Lee points out the irony of the achievement gap on page 183: although it would seem obvious that the successes of one group at the expense of others creates problems that “will eventually leach into other segments” of society, the dominant group (Whites) doesn’t work hard enough to close the gap, placing more blame on others than taking responsibility. She uses the phrase “all in the same boat,” and when I read that I did not think of The Mayflower, Life of Pi or even Noah’s Ark. I thought of The Titanic. Everyone was on the same boat, yes, and that boat hit an ice berg, but who had first access to the too-few life boats? The people who were on deck. The wealthy were more likely to be saved, for the oppressed classes were down below and were denied the opportunities to get top-side in order that they might save themselves. To me, this emphasizes all the more the responsibility of those on the higher end of the achievement gap to those “underperformers”. Sure, we are all equal, but we do not have the same equity. The conversation of merit and the disrobing of cultures not in line with the current system cannot continue. Humanity does not have to abide by Darwinic ideologies. It is arrogant and short-sided to do so.
In Chapter 5, Lee brings to light what I had commented in my notes while reading the first part of the book: the relationship between content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge. I have often thought about the demands of a teacher’s mind and “how we think about what teachers need to know” (110). School is this interesting place where your performance is continuously measured, and one measurement is necessary to qualify for the next and the next. And whatever it is that makes someone “good at school” somehow means they’re more qualified to ultimately – to what? To work? In my perception, people become ELA teachers, not because of their past proficiency in pedagogical content knowledge (this, I think, often has a small window for seeding, rooting, and growing as most pedagogical knowledge is formed during Student Teaching and in reaction to the first years of teaching – again, this is my estimation) but because of their performance in and success with ELA content knowledge. There is a necessity in knowing both the ins and outs of the discipline but also how people learn, highlighted by two points in particular: understanding “enduring misconceptions and naïve theories held by youth ant novices generally” and “multiple routes to maximize opportunities to learn” (120). For some reason, I feel that many people are committed to streamlining their own production and work in a way that it would be more work and not worth the individual effort to think broadly and deeply about pedagogy, which would ultimately require change.
The crux of Chapter 5, and the book, in my estimation comes on page 129. The teacher must commit to and actually make progress in coming “to know each student and the life circumstances that student brings with him when he enters a classroom.” That is the daunting and ultimate measure of teaching, and it must be the first thing in a teacher’s heart, mind, and deed. Does it profit a theologian to study scriptures without a desire to know God? Do I have a desire to share my knowledge with those unexposed, or am I concerned with knowing my students? Not many jobs carry the same kinds of ethical pressures. My grandfather told me that his mother once said, “Teachers don’t teach [English]. They teach pupils.” Shall I be in the business of teaching far-off content or in knowing students and encouraging them as they open doors to their own world?
No comments:
Post a Comment