in Manhattan, two men, former New York Governor Mario M. Cuomo and Douglas A. Muzzio, a veteran professor have merged the scholarly imperatives of the classroom and the gritty realities of the politics to teach a course entitled “The 2008 Presidential Election: Where We Are as a Nation, Where We Want to Be, How We Get There.”
While I understand that this is a class all about politics, and that this is different then discussing democracy and politics in the music or general ed classroom, when I came across an article in the New York Times today I was more intrigued by the way the class is taught and the approach these two men took when discussing this years big election.
When discussing Governor Palin’s acceptance for GOP Vice President cadency, the majority of the 23 member class scoffed and argued of her inexperience and that she was only a governor of a state with a mere 7,000 citizens. Rather than agree and take his own shots, the former Democratic Governor, merely waved a finger and discussed how a state’s size is not the only thing to consider, he said. A governor is a governor. “The fact that what you do affects more people,” he said, “doesn’t change the nature of what you do”
The fact that Cuomo could pull himself away from his own democratic ideas and beliefs and challenge his students to think critically and open mindedly, is an idea we have been discussing a lot in class and I think it is great that I can actually find examples of this in the real world.
We as educators must know when to set our beliefs aside, when it is important to share our ideas, and when to just listen to our students. It is then that democracy has the ability to flourish in our classroom, and create more well rounded students and educators.
While I understand that this is a class all about politics, and that this is different then discussing democracy and politics in the music or general ed classroom, when I came across an article in the New York Times today I was more intrigued by the way the class is taught and the approach these two men took when discussing this years big election.
When discussing Governor Palin’s acceptance for GOP Vice President cadency, the majority of the 23 member class scoffed and argued of her inexperience and that she was only a governor of a state with a mere 7,000 citizens. Rather than agree and take his own shots, the former Democratic Governor, merely waved a finger and discussed how a state’s size is not the only thing to consider, he said. A governor is a governor. “The fact that what you do affects more people,” he said, “doesn’t change the nature of what you do”
The fact that Cuomo could pull himself away from his own democratic ideas and beliefs and challenge his students to think critically and open mindedly, is an idea we have been discussing a lot in class and I think it is great that I can actually find examples of this in the real world.
We as educators must know when to set our beliefs aside, when it is important to share our ideas, and when to just listen to our students. It is then that democracy has the ability to flourish in our classroom, and create more well rounded students and educators.
Free Starbucks and Election Day
Election day was a very exciting day for everyone. People all around the community were excited and nervous about what was going to become of our country and our community. Many different businesses made enticing deals to try to persuade customers to vote. Ben and Jerry's offered a free ice cream to any customer who had voted. Many other businesses joined in including, Chic-fil-A, Krispy Kreme as well as Starbucks.
For my "political engagement". I decided to go to Starbucks for my free coffee. The idea was that you were supposed to walk into Starbucks and tell the barista that you had voted, and then she would give you a free coffee. I walked in, told the barista that I voted and received my free coffee. I was able to talk to a few customer in Starbucks about their opinion on the election. I found that most of the costumers were excited for the change that the country would be seeing.
I thought it was great that these different companies were trying to entice people in the community to vote. However, shouldn't these costumers WANT to vote? Why should they be bribed with a free coffee, ice cream or donut? People should want to vote for the sake of contributing politically to their country.
I was excited about getting my coffee for free. I'm sure other costumers were as well, I just hope they were for the right reasons.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
The Power of Opinion
So with the upcoming election and our discussions in class, Lauren and I decided to our media project on the effects of this election and politics in our classes. We have found that in many of our classes, especially Critical Ped, this current election has played a large role in the dynamics of classroom discussions. We also have observed that the opinions shared in class are usually one sided, not to say that the other side doesn't play a role in the class, but that there is little or no discussion of the more conservative opinion.
I feel, as a republican, that my opinions aren't always taken seriously or are overlooked by other classmates who feel differently. Personally, I would rather just sit and listen to others opinions, than speak up with my own different beliefs and be criticized. I usually feel uncomfortable discussing my political opinions in general, because we all are so different and because my conservative views are a minority in the class.
With our project, we are trying to see how students of both political affiliations deal with discussions in class. Through interviews and surveys, we have asked two very important questions:
1) Does the election affect the community within their classes?
2) Do they feel comfortable talking about their political and other opinions in a classroom environment?
We are still currently looking for the opinions of others to add to our project. If you want to send us your comments or other opinions, please either comment or email. Anonymous opinions can be used in our project if you feel more comfortable.
I feel, as a republican, that my opinions aren't always taken seriously or are overlooked by other classmates who feel differently. Personally, I would rather just sit and listen to others opinions, than speak up with my own different beliefs and be criticized. I usually feel uncomfortable discussing my political opinions in general, because we all are so different and because my conservative views are a minority in the class.
With our project, we are trying to see how students of both political affiliations deal with discussions in class. Through interviews and surveys, we have asked two very important questions:
1) Does the election affect the community within their classes?
2) Do they feel comfortable talking about their political and other opinions in a classroom environment?
We are still currently looking for the opinions of others to add to our project. If you want to send us your comments or other opinions, please either comment or email. Anonymous opinions can be used in our project if you feel more comfortable.
Middle Ground
The juxtaposition of the reading of our mystery article and chapter 4 of the Woodford text was one of great value to our current political standings. It got to me to thinking about just how complacent we have become in our school settings and in the ways we interact and teach, much like the sentiment that was being felt in the 60s and 70s. Judging from the less-than-surprised reactions to just who our mystery author is, Bill Ayers was a member of Weather Underground, and before that, the New Left movement and SDS. WU sought to take down the regime of the Right that was set in place by the U.S. government during the heated era of the Vietnam War, often by anarchistic and militant ways. Yet through it all, their message was to bring reality to a world caught up in unideal, empiracal tendancies. But ironically enough, in an attempt to end the war and violence that the U.S. was bringing down upon the world, Ayers and WU bombed buildings, attacked with arson and vandalism, and even expected civilian deaths as a result of their actions.
We read a great deal about the New Right that has pervaded our society and school systems since the era of the 80s (Reaganomics) and a push towards Conservatism and the creating of absolutes and truths in our political sphere. The New Right pushes for standardization in our public schools, which in turn divides students into haves and have-nots, which divides us as citizens even further into successes or failures, all based in the ideals of a group of conservatives who deem one aspect of music education to be the standard for achievement. What the New Left was trying to do was to tear down what was being built, so that no edifices and statues of our country's "successes" should be seen as accomplishments, be they physical or metaphorical manifestations.
But what happens to the concept of conversation and being able to reach a middle ground between the two extremes? Do we wait for actions to level themselves out, from the great pendulum swings from left to right, or do we take positive action, to try to come together with those who are apart from each other, to reach a common ground? Are these just ideals that we create in our safe haven of higher education? To make it in the real world, one has to have a plan, an ideal, for how they want to live their lives. The WU chose their own methods to advocating change in ways that resulted in death and chaos. But was it wrong for the group to act in the manner that they did? Was any positive change brought because of it? I would have to venture to say that without extremists, the world becomes too complacent in patting themselves on the back for a job well done. I am not an advocate of terrorism, far from it actually-maybe too deep into the pacifist realm- but radical action sometimes brings about radical change. And in this world where we let our lives by governed so completely, who will be the next in line to take a stand, even if it's by violent means?
We read a great deal about the New Right that has pervaded our society and school systems since the era of the 80s (Reaganomics) and a push towards Conservatism and the creating of absolutes and truths in our political sphere. The New Right pushes for standardization in our public schools, which in turn divides students into haves and have-nots, which divides us as citizens even further into successes or failures, all based in the ideals of a group of conservatives who deem one aspect of music education to be the standard for achievement. What the New Left was trying to do was to tear down what was being built, so that no edifices and statues of our country's "successes" should be seen as accomplishments, be they physical or metaphorical manifestations.
