Week 12 - Ecojustice & Indigenous Pegagogies

“While the Western approach to equating the enclosure of the commons with progress has benefited certain classes of people, it has also resulted in many more people becoming increasingly dependent upon an economic system that they have little control over” (C.A. Bowers P.4)

These commons are supposed to be for everyone in the community, but increasingly over time these commons have been taken away (due to privatization and monetization). In some cases the areas in recent years are being set up for profit to be drawn from a common area. Every century we develop more and more and as this happens our development is swallowing up the commons. These commons become less available to lower class people and families and are very accessible to upper class people and families. The tie between development, class, and commons is an obvious one. Due to development low class areas are losing commons / their commons are being monetized. Development only seems to make the lives of upper and middle class better.

“As the lives of people in the West become even less centered on the self-sufficient possibilities of the commons, and more in the industrial culture that is beyond their control, their insecurity becomes more palpable.” (C.A. Bowers P.8)

I would like to see how the upper class would be able to survive if we have a sudden catastrophe that no one could have planned for and all money is worthless. One would have to believe that the poor class would be able to survive longer then the upper classes, right? Or a more real example is if the corporations were to take over and we solely depend on them for everything from apples to socks to technology then if something were to happen most wouldn’t know what to do. But if we lived in a society that was more based on commons the situation would be less dire we would be able to lean on our neighbors as they would lean on us because the purpose is to live day to day. Whereas the purpose of corporations is to make us consume things we don’t need for our day to day, making us less self-suffient because we no longer know what a necessity is and what a luxury is. I think a common setting would make these things clear.

“Whether they can be reformed in ways that contribute to revitalizing the commons, and thus to nurturing both the Earth’s ecosystem and cultural diversity, is one of the major challenges we face today.” (C.A. Bowers P.15)

A major problem standing in our way is corporations, our government needs to step in and start to control some of the obscene actions of these corporations. For example no Corp. should be allowed to own anything that has to do with life, for example seeds. These two things, the government not protecting the people from corporations and what they are allowed to patent. This puts must to much power in the hands of corporations and as long as this power stays with them we will never get back the commons. When corporations own everything, then there is automatically a price attached to it, when this happens it automatically eliminates the availability to all classes.

“The teachers need to mediate in a way that helps the student understand the positive contributions of science and technology, as well as the aspects of the commons they undermine.” 

(C.A. Bowers P.116)

 It doesn’t have to be one or the other, commons or science and technology; we can still use the science and technology that has helped us get to where we as a people are today. With that said it has a lot to do with a lot of the problems we now face (global warming for example). It’s important to understand how we can integrate science and technology into the commons and the tradeoffs that will be necessary. Also to bring back sustainable traditions form different cultures. If we can achieve this as teachers we are on our way to addressing eco-justice issues in our classes.

“The challenge for the teachers is to help students identify the intergenerational knowledge and practices that have been marginalized by the attention being given to the traditions of modern, industrial culture that expand by undermining the non-monetized traditions of the commons.” 

(C.A. Bowers P.117)

I agree, I think there is a personal challenge for a teacher from my generation. I believe that most of use grew up in the corporation world and was influenced by it. So the additional challenge is for us teachers to figure out the intergenerational knowledge before we begin to present. This must be even harder for the students to begin to grasp because the idea of commons and traditions based on those commons is now lost / marginalized. There will come a point where this knowledge is lost forever so it’s important to start to bring back these concepts now and do a compare and contrast against our current traditions. 

Week 11 - Kozol Ch. 8

“Despite these changes, the extent of segregation in the city’s schools was greater in 1963 than it had been in 1958” (Kozol P. 190)

I though the reason we learn history was so that we don’t repeat it…but then how can we put something in place that may have words that talk about desegregation but the truth is it created classism. More affluent families moved out of these areas and schools were left will more black or Hispanic population then before. Was “desegregating schools” a big smoke screen for the bigger agenda? What is the bigger agenda then? For the white rich to get richer and power powerful? Why can’t our government get their nose out of the air put egos down and do what is best for each individual in America, not do what’s best for a small group of people, I had a history professor call this small group O.R.W.M  or Old Rich White Men. We should kick out every senator and congress person and start over. 

