fairness ≠ sameness!

I have strong feelings about the theme in week 5, sameness as fairness. Throughout all of our readings this week, I couldn’t help but think of a class I took last semester with MaryAnn Brittingham. In this class we addressed the topic of sameness as fairness. Often as teachers we here students crying “That’s not fair!” What do we respond with? Johnny gets more time on a test than Brittany and Brittany is clear in stating that this is inequitable. Is it? I certainly don’t think so. In order for both students to be successful, for both students to have a FAIR chance at the test, Johnny needs a little bit more time than Brittany. This is not unfair; this is, in reality, making it FAIR.

Let’s look at an example provided in my textbook “Respectful Discipline” by MaryAnn Brittingham. Say for example, I decided to be nice and bought everyone a pair of shoes in the same size. They are all getting the same size shoes but is this fair? Clearly, sameness does not equal fairness. “Students believe that fair means treating everyone equal or the same. This is not true. In fact, this is the most unfair thing a teacher can do to a student” (Brittingham, 35).

The aspect that I really enjoyed about Brittingham’s class was that she addressed ways to deal with a student complaining about something being “not fair”. Brittingham suggest teaching your students about need vs. want. Educators give students what they need, not always what they want. Brittingham also recommends that teachers help students understand invisible handicaps. Just because one can’t see a handicap, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.

The lesson in Brittingham’s class perceptibly has a lot in common with our reading for week 5. Purcell-Gates, on page 126 writes that “Children from economically stressed home had less knowledge of written language and how reading and writing work than children from more middle class homes.” Additionally, “Students with more literacy background were most active learners and most successful readers at the end of first grade.” So how can we treat everyone the same and expect that to be fair? Each individual may be on a completely different academic level. By treating them all the same, they will not get the educational techniques to help them, as individuals, succeed.

“The experiences they have as young children are culturally driven” (Purcell-Gates, 128). This is also worth noting. Children in public schools come from many different backgrounds and cultures. We are in a society today where, as seen in the Gutierrez article, educators are trying to treat the students as if they all have the same heritage which is simply not the case. We are robbing these children of their identity because we think that it is fair to treat them all in the same way. Maybe we do this because “if we assume a problem is due to a deficit, it is easier to write them off” (Purcell-Gates, 129). Is it possible that teachers are plainly looking for the easy way out – a simple way to get through the day? I think that this is the case. For these teachers – you shouldn’t be teaching. Teaching should be a passion; it should be a field dedicated to those that want to help the underprivileged, the ones that get ‘written off’. Educators should not give students ‘permission to fail’ like the teacher we saw in Ladson-Billings chapter on page 110.

Remember that Carter Forshay, again in Ladson-Billings chapter in The Skin That We Speak, found a way to relate to his students and by doing so, they were all able to be successful in writing a wonderful story. The important thing here is that Carter acknowledged that these students were different from them, from a different walk of life. Carter realized that he would need to find a way to relate to them, and so he looked to their backgrounds – what was important to them. By realizing that there are differences between him and most of his students, he was able to teach effectively. This is another example of how treating students DIFFERENTLY is fair.

Also, I think we need to take a look at the fact that Carter Forshay never once blamed his students or made them feel stupid for not wanting to write. Instead, he questioned his own teaching methods. Every teacher can learn from this. If students aren’t learning, you can’t blame it on them – you need to do something differently! Try taking a look at the students as individuals rather than treating them all the same!

While reading chapter 16 in Adolescent Literacy by Yvette Jackson and Eric J. Cooper, I was hit by a shocking fact: 7,000 students drop out of school daily in the United States. These students are more likely than not to be students of color, poverty, male, and they have most likely failed at least one grade. In addition, they probably read at levels that are below their peers (243). Perhaps this is due to the fact that we are simply passing these students on. How many teachers are really taking the time to question their own practices and alter them so they fit the needs of each individual? I am strong in my beliefs that if we do not treat students as the individuals the are, if we simply clump them together and think the all learn the same, there will be way fewer success stories than there could be.

