I guess what I am saying is that I hope that through my guidance my students do turn out to be critical thinkers and pushers of positive change in the world. However, maybe this can be more imbedded in the curriculum that this article seems to want it. I think that this article fits right in with a previous classes discussion about whether character educations should be implicit or not. I guess I was a little back and forth then and I still am now. I think that there were some very simple and easy to implement ways to change the wording of questions and statements so that students can see the true impact and magnitude of having "others." I also see the difficulty in unlearning something as strong as a cultural belief. In my current situation I have had the term "blood is thicker than water" floating in my thoughts for a while. Where I feel that I can use some of the mentioned techniques and ideologies to try and re-educate my students, I also feel that they may simply listen to get the grade and then go home and hate fags and queers and Mexicans all the same because daddy knows best.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I won't try or that I don't think it's a nobel cause... its just kind of complicated and deeper than the article seems to make it. My students are some of the most racist, homophobic teens I've ever met and I know for a fact that they become physically angry when it is suggested the gay isn't a sin/disease/crime of the highest degree. I will however try to continue to open their eyes to new possibilities as that is my philosophy of what teaching is, simply revealing other options.
Before I close for the day, I would like to say that this article has opened my eyes to my own reactions to others. I have been using a version of the military's "don't ask/don't tell" policy in my classroom. I have blacks, males, females, Asians, whites, queers and straights, mental situations and physical situations, and people of both lower and middle classes (and I'm sure I could break them down further into different categories of others) and I teach them all exactly the same. I previously acted as if we were all the same and we should avoid pointing out our differences or stereotypes of one another. Has anyone else felt that this article will change the way they handle certain situations or even their whole lifestyle involving others?
I don't know if this article changes anything for me. Not because I don't want to change, but because I am really conscious of not making people feel conspicuous and out-of-place, I like making people feel that they are a part of the group.
ReplyDeleteI know that it's my job as a teacher to learn along with them: I help them to understand the subject matter, and they help me to understand them.
I think part of what bothered me about Kumashiro is the pedantic nature of the article. It felt very much like he was trying to win us over with his very big brain, and, in speaking deconstruction from his ivory tower, he forgets how big the daily challenges are. The time frame of 180 hours is very limited. There are so many things to teach in that time, aside from the discipline and so forth. Language Arts has quite a lot of Wisconsin Standards responsibilities.
I agree that book choice is important. Content as it is presented in class is important. When I have a seasoned English teacher telling me that I shouldn't teach a book where the main character is a girl because the boys won't read it, how likely is it that they'll embrace a book about a gay male?
I think it is more challenging than the article lets on.