Synthesis Paper
After reading Literacy with an Attitude, a predominate theme appears to be that teaching our students to be literate is not enough. We need to operate real schools in order for students to become critically literate, and that it is the responsibility of the teacher to create this model. Finn states teachers need to move away from being a gate keeper (p.142) to providing real schools where the students will desire the knowledge the teacher has. Students will recognize that they can change their world and teachers can help them achieve that. Once they desire the knowledge, they will work hard to get it. (p.179)Only then the real school model will be in operation.
In the opening chapters Finn describes social class and the discrepancy of education that children are receiving in school based on social class. I found it difficult to imaging this and began to doubt Finn. After all, who could make such grandiose statements after teaching the “poor” in the public school system for 8 years? Just the term “gentry” made me feel that this had nothing to do with me. Does Canada even have gentry? I had difficulty believing that schools such as Roadville, Freeway and the Brownstones could be the rule rather than the exception. How could he possibly propose that social class is directly related to education in our schools? Isn’t there a much broader basis for social class? What could I, a Kindergarten teacher have to do with all this? When beginning to read this book, I wasn’t entirely sure I truly understood what critical literacy was. Finn took me on a journey which at times made me feel uncomfortable and hopeless, and at others excited about the possibilities of teaching in the real school form.
In chapter two, Finn discusses the differences Anyon found in the education children were experiencing in executive versus working class schools in America. He continues in the next few chapters to examine examples of other communities and schools that support the theory that the executive class are educated in a very different way than those children in the working class. By looking at communities such as Maintown, he illustrates the different ways parents teach their children and thus set the tone for their relationship with schools and teachers. Students such as the Lads and pupils at Freeway had a distinctly negative view of education. These students did not value education and school- they did not need it for what they saw for their future. They did not want the knowledge that the teachers had. Was that because they were not given opportunities to interact and learn in the same ways Anyon’s executive class did? Finn portrayed this discrepancy in as being entrenched in schools and society, so if this was all true, what could be done? How could critical literacy make an impact when a child’s expectations are determined on the day she or he enters kindergarten?
When Finn began to examine the historical perspective of critical literacy, things started to make more sense. It was particularly interesting to read about the Corresponding Societies and I began to consider the idea of education as being either liberating or domesticating. I understand that there was a time in history that education was used to domesticate, but could there still be such a hidden agenda in the world today? We teach our students to read and write, to navigate through web resources, solve problems, and examine media with a critical eye. We hold book talks, read rich literature (most of the time!), teach history and science and use portfolios to assess our students. This doesn’t seem domesticating to me. What else do I need to do in order for my students to be critically literate and open all the doors critical literacy promises?
I began to wonder if I am kidding myself and if I am really like the teacher who Finn describes on page 93: “It is not unusual for the same teacher to conduct a very progressive collaborative lesson with the top group and a very traditional, directive lesson with the bottom group.” Truthfully, at times I am sure I am. Perhaps I don’t feel the lower students can manage with a collaborative teaching style, and that they require more direction and structure. I am making an effort to monitor this and stop myself when I recognize it. However, not all educators have read this book and are considering their attitudes toward the elite, the working class, high achievers and low achievers. I would like to suggest that all education students should read Finn’s book, but I’m not sure it would have the same impact until you have had an opportunity to teach in schools and witnessed the manner we use with our students.
So what about real schools? Educators need to use curriculum to liberate students. We need to specifically teach school discourse. We need to overcome oppositional identities, make the curriculum something they can relate to and give them opportunities to have first hand experiences in their learning. We need to teach them not only to question their teachers and the world around them, but that they need to act as well. We need to create a safe, caring classroom community and treat all students equally. Most importantly “the students must want the knowledge ...badly enough to cooperate and work hard to get it.” What a challenge this is!
