Sunday, October 26, 2003
Burning Matters, a parable.
Once upon a time, books mattered. People--and especially students--sat in school--and read books. Sometimes they even read at home before bed and enjoyed it. They just sat and read or lay down and listened to the magic of books. Nobody had to force them to listen; no one said they had to listen; they just did. And they learned to read whatever the reason. But that was the past, some 25 years ago.
Now upon a time is different. Students do not read books: in fact, they burn books. In schools, teachers are banned from using books. In fact they are the leaders of the book burnings. They must burn in order to keep their teaching licenses and permanent status at their jobs.
Perhaps it all started with teachers, and in particular English teachers; maybe around teh time they started to call themselves ' language arts teachers.' That did it. They could not agree on which stories and novels should be in the 'core' curriculum. They argued about reading comprehension, about which text taught inferences or higher thinking skills, or which company book taught more about morals than plot. The logical result of all this was that all books became controversial; the parents might complain; the student might feel left out--and of course, where were teh facts in stories, and who could dare call into question, the scientific method; and how could stories, mere opinions, help students on district and state tests?
Students need to be better test takers. And forget words. The tests are abot choosing pictures, or they watch video clips in the test of choices and decide which is the best commericial.
Once upon a time, books mattered. People--and especially students--sat in school--and read books. Sometimes they even read at home before bed and enjoyed it. They just sat and read or lay down and listened to the magic of books. Nobody had to force them to listen; no one said they had to listen; they just did. And they learned to read whatever the reason. But that was the past, some 25 years ago.
Now upon a time is different. Students do not read books: in fact, they burn books. In schools, teachers are banned from using books. In fact they are the leaders of the book burnings. They must burn in order to keep their teaching licenses and permanent status at their jobs.
Perhaps it all started with teachers, and in particular English teachers; maybe around teh time they started to call themselves ' language arts teachers.' That did it. They could not agree on which stories and novels should be in the 'core' curriculum. They argued about reading comprehension, about which text taught inferences or higher thinking skills, or which company book taught more about morals than plot. The logical result of all this was that all books became controversial; the parents might complain; the student might feel left out--and of course, where were teh facts in stories, and who could dare call into question, the scientific method; and how could stories, mere opinions, help students on district and state tests?
Students need to be better test takers. And forget words. The tests are abot choosing pictures, or they watch video clips in the test of choices and decide which is the best commericial.
Monday, October 20, 2003
If I ever win the lottery--and that is a big if since I only remember playing when the 10 state lotto was worth 240 million--of all the colleges I have attended, I would probably give money to the humble but great school called EMU. Why, you ask? The teachers.
From Prof Eiss who teaches childrens lit and loves to talk about the fountain of youth; to Prof. Arrington who makes the best critiques of prof articles I have ever seen; to Prof. Krause who has the patience to show teachers how to use tech and has great stories; to Prof. Cassidy who convinced me that men and women do not write the same way; and to the Bear, who had a great effect on my views about rhetoric, and always had great stories to tell about Nam or the rez from Oates to Silko, an incredible speaker, a man who knows something about balance; even to the poor prof who had to read my draft proposals, half baked crap, poor Adler-Kasler.
Such is my beratement of public university--definitely down the tubes!!!! Thank you all.
From Prof Eiss who teaches childrens lit and loves to talk about the fountain of youth; to Prof. Arrington who makes the best critiques of prof articles I have ever seen; to Prof. Krause who has the patience to show teachers how to use tech and has great stories; to Prof. Cassidy who convinced me that men and women do not write the same way; and to the Bear, who had a great effect on my views about rhetoric, and always had great stories to tell about Nam or the rez from Oates to Silko, an incredible speaker, a man who knows something about balance; even to the poor prof who had to read my draft proposals, half baked crap, poor Adler-Kasler.
Such is my beratement of public university--definitely down the tubes!!!! Thank you all.
Sunday, October 19, 2003
Tonight, in the tradition of the lazy public school teacher, I was adding up the grades and correcting papers, on a Sunday. I was surprised how low some of the grades were, despite my ability to add in extra points and give extra credit. Are some students not taking me seriously? We will see when grades come out.
There has been much written about "reaching the students" even in the 50s by Bel Kaufman in Up the Down Staircase. Yes, teachers must establish relationships with the students. But what I am seeing is basically one way: that is, the students demand that the teacher pay attention to the student; give the answers; do everything necessary for the student to "pass." That is passing gas as far as I'm concerned.
Fine, if there is a relationship between the students and the teacher: that works both ways. The students must also be interested in what the teacher is trying to teach. Remember the standards: if the student does not meet the standard, you must reteach it--and of course the disinterested student can fail again if need be.
