Hard Candy Christmas

that is what this year is gonna be....a hard candy christmas, as dolly would say. it is going to be lonely and depressing. everything is changing. even the family traditions that i thought would never change are changing. the biggest day of the year for our family is christmas eve, and my brother isn't even going to be there for it. things are getting moved around and new people are entering our sacred holiday. not sacred in a religious way cause, let's face, we are NOT a religious family. i mean sacred in a "this is what our family has been doing since before i can remember" kind of way. i know that is what happens when everyone grows up and moves on....but it wasn't supposed to happen to christmas. that was never supposed to change.......

i'll be fine and dandy...lord it's like a hard candy christmas....i'm barely getting through tomorrow....but still i won't let sorrow bring me way down.

4am in the City that Never Sleeps

So 4am on a monday night in new york city is not as exciting as most people who don't live here would like to believe. mostly, those people who are up are those of us who can't sleep. it is quite where i am. queens is not quite as loud and unsleeping as manhattan. it is lonely and cold. even if i could think of something to do, i wouldn't want to leave my apartment. it is depressing and scary outside at this time of night/morning. but staying in is not better. with school over and a week before i head home for the holidays, there isn't much to do. so i sit watching movies with characters in them i could never be. that is my life these days. school just ended...it is horrible that i am looking forward to the end of january when i will have a focus again?

Response for 12/1

What is patriotism? This is, I believe, the underlying argument in the articles for this section. It is only through answering this question that we can begin to teach it in our classrooms. But my question is, Is there are "right" kind of patriotism? There are obviously what some people consider "bad" or "wrong" kinds of patriotism, like the blind patriotism mentioned in the Kahne and Middaugh article. But no one seems to agree on what the "right" kind of patriotism is, or if there even is a "right" kind. The Kahne and Middaugh article seems to come the closests to actually telling us how to teach patriotism in the classroom, but even their explanation is a bit confusing. Apparently we are supposed to help foster our students' "love of country" by teaching them about democratic ideals, but at the same time lead them to question the actions of the country that they are supposed to be loving. Now of course I understand that it is possible to love this country AND question it at the same time, but I am not sure if even high school students would be able to see this distinction. Mitchell and Parker even point out on page 24 of their article that a group a high school seniors seemed much more connected to what they call their "urban identification" than to any kind of national identity. How does this connection breed a sense of patriotism? If we are teaching students to question the actions of the country they are living in while they are so firmly attached to their local connections, how are we teaching them national patriotism? I guess I don't really have an answer to this question. I am in such a state of frustration with this country right now that I don't know how I would be able to step into a classroom and help my students form a "love of country." If I don't even understand how to be "patriotic" while at the same time questioning the motives and actions of my country, how can I teach a group of students patriotism?

Response for Sustainable Development

I think it is incredibly important to address Sustainable Development in the classroom, especially as social studies teachers. It is our job to help our students not only learn about the past, but the present as well. If they do not have an understanding of the state of our world right now, how can they ever hope to understand the history of it? Where we are today is a result of where we have come from, so a thorough understand of the here and now is imperative to the study of history. Through knowledge of where their world stands today, we can help our students look back and discover what was done, or not done, to put us in our current position. This will then lead to understanding of how to keep future generations from dealing with the same problems. The best way to live is to learn from the past! Beyond that, as we have seen in a number of our readings now, we are living in a global world and the idea of sustainable development is not just a local or national problem, it is a global one. We as teachers need to step up and take the responsibility of preparing our students to live completely in this global world, which includes knowing how to take care of it for the future! For all we know, one of the students in our classroom, after learning about sustainable development from us, may grow up to be a leader in the fight to save our planet! How can we expect the upcoming generations to care about the environment and the future of our world if we don't teach them about it?

Response for 11/24

How do the findings presented by Doppen and Barton & Levstik address the quote made by Cornel West?

