Sarah Rohlfs, Carrie Baas, Cindy Rogers, and Deborah Bonner
Thoughts, Reactions, and Reflections:
As a group, we decided to individually read Haberman's article and share our reactions with one another. The following analysis is a compilation of our conversations organized by topics we found most relevant to our teaching and the the
INITIAL REACTIONS
Sarah: As I read this article, I made a lot of connections to my field placements during my undergrad years at various
Carrie: As I read Haberman’s article, I too made many connections to my year-long teaching internship at
Cindy: My initial response to Haberman’s Pedagogy of Poverty was – yeah, that is the way I teach and have taught for many years. As I continued to read through the article I also found myself in many of the categories that he describes as “good teaching”. Coming from my position where my goal is to impart knowledge that prepares one for college I know that I give information, ask questions, give directions, give assignments, monitor seatwork, review assignments and give tests. Yes, I review those tests, mark a lot of papers and give grades. I don’t even teach in what I would consider an urban school.
Deborah: My first reaction to Haberman’s Pedagogy of Poverty was doesn’t everything he talks about relate to non-urban communities as well? I do not have a lot of experience in an urban setting (I grew up in a wealthy suburban school district, and my only experience in an urban setting was at Dwight Rich Middle School about 2 hours a week for one semester, my junior year at MSU). At Dwight Rich I was placed in a eighth grade math class, where students were learning algebra. I spent most of my time observing the student teacher, who I believe tried to engage students and did not simply give assignments and move from one to the next without discussing them.
When I observed the lead teacher, I noticed she was often short with students and one day she did no teaching at all, just let them do whatever they wanted in the room. I have not let my one experience of inadequate teaching make me assume that ALL urban classrooms are like that. I have a hard time analyzing the Haberman article because of my lack of exposure to urban classrooms. I do think the list of core functions of urban teaching occur non-urban settings (I saw this first hand during my student teaching) and I think the article serves as a good reminder that teachers need to think beyond a set pattern on giving an assignment, giving another assignment, reviewing for a test, giving a test, and then starting a new topic.
Haberman mentions that in an urban setting, teachers “give information” often by reading out loud to their students, assuming they cannot read for themselves (Haberman 1). I believe that reading out loud to students is okay in some instances, for example “Romeo and Juliet”, text that is difficult for many students to understand the meaning of if read alone, but it should not be the only way we get text across to students. I saw this “technique” done regularly at Ovid-Elise HS ( a rural community), where I spent the first half of my student teaching, and I found that students got very bored and felt like they were being talked down to if the teacher read to them. Some people may think students won’t read it on their own, but I believe sometimes we need to give them the benefit of the doubt. They are going to have to read on their own if they go to college.
APPLYING TO OUR CONTEXT
Sarah: Though Haberman’s focus is on urban teaching, I think many of his points in the article relate to all school environments. In my particular context, I teach in a community with little racial diversity but with vast diversity in students’ socioeconomic status. I found myself asking whether or not my behaviors as a teacher of poor students ever reflect some of the potentially ineffective or effective teaching practices outlined in this article.
Carrie: I also found myself thinking about my current teaching environment. As Sarah says,
Cindy: My students are diversified as far as their socioeconomic status. Teaching in a parochial school gives me students from very affluent families to those who really struggle but want their children there. We have students from different cultures from around the world yet I try and make my classroom one that is comfortable for all of them. This does take many of the “good teaching” methods described in the later part of Haberman’s article.
Sarah: Haberman describes that teachers in these contexts spend a lot of time providing students with information as well as giving students assignments. This was one of my main observations as a pre-service teacher in an urban setting—we seemed to always ask students to perform, while at the same time, expected that they would fail. The problem with relying on students constantly performing for assessment is that assigning students is not equivalent to teaching them skills. For example, asking kids to write multiple essays does not guarantee that students will learn how to write. Truly teaching students how to engage in the kinds of skills we expect them to perform is much more challenging work than assigning them.
Cindy: Where as Sarah mentioned giving tasks that we sometimes expect our students to fail at, I find that I most always think my students will do well. Much to my disappointment they often don’t do as well as I had anticipated. I do agree with what Haberman said about students often controlling the teacher instead of the teacher controlling the class. If my students don’t do as well as I had anticipated I often back off and expect less the next time. Pushing our student to achieve their best is a difficult thing. How hard is too hard? Teenagers have so many responsibilities these days that demand their time. I find it frustrating to accomplish what I want to accomplish and not what the students want to accomplish
Carrie: I too have observed teachers who hand out assignments without doing any real teaching. Even though I did not experience this during my internship, I do know and see this kind of teaching in my present environment. As a result, actually teaching processes that students can later do independently is extremely important to me. As Sarah mentions above, students will not gain anything from constant assignments in which they are asked to perform for merely a letter grade. Students who do an assignment for a grade and then forget about it and do not connect it to anything else in their schooling or their life will not gain knowledge OR skills needed for independent learning.
