Disclaimer: This is meant more as a cathartic post than anything, but I did have some decent insights I wanted to share.
Just yesterday in the mail I finally received my certificate of licensure (7-12 Integrated Social Studies) from the State of Ohio, which means I can official be a teacher in Ohio (and most other States with reciprocity). The only thing standing in my way: a job. Or, should I say, lack thereof.
I'm in my fourth month of applying to jobs, with varying levels of success. At last count, I've sent formal applications and/or resumes to 91 schools and school districts -- the majority in the Greater Cincinnati area, but a few elsewhere, namely Indiana, Colorado, and North Carolina. Those 91 application have so far resulted in five interviews. Not the greatest rate, but, from everyone I've talked to and everything I've read online, not anything unusual.
A lack of interviews and/or offers is not the reason for this venting, however. Rather, my complaint is with the (perceived) reason for that lack of response. What do I feel is the biggest weakness on all my applications? Quite simply, I lack teaching experience. Case in point: I was recently turned down from a position teaching Psychology because other candidates had direct prior experience teaching the subject, whereas I had not. Of course, this is to be expected from someone who just completed his teacher certification program and whose only applicable experience is four months of teaching Government and Economics.
That same day, though, I had an epiphany: the requirement for a certain level of experience among new hires presents a Catch-22 for new teachers. So, I need a certain level of experience to get a job. But here's the Catch: I can only get that experience if I've had a job first.
Let me repeat that: One can't get a job without relevant experience, but one can only obtain relevant experience though a job. It's an endlessly closed, completely tautological loop.
This hyperbolic focus on previous experience, while unfortunate, does make sense in the current educational environment. With the increasing presence of high-stakes testing determining funding outcomes (and, in some cases, school closures) and with the pressure of politicians, the public, and the media demanding immediate fixes for the supposed failures of schools, hiring a new employee becomes a short-term solution rather than a long-term investment. There is no leeway for the traditional learning curve of a new teacher; test scores must be raised this semester, Adequate Yearly Progress goals must be reached, the teacher must immediately add value to all students' education.
The stakes are too high to hire someone who might have to learn on the job; better go with someone who has already done it before. Of course a brand new teacher is going to have a learning curve. Of course a brand new teacher is going to have to learn on the job. Of course every new teacher is going to screw up, make mistakes, and do certain things that an experienced teacher would know to avoid. Any veteran teacher will tell you that those mistakes and failures are how they learn the best practices for their classroom.
How can we justify denying aspiring teachers of those same learning experiences that shape their development as professionals?
Thursday, July 18, 2013
Thursday, July 4, 2013
The Real July 4th
Patriotism. Red, white, and blue. Uncle Sam. The Star-Spangled Banner. America. Will Smith; invading aliens.
These are but some of the things that come to mind on Independence Day. Since it's America's birthday, we typically view the Fourth as the most patriotic of holidays. But did you know that today marks the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, but not it's actual signing? Or did you know that the Star-Spangled Banner was written to the tune of a popular drinking song? Looking at our celebrations of the holiday, we can get an interesting view of what it truly means to be American. Here, then, is a play-by-play of my Fourth:
The day begins in Frankfort, Kentucky running the Great Buffalo Chase 5k. (I ran about 15:40...meh, not the greatest race ever.) Many anthropologists argue that the defining trait separating modern humans from our more ape-like ancestors was our ability to run long distances. Of course, the modern footrace comes from the ancient Greek Olympic tradition (but unlike those athletes, I didn't compete naked), and was revived by Frenchman Baron Pierre de Coubertin when he formed the International Olympic Committee in 1894. The first modern Olympic Games were held two years later in Greece.
The race takes places on the campus of the Buffalo Trace bourbon distillery. Bourbon is a truly American drink; in fact, by law, for a liquor to be bourbon, it has to be made in America. Bourbon, however, is our take on whisky liquor, which was first distilled in Ireland and Scotland in the 1400s.
