The article "Untracking English" really caught my attention because it brings up justice in education. "Tracking helps create and legitimate a social hierarchy within a school based on perceived differences in student ability" (170). This quote describes my highschool very well. It had the "smart kids," known as the college preps and then five other groups; the business preps, vo-aggers, vo-techers, and building traders. It was commonly known that if you didn't want to do anything in school all you had to do was be a "trader" as they were called. We definitely had a heirarchy in school that tracking helped create.
The disturbing thing is that teachers buy into this hierarchy and have lower expectations for students that are not in "advanced" classes and Christenson writes that detracking can fail if teachers don't "reconstruct their ideas about students and curriculum" (171). This is significant in relation to the article that discusses how students learn "inferiority" or have inadvertantly internalized that they aren't good enough.
I found it really interesting that the author notes that lower-tracked students are often more creative than those who perform well. This creativity is what makes for a more interesting, but more disruptive class. It seems to me that it is important to keep this in mind; that I don't label a student as a "problem" and thereby limit what they bring to the class.
In college, I sometimes feel like professors are rushing through material and trying to cover as much literature as possible, and seem to emphasis literary analysis. I find myself questioning how much we really learn that will stick with us. Therefore, I took notice when Christensen wrote "successfully untracking means re-examining and changing the curriculum. Instead of constructing my curriculum around a parade of novels, I teach thematic units that emphasize the social/political underpinings of my students lives" (175). To do this, she writes that she covers fewer novels. This makes good sense to me because there is so much more opportunity to learn when one has time to reflect and apply it one's personal life. What are we really learning when we simply memorize events and briefly do literary analysis to a quickly forgotten text?
Literary circles seems like a much more progressive way to promote learning and doing that would work in a de-tracked classroom. The literary circle creates an opportunity for student involvement and to become involved enough to think for themself and discuss what is important to them. I really like how it accounts for the importance of reader response. I think that this is the most overlooked element in more traditional education. On the flip side of the argument, I know that it promotes education that some would say is too centered on the student. A skeptic might ask if the student is learning anything. I believe that when a student can discuss a text and apply it to themself it shows learning. A concern would be grading and what to do if I have a principal who thinks my classroom too loud and unmanaged. The author notes that noise is a definite part of a literature circle whose students are really engaged. On the other hand, what would I do if I can't get the students to really take part it in and are too silent? I really like the idea of using post it notes for the students to record their reactions and hopefully these would help to draw out student reactions in the classroom.
The experience of doing the teaching and these readings are really challenging to me. It has caused me to really consider "what" makes a good student. As a student, I thought being quiet, taking notes, and listening attentively were the important things. However, as an English teacher, I'm learning that collaboration and groups work promote the best learning and my few short experiences at the front of the room also causes me to perceive students who are "too quiet" differently. It is much more fun when students show they are engaged. Before this I never considered the signals that students send the teacher and how important those signals are, because that is how we evaluate and determine what is going on with the students and how deeply they are engaged in the material at hand. I hope I can effectively engage students and learn to know them as individuals with something unique to contribute to classroom discussions.
I strongly agree with the point you made about covering fewer novels but going more in depth about the ones covered. This also stood out to me in the article and I think it’s a great idea. Why not learn as much as you can from one book instead of rushing just to get a certain amount of literature covered? I think that students would gain much more knowledge from covering novels this way and they would not be as overwhelmed with the amount of required reading. It should be about quality not quantity!
ReplyDeleteI also think that the literature circles are a great way to promote the enjoyment of reading. I think that when used effectively, it can show students that there is more to reading than just answering basic comprehension questions. When they see that it is just like having a conversation about a book, I think that they would become more interested and also by having them see that literature circles are used in the real world for enjoyment, they could be more motivated as well. This might draw them in even more.
I also am amazed to see how the “silent student” is not necessarily the best student in class and what you can learn from a student’s behavior in class. I think that by doing the literacy profile project and going through these teaching courses, more and more is learned and I am also amazed at how much there is to uncover that I never saw or thought of before.
