Room for debate: My thoughts on particular issues in education

                       I'm writing this post in the hopes to encourage constructive debate on the various topics. Furthermore, this post serves as an organizing document for my own personal use to go back to and revise. I think education is a multi-faceted subject and there are only a few topics I can discuss with some authority, so if you feel I miss something essential, feel free to bring it up in the comments.



1. Charter school movement:
               I think the charter school movement overall has hurt the state of public education in this country. Now before you think of me as just another union talking head, please hear me out. I think there's a place for charter schools in our current education system. I just feel there's something fishy about the fact that charter schools are pretty much exclusively placed in low-income areas. Charter schools, as I imagine them, are essentially test labs for new pedagogy. Some pedagogy needs a whole school approach to test it and what better way than to allow informed and consenting adults place their kids in charters. Unfortunately, we've used charter schools as reform schools. We consider them to be the silver bullet in education. Charter chains such as Success Academy and Uncommon have created a brand of education they believe can be mass produced and replicated on a large scale. The reality of their success is created through huge disparities in funding and borderline illegal financial practices, revealing that often the silver bullet in education is funding. Couple that with behavioral management systems that are often totalitarian and unfair and you end up supporting a school system that drains money for public schools, while also causing irreparable damage to our kids. Now let's not believe that all charters are created equal. Some charters function with similar funding levels as public schools and lo and behold, they often perform similarly.

2. Special Education:
             Special Education is currently in an abysmal state. The ICT movement which has integrated many special education students into general education settings have simply made it so that special education teachers no longer need to be special education teachers anymore. Instead the push is for differentiation for all students, but students with special needs frankly do actually have intensive academic needs that need special attention. The ICT classroom sometimes functions well, but often it just creates a classroom with two teachers functioning as general ed teachers. Differentiation becomes difficult and borderline impossible because SPED teachers are expected to share Gen Ed teacher duties. This practice is unrealistic and unfair for SPED teachers. The decline of the 12:1:1 was greeted with open arms, but really all it has done is created a strict dichotomy between the least restrictive environment and the most restrictive. Many students have been referred to a special school district for intensive learning deficiencies just because the school they attend refuses to have a 12:1:1 section.

3. The solution to our public education system:
         There is no silver bullet for fixing the education system, but one place to start is classroom sizes. Regardless of reform, classrooms are still packed to the brim with students. The trend in many poor neighborhoods show that classroom sizes are growing. Naysayers like Bill Gates and company will argue that classroom size is not an issue, but the research clearly states otherwise. A recent study done by the University of Texas showed large class sizes had a negative effect on overall student performance. The study itself ironically used classroom sizes that would be considered ideal in New York City (23-25 students). If we believe the quality derived from making classroom sizes smaller follows a diminishing returns logic, then our students stand to benefit tremendously in our overcrowded schools.

4. Voucher system:
           Hahahahaha... let's be serious.



5. Workshop model versus inquiry based learning:
      There is a new fad in math pedagogy and it's called inquiry based learning (or discovery learning). It suggests that instead of explicitly teaching concepts in math, students should be encouraged to discover and figure out problems on their own without any prior knowledge given by the teacher. Of course scaffolding can be provided, but the notion of not explicitly telling kids how to go about solving mathematical problems is interesting. Furthermore, this method of teaching runs counter to the workshop model which begins with direct instruction from the teacher and eventually ends with autonomous work by the student. As for which pedagogy is better, I believe most pedagogy have a time and place in learning. Some concepts in math better lend themselves to discovery (e.g. instead of teaching someone inverse operation, letting them naturally figure out the process can be rewarding). Other concepts requires explicit directions in order to do them properly. Also, standardized tests make discovery learning problematic because exams might have expected answer formats that are far more easier to relay through a workshop model.

6. Teach For America:
    I have a lot of mixed feelings about Teach For America. First, I think the organization is confused as to what its actual goal is. It claims that it intends to close the achievement gap and provide quality education for everyone, but in actuality all it does is put in a cadre of grossly under prepared teachers in some of the most difficult teaching positions in existence. Teach For America couples this with very limited support throughout the school year and a culture that encourages stepping stone mentalities. What I mean is not many TFA corp members stay in education and the ones who do don't typically stay in the trenches. Furthermore, TFA's strong ties with charter schools is also troubling simply because the charter movement is hurting their main mission (providing great schools for all children). The real mission for TFA is to get people interested in education and to create an influx of excellent teachers. I think TFA succeeds in the first portion, all corp members I know, including those who quit mid year, have a deep passion for education that was at least given some perspective through their time in TFA. The second goal on the other hand they fail miserably at and using the rest of the nation as a benchmark is not a fair assessment either, since first year teachers in general are being tossed into classrooms grossly under prepared.

