Peabloggy

Last weekend, I went home to D.C. to visit family, and discovered a great new cafe/bookstore: Busboys and Poets. The place was packed with a lunchtime crowd, but I got sucked into the shelves off to the side where I found an incredible collection of books on multicultural education, equity in schools, environmental issues, contemporary poetry. As I browsed, I realized that someone had very intentionally chosen each title. I asked the hostess about the management, and she handed me a bookmark and business card. Apparently, Busboys and Poets is run by Teaching for Change, a non-profit that aims to help teachers create classrooms in which students learn to “read, write and change the world,” hopefully leading to a more equitable society. Learn more about Teaching for Change here, but if you’re ever in D.C., check out Busboys and Poets.

- Rachel Bowers

You’ve seen the movies (and I’ve discussed them before here): slam poetry in the classroom, kids sharing heartwrenching personal accounts of violence and abuse at home, teachers flawlessly responding to those stories with grace while other students listen in awe and respect.

But what is the place of personal narrative writing in the secondary English classroom? This is a question I’ve been discussing lately with other preservice English teachers, and we haven’t necessarily come to any conclusions. We know from research that writing about personal experience helps students learn the nuances of argument, develop a sense of voice, and use concrete detail - because they’re not worried about treating unfamiliar content.

At the same time, bringing personal history and experience into the writing classroom might feel invasive to students whose lives are difficult to share. It might also blur boundaries between teachers and students - which could be a good thing in some cases, but might also lead to quick burnout for the teacher.

One of my colleagues has suggested that though it’s important to give students opportunities to work through personal experiences via creative/personal writing, teachers should try to limit their comments and responses to the quality of the writing (and suggestions for improvement) rather than the personal implications of the content. That seems like a difficult challenge for English teachers - who are often a sensitive, emotionally engaged group - but I wonder what effects it might have in the classroom.

- Rachel Bowers

Last weekend at the annual conference of the Tennessee Council of Teachers of English, Deborah Appleman presented a rationale for why high school students should learn - and how they can learn - literary theory. Many high school English programs promote either a Reader-Response or New Critics approach to teaching literature. Teachers either ask students to share their personal reactions to a text (Reader-Response) or tell them how “experts” interpret the text (New Criticism). Appleman suggests that if teachers would dare to provide students with a whole set of critical lenses with which to view any given text (Feminist, Post-Colonial, Deconstructionist, Marxist, etc.), they will have equipped students to be critical readers of the world.

Even seventh graders can do literary theory, she said.

Her book, Critical Encounters in High School English, outlines her reasons and strategies for teaching theory in high school, but one thing she said on Saturday has been percolating in my brain ever since:

“Not everyone’s life will be shareable when they’re in my classroom, and how can I presume that I would be the one that they would want to share it with?”

Teaching critical theory, she said, allows us to give kids a lens for discussing a text in a meaningful way without telling them what to think or focusing exclusively on feelings and gut reactions - or compelling them to share potentially sensitive details of their personal or family lives.

Appleman quoted James Baldwin, saying:

“The paradox of education is precisely this: that as one begins to become conscious, one begins to examine the society in which he is being educated. The purpose of education, finally, is to create in a person the ability to look at the world for himself, to make his own decisions…But no society is really anxious to have that person around. What societies really, ideally want is a citizenry which will simply obey the rules of society. If a society succeeds in this, that society is about to perish. The obligation of anyone who thinks of himself as responsible is to examine society and try to change it and to fight it - at no matter what risk. This is the only hope for society. This is the only way societies change.”

Teaching theory, Appleman argues, begins to equip students with the tools they need to look at the world for themselves with a truly critical eye - and whatever conclusions they come to will determine the extent to which they seek change in society.

- Rachel Bowers

I just went to hear the founder of the “Not for Sale Campaign” speak.  He wants to end slavery in our lifetime.  You might think, “what?  slavery ended a long time ago with President Lincoln” but slavery still exists.  It is weird, isn’t it?  People don’t talk about it.  I didn’t learn about modern day slavery in grade school or high school.  I would think it should be part of the materials that should be taught today in school and talked about at the coffee station at work. 

Today, 27 million people are enslaved.  It is incredibly widespread.  It ranges from people working in sweatshops all day with no pay making nice jewelry for Americans to buy to young women and girls being kidnapped to be whores against their will at under cover brothels all over the United States.  I just mentioned two examples that are directly connected to the US.  Slavery is in every country! 

I think people need to know.  I think something needs to be done. To learn more about modern slavery and what you can do about it visit the website: www.notforsalecampaign.org

-Anna