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.