When Post-Modernism Attacks

This is the inspiration behind Farts and Letters.

It takes me back to an American Lit survey class, junior year. I disagreed with a student on an interpretation, pointing to a line of text as evidence. She looked at me aghast, and asked:

“You mean you can’t read something and get one interpretation, and I can’t read something and get a different interpretation?”

I replied that sure, we could, and we were. But that didn’t mean both of our interpretations were equally valid. 

My prof. then looked down wisely, and condescended to inform me that I was a “new criticist,” which we were all to understand was an outdated form of literary criticism. I hadn’t taken critical theory yet, and I had no idea what it was. The matter was sufficiently concluded, and we could all get back to talking about how the poems and stories meant whatever the heck we felt like they meant.

Via Joanne Jacobs via Maggie’s Farm.

Pride and Prejudice Conquered

After 6 years of teaching English, this English teacher has finally read Pride and Prejudice. It took me about four attempts (I never managed to make it past page 4o or so. I’d always get distracted by some other book). A few weeks ago, I watched my 14 year old sister reading it for her honors English project (two other younger siblings had read it for summer projects as well) and realized the full extent of my pathetic self. So I took it on my anniversary trip, set a few other books aside, and slogged through what turned out to be a slightly enjoyable experience. 

Perhaps I’m simply not literarily astute enough to appreciate the magnificence of this masterpiece, but I did get a kick out of the humor.

And I still hold to my former opinion that there is far too high an emphasis on balls.

Happy New Year

Summer is in its death throes, but no one wants to hear whining from a 28 year old who still gets a month or two paid vacation every summer. So there I was, taking it like a man, back in my classroom getting it all tidied and streamlined. Sooner or later, I had to confront the junk drawer. The junk drawer is immediately next to my desk/teacher nook (I don’t have an actual desk anymore), so it’s a convenient place to store all manner of useful supplies, supplies I haven’t touched in four years, student notes, confiscated gum, tech-decks, sunglasses, arts, crafts, pictures, reindeer made our of springs, and other miscellaneous treasures accumulated throughout the schoolyear.

At one point I stumbled across a custom-made ginger bread man I’d been saving in a plastic baggie. It might seem gross, but it’s not the first time I’ve become sentimental about a snack. This particular ginger bread man was formed in the likeness of me, complete with a frosting tie, name, and other individualistic features. I couldn’t bear to eat it, and I coudn’t bear to throw it away, but the thing had to go. But before I let go, I’ve decided to memorialize the ginger bread man here on this blog with 200 or so words, and an image. 

 

And while it’s not edible, it’s also time to part ways with a metallic happy birthday balloon I was given about a year ago by a few of my students. It was a nice piece of wall art for the rest of the year, but it too has run its course. It too will be immortalized below. 

 

Thank you too my thoughtful students for giving me positive memories to jump start this school year. Teaching will drive me flipping insane at times, but there’s a soft side that creeps out of these kids. I promise all my future students that I will work tirelessly, and I pledge to make life a living hell for the lazy ones (i.e., I will MAKE them do work, and REFUSE to allow them to make failure their first choice). I hope and believe they will be better off for having me as a teacher.

Why Don’t Students Like School? (review)

I’ve been a teacher for six years. I’ve been a student at multiple schools of education, an attendee of numerous staff development workshops, an avid listener of several educational gurus. Here are a few things I know: 

1. We need to teach students to do more than bubble in answer sheets.
2. Memorizing facts is fairly useless. Instead, we need to teach students to be critical thinkers. 

These are a few of the ideas Dan Willingham so politely torpedoes in Why Don’t Students Like School (WDSLS?). Each chapter begins with a simple, common question related to a core educational issue. He begins each answer with a guiding cognitive principle rooted in a body of research, and proceeds to extrapolate how each principle applies to teaching and learning. He concludes each chapter with a series of concrete applications for the classroom. 

