One of my initial experiences with classroom diversity occurred about 12 years ago in Memphis, Tennessee. I had just moved to the South and Memphis was a whole new experience for me. As a new community educator, my job was to conduct supplemental educational programs in schools. One of the first barriers that I came up against was language. I had difficulty understanding the students and the students had difficulty understanding my lack of Southern accent. This was truly a learning experience for all of us and working to find common ground in which I needed to embrace these classrooms in order to become effective with my teaching.
In the classroom, educators are faced with issues that extent beyond diversity to the socio-economic factors as well. As such, the issue of diversity is a multi-faceted topic that expands beyond the textbooks. The North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (n/d) indicates that multiculturalism education focuses on educational equity for all students. Multiculturalism includes the various racial, socio-economic, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds of individuals. For the remainder of this blog, however, I will focus on multiculturalism from the perspective of teaching history in our schools.
Samuel Taylor’s article brought up a number of interesting points and made me really think about multiculturalism and education. One has to wonder if teaching history from so many different points of view provides opportunities for more divisiveness rather than uniting the various cultures. If history is truly taught from so many perspectives, are we losing an account of what truly happened? I have always felt that there are huge chunks of history that are left out of the textbooks and our memories. For example, we learn about the Presidents of the United States, but what about so many of the other contributors who have made significant “behind-the-scenes” contributions? Are they less worthy of recognition and inclusion in history? Not necessarily, but there is only a limited amount of time in the school curriculums for recounting the history of our nation.
We certainly don’t want to leave out key events, but when we look back at our nation, we need to remember that we have always been a nation of many cultures. And, there have always been immigrants from various countries who have been marginalized throughout history. However, I do think it is important that we respect and learn from the various cultures that make up our country. There doesn’t seem to be one standard way to go about this initiative since the cultures do vary from one part of the United States to another. The “Why Multiculturalism is Wrong” article describes attempts in the Netherlands to maintain the culture of certain nationalities by having those individuals learn the language of their “native” culture; however, this approach proved to be ineffective because not all individuals of a particular descent speak the same language.
With so much division, I am afraid that we may end up with no clear history for our nation. Instead, we may have so many story lines that attempt to tell the history that we end up less unified as a country. For example, I can’t even imagine a history book that was written from the Nazi point of view regarding the Holocaust. Or, for events within our own country, historical perspectives on September 11 or the Oklahoma City bombing from a radical perspective would provide a very different viewpoint on these horrible events. The concerns for these perspectives became very clear to me as I read the “Pithissippi Burning” article. However, I do realize that there is much to learn from the varying perspectives related to history and think that it could be beneficial to consider how to integrate these views into the curriculum rather than simply replace the written past.
Now, this is not to say that our history books will not look different going forward based on the events of modern history. Clearly, our nation continues to evolve and our history books must reflect such evolution and change.
Resource
North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (n/d). Multicultural education. Retrieved September 26, 2009, from http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/educatrs/presrvce/pe3lk1.htm.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Blog #2 - Schools and Religion
The association between church and state has been a long and tenuous relationship. Early in our nation’s history, religion was closely tied with education. If fact, education was originally utilized to train young people in understanding their roles in living religious lives. However, the role of education has evolved over time and the focus transformed from serving religion to serving the country (Spring, 2008).
Both articles focus on religion in education, but have very different takes on the issues at hand. Throughout both documents, one thing becomes clear in that there is a lot of passion and fervor related to the topic of religious influence in education.
The religion in schools article has two different religious issues. Though they are in the same article, the focus of each issue is quite different. First, there is an issue related to a moment of silence observed for prayer and personal reflection each day in Illinois schools. Second, there is the issue of the wording of Texas science curriculum for exploring merits of scientific theories. The article focuses on the separation of church and state and how both of these have been unconstitutional breaches.
The Billy Gobitas document describes the boy’s opposition to reciting the Pledge of Allegiance based on his opinion that the flag was serving as a false idol. His view was that by standing and pledging to the flag, he was placing his country above his God. Courts ultimately determined that Gobitas had the right to refuse to say the Pledge. This decision was not based on keeping with the separation of church and state, but rather ensuring free speech, or in this case the choice not to speak.
The first part of the religion in schools article (the Illinois moment of silence) and the Gobitas document are very similar in that they deal with the First Amendment. However, the interpretations by courts on the First Amendment components are different for each. For the Illinois moment of silence, the focus is on the religious elements while Gobitas document focuses on freedom of speech. Additional notes on the U.S. Constitution are available at http://www.usconstitution.net/constnotes.html#Am1.
It seems particularly interesting that the issue with the Pledge of Allegiance surfaced prior to the addition of the words “under God” to the Pledge. The words “under God” were added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954 in response to the Cold War and in an effort to differentiate between American Christian values and Soviet Atheist views. Following this change, President Eisenhower proclaimed that students will show their dedication to the United States and God (Religious Tolerance, 2008).
Resources:
Religious Tolerance (2008). The U.S. Pledge of Allegiance background materials. Retrieved September 19, 2009, from http://www.religioustolerance.org/nat_pled1.htm.
Spring, J. (2008). The American school: From the Puritans to No Child Left Behind (7th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Both articles focus on religion in education, but have very different takes on the issues at hand. Throughout both documents, one thing becomes clear in that there is a lot of passion and fervor related to the topic of religious influence in education.
The religion in schools article has two different religious issues. Though they are in the same article, the focus of each issue is quite different. First, there is an issue related to a moment of silence observed for prayer and personal reflection each day in Illinois schools. Second, there is the issue of the wording of Texas science curriculum for exploring merits of scientific theories. The article focuses on the separation of church and state and how both of these have been unconstitutional breaches.
