Just Teaching

Glenn Beck needs a civics lesson

2010-03-28T20:39:00.001-07:00

Let me state outright that I am a Calvin Coolidge Republican - small government, generally favorable toward the free market, supporter of civil liberties. I will vote for John McCain in our next senate election. I didn't like the health care bill. I don't like state-sponsored abortion. I don't believe the government is always the best institution to solve the problems in society (though I think people who whine about "it's the church's job" should get up and do something about it)

But I'm not a tea-throwing, fist-shaking, piss-on-the-left Republican. I actually switched my offical party affiliation after W. proved that the party of fiscal conservatives could run up a massive deficit and then turn around and pay for a huge bailout.

Indeed, I find some irony in the fact that so many of the people who are anti-government zealots are part of a political party that began with the goal of keeping one government intact and striking a balance between federal and state's rights.

What scares me right now is the parallels I see between the current rhetoric of the right and the early propaganda or Nazi Germany. While Glenn Beck is quick to point out that the Communists and the Fascists once used the term "social justice" in their slogans, it is Beck who beckons listeners to place political ideology above one's faith. Scary stuff. After all, the Confessing Church was first blasted as "too liberal" before it was ever considered a true enemy to Nazi Germany.

I'm not calling Republicans fascists. However, I would like a quick civics lesson for the likes of Beck. Fascism is not a political or economic system, but an ideology (much like communism) that general adheres to the following principals:

Nationalism: Hypernationalism toward the "nation" while being openly against the government - thereby setting up a potential coup
Militarism: The use of grassroots violence and militarism in the name of social conservatism - brown shirt tactics
A National Myth: A revisionist view of history toward recover a "volk" myth of "the good old days" (Texas, anyone?) and even calls to place one's nation above one's church affiliation
Loss of Civil Liberties: The support of government surveillance in the name of rooting out internal terrorist threats (oddly enough, the same people who don't want me to fill out a census form feel perfectly fine with the government reading my e-mails to make sure I'm not a terrorist)
State-sponsored Capitalism: by placing social welfare programs as being Communist, they open the door to the privatization of all public programs (the Volkswagon is a great concept here - paying a company to create a car that supports capitalism with populist rhetoric)
A victim mentality
Hero worship - placing too much power in the hands of the top leader
Racism
Media - by labelling any "liberal" media as unpatriotic, the Nazis were able to seize various media outlets.
Xenophobia / Anti-immigration - before they attacked the Jews, they attacked immigrants in Germany - I've seen immigrants being attacked and trust me, it felt like a fascist country
Imperialism: this is done especially in the name of "liberating" other countries
Anti-intellectualism (especially toward college education) as being elitist

I'm not suggesting that the right is fascist. After all, the left became dangerously close to extreme socialism a few times. Nor am I suggesting that the far right wing, the tea baggers (does that not have at least a little bit of innuendo?) will win the heart of the American people. If there is any virtue in America it is that we allow enough extremism to be able to laugh at it. Hopefully Sarah Palin will go the way of Borat.

So, it has me wondering if maybe all the anti-public education people are right. Perhaps we have screwed up education if people didn't learn enough in history and civics to determine that Glenn Beck doesn't understand the meaning of fascism.

a racial dimension to a charter school

2010-03-16T05:14:00.000-07:00

Someone sent a link to a private charter school with high achievement. It's set in Harlem, a city forged by segregation, so the whole story begins with layers of a racialized narrative. A woman who calls herself the CEO of this charter school talks about higher standards, ten hour work days, a no-nonsense approach to discipline. She calls it an act of social justice.

The results? Higher scores. Perhaps even higher learning. It begins within me a spiral of questions: To what extent are they actually reaching all students if they have such rigorous standards? What type of student volunteers for a ten hour a day program? What type of parent signs up for a charter school where they must volunteer a certain number of hours?

Is the learning authentic? Is it meaningful? Have they learned about life?