ANALYSIS OF “PEDAGOGY OF POVERTY” CRITERIA
Sarah: Haberman’s criteria to whom the pedagogy of poverty appeal are hard to digest. These criteria run completely counter to what I imagine most new teachers believe are the purposes of education. I think the logic of this pedagogy reflect a lot of “old school” thinking about education that is still quite insidious in our schools— that students are empty vessels and that as teachers it’s our job to fill them with knowledge. The belief that not all students will be successful is another challenging aspect of this kind of thinking that we need to overcome.
Carrie: When Haberman discusses the characteristics of those teachers that are attracted to the pedagogy of poverty, it was hard for me to imagine that actual classroom teachers in this day and age actually think and/or feel this way about teaching and about students. As Sarah says, it WAS very hard to swallow many of these criteria. A criterion that especially stuck out to me was: “It appeals to those who fear minorities and the poor. Bigots typically become obsessed with the need for control” (Haberman 2). I found it frightening that there are teachers who can be considered bigots. Also, I found it hard to imagine that teachers would maintain low expectations for their students because having high expectations is such a crucial part of teaching. If students feel that they cannot succeed (or are told this by an authority figure) they can suffer from the self-fulfilling prophecy that makes them also believe this lie. As a teacher, having high expectations is one of my top priorities, and I know many teachers would agree. In addition, I was surprised with the first criterion: “It appeals to those who themselves did not do well in school” (Haberman 2). While I can see Haberman’s point here, I also believe that sometimes teachers who did not do well or who had bad experiences when they were in school, are actually inspired to teach using progressive methods because they do not want to re-do the wrongs they, themselves, experienced.
Cindy: Ok, I just said that I taught much like Haberman’s description of The Pedagogy of Poverty but must say I don’t feel I am a bigot or did I do poorly in school. Because I have a classroom very different from what many think of as an intercity type situation, I guess my circumstances are considerably different. My students are all high achievers or they would not be taking high school chemistry. Setting my expectations high for them does cause them to work hard but it also gives them stress that I sometimes feel in unnecessary in a teenagers life. That is where I struggle with how hard to push them.
ANALYSIS OF THE STUDENTS’ ROLE IN “THE PEDOGOGY OF POVERTY”
Sarah: What is hardest for me to accept, but what I found most powerful in his words, was the explanation of how students accept and support the pedagogy of poverty. In my experience in a variety of teaching contexts, I find that many times when I ask students to go beyond more traditional assignments that they can be resistant. It makes it that much harder for teachers to break the cycle of ineffective teaching, as our students’ resistance can so vastly determine our approaches.
Carrie: Some students definitely do accept the pedagogy of poverty. I was able to relate to this part of Haberman’s argument because sometimes, as Sarah mentions, I have felt that when I try to encourage critical thinking or introduce a fun, critical assignments, students groan because they would rather do straight-forward seat work or rote learning that simply forces them to fill in blanks or answer questions on a piece of paper. I am reminded of one student, in particular, who gripes that English is “not about” the critical activities and conversations we have in our English 10 class. I fear that to this student, English is about filling in study guides, reading books and taking quizzes on them, being told to write papers with absolutely no direction, and other forms of teaching that embody the pedagogy of poverty. This student just wants to “play the game” and as a result he is disillusioned by our innovative class. However, I refuse to agree that all teachers become controlled by students who have accepted the pedagogy of poverty. Even though this individual makes me think about my teaching at times, I still value real and critical learning too much to let it change my pedagogy. Also, certainly not all students have accepted this form of teaching. The students that DO want to learn about life and think critically are the ones that inspire good teaching.
Cindy: Good insight Carrie. We need the assignments that cause our students to think outside the box (kind of like this course we are presently involved in). We can’t allow the moans and groans of our students to keep us from using innovative teaching styles. Like us, our students want a clear cut assignment that they know exactly what them must do and know that they can achieve the correct answer for. Thinking assignments don’t always allow for them to come up with a “correct answer”.
Deborah:I’ve noticed that students do not like change. Moving seats is a perfect example. I’ve noticed when I have tried to do something new they are sometimes hesitant, but when we do the same thing every day they complain about that. I think helping my students adjust to change and to embrace it is important.