But what happens to the concept of conversation and being able to reach a middle ground between the two extremes? Do we wait for actions to level themselves out, from the great pendulum swings from left to right, or do we take positive action, to try to come together with those who are apart from each other, to reach a common ground? Are these just ideals that we create in our safe haven of higher education? To make it in the real world, one has to have a plan, an ideal, for how they want to live their lives. The WU chose their own methods to advocating change in ways that resulted in death and chaos. But was it wrong for the group to act in the manner that they did? Was any positive change brought because of it? I would have to venture to say that without extremists, the world becomes too complacent in patting themselves on the back for a job well done. I am not an advocate of terrorism, far from it actually-maybe too deep into the pacifist realm- but radical action sometimes brings about radical change. And in this world where we let our lives by governed so completely, who will be the next in line to take a stand, even if it's by violent means?
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Stereotypes
Stereotypes are everywhere and can be considered “positive” and “negative.” With stereotypes, all different kinds of groups are targeted. Within a classroom a stereotype could influence perception and behavior of both the students and the teacher. Unfortunately, even though we recognize and know when a stereotype is wrong, we still choose to label.
With this week’s mystery reading I found myself stereotyping the author immediately. Even though I do not agree with stereotypes, I could not help but make an assumption about this person. I found him to be a bit head-strong and childish in the manner in which he felt he always had to defend himself to his wife’s co-workers because they were lawyers. I also felt that he was a little too old to be teaching kindergarten. I could not help the way I assumed things throughout my reading, which proves that being stereotypical is not a choice.
We as teachers are often dealing with these difficult situations in our classrooms. Typical ways that teachers stereotype their students is through expectations we have of our students, and our perceptions and attributions of students’ behavior and motivations. As students we stereotype what people expect from us and that effects how people treat us, how we think about ourselves, and how we portray ourselves to others.
In our classrooms stereotypes can bring forth anxiety and greatly affect performance. As teachers we must not reinforce stereotypes. We can use counter-stereotypical examples (positive ones) that can compensate for the negatives in the situation. Do not single students out with certain questions and touchy subjects or ask students to speak for their “group.”
With this week’s mystery reading I found myself stereotyping the author immediately. Even though I do not agree with stereotypes, I could not help but make an assumption about this person. I found him to be a bit head-strong and childish in the manner in which he felt he always had to defend himself to his wife’s co-workers because they were lawyers. I also felt that he was a little too old to be teaching kindergarten. I could not help the way I assumed things throughout my reading, which proves that being stereotypical is not a choice.
We as teachers are often dealing with these difficult situations in our classrooms. Typical ways that teachers stereotype their students is through expectations we have of our students, and our perceptions and attributions of students’ behavior and motivations. As students we stereotype what people expect from us and that effects how people treat us, how we think about ourselves, and how we portray ourselves to others.
In our classrooms stereotypes can bring forth anxiety and greatly affect performance. As teachers we must not reinforce stereotypes. We can use counter-stereotypical examples (positive ones) that can compensate for the negatives in the situation. Do not single students out with certain questions and touchy subjects or ask students to speak for their “group.”
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Political Activism
In chapter four, Woodford explains the revolutionary activism of music teachers in the 1960's. During this time, many educators in music recognized and understood the political connections between education, society, and government. Today many educators are unaware of this correlation or worse yet are more concerned with their own career than their students' needs. The activism of music teachers during thet 1960's has a lot to do with the political movements of that time. Much change occurred during that decade and the one that followed because people were willing to challenge certain ways of life. Teachers have so much power in their positions that they often do not recognize. Not only do they influence the young and future generations but they have a say in education as a whole if they would only make their voices heard. How can we as future teachers plan to influence our future collegues by being politically active? What if teachers were required to have longer periods of training and were offered a higher sallary? If education were truly respected, I feel that the job of teacher would be highly regarded. When we begin teaching, can we reignite that passion for political activism from educators?
Assuming and Labeling
In our society, we tend to make many assumptions. Assumptions about almost everything. I feel that we have become less open minded, and many citizens in our country have become extremely narrow minded. When reading the "mystery reading" for the week, I was shocked that people would think that there was something "wrong" with the author, Bill Ayers, because HE was a kindergarten teacher. I found it so frustrating that he had to justify himself to his wife's colleagues. What is so wrong about a middle aged man being a kindergarten teacher? The ultimate goal in my personal life is just to be happy. By the way Bill Ayers writes, he sounds to be extremely happy and content within the profession of a kindergarten teacher.
Assumptions are made in the classroom as well. We assume what students can't do based upon their "disabilities". Why don't we ever focus on what children with "disabilities" CAN do? I have friends and family members who are "disabled". In certain areas they perform better then the "gifted" friends and family members that I have. As teachers we need to realize the strengths and weaknesses of all our students. We need to recognize what our students can do.
Assuming and labeling really hinders our society and our classrooms. If we can become more optimistic, it will make for a better world. We need to look for the good in all people, I believe that there is good within everyone.
A Personal Connection
I want to share some more thoughts on the subject of personal connections. We were talking about whether those personal connections with people or in this case authors either helped or hindered us in our learning. If we have met the author of a certain book, and they have made a good impression on us, are we more open to reading their material? Do we try a couple more times to read and comprehend the subject matter? Personally for me, if I know about the author, or have met them I am definitely more open and excited to read what they have written. When we read Bernice McCarthy's book in Critical Pedagogy II, I was so excited to begin learning about her ideas because I had heard so much information about her. That's not to say that I can't pick up a book and read it without knowing the intimate details of an author. I do that in most of my other classes, and I did it with Peter Block's book. I knew nothing and actually still know nothing personal about Peter Block. I really like and admire his ideas and because I was able to get so into what he was writing about, the personal details are not something I really even care about anymore. I definitely think the mindset we have laid onto Paul Woodford's limits us from learning as much as we can from his book. I look at his book as a resource I need to read, but not something I particularly am excited to read. I realize that this is a problem and one I need to personally fix. I want to get the most out of what I read, and if I need to Google search Paul Woodford to feel a deeper connection to him, maybe that is what I need to do.
I found an article that talks about online courses and whether learning suffers because of the lack of face-to-face contact. This was really interesting to me because of the things I've heard about the online course that we are required to take. Does our learning suffer because we are not experiencing the information first hand in a personal teacher/student connection? Or does it matter that a class only has limited discussion and interaction. Personally I find that I learn more if there is dialogue going on between other students and the teacher at the same time. Some people say that we need to keep with the times and progress toward learning through technology. I find online courses a valuable resource for people who work full time jobs or that cannot get the information anywhere in their area. However I wonder if we are not willing to try as hard because that personal connection hasn't been made. It's possible to learn about people through email but does that really give a good full impression? Can you really make a good judgment call based on correspondence? Personally I prefer face-to-face encounters.
I found an article that talks about online courses and whether learning suffers because of the lack of face-to-face contact. This was really interesting to me because of the things I've heard about the online course that we are required to take. Does our learning suffer because we are not experiencing the information first hand in a personal teacher/student connection? Or does it matter that a class only has limited discussion and interaction. Personally I find that I learn more if there is dialogue going on between other students and the teacher at the same time. Some people say that we need to keep with the times and progress toward learning through technology. I find online courses a valuable resource for people who work full time jobs or that cannot get the information anywhere in their area. However I wonder if we are not willing to try as hard because that personal connection hasn't been made. It's possible to learn about people through email but does that really give a good full impression? Can you really make a good judgment call based on correspondence? Personally I prefer face-to-face encounters.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
I'm Sorry, I Don't Comprehend.
In school we are constantly led by the teacher, and told what to do. We are given tasks, assignments, and deadlines. For the most part, we are also given guidelines on how to go about accomplishing these goals. We are given so much direction to the point that there is no room for creativity; there is no room for independent learning.
During the majority of my school years this follow-the-leader method of learning was all I was used to, which made it harder for me to learn as time progressed. I had no idea how to independently learn, because I had never done it before. Everything had to be explained in-depth, or else I could not manage to accomplish my work properly. I couldn't even do part of my assignments because I didn't know every single thing that I needed to.