Early in the afternoon I watch the Nathan's Famous Hot Dog Eating Contest. Later, I look forward to eating my own grilled dogs. The hot dog - a true American delicacy - evolved from the sausage traditions of German and Austrian immigrants. In fact, two of our common nicknames for hot dogs ('frankfurters' or 'wieners') are directly taken from cities in the Old World: Frankfurt, Germany, or Vienna (Wien), Austria.
What hot dog meal would be complete without a side of French fries? While it remains generally unknown who cooked the first modern French fries, it is commonly accepted that they were first introduced in France (duh) or Belgium. The potato has a much more interesting origin story, as it is native not to Europe, but to South America. Potatoes were unknown in Europe until the Spanish conquistadors brought them back from their conquests of the Incas in Peru and Colombia. Potatoes, then, are actually native to the Andean Highlands.
All of this food has to be washed down with a quality local brew. As I've mentioned earlier on this blog, some scholars argue that brewing beer was the driving force behind the creation of complex civilizations in ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt. America's brewing tradition, however, can be directly traced to back to Germany, from which many immigrants brought their food and drink customs. This is especially true in my hometown of Cincinnati, which saw such an influx of German immigrants that one of its most historic neighborhoods is named Over-the-Rhine. Furthermore, America's iconic brewing brand, Anheuser-Busch, isn't actually American anymore; it's owned by a Belgian-Brazilian multinational corporation called InBev.
If and when all this rain stops, I'll be seeing some fireworks after the sun sets. We have the ancient Chinese to thank for these, as they discovered a recipe for gunpowder around 1000 A.D. and soon began exploding them for entertainment and recreation (as well as combat).
Today, of course, celebrates the Declaration of Independence as the birth of the nation. While this work of the Continental Congress was certainly revolutionary for its time, Thomas Jefferson's iconic ideals of the guaranteed rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are paraphrased nearly word-for-word from British philosopher John Locke's theory of the natural rights of life, liberty, and property. In fact, it is often said that the Declaration of Independence (and the American Revolution at large) put into practice what the European Enlightenment thinkers only philosophized about.
It turns out that the Fourth of July is a lot more international than national. So why is July 4th the quintessential American holiday? Because it incorporates the culture and traditions of peoples from all over the globe and incorporates them into a new, unique culture. Scholars call this cultural evolution syncretism.
No matter your skin color or ethnic heritage (unless you happen to be Native American), we are a nation of immigrants. Those various cultures mix and evolve into a new, distinctly American culture. This melting pot (for lack of a less-clichéd term) is what makes America, America.
Happy birthday, USA.
These are but some of the things that come to mind on Independence Day. Since it's America's birthday, we typically view the Fourth as the most patriotic of holidays. But did you know that today marks the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, but not it's actual signing? Or did you know that the Star-Spangled Banner was written to the tune of a popular drinking song? Looking at our celebrations of the holiday, we can get an interesting view of what it truly means to be American. Here, then, is a play-by-play of my Fourth:
The day begins in Frankfort, Kentucky running the Great Buffalo Chase 5k. (I ran about 15:40...meh, not the greatest race ever.) Many anthropologists argue that the defining trait separating modern humans from our more ape-like ancestors was our ability to run long distances. Of course, the modern footrace comes from the ancient Greek Olympic tradition (but unlike those athletes, I didn't compete naked), and was revived by Frenchman Baron Pierre de Coubertin when he formed the International Olympic Committee in 1894. The first modern Olympic Games were held two years later in Greece.
The race takes places on the campus of the Buffalo Trace bourbon distillery. Bourbon is a truly American drink; in fact, by law, for a liquor to be bourbon, it has to be made in America. Bourbon, however, is our take on whisky liquor, which was first distilled in Ireland and Scotland in the 1400s.
Early in the afternoon I watch the Nathan's Famous Hot Dog Eating Contest. Later, I look forward to eating my own grilled dogs. The hot dog - a true American delicacy - evolved from the sausage traditions of German and Austrian immigrants. In fact, two of our common nicknames for hot dogs ('frankfurters' or 'wieners') are directly taken from cities in the Old World: Frankfurt, Germany, or Vienna (Wien), Austria.
