So I got tired of typing, and trying to write notes while reading "To Teach: the journey, in comics" by William Ayer, just didn't seem to make sense. So here are some of my thoughts, ramblings, nonsense that I jotted down along the way, and some fun doodling. I hope the file sizes are big enough so you can read the writing, if not, please just pretend like it's interesting and intelligent ;)
0 Comments
This response is to the Beverly-Jean Daniel piece, "Reimagining the Urban: A Canadian Perspective." and for anyone not in my class, you can find the original article here:
I found the entire piece quite hard to respond to for a multitude of reasons. Firstly, I have my own experiences growing up in rural, suburban and urban schools, as well as a host of friends who went through similar situations. Second, the article touches on A LOT of BIG issues regarding classification of schools/society, judging and labeling students, socio-economic issues surrounding race, gender, education, status, etc. And third, part of me wanted to rebel against some of the things she proposed and illustrated, and I'm having a hard time reconciling what is a knee jerk contrarian reaction, and what is a genuine disagreement on my part. Because of how much is going on in this article, my response is going to get pretty messy. Starting with what I agree with, I do believe that Daniel's presents credible data, examples and reasons for the problems with classifications of "urban" areas over suburban ones, as well as the hangups and misconceptions that follow those inner city schools and communities. She does a very good job of identifying key factors that lead to the systematic cycle of these areas, how they are deprived of mechanisms which would allow them, the students, and the community at large to exit their problems, or also, how those who are able to leave, simply move to suburban areas, taking away resources, business opportunities and investments. It's no secret that the overall state of government funding, initiatives and level of interest is not meeting the requirements of impoverished communities, and they are being left behind on all levels; education, social support, economic planning, development, etc. These are all factors and influences that are obvious to anyone living within those systems. Growing up, I moved from a purely rural school in Caledon, filled with either local farm children, or middle class kids bused in, to a suburban/urban middle school, with a strong mix of diverse backgrounds (I was in French immersion, so many students were brought in from surrounding areas), to a very ethnically rich and immigrant heavy high school, right in the urban center of Bramalea. I had friends from white, middle class families, who's biggest problems were where to buy pot or how to spend their allowance, to friends whose parents didn't speak English, were picked on because of their ethnic food and clothes, and got dragged into gang violence. None of us needed someone to explain the intricacies or boundaries of suburban or urban life, we saw those boundaries everyday and were forced to live with them. Of course, at face value, our school and students were a multicultural community, and no one supported racism. But racism was front and center in every aspect of daily life at school, from the hallways were only 'brown' kids could hang out, or parts of the playground and parking lot where you'd get jumped for wearing the wrong clothes, and to the gangs that spread through the surrounding housing complexes, racism was not only a constant reality, but also crucial to understand if you wanted to make it through the day. I don't agree with the portrayal Daniels hints at when she says most pre-service teachers were shocked by their initial misconceptions about urban schools, and how much the American media played into the imagery of danger and high risk students. Yes I believe that most western media further entrenches racial and class bias, but I also have first hand experience with what really happens in an inter city school. I had a friend who was stabbed to death behind my middle school. Close friends beaten, stabbed and shot various times throughout and all around my high school and I saw the increase in drug use, traffic, gang violence and hate crimes. These weren't misconceptions perpetrated by media, these were realities, usually young people taking advantage of imbalanced and chaotic relationships in the community. And they go hand in hand with the wonderful teachers, and incredible friends I had at the same time. I don't think anything should be downplayed or explained away, and that you should take each school, student body and community on an individual basis. I disagreed with some of Daniels points on the actual physical construction of educational spaces, schools, community housing, etc. While some of the factors do make some sense, there are also practical reasons why suburban schools are often more open, inviting and modern. Space is limited in developed downtown areas, and building brand new buildings that implement a sense of openness are often impractical. Also, most were built in the 50's, 60's and 70's, and reflect the architectural style and design of that time. As the suburbs move ever outwards, they have undeveloped open land to work on, possibilities of real urban planning for things like space, and the schools are new. The older "prison" style schools need not be seen in that light, especially since there are positive aspects that can be stressed, like the history and community of that school, which new suburban schools can't draw upon, and also the closeness of the student body, so they can be more involved.
Finally, I was happy to see the reference to Shadd's work on exposing the myth of Canadian multiculturalism and racial harmony. I think Daniel's is quite accurate in underlying that we aren't a egalitarian social mosaic, but rather feel compelled to promote that image and live up to our high minded ideals, without changing any of the realities on the ground. I was exposed to a lot of these principles and the history through a class on African Canadian history at UofT, and these notions of hidden racism and their lasting effects was eye opening. This echoes the points Daniels makes (of course much more nuanced than my summary), but I do want to maybe challenge her to provide methods for changing that hidden racism. Simply stating that it's an issue doesn't move us close enough to changing the paradigm of being one big "happy family", as so many of us teachers want to be. I also want to follow up on such things as the Afrocentric school in Toronto and what kind of results/impact it is having since it's inception. I guess to wrap it all up, Daniels presents a very compelling summary, exposition and discussion on issues very close to me, and issues which frankly should be front and center in Canadian society, not just in the realm of education. However, where do we go from acknowledging all of this? What is the next step, not in talking about it, but in direct action. She mentions the qualities and philosophies needed for new, adaptable and effective leaders, but I found her call to arms a little too abstract. Yes, we need to be sensitive and aware of racial/social/economic/gender issues, and everything else, but where does that take our teaching style, lesson planning, conflict resolution skills, and everything else involved with teaching. Maybe I'm asking a lot to be shown for the first week of classes, and the first reading. I'm hoping these issues will be tackled in greater detail, not just in a "share our feelings" kind of way, but developing tools and resources to clearly delineate right and wrong, and how much of the grey area we can wade through. Sorry for rambling so much, I know a lot of this was just relating my experiences, but it was a hard article to stay on topic with, and way too many important issues to ignore. Thanks ~Peter “Where do I belong?” - a response to Cynthia Chambers piece, submitted to the Journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Curriculum Studies, February 2006. ( is the original document so that anyone outside of our class can read it and follow my response:)
I felt a definite reaction to Cynthia Chambers reflection and thoughts on the Canadian identity, how she interprets being Canadian, and the role it plays in today's society, specifically for those who are marginalized or under represented. I admit her style and presentation meanders quite a bit with her allusions to her past, memories and experiences, and initially it left me impatient and close minded. However, as I try to sort out my own thoughts and reactions, I now I realize they form a vital part of her argument, and that very presentation of past events IS her argument. I'll preface the rest of my comments that their entirely my opinion, based solely upon things I've observed, and I will speak in generalities, and I hope not to offend anyone by making sweeping statements.
