I think the first chapter of Ayers was undeniable linked to everything we have talked about this month. By reading about oppression and social justice, we have been preparing ourselves to teach for freedom in RPS. For my book-report assignment, I read Kozol’s Shame of a Nation, which outlined in excruciating detail the injustices perpetrated on urban school students. In some instances, those school systems are handcuffing urban students by limiting their ability to hope and have fun in school. As Ayers articulated, schools can act as act either unjustly or benevolently, depending upon the ideals behind that school system. Reading Ayers was valuable for me because I saw it as a condensed version of everything we have talked about -- as teachers with perspective and drive, we can make an enormous impact in our student’s lives.
I've enjoyed reading Ayers so far and think it is very much connected to much of what we've been discussing throughout this course. Ayers' point of view reminds me a lot of Labaree's position on education in regard to democratic equality. Last class I brought up the point that some people seem to believe that the only way to run a classroom effectively is by ruling with an iron fist and instilling strict discipline. While I agree that its important to establish and communicate rules and expectations, and to hold students accountable for making a respectful and valuable contribution to the class, I do not agree that the way to do this is with a totalitarian approach. I see education and learning as being an interactive process involving dialogue and engagement, of which can not exist in an autocracy. I do look forward to reading the rest of Teaching Toward Freedom, and am curious to learn in what ways I might apply the principals of democratic quality in my own classroom.
"Schools do not exist outside of history or culture, of course; they are, rather, at the heart of each -- schools serve societies; societies shape schools. School is both mirror and window -- it shows us what we value and what we ignore, what is precious and what is venial. Our schools belong to us, they tell us who we are and who we want to be." -pg. 8
I feel like the above quote is our class in a nutshell. Of course there are parts of our class that is not included, but all in all that quote is a description of the major points that I will walk away from this class with at the end of the week.
Our schools and society are so intertwined that it is nearly impossible to assess one without the other. The state of schools is no more to blame for the state of society than the state of society is to blame for the state of schools. As future teachers, we need to engage ourselves in the community that serves our schools so that we can work to improve both jointly. I say this with the understanding that the majority of our work will and should be in the classroom, but with the hope that none of us limit our ability to help make change to the academic world.
A pre-blog thought written before I hit "publish": I agree with a great amount of what Ayers says in the first chapter, even the point that I'm about to disagree with. The activities of Bennett and his ilk disturb me greatly. As most of us do, I imagine, I still hold a lot of faith in the public schools, as see them as an absolutely necessary ingredient for democracy and functioning society. And now . . .
It might be that I'm feeling especially contrary tonight (or perhaps the drinks I had with Charles and Ryan), but there is much about the first chapter of Ayers that I can't get behind. I'm not sure why there are only two options - humanizing or dehumanizing - or why a teacher choosing the topics that students should learn qualifies as dehumanizing.
Specifically in regards to the idea of "classroom as slave galley," I find this to be a reductive notion. Yes, I see the immense value in including the students in the process of learning, building their metacognitive skills and also furthering their investments in their own learning.
However, and not to be too blunt about it, but middle and high school students don't really know anything, specifically about the subjects that we're lining up to teach them. If, as an Earth Science teacher, I don't set a course to cover the various items that the state says are important, combined with those facts and processes that I find personally interesting and worthwhile, who exactly will? If I were to poll my students at the beginning of the semester as to what we should learn, would plate tectonics come up? Probably not, and yet it's a fundamental part of Earth Science.
I realizing I'm painting an incredibly black and white portrait of this one point upon which I've chosen to harp, but it seems to me that Ayers does as well. I mean, I just don't believe that a teacher deciding unilaterally what to teach in class somehow equates to indoctrinating future fascists or, more likely, lower class worker ants.