What hot dog meal would be complete without a side of French fries? While it remains generally unknown who cooked the first modern French fries, it is commonly accepted that they were first introduced in France (duh) or Belgium. The potato has a much more interesting origin story, as it is native not to Europe, but to South America. Potatoes were unknown in Europe until the Spanish conquistadors brought them back from their conquests of the Incas in Peru and Colombia. Potatoes, then, are actually native to the Andean Highlands.
All of this food has to be washed down with a quality local brew. As I've mentioned earlier on this blog, some scholars argue that brewing beer was the driving force behind the creation of complex civilizations in ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt. America's brewing tradition, however, can be directly traced to back to Germany, from which many immigrants brought their food and drink customs. This is especially true in my hometown of Cincinnati, which saw such an influx of German immigrants that one of its most historic neighborhoods is named Over-the-Rhine. Furthermore, America's iconic brewing brand, Anheuser-Busch, isn't actually American anymore; it's owned by a Belgian-Brazilian multinational corporation called InBev.
If and when all this rain stops, I'll be seeing some fireworks after the sun sets. We have the ancient Chinese to thank for these, as they discovered a recipe for gunpowder around 1000 A.D. and soon began exploding them for entertainment and recreation (as well as combat).
Today, of course, celebrates the Declaration of Independence as the birth of the nation. While this work of the Continental Congress was certainly revolutionary for its time, Thomas Jefferson's iconic ideals of the guaranteed rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are paraphrased nearly word-for-word from British philosopher John Locke's theory of the natural rights of life, liberty, and property. In fact, it is often said that the Declaration of Independence (and the American Revolution at large) put into practice what the European Enlightenment thinkers only philosophized about.
It turns out that the Fourth of July is a lot more international than national. So why is July 4th the quintessential American holiday? Because it incorporates the culture and traditions of peoples from all over the globe and incorporates them into a new, unique culture. Scholars call this cultural evolution syncretism.
No matter your skin color or ethnic heritage (unless you happen to be Native American), we are a nation of immigrants. Those various cultures mix and evolve into a new, distinctly American culture. This melting pot (for lack of a less-clichéd term) is what makes America, America.
Happy birthday, USA.
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
In Defense of the Liberal Arts
Science. Technology. Engineering. Mathematics. STEM.
If you've been following any recent trends in education, you know how much STEM fields are being promoted...and how much of a buzzword 'STEM' actually is. From increasingly rigorous standards to Race to the Top funding, STEM education is increasingly being prioritized among policymakers and the public alike.
There are any number of different reasons for the increased focus on these fields; among these perhaps the most popular include 1) their practical applications in providing recent graduates with a pathway to a job, and 2) the ease with which to quantify STEM knowledge on standardized national and international assessments compared to English and the Social Studies, both of which (as much as we try to objectify and standardize them) are much more subjective.
Of course, any good STEM student should know Isaac Newton's third law of motion: Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. As it turns out, the push for STEM in recent years is increasingly being met with a push-back for renewed attention to the liberal arts.
And for all of us English or Social Studies or Arts or...(well, you get the idea) it appears that their is good news on the horizon. A Congressional report from the American Academy of Arts and Sciences reinforces the value of the liberal arts within a broader educational context that also includes the STEM fields.
I could go on and on about the values of a liberal arts education, but Time Magazine and the New York Times do a much more eloquent job of expressing their inherent value.
I should end this post with a short disclaimer: I was a History major and International Studies minor as an undergrad. I loved (edit: love) both of those subjects. I student-taught in a magnet school centered around an arts-based curriculum, and it had some of the brightest and most talented students in the city. I'm an aspiring Social Studies teacher. Of course I'm biased in favor of the liberal arts. It's increasingly frustrating applying to a meager few open Social Studies positions listed next to seemingly endless lists of open Math and Science positions.
I support the liberal arts because I believe they add wide-ranging value to the whole educational experience, and I hope the country can begin to see that value again.
If you've been following any recent trends in education, you know how much STEM fields are being promoted...and how much of a buzzword 'STEM' actually is. From increasingly rigorous standards to Race to the Top funding, STEM education is increasingly being prioritized among policymakers and the public alike.