There is an example in chapter 16 of Adolescent Literacy. On page 247, we read that "textbooks are loaded with technical content language that leaves students feeling overwhelmed and dumb". Teachers know this but have a fear that by not assigning textbook readings, they will fall further behind. Needless to say, if the text is at a level that is too difficult for the students, they will not read it. "Too often tis is interpreted as students not learning which isn't the case" (Jackson & Cooper, 247). Other times, teachers leave the books on the shelf and lower their expectations of the class - providing them with easier worksheets and easier readings.

So what then is the answer? Do we leave the books on the shelf so the students do their work? Or do we force the students to struggle through a reading that may make no sense to them when they are done anyways? I think the answer is to "start with high expectations" (Jackson & Cooper, 247). Instead of worrying about what needs to be taught, educators need to worry about the teaching strategies that will maximize the learning of the students. We need to make the adolescents feel smart again. The only way to do this is to treat them as individuals, to see that they are all different and to know that is okay.

The only fair classroom is one in which each students are treated differently in order to succeed on their own terms.

Do Standardized Tests Truly Measure How Well Our Kids Perform In School? - Katie Couric

Although this post is from 2007, when No Child Left Behind (NCLB) was up for renewal, it still gives everyone a lot to think about today. Katie Couric raises the question "Do standardized tests truly measure how well our kids perform in school?" As educators, I am sure that your first response is "yes! That's why we give them!" But take another look at this question.

"High stakes testing has forced teachers to teach to the test, giving schools an excuse to cut civics and art classes because they aren't a part of the tests" (Youtube: Couric).  By "teaching to the test" our students are simply "learning" what they need to learn in order to be successful on the assessment. Most students don't even remember this information a couple months after they "learned" it. I put "learning" in quotations because this raises another question as to what it means for students to truly learn. This can make a direct connection to the chapter we read in Adolescent Literacy, "The Essence of Understanding" by Ellin Oliver Keene. In this chapter, Keene explains that students learn from teachers that understanding means "remembering the facts long enough to answer questions, complete a project, or score well on a test" (Keene, 31). Unfortunately, you and I both know that understanding is something much richer and more complex than that. All too often, teachers settle, and then the students do too.

With that said, let's go back to the YouTube video. Taking another dive into Couric's question: "Do standardized tests truly measure how well our kids perform in school?, there is a lot to be said. First off, lets note that many art programs are being cut because they are seen as unimportant in relation to the testing. So why have art, music, theatre, etc? They won't get students anywhere because it won't help them perform better on the test - right? WRONG. These arts can be extremely beneficial to students and should not be cut out of school funding simply because students don't get tested on these skills.

Furthermore, one standardized tests can't be the sole predictor in whether or not a student performs well in school. A particular student can have test anxiety, can be of a different background in which the test may be unknowingly biased against, or the student can be simply having a bad day. The huge emphasis we place on standardized testing, in many conditions, is ridiculous.

All of this ties into our discussion for week four, "we still have no real way of knowing if students are learning" (Tuck). Our readings from this week also solidify my response above. I will begin with a quote from Carani, "Children who don't learn according to plan or who don't fit the picture are given the 'gift of time' or 'special services' to meet their 'individual needs'" (Carani, 169). Thus, there is no way to know if a student is making progress because these students with special services, or extended time, get placed in a category in which they are expected to meet the AYPs, like everyone else, but there are so many different expectations for all levels of people. Due to the standardized tests, these students with extra services are to meet a certain expectation and when they don't, educators and administration see them as failures. Do most educators really take the time to see that although these students may not have reached the goal that was set, they still made remarkable progress? No. Many teachers see that they were short of the goal, and the "invisible child" is formed. The child in which is reduced to a single letter or number grade.