I agree wholeheartedly that we should not be in the business of wiping any sign of culture or individuality from students. I also agree that we should find ways within the constraints of our lessons to include students in the process and take mind of their opinions and wants. And I further agree that we will need to be flexible in terms of hard and fast rules. I believe that maintaining reason is more important than following the letter of every law, indeed. But, I do see the relationship between teacher and student, especially the public school teacher who is bound to whatever curriculum the state deems necessary, as more than just a buddy-buddy friendship where we'll decide each step of the educational process together. At some point, the power dynamic comes into play - the teacher is in charge of insuring that certain information is gone over in class - and I think it's not very useful for us as pre-service teachers to think otherwise.
I thought the first chapter of Ayers was very relevant to what we have talked about in this course, although it was presented in a different way. This is not the first time that I have heard of the idea of schooling as a means of "dehumanizing" students, but every time I hear of this notion I am struck by how accurate it can be, especially for urban students and students in poverty. Urban students are routinely subjected to metal detectors, random searches, and other invasions of privacy that would never be subjected to adults except in prisons or high security environments. Some schools go as far as limiting bathroom privileges. Schools attempt to "erase" the culture and social norms that students bring into the classroom, and replace them with the culture the school deems acceptable. These acts are, at in many ways, dehumanizing. Yet they are accepted by society because of the students (urban, poor, often black) that are involved. I am very interested in reading on to see what more Ayers has to say on the issue, and to read any solutions that she might present. I do agree with Josh's point, however. To some extent, there needs to be structure and a curriculum in a classroom. I understand that my students will not be interested in every topic I cover, but that does not mean they should not be exposed to it. As long as I am teaching my students to think critically and evaluate information, I don't think it is harmful or dehumanizing to have the teacher set a curriculum.
To be honest, I believe a lot of what we talk about in class revolves around morality within a classroom. It is a moral thing to choose to do best by our students instead of letting them fall by the wayside or using race or SES as a way to marginalize them and through that, the morality bit has resonated most deeply with me. It also connects greatly with Nel Noddings' "The Challenge to Care in Schools." It is an issue that I am struggling with overall- how do I care in the classroom and do I really teach morals? Is my hidden curriculum worth sharing with my students? I think the Ayers text is an attempt to form that bridge- in my mind anyway. I have some reservations, similar to Josh and Ashley, but I think Ayers is getting to the point and framing it in a way that is woven into everything that we have learned so much in this class as Ryan pointed out. We have been prepped to, in a sense, "teach toward freedom." Ayers challenges the systems we have been observing and I am interested in seeing some of his resolutions.
Ayers' first chapter seemed to remind me most of the "teach to the whole child" mantra . He starts by pointing out the travesties of Australian aboriginals and similar stories from Ireland and here in the states. It's easy to get lost in the story and forget the classroom lesson buried within. When we decided to ignore culture we silently send the signal to children that it's wrong or shameful to be different. Embracing these cultures will be challenging as teachers, after all we, have the potential to have many different cultures in every classroom, and in our urban classrooms, likely ones very different from our own. When Ayers brings ethics into the discussion, it convolutes an already challenging chapter. In an ideal world, right and wrong would cross cultures, it does't always. The real challenge will be to teach across cultures, teaching the whole child, the whole human, and not to indoctrinate children with my beliefs that aren't seen as ethically universal. I would love to think his concluding thoughts of helping foster growth by making choices " on principal" and while "maintaining a critical mind" would be simple. I see that as a lifelong journey we all struggle with on a daily basis, wether it's the small choices that appear to have little impact or much larger ones. Nonetheless, I agree with Ayers that optimism is important for student and instructor alike, and even more so that, we cannot simply be a vehicle to transfer facts and nothing else. It's about maintaing a balance as a teacher of knowledge and morality. I for one am getting a little anxious to see how great teachers strike this balance in practice, and I hope I can find similar success once I take the reigns.