There are any number of different reasons for the increased focus on these fields; among these perhaps the most popular include 1) their practical applications in providing recent graduates with a pathway to a job, and 2) the ease with which to quantify STEM knowledge on standardized national and international assessments compared to English and the Social Studies, both of which (as much as we try to objectify and standardize them) are much more subjective.
Of course, any good STEM student should know Isaac Newton's third law of motion: Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. As it turns out, the push for STEM in recent years is increasingly being met with a push-back for renewed attention to the liberal arts.
And for all of us English or Social Studies or Arts or...(well, you get the idea) it appears that their is good news on the horizon. A Congressional report from the American Academy of Arts and Sciences reinforces the value of the liberal arts within a broader educational context that also includes the STEM fields.
I could go on and on about the values of a liberal arts education, but Time Magazine and the New York Times do a much more eloquent job of expressing their inherent value.
I should end this post with a short disclaimer: I was a History major and International Studies minor as an undergrad. I loved (edit: love) both of those subjects. I student-taught in a magnet school centered around an arts-based curriculum, and it had some of the brightest and most talented students in the city. I'm an aspiring Social Studies teacher. Of course I'm biased in favor of the liberal arts. It's increasingly frustrating applying to a meager few open Social Studies positions listed next to seemingly endless lists of open Math and Science positions.
I support the liberal arts because I believe they add wide-ranging value to the whole educational experience, and I hope the country can begin to see that value again.
Friday, June 14, 2013
Why Study History?
(Slightly related to the last post, "What's the Point.")
Why study history?
Because history is awesome. Because history doesn't have to be as boring as the textbooks.
Because beer.
Why study history?
Because history is awesome. Because history doesn't have to be as boring as the textbooks.
Because beer.
I mean, this video is a little over-the-top, but how cool is it?! Civilization (depending on how we define it) arose so communities could brew beer! Stay thirsty, my friends.
Thursday, May 30, 2013
What's the Point?
We've all heard students complain, "What's the point? Why do I need to know this?" Heck, we've all been students in our youth, most likely complaining about the same issues. I'm a teacher now, and I can say it's definitely frustrating having the very purpose of one's own craft questioned by a student, but I'd be lying if I pretended I didn't do this same sort of griping when I was a student. See, I'm not a math person. I've always loved the social studies (so it's been easy for me to find purpose in studying history, government, geography, and the like), but I've never enjoyed math. Looking back, I don't think I was ever particularly bad at math, I just never liked doing it. I never saw the point in it. Sure, I'd use basic arithmetic every day, but when would I ever need to use the Quadratic Formula, or Logarithms, or Trigonometry? Outside of standardized tests (the Praxis, GRE, ACT/SAT, etc.), I've never used anything more advanced than basic algebra or geometry in real life. All of my frustrations with math could be boiled down to me not being able to see the relevance or application of what I was learning. And we're fooling ourselves to think that our students aren't having these same frustrations.
Lost in all the discussion about education reform and effective teaching techniques and the value of assessment and on and on is perhaps the most fundamental question: What is the purpose of school?
What's the point? What do we want students to get out of 12-16 years spent in some form of school? [And by "we" I mean society as a whole, the entire educational system]
Are we preparing students for something? Do we take a utilitarian approach where school and learning are simply the means to an end? You go to elementary school to prepare you for junior high which will prepare you for high school so you can get into a good college and then find a good job where you make a lot of money and are able to achieve "success" (whatever that is, anyway).
There are many who feel that school should serve as preparation for more important things later in life. That the purpose of school is to provide specific skills to land a student that prestigious job. That all schools are in a similar way vocational schools. In fact, this is the factory school model that has been inherent in America since the dawn of public schools (of course, that's a whole 'nother topic).
It seems that there are many in the business world who feel that it is the job of schools to provide their companies with employees who have the specific skills to fit into the workplace. They blame schools for turning out a poor product as the reason for higher unemployment rates among recent college graduates.
