Hip hop music is easy to criticize. It promotes violence and materialism. It glorifies gang life and drug dealing. It's full of cliches, sexism, and homophobia. But every once in a while, someone new comes along and does something that challenges the status quo and changes the industry. Seattle-based rapper Macklemore is doing just that. His hit single Thrift Shop pokes fun at spending $50 on a Gucci T-shirt and instead glamorizes purchasing second-hand goods. With its popularity (#1 Billboard single and over 110 million views on YouTube), people have gone beyond the catchy tune to appreciate it for the message it conveys. A less-known single of his has created a different kind of buzz. The song, Same Love, promotes gay rights and equality.
In November of 2012, a Michigan teacher was suspended for playing Same Love for her students. We must ask ourselves, would the school or community have had the same reaction if the teacher promoted equal rights for a different minority group? In our country's short history, each minority group has had its time to fight for equality, and with each battle, we have become more inclusive and more tolerant. The gay rights movement seems to be the modern-day Civil Rights movement of 1960s.
Cycle Three's overarching question is: Should the curriculum address controversial issues? The question is really quite simple to answer. As Thornton (2009) explains, "the least educated are precisely those who are most inclined to be prejudiced against gay people." (p. 362). If our goal is to eradicate hate, prejudice, bias, intolerance, or bullying that targets any minority or group of people, we must teach our students to understand who those people are.
Many teachers and administrators are afraid of the community's reaction to gay rights education; and with the aforementioned suspension, rightfully so. What makes this equality movement different from say, women's suffrage, Title IX, desegregation, or the disability rights movement? The difference is that the gay rights movement challenges many religions' fundamental beliefs. Religious groups, such as Focus on the Family from the Eckholm (2010) article, believe that early lessons on sexuality and gay parents advocate a lifestyle that goes against the group's Christian beliefs. I would like that group to consider that premarital sex goes against Christian values as well, but most would agree that learning about sex in health class is not intended to promote premarital sex; it's intended to equip students with the knowledge they need to understand the subject and make educated decisions. We should view gay rights education in a similar light. Students are going to learn about homosexuality anyway. Wouldn't it be best for them to learn about it in a safe setting that promotes tolerance and understanding? As the superintendent Mr. Messinger, from the Eckholm (2010) article, explains, "This is not about advocating a lifestyle, but making sure our children understand it and, I hope, accept it."
There will always be controversies and taboos (politics, terrorism, religion, drugs, sex, etc.) that would be easier to ignore than to address in the classroom, but they are a part of students' lives and for that, we cannot ignore them. We should help students make sense of their experiences outside the classroom and help them learn about the world around them. However, we must be selective in what we decide to add to the curriculum. Take, for example, the Silin (2009) article entitled HIV/AIDS Education: Toward a Collaborative Curriculum. The lengthy, narrow-focused article advocates for HIV/AIDS education to be a part of the health, science, and economics curriculum. Sure, HIV/AIDS education is important, but the author would have it be an emphasis across the curriculum. Silin seems to be another person that wants to add to an already-full curriculum while ignoring other taboo topics because of his special interest in the subject. Perhaps the information in the article would have been more applicable if the author had made a case for specializing curriculum for those that are disproportionately affected: gays and bisexual men of all races, African Americans, and Hispanics.
Should the curriculum address controversial issues? What are the effects if it does? Do those outweigh the effects of not addressing controversial issues?
Should hip hop address controversial issues? It has. And look at what happened.
Monday, February 18, 2013
Sunday, February 3, 2013
Where Is This Bandwagon Headed?
There's no denying that technology creates more possibilities for learning. As the New York Times article entitled Learning by Playing: Video Games in the Classroom suggests, students are no longer restricted to what can happen in a classroom. Students now have the ability to access information and connect with people outside the confines of their brick and mortar learning institutions. Technology can be an effective tool for engaging students, and experience with technology can deepen understanding and equip students with the 21st century skills they'll need to be successful adults. I see the value. I see the potential. However, I am not jumping on the bandwagon.
Rather than go on an anti-technology rant about how it can promote isolation, laziness, obesity, depression, aggressive behavior, addiction, and the underdevelopment of social skills (okay, that was kind of a rant right there), I would like to focus on something the teacher from the article said on page 7. He asked why we should learn to spell or learn the state capitals. It is this approach to using technology in the classroom that absolutely terrifies me. If we shouldn't learn to spell because a computer can do it, why should we learn anything at all? Why learn a language? Why learn to do math? Technology can be great, but it worries me when a teacher doesn't see the value in learning something because a computer can do it. Students use technology all day long. They carry it with them. They're surrounded by it and they're required to use it more and more. Call me old fashioned, but it is my personal conviction that we should use the classroom as a place where students can come to "unplug", develop social skills, connect with classmates, challenge their minds in different ways, use their creativity, and be undistracted by technology. We need to ensure technology enhances the classroom experience instead of becoming the experience.
With previous advances in technology, we discovered ways to have computers, robots, and machines to do the work for us. Sure, the advances replaced some jobs, but they made work faster, more efficient, and easier. And ultimately, new jobs were created to meet the needs, so it came at no expense to society. But technological advances are different these days. Instead of technology doing the work for us, it's beginning to do the thinking. As we prepare students to be competitive, we need to consider whether we are equipping students with the skills and knowledge they'll need to be successful. Is standardized testing doing this?
