Gender and Perception: Part 2

“History is the witness that testifies to the passing of time; it illumines reality, vitalizes memory, provides guidance in daily life and brings us tidings of antiquity” – Cicero

Trying to mould a single article on gender without any historical background or context is like trying to master chess without knowing the rules. So much of the research is chained to social and political mores from the past. In fact, the argument could be made that the subjugation of women has been the norm in western civilization since the Ancient Greeks denied women the right to vote. However, even at the dawn of the 20^th Century, over two thousand years after the fall of the Greek empire, the role of women had seen little change. Women still did not have the right to vote, and were deemed to be less intelligent than men. This was proven by pseudo-scientific studies like the Variability Hypothesis, which stated, “While women were all very much the same, men showed a much greater range of both physical and mental abilities” (Katharine S. Milar, 2012). The greater variability of men showed, according to Johann Meckel, and, to a lesser extent Charles Darwin, that they were more intelligent. The Variability Hypothesis is one of many similar theories that existed around the dawn of the 20^th Century that proved the superiority of men.
It wasn’t until the 1960s and liberation of the feminist movement that western academia started to challenge the idea of the inherent, genetic, mental inferiority of women. Writing in 1966, Eleanor E. MacCoby, is one of the first authors to suggest that female performance in school may have a societal, rather than genetic component, “The evidence is not clear whether boys or girls have a higher correlation between ability (as measured by I.Q. tests) and achievement…. [Girls] wish to conform to their parents’ and teachers’ expectations of good academic performance, but fear that high academic achievement will make them unpopular with boys” (1966). MacCoby is one of the first of a group of scholars to draw a connection between academic performance and something other than genetic differences. Prior to the 1960s the only explanation that was given was that girls, while getting an early intellectual head-start on the boys, would fall behind as boys matured, caught up, and then superseded them. MacCoby also wrote that girls, especially in subject like Math, did not do well because there was no need for it in there societally pre-determined role as housewife:

Perhaps the explanation for the differences we have noted is very simple: members of each sex are encouraged in, and become interested in and proficient at, the kinds of tasks that are most relevant to the roles they fill currently or are expected to fill in the future. According to this view, boys forge ahead in math because they and their parents and teachers know they may become engineers or scientists; on the other hand, girls know that they are unlikely to need math in the occupations they will take up when they leave school” (MacCoby, 1966).

Eleven years later, in 1977, Elizabeth Fennema and Julia Sherman still laboured to disprove the contemporary belief that women were not as intellectually capable as men, “It has been an accepted belief that males achieve better in mathematics than females (Glennon & Callahan, 1968; Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974). Sometimes this difference is attributed to underlying ability and other times it is attributed to a social climate that does not encourage girls to study mathematics” (1977). Fennema and Sherman tried to determine what the gender difference would be if other variables, such as attitude, Socio-economic status (SES), and gender stereotypes were controlled. The authors used their own metric, the Fennema-Sherman Aptitude Scales, which, consequently is used in several other articles I came across for my literature review, to rate gender difference. Their results were conclusive, “The data do not support either the expectations that males are invariably superior in mathematics achievement and spatial visualization or the idea that differences between the sexes increase with age and/or mathematics difficulty” (Fennema & Sherman, 1977). The authors also concluded, like MacCoby, that it is attitudinal, not intellectual, difference that affects female performance.

Furthermore, the attitudinal difference is likely to be derived from social pressure against women, “Since the study of mathematics appears not to be sex-neutral, attitudes toward mathematics may reflect cultural proscriptions and prescriptions. Thus the attitudes measured probably reflect more of this socio-cultural influence on the student than any incorrigible personal characteristics” (Fennema & Sherman, 1977).

Pierre Bourdieu’s Cultural Capital theory could be used to partially explain the attitudinal difficulties women face in the education system. He believed that individuals gained cultural capital by being exposed to cultural edifices like the library, museum, plays and so on. Individuals then used this knowledge to their advantage in school and, by extension, society in general, “Cultural capital refers to symbolic goods existing in the mode of linguistic and cultural competence, and largely institutionalized in the form of educational credentials, that agents use to maintain their prestige” (Kebede, 2012).

