Gender Studies Course - Reflections on March 16th

In reference to the Ontario proposed Gender Studies curriculum, I can definitely understand where both sides are coming from.

On the one side, times have changed and therefore education needs to change in order to address these differences. And with all of the media we have available now, students are having all kinds of images and ideas thrown at them. So maybe the schools do need to step in and organize these ideas for students in such a way that they can explore them in a safe environment. Upon looking through the proposed curriculum, I found that there was a lot of valuable information in there. Information that may directly help students in their lives (when they enter the work force, when they get married, when they have children, etc.).

On the flip side, I can also see why there is some resistance to implementing this document. While some of the objectives could be seen as "non-disputable" (basically seen by the majority of Canadians as "right" - ie. violence prevention), there are many objectives that are not accepted by many people. Topics like abortion, homosexuality, transgener/transsexuality, and just plain old sexuality are not agreed upon by everybody as being right, one way or the other. Even aspects of gender equity - the woman's "place" or roles versus the man's "place" or roles are not seen as the same across the board. Some religions and/or cultures believe they should be equal while some believe that each sex has specific roles.

So the condundrum is, of course, which side is right? Obviously there will never be a consensus. And I can see why this course is being resisted in the Catholic schools. I was curious about what kind of response it got from the non-Catholic schools.

In Lana, Brad and Chelsea's presentation last class on Social Studies, they mentioned that the Social Studies curriculum is meant to be taught without bias. Personally, I would hope that some aspects of this gender course would be as well. I do think that the majority of the material is important for our students to learn, and much of it should be taught with a bias (once again, violence!!), but I do think that there are some aspects that should be taught with an unbiased approach (such as abortion, homosexuality, etc.). This is only because there is still such a split on topics such as these, and what right does anybody have to say that one side is wrong?

If I were a parent, I would have no problem with this course being taught as long as some of these sensitive issues were presented with both "sides" in mind and the teachers didn't lean towards one way or the other in their presentation of material. If parents are concerned, then this would be a good opportunity to get involved in what their children are learning at school by bringing the material into discussions at home as well. However, sadly, in this day and age (there I go sounding like a ninety year old woman again!) many parents are not involved in their child's education. So I think a course like this is extremely important. Some believe schools should just stick to the basics (good old reading, writing and arithmatic), but if parents and communities/societies in general are failing to teach everything else at home (values, morals, etc.), then, in order to make an attempt at changing the downward spiral in which our communities have fallen into I think the schools do need to step in. I think it is sad. But true.

A View from My "Place" - Reflections from March 2

After Brad's presentation on Cynthia Chambers article, I was thinking about how we all view the world from our own "place" in society, and wondering about the question, "How do we construct a provincial curriculum to give voice to all of these different places?" I will get back to this in just a minute, but first...

As I read through Johnson's article that was handed out last class, "Burt Lancaster is Apache: Hollywood's shocking reel Indians", I couldn't help feeling defensive. The main reason is probably that I LOVED the movie Avatar. I thought it was brilliant. So, my arguments are probably completely biased but here I go anyway:

"The Vatican frets about its creed of nature worship." First of all, I'm not sure what is wrong with "worshiping" nature - don't we want to have a clean world in which to live? Don't we preoccupy ourselves these days with sustainability and living "green"? Second, (and as a Christian) I didn't find this offensive either. In my mind I spent most of the movie seeing this "nature worship" as a metaphor for God. Perhaps it wasn't meant that way by James Cameron, but does that matter? The point is that we all experience things differently due to our "places" in life.

"U.S. Conservatives condemn it as anti-military eco-liberalism." It's just a movie. It is one person's point of view. I'm sure if the movie had the opposite spin (the "Americans" taking over this fresh land and defeating the Na'vi) the "eco" people would be in an uproar. Again, it's just a movie. It's just art. It's up for your own interpretation.

