Where I am, as of now......

                                                Philosophy of English Education

                                                            By Alex Kameen

Language is perhaps the most powerful tool at a human being’s disposal. Beyond helping us negotiate the constant social interactions we face in the world, language allows every person the power to mediate his or her own consciousness in a uniquely individualized manner. We use the processes of language, in this sense, to speak to and with ourselves. Language empowers and enables us to interact with our own emotions and reason, as well to engage with the larger communities outside of our selves with true meaning. In an exclusively human way, language is the ultimate technology for discovery; it allows us to discover the self, the world, and everything in between in a manner far superior to any other animal on earth. It is our avenue between the soul and the mind, the supreme signifier of human intelligence, and the fingerprint of our very existence–as no two people use it in exactly the same way. 

            Before I explain why I want to teach language and literacy, I need to establish my vision for the role of a professional English teacher. First and foremost, I agree with the popular notion that English teachers must have a passion and understanding of their content area, but I disagree rather strongly with the limited lens through which we tend to view the content area of an English teacher. A teacher of English is not a teacher of books, nor a teacher of form, rather a teacher of process. In that light, I do not believe it is my duty nor my right to “teach” my students literary texts, nor do I think there is a specific set of canonical texts that must be read in order to improve one’s literacy abilities. Shakespeare­–in my opinion–does not magically promote literacy development more so than Gary Soto, or Walter Dean Myers, for example. It is the genuine interactions between a student and the processes of reading, writing, and thinking that truly promote the empowering development of language and literacy. In the modern era, negotiating the daily world requires a higher level and broader range of literacy abilities than any date in human history, so the purpose of an English teacher should be to facilitate the growth of language and literacy skills for every single student that walks into the classroom–regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, culture, religion, socio-economic status, disability, or attitude. Yet still, English classrooms in America actively avoid the practice of literacy within the school walls, and many students leave their experience with little activated knowledge to tangibly impact their literate lives. I do not intend to nurture these failures within my own classroom walls.

            With all of these concepts on the front of my mind, my goal as an English teacher is to provide my students the appropriate time, space, and access necessary to engage powerfully with the reading and writing processes, and to give them explicit and strategic instruction when proper in order for them to reap the countless benefits of their daily literacy experiences. I hope to advance the counter movement against the static pedagogies of the “traditional” English classroom, focusing instead on the development of true critical literacy skills through the consistent practice of the craft in a workshop setting. My students will choose what they want to read, they will write about relevant issues that have an immediate impact on their lives, they will perform these acts of literacy inside of the classroom community on a consistent basis, and by doing so their out-of-school literate lives will be genuinely affected.

hooks 'em horns (get it?)

            Reading bell hooks’ book this past few weeks has been a challenging but enjoyable experience, and it is a book that I definitely recommend to anyone who is interested in issues of race, identity, and the politics of education (especially higher education). The book in a lot of ways has been a roller coaster ride of emotions, and it was not really what I expected when I chose to read it. There were many conversations in this book that challenged my preexisting beliefs about race and education, there were also some ideas that I directly disagreed with, and to be perfectly honest there were a few chapters that felt entirely out of place and unnecessary. It is also important to note that this book did not focus on secondary education at all, serving instead as a rather strong critique of higher education and what I would call “liberal escapism.” Regardless, I think this book has changed my perception on racism and how the forces of domination are held in place within our national structure.

            Throughout our program, we have spent a lot of time discussing racism as a “structure of oppression,” but I think this book has moved me beyond this idea of racism as a structure and has broadened my perspective to view racism instead as a pervasive culture. I appreciate this idea of a culture of racism because racism as a system can be problematic, as it implies that the oppression that comes with racism was actively and consciously established by a small select group of people, and that it is held in place by a small group of conscious decision makers. Not only does this idea let a lot of people off the hook, but also I think it does a great disservice to the magnitude of issues surrounding American racism. White people in general–as hooks would likely agree–tend to oversimplify the issues of racism in order to wash their hands of its harsh consequences, but to approach racism within the context of its vast complications is to give it the respect it deserves. With that in mind, the idea of racism as a system tends to pawn the problem off onto a mysterious group of conscious racists, as opposed to acknowledging that the dominant majority culture within this country is itself a function and facilitator for our mainstream oppressive values.
              Acknowledging that racism is not simply a concocted system but a historical culture allows us to view the idea of "national racial consciousness" (meaning the awareness of racism and appreciation of its complexity within our country) not as something to be conquered but rather as something to be sought out. This can be a rather confrontational idea, however, as it asks members of the dominant society to view their own complicitness (whether active or passive, conscious or unconscious) as problematic. Again, this is often controversial, as bell hooks cites Coco Fusco, saying, “to raise the specter of racism in the here and now, to suggest that despite their political beliefs and sexual preferences, white people operate within, and benefit from, white supremacist social structures is still tantamount to a declaration of war” (35). The provocation that comes from promoting this idea of racism as a culture, in my opinion, is that it forces us to acknowledge that racism is present here, now, and everywhere. Beyond that, it is to acknowledge that by focusing our selective blame on small group of old-white-tea-party pioneers is to deny the pervasive reality of racism within our country. White people can not simply point to other white people as the problem, in hopes of disassociating themselves with the consequences (and benefits) of our racialized culture. 

            Long story short, this book left me with a lot more questions than answers…but when dealing with issues of race and racism I think this is often the case, as racism is not something to be simply “solved.”