"That democratic idea (that all are equal in the eyes of God) is one of the grand contributions of the age of Europe even given the imperial expansion, the colonial subjugation of Africa and Asia, the pernicious and vicious crimes against working people of color and so forth. So ambiguous a legacy means...we have got to keep two ideas in our minds at the same time. The achievements as well as the downfalls. The grand contributions and the viciouos crimes." Cornel West

I think the best way to describe how these two articles address this idea of West's is to say that the Doppen article articulates this idea through the teaching of multiple perspectives at the global level, whereas the Barton and Levstik article teaches multiple perspectives at the national level.

Doppen's article looks at the idea of building historical empathy in students through presenting them with history in the form of mulitple perspectives. This specific study focuses on the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Instead of teaching the students with a standard textbook, the teacher presented the students with 18 different sources, each coming from a different viewpoint. By doing this, the students were given a much broader account of the events that took place. They were not just provided with the story from the American side, as is often the case when only textbooks are used. Some of the articles were from the American point of view, but others were also from the Japanese and British point of view. The students were able to form an educated opinion about what happened based on not only how it was viewed in the United States, but also around the world.

This directly links to the Cornel quote because, in many history classrooms, U.S. History is taught in a way that makes it appear that the United States has rarely ever done anything wrong. By teaching this way, the students were given the opportunity to form opinions for themselves based on much more information. I think it was especially important that the perspective of the Japanese was included because it actually gives them a human voice. When the dropping of the bombs is taught, most of the time, the idea of civilian casualties is glided over, or not mentioned at all. By exposing the students to the Japanese voice, it made those victims real and allowed them to take the civilian deaths into consideration when forming their beliefs.

The Barton and Levstik article obviously touches on this quote, seeing as it is the article that features the quote! As I said before, Barton and Levstik address the idea of looking at history from both sides through the idea of multiple national perspectives. They call these multiple perspectives "official" history and "vernacular" history. Official history is what is taught in the classroom. It is the textbook endorsed, government standardized history that students across the country are taught. This form of history focuses very heavily on America as the country of freedom and progression. If people in the past did not have the same rights as everyone else, somewhere in history they were given those rights, as seen in the Civil Rights movement and the Sufferage movement. America is also portrayed as the protector in official history. We are the country that comes to the rescue to help other countries. This is the undertone of most units about war taught in school. This is one perspective that the students are given on their national history, but there is another version that they get outside of the classroom. This is vernacular history. Vernacular histories "derive from lived experience in specific and general small-scale communities." (p 7) This is the story the students are given at home by their grandfather who was part of the Civil Rights Movement or the uncle who fought in Vietnam. It is the first hand experience that is supported by more than just a book.

These two perspectives relate to the Cornel article in that the students are being given a two sided picture. Often the picture that is portrayed by the official history is all about the "grand achievements" because that is what the government thinks our children should be learning about. It is through the vernacular history that the students are exposed to the "vicious crimes." When some who lived through the Civil Rights movement, the cruelties and prejudices are brought to life for the student. When a Vietnam vet talks about the experience of coming home to a country that doesn't want you anymore, the child is given a fuller account of the time period than is provided in the classroom.

Response for 11/10

How does the unprecedented movement of people challenge concepts of citizenship and identity? What are among C. Suarez-Orozco's chief concerns regarding immigrant students' identity formation?

The answer to the first question here is not really fully flushed out within this article. The idea of citizenship is only mentioned once, and then only in the title of one of the sections. Orozco doesn't really go into the affects of globalization on citizenship, except to talk about the formation of a global identity, which I guess you could link to growth as a global "citizen" but I personally think that is a stretch. In regards to identity though, that is what this article is all about! Concepts of identity have been challenged greatly. Identity has become a much more complex idea than before. A person no longer just identifies with the country in which they reside. Other factors have to be taken into consideration. Is this person an immigrant? If so, how does the life they led in their "home country" affect their identity in their new country? How much of the culture of thier new country helps to form their new identity? And this new complex form of identity does not just apply to immigrants. As our world continues to grow within globalization, even people who have lived their entire lives in one country as having to deal with this new growing force known as a "global identity." Where do we fit within the global community and how does that affect our identity? I do have to say, though, that immigrants definately have the most difficult time of forming identity because, in way, they are actually have to work from three different points of reference: their home country, their new country, and the world of globalization!