In addition, Carani says "Things must be given a change to present themselves as they are, to be perceived in their individuality (Carani, 170). This statement means that students should be given opportunities to express their knowledge in ways that are for them. So, maybe one reason we have no real way of knowing if students are learning is simply because us teachers are not using effective teaching strategies or techniques that can help the students to succeed.

My favorite quote from this weeks reading is again from Carani: "When the immeasurable isn't recognized or valued, it tends to slip from view" (Carani, 175). All of the things that we can't measure, honesty, organization, self esteem, patriotism, etc. go unnoticed. While a child can be learning skills that will forever be of benefit to them, no one recognizes this because this characteristics are not specifically measured on the standardized tests.

Another reading from this week, chapter six of The Skin That We Speak, "Language, Culture, and the Assessment of African American Children" by Asa G. Hilliard III, raises the question "How can the assessment process be purified so as to operate in the service of African American children rather than against them?" (Hilliard, 91). Very often, standardized tests are unintentionally geared towards whites. The publishers of these tests forget about people of minority and so these people are at a disadvantage, on almost every test. It may be due to the fact that these students haven't been exposed to the same experiences, or they are unfamiliar with the language, or certain words, but either way, it is completely unfair for these students to start out with a disadvantage. "Mass produced standardized professional tests and materials are ill suited to the needs of most African American children, in part because certain false assumptions are made about th children and their culture" (Hilliard, 91).

 In Chapter 17 of Adolescent Literacy, "Thinking Through Assessment", the authors write that there is "a mismatch in what teachers know the state assessments should do (measure individual students growth over time) and what state assessments actually do (measure one group against another from year to year)" (Brenner, Pearson, Rief, 258). Again, making the point that teachers have no clue if an individual is making progress, all educators know is whether or not the students are doing well enough to meet their goals. Students are once again being reduced to a number/letter grade and their individuality is lost.

So, we go back to the original question: "Do standardized tests truly measure how well our kids perform in school?" I don't think so. After all this reading, it has become quite obvious that there are gaps in our education system. Will you stand up for your beliefs or will you become one of the teachers that "teaches to the test"? Remember, all students are individuals and should be treated this way.

Neoliberalism

 Throughout our reading this week, I realized how prevalent No Child Left Behind really is in the teaching world. It seems as though everything that a teacher does is centered around NCLB and meeting the states AYP goals. In our reading, Pauline Lipman writes, on page 45, "The federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law that is driving education policy in the United States has all the hallmarks of the neoliberalism agenda. Apple also points out that NCLB is a prime example of neoliberalism. I have found that a majority of our readings throughout the course have been related to NCLB and the effects that this law has on public education.

Lipman states that "opening up public education to competition through privatization and the market is the ultimate neoliberal solution" (Lipman, 46). Neoliberals feel as though "public schools are failing our children as future workers, but like nearly all public institutions they are sucking the financial life out of this society" (Apple, 38). I can't believe that people can think this about public education. Neoliberalists think that all money that is put into schools should be directly related to bettering the economy. While I do agree that schools should teach the skills needed to compete efficiently and effectively in the workforce, there are other things that schools need money for that may not be directly related to bettering the economy.

Take sports teams for example, and the money that is necessary to maintain such a team. Students learn valuable knowledge from being on these teams. They learn about others (and to accept differences), they learn to share, to be good role models, to work hard, and possibly leadership skills, among many other. Does this mean that each person on a soccer, football, basketball, bowling, golf team should be denied of these opportunities because it is not directly leading to a bettering of the economy? On these teams, each of these individuals is not learning how to be a great doctor, lawyer, computer scientist or architect. So then, neoliberalists say, no money should be put into such "black holes" (Apple, 38).  These students are learning many other things, but not specifically how to be successful in a particular occupation so should we then take away the money that funds these teams?

