Posted Late

Hey, Dr. Agriss

I know this is late, but I may as well complete the learning letter and gain some introspection about what I've learned in this class. The work that I've completed over the course, as a whole, was something unique because it forced me to think in a  different way, apart from what I have the tendencies to do. It made me thing this way because I normally do not have to think about the way that I would teach a book/subject. For example, the book talk was a fun and engaging assignment because it not only let us choose the book, something that I presume we are all interested in, but it made us think about how we would effectively teach an individual book. I found this to be refreshing. This class teaches the application of techniques and dialogue to facilitate a conducive learning environment because, well, most of the class plans on becoming educators in the world. I, however, am literary studies major which is another reason this class took me out of my normal environment. In literary studies, we read a text and analyze it through a multiplicity of lens'. Postmodern fiction read through a Marxist lens. Or vice versa. By applying pedagogical concepts for instruction of a class was something that is very different than what I normally deal with. 

I thoroughly enjoyed the co-teaching aspect of this class because it forced the members of class to partner up with someone and to create a working, cohesive, and pedagogically interesting presentation. I was partnered with Halee and we had chosen to do Poe. Specifically, The Fall of the House of Usher which is something that I am passionate about, Poe. A certain article that I enjoyed reading would definitely have to be Critical Pedagogy in an Urban High School Classroom because it shows how inherently flawed our education system when it comes to equality, the production of knowledge, and how the canon is exclusionary. Reading this allowed me to affirm my belief that there are students who are not inscribed within the same discourse as everyone else, and have prisons built up around them, metaphorically speaking. I enjoyed the reading selection as well.  Sherman Alexie is a favorite author of mine, and I had not read Maus since high school so that was really fun to come back to.  

I don't necessarily plan on becoming a teacher, but this class has made me rethink the way that students, as well as myself, think about a text. Specifically, how one looks at a text when analyzing it, or when someone looks at a text as a point for discussion. Meaningful and useful discussion can facilitate learning, and I believe it leads to a conducive learning environment. I think that if I ever did become a teacher, I could still use the principles that I was taught in this class to benefit my students. At least, that is my hope. I could reference texts like Readicide and some of the research that I found while doing my three-week lesson plan which was rather difficult. I had never made a lesson plan before, let alone a three-week unit. It was challenging, but I digress. Overall, I think that what I've taken away from this class will benefit me in some way, shape, or form because it doesn't mean that I have to use this knowledge to become a better teacher. I can become a better student, and in turn hopefully become a better human.  

Blog Post 10

After reading Kelly Gallagher's Readicide I came to really enjoy the text for what it is and the information that it posits as being the death of deep and enriching reading in the public education system. At first, like most things, I was hesitant but I came to develop a deep appreciation for this book because it shares similar sentiments about education, reading, and public education that I do. But even more importantly is it gave me a way to confront and, in a way, battle what she calls readicide. This is a book that should be a requirement for all future teachers to read because it so articulately describes the differences that we all share as learners and educators, and how we interpret a text can be very different; either for enjoyment or value. That is what is important, being able to decipher yourself what you're reading as being enjoyable or something that you can get value out of. I am sure educators out in the field, right now, have to make students read certain texts that they themselves are not fond of. How can someone teach a novel or play when they themselves have no interest in teaching it? That only breeds lackadaisical educators that go through the motions day in and day out and benefits nobody. Something that attests to this as well as a takeaway for me personally was when Gallagher writes, "students may or may nor like the novel, but I want all of them to understand the value that comes from reading it- a value that will help them become smarter people long after they leave school" (57). While I agree with this sentiment, what happens when the educator has no drive, no passion, and is lukewarm with their instruction? The important aspect of this to me is that yes, students will read texts that they hate (I've done it and I am sure you have too) but I like to think I had some pretty damn good educators. I cant imagine being placed in a class where the teacher just does not care about you, or your education.  

Blog Post 8

I feel like the term "social justice" is thrown around a lot in our contemporary society, so, lets define it right now before I officially begin this blogpost. The definition of social justice is "the fair and just relation between the individual and society" which seems like a pretty fucking rational thing to be asking for as a society. In general, social justice is an interest of mine because of the American philosopher John Rawls who once stated "Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override. For this reason justice denies that the loss of freedom for some is made right by a greater good shared by others." (A Theory of Justice, Rawls, 3-4). Each person has these innate rights that have been founded on the principles of justice, yet the greater good of society has the tendency to marginalize and oppress those that do not come from great beginnings, yet great things are bestowed on those who come from small beginnings. Basically, what I am trying to say is that all human beings should be given the right of an educational system that truly has the student’s best interest at heart. For example, Rawls created a fun thought experiment that he called "The Veil of Ignorance", but before I get to that imagine yourself in two standings. One where you live in poverty stricken areas, are harassed by the public for various reasons, are looked down upon because of the color of your skin, and your education doesn't care about you because you are not seen as being important enough for attention. Now, on the other hand imagine yourself living in wealth where you are able to be free from the judgments from society, and you attend the highly lauded private school. What position would you want to be in? And what if you could change the way that society looked at social justice and reform. The veil of ignorance wants you to imagine yourself being, almost like, a tabla rasa but Rawls says that, "no one knows his/her place in society, his/her class position or social status; nor does he/she know his/her fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his/her intelligence and strength, and the like.". The main point is for you to stop and think about "those personal considerations that are morally irrelevant to the justice or injustice of principles meant to allocate the benefits of social cooperation.". This is important to social justice. This idea is important for the establishment of a just relation between the individuals and the society that they inhabit. 

