I recently finished reading about the amazing life of Ida B. Wells in her aptly titled autobiography “Crusade for Justice”.  She was born in Mississippi 3 years before the end of the Civil War.  After the deaths of her parents and against the wishes of her extended family, she initially took charge of her 5 siblings despite her young age of 14.  In short time, she sent 3 of siblings to the care of an aunt.  Miss Wells taught school to earn a living until she found her calling:  journalism.  At about age 14 or 15, she refused to change seats on a train, was forcibly removed from the train, and subsequently sued the railroad company.  So, even at this young age, she was already fighting the expectations of others, both family and society. 

In Chicago, she succeeded in convincing other local women to establish a women’s club.  At one of the club meetings, a gentleman urged the attendees to form an organization which would specifically fight racial prejudice.  Subsequently, many prominent women, teachers, housewives, and girls started attending the weekly club meetings.  While Miss Wells was out of town, they applied for a charter from the state and changed the name of the club from the Chicago Women’s Club to the Ida B. Wells Club.  For the men of Chicago, Miss Wells founded a facility where they could read, sleep, and look for jobs.  She sought out and worked with different people, organizations, and churches.  Though she was a fine example of a collaborator, she did not shy away from criticizing specific people, female and male, Black and White, who she thought were failing in their support of her work. 

Miss Wells was well-known in her day as a consummate and eloquent journalist.  She revealed the horror of lynching and the fact that it happened across the country.  Her husband and children obviously emotionally supported her work as an investigative journalist because she travelled all over the country to collect the facts.  One time, one of her children woke her up and said that her husband was expecting her to take the train to the site of the latest horror because if she did not, no one would know what happened.

I marvel at the courage, conviction, and self-advocacy that Miss Wells expressed in her writings, conversations, and public speeches, and very often at a young age.  Unfortunately, I found myself, as has happened so many times in my adult life, shaking my head that yet another woman’s extraordinary life had not been included in my K-12, high school, or college education.  I had not been taught that a woman, especially an African-American woman, could own a business in the late 1800s-early 1900s in the USA, in her case a newspaper.  I also did not learn in school that those who opposed lynching, Jim Crow laws, unfair trials, and ballot box intimidation sought the influence of other countries to convince USA citizens, the press, and politicians that the racist and horrible practices must end.  My lack of formal education about women’s public involvement and accomplishments reminds me of the 2018 statistic that 80% of the contributors to articles written in English on Wikipedia are men.  The Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media claims “if she can see it, she can be it”.  So too for reading.  Ida B. Wells did not revise history but rather revealed it.

Last year I watched and blogged about a documentary film depicting the everyday life of a school teacher and his students in Japan.  The film showed his intense focus on the social-emotional aspects of teaching students rather than on their academic performance.  He paid particular attention to their happiness, collaboration, and communication. 

After viewing this movie, I purposefully read The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently … and Why by Richard E. Nisbett.  Like the documentary film, this book discussed aspects of communication.  However, it focused on the different thinking patterns and habits of Asian and Western cultures.  Nisbett prudently explained his use of the terms “East Asian”, “Asian”, and “Easterner” interchangeably to refer to China, Japan, and Korea; “Western” or “Westerner” for European; and “European Americans” for Blacks, Whites, and Hispanics but not Asian from the US.

In the beginning of the book, Nisbett shared that he originally followed the universalist’s view that “all human groups perceive and reason in the same way” so they all have the “same basic cognitive processes” and use the same cognitive tools for perception, memory, casual analysis, categorization, and inference (p. XIV).  Cultural differences only arise because they have been taught different things about the world and not due to different cognitive processes.  However, based on a comment from a new Chinese student, he set out on a course of reading literature by philosophers, historians, and anthropologists which disputes the universalists' views.  These fields asserted that cultures differ in their beliefs about the nature of the world, use different thought processes to understand and explain the world, and align their social structures and concept of self with their beliefs and thought processes. Nisbett’s reading in fields outside of his own (psychology) aligns with my own experience that my training in multiple fields has provided me with alternative ways of looking at issues. 

