Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This post appeared in the politics forum. When I read it I had to look twice to make sure this was not some spoof piece in The Onion.
Katherine Kersten: At U, future teachers may be reeducated | StarTribune.com (http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/70662162.html?page=3&c=y - broken link)
snippet:
"Do you believe in the American dream -- the idea that in this country, hardworking people of every race, color and creed can get ahead on their own merits? If so, that belief may soon bar you from getting a license to teach in Minnesota public schools -- at least if you plan to get your teaching degree at the University of Minnesota's Twin Cities campus.
..
The report advocates making race, class and gender politics the "overarching framework" for all teaching courses at the U. It calls for evaluating future teachers in both coursework and practice teaching based on their willingness to fall into ideological lockstep."
I haven't had a chance to do some independent research into what Kersten says, but I did want to note for those not familiar with the author, Katherine Kersten is an extremely conservative columnist in MN who likes to ruffle feathers. She's not exactly looking to provide a balanced look (or necessarily even an accurate look) at the issue. While the program as described sounds terrible, I would suggest people don't base their opinions on Kersten's column alone. (among other things, the report she's pulling some of the details from is an early draft version for internal discussion) Unfortunately for people of MN, I think Kersten's column will hurt efforts to discuss this, not help; she's such an extreme voice with a history that it will be hard for many people to look past the fact that they don't like her or her views to look carefully at the real report and its problems (or, conversely, for those who do like Kersten to look at the report and decide what parts of it might have merit).
This editorial is incorrect in the assumptions it makes about the purpose of the training. The tone is clearly alarmist and meant to inspire strong reaction.
We know that in order to learn children must first have their basic needs met (food, shelter, clothing, safety). The feeling of safety comes not just from physical threats but emotional ones as well. Teachers who have not had sensitivity training can sometimes teach in a way that indicates cultural biases that keep children from feeling emotionally safe.
There is also a teaching theory that children learn well when the material they are presented relates to their lives. Many things that are relevant to a white female teacher's life won't resonate with children. For example, one of my teaching professors can recall that "barn" was an early vocabulary work taught to her in the first grade. The only trouble was that she was in school in Brooklyn and never saw a barn until she was in her twenties. When one is aware of such small problems, they are easy to fix without having to "repudiate the American Dream." Cultural context and prior knowledge of the world always matter when teaching.
Also, such culturally sensitive training is common at all top education programs in this country. I just completed such a course myself. The reality is that not all children perform well in American schools. If the American dream were really a reality, this wouldn't be the case. It's not just inner-city schools where minorities struggle, it's all schools. And, no, socio-economic status does not account for the difference. (Yes, this has been studied.) So, in order to truly not leave any children behind, we must examine how we teach minority children.
For those who care to read the entire screed, the link to the first page of the editorial is here: Katherine Kersten: At U, future teachers may be reeducated | StarTribune.com (http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/70662162.html?elr=KArksc8P:Pc:Ug8P:Pc:UiD3aPc:_Yyc :aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUr - broken link).
The one thing that does bother me at times about some of the attempts to get people to consider their own biases is that so often the assumption is that the teacher is white, from an upper or middle class background, and not from the city.
All that said, I see nothing wrong - and much potential benefit - in helping teachers (and anyone else) consider how their own personal experiences and backgrounds shape the way they experience and understand things, and to consider how other people have different backgrounds and expectations that will in turn shape they way they experience things. That goes for teachers of all backgrounds and races/ethnicities. Programs like this do need to be careful not to overdo the focus on putting people in groups, though. Just because a kid is African American and from a poor neighborhood doesn't automatically that he or she is going to think in certain ways, or that a white kid from the suburbs is going to fall neatly into one "cultural" pattern. The suggestions in the report are overly broad and sweeping in that regard; references to "distinct ethnic cultures" include categories as broad as "Asian Americans", although the report does acknowledge that there is diversity within each culture, and does warn students not to stereotype. Missing from the list of potential ethnically distinct group suggestions is anyone white; given that this is Minnesota, after all, it could be useful for some people to look at small town third-generation Norwegian Lutherans, for example.
I also have at times seen people who have taken this goals to extremes. There's still major issues relating to race and class, and in a different way to gender, in this country, but some people are still operating under the assumption that modern students are still only learning the rich white male version of history. I remember one professor who seemed visibily disappointed that no one saw her approach towards history -- filled with the stories of regular people, in addition to rulers and kings -- as surprising. I looked at the draft report in question, and admit that it does make me a little uncomfortable. Not because of Kersten's hysteric rantings, but because there does seem to be such a focus on modern white racism, and does also seem to have the built-in bias that "white" translates into "wealthy and suburban."