“Yet, realism combined with working memory, invites the feeling that a familiar performance is about to be repeated….it is a performance that has been repeated many, many, times over the decades since” (Anthology P.193)

Once again I will bring up history, we should LEARN from our MISTAKES not do them over and over again….what’s the definition of insanity…doing the same exact thing over and over again expecting a different result. Well then it looks like the government’s attempt to fix education is pure insanity! I think that it is time for the government to simply be the money source in our attempt to fix the education system and let the educators figure out what’s best for the students. We need to work cooperatively with the government and they need to trust the educators of America will produce critical citizens. If schools can create critical citizens, then the government, I believe will be able to benefit from it and lucratively.

“Joesph Fernandez former superintendent of the Miami schools, ‘New Chancellor, New Hope for Schools’ ‘It’s a thrill to hear Joseph Fernandez talk about his plans…’.”   “ ‘Arrogant, abrasive or aloof’ ‘he made to many enemies’ ‘His greatest strength –a sometimes imperious distaste for compromise –became his fatal flaw’.” (Kozol P. 196 & 197)

This was a serious of quote and headlines from newspapers. It’s amazing that we just keep looking to the next person to come in and save the school systems….but the system doesn’t need saving it needs total reform! How can anyone expect to take on such a task when media is breathing down your neck and ready to turn on you in a moment? Like seriously how can you be excited for someone who has a “imperious distaste for compromise” and then rag on him down the road when that tactic didn’t work. We are ready to endorse but we are equally if not more ready to hang someone when it doesn’t work. Does media have the answers to how we can save our schooling system…obviously not….does government…obviously not….so who is left….teachers and educators….I think it’s time we let them do their jobs. Media should step aside or simply support the effort and government should work cooperatively with schools but more for finical backing.

“Joe Clark…where he was photographed holding his baseball bat in both hands and looking as if he would not hesitate to use it…called his school ‘a Mecca of education’ after Clark threw out 300 students who were often late for class or had high absence rates, whom he described as ‘parasites’ and ‘leeches’(Kozol P. 199) 

Really, kicking 300 students out of a school gets the label of “Mecca of education” This is ridicules…as educators we should be educating these 300 kids the best we can so they have a chance to survive. The reality is most of those kids are not going to have much success in their lives. In my opinion that’s no one’s fault but Clarks. What educator in their right mind gets rid of 300 kids…I can see kicking out a handful of kids…maybe gang members of some sort…anything that is a threat to your students and teacher safety then have at it, throw out those kids…but being late and skipping class not that I condone it, but is a pretty natural thing for an adolescent to do…bring guns, knives and drugs to school…that can and should get you kicked out of school. As a student, why would you want to learn from someone who teaches behind a freakin baseball bat?

“And indeed, before the president left office, many of his goals had more or less dissolved into thin air, and very few people that I knew could still remember what they were. Some of the goals that Mr. Bush (George H. W. Bush) were anything but new or “revolutionary” as the president proclaimed” (Kozol P. 202)

Once again, why does the government have to come up with the “ideas” of how to fix education or what direction it should be going in. This chapter shows you that every president who attempted to help essentially did that same thing as the presidents before them and the quote above speaks to that. A clear example of this in present day is NCLB followed by RTTT…if one pile of crap didn’t work then why add to it? Education is under piles and piles of it, a total reform is necessary the original picture is to blurry now and it seems that government can’t see what education should be anymore. Like I have said all throughout these quotes government should hand over the IDEA part to the teachers and work cooperatively with them from a finical perspective.

“Nationwide, only once percent of eligible children transferred from a failing school to a higher-performing school under the provisions of the federal law. If the president had used his leadership to advocate for transfers not only within school districts, but between them, the transfer option might have had real meaning and, indeed, if earnestly enforced, it might have opened up the possibilities of mighty expanded racial integration in suburban schools surrounding our core cities.” (Kozol P. 205)

1% that’s it, that’s that master plan the government, came up with to help with our “de-segregated” schools. And then to not enforce the transfer of student both ways. I always wondered why we would just redraw district lines, its apparent now there are still people in positions of power that are racists it’s just discrete racism. It exists in laws and bills but are hidden to the common folk. This piece of legislation is a wonderful idea, but its half complete (students should be sent the other way too) why wasn’t that enforced? No one is going to ask that question because they are kind of getting what they want (they – the people) It looked good on paper but its practice failed. 

