Hw - 51 The School Paper

School is an institution. We come here to educate ourselves about the topics and common knowledge's we should know entering our adulthood. It is built to structure the youth into future model citizens. School is made to prepare us for a type of job we find a lot of interest in. School all together is one great big guiding line we can choose to follow to make us who we are later. Why is it failing?

Well lets' start off with the contradictions school has provided amongst what it has promised to why those promises are not working. Generally speaking, school has been a place where students go to learn, build their intellectual minds, and excel in topics decided by the school curriculum. But are we really learning? Paulo Freire, wrote in his book, "Pedagogy of the Oppressed" that the relationship between teacher and students "[are] fundamentally narrative...a narrating subject(the teacher) and patient, listening objects(the students)."(Freire, Chapter 2) In classes majority of the time, students sit down behind their desk, watching and listening to what the teacher is teaching them. The teacher narrates what is going to be taught today, and he/she makes them listen to what they have to say. We just listen. But are we listening to learn it, or are we memorizing it with actually understanding its significance. From my own experience, I agree with Freire that most of what is taught in school I do not realize the true understanding of the topic, because all I am doing in recording, memorizing and preparing myself for the next test. That is why I usually forget what I "apparently" learned because all I did was memorize it. I mean think about it, you learn ride a bike, or swim and you never forget it, even when you go back to it. If we were to memorize and not completely understand how to do these things, we would keep forgetting each time we go back to it.

Another reason why school is failing to structure good students is the conflict between teacher and student. In cases there are teachers who just teach because it is just a job and nothing more than that, and students who are not motivated about what is being taught. Lisa Delpit, a internationally known scholar and writer, has focused on this area of the struggle between teacher and students, especially students of color. She believes that every student can be motivated and brilliant, but teachers do not do enough to capture/bring out this hidden intelligence. One of her strategies to bring out the intelligence in each child is the usage of the Arts. The Arts in her perspective opens and expands the minds of the students to a level where teachers are able to see the true brilliance behind the child. In the Arts, the form of poetry and rhythm, believes can capture the intelligent mind of child, mainly African-American students because it is what they find most comfortable. So whatever makes the student comfortable, would be in the best interest of how they can demonstrate their intelligence. The only problem I have with Delpit's theory is that it would be too much to cover in the class because each individual child may have a different style of learning that may not work out with the other child, so trying to focus on each would be too much.

A similar issue that students and teachers face is the fact that both of them want they want out of the other. Teachers expect us to be these drones that will just sit and listen, and for students we expect teachers to really see who we are. Both want respect from each other, but one wants more respect then the other. It is sad to see it though because both the teacher and student minds' are clouded and unable to see how both of them could get what they want if they were to cooperate with each other on the same level. This idea will barely ever happen because the teacher will always be labeled as the dominant figure in the class, and the students will have to be the good followers. A role students just can't appreciate, and I agree, who would want to be in a following role. John Gatto, a New York State teacher wrote an article of what typically happens in a classroom structured by Six-Lessons. He writes about six lessons which are more of guide lines to how you can expect a teacher/or being a teacher could be like. In his class, the six lessons he follows are directed towards his students to keep them in order. These six lessons are more like rules students have to abide by and if they don't, they get punished. All part of the big plan, to show that the teacher is the dominant figure, and we (the students) are like sheep's to the sheep herder. Gatto also touches upon how he creates his own curriculum which helps him figure out who the good and bad students are. The idea of how students are capable of conforming to an entirely new subject to another, are labeled as the good kids, and the ones who don't appreciate it, or don't care about it, the non-conformers are the bad. And then when it is all done for today, the teacher preforms the same six lesson step again the following day. Gatto metaphorically explains that he controls his students like an on/off light switch because when he demands his students, they turn on, and when he does not, we turn off. A unequal balance of power.

Another reason why you find a lot of students failing is the type of education style that is presented on to them. E.D. Hirsch, a U.S. educator and academic literary critic theorized that you must begin with knowing enough facts and a full understanding of common knowledge's before becoming a better thinker. His idea was that if you knew enough about these common knowledge's and facts, that it would further you in the future dominant culture. "Transcendent education." Which is a type of education style that teaches students how to be successful in the dominant culture. Ted Sizer, a education-reform advocate believed that students must be given the skills and tools first to become a better learner/thinker, basically the opposite of Hirsch's theory. Sizer described the "transcendent" education as "machines that they designed and operated," which is true because Hirsch's theory was to fill students with common knowledge's and facts which Freire explained was the reason why we were not really learning. But there is a trade off between Sizer and Hirsch's theory because Hirsch's theory will supposedly helps you in the dominant culture, and Sizer's is built around how students could be helped now by learning certain skills about the now; "Immanent" education. The split between these two styles of education could either help or fail the student depending on the individual capability to adjust to either one they felt most comfortable in.