Post 7

Right from the beginning I liked what I was reading because it felt tangible, it felt like something that a lot of students face as they become older and realize how they fit into the society at large around them. The focus on dialogue is of major importance in facilitating individual student empowerment, social change, and can lead to a better understanding of how we, as humans, operate throughout our society and how we are influenced by our culture. I found it interesting that new methodological approaches to teaching the way that race operates was being implemented, and working. The authors discuss how movies and powerful visual imagery are more practical ways to teaching and educating students on race relations rather than Huck Finn. I understand though because who really wants to read Huck Finn and be able to discuss all of the nuanced sociocultural issues raised, when you can be exposed to visual imagery and the point is right in your face. It is something you can't avoid. As educators we should be able to bridge the gap between what students want to learn, why they want to learn it, and be able to find canonical texts that fit neatly into the world of the students. It doesn't always have to be the same method of teaching for every class, every year, but rather seasons of teachings where the methods you employ are ones that are tailored to the advancement of your class and of your students. Whatever benefits them the greatest is what you should instill. The curriculum should not be dictated by what social conventions are placed upon teachers and pedagogical approaches to teaching. Teaching should be mellifluous, it should encapsulate the feeling that a teacher should have after every class, and that is one of knowing that you're doing all that you can for these students. I think that inequalities exist all throughout the educational system where some schools get better funding than other schools. Students receive a better education depending on how much money their parents have. The unequal pedagogical treatment of students only creates a broader gap between the transition from high school to college because while some kids are prepared, some are not and are forced to go into debt, dropout, and not fulfill goals because their high school did not have enough resources.

Post 6

I found the idea of "banking" to be interesting and some of the ideas that were purposed are fascinating and in a way, common sense. I think that some of the questions that the article poses are questions that we all, as humans, should at the very least consider. These questions include the critical thinking of our own constructed reality and how our reality may be different from somebody else. The idea of domestication is an important one because it deals with how we interpret and regurgitate information in a way that we domesticate it. This is a term that is used in English literature constantly, always being warned by professors to make sure that you do not domesticate what you're writing about. This quote from the text really elucidates as to how banking in education harms the minority while favoring the majority, "The more completely the majority adapt to the purposes which the dominant majority prescribe for them (thereby depriving them of the right to their own purposes), the more easily the minority can continue to prescribe. The theory and practice of banking education serve this end quite efficiently". This idea is something that reverberates along the proverbial notion that there are those in our contemporary society that are systematically pushed down, while others are uplifted. This is the hierarchical nature that we live in. Some people who come from different socioeconomic statuses, have dark skin, or have not inscribed themselves in the Anglo-patriarchal narrative are marginalized by those in power. Reading this article made me think about the philosopher John Rawls who purposed the idea behind the veil of ignorance. The veil of ignorance goes like this: "long with the original position, is a method of determining the morality of a certain issue (e.g., slavery) based upon the following thought experiment: parties to the original position know nothing about their particular abilities, tastes, and position within the social order of society." If everybody was placed behind the veil of ignorance, we would live in a much more idyllic world. Both in education, and in life.   

Post 5

           I think that the information presented was very practical and will come handy when implementing various assessing strategies in one's own classroom. What I found to be most interesting was how standardized education, grooming, and how we, as a society, define intelligence poses great limitations on students. First, standardized education may work for some, but for others it will just not be an adequate representation of themselves, who they see themselves as being and operating throughout society. For example, someone who has an immense talent for art, visual art/communication, design and so on may drop out of school. Secondly, students have been groomed their entire educational career to be a certain way, think a certain way, and act/present themselves in a favorable light when that is just unrealistic in our sociocultural environment. Some children will not adhere to the "standards" that have been enacted on them. The system was built around them, to house them, and keep them stagnant. Originality and freedom are limited in certain aspects of education, especially public education which only draws division lines between those students that are perceived as being more favorable than others. Lastly, intelligence is weighted above a lot of things and how we perceive intelligence within a pedagogical understanding. Intelligence is broad. Intelligence is vast, and it doesn't have to be equated to how well you can write a paper, your math skills, or your grammar. Some intelligent people are never afforded the chance of an education because of their socioeconomic upbringing. Some intelligent people are exceptionally intelligent but don't score well on standardized testing. Sometimes when you're locked in a prison, you can't see the bars but you still think you're free.
          I believe that alternative testing must be implemented to adequately measure student's likelihood for success. Whether that be college, technical school, or going straight into the job market. There is something out there for everybody, we all just have to work together to make it a reality. Students should have voices, and they should know that they have those voices and that they matter.

Blog Post #4

          I believe that this article really got to some of the key points as to why it can be difficult to effectively and efficiently disseminate information to young, aspiring students. All students come from varying backgrounds, and all students share and have dissimilar interests that may not pertain to what state core standards have been enacted. This is a problem because it creates a rift between teacher/educator and student. The problem is that it creates a divide between the two, where one attempts to reconcile there teaching strategy with learning objectives that are fun, inspiring, interesting, etc. in contrast to the way that the state wants a teacher to disseminate information. The student, being k-12 students may not have the time, patience, empathy, or really give a shit enough to try. Obviously this is a problem. If students, by the time they have left high school have, are not able to keep up with the rest of their peers then they may be left behind with no college future. This should not be the case. While some students excel and others don't necessarily excel, all students have an inherit worth and merit that deserves educators full support and attention. To create/sculpt/mold the next set of students for the oncoming future generations, educators must embrace a form of compassion and give back to a community of the world. These young children will grow up to be adults and these adults will write the laws, become CEO's, they aspire to do and be great not only in the classroom but in life. This is what teachers and educators need to understand the most, they are on the front lines of education, they are around students during some of the most formative years of their lives and it is of the utmost importance that they act as good role models but more than that they need to honestly engage with students at the students own pace whether that goes against common core state standards or not because every child/student deserves to have the skills necessary to progress further in their lives and education.