GLIT2728

Presentation:

We Are Racist

View more presentations from TCDSB.

As I listened to Alan Luke speak, what really resonated with me was the notion that critical literacy is really about social justice. It is about teaching our students to be “constructive sceptics”; to challenge authority and the status quo, to be informed decision-makers, to articulate or reject ideas, and to constantly be engaged in inquiry and discovery. In essence, we want to empower our students and instil in them a desire to be life-long learners. I believe this is the only way we are going to engage or re-engage our students in our classrooms because too many of them, unfortunately, see learning as a means to an end; an end that is often dictated by a teacher or a textbook/resource; someone or something they see as the ultimate authority and therefore, cannot and should not be challenged. Students will not challenge unless they are taught to challenge and unless they are in a learning environment where it is acceptable and encouraged to do so. As teachers, we need to create those places for our students and more importantly, we need to model this and teach by example. In order for this to happen, however, we also need to feel empowered. As Frank Smith states in his article, Overselling Literacy, “Of course, there is no way that students will be empowered until teachers themselves are empowered, and this will not happen until teachers are autonomous in their classrooms.” I completely agree with Frank Smith. In my work with teachers, I often hear their frustrations about a system that is constantly deciding what is best for them and their students without ever consulting them in the process. They want to be part of the decision-making and they want to be more autonomous. What I’m frustrated about, however, are the many contradictions to this argument that I encounter on a daily basis. Many teachers (often the same teachers who are lamenting about feeling powerless) are asking for prescribed programs and resources to teach literacy. Sometimes teachers are the authors of their own misfortunes. We can’t have it both ways. I think it comes down to this: we either choose to create opportunities for our students to engage in authentic and relevant reading and writing tasks or we rely on prescribed texts or programs to teach reading and writing skills. I believe the latter has its place in our classrooms, but if that is all we are doing then learning will never cease to be anything other than a means to an end for our students. If we want to empower students then we must empower ourselves and trust in our own abilities to do what is best for them. We must lead by example. “When students of any age see teachers striving to understand and control the situation in their own classrooms, through reading, writing, reflection, discussion, and action, then the power of literacy will indeed be revealed and developed.” (Frank Smith, Overselling Literacy)

Good pedagogy is teaching that is tailored to the individual needs, interests, and learning styles of all students. Currently, the big buzz term for this is Differentiated Instruction. I believe that differentiated instruction is not just about meeting students’ intellectual needs. It is also about addressing their physical, emotional, socio-cultural and spiritual needs as well. This is a very learner-centered approach. It implies that we, as teachers, are not just transmitters of information, but also active participants in the learning process with our students. In turn, students become active participants in their own learning. It places more emphasis on who we teach rather than on what we teach and what we teach also needs to have relevance for our students. If we want them to succeed then we must create an environment where they feel validated and empowered. In my opinion, the way to do this is to give students a voice. We need to relinquish some of our control in the classroom and to stop being the ‘sage on stage’ all the time. We must abandon the transmission view of teaching that still exists in too many of our classrooms and adopt a more critical pedagogy. I like Paolo Freire’s thinking, “Whatever children say becomes the text.” I recently heard David Booth speak and he echoed this sentiment. In his book, Whatever Happened to Language Arts, he suggests that “the children are the text and all other resources are the enrichment.” He goes on to say that “when children are the text, their norms emerge.” What a great way to learn! Begin where the children are and where they come from. This is how we build meaningful relationships with our students; relationships based on trust and hope. My daughter recently shared with me her frustration with her Grade 11 Biology course. She said that in most of the classes the teacher stood at the front of the classroom with an overhead projector. As she lectured, she wrote notes on the overhead and the students spent the entire class copying those notes. There was no inquiry. There was no discovery. There was no talking. There was only copying. To make a long story short, when I spoke to the teacher about my daughter’s struggles in her course, her response was that this was a Grade 11 University Course and how it was taught was determined by the curriculum and the members of the Science department (notice she didn’t say determined ‘by the students’ needs’). Her only justification for teaching in this manner was that she was preparing students for university. In the end, she suggested that perhaps my daughter would be more successful in the college level course. Unfortunately, this way of thinking still plagues too many of our classrooms. Dr. Rick Stiggins said, “We need to be merchants of hope for our students.” Let’s face it. If we believe in them, then they will believe in themselves. It’s so simple, isn’t it?

