Long-Term Vs. Short-Term: Systematic Problems and the Difficulties in Solving Them

David Simon (creator of The Wire) was on Real Time with Bill Maher on September 7 and some of his remarks that night coincided with the article we read this week.  The guests on the show were discussing the downfall of certain systems in America, and how they related to the downfall of the economy, and Simon had this to say:

"Deindustrialization's been going on for 50 years, the decline of organized labor's been going on for 40 years, globalization: 20-25 years, and you're gonna sit there and argue over this month's employment report?  The fact that we can't have an adult electoral process is rooted in this kind of frenzy of who can we blame, and how fast."

"That business of four years being the metric for anything?  We have a political culture that everyone plants annuals, they plant pretty flowers that come up the next spring.  What we need is a political culture where somebody plants a f****** olive tree, which doesn't even give you an olive for seven years.  That's how you fix an economy...When the olive tree becomes an orchard."

The Shapiro article, "Clinton and Education: Policies without Meaning," the author explains that the Clinton administration has taken a stance on education that harkens back to the Reagan/Bush administrations, the early 80's, and that the policy argues that American public schools need to become more modernized to compete with Japan. Shapiro finds Clinton's educational philosophy to be "disappointing and dismaying .... your administration is attempting to relegitimate this educational philosophy by framing the public discourse of education in economic terms" (46).

The idea that standardized testing will help reach the sort of economic goals Clinton's educational reforms are hoping to achieve is disgusting to Shapiro's more progressive philosophy.  He is afraid that these trends are "destined to increase the concern with tests and testing among teachers and educational administrations, while further increasing the level of boredom and alienation already so persistent among students" (48).  

He goes on to write that "[v]ast differences in the material and cultural resources available to different groups will examine what succeeds in schools reflects the deep inequalities between races and classes in American society" (48).  He adds "[f]or those of us who argue that schools need to be places that model democratic values and nurture a democratic culture, this trend signals an anthiethical authoritarian and dehumanizing view on students" (49).  Shapiro doesn't seem off-base with this assessment, as far as my experiences go.  

I agreed with much of what Scorpio discussed until he started portraying Clinton's policy as a basis for anti-liberal Republican rhetoric.  It seems like the roots of the problem started in Republican administrations in the 80's.  Yes, Clinton's policies were not helping, exacerbating the problems.  However, I would've taken Scorpio's criticisms a little more seriously if he had acknowledged it less as a political philosophy difference and more as an overall systematic issue.  

It seems like Scorpio does try to bring this up in his article in some passages, yet he chooses to be partisan at the end.  I prefer David Simon's outlook: the system is broken, we need to fix it, and short-term tricks and finger-pointing aren't going to work to fix a longer-term problem.  

I chose to share and discuss an article on President Obama’s foreign policy record written by George Packer, a veteran of The New Yorker.  His point of view on the Republican National Convention in Tampa was hilarious and worth checking out.  Packer's the closest we have to a modern Hunter S. Thompson, one my writing heroes.  

I chose to analyze and reflect on his June 12 article on the President’s foreign policy.

Packer first gives an overview on the President’s first term, laying out the issues that have plagued him, and noting that he had many problems with his domestic agenda due to difficulties with the Republican Party.  He explains that "the Republicans decided from the start that they would lay all problems at Obama’s door and do as little as possible to help him solve them, a daring as well as immoral strategy that paid off handsomely; the White House seemed completely unprepared for this approach, letting the President’s opponents to define him by August of his first year…"

Packer also notes that many of the problems plaguing the country are not issues that have come out of no where, they’re problems we’ve been facing for a while and, much like the Scorpio article pointed out, we have to start looking long-term if we’re going to start trying to solve them.  Short term patching up hasn’t been working, and is yet another obstacle for the President.  Packer says that "Beyond reasons of politics and personality, there’s the more chronic problem that many American institutions, both public and private, have been decaying for years, losing the trust of the people … to the point of dysfunction—so that historic crises like the September 11th attacks and the financial meltdown no longer seem able to jolt the country into coming together to solve its major problems."