Fostering creativity among the classroom desperately needs a comeback. I find that the more people are spoon-fed classroom material, the more that people can't think for themselves; this is a scary situation. Since I have been at Westminster, I have been given more opportunities to think for myself and to put my own ideas to use. I have become a better learn in a way that I understand what is going on, for the most part. WCC has made me more independent, therefore, better at comprehension and better at self-sufficient work.
During the majority of my school years this follow-the-leader method of learning was all I was used to, which made it harder for me to learn as time progressed. I had no idea how to independently learn, because I had never done it before. Everything had to be explained in-depth, or else I could not manage to accomplish my work properly. I couldn't even do part of my assignments because I didn't know every single thing that I needed to.
Fostering creativity among the classroom desperately needs a comeback. I find that the more people are spoon-fed classroom material, the more that people can't think for themselves; this is a scary situation. Since I have been at Westminster, I have been given more opportunities to think for myself and to put my own ideas to use. I have become a better learn in a way that I understand what is going on, for the most part. WCC has made me more independent, therefore, better at comprehension and better at self-sufficient work.
The Empty Vessel
I have been thinking a lot about a certain phrase that pervades much of the way people think in education. This saying has been around since the Ancient Greeks and it still holds much weight in today's society. The phrase I'm thinking of is "empty vessel." We as educators try to fight against this notion of the teacher being the one with all the knowledge and the students are the ones who must be filled with the knowledge and tools that enable them to be successful. But how can a vessel full of knowledge, whether it was teacher-filled or student-filled, be any use to others in a community or society? A vessel is a place to store knowledge, but once it is filled, what happens? It sits for a while, stagnant, not progressing or evolving, until it is carried to a place to be emptied, dumped out, waiting to be filled again.
We are on this constant quest for the acquisition of knowledge, to read as many books and wrestle with as many ideas as we can, but unless we do something with this knowledge, it stays stagnant with us and does us little good except for the use of quotations.
That's why unless we are active in our thinking and action, it does little good to anyone to just be full of knowledge, no matter how brilliant it may be. Woodford comes back to the notion that democracy is headed by the educated few, but I think it is more apt to say that democratic institutions are led by the educated few who are willing to be the agents of change, to make a difference in the way that we think and act. It is so dangerous to be blindly governed; it should be everyone's personal responsibility to become as educated and active as possible in our daily lives. It is the only way to really foster growth in a helathy way where we all have the tools to become better citizens.
We are on this constant quest for the acquisition of knowledge, to read as many books and wrestle with as many ideas as we can, but unless we do something with this knowledge, it stays stagnant with us and does us little good except for the use of quotations.
That's why unless we are active in our thinking and action, it does little good to anyone to just be full of knowledge, no matter how brilliant it may be. Woodford comes back to the notion that democracy is headed by the educated few, but I think it is more apt to say that democratic institutions are led by the educated few who are willing to be the agents of change, to make a difference in the way that we think and act. It is so dangerous to be blindly governed; it should be everyone's personal responsibility to become as educated and active as possible in our daily lives. It is the only way to really foster growth in a helathy way where we all have the tools to become better citizens.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Bipartisanship
Woodford was endearing towards the word “liberal”, giving it a strong positive connotation, which is contrary to its usual reputation. In recent years, the word liberal has come to be an insult, often referred to as “the ‘l’ word”. I took Woodford’s definition of the liberal as an advocate for the minority and the misrepresented. In this way, the “liberal” takes on a Robin Hood like role by speaking for the groups who would otherwise go unnoticed.
Regardless of whether the liberal is portrayed in an extremely bright or somber light, the liberal still is usually associated with the Democratic Party or the left side of the spectrum. If one agrees with Democratic ideals, one might be a self-proclaimed liberal, but Republicans frown upon the very idea of liberalism. The United States is so divided by party lines. We are not as “united” as we may play off. The media is constantly force-feeding us our viewpoints. Many Republicans claim that CNN is a socialist network while Democrats consider Fox News to be the enemy. I personally wouldn’t be caught dead watching Fox News, but that gets me thinking. If it is so automatic for me to immediately put down and disbelieve any view that is Republican or right-sided, then there are certainly Americans who would do the same to my beliefs.
Who is right? Is there one side that will prevail over the other, having been the one, true stance all this time? Certainly not, it is not black and white. Many things are relative and have differing variables, affecting the result. It’s ironic that many believe that their viewpoints are more valid and reliable when they live in a country where one of the main doctrines is that all people are created equal. Is it at all possible for us to have the goal of valuing each citizen’s opinion without undermining our own?
Regardless of whether the liberal is portrayed in an extremely bright or somber light, the liberal still is usually associated with the Democratic Party or the left side of the spectrum. If one agrees with Democratic ideals, one might be a self-proclaimed liberal, but Republicans frown upon the very idea of liberalism. The United States is so divided by party lines. We are not as “united” as we may play off. The media is constantly force-feeding us our viewpoints. Many Republicans claim that CNN is a socialist network while Democrats consider Fox News to be the enemy. I personally wouldn’t be caught dead watching Fox News, but that gets me thinking. If it is so automatic for me to immediately put down and disbelieve any view that is Republican or right-sided, then there are certainly Americans who would do the same to my beliefs.
Who is right? Is there one side that will prevail over the other, having been the one, true stance all this time? Certainly not, it is not black and white. Many things are relative and have differing variables, affecting the result. It’s ironic that many believe that their viewpoints are more valid and reliable when they live in a country where one of the main doctrines is that all people are created equal. Is it at all possible for us to have the goal of valuing each citizen’s opinion without undermining our own?
Flexibility and Tradition
Woodford states “any notion of progress depends upon individuals having faith in the past. Students should be encouraged to question and challenge tradition and the status quo… they must have faith in the past and in the possibility of progress (pg 44).”
I agree that although tradition is important, things must change with time. My entire worldview transforms every single day; this makes me increasingly aware of the fact that what I believe now, the way I learn and perceive people and ideas, and my amount of knowledge is subject to change drastically as soon as I step foot inside the classroom. As a young teacher, I have no choice but to be flexible and use every experience as a teachable moment for myself. I feel that having this kind of attitude increases the capacity of a teacher.
I feel that it is important to be open to change as a teacher, regardless of how long one has been teaching, because our world and culture is always changing. Without this ability to be versatile, a teacher will lose his or her ability to relate with students and will not be able to reach them.
My experiences in the classroom thus far have led me to the conclusion that at some point, things will not go directly as planned. An exciting aspect of teaching is that anything can happen, therefore, a teacher should be ready for anything and everything. However, this can be unnerving, especially for someone who is extremely organized, regimented, and relies on tradition and past practice. As teachers we must learn how to be confident and relaxed enough to respond positively to unexpected circumstances and change; if one is too uptight and structured, the amount of knowledge retained in the classroom could be compromised.
I agree that although tradition is important, things must change with time. My entire worldview transforms every single day; this makes me increasingly aware of the fact that what I believe now, the way I learn and perceive people and ideas, and my amount of knowledge is subject to change drastically as soon as I step foot inside the classroom. As a young teacher, I have no choice but to be flexible and use every experience as a teachable moment for myself. I feel that having this kind of attitude increases the capacity of a teacher.
I feel that it is important to be open to change as a teacher, regardless of how long one has been teaching, because our world and culture is always changing. Without this ability to be versatile, a teacher will lose his or her ability to relate with students and will not be able to reach them.
My experiences in the classroom thus far have led me to the conclusion that at some point, things will not go directly as planned. An exciting aspect of teaching is that anything can happen, therefore, a teacher should be ready for anything and everything. However, this can be unnerving, especially for someone who is extremely organized, regimented, and relies on tradition and past practice. As teachers we must learn how to be confident and relaxed enough to respond positively to unexpected circumstances and change; if one is too uptight and structured, the amount of knowledge retained in the classroom could be compromised.
