Response to Book Reviews/Semester

Shelby's book review of "Not For Profit: Why Democracy needs the Humanities" got me thinking. I totally agree with the book's premise that the humanities are important to a democracy and are worthwhile disciplines to pursue. Shelby spoke about how people express concern over the fact that she is a philosophy major, because she "wont make any money". Throughout the semester, we have commented on the fact that education- especially college- should not be about job training, but instead about a love for learning. While I love the idea of learning for the sake of learning, it is not realistic in this economy. People who are lucky enough to go to college are hoping it will get them a high paying job in the future because money is so important to survival. The people who can view college as "learning for the sake of learning" are lucky. It must mean that, generally, they do not have to worry about money. I have seen people at MCLA who are so focused on getting their degree as fast as they can and getting a good paying job because they have to be. They can't afford to stay in college forever and just take classes that interest them.
Question: How can we re imagine the world to be a place where people could afford to learn for the sake of learning?

Response to Ed, "Fairness"

Is it more important to present the world as it is, or the world as it could be?

First off, I totally agree with you that we must acknowledge that the world can change, and we can make it more fair. I think the answer to your question is both: we need to present the world as it is, and as how it can be. I think it's really important for teachers to acknowledge unfairness in the world, because students come from all different walks of life and if some of them have experienced unfairness (which I'm sure all of them have at some point) then it should be acknowledged. It makes it easier to identify the problem when other people around you are talking about their experiences; it helps you understand that you are not the only one experiencing inequality. After discussing and reflecting upon inequality with others in a classroom setting, it may be more clear how to make the world better. It is probably hard for teachers-especially if they teach younger students- to be honest about how unfair our world is, but it does not have to be an entirely negative conversation if it is turned into a productive discussion on how to combat unfairness.

Question: How can teachers minimize unfairness that happens in the classroom?

Response to Jessica, "Reading"

Question: What are some of the ways we keep reading a positive experience for children?

Firstly, children should be allowed to read about things that interest them. As you articulated in your post, it is not fun to read material that is assigned to you, rather than chosen by you. To tie this back to our conversation on multiculturalism, children should have many books available to them that reflect their reality. I think children may lose interest in reading because they cannot relate to it. It is necessary to expose children to books about all different types of people, from different points of view, for them to stay interested.
Some children also may not like reading because it is associated with schoolwork and testing. If there were no deadlines that students had to finish reading by, then they might enjoy the reading more. When reading is made to seem like less of a required chore, and more of a chosen activity, and when children are allowed to read material that is interesting to them, then less children will give up on reading.
Question: How can a teacher let students read at their own pace?

Can education be used to prevent prejudice?

Critical pedagogy aims to give students the tools and resources to challenge an oppressive system. While this is extremely worthwhile, I wonder if education can be used to prevent prejudice in its students. In my education, there was very little attention paid to our (the students') differences. In fact, a "we are all the same" rhetoric was very much present. Students are typically taught that they all have the same potential for success. If students were taught about the differences between people, I think they may be more likely to accept people that are not just like them. For example, if you are told your whole life that anybody can achieve success if they work hard enough, and you have never thought critically about this claim, than you may look at an underprivileged who has not achieved success and say "What's wrong with you? You threw away opportunities". The reality is that not everybody in this society has the same opportunities; why don't we tell students the truth about that? Then they would see the underprivileged person who is not successful and feel compassion, not contempt. This could potentially eliminate a lot of prejudice in the world.

Why are we afraid to tell students that the world is not fair?

Response to Kim, "Critical Pedagogy"

Is critical pedagogy trying to lead students to view the world in specific ways or does it encourage them to form their own opinions?

I don't think critical pedagogy is attempting to indoctrinate students. All people accept certain things to be true about the world, and teachers are assigned to teach their students what they believe to be true about the world. Most elementary schools teach that 1+1=2, but we don't accuse them of trying to indoctrinate students into believing that 1+1=2. This is because we trust teachers to teach things that they believe to be true. Of course, some points are more contentious than others. Most of our class came to the conclusion last week that a teacher should not teach creationism in schools just because he or she personally believes it to be true. However, a religious belief is rooted in faith alone, whereas oppression is something people experience in the world. When people have experienced something, they know that it is true. Therefore, I think it is acceptable to teach students how they can be conscious of the power dynamics they exist in and how to challenge them.