But how callous must we be to equate people -- human beings -- with products; to equate schools with factories? I certainly refuse to believe that the job of of the school is churn out future laborers. In fact, recent studies indicate that, despite the assumptions in the above paragraph, students are actually overqualified for the jobs available to them. (Here and here). Additionally, most of the jobs we are supposedly preparing students for don't even exist yet!
So if the purpose of school isn't to prepare the future workforce, then what is it? Should it be to educate good citizens? Citizenship education is one of the traditional pillars of the social studies. In fact, often this discipline is justified as being important because it promotes values of quality citizenship. However, to me this explanation is little different than the business-vocational purpose of schools; it is steeped in assumptions of obedience and preserving he status quo. Perhaps more importantly, it follows the same means-to-an-end motif as the previous explanation.
Well no wonder kids learn to hate school! (Speaking in broad generalizations here.)
These imply school as something to be endured, something to be suffered through, something to be gotten out of. If school is simply a means to an end, then there is no point in continuing with Math if I'm not going to pursue a mathematics-based career. Or Social Studies. Or Science. Or English. Or Art or Music or P.E. or...you get the point. This logic is the equivalent of telling kids, "eat your vegetables now because you'll have to eat them when you're an adult," as opposed to the more effective, "eat your vegetables now because it's the healthy thing to do!"
No, education is a much more intrinsic than extrinsic value. I'm trying to avoid cliches and educational buzzwords, but the purpose of school really should be to instill values of lifelong learning in our students. Learning for life, not because it gives you some reward later in life, but because, quite simply, it is good for you. We are educators, not trainers; therefore, we ought to believe in education as a lifelong pursuit. We believe in learning, we believe in knowledge -- in both the consumption and creation of knowledge. We believe in education as a noble lifestyle. We believe in education as more than one job or career or country can contain.
An enlightened lifestyle -- that is the purpose of school.
The next logical question is: How do we communicate this value to our students? That, too, is a topic for another post. Let me know if anyone figures it out perfectly.
(P.S., from the math-hater in me, here's an interesting article that touches on some of these same issues of the relevance of what we're teaching.)
Lost in all the discussion about education reform and effective teaching techniques and the value of assessment and on and on is perhaps the most fundamental question: What is the purpose of school?
What's the point? What do we want students to get out of 12-16 years spent in some form of school? [And by "we" I mean society as a whole, the entire educational system]
Are we preparing students for something? Do we take a utilitarian approach where school and learning are simply the means to an end? You go to elementary school to prepare you for junior high which will prepare you for high school so you can get into a good college and then find a good job where you make a lot of money and are able to achieve "success" (whatever that is, anyway).
There are many who feel that school should serve as preparation for more important things later in life. That the purpose of school is to provide specific skills to land a student that prestigious job. That all schools are in a similar way vocational schools. In fact, this is the factory school model that has been inherent in America since the dawn of public schools (of course, that's a whole 'nother topic).
It seems that there are many in the business world who feel that it is the job of schools to provide their companies with employees who have the specific skills to fit into the workplace. They blame schools for turning out a poor product as the reason for higher unemployment rates among recent college graduates.
But how callous must we be to equate people -- human beings -- with products; to equate schools with factories? I certainly refuse to believe that the job of of the school is churn out future laborers. In fact, recent studies indicate that, despite the assumptions in the above paragraph, students are actually overqualified for the jobs available to them. (Here and here). Additionally, most of the jobs we are supposedly preparing students for don't even exist yet!
So if the purpose of school isn't to prepare the future workforce, then what is it? Should it be to educate good citizens? Citizenship education is one of the traditional pillars of the social studies. In fact, often this discipline is justified as being important because it promotes values of quality citizenship. However, to me this explanation is little different than the business-vocational purpose of schools; it is steeped in assumptions of obedience and preserving he status quo. Perhaps more importantly, it follows the same means-to-an-end motif as the previous explanation.
Well no wonder kids learn to hate school! (Speaking in broad generalizations here.)
