Even the reading the introduction of the Ayers text resonates with several things that have been discussed in class regarding the enactment of social justice in the classroom. The author opens his book with the sentence, “Moral and ethical matters power and punctuate life in schools and in classrooms, from Monday to Friday, from morning till night.” (ix) My first thought was of how many educators and policy makers would firmly reject that statement and argue that moral and ethical matters have no place in the classroom, and my second thought was of the highly relevant class discussion we had about that argument. I get the impression that Ayers would agree with Dr. Stemhagen that the assertion of the school and classroom as a “ethically neutral” space is in and of itself a moral matter, and therefore not at all neutral. As someone who agrees with Ayers in this respect (as well as many others), my hope is that more teachers will begin to recognize this paradigm and make the conscious choice to examine what morals they are consciously or unconsciously enforcing within their classrooms.
Ayers in the last chapter, brings up three R's. It is these three R's that he believes will liberate teaching as a whole. These are respect, relevance, and revolution. In these three ideas, teachers are supposed to shape students ability to recognize the world as it is and interact with it as citizens as well students to be able to see the intertwined, intersecting spectrum of social, cultural, historical, economic, and spiritual context. Furthermore, he implores teachers to have students recognize our differences and similarities as communities and families without any denigration or degradation.
One of the themes, we have touched on is recognizing that the classroom is a democracy. Moreover, students should be able to participate in this democracy and see themselves in the process. It seems that Ayers goes a step farther and asks for students to be able to see the inequality, restraint, inflexibility, and stagnancy of the current democratic model. In addition, they should have the space to discuss it thoroughly pointing out cultural differences and the interactions of racial privilege as well as economic inequality among other inadequacies. As a result of this new insight, Ayers hopes that teachers will be able to constantly pull from the diverse experiences of students and deconstruct the established notions that traditional curriculum divulges. To surmise, I believe Ayers strives for more of a cross-cultural interaction using democracy as the foundation to take off in a multitude of directions. I think a broad minded attitude is vital for dealing with a vast array of cultures.
Equal opportunity. An equal chance to slot into the role defined for you at birth?
Ayers shines a scathing light on this grotesque misuse of the phrase “equal opportunity.” Few if any would argue that a child's race, class, or place of birth should determine what educational opportunities they have in life, and through education what life chances they have. Yet, we all know that to be the case. Many claim “equal opportunity” to be the fundamental purpose of public education. That students, regardless of their backgrounds, will be offered the same quality of education. From there, success depends only on the students' drive and work ethic according to the argument. Rather than point simply to a failure of equality in the system, Ayers points to a blindness of purpose.
“...if one acknowledges (even tentatively) that our society, too, is one of privilege and oppression, inequality, class divisions, and racial and gender stratifications, then one might view the schools as a whole as doing an adequate job both of sorting youngsters for various roles in society and convincing them that they, and they alone, deserve their various privileges and failures. Indeed, sorting students— curtailing choices, narrowing options— may be the single most brutal accomplishment of some schools, even if it runs counter to the ideal of education as a process that opens possibilities, provides opportunities to challenge and change fate, and empowers people to control their own lives. Nowhere is this contradiction more visible than in the experience of poor and black children and youth in American schools.” (121)
My brain was lit up by this passage. The whole idea of structuring schooling to enforce a respect for authority, rules, and a work ethic of fear is not just demeaning for a child's time in school. That structure denies them the awareness and agency necessary to see the world for what it is. Crushing out students' disobedience with the faux-benevolent purpose of preparing them for a lifetime of menial jobs is the ultimate betrayal of the promise of equality. This also brings into uncomfortable relief my beliefs about my students: what they are capable of, who they are, where they come from, where they are going, and what they need from me. Can it really be true that “opportunities” simply means the opportunity to hold down a job and play by the rules of the system? Squashing all misbehavior at the cost of removing a sense of self, purpose, motivation, love, change, or activism, is an atrocity.
