Multiculturalism and "our" World

In the first article, Samuel Taylor speaks to the idea that schools today aren’t teaching history the way it used to be taught. Better yet, they can’t. I’ve never really thought about Mr. Taylor’s point of view on this, but I find it very interesting. Everything he says about history books and how they have tried to be “inclusive” makes perfect sense to me, I just never thought much about it. It’s all a bit daunting if you ask me. The idea that pretty much everything has occurred here in the United States can be viewed as either a triumph or a tragedy seems a little overwhelming to grasp, at least for me. It sounds to me like it could all end up causing some kind of civil war, at least figuratively, if history begins to be viewed this way. In my opinion, history is just that, history. Some of what happened we aren’t proud of, but some of what happened we are very proud of. I’m not proud that white people owned slaves, but I’m proud that slavery existed so that we could all come to learn about Booker T. Washington (among others). Without slavery, as horrible as it may have been, Booker T. Washington may not have been driven to be the person he became. Agree with him or not, Mr. Taylor presents some very interesting thoughts on our history and multicultural differences.

In the article “Pithissippi Burning: Race, White Nationalism and American Culture,” PJ Tobia speaks of something that some people (I didn’t) probably didn’t know existed, “The Brigade.” According to Tobia, “The Brigade,” an internet novel by H.A. Covington, is part of a group of writings that found The Northwest Homeland. The Northwest Homeland is the idea that white people take over three states in the northwest and pretty much form their own nation with no regard for the United States as it stands today, it’s military, governmental structure, or citizens. Although this is real, at least the concept, I have a hard time believing that it could ever really happen. I know there are extremists out there that believe this could happen, and they may even be trying to make it happen, but it’s all a little far-fetched for me. As an educator, I am personally excited to see the advancement of other races in this great country. To me, it shows some of the successes of the school systems here in the United States. Most of these kids from other cultures were, at some time, a part of the education system of this country, and to a degree, owe their success, at least in part, to their teachers throughout their years in school.

Maybe I don’t know enough about multiculturalism, or maybe I’m ignorant of too many points of view about multiculturalism, but the author of “Why Multiculturalism is Wrong,” in my opinion, is a bit extreme. I know some of what they say is fact, but so much seems so extreme to me, I can’t get my head around the possibility that it really does exist. I did, however, find one of the ideas a little intriguing. At one point, the author speaks of how a multicultural society “oppresses migrants.” He goes on to say that people from other cultures maintain their same culture whenever they arrive in a multicultural society. I take this to mean, that if a person from another culture arrives in a multicultural society (not unlike the US), they would be able to continue their previous culture there. Meanwhile, if they arrive in a mono-cultural society, maybe like the Netherlands that the author speaks of, they would have to adhere to the cultural beliefs of the culture in place in order to be able to stay there. Personally, I believe that diversity is part of what makes the education system in this country so great. Differing points of view help mold young minds and hearts to be accepting to different perspectives, thus creating a better nation, one culture at a time.

Separate Church and State ... or not?

There are so many different angles to which the debate of the “Separation of Church and State” can originate. The first article in our readings discusses a required moment of silence. I always thought that it could be required (the moment of silence), but that it could not be required that each student pray during that time. Most of the schools that I’ve taught at didn’t give enough time for a prayer anyway! It usually only lasts about 5 seconds, and it always seems like they are simply fulfilling their obligation to have the moment of silence. Use it for what you want. Bow your head and pray, don’t bow your head and don’t pray, it’s your choice, but what’s the big deal? I wonder how long it will take for this to become an issue in the South somewhere. Every school I know of has a moment of silence every morning. There’s definitely a branch of people that believe that a lot of the problems we have in schools today is the fact that church and school have to be separated. I for one tend to agree, but I also see the impossibility of making this happen in today’s society. There are just too many different religions represented in our schools today, not to mention, it’s unconstitutional. That’s a bit of a problem, too.

As for the evolution issue in Texas, again, I’m not real sure what the big deal is. I guess I should be more zealous one way or the other, but I’m just not. I believe that scientists believe, for the most part, in evolution, so of course they’re going to be sensitive as a group to the idea of teaching anything associated with creationism in the science classroom. What if there was a creationist science teacher out there somewhere? Would they disagree? Would they be offended by the idea of teaching evolution? It would appear that there is a discrepancy in what’s being allowed anyway. Evolution is universally accepted as “acceptable” to teach in science classroom, but creationism isn’t. Isn’t evolution a belief as well? Hmm. I suppose this one stirs a little more in me than the other. Believe what YOU want to believe, just let the families of your students teach their children what they believe is right. It’s really none of my business what anybody else believes, is it?

The article from the Library of Congress is interesting, but, given the time it was written, I can totally see the ruling coming back the way it did. I don’t think that in the 30’s there was much concern for religion. Most schools were probably following the same protocol as they had for years and years, and they just didn’t care what some small religion (at the time) thought. Just think about how far we’ve come with the issue of corporal punishment. I, for one, remember paddling being a regular occurrence in middle and high school, but by the time I returned from college, it had all but gone away. It’s amazing what a couple of court rulings can do for “traditions” in school.