Eventually the questions stop and I wonder this: If the children were white and they lived in the suburbs, would anyone be advocating an education that pulls a child away from the home for eleven to twelve hours a day?

my response to John Merrow

2010-03-10T10:04:00.001-08:00

I don't know John Merrow. I don't know what motivates him, so I want to point out that he probably isn't a douche. Still, I don't know if there is any blogger who angers me more than his Taking Note blog. In this particular blog post, he gets angry that his tax-funded video footage was used in another documentary. I get it, the man is angry that his intellectual property was stolen. I'm a fan of Creative Commons (which is how I license any of what I create), but it's also not my livelihood. So, fine, the man doesn't want to play fair. That's okay.

However, I was jarred by his comment, “Our film of that event was broadcast nationally on PBS NewsHour and helped to illuminate the persona of Michelle Rhee as a fearless and determined reformer who puts the interests of children first.”

Can I quote that? I mean, is that fair use? Or will John Merrow write an angry blog post about how I stole his line in my commentary on his post?

Within his blog post, Merrow is pointing to a day when Chanellor Rhee allowed PBS cameras to video tape her firing a principal. Incidentally, did the principal agree to the terms of being video taped? Have we really degenerated as a culture that a so-called reformer has to take a page out of a reality show playbook to validate her sense of ego?

The mere fact that she would want people to video tape her taking away the livelihood of a person demonstrates that she is more interested in media than in helping humanity. Rhee is a media hound “reformer” with little evidence to prove that her reforms are successful.

we expect more out of the poor than out of the rich

2010-02-26T03:35:00.001-08:00

As we analyze the functions of money, a student raises his hand and wonders why we left off two categories. "What about bribes? It's not the same as spend, save, invest, give away, lend or borrow."

Another student argues that it fits better within the category of "spend." She points out that whether one spends money on influence or a product, it is still spending.

The first student then asks, "Well, what about stealing? Shouldn't that be a category?"

Another student asks, "What's the difference between stealing and investing." He's not joking. He asks about Bernie Madoff and I explain that most investors don't steal and yet he won't drop it.

"Why do rich people who steal millions go to fancy prisons while my brother goes to a ghetto prison for stealing a car?"

Another student jumps in, "Did he have a gun? That could have been armed robbery."

"Why does it matter if he had a gun?"

"Well, it would really scare someone if you had a gun."

"I'm sure people were scared when they lost their entire retirement."

It has me thinking about the ways our nation punishes poor people. If I am rich, I get golden parachutes during an economic crisis. If I'm rich and I donate, I get buildings named in my honor. If I am rich, I can steal and end up spending four years in a fancy prison. My money alone gives me the loudest voice in education reform.

The system is rigged. Seriously rigged. When Wall Street executives get fat bonus checks and seventh grade ELL students are still expected to pass a multiple choice reading exam, there is something wrong with our nation's definition of accountability.

For all the talk about low expectations among low income students, it seems to me that our nation has higher expectations for the poor than we do for the rich. I'm not against wealth. I'm not a socialist. It just seems wrong that those who are born into a challenging circumstance should then be required to live the rest of their lives at a higher ethical standard than those who are born into privilege.

the death of internet democracy

2010-02-11T17:54:00.001-08:00

by John

Democracy is not a big word. It needs no capital letter. It remains in the local politic, where each person has a voice. It belongs in taverns and front porches and neighborhood parishes and potlucks and parks. Democracy is not simply a political process. It's social and cultural and human.

If a democracy expands too large, a republic is necessary. If the republic gets too large, factions become necessary. It's a matter of organization. One hundred senators each representing their local politic gets too confusing. We need parties, big parties and pinatas. Okay, not pinatas, but slogans and marketing and machinery. For the sake of effeciency, we need talking points and plans and platforms instead of pints and people and porches.

At some point the republic becomes an oligarchy and, if we're not careful, a plutocracy. We go from a few people ruling to a few people with economic interests ruling. The language is democratic, but the systems are economic.

***

I'm not an anarchist, I swear. Yet, I think people are confused by the Tea Party enthusiasts. They are not simply a wacky side of the GOP. Don't be fooled by Sarah Palin. Just talk to a few people who have attended. Some very well might be crazy, but no crazier than watching Fox News or CNN. What they want is a voice. What they want is a democracy. The organizers of information have only two spin options with the Tea Party People - either laugh in mockery or talk about how scary they are.

