Real Life Education

Gatto's butterfly project as described in "Success Guaranteed Literacy Programs: I Don't Buy It!" is a wonderful example of how "true" literacy should be taught in the classroom. Gatto's premise behind this project is that "I do not consider myself the giver of knowledge. I view my role as constructing an atmosphere where the children see themselves as valuable to the process of learning within the classroom" (75). She employs ""substantive engagement", a term from Vygotsky, which encourages authentic questioning, examination, elaboration and revision. (75) She has results as well, showing that her students' standardized test scores are equal to or surpass school and district norms (76). Not only is Gatto teaching literacy, speech, and writing, she is teaching geometry, measurement, biology, history, and business. She is showing that education is not a set of time-defined periods in which math is only spoken about for 45 minutes each day, but that math and other topics are intricately intertwined with real life. Gatto is showing her students not to avoid situations because they are not the subject they are currently studying, but to question and tackle issues head-on, regardless of topic. THIS is real life. THIS is teaching students how to learn.

Gutierrez discusses in "Sameness as Fairness" that today's educational practices attempt to "facilitate the homogenization of vastly different students" (111). By creating curricula servicing "color-blind equality" (110), we are "detach[ing] from literacy practices and contexts that bring meaning and purpose to people in sense-making activity" (111). Gutierrez celebrates educational methodologies that focus on cultural and historical traditions (118). While successful for Gatto's class, Gutierrez tells us the butterfly project will not work in every classroom. Every class is different. The teacher needs to find the element that will connect with the students. In Arizona, the project might be a cactus experiment. In Maine, it might be lobsters. In Florida, lizards. What is important here is not the subject, but the method. By understanding Gatto's method, Gutierrez tells us that any subject can be interjected and be made to be successful, as long as it has meaning and connection to the students.

Ladson-Billings shows us in "I ain't writin' nuttin': Permissions to Fail and Demands to Succeed in Urban Classrooms", how drastic picking the wrong subject can be. Describing a writing exercise in which students group together and come up with sentences, pick one sentence, and write it as a group, she highlights Shannon, who declares "I ain't writin' nuttin'!", since she can not associate with any of the sentences her classmates are coming up with (110). The sentence has no meaning to her. Why would she take the time to write it? Ladson-Billings tells us that academic achievement should represent "intellectual growth and and ability to produce knowledge" (111). The production of knowledge is not the reiteration of facts, but the use of "reading and writing fro real purposes" (117). What better way is there to get students to produce real knowledge than to have them explore topics that are important to them. Without this, we are diluting our children's education to memorization and regurgitation of fact.

Lastly, Purcell-Gates discusses how open we must be to student's language, culture and background in "...As Soon As She Opened Her Mouth!". By describing the concept of "literacy knowledge" (124), the author shows us how students bring various backgrounds of experience to school with them. By forcing all students to perform the same tasks, we being to accentuate these differences in the negative. By mandating certain types of assignments which focus on the strengths of students from literate home backgrounds, we are propagating the power stereotypes associated with different socioeconomic classes (133). Instead, by having a diverse classroom where many ideas and concepts are encouraged and accepted, a student with less literacy knowledge can thrive in other areas their fellow students are less knowledgeable about, expressing her strengths as she develops her weaknesses through interactions with students more versed in those areas.

Through Gatto's butterfly project, we see the template for a classroom environment which can explore topics of meaning and significance to its students, breaking down barriers of language and socioeconomic class structure that tend to separate our children today rather than bring them together. It is my wish that I can design my classroom around these concepts, and show my students how to express and develop their strengths.

The Measure of Success

What does the word “learn” mean to you? If a child can tell you that 4 times 5 is 20, did the child learn multiplication? What if you ask the child “If George is given $5 a day for four days by his father, how much money does George have?” and she comes up with $18. Would you still say the child has learned multiplication?