Many of the points that Ayers brings up resonates with me. I find myself reflecting back on class discussions reading many of the points made in this book. One sentence that I thought realted to this course, but also to our future work as not only teachers, but community members was said in the last paragraph of Ayer's book, "We work to improve life on the ground:right here, right now, in the particulars of daily life, with our colleagues and our students, with our expanding sense of community inside and outside the classrooms." I found this inspiring and really at the core of what we as teachers need to strive for. Our future community project is our opportunity to work with potential students and colleagues to begin building the foundation of the community inside and outside the our classrooms.
One part of the Ayers book that really caught my attention was the statement near the beginning of chapter 2 where Ayers posited that, "Education cannot be neutral- it is always put to use in favor of something and in opposition to something else." (pg 31). I feel that Ayers makes a solid point, especially in the subject area of social studies, in that when you assert something as having happened in a specific way for a specific set of reasons you are constructing a narrative about the way that historical event happened and that carries certain connotations with it. These connotations could be either explicit or implicit and on purpose or on accident. Beyond that, however, the quote reminded me of a conversation we had in class about how teaching cannot be neutral because we as teachers bring a certain discourse with us and that will always color our opinions and lessons. Ayers would have agreed with that belief and it further drives home the point that as teachers we need to be keenly aware of what we say and how we say them because our students will pick up on things we might have been subconsciously suggesting about a subject and that could stick with them and might actually work against the lessons we had hoped to impart. Teaching does not occur in a vacuum and, as was mentioned in class, if nothing we say can be neutral we need to make sure that we use our power as teachers to impart values and beliefs that we find important and valuable while also making sure to give students the room to reach their own conclusions about what we are teaching. -Sean McFadden
The part of the book that really resonated with me was his second chapter, where he talks about the importance of acknowledging our (along with our students') humanity. The first part really gets at the truth of "know thy self". We all have our own unique experiences, backgrounds, and outlooks on life, and we need to recognize exactly where each of us stands. As part of that self-reflection, we also need to be cognizant of biases or prejudices that we may harbor, either consciously or subconsciously, because these can impact our interactions with our students. Which then is a segue to the second part of the chapter, and that is about the students. Ayers pillories the practice of labeling students because it takes away from their unique identity. And he does have a point, the moment that we begin to label people based on some attribute that they may (or may not) have, then, on some level, the focus shifts from the person to that label itself. That is not to take away some of the benefit that these practices can sometimes have. For example if a student is an English language learner, then being identified as such can help them because they can then get additional attention/instruction that they would not otherwise receive with being identified as such. But it can be a double-edged sword as it might also come with an attached stigma ("oh, that's an ELL, nothing but extra work and hassle"). As teachers we must be extra vigilant that we do not label our students, but rather learn to identify them solely by who they are, not what they are.
I believe that Ayers supports our ideas regarding the powerful effect of Privilege. Even ignoring race and class as American citizens we have the power of Privilege to ignore what’s going on in other countries. In the introduction Ayers discusses an important fact he found that, “publishers have all but abandoned translating books from abroad.” He states quotes suggesting that America is afraid of what these readings may awaking in the American culture. I believe that it is important that we are able to experience other cultures through literature. That is our one opportunity if never traveled abroad to connect to persons outside the US. As teachers we should be able to teach our students the value of freedom that we sometimes take for granted. Though there are several historical events that led to freedom (Ayers list in chapter one) in various groups in American culture, how can we appreciate it if we cannot understand the current situations in other countries where this freedom is not taking place.
I think there's a connection between Postman and Ayers to a limited degree. Postman offers up the need for a driving purpose behind education, while Ayers offers up a specific place to go, that is freedom.
The main reason I think this is, is that Postman doesn't really imagine what a student who needs these narratives looks like...for someone in a privileged school, the narrative on the logic of capitalism serves enough purpose to give students motivation to succeed. Ayers imagines a student that doesn't have these privileges might need something beyond this, as any of these opportunities require the overcoming of obstacles.
To this end, I think that the Langston Hughes quote is of the utmost importance, because it provides a gratifying narrative to any life and reduces all struggles down to the key point for the need for happiness: "The Birthing is hard, and dying is mean, so get yourself some loving in between."
