Blog Post #5: Issues in Education

While reflecting upon the many articles dealing with educational issues, I am reminded, once again, of the immense complexity of the teaching profession and the many stakeholders in the education of our nation's children. Teachers, administration, politicians, parents, community members, and, most importantly, students are inherently part of the institution that is public education. I think that is why, as many proponents of the privatization of education would suggest, it can be so VERY difficult to affect change in our public education system. Many of the articles that I read brought to mind changes that I, personally, would love to see take effect in educational institutions.

The NCPA article on teacher salaries adjusted based on the cost of living related to two very frustrating, and often controversial, issues in public education. The first is the importance of raising teacher salaries to match those of other college educated professionals. Our nation can't expect to recruit the best and brightest graduates into the teaching profession if they know they will not be payed a competitive wage. I think that our society has lost respect for the teaching profession, perhaps with good reason. However, this lack of respect is most apparent in teacher compensation, and, without substantial change, education will continue to find it difficult to recruit highly qualified teachers into the profession. Another issue that this article brought to mind is the polemic merit-based pay debate. I, myself, am an advocate of a reasonable merit-pay system. My stance is probably partly attributable to my relative inexperience in the teaching profession and the fact that I have a rather competitive nature. I can certainly, however, understand the drawbacks to a merit-pay system if the assessment of merit is based solely on standardized testing. I understand teacher fears over the outcome of evaluations that determine salaries. However, that is a reality that other adults, working in the private sector, face everyday. It is hard to sustain motivation to teach to the best of your ability when you know that the teacher with the Master's degree and twenty years experience showing videos each day next door if being paid more. I know their has to be a better way to determine teacher pay.

Perhaps equally as controversial as the debate on teacher salary is the debate over school choice in public education. The Goodman article on educating the children who were victims of Hurricane Katrina reminded me of the importance of this issue. Although I teach at a traditional public high school, I recognize the impact that choice could and should have in school reform. However, I feel that we should exercise caution before proclaiming any approach to be THE solution for public education reform. Many studies reveal that both vouchers and charter schools fail to produce the outcomes promised and may even hinder reform.

The articles mentioned, as well as the articles addressing child labor, early childhood education and education's environmental responsibility, serve to highlight the need for educators and policy makers that are willing to think critically about the issues, put politics and buzzwords aside, and stand for all that is in a students' best interest. Although their are not simple solutions, I believe that the best way to move forward is through the intentional pursuit of learning above all from the classroom, to the school board, all the way to Washington.

Blog Post #4: Control

The issue of curricular content can be a great point of contention among the stakeholders in education. Parents, teachers, administration and community leaders rarely agree on best practices in regards to selecting the content students should learn. Viewpoints diverge even more when discussing how the content should be presented. As suggested in our blog prompt, I believe most of our debates over curriculum, particularly multicultural curriculum, stem from issues of control. Although the phrase has become a cliché, it is true that knowledge is power. The most educated members of society have the most control over their futures. With knowledge comes opportunity and authority. Sadly, it is also true that human beings have a propensity toward self-preservation and protection. Once a group has attained power, they rarely relinquish it for the common good. It is from this perspective that many proponents of multicultural education argue for change in the way we present our curriculum. They ask that we encourage divergent thinking and present history and culture from multiple perspectives. Some go further and encourage students of specific backgrounds or cultures to preserve their own culture first and foremost. I truly believe that, for the most part, these proponents simply hope to protect and maintain their heritages. However, many experts argue that education from a segmented view only serves to further disenfranchise groups already at-risk for school failure. Instead, many multicultural education advocates hope to focus on commonalities rather than differences. They see multicultural education not only as the presentation of various cultural views, but moreover as equal access to a core curriculum that provides opportunities for all learners.