People feel angry about bail-outs and huge transnational corporations that run their lives and laws mandating that it is illegal to refuse health care, but okay to destroy a fetus. In other words, a woman has ownership of life growing in her body, but no ownership of her own body. These aren't left/right, blue/red issues, but we are conditioned to think in binary terms, because it's more efficient. We have ads in a few minutes and ticker tape running ever-changing stock prices and Hollywood news to get to. Complexity requires porches and pints.

***

I'm turning off Google Buzz. I liked it at first, but now I'm ignoring it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to become the Unibomber or anything. But I cringe at the creating of web-based oligopolies. Google's mission is "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful." Shouldn't individual's organize information? And shouldn't we be deciding, over a pint, what is accessible (what, for example, is private?) and what is useful?

I'm not anti-Google. I prefer it to Microsoft and Apple. But it's an advertisement company. It's like Clear Channel, just with a greater sense of ethics and fewer enemies . . . so far. Still, I need something more than a "don't be evil" statement for me to trust you. I need a voice. I need to be heard. I need to listen. Google can't listen to me. Google can't have a pint with me. A Droid can't sit on my front porch.

I mention all of this, because I am concerned with a trend I see in blogs right now. Fewer and fewer bloggers seem to be creating new content and organizing it on their own terms. Few people use labels and folksonomy. Many bloggers seem to simply embed content from larger media organizations.

I guess that's fine, but I like the notion of the citizen storyteller and as bizarre as it might be, the internet seems to be one of the last places where this is occurring.

Space

2010-02-03T16:32:00.000-08:00

Poor John probably thought I'd never show up over here.

Not that I blame him, I'm getting around to it after 2 months...

I asked a Psychic once if I was an old soul, or young soul. For the Zen-challenged, Buddhists (and other religions not as widely practiced) believe you're soul lives many lives. The number of lives you might have lived, varies person to person and has nothing to do with calendar age... hence why you meet 4 year olds that act like 80 year olds, and vice versa.

She responded:

"You're a young soul trying on adult clothes."

And for those who know me best, that is Brazen in a nutshell.

John asked if I would like to post over here and the first thing I did was buck responsibility like a five year old. Been feeling guilty for weeks now. Was waiting for him to say something, send me an email:

Eh Brazen... you alive?

But he didn't.

And in that empty space I discovered I was ready to try on some adult clothes. And now here I am. Writing to you about this seemingly silly topic... only that it's not so silly at all... but rather insight into something actually quite enormous.

Space.

To get somewhere in one's own time.

It's such a novel idea in such a face paced, competitive society we live in isn't it? And yet here's the great part:

Taking one's time
Playing
Smelling the roses....

... isn't new age hippie bullshit, unrealistic for today's modern world! In fact, it's more relevant than ever, and Science is proving it. And we all know how much those new age hippie doubters need their data and research, so here we go.

Daniel Pink does a much better job describing this over at the TED awards, but I'll summarize for you first, before you undoubtedly jettison over to hear him engage the pants off of everyone he speaks to. He presents a lot of great information- but the part that is relevant right here, is Carl Dunker's Candle Problem created in 1945. Here's the problem:

You have a candle, some thumbtacks, and a box of matches. Now, use these materials to keep burning candle wax from dripping onto the table.

I won't ruin the surprise, Pink does that for you if you want to listen to his speech. The solution isn't the juicy part.

The best part is the study that went a long with the problem. They divided people into two groups, and told one group: "The person that solves this problem fastest, will get a reward." The other group was allowed to take their time. No reward. Just pure satisfaction of problem solving.

Now according to Arne Duncan... we should race to the top! We should give a reward! And according the Candle Problem study, Arne would be right... if we were living in the early 20th century. The scientists discovered that rewards improved performance... but stunted creativity. The group that was offered a reward took an average of 3.5 minutes longer to solve the problem.