I am confused about two of his statements.  On page XVII, he claimed “If people really do differ profoundly in their systems of thought – their worldviews and their cognitive processes – then differences in people’s attitudes and beliefs … might not be a matter merely of different inputs and teachings, but rather an inevitable consequence of using different tools…”.  I’m not clear on what he meant by “tools”.  Depending on what he meant by “tools”, maybe people do not differ in the tools they use but rather in their application of such tools?  As human beings, each of us has a brain (a tool?) but use it in different ways (application?).  Later, on page XX, he stated “The social practices promote the worldviews; the worldviews dictate the appropriate thought processes, and the thought processes both justify the worldviews and support the social practices”.  I think he should start with “thought processes”.  Also, I do not see how the “worldviews dictate the appropriate thought processes”.  Don’t the thought processes dictate the worldviews?  I also think that he could have added that a reciprocal relationship exists between social relations, world views, and thought processes.  It may be hard to tease out which came first and may be a question of the chicken and the egg:  which came first? 

Nisbett claimed that the differences in perception, beliefs, communication, and thought processes between these two cultures dates back thousands of years and can be seen in the philosophies of Aristotle and Confucius.  They did not originate these differing approaches but rather they reflected their respective cultures. 

In Aristotle’s time, Greeks believed they had control over their lives as individuals.  With a focus on individualism, they believed in the power of debate and developed rules for debating.  They were very curious about the world, categorized objects within the world, created rules about them, and in that way tried to control their environment.  They also believed that the world is static. This type of thinking continues today in Europe and the USA.  Ancient Greece was a popular maritime trading location with people of different cultures arriving and having different opinions, so they had to develop a way to logically deal with all these contradictions.  Certain Greek occupations (hunting, herding, and fishing) do not require cooperation. 

On the other hand, the Chinese emphasized the collective nature of their roles in reference to their relationships, harmony with others, and self-control.  They did not feel controlled by others but rather willingly fulfilled their obligations to others in light of the various roles they played, for example child to parent.  Easterners believed that the world does change and has contradictions built into it.  Most Chinese, however, originate from the same Han ethnic group so they do not have to deal with such contradictions.  Much of China is / was farmland and farming requires cooperation (you do not have to like your neighbors but you need to work together).  This approach to life arose out of 3 philosophies:  Taoism, Confucianism, and Buddhism.  Today, this way of thinking continues.  

These different approaches mean that parents raise their children differently.  Asian parents emphasize interdependence whereas Westerners stress independence.  For example, Asians suggest what is best for their children whereas Westerners give their children choices so that the children make the decision.  In Eastern books the emphasis remains on relationships whereas in Western books it is on the action of individuals.  Parents also teach their children different verbal communication styles:  Asians emphasize a polite, indirect approach whereas Westerners push for a direct approach, which can sound rude to Asians.  These differing approaches result in misunderstandings, of course, not only in childhood but also in the business world as adults between the two cultures. 

With Asians belief in change and contradictions, they supposedly have difficulty with the logic of math.  However, Nisbett claimed that young Asians outperform their Western counterparts in math due to teachers’ training lasting throughout their career, teaching techniques, teachers spending more time on preparation than actual teaching, and students working harder because their capability is not seen as static.  This does not hold true for the older generations of Asians because literature, arts, and music were stressed during their time. 

In his concluding statements, Nisbett referred to social scientists ongoing debate about Eastern and Western cultures continuing to differ or converge with each other.  Nisbett believed in the latter.  He cited an experiment which prepped participants to act more like Easterners or Westerners regardless of their cultural background. 

I liked the title of this book:  it gave me a heads up on what I might expect about its thesis and peaked my interest based on my sociology training.  Overall, the book was an excellent reminder for me to consider, especially in light of people’s global movements, that those residing in any one country may have been born and raised there, born there and raised somewhere else, or travel around due to their jobs.  Through experiments in which participants are prepped to consider another culture’s thought processes, Nisbett shows that human beings can be flexible in their thinking.

Book Review

The title caught my eye:  “The Only Woman in the Room”.  The main character was even more intriguing:  Hedy Kiesler, later known as the famous actress Hedy Lamarr.