Personally, I believe the above example demonstrates the difference between “fact” and “knowledge”. It appears that our children today are learning a lot of “facts” in school, but less and less “knowledge”.

In Catherine Luna's piece this week, she discusses the learning styles of students with learning disabilities. We all have “preferred” learning styles. For example, I prefer discussion over lecture. It does not mean that I can not learn from a lecture, but I definitely get more out of a discussion, hearing how other students interpret something and finding out what their struggles are in understanding the material. With respect to learning disabilities, the differences in success are more extreme between the amount of learning occurring between “preferred” and “non-preferred” instructional methods. Given a freedom as to the method of instruction, or the way to express their knowledge, students with learning disabilities do very well. Should these students be punished for the fact that they can not learn the same way as “everyone else” does? What counts more, the actual knowledge, or the delivery mechanism?

In my opinion, the students in Luna's article are more “knowledgeable” than your average student, despite their learning disabilities. They know what methods work best for them, and which they struggle with. They are trying to work with their teachers and staff to be able to maximize their learning, instead of just “surviving” with the method prescribed by the instructor.

I believe this is what Carini is referring to in “Valuing the Immeasurable”. Rather than “fact” and “knowledge”, Carini discusses “training and schooling” and “education”. Carini takes the Luna piece on method one step further. Carini talks about how “in the name of efficiency and homogeneity” “variety is minimized”. Our schools today are focused on covering so much “material” in so little time. Legislation such as No Child Left Behind has forced more standardized testing and education on our children. We are creating economies of scale not in the corporate world, but in the classroom. We are trying to figure out the best way to teach students how to pass a test given a minimal use of resources. Obviously, customized education plans per student would not be cost-effective in this approach. Instead, we drill our students in how to take standardized tests. We given them strategies for eliminating derailing answers, and giving them the best odds at getting a question correct. Then, we drill them in the facts these questions will be asked on. Sometimes, the students are given a free-form essay, but even that has an “equation” to follow in order to maximize your potential score (introduction, supporting idea 1, supporting idea 2, supporting idea 3, conclusion). Could you imagine the look on the evaluator's face if a student responded to an open essay question of “Describe how the American Revolutionary War was influenced by the French Revolution” with a comic strip instead of a written essay in the prescribed form? Does the comic strip necessarily imply that the student knows any more or less on the American and French Revolutions simply based on her choice of medium? It is this idea of measurement which Carini says “is valued and recognized to be important in education.”

Delpit reinforces the need for freedom of expression in her piece “No Kinda Sense”, in which she focuses on language, and more specifically, verbal language. Too often we correct children as they speak to us … grammar, pronunciation, use of slang. Why? Is the use of slang that critical if the child is discussing his understanding of plant cell reproduction? By focusing on the correctness of the language, and not the thought behind the language, Delpit says we are stifling out children's thought process. She says school has become all about the language, and not the content, and we are actually encouraging our students not to gain more knowledge to talk about. She reinforces the “push” nature of our educational system by saying “students rarely get to talk in classrooms”. When they do speak the “standard dialect is embedded in instruction that has little connection to children's cultural lives and personal interests.” When they do get to speak about something they care about, “the children whose language is considered defective are themselves viewed as defective.” The children consider both themselves and the topic they want to discuss as wrong. Would that encourage you to explore beyond the topics listed in the syllabus?

Hilliard expresses how much a person's language actually tells us, both about that person's knowledge abilities and their personalities. Some language dialects are based in persuasion. Some are based in song and are artistic and more illustrative. Some are more scientific. The use of one dialect over another means that the individual thinks best not just in the technical aspects of that dialect, but using the qualities of the dialect as well. Our culture today has written in all of these assumptions about dialects of the English language which are baseless, and the metrics used to test our children's knowledge, the almighty standardized tests, are based on a very specific dialect of the English language. Students who do not perform well on those standardized tests might very well perform better if the test were written to their dialect and culture. These tests are not testing knowledge, but expression and comprehension in a particular dialect. Can you imagine having to go through high school and taking every exam in the foreign language you were studying? Math, Biology, US History … all the tests given in German and the answers expected in German? Do you think you would have done as well in school?

