The child farm workers of America particularly interest me because lately I’ve been hearing a lot about genetically modified seeds and dangerous pesticides being used on our crops. Virtually nothing we buy in the grocery store these days are free from antibiotics, pesticides, or harmful chemicals. These estimated 500,000 children, who are allowed to work on the farm as young as age 12, are being exposed to all of these harmful chemicals. The laws don’t seem fair. According to this site, there is no age requirement for doing potentially hazardous farm-related work for children who work on farms owned and operated by a parent or guardian. And moreover, there is no law regarding the number of hours children can work per week, as long as they do not work during school hours.
How is this affecting these children at school? Do they go to school exhausted, not being able to focus? How could they concentrate after waking up before the sun came up after only a short night of sleep? Some proponents of child farm workers may say the child should be able to work if he/she wants to. But come on, do 12 year old children really know what is best for them all of the time? The site mentions these students usually fall behind in school and the dropout rate is alarming. Well, I guess John Taylor Gatto would give them a high five for dropping out, but everyone else is well aware that dropping out is not a good idea. Proponents also argue that schools don’t teach a trade or skill and usually these farmhands come from low socioeconomic backgrounds where college is probably not an option. But does that matter? Sure teaching children about hard work and independence is wonderful, but it can go too far. All children have a right to basic health care and safety. There is no reason why child labor laws should be different for agriculture than they are for other jobs. If when these children turn 18 and are legally considered adults, they wish to expose themselves to highly toxic chemicals, by all means, go for it. Until then, it is our nation’s responsibility to protect them.
The No Child Left Behind Act does require that every migrant child be identified and the Migrant Education Program has specific goals set to help these children. But, we need to do more. Our government should seriously look into reforming education so that more trade skills are being learned by the students of America. Not every student can go to college or even a technical school after high school so we need the skills being taught in public education. We will always need farm workers, but please give the children another option. If they want to be a farm worker after high school, great, but let them make that choice.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Friday, June 12, 2009
Structure, Social Control, Curriculum, & Multiculturalism #4 Blog Assignment
Thinking way back (well ok, not too far back) to my own school experiences, the history and literature curriculum taught was very traditional from what I can remember. The only true multicultural education I received was that of African-American history and maybe a little Native American history. I don’t remember every being taught anything about African, Asian, and, Hispanic, or Latino culture. Now as I mentioned in my previous post, I didn’t pay much attention in history class. But I can see that some of the curriculum, policies, and structure of my schools were used as a means of social control. Teachers and administrators had an idea of the ‘way things should be’ that they imposed on students inadvertently. For instance, take something as simple as lining up for lunch, some of my teachers would call on certain students to be the “line leader.” The teacher would then proceed to call on each student to line up one at a time, all the way to the end of the line. Most of the time, the teacher was calling on the students first who were sitting quietly with their books neatly packed away, but something as simple as this creates a hierarchy of status for young students. My 3 year old has even been taught at her daycare that the status of “line leader” is a title of significance. And even if the teacher did not intentionally call on the white child before the Latino child, the Latino child may feel as though his ‘place’ in society is just like his ‘place’ in line…last.
The Hirsch essay, Toward a Centrist Curriculum, and the Waxler reading, Multiculturalism in School Curriculum, both discuss how multiculturalism should be integrated into education, and I don’t think their ideas are completely different. While Hirsch uses more elaborate terminology to convey his view, they both seem to agree that a cosmopolitan, centrist curriculum is the best way to incorporate a variety of cultures in our curriculum. Waxler points out that, “Having separate months for different cultures is exactly the opposite of what a true multicultural education should be trying to achieve.” He goes on to give examples of ways he incorporates a variety of perspectives into his classroom. At the same time, he doesn’t think we have to move away from the traditional curriculum. In the Centrist curriculum presented by Hirsch, the third characteristic of the curriculum is that “it gives all children competence in the current system language and allusion that is dominant in the nation's economic and intellectual discourse.” Isn't this basically agreeing with Waxler that we do not have to totally move away from the traditional curriculum? Hirsch agrees that rejecting the dominant culture would harm children that are in most need of help. Hirsch ends his essay by saying, “If we Americans are to choose between the narrow ideal of ethnic loyalty and the broad ideal of social fairness, let us without hesitation choose fairness.” Well said.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Multiculturism in America, #3 Blog Assignment
Ok this one is tough for me. I don’t have my own teaching experiences to reflect on diversity and multiculturism in the classroom, and during my years of education, I never really thought that much about it. And to be frank, I never paid that much attention in history class either, which has always haunted me. Therefore, I really have to do some catch up work. The one thing I do remember is that February is black history month. Every February, the history lessons for the entire month were always centered on black history, and at times I wondered why black history should get a whole month devoted to it. I wondered why we didn’t devote an entire month to the history of any other culture or ethic group such as Native Americans, Chinese, or even European Americans. I don’t know about any of you, but I feel like the issue of racism towards African Americans has been beaten into the ground and by both sides for that matter.