Question: What is the distinction between a teacher teaching a relatively benign belief like "1+1=2" and a teacher teaching a controversial belief, such as creationism?

Why Don't We Value Life Experiences as Evidence?

In class, we starting talking a little bit about how, as a society, we generally value scientific facts, logic, and objectivity. While these things are important, we also devalue things like emotion, intuition, and personal experience as evidence. This is interesting, because we have ideas about scientific research being objective, when it often isn't. Scientific research is controlled, funded, and validated by an elite group. Science also changes over time, so it is not always correct. For example, science has been used historically as a way to validate racist ideas (scientific racism). Clearly, this is not objective and non-biased. So why do we put science up on a pedestal? I'm not anti-science, and I'm certainly not suggesting we disregard all of the great things science has to offer us. But there is more to understanding the world than learning facts. For example, we can learn about the world through experiences. These experiences are valuable, and can be used as evidence for knowledge. Sometimes, science ignores certain groups, rendering their experiences extremely valuable, because it is all they have.

My question is the title of this post: why don't we value life experiences as evidence for knowledge?

Response to Kim, "Pedagody and Race"

Thank you for bringing up this topic. This is a common theme I have noticed in social justice circles. For example, second-wave feminism has been criticized for not being inclusive to women of color, lower class women, queer women, etc. I think this happens because it is a privilege to be able to sit around and discuss oppression. Additionally, the language used in these circles can be very inaccessible to most people, especially underprivileged people. This becomes a problem, because something that is supposed to be (and, I think, genuinely is) concerned with liberating an oppressed group isn't even accessible to said group. The faces of human rights movements (such as the civil rights movement, feminist movements, gay rights movement, etc) are typically people who are pretty privileged. People who are underprivileged are probably too busy trying to survive to participate in these movements. They also may not have the language to participate in discussions about these issues because of education inequalities.
I think a way to combat this problem is to make the language we use to discuss these issues more simplistic. I am not suggesting we "dumb down" our ideas though; the ideas are still very complex, and underpriveleged people are very capable of grasping them. However, making the language inaccessible while we talk about them alienates people who deserve to be a part of these discussions.

Question: What are some other ways we can make these movements more accessible to underprivileged people?

Morality in the Classroom

People tend to be resistant to teaching morality in schools. People think it involves teaching controversial topics such as religion, sexuality, politics, abortion, etc. However, we do teach morality in schools, and I don't see how we could avoid it. With children, we teach "right" from "wrong" probably as much as we teach academic things. Children need to learn how to behave in socially acceptable ways in order to grow and be able to function in the world. Even with older students, we still teach them right from wrong. For example, colleges take plagiarism extremely seriously, because it is wrong to steal people's intellectual property. Some things, we accept as clearly right or wrong. Others, such as the controversial topics I mentioned above, are less clear, so we avoid talking about them. However, we apparently do teach morality to students.

Question: Where do we draw the line between morality that should be taught in schools and morality that is too controversial?

Response to Bryan, "Life-Long Learning"

Q: “What specific activities should be implemented to encourage “life-long learners?”

As you touched upon, reading for pleasure seems essential to learning. More generally though, engaging in any sort of self- directed learning (and I think this can involve mediums other than books, such asTV, internet, etc) is vital to life-long learning. I think the key is curiosity and passion for learning. When school is viewed as a means to an end (the "end" usually being a job), of course people are going to stop learning after they graduate. As you said, learning is something people think they have to suffer through. I think this can be traced back to our earlier discussions of motivation and grading. When you are constantly being judged and critiqued for how much you have learned, it may seem like a chore for some people. If learning truly is a life-long process, then students should not be graded on their work, as it is never complete. Schools also tend to suppress critical thinking (at least, in my experience) which can stifle the innate drive to learn. I think that, if there was no grading, teachers would send the message to students that there work is never complete. To be a life-long learner, you should always question things that others take for granted, stay open to alternative opinions and views, keep evolving your own views, talk to other people about what they have learned, and surround yourself by people and situations that challenge you. I don't know if schools can necessarily instill all of those things in their students, but I think a start would be getting rid of standardized testing, minimize the need for grades in general, encourage students to question what they are learning, and make connections across disciplines.