So far, I'm enjoying Ayers. I agree with Josh in that presenting teaching as either dehumanizing or humanizing is a bit black and white, but, for Ayers's point, I can definitely see why he would simplify it so. He's trying to convince us to really step back and take ownership of our role in the classroom. He places a high premium on quality teachers, and, to me, he really is calling for the best kind of people to take on the profession. I feel as if Ayers views teachers as a rare breed of human that is able to effectively convey many degrees and shades of knowledge, and that's empowering, for one. In terms of viewing teaching as a profession rather than as a job, I think Ayers is really hitting the nail on the head. Doctors and lawyers have ethical codes which they must uphold, yet teachers, purveyors of morality and ethics (at least, according to Ayers, and I do agree), have no such code. We are left to our own devices, and I think that some teachers probably see themselves as simple lecturers in their content area.
I think it's obvious that we all view teaching as having some kind of "calling," otherwise, we wouldn't be here. None of us signed up to teach in a cushy county like Hanover or Chesterfield. We all feel like we can make a difference in at least one student's life, and that's why we're here. I think Ayers speaks to our group as a whole, and that if we are able to see past things like oversimplification and instead see his general message, there will be something in the book for all of us. I certainly don't mind the notion of teaching toward freedom, and I really like the questions, "What are we teaching against?" I can't answer that right now, but I think keeping the question somewhere up there in that brain of mine is a bit more important than having a definite answer, anyways.
Derek brings up some very interesting points about teaching to the whole child and teaching across cultures. Aiming "not to indoctrinate children with my beliefs that aren't seen as ethically universal" is a complicated goal. I agree that we must be conscious of our own morals, biases, and cultures and recognize the ways in which these things affect our teaching. Furthermore, his statement assumes that there are some universal ethics that we should aim to instill in our students. I generally agree that such things exist, but I also realize that the argument can be made that such "universal ethics" aren't actually universal. I've heard arguments that the "humanism" Ayers totes as an ultimate goal of education is a "religion" of the secular variety, and that it may not be what all parents want for their children. It's hard to see the argument against helping all students reach their full potential, against teaching them right from wrong in addition to standard curriculum. I guess for some people this would be subtractive schooling in a less jarring form than the Native American boarding schools, but it raises the question of what culture we're truly trying to make our students members of, and what values and rules of power we are actually teaching them.
I'm glad that Josh brought up that in this first bit Ayers comes across a bit too black and white. He gave pretty extreme examples of dehumanization and tyranny in schools that I found offputting, although his message is one I am totally behind. I think I understand why Ayers took such a full tilt approach though - because more subtle examples don't paint as vivid a picture. I feel like this first chapter was just setting the stage and presenting dualities he is going to use in the rest of the book. (those dualities, humanization vs dehumanization, authoritarianism vs democratization, etc)
I hope in coming chapters he will tie these ideas closer to problematic attitudes toward education that we will actually come in contact with. As Christina said, I too am looking forward to learning how we can actually implement the ideal of teaching toward freedom into our classroom setting.
I agree with the comments from the students that are looking forward to realizing ways to implement these ideas in our classrooms. The books and articles we have been reading work well to stimulate thinking for a group like us -- interested in education from a social justice perspective.
There are many crosscutting issues throughout the literature related to caring, humanistic approaches, establishing trust, teaching beyond the academic content, using education to address many societal issues, disparities, testing, the moral and ethical aspects of education. So much research, so many authors, so many books and articles on the subject - yet still so many unresolved issues. Like many of my cohort, I look forward to continuing to study the issues, to examine options, seek viable options and to work toward radical solutions that transform lives.
One thing I have seen with Ayer's work, Hansen, Lipman, Nodding, Kozal and others is the notion that what we have in place in public education in America is not working to uplift the students and provide the foundation they need to succeed in school and in life. There is enough information on the subject out there to fill numerous bookshelves and computer drives. The next step is to get it off out of the theoretical realm and into the practical realm sooner rather than later. So many choices and routes -- let's pick one or two or three approaches and ease up on the talk and move into action.