In the three multiculturism readings, the most intriguing to me was the article by Samuel Taylor. Taylor is obviously a very conservative, white male who basically bashes the nation’s effort to teach students a multicultural view of American history. He compares multicultural history to affirmative action and says “just as whites are to step aside to give hiring preferences to minorities, whites are to set aside their own point of view and study those of others. Non-whites, on the other hand, are free to promote their own interests and exclusionist histories” (Taylor). He argues that blacks are learning “the kind of history that whites once learned—a history that builds identity” while white children are learning that nothing is certain and they will not be able to look back on their nation’s past with pride. I think he has some legitimate points in that textbooks should not try to cloud the past by making it sound as though America was always multicultural. However, I think he takes it overboard. The fact is we are making history as we speak and our nation is very multicultural. So eventually, the history books will be telling the truth. If other nations aren’t trying to promote diversity by including minority cultures or if minority cultures in the US aren’t including white culture in American history, we shouldn’t get discouraged by that and follow suit. We, as Americans should be proud that at least the predominantly white textbook writers in this country are making an effort.
In the Pithissippi Burning article by Tobia, we get a more liberal viewpoint about race and American culture. While Taylor is afraid that white culture will soon be altogether lost, Tobia fears that since a black man was just appointed into the highest office in our country, African Americans will be blamed for our “tanking” economy. And lastly, in the “Why Multiculturalism is Wrong” reading, the Netherlands author’s view of multiculturism is totally different from Taylor’s view. This author says that multiculturism in the Netherlands is the opposite of equality. He says, “A multicultural society is a society where African immigrants clean toilets, and upper-middle-class ethnic Dutch are the lawyers, pilots, surgeons and bankers.” This perspective differs vastly from Taylor’s. Taylor is against multiculturalism because it enforces equality here in America while the Netherlands author is against it because it enforces inequality.
Sigh…Dog gone it, why can’t everyone just get along and give credit where credit is due regardless of race, culture, or ethnicity?
In the three multiculturism readings, the most intriguing to me was the article by Samuel Taylor. Taylor is obviously a very conservative, white male who basically bashes the nation’s effort to teach students a multicultural view of American history. He compares multicultural history to affirmative action and says “just as whites are to step aside to give hiring preferences to minorities, whites are to set aside their own point of view and study those of others. Non-whites, on the other hand, are free to promote their own interests and exclusionist histories” (Taylor). He argues that blacks are learning “the kind of history that whites once learned—a history that builds identity” while white children are learning that nothing is certain and they will not be able to look back on their nation’s past with pride. I think he has some legitimate points in that textbooks should not try to cloud the past by making it sound as though America was always multicultural. However, I think he takes it overboard. The fact is we are making history as we speak and our nation is very multicultural. So eventually, the history books will be telling the truth. If other nations aren’t trying to promote diversity by including minority cultures or if minority cultures in the US aren’t including white culture in American history, we shouldn’t get discouraged by that and follow suit. We, as Americans should be proud that at least the predominantly white textbook writers in this country are making an effort.
