Shirley Brice Heath, Ways With Words: Language, Life and Work in Communities and Classroom. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1983. LB1139 L3 H37

Part 1

Young people tolerated school, waiting for the time when they were blessed old enough or big enough to leave.” (p. 26) Ah, the more things change, the more they stay the same. I supervisor secondary English education student teachers in the local schools. One school, in particular, has a high incidence of truancy and drop-outs. The student teacher was flabbergasted by the apparent apathy of the school towards this issue. However, there was also a teacher culture of “It's my job to teach, and the kids' job to be here. If they aren't here, and ready to learn, there is nothing I can do about it.” Part of what Heath shows is that the school learning wasn't relevant to the home life and projected life work. Yet, that also brings in the debate of vocational verses college prep tracks. Is it a good thing to track students? I haven't found a satisfactory answer to this yet. However, if a vocational track provides skilled labor jobs, such as plumbing, construction etc. - isn't that better than having a student drop-out, not find a living wage job and going on welfare? In rebuttal, the critics would then mention that in general, only working class students would be in the vocational track and not have the opportunity to get into the college bound track. In response, from what I've seen, the working class kids of my current city don't get into the college bound track, don't get solid skills in their remedial classes, and don't engage in the school and drop out. In addition, few schools will admit to tracking. Wouldn't it be better to freely admit dual tracking and provide solid education for both?

Much of what Heath describes in the old timers' recollections remind me a lot of my hometown and childhood. I grew up on a 40 acre farm with my parents, paternal grandparents, and aunt/uncle and cousins all living on the farmstead. We had a huge communal garden and orchard, froze and canned food, used layaway for big purchases, and joined a Christmas club to afford gifts at Christmas. My mother's family lived in the city, though it was a small town. However, even then, most of my aunts/uncles and cousins lived within a 20 minute drive of each other. 

 

There were major differences between my father's family and background and my mother's. In a way, Mom (and family) was Roadville and Dad was Trackton. Mom grew up in the city, had all the appliances and conveniences of electricity, went to dances and belonged to the after-school clubs. She was a fair to good student, liked reading and trained to be a secretary. Reading and words were a part of her everyday life. In her family, there were clear male/female roles and right and wrong ways to do things. Manners and politeness was explicitly taught. Children were expected to be quiet and play away from the adults, but toys and games were provided. My Dad's father died when he was six. My grandma had two small children and a farm, plus several other acres to tend. She took on the mantle of head of the household, even once she remarried.  Dad tells stories of Grandma's temper and inconsistent moods – which was part of her family. It was survival of the fittest, for him, growing up, and to be fit, meant to be strong – mentally and physically. Few books were in the house, and Dad said grandma even burned some of his books when she felt he was spending to much time lallygagging and not working.

When I grew up, there were few books, records or toys in the houses of my father's family. Since my aunt and grandma lived within walking distance of my parents, in the summer, I tended to float around and stay with whoever I wanted to for as long as I wanted. Conversation were long, multiple and loud, with people talking over and butting into the conversation frequently. Frugality, responsibility and cleanliness were valued traits. In my mother's family houses, there were books, magazines, toys, TV, crayons etc. People had mostly polite conversations where turn-taking and indoor voices was the norm.

 

This week I visited my parents, who live in a small town outside Milwaukee. My father was a farmer when growing up and a blue collar worker as an adult. My mother was a secretary and saleswoman. Neither had formal education past high school. My mom and I went for lunch at the Olive Garden and I was explaining some of the stuff I was reading and working on. Mom nodded her head and smiled and then exclaimed, “How did we end up having such smart kids?” Being both a compliment intended for me and a criticism of herself, I was at a loss at how to respond. She and I had attended the same high school, in the same town, yet here I am pursuing my PhD and she never took classes beyond high school. Yet, somehow, she instilled in me a love and desire for learning and knowledge, something not especially valued in my high school 20 years ago. Beer, ice fishing, deer hunting, and racing cars were highly valued. I would guess that less than half of my class went on to college. The rest took blue-collar jobs locally or went to trade school.

When growing up, much of my homework made no sense to my mom, much like the Roadville parents who found “the tasks [looking up definitions, finding answers to questions] always seem to point to something else, to suggest that they will have some purpose, some place to be put to use. But neither Roadville parents nor children see and participate in these ultimate occasions for use. The average, and even the good, students seem to do only minimally what is asked of them to conform.” (p. 46-47) I was one of those students – one who knew how to play the game and do what was asked, but I really didn't get into my own education until late in college. I didn't realize that the point was to do more than regurgitate – it was to think and create. When I finally understood the full potential of learning, I then decided to be a teacher.

For the past twenty years of my life, I've been living in transition, like the Trackton residents. Since 1988, I have moved every 3-4 years of my life. Fortunately, for the past 13 years, I've been happily married, which makes the transitions easier. But, I totally understand the mentally of not looking at what you have presently because of the promise of the future. As an international teacher, it isn't unusual to move that frequently, but it does make it difficult to find a “home” and community to really integrate into and give back too. Knowing I would be living eventually, some people didn't want to become to involved with me. As a couple, we looked at our apartments as places to sleep and eat in, not as homes. The kiss of death was the year we finally put artwork on the wall. Within a year, we'd be moving again.

I was quite horrified to read about how Trackton children were socialized to be assertive and aggressive with their dealings with each other. I know that this is my middle class mentality kicking in – but it just seems like such a fearful way to live. Kind of like when I watch any spy show or movie, I know that I could never be a spy because I am a horrible liar and infiltrator, I think I would be a horrible Trackton kid, or labeled as the slow or dull one. I don't like conflict and never dealt well with it. But, I can see how this form of socialization would cause problems within school. Since I taught in international schools in three countries, but with hundreds of different nationalities, I was often confronted with students who came to school with wildly different expectations of school, schooling, and peer relationships. Since their parents selected this particular American school, having the conversation about the differences was little easier, because the parental goal was to get their kids into American or International universities. So, socializing them to the “way we do school” was not as controversial as it is here in the US.

I was also quite angry to read about the unequal treatment of girls verse boys. I wonder how Heath dealt with observing this lack of respect that the girls received. I would think, since it was still at the early years of the feminist movement, she may not have had a response to it. Yet, ethically, nowadays, could I, as a researcher, walk away from the situation without trying to change it? I also found it interesting how the Trackton girls compensated for not being allowed into the conversation and they talked to themselves in mirrors. 

 

As Heath was describing the baby shower, I was reminded of a situation last spring. One of my graduate friends also had a baby shower, and I was giving a ride to several international graduate students. Knowing that traditions are very different around the world, I decided to ask about how the preparation for birth happened in their countries. Thankfully, the ride was long, because we all had a lot to say. But, it was a weird feeling to have to articulate specific cultural practices that are so common-sensical, to someone new. It reminds me of the movie The Mating Habits of the Earthbound Human (Jeff Abugov, 1999). It isn't a very good movie, but it is set up like a documentary, narrated by an alien about the dating scene. Again, what seems so natural, when looked at with uninitiated eyes, it quite unnatural.