We see from these readings from Delpit and Hilliard that our evaluation system today is very focused on a particular dialect, and much research has been done showing increased learning capabilities when children are taught in a dialect more closely aligned with a child's history and culture. Luna questions even further the methods used, and Carini questions the medium. We might not get to Carini's ideal classroom overnight, but this display of articles gives us a good spectrum to begin making progress toward that ideal.

Doom and Gloom to Hope

It is very easy to come away from this week's articles with a very negative flair. Before exploring these readings in further detail, we need to realize that NOTHING in life is perfect. Nothing is flawless. Everything can always be improved upon. Sometimes, in steps meant to take something forward, we end up sliding backward. This ebb and flow occurs on so many levels and in so many aspects of our lives. We must recall, however, that it is the long term view that truly determines whether we are improving out situation in life or making it worse.

Pauline Lipman discusses the concept of neoliberalism in "Education Policy, Race, and Neoliberal Urbanism." She defines neoliberalism as the withdrawal of government from providing for social welfare, replaced instead by economic and special policies that promote the primacy of the market. The heart of neoliberalism in education, according to Lipman, is the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, which she claims is paving the way for large-scale privatization of public schools. In an effort to make education equal for all, Lipman proposes that we are instead further distancing the spectrums of the highest achievers from the lowest achievers. While well-performing schools are given greater flexibility in the ways to educate their children, poor-performing schools are given further restrictions, and risk losing funding without promoting government sanctioned programs and demonstrating increased student performance, usually through standardized tests. Looking at segments of poor-performing schools, Lipman highlights that these clamp-downs on school districts are disproportionately occurring in non-white lower socioeconomic classes, indicating that the new business involvement in education is helping to promote our future white leaders of companies, and helping hold-down the lower class diversified population for our future blue-collar workforce.

Apple, in "Whose Markets, Whose Knowledge?", takes this concept a step further. Instead of talking about how schools are influenced by business, Apple talks about the school AS business. Students are the new human capital, and school budgets, how they are proportioned, and how they are expended are the new business. Apple also introduces the concept of neoconservatism, or a return to more traditional values and the "morality" of the past. Through NCLB, and the advent of charter schools, upper-class white parents can make sure their children are educated in the same manner they were, without the influence of lower economic classes or outside cultures. The highlight of Apple's article, in my opinion, is the discussion on the changes in the teaching profession itself, how the profession has moved from one of "licensed autonomy" where teachers, once licensed, were trusted to educate their students, to "regulated autonomy", where every aspect of their interactions are now policed and questioned. We can see the concepts of neoliberalism and neoconservatism working in concert as well. The neoliberals are seeing to it that well-performing school districts continue to receive their funds, with limited interference, while struggling school districts receive less funds and increased scrutiny. The neoconservatists are making sure that increased scrutiny reflects "proper" educational methods. We measure the progress of these students with standardized testing which reinforces the superiority of the upper class and further diminishes the knowledge of the lower class.

Dan Osborn's "Digging Up the Family Tree" solidifies this connection between neoconservatism and neoliberalism, drawing lines between individuals in for-profit corporations creating canned literacy programs and individuals involved in the creation and measurement of NCLB. Both Osborn in his work and Irvine and Larson in "Literacy Packages in Practice" connect the political and economic handshaking going on in education, in particular with literacy, back to the racial divide, pointing our how these canned literacy programs, intent on making literacy education neutral in term of race and economics, are actually polarizing students of different racial and economic backgrounds even further.

After this summary, it is difficult to see how any of this can have a positive light. We have for-profit corporations influencing school policy and education, and politics reinforcing for-profit corporate agendas through the auspices of educational "reform", intent on closing racial and socioeconomic barriers, but actually increasing the distance between the "haves" and "have nots".