There has been much written about "reaching the students" even in the 50s by Bel Kaufman in Up the Down Staircase. Yes, teachers must establish relationships with the students. But what I am seeing is basically one way: that is, the students demand that the teacher pay attention to the student; give the answers; do everything necessary for the student to "pass." That is passing gas as far as I'm concerned.
Fine, if there is a relationship between the students and the teacher: that works both ways. The students must also be interested in what the teacher is trying to teach. Remember the standards: if the student does not meet the standard, you must reteach it--and of course the disinterested student can fail again if need be.
Saturday, October 18, 2003
How much of what we do is rhetoric??? Our subject is important when we are persuasive and form routines and traditions almost that show we take our trade seriously--and public school is a trade.
We are supposed to be sensitive to the affective domain, but if we focus too much on the students the class becomes about their endless complaints rather than on inspiring traditions which the class uses as a point of reference.
Well. Maybe so. But teaching is so bizarre and has such mixed results--how is circus counted in the circus?--that it is impossible to reflect only on the positive. Yes, reflection in this field is painful and is a little like being in a paint ball zone. If you reflect too much, you won't make it a minute in the game. Yet, one must reflect to make improvements--and to figure out what just happened. We need to rationalize what happened; the public needs to know what it is really like in public school; and so does the administration. To use the denial cliche, there is too much of it by all. It is not necessarily hypocrisy, but pitiful. And one could say, it is pitiful for me to be writing this on a Saturday night.
I am still missing something here. Let me reflect overnight and try to explain myself better tomorrow. But a few thoughts are in order: few want to be in the classroom, that goes for teachers and administrators. For all the rhetoric about how great it is to teach, the facts speak to the contrary. No, people really do not want to teach in public high school. Second, we pretend to have standards, but we are not sure when they are too high for the students, so as to be unattainable.
Let me try to explain tomorrow.
We are supposed to be sensitive to the affective domain, but if we focus too much on the students the class becomes about their endless complaints rather than on inspiring traditions which the class uses as a point of reference.
Well. Maybe so. But teaching is so bizarre and has such mixed results--how is circus counted in the circus?--that it is impossible to reflect only on the positive. Yes, reflection in this field is painful and is a little like being in a paint ball zone. If you reflect too much, you won't make it a minute in the game. Yet, one must reflect to make improvements--and to figure out what just happened. We need to rationalize what happened; the public needs to know what it is really like in public school; and so does the administration. To use the denial cliche, there is too much of it by all. It is not necessarily hypocrisy, but pitiful. And one could say, it is pitiful for me to be writing this on a Saturday night.
I am still missing something here. Let me reflect overnight and try to explain myself better tomorrow. But a few thoughts are in order: few want to be in the classroom, that goes for teachers and administrators. For all the rhetoric about how great it is to teach, the facts speak to the contrary. No, people really do not want to teach in public high school. Second, we pretend to have standards, but we are not sure when they are too high for the students, so as to be unattainable.
Let me try to explain tomorrow.
Thursday, October 16, 2003
Today, we are reading Thoreau's On Civil Disobedience. The students, so far, are totally uninspired about politics. Much has been said about this generation, Xtreme-degeneration X or whatever you want to call it, and many wrinkle ranchers in this community wonder about the future leaders of America. The vaccuum is wide open for any boot licking Weberian sap.
To briefly take the students' side against Thoreau, well, he is difficult reading with all his cutesy paradoxes. Besides, why should students care about politics or Thoreau when their home life sucks?
To briefly take the students' side against Thoreau, well, he is difficult reading with all his cutesy paradoxes. Besides, why should students care about politics or Thoreau when their home life sucks?
Wednesday, October 15, 2003
Let me say this: although I have worked in four different public high schools in fourteen years, I was not educated in one. This fact makes it hard for me to accept problems in public school that I know could be prevented--if the school had the WILL.
So, finding students in my classes who do not care about learning, or who want to disrupt the learning environment for everyone else and prevent them from learning, since learning is difficult or a demon, is an apostasy for me.
And the interruptions. Announcements, people coming in and out, counselor calls, asst principal calls, students leaving to go to lunch and shopping with granny--all this adds to an atmosphere of disruption, and therefore plants the seeds for further occasions for disruption.
So, finding students in my classes who do not care about learning, or who want to disrupt the learning environment for everyone else and prevent them from learning, since learning is difficult or a demon, is an apostasy for me.
And the interruptions. Announcements, people coming in and out, counselor calls, asst principal calls, students leaving to go to lunch and shopping with granny--all this adds to an atmosphere of disruption, and therefore plants the seeds for further occasions for disruption.
What are some of the biggest problems in teaching high school English in public school? First, and probably always, discipline. Schools do not--in general--create a climate of limits: even if they have rules, they usually go unenforced. Discipline becomes the teacher's problem.