"My Sorrowful Heart"

             I had a pretty incredible experience during the final few days of this past week and have brought in some student work to share. Because we finished up our district testing early and had a few extra days to “kill,” I was able to plan out a two-day poetry workshop (which would lead us into our poetry unit that begins on Tuesday of this week). The overall goal for my mini-unit was to free up enough space in the classroom so students could create their own poetry. Basically, I figured that having students create poetry would be the best way for them to learn poetry. My ultimate goal was to have students write their own poems... but since I knew this would be difficult to jump right into (especially because they have not done much creative writing this year), I decided to scaffold the writing experience towards this final goal. With this in mind, the students worked the first day on creating “Found” poems, where they used words and phrases from other sources to create their poems. I thought this would be a unique and fun experience for the students, while also allowing them to essentially pull their poems from a physical “word bank”–thus removing some of the anxiety that comes with creating a poem from scratch. After students completed their poem, the next step was to choose their favorite line from their Found poem and use it as the first sentence of a “Response” poem, in which they used their “Found” poem as an inspiration for their own written poem.

            The results were wonderful, but as you will see when I show examples of student work, it would be very easy for a teacher (or administrator, or parent...) to simply “miss” the incredible achievements and "write off" many students' work, because activities like this do not always look like traditional learning. And by traditional learning, I mean quantified literacy instruction broken down into skills based writing. In this sense, I hope my class never looks like traditional learning.

            Anyway, I know this post is not very thorough or well developed, but this whole story is just going to be much easier to tell in person as I show you some student work to emphasize my point. The most powerful example comes from one student in particular, who essentially "failed" at creating a successful Found Poem (it made little to no sense and was basically just a collage of random words), but then used one line from his Found Poem to create a masterful Response poem. I was so proud of his work that I walked down and shared it with two other teachers in the hall to show how important this kind of work is. And unfortunately, I am sure that a lot of teachers would have viewed his work as a failure because his Found Poem could be perceived as such. But his final work was amazing, as he took the line "Celebrating Summer" from his Found Poem and wrote a beautiful and reflective piece. His poem reads (note, he used a more unique format structure for the poem that I will show you in person because it is hard to duplicate on the computer...):

"Celebrating Summer
Flashed me back
To a time when mom and dad
were still together
with pretty pink butterflies
on one windowed walls
and a big old bed
worthy of my dreams
offered to rest my weak body
and soothe my
sorrowful heart."

Line in the Sand

            In the first chapter of Ayers’ Book, “To Teach,” one quotation struck me as a painful yet inescapable truth. He writes, “Even as society occasionally posits a romanticized view of the dedicated, caring, inspiring teacher–brilliant, creative, self-sacrificing–we know that the harsh reality in many schools is a structure that disempowers and de-skills, a system that prespecifies each teacher’s thoughts and oversees and constrains our activities” (31). Throughout my intern and student teaching hours in the classroom–spread across 5 separate schools in 3 districts–I feel I have been a first hand witness and active participant in this disempowered school structure. In fact, as I have been studying the art and profession of “teaching” over the last 2 years, I have been unable to avoid the aggressive conclusion that teaching is no longer considered either an “art” or a “profession.” The question then becomes: was it ever? And beyond that, where did our “romanticized” ideas of teaching even begin? And how do we continue to ignore the fact that teachers are among the most manipulated bodies of workers in our nation?

            In our current system–as we have discussed thoroughly–the unique abilities of each individual teacher is diminished into the same type of “learning list” that Ayers speaks about in chapter 2. Unfortunately for teachers though, administrations too often enact scripted curriculums with the aim of safe guarding their classrooms against the typically perceived “deficiencies” of their teaching force (i.e. deficiencies in classroom management, test scores, and student control…). Instead of creating an open environment geared towards promoting authentic teacher creativity and innovation, we bully our teaching force towards passive conformity. In doing so, the teacher is then put in a position to enact that same kind of “deficiency control” over his or her students, where they do not create open situations for creative learning on the students’ part, instead positioning students in a manner which controls their deficits. As we now exist within the constraints of this current educational environment, what is our most productive form of rebellion? How do we regain some control over the educational outcomes of our students, without positioning our classrooms so strongly against the outside constraints that we lose our jobs or attract isolation? Is there a balance to be struck or must we simply “go for it” in the sense that we ignore the limitations of outside forces and build our classroom curriculums with little concern for what we do not value?

            Throughout the last few semesters, we (myself included) have discussed the idea of “carving out space” within the limitations of the mandated curriculum. In our discussions, we have focused on identifying key areas where we can “work with” the curriculum, and ultimately build space within these confines for “authentic teaching.”  Ayers, I believe, brings up a nice counter argument to this idea in his book. As he deconstructs the countless “myths of teaching,” he includes the myth that “good teachers begin with the curriculum they are given and find clever ways to enhance it” (25). This, in a general sense, is exactly the attitude I have been adopting over the past few semesters. Reading it as a teaching “myth” however, forced me to challenge this perspective, accept that it may be flawed, and in doing so search for some new approaches.  Although I agree that carving our space within a curriculum is not a negative pursuit, positioning the “authentic learning” as something that needs to be “squeezed into” the curriculum can have damaging effects. I believe, as Ayers would likely agree, that we need to flip the script on this perspective and begin to question/challenge every element of ANY curriculum (whether it is "given" to us or "created" by us). As Ayers admits in chapter 5, "When I realized that no curriculum unit was ever good enough (even though many materials and resources are terrific and worth drawing upon)and that I needed to focus on curriculum as a living challenge rather than as a better package, I began to evolve a framework for deliberating about curriculum in my own classrooms. I wanted to be proactive in thinking about curriculum, not always reacting to guidelines or requirements or units coming at me from the outside" (103-104). This new framework, of course, comes with extreme challenges and risks, but we must refuse to accept the idea that the areas of teaching that we truly value should somehow be limited by curriculum constraints, OR the limitation of our own curriculum ideas/goals. With this attitude we can begin to view the outside curriculum constraints themselves as the areas of the curriculum that must be “squeezed in,” while retaining the reflective perspective that our own ideas must be constantly evolving and must face relentless personal scrutiny. It is through this shift that our curriculum can take on a living form–always changing shape.