The next part of the article Packer argues the President was able to successfully achieve with foreign policy because he was able to circumvent the Republican Party and the domestic problems.  In Packer’s opinion, he has had a positive impact on the country as foreign policy is concerned: “Obama has talked softly and carried a big stick. The coolness and reasonableness that are sometimes weaknesses at home—and have been exploited as such by his opponents—have served him and the country extremely well abroad.” 

He goes on to conclude “Americans almost never elect Presidents on the basis of foreign policy. It certainly won’t happen in 2012. But on this count alone, Obama deserves the second term that just now seems to be receding from view. It’s easy to overlook these achievements, because many of us expected more out of his first term—I’m sure he did, too.”

         My thoughts concur with Packer’s on the President’s foreign policy achievements.  I find it fascinating that he was able to be most successful where there was the least amount of resistance. 

He DID have a Democratic Senate and House of Representatives for his first two years, which he blew on the controversial health care bill.  I think it was a misstep to blow all his political capital on the health care bill.  He wasn’t able to work on other domestic issues; the health care bill greatly damaged the rest of his agenda.  I don’t question the bill as much as I question the execution of the Obama administration in choosing that as the main policy reform of his first term.  I wish they had done more with the economy instead.

Anyways, Packer’s article was most fascinating to me because he didn’t directly mention the Osama Bin Laden assassination.  He simply says that the top Al Qaeda ranks have been “devastated”.  Most Americans would probably say that the assassination is the number one foreign policy achievement of his presidency.  Packer has many other reasons besides the assassination to support the President’s foreign policy, which makes the article more impressive to me.   

         President Obama has been successful with many of his ventures around the world, especially compared to his predecessor.  If he is re-elected, I wonder if he can do the same at home.

Class Attitudes and Teaching Philosophy

In Literacy with an Attitude’s first chapter, Patrick J. Finn displays the different conclusions reached after extensive research within schools from a variety of economic backgrounds.  Teachers from working class backgrounds within working class communities, he argues, teach differently than teachers with upper class backgrounds who teach in upper class communities.  Finn says that each division of class (working class, middle class, upper-middle class, upper class) has different goals and outcomes in their teaching strategies.  These practices and outcomes directly reflect the class of the students and the suspected job opportunities these children will eventually be given.  For example, lower class children are taught tedious activities in a tedious fashion, the prediction being that these students will have jobs that require these type of skills, like on a factory line, for example.  There is no need for creative thinking involved in these tasks.  “While the same arithmetic book was used in all five schools, the teacher in one working-class school commented that she skipped pages dealing with mathematical reasoning and inference because they were too hard.  The teacher in the second working-class school said, ‘These pages are for creativity – they’re extras.’  She often skipped them as well” (10).  

The upper-middle class, the school of children whose parents were from the upper 10 percent of income earners in the country and the school of children whose parents were from the upper 1 percent of income earners in the country, in the researched mentioned, tended to use these creative assignments almost exclusively.  These assignments better prepared the students for the jobs they were expected to obtain after graduating, jobs that would require critical analyst, ultimately what creative assignments would teach.

Finn argues that each school was preparing the students to stay in the same economic class and job level as their parents, based on the learning they were receiving at their schools. 

This part of the article resonated for me because my best friend in elementary school transferred from our predominantly middle class/working class public school to an upper-middle class private school (Moses Brown) after second grade.  The move was curious among our elementary school, since the Moses Brown was only down the street in Providence.  What made his school better?

As the article pointed out, the teaching techniques were much more driven towards careers in the upper-middle class (10 percent earners) compared to the middle class/working class public school.  I recall asking him about the differences, when we were in 5^th grade, and he said he did many more projects at his new school.  There seemed to be less boring busy work and more hands-on activities being promoted.

At the time, I remember being intimidated by the idea of doing projects all the time.  I always thought projects were way more difficult than the typical assignments I was given.  I was used t working with definite expectations and grades. 

After reading the article, I asked myself: could I have survived at Moses Brown?  I think I could’ve, but there would’ve been growing pains.  If I were taught how to learn in that mode early enough, chances are I would’ve figured it out. 

I considered this same process when thinking about my own teaching.  I currently teach at a middle-class high school with less working class students than where I grew up.  The leap in teaching was not difficult – since I was in honors level classes growing up, I was familiar with the techniques expected with middle class groups of kids.  