These articles, however, were all written before our recent economic crisis. We need to look at what impact that has had on our neoliberal and neoconservative thoughts on education today. We have just seen a near collapse of our nation's financial industry. Huge corporations, in existence for years, and synonymous with American production and innovation, are filing for bankruptcy. The American taxpayer is footing the bill for a lot of the stimulus to bring us further from the brink of collapse, at a time when more and more of taxpayers are losing their jobs. One thing is very evident in the news broadcasts today, and that is the finger of blame, trying to pin down who and what and when caused this to occur. The American people are calling for accountability.

We have seen CEOs crumble. We have seen golden parachutes taken away. We have seen executives forced aside. We have seen governments take controlling interest in large corporations. We have seen a major upset in who is sitting in the seats of Congress and our White House. Changes are happening. No longer is the large monolithic corporation king. It is now seen as the enemy. It is seen as holding America back from prosperity and progress. It is being bailed out by the government and told to make progress. It is seeing stress tests placed on it to determine its stability and ability to be saved.

The model of corporate America that schools are being based on is not working, not only in schools, but in corporate America! We are seeing a paradigm shift in how we view business. The arguments that schools should work like businesses does not hold the same weight it did even just a year ago.

In addition to the economic model that neoliberalistic education is based on, the neoconservatist ideals are most likely to fail in the short term as well. One of the biggest weaknesses of NCLB is also one of its supposed strengths: frequent standardized testing. There is so much data present on our schools already. Overlay that data with student test scores, and we can expose the fact that NCLB is not working. Another factor to take into account is next year, 2010, is a census year. Huge emphasis is already being placed on the proposed diversity counts. Compound recent census data with NCLB data, and we may very see the final word on NCLB, for it will be blatantly obvious that children ARE being left behind, and they happen to fall into very well-defined categories, being economic classes and racial backgrounds.

So yes, this week's articles are very negative and depressing. But there is hope. Maybe NCLB is one of those steps forward that ends up sliding us backward. But if we look at the changes in education since the 13 original colonies, can we say that overall, changes have been made for the better?

Week 2: Which language is "right"?

In this week's readings, we see further evidence that literacy can really be split into two different components. First, there is the very mechanical element of being literate in the mechanics of a language, meaning the vocabulary and grammar of the language. Second, there is the content, which we have seen from this week's readings can very often be cultural.

It seems clear from "Indigenous Bilingual and Bicultural Education" that the more familiar one is with the mechanics of the language they are speaking, the easier it is to learn the content. Learning mathematics and science in one's primary language is the best way to learn mathematics and science concepts. However, we have seen from Haneda's work "Becoming Literate in a Second Language" that content can not always be separated from the actual mechanics of a language.

In Haneda's piece, we explore cultural elements of a language, where religious schools and cultural classes are teaching concepts in a tongue more native to that religion or culture than English. Can these concepts not be taught in English? Yes, they probably could, but with greater difficulty. It is here that we see that the language itself carries culture within it. When learning another language, one is bound to come to a point where they are trying to translate a word or a phrase into the other language from their own, and they are having a hard time doing so. Sometimes the word doesn't exists, and the similar words that do have translations are just missing something on their meaning. Sometimes it is a phrase that can put something so eloquently in the native tongue for which there is just no equivalent in the secondary tongue, and the only way to express that thought or feeling or emotion is to explain it with many more words, where the eloquence of the initial phrase is now long gone. Such is the place with learning religion and culture in their native tongues. 

Sometimes, historical significance is wrapped into the language and the culture. For Native Americans on reservations and Jews in World War II, many times it was a crime to write or speak in their native tongues. Incidents like these make it more important for the cultural conversation to happen in that tongue, to show the strife and struggle that has been overcome and express pride in being able to still speak the language spoken by family members generations ago.

