Graduation: Ceremony/Achievement/Or?

This weekend I attended my friend’s college graduation ceremony. It got me to start thinking about graduation and the rituals associated with the end of a learning experience. For some backstory, I’ve never had my own graduation ceremony (I went to college a year early, missing the high school graduation experience), but I’ve attended more than my fair share of other people’s. I’ve beared witness to high school graduations, all my friends’ and ex-girlfriends’ reception of bachelor’s degrees. I even took pictures while my Mom received her Masters in Social Work a few years back. This rite of passage is ubiquitous in the media, our minds, and our culture. Yet, it’s meaning is murky. It became a trend in film to show the graduation ceremony as an explication of generational divide. Achievement was no longer the theme, it became more apt to show the outmoded ideals of college and mainstream culture as personified by the graduation in contrast to the lives and visions of youth. One apt representation of this is in the film Reality Bites, that perfect portrait of Generation X angst.  In this first scene, the protagonist delivers a speech as valedictorian railing on the consumerist society that their degrees have supposedly prepared them for.  In response to the the possibility of having an answer, she states “I don’t know” to much applause.  This counterculture cry of I Don’t Know was the perfect antidote to the notion that once you have a degree you are ready for adulthood/career/family/happiness.  For students who find their education a burden or something relegated to indifference, this graduation scene plays out much the same.  Especially for those whose education feels compulsory (whether because of law, parents, societal pressure) what is purported to be a heartfelt and triumphant rite of passage is anything but.  Another friend told me that she wished she had been stoned during her college graduation.  This is echoed in teen comedies, television dramas, and biographical films (like Into the Wild).

For some, this nonchalance is way off the mark.  The graduation ceremony I attended this weekend is for a Bachelor’s Completion Program whose participants had all had patchwork and interesting learning careers.  It’s a small, extremely New Age-y school and words like honorees (graduates) and tokens (diplomas) were used throughout.  At the end of various speeches and performances there was a time period where family and friends could come on stage to honor the graduates.  As I watched fathers tear up, children and grandchildren smile into the mic, and best friends profess their devotion, I found myself crying.  I’m not much of a crier, it’s a pretty rare occurrence, but here were all these different supportive networks so proud of the students’ educational achievements.  I felt myself longing for a ceremony like this and realizing how important ceremony is for this kind of experience.  While the emotions may be mixed, it seems so necessary to create the space to celebrate and honor the learning that we go through.  It’s not really about the pomp and circumstance, though that sounds nice too….

On a lighter note: there is an unfortunate dearth of graduation related videos on youtube.  Sadly, this is all I could find.

Charter & Magnet Schools: Alternative Answers?

As I was mentioning in my last post, an ongoing concern of mine when considering the possibility of working as an educator is working in accordance with my ideals.  While I am always a fan of a moderate and holistic methodology, I definitely lean towards:

1. A process approach

2. A flexible classroom structure without authoritarianism

3. An open, personalized curriculum that incorporates meaning no matter how skill oriented a lesson

Looking over that list, I know that working in a traditional public school setting, some if not most of those methods would be compromised.  So, I feel that for a sustainably satisfying career, I must consider alternatives to this traditional educational system.  However, equally (if not more) important to me is that the institution I work for be truly accessible and be able to serve the needs of a diverse student body, maintaining accountability to the community in which it is located.

A private, tuition based institution that doesn’t provide complete financial aid may have a stellar teaching philosophy, but its inaccessibility means it’s simply perpetuating dominant culture.

This brings me to the question of charter and magnet schools, publicly funded, yet not necessarily traditional structures.  I found myself conversationally mulling them over without actually knowing what they are (and what they are not).  Minor internet research has brought a little more insight.

First, charter schools are not the same as magnet schools.  Though their crossovers are relatively murky.

Magnet schools are publicly funded (i.e. free) institutions that are generally focused on an area of study or overall academics.  They often are extremely selective and require an interview/application as well as a lottery system.  These schools originated in the 1960′s as a response to racial segregation with the goal of creating a multicultural, academically rigorous environment by drawing students out of their respective regions.

