Comments on: Exploring Naive Misconceptions

By: Marco Polo

Marco Polo — Mon, 15 Jan 2007 04:52:45 +0000

It seems from Doug’s post, and from the comments, that being a teacher involves, at some stage, figuring out that these kinds of questions are important. A simple litmus question is “who is ‘we’?” It is worth remembering that teachers working in an institution are employees, like factory workers: their job is to do one or more steps in an overall process. The workers think their job is to be part of making something (a car, say, or a widget). But as Robert Kiyosaki likes to ask, is Ford’s business making cars, or making money?

Read this (from a recent BBC report) and then ask yourself, do you really know who the speaker is referring to by “we” and “our”, and are you included in that group (tho you’re obviously supposed to assume you are)?

[UK Schools Minister Jim Knight] told the Bett show in London’s Olympia: “The so-called digital divide cannot be allowed to create and reinforce social and academic divisions.
“We need to come up with a sustainable solution which will work for future generations as well as this one, building on existing good practice rather than looking for a quick fix.
“I am setting up a home access taskforce which I will personally chair.
“I want this to bring together key industry players, the voluntary sector, and education representatives to look at the issues, because ICT at every child’s fingertips is not the be-all and end-all of our ambitions.”

Neal Postman is a good place to start. Some of the more revealing and insightful stuff I’ve found isn’t written by educationists at all (JT Gatto and James Herndon being a couple of luminous exceptions), but by sociologists and lit critics. Readers here are probably familiar with Matthew Apple and Henry Giroux, but if not check them out. I find neither of them easy to read, but they have greatly helped me to gain some badly needed (historical) perspective, although I think the prize goes to Noam Chomsky for the being the first to completely upset my naive little apple cart.

By: Sarah Mcintosh Puglisi

Sarah Mcintosh Puglisi — Mon, 15 Jan 2007 02:50:30 +0000

Along the lines of this post I recommend this writer. In all of his books I learned a great deal, I think this one the best connection but some of mine are loaned out, it may be the Politics one is best. I think, Doug, you’ll love it, if that’s the right word, this a man deeply embedded in language and how it is used to shape thought. sarah

Politics of Misinformation, The (Communication, Society and Politics) (Paperback)
by Murray Edelman
The Politics of Misinformation is an examination of how concentrations of social and economic power result in public languages of politics that are necessarily image-based, vague, and misleading in their denial of undemocratic tendencies. As a result, public discourses of democracy tend to be populistic, emotional, and likely to emphasize images of progress rather than structural inequalities in their formulations of public problems. In short, neither typical problem definitions nor solutions invite critical popular understanding or involvement in democratic politics.

By: Graham Wegner

Graham Wegner — Mon, 15 Jan 2007 01:27:58 +0000

Your paragraph on the choice of words and their inferred or real meanings reminded me of the lyrics to one of my favourite songs writen by Michael Frenti when he was still the frontman for the Disposable Heroes of Hiphopcrisy, “Television, Drug Of The Nation.”
…oxymoronic language like
“virtually spotless” “fresh frozen”
“light yet filling” and
“military intelligence” have become standard
T.V. is the place where phrases are redefined
like “recession” to “necessary downturn”
“crude oil” on a beach to “mousse”
“civilian death” to “collateral damages”
and being killed by your own army
is now called “friendly fire”

We have our own versions of oxymoronic language in education….

By: Doug

Doug — Mon, 15 Jan 2007 00:21:08 +0000

I’m familiar with Elaine Garan from a report she wrote that critiques the National Reading Panel’s research. It’s called Beyond the Smoke and Mirrors: A Critique of the National Reading Panel Report on Phonics. The report has been used to justify an emphasis on explicit and systematic phonics instruction for primary students, an interpretation that appears to be contradicted in the report itself. Garan wrote: the NRP states, “Phonics instruction appears to contribute only weakly, if at all, in helping . . . apply these skills to read text and to spell words” (Reports of the Subgroups, p. 2-116, emphasis added). This discrepancy firmly establishes the conceptual dissimilarity between proficiency in isolated skills and in those required for the more complex processes needed for comprehension.

Franki, “struggling to make sure we are doing what is best,” describes the stance of a committed and ethical teacher. We need to keep asking questions about what we’re doing. The answers aren’t in the manuals.

By: Franki

Franki — Sun, 14 Jan 2007 20:48:57 +0000

I heard Susan Ohanian and Elaine Garan (SP?) speak at NCTE in November and was almost in shock at how much I haven’t paid attention to lately. Thanks for this post. I think there are many, many teachers who are struggling to make sure we are doing what is best for our students.
Franki