RECOGNIZING THE CHARACTERISTICS OF GOOD TEACHING
Sarah: I was thankful when the article transitioned into analysis of reforming the pedagogy of poverty as well as his classifications for good teaching. I felt validated when I read his words about effective teachers for whom, “discipline and control are a consequence of their teaching and not a prerequisite of learning.” I have always thought that “classroom management” is largely about good teaching—that students behave appropriately when they are in a classroom that provides them with a supportive and engaging educational environment. This relates also to where I think Haberman’s argument might fall short. Hand in hand with the good teaching strategies that he outlines, Haberman neglects to analyze how important teacher-student and student-student relationships are in the classroom. In my mind, they are prerequisites for good teaching strategies to work. Thus, if we are to break the cycle of ineffective teaching, we need take steps to create and maintain a classroom community where students have “buy in” and where our efforts to create effective instruction can flourish.
Carrie: As I previously mentioned, I as also relieved when Haberman starts discussing the fact that not all urban schools embody the pedagogy of poverty and also when he outlined the characteristics of good teaching. There are still many areas I need to work on as a teacher, but as I read Haberman’s list of the 12 characteristics of good teaching, I also felt validated when I could think of multiple activities and other things I have done in my classes that speak to each of his outlines characteristics. I especially spend time on the “big picture” and relevance of what I teach, exploring human differences, choices, and active involvement. It was good to see Haberman acknowledging the importance of these practices. As Sarah mentions above, I was also surprised that Haberman does not mention teacher-student relationships in his list. I, too, believe that a good, safe classroom community and good teacher-student relationships set the stage for a productive, critical class with few disciplinary issues. I have seen this work firsthand in my classroom – students that pose disciplinary issues to other teachers are usually not a problem in my classes. I agree with Sarah in the fact that a feeling of community is a prerequisite for good teaching strategies to work without many other issues taking away from good learning.
Cindy: I too found comfort in reading the list of good teaching habits. Although I feel I teach very much in the style of “The Pedagogy of Poverty” I realized, as I read on that I also incorporate many of the good teaching styles described later in the article. Our classroom is very much a community as mentioned in Carrie’s statement. I feel that a good understanding of my students and them of me is essential in my ability to communicate my subject matter to them. Knowing that my student comes from a broken home or that they are one of 9 children or perhaps an only child helps in knowing how they function. It helps to understand their personality and how they fit into the community of the classroom.
APPLYING HABERMAN TO OUR PRACTICE
Sarah: Based on Haberman’s analysis of good teaching, I decided to create a list of questions that I need to pose to my own practice to help ensure that I do not fall prey to ineffective methods.
5 Questions for reflections on practice:
- How am I building in relevancy into this lesson? Can students see how this will relate to their lives beyond high school?
- Am I creating connections between current and past content? Will students be able to recognize relationships between concepts?
- Am I giving students the opportunity to be leaders and make choices for themselves?
- How am I providing students with access to new and diverse ideas? Will this activity push their conventional thinking?
- Am I engaging students in technological applications of the content that will better equip them for leaving high school?
Carrie: I really like the 5 questions that Sarah created. I believe they are a good way to analyze if good teaching is taking place. All in all, I think Haberman’s arguments were valid and this article gives me good food for thought as I continue to improve my pedagogy.
Cindy: Definitely good food for thought. It helps me to critically look at what I do and see where I could be a bit more creative in the sciences beyond just the assignment, testing and grading.
Deborah:Sarah, I like your list of questions. I think putting a list of questions like this on my desk and looking at it occasionally would be a helpful tool to remind myself to think beyond the patterns that many teachers seems to fall into.
I can honestly say that I have never been more shocked by educational pedagogy than when I read the section on “The Nature of Urban Children and Youth.” While I have only spent a brief amount of time teaching in an urban setting, I never viewed my students in such a light.
ReplyDeleteThere were, of course, parts that I completely understand and with which I completely agree. For example, Haberman argues that “…students actually control, manage, and shape the behavior of their teachers. Students reward teachers by complying. They punish by resisting” (4). While I’d never thought of my classroom in quite that fashion before, I can see the potential truth. I have had many days in which one lesson has been a complete success in one class, but a complete failure in another. I agonized over the failure, not understanding the vast difference in response. It never occurred to me that although I am the “teacher,” my students really have the power to run the class.
Furthermore, like Sarah, I have found my students to resist the out-of-the-box lessons and activities. Especially being in my first year of teaching, I frequently want to try different teaching strategies, lessons, and activities. I’ve found, however, that whenever I branch out to something new, my students revolt. They revert back to their learned helplessness, constantly asking the “lazy” questions that prove that they aren’t even willing to try something new. Not only does the lesson then feel like a failure, but I end up never wanting to try another new activity again. Why put myself through all of the hassle of creating a new lesson to only have it thrown back in my face? It’s definitely a vicious cycle.
