I think that labels or generalizations of any kind often lead to
misunderstandings although some may argue that generalizations are
actually conclusions drawn using critical analysis.  My point, although
perhaps feebly made, is that some of us can “see”, even after great
analysis, the same thing but come to different conclusions.  Otherwise,
how can one explain the vast differences of opinion on and conclusions
about a whole cadre of topics ranging from global warming/climate
change, religion, healthcare, Iraq and Afghanistan, human rights, etc?
 
Clearly, terms such as “social justice”, “social progress”, etc. have
different meanings to different people.  To some, those terms have
negative connotations; to others, those terms are beacons of
inspiration; to others, the terms are merely descriptive.  I do believe
that there are some educators who fit the labels that Kearney used just
as I believe there are some educators on the other end of the
ideological spectrum who live up to labels often ascribed to them.  
 
It takes a very adept educator to create a learning environment where
learners can express opinions, draw their own conclusions, play devil’s
advocate with one’s own ideas as well as those of others, as well as
present subject content in a manner resulting in authentic learning
taking place.  I’ve seen a growing number of entirely well intended and
dedicated educators who are unable to successfully facilitate
integration of subject content with critical analysis without presenting
their own views as “THE answer” or without, perhaps unintentionally,
regarding opposing views as inferior for flawed.  While that may not be
problematic for some, it’s disconcerting to me since educators are in
positions of authority wielding significant influence over learners. 
 
Conversations about opinions, worldviews, beliefs, or personal
conclusions, even when specific to instructional content and under the
auspices of critical analysis, can too often rapidly deteriorate into a
“who’s right, who’s wrong” exchange.  For example, in a science
lesson about climate, students who dismiss or deny global
warming/climate change as well as those who emphatically support the
notion of global warming/climate change each may be considered
extremists by the other.  How does an educator effectively deliver
subject content while at the same time allowing for critical analysis
and debate?  Increasingly, I’m seeing the lesson content, in this
example solar radiation, air masses, pressure systems, ocean currents,
etc. become secondary to the ideological debate.  Please don’t
misunderstand me:  I’m not opposed at all to the debate and understand,
even encourage, the integration of subject content with critical
analysis.  Again, my concern is that the lesson content is increasingly
becoming secondary.  Simply put, I think that academic rigor has
suffered as the result of an inequitable emphasis on politically,
socially, and culturally charged issues.  
 
 
 Melinda
 
 
 
 
Melinda M. Hefner
Director, Literacy Support Services

Basic Skills Department
Caldwell Community College and Technical Institute
2855 Hickory Blvd.
Hudson, North Carolina 28638
Office:  828.726.2245
FAX:    828.726.2266



>>> On 10/30/2009 at 3:39 pm, in message

<A63A073F42F08B41AD4354FA015F94E7CC81CE at mail2.carrollcc.edu>, "Roe,
Cynthia" <CRoe at carrollcc.edu> wrote:

I have to agree with Kearney.  Of all the teachers  I have known, I can
think of only one who was able to challenge her students to think
critically without communicating or even hinting at her personal
ideologies.  I am sure there are teachers like her out there, but I am
not one of them.  I have tried to emulate her, but more often than not I
have failed.  So I try to steer clear of politically charged texts.  
 
 
Cynthia L. Roe
Instructional Specialist
Continuing Education and Training, Adult Education Programs
Carroll Community College
224 North Center Str
eet
Westminster, MD 21157
410-386-2552
 
 
 
 

From:professionaldevelopment-bounces at nifl.gov
[mailto:professionaldevelopment-bounces at nifl.gov] On Behalf Of Karen
Mundie
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 11:08 AM
To: The Adult Literacy Professional Development Discussion List
Subject: [PD 4106] Re: On the meaning of politics and why teaching
ispolitical

 
Kearney, I don't get the notion that there's anything condescending
about approaching texts (newspapers, letters,  textbooks) or even
beliefs and values with a spirit of inquiry and even a bit of
skepticism. I've learned so much from students who've challenged some of
 my orthodoxies---and I've never felt condescended to.

 

Karen Mundie

Associate Director

Greater Pittsburgh Literacy Council

100 Sheridan Square, 4th Floor

Pittsburgh, PA  15206

412 661-7323 (ext 101)

kmundie at gplc.org

 

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are intended only for the
personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above.  If the
reader of this e-mail is not an intended recipient, you have received
this e-mail in error and any review, dissemination, distribution or
copying is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this e-mail in
error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and
permanently delete the copy you received.  Thank you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Oct 30, 2009, at 9:49 AM, Kearney Lykins wrote:





 

 

Literacy practitioners:


Can we all just get this out in the open once and for all and
acknowledge that terms (as they are most commonly used in this
listserve) such as critical thinking, critical analysis, social change,
social progress, social justice, and The Change Agent, are all
ideologically based vehicles that assume that there is something
inherently wrong with society as it exists in general (and with
America's in particular) and that the remedy is an inherenly
left-leaning, if not outright socialist or communist one. 

