As I was reading an article by William Stanley, I was struck with the memories of a conversation that occurred in TE 407.  Stanley, in his article, outlines the historical significance and the major differences between what Stanley believes to be the three major schools of though that exist in the school system today, one that stems from George Counts, one from John Dewey, and the final one, stemming from, most recently, George Posner.  Stanley does a fine job of outlining each school of thought as “critical pedagogy”, “critical thinking”, and “maintaining the status quo”, respectively.

After reading this, I re-affirmed my belief that critical thinking is my something that I would really like to strive for, not only in myself, but also instilling in the students I will have.  I believe this because I do believe that there are flaws in our current society, racism, reverse racism, sexism, and many more ‘isms’ are present in society and are defended every day by those who believe that they are somehow better than their peers in ways that cannot be changed or even challenged.

The reason why I disagree with critical pedagogy is because I do not feel that it would be morally right to encourage change in my students.  If they do not see anything wrong with the system they exist in, and have thought critically about it, should I really try to sway or force them into seeing that something is a problem?  I say that I am not that morally pure or even morally sure that I can say that I must be heard in my moral convictions.  On the other side of the spectrum, if they find much more that they would like to change that I cannot see why or would want to change, again, could I say that I should be heeded more than their own critical thinking.

Finally, one of the flaws that was pointed out to me by my instructor: What happens if I educate my student very well in the art of critical thinking, and the student then turns that into an instrument of even, to commit genocide, subjugate third world countries and the like?  Well, first, I would say that I did my job well, if that is my only goal.  Then I would say where are the other critical thinkers (including myself) who should have risen up and challenged him on critically thought out, moral, ethical, or ecological bounds?  I would argue that committing genocide, or subjugating third world countries would be morally wrong, because if we were given liberty and freedom by our government, and they were not, and we imposed our will on them for our own good, then one must think of the treatment of those peoples and understand that this cannot be done.  I could also argue that destroying the ecosystem will also not help humanity in the long run, because destroying the world slowly is not any morally acceptable (to me) than committing genocide immediately.

In general, I suppose that my argument resides on moral grounds almost completely, but this is a part of who I am and my outlook on life, and in that vein, I cannot separate my logical side from my moral side, but I can restrain myself (at least partially) from forcing my morality on my students, as I know that my moral side might not be completely moral and I may have flaws and faults that may cause unforeseen problems in the future.

Work sited:

Stanley, William B.  “Social studies and the social order: transmission or transformation.”  Research & Practice. v69 i5. p282.  Sept 2005.

Today for class we read a selection from Dalton’s The Hollywood Curriculum: Teachers and Teaching in the movies.  In this, I thought it was most telling when Dalton was discussing the teacher as an outsider.  This idea that a lone teacher, rebelling against the system and refusing to adhere to the status quo.  From the author’s analysis, she claims that this trend in the movies is a direct result from the history and the millions that Hollywood has made from the “Rugged Individual,” for example the lone cowboy who rides into a town and single-handedly defeats the marauding outlaws, or the army sergeant who prepares and then leads his men in combat, achieving some great task.  Dalton comments, in no positive terms, that this may be (more or less) accurate with the cowboys, but less so with the army sergeant, and even less so with the teachers.

To me, however, this is not some flaw or fault of the Hollywood elite, but rather with film making in general.  The movies are 60 to 90 minutes long and there isn’t enough time to establish a relationship between the audience and the actors on the screen.  If there is no connection between the audience and the actors, then the movie will flop and be useless.  Therefore the lone, rugged individual becomes a viable, and necessary, tool in the film making industry.

Work Cited:

Dalton, Mary.  The Hollywood Curriculum: Teachers and Teaching in the Movies.  Peter Lang Publishing.  New York.  1999.

Pardon the lack of my posting on the edublog, summer was busy with work and such. Anyways, I plan on continuing what I started in the Spring with posting my thoughts on the readings assigned or classes, if I deem it appropriate and interesting. I also plan on posting the homework that I finish for this class, as I believe it would be interesting for prospective employers and my own nostalgic purposes.

For today we were expected to read the first five articles of John Dewey’s My Pedagogic Creed. From my own understanding of it, I believe that Dewey considers students to have two distinct, yet infinitely intertwined. Namely this is the Psychological and Social aspects of the student. At birth, assuming I understand Dewey’s beliefs; each student is born a blank slate, and is constantly being saturated by the student’s existence, at school or otherwise. It is the school’s job to provide education and direction to the student’s psychological side, which is dominated by facts and dates, and the sociological side, which is dominated by how well the student is socially adjusted. In doing this, the school, Dewey claims, should teach the student how to learn, how to adapt to new world issues or technologies. He concludes this section with the statement of his belief that we, as teachers, are responsible for the formation of socially adjusted, well-formed citizens at the end of their schooling.

I find this to be very difficult to analyze in terms of it being ‘right or wrong’, as I tend to like to do. I would agree with Dewey’s belief that we, as teachers, are supposed to aid in the formation of the students’ ability to conform to societal norms and to react and triumph over changes that inevitably arise during the student’s lifetime. I disagree with Dewey’s implied belief that this is the only reason a school exists. I would also claim that in addition to being socially normal and adaptable to new situations, the student must be knowledgeable, both of how trends tend to work and how to analyze situations as to choose the best choice presented. This sort of attention to analytical knowledge puts me on edge when I am reading Dewey’s work.

Work Cited:

Dewey, John. My Pedagogic Creed. School Journal. Vol. 54. January 1897. http://dewey.pragmatism.org/creed.htm