A uniting topic throughout the first few chapters of Teaching Toward Freedom is that teaching cannot be neutral. Educators enter a struggle between freedom (knowledge and empowerment) and authority (subjugation and conformity). Thus education is always ‘for something and against ‘something else’. I think that it is good for us to consider this dichotomy as we enter our new careers as teachers. I am optimistic about the teacher that I can be, and the person that I can be as a teacher. I am hopeful that I can share my positive outlook on learning and life with my students, but I see where the discipline, authoritarianism and expectation of conformity can get in the way. As Ayers puts it, our efforts can be “twisted into the domain of dehumanization”. This idea that teaching is always political ties directly to the Tami Sober talk from the other day where we learned about unions and the political processes tied to teaching.
There were also a few things throughout the book that reminded me of Ruby Payne, or perhaps more appropriately, the critiques of Ruby Payne. For example, at some point (CH2 I think?) Ayers tells the story of a woman who interviewed single mothers in Chicago, and the great diversity of opinions encountered on what it means to be a single parent. It’s different for everyone, but we tend to label all of these folks as ‘single mothers’ (with a hint of pity and disdain) and then we put them into a particular box. Ayer’s believes that when we label and categorize people we do them a disservice by leaving their struggles, triumphs, opinions and individuality unrecognized. That message reminds me a bit of the deficit perspective employed by Payne and critiqued by Bomer et al.
Ayers talks about standing together with your students and recognizing them as people. He says the fundamental message that teachers pass on to their students should be ‘you can change your life’. I agree with his message in general. However there were times when I felt the text took on the tone of a self-help novel or a motivational speech, which I didn’t like so much. He also strings together anecdotes and stories back to back in long successions, and while many were interesting, I felt he could have been more clear and concise about the meat and potatoes of his ideas.
Reading this book made me think of our list of reasons for having public schools in the beginning of the course. In discussing this topic, we hit on a number of points that Ayers makes. One example is Ayers idea that schools help us get to know us and they help to expand our capacities as human beings. I think we touched on this when we said that the skills we learn in school transfer to life and are needed to form competent humans. Also we mentioned that education is a universal right and is meant to provide equal opportunity to all. Ayers expands on this with his call for teaching toward freedom. Freedom, in his view, is meant as enlightenment, awareness, protection of the weak, cooperation, generosity, compassion and love for neighbors. He calls for a stand against oppression and unfairness. Theses are all things I would ideally want for education as well.
Additionally, chapters 2 and 3 also made me reflect on our discussion of teaching as a profession. Ayers mentions demonstrating to students that they are valued and standing with the students and not above them. This falls under our discussion of a teacher’s relationship with the students and striking that balance between teaching the material and showing them we care.
Overall, I felt Ayers made some good points but there was a lot of fluff in the book. I wanted him to get to the point sooner. (Although this might because I decided to start reading it 10 at night.) Also Ayers seems a little overly optimistic too. I like the moral and ethical issues he brings up but I want students who can function in the world too. I want them to feel empowered and valued but not because it makes them feel good (thought I want them to feel good too) but because I have thought them skills that they can carry throughout life to make themselves better functioning people.
Thus far in Ayers’ Teaching Toward Freedom, I agree with his ideas on labeling, generalizing, and grouping and how these lead towards dehumanization. His point relates to Ruby Payne’s sweeping generalizations and blanket statements, in that, most of us were unimpressed with her analysis of poverty, much because of the generalizations and stereotypes within.
The power of words is obvious in Ayers’ text, in that he shows how words can either set us free or erase our humanity. He shows many instances of labeling lessening the humanity of the person behind the label. One very powerful instance was when a group of reformers met with the Congressional Black Caucus and one reformer spoke up after being referred to as “ex-offenders” six times. He says, “Excuse me, sir, but if you call one of us an ex-offender one more time I’m going to start referring to you as ‘that Negro gentleman.’ You’ll see that even that benign label will begin to erase your humanity”(39). This stresses the importance as seeing every human being as an individual, rather than the member of a group, which is quite the opposite of Ruby Payne’s arguments.