            Ultimately, each teacher has to figure out what works best in his or her own classroom. This is an extremely heavy task. I have been struggling this entire semester with many of these questions, as I have had to face the realistic fear that when I enter a difficult educational environment as a teacher my idealistic and theoretical philosophies may stand firmly in opposition with many outside forces. How then can I succeed? William Ayers poses the important question, “when we teachers look out over our classrooms, what do we see? [sic] We see students in our classrooms, of course, but who are they? What hopes do they bring? What is the language of their dreams” (41). I fully agree that these are important questions for teachers to ask themselves about their students, but I think we need to ask these same questions about ourselves as teachers. When we look at ourselves operating within the classroom, what do we see?  Who do we see? What are our hopes? What are our dreams? Where do we draw that figurative line-in-the sand? And more importantly–on which side of it do we stand?

Vygotsky

            Wow–I have a Vygotsky headache. I have determined over the past few days that I simply do not have the mind for higher-level psychology, as I struggle to synthesize the discussion of psychological theories with my physical interaction amongst students and learning.  I agree and understand with Vygotsky’s idea that the development (or convergence) of language in a direct relationship with human activity is arguably the most significant developmental step in a human beings life. It is through this convergence that human beings begin to attribute meaning and context to all of their interactions, and where they begin to operate in ways that are “purely human.” In this sense, the language and literacy teacher’s job is to create a social space where growing human learners can practice and evolve their language and speech patterns in a meaningful way. Through this practice–we hope–our students can develop into more thorough and thoughtful communicators. I also very much enjoyed his discussion of the ways human beings adapt to their own environments. I think this is directly relevant to the teaching profession, as facilitating a productive classroom environment is one of our most essential duties.

            My favorite chapter in Vygotzky, however, was the final one that talked about the development and importance of written language. He writes, “Up to this point, psychology has conceived writing as a complicated motor skill. It has paid remarkably little attention to the question of written language as such, that is, a particular system of symbols and signs whose mastery heralds a critical turning point in the entire cultural development of the child” (106). I loved this quotation for many reasons, but most importantly because Vygotzky acknowledges that writing is not simply “a complicated motor skill” but rather a social and “cultural” experience that heightens a human beings level of active engagement with him-or-herself and others. It is, as he surmises, one of the most important developments in the life of a learner. Acknowledging this connection between writing and culture is critical in building the idea that literacy is an act of social engagement, and to promote the idea that writing should not (and can not) be taught in isolation. One does not learn to write simply by being given the proper “motor skills.” In this way, a child who only knows how to hold a pen and negotiate the alphabet does not know how to write; not in a way that can be empowering and life changing, to say the least. When we acknowledge the importance of thought and emotion within the writing process, we can more properly facilitate literacy growth in the classroom.

Why are we Oppressing the Oppressed?

            Something about reading Freire always fires me up. His use of language seems to speak directly to me, as he eloquently and deliberately addresses many of the issues that are circling around in my mind. Although I could literately pull quotations from almost every page in “Pedagogy of the Oppressed” to talk about, I want to focus on two related quotations that address the issue of student agency and victim status. The first quotation reads:

            Attempting to liberate the oppressed without their reflective participation in the act of liberation is to treat them as objects which must be saved from a burning building; it is to lead them into the populist pitfall and transform them into masses which can be manipulated.

I strongly agree with this statement and I fear that our public education system is aligned deliberately towards this damaging “savior” mentality that Freire speaks against. We do not actively promote student agency or participation on a wide scale basis and thus position our broader student population as passive victims in need of saving. This becomes even more visible in our interaction with minority and low SES students, as we remove their “reflective participation” on a cyclical basis. In this sense, there is an entire population of students that are labeled “at-risk” essentially from birth, and because of this our public school teachers are urged to “save” these children from the “burning building” that we perceive their lives to be. This begs the question–how can we ever possibly respect or value a student’s home culture if we view his or her inherited environment as the primary predictor for looming failure?

           

            Unfortunately for the equity of our society, there is little room for authentic “liberation” present in our current system, as a student must instead “play the system” to succeed; as opposed to viewing the system itself as the oppressive force. Freire addresses this in the second quotation I hoped to speak on, writing:

            “One does not liberate people by alienating them. Authentic liberation– the process of humanization–is not another deposit to be made in men. Liberation is praxis: the action and reflection of men and women upon their world in order to transform it.”

If we adopt Freire’s position that liberation (and humanization in general) is accomplished FOR and BY the individual people being oppressed, then there is no room for a savior mentality within our classrooms. Instead, teachers must use the classroom as a  space–not a mechanism–for social change. The ultimate change, in this sense, comes from the students NOT the teacher.

Damaged Youth.

            We had a strange professional development sequence this past week that left me troubled. The meeting was led by one of the assistant principals and it focused around the brain development (or lack of development) by students in high-stress situations. The teachers were all asked to brainstorm some of the specific challenges that students face, and to discuss the problems that cause stress in students’ lives (i.e. Teen Pregnancy, Low Income, Lack of Food, Abuse, Drugs, Gangs, Missing Parents…). This led to a discussion of particularly tragic situations that some of the students are currently dealing with, and teachers/administrators used this as a way to justify lack of intellectual development.

            The entire conversation struck me the wrong way, obviously, because it just acted to support the deficit perspective that is already pervasive throughout the school. I understand that students in “high risk” areas have to deal with certain stresses and anxieties, and I also recognize the importance of getting to know your student population, but when you connect the stresses of low-income living to fundamental brain development issues (regardless of the research supporting this connection) you run the risk of strengthening stereotypes and growing the deficit model that drives the teacher’s perspective of local school culture. I would argue that this was exactly what happened in this week's meeting and that the entire thing positioned low-income youths as fundamentally damaged when compared to their middle-class peers.