Response to Graff - The Literacy Myth

Harvey J. Graff, The Literacy Myth: Cultural Integration and Social Structure in the Nineteenth Century. New York: Academic Press, 1979. 

To begin with, in the modern era, literacy is considered a basic human right. According to UNESCO: 

• “Literacy is a human right, a tool of personal empowerment and a means for social and human development. Educational opportunities depend on literacy. Literacy is at the heart of basic education for all, and essential for eradicating poverty, reducing child mortality, curbing population growth, achieving gender equality and ensuring sustainable development, peace and democracy. There are good reasons why literacy is at the core of Education for All (EFA).” (From http://www.unesco.org/en/literacy/literacy-important/)

 If one believes this rhetoric, then the savior of the word is being able to read. However, I agree with Jean Anyon (2005) in her book Radical Possibilities that all the education in the world will not help with providing accessible, well-paying jobs to ethnic minorities in the US. Being schooled and literate does not guarantee a job, a good home, stable relationships or respect – however, I will agree that it can open doors that are otherwise closed.
 

However, Graff states that some statistics show that people who are literate are less content with material possessions as people who are illiterate. In addition, literacy is tied to modern values such as openness to experiences, independence, self-efficacy, ambition, planning and world awareness. I think it is more the tie of schooling and literacy. In school, students are socialized to be competitive and want to do better. Although a C is average, few parents are satisfied with average, and so students are constantly pushed to do better. I would also have to admit that being highly schooled and literate, I am more discontent than in my youth. I know that there is always more to learn and not enough time to learn it all, and that I will never be an expert. I might be romanticizing, but I do remember a time when I was young, working on the farm, that the day began with chores and ended with chores, but there was a sense of accomplishment and finality of each day. Now as an academic, the words continue to flow, after the computer is turned off or the book is shut, and my mind never seems to rest. Is this an influence of literacy?

Literacy in North America has a strong link to morality. This is not new information for me, as a reading teacher, I've seen many examples of the early readers such as the Horn Book. Throughout the development of educational materials, the theme of morality or character education has permeated. Even in choosing high school texts, we are supposed to find something that teaches the students a theme or lesson, not just for read for entertainment. 

 

A new piece of information for me was the literacy rates of the immigrate population. As immigrants to North America, they had slightly higher literacy rates than the general population of their home countries. Plus, the farther the migration path, the higher the rate of literacy, so for the Irish moving to Great Britain, the rate is lower, yet to North America, a bit higher. Now that I think about it, being literate would make the move a little easier, but if literacy is also tied to openness to experiences, independence, self-efficacy, ambition, planning and world awareness, then the rate of literacy for migrants would be higher. Migrants, in general, tended to me more adaptive, integrated, and resourceful.

The myth of meritocracy is also not a new idea, but Graff explicitly shows that race and ethnicity had a much stronger role in getting ahead in society than literacy. Yet, at the same time, wealth and position was not dependent on literacy, as skilled workers could be illiterate and still attain middle class citizenship. Many illiterates lived and/or worked with literates, which would allow the person to get textual information, as reading aloud was a common practice. Many of the poorest people in the three cities were literate, yet poor become of ethnicity, gender or age. 

 

Mass schooling arose in response to urbanization with the intent to: teach habits and values, social discipline, work skills, cultural norms, national identity and finally, literacy. The purpose of schooling was more about acculturation than about reading/writing. It fulfilled the needs of a capitalistic ideals such as timeliness, discipline, and direction following. To get people on board, policymakers had to convince people that education was the path to personal mobility and societal well-being. The policymakers promised a change in the social order – doing away with social ascription and instituting meritocracy. This reasoning is still clearly ringing in the halls of American government.

Coming from a working class family, I was one of the first to graduate from university – which I always believed was built on the hard work of my grandparents, parents and me. I believed that through my own hard work and determination, I was a success. However, this isn't totally true, as much of my success has to do with knowing the right people and being in the right place at the right time – in others words, luck. Throughout my education, I was introduced to people who “elevated” my working-class mentality, opened doors through recommendations, and gave me the economic resources to succeed. I am one of the “border-crossers” who moved from working class to middle class, which, without reflection, seems to support the ideology of meritocracy. But take one of the influential people out of my life, and like a missing rung in the ladder of social mobility, I may not have made it. Yet, for each border-crosser like me, there are many more who don't have the opportunity.

In addition, Graff cites the working class organizations that were disappointed with the middle class attitudes and values the schools were teaching. In their view, reading was a social and home practice and needn't be emphasized in schools, but rather, practical working skills were needed. For as much as the policymakers professed education for social mobility, the fact remained that industrialization did not demand more skilled labor and in actuality decreased the urban literacy rates. Schools were for “training in being trained” (p. 230).  

Finn (2009) in his book, Literacy with an attitude: Educating working-class children in their own self-interest highlights a Jean Anyon study of fifth grade classrooms in five New Jersey schools, which run the gambit of executive elite to working class poor. Although in many cases the curricular material was similar, if not identical, the pedagogy was completely different. Working class children were highly controlled and taught through teacher-centered, direct methods. She concluded that, “these children were developing a relationship to the economy, authority, and work that is appropriate preparation to wage labor” (p. 12). There wasn't clear problems with the teaching of the working class students, such as untrained teachers, lack of materials or racist attitudes. The rooms were well-ordered and students were completing work. However, the dispositions the students were cultivating were domesticating (ie – breaking a horse). The goal was not to educate, but to domesticate, which was why direct methods work well with working-class students.

Response to Scribner & Cole

Sylvia Scribner and Michael Cole. The Psychology of Literacy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1981. Rpt. 1999.

Even Levi-Strauss, a well-known critic of the notion of historical progress, acknowledges that the invention of writing made it possible to accumulate the knowledge of each generation as “working capital” for the next. (p.4) I think the most important part of written literacy is the fact that it allows for the accumulation of knowledge, which can be passed on to other people in a different place or time. Yes, I acknowledge that oral stories can do this also, however, not as efficiently nor as accurately for large amounts of information. We are able to read Plato's Republic, not because people have continued to recited it, but because it was written down. We have Beowulf because it was committed to writing. What we know about the Egyptians comes primarily from their hieroglyphics. If all that stood from that time period were the Pyramids, which don't have interior writing, we would have no idea about their understanding of the afterworld and daily activities. The Egyptian writing has lasted for thousands of years and allows us to know what they knew. Without writing, their ruins would be just a bunch of clay bricks and mortar.

