According to Todd Myers at the National Center for Policy Analysis, federal efforts to "green" our schools are a waste of money. He bases this conclusion on a very selective and narrow set of evidence, that of a few schools in Washington state. Did he choose to examine Washington because it is "the national leader in embracing the green school movement," or because the numbers from this sample supported his chosen conclusion? And how can we make sweeping generalizations about policy success or failure based on a single year of evidence? There are clear flaws in Myers' reasoning, but he does raise some worthwhile concerns. How much federal money should go toward greening existing schools, or constructing new schools with green features? Would the money be better spent hiring better teachers?
The environmental movement has taken over the American public consciousness in the last few years, and schools have begun to reflect this shift with an array of green initiatives. A report from the Maryland Association of Environmental and Outdoor Education directly contradicts Myers, finding a positive correlation between green education programs and student achievement (http://www.maeoe.org/pdf/GSreport_bw.pdf)
It may be easier to influence environmentally-friendly behavior in schools than to completely redesign them. Sesame Street, a champion of early literacy and daily fixture of my childhood, has also promoted environmentalism for years. Kids now grow up being at least familiar with recycling and reducing our negative impact on our environment. Schools should take advantage of this fact, allowing kids to see that they can make a positive difference in their communities. That should be a primary lesson underlying the entire curriculum, regardless of whether its is attached to environmentalism.
http://www.takepart.com/blog/2009/06/18/40-years-of-sesame-street-recycling/
Friday, June 26, 2009
Monday, June 22, 2009
Escaping the Bubble
All of us exist in bubbles of one kind or another. Every culture and subculture creates its own bubble, wherein members are aware that other cultures and experiences exist, yet not interact with or view them in their full complexity. This helps in group cohesion, yet can easily morph into ethno-centrism, elitism, close-mindedness, or xenophobia.
My own high school experience was one of bubbles within bubbles, so thickly layered that one could barely discern the sunlight from the outside world. First, my high school was private, a bubble that contained just the upper-middle class families who could afford it. It was overwhelmingly, blindingly white, a bubble that fostered ignorance and intolerance of minority cultures. It was also Christian, yet another bubble. Other faiths and belief systems from throughout the world and throughout history were not explored in any depth whatsoever. And within the bubble of Christianity, it was of a certain Protestant denomination-the Church of Christ. Layer upon layer upon layer. None of us had ever heard of multiculturalism. Though I occasionally railed against the stultifying atmosphere, I didn't do too much to upset the boat.
That cultures and customs aside from "WASP" exist and are worth of consideration now seems obvious. America's identity is shifting, becoming steadily more diverse. We can ignore this fact, and teach our kids history and knowledge from a White Man's perspective. Or we can actually help them to acknowledge, care about, and engage the outside world. We can break down the bubbles one by one.
I have conflicting feelings about E.D. Hirsch. In the interest of full disclosure, I actually received a copy of Cultural Literacy in the 6th grade, as a prize for finishing second in the regional spelling bee (one word from Washington). Its subtitle now rankles me: What every American needs to know. As decided by whom? There is a least a risk of neglecting minority perspectives here, if not outright cultural imperialism. However, E.D. Hirsch makes his own case well, with some enlightening insights. His Core Knowledge program makes some strides toward multiculturalism (certainly more than did my high school), but its focus is very much on cultural assimilation. If you are to be fully American, fully literate, fully cultured, these are our foundational concepts.
There is value in this, as much as I fear it. Judging by the topics and sequences on Hirsch's Core Knowledge website (http://coreknowledge.org/CK/index.htm), the Foundation's curriculum is far more coherent and rigorous than most public schools. It provides specifics, rather than the bloodless vagaries and abstractions of many of Tennessee's standards (I'm thinking of History standards here). A common attack on Hirsch is that his program is too fact-dependent, based on rote memorization. There are certainly facts here that he suggests get covered, but he does not get into recommended delivery methods.
This provokes difficult questions: Does a Japanese immigrant family place the same importance on Western literature and philosophy that most Americans do? Should new Americans be pressured to assimilate, and to what degree? This is a debate at the heart of immigration policy, and could be discussed ad infinitum. For me, there is no honest way to avoid multicultural education (see earlier blog post). Can we reach all cultures and preserve an essentially 'American' culture as well? This remains to be seen.