Labels, which coincide with preconceived notions, are perpetuating an ignorant America; such as Ruby Payne’s 3 types of Americans. Ayers states: “..much of our thinking is untroubled by facts, experience, or knowledge, how comfortably it floats along on clouds of ignorance and presumption, how contented we can become in our balkanized credulity”(40). Ignorantly labeling students takes away their individuality, which aids in gradually destroying their excitement for learning. The standardization of tests also groups students together under a single label, assuming that they will test the same, and thus masking their individuality.
“Teaching is an enterprise that helps human beings reaches the full measure of their humanity”. I think this quote describes a task of humanization as a teacher. Unfortunately, many times I feel that society prefers certain traits over the other that can lead to dehumanization of an individual. This phenomenon can “destroys one’s identities, culture, knowledge, language”, etc from the individual. Some may be enforcing certain rules/expectations that they believe is good (with good intention desiring for transformation) for students could actually dehumanize their true individuality. As Ayers have mentioned, I also agreed the importance of standing with our students. He suggested that teachers “look beyond deficits to assets and capacities, strengths and abilities, something solid that we can build upon”. We talked about “deficit thinking” and how this thinking is so detrimental when we work with students. If I work with students with the deficit thinking approach, I will fail to see their capacities, strength, and abilities. Also, I will fail to help them grown and develop according to their needs. I like the way Ayers describes about uniqueness of an individual. Each student comes with different backgrounds that make them very unique. Each student brings different “energy and desire and intention”. Each has their own voice which comes from a “set of experiences and knowledge”. Every teacher and every student have different way of seeing and thinking and being. In that, we are to stand with them. For this reason, I am also opposed to authoritarian schooling. I am looking forward to finish reading this book and gaining some of insightful suggestions on how to teach toward freedom!
The first few chapters in Teaching Toward Freedom reminds me a lot of our earlier discussions on the purposes of having public schools and how we think of teaching as a profession. On education Ayers comments, “…it embraces as principle and overarching purpose the aspiration of people to become more fully human; it impels us toward further knowledge, enlightenment, and human community toward liberation”(1). Ayers even goes on to talk about how education is often seen from a democratic perspective. He comments “from the perspective of a humane or democratic society, the authoritarian approach is always backward, always wrong it undermines the participatory spirit of democratic living”(9). In our discussions on the purposes of education we definitely talked about it creating a more “democratic citizen,” that is, someone who becomes educated so they can be both a good citizen and asset to society. Likewise, my classmates and I also noted that another purpose of public education is for children to acquire knowledge, which will in turn, help enhance and further improve the community in which the schools surround.
When I talked about teaching as a profession I also mentioned that a profession should be something that you believe in, or that you are invested in. I really enjoy the section where Ayesr challenges teachers to figure out what they are teaching for, but perhaps more importantly, what they are teaching against. I think as a beginning teacher it is important to have a strong grasp on what I believe in when it comes to teaching. I truly believe my goals are aligned with Ayers in that “I want to teach for freedom, for enlightenment and awareness, wide awakeness…I want my teaching to be worthwhile”(18).
William Ayers clearly likes to think of creative education as a "great equalizer" if done correctly; he sees education being a cause of dehumanization and "unfreedom" if done incorrectly or without heat and soul..."for teaching, at its most fundamental, profound, and primitive core, is indeed ethical work" (Ayers 14). This made me think of when Kurt warned us of the hopeless or jaded nature of some teachers inside the teachers' lounge, and how we ought to surround ourselves with other positive teachers in order to keep on the straight and narrow. Staying passionate about our work is essential -- as Brendan mentioned in his post, Ayers clearly does sit on the line..."Education cannot be neutral - it is always put to use in favor of something and in opposition of something else" (Ayers 31).
I like Ayers attitude of recognizing the importance of every individual student - "The first commitment a teacher teaching towards freedom - a freedom teacher - makes is the pledge to take the side of the student - we recognize, support, and appeal to the full humanity of each" (Ayers 69). While numerous texts we have read stress the importance of understanding the background of our students, we can't label them because of that. Everyone deserves a chance to be judged by their own actions and spirit, despite what kind of home they may come from. He likes to use the term "freedom teacher," which is kind of a parallel to our Cohort 5 ethos, as well as our "Teach for Change" moniker.