Usually, Bourdieu’s theory is used to explain why people of lower SES backgrounds achieve relatively low academic success compared to individuals who exist within higher SES. However, I believe that cultural capital can also work against the female gender. If cultural capital is, “an “accumulated labor,” which can be appropriated in the form of “social energy” that acts both as a force and as a principle permeating the social world” (Encyclopedia of Identity, 2012), then it could act as a force of culture to continue to deny individuals of a lower cultural class, i.e. women. Individuals choosing not to pursue an academic role demonstrate this lack of cultural capital, thereby re-enforcing the idea that academia is not for women. It is a cyclical denigration for the sole purpose of maintaining cultural standards:

In its institutionalized mode, cultural capital exists in the form of mostly educational credentials. In addition to augmenting the added value of cultural capital and guaranteeing its worth, the institutionalization of cultural capital minimizes the problem of cultural capital being constantly questioned. By establishing a qualitative difference between those who are licensed and those who are not, even if they possess the talent, cultural capital is made to acquire an autonomous position, thereby guaranteeing the monetary value of credentials (Kebede, 2012).

Today, in Canada, we have stalled at the level of recognition. We know that, while university entrance rates for women have equalled and even surpassed that of men, women are not choosing mathematics as an occupational field. Perhaps more frustrating is the knowledge that gender, as an area of research, has also stalled. We cannot seem to figure out why, exactly, women don’t like math. Rebecca Coulter believes that too much emphasis is placed on individual teachers, without looking at the system as a whole, “The emphasis on “self-reliance” and rampant individualism threatens any systemic or structural interpretation of gender-equity policies” (1996). Coulter believes that gender-equity, that is, the removal of gender bias from schooling, is being removed from explicit guidelines of conducted. Indeed, BC’s Diversity Framework gives only a cursory definition of gender diversity in reference to the School Act, and does not include any resources, suggestions, or adaptations to help teachers to address issues of gender bias (BC Ministry of Education, 2008). Rebecca Coulter writes that the similarity of educational policy among Canada’s various ministries of Education is due, in large part, to a narrow interpretation of the issue:

Across Canada, the dominant approach to gender-equity policies in education, and even then implemented unevenly and inconsistently, remains the relatively shallow one of sex-role stereotyping first articulated in the 1970s…. Why sex-role socialization theory remains dominant in education can in part be explained by the fact that it is a form of critique easily accommodated within existing state arrangements and liberal notions of equality of opportunity (Coulter, 1996).

Coulter seems to echo Bourdieu’s idea of Cultural Capital, the idea that the feminist movement has remained stagnant is due to the nature of Western cultural ideals. She believes that new research into the systems of education, rather than its curriculum, need to be examined.

Gender and Perception: Part 1

In September 2011, I was teaching a grade 8 Math class, one of the first of many such classes, starting out in a new teaching position, when a curious thing happened. I made a sexist remark. I didn’t mean to, it just slipped out, and at the time I thought little of it. To engage the boys in the class, I read out a word problem that involved playing hockey, and I said, “Here’s a question for the boys in the class”.
Realizing my mistake, I blurted out something about girls also playing hockey and moved on, thinking I had covered myself. However, after class a girl named Jazminne, or Jazzy for short, stuck around to introduce herself. She told me that she had problems in Math and wanted to know what she could do to stay on top of everything, and then she dropped a bomb. Without a pause she said, “Oh, by the way, I didn’t like how you said that the hockey question was just for the guys”.
I was amazed at the composure of this Grade 8 girl telling her new teacher that he is sexist. I felt about ten inches tall at that moment, but I told her that I was sorry, and that I wouldn’t do that again, and I haven’t since. However, that brief moment stuck with me. What do students actually take away from their Math classes? What are we teaching, and, more importantly, what are our students learning?
The issue of gender bias was again brought to my attention through an assigned article critique. Karen Zittleman and David Sadker’s “Gender bias in teacher education texts: New (and Old) lessons reported a staggering gender bias toward males in teacher education texts; “Although most texts include some coverage of gender issues and the role and contribution of women, that coverage is minimal and not always positive” (Zittleman and Sadker, 178). Zittleman and Sadker’s article, was eye opening, but it did not address what goes on in an actual classroom, and it did not deal with any Canadian texts.
I thought that in Canada, known for its progressivism, would have a much more balanced gender approach. This is not, however, what I actually found. Although much has been done in Canada since the issue was first addressed in the 1970s, government lead policy has stalled (Coulter, 1996). In fact, I preformed a journal sweep of the Canadian Journal of Education for the past ten years and found very little on feminist issues, and even less on gender bias. Even more interesting than the absence of research in Canada, is that what little that is done is largely structural, proceeding with a linear, categorical, and regimented approach. The research is still being carried out in the same way it has for the past thirty years, and demonstrating the same results. I wanted to find a new approach; I wanted to know what, if any, were the students’ perceptions of gender bias in Mathematics. Has anyone done a study asking what the students are learning about bias in Canadian classrooms?

