In my last post, I wrote a lot about the pedagogy of poverty, but i didn't explain why the pedagogy of poverty does not work. In this post, i will take the time to explain why the pedagogy of poverty does not work. For those who didn't read my previous post, before continue reading, I recommend that you read my previous post because it will help you understand the pedagogy of poverty and what I will be writing as of right now.
Based on my last post, the pedagogy of poverty doest not work. Why? Not focusing so much on Haberman's reasons why the pedagogy of poverty does not work, but base on my point of view why it does not work. Let's us begin the journey. To me, the pedagogy of poverty does not teach students to learn. It teaches students to take things--concepts, events, vocabularies, and others--and give them back to the teacher either on a quiz, test, paper, or out loud in class. I'm not saying, taking things and give back to teachers by students are wrong; but, using it as the only means of learning is very, very bad. Furthermore, students are not asked to think through what they have learned or questioned them. They are thought, it is what it is--so learn it and memorize it. These are not good teaching. They are bad and old-fashioned teaching methods that need to be change to correlate with present society. We need new teaching methods to teach our present day students.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Good Teaching
In my search for things that reconcile hope and despair in Urban schools I stumbled on an interesting article--to be accurate I was assigned to read the article--the truth will set you free. This little piece of gem formally title “The Pedagogy of Poverty Versus Good Teaching,” written by Martin Haberman in Phi Delta Kappan (Dec 1991, pp. 290-294). Mr. Haberman is a very old man; he has been writing about education since 1958, he happily notes in the article. For people who are bad at math, Mr. Haberman has been writing about education for half a century--that's a long time. Enough about Mr. Haberman's age, let's focus on the important matter which is Mr. Haberman's article.
Mr. Haberman's article, The Pedagogy of Poverty Versus Good Teaching, looks at the teaching acts that constitute the core functions of urban teaching. Upon looking at these basic acts, Mr. Haberman notices, as he tells us, these basic acts "constitute the pedagogy of poverty--not merely what teachers do and what youngsters expect but, for different reasons, what parents, the community, and general public assume teaching to be." The basic acts that teachers usually do like telling students to open their books to this page and read this paragraph is expected by you, your teacher, and yes, your parent(s) or guardian(s), and educational policy makers. They assume (you, me, and everyone) these basic acts are what teaching is and it's good teaching. Martin Haberman tells us otherwise. He tells us that,"There are occasions when any one of the 14 acts might have a beneficial effect. Taken together and performed to the systematic exclusion of other acts they have become pedagogical coin of the realm in urban schools." Urban schools primary means of instruction is singular; there's no either or, just one form of teaching that is recognized by everyone; as a result, it is constructed of the basic acts that are mandated and institutionalized in the system at all grade levels and subjects. Since the pedagogy of poverty has been here for a long time and it is embedded in our society, why change it. "It appeals to several constituencies: it appeals to those who themselves did not do well in schools; those who rely on common sense rather than on thoughtful analysis; those who fear minorities and the poor; those who has low expectations for minorities and the poor; and those who do not know the full range of pedagogical options available" as Haberman tells us. Looking at the spectrum of those who appeal to the pedagogy of poverty, we can say that a majority of us are in that spectrum; for good reasons or bad reasons we find ourselves allocate in the spectrum of poverty. Do not be ashamed of yourself--I am.
Mr. Haberman's article, The Pedagogy of Poverty Versus Good Teaching, looks at the teaching acts that constitute the core functions of urban teaching. Upon looking at these basic acts, Mr. Haberman notices, as he tells us, these basic acts "constitute the pedagogy of poverty--not merely what teachers do and what youngsters expect but, for different reasons, what parents, the community, and general public assume teaching to be." The basic acts that teachers usually do like telling students to open their books to this page and read this paragraph is expected by you, your teacher, and yes, your parent(s) or guardian(s), and educational policy makers. They assume (you, me, and everyone) these basic acts are what teaching is and it's good teaching. Martin Haberman tells us otherwise. He tells us that,"There are occasions when any one of the 14 acts might have a beneficial effect. Taken together and performed to the systematic exclusion of other acts they have become pedagogical coin of the realm in urban schools." Urban schools primary means of instruction is singular; there's no either or, just one form of teaching that is recognized by everyone; as a result, it is constructed of the basic acts that are mandated and institutionalized in the system at all grade levels and subjects. Since the pedagogy of poverty has been here for a long time and it is embedded in our society, why change it. "It appeals to several constituencies: it appeals to those who themselves did not do well in schools; those who rely on common sense rather than on thoughtful analysis; those who fear minorities and the poor; those who has low expectations for minorities and the poor; and those who do not know the full range of pedagogical options available" as Haberman tells us. Looking at the spectrum of those who appeal to the pedagogy of poverty, we can say that a majority of us are in that spectrum; for good reasons or bad reasons we find ourselves allocate in the spectrum of poverty. Do not be ashamed of yourself--I am.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Hope vs. Despair: How Do We Reconcile the Two?
Hope is not what we think when we speak about public schools—especially urban schools. Disparity is seen when looking at public schools. Why shouldn’t we see disparity? When Harold Hodgkinson (2001) tells us in his article Educational Demographics: What Teachers Should Know that, “Twenty percent of U.S. kids are below the poverty line today—exactly the same percentage as 15 years ago—even though most of the nation is less segregated and wealthier” (9). In the past two decades have we made changes to fix this broken educational system? My main goal for this blog is to situate hope within a broad perspective that allows us to reconcile the despair that we see in public schools—especially urban schools.