Why consent is not a cup of tea.

                      If you haven't watched the consent as a cup of tea metaphor video, then go watch it and come back to read this post. I despise the consent as a cup of tea metaphor becomes it is the continuation of an unsettling trend I've seen in many discussions around sexuality and consent. Often people feel there is so much ambiguity around what consent is and what healthy sex looks like that we as a community need to come up with a way to simplify many of the concepts we created to talk about sex. The issue is sex can often be complicated. Sex means a lot of different things for a lot of different people and while the "cup of tea" metaphor might seem like an apt introduction to the concept of consent, it actually inhibits one from deeply considering the importance of consent and the act of sex in general. Furthermore, when we consider the audience for this video, we realize it's actually just pandering to a group of (mainly men) men who try to find grey areas within definitions of sex in order to continue acting like pigs. "But we were both drunk they," say! "She didn't say she did not want it," they exclaim! Buddies, buddies, remember the cup of tea analogy? What we really need to say to these individuals is a conversation similar to the one had in this comic strip. Misogynistic men don't need hand holding, they just need some real talk.
                People might rail back claiming that the video wasn't "that big of a deal", but it cheapens the way we discuss these issues. Different people have different levels of comfortableness with sex and sex as an action is something we have differing opinions on. Tea is a beverage. Sex is something that can be incredibly passionate and often involves a degree of emotional and physical vulnerability. Tea comes hot and cold. Sex can often proceed months of build up or can be a spur of the moment endeavor for an individual, leading to huge differences on the importance and significance of sex for individuals. Tea sometimes requires hot water. Sex is something people often do exclusively and sometimes can be shared with multiple partners, regardless the rate of engagement differs significantly according to person. I can get tea at home or I can walk four blocks up to the diner and have tea served there. If someone tells me they want sex and at the moment we are about to have it, they have second thoughts, I won't become disgruntled as I understand it's an incredibly personal act. If you ask for a cup of tea and I make it for you and you don't drink it, I'm going to be peeved.
          So yea, can we stop it with the simplistic explanations for what is honestly something that we should be giving some degree of thought to. Also, if you don't understand that you need to make sure someone is ok with sex before having it, then you're an inconsiderate ass. I doubt the video is going to make any difference. So I say more sex and less tea! Or at least more discussion about sex and I guess tea itself can remain, just stay out of our metaphors, though I guess it's better than the getting a cup of coffee euphemism. Ok maybe instead of saying you got a cup of coffee, you can say you got a cup of tea?

Legend of Korra: the long wait till the avatar finally does something

      I was so excited for the 4th season of Legend of Korra. I thought that the series (and Korra) was going through a period of maturation as it geared up for a new world riddled with political turmoil and strife. But Korra's journey from her disability and traumatic experience was devoid of deep meaning. Symbolically it was confusing as Korra did not overcome the disability by herself or with the help of a sage character (two to be exact), or through the love and acceptance of her friends. Instead she sought out the source of the disability, an evil source, and in a few moments of dialogue resolved all the issues with him. It just didn't make sense. I believe that had an entire episode been devoted to a spiritual awakening that stood in for the acceptance of her disability not as a hurdle to be overcame, but as a piece of her to be acknowledged and adjusted for, then I would not have been disappointed. But the show doesn't seem to be making any commentary. Instead it just felt like they needed her better and Zaheer was the only deus ex machina left. Even if they were going to go through the trouble of making her better, it has now been two episodes and Korra is MIA in terms of definitive action. She is on the sidelines while others are making moves. The Avatar should be integral to the process, it should never feel as if everyone else is more significant than the avatar, and yet I feel like Korra isn't even necessary. I'm sure the show will come up with some reason to make her necessary (cue the super weapon that can't be stopped), but for two episodes, I honestly cared more about Toph and Bolin than I did about Korra. I'm going to organize my thoughts a bit more. I don't have time to organize this into a well sculpted essay, so a list will have to do.