Even the reading the introduction of the Ayers text resonates with several things that have been discussed in class regarding the enactment of social justice in the classroom. The author opens his book with the sentence, “Moral and ethical matters power and punctuate life in schools and in classrooms, from Monday to Friday, from morning till night.” (ix) My first thought was of how many educators and policy makers would firmly reject that statement and argue that moral and ethical matters have no place in the classroom, and my second thought was of the highly relevant class discussion we had about that argument. I get the impression that Ayers would agree with Dr. Stemhagen that the assertion of the school and classroom as a “ethically neutral” space is in and of itself a moral matter, and therefore not at all neutral. As someone who agrees with Ayers in this respect (as well as many others), my hope is that more teachers will begin to recognize this paradigm and make the conscious choice to examine what morals they are consciously or unconsciously enforcing within their classrooms.
ReplyDeleteAyers in the last chapter, brings up three R's. It is these three R's that he believes will liberate teaching as a whole. These are respect, relevance, and revolution. In these three ideas, teachers are supposed to shape students ability to recognize the world as it is and interact with it as citizens as well students to be able to see the intertwined, intersecting spectrum of social, cultural, historical, economic, and spiritual
ReplyDeletecontext. Furthermore, he implores teachers to have students recognize our differences and similarities as communities and families without any denigration or degradation.
One of the themes, we have touched on is recognizing that the classroom is a democracy. Moreover, students should be able to participate in this democracy and see themselves in the process. It seems that Ayers goes a step farther and asks for students to be able to see the inequality, restraint, inflexibility, and stagnancy of the current democratic model. In addition, they should have the space to discuss it thoroughly pointing out cultural differences and the interactions of racial privilege as well as economic inequality among other inadequacies. As a result of this new insight, Ayers hopes that teachers will be able to constantly pull from the diverse experiences of students and deconstruct the established notions that traditional curriculum divulges.
To surmise, I believe Ayers strives for more of a cross-cultural interaction using democracy as the foundation to take off in a multitude of directions. I think a broad minded attitude is vital for dealing with a vast array of cultures.
Equal opportunity. An equal chance to slot into the role defined for you at birth?
ReplyDeleteAyers shines a scathing light on this grotesque misuse of the phrase “equal opportunity.” Few if any would argue that a child's race, class, or place of birth should determine what educational opportunities they have in life, and through education what life chances they have. Yet, we all know that to be the case. Many claim “equal opportunity” to be the fundamental purpose of public education. That students, regardless of their backgrounds, will be offered the same quality of education. From there, success depends only on the students' drive and work ethic according to the argument. Rather than point simply to a failure of equality in the system, Ayers points to a blindness of purpose.
“...if one acknowledges (even tentatively) that our society, too, is one of privilege and oppression, inequality, class divisions, and racial and gender stratifications, then one might view the schools as a whole as doing an adequate job both of sorting youngsters for various roles in society and convincing them that they, and they alone, deserve their various privileges and failures. Indeed, sorting students— curtailing choices, narrowing options— may be the single most brutal accomplishment of some schools, even if it runs counter to the ideal of education as a process that opens possibilities, provides opportunities to challenge and change fate, and empowers people to control their own lives. Nowhere is this contradiction more visible than in the experience of poor and black children and youth in American schools.” (121)
My brain was lit up by this passage. The whole idea of structuring schooling to enforce a respect for authority, rules, and a work ethic of fear is not just demeaning for a child's time in school. That structure denies them the awareness and agency necessary to see the world for what it is. Crushing out students' disobedience with the faux-benevolent purpose of preparing them for a lifetime of menial jobs is the ultimate betrayal of the promise of equality. This also brings into uncomfortable relief my beliefs about my students: what they are capable of, who they are, where they come from, where they are going, and what they need from me. Can it really be true that “opportunities” simply means the opportunity to hold down a job and play by the rules of the system? Squashing all misbehavior at the cost of removing a sense of self, purpose, motivation, love, change, or activism, is an atrocity.
