First Day, First School

As I entered the first school we visited on Monday morning, I felt as if I was back in my elementary school. It had the same outside look, the same stair cases (floors and floors that you had to run up and down on), the same hallways, and once inside the classrooms, the same classrooms. A few of us mentioned how the windows, the blackboards: old and almost unworkable and even the same back closets decorated with colorful collages reminded us of our own elementary schools, at least two decades ago. Yes the building was old, but the teachers and students seemed as fresh as the spring. We were greeted by students nicely dressed in jackets, proud of their responsibilities, mainly escorting us the visitors into the classrooms and the gathering sites; their pride was palpable as was the pride of the teachers for their students.
Was the visit what I had expected? Yes and no. Yes as far as the building and conditions, mentioned also in the Power Point presentation, mainly lack of enough resources, struggle to achieve parental involvement among those frequently mentioned. I was lucky enough to have attended an urban school for a couple of years so I knew or hoped to prove myself right, that the students would be working just as hard, proud of their schools and responsive to the teachers, just as the teachers as in any other school, or to correct myself, as any good teacher, would be doing their best with what they have available. Both of these were evident as we walked into the school, listened to the presentation; spoke to a few teachers and even students.
No it wasn’t, in terms of the conduct of the classrooms, classroom size, teachers or even the inside of the building. When I attended school the regiment was pretty authoritative, teacher as the center of attention, individual work and total silence. What I have learned in the MAT program so far are the techniques to implement group work, teacher as facilitators rather than strictly authoritative and use of creative and critical thinking rather than simply repeating back material. In most of the classes we went into, children were working in groups, teachers walked around for assistance but there was no silence, and there was complete interaction. Did it seem real? Did it seem like a show for the visitors? Those are tough questions to answer. I think a little bit of both, but the students were familiar with the structure and adapted to it quickly, so that may count as evidence that it had been done before. The size of the classrooms was smaller than what I had but within the limit of what we are told is good, about 16 students. I will say that all of the teachers seemed very in tune with their students, showed care and concern. For the inside of the building it was colorful rather than the dull beige or gray people are used to seeing in schools. Additionally all the walls were decorated with works from the students, papers, drawings, and pictures. The school looked alive and happy.
One disappointing element was the series of answers to what was being implemented out of a trip that several of the educators had taken to Japan. Their description was impressive, they seemed to have grasped a new culture, a new diversity, but when it came to what would be done to imitate the successful school system; the answer was implementation of uniforms and a focused awe on cleanliness. I apologize but that seems a bit absurd! It was great that they noticed that everything was clean and that students took part in helping. What was more impressive was the individual discipline of the students. The fact that they were conscious of others, such as the example of someone on the bus assisting an elderly unknown, or more closely related to the school: the fact that students don’t need to be assigned homework since they are all expected to go on to college and will therefore review and study themselves without having to be told. None of that was part of something they would be working on for their students. I understand that they did not have an opportunity to sit down with teachers to go over lesson plans to construct their own, but wouldn’t their observations suffice to brainstorm a lesson plan, a structure of their own?
The visit was very valuable in terms of leaving any preconceptions behind, of reinforcing existing knowledge of urban schools from prior experience and above all to see what a school can be like with positive teachers and students. Unfortunately nothing is perfect and this was a big letdown of sorts as far as new techniques and ideas within reach that would not be implemented.

Memorial Day and Urban Education

“Memorial Day is not about division. It is about reconciliation; it is about coming together to honor those who gave their all.”* The quote refers to the establishment of Memorial Day in the 1800’s and the honoring of US fallen soldiers only by the Northern States rather than by the entire US. At its beginning the holiday still held the resentment of families of soldiers from the South who had fallen and lost; while the North celebrated not only its soldiers but the fact that they had contributed to the winning of the Civil War.
This quote taken from a website on what is Memorial Day can be connected to urban education. It seems that teachers, students and anyone involved with urban education is constantly fighting against typical beliefs and stereotypes, trying to come together to end any and all types of division and segregation between their school and a suburban or rural school. The holiday took years to be recognized by all states to encompass all fallen heroes. How many years will it take for stereotypes to end regarding urban education and for those who have the power and ability to make necessary changes to take action?
* David Merchant "Memorial Day," January 2008. http://www.usmemorialday.org/backgrnd.html