So here's the deal Arne... if we were preparing our children to compete for factory/office/or labor jobs, improving their performance would be ideal. But guess what? Those jobs are going overseas faster than... faster than I can think of a witty metaphor. So guess what we do need to prepare our children for? Ah yes... design jobs, leadership roles, engineering positions... jobs that require um, creative thinking.

And we have scientific research telling us that in order foster creative thinking we need....

Space.

Did you know you were so smart John? Giving me space and all?

seven small examples of my white privilege

2010-01-21T11:11:00.001-08:00

People get uncomfortable with the term, "white privilege." It seems to suggest that white Americans are still out lynching minorities or that, perhaps I am wearing sack cloth and beating my chest in guilt. Neither are true, but I don't buy into the myth of a post-racial America. I'm the racial minority in my classroom and I hold the power. Sometimes that really bothers me.

When the old lady at Wal-Mart asks to see my receipt I don't second-guess her motive.
If my wife straightens her hair nobody makes comments. In fact, my hair will never be viewed as a social statement.
When I am angry, they say, "Man, John seems angry" instead of "He's an angry black man."
If I make an accusation about systemic racism no one claims that I'm just pulling the race card or the victim card or any other imaginary cards.
If a white guy commits a crime no one ever turns to me and asks, "Did you know him?"
If I am pulled over, I don't have layers of a centuries-old slave narrative tugging at myself and the officer. I just hand him or her a driver's license.
No one has ever attributed any of my athletic feats (which are few) to my racial identity.

Ten Reasons Race to the Top Will Lead Us to the Bottom

2010-01-20T20:18:00.001-08:00

I heard Arne Duncan on the radio touting reforms and chastising schools for failing to compete for the free money. He said in the next sentence "they need to earn it." If it's earned, it's not free. Arne Duncan isn't that smart. Educated, perhaps, but far from intelligent.

However, I want to point out some reasons why Race to the Top (aka NLCB 2.0) will lead our students to the bottom:

1. Extrinsic motivation doesn't motivate quality teachers. Good teachers tend to value autonomy, responsibility and creative control. This does the opposite. It forces teachers to pimp out the sacred for a few silver coins.

2. Innovation takes time. Flashy programs with skewed data will suck away the funds, essentially forcing districts to engage in sketchy marketing practices.

3. If it works, it will pull quality teachers out of bad schools. If they reward schools that are already doing well and cut funding from schools doing poorly, this will eventually mean great teachers leave bad schools.

4. A focus on STEM ignores AHEM (Arts, History, English and Music) and in the process ignores every aspect of a classical education. In an era when Wall Street has proven far from ethical, the goal of thinking well about life might not seem like such a bad idea. In addition, at a time when we have a large ELL population, ignoring English might not seem like a genius idea, either.

5. In the "New Economy" where creativity is a valuable asset, we are stepping away from all things creative and forcing students to move back into a rote memorization style of learning.

6. The proponents of Race to the Top ignore the data about the value of the arts and music in conceptual and skill-based understanding of music and engineering. They ignore the data about the failure of most charter schools. Data is a lot like the Bible; you can use it to say whatever you want (and Arne Duncan is the Pat Robertson of educational reform)

7. Standardized tests are one of the worst ways to measure student learning and Race to the Top continues to use this data simply because it allows those in charge to labor under the belief that they are using a common measurement and therefore promoting equity.

8. It will create more red tape, which is the very thing that is causing this whole mess in the first place. At our school we have to have a Language Acquisition Specialist if we want to keep our Title One money. Our LAS is great, but I think that she'd be better off working with students in the classroom.

9. All of the testing and the test prep is currently getting in the way of true learning time. Pulling a plant up every half hour to measure the roots isn't the best way to measure growth.

10. This will quickly become another way for large transnational corporations to hijack publicly funded schools.

number neutrality and other math myths

2009-11-22T17:50:00.000-08:00

In a staff lounge discussion, I suggest to the math teacher that immigration might not be either/or. Perhaps they are not legal/illegal, but extralegal and perhaps the solutions lie in paradox and mystery.

"That's why I teach math. There are answers. It's objective. It's neutral."

"Except pi."