Perhaps my favorite lines of the book are, "To be human is to live alone on the nerve endings of our bodies. To connect with another is to imagine with sympathy. The bridge of humanity is constructed on imagination, a certain kind of imagination, mediated with words" (Ayers 132). Like our discussions in Bill's class on discourse, we must bridge the gap between ourselves and our students - something that requires a thoughtful person.
Relate this book to anything we’ve discussed so far during this course. If you see no relation, then react to Ayers’ ideas. In many ways, Ayers’ book is a nice capstone to this course on social foundations of education. He calls for teachers to challenge themselves to think about why they teach and how they can help their students position themselves in the world. Ayers’ ideas align nicely with the principles of democratic equality articulated by Labaree, in which education is a mechanism through which freedom, liberation, and enlightenment are realized. The goal of education, then, is to produce “free thinkers” and “active citizens” to participate in a democratic world (6). Teaching Toward Freedom may also function as a subtle critique of Ruby Payne’s book and of deficit thinking in general. Ayers decries the use of labels, arguing that the label “at risk” is especially damaging. “Society in this scenario is unquestionably healthy and well except for an invasion of ‘at risk’ microorganisms…” (45). There must be a limit to the helpfulness of such labels. At worst, they reduce human beings to a social problem. Further, “it blames poor people for poverty and sanctions findings that locate character and behavioral defects inside individuals—without searching out and exploring any corresponding structural problems within society or the economic system” (45). Ayers nicely articulates the problems with deficit thinking in this quote: it problematizes individuals who are poor, while avoiding the examination of the deeper problems that led them into poverty. On a more personal note, the book was equally inspiring as it was challenging. I would like to be the kind of teacher that Ayers describes—a teacher that recognizes the humanity of all of my students, who sees them as visible human beings, with circumstances, motivations, dreams, and obstacles to overcome. But I have to admit, I have some skepticism in my ability to do that. Not to say that it cannot be done; I just don’t know how to do it. Ayers says that “If you love the kids and you allow your teaching to be powered by that love, and if you love the world, or some small part of the world…you can achieve greatness in the classroom… It begins with the visibility of your students” (51-52). I love this quote. I love the spirit and love that it represents. Yet, I am reminded of the interview I recently conducted with my friend who is a teacher at Franklin Military Academy in Richmond. He told me that when he started teaching, he also wanted his loving spirit to be “enough,” so to speak, but he has been challenged to see that maybe that’s not enough. With all of the bureaucracy to muddle through, all of the difficult students, and all of the classroom management issues, he reported finding it exceptionally difficult to work only from a standpoint of love. I don’t say this to be pessimistic (to the contrary, I think of myself as an optimistic person!), but rather to be realistic. I think we all will be challenged in our first year of teaching to figure out how we can love our students, our content, and our co-workers, and we will have to be flexible in case the kind of love that they need is different than what we envisioned.
Like my classmates said, I see a lot of parallels to the Labaree text we read earlier in the class. The Labaree text made me realize I had overlooked how the school functions as almost a political structure. It serves a distinct purpose which changes over time. I would say William Ayers agrees with this point. He says, “Education is always for something and against something else.” He goes on further to say “education is not and never can be neutral” (10).
I really enjoyed Ayer’s description of teaching come in a variety of packages. This has been made evident through mostly every exercise in class. In a scholarly setting, teachers are the problems or the change (19). This can be seen in how students and parents, even administrators view teachers. In a political settings, teachers are either revered as professionals or slammed for being underskilled (19). This idea relates to our discussion on teaching as a profession. In popular culture teachers are also represented in a variety of ways. This is evident in the television shows we watch and the stereotypes of teachers that are made.
I feel this program gets at the type of teacher preparation program that Ayers envisions (page 17). “Teaching towards freedom” is cliché but it is something that my classmates and I aspire to do. This class may be the one that captures the idea of teaching towards freedom the most from the others listed in our curriculum. I hope as the program continues to raise my awareness and challenge me in unique ways.