"The Na'vi aliens on Pandora are clearly patterned on North American natives, or more specifically their Hollywood stereotype - noble savages in braids and riding bareback with bows and arrows. And as in Dances With Wolves, their messiah is a white man who goes native". Once again, I am probably biased because I am not of Aboriginal descent. When I was watching the movie I thought it was a brilliant way of showing what it must have been like for indiginous people (both in Canada and the U.S., as well as all round the world) to be "invaded" by a group of people who thought they were both stronger and superior. The article pointed out that North American natives were "misrepresented" by putting feathers in their hair and doing a "war whoop". I can understand the frustrations of being misrepresented. But then I was thinking that perhaps James Cameron wanted to get his point across, and thought that this was the best way in which to do it. Maybe the general public do need to be "hit over the head" with "obvious" similarities in order to get it. Had he been more discreet in his portrayal, maybe the story wouldn't have had as much resonance. Of course the "white man" coming in on his high horse and saving everyone is a little chiche. Actually, a LOT cliche. But I still think the point was made very nicely. And, again, it is art. It is one person's representation. It is up to us how we choose to interpret it.

I think the same can be said for curriculum. First, it is written by one group of people. I would hope that the people who make up the team would be from a variety of different cultures, backgrounds, experiences, etc. This would help to make it more authentic. But, it is still the point of view of one group of people. And these people cannot help where they come from and how they think about things. They are defined by their "place" just as much as the rest of us. Second, we all have the opportnity to interpret these curriculum documents based on our own "places". Some of us will see one document as lacking in certain areas based on our place, and others may see the same document as full and rich based on their place. I think that it is most important that curriculum be flexible enough to be adapted/shaped to fit where we are, while still providing a sense of unity among all "places".

Going back to the white man on the horse saving the day image again, we have to remember who this movie is coming from. It is produced in Hollywood, by Americans. Of course they are going to make themselves the hero of the story. Who wouldn't? If a movie was made by Canadians, they would probably be presented in a flattering light. If a movie was made by Pakistanis, they would probably be the heroes. If Native Americans had made the movie Avatar, the hero would most likely have been one of the Na'vi people. We have to remember that everything that is made by people is going to have a personal spin based on our own biases, beliefs, values and experiences. How can we say that someone else's expression is wrong? So I think when we are looking at curriculum in terms of how it fits with our own place in society, it is really up to us (the teachers) to make it fit. We cannot control who wrote it and how it was written. We can control how we choose to interpret and implement it.

Models and the Creative Mind

I apologize for going back to the Music Curriculum butterfly again, but I am thinking more and more that it was a genius idea to use a metaphor for such a curriculum.

First of all, I am and always have been a creative person. Pure logic was something I always struggled with. I always flourished when we were given an assignment that allowed for some creativity - when we were able to put some thought into what we were going to do and how we were going to do it. And those are the assignments/projects that I remember the most as well. One that stands out from high school was having to create a "soundtrack" to Macbeth. That was right up my alley. Basically we had to make a tape with a song to represent each scene. We also had to provide a written document explaining why each song was chosen and how it complimented/supported the scene. I think this was an excellent example of how the teacher could still get a good picture of how well we understood what we were reading, while making it more intriguing for us rather than just writing an essay. Now writing is something I also love, so I probably wouldn't have minded an essay either. But give me a page of math questions or ask me to list facts about how the heart works and I freeze.

Anyway, my point is that those of us who are blessed/cursed with creative minds obviously see the world in a creative light. This brings me to our discussion of models versus metaphors in Chelsea's presentation of Gustafson's article, and why I think it is genius that they chose to use a metaphor for the music curriculum. I would say that probably most elementary music teachers are creative-minded people - especially Orff specialists. So it is only fitting that they didn't try to confuse our creative minds with a bunch of models with arrows and boxes. Again, I would take one look at that and freeze.

This led me to think about students within the context of my classroom. Being that I teach music using the Orff process, most of our time is spent being creative and expressive. This is partially due to the fact that I am a trained Orff specialist, but I'm sure the fact that I need creativity in my life has something to do with it. However, after our discussion of metaphors versus models and which representations we are most comfortable with, I was reminded of the fact that not all of my students have that creative mind. Not to say that all students are not creative - I think that everyone has the potential to be creative in some form or another. But just as non-creative pieces confuse and torture me, I'm sure that creative pieces can be confusing and torturous to others, and this is something that I need to remember in my classroom.

