The TV Machine

What is the purpose of TV? Is there any legitimacy in seeing it as pure escapist entertainment? Or is that a completely naive assumption?

The fact that the five large companies controlling most of broadcasting are backed by advertisers who want to sell their products to specific audiences somewhat destroys the premise of TV being simply entertainment. Although TV's roots are in live stage vaudeville acts, the potential commercialism involved in mass market broadcast media has corrupted the pure entertainment value of live stage productions.

Not only are the advertisers greatly influencing what is shown that will best sell their products, the elite corporate heads that represent the dominant culture have a vested interest in promoting the social stereotypes that keep them in power. As discussed in class, the tokenism of showing women and minorities in positions of power appears more as fantasy that reality - either as pure entertainment value or as a way to subdue the demands for equality. Either way, TV's underlying agenda is to make the rich richer and keep the powerful in power. It is not about providing a vehicle to equity of any kind in society.

Interestingly enough, the second year I was at the school where I currently work, I came up with the idea of looking critically at what was on TV. My premise was that if kids were going to watch it anyway, they might as well have been thinking about what they were seeing. I had planned lessons contrasting cartoons from the 60s with current cartoons to examine what the differences said about society. We were going to look at both the content of the cartoons and the music in the background. I had planned to have the kids contrast the commercials shown during one type of show with another. Unfortunately, I had barely introduced this assignment when one of the school board members at that time and his wife, who was a teacher in our district, came in and basically blew up that I was having kids watch TV. Their daughter was not allowed to watch TV, and certainly was not going to watch cartoons. Since it was only my second year in the school, the assignment was cancelled after talking with the administrators. To add salt to the wound, that spring we had a district inservice day in which the presenter talked about teaching critical TV watching. You should have seen every teacher's head who worked at my site suddenly whip around and look at me! They couldn't believe this was happening any more than I could after what I had been through.

Funny how I had the right idea 16 years before entering this program.

Hurray for Lipman!

I personally found the Lipman article extremely interesting, informative, and helpful in tying together some ideas.

On p. 370, she stated, "Although Chicago public schools are subject to surveillance and control by the state, patterns of racial subjegation are clear...These are schools where both students and teachers are disciplined by the routines and frameworks of standardized tests and external supervision."

The following are ideas I formulated as a response to reading this section:

Local neighborhoods have been stripped of their influence to do what’s best for their own, mainly minority Latino and African American, families by the federal regiment of punishments which result in promoting racism and classism. Racism exists because the tests are constructed to examine the acquisition of correct “White” English. If students cannot correctly identify sentences that reflect the correct use of “Standard English” they are assumed to be failing. Tests do not require students to think critically and reflect knowledge constructed from ideas expressed in passages. They simply measure skills in using correct grammar of a language that is in ways a “foreign language” to them. Answers to test questions reflect the constructed understanding of the test writers, from which the minority students are required to choose. If their own constructed meaning falls outside of the realm offered by the test writers, they are considered to be deficient in understanding. Pauline Lipman describes the frustration of Chicago teachers to educate the students from their own neighborhoods in creative, critical ways because of punitive testing policies. Yet one of the teachers comments that she is sure that the administrators of Chicago Public Schools are not putting their own children through this.

Classism is promoted through this testing process because it is differentiated by language acquisition and familiarity. Those whose cultural capital has been established by long-term, multigenerational residence in the United States so that their native culture has been delegitimized or extinguished through the process of assimilation demonstrate the attributes of the dominant Eurocentric power. In conforming to the dominant power, they are perceived as more educated, more cultured, and more desirable candidates for admission to schools and placements in jobs. Those who have not succumbed to the assimilation process are not perceived to have valuable ideas to contribute. They are seen as intellectually deficient. As such, they are not offered the jobs or educational opportunities that would allow them to bridge the economic chasm between classes. Their native cultures are not those valued by the dominant culture, so they are deemed “uncultured” within society (Lipman, 2009, in Darder, Baltodano, & Torres, 2009).

Feminism and Defensive Teaching

I do not live in a world of misogyny. As my husband passed by my desk as he was emptying the trash, he mentioned that I should include that fact in my blog.

If the axiology of feminism is based on the idea of equal treatment, the producers of the film on feminism are in the dark. The number one thought going through my mind as I was watching it was "Look at all those very thin, very pretty women being used to break a stereotype of a feminist as an aggressive, somewhat masculine person. It was overkill. Where were the unfashionably dressed, unprofessional coifed, unelegant average women of the world in that movie? Where were the minorities. Where were women with disabilities? I felt like I was watching a movie based on the princess myth. However, in looking for images of feminists, there is only one dark-skinned women even visible in the second picture, and she is way in the back. Is this maybe a manifestation of the individualism of white culture? Hispanic and African American cultures are much more communal.


I think classism and privilege have much to do with individual women's perceptions of deligitimization. I grew up with a mother who was a registered nurse. Although she stayed home until I was in 5th or 6th grade, my basic memory was of her working in a profession that she loved. I did not grow up instilled with an sense of oppression or feelings of exploitation of women. I have always felt free to pursue my interests - at least I have not felt that gender was a factor in my way. But then, my chosen profession is one in which equality of pay is built in. Of course, being white and middle class speaks volumes. I was not even aware of my privileged position until entering this program. So, using middle/upper class, basically white women in a film to represent those who do feel oppressed is quite a slap in the face to them - I think.