A uniting topic throughout the first few chapters of Teaching Toward Freedom is that teaching cannot be neutral. Educators enter a struggle between freedom (knowledge and empowerment) and authority (subjugation and conformity). Thus education is always ‘for something and against ‘something else’. I think that it is good for us to consider this dichotomy as we enter our new careers as teachers. I am optimistic about the teacher that I can be, and the person that I can be as a teacher. I am hopeful that I can share my positive outlook on learning and life with my students, but I see where the discipline, authoritarianism and expectation of conformity can get in the way. As Ayers puts it, our efforts can be “twisted into the domain of dehumanization”. This idea that teaching is always political ties directly to the Tami Sober talk from the other day where we learned about unions and the political processes tied to teaching.
ReplyDeleteThere were also a few things throughout the book that reminded me of Ruby Payne, or perhaps more appropriately, the critiques of Ruby Payne. For example, at some point (CH2 I think?) Ayers tells the story of a woman who interviewed single mothers in Chicago, and the great diversity of opinions encountered on what it means to be a single parent. It’s different for everyone, but we tend to label all of these folks as ‘single mothers’ (with a hint of pity and disdain) and then we put them into a particular box. Ayer’s believes that when we label and categorize people we do them a disservice by leaving their struggles, triumphs, opinions and individuality unrecognized. That message reminds me a bit of the deficit perspective employed by Payne and critiqued by Bomer et al.
Ayers talks about standing together with your students and recognizing them as people. He says the fundamental message that teachers pass on to their students should be ‘you can change your life’. I agree with his message in general. However there were times when I felt the text took on the tone of a self-help novel or a motivational speech, which I didn’t like so much. He also strings together anecdotes and stories back to back in long successions, and while many were interesting, I felt he could have been more clear and concise about the meat and potatoes of his ideas.
-Brendan
Reading this book made me think of our list of reasons for having public schools in the beginning of the course. In discussing this topic, we hit on a number of points that Ayers makes. One example is Ayers idea that schools help us get to know us and they help to expand our capacities as human beings. I think we touched on this when we said that the skills we learn in school transfer to life and are needed to form competent humans. Also we mentioned that education is a universal right and is meant to provide equal opportunity to all. Ayers expands on this with his call for teaching toward freedom. Freedom, in his view, is meant as enlightenment, awareness, protection of the weak, cooperation, generosity, compassion and love for neighbors. He calls for a stand against oppression and unfairness. Theses are all things I would ideally want for education as well.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, chapters 2 and 3 also made me reflect on our discussion of teaching as a profession. Ayers mentions demonstrating to students that they are valued and standing with the students and not above them. This falls under our discussion of a teacher’s relationship with the students and striking that balance between teaching the material and showing them we care.
Overall, I felt Ayers made some good points but there was a lot of fluff in the book. I wanted him to get to the point sooner. (Although this might because I decided to start reading it 10 at night.) Also Ayers seems a little overly optimistic too. I like the moral and ethical issues he brings up but I want students who can function in the world too. I want them to feel empowered and valued but not because it makes them feel good (thought I want them to feel good too) but because I have thought them skills that they can carry throughout life to make themselves better functioning people.
-Stevara
Thus far in Ayers’ Teaching Toward Freedom, I agree with his ideas on labeling, generalizing, and grouping and how these lead towards dehumanization. His point relates to Ruby Payne’s sweeping generalizations and blanket statements, in that, most of us were unimpressed with her analysis of poverty, much because of the generalizations and stereotypes within.
ReplyDeleteThe power of words is obvious in Ayers’ text, in that he shows how words can either set us free or erase our humanity. He shows many instances of labeling lessening the humanity of the person behind the label. One very powerful instance was when a group of reformers met with the Congressional Black Caucus and one reformer spoke up after being referred to as “ex-offenders” six times. He says, “Excuse me, sir, but if you call one of us an ex-offender one more time I’m going to start referring to you as ‘that Negro gentleman.’ You’ll see that even that benign label will begin to erase your humanity”(39). This stresses the importance as seeing every human being as an individual, rather than the member of a group, which is quite the opposite of Ruby Payne’s arguments.
