Lisa Delpit is a progressive African American educator who obviously had a rude awakening.

She taught at a public school on the border between a low income minority area and a higher income

white area. She is surrounded by other white progressive teachers except for the older African

American teachers who are still teaching the students in a traditional manner. Its quite a shock to

Delpit when, using her progressive methods her white students excell and her black students are

almost completely non-responsive. The really sad and startling thing is that you feel her shock with

her, her almost stunned reaction to her own failure.

How does something like this happen? The older, black teachers claim that the black students

need skills, not fluency. Perhaps coming from a less supportive home life the black students are

deficient in their base skills? In her desperation, Delpit feels herself falling into traditional teaching

methods in order to reach them. You feel her desperation at trying to make her progressive

methods work for her black students. You understand her frustration at trying to do something

better for her students, all her students.

Personally, I would like to know what happened to Delpit. Clearly she is a academic now and

no longer works in the classroom. But I would be most interested to know how her opinion has

changed over the years. Does she see things differently now or does she use her story as a teaching

tool for new teachers? I would hope both. Maybe young teachers can learn the main lesson of this

story which seems to be... stay open, to your students, to new ideas, to old ideas even! Mostly just

keep an open mind to what is best for your students, their needs and how you can meet them.

Surely if you keep to that, no matter what the color of your students, you'll be a successful educator.

#15 Importance of Writing in the Curriculum

Many of my fellow art education students have asked me, "do we really have to take that class?", or "is it any good?". My answers are an affirmative yes and yes. I have learned a great deal in this class; not just about the subject matter but about teaching in general. As an art teacher, when would I ever have the opportunity to learn how to grade a paper or create a rubric? These are important skills for any teacher, no matter what subject matter. In this economy, none of us are sure of where we will end up, being able to grade papers will be a skill we'll be grateful for if we end up substitute teaching. Not just these practical skills but the other writing skills one could add to any lesson, like write-arounds or exit slips. These activities have not only made this class more engaging and, dare I say, fun, but also have stimulated interaction in our class, forcing us to get to know each other. I can only imagine if these writing activities make our class more exciting, what it can do for our students.

I've also really enjoyed being in a class surrounded by other teachers of different subject matter. It has really helped me to see things from other perspectives and to realize how difficult each of us has it as a teacher, no one subject is particularly easier than another I learned! I have come to respect the differences in our teaching techniques and to truly respect those who teach subjects no one else wants to, like health. My respect for these teachers has really grown as I've listened to their engaging lesson plans and heard their comments on other areas. Some of us are already teaching and some of us are future teachers and this is a great mix of personalities for this particular class. We have really learned, in my opinion, what lies ahead for us, both from students and from our curriculums, for better or worse. The great thing is that this allows us to take in all these thoughts with a grain of salt and in an arena where we're all equal and all of our voices count for something. That's the best thing about this class, we've all had a chances to voice our opinions in a supportive and sharing environment.

#14 Reading Reflection Academic Language in Development

Academic language ought to be considered no different and equally as important as traditional academic writing. After all we ask our students to write in more sophisticated modes when writing essays, when they are making a presentation or debating using academic language is equally significant. Using social language in conversations with peers or family could also be considered equivilant to the casual language we use when texting or e-mailing; shortening words and phrases to speed up the verbal transaction.

I agree thoroughly with the article that academic language encourages thinking skills. Chatting with friends really does not require any in-depth thinking, that is why social language flourishes. You are not trying to gain anything other than surface information by speaking socially. When using academic language one is trying to gain information, evaluate ideas, present issues. If you were doing the same thing with writing you wouldn't do it in a casual way because that wouldn't express the importance of the ideas.

When I started graduate school the first thing I noticed was the usage of, as I put it, "big talk".. I realized my papers that possessed more sophisticated language came across better and tended to get higher grades. Then, when I had to give presentations I saw how fellow students who used casual language when presenting just seemed less informed of their topic. I'm not sure if they were or not but students that spoke more formally certainly sounded smarter! I can only assume that if one appears smarter, others will treat one that way and eventually, a level of accomplishment can be attained through one's response level. Does that mean everyone who 'talks big' is smart? That is not an assumption I'm willing to make but I do think people tend to live up to the expectations of other, low or high. Perhaps that is the assumption, communicating to people with intelligent language, can help their intelligence grow.