"The School in the Plastic Bubble"
Sometimes I feel that at Westminster Choir College, we are trapped in a plastic bubble. Stuck in our everyday routines, with our own opinions. We all have been taught Critical Pedagogy throughout our college career, with little or no practical application. Personally, I feel that I am naive when it comes to teaching in a classroom. As great as our music education program is, being sheltered in our own small environment, almost does more harm then good. We are molded into teachers who fit well in the "John Witherspoon Middle Schools" of America. Rarely, are we challenged to deal with issues that make us uncomfortable or question our ways of teaching.
In my evaluation, I mentioned that before I am placed in teaching position, I want to travel and experience how music and education are dealt with all around the world. I want to witness how different individuals in communities, that I may not have experienced myself, intertwine and work together to better education. I believe that in order to do MY best in teaching, I need to see the world we live in and observe how others live, and then combine what I have learned from my own schooling and these experiences into my own classroom.
With this, I hope to be able to connect better with all of my students and find different ways to relate their lives with my own, especially in our journey together in music. I feel that too often enough, teachers right out of college, get placed in a school and stay there for the rest of their career. While this may be the perfect plan for them, I still feel that I need to discover who I am as a person and a musician by getting completely out of my own comfort zone and the "bubble" we have been in throughout college.
In my evaluation, I mentioned that before I am placed in teaching position, I want to travel and experience how music and education are dealt with all around the world. I want to witness how different individuals in communities, that I may not have experienced myself, intertwine and work together to better education. I believe that in order to do MY best in teaching, I need to see the world we live in and observe how others live, and then combine what I have learned from my own schooling and these experiences into my own classroom.
With this, I hope to be able to connect better with all of my students and find different ways to relate their lives with my own, especially in our journey together in music. I feel that too often enough, teachers right out of college, get placed in a school and stay there for the rest of their career. While this may be the perfect plan for them, I still feel that I need to discover who I am as a person and a musician by getting completely out of my own comfort zone and the "bubble" we have been in throughout college.
The value of tangents
We must be prepared, in the classroom, to "think on our feet". One can have the most detailed, specific, well-planned lesson, only to have a student's comment divert the plan's course to an entirely different topic. This flexibility must be respected. All too often, teachers listen to a comment or contribution, and then quickly get the class "back on track". While we must have some objectives, it is my belief that the music classroom is very much about experiential learning. Students learn about music primarily through making and listening to music, and secondarily through dialoguing about it. There can't be a wrong answer.
This is especially applicable to the arts, because art can be viewed in so many ways...some of the most beautiful, insightful, sociologically telling works of art can be considered "obscene" during their artists' lifetimes, but can grow to describe their era and inspire future artists. Since each of our students will come from a unique background, it is essential that we open ourselves to a variety of interpretations.
Not only is each student unique in his or her talents and interests, but in his or her perspective on a subject. Individual experiences play a huge role in creating context for a concept...therefore, as teachers, we must not only strive to accept the student's musical contributions but the whole student.
This is especially applicable to the arts, because art can be viewed in so many ways...some of the most beautiful, insightful, sociologically telling works of art can be considered "obscene" during their artists' lifetimes, but can grow to describe their era and inspire future artists. Since each of our students will come from a unique background, it is essential that we open ourselves to a variety of interpretations.
Not only is each student unique in his or her talents and interests, but in his or her perspective on a subject. Individual experiences play a huge role in creating context for a concept...therefore, as teachers, we must not only strive to accept the student's musical contributions but the whole student.
"The challenge for democracy as the expression and attempted realization of this common faith is to find ways to harmonize the development of each individual with the maintenance of a social state in which the activities of one will contribute to the good of all the others." (Pg. 36)
No matter how hard we try to "all get along" there will be people and circumstances that will not allow this to happen. Trying to please everybody is virtually impossible. In a democracy we strive to create a society where everyone is equal, politically socially and economically. Communities try so hard with to do this with events they have and even though a community may take a few more steps forward, there are those who would still selfishly keep us back because of their biased thoughts and pride. That is not to say that these things we do are in vain. They most assuredly open eyes and get people thinking. Its still a goal we have, and as long as we don't stop reaching for our goals, we will succeed.
Respect is not something that can be demanded, it is something that needs to be earned.
No matter how hard we try to "all get along" there will be people and circumstances that will not allow this to happen. Trying to please everybody is virtually impossible. In a democracy we strive to create a society where everyone is equal, politically socially and economically. Communities try so hard with to do this with events they have and even though a community may take a few more steps forward, there are those who would still selfishly keep us back because of their biased thoughts and pride. That is not to say that these things we do are in vain. They most assuredly open eyes and get people thinking. Its still a goal we have, and as long as we don't stop reaching for our goals, we will succeed.
Respect is not something that can be demanded, it is something that needs to be earned.
Feminism in Education
"Women have their own ways off thinking and knowing, their own modes of reasoning, they being historically situated in the home which traditionally has been governed less by rules of justice as by instinct and sympathy." (Woodford p. 40)
This quote is taken from the radical feminist, Carol Gilligan. I believe that it's not so much that women "think" differently then men, but women have different qualities then men. I believe that the majority of women possess a motherly way of acting. I don't think it's fair to say that women actually "think" differently then men do.
Women in education need to make sure that they don't "govern" their classroom by instinct and sympathy alone. It's more important for students to respect their teacher, rather then actually like them. There is an overwhelming amount of female educators in elementary schools in our country. How would students turn out differently if they were taught by male teachers at a younger age? Do we think that students would act differently based on the sex of their teacher? I personally believe that if students had more of a male influence in their elementary education experience, they would mature faster. I feel as if most male elementary school teachers wont be as nurturing as female elementary school teachers. I believe that women are just naturally more nurturing and sympathetic then men are.
I however, don't agree with the statement that women have their own way of thinking and knowing and reasoning. I think that is an extremely bold statement. I don't think that there are any two individuals in this world that would think, and reason in the same way. Therefore, I don't think that men and women "think" differently, I believe that all people think differently. We will never truly understand what another person is thinking.
Overall, I believe that women are generally more nurturing and sympathetic then most men. Not all men however, just most. I don't believe that men and women necessarily think differently, but I believe that ALL people think differently.
Monday, October 20, 2008
What does it mean to be a political leader? Does being a political leader mean that one is a politician? What is the role of a teacher in politics? In many instance community members are fearful of the politically active teacher. As a result, teachers who become involved in politics are often viewed as indoctrinators, antagonists of democracy, and conflicts of community interest. The recent election has certainly reignited teachers activity in politics due to the potential reinstatement of the federal policies outlined in No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Unfortunately, many community members believe that the teachers and their unions are involved in lobbying efforts strictly as a special interest group and not as a plausible stakeholder in a child's education. One may argue that such a fear and misunderstanding evolved from our countries broken conception of democracy. Since our countries conception the mainstream political scene has been dominated by a neodarwinian mindset, born from the struggle of civic representation and the ideal of individualism. In order to achieve a more perfect union however, we must break away from the conventional though that influences our politics and move towards a concept that will help restore equality and justice in our democracy. Politics occurs in almost every aspect of life, during work, school, family life, civic duty, and recreation. Politics' is a natural ramification when people gather to discuss and act out solutions to challenges. Often times one may attempt to divorce politics from the trials of everyday life, and restrict it to the government platform. One may use the argument that "politics serves no purpose on this stage" or that "engaging in politics is divisive and counterproductive". The belief that ones endeavors are above and beyond politics is not only arrogant, naive, and narcissist, but it threatens the foundations of a democratic society. Woodford suggests that politics is the way in which people gather to engage in collective problem solving. Therefore, if one were to remove politics from everyday life their voice in addition to their neighbors would be lost fro the sake on unity and peace. In addition, the community accepts the tyranny and oppression of the mainstream, leaving their community stripped from the democratic ideals once cherished by its citizens. Fear of politics is not only born from the struggle for representation but also from the mistrust and the inadequacy of bureaucracy.