Labels, which coincide with preconceived notions, are perpetuating an ignorant America; such as Ruby Payne’s 3 types of Americans. Ayers states: “..much of our thinking is untroubled by facts, experience, or knowledge, how comfortably it floats along on clouds of ignorance and presumption, how contented we can become in our balkanized credulity”(40). Ignorantly labeling students takes away their individuality, which aids in gradually destroying their excitement for learning. The standardization of tests also groups students together under a single label, assuming that they will test the same, and thus masking their individuality.
“Teaching is an enterprise that helps human beings reaches the full measure of their humanity”. I think this quote describes a task of humanization as a teacher. Unfortunately, many times I feel that society prefers certain traits over the other that can lead to dehumanization of an individual. This phenomenon can “destroys one’s identities, culture, knowledge, language”, etc from the individual. Some may be enforcing certain rules/expectations that they believe is good (with good intention desiring for transformation) for students could actually dehumanize their true individuality. As Ayers have mentioned, I also agreed the importance of standing with our students. He suggested that teachers “look beyond deficits to assets and capacities, strengths and abilities, something solid that we can build upon”. We talked about “deficit thinking” and how this thinking is so detrimental when we work with students. If I work with students with the deficit thinking approach, I will fail to see their capacities, strength, and abilities. Also, I will fail to help them grown and develop according to their needs.
ReplyDeleteI like the way Ayers describes about uniqueness of an individual. Each student comes with different backgrounds that make them very unique. Each student brings different “energy and desire and intention”. Each has their own voice which comes from a “set of experiences and knowledge”. Every teacher and every student have different way of seeing and thinking and being. In that, we are to stand with them. For this reason, I am also opposed to authoritarian schooling.
I am looking forward to finish reading this book and gaining some of insightful suggestions on how to teach toward freedom!
Daisy
The first few chapters in Teaching Toward Freedom reminds me a lot of our earlier discussions on the purposes of having public schools and how we think of teaching as a profession. On education Ayers comments, “…it embraces as principle and overarching purpose the aspiration of people to become more fully human; it impels us toward further knowledge, enlightenment, and human community toward liberation”(1). Ayers even goes on to talk about how education is often seen from a democratic perspective. He comments “from the perspective of a humane or democratic society, the authoritarian approach is always backward, always wrong it undermines the participatory spirit of democratic living”(9). In our discussions on the purposes of education we definitely talked about it creating a more “democratic citizen,” that is, someone who becomes educated so they can be both a good citizen and asset to society. Likewise, my classmates and I also noted that another purpose of public education is for children to acquire knowledge, which will in turn, help enhance and further improve the community in which the schools surround.
ReplyDeleteWhen I talked about teaching as a profession I also mentioned that a profession should be something that you believe in, or that you are invested in. I really enjoy the section where Ayesr challenges teachers to figure out what they are teaching for, but perhaps more importantly, what they are teaching against. I think as a beginning teacher it is important to have a strong grasp on what I believe in when it comes to teaching. I truly believe my goals are aligned with Ayers in that “I want to teach for freedom, for enlightenment and awareness, wide awakeness…I want my teaching to be worthwhile”(18).
William Ayers clearly likes to think of creative education as a "great equalizer" if done correctly; he sees education being a cause of dehumanization and "unfreedom" if done incorrectly or without heat and soul..."for teaching, at its most fundamental, profound, and primitive core, is indeed ethical work" (Ayers 14). This made me think of when Kurt warned us of the hopeless or jaded nature of some teachers inside the teachers' lounge, and how we ought to surround ourselves with other positive teachers in order to keep on the straight and narrow. Staying passionate about our work is essential -- as Brendan mentioned in his post, Ayers clearly does sit on the line..."Education cannot be neutral - it is always put to use in favor of something and in opposition of something else" (Ayers 31).
ReplyDeleteI like Ayers attitude of recognizing the importance of every individual student - "The first commitment a teacher teaching towards freedom - a freedom teacher - makes is the pledge to take the side of the student - we recognize, support, and appeal to the full humanity of each" (Ayers 69). While numerous texts we have read stress the importance of understanding the background of our students, we can't label them because of that. Everyone deserves a chance to be judged by their own actions and spirit, despite what kind of home they may come from. He likes to use the term "freedom teacher," which is kind of a parallel to our Cohort 5 ethos, as well as our "Teach for Change" moniker.
