Sameness as fairness

I thought it was very interesting that we had so many readings that each viewed "sameness as fairness" in our education system so differently. The first reading by Gutierrez and Purcell-Gates talked about how all students should be treated the same.  Everyone should be taught the same way and receive the same help.  In theory, maybe this seems good, all students are receiving the same amount of help and guidance, but in practice...no two students are the same and no two students learn the same.  That means that by just presenting things in one uniform way, not all students are going to understand and catch on.  This easily was explained in the video speech by Malcolm Gladwell about Howard Moskowitz.  Moskowitz was on the pursuit for the perfect pickle/Pepsi/Ragu b ut quickly realized that there was no such thing and that not everyone liked the same things, therefore, a group of people can't really be treated as one uniform mass.  This easily applied to teaching and the ideas that no two of our students are the same, therefore they cannot all be taught the same way.

The next reading was by Ladson-Billings and Carter, they discussed the idea that in order to achieve "sameness as fairness" in education we need to treat education the same not our students.  What I mean by this is, we cannot make the assumption that all of our students are the same, because they are not.  But we need to treat the way that we educate the same, and keep that uniform.  We need to understand that each child is capable of learning and most of them WANT to learn...we just need to figure out ways to present information to ensure that they are actually learning.

After doing all these readings, I am a firm believer that we need to create "fairness" in our education by allowing each child an equal chance and providing support where it is needed.  If that means presenting information a ton of different ways, making the same worksheet many different ways, or creating many different options for an assignment so that each student has the opportunity to understand things and do the best work in a way that easily relates to them, then that is what had to be done.  All students need to be given a fair chance to perform their best.  I think "fairness" takes a lot of work, and maybe that is why it is sometimes overlooked, but I think that to be sure that all students have an equal chance and are given the tools to succeed, that is what needs to happen.

What are students learning?

        "After all these years of common schooling, we still have no real way of knowing if students are learning"... I would have to disagree with this statement.  I think that we, as educators, know whether or not our students are learning without necessarily having to give out a formal assessment.


        I think one of  the biggest problems that we have created is that we focus way too much on numbers and statistics.  It is unfortunate (if it  is true) that teacher's salaries will begin to be based on the way that students perform on tests.  This is just going to cause more teachers to focus on numbers that the state says are acceptable.  This isn't the biggest problem though...this whole situation leads to many other underlying issues.


        Like Delpit states, we need to let students have a voice in the classroom.  We need to give them the opportunity to share and open up and be themselves to prevent them from feeling like they are just a bunch of uniform little soldiers or robots.  I was in a school where they were required to have a morning meeting where students all had to greet one another, then a couple of children each day would share something that was going on in their lives.  This was the most liked part of the day because, unfortunately, students came to realize that this was the only time throughout the day that they would be able to speak their mind and talk about things that they were into or that specifically interested them. 


        I feel that this also goes hand in hand with Luna's perspectives on creativity.  Students need to be given the opportunity to expand their minds sort of on their on.  Or maybe not necessarily on their own, but in their own individual way.  During one of my fieldwork observations, I actually witnessed a teacher who was insistent that each of the students in her class do things exactly the same way.  I asked her what he reason for doing this was.  In her mind, she was keeping her classroom organized and uniform but I think that in reality she was really limiting a lot of students.  Not all students learn and explore things the same way.  In my mind, I feel like, with most things, if they are producing the right outcome or answer, why does it matter how they get there and why should we limit that?


        Overall, I think that we need to track the progress that students are making and the growth that has occurred over a given period of time instead of simply being concerned about how they scored on one or two state mandated tests.  I think that we are aware and we know this, but we are so concerned by the things that are being held over out heads, are far as student performance in concerned, that we sort of ignore that or it at least definitely isn't the first thing that we look at when we consider an assessment.


I thought this website was a good example of some of the issues that I discussed and it had some interesting ideas about assessments and student progress:  http://teacher.scholastic.com/professional/assessment/studentprogress.htm

Neoliberalism

Basically, what I've come to learn as neoliberalism is the desire to privatize things in the public sphere that are regulated by the government...our schools.  Obviously some people support this, but I feel that this is a very negative thing.  

Some may argue that privatization of our schools is a great thing.  Schools that have been privatized no longer have to worry about exams and student preformance for money.  That means that teachers are spending far less time "teaching to tests" and concerned with children's scores and more time teaching students things that they need to know in order to be successful at the next grade level and have time to spend ensuring that all concepts are fully understood.  The problem with "teaching to tests" is that students aren't being given the chance to spend time on things that they need to actually learn.  They are being pushed to know things that teachers feel may be on the test.  Not only is this bad because they don't have the chance to learn other things that they need to know, but they also probably aren't actually even learning these things.  They are being pounded into our students heads simply for testing time and if they don't remember the concepts after that, it doesn't really matter.

On the other hand, privatization of our schools, at least to me, basically means that our schools are being used strictly as money-makers.  If we get rid of all public education...what happens to our students? How does that effect the way that students learn?  And how does that effect their education and knowledge long term?  State tests are one of the major things that would be effective by the privatization of our schools.  This seems to be a good thing based on the fact that we seem to have determined that state testing is a bad thing because it causes teachers to "teach to tests" and not really teach students the things that they need to know.  Another seemingly negative effect of privatizing schools is that schools that are usually made this way are schools that are failing or not meeting certain requirements.  This is an issue because once these schools reopen as private schools they are much harder to get into and therefore the students who actually get into these schools don't tend to be lower-class minority students.  Then these students are forced into schools that are still open and are failing, therefore their education is compromised and maybe they aren't receiving as good of an education as some others may be receiving in other schools.

I unfortunately think that these education issues are like a pendulum  and will continue to go back and forth.  I don't think that one thing will be solidly settle upon, and therefore, our students will continue to suffer.  I feel that arguments will continue over what the best way for teachers to teach is and how and what students should be learning. 

Multiple Literacies

There were many great points made by Mari Haneda in her article, "Becoming Literate in a Second Language: Connecting Home, Community, and School Literacy Practices" but I was absolutely taken back by the story about a young Cambodian ELL student named Nan.  Nan was the child of two parents who were not considered literate in any language, but she was still able to practice her literacy and improve her English skills both at home and at school.  At home she would write and act out her own plays, the text being supported or sometimes altogether supplemented with pictures or oral narratives when she had things she wasn't able to express in writing.  But at school, even though she was able to do these thing at home, she was considered below the bar and less literate than she should be because she was not able to easily comprehend textbooks.

This was truly eyeopening to me.  It was clear example of how I feel about literacy and determining whether someone is literate or not.  I do not think that literacy is something that can be measured on a common scale.  In other words, I don't think that each child's literacy can be determined using the same book.  I think that each child's talents and different techniques need to be taken into account.  The problem with this is, teacher's cannot be at home with every student.  Therefore, teachers cannot see all of the things that students are doing at home to prove their literacy that they don't get the chance to show or demonstrate at school.

Personally, I think that it would be ridiculously fascinating to see how "literate" children are in school compared to how "literate " they are in school.  This makes me wonder if we're missing something or doing something wrong.  Nan isn't the only child I've heard of who seems to be more literate at home.  Some children need other ways to express themselves (like in Nan's case) and other children feel too pressured at school.  I think literacy is something that requires at least a little bit of freedom, even if it is as simple as allowing children to choose their own books to read rather than assigning one to them.  I think this is the case because like I said previously, I don't think literacy can be measured one single way, I think it is something that is very different student to student and there cannot be one set standard for it.