These imply school as something to be endured, something to be suffered through, something to be gotten out of. If school is simply a means to an end, then there is no point in continuing with Math if I'm not going to pursue a mathematics-based career. Or Social Studies. Or Science. Or English. Or Art or Music or P.E. or...you get the point. This logic is the equivalent of telling kids, "eat your vegetables now because you'll have to eat them when you're an adult," as opposed to the more effective, "eat your vegetables now because it's the healthy thing to do!"
No, education is a much more intrinsic than extrinsic value. I'm trying to avoid cliches and educational buzzwords, but the purpose of school really should be to instill values of lifelong learning in our students. Learning for life, not because it gives you some reward later in life, but because, quite simply, it is good for you. We are educators, not trainers; therefore, we ought to believe in education as a lifelong pursuit. We believe in learning, we believe in knowledge -- in both the consumption and creation of knowledge. We believe in education as a noble lifestyle. We believe in education as more than one job or career or country can contain.
An enlightened lifestyle -- that is the purpose of school.
The next logical question is: How do we communicate this value to our students? That, too, is a topic for another post. Let me know if anyone figures it out perfectly.
(P.S., from the math-hater in me, here's an interesting article that touches on some of these same issues of the relevance of what we're teaching.)
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Expectations
One of the most frequent refrains we hear from school reformers, from school administrators, and from school teachers themselves is that educators need to have high expectations for their students. The logic goes that students will only achieve at a high level if they are held to the highest of expectations. Accordingly, any classroom you can find will have some measure of academic, behavioral, and emotional expectations embedded in day-today practice. While I do agree that educators must hold high expectations for their students, I am beginning to discover that this position might be incomplete.
It is incomplete because it assumes a teacher-centered philosophy instead of a student-centered one. In our educations programs, we newbie teachers are drilled and drilled to provide a classicly Dewey-inspried, "student-centered" classroom. However, in practice (and through our education instruction), this "student-centered" model is not actually student-centered. It is teacher-centered.
When we talk about true student-centric classrooms, we are implying that students have a certain level of autonomy and authority for their own learning. A teacher-centric classroom, then, is one in which the sole authority and autonomy rests with the teacher.
When it comes to expectations, the goal of holding students to higher expectations is entirely teacher-centered. It wrests any authority from the students and places it in the hands of the teacher. It is the teacher saying to the students what is expected. A student-centered classroom, on the other hand, would focus on the teacher working with the students to set classroom and individual expectations.
School culture is generally one of top-down authority, with students at the bottom. Learning is done to students as opposed to with students. No wonder so many students don't learn.
Perhaps the biggest mistake we can make as educators is to forget what it is like to be a student. We've all been students. We've all had certain classess we loved and certain classes we hated. The former were the ones where we felt empowered in our learning. The latter were those that left us powerless. So why do we follow these same authoritarian procedures when we take over a class?
We should always be striving to place ourselves in our students' shoes. So when it comes to expectations, we have not only ours for the class, but we also have our students' expectations. Working with students to compromise these expectations creates a true student-centered atmosphere.
Here, then, is a short clip I ran across on reddit that covers the expectations students have for their education:
It is incomplete because it assumes a teacher-centered philosophy instead of a student-centered one. In our educations programs, we newbie teachers are drilled and drilled to provide a classicly Dewey-inspried, "student-centered" classroom. However, in practice (and through our education instruction), this "student-centered" model is not actually student-centered. It is teacher-centered.
When we talk about true student-centric classrooms, we are implying that students have a certain level of autonomy and authority for their own learning. A teacher-centric classroom, then, is one in which the sole authority and autonomy rests with the teacher.
When it comes to expectations, the goal of holding students to higher expectations is entirely teacher-centered. It wrests any authority from the students and places it in the hands of the teacher. It is the teacher saying to the students what is expected. A student-centered classroom, on the other hand, would focus on the teacher working with the students to set classroom and individual expectations.
School culture is generally one of top-down authority, with students at the bottom. Learning is done to students as opposed to with students. No wonder so many students don't learn.
Perhaps the biggest mistake we can make as educators is to forget what it is like to be a student. We've all been students. We've all had certain classess we loved and certain classes we hated. The former were the ones where we felt empowered in our learning. The latter were those that left us powerless. So why do we follow these same authoritarian procedures when we take over a class?