Orozco describes three different forms of identity that immigrants typically fall into. The first is the coethnic identity, in which the person completely denies the influences of the new, dominant culture they have moved into. This leads to rejection of the new culture and everything that comes with it, from language to social practices. This also usually leads to a decline in educational performance because being successful in school is seen as "trying to be white" and to the increased liklihood that these youth will join gangs. Orozco worries that this form of identity limits the future opportunities for youth who are already disadvantaged through poverty and discrimination.

The second form of identity is what Orozco calls "ethnic flight." It seems to be the exact opposite of the coethnic identity. Instead of rejecting the new dominant culture, immigrants embracing this form of identity actually begin to reject the culture and identity from their home country. They completely immerse themselves in the new culture and begin to reject the culture they experience in the home. This type of identity usually leads to a much higher likelyhood of academic success, as these students try everything they can to fit into their new culture. The problems with this form of identity though reside more in the emotional and social realms. These students are usually alienated from their ethnic peers and their family at home. This can lead to more severe emotional and social problems.

The final form of identity that Orozco describes is a combination of both of the previous ones. It is what Orozco refers to as "transcultural identity." These students embrace the new, dominant culture of the country they have immigrated to while still holding on to the cultural reminants of their home country. They combine what the know and what they are learning to create a new identity encompassing both. These students are more likely to be adademically successful, but also professionaly successful in our new "global" world. These students are much better prepared to deal with the world we live in and the demands to dealing with global business. As Orozco says, "this identity style not only serves the individual well but also benefits the society at large." (p 193)

My question is, what about the fourth form of identity that Orozco doesn't address....the when in which the student actually creates two seperate identities for themselve? Those students to are able to "switch" between the two cultures with ease and be accepted within both. I don't believe this is the same as the transcultural identity because the different cultures are not combined. When the student is with peers from his home country, he embraces the identity of his home country, but when he is at school, for instance, immersed in the dominant culture of his new home, he embraces that culture. What implications does this identity formation have one the future development of the student? Is he really forming an identity or is the jumping between cultures prohibiting him from becoming his own person?

Response for 11/3

In your opinion, do the NCSS’ Teaching and Learning Concepts (pp. 5-6) address M.
Suarez-Orozco & Qin-Hilliard’s concerns about the impact of globalization on
education?

I would say that the NCSS’ Teaching and Learning Concepts most definitely address as least some of the concerns about the impact of education expressed by M. Suarez-Orozco & Qin-Hilliard.

The first concept, that “rapid change is operative and characteristic,” relates directly back to Orozco and Hilliards comments on the history of globalization and the 4 cycles of globalization set down by John Coatsworth. These cycles show that change as a result of globalization has been occurring for centuries. The main argument against the NCSS concept that Orozco and Hilliard might make though is that, according to Coatsworth, the globalization cycle we are experiencing right now is rather slow and weak. It does not have the same punch that previous cycles have caused in areas like immigration and the economy.

The second concept centers on the increasing number of corporations and jobs with international connections. This concept can also be connected to the fourth concept, that “political changes across the world and increased interaction among governments require understanding of other, traditions and cultures” because they both coincide with the same idea from Orozco and Hilliard. The link is found in the main reasoning behind why Orozco and Hilliard believe that there should be a change in education to accommodate our new globalized world. They say that “education will need both rethinking and restructuring if schooling is to best prepare children and youth of the world to engage globalization’s new challenges, opportunities, and costs.” (pg. 3) I believe globally connected jobs and participation in global politics both fall under all three of these categories.

Next the NCSS states that “the Information Age increases interrelatedness among all people.” I believe Orozco and Hilliard would wholeheartedly agree with that as a concept of globalization education. They believe that technologies will pave the way for better education in both quality and quantity, as more people around the world can be connected to share their knowledge. But they also bring up the downside of technology in education. It is said that the introduction of this technology worldwide will push\ us towards a more homogeneous world culture and lead to the breakdown of the diversity of cultures and experiences for youth around the world.