As literacy shapes culture, the argument goes, so it shapes human minds. (p. 4-5). Donald (1997) in the Precis of Origins of the Modern Mind, argues that the major cognitive transformations which allowed for new ways of remembering, retrieving and ultimately, defining human culture, was based on the ability to form language and then writing. What makes humans unique from animals is the ability to represent ideas through symbols or other representations. These symbols can be creatively designed, voluntarily retrieved and, taught. In addition, the human ability to speak allows for faster and more efficient transference of information, but isn't the only form of communication available. This allowed for things like tool making and expression of the past to be taught, which included the need to remember. However, this, in turn, created more complexity in social life, as longer memory was needed to coordinate daily and communal life. Therefore external memory forms were needed, such as graphic representations and text. This then forced the human brain to develop more abstract ways of thinking, remembering, and recalling information. In a way, it seems to be a chicken and egg argument – does the tool allow for new ways of thinking, or does new ways of thinking develop new tools. I think it is a little of both. One must have the ability/language to think in a certain way, but technology allows leaps of thinking.

Scribner and Cole's Study - The original intent of the study was to try to extricate literacy from schooling, as most previous studies confounded the two concepts. Therefore, the researchers had to find a culture in which literacy was not a school-based skill. In the Vai society, English was a school-based literacy, Arabic was a religious based literacy, and Vai was a society based literacy – each taught in very different ways, for different purposes. Being literate in any one of the three scripts allowed the person to move in different social circles, occupations, and cultural dimensions and helped define personal identity. Literacy co-occurred with out significant evens and experiences, which reflected the changes in social structure and economic changes that happened. However, not being literate in any of the scripts did not prevent people from reading and writing as there were literate people who would do the reading and writing for them, which was common and acceptable. The researchers' original question was: Does literacy induce cognitive change? However, as they were in the field, they realized that literacy was not a specific practice, but multiple practices in different contexts. To be able to measure differences or change in cognition, they had to tailor their tests to the context. 

 

Overall, I was amazed at the tremendous amount of people, time, money and organization that had to go into this study. In comparison, I'm looking at going into one school and one classroom for my research, and finding it overwhelming. Not only did they have to travel thousands of miles, to study a culture which spoke different languages, they had to hire and train field researchers fluent in multiple languages and develop new methods and tests. All experimental paradigms in common were invented in laboratories of experimental and developments psychologist for quite another purpose then the study of cultural differences in thinking. (p. 113). This, I think, was a major breakthrough in research design – taking the cognitive research “to the streets”, rather than in a lab. Just like so much of the NCLB research, as scientifically based, has very little resemblance to real classrooms, early cognitive research didn't look like real life. Plus, in designing tests for cognition, the researchers found major cultural differences in how to approach ideas and tasks. 

 

I found it quite humorous to read that the Vai language did not have a word for “word”. Before the field researchers could work with participants, they had to figure out a way to translate the idea of “word” into a concept that the Vai people would understand. So, does literacy change they way people think? Somewhat – as the words available defines how and what a person can think about. When I lived in Lithuania, my local friends would choose to swear in Russian over Lithuanian, because the cursing was stronger and felt better. One of my favorite phrases in Portuguese is “estupidamente gelada” , which directly translated is “stupidly cold”, but the reality of it is different in Brazil because of the style of beer and way of serving it. I have not had a stupidly cold beer here in the US.

However, the other thing I found interesting was the fact that literacy (or lack of) did not determine meta-linguistic knowledge of the Vai language. Vai written script was often discussed for correctness by both writers and non-writers. In just imaging this, I see significant differences between the Vai culture of the time and current US culture. As an English teacher, I'm always confronted with people who are embarrassed or apologize for their English, “Oh, I'll have to be be careful talking with you.” I have found that the average American person doesn't want to discuss language and often feel that they don't have enough knowledge to be able to discuss it. Even my mother, who was a secretary for 30 years and dealt with language everyday, still feels like she doesn't have a formal grasp of the English language. 

 

In the end, to be able to find any cognitive consequences of literacy, the researchers had to tie their tests to the actual practices of the community. In a way, I feel that is a little bit like cheating – at least in conjunction with the original question. If literacy is really suppose to affect cognition, then it should be obvious in everyday life. But, if the test has to be tailored to match the use of literacy in the culture, is it really a valid tie between literacy and cognition, or is it cultural use/expectation and cognition?

The next interesting question the researchers started looking at what whether or not knowing a specific writing influence the way on speaks. They found that yes, it does, but only showed up when the specific type and context was part of the experimental design. Which, mildly shows, that literacy affects individual mental performance of a task.

The whole ritual of letter writing within the Vai culture was interesting to me also. As an elementary student, I clearly remember the lessons of letter writing – business verses friendly – and having to send letters off. Like the Vai, there were clear structures within these formats that made the letter good or bad. However, a major difference was that the Vai generally only wrote to people they knew, whereas I learned to write complaint letters to companies and people I never met. At that time, it was a very exciting to get letters back. However, with the immediacy of Facebook and email, this is no longer a unique event. However, both the Vai and my own experiences shows that writing requires more of a cognitive load, as the sender and reader do not occupy the same physical space, so there is no interactivity and the writer must anticipate the reader's need for understanding. Before literacy, a messenger would be sent with a specific message, but he could also fill in the blanks if the receiver had questions. I think this would be a cognitive shift between orality and literacy. Which led to another finding for the researchers – that those with literacy were more likely to orient new players to the physicality of an unknown board game than those without written literacy. Vai letter writing seemed to influence the way a person organized and conveyed information orally.

In the end, the researchers came to a description of a “practices account of literacy” (p. 235) – practice, meaning a recurrent, goal directed sequence of activities using a tool, knowledge and skill. And, to understand the consequences of literacy, one must understand the specific characteristics of a specific practices and how that practice fits into the whole culture. Although this seems a bit common sense to me, I can see how ground breaking it was at a time that literacy was still very much a moral issue. Plus, the researchers found that there were not deep psychological differences between literate and non-literate Vai people. This would shatter the idea that literacy makes for a more civilized or moral person. In fact, the researchers observed that living in an urban setting had more of an effect on how a person thought than having literacy. This would seem to make sense to me. Just like there is a push now for college students to spend some time overseas, personal experience in different settings has more of an influence that just reading about something. (Yes, I know that reading opens new worlds, but living in new worlds forces people to confront new ideas and beliefs more so than reading does.)

In class, we had a short discussion about literacy and culture. As a middle/high school teacher of humanities, culture is a common topic. Within that context, language is a part of culture, along with food, dress, habits, etc. As the researchers said, “We have seen that Vai culture is in Vai literacy practices; in the writing system, the means used to transmit it, the functions it serves and contexts of use, and the ideologies which confer significance on these functions.” (p. 259) So, culture is in literacy, but literacy is not the only aspect of culture.

Democratic Schools a book by Michael Apple & James Beane

For most people, democracy has been defined as a governmental system, not as the foundational values and principles of a society, such as the concern for rights and dignity of others, being informed and active about social and political issues, with a focus on being critical citizens. I don't remember civics in high school and only vaguely remember it in college, but the focus was on the governmental structures and voting. Trying to image democratic schools is even more difficult, which is the point of this book – to give models of classrooms and schools that embody more than just student voice, but that the whole design of the curriculum, environment, and personal relationships is based on balancing the rights and dignity of individuals with the needs of the collective good.