We should always be striving to place ourselves in our students' shoes. So when it comes to expectations, we have not only ours for the class, but we also have our students' expectations. Working with students to compromise these expectations creates a true student-centered atmosphere.
Here, then, is a short clip I ran across on reddit that covers the expectations students have for their education:
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
Speaking of historical perceptions with that last post, here is another interesting blog post that I ran across via Twitter today. While it addresses a different historical topic, it does a very good job of exploring how we should approach historical "truths."
Sunday, May 5, 2013
Mythbusters School Edition: Cinco de Mayo
Cinco de Mayo is quickly becoming another St. Patrick's Day. Increasingly, every May 5th, everyone is a little bit Mexican.
But like any popular holiday, our perception of Cinco de Mayo is rife with egregious myths. This fact alone leads to a particularly interesting, if often overlooked, question (especially in the social studies): how should teachers address common myths and misconceptions in the classroom? Curriculum, textbooks, and even tests present students with half-truths on many occasions. Should we go along with these falsehoods? Should we devote time to debunking them? Should we let students investigate and formulate their own interpretations? Why are we teaching "wrong" history? Who even decides what history is "right" and what is "wrong"?
I can't even pretend to be enough of an expert to begin to fully answer some of these questions; however, I do believe that these are questions not being asked often enough. I am of the mind that we should involve students as much as possible in formulating their own worldviews. Of course, I'm also enough of a nerd that I love debunking common misconceptions; in honor of that, here are a few busted myths about Cinco de Mayo.
Cinco de Mayo is not Mexico's Independence Day. No, that would be September 16 (1810). Cinco de Mayo, rather, is a commemoration of the defeat of French forces at the Battle of Puebla in 1862. It marks the time period of the French Restoration, when Napoleon III drove President Benito Juarez out of office and installed Maximilian I as puppet-emperor of Mexico in 1864. The holiday, then, commemorates a mostly symbolic victory; Mexico won the battle, but eventually lost the war. This Restoration regime lasted only until 1867, when Napoleon III withdrew from Mexico and President Juarez re-established a legitimate government.
Cinco de Mayo is not an Hispanic holiday. Rather, it is a holiday specific to Mexico and even more specific to the State of Puebla. This is not an holiday for the whole Hispanic diaspora; it is specific to Mexico.
Cinco de Mayo is not a huge holiday in Mexico. It's actually probably more widely celebrated in the U.S. than it is in Mexico. In fact, in Mexico, the day is not even designated as a federal holiday. While in Puebla there are military parades and recreations of the event, for most of Mexico today is just a regular day.
And so, to end on a bit lighter (if slightly immature) note, I present to you this pie chart about our perceptions of Cinco de Mayo. (Because who doesn't like pie charts?)
(Source consulted: Cinco de Mayo - The History Channel. http://www.history.com/topics/cinco-de-mayo)
But like any popular holiday, our perception of Cinco de Mayo is rife with egregious myths. This fact alone leads to a particularly interesting, if often overlooked, question (especially in the social studies): how should teachers address common myths and misconceptions in the classroom? Curriculum, textbooks, and even tests present students with half-truths on many occasions. Should we go along with these falsehoods? Should we devote time to debunking them? Should we let students investigate and formulate their own interpretations? Why are we teaching "wrong" history? Who even decides what history is "right" and what is "wrong"?
I can't even pretend to be enough of an expert to begin to fully answer some of these questions; however, I do believe that these are questions not being asked often enough. I am of the mind that we should involve students as much as possible in formulating their own worldviews. Of course, I'm also enough of a nerd that I love debunking common misconceptions; in honor of that, here are a few busted myths about Cinco de Mayo.
Cinco de Mayo is not Mexico's Independence Day. No, that would be September 16 (1810). Cinco de Mayo, rather, is a commemoration of the defeat of French forces at the Battle of Puebla in 1862. It marks the time period of the French Restoration, when Napoleon III drove President Benito Juarez out of office and installed Maximilian I as puppet-emperor of Mexico in 1864. The holiday, then, commemorates a mostly symbolic victory; Mexico won the battle, but eventually lost the war. This Restoration regime lasted only until 1867, when Napoleon III withdrew from Mexico and President Juarez re-established a legitimate government.