Here's an example of a class period in grade 4 or 5:
Students are divided into small groups and given a card with a 4-line poem (or piece of a story) on it. They are instructed to use instruments and/or body sounds of their choice (previous examples and discussions on choosing sounds to enhance a story have been explored as a group) and appropriate movements/staging to enhance the given text. They will also need to make use of previously learned concepts such as dynamics, tempo, timbre and form. Students practice their selection, refine and then perform for the class. They are given feedback from their peers as well as their teacher. Students are given an opportunity to refine and polish their performance after hearing the feedback. Finally, each group performs as a whole – perhaps as a Rondo (ABACAD…) to present the final product.

To the creative mind, this is a party! But when I observe students doing activities such as these, there are always some who sit back and don't contribute, or some who keep saying "I don't know what to do", or some who can't agree on anything to try with their group. I think that aside from problems such as difficulty working in groups or just not wanting to do anything, some of these issues might stem from the fact that this creative type of activity "freezes" students who are not as creative-minded. They are afraid to take a leap, or perhaps don't know how to take the leap. Perhaps their minds just don't work that way, or haven't been exercised in that way. But just as I know it is important for me to experience and develop facility with non-creative thinking, I believe that those non-creative thinkers also need to expand their creative capacities.

I was at a workshop one time where they were discussing the qualities most needed for jobs in this day and age, and one of the top qualities was creativity. When you think about it, it makes sense! Just think about the way our world is going - technology, technology, technology. And what kinds of qualities do you think one needs to develop video games, cell phones, web sites, television commercials, new cars, new curriculums, etc.? Hmmmm...

Standing in the Gap - Feb. 16th

Wow - there is so much that one could possibly say this week. But I think I'm going to jump on the technology bandwagon this week. I think so many people are so ready to blame technology for our problems. But honestly, I believe it is not technology that is the problem, but how we allow ourselves to use and be affected by technology. I think there are wonderful benefits to cell phones, iPods, Blackberries, computers, television, and so on. But we have allowed ourselves to be carried away in this technology flurry without actually thinking about it ourselves (I say "we" as in society in general). With the way media works today, we are told a smart phone is the way to go, so we get one (myself included). One person writes a successful book about vampires, so everybody writes books, tv shows and movies about vampires. One person shoots up his school and it's all over the news, so other people shoot up their schools too. One person blames the internet, and media/technology in general on the world's problems, so we all do. I think it is just another example of people being less and less willing to take responsibility for their actions. It's easy to blame something else. It's easy to say cartoon characters dropping anvils on one another causes children to be violent. It's easy to say that goth culture causes teenagers to go on shooting rampages. It's easy to say that people can't think for themselves anymore because we've got the internet. But couldn't the internet be considered kind of like a library? We could get all the information we needed from the library, and if your library didn't have what you needed, they'd find it for you. Now we've got it all online - same info - just faster. Of course I realize that any old Joe can post stuff online and call it legit (just look at what we're doing with our blogs!). But I don't think that means we shouldn't embrace our new "technological culture" and cut it out of the schools! All we need to be doing is teaching how to use these technologies responsibly. Wasn't there a time when some people thought books were a waste of time? They thought their children should be learning how to run a farm or cook meals, or take care of babies instead of "filling their heads with nonsense"? I think it's just an endless cycle of being afraid of the new and unfamiliar.

As we've said many times in the past few weeks, times change. And we can spend time trying to fight the natural evolution of our world, or we can embrace it and use it wisely. I most definitely think that curriculum documents have changed over the years to reflect changes in our lives. Perhaps it's teachers who don't always implement the changes. Haven't you ever heard grumblings from fellow staff members about these stupid new programs, or new reporting systems, or anything new? As adults we do sometimes have a difficult time embracing change. Children are so flexible and can pick anything up on a dime. It's nothing for them to try something new, and we expect them to do it all the time. I think a lot of the time it is adults who are afraid to make the leap into the unknown. We like to be experts. We like to be good at what we do. So perhaps one of the reasons why we feel that children and teens (and even adults) are using technology unwisely and lack common sense, is that "we" dig our heels in about acknowledging its' existence. We say, "Cell phones are stupid. All kids do is text all day long, so we need to ban them from the schools". Don't we want our kids to have social experiences and communicate with their friends? We say, "The internet is bad. Children are exposed to way too much." Isn't it the job of the parent to monitor what their kids are doing online, and perhaps the schools to teach them about appropriate internet usage? With anything new, there will be resistance (the telephone, the motorized vehicle, email...). But we can waste time fighting the inevitable, or we can embrace change and educate our students and ourselves about adaptability and responsibility.