           

Dewey Dude.

           It was amusing reading Dewey’s piece this week, as what he wrote so long ago still rings immediately true in today’s educational environment. This is both a wonderful feat of writing, to keep something so relevant for such a long period of time, but also serves as a reminder to all educators that our march of progress often moves at a snails pace. Beyond that, his focus on the importance of “reflective thinking” and its connection to “inquiry” is still a central goal for many teachers across the country, and a necessity for productive human thought. Unfortunately, this type of higher level thinking is still commonly removed from classroom environments–either explicitly through curriculum constraints or less explicitly through poor pedagogical approaches–and our educational institutions have not directly valued this higher level thinking above other aspects (like conformity, control, or the fundamentals of societal access).

            The entire concept laid out by Dewey where humans actively discover facts (inquiry) to then reflect upon within their own decision making process is devalued in most public school situations, as we do not allow student discovery at all, replacing inquiry instead with the processes of delivered knowledge (via the teacher). Thus–since answers are most often presented in the classroom instead of sought out–a “demand for the solution” is not made central within the internalized learning situation of our students. This in turn, unfortunately, serves to remove a key piece of motivation from reflective thought.  In this way, we move our students away from the empowering pursuit of critical thinking and into the more passive process of “uncritical thinking.”  This ultimately positions our educational system as a safe and effective institution for societal reproduction, while at the same time retaining control of social access for all students who do not conform properly.

Now or Then?

            One of my major frustrations with modern teaching practices and the continuing trend our schools are following towards “teacher-proofed” curriculum, is the emphasis placed on the incompleteness of students and their need to develop skills for the future. I do not disagree with the notion that students are in our classrooms to grow as readers and writers in hopes of engaging them with important literacy practices that they may use throughout the rest of their lives, however I do push back against the present disconnect between schooling and our students’ immediate lives. We–as an education system–tend to consistently over-drill our students about the importance of school as a mechanism to prepare and/or benefit the students in their later adult lives, yet too often we fail to anchor the relevance of their learning within the constructs of their daily lives, as we focus our attention on their futures instead of their presents. With this attitude–I fear–we position this concept of an adult life as a MORE IMPORTANT state of existence, which in turn de-values the adolescent lives our students are currently living. In doing so, we confiscate what I believe to be a necessary sense of urgency from the classroom experience and posture ourselves as the more important person in the room because of our “adult” status. When we remove their sense of present agency and replace it with the more passive role of the “developing adult,” we risk denying our students the ability to see the importance of their current lives and the choices that they make daily. In so doing, we eliminate any sense of present ownership from our students, because even if they want to feel ownership over their own education, the rewards and benefits of their hard work are positioned as something received by their future self, not their present self.  As Ladson-Billings states so gracefully, “the classroom has got to be the kind of place that helps them deal with their lives now so they can have some options, some choices, later.” Allowing the classroom to become an immediately relevant space is a great challenge, and unfortunately a large portion of our national classrooms fail to meet this challenge.

Choice Words

           There was a moment in class this past week that spoke directly to what I have been reading in “Choice Words,” as it was a reflection of the importance of teacher language in the classroom.

            In one of the classes that I observe (not one of the ones I have “taken over”, the students are reading a whole class text called “Hanging on to Max.” From a general perspective, I would say, the class is struggling as a whole to read this book, as reading comprehension is low across the board. This was most clearly shown this past week, as the students took a VERY basic quiz on the book and only 3 students passed. 2 people scored a 100, 1 person scored a 90, and the majority of the rest of the scores were between 0-60.

            With that in mind, however, there has been a girl in class who seems to have really engaged with the book and enjoyed reading it. On surface value, she comes across as a student who does not care, has some issues with authority, and generally does not want to be in school. She has had several behavioral incidents at school so far this year (but not so much in our class) and there is definitely some concern throughout the administration that she could have some gang involvement. Long story short, it has been a wonderful experience watching her engage with this text (albeit, as “sneakily” as possible so other students don’t notice). I have gotten to know her very well over the past month, and I know that she has the potential to be a “good” reader (as everyone does), so my hope is that if she gains a sense of ownership and pride in her reading she can feel a sense of legitimate agency. I think the quiz was a good first step towards building this confidence and agentive purpose, as she was the student who scored a 90. This is quite the accomplishment, especially when compared to the rest of the class.

            The moment I mentioned in the first paragraph, however, occurred just after the quizzes were returned. Most of the students did not seem to care at all that they did so poorly on the quiz, so my CT wanted to give them a “wake-up” call in the form of a soft rebuke. Within this wake up call, however, she mentioned that the book the students have been reading was written for a 6^th grade lexile level. The purpose of this comment was to reveal to students the fact that this book should be easily manageable, and I am sure that had an impact on the many kids who were not having any success engaging with the text. But I also think this language had a negative effect on the aforementioned girl, as her reaction was rather depressing. She immediately locked eyes with me and mouthed the question, “this is a 6^th grade book? For sixth graders?” And with one motion she shut her book, pushed it out in front of her so it was out of reach, and slumped down in her chair. I think this small and non-malicious revelation served to devalue this girl’s learning experience, as she felt like the successful reading she has just engaged with had less worth because it was not “meant” for her grade level. I think this can also serve as a learning experience for the concept of lexile scores in general, as they can connect a sense of shame or embarrassment to the reading experience, which is certainly not a productive emotion to connect with such a personal activity.

            Long story short, I agree with Johnston that teacher language and the manner in which the teacher positions the learning experience is critical, and I really loved his book.

Year Long Unit Plan Ideas

     Here is the rough outline of my year long unit plan, as it stands now. I would love to hear what people think. The biggest question facing my year long unit right now, in my opinion, is the actual order and flow of the smaller units. Does anyone have any recommendations regarding the order of the units? I totally reject the idea of "teaching to the test"–obviously–but do you think the units are scaffolded towards the STAAR appropriately, in a manner that supports authentic learning along with testing access?