I taught Spanish in a school that moved to trimesters. The idea behind the transition was to allow students to complete a full year of a course in just two trimesters, thereby opening up their schedules to take more classes. Well, guess what happened in just the second year of implementation? The two-tri math and English classes became three trimesters long, and the non-core subjects were marginalized (much like the music teachers in the Santee Siskin article). Students were forced to drop elective courses to make way for math, ELA, and one other course - a 12-week course to teach students how to take the Michigan Merit Exam. Yes, they spent 72 minutes each day learning strategies, doing timed trials, and reviewing for a test instead of taking art, PE, business, music, or a world language. The Santee-Sisken article asks if we are lowering performance standards and losing knowledge of content areas outside "the core" by turning all subjects into something all students need to be able to demonstrate on a test. My answer is an emphatic YES!, but the American society fails to see it this way.
When we consider cycle two's essential question, What should schools teach?, it is clear that we are sending a strong message. Schools should teach what's tested (and in some cases, teach the test). As one music teacher explains in the Santee-Siskin article, "To be real is to be tested." I was introduced to the term washback by Paula Winke, my professor (amazing teacher!) for LLT 808: Assess Lang Teach and Research. The washback of standardized testing is that the test is becoming the curriculum. When we hear President Obama and Arne Duncan share America's rankings in science, math, and reading, they are communicating to the public that those scores are what matter. If you read my last post, you might agree that those scores matter less than one might think.
How should schools be held accountable? This question is more challenging to me, because if we want to measure achievement and be able to compare schools without subjectivity, I see no alternative to standardized testing. In a perfect world, schools could be independent and high performing, but the reality is that many schools struggle and are in need of assistance. Other schools only begin caring about student performance once they are put in the public eye. The federal government makes schools accountable by tying funding to initiatives such as NCLB and Race to the Top. We continue to progress to a more centralized system of education and I can't help but wonder if that's good or bad. We are helping struggling schools, but are we lowering the bar for high-performing schools as a result?
Rather than go on an anti-technology rant about how it can promote isolation, laziness, obesity, depression, aggressive behavior, addiction, and the underdevelopment of social skills (okay, that was kind of a rant right there), I would like to focus on something the teacher from the article said on page 7. He asked why we should learn to spell or learn the state capitals. It is this approach to using technology in the classroom that absolutely terrifies me. If we shouldn't learn to spell because a computer can do it, why should we learn anything at all? Why learn a language? Why learn to do math? Technology can be great, but it worries me when a teacher doesn't see the value in learning something because a computer can do it. Students use technology all day long. They carry it with them. They're surrounded by it and they're required to use it more and more. Call me old fashioned, but it is my personal conviction that we should use the classroom as a place where students can come to "unplug", develop social skills, connect with classmates, challenge their minds in different ways, use their creativity, and be undistracted by technology. We need to ensure technology enhances the classroom experience instead of becoming the experience.
With previous advances in technology, we discovered ways to have computers, robots, and machines to do the work for us. Sure, the advances replaced some jobs, but they made work faster, more efficient, and easier. And ultimately, new jobs were created to meet the needs, so it came at no expense to society. But technological advances are different these days. Instead of technology doing the work for us, it's beginning to do the thinking. As we prepare students to be competitive, we need to consider whether we are equipping students with the skills and knowledge they'll need to be successful. Is standardized testing doing this?
I taught Spanish in a school that moved to trimesters. The idea behind the transition was to allow students to complete a full year of a course in just two trimesters, thereby opening up their schedules to take more classes. Well, guess what happened in just the second year of implementation? The two-tri math and English classes became three trimesters long, and the non-core subjects were marginalized (much like the music teachers in the Santee Siskin article). Students were forced to drop elective courses to make way for math, ELA, and one other course - a 12-week course to teach students how to take the Michigan Merit Exam. Yes, they spent 72 minutes each day learning strategies, doing timed trials, and reviewing for a test instead of taking art, PE, business, music, or a world language. The Santee-Sisken article asks if we are lowering performance standards and losing knowledge of content areas outside "the core" by turning all subjects into something all students need to be able to demonstrate on a test. My answer is an emphatic YES!, but the American society fails to see it this way.
When we consider cycle two's essential question, What should schools teach?, it is clear that we are sending a strong message. Schools should teach what's tested (and in some cases, teach the test). As one music teacher explains in the Santee-Siskin article, "To be real is to be tested." I was introduced to the term washback by Paula Winke, my professor (amazing teacher!) for LLT 808: Assess Lang Teach and Research. The washback of standardized testing is that the test is becoming the curriculum. When we hear President Obama and Arne Duncan share America's rankings in science, math, and reading, they are communicating to the public that those scores are what matter. If you read my last post, you might agree that those scores matter less than one might think.
How should schools be held accountable? This question is more challenging to me, because if we want to measure achievement and be able to compare schools without subjectivity, I see no alternative to standardized testing. In a perfect world, schools could be independent and high performing, but the reality is that many schools struggle and are in need of assistance. Other schools only begin caring about student performance once they are put in the public eye. The federal government makes schools accountable by tying funding to initiatives such as NCLB and Race to the Top. We continue to progress to a more centralized system of education and I can't help but wonder if that's good or bad. We are helping struggling schools, but are we lowering the bar for high-performing schools as a result?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)