As a wanna-be rabble rouser, I have to say I love the counter-intuitive nature of the cognitive principles guiding each chapter. Most of them drop like a bombshell on the landscape of conventional ed. wisdom. And, contrary to the vitriol with which many (including myself) confront sacred cows, Willingham is a most benevolent bomb-dropper. 

I picture the author, mirroring the kindly, sagagious photo on the book jacket, as he pats me on the shoulder, gently enlightening me as follows:

1. The brain is not necessarily made for thinking.
2. Factual knowledge must precede critical thinking.
3. “Proficiency requires practice.” (well, duh. Why do we have such a hard time with that one?)
4. Students are more similar than different when it comes to learning styles. Student learning styles should be secondary to content when making instructional decisions.
5. Students won’t think like experts, and attempting to have them think like experts will do more harm than good.  

There’s plenty more, including some exhortations that won’t ignite as much controversy (intelligence can be enhanced through hard work) but these were the jaw-droppers. Ok, maybe I had suspected a few of these, but I hadn’t heard them expressed quite so succinctly:

trying to teach students skills such as analysis or synthesis in the absence of factual knowledge is impossible. Research from cognitive science has shown that the sorts of skills that teachers want for students–such as the ability to analyze and to think critically–require extensive factual knowledge.

Contrast that with ”expert” advice to “help disadvantaged/falling behind kids to think critically, since we don’t have time to catch them up on all the content they are missing.” Unfortanately, such thinking leads to a lot of wasted time for the kids who need it most. The implications, especially for those who view education as a social equalizer, are huge. The disadvantaged kids need factual knowledge and the time to practice this knowledge more than anyone, and these are the ones we keep trying to impart “skills” already possessed by the “advanced” students. Willingham’s book clarifies the implications of such a view: Students with the “skills” also have a set of background knowledge that enables them to utilize those “skills” effectively. Students without such background knowledge will benefit minimally from instruction aimed at helping them acquire those skills. 

In a sense, this was a disheartening book to read. People can’t think on deeper levels until they have sufficient knowledge, practice, and automaticity. Current educational parameters aren’t exactly conducive to achieving those goals. Willingham’s applications provide a place to start, however, and hopefully his highly readable and applicable book will assist mainstream education to embrace the possibility of factual knowledge/repetitive practice and critical thinking/21st century skills finally taking off the gloves and making nice.

The CTA and Me: Chemistry cooling

Oops. I guess the title of this post was rhetoric. I wrote there regarding the altruistic tendencies of the CTA (there pursuit of helping children, widows, etc.) A spokesperson for the venerable organization was bemoaning cuts to education, ostensibly because of the insidious effects these cuts would have on children. One would think then, that such an organization would itself consistently pursue policies and behaviors that are salutary towards children’s “best interests.”

Alas, I had forgotten these posts. And I’m not exactly a prolific poster, a union watchdog, etc. These have come from my personal experience, from the last year or so, and I did not start out with any vitriol, ill will, or general nausea at the mention of unions. I have gradually become more and more disillusioned as I witnessed instance after instance of manipulation, mob-mentality, hypocrisy, and opportunistic exploitation of innocents (kids, children, the young, OUR young, etc.) who are sure to garner a sympathetic ear. I’ve witnessed this at the local (“no classrooms of the future with salaries of the past,” don’t help make calls to support bond measures that would help kids until they address our salary issues, don’t do anything extra beyond contractual obligations, etc.), state, and federal level of my union, and I have simply had it. 

My resignation letters are typed, ready to be printed and sent out. Agency fee payer status is on the way.

NEA and Christian Home Education Association Unite

Odd bedfellows I say, but both have demonstrated varying levels of opposition to the growth of charter schools. I guess this isn’t surprising in itself. since both of these organizations have their power structures threatened by the alternative presented by charter growth.

Unions fear loss of membership and power because of the freedom of choice exercised by the staff at most charter schools. Some choose to unionize, some form alternate associations, and most teachers at charter schools report high levels of job satisfaction, in spite of the fact that the NEA or AFT is not there to protect them.