I recently had a “Freeway” experience. Late last May, word came down from our school superintendant that staff had to develop a “TLC”-teaching and learning cycle. Only a handful of teachers received release time to receive instruction on the process. We were told exactly what we needed to do: a baseline, develop lessons to teach to what we thought students required based on the data collected, and create rubrics to assess student performance and the success of our teaching and finish it in a few weeks. We became like the students Finn described in chapter 2 “.... engaged in relentless slowdowns, subtle sabotage, and other modes of indirect resistance...” The timing was bad- we were stressed enough with the end of the year work approaching. We heard that other principals were not asking their teachers to do this task, so we didn’t feel it was fair. Many did the TLC with little care or concern for validity and real teaching, and did not at all see the potential benefits to us or the students. Much like the students at Freeway, it was widely viewed as just another top down decision imposed by someone who had no connection to us or what we were doing every day. We were just happy it was done and over. This September, we learned that the TLC was here to stay. There was a different approach taken to re-introduce the process to us. All staff met to learn about the rationale behind the TLC (while we were meeting we discovered we didn’t even have the name right!). Our resource teacher explained to us the premise and we viewed a video by the Literacy and Numeracy Secretariat in which we heard Allen Luke and others speak to the advantages of this strategy for teachers and students. The mood of the staff after the meeting was much different than last May. While watching the video and listening to the presentation, we became more interested. While maybe not all of the staff was sold on the process, we could see that this was backed in research and knowledge and it could be valuable to us as teachers. We became more engaged and I personally wanted to visit the web site to learn more.
It’s clearly not enough to teach our students to read and write, and it is not enough for us to “have classrooms that “support the status quo”. We need to be aware of what our actions say about our beliefs and what they are saying to our students. It’s time to get an attitude!
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Synthesis Paper
After reading Literacy with an Attitude, a predominate theme appears to be that teaching our students to be literate is not enough. We need to operate real schools in order for students to become critically literate, and that it is the responsibility of the teacher to create this model. Finn states teachers need to move away from being a gate keeper (p.142) to providing real schools where the students will desire the knowledge the teacher has. Students will recognize that they can change their world and teachers can help them achieve that. Once they desire the knowledge, they will work hard to get it. (p.179)Only then the real school model will be in operation.
In the opening chapters Finn describes social class and the discrepancy of education that children are receiving in school based on social class. I found it difficult to imaging this and began to doubt Finn. After all, who could make such grandiose statements after teaching the “poor” in the public school system for 8 years? Just the term “gentry” made me feel that this had nothing to do with me. Does Canada even have gentry? I had difficulty believing that schools such as Roadville, Freeway and the Brownstones could be the rule rather than the exception. How could he possibly propose that social class is directly related to education in our schools? Isn’t there a much broader basis for social class? What could I, a Kindergarten teacher have to do with all this? When beginning to read this book, I wasn’t entirely sure I truly understood what critical literacy was. Finn took me on a journey which at times made me feel uncomfortable and hopeless, and at others excited about the possibilities of teaching in the real school form.
In chapter two, Finn discusses the differences Anyon found in the education children were experiencing in executive versus working class schools in America. He continues in the next few chapters to examine examples of other communities and schools that support the theory that the executive class are educated in a very different way than those children in the working class. By looking at communities such as Maintown, he illustrates the different ways parents teach their children and thus set the tone for their relationship with schools and teachers. Students such as the Lads and pupils at Freeway had a distinctly negative view of education. These students did not value education and school- they did not need it for what they saw for their future. They did not want the knowledge that the teachers had. Was that because they were not given opportunities to interact and learn in the same ways Anyon’s executive class did? Finn portrayed this discrepancy in as being entrenched in schools and society, so if this was all true, what could be done? How could critical literacy make an impact when a child’s expectations are determined on the day she or he enters kindergarten?
When Finn began to examine the historical perspective of critical literacy, things started to make more sense. It was particularly interesting to read about the Corresponding Societies and I began to consider the idea of education as being either liberating or domesticating. I understand that there was a time in history that education was used to domesticate, but could there still be such a hidden agenda in the world today? We teach our students to read and write, to navigate through web resources, solve problems, and examine media with a critical eye. We hold book talks, read rich literature (most of the time!), teach history and science and use portfolios to assess our students. This doesn’t seem domesticating to me. What else do I need to do in order for my students to be critically literate and open all the doors critical literacy promises?