     Also, instead of using a "Conceptual Unit" theme like identity... or something like that, I decided to extend the idea of literacy improvement and lifelong literacy development throughout the entire year. I think this is a way to keep everyone (students, teacher) focused on the true purpose of English (Literacy) class, and to build a meta-cognitive awareness of their learning experience. My hope is that if I can get 8th grade students meta-cognitively understanding the purpose of literacy development and learning, then they can then carry this purpose into their high school years and beyond.

                                        Year Long Unit Timeline (8th Grade)

Conceptual Question that will extend throughout the year:

                        How can we grow our literacy skills to impact the rest of our lives?

9 Smaller Units:

1.     Examining our Literate Lives (And setting goals for our literacy development)

2.     Working with our Writer’s Notebook (As a lifelong literacy tool)

3.     Memoir Unit (non-fiction)

4.     Poetry Unit

            [Winter Break]

5.     Non-fiction and Persuasive writing Unit (through Speeches and Social Issues)

6.     Grammar Unit (2 weeks, very short unit, non-traditional, and meant to be fun/empowering: meant to challenge the conventional ideas of grammar. What is "Proper?" What are the roots of English grammar? How does grammar affect out world? Politically? Socially? How can we use grammar to help our communicative abilities?) 

7.     Testing Boot Camp (Leading up to STAAR)

8.     Short Fiction Unit (starting immediately after STAAR)

9.     Reflecting on our Literate Lives. How have we grown? Have we reached our goals? What are our goals for the summer? For next year?

Note: Independent Reading and Writing will be present throughout all units.

Testing...Testing...Testing!

 

                                                            Testing Boot camp

             As teachers in Texas, regardless of our personal beliefs about testing or our determination to focus on authentic literacy development within our classrooms, the STAAR test is something we must approach each year head-on. Over the past few weeks, I was able to take part in the “Testing Boot camp” unit at Ojeda Middle School, and I appreciated my time immensely. The unit itself focused most specifically on testing strategies, and really sought to build students testing confidence in the few weeks leading up to the STAAR. This allows the class to develop their testing strategies more explicitly for a few weeks, but does not high-jack the entire year’s curriculum by any means and the true focus of the year long unit remains focused on the authentic literacy development for all students through the work shop setting. I think I will incorporate a lot of these ideas in my own classroom, as I think it is unfair for teachers to direct the entire year towards the test, but I also think it is unfair to avoid talking about testing all together (as testing is, unfortunately, a key avenue for school and social access).

            I will say, as you will see in my video today, I find “testing” conferences to be much more difficult than “writing” or “reading” conferences. The main difference, I believe, is that in a testing conference there is a much higher value placed on the final answer. That, I suppose, is the nature of the beast that is testing. There is a premium set on finding the “correct” answer, as the answer will ultimately be the sole judge of success on the official test, so during a conference it is a much more delicate process trying to help a student without giving them the answer (because you cant give them the answer on the test!).  I think this dynamic makes the research stage much more important in a testing conference, as it is critical to understand the root of the problem the student is facing, not just the problem itself. Why is a student asking for help on this portion of the test? Is reading comprehension the problem? Does the student understand the question? Is the solution as simple as using a testing strategy more effectively? Or is this a deeper-rooted issue? I think all of these questions are extremely important to face at the beginning of the conference, so that both the teacher and the student are on the same page. Again, I find the research phase of these conferences to be more difficult (or nuanced, at least) than in a writing conference, so I look forward to developing my ability to recognize testing issues and address them more directly in one on one (or group) conferences.

            With that in mind, I am very interested to hear what people think of my testing conference from my lesson video today, as it was one of the more difficult conferences I have experienced and there is certainly tons of room for growth. What does everyone else think about testing conferences and testing “prep” in general?

Writing for Change!

          For my third and final unit plan this semester (critical inquiry), I focused my students attention on using their literacy power to promote social change within the larger community. I look forward to explaining my unit in more detail today in class, and I can not wait to hear what everyone else has come up with. I feel that the idea of critical inquiry should really be the basis for our teaching, as it asks students to use their literate lives and literacy powers for real and productive reasons. At the end of the day, if we have our students thinking, speaking, and writing about important issues that matter to them and to the world outside of the classroom, then we are doing our jobs.

            My rationale for the unit (entitled “Writing for Change”) is pretty simple–I wanted to get my students writing about meaningful topics that impact their lives and the lives of the larger community outside of the classroom. By having students focus on specific social issues (similarly to my non-fiction unit), I hope to draw their thoughts beyond the classroom environment and empower their voice to reach a larger audience. The timing of this unit, in my opinion, is perfect. I set the unit to begin right after the STAAR test and I think focusing on powerful writing for social change would be a wonderful shift from the mechanical regurgitation of the STAAR test and would help refocus their minds on authentic writing.

            The assignment itself is pretty simple–students are asked to pick a social issue and to write a 1-2 page persuasive article about that issue for publication in a class wide journal. It is also important to note that this will not be the main “persuasive writing” unit, so the students will already have a base of knowledge built around persuasive writing that I can tap into. I think this is a way, however, to reclaim out voice as powerful and persuasive writers in order to use our “writing for change.” The compilation of the individual articles within a communal journal is an effort to unite our voices and use our literacy powers to truly inject our voices into the community. Students will engage in the act of pre-writing, a focus of my entire yearlong unit that I think is critically important for growing writers. They will journal about their topic and will share their journal entries with partners. They will also engage in active peer review, an experience I hope will grow our writing community and allow us to help each other become better writers.

            Finally, the publication day will be a true celebration, as I want students to have pride in their work and to recognize that their writing is valid, powerful, and important. I think this is especially important as a way to re-ignite their writing powers after the STAAR test and before the end of the year.