The NCSS concept relating to the globalization of economy relates directly back to the idea in Orozco and Hilliard about the widening gap in worldwide income and well-being as it correlates to the gap in global education. In the Orozco-Hilliard article, David Bloom is quoted as saying that “in the developing world, each additional year of basic education corresponds to a rise of over 10% in the individual’s earning power.” As efforts are increased to improve basic education in countries around the world, the income gap will also begin to shrink, which will allow global citizens to spend more money, which will help the global economy!

Finally, the NCSS states that there are problems as well as benefits to globalization. This is discussed extensively in the Orozco-Hilliard article. As I have already pointed out with the technology concept, Orozco and Hilliard do not only talk about the positives of globalization. One of the main negatives that they spend a good amount of time talking about is the identity struggle for the many youth members of the global community. This can come up in both immigrants and youth who have never left their homes. As we become a more global world, the cultures and traditions of different countries begin to blend into each other, through immigration and technology, to the point where it is becoming difficult for youth to figure out what their identity actually is. I would say this is a major problem!

Response for 10/6

Kahne & Westsheimer studies 10 different programs that focused on educating for democratic citizenship. Identify which of these programs best "fits" with your educational philosophy and your conception of citizenship. Also, think about which of the teachers' experiences described by Wade most closely mirrors your own, or what your expect to encounter in the future.

Coming from a very history oriented family, I have always been very connected to studying history and using history to study our modern-day society. Because of that, I connected very closely with the Overground Railroad project described by Kahne & Westsheimer. This is EXACTLY the kind of project I would love to do with my students one day. By looking at the historical sites from and speaking with people who were actually involved in the Civil Rights Movement, the students learn about a time when injustice and inequality ran rampant, and it helps them to understand inequality in the present-day. I also connected with the idea of introducing students to positive role models. This was mentioned in the Overground Railroad project, but I agree that it should go farther than that. It should include people in the students' own community who are leading fights and making a difference. It could be anyone from the head of the school board, to the mayor, to one of their fellow classmates who is actively doing service work. I believe role models don't just have to be people who were involved in important historical moments but the "ordinary" people, as the article calls them.

In regards to the Wade article, I can only say what I expect to encounter in the future as I am not yet working in a school. The story that resonated the most for me was the very first one describing Laurie's classroom of fourth-graders and the girls fight to "integrate" recess. Though the goal they were fighting to achieve is important, I felt more of a connection with the fact that Laurie's classroom was a place that the girls knew they could come to, speak their minds, and be heard. I can only hope that I will be able to create the same kind of space for my students. I firmly believe that one of the biggest hindrances to education is that fact that students are not always allowed to speak their minds about what makes them unhappy in their experience. They are just expected to sit down, be quite, and learn something. I want to foster an environment of open communication in my classroom so that, if my students are unhappy, they are comfortable telling me why so we can work to rectify the situation.

The second part of the reading that I could see myself encountering was the section about parents. My highest goal is to work in a secondary level boarding school. More often than not, these college-prep schools are populated by the kind of students who have very active and vocal parents, and with good reason since they spend a great deal of money to send their children to the school. Because of this, I could see myself having some problems with incredibly involved parents who do not understand the methods I hope to use in the classroom. This is where the advice to connect with the parents personally and create a positive relationship with them will hopefully come in handy in stemming some of the problems!

Response for 9/29

What responsibility do teachers have in being active contributors to the debates, development, and implementation of policies that impact curriculum and classroom practice?

This question can really be broken down into two separate parts. What responsibility do teachers have in the creation of classroom standards or curriculums and what responsibility do teachers have in those standards implementation in the classroom? It is definitely two different questions!

In regards to the first question, I believe teachers should take a much larger responsibility for what is being decided in regards to the standards and curriculum changes that are being made. Unfortunately, the way that the standards system is set up in this country right now, as evident by Ross's article, do not leave room for teachers' opinions in the planning process. This is unacceptable. Who better to help plan curriculum changes in this country than the teachers who are going to be teaching those curriculums. Teachers are the ones with the experience of being in the classroom and teaching the children. They know what the kids will and won't respond to, and they have seen what has had the strongest impact on the students and how it has affected them. It is clear through his writing that Ross agrees with this. He states that, "...curriculum reform efforts must tackle head-on the conditions of teaching and learning in schools and must embrace, rather than marginalize, teachers as the key element in any transformation of curriculum." (221) This is not to say that the government officials, historians, and researchers should not play any part in the curricular planning process. I do see how they are very helpful in their knowledge of the current educational trends and the bigger educational picture, but not including the opinion of teachers whatsoever downplays their role in the classroom to that of "implementer."