One of the most powerful quotes, that I think should be at the front of every school building, is that education must “never forget it is dealing with Souls and not Dollars” (p. 23). I think this imperative has become reversed – with too many schools focusing on the dollars generated by test scores and grants, rather than the children being served. This has led to “the feelings of frustration and sometimes cynicism that many educators and community members experience [as] the result of not hearing each others stories” (p. 24).

LaEscuela was a clear example of how a grass-roots movement can make change within a seemingly unchangeable system. The list of problems they faced, on page 32, is the reality of most reforms – resistance from many fronts including administrator, teachers, parents and the public, plus money, materials and time. However, it is clear that with determination and vision, LaEscuela was able to accomplish its goals and continues to support democratic methods. What I found interesting was the recognition that the process of developing LaEscuela is on-going to continually regenerate the understanding of the uniting philosophy that founded the school. As some of the other examples in the book show, if the founding team leaves and the philosophy isn't continually renewed, the school disintegrates. Also, LaEscuela uses many ideas that are often touted as “best practices” such as cooperative learning, thematic units, cross age tutoring, whole language, and common planning time. However, what makes LaEscuela unique is using so many of these practices to compliment each other and as a foundation of its philosophy. Each of these practices, individually, has little impact on student learning – but together are very powerful. Reflection is also built into most of what happens in the school – and not just for the students, but the teachers, administrative team and parents.

Cabrini Green shows what happens when kids are asked real questions without preordained answers -the students became active participants in their own learning and were able to read and write well above their grade level when the motivation was intrinsic. In addition, test scores went up without specific focus on test prep. This doesn't surprise me, but I certainly understand how scary releasing that much control is for teachers and I've heard the types of criticisms he heard. But, it ties well with the classroom described at O'Keefe, where students were actively involved in planning, assessing and participating in curriculum development. I was able to do similar things at my school in Lithuania, which was fostered by several factors (some of which Barbara Brodhagen mentions): a supportive but uninvolved administrator, small class size, interdisciplinary block scheduling, lack of textbooks, and creative students and teacher. The two years in which I taught 6/7 grade social studies, language arts and science was the most challenging, yet productive time in my teaching career, and quite rewarding. I provided overview of topics such as Ancient Egypt or China and the students created questions, gathered materials, designed products and assessments and performed for authentic audiences. I was also able to have student-led parent conferences, which were a joy to watch.

I love the quote from CityWorks, “You can't learn to be good at something you've never experienced” (p. 133) and schools are good places to learn real democratic principles. I would whole heartily agree – and this should also be the basis of our teacher training. However, as it later states, “Until we understand what it takes to nourish the successful innovations and their offspring, we will always be starting over from scratch” (p. 147). This, I think, is one of the major take-aways from this book. Good things are happening in schools around the country, however, they are not being published nor sustained. Most people can sprint 100 yards – but it is those who plan, train and have a supportive team that can finish the marathon. This should be our goal!

Apple, M. W., & Beane, J. A. (Eds.) (1995). Democratic Schools. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Multiculturalism - Whatever that is . . .

At the end of last week's class, the professor said, “We'll be reading about multiculturalism, whatever that means...” which is a true assessment of my experience of this model of curriculum theorizing. As an undergraduate, I had a class in Multiculturalism, which focused on a representational model – make sure all students are represented in the textbooks, choose novels with diverse characters, and allow students to bring their home cultures in to the classroom. However, as the readings for this week show – there is a lot more to it than just an add-on in the curriculum, it is a way of thinking about the world.

One of the more recent theories about race and culture is critical race theory (CRT). Ladson-Billings' (2009) article states that there are three themes to CRT: although laws guide actions, often other factors influence decisions just as much; politics and the law are imperfect; politics and the law serve the interests of those in power; and the law is inherently contradictory as it tries to serve the individual and the society. It is clear that laws, throughout history, have enforced the power for those with power. For example, the Greek definition of citizenship narrowed the definition to male adults of citizens. Immigrants could not be citizens, and by that token, nor could their children. As the US was formed, citizenship was defined by landownership, family holdings, and gender. It denied voting rights to women and non-whites. Thomas Jefferson (1787) feared massive immigrations and stated, “They [emigrants] will infuse into it [government] their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass” (Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 8). It seems this fear has become an integral part of American government, as only laws have forced voting rights for non-male/white people and tried to negate the importance of property. However, like Ladson-Billings & Tates (1995) original article on CRT in Education stated, race continues to be a significant factor in inequality in the US and societal relationships continue to be based on property rights – and both shape how schooling and education happens. Most of school funding still comes from property taxes – which is inherently unequal. It seems a no-brainer to understand that well-funded schools tend to have more materials, higher paid teachers (which tend to be better and are retained longer), and higher achieving students. Understanding the effects of race means looking systemically at not just schools, but neighborhoods and politics – which is the point of CRT.

Geneva Gay (2004) returns to the school to look at the importance of multicultural education. She supports curriculum development that not only equitably represents the diversity of American society but is also presented in a relevant manner to students – not just as an add-on or token, but as an integral part of teaching and learning. I find that my student teachers are very good at representing diverse voices, but struggle much more with making content relevant. Most come from solidly middle-class white backgrounds and they succeeded with traditional methods of teaching. Pushing them to think beyond their own experiences is tough, and they tend to default to the discourse of “it is the kid's responsibility to be motivated and ready to learn” or to the discourse of dumbing-down the content. As I have mentioned before, there are not a lot of positive models of culturally relevant pedagogy around here.

I agree that school climate is a major factor in a child's successful journey through the system. When students are bullied and harassed, for whatever reason (race, sex, religion, sexual orientation) the physical and mental energy that should go to learning is rallied to protect themselves. Our school system, with the implicit assumptions that go with the factory model of teaching, doesn't recognize or give time and space to the affective component of learning. Bullying is usually dealt with using a zero-tolerance punishment model, rather than looking at the root causes. Like any other band-aid on a deep wound, it will still bleed through.

References

Gay, G. (2004). The importance of multicultural education. Educational Leadership, 61(4), 30-35.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2009). Race still matters: Critical race theory in education. In Apple, M.W., Au, W. & Gandin, L.A. (Eds.), Routledge international handbook of critical education. New York: Routledge.

Schools, Tools and Other Such Things

Tyack (1974) shows that the one, best system, as founded by the social engineers for education in the mid to late 1800s was the factory model, in which education became a function, not a cause. The function was to create modern workers for an industrialized society. The self-sufficient household and village was becoming an interdependent, specialized municipality. The larger, more crowded cities demanded regulatory institutions, such as police, health service, and education. Educational leaders used data (such as standardized tests) to promote the creation of bureaucracies to regulate and assess schools, based on efficiency references from the military, factory, and railroad. This lead to the creation and use of textbooks, grade levels, and multiple forms of data collection, including attendance and test scores. The purpose of education became only marginally about knowledge acquisition. Instead, it was used to teach the control of body, promote competition, enforce order/discipline, train workers, and impose a common culture in a diverse population.

