This comes through  my bloglines.

Essentially it is a history teacher in the U.K. who has become fed up with the educational constraints that he feels himself under.  His complaints mirror my fears about the future of education in the United States.  I find it fascinating, and surprisingly comforting, that this future is not only in the U.S., but the present in the U.K.

Doug, there is something that my TE instructor (I am a senior in the TE program at the moment) has shown me throughout the past school year.  If you can justify your actions with the ‘constraints’ that the administration places on you, you can accomplish the goals that you want to achieve.  Although I don’t know how the educational system is set up in the U.K., in the U.S., educators are given standards and benchmarks regarding what should happen in the classroom.  As an educator, as long as I can justify, say, discussing the genocide taking place in Darfur and encouraging students to do something (and even going as far as letting them choose what), I cannot understand why I would get in trouble with the state or the administration.

My inability to speak from an educated position from the U.K.’s perspective does prohibit me from giving you advice (so does my inexperience, idealistic worldview, I am sure), but I think that teachers cannot become automatons of the state, and if it were to be, the society opens itself to demagogues, extremists, and undemocratic futures.  And THAT scares me.

I find myself in a most unusual circumstance.  Peacebloom School, where I am currently observing, was where my TE teacher, Brairthorn, taught for the past 4 years.  Miss Silverleaf and Brairthorn both know of each other, know that I am in relatively close contact with both of them, and their teaching styles could not be more different.

This, to me, poses a very unique opportunity and a distinct problem.  First, with two teachers of very different teaching philosophies, I can very directly compare the two, see which one I agree with more, and then adopt some sort of doctored version of their philosophy as my own.  I would be able to compare the strengths and weaknesses of each and use that to my own professional development.

However, these two people know each other, and worked together for several years.  I cannot help but be concerned about my own developing professionalism.  Is it acceptable to talk directly with one of them about the other’s teaching style?  For example, knowing that Miss Silverleaf worked with Brairthorn but wanting to talk about Brairthorn’s teaching style, I always attempted to refer to him as “My TE grad student,” hoping that this term would be useful in delaying this decision until later.  Unfortunately for me, I was relatively unconvincing in my tactic, and Miss Silverleaf soon asked me, “Is it Brairthorn?”  To this, I answered yes, and then we continued the conversation based on his real name.

I guess my big question is, “Can I, or should I, be direct about talking about another teacher’s teaching style, when they know one another?  What about when these teachers become my colleagues instead of elders?”

Although this happened a few weeks ago, I believe that it was an important discussion for me as my outlook on school changed somewhat significantly.  I had made a post where I referred school to “real life,” meaning what happens to students outside of school after graduation.

The grad student in charge of my TE 407 class, Brairthorn*, called on me to define what I meant by this statement, and to ask me one simple question.  I stated that I meant that I viewed school as something artificial, where the expectations and punishments were unrealistic or not reflective of what will happen “in real life”.  The example I put forth was the idea of tardiness and absences, and the consequences, after repeated occurrences, were detentions or suspensions.  After I finished talking, Brairthorn asked me, “How is that really different than real life?”  At that point, even though I stubbornly refused to announce it publicly, I realized how strange that line of thought was.

I mean, as another student put it, school isn’t as serious as “real life” but it certainly wasn’t as artificial as I thought it was.  Indeed, that student continued, explaining how school was sort of a “proxy for real life,” meaning that the consequences were made more artificial in order to train students in how to act in society, or how to get along with society, without seriously doing harm.

This came through my Bloglines last night, and I thought I would share it with you. It is an columnist from the Dickson Herald, who states that it is a teacher’s job to teach the subject they are hired to teach, and lambastes the teachers who, say, talk about the connections between Hitler and Bush, in a geography class. I have two thoughts on this.

I would agree whole heartedly on this. If I am supposed to be teaching Math, and I would rather talk about another subject, I am responsible, as a professional, to deal with the math first, and then, once that is finished, I might be able to do so. This would be analogous to any other profession. I would not want to go and sit down with an accountant and have the accountant begin talking about some random and unrelated topic while I am paying him to do, say, my taxes.

However, if the topic I am teaching, and the topic I can be framed by my subject, say, I would like to talk about the current politics of President Bush, and I am teaching Government, History, or a similar Social Studies subject, I believe it would be acceptable, as long as it is framed properly, and the discussion is balanced. If not, then it would be no better than teachers who randomly talk about whatever they want and waste the time of the teacher, the time of the student, and the taxpayer’s money.

