Preparing Teachers for Monday Mornings

After reading Obidah and Howard's article, Preparing Teachers for "Monday Morning" in the Urban School Classroom, I came away with some new outlooks when thinking about Urban schools. One of the most shocking bits of information was on page 250 when the authors mention, "Teachers lack resources such as chalk, paper, and textbooks." How can someone be expected to teacher a class when the most basic of supplies are not provided? If teachers are expected to fund their classroom themselves, I can definitely understand why more than 2,000 teachers decided not to teach rather than taking a teaching position which placed them in a low-peforming school. (page 251). The article states, "There are often more students than the classrooms are able to accommodate Rather than buidling new buildings, urban schools have created a booming industry for modular companies who supply the portable buildings visible on the grounds of urban schools in cities across the nation." The article goes on to say that the long term lease combined with the standard upkeep of the modules may end up being more costly than if the district erected a new building from the get-go. What are portable buildings? If anyone knows please post a comment, but I assume they are like school trailers that are meant to be classroom substitutes. We have them in my home town, but I'm not sure if they are the same. Anyways, it is an obvious problem that by having too many students in a class, resources are even more limited and students cannot receive the personalized instruction that they need. What I was thinking, however, is: I wonder how much corruption exists with these types of situations? I am sure that at some point, some higher-up decided to use "so and so" modular company in order to line his or her own pockets. Unfortunately, it happens all the time and contributes to the problem.
Another interesting point made is that the curriculum in urban schools is usually "structured to include only a few honors and advanced placement classes." Why not challenge the students? It seems to me that if the teachers, administration, and community at large expect these students to perform at a low to moderate level, that is what will happen. I think that if given the opportunity and the resources, the students would do very well in the honors/AP courses. I guess there is a problem in finding the resources, however. Urban schools often have to deal with district and state policies which affect what can be done in the classroom.

In colleges and universities across the country, it is important for future teachers to have instructors who address the concerns of urban schools. Future teachers need to be informed and prepared for the harsh realities that exist. On page 253, it states that "In continuing to study her university classrooms, Obiday put forth the notion of students' resistance as a self-protective coping mechanism from a "truth" that is so radically different from individual novice teachers' long held truth that accepting this new truth would cause these individuals to experience social and emotional pain." This idea of truth just reminded me of an article I read last semester by David Bohm called On Dialogue which talks about dialogue and perceived truths. If we are to change anything, we must engage in a type of dialogue which gets everything out in the open. In order to help make these schools more conducive to learning, the real issues must be addressed and not skirted around.

In his article, Bohm talks about opinions and how “Opinions tend to be experienced as ‘truths’, even though they may only be your own assumptions and your own background. You got them from your teacher, your family, or by reading, or in yet some other way. Then for one reason or another you are identified with them, and you defend them.” If any person or if a group of people are to engage in a dialogue, it seems a difficult task for anyone to understand that their opinion is not law. Bohm goes on to list several examples, including scientists, corporate executives, and religious people.

In order to have a true dialogue, members within the dialogue must understand that there is no winner or loser, as Bohm describes. It is not a debate where people give opinions and argue to try and defend a particular position but rather a venue where people can talk openly and try to come to some new meaning or new understanding on a given topic. From what I have gathered through my limited experience in the subject, dialogues are designed to try and get at the unknown or unfamiliar territory. I believe that people must understand that the process involved may not always be a pleasant one. There will be people who get upset, who are disturbed, or who are uneasy. All of the positive and negative emotions and feelings are part of the process. These varied emotions would seem to indicate that the path the group took a particular conversation was different than what was expected. If someone was annoyed or disturbed at points in a conversation, it probably means that something that was said went against the person’s opinion or assumptions. This goes back to Bohm’s original point that people generally accept their opinions as truths. The dialogue serves to open all participants up to new possibilities and new meanings and new understandings.