I think the first chapter of Ayers was undeniable linked to everything we have talked about this month. By reading about oppression and social justice, we have been preparing ourselves to teach for freedom in RPS. For my book-report assignment, I read Kozol’s Shame of a Nation, which outlined in excruciating detail the injustices perpetrated on urban school students. In some instances, those school systems are handcuffing urban students by limiting their ability to hope and have fun in school. As Ayers articulated, schools can act as act either unjustly or benevolently, depending upon the ideals behind that school system.
ReplyDeleteReading Ayers was valuable for me because I saw it as a condensed version of everything we have talked about -- as teachers with perspective and drive, we can make an enormous impact in our student’s lives.
I've enjoyed reading Ayers so far and think it is very much connected to much of what we've been discussing throughout this course. Ayers' point of view reminds me a lot of Labaree's position on education in regard to democratic equality. Last class I brought up the point that some people seem to believe that the only way to run a classroom effectively is by ruling with an iron fist and instilling strict discipline. While I agree that its important to establish and communicate rules and expectations, and to hold students accountable for making a respectful and valuable contribution to the class, I do not agree that the way to do this is with a totalitarian approach. I see education and learning as being an interactive process involving dialogue and engagement, of which can not exist in an autocracy. I do look forward to reading the rest of Teaching Toward Freedom, and am curious to learn in what ways I might apply the principals of democratic quality in my own classroom.
ReplyDelete"Schools do not exist outside of history or culture, of course; they are, rather, at the heart of each -- schools serve societies; societies shape schools. School is both mirror and window -- it shows us what we value and what we ignore, what is precious and what is venial. Our schools belong to us, they tell us who we are and who we want to be." -pg. 8
ReplyDeleteI feel like the above quote is our class in a nutshell. Of course there are parts of our class that is not included, but all in all that quote is a description of the major points that I will walk away from this class with at the end of the week.
Our schools and society are so intertwined that it is nearly impossible to assess one without the other. The state of schools is no more to blame for the state of society than the state of society is to blame for the state of schools. As future teachers, we need to engage ourselves in the community that serves our schools so that we can work to improve both jointly. I say this with the understanding that the majority of our work will and should be in the classroom, but with the hope that none of us limit our ability to help make change to the academic world.
A pre-blog thought written before I hit "publish": I agree with a great amount of what Ayers says in the first chapter, even the point that I'm about to disagree with. The activities of Bennett and his ilk disturb me greatly. As most of us do, I imagine, I still hold a lot of faith in the public schools, as see them as an absolutely necessary ingredient for democracy and functioning society. And now . . .
ReplyDeleteIt might be that I'm feeling especially contrary tonight (or perhaps the drinks I had with Charles and Ryan), but there is much about the first chapter of Ayers that I can't get behind. I'm not sure why there are only two options - humanizing or dehumanizing - or why a teacher choosing the topics that students should learn qualifies as dehumanizing.
Specifically in regards to the idea of "classroom as slave galley," I find this to be a reductive notion. Yes, I see the immense value in including the students in the process of learning, building their metacognitive skills and also furthering their investments in their own learning.
However, and not to be too blunt about it, but middle and high school students don't really know anything, specifically about the subjects that we're lining up to teach them. If, as an Earth Science teacher, I don't set a course to cover the various items that the state says are important, combined with those facts and processes that I find personally interesting and worthwhile, who exactly will? If I were to poll my students at the beginning of the semester as to what we should learn, would plate tectonics come up? Probably not, and yet it's a fundamental part of Earth Science.
I realizing I'm painting an incredibly black and white portrait of this one point upon which I've chosen to harp, but it seems to me that Ayers does as well. I mean, I just don't believe that a teacher deciding unilaterally what to teach in class somehow equates to indoctrinating future fascists or, more likely, lower class worker ants.