CHEA is even more direct, attacking the emergence of homeschooling via charter school, where parents can procure governement funding to educate their children at home. Literature from CHEA and other evangelical homeschooling groups refer to state-sanctioned homeschooling as “a trojan horse,” a “tool of the enemy,”  ”the plague,” and other nefarious something or other.

CHEA and the NEA have about as much in common as Mike Tyson and Michael Jackson, so this momentary unification in purpose is striking, even though it makes sense. If public homeschooling is indeed a “trojan horse” being used by the minions of the state to usurp parental authority and reel children back into the folds of government education, it’s paradoxical to find the NEA, one of the most powerful influences in government education (and elsewhere, despite the fact that they are an “education” association) opposing the trojan horse that is preparing to infiltrate the fortresses of Christian homeschoolers.

Now that has the makings of a serious conspiracy. Maybe the NEA is pretending to oppose the trojan horse, and when the perfidious soldiers leap from the belly of the horse, the NEA will suddenly join forces with a diabolical “GOTCHA!”

Perhaps I shouldn’t make light of a serious issue, because I respect and advocate for parents’ right to education their children as they see fit without any interference from the state or federal governments. I am a product of public, private, AND home schooling, with the latter making up the bulk of my education. I have taught in a public school for 6 years, and my wife and I will likely homeschool our own children, with God’s help raising them in the fear and admonition of the Lord.

I find it troubling AND manipulative to see CHEA and others using scripture (out of context at times) to demonize what can be a viable educational choice for Christians. I fear that they may even be using scripture to preserve their existence, and while I support their existence, employing the word of God in service of sustaining a physical endeavor is an inversion of priorities.

For example:

In government homeschooling, you place those who hate God over your homeschool. God is the head of the husband who is the head of the wife. The divine lines of authority established by God are disrupted when you insert the public school system into this holy order.

I do not disagree that much of what is encountered in a public school system can be hostile to God. However, it is disingenuous to make claims like this, ESPECIALLY when all legal homeschoolers are registering as private schools that pledge to teach the same basic subjects, as dictated by state regulations. This legal reality, then, is subject to the same criticism of placing “those who hate God over your homeschool.” Most would consider this a false dichotomy, and it is. Using state funds to homeschool your kids is a free exercise of choice on behalf of the parent, who are the ones responsible for educating their children. To demonize such a decision as ungodly is to inject a third party human perspective into the family unit, which ironically  is what is supposed to be preserved.

EVERY parent/guardian is a homeschooler. Some suck at it. Some are brilliant. Many choose to use a public school as a tool, others choose a private school, and still others opt to homeschool. A variety of tools are at the parents disposal, and each parent is responsible to make the best use of such tools. To assume that employing one tool over another is to reject biblical authority is to assume a false dichotomy. This dichotomy, in essence, holds that public resources and spiritual integrity are mutually exclusive. This is not the case, and I would argue that acknowledgment of this dichotomy, at its root, is fairly common sense. I may take the time to argue the specific reasons later, as my goal is not to diminutive towards those who hold otherwise. It is this false dichotomy, I believe, that permeates every Christian rejection of the charter school movement for homeschoolers.

I will take a moment to point out one obvious inconsistency: Public schools are often demonized as indoctrination centers, and often they are. It is not so much the texts, but the philosophies of the educators that are the method of indoctrination. This “indoctrination” can and should take place at the home, where even public school children spend the majority of their lives. The parental influence made possible via home charter schools allows for ample infusing of a biblical world view. Under a parents’ watchful eye, critical examination of “worldly” texts, alongside systematic biblical teaching is perhaps a superior method of instruction.

Ultimately, CHEA’s wholesale assault on homeschooling via charter makes me squirm, as does their employing scripture to promote what is an arguable position. If charter schools show themselves to be a trojan horse, then they must be resisted. But they are miles removed from it thus far, and homeschooling is enjoying soaring public approval. If preservation of freedom is paramount, it does not make sense to restrict freedom of other individuals to make use of the tools available in this country.