"What do you mean?"

"Pi doesn't resolve. It's messy. It's eternal. I have a hunch that geeks have fun on March 14th, because intuitively they get that pi might not be an anomaly as much as a reality.They mock it because it makes them uneasy." He looks at me as if I'm crazy. He wants so badly for math to be neutral.

Computers are binary. Math is not.

***

My son failed math in pre-school. It's among the five n's on his report card. He can't copy letters very well either. So, I focus on "geometric awareness." Apparently he can't identify a diamond, so I draw one for him.

"That's a square," he says. Then pauses, "or it's a diamond. But it's really just a square that can't stand up straight." He looks for a minute and draws a diagonal line. "It could also be two triangles, right, daddy?"

"Which is it?"

"It's all of them. But it's not a circle."

My son isn't a genius by any means. He just hasn't learned that math is the subject with "right answers."

***

People say it's a "universal" language, but it seems to me there is a layer of math mythology in America (perhaps in the West). Or not. Perhaps this is simply the message I internalized in my own suburban experience:

Math is logical
Math is binary
Math is meant for money and those who do well in it will make more money
Math is neutral
Math is sequential
Math is a skill and not a concept
Math is concise
Math is about the product, not the process
Math is universal
A number is the direct equivalent of a reality (Again, my son challenges me on this today. He tells me that 5 is not the same as five apples. He says it's just a picture to represent the five apples, but it's not the same.)
Math is concrete
Math is governed by laws
Math knowledge is permanent - what we know will be valid forever

I look at the list above. I'm not sure which ones are true or false or a little bit of both. But I internalized this mythology as a child and learned to HATE math. It wasn't until college that I began to change.The reality is that math is often politically and socially charged. A simple glance at a professional development meeting suggests that math is used just as often (perhaps more reverantly) than words to persuade. Our decisions are "data-driven," which is a more alliterative way of saying "number-enforced."

incidentally it was a set of lecture notes from vlorbik that got me thinking
i'm not sure where or how he influenced me -- or which of his *thoughts* are my own here
but i'll go in all lower-case in honor of his thinking
:)

six year olds and social justice

2009-11-17T02:28:00.000-08:00

Up until recently (when I moved to Germany and took a position as a K-12 Support Services teacher), I always taught very young children. I began my teaching career in a Head Start Preschool classroom before I made my way into a public school where I taught first grade for three years.

It wasn't until more recently, that I started to learn what it means to educate for social justice. Truth be told, I learned about educating for social justice and I agreed with the ideas and the principles, yet my practice went unchanged.

I thought six year olds were too young for social justice.

I glossed over figures like Columbus and Martin Luther King, Jr. along with many other teachers, perpetuating historical inaccuracies, all the while justifying that my students were too young and too innocent to hear the truth.

Too young to critically discuss an issue.

Too young to be thinkers.

I will not dwell on what I did as a new teacher, but I can say that I have learned a lot since then.

***

I recently read the book black ants and buddhists by Mary Cowhey and finally got a sense of what teaching for social justice can look like with young learners.

Important issues and heated topics do not have to be avoided simply because some members of the learning community cannot yet tie their shoes. From the very beginning of their educational journeys, students should be encouraged to understand that there are always two (or more) sides to a story and knowing all perspectives is important.

When one student tattles, the student implicated in the incident typically protests that the tattler has got the story wrong. The teacher allows each one a turn to explain what happened and usually the two tales are different.

Multiple perspectives is not that foreign to first graders.

From the outset of their educational careers, students should be encouraged to think. Not to blindly accept what the teacher says, but to ask questions and process in order to make up their own minds.

Young kids are good at asking questions.

Are we there yet?

Do I have to eat my vegetables?

Can we read one more story before bed?

Asking questions and being inquisitive is not beyond first graders.

In the prologue of her book, Cowhey reflects on a particular day in which a few black ants visited her classroom during snack time.

One student freaked out and started swatting the ants, attempting to kill them.

Another student protested, insisting that killing the ants was not okay because it is not right to kill living things.

A discussion ensued.

Points were argued.

