I was asked to respond to a Kincheloe article and the curriculum of my area regarding economics.  This is how I responded.

If I were asked to teach students the fundamentals of economics, I think my classroom would be constructed in the same manner as I would construct any other classroom. I would attempt promote greater understanding of the world and how it appears to work in my students.

I would start out by outlining what is agreed to be the basics of economics, ideas such as scarcity, trade-offs, interdependence, etc. This could come in the form of examples performed in class (such as demonstrating the Laws of Supply and Demand using candy bars), or discussions and debates (to come to terms with the desire to make money on the stock market, for example, or to reconcile their moral beliefs with that of some company).
I could continue to work within the curriculum (topics such as ‘Guns and Butter’, ‘interest rates/banking system’), but always attempting to place the student into the world in which they live. For example, understanding how they spend money is a way of changing the world around them, either by promoting what is “cool” or promoting something else that is not considered “cool”.

Another way of doing this would be through projects, where students would take their topic, and find out how it applies to them. An example could be what poverty is, how it compares to the wealthy in this nation and in others, and what should be done about it (what they could do) and why.

Overall, my classroom would probably not involve much more than 60% lecture, and even then, the lecture would not be the stereotypical lecture, but rather a teacher-led discussion based on the material. The remaining time would be projects, discussions, and current events speeches (where students would bring in articles relating to economics in some way, and make a brief speech, which could then, possibly, be made into a discussion).

This past week, in my education class, we have performed a lesson on a “controversial subject.”  Along with this, we are required to think on one of them and provide comments on another lesson.

The presentation regarding the McDonaldization of college degrees was very interesting to me.  First off, I want to know where my toy is! 

Secondly, my mentor teacher and I have talked, fairly extensively, on this topic and how the state is playing into this ideology.  The Governor stated that Michigan needed to have a highly educated workforce in order to attract corporations into this area.  For the most part, I agree.  But what does this say about many ‘low-end’ jobs?  Indeed, if I want to be a cashier at Meijer for 30 years, build up enough money to live a simple life and provide for myself in old age, isn’t that the American dream, in one of its many forms?  As a consumer, I don’t care what my cashier learned in high school, or if s/he went to college, just as long as they get me through the line quickly and accurately. 

Also, what is going to happen with other types of experiences, such as a tech center, or some place that is more hands on and can start students on the track of becoming a certified somethingorother?  These are great experiences for some students, but if they are required to buy into this idea that everyone has to go onto college or something, then they will miss out on this great use of their time and waste money.  Once again, as a consumer, do I really care if my electrician knows what a comma splice is, or who wrote Hamlet? 

Oh well, I suppose just a few thoughts as to why the McDonaldization of Education might not be as cracked up as it is.  And I want my toy with this degree!

Today in my TE class we watched a selection of Dave Chappelle in “Inside the Actors Studio”.  We were told to respond to these three questions.

“I wasn’t crazy, but it’s incredibly stressful. And I felt like in a lot of instances I was deliberately being put through stress because, when you’re a guy that generates money, people have a vested interest in controlling you. And I feel like the people that were trying to control me were putting me through stressful situations.”

- Dave Chappelle

1. Substitute “knowledge” for “money”. Do people have a vested interest in controlling teachers? If so…who are they? If not, what is the difference/where does this analogy fail?

Overall, I believe this would be a reasonably accurate analogy to teaching.  People do have a vested interested in controlling the teachers, especially of controversial topics, such as Social Studies.  This is evidenced in the rules, curriculums, and laws that are put in place to control what are taught and how they are taught.  These would represent the stress that would be put on those who generates knowledge.  In these terms, I think it would actually be more stressful than what Chappelle describes, since instead of the one or two groups that attempt to control Chappelle, SS teachers have several groups attempting to influence how and what knowledge is generated in the classrooms.  Through the laws, such as NCLB, rules and norms in the districts that we may teach in, various viewpoints on history and social studies are forced on us, not to mention our own framework with which we believe to be the “correct” paradigm.

2. Was this an appropriate piece to watch in a social studies methods course? why or why not? what did this offer you in terms of your thinking about social studies? OR..why did this have nothing to do with social studies education?

This was as much connected to social studies education as you want it to be.  To Briarthorn, this was incredibly linked to SS, and to the casual observer, there might be a tenuous link.  To me, I found that there was a link.  With the proper structuring, as Briarthorn provided, I was able to bridge the gap and understand how the main theoretical themes that Chappelle talks about to the main themes that Briarthorn has been talking about in the TE class.  One thing that I found interesting was Chappelle’s monologue about “being crazy”.  Indeed, Chappelle states that when people put the label of crazy on someone or something, it is a dismissive term, and little or no attempt is made come to an understanding.  Also, if any understanding is come to, it rarely includes how the environment played a part in how the ‘crazy’ issue came to be that way.  Another, which has been talked about before in the class, was the difference in African American vernacular language, and what is commonly referred to as ‘proper English’.  Chappelle states that African Americans are “bilingual by nature”, as they have an understanding of both dialects.  This would tie into TE class, because someone, somewhere had to teach them the ‘proper English,’ and more than likely, it was a teacher in some shape.  

