Fascinating, isn't it, that when a transgendered student presents with emotional challenges that inhibit learning we describe that student as distressed and offer that student counselling. When a black student presents with emotional challenges that inhibit learning we describe that student as difficult and threaten them with failure or expulsion. The self-declared mental health of each student does not really seem to be taken into account.
Responses (knee jerk) to Hartley's case study "intersection, race and the white teacher"
--ideas of self-fulfilling prophecy. If you suggest that all (loose category) students tend to (behaviour), students will site themselves within or attempt to fight against it, often causing it to happen. E.g. being known for thinking "all black students are difficult to teach" will reasonably prompt black students to find learning from you to be problematic. Is this the same as noting that "puppeteers tend to be emotionally vulnerable artists who live on narrow boats or in warehouses"?
I checked my privilege on Buzzfeed's privilege-checker. Interesting. If I ignored the aspects of my sexuality and religion that are non-binary but not particularly troubling, it declared me 'quite' privileged. If I acknowledged those aspects of myself even though they are irrelevant in my community (bisexual but happily married to a man who knows and isn't bothered by it. Atheist in a broadly atheist society. Overweight but strong in a workplace that values that. Had roommates because I chose to move to an expensive, crowded city.) it said I was not privileged. I am privileged, but the questions are built for persons of a specific age and location that defines these struggles differently. Particularly when it comes to sexuality. Had I been more assertive at a younger age maybe I would have had the conflicts and responses listed. Had I mentioned that I was attracted to girls maybe someone in my community would have intervened, or threatened or assaulted me. I didn't, specifically because I didn't want the attention, and I didn't want to put myself at unnecessary risk. The fun part about being bisexual is that you can behave like a garden-variety hetero without feeling like you're pretending. You can participate in the prescribed milestones without raising eyebrows. And deep down, you assume everyone is actually exactly like yourself. (Because they totally are.)
I think where Hartley struggles in her feedback is a place where we all struggle in art and acadaemia: the relationship between artist and art. Jamie the student is angry, and is trying to communicate her anger and pain through her dissertation. Can an expression of anger in the form of poetry constitute a dissertation? If so, can this dissertation stand scrutiny of its own accord, or does the reader need to understand Jamie's background in order for it to make sense? What if you Do include a comprehensive biography of the artist in the back? Or at least, footnote the relevant aspects of her life and thinking? Is the dissertation research that contributes to the corpus of knowledge in the field? Or was Hartley effectively being bullied into allowing acceptance of a non-researched expression of opinion as a degree-level dissertation? Is there is an argument for lived experience to be permitted to supplant published scholarship as a basis for research?
Ronit and her hand. Was it scholarship? Was it a dissertation? Was it even art? Or was it an attempt to use a project as therapy? Could she have benefited more from therapy? What is our role as teachers and facilitators of learning when a student is clearly not even attempting to study, but is just working a wound in front of us and calling it scholarship? Is it discrimination to refuse a student from a course who is not only distinctly mentally unwell, but who intends fully to explore the extents of their mental health as their research, in ways that put herself and potentially others at risk of physical harm?
Consider this blog. I as writer occasionally include personal information to back up or situate my thinking. I'm careful to justify my thinking either through the background information given or to justify it through a visible logical progression. If x then y. While (as is the case with all deductive logic) it is possible for my starting set of information (x) to be deeply flawed, as long as y responds to x properly, it is an argument. (I am a frog, and frogs are green. Therefore, I'm green. I am not a frog, and not all frogs are green, but aside from that the argument is water-tight.) In my writing I seek to consider the point of consideration itself, and only it. While of course my own lived experience is going to influence how I engage with that point or concept (or if I even choose to engage with it at all) and will undoubtedly influence my choice of supporting data as I try to justify my opinion of the concept, the whole discussion--question, answer and supporting data--should be present in the document. You shouldn't need to know me for it to make some form of sense. I can't just Be Angry. I need to communicate at whom or what I am angry, why this angers me, and what would be better in this situation. For instance: I am angry at Border Control for imposing new, expensive, discriminatory and deliberately harmful family immigration laws with the stated goal of reducing net migration. I am angry because they negatively impact me in an unfair way, and I am helpless to fight it because if I do I will be deported. A better solution would be to have laws that conformed to standard EU regulations about immigration.
Responses to The Labelling of African-American Boys in Special Education
Dude, lady. You just silenced a young man, who has just declared that it is his one goal to be heard, by summarising his statement and skipping to the end. I sincerely doubt that all those ellipses are pauses in Jessie's narrative--they're spots where you left out what he said. He's finally got a chance to be heard and all you're doing is listening for the thematic elements to support the gist of your article. You're not helping him, you have no intention of helping him, you're just using him to illustrate your frankly axiomatic points! You're like one of those National Geographic photographers who stands by to document it while a village is set on fire or a lion eats a starving four year old. You've come in, prodded the poor kid until he talked to you, gotten him good and pissed off, taken your notes and left when you were confident you had enough AAVE-spiced text to make it sound genuine. You've just met a 16-year old who has been trapped in a spite-driven reduced education programme since the second grade, who appears to be at least as articulate as any other teenager in spite of this, and all you can think to do is construct a narrative to suggest that his internal and external senses of identity are influenced by these facts? Why not start a fucking march? Lobby the school board to have the special education programme audited? Do something? ALSO, you tried to use Jessie's testimony to illustrate the concerning points from the outset, that black boys are passive and apathetic, but in antagonising the lad you've demonstrated that he is neither of these things. He's upset, he knows he's smarter than his academic level, and because his lessons lack challenge for him he occupies his mind with other things, like picking fights with his teachers. There is nothing passive, apathetic or broken about him.
