So reading through Ayers Chapter 3, on creating a classroom environment was interesting, and filled with a lot of wonderful ideas, and yeah ... yay? I don't know how much more I can say. I think the only real issue is when you get a classroom, what limitations, structures, budget, guidelines are you forced to deal with and how can you go from there? Making it engaging, warm, inviting, open, creative, unique, personalized, interesting, malleable, spontaneous, etc etc, are all wonderful. Sometimes I do wonder why our classrooms get progressively less interesting and more ordered as we age. I definitely was not any wiser/more organized as I grew up, and my methods of thinking, interests and personality are just as chaotic as when I was a child, so why not allow that to continue? A lot of this relates to a podcast that I really enjoy; and this particular episode (found here: Katy Says Nature School podcast) deals specifically with Nature School, where the guest, Katy Bowman, a prominent biomechanical engineer, sends her children. Her whole philosophy on life is incredibly interesting to me, and one of the aspects she deals with is returning to nature and living a holistic lifestyle that is aligned and well. The nature school her children attend actually teaches everything outside, no classrooms, and has the students out and interacting with nature ALL THE TIME (yes even taking a portable little potty with them for natures call :p). It's a pretty drastic change from our normal schools, but it definitely has HUGE benefits. Students are taught the same kinds of things, but instead of playing with colorful toys and sitting on a carpet, they are walking in a forest, counting berries or pine cones, and being engaged with real life. I'm definitely in love with the concept (I follow a lot of her cool ideas, or at least, try to) and would love to move my own teaching towards this kind of mentality. Chapter 3 from Hopkins, on the Five Key Themes for Creating the Restorative Classroom was also very interesting and very ... nice ... Not a lot I could disagree with on that end as well. I'm sure the biggest detractors for this type of class dynamic would point to time constraints, age/maturity level of students, and archaic arguments like "Well that's just not done!! That's not practical!" which don't hold any water.
What did interest me most, and which was not mentioned in any way, was how closely modeled this approach is on traditional forms of conflict resolution, especially those employed by tribes in Papa New Guinea and the surrounding Islands. I read a lot of incredible examples from Jared Diamond's amazing book "The World Until Yesterday" which analyzes indigenous peoples from around the world and identifies the lessons, practices and truths we can learn from them (and things that we shouldn't learn!) in contrast to our Westernized view of everything. It is a wonderful book, filled with incredible lessons, but like the restorative classroom, I'm sure that seeing it's lessons in practice is a truly humbling experience. Jared identifies that small tribes and communities, usually less than 200, do not use judge based or rights based conflict resolution strategies like we do, and people are not obsessed with wrongs being righted or the idea of "justice" being restored. Similar to what Hopkins outlines, questions such as "What do I need to move on from this?" are asked in community settings, with everyone having a unique voice, and from there, actions are decided upon in order to allow everyone to redevelop relationships and move on. No one demands retribution (well, I guess they could, but it's not common), and relationships are often mended and grief shared. There are of course downsides, such as generational grudges and inter-tribe warfare that can consume cultures. I'm guessing a lot of those issues could affect restorative classrooms as well. If students hold grudges and don't want to move on, you can't really force them. In a top down system, you can just have them swallow their pride and move on, arbitrarily assigning a sense of closure, which isn't possible in a restorative/tribe council type of way. I do think the emphasis on "harmonious" is a little too optimistic for me. Tension, conflicts and division are natural elements of being human, and more importantly, almost ALWAYS present in communities (at one time or another). Trying to expect them to be eliminated by any system is naive. Why not use them as an advantage? By focusing more on working relationships, rather than harmony, we can teach students to develop skills to cooperate and accept others, without it having to be perfect. Indigenous cultures often left relationships in an imbalance, and used them in the future for favors or trade, because they realized that imbalances in relationships were inevitable, and as long as they were working towards keeping a relationship, they could co-exist. I know the word "restorative" is getting a lot of airtime these days, and I wonder when exactly came into vogue, but I do like how Hopkins piece, and the related ideas behind Ayers, tie into age old customs and practices which have proven to be effective for centuries. I would love to find more ways in which traditional cultures and knowledge are reflected in our pedagogy and how we can implement other effective examples and techniques :)
0 Comments
Entre Les Murs