In regards to the second question, I believe the teachers should hold the majority of the responsibility of how the curriculums are implemented in the classroom. It is their classrooms after all and I don't believe it should be the right of anyone to tell a teacher "how" they should teach. On the other hand, I do believe that there are a few other who deserve some say in the matter as well. The school administrators should be given some say in that, just as it is the teacher's classroom, it is the administrators' school. In the end, the learning that is or is not going on in that school ultimately falls onto their shoulders. The other party that I think should have some say is the parents of the children who are being taught. They are paying money (whether it be through tuition or taxes) to give their children the education they think they deserve and therefore should have some say in the matter. While I believe the majority of the responsibility should most definitely lay with the teachers, these other groups should have some say.

though these are valid questions, the current system we are in does not allow for the use of their answers. As much as I may believe that teachers should have a say in the planning and implementation of new curriculums, it does not do much good if the system is pushing in the opposite direction. The system is going to have to change before we can put the answers to these questions into practice!!!

Response for 9/22

The layout of Ronald Evans' book Social Studies Wars: What should we teach the children? is very useful in that as the different centuries go by, different camps from the social studies "war" have their day in the spotlight. Starting with the late 1800's, the reader is given a layout of the establishment of the study of traditional history. At this point in time, the goal behind this curriculum was to help students understand their past and appreciate classical literature. This aim was strengthened by the reports of the Committee of Ten and the Committee of Seven. But even this early, debate and criticism of the traditional history curriculum had started to surface. the first reorganization of the the social studies curriculum came with the 1916 Report of the Social Studies Committee of the NEA Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education. This report was the expression of the progressive educational movement already underway under the leadership of John Dewey. The progressives believed education should focus much more on the student individual under the the leadership of the teacher. The 1916 Report also created a new class that would stay with the social studies curriculum for years to come, Problems of Democracy. This class was set up to focus on social problems and their solutions. Around this time, there was also a growing debate around the study of the social sciences within schools and what part it should play in relation to history and the over all social studies curriculum. This argument was solidified in the social studies "war" with the founding of the National Council for the Social Studies. The NCSS was an influential group all through the social studies "war", and still is today. Another leading progressive educator of the time was Harold Rugg, who was influential all the way through the progressive fight into the battle of the reconstructionist. During the 1930's, Rugg and other progressive leaders had their most influence. With the Great Depression and other social problems of this time period, the reconstructionist attention to social issues and problems really gained ground. Leaders like Rugg and George Counts advocated the study of social issues and believed that students should examine the country's society and try to figure out how they could change it. It was the belief of the reconstructionists that schools and teachers should be the leaders of social change in American society. As the country moved into the 1940's and World War II, the goal of social studies in many American minds shifted. Because of the state of the country at war, history and social sciences were no longer viewed as opened ended and experimental. The war brought back a call for more traditional values in education, geared towards preparing the students "to give their lives for democracy." (70) It was a controversial time for progressives and reconstructionalists, with Rugg again at the forefront as the greater public began attacking him and his textbooks! Social studies also came under fire through a long-running war between Allan Nevins and and Erling Hunt over the state of American history within the social studies curriculum and whether or not it was being taught often enough or well enough. Moving into the 1950's brought even more controversy as World War II ended and the Cold War began. During an era of fear and mistrust, the progressive supporters were targeted harshly, sometimes even red-listed, because of the country fear and paranoia of Communism. This social climate led to an even more right-swinging curriculum in the schools where social studies was concerned. The main thought in education was discrediting un-American viewpoints and bolstering faith and support in the American democracy. Groups like Allen Zoll's National Council for American Education and government groups like the House Committee on Un-American Activities made life for progressive educators and supporters very difficult. Though some, like Archibald W. Anderson, stepped up to defend the current school systems and any progressive leanings that might have been found, it was of little use. The move into the 1960's and 70's brought along a huge shift in the educational theory. With the emergence of what has been called new social studies, the focus was moved more towards the study of the individual disciplines and less on the idea of integrated social studies with the support of people like Jerome Bruner and charles Keller. This movement was highlighted by Project Social Studies, a government program that gave funds for research projects, curriculum study centers, and conferences and seminars. It was an era of research and discovery that contributed to the "creation of a rich and multifaceted explosion of curriculum development the likes of which may never be seen again." (127) There was also the growth of what has been called newer social studies. This movement focused on the social climate of the time and its relevance to the students' lives. Newer social studies had the most visual impact in course offerings, contributing to the growth in high schools offering minicourses in subjects like Black History, Native American History, and Women's History. One of the major players of this movement was Gerald Leinwand. More modern educational history, from the mid-1970s to the present, has been characterized by the movement of standard reform. This movement is spotlighted by a dramatic move to the right in social studies curriculum, also known as the back-to-basics movement. This movement was characterized by the focus on the essentials of education and a return to focus on the basic educational skills. This movement was surprisingly supported by the NCSS. As no other reform movement stepped up to take the place of the dying new social studies movement, the more progressive camp was left at a loss for what to do. This led to a strong revival of the traditional history support. Diane Ravitch was the main leader of this camp and started a pointed fight against social studies, blaming it for the decline in the study of history. This was also the time of the growing interest in government educational standards. As the national government attempted to step in to create a national standard of education, it became apparent that this was just too complicated and difficult to implement. It was then decided that each state and local government would come up with its own set of standards for their education system. This is more of less the system that is in use today.