But overall I would agree that it's necessary for teachers to learn to think critically about their own personal assumptions, realize that historically students have not had equal access to the "American Dream," and that generations of biased government policies have created social inequities that don't just go away overnight, and that the concept of a true meritocracy doesn't fully work unless everyone starts on an even playing field, which, of course, they don't.
The one thing that does bother me at times about some of the attempts to get people to consider their own biases is that so often the assumption is that the teacher is white, from an upper or middle class background, and not from the city.
I don't know if it's necessarily assumed, but most of the people I have encountered in undergraduate and graduate teaching programs are white or Asian women. (My graduate school cohort of 25 students contains one man, four Asian students, and one black student.) Also, college enrollment (in any major) is higher amongst women than men, so we're likely to continue to have more female than male teachers unless men start majoring in education in droves.
I've generally thought of myself as a liberal. I do not believe that what is good for large profit making corporations is good for society as a whole. The profit motive has fundamental conflicts with the medical profession. I do not trust the military-industrial complex. I also believe that Nationalism is a root of every kind of evil. I have been a member of the ACLU.
I could qualify as a flaming Leftist if it weren't for my two decades of experience in the public school systems of Los Angeles County which have pulled me inexorably into a more politically centrist position. I have seen too many emerging young adults become crippled by gratuitous sympathy and insulting special exceptions and compromises intended to make their school experience more "equal" to their anglo counterparts. Loads of assumptions are made about these "minority" (Latinos are the majority in LA) students which result in a massive disabling and unwarranted pity party in the teacher prep classes. They arrive after high school in community colleges with inferior capabilities that can be directly traced to prior pampering pedagogy, not to the ethnic biases of the community college.
Our kids in LA Unified make it through high school with the assistance of easy adult school packets of work and truncated "intersession classes" taken during their "off track" time. There are also various "skills centers" and of course, continuation high schools. These special "opportunities" amount to severely watered down versions of regular high school classes. Our inner city high schools have about a 50% passing rate on the state exit exam. The exit exam is taken in tenth grade with five or six opportunities after that. It's written at about an 8th grade level. Yet, the graduation rate remains one factor in determining a school's API and AYP - the easiest factor for unscrupulous administrators to manipulate. "Oh the poor deprived children, let's lower the standards and throw a diploma into their hands."
The solution? Close the escape valves. Stop social promotion. Get rid of grade inflation for "self esteem" restoration. Bring back a certain amount of discipline in the classroom(right now there is none). Cut out the pity party and bring consequences back into the lives of adolescents. Right now, there are very few consequences until they reach that magical age of 18. Life is one big drunken party for my students, and poor academic performance is ALWAYS considered the teacher's fault.
Blind ideological commitments are detrimental to higher education, whether they come from the left or the right. Unfortunately, the political left is a bit out of date when it comes to public schools. These are not the 1960s. Times have changed. Pop culture has changed too. "Flower power" and "Peace and love" have been replaced with "Gangsta Rap" and "Pimping the hoes" and "Grand Theft Auto."
Nope, no indoctrination goes on at our nation's universities,...yeah right.
Katherine Kersten: At U, future teachers may be reeducated | StarTribune.com (http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/70662162.html?elr=KArksc8P:Pc:Ug8P:Pc:UiD3aPc:_Yyc :aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUr - broken link)
Do you believe in the American dream -- the idea that in this country, hardworking people of every race, color and creed can get ahead on their own merits? If so, that belief may soon bar you from getting a license to teach in Minnesota public schools -- at least if you plan to get your teaching degree at the University of Minnesota's Twin Cities campus.
In a report compiled last summer, the Race, Culture, Class and Gender Task Group at the U's College of Education and Human Development recommended that aspiring teachers there must repudiate the notion of "the American Dream" in order to obtain the recommendation for licensure required by the Minnesota Board of Teaching. Instead, teacher candidates must embrace -- and be prepared to teach our state's kids -- the task force's own vision of America as an oppressive hellhole: racist, sexist and homophobic.
It calls for evaluating future teachers in both coursework and practice teaching based on their willingness to fall into ideological lockstep.
