Equal Opportunity for Some

   According to Horace Mann, education in America is "...the great equalizer of the conditions of men, the balance-wheel of the social machinery." If men cannot be born equal, then they can be formed into equals through education.  Although Mann's statement seems ideal, I doubt its possibility. It is true that education is essential for success, but education alone cannot secure equal opportunity. 

   Reading Annette Lareau's book Unequal Childhoods has revealed to me a disheartening truth: a child's social class and family dynamics have the potential to overpower the influences of education. Lareau's observations conducted in the families of varying economic and social classes showed that education cannot always undo the structure that a child is born in to. The "American Dream" places rose colored glasses over our perceptions of classes.

   Unfortunately, most of society will not accept the argument that classes exist let alone that they restrict opportunities. Therefore educators and politicians are blamed for any inequality in schools. This places a lot of pressure on the educational system to combat any negative effects of parenting styles or economic restrictions. 

   When every student is so different, achieving the expectation of standardization is daunting and often ineffective. Giving every student and equal opportunity does not mean giving them all the same experience. So what should be done? Personally, I do not know. So far Lareau's book has created more questions than answers for me. 

   Despite the lack of answers, I would recommend Lareau's book. Her observations have encouraged me to ask hard questions about social structures and my future teaching techniques. Hopefully being aware of the questions, even if I do not know the answers, will remove my rose colored glasses and allow me to teach in the trenches of the war against inequality. 

   

Putting on the Art Teacher Apron

Often when I tell people that I am studying to become an art educator, they respond with surprise or a quizzical look. Most likely this is because I do not act or dress like the stereotypical art student (a.k.a. a hipster). Although I do wear skinny jeans and scarves, my attire consists mostly of casual athletic looking clothes....even though I possess no athletic ability....sheesh who am I???? Maybe I should be a gym teacher....
Ironically, I saw my elementary gym teacher at Big Apple Bagel yesterday and the first thing I noticed was her complete lack of "gym teacher clothes". Instead, she was wearing nice jeans, a fitted jacket, matching shoes, and her hair was perfectly curled. If I had not known her, I would definitely be surprised to hear she teaches fitness to youngsters.
Why do we expect certain people to dress a certain way? If I refuse to change my wardrobe, would the lack of "art teacher" appearance hinder me from finding a job? I realize that first impressions are important for interviews, but how much does my everyday look affect my artistic success? I have thinking about this alot recently, since I will begin my student teaching within the next year. Should I prepare myself by buying more clothes to fit the stereotype??
Maybe I'll just make an artistic apron and put it on when I become an art teacher....just like superman and his super suit :)

A Bad Example....

      As I am pursuing a career in education, I am constantly comparing my professors in order to gain a better idea of my own teaching methods. Some educators inspire me to be better, while others give me good examples of what NOT to be. Every student learns differently and it takes all types of methods in order to make a well-rounded educational system, but some methods are better left out of the picture.
      Unfortunately, the bad example I found today came from Grand Valley's Honors College. A friend of mine is taking a European civilization class, which includes some areas of art. What upset me is that she said her class is required to memorize a list of pieces, the artist, and medium. How is that learning art?!?
      I have no idea who the professor is, but they are missing out on the bigger ideas behind art history. Students are asked to memorize important pieces, but do they even know why they are important, or how they reflect the culture?? Although it is good to be familiar with artists and their work, the professor is not teaching them how to apply the information at all.
      Hearing my friend complain today gave me a good educational goal: Don't be a passive teacher. I should never fall into the complacent and outdated pedagogy of teaching raw information and expecting it to be repeated back. This will not result in a broadened mind, or even an interest in the subject being learned.
      I should have this professor read my last blog post..... :)

Teaching How to Learn

      If you ask any child why they go to school, it would not be surprising if they responded with “to learn.” What is surprising, however, is that many students today are being taught the goals and rewards of learning, and not the process of learning itself. What does it mean to learn? Why has “learning” and “going to school” become synonyms within our society? These are important questions to ask as an educator because the answers will greatly shape, both positively or negatively, the pedagogy used upon students. 

