I want to respond to a few things we talked about on 10/22. This is a loose response -- just "thinking out loud" here.
I was thinking about the NCLB teaching experience @ ms after reading Heather's final paper for american cities. . .so thinking more about topic choice and getting students engaged. Some of this is difficult to write about b/c I wasn't in the "poor schools" group @ ms, just the NCLB group, but thinking about what we were talking about w/ regards to relevance (thinking about Delpit here), poor schools definitely appeared more animated. I think our NCLB group was only excited about NCLB @ first 1) b/c we were hyping it up as something "relevant" to them--even though they only saw the effects of NCLB and again, teaching it is difficult (but definitely not impossible) and 2) b/c of their interest in learning about legal system, etc. This is my own little personal theory here -- but I do think that it is a possibility (obviously, we'll never know w/o interviewing students, which we can't do). The students, as we have said before, were VERY interested in the Brown stuff & the civil rights stuff -- and I remember at the end they expressed a desire to have a lawyer or someone related to that come in and talk to them about their rights. I think Elena gave them the name of an organization of Black lawyers who speak in schools -- students were very interested in that. So. . . .they may have thought that NCLB would teach them about their rights, but the whole way we approached it (as we've said before) was incorrect and made NCLB seem too far from their point of reference that they really were bored at the end when writing the letters -- which I am not sure if they even saw (and of course, we don't know if they got a response).
Going along with that, I was thinking about the part of Heather's paper when she writes, "…our voice overpowered theirs. Only the girl that was not told explicitly what to say used her own worlds to explain her work." I think this goes back to our 5-paragraph essay. We definitely had the same problem with both the education autobiography project in the beginning and the NCLB letter @ the end. I guess the whole point is when student's aren't given too much structure in terms of expressing themselves in the "official" sense (I mean in school, vs. how they may express themselves in more colloquial environments), they are able to express themselves better (even though they might not think so -- they might think maybe that they runa higher risk of being "wrong"). . .so basically my understanding then of the scaffolding is whatever teachers need to put in place to fill the gap, or maybe something to facilitate a balance between student and teacher voice? Also, with respect to how Heather's students responded to the written notes, why then do the students assume instructions where they don't exist (b/c the notes were just meant to give them a few suggestions for their presentation--is this a correct interpretation?)? Oh, and also, with respect to Delpit, wouldn't this disprove her thesis in her article "The Silenced Dialogue. . . " (expressing the importance of culturally relevant education -- she gives the example of how white and black students are given instruction in their home environment as directly influencing how they respond to teachers in the classroom. she basically says that black students are more likely to respond to direct commands, like "do this.," than white middle-class kids, who respond better to indirect commands, like "maybe you should do this now?") -- because the student that wasn't told exactly what to say (well, she maybe wanted something more than the notes) was more effective (is this right?). She responded to what she saw as a lack of structure as Delpit hypothesizes, but she produces superior work (or a better argument, in this case) as a result. We should have tried to do this in ms.
then also, how the teacher's unwillingess @ hs to take students' concerns over dress code seriously (something that the students felt a strong element of identity in) in a way delegitimizes the students' identity -- maybe the teacher reaction also appears to students as if teachers more concerned with student test scores (which translates into professional prestige and/or increased job security, esp. in volatile districts) than who they were as individuals. like the students may feel as if they are just a vehicle for teachers, school board, state, etc. instead of feeling like they actually own their education? don't know if I am making sense here -- basically i wonder if the students had that feeling -- almost like they are being used?
also, i was wondering how heather was able to chage "from being preoccupied with [her] voice to concentrating on [the students'] voice -- i know heather says that she became more familiar with their voices, but how did that then translate into developing a sensitivity to their voice? because i feel like many teachers lack that sensitivity, and i am wondering specifically why -- are there studies on this?
and another big question i have had for a while is how far is too far -- that is, how sensitive should teachers become before they lose control over their classroom -- or is that even an inevitable result? how do teachers maintain professionalism, but not to the point that they alienate students, and not to the point that they lose their own voice, i guess. i don't even know if that happens frequently -- just curious.
i also want to clarify the parent complaint thing -- i don't think that urban parents don't call to complain. actually, i definitely know that they definitely call to complain about a variety of issues. however, i don't know how much the calling is about teacher effectiveness -- maybe it focuses on more non-educational issues. there is this example that i'll give you tomorrow (don't want to do it here) that i think illustrates that. the thing that i think suburban parents do ad nauseum is to call and complain about their kid getting a crap grade on something regardless whether the student actually might have earned the grade he/she received -- i actually feel like the complaints are louder when the kids are definitely wrong (like, for example, a call about a student's punishment for being caught plagiarizing or something like that). not sure how often this occurs in other socio-economic groups. . .that would be interesting, although not sure exactly how germane that would be to literacy. but i definitely did not want to give the impression that i think urban parents don't call teachers (i.e. aren't engaged as much), whereas suburban parents do. that would be unfair and just reinforce this whole dangerous stereotype that the reason why urban schools fail is because the parents don't care about their kids.
also in respect to the nclb project, i definitely think that it is important to explain to kids why their entire education revolves around these standardized tests -- and maybe help them identify better the difference in thinking required to take a standardized test vs. writing a paper (one that forces students to move beyond this 5-paragraph essay thing they still use in 8th grade -- horrible, horrible thing!). . .i think that may also empower them. honestly, it seemed to me around the time they received their grades for the trimester at ms that the students were still more concerned with the standardized tests -- even though individual grades i feel should be more important to them. the standardized tests they are taking seem to be mostly used for statistical purposes -- they sure aren't designed to actually help the students develop their intellectual curiosity or academic skills. maybe that's overly pessimistic or something -- or maybe not. i really think that when we are talking about voice -- and the fact that standardized tests cannot by definition take into account the students on a personal level (heather you said this in your paper) -- we should also talk about the specific discourse that those tests speak to. this goes along with the whole culture thing we talked about a little on friday. that the increased focus on standardized testing is not only impersonal, but it is unfair to them because of the socio-economic group a lot of these kids come from and their cultural identity. in the sense that is again reinforces the majority discourse and delegitimizes the minority ones. is that a fair assessment? i guess this whole thing goes along with the whole "outside looking in" idea. i don't know. . .just rambling. . .