Question: Is critical thinking necessary for life-long learning?

Response to Shelby, PFC and Parents

Is it possible to do philosophy in classrooms without broaching controversial topics (e.g. God)?

Probably not, but I don't think this is a bad thing. If you encourage children (or anyone, for that matter) to question things around them and think critically, then they are going to stumble upon some controversial topics such as God. As you said, something relatively benign such as "what does it mean to be alive" could get controversial fast. I think at the heart of every inquisitive question lies something controversial. Again, I don't think this is a negative thing. Children should be allowed to explore these issues; it doesn't mean the school is telling them what to believe. Children shouldn't be sheltered from these "controversial" topics; they are going to think about them anyway. I don't think we give children enough credit. Children are capable of thinking abstractly, and they will, whether people want them to or not, because humans are naturally curious.

Question: Encouraging discussion among children is one thing, but how much should school's teach children about morality?

Response to Shelby, "Philosophical Jargon"

Is philosophical jargon a help or a hindrance to philosophical discussion?


This is a good question, and I think you addressed it well. You are right that philosophical terms (such as your example "utilitarian") can leave people out of the discussion. This reminds me of a really great passage from the article "Stupidity Deconstructed" by Joanna Kadi:

"As far as I can tell, postmodern theoreticians say nothing new, but their inaccessible language makes it appear as though they do. For example, they're fascinated with the notion that multiple realities exist in society, and they've written and theorized extensively about this.
Puh-lease. Everybody in my neighborhood, including the mechanics who had to sniff carbon monoxide in tiny, enclosed garages all say long, grasped that idea with no problem. We lived it. We had our reality, the bosses had theirs, and we understood them both. Theorists like W.E.B. Du Bois wrote about double consciousness-whereby African Americans understand their reality and white people's-at the turn of this century. But I've never seen postmodernists attribute these ideas to the people of color and/or working-class people who've lived and understood them for centuries. Instead, postmodernists steal these ideas and dress them up in language so inaccessible only a tiny, elite group can discuss them."

This is a really interesting point. Without knowing the language used in philosophy, one may still understand the concepts. Many people know what a utilitarian is, without actually knowing that term. When people use these terms and don't explain what they mean, they are excluding people from the conversation who might understand this concept really well and have some great insight into it. When teaching philosophy to children, I think before you introduce philosophical terminology to them, you should introduce the concepts and make sure they have a good understanding of them. For example, get the children thinking about utilitarianism without using that word. Ask them, "Should one innocent person go to jail if it means the rest of the society feels safe?" or a similar example. The children will explore the idea of choosing the action that harms fewest people, and whether that is fair or not. Once the children understand this concept, you can tell them that it is called utilitarianism. If you do it in reverse, by introducing a foreign word and then going on to explain what it is, children may be scared off by the word and not grasp the concept as well.

Question: How can philosophy for adults be made more accessible using language?

Response to Mike, "Special Education in the Public School System"

So, I ask you, given the specific, albeit fragile, parameters of Individual Education Plans, are they really beneficial to the students that have them?