However, I was greatly put off by the argument that teachers “…are more like hostages responding to students’ overt or tacit threats of noncompliance and, ultimately, disruption” (4). Personally, I see this extreme version of resistance as being a problem only for teachers who have not formed relationships with their students. Once I’ve learned who my students are as people, and once they have learned who I am, I believe that we have created a bond that fosters respect and community. In such a case, there should be no “hostages” in any such situation. Even if students disagree, there should be a level of respect on which they respond in a more appropriate manner.
Either way, maybe it’s time that we keep pushing forward – no more letting our students frustrate us into submission. If we make change and unexpectedness the norm, students will no longer have any reason to turn us into “hostages.”
After reading Haberman’s article, I can honestly say that I’ve never made such a connection to educational pedagogy. I completed my year-long internship, and taught for one year in an urban setting. These two years were spent teaching within the Flint Community School District. During my experience here I observed many of the “Core Functions of Urban Teaching” that Haberman outlines. However, that’s not to say that these functions encompass the style of all urban teachers. I was fortunate enough to have a mentor teacher who didn’t fall into this generalization. My mentor teacher was one who established a safe classroom community, in which lessons were both meaningful and engaging. I do feel that more often than not, urban teacher’s tend to exemplify the “Core Functions of Urban Teaching,” and I agree with Carrie when she says that this is a huge problem in our educational system.
ReplyDeleteAs mentioned in this blog, I too was relieved and happy when Haberman addressed the generalization that all urban teachers fall prey to the pedagogy of poverty. As I stated previously, I was lucky enough to experience firsthand, a teacher who broke this stereotypical mold. My mentor teacher was one who “thought outside of the box,” pushing for students to become critical learners. I also felt validated when Haberman sheds light on the characteristics of good teaching. I feel that many of the characteristics of good teaching are applicable to both my mentor teacher and myself. We both concentrate heavily of the importance of relevance.
Furthermore, like both Sarah and Carrie, I was disappointed that Haberman failed to mention the importance of relationships in the classroom. Having taught for several years, I fully understand how relationships are such an integral component of “good teaching.” You must have “good classroom management” in order for learning to occur. If a teacher’s lessons are worthwhile and engaging, then students will behave appropriately. I myself have always been prideful in the acknowledgment of “good classroom management,” by both administration and coworkers. This comes full circle, back to my ability to create and maintain a productive, engaging classroom environment.
In short, I agree with many aspects of Haberman’s article. He does a good job of raising awareness about the “Core Functions of Urban Teaching.” I especially liked that he incorporated the characteristics of good teaching into his article. I feel that this article has provided me with pertinent information urban teaching, which I can apply to even my suburban classroom.
Carrie - I was interested and intrigued by your account that some students in your class seems to accept the "pedagogy of poverty" even when you aim to swim against the current culture and foster critical thinking and higher level thinking exercises to raise the expectations in your classroom. It sounds like you have a great vision about what good curriculum and pedagogy look like. I applaud your efforts to get students out of their comfort zones in order to maximize their potential. I would love to hear any specific lessons or units that fight against the mundane "pedagogy of poverty" that teachers may get trapped into... please share if you have anything concrete and explicit! :)
ReplyDeleteSarah - I am TOTALLY in agreement with you in relation to your perspective about the importance of relationships. I am a big believer that relationships are at the heart of excellent classrooms - Studnets MUST know that the adult or teacher truly cares about them - this is such a powerful feature - Once students sense that you respect them and genuinely care about their well beings, you are able to truly tap into their potentials! I think this separates the good from the - Also in line with what you stated, discipline and routines can stem from these relationships - A caring environment is a happy, safe place to spend time - Students are motivated to act with prosocial behavior - Meeting emotional needs in the classroom really does eliminate some of the every day discipline problems classrooms may embody.
this is a really nice reflection on this piece. It is interesting that as high school teachers you have seen all of this in practice in a variety of settings. I think that Deb is totally right-how is this any different from what happens in an affluent suburban school. IT'S NOT-we just don't talk about it because those schools don't have all the 'problems' that urban schools do. They aren't in the lime light for failing in so many ways. It is easy to not think critically about suburban schools because they pass AYP every year, right-they must be doing what needs to happen. To me, this is what I term the culture of conformity. I want to be clear that I am not applying this to all schools, teachers or students...but it seems to me that it is easier to teach from the pedagogy of poverty in an suburban setting because there is a certain degree of conformity to societal norms that upper/ middle class kids are raised with. you do what the teacher says-right? To me, I think there are many different definitions of 'poverty.' yes, Haberman is talking about poverty in terms of economic standing, but I think poverty can also be applied to the quality of instruction, materials, etc that are presented to all kids in all schools. to some degree poverty means a 'lack of resources.' I wonder if some educators/schools/districts aren't working from pedagogy of poverty that could be defined as a lack of resources in intellectual stimulation?
ReplyDelete