Week 10 - Anthology Ch 21, 22 & 23

“That teacher training programs in the United States have long been dominated by a behavioristic orientation and emphasis on mastering subject areas and methods of teaching is well documented.” (Anthology P. 199)

I think that if someone wants to be a teacher they should want to open up students mind and help them expand. To take a behaviorism approach is essentially demanding that the student do what you ask without question. I can remember this ideal very clearly from my elementary days, and I hated every last one of those teachers. In my elementary experience I disliked most of my teachers except for two of them. The reasons I liked them is clear now, they were the only ones that took a power-with approach (unless of course we got WAY out of line) and it I wanted to learn. I hope to be a teacher that has a power-with approach.

“The notion that students come from different histories and embody different experiences, linguistic practices, cultures and talents is strategically ignored within the logic of accountability of management pedagogy theory” (Anthology P. 201)

HELLO, we can’t ignore who the student is before we teach them….we need to learn about them, see what they know, see what unique perspectives each student brings to the table. Not everyone grew up in America, not everyone grew up the way the teacher, or principle for that matter. Who’s to say that a bunch of experts should dictate what needs to be learned. I believe that the learning should be specific to the area in which the school is located, then us surrounding areas as a point of reference so that students become well rounded, and not brought back to basics.

“They must work to create the conditions that give students the opportunity to become citizens who have the knowledge and courage to struggle in order to make despair unconvincing and hope practical” (Anthology P. 204)

 Teachers are currently in an interesting position; the powers above are dictating what they teach, how they teach, and why they teach it. This point of power needs to be shifted to the teachers, to the ones who know best, to the ones who have many years of schooling so that they can make a difference. I believe that teachers know what needs to be done, but their hands are always tied by money and other incentives. Teachers need a more wide open approach, a more transformative approach. If we want the students to become participating citizens who are educated to help make a difference then we (school systems) can’t keep jamming the students with useless data.

“Any kid of teaching requires toughness. You have to have firm convictions about a whole lot of stuff that you are not, in fact, always sure about.” (Anthology P. 205)

Back in the day I considered teaching before I chose not to and to get a degree in computers…then I chose to ultimately become a teacher. The point of me telling you that is because what I feared I lacked the most was the ability to “have firm convictions”. This was also my fear when I started my first coaching experience but I soon realized that it falls on the relationship that you have between you and your class (or team in this case). It was interesting because the kids had many questions and I didn’t have many answerers (all their questions were legit questions that I had too) but I promised I would find out and we were able to move on. I think what had a lot to do with that is I never took a top-down approach with my team always approached it eye-to-eye (power-with) and I think that’s where I got a lot of slack for not knowing. So to get back to the word tough, you need to have a thick skin because the answer will not always be right there for you. This especially in tech ed, I am sure that I will have plenty of questions from students that I can’t answer off the top of my head instead of freaking out and feeling like I failed my class, I would simply take a little extra time to find that student or class the answer and we can use it as a teaching/learning moment.

“To be able to think critically or analytically does not mean to criticize. It means to look at messages and materials through different lenses and from many perspectives; it means to be able to recognize propaganda regardless of its origin; it means to be able to ‘detect crap’ It means to pull apart materials, sort them, question them, reorganize them mentally, and then synthesize the pieces into coherent understanding and whole.” (Anthology P.211)

I picked this quote but I wish I didn’t have to respond to it….it does a really good job of describing what critical anything is. I specifically like the “look at messages and material through different lenses” this is referring to the diversity and how we as future teachers need to recognize that. We need to put on the lens that our students see through every day. I had a teacher all use the term “hats” when he was talking about it he was referring to the “hat” a parent wears compared to that “hat” that you wear. It speaks to the same thing, we can’t ignore where the student came from, we need to embrace and understand it. By doing this, applying lenses we can open up many doors into the students.