In this historical novel set in the 1930s and 40s by Marie Benedict, Hedy was (often) the only woman.  She was an only child of Jewish parents living in Austria, the young wife of an abusive husband, a lone woman at dinner parties where men plotted war, an advocate for her acting career, and the sole inventor of technology that (could have) helped the Allies during WWII.  Benedict did a masterful job of providing details about these solo roles and setting Hedy’s life within the larger political atmosphere of Austria before and after the start of WWII.  Though Benedict discussed Hedy’s acting life in Austria and the US, the bulk of this novel focused on Hedy’s life as a young wife, survivor, and inventor.    

Benedict hinted at the importance of Hedy’s beauty by including a picture of her on the inside front and back cover of the book.  Hedy is stunning and also attracted men with her flawless figure.  As narrator, Hedy admitted using her beauty as a tool to exert power over men in her private life and theatrical audiences in her professional life.

Hedy felt attracted to her future husband, Fritz Mandl, because he seemed interested in her opinions, did not appear intimidated by her beauty, and was publicly recognized as a powerful man.  With Fritz as the owner of a weapons business and as a close associate of several powerful Austrian politicians, Hedy and her parents hoped Fritz would protect them from growing anti-Semitism and the threat of war with Hitler. 

Unfortunately, Fritz fooled them and only revealed the full extent of his physical and verbal abuses after their marriage.  Over time, Fritz reduced Hedy to a beautiful object and an example of his wealth and power.  At dinner parties hosted by her husband, Hedy learned that he sold weapons to Hitler and of Hitler’s plans to completely remove Jews from Austria and Germany.  However, she did not reveal this knowledge to anyone in Austria before she left because she feared peoples’ opinions of her. 

One major section of the book ended abruptly.  In August 1937, Hedy made a second attempt to escape from her husband.  Benedict provided such a rich and suspenseful description of Hedy’s escape that it read like a movie script, complete with a cast of characters, costumes, and an escape car.  However, her escape tale lost momentum when Benedict simply revealed that Hedy made it out of Austria to Paris then London.  How?  Then, the next chapter simply began with her standing on an ocean liner bound for London and being introduced to the film studio head Louis B. Mayer.  Again, how?      

After she arrived in the US and the Nazis torpedoed a ship full of children, Hedy became involved in the war effort by raising money.  She also attempted to have a larger impact on the war by using her knowledge of science and German military plans.  Hedy recalled hearing about a weapons problem of the German military at the dinner parties hosted by her husband when she still lived in Austria.  The Germans had developed a remote-control system to transmit information between the ships, planes, and torpedoes but this system used radio signals which could be jammed by the enemy.  Hedy understood the nature of this problem because her father had discussed science, along with other academic subjects, with her when she was a child.      

In September 1940, Hedy met the composer George Antheil at a party and they entertained themselves by playing the piano, each alternating after the other.  Subsequently, she had an idea:  radio signals could also alternate by skipping frequency to frequency as they were sent to torpedoes so that the enemy could not find and then jam them.  Hedy, with George’s knowledge of pianos and composing, built a machine to enable this skipping.  They submitted the invention to the National Inventors Council which in turn a sent letter to the US Navy (with a copy to Hedy and George) that the Navy should consider their invention for military use.  In an April 1942 meeting, the Navy informed Hedy and George that they rejected Hedy’s idea because they did not want to tell their troops a woman had invented it.  On this note, the book ends. 

For me, some descriptions of Hedy’s personal and professional life experiences in this book could serve as the basis for a movie because Benedict wrote with such visually appealing details.  With Hedy narrating this book, however, the reader also learns about her thoughts and emotional growth, which are more difficult to convey in a movie.  Before reading this book, I knew that Hedy had become a successful American actress during and after WWII and therefore had survived it.  However, the book was so well written that my knowledge of her later success was suspended until the end of the book. 

Benedict made the convincing point that Hedy’s world refused to see past her beautiful face and slim figure and therefore could not consider that her invention might have helped the war effort.  This book presented one woman’s experience of WWII and showed, in the end, that she survived, on her own.

Review of Education Documentary

Instead of reading another book about a teacher, school, or education system, I watched a documentary about a teacher and his students.  Rather than relying on written words, I chose to witness a teacher in action.  His teaching and the interactions between students would provide an auditory and visual picture of one classroom that could not be painted with just words in a book.  A viewer may assume that a teacher and students would change their words and actions due to the presence of a camera.  However, for a few of the scenes, the teacher already had certain activities and lessons in place.

