I thought the movie we saw in class last class was very
powerful. I still can’t believe that
bill passed. As I mentioned in class, I
think the film did a great job at illustrating that there is a fear among some
that identifying with a culture is un-America. Further, a point that I really believe, that culture is an important
tool through students can learn.
That being said, I was wondering if anyone noticed the teacher-student
interactions from the clips of class lessons.
Two of the interactions really stuck out to me. First, the scene where the teacher hands out
books with a bell on the cover and asks the class something like, “why do you
think it’s a church?” The student responds something along the lines of, “Because
it is like home.” The teacher acknowledges
the answer as right and moves on. In
another clip the teacher asks the students if things have changed since the
time of Martin Luther King. The students
had various responses, the teacher said “yes, right?” and then moved on. Now both of these instances are just clips
and we don’t get to see the lesson in its entirety, but it seems like for a guy
is preaching about the importance providing all students a solid education that
meets the needs of students he is not really challenging students or pushing students
to really think critically. It seems
like there is one answer he is looking for and the students know that. Again, I know these are just clips and we
shouldn’t make conclusions based on two such short clips, but it leaves me
thinking about the importance of keeping the goal of providing a solid education
at the center of schools. These is not
to say that advocating for what one believes is wrong, nor is it to say that we
shouldn’t use real life situations of interest to students as teachable moments. Rather, it is just to raise the question of
whether he is handing students the “right” answer, or using the situation to
encourage critical thinking and learning.
I’d be interested to hear what others think.
And on a related note, this week the Supreme Court is going
to hear the Arizona Immigration case http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/22/2762469/supreme-court-to-hear-arizona.html
Jess, your post got me thinking about the different ways in which we use the word "power" versus "empower" in our discourse. A friend of mine embarking on a social justice initiative recently wrote, "I realized that most of the changes I wanted to make—in myself, in my relationships, in institutions, in the world—required power. 'Power' is a word I spent most of my life hating, thinking it only applied to the negatives like abusive power, negligent power, and corrupt power. But I discovered that power can also be harnessed for good, and I wanted to learn how that worked." Her words, together with your post, reminded me of my own analytical responses to characters such as Attorney General Horne and the teacher Curtis Acosta. I find myself more inclined to describe Horne as focused on power, versus Acosta who is focused on empowerment. But aren't both men focused on power -- one wishes to sustain it, while the other wishes to enable others to possess it? Yet, it sounds odd even just thinking the phrase: "Acosta wants his students to gain power. He is inspiring his students to want power." There does seem to be within our discourse something nefarious about the word "power," which sounds antithetical to "empowerment," but why?
ReplyDelete