Political leaders are important in any society, profession, or organization. The role of a political leader is to navigate through the fractured community and create an environment where all separate centers can flow and create a sense of wholeness (Block). The responsibility of a political leader is to help create a gathering that fosters open communication between each center. Open lines of communication are the best remedy for a broken community. it is through communication, expression, and support that a healthy pluralistic community is born and it is the role of a political leader to help lay the foundation and facilitate the conversation. This requires that the leader understand to the best of their ability each center, so that every individuals voice is heard. One may agree that when members of a community have a comprehensive understanding of one another than breakdowns in community become less. the ultimate responsibility of a political leader is to explore and navigate the fractures of society, much like how a geologist studies fractures of the earth's plates. They understand that they cannot solve all the problems of a society just as a geologist cannot prevent earthquakes. However, they seek to understand why the fractures occur and help predict and expose potential threats. When such a threat becomes detectable they facilitate a conversation that will bring about understanding, reconciliation, and safety, while facilitating a resolution. Fractures in society will never disappear unless there is a push towards homogenization and those fractures contribute to the benefits of a free and democratic society.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
The Brain Is a Muscle Too
Over the last few years a big issue that has always been a topic of conversation among Critical Pedagogy students has been the issue of fostering creativity within students. Presently, many studies have shown that over the years, students are losing their creativity; their active imaginations. These imaginations which at one time, were running rampant with ideas, now stifled by the subconciously over-bearing affects of today's media.
There was once a time in our country, where you could place a sheet of paper and a pencil in front of a student and they could create one of the most beautiful works of art. Children had to keep themselves entertained; build their concentration level merely on the little resources accessible to them. Not anymore. Students and some adults alike, have become nothing but walking vegetables; people waiting for the next task that is to be laid before them, guidlines and spoon-feeding in all.
Turning on the television, and watching the news, reading the paper, all you hear about are new-found learning disorders and attention-deficit disorders. In reality I recognize that these disorders are real, but for the most part these disorders are brought to people in part by a parent/guardian's laziness in their upbringing, and not enough time spent on building the person's concentration level when they were a younger child. The brain is a muscle, just as we have in our arms and legs, and it needs to be worked out too. It needs to have the opportunity to allow it's owner brainpower.
All in all, I understand that there are learning disorders that really do exist, and that some people actually do have them. I only bring this up because as time progresses, children are slowly losing their sparks. Instead of being vessels, waiting to get filled with knowledge, children are becoming nothing but walking vegetables; mindless and free of the creativity that their minds unknowingly, and greatly crave.
There was once a time in our country, where you could place a sheet of paper and a pencil in front of a student and they could create one of the most beautiful works of art. Children had to keep themselves entertained; build their concentration level merely on the little resources accessible to them. Not anymore. Students and some adults alike, have become nothing but walking vegetables; people waiting for the next task that is to be laid before them, guidlines and spoon-feeding in all.
Turning on the television, and watching the news, reading the paper, all you hear about are new-found learning disorders and attention-deficit disorders. In reality I recognize that these disorders are real, but for the most part these disorders are brought to people in part by a parent/guardian's laziness in their upbringing, and not enough time spent on building the person's concentration level when they were a younger child. The brain is a muscle, just as we have in our arms and legs, and it needs to be worked out too. It needs to have the opportunity to allow it's owner brainpower.
All in all, I understand that there are learning disorders that really do exist, and that some people actually do have them. I only bring this up because as time progresses, children are slowly losing their sparks. Instead of being vessels, waiting to get filled with knowledge, children are becoming nothing but walking vegetables; mindless and free of the creativity that their minds unknowingly, and greatly crave.
Culture
“Music Education involves helping children explore and imaginatively identify with other people and their music.” This week I started my elementary praxis work at Sunnymead Elementary School and found I was really able to relate to this statement made by Woodford. It is apparent that in the world today, families come in all shapes, sizes, and colors. At Sunnymead Elementary, everyone is from a different background. When I say background I am not talking just cultural. Experiences and talent vary as well. Each student has a favorite subject or class. Some relate to math, while others relate to spelling or english. What I have found throughout my first week of observing is that the music classroom brings all of these interests together and everyone is equal. The atmosphere that the teacher has created is safe, colorful, and tons of fun. No child can deny that or keep from participating.
Even the students who were hesitant at first joined in when the teacher asked all of them to play the air guitar or beat on a hand drum. There were smiles and laughs of excitement. The children could not help but enjoy themselves and express their enthusiasm to the other classmates and the teacher. Despite that these children have all had completely different experiences and lives, in the music classroom, their culture and differences are put aside.
Multiculturalism should not be confined to “Class, today we are going to talk about what a Native American tribal chant is. Sarah, why don’t you demonstrate how it is done in your culture?” It should be approached with a “Class, everyone sing and move like this!” No student should be singled out at any time because of their background. The music classroom is the perfect place to demonstrate that we are one community.
Woodford states that some believe “all musical cultures and subcultures are essentially different and independent rather than overlapping and interdependent.” At one time I found this to be true but now I realize that musical cultures are something we all have in common. Whether it is an African drumming piece or a patriotic song, we can all learn something from everyone else’s interests in music. The basis for ALL musical culture, no matter what type, is making music in some capacity. Our cultures have more in common than we think, and it is up to us as music educators to prove it.
Even the students who were hesitant at first joined in when the teacher asked all of them to play the air guitar or beat on a hand drum. There were smiles and laughs of excitement. The children could not help but enjoy themselves and express their enthusiasm to the other classmates and the teacher. Despite that these children have all had completely different experiences and lives, in the music classroom, their culture and differences are put aside.
Multiculturalism should not be confined to “Class, today we are going to talk about what a Native American tribal chant is. Sarah, why don’t you demonstrate how it is done in your culture?” It should be approached with a “Class, everyone sing and move like this!” No student should be singled out at any time because of their background. The music classroom is the perfect place to demonstrate that we are one community.
Woodford states that some believe “all musical cultures and subcultures are essentially different and independent rather than overlapping and interdependent.” At one time I found this to be true but now I realize that musical cultures are something we all have in common. Whether it is an African drumming piece or a patriotic song, we can all learn something from everyone else’s interests in music. The basis for ALL musical culture, no matter what type, is making music in some capacity. Our cultures have more in common than we think, and it is up to us as music educators to prove it.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Education & Economics
Woodford heavily defends the need for democracy in music education. In doing so, he brings light to what truly goes on in public schools across the nation. If one had to choose a governmental system that would parallel the structure of the current educational system, it would not be democracy. Public schools around the country give unequal advantages and privileges to their students. Academic possibility is often defined by the economic status of the area in which students live, not their intelligence level or drive to succeed. The amount of funding that schools receive is relative to the amount of capital that has been accumulated within their communities. Surely, this is not democratic. A true democracy equally represents all citizens, enabling their rights to be fulfilled. Should it not be that all American citizens receive the same opportunities in education? It seems that economics plays a larger role than politics in education.
Education today is a specialized system in that it molds students into capable people, ready to contribute to the current workforce. Students are taught trades and skills that will lead them directly to a specific job that supports the business field today. Supporters of the system would claim that young adults learn a task that will ensure them a job, preparing them for the real world. Also, business continues to run smoothly since new generations are able to fit into old ways. On the other hand, this system does not allow students to grow into who they really are, able to create a new field or position that would suit them, changing the entire work industry. I believe that each generation should be able to reinvent itself, taking positive concepts from older generations while adding new ones that compliment the changes society has made. There is little or no originality when systems circulate year after year.
Block discussed accountability on the part of the citizen. When people feel as if their individual outlook and input makes a difference on a large scale, they are accountable. Accountability is something people take ownership for, on a deep, personal level while a responsibility is more of an obligation. Block suggested that citizens are either consumers or clients within their environments. If they are consumers, then they believe on some level that their needs can be satisfied by others. However, clients make their own decisions and are served by the public.