1. Characters- Characters in Korra never complete their character arcs. The show has developed some amazing characters: Korra, Bolin, Janorra, Kai, etc. But the show hasn't leveraged the character arcs in this current season. We need to see characters change, but it feels as if the only character who has significantly changed was Korra. All other characters have pretty much remained static. A great example of this is Bolin. Bolin foolishly joins Kuevera thinking he is contributing to the greater good and eventually turns his back on his friends and family in devotion to this facade. When the facade comes tumbling down he takes it lightly. Sure he shows remorse, but it's as if he disassociated himself with the tragedy. The work camps and reeducation camps described in the show are reminiscent to Japanese internment and the Holocaust, yet Bolin absolves himself of direct responsibility. It would have been nice to see him become frustrated and a tad consumed with guilt. Then his friends and his eventual resolution with Opal could help him forgive himself for the atrocities he accidentally supported. Also, why is it that Kai has basically been MIA for the majority of this season? The budding romance between Janorra and Kai is an important tool to be used. Their naivety and youth reminds us of the old avatar squad and could have easily been juxtaposed with Korra's group to make an interesting meta commentary of the differences between the two shows. Instead Kai, who in my opinion has developed nicely in the previous season, is completely missing and Janorra is still just as prominent. Also, the drama between Bei Fong, her sister and Toph was good, but lacked the emotional depth to be compelling. That episode where she forgives Toph felt unrealistic. One act of remorse is not enough to mend years of neglect.

2. Universe Logic- In every great fantasy series there is a logic that the universe follows which allows fantastical things to be significant and meaningful to us. In star wars, the metaphorical significance of light saber fights as a method of expressing personal discord was evident in the original series. In the original avatar the spirit world as a source of wisdom, but also mystique and danger. This trope of a wise yet dangerous spirit world was logic put into place. But with the convergence of the spirit world and human world there is massive confusion. First, why was the spirit world ever merged? This question is never answered. Second, why did the airbenders get their powers through this convergence? You can suspend disbelief for it, but why do so when you can construct a logic to explain the phenomenon, while also developing a more believable universe for your audience. You see the spirit world in the human world, but not the human world in the spirit world. Why is that the case? Also, with all the past avatar's dead is there any way to get them back? If there is anything the show needs to deus ex machina it is that. The process of looking back on past lives was symbolically powerful in the first series. To lose that is to lose  a powerful moment in the show. As the show continues we see the spirits unwilling to engage in the human conflict. Why? What possibly could be this holier than thou attitude the spirits have. That's the issue the spirits and humans in the Legend of Wan arc did not merely act holier than thou, but instead acted with genuine distrust. The spirits in the old avatar and in the first two seasons of the new have consistently acted holier than thou. Interactions or discussions about the spirit world also had this holier than thou feel. You can't add a religiosity to a show and then dismiss its religious element when it is convenient. Even arguing the difference between spirituality and religiosity is moot. We revere the spiritual world because it's a source of wisdom, therefore the convergence of the human and spirit world just seems disrespectful and more analogous to a tower of babel type tale.

3. Political banter- the political undertones of the show are too broad. Of course you want to use a political archetype as the basis of your show to draw audiences in and provide a bedrock for narrative complexity, but eventually this must be nuanced. Kuevera is a general, but what does she do that makes her so fearsome? She has labor camps. Show them. I want to see the plight. She steals resources. Show that. You need to be able to see why Kuevera is that big of a threat. Instead the show took their favorite "let's turn the main baddie into a raving lunatic approach." The ending of season 3 was so great because you knew Zaheer wasn't just some raving lunatic. He had a logic behind his actions and there were even times where we could take a second and sympathize with his loss. Also, I felt like Korra was thematically taking on flawed views of government. Amon- Racist dictatorship, Unalaq- Monarchy/Theocracy, Zaheer- Anarchy, and Kuevera- military dictatorship. But the way they dispose these governments are essentially the same. The leaders end up being psychologically disposed. Desperation does not always breed such rash judgement. For example, Kuevera killing her fiance seemed to make very little sense. Why did she press so quickly when she could have easily waited sent a team to extract him out? Sure, she might view him as an asset, but he was a very strong asset as he was the one who constructed the super weapon. She had the full advantage and it wasn't like he was disloyal. 