While magnet schools have lofty goals of racial integration, they are also controversial.  Many neighborhood schools say they are negatively effected by the mining of talented students from their schools, leaving less of a range of academically successful students with which to form peer learning bonds (think zone of proximal development squashed).  Another issue is the accessibility.  While there is no tuition and thus, a level playing field for financial status, in actuality, institutional racism and classism puts non-dominant culture students at an academic disadvantage and makes it less likely that they would qualify to attend magnet schools.  However, apparently only 1/3 of all magnet schools use selection criteria, meaning the possibilities for accessibility exist in 2/3 of magnet schools.

Magnet Schools of America

What is a Magnet School?

Charter schools are also public (i.e. free), yet there is more leeway in what a charter school may be, which brings positive and negative elements.  The modern idea of a charter school was developed in the late 1980′s as a response to public educational constraints.  Each state has its own laws about charter schools, with some (including California) allowing for corporations to create for-profit schools, a much rebuked notion.  Hypothetically, the charter school receives public funding but is allowed to waive most traditional structure requirements and in return is accountable  for students’ achievement.  Unfortunately, this ‘accountability’ has been contested recently, with much research showing lower academic performance in charter school students.  This may partially be explained by the inherent equivocation between traditional public school methods/curriculum and testing (teaching to tests).  It is important to ask what is being quantified and what is not.  Do charter school students possess less knowledge, cognitive abilities, and learning skills, or is it simply that their literacy is not being represented in traditional standardized testing?
National Education Association on Charter Schools

Open Directory Project – Charter Schools

When considering charter schools, it seems important to mention that they are not all progressive, process approach, lefty institutions.  Consider this article about a charter school in Oakland with a back to basics traditional methodology.

Navigating this realm seems tricky.  According to the article, there are more than 30 charter schools in Oakland.  Finding that perfect mesh of ideals is most likely a never ending process, but I feel invigorated by the choices of educational structure available and the possibilities that one could teach fully from a place of heart for any and all students.

The Problem of Productivity

The other night I was having a conversation with my girlfriend about pedagogical method.  To give a little background, she works as a teacher in an all girls of color afterschool program, specifically working on media literacy and empowerment.  The girls are between 15-19 and they all come from lower socioeconomic backgrounds.  The projects are different every semester, but recently they made digital stories as a final piece.  She has been attending a series of training workshops and in one the topic of productivity came up.  They had to discuss in small groups the idea that their program’s goal was to create productive adults.  She was alone in her stance, that the word productivity is inherently capitalistic and sexist in its connotations.  She argued that her goals were to teach the girls to be resourceful, not simply a producer of things.  I referenced the Lisa Delpit article about teaching students who do not come equipped with the dominant culture’s skills those tools before or in tandem to meaning making.  I also agreed with her that an afterschool program primarily based on empowerment and some digital media fluency is not the primary place for those skills to be honed, that productivity is not the goal.  Empowerment seemed the overarching goal in that it was self esteem enhancing, assisting in greater discernment with media influences, and the ability to access and utilize resources; creating not simply productive but empowered, resourceful, and motivated women.

Is productivity one of our goals as students and educators?  If it is, are we not simply enacting sexist capitalist themes within our lives and the lives of those we teach?  Is there a way to educate that is outside the system of capitalism we exist in?  And does this even serve people well who must have access to the skills necessary to navigate the dominant culture they were not born into?  This is my larger thought process these days.  How to educate with my ideals?  How to be a process approach educator who can also engender skills?  How to teach the curriculum I want within an educational system that is accessible and helpful to all students?

In my next post, I’ll explore some of these conundrums and specifically set out to research charter and magnet schools.

Fighting Alienation

Rectifying the issue of literacy’s creation of cultural divides such as the one Richard Rodriguez experienced is no simple task. It requires looking at the traditional pedagogy and its omnipresent interests and language of the dominant culture (white, high SES). How does one promote literacy without creating this cultural alienation in a student coming from a non-dominant background?