When students feel accountable for their actions, they become clients of the educational system, choosing what they wish to know and explore. When education serves the public, it is becomes a democratic system. The trick is to provide equal opportunity for students from all areas, of different economic levels, genders, and races. If the ideal educational system were to be represented by an economic system, it would be socialism. All students would be provided with the same academic opportunities but have to work of their own free will in order to achieve success. This is like socialism in that everyone starts off with the same, basic requirements met and can then work harder to gain more, if they so choose. Many institutions are socialistic in nature. The police department gives all citizens equal rights. If someone’s home is being threatened by another, they can receive protection regardless of their economic status. The educational system should act in the same way.
Education today is a specialized system in that it molds students into capable people, ready to contribute to the current workforce. Students are taught trades and skills that will lead them directly to a specific job that supports the business field today. Supporters of the system would claim that young adults learn a task that will ensure them a job, preparing them for the real world. Also, business continues to run smoothly since new generations are able to fit into old ways. On the other hand, this system does not allow students to grow into who they really are, able to create a new field or position that would suit them, changing the entire work industry. I believe that each generation should be able to reinvent itself, taking positive concepts from older generations while adding new ones that compliment the changes society has made. There is little or no originality when systems circulate year after year.
Block discussed accountability on the part of the citizen. When people feel as if their individual outlook and input makes a difference on a large scale, they are accountable. Accountability is something people take ownership for, on a deep, personal level while a responsibility is more of an obligation. Block suggested that citizens are either consumers or clients within their environments. If they are consumers, then they believe on some level that their needs can be satisfied by others. However, clients make their own decisions and are served by the public.
When students feel accountable for their actions, they become clients of the educational system, choosing what they wish to know and explore. When education serves the public, it is becomes a democratic system. The trick is to provide equal opportunity for students from all areas, of different economic levels, genders, and races. If the ideal educational system were to be represented by an economic system, it would be socialism. All students would be provided with the same academic opportunities but have to work of their own free will in order to achieve success. This is like socialism in that everyone starts off with the same, basic requirements met and can then work harder to gain more, if they so choose. Many institutions are socialistic in nature. The police department gives all citizens equal rights. If someone’s home is being threatened by another, they can receive protection regardless of their economic status. The educational system should act in the same way.
The Assumptions of Paul Woodford
There are several quotes that I read while reading the Woodford text, that bothered me. I believe that Woodford has made alot of assumptions about people, as well as about music education. I decided to reflect on some of the quotes that I have found while reading through chapter two.
It is accusations like the above quote that lead to no support for music education in our children's schools. People make assumptions that classical music is non-accessible for the average American citizen. It is my belief that music is accessible to everyone. Human beings have an innate need for music in their lives. Music is a large part of everyone's life. I have been really interested lately in speech patterns of children and adults. Why is it that all children have similar "sing-song" phrases that they use in their voices? I noticed while sitting in church that while saying prayers, everyone has the same inflection and phrasing with their voices. This was never taught, however it is a learned action by the church community. I don't believe that classically trained musicians speak a private language. I think that classical musicians are more in touch with their innate sense of musicality. I believe that all humans are musical. It is wrong for Woodford to express that classical musicians speak a private language. This statement makes classical musicians to sound as elitists. Of all the classical musicians that I know, most of them have been extremely down to earth, as well as humble individuals. Woodford said that classical musicians have a communication problem. Did Woodford think that maybe it wasn't the classical musicians, but the others in the community? Maybe the others in the community have difficulties communicating with the classical musicians? Music is so important in all aspects of life and it is important to advocate it in school. Statements like the one Paul Woodford made in his book, do not support music education in the public schools.
"Music and music education majors both in the United States and Canada suggest that students identified by their teachers and peers as less talented may be inhibited in their development" (Woodford 33)
I have seen teachers do it to other students, and teachers have done it to me. I fully agree with the above statement. If a teacher tells a student that they are not "good" enough to complete a certain task, it will be that much harder for the student to complete it. Students need to know that you believe in them. Student's can achieve so much more if they feel that they have your support. Students constantly look for approval, and it is important as educators that we give them approval and support. By providing approval and support, students will get more out of their education.
"The current lack of public support for orchestras and classical music, and for music education in public schools, may in significant part be a consequence of past elitist and exclusionary performance and teaching practices (or treating music education as 'just' entertainment) and our general failure as a profession to respectfully engage with the public through performance." (Woodford 35)
Woodford again makes another assumption that music educators are elitists. Most of the music educators that I know are extremely humble and down to earth, not elitists. Most of the music teachers that I know strive to connect music to the students other classes, in an interdisciplinary sort of way. Music educators should strive to communicate with other teachers to use the information that they are teaching. Performance is a big part of music education, but the process leading up to the performance is equally as important.
I believe that Woodford makes a lot of strong assumptions about music education and music educators. Many of the assumptions that Woodford writes, does not portray the music teacher in a good light. It is our job as music educators to defend music education in schools, we know the importance of music education and we need to defend it.
Conservative?
I want to address Woodford's statement that "music teachers are notoriously conservative". First of all this statement immediately puts me on the defense. I don't consider myself to be conservative when it comes to my music. On my own time I enjoy all varieties of music and I'm always listening to new things. In a classroom I would be comfortable teaching any genre of music. My personality might be more reserved at times, and I may not always talk in class but I still have very passionate views on things. In a survey taken in England and Whales it was discovered that although popular and ethnic music was studied in school, the majority of the teachers felt more comfortable teaching classical music. Even though their students were more receptive to the popular music, teachers ignored those connections to stay inside their own comfort zones. At the end of all the statistics, Woodford makes this comment. "In short, music education in England and Whales (and in North America, too) is out of touch with current school and social realities." I am uncomfortable with this assumption Woodford makes. First of all this survey was taken in England. How can these results be transferred into the United States school system? Was there a similar study done here? I would agree that not every school is striving to teach popular music. There are teachers who have been doing their job for a very long time and may not feel as equipped to teach rap or hip/hop. However, this does not give the leeway for such a blanket statement to be made. In our education here at Westminster Choir College, one of the more classically focused schools, we are encouraged to step outside of our comfort zone and connect with our students using their music. To honor their wold and use students current emerging culture to connect with them, while inserting our knowledge of the past. Even if we are not being expressly told to focus that way, our common sense steps in. Examples from our own music experiences influence us on how we want to teach children. If we had bad musical experiences where we were bored and not interested, we want to be the opposite and challenge students and help them enjoy the experience. If we had great experiences we as teachers, want to continue that experience and add our own flavor to it. In the survey the typical picture of the teachers who participated was of a classically trained musician who had just entered teaching from a traditional music degree. To my thinking, if you can see that your students are not engaged and not interested and you do nothing to change that in any way, you are not a good teacher. If a teacher feels more comfortable doing one thing all the time because that's what is familiar, then I happened to feel that they should not be a teacher. They need to put their education to good use! Where is the passion for teaching and spreading knowledge? I may be a few things, but passive and conservative about music I am not!
Thursday, October 9, 2008
SAT. Scholastic Aptitude Test vs. Stupid Awful Test
SAT. The nations largest, most important standardized test whose results are known for making or breaking your college career. Testing in Mathematics, Reading Comprehension, Science, English Skills, and Persuasive Writing, the SAT scores not only determine the future of the students but how the government funds the schools. Instead of these tests being about how well the students learn and take tests, it becomes the battle for money and educational funding.
In the movie (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUHe3xcXkSc), The Perfect Score, a group of students who are worried about the SAT decide to come together and steal the master test from the testing center located here, in Princeton. Their plan was to get the test, and work together on the problems to come to a common answer. Each student comes from the classic “Breakfast Club” clique but all share the same issue with test anxiety and the fairness of the way the test was created. By the end of the movie, the students realize that the SAT’s should not, and do not have control over their future. They, themselves, have control over what steps they take with their life. The overall theme of the movie, is that regardless to what standards are set, or what the government says you “have” to do, you need to make sure that it is the best for you.