Yes, they are. When you have a disability, chances are you cannot function in school normally without special accommodations. I think it is insulting to refer to this as a "get out of jail free card", and to suggest that special education kids use it to their advantage. How do you know this is what's happening? It is possible that the child's disability is "invisible" to you. What looks like a child being "lazy" and opting out of schoolwork may actually be very necessary for the child. I think you made a lot of harmful assumptions based on your limited experience with special needs children. You refer to these children as "running the show" when they ask for accommodations that they are entitled to. You're implying here that it is easy to live with a disability. With this logic, wheelchair users are "running the show" if there is a ramp to get inside the building for them. There is a reason these accommodations are available for people with disabilities: they need them. Not because they are fun, cool, or get them out of work.
You also suggest that we "baby" students with disabilities. As Professor Johnson has said, paternalism is not necessarily harmful; it if often necessary. It is appropriate to give disabled children accommodations that are suited to their needs and will help them achieve academic goals. I don't doubt that students sometimes get misdiagnosed, and maybe IEPs are not always designed the best way possible. But generally, they give students benefits that they are entitled to, not a "free ride".

Philosophy in Elementary School

When I was in elementary school, we had a "philosophy class" (it wasn't it's own separate class but there was some time designated to philosophy in the classroom). This philosophy time mostly consisted of discussions of ethics. The teacher would often give us a scenario involving an ethical dillema, and ask us what we would do in that situation. These discussions got us thinking about fairly complex things. Not only did it get us thinking about how we would act in an ethical dilemma, but it got us thinking about why we would act a certain way. I think these discussions were a positive experience for me personally. When you are young, you are still learning "right" from "wrong", but it is rare that you get an opportunity to reflect on and even challenge why certain things are considered right and certain things are considered wrong. Allowing children to explore these ethical questions could actually stengthen their understanding of right and wrong. For example, if you tell a child not to hit people, they may not obey you because they don't understand why hitting is wrong. If you allow the child to explore what they believe is right and wrong, and why, they may develop a deeper understanding of morality.
Question: Should children be taught logic and reasoning?

The Value of Work

What makes certain types of work more valuable than others? We have talked in class about "hard work", but I honestly think most people work pretty hard. Some jobs may be more intellectually demanding, while others are more physically demanding, but that doesn't mean they are not "hard work". Also, how do we determine how much to pay a worker? Women do two-thirds of the world's work, but because much of this includes raising children and running a household, they only receive 10% of the world's income. This is because we do not value women's work. Why should some workers get paid a lot, and some get paid barely anything, or nothing? Like I said before, I think everybody works hard, so that's not it. We don't pay people based on how valuable their job is, because we give the most money to athletes and movie stars instead of firefighters and teachers. So, why do we pay some workers more than others?

Response to Bryan, "American Dream"

Q: In your view, Is the ‘American-Dream’ truly an illusion?

Yes, it is. You said in your post that hard work usually leads to success. I disagree with this. I think that most people who are successful have worked hard, but many people work really hard and do not become successful. This is because everyone in this society is born into a class (middle class, working class, etc) and class mobility is not easy. It is much easier for people born into wealth to achieve success (this is not to say that they still don't work hard). It is very hard for someone born into a lower class to make their way to the top of the hierarchy. It is possible with a lot of hard work, but it's more work than someone born into wealth has to put in to get to the same place. It's extremely hard to get out of poverty in this society. Even if somebody worked as hard as he or she could, they still have very limited resources to help them achieve success (money for college, connections, parents who can help them achieve their goals).

Question: How can we make class mobility easier?

Student-Worker Analogy

Something I have brought up in class before is how, in my experience, educators have often compared being a student to being a worker. When I was younger I was told that school was my job and my report card was my paycheck. I think that teachers probably said this as a way to motivate students to work towards a reward, but I think this student-worker analogy is flawed. Students really are not like workers. Workers are contributing something to society, whereas students usually are not. Students are learning things that other people already know, so although students do "work", they are usually not discovering anything new in their studies. I have heard college students say things like "Why should I pay to go to college and do a lot of work when I would be getting paid to do work at a job?" The answer is because as a student, you are studying things that other people already know. As a worker, you are either serving society in some way or creating new important things. When students are treated like workers, they develop a sense of entitlement. After all, workers are entitled to pay and benefits. So students come to feel like they deserve rewards just for being students.

Question: How should students be treated, if not like workers?

