Linear

Principals tend to be threatened by things they don't understand or can't control because they're more dependent upon the person, not a system.

Chapter 12: Teaching, Gender, and Curriculum by Sara Freedman

I am, by nature, a linear thinker. My thoughts flow from left to right, from cause to effect, from manipulating variables to measuring outcomes. This means that I was, by nature, appreciated by my former principal, also a linear thinker. I observed some of the other teachers and judged them to be disorganized, too 'big-picture,' and failing the students for not teaching specific skills.

And I've recently realized that I was very wrong.

Lately, my opinion has been changing to believe that linear thinking has little to no place in the classroom. People are not linear. You cannot simply change one variable in two different classrooms and expect it to have the same effect. There's a lot more to it than that, but I'm going to focus more on the results of this realization. Although I'm very glad that I have a new way to think about teaching, one that is much more open, idealistic, and hopeful, I'm feeling pretty bad about what went on when I was teaching. 

For one thing, the focus of my classroom was on the mastery of skills. During my first year of teaching, I had absolutely no idea what I was doing, and so the students and I read things and talked about them, and then we wrote things and talked about them. We enjoyed each others' company in our discussions. We had fun, and we laughed. During the next three years, my classroom was focused on skill mastery. I attempted to get teaching down to a science -- if I plan out every step, determine exactly how everything will be scaffolded, and know precisely how I will measure it (over and over again), then I will be a good teacher. Don't get me wrong, in some ways, I still think those ideas are solid--but I don't think that they should be the basis for curriculum. Teaching is not a science, it's an art, and it's informed by human interaction, not numbers. 

If I went back into the classroom today and had to choose what type of teacher I would be, I would be the teacher I was during my first year. I was confused and my grades were a "cloud of mystery" (to borrow Pete's phrase), but I think that my students developed a stronger love of reading and writing than they did in my subsequent years. Of course, I have no data to back that up -- and I wouldn't want any because it would be in direct opposition to everything I'm saying here.

Culturally Relevant Education

I've been thinking a million things I want to write about lately, but haven't found the time. Four classes = approx. 500 pages of reading per week = a slow and painful death.

Today in my evaluation class we briefly looked at a curriculum that is being developed for schools in Hawai'i and Kaua'i. It's designed as a culturally relevant science/Language Arts/art curriculum (and it seemed to have social-emotional standards to me as well) for 4th grade students. One of our professors (it's a co-taught course) is going to part of the team that evaluates this curriculum. From what I understand, it is being piloted in a super elite school: it's private, they spend about $39,000 per year per pupil (the Illinois average is about $10,000), and students must have a Hawaiian blood lineage prior to Hawaii becoming a US state. The program was designed for several purposes, one of which being that the native Hawaiian language(s?) is being used less and less; they fear that when the current generation of elders die out, the language (and, therefore, a large component of the culture) will die with them.

The curriculum consists of videos and accompanying graphic novels of a traditional Hawaiian story. There are also other books that (I believe) delve deeper into the science content (we did not get to view these materials). We watched the video of one of the stories: Menehune and the birds. Here's a very brief synopsis:

The Menehune people are small and can build things very fast; they are never seen. They have a close relationship with the forest and the birds. They pluck feathers from the birds to use in clothing and decorations, but they never pluck more than a few at a time, so the birds can still fly happily and produce more feathers. One day, men come from another tribe, kill many of the birds, and take all their feathers. The Menehune warriors (all men) find them, become invisible with the assistances of some leaves, beat them up mercilessly, and only spare their lives because they promise to make amends and restore the balance of the forest.

There are some great social lessons in this piece, as well as some that I winced at (gender norms, extreme violence). I got stuck on a few things as I considered the curriculum...

• I've been thinking about teacher and student cultures in one of my other classes as well, and I debated this a lot when I was teaching at Rudy: is it possible to successfully create and implement a culturally relevant curriculum when you (the teacher) are of a different culture than your students? If it is possible, it must take a LOT of work and learning and years immersing yourself in the culture. If it's not possible, did I do a disservice to my students simply by the fact of being their teacher? And what are the implications for my future jobs -- should I just apply to schools in the area where I grew up? Even there, the schools are diverse and I don't know all the cultures that the students bring. I know that sensitivity and openness to all are givens, but I would really love to be able to create a classroom where students can learn and demonstrate their understandings in their cultural style. (I could write forever about this, but I'm cutting myself off for now.)