I had a little more trouble with classes with more working class children and I had to experiment a little in order to figure out how to break through to them.  I had to adapt.

I currently don't use as many teaching techniques mentioned in the article that are geared towards upper-middle class teaching/upper class teaching and that is a major reason why I'm going to graduate school.  I am going to adapt to more teaching techniques that are more geared towards upper-middle class/upper class.  Since I’m not used to them, I will probably have a growing pains period.  However, as I go, I’m sure I’ll be able to find a way to use them in my classroom.  The idea of it, indeed, is intimidating, but teaching is an evolving process.  Nothing is permanent, something satisfying I get out of teaching. 

I’ve wanted to discuss the television show “The Wire” in class for a while and I thought this reading had the strongest link to the show. 

For those of you who aren’t familiar with the show, each season of “The Wire” focuses on a different dying institution in the city of Baltimore.  Season 1 focuses on the failures of the police trying to stop drugs and the drugs lords they chase, Season 2 on the fall of the dockworkers, Season 3 on politics, Season 4 on the school system, and Season 5 on journalism.  What’s cool about the show is that each season layers on the one before and shows how all these institutions are linked together.  “The Wire” taught me more about how the real world worked, for better and for worse, than any piece of art (TV, movies, books, etc) than anything I can think of and I recommend it to everyone.

The fourth season focuses on a group of eighth graders and is by far the most heart-breaking season of television I’ve ever encountered.  The scene that I thought resonated with this reading, and others we’ve had in class, is summarized here:

Summary:  Ex-cop turned public school teacher Howard "Bunny" Colvin has taken it on himself to help reach the badly underprivileged children who have been deemed essentially unteachable by their West Baltimore junior high school. After his students do well on a project, Colvin decides to take them out to dinner at an upscale restaurant. Initially the students are excited and pleased--but over the course of the meal they become increasingly uncomfortable and discouraged. This is a good way to open a discussion of cultural capital in the context of class inequality, especially with an eye toward intersections of race and gender. Useful questions to ask: Why are Bunny's students so uncomfortable? What assumptions do they bring to their situation about what is expected of them? What if the situation were reversed and the people dining at the restaurant were on the streets of West Baltimore? The differences in the characters’ behavior at the beginning and the end of the clip are especially striking—why the change, and what does it say about what has happened in the scene?

The project mentioned in the summary is what links to this week’s reading.  The lower-income students are challenged to build a replica model of the Eiffel tower without directions.  They are able to use their life experiences to figure it out and the winners are then given the prize of going out for a fancy dinner.  They seemed surprised by the assignment and there are a few interesting observations made.  The winning team is then taken out for a fancy dinner, which is one of the more memorable scenes in the show’s history.  It makes you wonder how the students would've turned out if they were given challenging projects like this one, rather than being taught in the more structured way that they constantly railed against.  

The restaurant scene reminds me of the cultural codes that students with little power must be taught in order to gain any power themselves.  Their teacher, Bunny Colvin, tries to teach them how to be more socialized citizens.  The students react with awkwardness and aggressiveness   

Warning, these videos have strong language:

The principal hears about the restaurant field trip and is not too pleased.  Here is her reaction and Colvin's defense of the situation.  He argues that the kids are learning real-world skills in the classroom, just not the ones the teachers and administration would like them to learn:

Humanizing and Teaching: A Challenge

         Lilia I. Bartolome’s article “Beyond the Methods Fetish: Toward a Humanizing Pedagogy” recommends teachers to work on being more understanding with cultural differences between themselves and their over-looked students.  Teaching technique is important, yes, yet it needs to be supplemented with better understanding of kids who are from different backgrounds.   

         Bartolome writes that being an effective teacher includes the ability to have students connect new information with prior experiences.  The only way they will be able to access the material is to make personal connections to the material (much like us teachers reading this article for class!).  I’d come across this idea before, linking students’ interest to the learning at hand, although it had never occurred to me that you need to consider not only what pop culture they may connect to, but also the other factors Bartolome mentions.  In my experiences, race has not played a huge part in the schools I’ve taught at, but class has, and I was able to connect to the article through this difference found at the schools I’ve worked at.