And I think that's where schools come in. We were discussing last class about how teachers are often expected to be parents to these students. I think it is safe to say that while there are many responsible parents out there, there are probably some just like "us" who resist change. Therefore, it is also probably safe to assume that many children are not being educated or monitored adequately regarding the use of technology. And that's where we, teachers, come in. Again, we can fight it, or we can use it to educate.

I decided to visit the Church of the Rock last night for their Saturday evening service, and at one point during the sermon the pastor was talking about intercession - praying for people who need help in their lives. Then he used the phrase, "Stand in their gap." And I thought, "Aha"! I think that is exactly what we do as teachers. We stand in the gap and try to make connections in order to fill that gap. So if there is a gap between what students are learning on their own where technology is concerned and how they should be using technology, then we should be there to fill that gap. And it is not just true for technology, but curriculum in general. Where are our students now, and where do we want them to be? And whether it is written in a curriculum document or not, we need to be aware of these gaps in our specific groups of students and be ready to fill them.

February 9th - Curriculum & Instruction

I little light bulb went on in my head when we were discussing curriculum as including instruction or leaving out instruction. I had never actually thought of these two as separate, and I think it's a neat thing to consider!

When Graham was presenting the Beauchamp article and noted that the "how" of curriculum (how to implement it) should be, according to Beauchap, left up to the instructor because clientele is differs from place to place, I thought that was quite interesting. And true! I am not saying that curriculum documents should not have any ideas on instruction or implementation - I think those are very important for two reasons - 1) to give teachers (especially new teachers) ideas on how to teach specific outcomes, and 2) to give educators an idea of "how" students are to know specific outcomes (do they need to answer questions, perform a task, etc.). I think, however, that there is something to the thought that maybe curriculum should be just that - curriculum. "What ought to be taught". And perhaps the implementation of the curriculum should be left up to the teacher.

This relates to a subject we discuss and my school many, many times. Clientele. Although I agree that all children should be given similar opportunities, the differences among schools most definitely affects what and how we teach. I am often jealous of what I see colleagues of mine accomplishing in their music classrooms. But then I remind myself that I need to keep my students in mind. These students, coming from foster homes, or broken homes, or coming to school with no food in their tummies or mittens on their hands might not always be able to be taught in the same way as students from another school who may have most of their primary needs met. While I am a music teacher, I find the majority of my day (and anyone else working in our school) is spent on behaviour. Either correcting negative behaviour, encouraging positive behaviour, counselling students who are upset, cuddling students who might not otherwise be cuddled, providing snacks sent by Winnipeg Harvest, scouting out a clean t-shirt, and so on. We all know that these primary needs (physiological, safety, love & belonging) need to be met before students are able to work to their full capacity. There seems to be no point in forcing an unwilling student to accompany a song about bunny rabbits on a xylophone when he is hungry and feeling completely unloved. These primary needs have to be met first. This does put a strain on what we can teach and how to teach it.

My point after this little ramble is that I don't see how a group of "experts" sitting at a table can tell us how to teach. What to teach - sure. But how? We are the only ones that know our students and what they need. I think we need to keep this in mind not only when implementing curriculum, but also when designing curriculum. It has to be flexible. Teachers need to be able to take the concepts that need to be taught and teach them in a way that will be beneficial for their particular set of students. Otherwise it would be like trying to stick a square peg in a round hole.

Thoughts on Feb. 2nd

I have been trying all week to come up with something to write here, but have been coming up dry. So I'll just start, and see what happens!