In general, teachers are slow adopters of new technology, unless the technology improves a specific, teacher identified problem and the technology is flexible, versatile and portable and supports teacher authority. However,Cuban (1986) states, there are many other reasons given for the slow adoption of technology (specifically of radio, TV and film) such as: the lack of accessibility and reliability of the technology: authoritative mandates to use the technology, often by non-educators; the conflicting demands of the teaching environment; and a traditional culture of teaching that is reinforced by experience. Teachers who willingly adopt new technologies tend to do it not because of the technology itself, but because they may have non-traditional philosophies of education, use the technology to solve a specific problem, or have different expectations of the educational process. After looking at the failure to adopt radio, TV, and film technologies, Cuban moves on to questioning the implementation of computers in schools. He posits that more fundamental questions need to be asked when implementing a technology into schools such as: What is the nature of teaching and learning? What is the purpose of teaching and learning? How do people learn and teachers teach? Without asking these questions, the question of how or why a technology is or is not adopted in schools is very one-dimensional. As, Latour seems to indicate, we can not study people without studying the interactions of humans and non-humans.

Although schools tends to be an individual task, we need to take a broader view of how the school impacts and reflects the larger society. Dewey (1900)`confirms Tyack's later conclusion that schools at the turn of the century had reflected the industrialization of America. Dewey traces the education of the home/farm/village, which tended to be cooperative, necessary, and intrinsically motivating to the urban schools of competition, inauthentic subjects, and extrinsic motivation. Even the introduction of manual training in schools, which mimics home education, according to Dewey, shows that the “real” education has been supplanted by schooling. Dewey then describes his ideal school based on the study and investigation of occupations, which supports an integration of history, science and social understanding in an authentic and constructivist manner.

Since the theme of these readings is “School as a Tool” I read each of the authors with that in mind. Since no single tool can do everything for everyone, and is dependent on context and purpose, these authors try to define or explain how school can be a tool to achieve certain purposes. The purpose of the tool influences the design of the tool, but the design of the tool also influences the use of the tool. Since the tool is in constant use, it would be difficult to radically change it (as in, a moving part is hard to fix). Therefore, the current (traditional) forms of schooling tend to be the dominant method, rather than a radical transformation like Dewey envisioned or the adoption of new technology (and resultant revolution), as Cuban describes.

References

Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press.

Dewey, J. (1900). The school and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Tyack, DB (1974). The one best system. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Cognition and Tool Use

“A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing.” – Emo Philips


In tracing the development of the modern mind, Donald and Shaffer/Kaput highlight the major cognitive transformations which allowed for new ways of remembering, retrieving and ultimately, defining human culture. What makes humans unique from animals is the ability to represent ideas through symbols or other representations. These symbols can be creatively designed, voluntarily retrieved and, taught, often through imitation. The whole body can be used to represent an idea or event, either remembered or created. In addition, human ability to speak allows for faster and more efficient transference of information, but isn't the only form of communication available. This allowed for things like tool making and expression of the past to be taught, which included the need to remember. However, this, in turn, created more complexity in social life, as longer memory was needed to coordinate daily and communal life. Therefore external memory forms were needed, such as graphic representations and text. This then forced the human brain to develop more abstract ways of thinking, remembering, and recalling information. However, Shaffer/Kaput argue further that the computer allows for much deeper cognition, as it performs lower level processing (so the person doesn't have to), which allows the person to focus more on the representation of thinking, not just the process of thinking.



Donald states, “This suggests that high levels of literacy skill may entail considerable costs, as indeed has been suggested by literature comparing the cognitive competences of oral cultures with those of literate. Oral memory and visual imagery are often listed among the skills that may have been traded off against literacy.” (p.746) My question – Is this truly a cognitive difference or is it a socially created difference? In other words – nature vs nurture?



I also find it a little ironic that Donald uses the metaphor of the human brain as a computational machine with external memory and processing capabilities, whereas Turkle is playing down the computational and processing capabilities of the computer in order to highlight the human-like abilities of simulation and interaction within computer.



Which leads to Turkle's discussion of identity in the age of the internet. She believes that the computer has gone beyond just being a tool or mirror of humans, but rather a place people go to create new identities and communities. As this is happening, the space between “real” life and virtual life is slowly diminishing. Many Multi-User Domains(MUD) users believe their virtual lives are as real and important as their “real” lives. From the earliest paper and dice games like Dungeons and Dragons, MUD allow people to be more than players; they become authors, who can create an identical persona or wildly different one. And, with anonymity, they can try out several different identities. “Windows have become a powerful metaphor for thinking about the self as a multiple, distributed system” (p. 14). These identities are formed by choice and my the identity inflicted on the user by the environment and other users – which makes it fluid and constantly changing. At times, it is difficult to see the difference between a person created character or a machine created character. The form and function of the computer has and is changing rapidly, and with it, brings a sense of “instability of meanings and the lack of universal and knowable truths” (p. 18)



At one time, people with multiple personalities were consider to be possessed my demons or mentally ill. However, Turkle sites that some MUD users who have multiple characters, often with extremely different personalities and goals. Is this self-medication of sorts for people who feel splintered by modern life? Or, does acting out these lives make if more difficult to accept “real” life? Will it become the norm to have a real life and multiple cyberlives? And those who choose not to partake, will they be the ones considered mentally ill?


“Mathematics is not about calculations . . . [it] is about understanding a problem, representing it in an external processing system and being able to use the information produced . . . in a meaningful way.” (Shaffer/Kaput, p. 111). For as much as computers are accepted at home, I am still amazed at the arguments and recriminations for using calculators in the math classroom and audio books in English. How can we help people see that this isn't just taking shortcuts, but just the tools that they are, which allow students to think more deeply about topics, rather than focus on basic skills?

References

Donald, M., (1993). Precis of Origins of the Modern Mind with multiple reviews and author's response. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16:4, pp. 737-91

Shaffer, D., & Kaput, J. (1999). Mathematics and virtual culture: An evolutionary perspective on technology and mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 37, 97–119.
Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet. New York: Simon & Schuster

Intersection of Tools and Culture

Pea (2004 ) believes that intelligence is not an individual, solitary thing – though in our modern society, we try to measure it as such. Instead, proposes Pea, intelligence/knowledge is multiple and distributed across people and environments. In using intelligence, humans have desires (4 types), in which they create and use tools to achieve these desires. Each tool has accordances – that is the “perceives and actual properties of the ting, primarily those functional properties that determine just how the thing could possibly be used”(p. 51). The tools can also be said to be “intelligent” itself, as the tool defines its purpose and the task. But, as tools become accepted, the intelligence within is less evident. Tools can amplify human intelligence, but Pea posits that they are more reorganizers of mental functioning – that people change what they do, not just how they do it. However, education seems to be unaware of this, and continues to adopt technologies without considering the trade-offs, or does not adopt the tool, even though it is part of everyday life.