Difficult students: Help me Ivory Tower!

I have found that some of the most useful courses I had to take were those focused on Educational Psychology. I have always found Psychology fascinating, it is a science that helps explain why we as individuals, or others, act the way we do. For example, if one person is made to sit in a room and complete a test, and the room starts to fill with smoke, or some other danger, that person will seek help. However, if two or three people are put into the same room, given the same test, and the same smoke is pumped in a curious thing happens. If an individual sees that no one else is reacting, he or she will not react. Individuals will literally wave smoke out of the way of their tests without feeling any danger at all!
In education, this psychological phenomenon is very useful. If a class is quiet, it will generally stay quiet. Individuals will not want to be the first to react to outside stimulus due to a negatively reinforcing peer pressure.

One of the most useful pieces of advice that I happened to pick up was to not engage in students acting out. For the most part, students who act out due so for a reason; they want something. Students will often want to get kicked out of class because they don't enjoy the lesson (I know that the students needs are not being met, and a more student-based education system would be beneficial, but we work with what we are given). The main thing is to not get in a power struggle with that student, because if you do, you've already lost.
I had a student in my class, who I will call Richard, that did not want to be there. He was depressed, and had difficulty getting out of bed most days, let alone making it to school. He had missed a lot of class work, and had fallen behind, making him want to be in class even less. One week he seemed to decide that he had had enough and was going to get kicked out of school solving, in his mind, all his current problems. Richard started mouthing off to his teachers, breaking school rules, disrupting class time, and even going as far as ripping pages out of his textbook.
One day he came so late that he arrived just as the rest of the students were eating lunch. He brought his backpack, cellphone, and headphones into class and sat down to talk with his friends. He didn't have his lunch with him and carrying a cellphone is against school rules so I asked him to put his phone and backpack in his locker, get his lunch, and re-join the class. He went off in a huff.
Richard came back not two minutes later, still carrying the phone, with no lunch. I asked him again in my kindest, quietest teacher voice to please kindly put the cell away as I had asked and get a lunch before returning to class. He said, very quietly, and please pardon the language, "Suck my dick."
I knew that he just wanted to be sent to the office, and I knew that he just wanted to get kicked out of school, but I also knew that he had friends in class that he enjoyed hanging out with, and was desperate for that attention. I asked Richard in my least threatening voice why he would say something like that? I told him that what I asked for was really simple, and that all he needed to do was put his phone away. I didn't engage in the yelling fit that Richard was expecting. He was just trying to get a rise out of me and when he realized that that was not going to happen, he walked to his locker, put his stuff away, and enjoyed the rest of lunchtime.

Now, that was not an easy thing to do, and I don't expect that sort of stuff on the day to day in Middle school. It took a large amount of restraint on my part to recognize what was actually going on, but I did that in part because of my experience in the classroom, but mostly because of the knowledge I have of psychology gained from the Ivory Tower.