Response to Shelby, "Swearing"

Should swearing, and other paternalistic ploys that aim to increase student learning, be employed in the classroom?

As we have said in class, most things teachers do in class are slightly paternalistic (such as assigning readings, having tests, etc). If there were no "paternalistic ploys", there would probably be no point in attending class. However, I think swearing is different because it relies on shock tactics to entice students. I must admit this is a huge pet peeve of mine. A similar example of shock tactics is using sex to advertise a product. It may be true that "sex sells", but it doesn't make the tactics used to sell a product ethical (in other words, the ends do not justify the means). I feel similarly about swearing in classrooms. Although I am not morally opposed to swearing the way I am morally opposed to sexualized images of women in the media, I am uncomfortable with people trying to get my attention by trying to shock me. If anything, it sends the message that "this class is going to be so boring that I'm resorting to shocking you with curse words in order to get you to pay attention". I'm okay with teachers cursing sometimes out of habit, if they are speaking casually, and curse words are a part of their vocabulary. However, I'm less accepting of teachers cursing in order to get my attention. It makes me feel like they do not view me as an adult capable of paying attention simply because I want to.

Question: When (if ever) is shock value a good tactic to get people's attention?

Response to Bryan, "Grading"

Bryan suggested in his blog that it is idealistic and even "ridiculous" to want to get rid of our current grading system. I am saddened by many people's inclination to reject something because it is too idealistic. It would not be easy to get rid of our grading system, and I'm not even saying it would ever happen, but if you believe something is wrong, you should try to fix it. So many amazing things in history would not have happened if people had been "realistic" and not gotten carried away with their ideas. Even if you were to fail at trying to do something radical (such as eliminating the grading system), having that goal and working towards it would effect more change than just accepting things the way they are.
Additionally, you cite some reasons why we should keep grades, such as grad schools and employers looking at them. However, I think you are highlighting the fact that the problem with grading is a problem in our whole society, and in order to get rid of grading, we would have to amend more than just the way our schools function. This makes it a lot more complicated, but no less important.
Question: Is it always appropriate to be idealistic in one's goals?

Response to Andrew, "Being Called Upon"

Andrew discussed the multiple reasons why a student may not be able to answer a teacher's question when called upon in class, and concludes that even if the student is allowed to say "pass", the student may still be embarrassed by clearly not knowing the answer. I think that another reason students should not be called on in class is the fact that the classroom does not exist in a vacuum. Each individual student comes from a very different home and, especially in compulsory education, teachers should act under the assumption that students are coming from a bad environment or situation to be on the safe side. For example, in my elementary school, we were required to get our agendas signed by our parents every night, to ensure that they knew what our homework was. However, this put certain students at a disadvantage. If a student had parents that worked late hours, or didn't have a large presence in their child's life, the student may not be able to get their parents' signature. Similarly, some students may have social anxiety or a fear of public speaking, which would make being called on a traumatic experience. Teachers must be mindful of the fact that all students come from very different backgrounds. It would be nice if we could assume every student were perfectly adjusted and went home to a loving, functional family every afternoon, but, as Allison said, you must deal with the students you have, not the students you wish you had.

Question: How can a teacher be respectful of the various backgrounds students come from?

Self-given grades

We have discussed in class how grades are not always accurate. Sometimes, teacher cannot truly assess how much a student has learned. So, what if students gave themselves grades? Only the person doing the learning can truly know how much he or she has learned. The are the only ones with access to that information. There would be no need to "prove" through tests, projects, class participation, etc, what he or she has learned. However, there is a problem with honesty. Especially with younger students, you may see students giving themselves better grades than they deserve. However, if a real desire to learn was instilled in students, then they would want to give themselves accurate grades so, if they are not understanding the material, they can identify what they need to work on. I think in order for this to work, grades should not be something that can hurt students. In other words, grades should be nothing other than a self-assessment of what has been learned; there are no report cards, and parents should not have access to grades. Grades shouldn't be something the student gets praised or reprimanded for.

Question: Can the honesty problem be worked around with this idea?