The students thoughtfully considered the dilemma and decided they would not kill the ants.

Cowhey concludes her prologue with this:

"The black ants helped us to explore a variety of perspectives and helped us to learn, then compare and contrast, the rules of a variety of spiritual traditions. The ants helped us look at ants and the world and ourselves as Americans through others' eyes. Not bad, for some black ants at snack time."

Not bad.

chainsaw reforms

2009-11-16T05:34:00.000-08:00

one of the world's most under-rated tools - the mighty pulaski (not to be confused with the Revolutionary War Hero)

There is something exhilirating in wielding a chainsaw. It's machine against nature and for once I'm on the winning side. So, I smile too broadly as the limbs of our decaying orange tree fall down. On some level, I think there is something deeply human in the desire to destroy. Whether it's a two year old knocking down Legos or a twenty-two year swinging a wrecking ball, demolition is part of who we are. Call it creative destruction. Or just call it destruction. Either way, it's there in everyone. If I'm not careful, it becomes addicting.

After awhile, though, nature wins. The chain saw can't go through the tough branches and it seizes up with the scent of oil. On a philosophical level, the tree wins as well. Joel assigns the tree gender and says, "She was a good tree. She gave us lots of oranges." All of a sudden, I'm thinking of the orange juice we made together and the oranges we hit with baseball bats. Don't get me wrong, I'm not exactly an arbor-phile, though my mom used to sing to her plants when we grew up and on some level I can appreciate the connection to the land.

***

My grandfather's dying. A machine keeps him breathing. When we visit, it's painful to hear an eloquent, sharp-minded man fight a silent battle with an oxygen tank. I think about my grandpa a lot when I'm swinging the pulaski. It makes me sad to think that, when he dies, a machine will create the hole in the ground and a machine will carry his body. I think about our family friend who died and the way in which we hide from death by calling it a "Memorial Service" and nobody gets a chance to see the body.

I think about the health care debate and the danger in arguing who should and should not live. I know it's expensive to keep my grandpa alive and I know he's a drain on the system and I know that he doesn't contribute to our GDP. But he's my grandpa.

I heard a clip on NPR where a man yelled down a congressman and claimed that "it's the illegal's fault." I teach immigrant children and I want them to have health care as much as I want my grandpa to have health care. I don't pretend to know the answers. But I know there is a danger is creative destruction. I know the same impulse to shout down a congressman is the one that guides my arms as I pull the trigger on the chainsaw.

***

I mention all of this, because I despise the educational elite who lead reform. They walk around wielding chainsaws, uprooting communities, shutting down schools all in the name of change. Call it creative destruction. Call it chainsaw addiction. Call it whatever you want, but I know that there are kids who cried the day they painted over our murals and there are families who lost their community school when it shut down.

The Founding Fathers chose earthy metaphors to describe social institutions. In The Federalist Papers, Hamilton compared the government to a body. Jefferson often compared it to a tree shared by the locale. It's not until the industrial revolution that we see the business/factory metaphor applied to schools.

I'm not sure if it's right for Michelle Rhea and Arne Duncan to shut down schools. I do, however, know that it's wrong to boast about it. For what it's worth, I'd have a little more respect for them if they used the pulaski. At least then, they would experience the pain and labor and awareness of a school that's dying. Yet, as long as they engage in chainsaw massacres, I'll continue to cringe when I hear the word "reform."

-John Spencer

-Incidentally, I posted this a few months back on my blog but I thought it fit this one well.

Book Review: Crazy Like a Fox

2009-11-14T05:49:00.001-08:00

I recently finished Crazy Like a Fox by Dr. Ben Chavis. He is one of the many principals whose "inspiring" stories make him a darling to both the left and the right. To the left, he is an icon of what a minority can do in a low-income area. To the right, he is a return of the tough-love approach, a critic of political correctness and a call to accountability.

Honestly, books like this typically make me angry and this one was no exception. Some of the shaming techniques he uses toward students would get me fired. Yet, it's a common narrative that Americans want to believe. It's the idea of a lone ranger coming to town, raising hell and fixing a complacent system into a well-running machine.