Excellence in Education

I recently saw a video clip that featured Dr. Asa Hillard, a former professor at Georgia State University. He was speaking about a course that he taught to graduate students entitled, Excellence in Urban Education. The course looked at excellence that has already been achieved- the focus being on what has worked and continues to work and learning from it instead of being “preoccupied with excuses that pretend to explain why the traditionally low performing are unable to reach excellence.” Most of us may be well-intentioned, but we do make a lot of excuses when students are not achieving. In our defence, however, we are not always aware of the issues surrounding the problem. We may understand them on a surface level only. How then can we find a solution for helping our underachieving students if we do not really understand why they are underachieving in the first place? As Finn states in his book, Literacy with an Attitude, “Savage inequalities persist because a lot of well-meaning people are doing the best they can, but they simply do not understand the mechanisms that stack the cards against so many children.” (Pg. 94) I believe accepting the notion of “doing the best we can” is simply not good enough anymore. The questions we should be asking ourselves everyday are, “How do we help students acquire powerful literacy so that they can reach excellence?” and “How do we help them help themselves?” As Finn states in his final chapter, “In order for there to be significant progress, those ultimately injured by the problem, the working class themselves, must take a hand.” (Pg. 196). This reminds me of the proverb, “If you give a man a fish, he can eat for a day. If you teach a man to fish, he can eat for a lifetime.” Let’s stop just imparting knowledge and curriculum to our students and teach them in a way that will help them progress to the powerful literacy they require to become life-long learners. Let’s make learning authentic and relevant to their lives so they don’t see it as just a means to an end. I believe this is what will empower students to eventually help themselves and others in their communities. So how are we supposed do this? Firstly, we have to begin by recognizing and understanding the problem. When we understand it, then we need to ensure that our students understand it as well. For example, most people in the working classes often use ‘implicit language’ when communicating with others in their communities. The language of our schools, however, is typically ‘explicit’ and therefore puts the working class students at a great disadvantage. Knowing this is very important for us as educators because we can better understand why students struggle with the discourse in our schools. School discourse is something, I think, we all take for granted. As Finn discovered, “The teachers began to realize that they had been expecting school discourse; they were not teaching it.” (Pg. 149) We need to teach it explicitly so that we can put the working class students on an even playing field with the others who have already been exposed to explicit language and school discourse before entering school. Secondly, we have to be open to the possibility that things can change no matter how bleak the situation appears. Positive thinking breeds positive results. Hard work and collaborative planning helps as well, so does learning from those who have already been successful and trying it out in our classrooms. Let’s stop reinventing the wheel and start working smarter. Finally, we don’t give up until our students achieve excellence. Does this seem idealistic? Perhaps it does, but isn’t it always better to work towards the ideal? Aren’t our students worth it? This reminds me of something I think about every time we discuss graduation rates at our Student Success meetings. The Ministry of Education has set a target graduation rate in Ontario of 85% by the year 2010. Many teachers often lament that this is much too lofty a target. I, on the other hand, can’t help but think of the 15% who will not be successful. What about them? We constantly talk about “success for all”, but do we really mean it? Are we going to practice what we preach or are we just going to continue to be satisfied with ‘doing our best’? I recently heard Sir Michael Barber, Partner McKinsey & Company, speak about our moral purpose as it pertains to Literacy and Numeracy education. He believes that knowledge on its own is not power. In his words, “Power is knowledge combined with the capacity to think combined with the confidence to intervene at the moment when it makes a difference.” That is the powerful literacy we want for our students. Are we, as teachers, up for this challenge? Do we have the confidence to intervene at the moment it makes a difference? I will continue to be optimistic and believe that we do. Let’s begin by discarding every excuse ever presented and just get down to the business of ensuring excellence in education for all students! That is our moral purpose as educators.