Derrida versus 21st Century learning

The 21st century learning plan is the latest education plan formed from BC's Ministry of Education. It is a bit late, have already entered the 21st century a decade ago, but if one was to forgive its lateness, it has some very interesting points to discuss. It is also a more than a little ironic when you consider the Ministry of Education, and, by extension, the government of BC in general, is, on the one hand, trying to strip teachers of certain autonomies through a legislated contract negotiation, and, on the other, increasing it. Although, in the 21st century plan, it will be the students who will benefit from greater autonomy and not teachers, but that may not be too bad either. The Government's plan is still in the broad strokes category, but here is the general idea found on the Ministry's website:
"In 21^st Century Learning, students use educational technologies to apply knowledge to new situations, analyze information, collaborate, solve problems, and make decisions. Utilizing emerging technologies to provide expanded learning opportunities is critical to the success of future generations. Improved options and choice for students will help improve student completion and achievement" (BC Ministry of Education, 2012).

But what does this mean? Jacques Derrida, a deconstructive philosopher, believed that language, especially the written word, diffuses meaning, "Deconstruction contends that in any text, there are inevitably points of equivocation and ‘undecidability’ that betray any stable meaning that an author might seek to impose upon his or her text. The process of writing always reveals that which has been suppressed, covers over that which has been disclosed, and more generally breaches the very oppositions that are thought to sustain it" (Reynolds, 2010).
As an example the word, "technology", is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as, "The application of such knowledge for practical purposes, esp. in industry, manufacturing, etc.; the sphere of activity concerned with this; the mechanical arts and applied sciences collectively" (2012). The definition simply relates the word to other words, thereby erasing all hope of true understanding. To know what technology means, we would have to already know the definition of application, knowledge, manufacturing and so on. By combining the definition of the plan and the Oxford definition of technology, The 21st Century Learning Plan students would "use educational application of such knowledge to apply knowledge to new situations". This only gets worse when we define knowledge: "the condition of knowing something" and knowing: "The acquisition of, or fact of having acquired, knowledge or understanding" (Oxford English Dictionary, 2012).
The 21st Century Learning Plan is, then, the "use of educational acquisitions of understanding, to apply acquisitions of understanding to new situations". I could do this all day, and I haven't even gotten to the definitions of "apply" or "situations" yet. The problem with the definition of BC's new learning plan is that it is defined at all. By casting this stone tablet, the government is already creating confusions in interpretation, ones that will only increase over time.

BC Ministry of Education. (2012). 21st Century Learning. BC Ministry of Education. Victoria, BC.

Oxford English Dictionary. (2012). Knowing. Oxford University Press. Oxford.

Oxford English Dictionary. (2012). Knowledge. Oxford University Press. Oxford.

Oxford English Dictionary. (2012). technology. Oxford University Press. Oxford.

Reynolds, J. (2010). Jacques Derrida (1930 - 2004). Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Ed: James Fieser.

Why I write, and other musings

I funny thing happened today. My wife asked me, "How has your teaching changed since you started taking your Master's". She has been reading the blog as a show of support, and, I suspect, to make sure that she is not involved in any embarrassing stories. Even though she had read every article, and even though the blog is a representation of the bridge between the theoretical education I have received and its practical applications, it is apparent that I have missed an explicict explanation of the connection.
I started my Master's degree thinking that I would study the application of manipulatives in middle school Mathematics, specifically, how they are used in the Math Makes Sense textbooks. Now, however, some six months later, I can think of at least four other pathways that interest me. I wonder about student perceptions of gender bias in Math. I am amazed by the website "khanacademy.com" and its uses of technology to individualize education. I am, as you have read, fascinated by Foucault, and his odd little ideas of power and its impact on my day to day, and I am still curious as to the theoretical underpinnings of the use of manipulatives that is so prevalent in Math today.
Starting my Master's has shown me the educative connections to the past; why we do things the way we do. More importantly, it has changed the way I teach. I try to create more individualized alternatives to as much of the class work as I can. For example, I am teaching Human body systems in Science right now, and I am going to leave the final project up to the students. They are to demonstrate their understanding of a particular system in whatever way they wish. This is scary, but it might just work. Check back in a month or so to find out.
I also tend to sweat the small stuff a little less. I know, for example, that the curriculum we teach today is largely a direct result of the space race of the 1960s, with a broad goal of creating excellent rocketry scientists. Knowing this, I focus on students' general understanding of the material, emphasizing an individual, and intrinsic, motivation. Basically, I want my students to wonder about things, and enjoy that sense of wonderment.
What I have taken from the Ivory Tower, this sense of wonderment in learning, is now what I hope to pass on to my students. I don't care if they can't remember that a cell contains a nucleus which has 46 chromosomes bound in pairs and forming a double helix that was first discovered by James D. Watson and Francis Crick in 1953 for which they won a Nobel prize. Are they amazed that something so small works in such a way as to control something so large? That is why the Ivory Tower is important.