Transformative teaching is sustainable teaching

                   A month into my first year of teaching, I talked to a veteran teacher who also taught my students for English. I told him about the horror stories TFA teachers have to deal with, describing one instance where a corp member had a chair thrown at them, but returned the next day with their head held high. What I expected was a nod of approval and possibly an affirmation of how tough the job can be. Instead the veteran teacher looked at me with an incredulous look. He asked me if what I was saying was true and I confirmed it, surprised by his reluctance to believe it. I followed it up by saying, " well that's part of the job." He then responded in a candid manner that opened my eyes to the true wonder of teaching. He told me "there needs to be an alternative to having a chair thrown at me."
        Teaching is supposed to be a selfless job. This perception is taken to the extreme, often recreated through compelling narratives of a single teacher who gives up their days, nights, lunches, bathroom breaks, their brother's wedding and their own physical safety in the hopes to compel their kids to academic success. This all or nothing attitude is glorified in the rank and file of Teach For America. Michelle Rhee, the famous education reformer and former corp member, described her first year as horrible experience and instead spent her entire summer working to get her kids to succeed. What is not given much thought is the fact that she was only able to keep this practice up for two years, after which she left her job to work in the field of education as a reformer. Is Michelle Rhee's story really what we should be striving for? Is it fair to our teachers to ask them to burn themselves out in order to teach our kids?
     When the veteran teacher candidly spoke about having standards for his work space, it was the first time a teacher had spoken about their profession with their own mental and physical health in mind. The entire time I saw the profession as a selfless endeavor people took on themselves until they couldn't muster the energy to do it any longer. Now I realize we need to stop promoting an unsustainable standard for teachers. Teachers are not only entitled to work hard, but they are also entitled to maintain their health while doing so. Over testing, high stakes evaluation systems, and ineffective administrations all contribute to a system that makes the teaching profession poisonous for mental health. Charters are not exempt from this poison, often seeing high turn over rates due to unrealistic expectations and unhealthy hours.
    It is national teacher appreciation week and I don't want you to appreciate me. I want you all to appreciate veteran teachers who have stood past the initial 5 years to devote their lives to a craft that is incredibly difficult and often over taxing. When cheering your favorite teacher on why not also show your support by saying no to many of the policies that cause them undue stress? Why not support for reform that does not punish teachers. Why not push for smaller class sizes? At the very least we can support a narrative that no longer glorifies an unsustainable model of teaching. Teachers need an alternative to having to burn themselves out in order to teach their kids. It's our job to push law makers to find that alternative. 

When confidence became stupidity

           This is going to be a short blog. When did confidence become an indicator of stupidity? I feel in the "age of introverts", we find that the extroverted bunch,who are typically quick to open their mouths for the slightest infraction, are portrayed as obnoxious and stupid. They are made out to be akin to an abrasive frat boy who won't shut up in his introduction to philosophy course even though he clearly did none of the reading. But just as introverts (and the whole introvert vs extrovert dichotomy is annoying and false, but whatevs pop culture) use silence and deep introspection as a way of digesting material, extroverts use social engagement and out loud thinking in order to form their opinions. I am the guy who will talk about a movie the minute the credits start rolling and then have a completely different opinion an hour or two later. The discussion I initially have helps me digest and reflect on the content of the art. In this same vein, when I write on my blog I do so confidently, leaving myself with little wiggle room in terms of backtracking. I've seen articles and critics be essentially lambasted for speaking in what amounts to absolutes. Sometimes absolutes are fun to talk in. We all know they aren't true and exceptions exist, but when I say if you enjoyed episode 2 of Star Wars then we can never be friends, I strongly believe that statement might be true (seriously, even I will have the power to keep people from caring). This runty rant (alliteration!) was brought about by the criticism surrounding Moviebob. His reviews are poignant and in your face, often taking the form of intense criticism that is typically hard to verify or falsify. His work is thought provoking, but is rarely apologetic about its critical framework. People take that as "him thinking he's smarter than he is." But it's called having a persona in your writing. Nobody wants to believe you if you write a post talking about how you may be right in a field that's subjective to begin with. So yea, I write as if I'm right. I acknowledge inconsistencies and possible areas of confusion where I can't explain myself completely, but if you want me and anyone else who is unabashedly confident in their work to begin "toning it down" in order to appear pensive, then you're going to be waiting for a long time. 