Perhaps my favorite lines of the book are, "To be human is to live alone on the nerve endings of our bodies. To connect with another is to imagine with sympathy. The bridge of humanity is constructed on imagination, a certain kind of imagination, mediated with words" (Ayers 132). Like our discussions in Bill's class on discourse, we must bridge the gap between ourselves and our students - something that requires a thoughtful person.
Relate this book to anything we’ve discussed so far during this course. If you see no relation, then react to Ayers’ ideas.
ReplyDeleteIn many ways, Ayers’ book is a nice capstone to this course on social foundations of education. He calls for teachers to challenge themselves to think about why they teach and how they can help their students position themselves in the world. Ayers’ ideas align nicely with the principles of democratic equality articulated by Labaree, in which education is a mechanism through which freedom, liberation, and enlightenment are realized. The goal of education, then, is to produce “free thinkers” and “active citizens” to participate in a democratic world (6).
Teaching Toward Freedom may also function as a subtle critique of Ruby Payne’s book and of deficit thinking in general. Ayers decries the use of labels, arguing that the label “at risk” is especially damaging. “Society in this scenario is unquestionably healthy and well except for an invasion of ‘at risk’ microorganisms…” (45). There must be a limit to the helpfulness of such labels. At worst, they reduce human beings to a social problem. Further, “it blames poor people for poverty and sanctions findings that locate character and behavioral defects inside individuals—without searching out and exploring any corresponding structural problems within society or the economic system” (45). Ayers nicely articulates the problems with deficit thinking in this quote: it problematizes individuals who are poor, while avoiding the examination of the deeper problems that led them into poverty.
On a more personal note, the book was equally inspiring as it was challenging. I would like to be the kind of teacher that Ayers describes—a teacher that recognizes the humanity of all of my students, who sees them as visible human beings, with circumstances, motivations, dreams, and obstacles to overcome. But I have to admit, I have some skepticism in my ability to do that. Not to say that it cannot be done; I just don’t know how to do it. Ayers says that “If you love the kids and you allow your teaching to be powered by that love, and if you love the world, or some small part of the world…you can achieve greatness in the classroom… It begins with the visibility of your students” (51-52). I love this quote. I love the spirit and love that it represents. Yet, I am reminded of the interview I recently conducted with my friend who is a teacher at Franklin Military Academy in Richmond. He told me that when he started teaching, he also wanted his loving spirit to be “enough,” so to speak, but he has been challenged to see that maybe that’s not enough. With all of the bureaucracy to muddle through, all of the difficult students, and all of the classroom management issues, he reported finding it exceptionally difficult to work only from a standpoint of love. I don’t say this to be pessimistic (to the contrary, I think of myself as an optimistic person!), but rather to be realistic. I think we all will be challenged in our first year of teaching to figure out how we can love our students, our content, and our co-workers, and we will have to be flexible in case the kind of love that they need is different than what we envisioned.
Like my classmates said, I see a lot of parallels to the Labaree text we read earlier in the class. The Labaree text made me realize I had overlooked how the school functions as almost a political structure. It serves a distinct purpose which changes over time. I would say William Ayers agrees with this point. He says, “Education is always for something and against something else.” He goes on further to say “education is not and never can be neutral” (10).
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed Ayer’s description of teaching come in a variety of packages. This has been made evident through mostly every exercise in class. In a scholarly setting, teachers are the problems or the change (19). This can be seen in how students and parents, even administrators view teachers. In a political settings, teachers are either revered as professionals or slammed for being underskilled (19). This idea relates to our discussion on teaching as a profession. In popular culture teachers are also represented in a variety of ways. This is evident in the television shows we watch and the stereotypes of teachers that are made.
I feel this program gets at the type of teacher preparation program that Ayers envisions (page 17). “Teaching towards freedom” is cliché but it is something that my classmates and I aspire to do. This class may be the one that captures the idea of teaching towards freedom the most from the others listed in our curriculum. I hope as the program continues to raise my awareness and challenge me in unique ways.