My first suggestion would be to do as we have done in this class: examine what literacy means and while critiquing traditional definitions, try to begin the daunting task of creating a holistic and flexible definition that recognizes the varied learning methods, funds of knowledge, and cognitive abilities students develop across cultures. With a more thoughtful definition (or series of definitions) of literacy, we can start to create goals based on the experiences and aptitudes individual students possess. Special attention to the zone of proximal development is important in making these preliminary educational goals.

Process is important and definitely beyond my experience level. Designing curriculum, pedagogic methods, and classroom styles is not something I’ve ever done. However, taking some of the readings to heart, I believe the beginning of any teaching starts with inquiry. As an educator you must first ask who the students are, where they are coming from, what they know, what they want to know, how they learn, and where they are hoping to go. Keeping an open and ever evolving approach seems vital to serving the needs of the students.

Recognition of non-dominant cultures in curriculum is of utmost importance. Accommodating, understanding, encouraging and incorporating multilingualism is a key to communication and exchange of culture. Growing up in Massachusetts in a homogeneous school population, I see in contrast to the multicultural student bodies and curricula of California’s schools how limiting a mono-lingual, mono-cultural approach to learning can be. Sharing and honoring aspects of non-dominant cultures such as holidays, foods, religious practices, histories, and communication styles needs to be addressed. In the field, I noticed that when dolls are brought out for the kids to play with, they range in styles of dress and are representative of traditional dress from different nationalities and ethnic groups. This is validating to the cultural histories children may or may not have access to. Incorporation of literature, music, art, and other learning materials from non-dominant cultures is another method for representing non-dominant discourses as well as giving new perspectives and role models for students who might not see themselves reflected in the standard educational texts.

Finally, I think aside from making curriculum more inclusive, making school accessible to students and families from non-dominant cultures is key. Scholarship, financial assistance, and reduced fees for private schools, understanding and flexibility for students coming from alternative family structures, recognition of the value of outside the classroom learning, work experience and the activities of students that is non-traditional are all methods for increasing accessibility for students. Fostering peer to peer and older/young mentorships is important. Having school projects and events that involve, assist and honor the communities the school is a part of can emphasize involvement of families and fight the potential alienation students may have from their home experience.

Richard Rodriguez’s narrative expresses sorrow and regret at the alienation and lack of intimacy his education has brought him. While I know this is not a universal experience, it happens to many. There must be steps taken towards cultivating a literacy development practice in which students who exist outside of the dominant discourse may gain access to multitudes of knowledge that recognizes and promotes their histories and goals.

Contact Zone in 2308 Tolman

Excuse the delay in posting, I just moved into my new apartment this weekend and haven’t had internet access until twenty minutes ago.

          The ‘contact zone’ Mary Louise Pratt describes seems to take place everywhere, and educationally, I can’t think of a single public school in California that is immune to this concept.  To take it to a more specific level, our classroom at 2308 Tolman is a perfect example of the contact zone.  As my first class at Berkeley, I certainly had some preconceived notions about its makeup and format.  Yet in any way that one might try to point out a certain homogeneity in our class’s population, it appears to not exist. 

      It is not surprising to me that our class is racially and ethnically diverse, nor that the languages used and understood by members of the class are many.  The multiculturalism at Berkeley is well known.  What is surprising to me is the broad range of ages and experiences in the class.  I was under the assumption that I would be immersed in classes with students who were

1. Undergraduates

2.  Belonging to one major only.

3.  From California (and Northern California mostly)

4.  With little occupational or research related experience.

5.  Without children.

6.  Between 18 – 21 only.

 

      In actuality, from our warm up exercises and conversation I’ve learned that my fellow classmates have a varied educational past, present, and future; that they range from what appears to be late teens to mid fifties in age; they have kids, different family structures, different living arrangements and locations, and vastly different occupational experiences.  The variation of identity, cultural connections, knowledge, language use, and interests meets in this contact zone of the classroom again and again.  Our discussions are lively, thoughtful, and occasionally a little tense. 