I chose to watch a documentary about a classroom outside the US because I want to better familiarize myself with the educational practices, perspectives, and philosophies of other countries.  Schools worldwide socialize children into the particular society in which the schools are located.  Schools provide a window into the larger society of a country and a snapshot of the country.  Also, instead of watching a documentary about a Western country, I decided to view one from an Eastern country: Japan. 

In 2002, the documentary "Children Full of Life" was filmed in a school located northwest of Tokyo.  Mr. Toshiro Kanamori teaches students for two years and his 3rd grade students had returned for 4^th grade.  The beginning of the film focuses on students’ sharing their thoughts and feelings, not on the teaching of academic subjects. 

On the first day of school, Mr. Kanamori’s students greeted him with hugs and hi 5’s. He asked them “What is the most important thing this year?”  One student answered, “To be happy”. Question:  how many teachers in the US believe happiness is the most important thing in school?  What does this suggest to the viewer about the teacher’s underlying curriculum?  The teacher’s question and answer suggest that he does not place academic knowledge or skills first in his curriculum.  Every day, students wrote in their notebooks about how they were feeling and what they were thinking.  They wrote in the form of letters to their classmates and, every day, three of them read them aloud.  From a curriculum standpoint, this requirement gives the students practice at writing and makes it part of their normal daily routine.  Also, their audience is not just the teacher but their classmates. Very often in the US only the teacher reads students’ writing.

The remainder of the film focuses on students’ trauma (family deaths and bullying) and misbehavior (talking in class).  Three students who experienced the death of close family members appeared comforted by both their teacher and classmates.  The day after male student’s grandmother died, he returned to school and read from his notebook about her death and his feelings.  Another student shared that her father died when she was only 3 years old.  Mr. Kanamori responded that it is hard to hold things inside and he believes she will feel better by letting it out of her system.  Her crying led other students to gather around her and / or cry themselves.  Mr. Kanamori consoled her by patting her on the back.  A third student missed several days of school due to his father’s sudden death.  Mr. Kanamori asked the students to each write a letter of comfort to him.  One boy suggested writing a letter to this student’s father about how cheerful he appeared.  The students wrote the following in the sand outside the school to two deceased fathers, presumably so the fathers could read the note from heaven:  “Your children are both well.  We are always with them so please don’t worry”. 

  

Later in the film, Mr. Kanamori told the interviewer "Empathy is the greatest thing”.  He is also fond of the expression “Let people live in your heart.”  He claimed that when people really listen, they live in your hearts forever and that shows the significance of the notebooks.  So, it appears that Mr. Kanamori is using the writing in notebooks as a tool within the process of teaching students’ empathy and keeping them in each other’s hearts.

Mr. Kanamori learned that a few children were being bullied.  He admonished them, “If you pick on someone you’re not being a friend”.  He instructed them to reflect on this situation in their notebooks.  Over several days of lecturing by Mr. Kanamori, slowly bits of truth come out. One student revealed that she experienced bullying in day care and feared it would happen again.  Mr. Kanamori patted her shoulders and comforted her with “We understand.  Take a deep breath. Breath”.  He did not tell her to stop crying and nor did he earlier in the film when a male student cried while remembering the death of a family member.  Question:  how many teachers (or parents) in the US allow their 10-year-old children cry, especially boys?  Younger children, yes, but not 10-year old’s.   

One student’s constant chattering almost caused him to miss a raft race.  For the race, the students collaboratively worked in teams to design the rafts, gather materials, and build them.   The morning of the race Mr. Kanamori angrily told a male student “Yotu” that he could not participate in the race because he had been talking too much for an entire month.  Once again, though this student started crying, no one tried to stop him or make fun of him.  Another boy (Yo) did not accept this punishment and argued that they are teammates, Yotu works hard, and he deserves a chance to show he can be responsible.  Another student, Yo, stated that Yuto should not have been talking but it was partly their fault too.  This student claimed that he would stay behind in the classroom with Yuto, the raft was the students’ project and not teacher’s, and if all students agreed then Yuto should be able to go rafting.  All students agreed.  Yo asked Mr. Kanamori to “please” allow Yuto to participate in the race, folded his hands together in front of him, and put his head on the desk. Mr. Kanamori said, “well-spoken Yo” and allowed Yuto to race the raft. 

