10/24/17

The Fu chapters were very illuminating in terms of how she addresses specific ways in which to engage emergent bilingual students as a teacher that essentially speaks exclusively in English. Even beginning to try and consider ways to cross the language barriers and reach these students, as well as considering and trying to find or develop strategies to empower them to use their home language AND become proficient writers of English feels like an extremely daunting task. Fu speaks at length about the emphasis that should be placed on allowing students to engage material and think, brainstorm, develop ideas, and even write in their native languages first, allowing them to synthesize material in whatever way is going to be most beneficial for them, and then encouraging them to translate those ideas later into English. She also speaks about how teachers who do not speak the native language of their students can go about assessing work that they may not be able to understand, which was essentially giving them credit for the effort they put into the work.

I understand the validity of this approach, as it feels like the only option a teacher in that situation would have, but to me it seems like it still shortchanges these emergent bilingual students in their proficiency as writers of both their native language and English. I say this because she says that students who aren't proficient writers in their native language will struggle to develop as writers of English, and she suggests that if students have these literacy issues that they should be first taught to develop these skills in their native language before asking them to move into English. But if they aren't proficient writers of their native language I will never be able to pinpoint that issue if I can't understand their writing. And if I can't understand their writing then I cannot help them develop writing skills in their native language. And if they aren't proficient writers in their native language then asking them to be proficient in English seems cruel. I don't have answers for how to solve these problems, but they seemed like areas that could have been unpacked more, at least to clarify for teachers like me who feel ill-equipped to teach emergent bilinguals.

In the Pahl / Roswell chapter, the section about identity stood out to me the most. It addresses how students make meaning by taking their own ideas and perspectives and infusing them into whatever they are writing about; and this seems to make perfect sense. However, we recently discussed the Common Core's approach to "close reading" as defined and illustrated by David Coleman, a chief author of the standards. The CC's interpretation of "close reading" means for students to engage the text and the text only, leaving out the contextual factors and especially leaving out any response or interpretation that student's may have to the text. Not only is this disturbing because it speaks directly against what Pahl / Roswell have to say about how students read and write according to their identities, but it is disturbing because this is the framework that the education system in America is built around. I thoroughly enjoyed the Pahl/ Roswell chapter, but I couldn't help but think about how those in control of standards and curriculum would likely disregard their theory.

10/17/17

As a writer of poetry myself, as well as someone who aspires to be a teacher that emphasizes the importance of poetry in my own classroom, both the Turner article and the Christensen chapter resonated with me.

Christensen talks at length about the ways in which having students write poetry allows them to find, utilize, and strengthen their own voice. She says "the classroom can not only be a safe place for students to talk back, but to affirm their right to a place in the world" (28). Poetry is a rare medium that allows students to manipulate the rules and styles in a way that gives them immense freedom. In addition, poetry exists in a ton of different forms and for a lot of different purposes. Students can express and reflect upon their own perspectives and experiences, while at the same time commentating on the world around them and how they fit into it. Sarah and I taught a hybrid History/English lesson about the Revolutionary War in which we first exposed some of the whitewashing of history and revealed some women, slave, and Native American who had been marginalized. We then allowed students to deconstruct documents from that time period and use the words within to create "Found Poems" that showcased the tone/emotion that they believed these marginalized groups would be feeling. The results were pretty incredible, especially considering these were the "30 lowest performing sophomores" in the school, which is the reason they were all in this class. They were engaged, interested, and felt like they had something to contribute--and they did.

Turner discusses the power of expression that poetry possesses. There are two points that are made which really stuck out to me in the way that they frame poetry. One is that "Poems Defy Explanation" and the other is that "Poems Can Alter the Way We See the World." I believe these are critical arguments for why poetry writing should be a mandatory part of ELA curriculum, especially because, as it stands, there are no standards which require the teaching or utilization of poetry in the classroom. If we have students who are struggling with literacy issues, writing poetry can give them an opportunity to write freely and comfortably and increase their self-efficacy as writers. If students are struggling with personal issues, writing poetry can give them a platform to express their perspectives and emotions in a way that is purposeful. Understanding that poetry can be used in situations other than just creative writing, and using it tactfully and purposefully to get students working through ideas in their own way, we can build an environment of trust in our classroom and empower students to view themselves as real writers.

