Starting with that question might be the first step to better
integrating the controversial curriculum that is emerging in our world. However, defining humanity as one thing, and
one thing only, is something we must be careful of as well as the hidden
curriculums (like church, politics, etc.) that might diminish the humanity of
others.
It seems this discussion of humanity connects back to
citizenship; social lessons are just as much a part of the curriculum as the
textbooks we teach, or the standards we follow.
But these social lessons are
something that I know I need, and in ways, have been trying to teach, but they
seem very vague in my own district—it makes me realize that I need to find out
where my own school stands on issues of multicultural learning as well as on
the discussion of LGBT community.
I look at my district and realize that many students are
still surrounded by these restrictive “bubbles,” and the first thing I need to
ask myself is why? I feel many parents
want to protect their children from the harsh lessons of life and protect the
youth and innocence of their teenagers before they are swept away into
adulthood. And in many ways, that is justifiable.
However, sometimes these bubbles are created out of
ignorance. Some of that ignorance is
based on the misunderstandings of culture, sexuality, and so on…
So in order to stop this ignorance, these bubbles must be
broken, or rather expanded in some way—and we could start doing that by the
social lessons we teach in our schools.
When it
comes to our students, we need to help them find a safe
and enlightening
education. We need to help burst the “bubble” that often isolates our students
from the very real world. Life is filled with some hard lessons. Sadly, we only make those lessons harder by
ignoring them and leaving it to “after high school” or “at home” to figure out.
Both of the
overall issues —the idea of multicultural learning as well as the gay community
and culture—are lessons we need to teach. As stated in the reading by.
Thornton, there is something called “ethnic content” and it “should be used to
help students learn that all human beings have common needs and
characteristics, although the way in which these traits are manifested
frequently differ cross-culturally” (362).
The key phrase here is “all human beings”— gay, straight, black, white,
male, female, and so on—all have “common needs and characteristics” and every
one of American’s students deserves respect and support because every child in
our classroom is a human being.
Not to get
side track here, but it burns me to hear the ways people judge and try to deem
one type of humanity as being superior over another, especially when it comes
at the devastating price of a child’s life because there are people who feel
that being gay or being Hispanic is not part of the true human condition.
When it
comes to what we teach, the ultimate lessons need to be focused on ways to
promote student safety and help students see outside of their sometimes overly
remote bubble (I love the idea of lessons of citizenship here).
Thus, enlightenment
is crucial here. After reading about Arizona,
I could help but reflect back on my own school district. I work in a district
that is mostly white, mostly suburban/rural, and mostly Christian. I have noticed that the minorities in our
school are as limited as the curriculum we teach. We read mostly “white European dead guys” and
I am afraid that the bubble my students live in is only exacerbated more by the
“bubbled literature” we are teaching. We
do read books that show some of the racial issues of the past with civil rights,
but we are lacking deeply—what about Native American literature? Or Hispanic? And
the real hot question—what about homosexual writers or issues?
The stereotypes
that we see our students use can only be fixed if we enlighten them, and help
them see there is much more out there, but it needs to start at a younger age
and the lessons need to be fully supported and encouraged in every
classroom. Now, I know, just thinking
about my own school district, that there would be parent outrage, but can those
parents look the school in the eye and say it is okay to let a 13 year old hang
himself because of our currently limited curriculum?
It proves that the only way to
break these bubbles (especially, if the parents won’t) is for the schools to...because with enlightenment
hopefully we can create a safer school
environment. Resources: So I went more in the direction of good resources we could use to teach some of this controversial curriculum and I just taught this very intense, but very awe-inspiring slam poem called "To This Day," to my English IV students. The poem deals with some tough issues with bullying:
I also added the name of an author that could help us break away from that "bubble literature" and move towards more multicultural learning. His name is Sherman Alexie and I love his writing as short mentor text lessons. I have only shared his work with my creative writing students, but I think every student should read him at least once before leaving high school. Sherman Alexie Biography
It appears
that the system of education is a mixed bag and brings up my earlier observations
about finding a healthy balance between the past educational systems and the
present and even future methods of teaching.
To completely dismiss and call our old educational system as poor,
ill-managed, or completely outdated is an extreme claim. Yes, it has outdated features, and yes, it
has qualities and methods that are serving a generation that is no longer in
today’s 21st century classroom, but there are some ways we were
taught in the past that are still worth incorporating into our own classrooms today.
Still, one
of the most critical arguments about education is how do we structure our time
and the actual “look” of the school year, and especially the school day?
Is the block schedule of one core class every
90 minutes the best?
Or is it a
more liberal schedule with a mixture of all the cores together?
Ultimately,
there is no easy answer to those questions, but there needs to be more research
and experimentation to find out.
Alternative methods of schooling like apprenticeship-style teaching
could be the answer, but it feels like there are very few schools out there
trying it. For me, it is still a
question of quality over quantity.
Right now, I worry most schools
are feeling the pressure of quantity and that is overshadowing any chance of
change. But it is still important to
remember that change doesn’t mean changing everything about education,
sometimes a small focused change can make all the difference.
After
reviewing this past week’s themes, I can’t help but think about my favorite
hobby—scrapbooking. Now, it is true that
as soon as I get done typing this post, I will be going to my first scrapbook
retreat of the year, so I my mind is a little preoccupied, but the readings
connect. I swear.
After
reading through Eisner’s article, he mentioned the way our schools are scheduled
and I instantly thought about my district’s 81 minute, one semester
blocks. Eisner brilliantly noted that the
time table most schools employ has created an unintentional lesson and has
taught some of our “students not to get too involved in what they do because to
become too involved is to court frustration when time runs out” (95). I completely agree and see it in my own
classrooms.
In a way it
is ironic: Here we are complaining about how our students can’t focus for a
long duration of time, and yet in a way, we are to blame because we are
shuffling students from class to class on a very strict time table.
And this really
does connect to my love of scrap-booking.
I only scrapbook when I know I will have the time to work on it. It is not worth my energy to get started on a
scrapbook page if I know I will only have 30 minutes to do it, and do it well. Now granted, this is a hobby, and there are
some vital differences between school curriculum and my sticker obsession, but
I can really see this conflict with my own students. I want them to workshop on papers in class,
but by the time we go over the notes, and get students on computers, I can
always see a group of them stop working and they will often tell me, “I only
have 15 minutes left, so why bother?”
Now I know this
is a teachable moment, and I do see the value in the time frames we are giving
students and how it can teach punctuality, but this week’s readings make me
think about the quality vs. quantity of learning our students get within
our current education system.
In the
videos by Mulgan and Mitra, we saw new different explorations of school
structure, and it makes wonder instead of rushing through all of these required
classes everyday for 81 minutes and moving them onto a new semester and even
more classes, what if we slowed down, got more specific, and ask students to take
the time to really hone in on something and do it well?
I know I
can craft beautiful scrapbook pages when I have the time to sit down and do it,
and I have gotten a lot better since I first started, and that was mostly due
to the collaboration of other scrappers like myself. Is there a way we can do the same for our
students? It’s a huge, complex question, but it does make me wonder… 10/7/13: So I completely forgot to add my extra resource on this issue--so here it is! I found the NEA's take on the block schedule and enjoyed reading the pro/cons especially being a teacher who works on a block schedule already. I also liked reading about the trimester plan and have never seen that schedule before. I am curious what schedule teachers prefer the most or what schedule the majority of our schools use to date. Block Schedule