Magic Marker Sex Talk

In a setting where nuance and ambiguity are consistently praised, it is ironic that many participants in academia persist in both of those traits in their opponents–particularly when those opponents run afoul of the university brand of tolerance.

In our final day of class (I’ve made it through a year of graduate study) we discussed a hypothetical case where a student was suspended for wearing a shirt that read “homosexuality is shameful.” Our class discussion was spirited, full of diversity (of ideas), and quite useful. I continue be impressed with how the faculty handles the typical hot button issues. The lean is decidedly left and post-modern, but most professors so far have made a point of providing an environment where ideas can be safely exchanged. I was struck, however, by how several student repeatedly referred to any slogan affirming a negative belief of homosexuality as “hate speech” or “homophobia.” The student in question may well have been a hater and a homophobe, but I fail to see how an affirmation of belief regarding the morality of homosexuality is unequivocally hatred. 

This strikes me as a fallacious blend of straw man and ad hominem attack. I’ll call it “ad strawminem.” At any rate, one would hope those engaging in an exchange of ideas could appreciate that moral objection does not automatically constitute hatred. Casting a moral objector as a bigot (as gay advocates often do to anti-gay advocates) is a convenient, albeit logically flawed method of dealing with the objection. It’s much easier to dismiss, out of hand, the ideas of a raging homophobe than it is to examine the philosophical, moral, and spiritual underpinnings of a belief system that says homosexuality is immoral. Hatred–ironically enough, given our post-modern culture–is almost universally denounced as wrong. Therefore, in order to discredit an individual and their argument, one must simply cast their views as “hate.” 

It’s important to distinguish between the motivations and beliefs of those who, when the lines are broadly drawn, might appear to be on the same side. Those who refuse to acknowledge a nuanced perspective of those objecting to homosexuality outline a multiplicity of views with a magic marker. If we’re concerned with rationality, investigation, ethics, morality, and ultimately truth, we’re better off using a fine tipped pen. 

Negotiating Equitable Summer Jobs Program

Summer school is supposed to be an intervention, right? For students who need extra support, provided in a short, powerful, highly focused burst of competent instruction. I makes no flipping sense to staff an intervention teaching position by “taking turns.” And yet, some teachers’ unions, in the omnipresent interest of what’s “best for children,” advocate for hiring “based on seniority,” and after staff has taught for two years they are moved to “the bottom of the rotation list.” This has got to be one of the most asinine, hypocritical, and simultaneously revealing policies I have encountered in my short tenure as an educator. 

Summer school consists of math and English classes. Subject matter competency and experience teaching/developing summer school curriculum are apparently negligible factors in the union’s eyes, and actual summer school experience HURTS potential applicants, since two years gets you bumped to the bottom of the rotation. It’s like a T-ball league. Everybody gets their turn at every position. 

What bubbles my bile the most is how the rationale used for discerning teaching talent is basically reversed during the summer. For example, for employment during the regular school year, years of experience–like a true love story–conquers all. Updated negotiations suggest that teachers with 11 or more years of experience only need to be evaluated every four years, whereas those with less are to be evaluated every two years. Non-tenured need it every year. I perceive the union to be suggesting that longevity=less need for practice to be evaluated by a third party. I also perceive this to be a conclusion unsupported by evidence.  For some reason, however, we get all paradoxical after May, and suddenly years of experience work against you. How this all figures into helping children is a mystery. Actually it’s not. The double standard regarding seniority and its conflicting applications for summer and regular school sessions highlights blatant stupidity and hypocrisy. 

At very best, we are admitting that the summer program is not highly rigorous. In fact, we’re turning it into a laugh factory, where credentialed, experienced teachers are not needed to teach students who supposedly need competent instruction the most. We all get to take our turn in the summer job program for teachers. 