The Digital Revolution

What would happen if I allowed students to study whatever they wanted? What if, when students came into class, I set up my homeroom class in the computer lab and told my students that we would not have Math, Science, LA, Socials, or language, but that they could just go wherever their minds took them; what would happen?
Clearly, I would have a few angry parents descending upon me, showering me with epithets, warnings, threatening joblessness. What if, however, I was able to get them on side, and they agreed that this might be the way, what then?
I suppose, eventually, The principal would haul me into her office and ask me what I was doing? She would tell me that I must get the PLOs from the IRP completed in time for the AGM, or else I would be SOL for next year. But what if...
What would students learn? What would they want to know? Would they look up sex to try and get a reaction? Maybe, but that would get old fast. A few would look up Justin Beiber, and other celebs, cruising gossip magazines, and fast cars, long boards, Neff clothes, and Quibids, until they got bored. And then what? Would they come to me and plead to be instructed? Would it be my place to instruct? I would send them back to the technology. Everything is on the internet, anything they would every need for life is accessible from that cord in the wall, so I would tell them, "Sorry. I will not instruct again. It is up to you to find your own way, and that way is through technology. We all know that. So get back on there and Google something."
Eventually, students might get a little pale, and sickly, but I suppose I could get them ipads, and we could continue lessons outside for a hour or so, just to get a little fresh air.
What would students do? I suppose they would find something eventually. And I further suppose if they got stuck, I could suggest different websites that could provide an answer to unstick them. They would become like computers themselves in a way, accessing information from other computers, and filing it away for future reference.
And the children would learn everything they ever needed from the internet, from ipads, kindles, blogs, tweets, and youtubes, and facebooks, and others yet to be invented. And they could move on knowing, without a doubt, that whatever the situation, a solution could be found within a search engine, bound to the internet, a part of the digital revolution.

Change: How far do I go?

The problem with change, at least how it is envisaged by universities, is that it must be systemic. As a classroom teacher, I have a certain amount of flexiblity. The Prescribed Learning Outcomes are, for example, deliciously vague:
Life Science: Cells and Systems
It is expected that students will relate the main features and properties of cells to their functions (BC IRP, p. 30)

I can get my students to demonstrate this in any number of ways, posters, prezis, PowerPoints, essays, stories, and so on. However, if students would rather learn about astronomy instead of cells, then too bad. I also have to give students letter grades instead of mastery or comment-based reports, and I must teach to a bell schedule. In fact, students have become so used to this system that they are often confused and even irritated when I try to incorporate Math into Science, or LA in Socials, etc.
Research from the Ivory Tower would suggest that students would learn best if they were allowed to follow their own interests, but that paradigm shift is not feasible for an individual teacher. Why must change be systemic? Is the system, which has taught millions of students in virtually the same way over the past two hundred years, so broken that it is beyond repair? What can a teacher do right now?

For the past six months, I have had students work on a website called Khan Academy. For those who don't know, Khan Academy is a website whereby individual students can practice virtually every Math skill necessary for high school completion. There are videos and hints for when students get stuck, and "points" that can be gained for mastery exercises to keep students motivated. I use the site to allow all students to work at their level. For some of my Grade 8 students that means working on double-digit multiplication, and for others it is graphing quadratic equations. It could be the closest to John Dewey's student centered learning that I have acheived, and it is within the current system. I think that a systemic, paradigm shift is not necessary, what is necessary are teachers who are willing to engage in a fearless experimentation.