         I haven’t noticed any teaching techniques that I’ve tried to use to modify towards kids from more working class backgrounds (compared to the white collar kids), although I did notice that I try to treat them a little differently when I interact with them when I’m not teaching them, like when we’re chatting about the weekend or what’s going on with their family.  I do try to reach out to those kids more on a mentoring level.  I should now extend that idea to my learning methods, something I hadn’t considered.

         The best way for me to compare the ideas behind this article is to compare the themes to a recent issue I had in one of my classes.  I’m currently teaching a unit on Sherlock Holmes in my Mystery Stories class.  Part of the curriculum calls for watching an episode of one of the several Sherlock Holmes TV series out there.  Last year, we watched one clip from the classic British series from the 1980s.  The kids were bored to tears, unable to connect to it, and I’ve been attempting to try to find something more interesting/connecting to them.  Luckily, the BBC has a much more modern series, and I’ve been able to pull from that.

         The new series is an improvement because it uses technology to enhance and update the series.  They still use the same standards found in the 1890s stories, yet they have reflected on the changed culture in order to keep it relevant.  Dr. Watson reports on Holmes’ adventures through his blog, and they use laptops, GPS, and camera phones to solve cases. 

         It’s similar to the idea that we need to discover ways to connect with kids from other backgrounds, always updating our methods, while sticking to our backbone methods.  Knowing what are good teaching methods is only one layer to being a good teacher.  You must be aware of how some of the information may be coming across to a few of the students in the room, even if they come from a background you aren’t familiar with, like the native Hawaiins who typically learned in their families through ‘talk story.’  If you are unfamiliar with their background, it would be good to learn from it, not only to be a good teacher, but a more well-rounded person.  Understanding the historical specificities of their culture and how the school and town have responded to it can be important to make them connection whatever you are trying to teach.  Teachers should constantly reflect on their ideas and methods, even if only a couple students are reached. 

         A great example of this idea reminded me of an article I read about a teacher in a tough, Katrina-destroyedschool in New Orleans.  The white teacher was working primarily with poor black kids who were obsessed with Lil Wayne.  Instead of ignoring the music, the teacher dove into the phenomenon, and was able to connect with the kids and the city by adapting to their experiences.  Kids wrote essays about the rapper and made references to his lyrics as answers to questions.  It appears the teacher was able to make stronger bonds with his troubled students, visiting them at their homes and when they were hospitalized from gun shot wounds.  The music of the time allowed the teacher to understand what was going on much more with the students.  

         Overall, Bartolome seems to argue to be self-aware of the choices we make in our classrooms.  There are no sacred cows.  We can always improve.  Don’t put on blinders and try to keep an open mind.  Be a static, living, breathing teacher, not a cemented in your ways cliche.  

Delpit's Difficult Dialogue

            Lisa Delpit’s argument in “The Silenced Dialogue” is that we need to open up more dialogues between cultures in the classroom.  She stresses the lack of these discussions when there are black or poor children (not part of the dominant ideology) in predominately white middle classrooms (the dominant ideology).  As we learned in the Johnson reading this week, it is important to have these conversations about the dominant ideology and how it affects our classroom, even if there are some painful truths we have to face.  Delpit does that exactly – she discusses how black students are typically misunderstood and taught poorly by some teachers, even at the highest levels of learning.  Her overall message is clear by the end of the article.  However, there are a few examples along the way that were hard to swallow, or at least seemed difficult to connect to the main point.  Eventually, I came to a realization why she did this throughout the article.  I had to work through a few of these bizarre points first to come to this epiphany.

                 The first quote that struck me as peculiar was:

“Several black teachers have said to me recently…they cannot help but conclude that many of the ‘progressive’ educational strategies imposed by liberals upon black and poor children could only be based on a desire to ensure that the liberals’ children get sole access to the dwindling pool of American jobs” (29).

            The first thought I had been: people actually think that?  I realized Delpit wouldn’t write this if it weren’t true, but it was still hard to swallow.

If there are black teachers who think this way, is this because other teachers don’t listen to criticism, specifically that they lack the ability to make black and poor students aware of the cultural codes they lack and need if they want to succeed?  Or is it because they’re not particularly good teachers?  Are they only good teachers with students of white backgrounds? 

The first time I read this it seemed like it was hard to believe.  It only became a little clearer what she was going for after reading the whole article.