Cutting People off and Being there

                             One fad I remember from college was the "radical" notion of self love. Self love essentially asked us to free ourselves from the expectations of society and the people around us and instead begin to love ourselves unconditionally, regardless of our flaws. A component of self love was removing toxic individuals from your life. Basically we needed to identify the people in our lives that drained us or made us feel less of ourselves and swiftly cut them off in order to achieve a state of happiness. This nonchalant action of removing someone from your life always left a sour taste in my mouth. I pride myself on being someone who cares too much and I've held onto people far too long and sure it hurt, but it also allowed me to keep other people in my life who I would have otherwise removed. Cutting someone off is always my last resort because the action itself is painful. The myth of a clean break from a poisonous person reflected an underlying pretension and selfishness I always felt when listening to the doctrine of "self love" in college.
                        A recent article I read brought up this grey area in self love doctrine by viewing how it interacts with mental illness. The article itself mentions mental illness and how it is often described as a "negative" state. Many will engage with their friends who have mental illness in this manner and quickly label them as negative. And according to the doctrine of self love, if someone is draining you then that's ground to cut them off. If I could be candid without a horde of criticism (hell I don't care if you criticize me), mental illness is draining. It's draining not only for those who suffer it, but also for those close to them. So if you have a friend who suffers from a mental illness you should expect to feel some of the effects from it. Not that you deserve any pity.
                    Let's have some real talk for a bit, this blogpost will be very informal for the sake of being honest about how I feel on this matter. I had a friend in high school who suffered from a mental illness. We were friends for about three years and as the years went on our relationship become more and more strained. Part of this was due to the illness, but it also had to do with normal high school drama and stress. I was quick to call her negative, but I stood by her believing that only the lowest form of a person abandons their friends. At a certain point me and few other close friends of hers decided enough was enough. We couldn't handle the emotional toll she took on us anymore and so one by one we decided to cut her out of our lives. At the time we came up with excuses and threw the blame on her. But now that I can look back, the reality is we couldn't handle her mental illness. It was too much for us and we weren't strong enough. Well I don't want to speak for everyone else, so let me me take that back and clarify that I was not strong enough. It was difficult cutting her out of my life and though I put on a strong face pretending she was irrelevant at the point I decided she wasn't in my life, the reality (aptly shown by the fact that I'm writing about her several years later) was that I lost someone close to me. "Negative people", mental illness or not, are people who we can become close with. Sometimes we're the negative people in another person's life and they have to make the choice of whether they can handle us or not. In the end I can't absolve myself by hiding behind the shield of self love. I made a choice to remove my friend from my life. It was a choice that I have no doubt hurt both of us.
              I believe we need to love ourselves, but we cannot become self absorbed. The moment we believe our happiness always trumps everyone else's happiness is when self love has gone too far. Good friendship is punctuated by sacrifice and compromise. And sometimes friendships don't work out. When you do decide to cut the individual off, do so with a heavy heart and don't feel foolish for having lingering thoughts about them. You can grieve the loss of a friend even if you were the one that decided to end the friendship. As for friends with mental illness, if you absolutely cannot handle the toll it might take you can always end your friendship, but you'll have to live with that decision. It isn't a question of who is right or wrong at that point. Honestly it's finding the resolution that makes both people happy. 

Social Justice Warriors need to take a seat

                I can't stand people who cling to the tenets of social justice, but refuse to accept how  disconnected many of the claims and beliefs are from the actual populations they like to talk about. A prime example of this is when I see articles written from my Alma Mater describing education inequality and income inequality. They'll talk about we need to create self determination and need to take back important things such as language, agency and culture. How about we take back some food? Honestly, many of the people writing these pieces are so disconnected from the reality of things. They post studies, statistics and theories illuminating why they are right and everyone else is ignorant. I used to be one of them and one of the best decisions I ever made was to follow the convictions I believed in. So I put aside my contempt for the gentrifying force that was Teach For America and took advantage of the fact that someone was going to pay me to go home and teach kids from where I was from. And that's when I truly learned Social Justice because instead of being in the nice sterile environment of a college dorm room, I was confronted with people who had far more pressing needs. Rent, your job, taxes, food to eat, gang violence, these are things we rarely talk about when discussing the oppressive nature of "whiteness." And how am I to condemn my white co-workers who work side by side to help fight for our kids? They clearly are outsiders coming in, but they've taken their licks and earned their stripes. Stop it with the pretension.
        Well Raymond looks like you've sold out. No, I haven't. I still hold almost all of the beliefs I've learned in college about critical race, and gender theory to be true. I still believe the institutions that exist are oppressing our children. I've only learned how to articulate these things in a manner that doesn't reek of the ivory tower. I am not out there splitting theoretical hairs. I don't deal with gestures of what may be right and wrong. I don't think these endeavors are completely useless. I've just grown to take displeasure with what has become a mostly passive movement. I want my students to march with me and know what they're marching for. I want the parents in my community to feel like they don't need to read my blog to tell them about the movement because they are the movement.
       My message to social justice warriors out there is to try and remove yourself from your social justice bubble and begin to breath the regular air. Then tell me how easy it is to remain true to your beliefs. That's what I believe is the hardest part of the journey we call social justice. I'm just glad that I can go to bed at night knowing I do something that matters and have remained true to my beliefs.