Foucault, power, and the baby bird

I am not an expert in Foucault. I have not even read any books by Foucault; I plan to, but I have not yet had the time. I will make the time, but not yet. As a non-expert, I have had to borrow what I know about Foucault and his idea of power from lectures and the internet. I understand that a book would be better, and reading said book in French better still, but I don't know French, and I haven't had time, so here is a summary of Foucault's definition of power cobbled together from the lectured internet:

1. power is not a thing but a relation
2. power is not simply repressive but it is productive
3. power is not simply a property of the State. Power is not something that is exclusively localized in government and the State (which is not a universal essence). Rather, power is exercised throughout the social body.
4. power operates at the most micro levels of social relations. Power is omnipresent at every level of the social body (http://www.michel-foucault.com, 2012).

 I love the first definition, "power is not a thing but a relation". I can never have power, nor take power, but only exist within power. For someone born into a capitalist society, this is a real paradigm breaker.
Foucault would argue, I believe, that students listen teachers because they are locked into a discourse which values teachers as a source of information to students. This discourse is power.
I wonder why substitute teachers have such a difficult time in a new classroom, like myself and incident with the baby bird. Power, according to Foucault and the internet, is present in all levels (macro and micro) of society, but is it to a greater or lesser extent? If power is a relation, then are the relationships between students stronger than teachers. Why would this be the case? Society has said that students are to listen to teachers, but if there is no relationship, like when a new Sub teaches a class, the students have will find it difficult to listen. Are there hierarchies of power? Can hierarchies of power exist within Foucault's framework? Does Foucault give us the whole picture?

Michel Foucault and the Baby Bird

The baby bird incident is one of many strange and bizarre stories that I have gathered from my subbing days. While the details remain ever-changing, the underlying cause remains the same: The students would rather be doing something else. In an ideal situation every student would be working on his or her own individual learning plan that caters to his or her current interest. However, even the most liberal educational philosopher would have to admit that this must be tempered to some degree; we cannot have students learning how to make explosives, but maybe we can allow them to investigate the science behind an explosion...maybe. Even this incremental omission sets the student down a different path, one whereby the teacher knows and the student does not.
Practically, the students must all learn what the teacher, and by extension the Ministry of Education, provides. This takes the form of generally set lesson plans, classes, and standardized tests. Students can, and do, learn at different rates, and may pass through the material quicker or slower in relation to one another, but each student learns more or less the same thing. It is simply a matter of time management. A ministry in charge of roughly 400,000 students cannot assess all of them if they are all doing something different. I would argue that for a substitute teacher, the acceptance of standardization is ideal, both for the sub, and the students.

The problem is power, not power in the Marxist sense, whereby a few hold power malevolently over many others, but in the sense of a social contract sub-consciously signed by all members. Michel Foucault writes:

"Basically power is less a confrontation between two adversaries or the linking of one to the other than a question of government. This word must be allowed the very broad meaning which it had in the sixteenth century. "Government" did not refer only to political structures or to the management of states; rather it designated the way in which the conduct of individuals or of groups might be directed: the government of children, of souls, of communities, of families, of the sick. It did not only cover the legitimately constituted forms of political or economic subjection, but also modes of action, more or less considered and calculated, which were destined to act upon the possibilities of action of other people. To govern, in this sense, is to structure the possible field of action of others. The relationship proper to power would not therefore be sought on the side of violence or of struggle, nor on that of voluntary linking (all of which can, at best, only be the instruments of power), but rather in the area of the singular mode of action, neither warlike nor juridical, which is government" (221).

In a classroom, both the teacher and the students are linked by power, students are "the other" to a teacher, but a teacher is also "the other" to his or her students. Generally, problems arise when a substitute teacher comes in and has to be brought in to the "conduct of individuals" by the students. Could this ever happen when students are working individually, each his or her own island, apart from the main? If students worked separately, what would the role of the substitute be?
In an ideal situation students would learn concepts based within their own interests. However, as a substitute, a group process is needed to maintain a smooth transition from one teacher to another. Unfortunately, that group is a social contract bound within the curious rules of power. This is both a good and bad thing, the incident with the baby bird happened because I had no social contract with that set of students; I was trying to dominate, not participate. However, as a substitute, I do not have the time to write a contract. I do not, and cannot, govern because I cannot "structure the possible field of action of others" (221).
How, then, can substitution ever result in little more than containment? Does a substitute truly have any power? Why do students listen at all?


Foucault, Michel. (1982). "The Subject and Power." Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics. 2nd edition. Ed. Hubert L. Dreyfus and Paul Rabinow. Chicago: U of Chicago Press.

