My school

I am not sure about the practicality of my school, but at this point perhaps that is not the point.  When I think of what my ideal school would be like, I am reminded of medieval European curricula a la Boethius; basically it consisted of a "liberal education".  A liberal education consisted of either the quadrivium which centered on arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music, or the trivium which consisted of grammar, rhetoric, and logic.  I think my model would work best in a middle school context because of its three grade levels.  Instead of  6th, 7th, and 8th being used to denote the grade level, each level would be known as history, philosophy, and social awareness.  Within each level there would be a pretty standard array of subjects- math, science, language arts, etc.  The main impetus driving this new design would be that in all subject areas of the history level or grade, history would be highlighted.  For example, maybe a science class would focus on the history of science and its progression.  In math, problems and equations will be sought after in a fashion that highlights specific historical events, perhaps learning how math was done in the Roman Empire, or the Enlightenment for instance.  Other emerging educational tools are to be welcomed- such as was seen in the lesson surrounding the Brooklyn Bridge.  The same would apply at the philosophy level.  Here a deeper understanding of each subject would be uncovered- questions will be raised and studied about the nature of each subject; perhaps math class would use logic and syllogisms to study equations.  The social awareness level would follow the same format with the emphasis focusing on things like social justice, the "politics of food"- basically uncovering social hegemony, privilege, and things that are hidden from the citizenry so as to bolster the power of one group over another.  Also, taking an idea I heard from Devon in class, each level would utilize "community projects."  The one Devon told me about centered around a garden that each class would help grow, foster, and cultivate.  In addition to the basic tending of the garden, the garden would be used in science and math classes, for instance, as a practical means to learning these subjects; graphing growth, learning about how photosynthesis works, etc.  This school would not be considered college preparatory, but would be curricula driven.  The philosophy behind this is that great curricula which inspires and captivates students would give them the tools necessary, not only to be great independent citizens, but also to go to college if that is something they desired- personal responsibility, choice, and passion for life and learning will have to be key themes throughout all levels.

My dying bias

My bias is quite extensive in my personal history, and has caused me to have some hard personal reflections recently.  I like to think that I have made some healthy progress as I sift through these dissonances.  It has a lot to do with what we have been discussing in class, and also with that struggle I've been having throughout my phlogg thread.  Basically, it revolves around the question of sameness- are we all the same?  It is impossible to doubt this when we look at the American creed of "all men are created equal."  At the same time however, those of us who are in a classroom/school environment realize that there are some students who show more talent in one area or opposed to his fellow students.  For example is a gifted student the same as a student who struggles and/or is not interested in learning, or is a student that comes from a rich family the same as a student that comes from a poor family- if only by virtue of differences in ability/interest, or economics?  Obviously, they are not the same in their contextual relationships.  Does this difference require different approaches?  Conventional thought, ironically is yes- look at special ed/regular ed/gifted classes.  Do understandings about these students require different existential valuations?  Not necessarily if we acknowledge that each student is equal with respect to his right to attain his dreams, have a life of his choice, have equal access to all that life can offer.  If this is the criteria, then sameness is relatively easy to understand; this is something which was not easy for me to understand.  By strict virtue of becoming a teacher, a helping professional, I found it necessary to modify my notions and implications of sameness- not so much because I had to (I did have to), but because in order to be a great teacher, it requires as much compassion and deep understanding as it does knowledge and passion.  This position is simply inconsistent with any valuations or implications which stem from notions of any substantial, essential differences in each of us as we move through this fog known as the human condition.

Teacher of the year

Local Teacher Wins Nationally
by Tom Hunterson
Albuquerque Journal
September 4, 2017

"It was a proud day for Albuquerque Public Schools," says veteran Superintendent Winston Brooks, "when Luke Rudys accepted his award for National Teacher of the year.  It brought a culmination to, not only Luke's hard work, but also for APS since the abolishment of school boards."  Mr. Rudys started his pedagogical career at Dennis Chavez Elementary working in the special education program.  "I wasn't sure at first what I was getting into, but after the first day in the classroom, I knew my life would never be the same," remembers Mr. Rudys.  We caught up with one of Mr. Rudys' ex-students, Frederich Matthews, on the UNM campus; we asked him if he thought Mr. Rudys was a good teacher.  "Absolutely, I mean back in those days I suffered from sever emotional disturbance, and other sever behavioral disorders; I had no practical or social skills.  Now, I'm at UNM with a full scholarship studying philosophy and history- I just made the Dean's list."  Parents as well have fond remembrances, "He just really seemed to care.  I'll admit, at times I wasn't the most easy to work with parent, and at those times I think he found it necessary to not pull any punches.  He, simply put, was only interested in the well being of the students," says parent Monique Jones.  "I remember those Friday afternoons, where the shadows creeped long in the deserted parking lot- there we'd be, in my office discussing psychology or philosophy- basically trying to crack each case.  We had fun with it, which perhaps is why Luke was always so dedicated," says long time friend, ex-coworker, now administrator Hansel Christensen.  We asked him where to go from here, to which he replied, "No where and everywhere.  This doesn't change a thing for me, I going right back into the classroom."

The historical context of now

I think my ideas about the purposes of education are becoming a bit more clear.  I had a mini-epiphany this week in class during the presentation on the history of education.  When our republic was new, it seems highly necessary to teach the principles of republicanism and also of our republic in specific if our new government was to survive.  Today, it seems less crucial to teach these principles, perhaps these ideas have become a part of the popular, internalized, instinctualized consciousness.  This is not to say that knowing the Constitution is not important, it is, but this is an aspect of maintaining our republic which is different from the education which was necessary when America was new to the world.  My point is, perhaps the social end of education changes with time and in relation to a number of issues relevant to the context of today.  This leads nicely into the question of what is my purpose in being a teacher, today?

Aside from the creative ways to transmit vital knowledge and the quest to expand consciousness, I now see it as important to bring up issues that seem crucial to the attainment of a healthy society.  For example, it might seem important to have a unit on the "politics of food."  Not so much to take a stake in this debate, but to bring the issues into the light and allow the students to begin a thought process that will help them grow.

I think this practice will also inform my general educational ideas, namely, that it is not so much the object of knowledge that is important, but the ability to think critically, philosophically, and dynamically about a piece of knowledge or an issue, so as to understanding it completely and even instinctually.

The lecture on Tuesday kinda bummed me out, sent me reeling into an air of dissonance, but now I think I see the importance of the fragility of the line we walk as teachers.  The line between doing good and doing bad.  This is why it is so important to be open to painful dissonance, and the otherwise slippery slope of believing we know we understand completely things like the world, society, what's good or what's bad, or even our role as teachers.  My interpretation of something Jesse once said is this: knowing or believing, beyond a shadow of a doubt, what progress is can be a dangerous thing, but I'm probably wrong.