Teacher or Instructor

The role of the teacher in the overarching education process is certainly crucial. They are the guider, mentor and facilitator of specific knowledge and inquiry. Yet, the position of the teacher has certainly changed over the past few decades. This position has gone from being a “teacher” which teaches morals and knowledge, to “instructor” teaching a prefixed curriculum that leaves little room for creativity. Over the last decade there has been an great emphasis on assessment. This came about even more so with the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in which schools started to become accountable for raising student performance with both regional and statewide testing. Through my observations of the public school system in New York State there has been numerous references by teacher says, “pay attention, you need to know this for the test”. Therefore not only is the teacher’s curriculum determined by the state, but teachers have to teach towards a test rather than create a curriculum that factors in the multicultural and regional differences of the community that the educational system serves.

In Lynn Astarita Gatto’s essay, “Success Guaranteed Literacy Programs”, we learn of literacy practices that make students learners of knowledge rather than reproducers of it. If we teach just for a test then students “only learned what was required for the state’s standardized tests” (86). Therefore Gatto’s teaching practices went beyond what the state expected of her. Sometimes there are districts that do not offer the same type of flexibility. In Patricia Irvine and Joanne Larson’s essay, “Literacy Packages in Practice” we learn of literacy packages that are bought by the district. The goal of the packages is to raise students’ low reading levels by “standardizing instruction and retraining those teachers suspected of having marginal skills” (49). Personally I feel that both teachers and students will rise to their expectations. Therefore if you expect more from them they will rise to the occasion. Irvine and Larson mentions this by saying literacy packages “attempt to script teachers’ behaviors, deskilling them in the process” (50). Therefore they do not have the ability to implement their own creativity. From this we can see how the district imposed the role of teacher to instructor. These reading packages also hold a deficit view of the culture of the community.

Throughout this blog we have seen the importance of out of school literacies to bring relevance to in-school literacies. We have seen that by making literacy important to students they will gain acceptance in the material and want to engage in it. Therefore it is appropriate to question, how do corporations know what is best of make literacy relative to students in a given community. Gatto questions:

Do teachers feel so powerless that they will allow publishing companies and district officials to tell them how to best provide literacy instruction for their students? (87)

Gatto counteracts this questions by saying she uses literacy that is relative to her students therefore they become valued as learners. They learn that “their ideas and opinions count” (88). Therefore Gatto has learned how to reclaim the role of teacher to bring about meaningful and relevant literacy instruction. For a great video about making teaching relavent and its abiltiy see: L’ Ecole Buissonniere.

Gatto has learned what to do to counteract the forces that want her to have a prescribed teaching style. With so much research support Gatto’s style of teaching, why are reading packages and other non-personal teacher methods encouraged? I feel this is a result of the neoliberalism forces that are becoming prevalent in our education system. See blog: Neoliberalism and Education, Bad Combination. From this blog we can see that their is a constant attempt for private enterprises to have a hand in the public education system. Therefore we can see how their is an attempt from these enterprises want to make the curriculum standard for all students. In this way they negate the role of the teacher as an effective tool of instruction so they can impose their product. Their product is framed around the ideologies of increasing standards and they are hiding the truth. The truth is they are privatizing the educational system and pursuing their corporate agenda.