It is from this perspective that Hirsch argues for a curriculum based in shared cultural literacy. He shares an example from South Africa where students from various ethnic and cultural backgrounds need to be educated together. Hirsch argues that, in any nation, there is a need for a common core curriculum that prepares all students to participate as contributing members of society. This, he believes, levels the playing field for all groups in a society. I have seen firsthand the importance of cultural literacy during my time studying in Segovia, Spain. In Spain there is no official national language and regionalism and autonomy are regarded above all else. However, all students learn castellano, or what we here in the US call Spanish. Classes in Cataluña are taught in both castellano and catalán, in the Basque Country in castellano and euskera and in Galicia in gallego and castellano. This system of education stems from the idea that communication between citizens of Spain is foundational to a strong nation. This shared language makes them stronger, yet they maintain their own identities as autonomous regions. I think Hirsch’s core knowledge curriculum ideas are similar. Having a common knowledge set provides a foundation for educator’s to build on. When all students have access to this knowledge base then we are truly providing a multicultural education.

I also believe, as Adam Waxler, that providing students with varied cultural perspectives does not have to be a matter of creating independent units of study. Integrating cultural into traditional curriculum is just good teaching practice. When we separate groups and cultures we create boundaries that need not exist in the minds of our students. Yes, there are marked differences between the cultures that comprise our planet, but there are many commonalities as well. I think a balanced approach to multicultural curriculum is integral to righting the inequities in our educational system. Curriculum should be comprised of both core understandings and varied viewpoints. Students should share a foundational understanding or level of cultural literacy, but also be able to examine issues from many sides and analyze and judge for themselves.

Blog Post #3: Teaching Diversity in the Classroom

After reading, PJ Tobias’ article on racism in America, I had to spend some serious time thinking about the balance we hold so dear in the U.S. between freedoms and civil rights and the need for a safe and secure country. With all of the recent discussions on tolerance in the news, from our mosque controversy here in Tennessee to Koran burning attempts in Florida, this delicate equilibrium that we sustain as a people has been called into question. Admittedly, as I read the comments left in response to the article, I asked myself “should all people be free to speak and write whatever they please?” I am a firm believer that the truth will always stand against lies and that love and acceptance always win over hate. So, generally, I don’t get upset over comments that strike me as ignorant or even utterly bigoted. However, as one of my mentors often says, we can become so “open-minded” that our brain falls out. Allowing member of supremacist groups, like the author of The Brigade, to espouse principals of hatred and violence on the internet is undoubtedly dangerous. As Tobias states, this kind of propaganda can lead to terrorism and the murder of innocent Americans. As an Oklahoman, my family and I know this too well. Unfortunately, there will always be groups that choose fear over acceptance and anger instead of understanding.

As an educator, I often find myself balancing these same principles, my students’ right to speak their mind and their need for a safe classroom environment. At the beginning of the year, without fail, at least one student will ask, in front of the class, why we have to learn Spanish when we’re in America, apparently home of the free, brave and monolingual. I never have found a way to respond that both acknowledges the student’s right to ask such a question and defends the value of linguistic and cultural diversity. So, given the choice, I support diversity. My rationale is that, in Hendersonville, TN, my students will find plenty enough assenting opinions against multiculturalism. I tend to find myself in this role, the multiculturalist, fairly frequently in my middle class suburban educational environment. Unfortunately, student opinions on race and culture can be so ill-informed that I often shy away from dealing with these issues at any level in my classroom, leaving discussion of culture in my classroom at a superficial level, focusing on the salient traits and stereotypes rather than delving into the complexity of different cultural perspectives. After reviewing some of the articles addressing multiculturalism, I feel challenged to tackle the tough questions that will inevitably arise when discussing culture in all its intricacy. My students need to be presented with conflicting opinions and perspectives in order to learn to analyze and think critically.