The Baby Bird Part Two

Cheep....Cheep....Cheep....
Once the class was silent, except for the furious rustling of pencil on test paper, it became apparent that a small bird had decided today was the day to sally forth and welcome the spring. It drove everyone nuts.
I once rented a basement apartment from a lovely couple that owned two small Yorkshire terriers. These were very nice dogs, unfortunately one of them suffered from some sort abandonment issue and barked when its owners were at work. The worst part about the dogs is when you think it is going to stop, but doesn't. The bird was the same, it sounded like it had stopped, but didn't. This did not sit well with an already riled up room full of children. I told them that there wasn't anything to do about it, the windows were too high for anyone to see outside, and try to ignore the high pitched annoyance. Cheep.....Cheeeep!
At around this time the IST, integrated support teacher, popped his head in to see how I was getting on. He seemed pleasantly surprised by the quiet focus of the group. I took this as a good sign, and was feeling pretty good about my apparent management skills. He crept up to the front of the class and asked how it was going.
I told him that it was pretty good, if the children had tried to light me on fire, I would have said it was going well, but such is the life of the substitute. I told him that the only real problem was the bird calling outside. The IST paused, and as if on cue.....Cheep!
The man took it upon himself to investigate, and peered out the high bank of windows. He turned, and having solved the mystery he called out to the expectant class...
"Hey guys, there's a baby bird that's fallen from its nest out here!"

As I replay that moment in my head, it gets more and more cartoonish. There is a pause as the students digest the information, and then SHOOMM! Dust flies up from the vacuum of air created by twenty-eight tiny bodies pasting themselves to the windows and walls to watch a real life drama unravel. That can't be what really happened of course, because in a vacuum there is no noise, the classroom was not. It was chaos. The IST, the progenitor of this mayhem, had left as quickly and as quietly as he had come leaving me to quickly abandon the tests, and pry children off chairs, desks, and heating registers.
It was 10:51, and I was in for an interesting day.

The Baby Bird

I have always thought that Subbing (or TOCing for the politically correct) is like leading a wolf pack. Immediately upon arrival in the classroom you must set yourself up as the alpha, because if you don't you will be the omega, and that is not a place to be.
One of my last sub days last year was given to me over e-mail. The teacher said I could have the day, but to be careful of her grade 7 class, it was, in her words, an "energetic group". The day arrived in full late-spring splendor. Blue skies, fluffy clouds, and just the first hint of warmth in the sun. The classroom was another story. I am always weary of a classroom with carpet, it's like a carpeted bathroom, you can't see the untold horrors, but you know they are there. This class had a red pile carpet that was a relic of the seventies, and a smell that belied its age. The room was musty and the desks were far apart. The room was on the ground floor, and had a row of high windows along one side like the kind in a basement apartment. I opened one to air the place out, and sat down to look over my day.
My job, apart from attendance, was to administer a Science test. Tests are usually no-brainers, students know that they are supposed to be quiet, even when they are done, and The substitute doesn't really need to know what has been taught. The teacher had left a note saying that I was not to be afraid to send any students who were misbehaving to the office.
Soon the students filed in, and began to look me over. For the most part, one day in school is very much like the other; it is largely based on routine. When a teacher is away, he or she doesn't usually tell students in advance, so when I show up, a new face, students are generally interested. I will meet them at the door, say hello, and try to establish dominance early.
At the start of the first block, I handed out the tests, asked if anyone had any questions (no one did, and no one ever does) and told the class to begin. Within seconds a student, who I shall call Peter, raised his hand and without waiting announced in a loud voice that he did not know what to do. Peter was a student who had the biggest afro I had ever seen. He also could not sit still, and had a glassy, unfocussed look to his eyes, not in a druggy sort of way, just in a fifteendifferentthoughtsallatonceandlotsofsugarycerealforbreakfast sort of way. I calmly told him that I had just explained that the class was having a test, and he was to do the best he could. Peter said that he would try, and I returned to my perch at the front of the class. Not two minutes later Peter started shooting Paul.
Paul had pulled the imaginary two-finger gun, a classic little boy staple, and had opened fire on Peter, who was sitting clear across the other side of the room. I want to reiterate that these were completely imaginary. Nevertheless Peter returned fire with a barrage of his own, complete with sound effects and realistic dodging techniques. Needless to say, by this point I had lost my alpha status big-time. The class erupted in giggles, tests forgotten. I kicked Peter and Paul up to the office with their tests, and managed, with some difficulty to wrestle the class back into a close approximation of test-like silence.
That was when we noticed the cry of the bird, "Cheep.........Cheep..........Cheep".