This movie is a good example of how we as future teachers and human beings need to take more risks in challenging the standards that are set for our students. Tests like the SAT’s are becoming more and more popular, starting with testing as young as second grade. These standardized tests are supposed to be used to create “equal opportunity learning” but end up really turning kids, and their teachers off to learning.
The government uses these tests to gage how much funding goes into a school system. The lower end schools receive money to rebuild their fundamental classes and the higher-level schools receive money to promote “higher level learning”. The biggest problem with these tests is its lack of ability to connect to the student. With SAT Prep classes, we are training students to become carbon copies of the “ideal” student, not allowing them to discover and learn on their own, topics that are interesting to them. The government decides everything from what schools should and need to teach in order to have the students be successful to whether the arts hold a place of their own in a school environment.
Below is a link to a video of Roger Brown, President of Berklee College of Music. He talks about the importance of the arts and music in the classroom today. I feel that everything he says is truly important with democracy and the government. The arts have been proven to raise tests score, yet the school systems always pull these programs when money is taken away. If the SAT’s were changed with sections that the students could choose, while keeping the main math, reading and writing, the students would have a better success rate. A test that is so highly evaluated should be fair for all students, especially those who connect to the arts and sports classrooms when they struggle in other classes. I believe that the SAT’s need a change or done away with completely.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uA6p1I9GkX0
In the movie (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUHe3xcXkSc), The Perfect Score, a group of students who are worried about the SAT decide to come together and steal the master test from the testing center located here, in Princeton. Their plan was to get the test, and work together on the problems to come to a common answer. Each student comes from the classic “Breakfast Club” clique but all share the same issue with test anxiety and the fairness of the way the test was created. By the end of the movie, the students realize that the SAT’s should not, and do not have control over their future. They, themselves, have control over what steps they take with their life. The overall theme of the movie, is that regardless to what standards are set, or what the government says you “have” to do, you need to make sure that it is the best for you.
This movie is a good example of how we as future teachers and human beings need to take more risks in challenging the standards that are set for our students. Tests like the SAT’s are becoming more and more popular, starting with testing as young as second grade. These standardized tests are supposed to be used to create “equal opportunity learning” but end up really turning kids, and their teachers off to learning.
The government uses these tests to gage how much funding goes into a school system. The lower end schools receive money to rebuild their fundamental classes and the higher-level schools receive money to promote “higher level learning”. The biggest problem with these tests is its lack of ability to connect to the student. With SAT Prep classes, we are training students to become carbon copies of the “ideal” student, not allowing them to discover and learn on their own, topics that are interesting to them. The government decides everything from what schools should and need to teach in order to have the students be successful to whether the arts hold a place of their own in a school environment.
Below is a link to a video of Roger Brown, President of Berklee College of Music. He talks about the importance of the arts and music in the classroom today. I feel that everything he says is truly important with democracy and the government. The arts have been proven to raise tests score, yet the school systems always pull these programs when money is taken away. If the SAT’s were changed with sections that the students could choose, while keeping the main math, reading and writing, the students would have a better success rate. A test that is so highly evaluated should be fair for all students, especially those who connect to the arts and sports classrooms when they struggle in other classes. I believe that the SAT’s need a change or done away with completely.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uA6p1I9GkX0
Democracy & Liberalism
Democracy is an ideal governmental system that all generations in the United States should strive to establish. It can only exist when citizens all understand their critical role in making sure their voices are heard and that they are represented in a way they approve of. Democracy thrives off of the principal that all men and women are created equally and therefore deserve equal representation. Unfortunately, democracy never has and never will exist. It is an overly-optimistic system that we as a society will never actually reach. One might have the belief that all people are of equal value, but it is impossible to treat everyone the same. Each person has his or her biases that get in the way of democratic ideals. People in various classes have a difficult time relating to each other. Women are still experiencing sexism, which prevents from their voices being heard. Each racial group is susceptible to certain stereotypes that prevent them from interacting with one another. It is ironic that the United States people, who often boast about their democratic governmental system, are so divided by race, class, and gender.
I personally feel that all people are created equally, but that doesn’t mean that they act like it. I have my own opinions on what is right and how people should and should not act. At the same time, my neighbor could have opposite standards of how people should act that conflict with mine. Who am I to say that I am right? It is extremely difficult to maintain the belief that we are all created equally when we disagree on what is right.
However, this doesn’t mean that we can’t try to agree. The beauty of a claimed democratic government is that people are capable of making collective decisions to determine what is acceptable and what is not.
I truly enjoyed Woodford’s definition of the liberal. The word liberal has such negative connotations in the United States, which is unfortunate, since it is linked with the more progressive Democratic Party. It’s opposite, the word conservative, is used with dignity and in a society where people always want more of the same. Woodford described liberals as people who are in the minority, whose opinions are not as respected or understood as the majority. History shows that those who were the minority and were misrepresented eventually were able to express themselves and change the way in which we live. Perhaps the reason why so many Americans dislike the idea of liberalism is that they are comfortable with the way things are and fear change. Liberals often rock the boat and highlight problems others are willing to ignore.
An example from today’s presidential election is health care. Throughout American history, health insurance was privately owned and bought by individuals across the country. Unfortunately, companies who run health insurance do not have the well-being of the public in mind and take advantage of those in need of medical help. The liberals believe that all people should be able to afford health insurance even if this means the government stepping in and providing it for them. Conservatives like John McCain refuse to acknowledge that not everyone can afford healthcare, believing that if families are not medically covered, it is their choice. I find Woodford’s explanation of liberalism refreshing. It gives necessary voice and power to the misrepresented throughout society.
I personally feel that all people are created equally, but that doesn’t mean that they act like it. I have my own opinions on what is right and how people should and should not act. At the same time, my neighbor could have opposite standards of how people should act that conflict with mine. Who am I to say that I am right? It is extremely difficult to maintain the belief that we are all created equally when we disagree on what is right.
However, this doesn’t mean that we can’t try to agree. The beauty of a claimed democratic government is that people are capable of making collective decisions to determine what is acceptable and what is not.
I truly enjoyed Woodford’s definition of the liberal. The word liberal has such negative connotations in the United States, which is unfortunate, since it is linked with the more progressive Democratic Party. It’s opposite, the word conservative, is used with dignity and in a society where people always want more of the same. Woodford described liberals as people who are in the minority, whose opinions are not as respected or understood as the majority. History shows that those who were the minority and were misrepresented eventually were able to express themselves and change the way in which we live. Perhaps the reason why so many Americans dislike the idea of liberalism is that they are comfortable with the way things are and fear change. Liberals often rock the boat and highlight problems others are willing to ignore.
An example from today’s presidential election is health care. Throughout American history, health insurance was privately owned and bought by individuals across the country. Unfortunately, companies who run health insurance do not have the well-being of the public in mind and take advantage of those in need of medical help. The liberals believe that all people should be able to afford health insurance even if this means the government stepping in and providing it for them. Conservatives like John McCain refuse to acknowledge that not everyone can afford healthcare, believing that if families are not medically covered, it is their choice. I find Woodford’s explanation of liberalism refreshing. It gives necessary voice and power to the misrepresented throughout society.
Since elementary school we are taught about George Washington, our founding fathers, and their great experiment. Henceforth, the word Democracy is enshrined within the hearts and minds of Americans as being the pillar of liberty and justice. Despite our convictions and commitment to democracy one must question whether our actions as citizens, especially in the classroom, are actions that create and reflect democratic principles. Democracy goes beyond what we are taught in school. The principles of our founding fathers and the ideals guaranteed in the constitution exceed our traditional notions of democracy. Democracy cannot be restricted to being a form of government, or an ideal that promotes freedom. Democracy is a fundamental philosophy that promotes equality and ensures that all Americans have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Do we as citizens and social architects promote democratic principles or stand in opposition because of a fear, mistrust, entitlement, or a lack of hope and faith in ordinary citizens. Do we as teachers and political leaders keep people in a state of dependency due to a feeling that they as citizens are inadequate? Is it solely our government that is responsible for the increasing lose of our civil liberties or is it we as citizens who recreate an autocratic society that is afraid of its own citizens and freedom?