The next day Yuto read a letter of apology to the class.  Mr. Kanamori later explained to the interviewer that the students performed all the work on the rafts and he could not take that away from them because of “something unrelated”.  He recognized that the children believed the solution should match the problem.  He was impressed and claimed that even adults do not suggest that the solution should match the problem.  So, Mr. Kanamori really listened to the students, considered their arguments, and changed his mind about punishing Yuto.  Since this situation appeared in a film and not in a book, I could see and hear the process that the teacher and students experienced in resolving this issue.  The nuances of their movements and their voice inflections provided details about their relationships that would be difficult to put into words. 

This documentary focused on students relationships, to each other as classmates, to their teacher, and to their families.  Even their school notebooks served as a tool for them to relate to their classmates. At one point, Mr. Kanamori claimed that happiness is the most important thing for that year and then later asserted that empathy is the greatest thing.  On the last day of school, he wrote his favorite word on the chalkboard: “bonding”.  So, “happiness”, “empathy”, and “bonding” appear as critical components to him in teaching these young students.  One of these words, “empathy”, is often included in descriptions of social emotional learning (SEL).  Based on the film’s focus on SEL, is Mr. Kanamori using SEL as the foundation for teaching academic subjects to these young students?  In other words, the SEL comes first and then the academics.  This approach contrasts with the focus on academics in the US in which SEL is added on top of the academics to help students improve their academic performance.    

This post answers the question "What is or is not an essay?" posed by a local bookstore for a contest. I submitted an entry not to win (which I did not), but rather because this question reminds me to re-examine the writing assignments commonly given to students in the US education system. As educators, we must continuously ask "is this (still) working?"  Here's my entry:

"5" is not a Magic Number.

Ever since I learned how to write a 5 paragraph essay in high school I have bemoaned its existence. I wondered about its purpose and its attraction for teachers. Did it provide teachers with a simple answer to give a student when their millionth student asked them about the length and format of their paper?  Did "5" sound long enough but not too long? The 5 paragraph essay includes one introductory paragraph, 3 supportive example paragraphs (which support the thesis stated in the introduction), and a concluding paragraph. What is so magical about this structure? It certainly will not improve the quality of a student's essay.

Currently, most high school students will learn how to write a 5 paragraph essay and will continue writing in this genre if they attend college. However, training students to stick to 3 examples will not prepare them for graduate school or future jobs. Neither require the mastery of the 5 paragraph essay. Students writing process may be affected by their fixation on "3" examples. The fixed and confined structure may affect their research, reflections, analysis, and conclusions. If a student can present a convincing argument with 2 examples or needs 6, why not? How much time do teachers feel they must spend on teaching students this form of writing when this time could be used for other types of writing?

"5" tries to fit student's thinking and writing about a subject into a neat, little box of "5". What a shame to miss out on a student's words because they went over "5".

This week I subscribed to the digital version of The New York Times. When I logged on, I realized something for the first time about the different categories listed at the top of its home page. The categories include “World, U.S., Politics, N.Y., Business, Opinion, Tech, Science, Health, Sports, Arts, Style, Food, Travel, Magazine, T Magazine, and Real Estate.” I wondered if other major news organizations had similar categories appearing on their home pages. In 2015, “ComScore.com” identified the top 51 online news sources used by Americans per The Pew Research Center website (http://www.journalism.org/media-indicators/digital-top-50-online-news-entities-2015). I purposely chose a list that includes traditional print sources (which now offer digital versions), TV news organizations, and digital-only news sources because Americans are now using all of these sources to obtain their daily news.

I checked all 51 sources and noticed that many of them share the same categories on their home pages as those listed above. Out of 51, only 1 listed “Education” as a category on their home page (www.upworthy.com). Very often, the “Education” link is buried inside another link, such as within “News”.

So, what’s my point? In an earlier post I claimed “popular media focus(es) on politics … business … sports … and TV / movies.” These 50 online sources provide an example of Americans favoring certain categories over Education. And, yet, education is the base or foundation for every other category in life. Think about it: even those seeking a career in business or sports receive an education, both in and out of school, to prepare them for their chosen profession.