I agree wholeheartedly that we should not be in the business of wiping any sign of culture or individuality from students. I also agree that we should find ways within the constraints of our lessons to include students in the process and take mind of their opinions and wants. And I further agree that we will need to be flexible in terms of hard and fast rules. I believe that maintaining reason is more important than following the letter of every law, indeed. But, I do see the relationship between teacher and student, especially the public school teacher who is bound to whatever curriculum the state deems necessary, as more than just a buddy-buddy friendship where we'll decide each step of the educational process together. At some point, the power dynamic comes into play - the teacher is in charge of insuring that certain information is gone over in class - and I think it's not very useful for us as pre-service teachers to think otherwise.
I thought the first chapter of Ayers was very relevant to what we have talked about in this course, although it was presented in a different way. This is not the first time that I have heard of the idea of schooling as a means of "dehumanizing" students, but every time I hear of this notion I am struck by how accurate it can be, especially for urban students and students in poverty. Urban students are routinely subjected to metal detectors, random searches, and other invasions of privacy that would never be subjected to adults except in prisons or high security environments. Some schools go as far as limiting bathroom privileges. Schools attempt to "erase" the culture and social norms that students bring into the classroom, and replace them with the culture the school deems acceptable. These acts are, at in many ways, dehumanizing. Yet they are accepted by society because of the students (urban, poor, often black) that are involved. I am very interested in reading on to see what more Ayers has to say on the issue, and to read any solutions that she might present.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with Josh's point, however. To some extent, there needs to be structure and a curriculum in a classroom. I understand that my students will not be interested in every topic I cover, but that does not mean they should not be exposed to it. As long as I am teaching my students to think critically and evaluate information, I don't think it is harmful or dehumanizing to have the teacher set a curriculum.
hm. bock bock
ReplyDeleteis there a chicken in the forum?
Deletejoshb
To be honest, I believe a lot of what we talk about in class revolves around morality within a classroom. It is a moral thing to choose to do best by our students instead of letting them fall by the wayside or using race or SES as a way to marginalize them and through that, the morality bit has resonated most deeply with me. It also connects greatly with Nel Noddings' "The Challenge to Care in Schools." It is an issue that I am struggling with overall- how do I care in the classroom and do I really teach morals? Is my hidden curriculum worth sharing with my students? I think the Ayers text is an attempt to form that bridge- in my mind anyway. I have some reservations, similar to Josh and Ashley, but I think Ayers is getting to the point and framing it in a way that is woven into everything that we have learned so much in this class as Ryan pointed out. We have been prepped to, in a sense, "teach toward freedom." Ayers challenges the systems we have been observing and I am interested in seeing some of his resolutions.
ReplyDeleteAyers' first chapter seemed to remind me most of the "teach to the whole child" mantra . He starts by pointing out the travesties of Australian aboriginals and similar stories from Ireland and here in the states. It's easy to get lost in the story and forget the classroom lesson buried within. When we decided to ignore culture we silently send the signal to children that it's wrong or shameful to be different. Embracing these cultures will be challenging as teachers, after all we, have the potential to have many different cultures in every classroom, and in our urban classrooms, likely ones very different from our own. When Ayers brings ethics into the discussion, it convolutes an already challenging chapter. In an ideal world, right and wrong would cross cultures, it does't always. The real challenge will be to teach across cultures, teaching the whole child, the whole human, and not to indoctrinate children with my beliefs that aren't seen as ethically universal. I would love to think his concluding thoughts of helping foster growth by making choices " on principal" and while "maintaining a critical mind" would be simple. I see that as a lifelong journey we all struggle with on a daily basis, wether it's the small choices that appear to have little impact or much larger ones. Nonetheless, I agree with Ayers that optimism is important for student and instructor alike, and even more so that, we cannot simply be a vehicle to transfer facts and nothing else. It's about maintaing a balance as a teacher of knowledge and morality. I for one am getting a little anxious to see how great teachers strike this balance in practice, and I hope I can find similar success once I take the reigns.