In conclusion there are many variables as to why school may be failing. The topic of individuality which complicates a school's curriculum because one individual may learn a different way then the other. The power struggle between teacher and student. All too much and not enough time, but at the end of the day it is our own responsibility to make sure we are selves learn something. Something Obama would like all students to understand.

Hw - 50

Gatto

Six Lessons by John Gatto is basically ideas of what teaching and school is about. In this article he critics the school curriculum and how he controls his students. He writes about six lessons which are more of guide lines to how you can expect a teacher/or being a teacher could be like. In his class, the six lessons he follows are directed towards his students to keep them in order, and that is how it should be. These six lessons are more like rules students have to abide by and if they don't, they get punished. All part of the big plan, to show that the teacher is the dominant figure, and we (the students) are like sheep's to the sheep herder. Gatto also touches upon how he creates his own curriculum which helps him figure out who the good and bad students are. The idea of how students are capable of conforming to an entirely new subject to another, are labeled as the good kids, and the ones who don't appreciate it, or don't care about it, the non-conformers are the bad. And then when it is all done for today, the teacher preforms the same six lesson step again the following day; Just like switching an on/off light switch.

This article made me feel like I was a drone being structured by the school's guiding lines. If I were to fall off these lines, I would see punishment. Which is all too true because if I were to not agree with the teacher, what would be the point of going to school in the first place? Oh yeah, to go to college, and get a job after that. It sucks to know that I'm basically a on/off light switch because when the teacher expects me, I turn on. When they don't, I just turn off.

Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed

In this article, Freire articulates how we the students are listening objects to the narrative subjects made by teachers. "Education is suffering from narration sickness." Brilliant. He explains how a teachers task is to "fill" students with contents of his narration and for us to find a significance in what is being taught. And even when the students are being "filled," we are not actually learning it but memorizing it without realizing the actual significance of what we are being filled with. The issue is that students then lack creativity because our roles of being a student is becoming the depositories to whatever the teacher deposits in our unfilled minds. Our consciousness is what we are being fed by are teacher.

Amazing article by Freire, only it hurts to know that students like me are conscious individuals with a lack of creativity because we are not narrating our own education. All so true because instead of actually learning what is being taught, we are unaware of our ability to know that we just memorizing and not learning. This reminds me of how I usually take tests because before the test I memorize things that should be on the test, but I do not realize that I am also no learning it, even though subconsciously I believe I am when I do well on the test. That is why I can never remember what and how I got the answers correct when I go back to it.

Delpit - Interview with Lisa Delpit

In this interview, Delpit explains how she focuses on the progression of schooling and what teachers need to do in order to achieve in bringing out a students intelligence. Most of her focuses are directed towards students of color and the struggle between middle class teachers and the African-American students. She does not believe that a test should indicate a child's intelligence because they could wrongfully be misunderstood in some circumstance. She feels that every student is brilliant, but in order for the teachers' to see that, they must teach in a specific way. One of Delpit's strategies to bring out the intelligence in each child was the usage of the Art. The Arts in her perspective opens and expands the minds of the students to a level where teachers are able to see the true brilliance behind the child. In the Arts, the form of poetry and rythem, Delpit also believes can capture the intelligent mind of child, mainly African-American students because it is what they find most comfortable. So whatever makes the student comfortable, would be in the best interest of how they can demonstrate their intelligence.

Many of Delpit's ideas I agree with and some I'm not completely sure about. I agree that some teachers do not see or do enough to capture our brilliance. Most of them are seeing it as just a job, and there main purpose to their job is to just teach. But it is deeper then that, Delpit is correct when she insist that teachers should find a way on meeting the students need, so the struggle between teacher and student is not there. I disagree though that a teacher should be able to bring out every child's intelligence because then there would be just too much to cover. Each individual child may have a different style of learning that may not work out with the other child, so trying to focus on each would be too much.

Mr. Copeland

In our class interview with our teacher Mr. Copeland, a lot of our questions varied from the style of education he liked to teach, to the super-teacher films we've watched in class. One of the main goals he sought out that all of students would understand is social justice. Many teachers have a different way about they about teaching this topic, Copeland teaches it teaching his students about different oppressed groups. By teaching his students these different oppressed groups in the past, his students won't be quick to judge oppressed groups now. He also touched upon the style of education he likes to guide his students through. A mix of transcendent and immanent education. He believes that incorporating both of these styles would only help the students, and what would be the point of teaching a student transcendent education where the students becomes prepared for the dominant future, without knowing his/her life now(immanent education). This led to our final questions about how he felt about super-teacher films, where a student or students are being saved. And he replies "from what? These super teacher films are archetypes, and archetypes are ridiculous. If I were to say I saved someone, it would be pretentious."