The more I think about it, the more I am interested in teacher training, precisely to combat "defensive teaching." Again, I've been fortunate enough to work in a school where I am free to develop lessons and am not bound to a curriculum or pacing guide. My interest, especially, is to empower new teachers to promote students' critical thinking, creativity, and real learning regardless of the official curricular requirements. Teachers should never feel that they cannot find ways to creatively infuse real learning, even in a stifling curriculum. However, I will need to experience the actual trauma of those restrictive environments before I will be able to really address the problem. I expect I will be doing a lot of observing in the next year or so. I would not want to teach new teachers from a position of privileged naivety.

Leadership

I lead by example. I consider myself a grassroots leader. Just as grassroots policy is developed from the needs of the people, I develop curriculum in response to the needs of my students (at least I really try to!). Because I am passionate and excited about my ideas, I share them in the lunch room or in conversations with other teachers. Sometimes they try them!

I also consistently bend the rules. One example of this is how I approach the Accelerated Reading requirement the English Department enacted. The majority of the teachers felt that all students should read three books per quarter that were 1) in their ZPD and 2) were at least 150 pages long. Obviously they were referring to fiction books. I also remember how I abhorred reading as an ADD student - mainly because before I finished a paragraph I had taken several trips around the world. When I was in school, I couldn't concentrate while reading and empathized with my students who were in the same predicament. (Now I have medicine!). As far as fiction went, I told them that any book over 300 pages was worth 2 books (fair is fair).

It occurred to me one day while at the library with my class that, because of our AR requirement, the entire nonfiction section of the library was basically sitting unused. The thought occurred to me to see if there actually were AR tests for nonfiction books. Not only were there tests, there were LOTS of tests. I immediately embarked on a campaign to order as many nonfiction tests for the books our library owned as our budget would allow. By the end of that school year we had several hundred. Now we have several hundred more. Knowing that reading non-fiction is highly beneficial to students' achievement, and empathizing with my reluctant readers, I "modified" the AR rules for my class. My students were now required to read short, non-fiction books at an easily comprehensible level. I want them to be able to get through a book that was short enough and simple enough so as not to create the frustration that longer books do on ADD students. My objective was READ-TEST, READ-TEST, etc. I wanted to build a pattern of success and accomplishment. It worked. My class was reading, and some were reading up to 10 nonfiction books per quarter.I also wanted to introduce them to the many topics available in nonfiction. Many ended up liking it better than reading fiction.

Another, more current, example of "bending the rules"(much scarier) was letting my class of "school resistant" students eat snacks and listen to ipods while working (definitely risky). Both are against the rules in our agenda. Both are important to students who learn globally (most students). I chose to support my students and go to confession after. One of the advantages of displaying personal integrity and consistently producing high achieving students is that my principal has trust in me. His only concern was that it was limited to my "needy" class, and that it wasn't advertised around the rest of the school that they had those privileges. He said he understood what I was trying to do with that class.

Were I in a higher position of leadership, I would probably do the same thing. I would find a way around rules that are detrimental to students. It's fun. It's part of being creative. It's who I am. One avenue I am considering once I am finished with this program is teaching in a credential program. My number one objective would be to empower the new teachers to find ways to circumvent a restrictive curriculum without appearing to do anything wrong. I guess I would be real threat if I were in a district level position - especially Director of Curriculum. Maybe it would be a good thing. The focus in my district is how to empower students to take the test better by enlightening them about test construction techniques such as distractors, etc. I think I would concentrate on ways to teach them to think. That's what I do in my classroom. We don't study anything about how to take the test. Then they actually have the tools to understand and cope with the test. They usually score high.

Privilege

Dealing with the concept of privilege places the concept of a "normal" life in a tenuous position. Having to delegitimize my entire, familiar comfort zone in light of the realization that it is full of invisible privilege is unnerving. Aren't I a nice person? Don't I care about other people? Sure, as long as I have unquestioned access to education, safe housing in safe neighborhoods, respect from retail clerks, and a myriad of other "invisible" advantages. I would never expect to be put on the spot because my mode of speech was "unacceptable" or "non-standard."

However being a female of Jewish descent, I do have some significant experience with the hegemony promoted by some people of other religions. Growing up in an era in which it was still legal to sing Christmas carols, have Christmas pageants, and go on Christmas vacation, I was socialized into understanding that that was the way that "everyone else" believed, and that Jews just had different beliefs. So, being different was normal. I didn't know what it would feel like to go to school and be part of the "regular" people. However, either because of the egalitarian outlook that seems to be a big part of Jewish culture, or just not finding anything wrong with it, I never took offense at the Christmas celebrations, and actually enjoyed singing the songs and participating in the programs. There was always a token Hannukah song thrown in, anyway. Even so, I grew up hearing that I was "bad" for being a Jew just enough times from a very few "stupid" people to instill in me a deep sense of not being OK and a desire to hide.

Having become a Christian in my early 20s, I can see the use of religious privilege from an interesting perspective. I get very impatient with and irritated at Christian commentators who think that the entire country should be run based on conservative Christian principles that are not necessarily in keeping with others' points of view. Although I understand how their understanding of doctrine drives their opinions, I get angry at their narrow view of what should be considered politically correct. I guess my early experiences are what contribute to my basic attitude of siding with the underdog and understanding the disenfranchisement many minority people feel.