Class Discussion

At the end of class we had a discussion I felt warranted more thought, and that was, should students be taught to multitask as that is the way the world works? Or should they be taught to concentrate and focus on one task at a time? Erma's point of view was that the world works that way and to a degree I tend to agree.

In the beginning of this class we were taught there are different types of writings and that when it came to grading the method of grading ought to be in sync with the type of writing. For instance, a formal or research essay should be graded for grammar, spelling, phrasing, and content, while a quick write or casual piece should be graded on a less stringent basis.

I feel that the same thing ought to be true of the skill of multi-tasking. Students should be taught when and how this skill is best used. Obviously its not all the time, but sometimes students should be encouraged to do more than one thing at once. When reading in depth academic articles I have noticed that I retain more when its done in quiet. I've tried to have the radio on or the tv in the background, but the level of informational intake is slower and tends to be vague. At the beginning of grad school I realized that my old reading habits wouldn't be successful when doing school readings, before school most of my reading was limited to child care books, popular magazines, or online news. The type of materials I read was in sync with the way I was reading, with the radio on, in the car, or with the TV on. Now that my materials had changed my methodology had to as well.

When would multi-tasking be appropriate? Of that I'm not sure, perhaps when studying languages and a student needs to listen to the language while writing or reading it. I'm sure that someone more skilled in teaching reading would know the answer to that. I know I don't have the answer every multi-tasking question but I'm sure that there is a place for everything somewhere in our teaching world.

The new NYC school Chancellor

How confusing it is to be an educator nowadays? One is forced to test students rather than teaching knowledge, students are crowded into classrooms, principals are required to justify their leadership by a graded system and now this... Joel Klein has been the longest sitting NYC school chancellor until now. He was responsible, according to some, for the one of the biggest overhauls in the modern educational system of NYC and Cathleen Black has now been appointed the new chancellor by Mayor Bloomberg. Ms. Black has no background in education and is a head executive at Hearst publishing.

There are the obvious questions and the obvious answers, regardless of whether any of them are right. First I have to wonder if the assumption is that there are no effective managers who have been educators anywhere. I do agree with the Mayor that Black has had experience managing thousands of employees and running many publications which is by all accounts a difficult, demanding job. But is there no one who has similar experience with an early history in education? Who understands what a student needs to succeed? I think the Mayor's technique of treating the department of ed as a business may be a smart move, after all, the department of ed does have thousands of employees, deals with unions, and has a yearly deadline to turn out millions of students. The one problem with his technique is that the product they're turning out is students and real live children tend to throw a wretch in any plan. Children are an unpredictable, frustrating, wonderful bunch and to lead them successfully it really takes flexibility, second only to experience. It seems that in the past the idea has been to deny these two things with rigid testing and to deny higher salaries for more experienced teachers who actually may possess knowledge to help us and our kids. On the other hand, maybe Bloomberg is on to something, getting the human element running smoothly by concentrating on the managing of them. If his plan works maybe there will be more left for the rest of the system once the human element is organized. If not, it will be a sad, sad mistake with our students as the losers, teachers will go on to teach more students, but our kids only get the one chance. I really hope Bloomberg has enough confidence in the success of his plan that he is willing to gamble.

"...People Still Read but Now its Social"

The idea that reading on a screen undermines "deep...focused book reading" is probably true as this article assertains, but my arguement is honestly, how many people still book read at all? Maybe there is a chance that screen reading, such as Nooks and Kindles, actually bring more readers to the world. My vote would be that creating more readers of ANY kind is a good thing, that they might not be reading to the same intellectual level as book readers is a non-issue. These new readers are out there purchasing fiction, staying informed, and keeping the industry alive is more important. More people are becoming readers and isn't that more important than the quality and quantity of what they are reading? The complaint is that these readers are "less focused but more connected" and implies that are missing out somehow from not turning a page. Maybe the types of material they enjoy don't require focus, maybe these electronic readers are making reading fun again for people who felt they weren't readers, is it bad if electronic readers encourage reading to just become entertainment?