To hear from a teacher, and not the one's you see in TV and movies felt more realistic because a lot of his ideas, goals and teaching styles scored higher compared to the over dramatic super teacher films. He explain the reality of teaching which I found amusing because he was sort of dissing himself, but making sure that he demonstrated his adequate teaching abilities. I mean why would he go out of his to say "Yes I saved my students. Let's be realistic here, I have a few troubled students, but not to point where I need to save them, and these super teacher films do the exact thing for these "dangerous" students." I could also see why one of his goals for students to learn would be about oppressed groups, he's clearly trying to make a difference on how his students will view oppressed groups now, and to not judge them. All centered around social justice.

Hw - 49 Class Savior/Teacher Film

A lot of the super-teacher films that are made demonstrate the similar but different ways of how a teacher can make a difference in students or a student life. The brief dramatized scenario of a teacher film Esther D's film presented i felt was the total opposite. The message that I felt was built in this film was that not all teachers like the one's on Tv, make a difference.

In this film, the teacher tries and makes attempt at teaching his class about poetry, but infact none of the students actually care. The teacher struggling in his class resorts to alchohol as an answer to get him by in his class. In regular super-teacher films, the first attempt always fails, but somehow they always manage to control the class second time around. Here, that shit is going to happen anytime soon. The students don't really care, they're not motivated to learn anything about what is being taught, and it seems more realistic because how could one day of teaching inspire students who have never cared their whole lives.

The connection between salvation and education is very complex. The students who can excell in the type of education that is being taught to them perform higher than those who suffer at the same type of education being taught. That is why the teacher is held with great responsibility to be able to teach all types of students in way they could all learn. There are two types of educations, the transcendent and the Imminant. The split between these two types of education could either help or fail at teaching specific types of students. The transcendent education helps students that like to learn about things that will help them in the dominant future, and the Imminant education that helps students deal with the "now" of life. The complexity of the individual being can be easy to teach if it was a 1 on 1 basis, but teaching happens in the masses. So trying to figure out how to inspire all students that may all find a successfull way of learning in a different way; You could imagine.

Extra Credit - "The Class"

From the beginning of this movie, I could already tell who the trouble makers were, and who was leading that role, just like in the other "teacher-movies." And so I interpreted it as the bad ass kid changing in the end. I was entirely wrong. Souleymane, the trouble maker had been labeled as the teen causing many of the problems teacher's had issues with and also had the potential to be a good student but lacked confidence to change it and more then likely felt comfortable as who he was labeled as. I do not hold the teacher responsible for Souleymane's expulsion but not to shy away from the fact that it was the teacher's fault that prompt the dramatic scene to happen causing harm to one of the students. If Souleymane made his choice not to act up and create a much bigger issue that did not concern him as much, he would not have been in the type of predicament he put himself into. But I'm torn because Souleymane has always been like this, and trying to change in an instant is hard. At one part it looked like Souleymane was making a difference for himself when he participated in the "Self-Portrait" homework and because it was so good, it was praised by the teacher and students, and his eyes lit up.

This also goes for the other 14 and 15 year old's who were in that class making and being responsible for their own choices. For instance Khoumba's confrontation with the teacher, being rude and non-respective of the teachers' rules lead to her being held after class and then after apologizing, yell to teacher "I didn't mean it." Which in fact made the teacher unhappy but Khoumba sensing what she did was wrong, wrote to teacher explaining how she felt in a much mature manner and the struggle between her and the teacher ended. If Souleymane could only sense what he was doing was wrong, it would have made a difference, but to have already for a period of time, be labeled as what you are and then feel comfortable as the role, in reality is difficult to change. I also believe that the teachers expected to highly of their students to be these amazing wonderful students and when they found hope in one of them (the only Asian) they expected the others to be like that as well. And the teachers questioned the other students as to why it was so hard for them to be like the model student? Basically if someone who is around your same age and can probably easily relate to you, both of the two should be able to mirror each other. Which in fact doesn't happen and that is why only Wei was praised by the teachers. What was even more interesting was how much they cared about their model student and goes as far to hold a meeting to figure how they would raise money for Wei's mother to get a lawyer to not get deported back to China.