Hollywood’s Middle-Class Fantasy

As I read the article, I kept thinking about the movies that were mentioned that I had already watched. I saw the pattern that was mentioned, the stereotypical troubled kids, in drugs and gangs, waiting to be rescued by someone from the outside who came in to prove they had a chance and could make a difference. I saw all this but as with many of the movies I saw, I didn’t see it as the norm of the urban schools; I saw it simply as Hollywood making movies to make money.
In the same token I don’t know how much of the article is valid and how much is overstretching to serve a purpose: the article’s insistence that urban education’s problem is seen by the masses as a problem with the attitude, morals and behavior of the students, not as lack of funds and a responsibility of government and offices in general. It was interesting to note that of the films mentioned, there are differences between urban and suburban schools, teachers, students and administrators, all of which are what people normally consider stereotypes. I am not agreeing with Hollywood’s depictions; nor am I entirely convinced that the public will see the movie as a reality or a true depiction of reality. Aren’t stereotypes present in almost all movies, plays, and acting in general? Isn’t stereotyping used for a point of reference, so that the public will perceive or understand what is being portrayed? By the same token, isn’t the public aware that they are shown stereotypes?
It was amusing to read of the teacher/principal rescuer figure as the cowboy of these films, the lone person with his or her own methods, discipline and of course past. What I thought was most interesting and this relates to the urban schools being fixed by these figures was that they are depicted as coming from a suburbia, a middle class sometimes, yet their unconventional methods are embraced, tolerated and supported since they appear to be serving a higher purpose. The bothersome whether this is just movie making/money making is that all of the movies depicted really did show problems as just individual or morally based. Again the article mentions that the few exceptions to this rule where movies that did not earn as much money, therefore, were not seen by as many people and as such can be argued that they were not adhering to the stereotype or were in fact more threatening to the middle and upper class perceptions of urban education.

Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll

I am not inclined to like any type of poll and with this one it was no different. The poll seemed to tend or be biased by lumping similar responses together to appear to be a majority answer, when in fact if looked at separately they were not.
What I did find interesting and a repetitive factor in several readings and even in class discussions, was the observation that the more information or the more familiar people in general became with the NCLB law, the more they disliked it or saw it as ineffective and faulty. The initial idea behind the law seems to be solid and even noble, but unfortunately instead of opening doors for everyone to learn it is acting as a barrier for those with any type of difficulty, whether they are students with disabilities, foreign students or simply those who are not as privileged as others. It’s not concerned with students’ abilities, it is concerned only with whether or not they can pass State designed tests in select areas. The poll mentioned NCLB’s requirement of students being taught by highly qualified teachers. I would like to ask the same question that it asks: what does it mean to be highly qualified? Does it mean being certified? Does it mean having a bachelors in the discipline to be taught? Does it mean having a masters, or perhaps a PhD? Are those the only requirements? Does being a highly qualified teacher have to do with sincerity, willingness to help, openness to new approaches, new techniques, diversified teaching and learning, does it have to do with honesty? Is good character a part of a highly qualified teacher? None of these questions are answered, but I believe that they are important especially to prospective teachers who wish to make a difference, to help students not only in school but in their lives.

What Teachers Should Know

After reading about the lack of knowledge from teachers on the diversity of students across the nation, I reflected back on this article which I viewed as attempting to explain why there was confusion on diversity. America has always been a diversified country, unlike the old European countries, the US was discovered and populated with people from all over the world. In the past predominantly the trend had always been for more whites than other races, but as the article suggested, there is no more clear cut race, indeed how could there be? People travel, merge and separate, travel again in a never-ending cycle.
I remember one of our classes where there was a discussion on how to decide the number of students that graduate from a class; which was reported as percentage graduated in the high schools. It involved the same concepts addressed in the article, namely that of transiency and racial and economic segregation. The discussion also touched upon aging and the fact that most voters for school budgets are retired and less than likely willing to support budget increases and improvement in the school systems, since they don’t have children going to the schools and do not wish to spend more from their own often limited income.
To me the most important point of the article was the idea of “switch[ing] from race to national origin.”* I agree with the article’s statement that it is more beneficial to the teacher and to the students to know more about one’s country of origin than to simply focus on race. I say this in order to embrace, expose, learn and teach other students about the differences, similarities, facts, and beliefs present in all nationalities. By learning a student’s origin, researching and then interacting with the student and his/her family the teacher will be able to break through myths and preconceptions, find the strengths and struggles, hence be in a better position to assist or bring out the best in his/her students.
*Harold Hodgkinson "Educational Demographics: What Teachers Should Know" (2000, Educational Leadership, vol 58 no 4, p. 10)