            Another quote I found alarming was:

“People of color are, in general, skeptical of research as determiner of our fates.  Academic research has, after all, found us genetically inferior, culturally deprived, and verbally deficient” (31). 

Apparently, I’m not aware of the general research that states these ideas about blacks.  Again, I was taken aback by the quote, and tried searching for reasons the author would put the sentence in the paper.  Research says black people are inferior?  I thought it was a cruel, bigoted idea, not something found in high academic research.  Was Delpit writing about this to enrage her readers?

           

The last shocking quote was about discipline in the classroom.  Delpit was writing about how black children react to how a teacher deals with management.  She wrote “To clarify, this student was proud of the teacher’s ‘meanness,’ an attribute he seemed to describe as the ability to run the class and pushing and expecting his students to learn” (37).

I initially thought: does this mean we have to be meaner/stricter with black students?  Wouldn’t that be setting us up for a lot of problems, like being called racist?  I then considered she was trying to make the point that teachers need to be direct in the classroom when giving instructions, and that middle-class teachers are more likely to give indirect directions.  I think that a bad teacher gives vague directions and a good teacher gives clear directions, regardless of race.  But we should be aware that black students need more direct directions even more than white students, and I think that was the point she was going for.    

Once I got to the end of the reading, and Delpit was giving her overall thematic message, I began to understand why she was being slightly rabble-rousing.  She writes that good, skillful teachers, “understand the need for both approaches, the need to help students establish their own voices, and to coach those voices to produce notes that will be heard clearly in the larger society” (46).  I interpreted this to mean we need to use multiple approaches to the classroom while also considering the cultural differences around us. 

I think she used the more extremist perspectives and viewpoints as ways to make us aware that there are other thoughts on the classroom, and they may not be very nice.  It makes the person reading the article reconsider a lot of the preconceived notions about the other side of the article and why they would think that teachers are holding black and poor children back.  Being culturally flexible is the mark of a great teacher, someone who will actually make a difference.

I agree with Delpit’s argument, although if I were making it, I would probably not go about it the same hyperbolic, potentially enraging way, simply because it might turn people off to her main point before they get a chance to let it sink in.  I thought Johnson’s more conservative approach made me less apprehensive to his overall message. 

The article recommended working with students with what they’re experts in.  If you’re an English teacher working with black students, it may be a good idea to work with hip-hop and link it to Shakespeare’s sonnets. 

It reminded me of a profile I readon Jay-z that was written by the wonderful Zadie Smith. 

First off, Zadie Smith has written a couple brilliant novels, my favorite being White Teeth, which touches upon the way culture values are different across generations, cultures, people, etc.  The main family in the story is originally from India and they have immigrated to in London.  Much of the story concerns how the children fit into the British culture while trying to abide by their more traditional parents and how both sides struggle with the differences.  The book is hilarious and heartfelt and attempts to break through the dominant ideological glass that we discussed in class last week.

I thought it was cool that Zadie Smith profiled Jay-z, since it seems like she’s aware of the societal implications of his music, and I was particularly struck by page three of the article.  I thought this quote gave credence to the discussion of how dominant ideology works and how there could be a day when the white heterosexual male isn't the dominant ideal:

“Years ago, Martin Amis wrote a funny story, “Career Move,” in which the screenwriters live like poets, starving in garrets, while the poets chillax poolside, fax their verses to agents in Los Angeles and earn millions off a sonnet. Last year’s “Watch the Throne,” a collaboration with Kanye, concerns the coming to pass of that alternative reality. Hundred stack/How you get it? Jay-Z asks Kanye on “Gotta Have It.” The answer seems totally improbable, and yet it’s the truth: Layin’ raps on tracks! Fortunes made from rhyming verse. Which is what makes “Watch the Throne” interesting: it fully expresses black America’s present contradictions. It’s a celebration of black excellence/Black tie, black Maybachs/Black excellence, opulence, decadence. But it’s also a bitter accounting of the losses in a long and unfinished war. Kanye raps: I feel the pain in my city wherever I go/314 soldiers died in Iraq/509 died in Chicago. Written by a couple of millionaire businessmen on the fly (“Like ‘New Day,’ Kanye told me that — the actual rap — last year at the Met Ball, in my ear at dinner”), it really shouldn’t be as good as it is. 