Postman (1993) has a lot to say, but it basically boils down to this – all technologies have both blessings and burdens. Too often, people either fully embrace or fully reject a technology. In doing so, the complex relationship of the cultural, social and systematic change borne from the technology is not fully examined.

Illich (1973) proposes a new society – one that he names a convivial society, in which the tools people use allow for autonomy and creative interactions between people and their environments. In doing so, three values would be protected; survival, justice, and self-defined work. In our current society, too often, people become slaves to the tools – whether it is an institution (like school) or a machine (like an airplane). In our modern society, the use of industrial tools has spawned a world-wide homogenization of culture, in which people are trying to fit in. (ie – schools look about the same, factories look about the same). “A convivial society should be designed to allow all its members the most autonomous action by means of tools least controlled by others” (p.21). He goes on to define tools as “ all rationally designed devices, by they artifacts or rules, codes or operators, and to distinguish all these planned and engineered instrumentalities from other things such as basic food or implements, which in a given culture are not deemed to be subject to rationalization” (p. 22). He believes that hand tools, those that adapt a person's metabolic energy to a specific tacks, tend to be more convivial, as almost anyone can use for his/her own purposes, as compared to power tools, which often subsume the users to a mere operator. However, manipulative tools (those in which create gaps between have/have not) can not be fully abolished, instead, a balance between manipulative and empowering tools is necessary. Which leads to the definition of work (satisfying, creative and independent), labor (doing for the benefit of a master/exploitive), operative ( earned through consumption and privileged experience). In modern society, technological progress tends to widen the gap between rich and poor. Often the “progress” is only for individual gain, not societal good. And, in doing so, deprives the majority of further independence, self-worth, and efficacy.

Johnson (1988) argues that as we delegate more of human activity to tools/technology, the general public tends to humanize the technologies and apply human characteristics to them. If a person's perception is their reality, then non-human technologies, designated as human, must be an important factor in society, and by extension, in sociology.

It seems to me that Illich (1973) is suggesting that specialized knowledge has little place in his convivial society, as we should be able to heal ourselves etc. I struggle to imagine his ideal convivial society in the context of our modern technologies and societal demands – would it even be possible? Which, is maybe his point – we would have to have a radical revolution in order for this to happen. I couldn't help but think of Stephan King's The Stand while reading. When 75% of the world's population dies, how do the survivors re-engineer society when many of the specialists are dead? Well, new people become specialists, but with more of a focus of committees. (That on the “good” side – the bad side is just a dictator.) Postman's (1993) predictions are scarily accurate in many cases. What frustrates me is that he warns, but doesn't have alternatives. Though, Illich's alternative seems unrealistic, at least he has a vision. Pea (2004) begins to indicate the implications of a new definition of intelligence on education.

References

Illich, I. (1973). Tools for Conviviality. New York: Harper and Row.

Johnson, J (aka Latour, B.) (1988). Mixing humans and nonhumans together: the sociology of

a door-closer. Social Problems, Vol. 35 No.3, pp.298-310.

Pea, R. D. (2004) Practices of distributed intelligences and designs for education. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed Cognitions. (pp. 88-110).

Postman, N. (1993). Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology. NewYork: Vintage Books.

Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction ~ Ralph Tyler

I was very sad while reading this book. It would seem that if Tyler's assertions were basic principles then most people should know them – especially as it is 60 years later and should be well developed. But, it seems, his thoughts have been buried with other great ideas like the library at Alexandria.

When I first began teaching, I was handed a curriculum guide that achieved its effects like “water dripping upon a stone” (p. 83) wearing away at the children. The guide was clearly designed by “experts” - mostly, the textbooks available and the former teachers. Although the objectives were clear, it was based strictly on knowledge and skill, not developing “modes of thinking or critical interpretation, emotional reaction, interests and the like” (p. 29). It was so detailed that it indicated the number of days to spend on each unit. With all the fragmented lessoning (it wasn't learning) going on, it seemed, as Tyler also stated, “Many educational programs do not have clearly defined purposes” (p.3). I don't think I've ever taught in a school that did have a clearly defined purpose. Of course, they all had philosophy statements and curriculum guides, but what actually happened in the classrooms was frequently inconsistent and incongruent.

If education is, as Tyler states, “a process of changing behavior patterns . . . includ[ing] thinking and feeling as well as overt action” (p. 5-6) then an understanding of the students, the standard, the expectations of society etc. would be necessary. However, I am a little uncomfortable with this definition, because it would seem to indicate indoctrination, which, if the uproar over Obama's education speech to students is any indication, is a poor choice of words. But, looking at his treatment of the word “need” in education, I relaxed a bit. In the first definition, it means taking the information about a learner and comparing it to a standard with the difference being the space for educational need. The second definition has a more psychological slant – that being that all people have physical, social and integrative needs and education should help satisfy and balance these needs. I believe I will have to ponder this a while longer, as I, myself, do not have a ready definition for “education”.

I have been in two schools in which the philosophy and mission statements were “updated” yet neither school really addressed defining what they believed was the purpose of education. Tyler mentions the various tensions that can be raised between the “essentialists” and “progressives”, the subject area specialist and the child-centered teacher etc. I think this tension exists in every school, but there is very little opportunity to address the tension and build a shared vision of the school's purpose and philosophy. At the beginning of the year, too many schools rush teachers through multiple in-services on multiple topics, without considering this basic question – what is our purpose.

One of the most significant influences on my teaching was when I came to understand, as Tyler states, “a smaller number of consistent highly important objectives need to be selected” (p.33). I attended Harvard's Project Zero one summer and was introduced to the idea of Thoroughline, or more commonly called, Essential Questions. This made me seriously consider the design of my own curriculum – taking in account the school's mandates, my own professional knowledge, the various needs of the students, and a need to balance preparing students for was is and what will be. When I work with student teachers, this is one of the most complicated areas to explain. Tyler suggests that objectives can be attained from at least five areas of information, with multiple forms of data within each area. To be able to synthesize all that information and create “objectives in a form to be helpful in selecting learning experiences and in guiding teaching” (p. 43) is a major undertaking. One of my former colleagues, who just began her tenth year of teaching stated incredulously, “It seems that my teaching is smooth and fluid – what am I doing differently this year?” I replied, “Practice and experience. Now, go teach that to novice teachers!”

Reference

Tyler, R. (1951) Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Globalization, Global Citizenship, and International Schools

Globalization is not new – though the current form is probably the most well-documented and researched. Tilly (2004) talks about the three forms of globalization – migration of population; spread of ideas, techniques and forms of organization; and increased coordination of activities at a world scale. Throughout history, people have always felt the “grass was greener” somewhere else, from the first humans who left Africa to find more verdant lands to the post-WWII flight from Eastern Europe to escape crushing memories and destruction. Each time, the immigrants brought with them their traditions, culture and way of life and, even when pressured to conform, the two (or more) cultures melded – or as Bhabha (1994) would say, created hybridization. Throughout the middle ages, kingdoms and fiefdoms fought each other and gained power through mutual alliances. In Cleopatra's time, she formed an alliance with Julius Caesar in order to promote Egypt's place in the Roman Empire. Within the last 60 years, the United States has become a world power - meaning that the ideas, fads, fashions, commerce and businesses of the US were replicated, extended, and adopted by other people and countries.