I am forced to conclude that summer school is democratic jobs system that attempts to distribute compensation equally among any union member who desires to participate. Skills are immaterial, specific knowledge bases are ignored,  and experience works against you. For the public supposedly being served (and they are being served), it’s a dollar bill-burning charade.

Professional Learning Community (PLC)–reflection

Our presenter told us today that the American educational system was not designed for equity of all citizens. It was designed to sift and sort the ablest among us. I agree with this to an extent, although I think many reform movements within the educational system were aimed at all students, but not all students were encouraged toward the same goals (academic achievement for example. Some students may have required “life-adjustment” curriculum. I’m glad I wasn’t around for that little foray into…whatever it was). 

Anyway, he proceeded to remind us that our goal was to ensure high levels of learning for every single student, while working within the confines of system that was not exactly designed to allow us to do this. The constraints placed upon us via unions, outside interests, ourselves, “one best system” all conspire against our efforts to ensure that all students learn. The principal can’t require things of the staff because the staff is protected. Teachers can’t force other teachers to do things they don’t want. We can’t extend the school day. We can’t group students the way we might see fit. 

It is extraordinarily amazing to see what some of these model “PLC” schools are doing to negotiate these barriers on their way to success. It is inspiring. Literally. Like I feel as if I have had my head squeezed in a vice, and then stabbed with a spire. There is so much to be done that is not being done, and this realization is especially daunting when I consider how hard myself and my colleagues already work. But of course, working harder is not what we’re being paid to do. 

I find myself thoroughly disgusted with an intractable system that resists efforts to the point where these model schools have to pull off acrobatic maneuvers in order to to great things. The task of education must be monumental regardless of the system, to be sure. I can’t help but feeling, however, that there is some sort of ethereal monstrosity hellbent on maintaining a system that is not conducive to “all students learning” at high levels. 

I’m beginning to feel the fire roasting the butts of systemic school reformers. I don’t believe there is one best answer to reforming schools, but I think there must be something better than our current one-best-answer. For now, it feels like we’re all trying to find the best way to swim in parkas and snowboots. Plenty of us are drowning, some making an admirable effort to stay afloat. Others, indeed, have figured out how to forge ahead in spite of the baggage. If we really believe all children can learn at high levels, teaching with integrity requires an inexorable pursuit toward that end. 

Nevertheless, I have a cylindrical hole in my head, and I wish someone would help me shed a few layers.

Back to school

I’m back at university, studying schools and what-not for an MA. First quarter is down. I was a bit intimidated the first time through (I still am, actually), but I wrote a few quality papers, and I understood a lot of the mountain of reading material. It’s been a good call so far. 

Post-modern thought is undeniably pervasive here (and I’m sure elsewhere), which is sort of a broccoli fart, but I’m being challenged, and it’s forcing me to do more reading. Some instruction has been surgically one-sided, however my experience on the whole has been that professors make an effort to ensure all voices are heard. One class was truly emblematic of the diversity-of-thought ideal. One was not, and often I was too weary to deal with the awkward consequences of making a respectfully challenging comment. Once in a while I did, and then the class would get quiet and stare at the floor. But all instructors have demonstrated themselves to be knowledgeable, helpful, kind, and enthusiastic.  

That was last quarter, and so far I’ve only had one meeting for each of my winter classes, but so far so good. Here are a few post-modern nuggets from this week’s reading (Scott, 1998, in Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems, pp. 3-29). Take me out with a puff of putrid green gas.

Number 1:

“It is essential to remember that definitions are neither true nor false, but are only more or less helpful in calling attention to certain aspects of the phenomenon under study.”

Sort of an irrelevant comment if it’s neither true or false. I understand the point, but there’s no need to say things like “definitions are neither true nor false,” which is statement that sort of loses it’s pop if it’s not true or false. 

Number 2:

“Each (conception)…carries it’s own truths as well as its own biases.”

Truths, just coming and going, floating too and fro. Never can have enough of them. Also, it’s sort of weird to have truths, yet not have definitions that are either true or false. Weird. 

Definitely farts in the letters.