ReplyDeleteSo far, I'm enjoying Ayers. I agree with Josh in that presenting teaching as either dehumanizing or humanizing is a bit black and white, but, for Ayers's point, I can definitely see why he would simplify it so. He's trying to convince us to really step back and take ownership of our role in the classroom. He places a high premium on quality teachers, and, to me, he really is calling for the best kind of people to take on the profession. I feel as if Ayers views teachers as a rare breed of human that is able to effectively convey many degrees and shades of knowledge, and that's empowering, for one. In terms of viewing teaching as a profession rather than as a job, I think Ayers is really hitting the nail on the head. Doctors and lawyers have ethical codes which they must uphold, yet teachers, purveyors of morality and ethics (at least, according to Ayers, and I do agree), have no such code. We are left to our own devices, and I think that some teachers probably see themselves as simple lecturers in their content area.
ReplyDeleteI think it's obvious that we all view teaching as having some kind of "calling," otherwise, we wouldn't be here. None of us signed up to teach in a cushy county like Hanover or Chesterfield. We all feel like we can make a difference in at least one student's life, and that's why we're here. I think Ayers speaks to our group as a whole, and that if we are able to see past things like oversimplification and instead see his general message, there will be something in the book for all of us. I certainly don't mind the notion of teaching toward freedom, and I really like the questions, "What are we teaching against?" I can't answer that right now, but I think keeping the question somewhere up there in that brain of mine is a bit more important than having a definite answer, anyways.
Derek brings up some very interesting points about teaching to the whole child and teaching across cultures. Aiming "not to indoctrinate children with my beliefs that aren't seen as ethically universal" is a complicated goal. I agree that we must be conscious of our own morals, biases, and cultures and recognize the ways in which these things affect our teaching. Furthermore, his statement assumes that there are some universal ethics that we should aim to instill in our students. I generally agree that such things exist, but I also realize that the argument can be made that such "universal ethics" aren't actually universal. I've heard arguments that the "humanism" Ayers totes as an ultimate goal of education is a "religion" of the secular variety, and that it may not be what all parents want for their children. It's hard to see the argument against helping all students reach their full potential, against teaching them right from wrong in addition to standard curriculum. I guess for some people this would be subtractive schooling in a less jarring form than the Native American boarding schools, but it raises the question of what culture we're truly trying to make our students members of, and what values and rules of power we are actually teaching them.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad that Josh brought up that in this first bit Ayers comes across a bit too black and white. He gave pretty extreme examples of dehumanization and tyranny in schools that I found offputting, although his message is one I am totally behind. I think I understand why Ayers took such a full tilt approach though - because more subtle examples don't paint as vivid a picture. I feel like this first chapter was just setting the stage and presenting dualities he is going to use in the rest of the book. (those dualities, humanization vs dehumanization, authoritarianism vs democratization, etc)
ReplyDeleteI hope in coming chapters he will tie these ideas closer to problematic attitudes toward education that we will actually come in contact with. As Christina said, I too am looking forward to learning how we can actually implement the ideal of teaching toward freedom into our classroom setting.
Marie here
ReplyDeleteI agree with the comments from the students that are looking forward to realizing ways to implement these ideas in our classrooms. The books and articles we have been reading work well to stimulate thinking for a group like us -- interested in education from a social justice perspective.
There are many crosscutting issues throughout the literature related to caring, humanistic approaches, establishing trust, teaching beyond the academic content, using education to address many societal issues, disparities, testing, the moral and ethical aspects of education. So much research, so many authors, so many books and articles on the subject - yet still so many unresolved issues. Like many of my cohort, I look forward to continuing to study the issues, to examine options, seek viable options and to work toward radical solutions that transform lives.
One thing I have seen with Ayer's work, Hansen, Lipman, Nodding, Kozal and others is the notion that what we have in place in public education in America is not working to uplift the students and provide the foundation they need to succeed in school and in life. There is enough information on the subject out there to fill numerous bookshelves and computer drives. The next step is to get it off out of the theoretical realm and into the practical realm sooner rather than later. So many choices and routes -- let's pick one or two or three approaches and ease up on the talk and move into action.