The Billy Gobitas document describes the boy’s opposition to reciting the Pledge of Allegiance based on his opinion that the flag was serving as a false idol. His view was that by standing and pledging to the flag, he was placing his country above his God. Courts ultimately determined that Gobitas had the right to refuse to say the Pledge. This decision was not based on keeping with the separation of church and state, but rather ensuring free speech, or in this case the choice not to speak.
The first part of the religion in schools article (the Illinois moment of silence) and the Gobitas document are very similar in that they deal with the First Amendment. However, the interpretations by courts on the First Amendment components are different for each. For the Illinois moment of silence, the focus is on the religious elements while Gobitas document focuses on freedom of speech. Additional notes on the U.S. Constitution are available at http://www.usconstitution.net/constnotes.html#Am1.
It seems particularly interesting that the issue with the Pledge of Allegiance surfaced prior to the addition of the words “under God” to the Pledge. The words “under God” were added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954 in response to the Cold War and in an effort to differentiate between American Christian values and Soviet Atheist views. Following this change, President Eisenhower proclaimed that students will show their dedication to the United States and God (Religious Tolerance, 2008).
Resources:
Religious Tolerance (2008). The U.S. Pledge of Allegiance background materials. Retrieved September 19, 2009, from http://www.religioustolerance.org/nat_pled1.htm.
Spring, J. (2008). The American school: From the Puritans to No Child Left Behind (7th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Education Innovators and Makers
Innovators in education are often seen as visionaries, transformers, and leaders. These individuals may present new procedures or methods that transform the education system.
Many of the innovators in education described on the PBS website have characteristics similar to educators in the modern classrooms including tireless determination, boundless energy, educational advocates, and problem solving abilities. While the legacy of the educators might not gain them a space on the PBS website, their daily efforts are making differences in the legacies of students.
A modern innovator on the PBS website is a strong advocate for enhancing democracy and equity, but against standardized testing. Deborah Meier emphasizes active learning and involves educators and parents in providing leadership for the learning of the students. I admire her progressive theories and truly innovative approaches. On her website (www.deborahmeier.com), one of her quotes from a recent interview is that “teaching has reinforced my belief in human possibility.” I hope that we can all have faith in the possibility of students and learn from Meier’s leadership and innovation in education.
The makers of education were presented in a negative light on the Gatto website. I think it is important to consider that these individuals may have had an influence on education because they were attempting to better prepare students for the opportunities available to them. I do agree that these makers would be directly benefitting from their recommended change to the education system, but individuals would also be benefitting by gaining the necessary skills to be gainfully employed.
I still believe that it is vital to provide students with the three traditional purposes of instruction that were identified on the Gatto site: 1) to make good people, 2) to make good citizens, and 3) to make each student find some particular talents to develop to the maximum. It seems to me that the third purpose is where the makers are having an impact on education. They have been able to identify the skills and talents needed for the workplace.
Makers who are not listed on the Gatto site, but who are having an impact on today’s educational system are the computer and web developers. With all the technological changes, these individuals are important for providing input on where the future direction of business. They are having a direct impact on education. In fact, web professionals from across the country recently met in Chattanooga to discuss web-education based standards and teacher resources (http://www.wdef.com/news/web_innovators_hold_education_standards_summit_in_chattanooga/08/2009).
Both the innovators and the makers seem to realize the importance of changing over time to avoid being stagnant and irrelevant. These individuals are important to make a difference in the field of education since input is needed both from those who are involved with preparing students (innovators) and those who will be employing students (makers).
Many of the innovators in education described on the PBS website have characteristics similar to educators in the modern classrooms including tireless determination, boundless energy, educational advocates, and problem solving abilities. While the legacy of the educators might not gain them a space on the PBS website, their daily efforts are making differences in the legacies of students.
A modern innovator on the PBS website is a strong advocate for enhancing democracy and equity, but against standardized testing. Deborah Meier emphasizes active learning and involves educators and parents in providing leadership for the learning of the students. I admire her progressive theories and truly innovative approaches. On her website (www.deborahmeier.com), one of her quotes from a recent interview is that “teaching has reinforced my belief in human possibility.” I hope that we can all have faith in the possibility of students and learn from Meier’s leadership and innovation in education.
The makers of education were presented in a negative light on the Gatto website. I think it is important to consider that these individuals may have had an influence on education because they were attempting to better prepare students for the opportunities available to them. I do agree that these makers would be directly benefitting from their recommended change to the education system, but individuals would also be benefitting by gaining the necessary skills to be gainfully employed.
I still believe that it is vital to provide students with the three traditional purposes of instruction that were identified on the Gatto site: 1) to make good people, 2) to make good citizens, and 3) to make each student find some particular talents to develop to the maximum. It seems to me that the third purpose is where the makers are having an impact on education. They have been able to identify the skills and talents needed for the workplace.
Makers who are not listed on the Gatto site, but who are having an impact on today’s educational system are the computer and web developers. With all the technological changes, these individuals are important for providing input on where the future direction of business. They are having a direct impact on education. In fact, web professionals from across the country recently met in Chattanooga to discuss web-education based standards and teacher resources (http://www.wdef.com/news/web_innovators_hold_education_standards_summit_in_chattanooga/08/2009).
Both the innovators and the makers seem to realize the importance of changing over time to avoid being stagnant and irrelevant. These individuals are important to make a difference in the field of education since input is needed both from those who are involved with preparing students (innovators) and those who will be employing students (makers).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