When I think of learning, I think of the acquiring of knowledge. Almost like a sponge, a mind that is learning is absorbing information. Filling the sponge may be done by anyone who comes into contact with the student, whether they speak truth or not. Once the sponge is full, the student is labeled “well-educated” and sent on their way through life. This perspective of learning, however accurate it may be, is far from the ideal picture of education. Students cannot be trained only to consume information, but taught how to process and apply it within real experiences. 

Reading the work of influential thinkers such as Thomas Jefferson, John Dewey, and Ken Robinson has reshaped the way I think about education. My new view can be summed up with a quote by John Dewey from his book Democracy and Education; “Since education is not a means to living, but is identical with the operation of living a life which is fruitful and inherently significant, the only ultimate value which can be set up is just the process of living itself (Dewey, 1916).” 

What this means is that in order to learn, students must experience learning in the same way that they experience life. Schooling should not separate life from learning, or exclude outside experiences from the classroom. Education should teach the skill of acquiring and processing knowledge in all contexts rather than the skill of repeating raw information. This leads to a more complex question: how can educators facilitate this kind of learning in an effective way?

According to Tina Barseghian, students experience learning more when educators teach less. If the student is constantly being instructed through the traditional methods of lecture, book work, and tests, what they are learning is how to survive as a student and not why the information is beneficial to their lives. Although some students may never grow up to use specific skills from subjects such as geometry or chemistry, the skills can be connected to experiences that could enhance other experiences. Basically, the point is that students cannot learn if they remain behind their desks.

Teaching methods should be active and relatable in order to fully engage the student. Ken Robinson argues that children cannot focus on “boring stuff” in school when the outside environment is so fast-paced and stimulating. Therefore, education should incorporate movement, visual stimulation, and freedom within the methods of teaching. Similar to what Deb Roy demonstrates in his Birth of a Word video, we must adjust ourselves to meet the students where they are before development can move forward. 

A good method for teaching can be seen within subjects such as music or art, where learning must be hands on. Being an art major myself, I can confirm the theory that experience based learning can benefit all subjects. My ability to think creatively and divergently, thanks to art studies, have helped me in the “process of learning for transfer” between all subjects (Barseghian, 2010). Unfortunately, teachers of other subject areas may struggle with creating a similar hands-on curriculum because they lack divergent thinking themselves. If educators are given the right resources, support, and time, however, school pedagogies can be turned towards a more relatable and engaging direction.

Working in groups, for example, is a great way for students to experience learning in all subject areas. Group collaboration encourages a common goal within a community rather than the creation of standardized individuals. It would also connect learning to real life, because life itself is never experienced alone. When students are taught individually, it separates and weakens the overall potential of the group. Working together, therefore, would create students that are less passive and more beneficial to society. 

There are other ways of leading education towards experience based learning, but it results in a pedagogy that is difficult to assess in students. If students can create their own curriculum based on their interests, as seen in the Reggio Emilia approach, how could we enforce accountability in every school? And if students work in groups, how can we observe individual understanding? Barseghian suggests using portfolios and projects rather than standardized tests, but that requires more work from educators. Until society values the quality of education more than the quantity, schools may never put the effort towards deeper learning. 

Overall, the educational system is not a complete failure when it comes to helping students learn. What educators need to realize, however, is that pedagogies should integrate the unique experiences in each generation. The process of learning is something that occurs naturally in development, therefore teaching methods should follow what is natural rather than standardized constructions. If educators followed this approach, students may find more accurate connotations for the word “learning”.

References

Barseghian, T. (2012, September 13). How do we define and measure “deeper learning”? [Web log message].

                Retrieved from http://blogs.kqed.org/mindshift/2012/09/how-do-we-define-and-measure-deeper-learning/ 

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York, NY: The Free Press.Roy, D. (2011). The birth of a word [Web]. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/deb_roy_the_birth_of_a_word.html

Robinson, K. (2010). Changing paradigms [Web]. Retrieved from http:// sirkenrobinson.com/skr/watch