As for the teacher being morally responsible for finding solutions to school issues that he lead his class through, yes and no. Yes, because he should know that the solutions he chooses should affect all the kids and not leave out some here and there. No, because how would you know how each kid would react to the solution if each and every individual is different from the other. Did he make good solution though? No. He chose to talk about Souleymane in the meeting where class Representatives were present which lead to Souleymane realizing where he stood in school. The harsh reality. And then the build up to the dramatic scene that caused one of the schools biggest issue. Expelling students.

Hw - 48 Treatment for Savior/Teacher Movie

Dean Walters is a new incoming teacher with a set of goals and one of them being to improve even the most rowdiest kids. Straight out of college earning a Bachalor's degree from SUNY New Paltz with straight A's. He wants to return to the city where he believes he can make a difference.

Dean get's a call to come in for a interview at a moderate interacial urban high school which Dean feels is a perfect fit for him to apply his scholary teaching skills to the max.

Dean comes to the school the following day 15 minutes early for his interview with the princaple, Ed McKinley. Who is busy scholding the one kind of good-kid for not handing in his report paper. After McKinley is finished with scholding he prepares himself in his office for Dean's interview. The interview goes well but McKinley warns Dean of his valient attitude that every teacher he's had that tought stayed for no more then one semester. This excites Dean because this is what he has prepared himself for. He's feels that he has become an expert at teaching underprivledged kids becuase he's throughly studied 'super-teacher' movies and read enough "How to Teach" books that he will be just fine.

It's the total opposite. And these kids are smart enough to know every type of 'super-teacher' method he throws at them. Now what?

Hw- 47 Class Film

• To begin with, our plot should be centered around the theme of "transcendent and immanent" education, but reverse it and have the teacher fail in the beginning starting with the Immanent style of teaching. Which in the "super-teacher films" that style always works.
• In our class, we always watch the teacher making a difference, but if we could, I think we should turn it around and have the students make a difference. I'm not sure how we'd go about doing that, because I don't really know how we would show students changing the teacher, when it should be the teachers job changing us. But who knows, maybe we'll come up with something.
• Another interesting thing that we could do is maybe add some sort of sub-plot that gets in the way of the teacher that prevents him/her from performing his/her roles as a teacher. You know, something internal, very emotional stuff.
• Another small thing we could add to it is, making it a comedy of some sort? Something as funny along the lines of Feris Bueler's Day Off, or Fast Times at Richmond High, even Superbad, just without the constant swearing.
• Just like in every movie, we should have that one climatic scene where the whole movie shifts gear and before we reach the end, put a twist on it. That shit always makes movies good. You know, something like the Sixth Sense.

Hw - 45 Thoughts on School

Reading E.D. Hirsch's Curriculum for democracy, Hirsch's theory of children/teens/adults having a full advantage in reading an article, you most begin with knowing enough facts and a full understanding of common knowledge's. His idea was that students should know a lot of common facts to begin starting the progress of becoming better thinkers. Hirsch's idea of a good school curriculum should be structured around "transcendent" education which means teaching students things that will get them further in the dominant culture. He was opposed the "Immanent" education which was helping students deal with the now/present things in their life's. Such as what many of the "teachers-making-a-difference" movies do. Hirsch's theory of having full-on understanding of common-known knowledge was spot on when a writers asked a bunch of students about the Civil War, and in return the students did not know how to reply. Because they were not sure on what the Civil War was.

Sizer's idea of how students should be learning was that students must be given the skills and tools on how to learn better, basically the opposite of what Hirsch's theory was, which was for the students to know common facts and knowledge's before becoming better learners. Sizer's first attempt on figuring out what main principles where needed to teach students, he researched on what schools did not need. Many people agreed that "students need to learn how to use their minds well" but as Sizer described the "Transcendent" education, "Machines that they designed and operated." Which most of failed, furthermore the result of why the principles were made.

In the beginning, I agreed a lot with Sizer's theory because I felt that I needed to learn and be taught the skills to become a better thinker. Something that is taught in the High School I go to. After thinking about Hirsch's theory a lot, I began to think that I was almost left behind in some of my classes because I was lacking in common-knowledge's and facts I should have known. All the while, I have these skills to allow to be this better thinker. I was at lost. Sizer's theory had a disadvantage when it came to successfully excelling in the dominant culture, because these common-knowledge's and facts I needed to know, well, I just did not know. The battle between both Sizer and Hirsch on what a successful school curriculum is will be on-going but if both of their idea's/theories blend, I mean why not? It should make for a better, more advanced student.