The first step toward "cultural competence," says the task group, is for future teachers to recognize -- and confess -- their own bigotry. Anyone familiar with the reeducation camps of China's Cultural Revolution will recognize the modus operandi.
Nope, no indoctrination goes on at our nation's universities,...yeah right.
Katherine Kersten: At U, future teachers may be reeducated | StarTribune.com (http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/70662162.html?elr=KArksc8P:Pc:Ug8P:Pc:UiD3aPc:_Yyc :aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUr - broken link)
Do you believe in the American dream -- the idea that in this country, hardworking people of every race, color and creed can get ahead on their own merits? If so, that belief may soon bar you from getting a license to teach in Minnesota public schools -- at least if you plan to get your teaching degree at the University of Minnesota's Twin Cities campus.
In a report compiled last summer, the Race, Culture, Class and Gender Task Group at the U's College of Education and Human Development recommended that aspiring teachers there must repudiate the notion of "the American Dream" in order to obtain the recommendation for licensure required by the Minnesota Board of Teaching. Instead, teacher candidates must embrace -- and be prepared to teach our state's kids -- the task force's own vision of America as an oppressive hellhole: racist, sexist and homophobic.
It calls for evaluating future teachers in both coursework and practice teaching based on their willingness to fall into ideological lockstep.
The first step toward "cultural competence," says the task group, is for future teachers to recognize -- and confess -- their own bigotry. Anyone familiar with the reeducation camps of China's Cultural Revolution will recognize the modus operandi.
It really helps to read stuff for yourself, Dave, rather than taking pre-digested propaganda.
Here is what the document in question says about the America Dream:
The story of the United States is often told in terms of the American Dream. Historian James Truslow Adams is thought to have coined the phrase “American Dream” in 1931, in his book, The Epic of America. Adams wrote that the American Dream is:
“That dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability and achievement. . . . It is not a dream of motor cars and high wages merely, but a dream of social order in which each man and each woman shall be able to attain to the fullest stature of which they are innately capable, and be recognized by others for what they are, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position.”
Future teachers will understand that despite an ideal about what is considered common culture in the United States, that many groups are typically not included within this celebrated cultural identity and more often than not, many students with multi-generational histories in the United States are routinely perceived to be new immigrants or foreign. That such exclusion is frequently a result of dissimilarities in power and influence.
Rather than the purported repudiation of the American Dream, the document explores the notion that many are excluded by others from their pursuit of the America Dream, and it addresses some ways in which this can be countered.
I did read the original document and what I read is just as bad as the article paints it to be. I especially did not like the part about
· history of white racism, with special focus on current colorblind ideology
when you consider the FACT that racism exist among ALL RACES,...not just white people. The fact that such a statement was written into this document by university officials tells me they are either ignorant or choose to ignore the racism of blacks, latinos, and asians. No mention of other social problems in schools involving social clicks that go beyond race and into discrimination based upon physical appearance, the amount of money their parents have, and whether or not one is a jock. The emotional trauma of the above groups is far severe and common today than racism in schools. But instead of dealing with those issues, the jocks get a pass on grades, the beautiful people get preferential treatment, and the rest of the students are afraid to speak up because they aren't blind, they see the preferential treatment teachers give these students so why bother identifying the bullying and harassment since the teachers choose to ignore such behavior and in some cases, encourage it with their enabling behavior.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jps-teacher
It really helps to read stuff for yourself, Dave, rather than taking pre-digested propaganda.
Here is what the document in question says about the America Dream:
The story of the United States is often told in terms of the American Dream. Historian James Truslow Adams is thought to have coined the phrase “American Dream” in 1931, in his book, The Epic of America. Adams wrote that the American Dream is:
“That dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability and achievement. . . . It is not a dream of motor cars and high wages merely, but a dream of social order in which each man and each woman shall be able to attain to the fullest stature of which they are innately capable, and be recognized by others for what they are, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position.”
Future teachers will understand that despite an ideal about what is considered common culture in the United States, that many groups are typically not included within this celebrated cultural identity and more often than not, many students with multi-generational histories in the United States are routinely perceived to be new immigrants or foreign. That such exclusion is frequently a result of dissimilarities in power and influence.
Rather than the purported repudiation of the American Dream, the document explores the notion that many are excluded by others from their pursuit of the America Dream, and it addresses some ways in which this can be countered.
Remember the notion of primary source documents?! This would be a good time to put it into practice!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Tough love is not an anachronism