Another fear of mine when addressing culture in the classroom is echoed in the nationalist article against multiculturalism. Unlike the article’s author, I am sure that teaching students to value and respect other cultures is important. Yet, I often feel that, in highlighting differences and assigning cultural characteristics, I am creating an “us” opposite “them” mentality in the minds of my students. Although I often emphasize similarities, I feel my students focus on these differences overall. Just as tolerance and security must be balanced, I think a teacher focusing on culture must take care to present evenhandedly cultural contrast and the universality of the human condition. Still, I will choose to explore the "deeper" parts of culture, like differences in values and viewpoints, with my students at the risk of drawing boundaries because I think that students are more capable of grappling with these concepts than we realize. They can use divergent historical and cultural perspectives to develop their own world-views and I hope to become a brave enough teacher to entrust to them that very task.

Blog Post #2: Losing our religion

Religion in education has become a hotly contested debate in my community in the last year. In fact, the district in which I teach and live, Sumner County, is currently entangled in a lawsuit with the ACLU over administrative decisions that allowed for religious involvement in school affairs. After reading articles over controversies in Illinois and Texas it’s clear that states across the country are challenged with balancing protection of religious freedom with individual rights to demonstrate religious beliefs in public schools. When reading on this particular topic, I always find myself conflicted, sorting through the facts, my feelings and my values. I am a Christian and love living in a country that protects my freedom to worship as my conscience and spirit dictate, but I have serious misgivings about religious involvement in public education.

While both of the cases in Illinois and Texas seem perfectly benign to the casual observer, I can understand why some proponents of the venerated “separation of church and state” have become so adamant regarding grey areas such as the “moment of silence” or the teaching of “intelligent design” in a public biology classroom. If school is compulsory, then it should be an environment where any student from any cultural or religious background can experience a sense of belonging as part of a community of learners. So while, personally, the “moment of silence” doesn’t not present an affront to my belief system, I could see how a student from an atheist background might feel ostracized by the awkward pause. And, although I believe in “intelligent design,” I, like St. Thomas of Aquinas happen to believe that scientific reason and faith are not mutually exclusive. I don’t believe I need to undermine the feasibility of a scientifically supported theory in order to assert my beliefs. While some may view the difference between “examining strengths and weaknesses” in scientific theory and “examining the empirical evidence” for each theory as mere semantics, the language we choose to express our learning objectives can possess powerful connotations. Both cases seem to revolve around the tendency of public educators to blur the line between religion and state mandated education.

It seems this debate inevitably leads proponents on both sides of the argument back to our nation’s history and the intent of our founding fathers regarding the church and state. Freedom from state establishment of religion was clearly the intention of the constitutional framers when they wrote that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” However, anti-religion advocates often speak of the “separation of church and state” as synonymous with the first amendment when, in fact, there is no mention of this separation in the constitution. The “wall of separation between church and state” was a phrase coined by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association during his presidency in 1802. In the letter he so aptly stated, “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.” Although Jefferson was an advocate of personal choice and even suspended national days of fasting and other religious observances during his presidency, I don’t believe that his intention was to protect the state from religious involvement, but, instead, to assure the Danbury Association and the American people that the state would not be allowed to mandate religious practices as it had in Europe. In fact, evidence of church involvement in the founding of our nation is undeniable. Our buildings and money are imprinted with the words “In God We Trust.” Our presidents have all been sworn in with their right hands on the Bible stating “So help me God.” The Declaration of Independence mentions God four times. Surely our nation’s founders were more concerned with the state’s involvement in the church than the church’s influence on the state.

However, just as the constitution is a living document that has changed and grown over time, so should our attitudes regarding how best to truly protect religious freedom in our nation. While historical context does provide a more accurate interpretation of such principles, we must make decisions in light of our current reality. We live in a pluralistic, multicultural society in which all citizens are guaranteed the right to their own belief systems. We may not personally believe that a salute to the flag constitutes idolatry, but the majority of Americans have come to respect a citizens first amendment rights over regimented reverence to a national symbol. I believe we have come to view the principles set forth in our unique constitution as more patriotic than any show of nationalism. While a “moment of silence,” mention of Creationism, or a baccalaureate service may seem harmless to me, I have to be willing to look at the issue from another perspective. As has already been clearly demonstrated in our community, there is a slippery slope from a mandated moment of reflection to school condoned dissemination of the Bible. While some cases may seem more clear cut, we always need to thoughtfully consider what is in the best interest of all students, not just a majority.