A decade ago the Annenberg Institute for School Reform, as they tell us in their article The Promise of Urban Schools, “invited a small group of committed scholars and successful urban educators to think creatively together about the unresolved issues facing our nation’s urban schools” (1). After two years of researching and development, the group outlines a framework that would allow urban schools to excel in the postindustrial age. There first proposal to resolve issues facing urban schools is “the personal and collective agency of students and adults in the school and its community” (2). Believing that change in urban schools can only be made by those that are living in the community and those that are working in urban schools; the Senior Fellows perceive students and adults (teachers, parents, community leaders, and others) in the community and schools as major players in shaping a more just and equitable schools. The Senior Fellows' second proposal is the ability of urban schools to “function as equitable, just, humane communities” (4). As we all know, or better as Hodgkinson bluntly tells us that, “nothing is distributed evenly across the United States. Not race, not religion, not age, not fertility, not wealth, and certainly not access to higher education” (7). We live in one of the richest country in the world; yet, the United States has the largest gap of wealth between the poor and the rich. Knowing such facts, the Senior Fellows believe that it is important to pair the issues of equity and justice. As they explain to us in their paper, “Educational justice means that all children can achieve in school, regardless of their own or their community’s race, ethnicity, language, religion, gender, or economic status” (6). Such policies, as they tell us, “are the responsible of educators and policy makers at the local, district, state, and national levels” (6). There third proposal concerns the standard at which urban students are held. They believe that “like schools in all communities, urban schools must be held to high standards” (6). They believe powerful learning experiences and pedagogies can help urban students achieve high standards like their counterpart, suburban students. The last thing the Senior Fellow touch upon is assessment strategies. The Senior Fellows believe that, “exhibitions of students achievement should include multimodal and multimedia demonstrations and student-generated publications as well as text-based evaluations” (9). Something that we rarely see on state and federal tests.
The Senior Fellows outline a good framework that would allow urban schools to excel in the postindustrial age. Yet, I find myself doubting their proposals. My reason for doubting the Senior Fellows’ proposals is because the proposals they provide us are the same rhetoric that have been proposal by others to better urban schools: agency of changes, equity and justice for urban schools, and better instruction and curriculum. Their proposals sound like something a presidential candidate would say concerning education in America—ideals—things that people want to here. The Senior Fellows fail to discuss the problems that urban schools are facing. The only time that they discuss the problems that urban schools are facing is in their second proposal—the tension between equality and justice that are seen when looking at urban schools. I believe the Senior Fellows should have discus the disparities that urban schools are facing more in depth.
In conclusion, I believe to reconcile hope in urban schools we must bring to tension the disparities that urban schools are facing. We must not hide behind high hope to fix urban schools—they're just rhetoric. We must face our fear—that is the disparities that loom around urban schools. "We must look at the shifting demographics in the United States affecting the population that most concerns educators: their students" as Hodgkinson explains to us. In doing so, we can bring hope to urban schools.
A decade ago the Annenberg Institute for School Reform, as they tell us in their article The Promise of Urban Schools, “invited a small group of committed scholars and successful urban educators to think creatively together about the unresolved issues facing our nation’s urban schools” (1). After two years of researching and development, the group outlines a framework that would allow urban schools to excel in the postindustrial age. There first proposal to resolve issues facing urban schools is “the personal and collective agency of students and adults in the school and its community” (2). Believing that change in urban schools can only be made by those that are living in the community and those that are working in urban schools; the Senior Fellows perceive students and adults (teachers, parents, community leaders, and others) in the community and schools as major players in shaping a more just and equitable schools. The Senior Fellows' second proposal is the ability of urban schools to “function as equitable, just, humane communities” (4). As we all know, or better as Hodgkinson bluntly tells us that, “nothing is distributed evenly across the United States. Not race, not religion, not age, not fertility, not wealth, and certainly not access to higher education” (7). We live in one of the richest country in the world; yet, the United States has the largest gap of wealth between the poor and the rich. Knowing such facts, the Senior Fellows believe that it is important to pair the issues of equity and justice. As they explain to us in their paper, “Educational justice means that all children can achieve in school, regardless of their own or their community’s race, ethnicity, language, religion, gender, or economic status” (6). Such policies, as they tell us, “are the responsible of educators and policy makers at the local, district, state, and national levels” (6). There third proposal concerns the standard at which urban students are held. They believe that “like schools in all communities, urban schools must be held to high standards” (6). They believe powerful learning experiences and pedagogies can help urban students achieve high standards like their counterpart, suburban students. The last thing the Senior Fellow touch upon is assessment strategies. The Senior Fellows believe that, “exhibitions of students achievement should include multimodal and multimedia demonstrations and student-generated publications as well as text-based evaluations” (9). Something that we rarely see on state and federal tests.
The Senior Fellows outline a good framework that would allow urban schools to excel in the postindustrial age. Yet, I find myself doubting their proposals. My reason for doubting the Senior Fellows’ proposals is because the proposals they provide us are the same rhetoric that have been proposal by others to better urban schools: agency of changes, equity and justice for urban schools, and better instruction and curriculum. Their proposals sound like something a presidential candidate would say concerning education in America—ideals—things that people want to here. The Senior Fellows fail to discuss the problems that urban schools are facing. The only time that they discuss the problems that urban schools are facing is in their second proposal—the tension between equality and justice that are seen when looking at urban schools. I believe the Senior Fellows should have discus the disparities that urban schools are facing more in depth.
In conclusion, I believe to reconcile hope in urban schools we must bring to tension the disparities that urban schools are facing. We must not hide behind high hope to fix urban schools—they're just rhetoric. We must face our fear—that is the disparities that loom around urban schools. "We must look at the shifting demographics in the United States affecting the population that most concerns educators: their students" as Hodgkinson explains to us. In doing so, we can bring hope to urban schools.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)