The more interesting story was, not so much that they changed their ruling, but that the Supreme Court changed their ruling during World War II. Japan attacked us in 1941, so I would think that pride in our flag would have been at an all-time high during the ensuing years (like 1943).

Overall, I think they got it right. I don’t think we should require students to say the pledge, salute the flag, have a moment of silence, or bow their heads to pray during school. I think that if a kid wants to pray, they’ll have plenty of quiet time during their school day to get that done on their own time. Leave it up to the parents to encourage that, not us. As for the issue of evolution/creationism being taught in schools, that’s never going away. As long as people have different views, schools will have different views about teaching it in their buildings.

The Innovators and The Makers

My first thought, when starting to research for this blog post, was, "I have only heard of two of these people, and only one of those two do know who they are! I should be ashamed!" Being in education, you would think that I would be aware of who at least some of the people were that helped shape the very profession that I so lovingly arrive at every weekday (except for holidays and snow days ... and the occasional "mental health day").




With that said, I dove right in, reading about the innovators. Who knew Linda Brown Thompson was “Brown v. Board of Education?” I didn’t. I know, I know, I should be ashamed (I already said that). Also, I thought Horace Mann was an insurance company (well it is, but that all I thought it was). I had no idea Horace Mann was such an influential person in the history of education.



When I started reading about the “Makers,” I initially thought the web-site was a sort of conspiracy theory, with all the talk of, “Teachers and principals, “scientifically” certified in teachers college practices, were made unaware of the invisible curriculum they really taught,” and of schools becoming, “psychological laboratories where training in consumerism was the central pursuit.” As I read on, my thoughts didn’t really change much. Gatto’s angry about this, huh? If not angry, he sure is passionate about it (I can’t wait to read Weapons of Mass Instruction). I suppose if a person bought into this line of thinking, education is way out of whack. I, for one, don’t think it is. I don’t think I’m in the minority, either. I think most teachers would agree it needs some work, but I hope the majority don't think it's as messed up as Gatto does. We teachers owe it to our students to try and teach them to the best of our ability every day. I realize that that “best” is different from one teacher to another, but most of it is in the effort. The idea that American schools have become what Gatto suggests is, well, kind of hard for me to believe. I admire Mr. Gatto for his passion about his beliefs, I just don’t necessarily think it’s as bad as he does.



Now let’s move on to the difficult task of choosing one innovator and one maker to talk about. Both choices were difficult for me, but for completely different reasons. Choosing an innovator was difficult because all of them made sizable contributions to modern-day education. Choosing a maker was difficult because I don’t know if I really think the choices had all that much to with education today (at least not in the way that Gatto seems to think they have). At least this was my original thought.



My choice for “Innovator” is Jose Angel Gutiérrez. I know, I know, some of you are probably thinking that if I were going to choose a person that went against the system, I should have chosen Booker T. Washington or Linda Brown Thompson. Well, you may be right, but I have a reason for choosing Gutiérrez. Jose Angel Gutiérrez went head first against (in a highly Hispanic-populated area), what the article calls the “Anglos,” and was able to organize a student strike, stage an upset in a school board election, and institute many changes in the school system where he served, including hiring teachers and administrators that were Spanish-speaking. My initial thought about Gutiérrez is that he is a sort of modern day Booker T. Washington, at least as far as the Hispanic education movement in this country is concerned.



My choice for “Maker” (although a difficult one) is … well it could be any of the four listed on Gatto’s website. Okay, okay, I picked Carnegie, but I could just as easily have picked any of the other three, but not for the reasons you might be thinking. I don’t buy into Gatto’s ideas, but I do believe that men like Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Morgan (among others) did have an influence on education, but I think their influence can more easily be tied to vocational education than to general education. You see, I’m a vocational teacher, and I haven’t really thought of this before, but these men did have an influence on what I’m doing. The fact that they owned these huge companies that manufactured things that were absolutely necessary for the day-to-day operations of this country and that they wanted a work force that was educated in the trades necessary for their companies to be successful, tells me they wanted trade-education in schools. Carnegie was no exception. The only problem … Carnegie wanted to take over control of the school system and force students to learn only what he wanted them to learn. A sort of "Hitler" approach to educating our children. According to http://www.modernhistoryproject.org/mhp/ArticleDisplay.php?Article=FinalWarn02-5#Education, students would be taught “only what the social engineers of this country wanted them to know.” The fact that Carnegie was a Scottish immigrant, was never a US citizen, but still thought he could take over the education system of country such as the United States of America, is why I chose him over the others. The gall!



This post turned into a pretty interesting one (Dr. Young has a way of making that happen), especially as I expanded my research to some other places on the internet. Please post your comments so that I can improve on my next post.

Web