My own high school experience was one of bubbles within bubbles, so thickly layered that one could barely discern the sunlight from the outside world. First, my high school was private, a bubble that contained just the upper-middle class families who could afford it. It was overwhelmingly, blindingly white, a bubble that fostered ignorance and intolerance of minority cultures. It was also Christian, yet another bubble. Other faiths and belief systems from throughout the world and throughout history were not explored in any depth whatsoever. And within the bubble of Christianity, it was of a certain Protestant denomination-the Church of Christ. Layer upon layer upon layer. None of us had ever heard of multiculturalism. Though I occasionally railed against the stultifying atmosphere, I didn't do too much to upset the boat.
That cultures and customs aside from "WASP" exist and are worth of consideration now seems obvious. America's identity is shifting, becoming steadily more diverse. We can ignore this fact, and teach our kids history and knowledge from a White Man's perspective. Or we can actually help them to acknowledge, care about, and engage the outside world. We can break down the bubbles one by one.
I have conflicting feelings about E.D. Hirsch. In the interest of full disclosure, I actually received a copy of Cultural Literacy in the 6th grade, as a prize for finishing second in the regional spelling bee (one word from Washington). Its subtitle now rankles me: What every American needs to know. As decided by whom? There is a least a risk of neglecting minority perspectives here, if not outright cultural imperialism. However, E.D. Hirsch makes his own case well, with some enlightening insights. His Core Knowledge program makes some strides toward multiculturalism (certainly more than did my high school), but its focus is very much on cultural assimilation. If you are to be fully American, fully literate, fully cultured, these are our foundational concepts.
There is value in this, as much as I fear it. Judging by the topics and sequences on Hirsch's Core Knowledge website (http://coreknowledge.org/CK/index.htm), the Foundation's curriculum is far more coherent and rigorous than most public schools. It provides specifics, rather than the bloodless vagaries and abstractions of many of Tennessee's standards (I'm thinking of History standards here). A common attack on Hirsch is that his program is too fact-dependent, based on rote memorization. There are certainly facts here that he suggests get covered, but he does not get into recommended delivery methods.
This provokes difficult questions: Does a Japanese immigrant family place the same importance on Western literature and philosophy that most Americans do? Should new Americans be pressured to assimilate, and to what degree? This is a debate at the heart of immigration policy, and could be discussed ad infinitum. For me, there is no honest way to avoid multicultural education (see earlier blog post). Can we reach all cultures and preserve an essentially 'American' culture as well? This remains to be seen.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Academic Xenophobia vs. Multiculturalism
I agree with Samuel Taylor that what we teach our kids about our own history is vital. This is the only point on which he and I agree. For Mr. Taylor, the purpose of teaching American History used to be to instill patriotism, a sense of national pride, to prove American exceptionalism. For him, that ideologically and morally pure purpose has been deluded by a dirtying and filthy "multiculturalism." History was and should remain "history about white people for white people."
ARE YOU JOKING? History does have winners and losers, and white men were usually the winners (and thus writers) of History. But Mr. Taylor loses all credibility when he sinks into vicious and ridiculous cultural xenophobia. According to him, whites should not bother teaching about slavery because it was a "minor historical event" and only relevant during the Civil War!!! Slavery was built into this republic from the very beginning, and the "peculiar institution" survived because the Southern economy built its very foundations on it. Civil War and secession were being mentioned as distinctly possible as early as the 1820s, and the legacy of slavery turned seemingly sensible white men into Supremacist monsters, or at least culpable bystanders. You cannot tell the history of this country from any perspective without a discussion of slavery, the Civil War, Reconstruction, Jim Crow, and the Civil Rights Movement. This is not pandering or deluding the American heritage. It is being intellectually and academically honest, admitting that white men were (and are) capable of screwing up on a massive scale. Our History is complicated. The only reason kids know so little of Native-American history is that we (white "Americans") forcibly got rid of them! We built this country on the backs (and at the expense) of non-whites.
We can have an honest debate about how to teach kids about American identity. We can debate how to instill patriotism and pride. But we cannot lie, and continue pushing our past under the rug. It is a very short step from these distortions to the "White Nationalism" described by P.J. Tobia in "Pithissippi Burning."
To get a sense for yourself of Taylor's ideas,
http://www.vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/12/2/Taylor159-165.html
ARE YOU JOKING? History does have winners and losers, and white men were usually the winners (and thus writers) of History. But Mr. Taylor loses all credibility when he sinks into vicious and ridiculous cultural xenophobia. According to him, whites should not bother teaching about slavery because it was a "minor historical event" and only relevant during the Civil War!!! Slavery was built into this republic from the very beginning, and the "peculiar institution" survived because the Southern economy built its very foundations on it. Civil War and secession were being mentioned as distinctly possible as early as the 1820s, and the legacy of slavery turned seemingly sensible white men into Supremacist monsters, or at least culpable bystanders. You cannot tell the history of this country from any perspective without a discussion of slavery, the Civil War, Reconstruction, Jim Crow, and the Civil Rights Movement. This is not pandering or deluding the American heritage. It is being intellectually and academically honest, admitting that white men were (and are) capable of screwing up on a massive scale. Our History is complicated. The only reason kids know so little of Native-American history is that we (white "Americans") forcibly got rid of them! We built this country on the backs (and at the expense) of non-whites.