3.  What pedagogical issues does Dave Chappelle highlight for you? In other words, what issues/topics does his interview make necessary if education is going to be deemed, for him, succesfull? 

Probably the most obvious is the last comment we heard, was that “America needs an honest discourse with itself” on “Who we are,”  “What we are,” and “Where do we want to go.”   This would not happen, I believe, in how the current system works, as there are often people who attempt to have this discourse, but are label “traitors,” or “unpatriotic”.  By making this label, it often has the same effect in that circle as labeling someone as “crazy,” as Chappelle describes earlier.

It has been a busy day for me today.  Here is another Q-and-A session.

Classmate C asks:

“Here’s a question….should we indoctrinate our students or not? How do you make sense of this question?”

From my understanding, I believe that indoctrination of a student would be “pounding of a certain belief or set of beliefs into their head” (for lack of a better way to describe it). To answer your question I believe that it is our job to do so, but also to not do so. Let me explain.

We, as teachers, should not indoctrinate our students to believe everything we (or the government, special interests, etc) think, believe, etc. If we were to do this, and do it well, would it even be possible to make society “more just”, assuming that is your goal? I would say no, since I know that I am biased in some ways and probably don’t know how biased I am in some other ways. I suppose what I am trying to say the most is that if we indoctrinate our students toward some vested interest, then we aren’t going to make society better, but rather worse.

On the other hand, we need to indoctrinate our students to some extent. By this I am referring that we (as a majority) want our students to “think critically”. I would call that process of teaching them, indoctrination. It is the “pounding of a certain belief or set of beliefs into their head.” Also along with this, we will probably “rub off” on them, transmitting some of our beliefs and values to them.

I would say that according to me, indoctrination is necessary, but I guess there is a fine line where indoctrination becomes unacceptable.

As with the last post, this is a question posed by a classmate, in which I responded to on the message board that our class has set up. I believe posting these Q-and-A sessions on this medium will shed some light on my psyche and might, if this is done properly, show how I have changed since I had begun the Teacher Education Course series.

Classmate B asks:

“Ok so this may seem like a stupid question, but what does it mean to even indoctrinate someone? As far as the class is going, I think there are some good things going on. But the guest speaker today again reiterated in my mind the “so what?” aspect of teaching social studies. Yeah it’s great to see the trend going on with/history of the teaching of the subject, but so what. I feel like this is more of the “TE” stuff. That doesn’t really make sense, but I just feel so overloaded with theory and discussion that I’m just getting antsy to actually DO.”

I am guessing that we need to have some sort of an answer to this “so what” question that comes up all the time. If we can’t answer this question about a social studies history lecture, can we really attempt to answer it once we get in the classroom and start teaching?

I believe it is important to know where we are in the grand scheme of things. By this I mean that history is important to know where we have come from, the trends that are actively working on us, the trends that have existed and seem not to be active anymore. This context affects nearly every choice we make in some way, shape, or form. It is also important because if we know what trends that are working on us now, we can tell what we are going, or at least make predictions.

I suppose that is a brief answer to your question, B, but at least it is a start.

In my current class, this question came up on our online message board. I have cleaned up my response a little bit, and added hard breaks where they didn’t show up in my actual response.

Classmate A asked:

“This is something I wanted to bring up in class in relation to the readings but, since we are talking about indoctrination and our own political views, etc. etc., I have been curious to know, when do teachers start getting in trouble (with parents or other staff or the principal) for showing their views or even different interpretations of history? In reading these articles and thinking about all the controversial issues that will come up in our classrooms, it makes me wonder how easy it is for teachers to go too far and offend people. Just wondering what others’ thoughts might be.”

Well, I guess you would not want to be like this guy. From my understanding, he espoused only one viewpoint, which was highly critical of President Bush and upset a few students and even more parents. So I guess the biggest suggestion I have would be to make sure you present both sides of the argument to the best of your ability.

I suppose aside from that extreme, I would assume the next biggest thing to avoid “bad” situations is to make sure you meet or even exceed curriculum expectations. If you can teach the students everything they are expected to know, and still have time for debate over troubling topics, I don’t think that very many people can create a logical argument to get you fired or even in trouble.

In conclusion, I would claim that if you structure your discussions in a way that represents the different sides, and still get through all that can be expected of you, I seriously doubt that many people can really get you into trouble.