Austin On Our Minds

           The discussion of gentrification in this weeks reading (Harlem On Our Minds) was extremely thought provoking. The arguments and opinions laid out in this book­–both from the author’s unique research perspective and from the voices of Harlem’s youth­–shine light on a controversial topic that I have little exposure to. The idea of gentrification is very layered, as the affects on the surface seem to be “good” for the neighborhood. When old buildings are bought and refurbished, the result would seemingly mark an improvement for the community, but these new constructions often come with increased rent and lease prices for the area that can displace life long residents. Because of higher rent prices, the “improvements” result in a swift influx of “new” neighbors to the neighborhood, people who would normally avoid an area like Harlem if not for the nice new condos. The resulting changes clearly have a negative impact on the low income residents of the neighborhood, and can bring about cultural shifts in the community that are not necessarily accepted by the long term community members.

            The ideas presented in this text about Harlem have forced me to evaluate similar trends occurring in Austin. As we all know, Austin is among the fastest growing cities in the country with between 150-200 people moving here every single day. This rapid growth is very beneficial to Austin in a lot of ways, but after reading Harlem On Our Minds I began to question whether or not a similar trend of gentrification is happening in Austin right now. This is certainly an area I would need to explore in further detail, but as the city continues to expand I am sure it is pushing low-income families out of their traditional environments and into new settings. Large condos are rising in the East side and off of South Lamar at a rapid rate, and the small neighborhoods surrounding Austin’s downtown are quickly becoming larger developments. Housing prices are beginning to swell and rent is certainly on the rise in a lot of areas of Austin. One only needs to look at Rainey Street to see the impact that a growing population has had on small urban neighborhoods, as almost all of the houses on Rainey have been purchased and refurbished into bars to accommodate a growing nightlife scene. These single-family homes, like a lot of homes around the area, are no longer viable options for low-income families. And, as areas like Rainey Street continue to evolve as popular night life destinations, rent prices on the nearby East side houses will continue to rise. The area, for lack of a better term, is becoming more “desirable” to young white people, and securing a lease on a single-family home around the area is becoming more competitive. This influx of new residents can also begin to shift cultural and community norms in certain areas, which may not always be welcome by long-term residents.

            Rainey street is just a microcosm of the larger gentrification issues surrounding the growing urban landscape of Austin–and it may not serve as a good example at all–but I think as Austin continues to expand we need to be conscious of the existing communities that are already in place and respect people’s right to their home cultures. Just as the book explains, there can be “good” new neighbors and “bad” new neighbors, and the “bad” ones are the people who do not integrate with the existing community and acknowledge that a community and culture exist in these environments already.

Whole Class Text

Another spring break has come and gone, but alas...it is time to get back to the daily grind! I enjoyed spending some time over the past week working on my "whole-class text" unit plan, but there were definitely some challenges. Over the course of this masters program, we have built a foundation of "non-traditional" English teaching theories and methods– meaning, we have focused our teaching theories around sound literacy development as opposed to the "book by book" conventions of standard high school English teaching that slowly moves a class through an arbitrary group of canonical texts. With that being said, this unit design assignment was refreshing in the sense that it allowed me to re-examine the "whole class text" method of English teaching with a new and creative perspective. More importantly, designing a whole class text unit may very well be a requirement imposed by our future departments, schools, or districts, so learning to creatively mesh the whole class text environment with the work-shop environment is critical. I chose to focus my unit around the concept of "Literacy as Power," as this is a concept I think will be fortified throughout my year long teaching plan and is extremely empowering to young readers and writers. To expose my students to the far-reaching powers of literacy, I chose the non-fiction text "Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass." As my unit plan shows (and as I am sure I will explain in more detail to the class on Monday), this text has some of the most powerful arguments for Literacy I have ever read. I also fought to keep the accordion effect as present in my whole-class unit as possible, as the idea of a whole class text does not directly mean that the class must be in a "whole class" setting at all times. Instead, I used individual work and small group work to help students BUILD TOWARDS the often intimidating "whole class discussion" environment. I think introducing students to these traditional conventions (as the whole class discussion is often overused in English classes) in a positive manner can empower students to succeed in their future schooling experiences. I will say that this unit was much harder to design than my previous, but I also think it was more rewarding. I look forward to sharing my ideas with the class!

Computer Problems, part Deux.

Well, I finally solved my computer problems and got my computer working, so I went in to school today and taught two lessons with the high hopes of recording a lesson video. I captured the entire lesson and even moved my computer around to get close up recordings of my conferences, but alas my computer problems have failed me once again!!! As it turns out, the repairmen at Mac completely broke my "built in microphone" while they were working on the other issue in my computer, so there is no audio for my video at all :( I still have the video but 55 minutes of teaching is pretty boring without a lick of sound! I now have to take my computer baaaaack to the Mac store for the second time in less than a week to get it repaired. On top of that, I am quite disappointed because the lesson I taught was very successful and I was excited to share my experience with the class. But, as Tupac says, "life goes on." I have never doubted Tupac's wisdom and don't plan on starting now, so I will heed his advice and move on from my disappointment. I still want to share my lesson though, as I am proud of it and I think it had an immediate impact on my students, so I will do my best to explain my lesson in this post in case anyone is interested. Johnathon observed the lesson so he can help me recreate it as well.

Anyway, I wrote it myself and it is based off of a lesson from my non-fiction unit plan. Here is the general outline:

Objective: In order to use our literacy powers with purpose, we will make the right choice of either reading or writing today and we will proudly voice our choice!

Mini-Lesson: I will keep my mini-lesson brief, introducing the Café 507 menu for the day. Last week students reflected on the strengths and weaknesses of their literate lives, today I will introduce the idea of building purpose for their literate lives (which will lead into the Appetizer which I will model briefly).

