So that was a nice Chapter where basically all you need to know is; don't be married to the curriculum and don't let it limit your teaching, or your students (and your) learning.
Right ... what else to say beyond that? Pretty pictures? What's interesting is that Ayers puts the curriculum and inquiry based learning as two opposing forces, two sides of a coin, when in reality, you can take a balanced approach that has both supplementing and supporting each other. The "Curriculum" is often criticized for being too rigid, focusing only on test scores, and limiting the learning potential of students. Yes, that can be true, but that's more a reflection of the school board, the province or governing body, and the values of education in a society. Our current curriculum, while heavily based in results, fundamentals and expectations, does allow for teachers to approach lessons in creative, intuitive ways. It's a road map, and how you reach the destination is a reflection of your pedagogy and philosophy as a teacher. And let's be honest, even if you are super rigid, even if you are an old school, nose to the books, rote learning kind of teacher, there are some students who will love that and benefit from it. Education, as Ayers points out over and over, is different for every student, and their needs are never going to be uniform. So we shouldn't just assume that creative, out of the box, progressive ideas are better, as just we shouldn't judge established practices as superior either. My guess is Ayers Curriculum chapter is designed to show alternatives or debunk some of the old stereotypes that might still linger in the corner of some schools. But effective teachers, regardless of what curriculum they are involved in, will find ways to impart that information in accessible, interactive and engaging ways.
0 Comments
The Lesser Blessed was a dark and probing film looking at the age old problems of teenage rebellion, trying to fit in, identity and being an outcast. However, this are all approached from the lens of a remote town in the Northwest Territories, and from the eyes of an Indigenous boy, Larry, with a dark past. The film has some powerful moments, such as when Jed describes the heartbreaking and tragic deaths of a hunter and his family, and the improbably cruelty involved. What the film is doing, which I applaud, is not only trying to shed light on some of the issues surrounding modern, current Indigenous youth, and how the tortures of being bullied, growing up and ostracized are compounded and magnified when you're ever further marginalized by society. It also shows a marked trend of bringing real funding and production value to Indigenous films and issues, something which mainstream media has not done much of in the past (except in extremely racist and biased ways). For those reasons I applaud the movie.
Based on the movie, characters and events itself, I have to admit, I was less than overwhelmed. The film seems too formulaic, too enamored of archetypes, which end up being fairly one dimensional and obvious. Yes Larry has more to him, and is tortured by demons, far more intelligent than one would first assume, and struggling to balance his Native background with modern teenage life, but these are fairly common themes in a lot of movies, just not from the Native perspective. Images in the movie, like the strict, stern, useless teacher, or the lone wolf when Larry is running away, are too simple and overused. I guess I really didn't like some of the hollywood spin or gloss added to the narrative, as I think it makes it blend in with the expected norms of how characters should act and be portrayed. In some ways the quality of the film, the presentation, makes the underlying themes and real message almost harder to appreciate and identify. One very intersting thing to note, when I looked the film up online, sources like IMDB did a terrible job of describing the film, and summed it up with one line descriptions like "A drama centered on a First Nations teenager trying to find his place in the modern world." That is quite a useless and ridiculous plot synopsis, and it makes me think they didn't even watch the film. Even if I didn't enjoy it, I feel that addressing some of the actual issues in the movie would be useful. It's almost as if because it's a Native themed movie, they dismissed it and just summarized it like it didn't have anything interesting to say. Similarly, wikipedia had things like this to say: "The film explores several typical teen issues, such as alienation and the search for one's own identity, but in this case from the perspective of a Tlicho Indian who struggles between his Native ancestry and finding his place in to the modern world." What it doesn't mention, if you look deeper, is the search by a young Native Canadian to find meaning and grounding in his traditions and culture, through the figure of Jed, to balance the chaos and uncertainty he faces everyday. Those are not simple teenage angst themes or problems, as being Indigenous in remote areas is an added complexity. I'm not going to lie, I didn't really see the point in having this movie in the course, as it shows, with less efficacy I believe, the same issues and themes we've already been introduced to from other sources. It wasn't a bad film, but from the perspective of a teacher candidate, I really didn't feel it added much, beyond the typical ineffective teacher, a school which displays Native art all over it, but doesn't use any of the teachings and values, and students who have exceptionally difficult lives who need real help and guidance. |
Archives
October 2016
Categories |