Work Cited:

Dannenmaier, Bill. “Teach what you’re being paid for.” The Dickson Herald. 28 April, 2006. http://www.rctimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060428/MTCN0205/304280023/1302/MTCN0305
“Colorado Teacher On Leave After Alleged Anti-Bush Remarks.” The Associate Press. Fox News. March 02, 2006. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,186672,00.html>
“Suspended Colo. Teacher Won’t File Lawsuit Against School.” Fox News. March 03, 2006. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,186708,00.html>
Bauer, Christopher. “Appropriateness of Ranting and Raving in the Classroom.” 7 March, 2006. http://cbauer.edublogs.org/2006/03/07/appropriateness-of-ranting-and-raving-in-the-classroom/

Through my bloglines, I received this article. It deals with the dichotomy of opinion between Parents and Teachers over No Child Left Behind (NCLB). In short, a new study states that 80% of parents are confident that schools can reach the standards set by 2013-2014, while only 50% of teachers are confident in that same goal.

I found this interesting because it reinforced two concepts in my head, the dichotomy of opinion on schools, and the problems with NCLB. The article suggests that one of the reasons why parents are more confident than teachers with regards to NCLB because parents often think of only their child or children, while teachers are concerned with groups of children, often of different backgrounds.

The article has also reinforced the concept that there are problems regarding NCLB. I believe it is incredibly unfair to teachers to expect them to take students in from all walks of life, and train them to the same level, despite the support or lack thereof from the parents. Face it, if education is not a priority for the parents, it most definitely won’t be for the students. To expect a teacher to take students from that background, as well as students from backgrounds supporting education, and train them to the same level, and when that fails, punish the district by withdrawing funding.

In order to prevent this funding loss, schools are forced to shut down the ‘electives’ and focus on the ‘core’ subjects. This, to me, seems to short-change the students as it would limit the diversity of education that would be available to them otherwise.

However, I would agree that NCLB has shaken things up in the American public schooling system, and has improved the education that the students have received in the “core” subjects, which is a definite positive. It has also provided for a model for other programs that might be initiated, for example foreign languages and history, which will continue to improve the education for the students. I, however, disagree most heartily with cutting funding of schools who do not meet the stringent goals, as the schools that will be hit the hardest will be the ones that need a high level of funding in order to improve, and the majority of those will probably be inner-city schools, populated primarily by minorities.

Work Cited:

“Diverging views on ‘No Child’ expectations.” Associated Press. CNN.com http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/04/20/nochild.poll.ap/index.html?section=cnn_education>

As some of you may know, a group of Neo-Nazis plan to march in Lansing in two days. Considering that it is Hitler’s birthday today, and the march is in two days, I figured that I would make my comments on their right to march, the right of a counter rally, and my overall thoughts on Neo-Nazism.

I believe that it is the Neo-Nazis (hereafter referred to as NN), constitutional right to be able to march down the streets of Lansing. If we were to begin to eliminate the right of extreme groups such as the NN, then that would establish a precedent that would be sited to halt the marches of other extreme group. From this, it wouldn’t be a huge leap of faith to hypothesize that other, less extreme, groups would then become suspect, and lose their rights to march and demonstrate. This, in my opinion, would be disastrous for the constitution, as it would provide a precedent to ignore certain aspects that we don’t agree with circumstantially. From there, your guess on the path of America is as good as mine, but mine is pretty dismal.

There is also a counter rally the same day, a diversity rally which was organized in opposition to the NN rally. This to me is more of a grey area. To be sure, I support their right to organize, however, the timing of such a rally conflicts with the NN’s right to do the same, as people will turn out to the diversity rally, rather than the to the NN rally. I would not be opposed to having a diversity rally the day before or the day after, which would show to the world that Lansing is not ‘pro-Nazi’ (a primary reason why the diversity rally was established). I suppose the main problem that I have with the diversity rally is that the NN had organized their rally before, and thus have priority over the diversity rally, and to that extent, I fear that it infringes on the right of the NN to march and demonstrate without restraint.

Finally, I would like to comment on Neo-Nazism in general. Hitler, alongside other leaders such as Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao Zedong, is remembered in history as a mass murderer and a paranoid war monger. Whether or not these claims are true (NN would state that the Holocaust never happened, and Hitler was a peaceful guy, actual words from the leader of the NN rally while on the radio), this is how Hitler is remembered. Therefore, looking up to him for inspiration would be, to me, insane. Just the mention of Hitler in any sort of positive way immediately puts people on the defensive, even if it may be true. To that extent, the idea that the NN would dare to align themselves with Hitler and Nazism does take courage in this society.

Although I respect the NN right to demonstrate and march, I disagree to a significant degree with their doctrine and style of confrontation, which often leads to heated tempers and violence.