We can have an honest debate about how to teach kids about American identity. We can debate how to instill patriotism and pride. But we cannot lie, and continue pushing our past under the rug. It is a very short step from these distortions to the "White Nationalism" described by P.J. Tobia in "Pithissippi Burning."
To get a sense for yourself of Taylor's ideas,
http://www.vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/12/2/Taylor159-165.html
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Religion in Public Schools
If my child were required by law to observe a moment of prayer or reflection, I would also object. One does not have to be an atheist to respect the value of the church and state remaining separate. My problem with the Illinois law is the mandate. A child should not be ordered to pray or reflect. A publicly funded school should play no role in influencing a child's religious beliefs, or lack thereof. The social pressure placed on non-participants in prayer or reflection would have the effect of differentiating or isolating some students. I do not have a problem with prayers or moments of silence, but let the students organize it. A state mandate is unconstitutional, and should be.
I also believe that the freedom of expression includes the freedom not to express what everyone else expresses. I believe that no school has the right to force a child to pledge allegiance, regardless of whether the refusal is on religious grounds or not. The Court's position should be consistent, regardless of whether an objection comes from a Christian, Muslim, Jehovah's Witness, or atheist. Compelling students to respect national symbols is dangerous. Students should respect the principles, values and history of this country, but cannot be forced to do so.
I also believe that the freedom of expression includes the freedom not to express what everyone else expresses. I believe that no school has the right to force a child to pledge allegiance, regardless of whether the refusal is on religious grounds or not. The Court's position should be consistent, regardless of whether an objection comes from a Christian, Muslim, Jehovah's Witness, or atheist. Compelling students to respect national symbols is dangerous. Students should respect the principles, values and history of this country, but cannot be forced to do so.
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Makers, Innovators, and Raving Lunatics
According to John Taylor Gatto, schools have become (or have almost always been) corporate America's handmaiden, mind-numbing bastions of consumerism. Now if only you would buy his book (just three easy payments), he'd tell you all about it. Gatto scares me as much as the supposed horrors he describes. For him, public school is full of Bianca the animals and Trenchcoat mafia members just waiting to kill all of your children in the middle of the next standardized test.
I will not deny that public schooling has a 'public' interest, and that the line between public and corporate interest can occasionally blur almost to insignificance. Public education is partly designed to turn out workers and citizens that will "succeed" without challenging the status quo too strongly. Frederick Taylor's philosophies have almost certainly played a role in "Making" public school what it is today. And I will not deny that in the experiences of most kids, school can be dull, boring, or anxiety-ridden. But poorly executed practices do not defame first principals. All children deserve access to education, and not at their own expense. And at the classroom level, when genuine interaction occurs between a group of students and a teacher, real, meaningful learning can actually occur.
There are powerful obstacles to real, engaged, curiosity-driven learning, especially the Old White Guy perspective of Hirsch. In terms of actually reaching kids, innovators like John Dewey, Deborah Meier, and Geoffrey Canada (look up the Harlem Children's Zone) can have tremendous impact on both philosophy and practice. The focus has to be on the student has learned and can learn, not what the teacher or state wants to teach him.
I will not deny that public schooling has a 'public' interest, and that the line between public and corporate interest can occasionally blur almost to insignificance. Public education is partly designed to turn out workers and citizens that will "succeed" without challenging the status quo too strongly. Frederick Taylor's philosophies have almost certainly played a role in "Making" public school what it is today. And I will not deny that in the experiences of most kids, school can be dull, boring, or anxiety-ridden. But poorly executed practices do not defame first principals. All children deserve access to education, and not at their own expense. And at the classroom level, when genuine interaction occurs between a group of students and a teacher, real, meaningful learning can actually occur.
There are powerful obstacles to real, engaged, curiosity-driven learning, especially the Old White Guy perspective of Hirsch. In terms of actually reaching kids, innovators like John Dewey, Deborah Meier, and Geoffrey Canada (look up the Harlem Children's Zone) can have tremendous impact on both philosophy and practice. The focus has to be on the student has learned and can learn, not what the teacher or state wants to teach him.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