I am tired of reading posts that dance around this issue, as if no one
knows the names of the steps.

Literacy teachers should teach people to read, write, and speak.
Learners should not have to be subjected to implicit or explicit
political agendas from teachers who think they know better than others.
In Steve's latest post (PD 4087) he very cogently unmasks the
condescending nature of teaching "critical thinking," that there is an
assumption that learners don't already think critically, or that they
don't do it as well as the teacher. Or that students are in more dire
need of "emancipatory change" than teachers are.  I find it interesting
that the Friere followers are so quick to abandon his leaderless
classroom when it comes to critical thinking and pressing "social
justice" issues. 

It is my understanding that the methods for teaching people literacy
skills went relatively unchanged over several millennia, and that these
methods actually worked long before anyone heard of "praxis." I believe
Marx, Lenin, and Darwin learned to read in this quaint, disparaged way.

I now await the barrage of comments from educators who will insist that
rote memorization drills and vocabulary lists have oppressed me, and
that I am but an oblivious political pawn.


In good spirits, 

Kearney


 

 

Kearney_Lykins at yahoo.com

 

 

 

 

From: Federico Salas-Isnardi <fs_dos at yahoo.com>
To: The Adult Literacy Professional Development Discussion List
<professionaldevelopment at nifl.gov>
Sent: Thu, October 29, 2009 8:23:06 AM
Subject: [PD 4085] On the meaning of politics and why teaching is
political


Thank you, Janet for your contribution about politics.  I would go one
step further in arguing for a political education or political literacy:
 the word politics comes from Greek πολιτικός (politikόs) which simply
means citizen, civil, of (or regarding) a citizen, and of (or regarding)
citizenship.  πολιτικός, in turn, comes from Greek πόλις (pόlis) which
means city or inha
bited territory or island.

 

Thus, everytime we engage students/adults/citizens we are engaging in a
political activity.  We cannot ignore that when we deal with the
inhabitants (I don't want to use the word citizens in this context) of
any territory we are dealing with the nature of politics.  

 

Some people (and some politicians) give politics a bad name, but the
fact remains that politics is everything we do that involves us as
citizens of this nation.  As you said, nobody is advocating to engage
our students in a specific end of the political spectrum but rather that
we should accept our political role as teachers and facilitators or
learning which is to engage our students to the extent possible in a
critical analysis of what they learn or they are confronted with. 
Otherwise we are giving our students only data to deposit in their
"bank" which may never be useful to them.


 

federico

 

Federico Salas-Isnardi

Adult Literacy Specialist, Texas Center for the Advancement of Literacy
and Learning

Secretary, Executive Board,  Association of Adult Literacy Professional
Developers

Adult Education Consultant, Houston, Texas

 

"The Arc of the Moral Universe is Long but it Bends toward Justice." 
Martin Luther King

 

 

From: Janet Isserlis <Janet_Isserlis at brown.edu>
To: The Adult Literacy Professional Development Discussion List
<professionaldevelopment at nifl.gov>
Sent: Wed, October 28, 2009 7:50:27 AM
Subject: [PD 4080] Re: Swinging the Sword of Literacy in Iraq

Re: comments about Art's post, education in Iraq and the whole notion
of political literacy.

Just looked up the word politics, but the definition kept using the
word "political"
so then I looked that up:

po·liti·cal (pə lit′i kəl)

adjective

of or concerned with government, the state, or politics
having a definite governmental organization
engaged in or taking sides in politics political parties
of or characteristic of political parties or politicians political
pressure

http://www.yourdictionary.com/political


so now, to reply, simply, to those who believe we shouldn't impose a
particular set of political beliefs:
NO ONE here has said we should.  Art has spoken eloquently to
addressing the skills, knowledge and strategies needed to understand how
government works and to enable adults to make choices  (and/or support
them in making choices) that best suit their own interests and beliefs. 
NO ONE is advocating for any one system, or set of beliefs.  No one is
using the adult learning center as a soap box.  Good educators are
listening to learners, living in shared communities, discussing what
goes on and using language and learning skills, critical thinking,
healthy debate, use of media and other resources, to enable everyone to
get on as well as they can in the communities in which they live.

Janet Isserlis

 

 

 


----------------------------------------------------
National Institute for Literacy
Adult Literacy Professional Development mailing list
professionaldevelopment at nifl.gov

To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to
http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/professionaldevelopment
Email delivered to kmundie at gplc.org

Professional Development section of the Adult Literacy Education Wiki 
http://wiki.literacytent.org/index.php/Adult_Literacy_Professional_Development

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.nifl.gov/pipermail/professionaldevelopment/attachments/20091030/0f4587bd/attachment.html