Cinco de Mayo is not an Hispanic holiday. Rather, it is a holiday specific to Mexico and even more specific to the State of Puebla. This is not an holiday for the whole Hispanic diaspora; it is specific to Mexico.
Cinco de Mayo is not a huge holiday in Mexico. It's actually probably more widely celebrated in the U.S. than it is in Mexico. In fact, in Mexico, the day is not even designated as a federal holiday. While in Puebla there are military parades and recreations of the event, for most of Mexico today is just a regular day.
And so, to end on a bit lighter (if slightly immature) note, I present to you this pie chart about our perceptions of Cinco de Mayo. (Because who doesn't like pie charts?)
(Source consulted: Cinco de Mayo - The History Channel. http://www.history.com/topics/cinco-de-mayo)
Friday, May 3, 2013
Welcome to the Blog!
Greetings fellow Internet surfers! My name is Tommy Kauffmann, and I will be your guide on this grand adventure we call learning.
I started this blog for a few different reasons:
1) I want to start building my Personal Learning Network. So far I've been using Twitter and reddit to follow other educators; now I am branching out into the blogosphere. (Shameless plug: follow me on Twitter, @kauffmannt. I don't tweet often, but I do follow a number a excellent educators.)
2) As I've been reading about various educational issues on these social networks, while also experiencing the classroom - I just finished up a stint as a student-teacher - I am looking to contribute my own thoughts and philosophies on education.
3) As I build my PLN, I am looking to contribute to the body of knowledge on education. The Internet was designed for sharing knowledge, after all, and that is exactly the purpose of this blog.
The content of this blog will essentially range over two broad categories. On the one hand, it will serve as a place for me to comment on my educational philosophy with regards to current events in the education world. This category is pretty wide in scope, and my goal is to share my thoughts and opinions on educational practices.
On the other hand, this blog will also be place for me to share resources and teaching techniques specific to my content area, the Social Studies. So far, my experience has been limited, having only one semester of student-teaching and two semesters of classroom observations. Limited classroom experience aside, I would like this blog to serve as a central place for me to house different pedagogical techniques. And maybe, if people actually read this, it could also serve as a place to bounce different ideas around.
It is my philosophy that education - and learning - should be both informative and fun. Often it seems that we focus extensively on the former and leave out the latter. Hopefully this will be place that brings those two qualities together.
And with that, let me just say willkommen, bienvenida, and happy blogging!
I started this blog for a few different reasons:
1) I want to start building my Personal Learning Network. So far I've been using Twitter and reddit to follow other educators; now I am branching out into the blogosphere. (Shameless plug: follow me on Twitter, @kauffmannt. I don't tweet often, but I do follow a number a excellent educators.)
2) As I've been reading about various educational issues on these social networks, while also experiencing the classroom - I just finished up a stint as a student-teacher - I am looking to contribute my own thoughts and philosophies on education.
3) As I build my PLN, I am looking to contribute to the body of knowledge on education. The Internet was designed for sharing knowledge, after all, and that is exactly the purpose of this blog.
The content of this blog will essentially range over two broad categories. On the one hand, it will serve as a place for me to comment on my educational philosophy with regards to current events in the education world. This category is pretty wide in scope, and my goal is to share my thoughts and opinions on educational practices.
On the other hand, this blog will also be place for me to share resources and teaching techniques specific to my content area, the Social Studies. So far, my experience has been limited, having only one semester of student-teaching and two semesters of classroom observations. Limited classroom experience aside, I would like this blog to serve as a central place for me to house different pedagogical techniques. And maybe, if people actually read this, it could also serve as a place to bounce different ideas around.
It is my philosophy that education - and learning - should be both informative and fun. Often it seems that we focus extensively on the former and leave out the latter. Hopefully this will be place that brings those two qualities together.
And with that, let me just say willkommen, bienvenida, and happy blogging!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)