Nadia's Blog

Where I’m From…

I’m from Mr. Muggs and Dr. Seuss.
I learned to read and wanted a dog of my own.
Red fish, blue fish, old fish, new fish
My parents didn’t want a dog so I got a goldfish instead.

I’m from ordered, balanced and structured. I’m from “Eat your vegetables and do well in school so you can get a good job.” I’m from “Always be home in time for dinner and don’t stay out too late.” I’m from “Never buy anything unless you have the cash to pay for it.”

I’m from always living vicariously through my books.
I’m from Little Red Riding Hood and Goldilocks so independent and adventurous.
I’m from Snow White and Cinderella being rescued by a handsome prince.
I’m from Nancy Drew travelling the world and solving mysteries.
I’m from Romeo and Juliet and their forbidden and rebellious relationship.
I’m from wherever my books would take me.

NADIA'S BLOG

Reflection:

I recently came across a quote by German writer, Goethe, that really resonated with me as I pondered the readings in this section. He said, “If you treat an individual as he is, he will remain as he is. But if you treat him as if he were what he ought to be and could be, he will become what he ought to be and could be.” As I read this quote, it also reminded me of something I heard at a recent Student Success workshop about a record-setting paralympic high jumper from the 1970s named Arnold Boldt. The extraordinary thing about Arnold was that he only had one leg and still, he became a world champion high jumper. After listening to Arnold’s story, the presenter asked the teachers the following question, “If you had been one of Arnold’s teachers when he was in elementary or high school, would you have considered high jumping as a possibility for him?” What a thought-provoking question! On an intellectual level, I believe we know that we should never underestimate what our students are capable of. Unfortunately, however, this isn’t always our reality. Teachers, quite often, get bogged down by excuses for why students are not achieving as they should be. For example, it is easier to accept that poverty causes low achievement than to take time to dig deeper to discover the real causes and then work towards a solution. Let’s face it. Sometimes, as educators, we’re just not looking in the right places for the answers. I have to admit that I was quite interested in, but not surprised by, Jean Anyon’s findings in her study of fifth grade classes as outlined in chapter 2 of the book, Literacy with an Attitude, written by Patrick J. Finn , which demonstrated that being in school was a very different experience for children depending on their ‘station’ in life. In short, Anyon discovered that students from the working class schools were clearly at a disadvantage because expectations for these students were generally lower. As she concludes, “I’d like to hope that a child’s expectations are not determined on the day she or he enters kindergarten, but it would be foolish to entertain such a hope unless there are some drastic changes made.” (p.25) I agree. Drastic changes indeed! Lately, I have been doing a great deal of work with the Teaching Learning Critical Pathway (TLCP). The TLCP is based on the premise that all students can succeed and that teacher instruction is the greatest influence and indicator of student achievement. In a recent discussion during a moderated marking session, some frustrated teachers commented that they didn’t believe that any of this work was really going to make a difference to students. They argued that not all students are meant to be Level 3 or 4 nor should they be. They continued to say that the world doesn’t work that way. Not all students are meant to be doctors, lawyers, astronauts, etc. and that we also need Level 1 and 2 students to keep everything balanced. Unfortunately, this was not the only time I have heard this argument. What was my response to this? Firstly, I continue to believe that all teachers are well-intentioned and that we are all on different places on the professional learning continuum. Secondly, we should not be assigning levels to students. We assign levels to students’ work. In this way, levels should never remain static and it is incumbent upon teachers, through effective instruction and feedback, to give students an opportunity to broaden their learning and help improve their results. Finally, I remembered a quote by John F. Kennedy that I believe captures the essence of what we are meant to do as educators. “All of us do not have equal talent, but all of us should have equal opportunity to develop our talents.” Whether students are in schools of the executive elite, the affluent professionals, the middle class, or the working class, as identified by Jean Anyon in her study, expectations for learning and achievement should be the same. I believe we still have a lot of work to do.