While Canada to many is a relatively young country, it seems even younger and harder to define for families comprised mostly of recent immigrants. This is the overwhelming majority in most urban centers and larger cities. My own parents are both first generation Canadians, and our sense of history within Canada and identity doesn't stretch much further than my living memory. Canada is unique among most developed countries, not just because of how multicultural we are becoming, but rather because we are an increasingly multicultural country built upon a tradition and history celebrated and defined mostly by recent European immigrants (recent as in the past two or three hundred years). The structures, the communities, history and cultural norms stretch only as far back as early settlers, French and British colonialists, (and later ethnic groups like Irish, Germans, Italians, etc) which is a very weak connection for most current Canadians. Our common values, symbols and places of congregation hold no ties to older communities, specifically those of the indigenous peoples of Canada. Countries in Europe, Asia, and other parts of the world have a visible connection to their identity as traced through history, whereas ours is a transplanted image, a vision crafted almost overnight by the whims of the people who took control of what is now Canadian land. I'm not trying to wade into those murky waters of reconciliation and the wrongs done to Canada's indigenous peoples, I'm not qualified and to be honest, I'm ignorant on the intricacies therein. But I do know that our superficial knowledge of those issues, of the realities lived by people like Cynthia Chambers, shows the very nature of the Canadian identity. It is something we collectively chose and fashion based upon the whims of the majority of the people who are entitled to have a voice, and that identity washes out and sometimes even erases those of the other real Canadians, the people who are pushed and shoved to the sides, or separated, dissected and rewritten as we see fit. Cynthia Chambers form of Canadian identity could not be expressed in any other way than a personal history. Her identity cannot be exemplified by one historic treaty, or symbol, or leader, or cause, because the reality for people in her situation, is that their identity was molded, dictated and imposed by what 'we' felt Canadian should be. Now the real importance of her experience and what it shows about being Canadian is that as a Nation we are obsessed with being politically correct and “welcoming” to everyone. Or at least, we are obsessed with keeping that public perception alive and well. Her warning for us not to gloat just yet comes a little late, as most Canadians, especially internationally, see themselves as models for multicultural integration and human rights. I was taught, all throughout school and into University, about how inclusive we all were, how great Canadian culture and traditions were and how special we are. Of course we should be fostering attitudes of integration and equality among students and children, and try to approach differences in a positive, welcoming environment, however telling everyone how great we are at it does breed a kind of willful blindness among ourselves. But of course while all that was going on, there was definitely intense racism and classism going on throughout all my classes and with students. It really wasn't children from African or African-American families that were being targeted anymore, it was either rural children being picked on by urban/suburban students from wealthier families, or newer immigrants, South Asian mostly, Pakistani, Indian and Sri Lankan, who were being attacked, ridiculed and ostracized by everyone else. But I never thought of us as racists, or mean, or even bullies, because in class, we all stated how much we accepted everyone, and new people were all equal, but on the playground, that was never the case. And so, what I see, through Chamber's piece, and throughout my own experiences in schools in rural Caledon, or an inter city school like Bramalea Secondary, is an identity that is only visible as the vast majority of Canadians with a voice and with entitlement create, and that for the rest of the people who are not represented, they have to exist with a transient, almost oral identity that only comes into being when someone stops and reads about their reality, about their experiences and gives it merit. Which is an entirely offensive situation and idea. Alright, I'm getting a little worked up on this, and I've definitely strayed off topic and gone on a tangent, but I am trying to wrap things up. I feel in some ways all I really did was poorly summarize her points that she illustrated in her conclusion, so I will add one thing. While I feel that this whole notion of a Canadian identity needs to be seriously reworked, and taken down from the images we've selected as “Canadians” while disregarding important elements of our history and peoples, I do feel that it doesn't mean we have to ignore what has been selected, or ignore the new, incoming influences, cultures, peoples and views. I think the settlers and recent immigrants are integral parts of this nations history, I just think they control a disproportional amount of the Canadian identity and modern reality. I also feel that new members to Canadian society are not being presented with a nuanced understanding of how our country was developed, how it evolved to the point where it is now, and what options there are for the future, for better or worse. We have a reluctance as Canadians to critically assess ourselves and really open those painful or shameful elements to daylight. As a final note, I wonder how Cynthia's perspective has changed in the past decade, with everything that's continued to happen in Canadian politics and how the world is shifting globally. Would love to see a follow up piece by her and see if she rethinks anything she's said, or has developed those ideas further. |
Archives
October 2016
Categories |