We must also look at ourselves as citizens and social architects. Did we loose our voice? Having a voice is the central pillar in the infrastructure of democracy, and therefore as social architects we must be persistent in making sure our voice is heard among the people. We are political leaders! We must think of ourselves as political leaders due to the position we hold within the community. Over the last 2 decades many citizens have lost faith in their political leaders and politics in general. As a result, many individuals have neglected to participate in the political process. Participation is the political process is paramount and regardless of the atmosphere we as social architects need to raise of voice. The education field has and always will be political. Politics will always occur when people gather, and people will always disagree. The job of a social architect is to ensure that one voice is favored over the others and that the environment respects all individuals. However, the education field has fallen guilty to favoring one voice over the other. The implementation of Standardized tests, subject emphasis, NCLB, labeling, and standard curriculum all infringe upon equality. As a result, teacher preparation is centered upon following "the law" and is not based upon democratic principles. As teachers, it is our responsibility to voice our opinion, and lobby on behalf of equality. We cannot remain silent or else we become part of the machine. Silence is the death march of democracy. Reflect, Voice, and Act.
Receptors and Disengagement
Over the past few weeks in our CP3 classroom setting, a certain schism has made itself rather apparent amongst our community. There are the talkers, and then there are the listeners, the haves and have-nots, so to speak. We have addressed this issue several times in the classroom- are there people whose voices are not being heard, or are they choosing not to speak? This question tries to go beyond the phenomena of "I don't like to speak up in class" or " I may act this way in the classroom, but it does not define who I am." I'm getting a little weary- not of hearing the same active voices over and over, but rather not hearing the passive students' voices in the classroom. I have to ask myself an important question- are the students who are not being active really being silence, or are they just disengaged from what we are doing within and without the classroom?
Being disengaged is easy to do when one hasn't done their readings, when homeworks from other classes are due that day and the classroom is the only place to finish them. Sometimes I just have to think to myself "just do the class a favor and don't come if you are not ready to participate." And participation does not mean having something to say. Participation is having that fire burning inside of you that probes you to ask who? what? when?. It means coming to the classroom with a something to share. If you are just coming to go through the motions and hopefully be inspired by classroom discussions/ activities, then what is the point of going to class at all? It may seem harsh, but your physical body does not account for you being present. Education is about taking in all that we hear, read, see, and processing it into our own unique views. When Woodford references the writings of Dewey, he uses the phrase "passive receptacles" as those who simply received information but did not process it, simply stored it. We must turn our passivity into action, for without each of our views "society would be deprived of potentially valuable ideas and resources. Individuals might not be especially wise or talented, but they were positioned to reflect on, and to act intelligently to improve, the quality of their own lives and of those around them." This shows that Dewey has faith in the human race to be able to become learned citizens, to not just take everything at face value, but rather to mold it and while not taking anything away from what it "is," we can reshape it to conform with our own ideas. Knowledge is not a series of rights and wrongs, like bricks that are weighty and solid in mass, but rather knowledge is like water, able to move in between small areas, acquire great mass and force, and is also able to cool or be heated. When I think of traditional education, I always come back to one of my favorite anarchist pieces "The Wall" by Pink Floyd. This work faces the issues of the theoretical "wall" we build around ourselves by closing ourselves off to new experiences, to making a safe haven of what we know to be right and disregarding what must be false. After a while, we all just become bricks in the wall, we are the faceless mass to which facts and "knowledge" have come to be. Soon we found ourselves lost and eventually suffocated by our own closing off of the outside world.
Education is not just about learning what we do not know, it's about reshaping what we assume to be true and taking the elements of what we have learned to help shape our own personal outlooks. But that first comes with knowing what it is we are talking about. It is about absorbing those previously held notions of what is right and becoming extremely comfortable with them before we can reject their value. We are so fortunate to be able to be cognizant of the fact that facts are not facts (ok?) but rather what is assumed to be true over a given period of time. It is exciting that our minds might be those that shape new directions of growth and change. We can see that as evident in our current presidential election. There is on one hand a radical thinker, who wants to reshape our world to help shed it of its 20th century skin. There is another candidate who wants to preserve traditions of how things have worked in the past and have proven themselves true. Each candidate is valid in their viewpoints, but only one is looking to promote change of a positive variety. Change is what can make something grow, otherwise we are just repeating the past on a larger scale. Maybe if we changed the way our country (or classroom) was structured, we would be able to bring new ways of strengthening our bonds to light. Maybe its time for our classroom to become more proactive in changing how we govern ourselves and those around us. It is so important to be flexible and yielding, to try to approach everything with a positive attitude and to try to be helpful to others. It is with an open mind and heart that real acceptance and love can move us forward into new ways of thinking.
Being disengaged is easy to do when one hasn't done their readings, when homeworks from other classes are due that day and the classroom is the only place to finish them. Sometimes I just have to think to myself "just do the class a favor and don't come if you are not ready to participate." And participation does not mean having something to say. Participation is having that fire burning inside of you that probes you to ask who? what? when?. It means coming to the classroom with a something to share. If you are just coming to go through the motions and hopefully be inspired by classroom discussions/ activities, then what is the point of going to class at all? It may seem harsh, but your physical body does not account for you being present. Education is about taking in all that we hear, read, see, and processing it into our own unique views. When Woodford references the writings of Dewey, he uses the phrase "passive receptacles" as those who simply received information but did not process it, simply stored it. We must turn our passivity into action, for without each of our views "society would be deprived of potentially valuable ideas and resources. Individuals might not be especially wise or talented, but they were positioned to reflect on, and to act intelligently to improve, the quality of their own lives and of those around them." This shows that Dewey has faith in the human race to be able to become learned citizens, to not just take everything at face value, but rather to mold it and while not taking anything away from what it "is," we can reshape it to conform with our own ideas. Knowledge is not a series of rights and wrongs, like bricks that are weighty and solid in mass, but rather knowledge is like water, able to move in between small areas, acquire great mass and force, and is also able to cool or be heated. When I think of traditional education, I always come back to one of my favorite anarchist pieces "The Wall" by Pink Floyd. This work faces the issues of the theoretical "wall" we build around ourselves by closing ourselves off to new experiences, to making a safe haven of what we know to be right and disregarding what must be false. After a while, we all just become bricks in the wall, we are the faceless mass to which facts and "knowledge" have come to be. Soon we found ourselves lost and eventually suffocated by our own closing off of the outside world.
Education is not just about learning what we do not know, it's about reshaping what we assume to be true and taking the elements of what we have learned to help shape our own personal outlooks. But that first comes with knowing what it is we are talking about. It is about absorbing those previously held notions of what is right and becoming extremely comfortable with them before we can reject their value. We are so fortunate to be able to be cognizant of the fact that facts are not facts (ok?) but rather what is assumed to be true over a given period of time. It is exciting that our minds might be those that shape new directions of growth and change. We can see that as evident in our current presidential election. There is on one hand a radical thinker, who wants to reshape our world to help shed it of its 20th century skin. There is another candidate who wants to preserve traditions of how things have worked in the past and have proven themselves true. Each candidate is valid in their viewpoints, but only one is looking to promote change of a positive variety. Change is what can make something grow, otherwise we are just repeating the past on a larger scale. Maybe if we changed the way our country (or classroom) was structured, we would be able to bring new ways of strengthening our bonds to light. Maybe its time for our classroom to become more proactive in changing how we govern ourselves and those around us. It is so important to be flexible and yielding, to try to approach everything with a positive attitude and to try to be helpful to others. It is with an open mind and heart that real acceptance and love can move us forward into new ways of thinking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)