Part Two Tomorrow

Ted Aoki and the Third Space

Ted Aoki, the esteemed Canadian Curriculum scholar, has "described three views, or models of "school"....The first school strives to develop "rational thinking" skills.... Aoki's second kind of school is all about "doing"....[his] third type of school, offers an alternative to the "thinking" and "doing" models discussed above" (Beck, p. 125).
In moving beyond the Ivory Tower, I would like to dwell briefly in Aoki's notion of schools. Ultimately, the best kind of school would be neither the purely rational first school, or the manually instructional second. Aoki would like us to indulge in a school that focuses "primarily to being and becoming, a school that emphasizes and nurtures the becoming of human beings" (Beck, 126).
How does the teacher teach humanity? What is the lesson plan, worksheet or handout suppose to do if "doing" is not the goal? Aoki would say that it is not the product of an education that is important, but rather the process in which that education is achieved that matters. Aoki asks us to exist within a third space, an in-between, between the curriculum as planned and the curriculum as lived. In this way, the "doing" of a traditional lesson and the passive "being" of its students can join together in a "becoming". The lesson is never complete, nor are its students, both are in a continual state of change, or bettering. Hopefully.
I believe that in moving beyond the Ivory Tower, the goal must be this state of bettering. Can I push off from the rocky crag, that solid ground that forms the foundation of all traditional, formal education and thrust myself into deeper waters, head high? Will I fight the water, or will I embrace its turbulence? Or will I be spat out, cast off as an outsider? I can only take a deep breath and swim.

Beck, K. (2009). "Seeking the "inter": Contextualizing, Contesting and Reconceptualizing internationalization of Curriculum". In James Nahachewsky and Ingrid Johnston (Eds.),  Beyond 'Presentism' Re-imagining the Historical, Personal, and Social Places of Curriculum. (123-137).  Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

The Ivory Tower

Ivory Tower, n.

A condition of seclusion or separation from the world; in general, protection or shelter from the harsh realities of life (OED online, 2012).

I can't remember where or when I first heard the term, the Ivory Tower. For some reason, it makes me think of my father reading J.R.R. Tolkien to myself and my brother when we were children. I believe that Gandalf, the wizard, had to report to an ivory tower at some point, although I may be making this up.

Apparently, the origins of the word are not from a bed-time story, but the songs of Solomon, "Thy neck is as a tower of ivory" (King James Bible, Song of Solomon, 7:4). It later became an epithet for Mary, largely due to the idea of the purity of Mary, mother to the son of God.

The Modern English usage took the biblical idea of purity and twisted it. In 1911, a text entitled, laughter by C. S. H. Brereton & F. Rothwell described a purity that was separate from reality, "Each member [of society] must be ever attentive to his social surrounding; he must avoid shutting himself up in his own peculiar character as a philosopher in his ivory tower" (OED, 2012). The Ivory Tower has become a particular critique of Academia whose subject matter can have little bearing outside the realm of academia itself.

Gandalf aside, my personal experiences with the Ivory Tower are many and varied. I am currently in my eighth year of post-secondary instruction, having received an English degree, then going back for an Education degree, and now pursuing a Master's of Education. I have been told by fellow teachers that a Master's degree is largely a waste of time. The Ivory tower's walls are too thick and too high to see very far. The theoretical musings of its professors are too oblique and too vague for any practical application. I was instructed that my best bet was to jump through the hoops, get the degree (and the subsequent increase in pay), and move on.

This blog is my attempt to scale the tower's walls, to find a middle-ground between the practical and the theoretical, to lash the tower to the school and prove, to myself and to others, the purity of the Ivory Tower is not its downfall.