I began to wonder if I am kidding myself and if I am really like the teacher who Finn describes on page 93: “It is not unusual for the same teacher to conduct a very progressive collaborative lesson with the top group and a very traditional, directive lesson with the bottom group.” Truthfully, at times I am sure I am. Perhaps I don’t feel the lower students can manage with a collaborative teaching style, and that they require more direction and structure. I am making an effort to monitor this and stop myself when I recognize it. However, not all educators have read this book and are considering their attitudes toward the elite, the working class, high achievers and low achievers. I would like to suggest that all education students should read Finn’s book, but I’m not sure it would have the same impact until you have had an opportunity to teach in schools and witnessed the manner we use with our students.
So what about real schools? Educators need to use curriculum to liberate students. We need to specifically teach school discourse. We need to overcome oppositional identities, make the curriculum something they can relate to and give them opportunities to have first hand experiences in their learning. We need to teach them not only to question their teachers and the world around them, but that they need to act as well. We need to create a safe, caring classroom community and treat all students equally. Most importantly “the students must want the knowledge ...badly enough to cooperate and work hard to get it.” What a challenge this is!
I recently had a “Freeway” experience. Late last May, word came down from our school superintendant that staff had to develop a “TLC”-teaching and learning cycle. Only a handful of teachers received release time to receive instruction on the process. We were told exactly what we needed to do: a baseline, develop lessons to teach to what we thought students required based on the data collected, and create rubrics to assess student performance and the success of our teaching and finish it in a few weeks. We became like the students Finn described in chapter 2 “.... engaged in relentless slowdowns, subtle sabotage, and other modes of indirect resistance...” The timing was bad- we were stressed enough with the end of the year work approaching. We heard that other principals were not asking their teachers to do this task, so we didn’t feel it was fair. Many did the TLC with little care or concern for validity and real teaching, and did not at all see the potential benefits to us or the students. Much like the students at Freeway, it was widely viewed as just another top down decision imposed by someone who had no connection to us or what we were doing every day. We were just happy it was done and over. This September, we learned that the TLC was here to stay. There was a different approach taken to re-introduce the process to us. All staff met to learn about the rationale behind the TLC (while we were meeting we discovered we didn’t even have the name right!). Our resource teacher explained to us the premise and we viewed a video by the Literacy and Numeracy Secretariat in which we heard Allen Luke and others speak to the advantages of this strategy for teachers and students. The mood of the staff after the meeting was much different than last May. While watching the video and listening to the presentation, we became more interested. While maybe not all of the staff was sold on the process, we could see that this was backed in research and knowledge and it could be valuable to us as teachers. We became more engaged and I personally wanted to visit the web site to learn more.
It’s clearly not enough to teach our students to read and write, and it is not enough for us to “have classrooms that “support the status quo”. We need to be aware of what our actions say about our beliefs and what they are saying to our students. It’s time to get an attitude!
After reading Literacy with an Attitude, a predominate theme appears to be that teaching our students to be literate is not enough. We need to operate real schools in order for students to become critically literate, and that it is the responsibility of the teacher to create this model. Finn states teachers need to move away from being a gate keeper (p.142) to providing real schools where the students will desire the knowledge the teacher has. Students will recognize that they can change their world and teachers can help them achieve that. Once they desire the knowledge, they will work hard to get it. (p.179)Only then the real school model will be in operation.
In the opening chapters Finn describes social class and the discrepancy of education that children are receiving in school based on social class. I found it difficult to imaging this and began to doubt Finn. After all, who could make such grandiose statements after teaching the “poor” in the public school system for 8 years? Just the term “gentry” made me feel that this had nothing to do with me. Does Canada even have gentry? I had difficulty believing that schools such as Roadville, Freeway and the Brownstones could be the rule rather than the exception. How could he possibly propose that social class is directly related to education in our schools? Isn’t there a much broader basis for social class? What could I, a Kindergarten teacher have to do with all this? When beginning to read this book, I wasn’t entirely sure I truly understood what critical literacy was. Finn took me on a journey which at times made me feel uncomfortable and hopeless, and at others excited about the possibilities of teaching in the real school form.