Baker, in her work "Trilingualism", goes even further by suggesting that each language, native or not, has within it its own varieties, from the informal and conversational to the formal and "correct" way of speaking it. Here, the argument turns from the ease to express content in a native tongue to the ease to express content in the most comfortable way in that native tongue. The formalities of a language can be learned in a grammar class, and the structure and use of those formalities should not stand in the way of allowing students to develop their minds and think critically using language as a medium, and not a barrier, for expressing their thoughts as easily as possible.

Lastly , Michael Stubbs reviews that no language is primitive to any other, and that each suits the community it serves. In effect, it does not matter if students debate in an Amazonian tribal language, Harlem street slang or proper Merriam Webster's English, the tools needed for those students to debate properly and effectively are present in each language. He furthermore goes to show that the stereotypes associated with different dialects and variations on a language are unfounded, and do not connote a level of intelligence or understanding.

What these readings lead us to is that literacy is not about words, or grammar, or punctuation. Literacy is about thought. Once the ability to create and communicate rational thought is developed in one language, it can be communicated in other languages. The thought process, however, is key. Forcing an individual to learn how to think through a language he or she is not comfortable with will only stifle the individual's thought in ALL languages. Therefore, the individual should be taught to think in the language that is most comfortable for them. 

We must also realize that not all thoughts and ideas can be communicated in other languages with 100% accuracy. Learning different cultures and their languages will give us better insight into the thoughts capable in the world, and give us a better understanding of our fellow human beings and their rich heritages.

What It Means To Be Literate

E.D. Hirsch, Jr. believed in "cultural literacy", where simply knowing a common language does not make individuals literate, but the ability to comprehend the context of those words is also important. I do agree with that point. Hirsch, however, went further to communicate that Americans should have a common set of knowledge they should all know to be literate of one another. That is where Hirsch and I differ.

I do believe that a core set of knowledge needs to be taught in our schools to give all children the opportunity to succeed, and to help them find an area best suited for them that they would like to pursue in greater detail in their futures and their careers and hobbies. Given that, I don't think every American needs to be completely versed in each of these areas. There are plenty of classes I took in high school that I did well in then, but if I had to take a final exam for them today, the results would be very different. The breadth of knowledge, and not necessarily the depth, is what I believe to be important.

So, what do I think Americans should know?

Mathematics

- We should all have a basic understanding of math, with exposure to geometry and algebra. However, realistic applications of the knowledge, such as how to balance a checkbook or figuring out what the APR on your credit card it should be stressed.

Reading and Writing

- In this type of literacy, I am talking about the mechanics of reading and writing, and not the "contextual" aspect as Hirsch describes.

History/Geography/Political Science

- I believe all should have exposure to world history, the history of one's country, and the local history of one's area. This absolutely means that people living in different countries, and even different areas of the same country, might learn different materials. 

Science

- An overview of physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, and earth science. Practical applications of this knowledge should be stressed. For example:

     Physics - use of simple machines

     Chemistry - why one shouldn't mix bathroom cleansers

     Biology - human health

     Astronomy - why we have seasons

     Earth Science - environmentalism and taking care of the planet

Language

- A language other than one's primary language should be studied. Views into non-traditional languages, such as sign language, could be explored to better understand communication as a whole, and not just written and verbal communication.

Literature

- Common pieces of literature in the individual's main language from different time periods which are considered great works in that language. In addition, pieces from one's home country and/or local area should be studied.

Social Behavior

- Studying human behavior, such as how people think, speak, and interact, so that we understand that the way WE think and communicate is different from how others do so.

These are a basis for developing one's culture of literacy. It is not meant to be exclusive, but to start as a guide. In general, I believe in an "outside-in" approach. We should know about the world we live in, from the big picture, like different continents and countries, to the small picture, like the oldest building in our town or where certain road's names came from. The fact that we have the exact realm of cultural knowledge as someone else is not what is important. The ability to share our cultural knowledge and to listen to other's cultural knowledge is what truly makes us literate individuals.