In the Pithissippi Burning article by Tobia, we get a more liberal viewpoint about race and American culture. While Taylor is afraid that white culture will soon be altogether lost, Tobia fears that since a black man was just appointed into the highest office in our country, African Americans will be blamed for our “tanking” economy. And lastly, in the “Why Multiculturalism is Wrong” reading, the Netherlands author’s view of multiculturism is totally different from Taylor’s view. This author says that multiculturism in the Netherlands is the opposite of equality. He says, “A multicultural society is a society where African immigrants clean toilets, and upper-middle-class ethnic Dutch are the lawyers, pilots, surgeons and bankers.” This perspective differs vastly from Taylor’s. Taylor is against multiculturalism because it enforces equality here in America while the Netherlands author is against it because it enforces inequality.
Sigh…Dog gone it, why can’t everyone just get along and give credit where credit is due regardless of race, culture, or ethnicity?
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Religion in Schools, Blog Assignment #2
Wow it’s amazing what people will do to stand up for what they believe in. When I read cases like these, I automatically think, “Who has time to fret over such small stuff?” But who am I to say that this is “small stuff” in the eyes of either of these students or their parents? We have in one article an atheist girl who does not want to observe a moment of silence and in the other article a Jehovah’s Witness boy who will not salute the flag. These are two completely different scenarios in some ways, but both are refusing to adhere to the laws or rules of the school because of their religious beliefs. I don’t really consider atheism as a religion, but it is referred to as a religion in many places. I think the court ruled incorrectly in the case of the girl refusing to pause for a moment of silence because it was meant for prayer or personal reflection. Did they miss the memo? It is meant for “prayer OR personal reflection.” You have the CHOICE! They gave people who do not want to pray an option. Prayer is a process that your mind creates. It’s basically thinking in the direction of God. And if they have an issue with personal reflection, no one can force you to think certain thoughts. They can force you to remain quiet but what goes on in your head, they will never know. So why shouldn’t a school be able to require a “moment of silence.” It seems the court made a hasty decision in my opinion on this one.
Now, in the case of the boy refusing to salute the flag, it was eventually decided that the government does not have the authority to require the saluting of the American flag or recitation of the pledge of allegiance. It was interesting to me how the boy claimed it was a form of idolatry. I’ve never thought of it that way, and although I don’t agree with him, I can actually see his point. However, the pledge does say “One nation under God” though, so it seems it is in a sense recognizing the commandment, “Thou shall have no other gods before me.” Unlike the moment of silence case where the court, in my opinion, made the wrong decision, I think the decision made was ultimately fair in the case of saluting the flag. And it’s hard for me to say that since I’m all for respecting the flag. But respecting in my eyes was considered idolatry in the eyes of this young Jehovah’s Witness. That’s all for now.Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Innovators and "Makers" #1 Blog Assignment
Where to begin? The story on Gatto’s site of the little girl Bianca who was put in her place by the assistant principal, but who grew up large, mean, and veangeful caught my attention and I feel compelled to respond. I’ve never actually heard a teacher or another school official tell a student to “Shut-Up” or call them an animal, but then again, I’ve lived a pretty sheltered life. It’s been 10 years since I graduated from high school and since I’ve really been in a public K-12 classroom setting so when I’m asked to select an innovator and a “maker” that I feel truly influenced public education, I am forced to think back to 10-15 years ago and use my student experience as my perception of “education as we know it today.”
So what is education as we know it today? Many of you reading my blog are already teaching in a public school system and have a much better grasp on this than me so bare with me please. Obviously there are great things and not so great things in our public schools systems. To bring me to the innovator I chose for this blog, I’d like to focus on one of the problems I can see. This is the lack of parental involvement in the later years of their children’s education. At first, parents and students, too, are so excited about entering kindergarten. I’ve heard from several teachers, “You don’t want to teach kindergarten or 1st grade. The parents won’t leave you alone.” They go on to say once kids reach 3rd grade most of the overzealous parents have fizzled out and you only have a handful that are always knocking at your door. But why should parents fizzle out like that? I can see why some teachers see parents being too involved as a distraction and they probably view parents as the boss always looking over your shoulder. But I believe schools should encourage parental involvement all the way through high school and give parents a voice in their child’s schooling. Gatto’s prologue on his site asks parents why they are compelled to surrender their children to a “government agent called a schoolteacher” when they know very little about that persons background or family. And, a light bulb went off in my head. This is so true. Parents do not get to choose their children’s teachers so why don’t they spend more time trying to at least know who is teaching their children. My choice innovator, Deborah Meier, promotes a family-oriented school system. Her commitment truly inspired me…“What I wanted was to create thoughtful citizens — people who believed they could live interesting lives and be productive and socially useful. So I tried to create a community of children and adults where the adults shared and respected the children’s lives.”