These beliefs to me are asinine. How can one claim that "any money spent on schools that is not directly related to these economic goals is suspect"? (Apple, 38). This again goes back to NCLB. Some people place such a strong emphasis on meeting the AYP goals. Thus, many districts buy packages that swear by helping students improve and meeting their AYP standards. Thus, a private company makes money because public schools are "failing". Many similar instances occur such as the Channel One instance that Apple speaks of on page 42. Channel One, a for-profit, private television network offered a "free" satellite dish, two VCRs, and television monitors for every classroom. In exchange, the school had to sign a 3 to 5 year contract stating that the students would watch Channel One every day. In addition, the students were also forced to watch the mandatory advertisements. Furthermore, the technology was "hardwired" so that only Channel One could be received. In this case, again, public schools are being taken advantage of by private corporations. These public schools only want what is best for their students, but in exchange they get conned into things like this.

When neoliberalists claim that "what is private is necessarily good and what is public is necessarily bad", I couldn't disagree more. Public facilities offer people with many great opportunities. Neoliberalists could quite possibly just want everything to be privatized because that would mean more money!

"No Language or Dialect is Inherently Superior or Inferior to Any Other" - Stubbs

    The concept of multiple literacies opens many doors in the field of education. After reading the articles assigned this week, I became much more informed about multiple literacies. As educators, we need to embrace the fact that our students may have many literacies and use that to our advantage. We can use this as an opportunity to get to know more about each other and learn more about the culture of others.

    We must remember that learning English literacy may be difficult for some whose first language is not English. In Chapter 8 of Adolescent Literacy, Danling Fu states that “ELLs need more specific instruction in language skills and more systematic help in developing their English proficiency (listening, speaking, reading, writing)” (Aguilar, Fu, Jago, 106). It is up to us to provide the basic skills that ELLs need to succeed in English literacy.

    Additionally, it is vital that we understand that just because we are teaching students to be literate in English doesn’t mean that we should expect them to use English all the time. Haneda writes that “outside school, adolescent ELLs strategically and agentively use literacy for their own personal purposes to express their personal feelings and opinions, seek and exchange information, maintain and develop social relations, construct desirable identities for themselves, act as language brokers for the family, and improve their English (Haneda, 340). Furthermore, Haneda states that when home and school literacy boundaries are blurred, school learning increases. We educators need to get to know each and every student and their literacies to allow them to prosper with English literacy. I think that Haneda summarized the importance of understanding each student’s backgrounds by saying “it is essential that educators reexamine their own assumptions of what being literate means in order to create opportunities that enable students to master a wide range of literacy practices with which they can shape their future in a rewarding and responsible manner” (Haneda, 343).

    I see many exciting ideas in the works when we consider multiple literacies. I can envision a classroom like Baker’s in “Trilingualism”, where each student learns English literacy but does so in a way that they don’t lose a sense of their identity. In this classroom, Baker understands that students need to learn English literacy but also allows them, at times, to use their own literacy. I think that this will make the students feel like they all belong and in turn, will increase their motivation and knowledge. Also, others will be able to learn more about the students in their class. By increasing awareness of other cultures, a little at a time, maybe one day our society will be one that does not judge, and does not expect everyone to be the same, but a culture that embraces each other’s differences.

    When considering that multiple literacies exist, we need to treat them as equal literacies, some are just more appropriate in specific situations. In Chapter 5 of The Skin We Speak, Stubbs states that “linguists have accepted that no language or dialect is inherently superior or inferior to any other” (Stubbs, 70). With this said, in any classroom, we need to make it known that each literacy is equally important.
   
    If every educator takes the readings from this week and applies them to their classroom, America can be a place that accepts every one, especially people like A.M. Baggs, (Youtube video: “In My Language”) without hesitation and judgement.

    I did some reading online and to end my blog, I will leave you with a quote from Susan Rich Sheridan’s Theory of Multiple Literacies (www.marksandmind.org): “human literatices are multiple and varied, interdependent and equivalent, related and necessary.”