I really enjoyed our discussions about curriculum potential. I think that it is extremely important that there are opportunities for teachers to follow varying paths (based on student interest, teacher interest, current events, etc.). If we only ever stuck to one way of teaching one set of material it would be very boring (both for teachers and for students). It also doesn't provide accurate correlations to real life, or the here and now. Our world is constantly changing and we need our curriculi to be flexible! Personally, I feel very lucky to be working with the new music curriculum, as it provides a framework of concepts, but allows for much creativity and interpretation. This is partially due to the subject - music, when taught using the Orff process, should always be creative and open to possibilities. For those of you who are not familiar with the Orff method, here's a brief description from the Carl Orff Canada website:

“Carl Orff (1895-1982) is probably best known as the composer of such works as Carmina Burana and Catulli Carmina, but it is his work with "Music for Children" which has inspired a global movement in music education.

The Orff approach to Music Education is holistic, experiential and process oriented. It is for all children, not just the most musically or intellectually gifted and encompasses aural, visual and kinesthetic learners.

Orff's philosophy is based on solid, pedagogical principles. A structured, sequential development of knowledge and skills encourages joyful participation, creativity, and personal musical growth from all participants. The Orff approach taps the very essence of our beings. Children learn through doing, exploring and improvising. They are active participants in an integrated, guided process, one which allows for differing musical abilities. In the Orff approach, no child is neglected.

The Orff philosophy combines the elements of speech, rhythm, movement, dance, and song. And at the heart of all this is improvisation - the instinct children have to create their own melodies, to explore their imaginations.

Elemental music is never only music but an integration of movement, dance and language. It is music one creates oneself in which one is involved not as a listener, but as a participant."

The new music curriculum lends itself beautifully to this philosophy of teaching music. And I do think that the butterfly metaphor also helps to enhance this curriculum. Just to help illustrate, I'll quickly go through the main aspects of the music curriculum:

As we discussed in class, "Making Music" is the center of the butterfly because it is at the center of the Orff process. All children are music makers, and in order to better understand and appreciate music, students will all have the opportunity to experience music hands-on by making it themselves.

As I also pointed out, the four wings do not usually work alone.
The first wing, "Music Language and Performance Skills" focuses on specific concepts (such as rhythm, melody, form, harmony, timbre) and techniques for making music. The second wing, "Creative Expression in Music", is all about communicating ideas through music, using the concepts from the afore mentioned wing. The third wing, "Understanding Music in Context", is where students learn to connect music to time, place and community - basically understand the purposes for music in the past and present. Some of these purposes might include telling a story, communicating emotions, celebrating events, etc. The fourth wing, "Valuing Musical Experience" focuses on appreciating music and constructing meaning from one's own music and the music of others. In any general lesson we touch on most, if not all, of these wings.

As I mentioned earlier, the curriculum is also extremely flexible. For example, grade 3 and 4 students are expected to "describe a variety of purposes and roles for music in daily life, in own community and in other places and times". This leaves the door open to study all kinds of music. I always enjoy teaching a unit on musical theatre every year (and show a different musical movie each year). And while it does not specify "musical theatre" anywhere in the curriculum, it most definitely fits several outcomes.

The music curriculum also fits well with going on "tangents" as we discussed before. This is most likely due to the fact that it is such a creative subject - we can basically go anywhere we'd like within the context of music!

I am also lucky that I get the same kids all year for 6 years. There is no pressure of what they have to know by the end of the year because I have them again the following year. Of course I try to stick as much as possible to getting things done in a timely manner, but I feel no "pressure". But perhaps pressure is one reason why some educators do not want to deviate from their standard ways of teaching. There is so much pressure to get things done, and get them done now. Has anyone been reading the Free Press lately? There was a whole article about how we should be publishing school academic achievement statistics so that people can compare schools. Perhaps this is one reason why some teachers are afraid to go off on "tangents". The public will eat them alive if their class does not live up to the "public's" expectations. Just a thought.

I'm not sure what else to say at the moment - but I do think that every curriculum should give opportunities to be flexible, and be easily adaptable to current students and situations.

Not On the Test

Hey guys,
I just thought I'd also share this video - I love it! It totally addresses some of our assessment struggles...

Just go to www.notonthetest.com