                                  CAFÉ 507 Menu

Appetizer: Use your writer’s notebook to Voice Your Choice:

“What is my literacy menu choice today and why did I choose it? What is the goal behind my choice?”

[After they have written for a few minutes, I will have them turn and voice their choice (and why) to a neighbor, and then ask for volunteers to voice their choice (and why) to the whole class]

Main Course: Choose one of the following Entrees:

                        Entree One: Read

                        Entrée Two: Write

Dessert: On a post-it note, answer the following questions in one sentence. 

“Did I reach the goal I set at the beginning of class? What can I improve on next time?


I found that the literacy menu idea was a great way to present students with a list of choices in a fun way, and the students loved getting to choose their work for the day.  We started the lesson by talking about the famous line from Spider man: 'With great power comes great responsibility,' and that was my intro into the idea of "purpose." Students related very well with this concept, as several students mentioned that you have to have a "reason" behind what you do and you must "use your power for good." The discussion we had surrounding purpose was awesome, and students were asked to write their choice, defend their choice, and make a goal for the day. We then Voiced Our Choice to the class which was a fun way of building community accountability.

The conferencing went well again, and I am so bummed I do not have audio from my conferencing videos because I had some great ones. Unfortunately, we are about to enter a pretty dry testing unit, so my opportunities for conferencing will be limited over the next month until after the STAAR. Hopefully I can still find some time to conference!

I am sure I will have more to say about all of this on Monday when I get over the disappointment of my failed video, but at least this post gives an outline of my field experience.

 

Conferencing!

The conferencing I did during my lesson last week was among the most successful I have done to date. I was able to interact with every student during work time, and felt like I took advantage of some great teachable moments. My minilesson focused on the students' literacy lives and reflecting on which area (reading or writing) the students' thought was their stronger area. I encouraged the students to "choose" the area of literacy that needed more focus, but did not insist because I wanted them to retain the choice. The conferencing took place during the students work time, which today was a "choice" day where they could either read or write. I figured I would use this forum to share some of my notes that I took during my conferencing and my later reflections.

Destiny:

Destiny is a new student in class this semester but is adjusting well. She is reading the book "Shiver" which is the first of a series about vampires and werewolves. She enjoyed explaining the plot to me but I wanted to avoid simple plot talk and push through to some higher levels. I asked her to explain what was happening in the section she had just read. Her comprehension was high and she is clearly engaged in the material, so I asked her to make a prediction about the rest of the book. She made several predictions and seemed to recognize this as a fun reading strategy.

Elizabeth:

This conference was short but sweet. Elizabeth was reading a book on teen suicide so I asked her if this was her topic for the social issue unit we are currently engaged in. She said no, but went on to explain that it relates to her topic– Gay Marriage. She said that people who are gay often face bullying and this can lead to suicide, so she enjoys learning more about it. I loved this awareness and so I decided not to insert myself too much in her work time and just said good job and moved along. She smiled and then went right back to reading her book.

Jose (aka "C.B.":

C.B chose to write which I was pumped about because he had mentioned in my mini-lesson that he felt he was a stronger reader than writer. He began writing about life and the value that people place on their lives. I conferenced with him at this point and asked him if he saw any connection between what he was currently writing about and his broader social issue that he will eventually write about during this unit (Drug Abuse). His eyes immediately lit up and he said "yea definitely." He explained that drugs devalue peoples lives, and then waved me on and said "okay come back later." I respected his wish and when I moved back around to conference with him 20 minutes later, he had written almost two pages in his writers notebook. I read the whole thing and it was great, and I especially loved his line "Drugs are an escape from real life." I told him I loved that line and he put a star next to it.

Eduardo: 

Eduardo was reading a graphic novel type book surrounding the characters in the Simpsons. I wanted to give credibility/support to this type of literacy practice so I was very encouraging during our conference. I wanted to push him a little too so I asked him why he liked this format. He said he loved the pictures and that they helped him. I asked him if he pictured images in his head when he read books that didnt have pictures, and he said yes but he expressed concern that he never wanted to "picture the wrong thing" so this was harder. I used this as an avenue to discuss the strategy of Envisioning, which he seemed to respond to quite well. I encouraged him to continue to envision even when there aren't pictures, because this is fun and a great way to understand the words better.

Writing to Think...Thinking to Benefit Society.

Ask yourself this question: How many times, when you were in high school, were you asked to sit down with a pen and paper and write in response to your own thoughts? If you are like me, almost zero tangible memories come up. The closest moments I can think of in regards to this type of writing came from my creative writing classes where I was allowed to write original short stories and poems. Naturally, many of these creative pieces stemmed from intimate places within my own thoughts, but rarely was I asked (if ever) to directly address what I was thinking in or through my writing. The concept of “writing to think” was never introduced to me- at least not in a manner that resonated enough to remain in my memory- so I never used writing as a tool to create organic thought. Writing, as I perceived it, was meant as a tool to respond to other people’s thoughts. More specifically, writing was meant as a tool to respond to more important peoples’ thoughts. Shakespeare, Mark Twain, and all of the other “classic” authors I read while I was in high school were established as the "authorities of thought." They did the thinking and because of that I was told to position my thinking in response to theirs. More importantly, I was to center all of my writing around their ideas, meaning that the truly gifted “writer” was the student most capable of connecting other peoples thoughts in a cohesive and organized manner.  As I reflect on these experiences now, I often ask myself what the overall point was to this type of mechanistic writing. It is important to remember that this type of reading and writing practice in high school influenced me enough to not only apply and get accepted to college, but to be an English major and ultimately an English teacher. But I have begun to view myself as the exception. What were my classmates’ experiences like? What about students that went to “worse” schools? What about minority students who were forced to almost exclusively read and respond to white male authors, aside from maybe the occasional inclusion of additive books like “Beloved”? How did the “traditional” English classroom impact their life-long literacy practices? If the goal of an English teacher is to promote literacy, did their English teacher do his or her job?

