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!

Teaching Grammar

As a language teacher the question of the value of teaching grammar has always been a subject of debate in my professional community. I have worked with teachers across the structure spectrum, from top-down, context-based proponents who ask “Why must we put a name on it?” to bottom-up, sentence diagramming gurus who will hold tight to a rule regardless. I must admit that I fall somewhere in the middle. The structure and syntax of language is, undoubtedly, fundamental in improving both written and spoken communications. As the National Council of Teachers of English suggests, we cannot improve our communications, making them more precise and effective, until we identifying and label the components that comprise our language. However, ultimately, the labels we place on these words and structures are much less important than the meaning the conveyed. It’s for this reason that I feel it is so important to teach not only prescriptive, but also descriptive grammar to language students. Students in today’s classrooms need to learn to communicate in both formal and informal registries and the best way to prepare them to do both is to focus on grammar in context.

This year in particular I have recognized, more than ever, a need to teach grammar in context. My students are often able to formulate a perfectly grammatically correct sentence without a clue as to its meaning. They can conjugate a verb in their sleep, but when asked to comprehend written text or choose appropriate vocabulary they are often stumped. I have tried, very intentionally, to change my instructional focus so that students not only understand the structures and formulas that I teach, but also can use the forms in meaningful contexts. I think that inductive presentational approaches tend to lend themselves more to meaningful grammar learning. When students see the language as part of a whole they are more likely to view it as relevant and useful.

Although I’m not yet an ESL teacher, I have also struggled to determine how important the “standard” structures of Spanish are when students are much more likely to encounter the “non-standard” forms of the language. In my Spanish AP class the native speakers joke that, in class, we use “my” Spanish. Although I always insist that it is not, in fact, “my” Spanish, but, instead, “academic” Spanish, I must admit that these comments force me to examine my perceptions of language standards. I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve come across structures that are commonly taught as “standard,” but are rarely used. It begs the question, why teach a rule that is rarely kept in everyday communication? I would imagine that this internal struggle will continue when I begin teaching English to speakers of other languages. How do I best prepare students to communicate with their peers, their teachers and members of their community while simultaneously setting them up for success on college entrance exams and in the academic realm? I am truly hoping that a balanced approach is the best solution.

I also am certain that the context and purpose of the language instruction undertaken will determine the extent to which I incorporate traditional prescriptive grammar rules in my ESL classroom. A “newcomer” to the United States will need to first focus of Basic Interpersonal Communicative Skills and, therefore, concentrate on learning survival phrases that may or may not meet the standards of prescriptive grammar. However, as a student moves into a less restrictive environment and begins to explore academic content in English, they will need to use Cognitive Academic Language Skills that fit the norms of prescriptive grammar. I hope that, with time and practice, I will learn assess a student’s background, learning style, preferences and needs and, then, “prescribe” the right techniques to meet those needs.

Multicultural Education

As technology advances, each day we move closer to interdependency and collaboration between the nations and cultures of the world. Students in our age are able to connect with their peers around the globe in ways unthinkable just a few decades ago. The amount of access available to students seeking information about the way others think and live is unprecedented and the need to understand other cultures has never been greater. Teachers, administrators and other stakeholders are challenged to prepare students for future success in our global economy. In addition, the students in today’s classrooms are more diverse than ever in our history. Students may come from different home and language backgrounds with diverse values and perspectives. These two factors influence, to varying degrees, an educator’s definition of multicultural education.

I think that many educators easily misinterpret multicultural education as simply presenting the products and perspectives of an ethnic or cultural group, as illustrated in Paul Gorki’s account of his experiences in elementary school at Taco Night. Education from this standpoint teaches students little about the viewpoints, values or diversity of another culture and, instead, focuses on the salient products and practices of the culture reinforcing stereotypes and ethnocentrism. Failure to recognize the range of thoughts, beliefs and behaviors that exists within a culture and the diversity that exists within our own classrooms only serves to reinforce the supremacy of our dominant culture. As a teacher of foreign language I find it particularly important to displace stereotypes and prejudices in the minds of my predominately white English-speaking students. I am always amazed at how fiercely students will fight to maintain their viewpoints and how uncomfortable they are with facts or opinions that contradict them. Giving students an opportunity to thoughtfully examine their opinions and even adjust them is a vital part of the process of developing a global citizen. This opportunity for “cognitive dissonance,” described by Gorski as a technique in multicultural teaching, provides an avenue for students to shift their paradigms and rethink their opinions. I personally believe that key to multicultural education are the explicit teaching of critical thinking skills and the presentation of curriculum that represents varied cultural perspectives.

A second factor in defining multicultural education is the diversity of our students. It is the responsibility of every teacher to help students learn in the way they do best. Many factors, such as language, values, beliefs or family dynamics can influence a student’s ability to learn in a given class. In addition, learning preferences may be based in cultural perspectives about education, learning and teacher-student relationships. Not acknowledging these differences is undoubtedly detrimental to students from such backgrounds. Every student has a right to equal opportunity for academic success. All students should be prepared through their education to productively participate in a pluralistic society. As a teacher my greatest challenge in regards to multicultural education has been to protect students from oppression and discrimination by those that are part of the dominant culture. In high school their already exist so much pressure to conform. So many of my students are afraid to express dissenting opinion or share their rich heritage for fear of being misunderstood.

Unfortunately, one drawback to multicultural education is that, although well intentioned, it can often serve to only highlight differences and support stereotyping instead of creating the unity it intended. I think it is important to emphasize both similarities and differences when implementing multicultural curriculum. Allowing students equal opportunity to learn using varied resources from multiple cultural perspectives is so important for today’s students. It is a difficult but vital task. I truly hope to improve year after year as I grow and learn to teach from this perspective.