Response for 9/15

Review of Educational Research and Democracy and Diversity: Principles and Concepts for Educating Citizens in a Global Age

Each point made within the writing of Banks et. al. could correspond with at least one, if not more, of the different theories presented in the writing by Knight Abowitz and Harnish. Right away with the first point, feminist, cultural, reconstructionist, and queer citizenship theories seem to fit right in. The idea of pushing educators to teach their students about the different forms of diversity throughout our world and country, and the unity that is inherently needed because of this diversity fits perfectly into all four of these discourses. Of the two main discourses discussed in the first reading, the first point more clearly links to the civic republican discourse, but still only lightly. The only connection between the civic republican discourse and the first point on diversity and unity is the mention and discussion of unity. Civic republican citizenship theories are very strongly based on the citizenship of the "country" and the love and honor a citizen holds as a member of their country. This leads to a small, but still relevant discussion about unity. The other main discourse, the liberal citizenship discourse, is even more loosely related in that it is very much based on individuality and personal rights and responsibilities. Therefore, the idea of unity is not mentioned at all, and diversity in only one sentence. The second point in the Banks reading is most obviously connected to the discourse on transnationalism. By stating that students should learn about more than their own country, but also how their country is affected and affects the countries and world around them, this point is stepping directly into the realm of transnational citizenship. This discourse is centered around teaching and preparing students to become local, national, AND global citizens. The third point, focusing on the teaching of human-rights in the classroom, if much more connected to the liberal citizenship discourse than the civic republican discourse. In liberal citizenship education, the focus is put directly on the individual and individuals rights, which would include what are considered now to be the basic human rights. Civic republican citizenship is too concerned about the group to delve too deeply into something so inherent in the individual. In truth, all of the critical discourse fit into this point in one way or another because they are all focusing on the ideas of focusing citizenship education on a specific group or subject and the rights that go along with it. Whether it be women in the feminist discourse or the poor in the reconstructionist discourse, each of the critical discourse discusses the education of basic human rights in some way. This also include the transnationalist discourse, perhaps more so, because it is focusing on the citizenship of the world and the basic human rights that should be afforded to every member of the global citizenship, not just in the more developed countries. The final point in the reading definitely fits most clearly into the liberal discourse of citizenship because the liberal theory if very focused on the individual and the job of educators to help students decide for themselves what their individual opinions and beliefs are. This is found most readily through the practical use of the knowledge they are being taught. Through their experience with democracy and the running of their own schools, they begin to form opinions about how the country is run and whether or not they agree as individuals with what is happening in their local, national, and global governments.