day 1: 2/14/13, morning after the state of the union
last night i watched the state of the union with my husband, half paying-attention while perusing facebook and pinterest and etsy. when the president started to talk about education, though, my ears perked up. during this past election, i learned that i will never understand everything that 'politics' encompasses, and it's infuriating/overwhelming/depressing/overzealous/proud to even try. what is 'politics' anyway? in november, i came to peace with the truth: that i know next to nothing about foreign policy and warfare anything, that i know a little about social-justice issues, but that throwing the words 'economy' or 'fiscal responsibility' in the mix makes my heart struggle with what i know is right and necessary. but there is one thing that i, while certainly not an expert, can claim as a passion: and that's education. so i listened.
and what i heard was everything i'd heard before, and nothing i believed. that our focus should be math and science: why?! where did this come from?! when did reading and logic and thoughtful dialogue take the back seat to chemical equations and pie charts?! (what would our founding fathers say about this?) i was intrigued by the mandatory-preschool idea, as i promote any early-learning exercise, but the republican on my left shoulder asked: but how will we pay for that? how will we realistically make it happen? is this obama's way to sneak in free childcare? do i even disagree with that? i'd take it! but ohio's looming '3rd grade reading guarantee' promoted similar over-arching and vague verbage, and i don't like it, generally.
and the mention of 21st century skills (another ed vocab word-of-the-day, yay!) is lovely, except that now we have more money tied up in filling out paperwork. i know no-ties federal funding is a bill of rights no-no, but i would LOVE to see money freely given to schools, without ties or red tape. i just think tying up money in these specific, data-dependent 'promises' has not been effective, and takes away the focus from classroom learning, rather than enhancing it.
this morning, i was late to work because i was talking through all of this with my mom. she had lots to say, and i found that she was both agreeing with obama (good kids shouldn't be stuck in bad schools! kids need to be tested on 'basic skills'!) while she was also smugging him for, well, his plan in general. she is a staunch republican. and our conversation was so confusing to me, while, at the same time, enlightening and reflective of what we've been discussing in class: on education, republicans and democrat politicians agree, and it's frustrating to those of us who don't buy into the widely-accepted plan.
day 2: 2/18/13
i finished reading today, and i am so intrigued by this balanced literacy stuff. in three weeks, i am so excited to be able to go to nyc and spend the day at the columbia teachers college reunion weekend, which promotes their workshop curriculum, a curriculum that strongly mimics my own feelings about the way kids learn --- or, self-consciously, let me say this: the way i learn.
i wondered, after reading ravitch this week, do different cultures learn differently? can we talk about that in a sensitive way? i would even go so far to say that i'm beginning to wonder if i believe that urban african-american students and hispanic students should be taught with a curriculum designed by educators in their own cultures. i know we spent a lot of time talking about the deficit model last class, and the overwhelming problem of poverty, and i feel so small and helpless in the face of this problem. (i got a homily i needed at ash wednesday service: lent is not about being sad; it's about being humble. about knowing we cannot solve all of the problems for everyone, that that is not necessarily even our jobs as human beings. those were not defeatist, but rather, healing words for me.) anyway, i have started to think that maybe there is something bigger going on here, and we don't have to write it off as a blame on poverty.
maybe because we're raised differently, we learn differently. shouldn't we all be allowed to learn the way we feel most comfortable? we've used that language a lot with learning disabilities recently, but not with cultural differences. i can't help but think that the reason these certain curriculum work with certain white and asian students is because the curriculum is designed by white and asian educators, who learned and were raised by white and asian parents and teachers.
is this naive of me?
anyway, i am really interested in discovering if there's any link between the beloved columbia tc curriculum (which touts 'rock star' authors and curriculum gurus, and all of us teachers feel a lot like groupies!) and this balanced literacy movement. i am sure there is. the descriptions of each are so similar! and although i love the tc curriculum, i also am very willing to play the devil's advocate: is this working for all students?
at the end of the day, although i have lately been resisting assessment and standards and data and all that comes with it (dragging behind it, chain-to-ball), i do think we need some method of checking to see if a system is working? ah, what is 'working'? i still haven't defined it for myself. but i can tell you that you and i both know the difference between a student who cannot read, and one who can; an essay that is clear and thoughtful, and one that is empty and a paragraph-long. i believe that it isn't fruitless to ask "what is working?" i just don't know yet how to measure it.
do any of us?
No comments:
Post a Comment