With this handful of questions in mind, I have enjoyed reading Randy and Katherine Bomer’s many ideas about the true purpose of the modern English teacher and his or her relationship with the teaching of writing. In chapter 10 of Randy Bomer’s book, he flips the traditional idea of audience on its head, positioning the writer as his or her own audience, in order to establish a form of writing that is meant specifically to generate thought. This does not mean that teachers should remove the practice of writing with an intended outside audience from the English experience, it just means that students can benefit greatly from the practice of “writing to construct thought” (p. 167). Bomer takes his point a step further as he explicitly addresses the ideas I presented in the earlier parts of this post, writing, “I believe it’s not enough just to write in response to other authors’ texts. Part of a school curriculum should involve asking kids to pay attention to their own thinking, to notice when they have a thought, when they begin making an idea” (p. 167). These two sentences jumped off the page at me, as it seems so simple and so clear that this should be the purpose of today’s English classroom. If the goal of public education is to, as Dr. Bomer once told us, “create a public,” then shouldn’t the goal of a public education teacher be to allow students the space to generate organic thought? Our modern society is so quick to crucify the public school system and blame it for the failures of our adult citizens, yet we still allow students to spend 12 years in public education without ever being treated as important thinkers whose thoughts and ideas have the potential to change the outside circumstances of the world. In my classroom, I would prefer hearing my students’ original ideas, as opposed to constantly reading the mechanical regurgitation of themes and motifs they have pieced together from authors like Shakespeare. Regardless of the success or failure of public education, the system itself will continue to release students into our public. Meaning, even if our students are failed by the public school system, they still leave the classroom eventually and join the public as adult citizens. With this responsibility in mind, we need to ask ourselves as English teachers how we can best serve the American public during our brief encounter with its youngest members. 

Examining the NCTE, CCR, and TEKS

 

Examining the NCTE, Common Core, and TEKS standards this week was very revealing. Through all of our exploration, my appreciation for the NCTE continued to grow. I especially appreciated their attitude towards teachers, which positions teachers as active professionals capable of organizing their own curriculum, enacting their own teaching strategies and methods, and ultimately isolating the individual skills they deem most important for their students literacy development. For this reason, NCTE provides a broad outline of their views regarding the teaching of reading and writing, while avoiding the more short cycle approach of listing a data base of mandates centered on the procedural teaching of individual skills. I find this refreshing, as the extensive list of skills established within the TEKS (and to a lesser extent the CCR) can have a limiting affect on a teachers classroom practices and focus. The NCTE, in my opinion, aims to act as a professional resource for teachers to lean on in order to support their classroom decisions and allows them the ability to cite research-based materials in defense of their teaching practices. This positionality is quite different from the CCR and TEKS, which aim to drive teachers and students in a precise direction, allowing individual teachers much less professional flexibility.

In regards to students, the NCTE aims to develop readers and writers capable of functioning within a larger community- both within the school walls and beyond.

Because of this, the NCTE does not directly cite specific content that must be taught-rather they emphasize the use of a variety of literacies in order to engage in a diverse literacy community, with the ultimate goal of developing life long readers and writers capable of performing the increasingly demanding tasks of a modern citizen. Unfortunately, the attitudes and standards established by the NCTE are by no means the leading influence in the English classroom, especially in Texas. That is not to say that the Common Core and the TEKS are irreversibly flawed, but their more intrusive standards often have a negative impact on classroom practices, which inevitably affects student learning. Throughout my career, I hope to use the NCTE as a theoretical background to support my in-class decisions, while managing the constraints presented by the more intrusive state and national standards.

12th Grade Standards	NCTE	CCR	TEKS
Main Focus of the standards.	Focused on developing individual readers and writers to function within a literate community, both in school and beyond.	Focused directly on preparing America’s students for college and career. Because of this, its very “results” oriented in order to give students the most access possible to social mobility.	Focused on the cultivation of a variety of language related skills, judged partially by performance on the state test, although there are areas of the TEKS that are not directly monitored by the STAAR. Simply put, the TEKS are just a list of skills that adults determined adolescents should acquire.
How intrusive are the standards?	Least intrusive. Establish a set of guidelines for teachers to fall back on and to use as a professional basis to support a teacher’s curriculum decisions. Allows for a wide variety of instruction.	Intrusive in terms of what you actually teach (content), however in terms of how you ultimately teach (pedagogy), it is not intrusive at all.	Intrusive in the types of skills a student is expected to perform. It is not intrusive, however, in the content used to cultivate these skills. Unfortunately, the skills that are directly tested on the STAAR often end up being the focus of a curriculum.
Focus on Content (How much does it drive curriculum content)	Does not directly cite specific content, although the recommended purpose and variety of literacies seems to focus on diversity of culture, as opposed to a curriculum centered on dominant culture.	Most direct. This focuses directly on content, as they even mention teaching Shakespeare, “include Shakespeare and a play by an American dramatist.” The focus seems to revolve around dominant cultural literacies (i.e. the Declaration of Independence, speeches by Lincoln, and the Bill of Rights…)	Have very little direct reference to literature, although there is an emphasis on teaching free-enterprise texts about Texas and the United States with the purpose of becoming thoughtful and active democratic citizens.
Focus on pedagogy (How much does it dictate classroom practices)	Views teachers as professionals who are capable of determining the skills necessary to allow space and access to literacy development. For this reason, NCTE provides broader literacy goals as opposed to short cycle skills.	Views the teacher as someone whose main focus must remain on allowing students the highest level of access to dominant, social, educational, vocational, and financial mobility.	Views teachers as in need of monitoring, and as people who may not directly know what skills to teach. For this reason, the TEKS provide an exhaustive list of short cycle skills.