Arlen: Before I had a few experiences in front of a classroom, I also had never considered the signals that students send teachers and how important they are. I'm amazed by how easily I can tell if students are bored or engaged, if they're paying attention, etc. when I'm giving a short lecture or instructions on an assignment. It's also amazing to see how engaged the typically unengaged students are when I try something different like group work or other hands-on activities. I also thought that being quiet, taking notes, and listening made me a good student, but I'm learning that there's much more to it than that.
ReplyDeleteI agree with how we should read fewer books in a school year and get more in depth with each of them instead of reading a bunch of stories and not getting much from them. I think this really is a great idea because then students can get more from tehe few books that we teach. Although, the only thing I thin would be difficult is that the students might end up hating the story if we keep beating them with a stick about it. I still would like to do it because there is so much important themes and details you can get from certain books.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with teaching themes, too! Although there is so much that I would love to read with my students, I keep going back to the idea of “less is more.”
ReplyDeleteThat is an interesting point - looking at what a student should look like. I guess the traditional ideal is what you described: “quiet, taking notes, and listening attentively.” However, both You Gotta Be the Book and our discussions on literary circles are re-centering my thoughts to show me that is not actually true at all. It reminds me of the clip from Dead Poet’s Society that we watched last year, where Robin Williams had all of the students tear the introduction out of their textbook and throw it away. I don’t think those students ever had so much fun in English class before as they did on that day.
I agree with you when you say it's annoying how professors try to cover as much literature as possible. At the same time, it's also annoying when you go over one novel for about a month straight. There should be a balance there. In high school, I was going away for a few days for a band trip and when asking for my work, my English teacher gave me "Fahrenheit 451." He expected me to read that book and be ready for the exam by the time I came back. He also added a 20-page question packet. I was only going to be gone for about 5-days max and I thought this was ridiculous! How was I supposed to read, fully comprehend, and be ready for an exam on his interpretation of it in less than a week? That was my least favorite class in high school and it was definitely because he shoved novels at us and we weren't even learning. I know it is good to be well-rounded in the literature that we read, but reading and understanding are two different things.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that it is interesting how the hierarchy forms in schools when tracking starts. Students in lower classes feel inferior or not good enough. It creates cliques and many people will never become friends even if they have a lot in common. I know in my high school, I was in the advanced classes and was friends with all of the "smart people" but I was even better friends with the academic students (those who were in the middle, not advanced but not general education). I got along better with the students in academic classes and I heard all of the terrible things that were said about the advanced class students. Many people thought that they were stuck up and thought they were too good for anyone else. Some of them did think that way, but many others, especially myself, liked to integrate with other students and break out of the cliques. This is a reason why not having tracking in schools may be a good idea. It will get rid of that hierarchy.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with you about the literature circles. Students should be able to think for themselves and discuss what is important to them. This is a major reason why I wish I had literature circles in my classes and why I want to use them in my classrooms in the future. I feel like I did not think about literature the way I wanted to. I should have thought more critically and discussed what I thought was important. Instead I thought what the teacher thought was important.
I liked how you mentioned how teachers play into the hierarchy because I really think they do. They are almost the ones that place the stereotypes upon the students. They are holding high expectations for their honor students, but then dumb down their lesson plans lower track classes because they think their students cannot do it. I think teachers just feed into this heirarchical system.
ReplyDeleteAlso I think teachers should teach untracked classes because it makes them really work. Every class will be different and probably difficult.I think we would become better teachers by taking on the challenge of an untracked classroom.
P.S. Does an untracked classrrom only seem difficult because we're so used to tracked classes, or is it really probably more difficult?
I think it probably only seems more difficult to teach an untracked class. Like you mentioned, teachers dumb down there lesson plans for untracked kids, not only because of lower expectations, but because it is also easier for them. Although, it doesn't explain really easy honors classes, so I'm not sure. It points to the fact of how important it is that a teacher take their job seriously and truly engage students. I think an untracked class wouldn't necessarily be more difficult, but would require thinking or planning in ways that break up how we think about the typical "tracked" heirarchy. I completely agree with you that it would make us better teachers when facing the challenges of an untracked classroom.
ReplyDelete