Preparing Teachers for “Monday Morning”

I thought that this article provided some interesting points especially the statements of educators learning more themselves and having a positive attitude towards urban education in order to be able to pass on or instruct future teachers about urban education and about the potential of their students. How can educators prepare future teachers in a field they themselves are unfamiliar with? How can they show teachers the values, benefits, the richness of urban schools when most of them are unaware that these exist?
An interesting fact that I had not noticed was the article’s pointing out that these urban areas that already receive less money because of devaluing of property, families of lower income and deterioration, are the homes of universities, hospitals and museums, none of which pay taxes. In other words they are valuable resources to have but unfortunately they contribute to the cycle of low investment in the schools. Even more disturbing is the article’s statement that although these places are in urban areas, many urban students may never enjoy any of them nor will they attend these universities as students but rather as low-skilled workers. It is no wonder that stereotypes about urban education and students are so difficult to break.
As we have learned in class, there are many preconceived notions about urban education, many myths, but also many realities, not pertinent to all urban communities but present in many of them. The article highlights the lack of resources, of materials to teach, of a proper gym, of air conditioners, of textbooks; as well as the difficulties students may be facing such as racial or cultural discrimination, health issues such as HIV and most predominantly poverty levels, sometimes with no roof over their heads. In the face of all of these challenges, the article’s response about what can the teachers change struck me as realistic and worth pondering: “Our only recourse is to change ourselves: our preconceived (conscious or unconscious) derogatory perceptions about our students and, most important, our will to effectively educate our students.”*
As I had mentioned before I am a believer that one person can make a difference and as such by throwing away wrongful perceptions and by placing responsibility and high standards as goals for these students, educators are making them aware that they too can accomplish their own goals, they have a future and the teachers are there to help them on their way. Educators should provide examples of pedagogy strategies that prospective teachers can use with their students. These models may or may not work for all classes or for any class, but at least they are possibilities, ideas.
According to statistics the majority of teachers are white females, that is not surprising given the culture of the country, but what was surprising and very disturbing to read is the fact that a great majority of these teachers are unfamiliar and worst unaware of the diversity in the US and ultimately in the schools and classrooms where they will be teaching. True that statement seems far-fetched to me, as an immigrant, and as someone living in the East Coast, most specifically in the Tri-state area, but I would not doubt that this is true in other areas of the US where the immigration trend has not expanded as much to the proportion it is here.
*Jennifer E. Obidah and Tyrone C. Howard "Preparing Teachers for 'Monday Morning' in the Urban School Classroom: Reflecting on Our Pedagogies and Practices as Effective Teacher Educators" (2005, Journal of Teacher Education, 56, p. 251)

The Pedagogy of Poverty

I think that this article spoke directly about the myths and beliefs that people in general have about urban education, namely that teachers must spend most of their time simply monitoring and disciplining their classrooms, rather than teaching. It referred to the pedagogy of poverty as appealing people who “did not do well in schools,” to “those who fear minorities and the poor,” and to “those who have low expectations for minorities and the poor.”* Though it provided these examples, I don’t see it as helping to dispel these incorrect notions. Additionally it contributes to the notion of urban students as incapable of learning, of reading for themselves, of willing to improve. It was interesting to note that the article described commonplace activities such as parent conferences, not as opportunities to share positive elements about the school and children, but rather as another way to tell parents about how poorly their children are doing, behaving, etc.
The ideas about the reform of the pedagogy of poverty were a bit confusing. There are always those who hope to improve education, those who say they have a method that will work. On the other hand are those who feel helpless and powerless to effect changes and those who make a change and are pushed back into the norm by students themselves. As such, according to the article, it is always the teacher who is held to blame for the students not learning. But what student involvement and interest? The issues of learning critical thinking without knowledge of the basic skills are also part of what should be added to the pedagogy of poverty. But I agree with the article in that all students should know basic skills prior to or simultaneously with learning more complex process that will be essential to their growth, development and well being outside of the school environment. Finally I agree with the statements that good teaching can only occur with student involvement. What is the point of providing a great lesson when students are not listening, paying attention or interested?
*Martin Haberman "The Pedagogy of Poverty Versus Good Teaching"