• How can we (fairly) decide whose culture gets taught in the classroom? Our state standards have already decided this for us, but it's a singular culture that not all students relate to. In the video, the story that was told is a well-known one of Hawaiian culture -- similar to our folk tales (except it's real) or Bible stories. I was thinking about teaching at Rudy and talking to students about several Latino stories -- in particular, ghosts. It seemed like ghosts, and believing in them and their power in your life, were part of Latino culture. (You could say that a lot of people believe in ghosts, but they seem to have a more definite, stronger presence among the Latino students that I talked to.) However, if a student asked a science teacher to discuss the science behind ghosts, the teacher would probably say that there is none, and ghosts don't exist. Our bodies rot in the ground when we die. (At least, if they were speaking strictly according to the standards, they would say that.) We don't leave room for the truths of other cultures to mingle with Western truths, and we simply label them myths or falsehoods. For students who are connected to their cultures, this must create an awful tension -- which truth do I believe? It's funny, because if this argument were framed around Creationism vs. Evolution, I would probably not be quite so tolerant with older students...but really, what's the difference? They're all different truths, and are all reality to different people. How can we, as teachers, decide that we all need to stick to one truth?

evaluation of educational programs class

DANG! This one seems awesome. It has a good mix of Master's and Ph D students, and the coteaching professors have a nice balance. One has an evaluation background and the other has a curriculum background -- hopefully the curriculum prof will keep it grounded in practical application. But they both seem awesome, and the class has a good vibe -- very informal, yet very focused on the course content. The back-and-forth between the professors is complementary -- I would love to coteach someday with someone and pull it off like they do.

And we practiced by evaluating chocolate chip cookies! The way to win students over is definitely delicious food that pertains to the content :)

Notable moments from the class:

• It seems like several people have had experience with scripted curriculum. I always knew that these existed and was horrified by them, but I was disgusted anew today. If it came down between not having a teaching gig at all and working at a school with a scripted curriculum, I would probably rather be unemployed.
• I'm interested in evaluating higher education programs for preservice teachers, as I would eventually like to teach undergrad preservice teachers. At the same time, I dislike the notion of merit pay or judging teachers solely on their students' performance. I didn't realize (until this class) that evaluating higher ed programs for preservice teachers could possibly be doing just that -- judging the teacher on the student's performance. Hmm. I will have to think critically and carefully about what goes in to the preservice teacher program evaluations, and the purpose of them -- would my evaluation lead to improving the programs? Would it simply judge them? Would it unfairly judge the professors?
• This last part can't be explored in one post, or even in one lifetime: What is the purpose of schooling? (similar to the ideas I began exploring in my "what is a graduate education?" post, but this is the historical perspective)
• Initially (and still in many institutions today), it was the "Old Humanist" perspective. Education is in place to teach traditional academics. This probably falls in line most closely with the banking method of teaching -- you are an empty mind who has come to me, the all-knowing teacher, to be filled with knowledge.
• Then it moved to the social efficiency model, which had economic connections. You should be educated so that you can best perform your job. The professors didn't mention when this idea was popular, but I'm betting that it was around the time cars were invented and Ford's assembly-line model became popularized. You are educated just enough to be economically valuable, and (I'm hypothesizing), you are taught how to be a good member of society: how to shut up, sit down, and not think independently.
• Next was the developmentalist, "child centered" focus. I didn't quite catch this -- I think it means to educate the student according to their level of development. 
• And the social Meliorist/social reconstructionist view: schools should be focused on the betterment of society. Apparently this was popular until the 1930s, and then was viewed as socialist and quickly became very unpopular.

I feel that, today, many of the professional development resources I've encountered push for the social efficiency model, and I never really thought much about their motives. (I would consider my teaching style somewhere between the social efficiency and social Meliorist models.) All of the PD that pushes for "21st century skills" is all about the social efficiency: how will these students need to behave in the workplace, and how can we best prepare them for it? Teamwork, collaboration, technology skills, ability to adapt to new technologies, creativity, ingenuity -- these are all highly praised by the "21st century skills" PD people. And it's making me realize that I've never attended a corporate professional development workshop on how to create a classroom of students who will help the world become a better place.

Luckily, the school that I taught at WAS focused on the importance of the social Meliorist model (although we never use those terms), and we had a few PD sessions done by external and internal people on how our curricula can improve society. Go us!