We each bring such different lives into the room and the field each week.  I have never felt so engaged or so willing to communicate my thoughts as I do in this class because I believe wholeheartedly that everyone has something to say and “no one is safe.” I see that through the powerful experience of working with the students, questioning and requestioning how we think about learning and literacy, and attempting to navigate equally strongly messaged theory and narrative, we are forced outside of ourselves and our safety zones.  Dave furthers this by facilitating the contact zone in his efforts to keep us connected in groups at all times.  We are never allowed to sit within our own identities and thoughts without interaction, sharing and redeveloping with these groups.  In this, we continually renew our identities with the knowledge(s) we bring to the table, share amongst each other, and create together.

The Guilty Researcher and Possibilities of Actual, Real Change

As is the case in most questions of life, moderation, synthesis, and mutuality are the key concepts behind most good ideas.  This holds true for the theories proposed by Cushman and Moll et al.  Both are putting forth the vision of researchers, teachers, and participants/students having reciprocal, shared, and mutual experiences of teaching and learning.  Breaking down the hierarchical barriers between academia and the classroom in whatever way possible is the only way the students will ever receive any benefit from the research and the only way the researcher will find information that has validity and truth.

Cushman’s liberatory education does have the grandest intentions, but this somewhat rings of class guilt and apologistic academic interests.  Of course academia should make attempts to create reciprocal interactions with the students, but often the real life, specific and personal effects are not felt by those who participate.  If the research is fruitful there is a possibility of positive change for later generations of students, but often the researcher’s benefit is disproportionate to the participants’.

Moll et al. seem to work through this issue of unequal benefits in their writings.  The ‘funds of knowledge’ approach in which academics work with teachers to do qualitative research among their students’ families in order to revise curriculum and learning approaches to better suit the students is a demonstrable method of creating real time positive change through research.  The end product of enabling the students to become researchers in their own education completes the circle of mutually beneficial knowledge gathering.  The researcher benefits from the collaboration with the teacher, whose intimacy with the families makes for more comprehensive data gathering.  The teacher benefits from the process by learning first hand what funds of knowledge and interests each student has access to and thus can create a learning environment that works off of the students’ resources and interests.  The student benefits by having an educational experience more tailored to their cultural identity that engages them and offers them the skills to discover new information.  Finally, the families benefit in their ability to actively participate in their child’s education, dispel misinformation and preconceptions institutions may possess, and see a strengthening in their child’s learning abilities.

I believe the ‘funds of knowledge’ approach has the ability to work wonders in any number of environments.  In openly and holistically embracing the information available in the student’s learning arena (home, family, school, travel, peers) there is a much greater chance of inspiring students and creating real positive change.  I think this is especially important in schools like those we are working in, with multicultural, multilingual, lower socieconomic status students and families.  Often curriculum and institutional pedagogy are not representative or accessible to populations outside of the dominant culture.  Using this research approach on the micro level and involving teachers, families and students equally, is our best bet to bridge these educational class and cultural divides.

Commitment

The list of potential words-of-the-day included so many relevant possibilities, but the one that is highlighted to me personally is commitment. I see this term as encompassing my feelings about entering my Berkeley education, the class itself, the change in lifestyle that is accompanying it, a heavy and heady workload, the experiences with the kids in the field, understanding this nebulous idea of literacy and its aspirational tactics, and enacting some form of holistic literacy development within myself, my community, and other inhabitants of our past and future society.  While it seems daunting, especially as I reread the previous statement, I would like to declare myself free of commitment-phobia.  So let’s do it.  Let’s commit to this vague, intriguing and hopefully rewarding concept of literacy, in whatever it may become.  I am ready for the work it may entail, and this is as much a commitment ceremony as I can summon in a virtual text format.  Bring on the discourses.