So coming into this movie I had some preconceived notions to deal with. One being that I've seen some other foreign films about education, and they never end well or have a nice warm feeling to them. Also, this was chosen for us as an assignment, so obviously it had some kind of value, purpose or lesson that we should take away from it. That being said, I did enjoy the movie, but probably for reasons which most people would have hated. The film starts with a seemingly positive beginning. Teachers bantering about, meeting each other and starting the new year off on a positive note. There is however an undertone of the coming problems, as teachers share tips on good or bad students, labeling and stereotyping them right from the beginning. Now, having known “good” and “bad” students, is this a negative thing? Shouldn't teachers share and learn from each others experiences? I guess if you use that to blind yourself and to dismiss students, then of course its bad, but I found myself in a difficult position, would I do that myself? Or would I dismiss those comments and be mature enough to enter the classroom with a blank slate? You also get the sense that there is a real tension with the teachers, and they see themselves as a group separate and opposed to the students. A real 'Us' vs 'Them' mentality seems to be emerging. As for Mr. Marin himself and his class, he seems to have his heart in the right place, but his methods and persona are a little hard to watch. He engages his students, and you can see he cares, he doesn't let them slack off, but he is also struggling to acknowledge them and feels threatened when his position as the 'Teacher' is challenged or threatened. Sarcasm, belittling them or singling students out are unfortunately staples of his teaching style. Again he is reinforcing the 'us' vs 'them' mentality, even though he does want them to succeed. This is where the real genius of the film is shown, as it creates this uncomfortable, icky feeling for the viewer, where you are torn between wanting to like Mr. Marin, wanting to fall into a nice, warm, fuzzy feel good movie plot where the teacher helps the poor ignorant inner city kids, but it doesn't let you. It allows you to identify with him, laugh sometimes, feel good, but then immediately pulls that away, and showcases how selfish, petty and strict Mr. Marin can be. The students are also not one dimensional characters, neither wide eyed, hopeful youth, nor hardened, heartless thugs. They're a wide mix of personalities and backgrounds which further confuses the situation. So what do we end up with? A real, complex, confusing, chaotic, sometimes wonderful, often difficult classroom, with a teacher who feels like he wants to help his students, wants to connect, but can't handle losing control or authority. Entre les murs literally means, between these (the) walls, and I guess most people would see it as a take on classrooms and schools, and seeing the life therein, however I feel the title relates much more profoundly to the idea of being stuck, of being pressed between two harsh realities, and not knowing how to deal with that. For the students, it's stuck between expectations, rules and the teachers, and trying to grow and develop and learn about themselves. For the teachers, it is being stuck between good intentions, wanting to help, and the reality of not knowing how to do that, having to follow the rules and curriculum, and being part of a large machine that you have no control over. Race, gender, social status, religion, these are all issues facing the students, teachers, everyone in the film, and they have to navigate those “walls” as well. When I found out that Mr. Marin is played by the actual author of the film, François Bégaudeau, and that his story is a reflection of his own experiences, my respect for the film definitely grew. Not because I thought he was an amazing teacher, but rather because I was impressed by how honest and realistic the story is. Mr. Marin loses control, shows his pettiness and lashes out at his students. He is human, and it takes A LOT for a teacher to not only recognize those flaws, but to put them on display. He targets the students, harbors genuine malice towards some of them, and even though he wants to help, cannot put their needs above his own. Even with those faults, he represents a kind of middle ground and compromise in the teaching staff, as we see other teachers breakdown, lash out and completely attack the students. The pressure and strain of teaching at this school are real, and very palpable. Even the other teachers who seem to have it under control are really only using coping mechanisms, distancing themselves from the students, or relying on the rules and regulations to admonish them of responsibility. The atmosphere and situation is quite toxic and negative. The school community is dominated by their obsession with punishment and respect. Students are forced to act in a way deemed acceptable by the staff, treating them as beyond the laws that apply to the students, and to accept judgment as something beyond reproach. All infractions must be punished and this clearly sets some students on the road for disaster. Even cases where merit is earned, the encouragement is strictly related to performance and grades, with no exceptions or efforts made to reward poorly performing students for their efforts. Mr. Marin seems to want to reform this and allow at risk students a chance to participate, but that gets lost in the day to day battle he conducts in class. Sadly, as I'm sure is the case in a lot of schools, solving the issue with punishment and teacher mentality is given less priority than the coffee machine in the staff room. Perhaps the most bizarre scene of the film was the teacher discussion (with student reps) of the students, comparing notes and determining which students require punishment or not. In what world is it a good idea to tear into and insult students in front of their classmates, allowing them to take notes and report on it? Why would you even want other students present at that kind of a meeting? Are