3 Responses to “The Larger Construct”

1. Pete Saracino says:

   February 1, 2008 at 10:31 am

   Hey Joe – I’d like to add, it does them violence. Have begun an interesting course in Curriculum theory and am getting an eye-opener about where curriculum comes from – who “designs” it, and why and for whom….very interesting with LOTS of strings attached (see my most recent post)…..violence visited on folks of all persuasions by an ethic that can’t (or won’t) look beyond its own need to keep its own power…..ultimately (and sadly) breeding contempt for all of the rich and varied “stories” each brings to the educational table. For me it ultimately gets to the very foundational question: what is the purpose of schooling?
   We could spend lots of time with that one, I’m sure, but right now, suffice it to say that its purpose doesn’t seem to be to call forth all that is good and noble and wonderful in EVERY kid (and teacher) involved with it.
   It’s nice to know, however, that each of us – at least to some extent – has the power to bring that possibility into our teaching days – if only in little ways…..kind of like tossing a stone into the center of a pond and then standing back and watching as the ripples go out…….
   Keep making some good ripples, Joe!
   Pete
2. Dina says:

   February 1, 2008 at 5:59 pm

   I stopped listening to the President’s speeches (and I mean physically listening– I do try to pay attention otherwise) when I realized that my visceral reaction to his sentence inflection was coloring my responses to his policy. If you listen carefully, you’ll often hear a rising tone with a final aural punch. It implies the following bracketed phrase as suffix: “I refuse to leave any child behind {you assholes}.” So I guess I’m doing my bit for the larger social structure by– ironically– not tuning in.
3. Melisa says:

   February 2, 2008 at 8:19 am

   Yeah- I don’t listen to his speeches anymore. Waste of time, in my opinion.

   Interesting on what Pete said- that’s been hitting home in a way. This morning while playing quietly with my daughter, my husband and I were talking about how she is so vocal. She’s not interested in crawling or many physical things yet, at least not as much as my friend’s son about the same age, but man can she “talk” anyone’s ear off. Even at baby swim lessons she cruises around and chatters to all the other babies. Anyway, we have begun to try and teach her some simple sign language (dog, cat, food, etc.).

   Then, as I started repeating “dog” and the sign over and over to her, I remembered what we learned at Warner about how different cultures prepare and teach their children and how some kinds of preparation and early teaching are “preferred” when kids get to school. Some kids are considered unprepared for school because the kinds of learning their families preferenced when they were very young is not preferenced by our school system. And, it all goes back to who created this school system and why. Are these kids who come into the school system already considered behind the same ones that are finally the ones left out in the end? Its not just what is taught but how we recognize and cater to different ways children are taught or what experiences kids naturally come in with based on differences in cultures, socio-economic status, geography and family structures to name a few. I can’t argue with standards, but I wish more people argued with what ways of learning are preferenced in school and what this adds up to in the long run. Anyway, my husband and I mulled this over and over this morning as Lucy was literally throwing around books and “talking” to her toys. I wonder if she’s getting anything out of us talking? Early learning is fascinating!