Now the difference in the innovators and the “makers” seems to be that while the innovators intended to reform education as we know it, the “makers” unintentionally impacted the education system or impacted in indirectly. My blog is getting lengthly so I will introduce the “maker” that I feel truly influenced public education, Henry Ford. Henry Ford opened many educational facilities including a trade school specializing in training for industrial careers. I personally believe we need more of this training in our public school system. Way to go Ford! Most of our high school graduates these days don’t have any specialized skills. If they are not going on to college, they are not prepared to enter the workforce.
While the PBS site was very much from a positive prospective of the school system, the Gatto site had a much more cynical view of our public schools. It claims the “makers” have created a 4th purpose of schooling which is to train in consumerism. My initial thought was, “That’s ludicrous,” but after reading on, I think he might have something here.
Other sources used:
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1621.html
So what is education as we know it today? Many of you reading my blog are already teaching in a public school system and have a much better grasp on this than me so bare with me please. Obviously there are great things and not so great things in our public schools systems. To bring me to the innovator I chose for this blog, I’d like to focus on one of the problems I can see. This is the lack of parental involvement in the later years of their children’s education. At first, parents and students, too, are so excited about entering kindergarten. I’ve heard from several teachers, “You don’t want to teach kindergarten or 1st grade. The parents won’t leave you alone.” They go on to say once kids reach 3rd grade most of the overzealous parents have fizzled out and you only have a handful that are always knocking at your door. But why should parents fizzle out like that? I can see why some teachers see parents being too involved as a distraction and they probably view parents as the boss always looking over your shoulder. But I believe schools should encourage parental involvement all the way through high school and give parents a voice in their child’s schooling. Gatto’s prologue on his site asks parents why they are compelled to surrender their children to a “government agent called a schoolteacher” when they know very little about that persons background or family. And, a light bulb went off in my head. This is so true. Parents do not get to choose their children’s teachers so why don’t they spend more time trying to at least know who is teaching their children. My choice innovator, Deborah Meier, promotes a family-oriented school system. Her commitment truly inspired me…“What I wanted was to create thoughtful citizens — people who believed they could live interesting lives and be productive and socially useful. So I tried to create a community of children and adults where the adults shared and respected the children’s lives.”
Now the difference in the innovators and the “makers” seems to be that while the innovators intended to reform education as we know it, the “makers” unintentionally impacted the education system or impacted in indirectly. My blog is getting lengthly so I will introduce the “maker” that I feel truly influenced public education, Henry Ford. Henry Ford opened many educational facilities including a trade school specializing in training for industrial careers. I personally believe we need more of this training in our public school system. Way to go Ford! Most of our high school graduates these days don’t have any specialized skills. If they are not going on to college, they are not prepared to enter the workforce.
While the PBS site was very much from a positive prospective of the school system, the Gatto site had a much more cynical view of our public schools. It claims the “makers” have created a 4th purpose of schooling which is to train in consumerism. My initial thought was, “That’s ludicrous,” but after reading on, I think he might have something here.
Other sources used:
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1621.html
Monday, June 1, 2009
Overwhelmed but Anxious
Hello, my name is Bonnie Jones. I am just starting my journey on "Learning to Teach Like a Rock Star." I don't know why I chose that name for my journey. I'm definitely a country girl when it comes to the music genres. But hey, rock stars are awesome, too. I have finally taken the leap to begin this journey after agonizing over the decision for several years. Currently, I am the HR Director at a local HR company. I like this line of work, but I don't want to look back when I'm at retirement age and wish I had been a teacher. I'm also a full time mom to an almost 4 year old, but I have a plethera of family and friends locally that love to babysit! They are the only way I'm going to be able to make graduate school work, so thank you family and friends! That's all for now.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