there no issues with student confidentiality? I just found this ridiculous and hopefully not what's really used. Allowing teachers to openly smear or praise students in front of other staff and students is incredibly damaging and intolerant. Another interesting point brought out at this meeting was the notion of what a teachers duty is. While Mr. Marin is trying to advocate for Souleymane to not be punished, another teacher counters with: “Our job is not to let them sit at the back and not cause waves. It's to bring them out.” This idea shocked me, as I can't imagine any teacher not seeing their primary and driving goal and raison d'être to be educating their students and providing a safe environment. Why would it be any teachers job to bring out the bad students? We are not police. We are not there to weed out the bad kids. How can any teacher defend such a view? It made me sad to see how this mentality would continue to influence the rest of the film and play such a key role in Souleymane's destiny. The major incident scene in the film was like watching a train wreck in slow motion. You had the sense that this was going to end badly, and it quickly escalated out of control. Again, the director deserves credit for creating such a tense, chaotic and natural scene. I would assume that many people would blame Mr. Marin for lashing out, saying such a clearly inappropriate and offense term, and then trying to justify it, taking it out on Souleymane. I don't want to defend him, but I can see how natural his response and anger were. He was actually defending Souleymane throughout that meeting, trying to fight for his future, saying that he displayed real talent and skill, if given the chance. That the two girls would completely blindside him, and take his comments out of context must have been a real stab in the back. And like any normal person, he reacted poorly. He became defensive. His very motives were undermined and his authority clipped, so he lashed out and tried to reassert himself, to save face, to retain power. And of course he lost that very thing. He even knows what he is doing is wrong, but he cannot overcome his own ego, his own shame, and gets pulled deeper into the ground. I really feel for his character because I have lashed out at students before (not physically, and not as badly, but I did call some girls spoiled brats for picking on a poorer classmate and being just terrible), and I knew as soon as the words came out of my mouth how wrong I was, and how out of control I was. And then you immediately go into damage control mode. You back peddle, you try and save face, try to regain control, but unfortunately, as a teacher, you can't take those things back. Even during the hearing, you can see that he wants to defend Souleymane, and give him another chance, but doing so undermines his own position and career, and he remains silent, remains safe. Is it admirable? Of course not. Would I be brave enough to act differently? I hope I don't have to find out. (Also, why was the vote secret ballot?!? That's crazy! A students future is at stake, and you don't have to justify or stand behind your votes? That is ridiculous, I think that student has a right to know exactly who is voting for what, and why.) Finally, perhaps the most moving and interesting part of the film was the final sequence, where one of Mr. Marin's students stays behind, after everyone has shared what they have learned, and confesses she has not learned anything. This is an incredibly powerful scene because she is not just commenting on the French class, nor her tests and homework and lessons. What she is really saying, what these words “I don't understand what we do. I didn't learn anything.” really means is that this school is failing her. The school, the system, the purpose of education in France, it is failing the people who need it the most. She cuts to the core of the big questions we are struggling with in class right now, what is education? Who decides what it is for? How do we teach? What do we teach? What do students need to know? How do we judge them, assess them, value them? All of those questions, to her, they are not being answered, not being addressed. She spent the whole year in the background, on the fringes, watching, but not being taught, not learning, nothing. She came out the same way she came in, just a cog being pushed through. She feels her future is already set, her destiny predetermined; “I don't want to go to vocational school.” She see's that she has no future, no choices, no hope. It's heartbreaking. That is the reality of soo many students. Stuck between those walls, sitting at a desk, just being pushed through. This is what made the movie so powerful to me, it didn't answer any of my questions, it didn't resolve anything. It left a flawed, sometimes well meaning teacher, no wiser, no better, and a class of students, a little older, just moving forwards on a predetermined path, hopefully feeling like they earned something, but really, just pieces of a puzzle. And so, I guess I return to try and summarize and piece together my own chaotic emotions after watching the film. There was a lot more in it that I would love to discuss, but this is what I'll stick to for now. It's hard. It does not make me look forward to being a teacher. And it definitely does not make me think I could do any better. It worries me and makes me question myself. It's unsettling. But unsettling can be good. Comfort is a demon and a siren that is much too dangerous. This movie makes me want to be a better teacher, and even more so, makes me want to learn what a better teacher means. 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 ;)
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 |