As a backlash to the “Americanization” of the world, new forms of organization are becoming the ruling class of the world – World Bank, European Union, and the World Trade Organization,and the International Monetary Fund. The increased coordination of activities at a world scale is what is new with this current incarnation of globalization. In the past, the conqueror would determine how activities were organized with in the empire – and generally the conquered would be forced to adopt most of the conqueror's ways. The Roman Empire built extensive roads in order to better administrate their lands. The Islamic Empire was united through religion. The British Empire dominated through colonization and conversion. However, today, the coordination is through economic means, and is not confined to a single country or government. Multi-national companies and international cooperatives are determining the day-to-day activities of a major chunk of the world. According to Newsweek, the top ten global companies are Wal-Mart Stores,Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell, BP, Toyota Motor, Chevron, ING Group, Total, General Motors, and ConocoPhillips. The world power is whoever controls “power” - most of the top 10 companies control gas and oil. Although OPEC still controls the land where most oil is found, these international companies are improving technologies to get more oil from other fields and produce alternative forms of energy. On a more personal level, Appiah (2008) believes that globalization is not only having access to knowledge of the lives and ways of other people, but also, having the power to affect other people.

McKenzie (2004) gives a checklist for a global citizen, which includes: global appreciation, supports sustainable living and development, being epistemologically nomadic, multilingual, multicultural, being prepared to stand up for others who are very different or far away, be empathetic, and radically challenge those ideas that seem unquestionable or inevitable.

Globalization and Education

World culture theory, as developed by John Meyer, Francisco Ramirez, John Boli and colleagues, argues that the culture of schooling is converging toward a single global model, based on evidence of broad similarities among schooling systems across nations, including common ideals, institutional forms and practices, organizational features, curricula and instructional methods. For many American international schools, much of the unwritten curriculum is an enculturation of American values and educational priorities. The school has to educate both parents and students how to “do school” the American way, which includes projects, group work, disagreeing with the teacher and others and supporting opinion. Often schools give workshops and handouts about homework, reading practices and bullying. By doing this, the school feels it is preparing students to fit into American universities and international universities. But, is that creating global citizens? In actuality, like the Romans did as they conquered other peoples, the schools are creating citizens that could fit into American society. And yet, the local community and culture, along with the tertiary school culture (made up of locals, third country nationals, and Americans), had a strong influence on how American education is interpreted in that context. As Lee and LiPuma (2002) said, “these interpretive communities determine lines of interpretation, found institutions, and set boundaries based principally on their own internal dynamic.”

Bauman (1998) cites Dunlap's principle of the company belonging to the shareholders, not the workers or locality. This is true in a lot of schools, yet more evident in American international schools – especially in the schools where the student population is overwhelmingly foreign as opposed to local. Generally, the school board is elected of and by the parents. This board sets policy, approves hiring, budget etc. Often, the parents will only be in-country for 2-5 years, so their agendas are short term - “what's best for my kid.” It is difficult to get long-term programs and ideas to move forward, because the student body and faculty turn over every 2-5 years. There can be a sense of “freedom from the duty to contribute to daily life and the perpetuation of the community”(p. 9) along with “no need to engage, if avoidance will do.” (p.11) Often American or third country national students will not become involved in local sports or hang out with neighborhood kids because the students knew they would move away eventually. With a high turnover rate for foreign hire teachers, many outreach programs that are started, such as visits to a local orphanage and offering professional development to local teachers, ended as soon as sponsoring teacher leaves.

Within a country, an international school often has unique ties to the local government. Often, the government has to sanction the formation of an international school, which for developing countries, means creating and passing new laws. Implicitly, this means the ruling body agrees with the fundamentals of having foreigners educating the youth in the country. Which, conversely, indicates that the local educational system could not handle the demands of the foreigners in the local schools. By creating separate schools, the nomadic foreigners are insulated from the context of local society, which does, (in many cases) create resentment. In some schools, students are bussed directly to the school, with only a few students, who speak the local language, taking public buses. However, these students may cover up or take off their uniforms because they would be harassed by local students about being “Preppies” or the rich kids who go to the school that anyone can buy their way into. The American international schools are generally better funded, are able to import supplies and materials easily, sometimes get special treatment from the government (taxes, educational requirements etc), can hire more educated faculty and the students come from a higher socioeconomic class than the local population.

To combat this resentment and to create “globally aware citizens,” many American international school require community service projects for the students, which, in theory, gives back to the local community. However, at times, it creates a greater sense of superiority in students and faculty, rather than empathy. As Bauman (1998) says, “Globalization divides as much as it unites; it divides as it unites.” (p. 2) When shopping for gifts for the poorer local kids, some students would buy inferior gifts than if buying for their own friends, assuming that since the local kids had little, any gift would be appreciated.

But what does it mean to educate for global citizenship? Appiah (2008) states that there are three ideals for global citizenship: 1) No single world government 2) Caring for the fate of all fellow citizens 3) Engagement in real conversation between people. He looks back to the Greek sense of education which was to shape the citizen for their common, communal life. However, now, that community is not just the polis, or city/local area. It has expanded to include a global common life – the cosmos. So, schools should be educating for cosmopolitanism – “universality plus difference” (p. 92) which recognizes the fallibility of knowledge and the right for each person to live their own life, as long as that way only effects his/her own fate, even if someone else thinks that way is wrong. Which means, that as a global citizen, a person should spend more time listening and learning from other people, rather than imposing their own will or pointing out their differences. Becoming a global citizen, in Ebbeck's view (2008), should be more about gaining a future-oriented perspective, one that envisions not only a personal future, but a world future with less violence and more tolerance, which is sometimes called a “peace curriculum.” Mckenzie (2004) echoes Ebbeck's concern about the extreme violence in the world, but he believes that the primary purpose of schools should be builders of community – one that cooperates, not confronts; builds interdependence, teamwork and patience. And, through the strength of the school's community, promote community outside the school grounds.

Examples of Global Citizenship Education

Often, the job of teaching “global citizenship” is put on the social studies teachers and curriculum, rather than being infused into the core beliefs of the school. However, even within that context, there are obstacles to effective global citizenship pedagogy. First, there is no single definition of global citizenship education. It is often subsumed under other frameworks, such as multicultural education or even economic education. Even when it is placed within citizenship education, there are significant differences in the requirements of local verse global citizenship. Finally, many people fear that a focus on global citizenship undermines local citizenship (Rapaport, 2008).