10/10/17

I thought the text about Co-Teaching was intriguing. It definitely isn’t what I thought I was going to get when I saw the name of the chapter. Thinking about putting the curriculum into the hands of your students and seeing what they do with it to reach their peers is both exciting and terrifying to think about, for me at least. I feel a certain apprehension towards unveiling the work that goes into making things run (hopefully) seamlessly and smoothly, but if it resulted in me finding deeper ways to connect with students then I think it’d be beneficial. My only criticism of this text is that it does seem divisive in the fact that it speaks nearly exclusively about using this technique with black or neoindigenous (which is a term I found attractive) students. Surely there are ways to use this technique universally, or in mixed classrooms. And in these scenarios, I feel students would need even more background and preparation to be successful. In the end, all the extra work that goes into being able to pull something like this off successfully is a sacrifice that’d need to be weighed in the moment, but it certainly seems like it’d be worth the trouble if I were having zero luck connecting, or even alienating my students.

I really enjoyed the section from the Christensen chapter that talked about “Trolling for Stories.” One of the struggles I often face when planning is finding ways to connect the material to students lives in a way that makes it appealing for them to engage. I think Christensen did a good job pointing out some of the struggles in this approach, but she also made it clear how using student lives to bolster curriculum allows students to approach texts with an enhanced perspective. I think the fact that students often went off on tangents is indicative of this “trolling” approach. The conversations her students were having seemed to be valuable and productive, even though they weren’t directly connected to the material. I wonder how far we should be willing to let these tangents go and how often we should be willing to let them happen. I’m all about shifting gears and throwing out lesson plans in light of better discussion opportunities, but with everything that’s going on recently in the world, I think those opportunities exist every day.

In the Gallagher chapter, it resonated with me when he talked about starting students out with writing they can engage with and enjoy, getting them thinking about themselves as writers before handing out the 5 paragraph essays or “fake writing.” I wonder just how far we, as teachers, can push this idea. Looking at the standards, there are no direct references to the standard academic essays or papers that teachers often assign for assessments. Are there ways we can toy with the standards and find ways for our students to meet all the standards requiring with minimal “fake writing?” And thinking about that, if we do stay away from “fake writing” when possible, are we potentially handicapping the students who are going to go to college and be required to write persuasive and analytical essays throughout their entire college careers?

10/3/17

Ta-Nehisi Coates packs a lot into one hundred and fifty pages. But there is one idea that he mentions early on in the novel and continually refers back to throughout that resonated with me. On page ten he states, "There is nothing uniquely evil in these destroyers or even in this moment. The destroyers are merely men enforcing the whims of our country, correctly interpreting its heritage and legacy." In this quote, he's referring to "destroyers" as the police officers that have wrongly taken, and continue to take, the lives of unarmed and innocent black citizens without consequence. 

This idea of the mistreatment of black people as essentially a national pastime, engrained into our identity as a nation, an identity that prevails and persistently devalues blacks lives regardless of narratives of civil justice and progressivism, is an idea that I believe existed for me abstractly, but was articulated in a concrete way by Coates. It is easy to think of slavery as an abomination that existed a long time ago, which now serves as a scar and reminder of America’s dark history. But Coates draws direct connections between the treatment of black people 250 years ago and the treatment of black people today. It is more than scar; it is a wound that never fully healed. This perspective flies in the face of the traditional American perception of slavery, but it makes a lot of sense, and it stuck with me.

Shifting gears.

The text from Dr. Johnson and Dr. Richer went into great detail illustrating the ways in which standardized testing marginalizes students and puts students who fall into specific categories into positions in which they cannot pass these tests. But as insightful and rich as the surveys and responses from teachers and students are, I am more curious if they were taken into consideration by those who have the power to reform and restructure the broken system and how it functions, because I don’t believe the problem is a lack of research proving the fallibility of standardized testing, nor do I think the problem is a lack of potential solutions. There are significant amounts of each. The problem is a severe lack of receptibility to changing the system.

My practicum partner and I were discussing potential lessons with our cooperating teacher, who teaches a collaborative English/History class with another teacher. They’re teaching the American Revolution, and we couldn’t help but notice how the curriculum was completely whitewashed and failed to acknowledge any marginalized voices whatsoever. My partner and I suggested that we do a couple lessons on some of these marginalized perspectives and the cooperating teachers were ecstatic because “they rarely get to teach that stuff.” When we asked why, they talked about the ways in which their school prides itself on being “progressive” and accepting/valuing of all perspectives…on paper. But in reality, what the students will be responsible for knowing (what the teachers are responsible for teaching) on these types of standardized tests will be exclusively about the portions of American history that are white, because it isn’t considered white history, it’s just history. If these tests are structured this way, then not focusing almost exclusively on white history is essentially doing your students a disservice. Because of this we have torn teachers who are pulled one way by a desire for their students to succeed and pulled the other way by a desire to give them the most valuable education possible. It seems like these philosophies should be one in the same, but in the American education system it is rarely the case.