Many of the points that Ayers brings up resonates with me. I find myself reflecting back on class discussions reading many of the points made in this book. One sentence that I thought realted to this course, but also to our future work as not only teachers, but community members was said in the last paragraph of Ayer's book, "We work to improve life on the ground:right here, right now, in the particulars of daily life, with our colleagues and our students, with our expanding sense of community inside and outside the classrooms." I found this inspiring and really at the core of what we as teachers need to strive for. Our future community project is our opportunity to work with potential students and colleagues to begin building the foundation of the community inside and outside the our classrooms.
ReplyDeleteOne part of the Ayers book that really caught my attention was the statement near the beginning of chapter 2 where Ayers posited that, "Education cannot be neutral- it is always put to use in favor of something and in opposition to something else." (pg 31). I feel that Ayers makes a solid point, especially in the subject area of social studies, in that when you assert something as having happened in a specific way for a specific set of reasons you are constructing a narrative about the way that historical event happened and that carries certain connotations with it. These connotations could be either explicit or implicit and on purpose or on accident. Beyond that, however, the quote reminded me of a conversation we had in class about how teaching cannot be neutral because we as teachers bring a certain discourse with us and that will always color our opinions and lessons. Ayers would have agreed with that belief and it further drives home the point that as teachers we need to be keenly aware of what we say and how we say them because our students will pick up on things we might have been subconsciously suggesting about a subject and that could stick with them and might actually work against the lessons we had hoped to impart. Teaching does not occur in a vacuum and, as was mentioned in class, if nothing we say can be neutral we need to make sure that we use our power as teachers to impart values and beliefs that we find important and valuable while also making sure to give students the room to reach their own conclusions about what we are teaching.
ReplyDelete-Sean McFadden
The part of the book that really resonated with me was his second chapter, where he talks about the importance of acknowledging our (along with our students') humanity. The first part really gets at the truth of "know thy self". We all have our own unique experiences, backgrounds, and outlooks on life, and we need to recognize exactly where each of us stands. As part of that self-reflection, we also need to be cognizant of biases or prejudices that we may harbor, either consciously or subconsciously, because these can impact our interactions with our students.
ReplyDeleteWhich then is a segue to the second part of the chapter, and that is about the students. Ayers pillories the practice of labeling students because it takes away from their unique identity. And he does have a point, the moment that we begin to label people based on some attribute that they may (or may not) have, then, on some level, the focus shifts from the person to that label itself. That is not to take away some of the benefit that these practices can sometimes have. For example if a student is an English language learner, then being identified as such can help them because they can then get additional attention/instruction that they would not otherwise receive with being identified as such. But it can be a double-edged sword as it might also come with an attached stigma ("oh, that's an ELL, nothing but extra work and hassle"). As teachers we must be extra vigilant that we do not label our students, but rather learn to identify them solely by who they are, not what they are.
I believe that Ayers supports our ideas regarding the powerful effect of Privilege. Even ignoring race and class as American citizens we have the power of Privilege to ignore what’s going on in other countries. In the introduction Ayers discusses an important fact he found that, “publishers have all but abandoned translating books from abroad.” He states quotes suggesting that America is afraid of what these readings may awaking in the American culture. I believe that it is important that we are able to experience other cultures through literature. That is our one opportunity if never traveled abroad to connect to persons outside the US. As teachers we should be able to teach our students the value of freedom that we sometimes take for granted. Though there are several historical events that led to freedom (Ayers list in chapter one) in various groups in American culture, how can we appreciate it if we cannot understand the current situations in other countries where this freedom is not taking place.
ReplyDeleteI think there's a connection between Postman and Ayers to a limited degree. Postman offers up the need for a driving purpose behind education, while Ayers offers up a specific place to go, that is freedom.
ReplyDeleteThe main reason I think this is, is that Postman doesn't really imagine what a student who needs these narratives looks like...for someone in a privileged school, the narrative on the logic of capitalism serves enough purpose to give students motivation to succeed. Ayers imagines a student that doesn't have these privileges might need something beyond this, as any of these opportunities require the overcoming of obstacles.
To this end, I think that the Langston Hughes quote is of the utmost importance, because it provides a gratifying narrative to any life and reduces all struggles down to the key point for the need for happiness: "The Birthing is hard, and dying is mean, so get yourself some loving in between."