In previous posts I have suggested specific CPD activities for teachers as individuals, such as learning a second language and keeping a daily journal.  Here, I will discuss another avenue for CPD:  within schools.  Per the literature, teachers complain that most school-based professional development provides information too general for their daily lives as teachers.  However, in “Effective Teacher Leadership: Using Research to Inform and Reform”, editors Melinda M. Mangin and Sara Ray Stoelinga share real-life examples of CPD offered within several US schools.  The CPD was provided by “teacher leaders” who coached teachers in ways to improve their teaching and, therefore presumably, to increase their students’ achievements.  The chapters show teachers leaders succeeding but also conditions which can impede their success. 

For those new to this type of CPD, the book smartly begins with a general definition of “teacher leaders”.  Actually, James Taylor prefers the term “instructional coaching” which he defines as “nonsupervisory / nonevaluative individualized guidance and support that takes place directly within the instructional setting” (p. 12).  Unlike other school-based CPD, coaching is popular because it provides more specific CPD.  Also, it is meant to make up for the teacher’s inadequate pre-service training.  Finally, instructional coaching attempts to spread out the responsibilities of school leadership across individuals. 

Chapter 2 refers to “guidance and support” and Chapter 4 (by Lord, Cress, and Miller) provide examples of delivery methods of this guidance and support from a research study.  These methods included observation, co-teaching, show-and-tell, and one-on-one feedback.  So, regarding chapter order, it would be helpful to follow chapter 2 with chapter 4. 

In Chapter 3, Manno and Firestone discuss a specific aspect of the teacher leader background that appears important:  the level of expertise of the teacher leader in the teacher’s subject area.  Through their research study on 8 teacher leaders, the authors concluded that teacher leaders who were experts in the teacher’s subject area more frequently and easily caught teacher mistakes. 

Chapters 5 and 7 both focus on district-level actions about teacher leaders so I suggest they follow each other sequentially.  In Mangin’s research study (chapter 5), districts differed in how they distributed teacher leaders and some districts spent money on the CPD of math teacher leaders.  In Chapter 7, Camburn, Kimball, and Lowehaupt discuss the district wide implementation of literacy coaches.  The negative aspects of the implementation overrode any benefits:  few coaches, principals using coaches for administrative issues, and teachers complaining that coaches spent too much time out of school for their own CPD. 

I like the editors inclusion of chapters 8 and 9 because these chapters show how staff already working within schools can act as teacher leaders.  In Chapter 8, Supovitz concluded that teachers in his study of high schools mostly sought each other’s advice.  One point of confusion for me:  Supovitz states that the high schools were chosen in consultation with external support providers.  However, why were the high schools using external providers?  Were the providers working in the schools as teacher leaders?  Halverson and Thomas’ case study in chapter 9 demonstrates how “student services personnel” became teacher leaders based on the needs of the organization.  In 1997, the individual with disabilities education act required educators to create annual goals for each child.  Since student services personnel had practice in analyzing student data they were the logical choice to help teachers.  Data could help teachers see where students needed improving.

Chapter 6 should definitely be last.  By placing this chapter last, the book progresses from the individual (teacher and teacher leader) to the organizational (school) level.  In this chapter, Stoelinga considers the organizational factors of schools that affect the implementation of teacher leader positions, such as time schedules, grade level arrangements, and physical plant.  Also, informal teacher leaders can have a great influence on the acceptance of teacher leaders in a school setting.  For example, in 1 of the 3 schools she studied, central staff were the informal leaders and were protective of teacher autonomy, teacher seniority, and union issues.  The literacy coordinator for this school had difficulty gaining access to classrooms because this position contrasted with teacher autonomy.  Stoelinga clearly cautions the reader that the organizational culture of a school with its specific norms, values, and ideals are an important part in the process of integrating, or not, the teacher leaders and their attempts to assist teachers, and ultimately, the students.  Stoelinga effectively supports her conclusions with 3 case studies of 3 literacy coordinators in 3 Chicago public schools.  For me, this chapter resonated with me the most based on my sociology training.

Mangin and Stoelinga comprehensively explore the position of teacher leaders at the individual school, district, and organizational levels.  As such, the editors paint a broad picture of teacher leaders so that the reader can see the complexity inherent in this role and its (sometimes difficult) application in schools. 

(Note:  Sara Ray Stoelinga directs the Urban Education Institute at the University of Chicago where I am on staff).