Many of these tough-as-nails stories have similar behaviorist philosophies. Punish students who are bad (indeed, Chavis often embaresses students) and reward achievement. Create a hyper-structured environemnt. Kick out the ones who cause problems. It's as common sense as Glenn Beck and Dr. Phil. (Incidentally, I'm not a firm believer in common sense - unless one is referring to the quasi-anarchist book by Thomas Paine) I have four major issues I want to address:

1. False Premise: I am always skeptical about such "tough love" approaches, because behaviorism is like a steroid. The results are quick, but the long-term consequences are disastrous. If a student wants to go to school and enjoys learning and then finds out that it is a chore that demands a reward, the intrinsic motivation will decrease. In nearly every reward system (Alfie Kohn has done some great research here) the immediate results are a spike in achievement, but over the long term, the achievement drops below the original level. If you want to guarantee a child won't read independently in middle school, reward him in the fourth grade with pizza coupons.

2. Gaps in the story: When a "tough love" approach exists and schools start kicking out behavioral problems, they often kick out low-motivated students. Students who don't want to be there are most likely the ones to act out. If I said, "This principal did a great job of finding the highest motivated students and helping them achieve results," it wouldn't exactly seem amazing anymore. Here locally, I have seen three high schools improve academically by making it easier to expel students. Should that really be a measure of success?

3. The Ultimate Goal: What happens to students of highly-structured environments when they move on? If they have not become self-directed learners and critical thinkers, I am doubtful that they will be able to succeed outside of the highly-structured environment of a "tough love" school. It's a poor analogy, but compare it to a hyper-sheltered child from a very strict home. What happens when that child goes to college? If a child learns obedience to rules rather than adherence to justice and a larger moral philosophy, the results will be either rebellion or a subservient self-concept.

4. Stereotypes: I am concerned with the way books present inner-city, low-income students. If a wealthy school has a food fight, society says, "wow, middle school kids are tough." If the same thing happens in the city, people think, "it's a ghetto mentality. We need to change it." I hear people say, "In the inner-city, you need a special discipline, a tougher approach. These kids are rough." Any time there is a "these kids," it's a red flag (and any time a blogger uses the term "red flag" it's a sign of cliche).

***

I am no guru, but I have had a solid track record on discipline and achievement levels. As a social studies teacher, my students had the highest scores on common assessments. We've painted murals, created documentaries and have a pretty impressive class blog. I've only written two referrals in the last three years. I am by no means a Teacher of the Year, but I'm also not a Packet-Master burnout. My approach is different:

1. Rules: Teach students why rules exist and how it affects who they are as a person. When a student breaks a rule, have a conversation about a better way to approach it the next time. Discuss why that rule makes a difference in the learning of others. I would add to this

2. Procedures: Streamline procedures so that they are few but effective. I use a procedure grid that has worked pretty well for me.

3. Instruction and Motivation: Create assignments that require rigor, critical thinking and creativity. Make it personal and engage students in metacognition so they can tell me why they are learning what they are learning. Use humor and, dare I say this, have a little fun. When this occurs, students will rise to the high expectations. Yes, seventh graders can read Brave New World and they don't need a free pizza coupon as a result.

4. Intervention / Enrichment: Some students are goofing off because they are too far ahead or too far behind. I try and create a system of interventions and enrichment activities for students who might get bored. Honestly, this can be a challenge and it does require time. However, it's time well-spent compared to doing parent phone calls or filling out detention slips.

4. Model Respect: I try my best to talk to students respectfully. When I fail, I apologize. I've made a ton of mistakes in this area, but students will generally forgive.

5. Trust: I trust students and try and model this. I take them at their word. I allow them near my desk. But I also know that humans are shifty (including myself) so I take some precautions along the way (for example, I never have anything super-valuable in my desk).

a consideration

2009-11-12T08:18:00.001-08:00

I'm considering going forward with this blog. I'd like it to be a group blog, so if you are interested in writing with me, let me know. My e-mail address is socialvoice@gmail.com

The purpose of this blog is to delve into issues of teaching and social justice.