             

The Mansion on the Hill: Discussing Privilege and Class in Society

In the first forty pages of his book Privilege, Power, and Difference, Allan G. Johnson touches upon the issues of race, gender, sexuality and how they effect class in our culture.  The author argues that in capitalistic societies, oppression is a matter of fact, with privileged classes oppressing the lower classes.  This idea is not attempting to fault the particular people in the privileged class.  This idea, that our society has a privileged class, is found in most capitalistic societies.  He tries to make an effort to discourage the idea that he is attacking the heterosexual white male, the privileged class, with this argument.  Johnson is only working as a sociologist to discuss the ideas at work.  Simply, heterosexual white males have an easier time in the existing society and are therefore privileged.

Johnson points out that because "all of that sits in the middle of the table like the proverbial elephant that everyone pretends not to notice" (9).  At one point, as an exercise, he suggests to the reader to imagine the how difficult life would be for a white male heterosexual to wake up as a homosexual.  Considering the recent media focus on the harsh bullying towards gays in public schools, Johnson's idea of sexuality transformation would be tremendously difficult for a person in the privileged class.  He proves with this example that this discussion might be hard to speak about but should not be discouraged.

Johnson goes on to point out that our privileged class is decided by race, gender, and sexuality.  Other societies may be organized differently.  For example, Johnson points out that "a Norwegian farmer has no reason to think of himself as white so long as he's in Norway.  But when he comes to the United Sates, one of the first things he discovers the significance of being considered white and the privilege that goes along with it (21-22)."  When discussing race, Johnson points out James Baldwin once pointed out that there is no such thing.  The idea of race is only "real" if you "live in a culture that recognizes those differences as significant and meaningful, and they are [actually] socially irrelevant and therefore do not exist" (21).  Race, as well as sexuality and gender, are only important to the privileged class of this society.  Other societies may have other standards.      

The next important point Johnson makes is that when one group has more power, chances are they are taking the power away from another group.  "Privilege is always at someone else's expense and always exacts a cost" (10).  Much like science, in his theory, Johnson shows that every action has an opposite and equal reaction.  He doesn't think that an individual from the privileged class is at fault, merely that this idea is the natural part of order.  We simplify in order to organize our thoughts - otherwise reality would be chaotic.  "People usually form such impressions without thinking, and they rely on them in order to see the world as an organized and predictable place from one moment to the next" (20).  Putting people into general groups is a coping mechanism, to make life less complicated.

Johnson attempts to stress this argument throughout his piece as a reason for conducting a discussion about these issues.  A privileged class exists because society exists.  Ignoring or pretending that this fact is false hurts the non-privileged class because they are not given the same opportunities.  I imagine the remainder of the book touches on these issues of race, gender, and sex, and how to try to change the problems for the betterment of society.

I've found that in music the ideas of race, sexuality, and gender as direct influences to white male heterosexual privilege are more openly discussed than most other parts of society.  It seems like musicians are able to broach difficult subjects before the society can.  I have linked to a couple songs that came to mind during the reading:

1.  Bob Dylan - "Hurricane" - The story of Hurricane Ruben Carter and the questionable accusations that came against him.  Race played a big part of the story, a black man who could've been the boxing champion of the world, put down by the white privileged society that didn't want him there.

2.  The Kinks - "Lola" - Ray Davies and Co. discuss a young man meeting a transvestite in Manhattan.  Sexuality and gender issues are at play here, with the man trying to figure out if he's displeased with the realization that Lola is a man.

3.  Bruce Springsteen - "Mansion on the Hill" - Bruce discusses privileged society, the "mansion on the hill," and how a town deals with large economic disparity.

Greetings!  My name is Corey Charron.  I teach at North Attleboro High School and cover a wide range of subjects every day: two English courses, three NovaNET credit recovery classes, and one period of Virtual High School.  One of the main reasons I decided to do a masters in ASTL was because the courses seem to connect with many modern issues I see on a daily basis in school.  For example, from the first reading I can already see how class division effects my school.  In my spare time you can find me reading (David Foster Wallace lately) while listening to selections from my infinite record collection.  On the weekend I tend to frequent local punk rock clubs and movie theaters.