Blog Post #1: Innovation vs. Integration

Reading the information presented on both the PBS site School: The Story of American Public Education and Gatto’s site The Makers of Modern Schooling left me feeling intrigued, inspired and infuriated all at once. It seems that, in examining the history of education in the US, there are so many factions involved in reform with divergent interests. Politicians, corporations and the public share both common and conflicting interests in the outcome of public schooling. I think that the intent of each of these stakeholders is what distinguishes an “innovator” in education from a “maker” of education.

Innovators in education are those who seek to affect change in the system to create greater educational opportunities for all American schoolchildren. Innovators may differ in their approach to implementing changes, but I believe a true innovator favors progress and access over standardization and efficiency. Describing the modern educational climate PBS put it this way, “The progressive side of the educational continuum champions intellectual freedom as the cornerstone of democratic society. Student autonomy, creativity, and curiosity are espoused as leading forces in a meaningful education. The “back to basics” advocates believe that curriculum should be standardized and students drilled on its content to ensure a basic level of skill.”

Some of the best representatives of innovation in American education are those like John Dewey or Deborah Meier. These reformers encouraged a student and community centered approach to education. Dewey is undoubtedly changed the landscape of the classroom by emphasizing the relevance of child development and the importance of experiential learning. These principals are now considered cornerstones in any teacher preparation program. It is my hope that Deborah Meier’s emphasis on the importance of teacher and school autonomy in meeting the needs of their individual communities will soon become foundational to school reform as well. Her focus on parental involvement is integral to making changes in today’s apathetic educational climate. Other innovators like Catherine Beecher, Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. DuBois, Jose Angel Gutierrez, and the families of the plaintiffs of Brown vs. the Board of Education created reform by providing improved access to educational opportunities for previously marginalized groups of learners. Their contributions have left an indelible mark on the history of education.

In my personal opinion, some educators credited with innovation might be better categorized as what Gatto describes as a “maker” of public education. Gatto describes “makers” as those individuals who influenced society as a whole and created a system valuing “social efficiency.” This efficient system would drive consumerism and consolidate control in the hands of the government and corporations. Although I don’t take quite as sinister a view regarding the motives driving “makers” to reform public education, I do believe that efficiency, order and control were paramount in their reforms. With Gatto’s definition as a basis, some of the innovators mentioned on the PBS site like Horace Mann, Ellwood Cubberley, or E.D. Hirsch might be better described as “makers” than innovators.

Some of the “makers” that Gatto mentions are industrial giants like Carnegie, Rockefeller, Ford and Morgan. Another “maker” that he views as extremely influential in the movement toward standardization is Federick W. Taylor. I had not heard of Taylor before the article, so I decided to do a little research. Taylor was an American industrial engineer credited with creating “scientific management.” According to Gatto, Taylor’s emphasis on discrete task training has lead to a population of learners equipped to perform in only one capacity, constantly in need of corporate training and dependent on authority. Although I fairly sure that Taylor, in his scientific approach, did not intend to create a foundation for propaganda and mind control, Gatto insists that that is where his work has lead.

Although I personally find innovators to be much more inspiring as an educator, I have to admit that both “innovators” and “makers” have their place in shaping educational reform. I think education will probably continue to debate the merits of progress versus standardization for years to come. Already in our class discussions we have had to come to grips with the realities of standards, testing, and accountability. As educators I believe it is our duty to continually emphasize the value of student and teacher autonomy, creativity and inquiry in achieving optimal educational outcomes. We serve as a balance to a system that could easily streamline students into conformity, but we can only counterbalance such powerful forces if we are willing to take a stand and continue to voice our concerns. I, for one, will keep rocking the boat as long as I can!