Global Learning is a specific pedagogical approach in which learners of different cultures use technologies to improve their global perspective through contact and cooperation with people of other cultures (Gibson, Rimmington, & Landwehr-Brown, 2008). In this model, the instructor creates a set of necessary conditions: 1) Cultural contrasts between participants (ideally in different countries) 2) Modern communication technologies such as Internet and web-based communication applications 3) Substantive and authentic goal 4) Designed to require teamwork. Once these conditions are met, the learners must use a range of attributes/dispositions and processes/skills which may need to be explicitly taught. By engaging with others, especially with those who may be different, on a project with a mutual goal, learners come to understand how interconnected and interdependent the world is, in spite of cultural diversity. However, more influential, the authors found, was the fact that the instructor also becomes more globally conscious through the contacts made in the design of the project.

In Singapore, Lim (2008) documents a unique fusing of content area knowledge and multi-user virtual environments to create a role playing game in which the player must work together with other players, to solve social, ecological and cultural problems reminiscent of current problems. Through “quests” players must define the problem, research possible solutions using examples from other cultures, and design a policy paper describing their solution. The underlying design of the game supports student agency, tolerance and diversity, while at the same time, removing the barriers between school and non-school knowledges. In replicating the global issues currently being faced, and engaging the students as citizens, they realistically practiced the skills needed for responsible adult global citizenship.

References

Appiah, K. (2008, April). Education for global citizenship. Yearbook of the national society for the study of education. 107(1), pp. 83-99.

Bhabha, H. (1994). The location of culture. New York: Routledge.

Bauman, Z. (1998). Globalization: The human consequences. Cambridge, Polity.

Ebbeck, M. (2006). The challenges of global citizenship: Some issues for policy and practice in early childhood education. Childhood Education, 82(6). p. 353-357.

Gibson, K.L., Rimmington, G.M., & Landwehr-Brown, M. (2008). Developing global awareness and responsible world citizenship with global learning. Roeper Review, 30(1). p. 11-23.

Lee, B. & LiPuma, E. (2002) Cultures of circulation: The imaginations of modernity. Public Culture 14(1): 191-213.

Lim, C. P., (2007). Global citizenship education, school curriculum and games: Learning mathematics, English and science as a global citizen. Computers & Education, 51. p.1073–1093.

McKenzie, M. (2004). Sense of community and the emerging global citizen. Independent School, 63 (3), p. 10-16

Newsweek. (2008, July 21). Global 500. Fortune magazine. Retrieved December 26, 2008 from http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2008/full_list/

Rapoport, A. (2008). A forgotten concept: Global citizenship education and state social studies standards. Journal of Social Studies Research 33(1), p. 75-93.

Radical Possibilities - Jean Anyon

You know when you have a small shard of fiberglass in your finger and it only hurts when you move it a certain way – but then you keep moving it to see where it is and then it really hurts? That's how I felt reading this book. Many of the issues Jean Anyon (2005) brings up have been issues I've railed about before, but when looking at the complexities of bureaucracy, it always seemed impossible to change – poverty, transportation, incarceration etc. However, what I really appreciated in Anyon was she also gives hope – through the analysis of past social movements and the expectation of future collaboration, there seems to be, as she titles it – possibilities!

For most of my teenage years, I remember always hearing about the food shortages in Africa. Then as an adult, I found out that it wasn't so much a lack of food, but a lack of secure, transparent distribution of food, water and supplies that caused such terrible famine. This was caused, in many cases, by the countries' own governments, though sometimes by civil war. It was so frustrating to know that food etc. was available yet wasting away or resold for profit, rather than benefiting the people it was intended for. Currently, the food crisis has been prompted by large corporate farms and the desire for cash crops over food production. Again, governmental policy has allowed this to happen. So, why talk about food as compared to this book? Well, it seems to parallel a lot of what Anyon talks about – few problems are like waffles, with neat little squares, cordoned off from one another. Most problems are like a bowl of spaghetti – intertwined and messy.

Communism seems the way to go – to simplify all the problems of Western society. With a democratic, classless, stateless society with common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general, no religious fervor to divide people and no recognition of race to segregate. But wait, hasn't that been tried and failed? Why? “Communism . . . these alternate beliefs systems [to capitalism] flew in the face of human nature. Of even common sense. Anyone who has ever tried to share pizza with roommates knows that Communism cannot ever work. If Lenin and Marx had just shared an apartment, perhaps a hundred million lives might have been spared and put to productive use...” (Suarez, 2009, p. 289). So, if a truly classless society isn't a reality, what is?

In the 1993 movie Dave, Kevin Kline plays an ordinary man, Dave, who looks a lot like the American president. When the president has a stroke, Dave is asked to fill in for the president for a few days in order for the Chief of Staff to continue to hold power. However, this ordinary man begins to make changes, which drastically improve the lives of ordinary people, rather than just the rich. He diplomatically, forces the various departments to balance the budget while refunding public service projects and pushes through an employment program. However, the corrupt actions of the real president are revealed, and Dave, takes the blame stating:

“And while we're setting the record straight, I'd also like to apologize to the American people. I forgot that I was hired to do a job for you and that it was just a temp job at that. I forgot that I had two hundred and fifty million people who were paying me to make their lives a little better and I didn't live up to my part of the bargain. See, there are certain things you should expect from a President. I ought to care more about you than I do about me... I ought to care more about what's right than I do about what's popular...I ought to be willing to give this whole thing up for something I believe in...”

This, I think, gets to the core of why Communism and social reform has had a difficult time making positive changes for the whole of society. Too many people, including me, are more concerned about the immediate welfare of themselves and their own family, to look beyond and see the need to extend their caring to others. Anyon gives numerous statistics of how the wealthy have continued to protect their wealth, while the poor have continued to get poorer.

I know there is a mythology of the good ol' days, yet there was tremendous value in the need to depend on neighbors to share their thrashing machine, combine or other equipment. Neighbors and towns had to trust and work together to survive. Now, each household buys its own snowblower or lawnmower because no one trusts others to treat the equipment right or bring it back. I think Anyon (2005) has a good point that any social movement must start locally, with building connections and trust between the people involved before it can make connections to larger organizations. And this trust and connection building takes time and effort. In our mobile world of constant change, it is difficult to envision the future and commit to a plan.

How can teachers create a new social order? Although I totally agree that Anyon's multi-pronged approach is the only way to radically alter the way schooling and society runs, I think teachers can begin with building trusting, caring, and, dare I say, loving, relationships with their students and foster the same type of relationships between students, staff, parents and the local community. As Jackie DeShannon sang in 1968:

Think of your fellow man

Lend him a helping hand

Put a little love in your heart

You see it's getting late, so please don't hesitate

Put a little love in your heart

And the world...

Will be a better place

And the world will be a better place for you...

And me

References

Anyon, Jean. (2005). Radical possibilities: Public policy, urban education, and a new social movement. New York: Routledge.

DeShannon, J., Holiday, J. & Myers, R. (1968). Put a little love in your heart. Put a Little Love in Your Heart. MCA Records.

Reitman, I. (Director). (1993). Dave. [Motion Picture].Warner Bros. Pictures.

Suarez, D. (2009). Daemon. Penguin Group (USA) Inc.