In chapter two, Finn discusses the differences Anyon found in the education children were experiencing in executive versus working class schools in America. He continues in the next few chapters to examine examples of other communities and schools that support the theory that the executive class are educated in a very different way than those children in the working class. By looking at communities such as Maintown, he illustrates the different ways parents teach their children and thus set the tone for their relationship with schools and teachers. Students such as the Lads and pupils at Freeway had a distinctly negative view of education. These students did not value education and school- they did not need it for what they saw for their future. They did not want the knowledge that the teachers had. Was that because they were not given opportunities to interact and learn in the same ways Anyon’s executive class did? Finn portrayed this discrepancy in as being entrenched in schools and society, so if this was all true, what could be done? How could critical literacy make an impact when a child’s expectations are determined on the day she or he enters kindergarten?
When Finn began to examine the historical perspective of critical literacy, things started to make more sense. It was particularly interesting to read about the Corresponding Societies and I began to consider the idea of education as being either liberating or domesticating. I understand that there was a time in history that education was used to domesticate, but could there still be such a hidden agenda in the world today? We teach our students to read and write, to navigate through web resources, solve problems, and examine media with a critical eye. We hold book talks, read rich literature (most of the time!), teach history and science and use portfolios to assess our students. This doesn’t seem domesticating to me. What else do I need to do in order for my students to be critically literate and open all the doors critical literacy promises?
I began to wonder if I am kidding myself and if I am really like the teacher who Finn describes on page 93: “It is not unusual for the same teacher to conduct a very progressive collaborative lesson with the top group and a very traditional, directive lesson with the bottom group.” Truthfully, at times I am sure I am. Perhaps I don’t feel the lower students can manage with a collaborative teaching style, and that they require more direction and structure. I am making an effort to monitor this and stop myself when I recognize it. However, not all educators have read this book and are considering their attitudes toward the elite, the working class, high achievers and low achievers. I would like to suggest that all education students should read Finn’s book, but I’m not sure it would have the same impact until you have had an opportunity to teach in schools and witnessed the manner we use with our students.
So what about real schools? Educators need to use curriculum to liberate students. We need to specifically teach school discourse. We need to overcome oppositional identities, make the curriculum something they can relate to and give them opportunities to have first hand experiences in their learning. We need to teach them not only to question their teachers and the world around them, but that they need to act as well. We need to create a safe, caring classroom community and treat all students equally. Most importantly “the students must want the knowledge ...badly enough to cooperate and work hard to get it.” What a challenge this is!
I recently had a “Freeway” experience. Late last May, word came down from our school superintendant that staff had to develop a “TLC”-teaching and learning cycle. Only a handful of teachers received release time to receive instruction on the process. We were told exactly what we needed to do: a baseline, develop lessons to teach to what we thought students required based on the data collected, and create rubrics to assess student performance and the success of our teaching and finish it in a few weeks. We became like the students Finn described in chapter 2 “.... engaged in relentless slowdowns, subtle sabotage, and other modes of indirect resistance...” The timing was bad- we were stressed enough with the end of the year work approaching. We heard that other principals were not asking their teachers to do this task, so we didn’t feel it was fair. Many did the TLC with little care or concern for validity and real teaching, and did not at all see the potential benefits to us or the students. Much like the students at Freeway, it was widely viewed as just another top down decision imposed by someone who had no connection to us or what we were doing every day. We were just happy it was done and over. This September, we learned that the TLC was here to stay. There was a different approach taken to re-introduce the process to us. All staff met to learn about the rationale behind the TLC (while we were meeting we discovered we didn’t even have the name right!). Our resource teacher explained to us the premise and we viewed a video by the Literacy and Numeracy Secretariat in which we heard Allen Luke and others speak to the advantages of this strategy for teachers and students. The mood of the staff after the meeting was much different than last May. While watching the video and listening to the presentation, we became more interested. While maybe not all of the staff was sold on the process, we could see that this was backed in research and knowledge and it could be valuable to us as teachers. We became more engaged and I personally wanted to visit the web site to learn more.
It’s clearly not enough to teach our students to read and write, and it is not enough for us to “have classrooms that “support the status quo”. We need to be aware of what our actions say about our beliefs and what they are saying to our students. It’s time to get an attitude!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)