Tuesday, October 24, 2017
Sunday, October 15, 2017
Inclusion (18/10/2017, my 33rd birthday)
I've listened to an inclusion testimony from a blind PhD candidate. She has had mixed reviews of how the school has allowed her to feel not only included but safe and able to work. She has always had to work extra to make room for herself in the able-centric world, and it would be nice sometimes to not have to expend so much energy fighting for simple accommodations to be made for her--not least because we do have laws in this country that require reasonable adjustments to be made to ensure disabled people have access to similar opportunities and facilities as everyone else. She was saddened and disappointed to note that her Collisions piece was the only one that made it explicit that disabled people were welcome and that accommodations would be made for them to enjoy the performance in a way that suited them. The fact that disabled people were only accommodated for in a piece that was developed by a disabled person was very telling.
Knee-jerk reaction (Reflexive reflection): We could be doing more, but what is reasonably practicable? This student deserves and is entitled to a learning environment that is ready for her, particularly when it comes to adaptive software, safe access and movement, planned egress routes and course design that allows her to participate fully. But I'm sympathetic to the staff members who were unprepared to assist her: to the best of my knowledge blind students are vanishingly rare at Central. It is not surprising or really disappointing to me that well-established teaching systems, licenses to software and advice for visiting lecturers were not in place before the student asked for them. While we should be ready and willing to leap into action to provide the support each disabled student needs, it is frankly wasteful to (for instance) pay to maintain a license to software to assist the blind when we don't have a blind student in the building, and won't know until we have one if the software we have is actually any good.
While yes it is best to have ramps, lifts and trained staff to ensure people of all mobility levels can get where they need to go and get out safely in an emergency, we must acknowledge that the oldest sections of the school were built long before the Disabilities Act, and it would require knocking down significant portions of a historic, listed building to make some of these areas accessible. Indeed, the changes that were made to the Embassy seating rake to make it handicapped-accessible have impeded the function of the seating rake. It is arguable that the rebuild caused new problems while it solved others. Once the building itself is approved as safe by the fire department, making unique plans for unique disabilities must be handled on a case-by-case basis in order to be useful.
Yes, it was unacceptable that IT forgot to reinstall the useful software on the designated blind-accessible library computer after the update--but if you know our IT department, you know that that is par for the course with them. It was not a deliberate attempt to harm or get away with neglecting a disabled student, as they are just as likely to forget her software as the principal's. Yes, it was pretty shitty that a VL came in and made no adjustments to allow her participate in his or her class--but if it was the first (and probably last) time we saw that VL, how can we expect to improve them? VLs are transient by their very nature. We continue to try again. Sometimes we strike gold. Most of the time we don't.
Yes we have room to improve. But when do we have opportunities to practice? We can take classes and watch slide shows for months and have no more readiness than if we were merely reminded of the law once a year and only hired decent, well-meaning people.
Response to my initial response: Physically disabled students may be vanishingly rare at Central because we suck at accommodating them. We might be more popular among disabled people if we were more ready to begin with, if we made it clear that every show is disabled-friendly, or ready to be disabled-friendly with a little bit of notice. I don't know how practicable it is to, for instance, have a described service, or super-titles or BSL interpretation for at least some performances. I don't know what would be desirable for or most useful to students and members of the public, but I'm sure there are ways of finding out. I know that we can do more, but it would be helpful to understand if there is a compelling reason to do more.
Like in the workshop. Is it reasonable to accept a student into the class who is physically or intellectually incapable of using industry-standard workshop equipment safely? While it might be possible for a big institution to purchase or make adaptive tools and train everyone to work with and around a disabled person, are we really doing the student any favours in the long run? How likely is this person going to be to find a job out in the industry with the funding, time and people to help them work? Would training a student in this manner be disingenuous? Would we be giving them false hope that there is a place for them in the industry? Do we have a real chance of changing the industry from beneath or within to make room for disabled people? If it can be argued that industry-readiness isn't the point of education, how does that impact our relationship with ability-typical BATP students?
I've read an inclusion testimony from an MA student who struggles with mental health issues. I agree that we have no excuse for allowing teachers to judge students' appearances against one another. That's not just mean-spirited, it is academically useless. I'm a bit baffled as to what the teacher was trying to do in this instance. Odd.
I've read inclusion testimonies from two MA students who struggle with learning disabilities. Students C and D. Both of these women have difficulty with cognition and found classes frustrating, as they went too fast and seemed to plough through ideas with reckless abandon. Student C had a hard time paying attention to a lecture for more than an hour and believes all students benefit from repetition and simplicity in lessons. Student D found question-based teaching frustrating, and would prefer for the right answer to be provided clearly and succinctly if there is a right answer to be had.
An important takeaway from Student C:
"Most students in a room will appreciate clear signposting and structure. Start there first.
Two important takeaways from Student D:
"Intellectual frustration at not being able to grasp an academic concept, knowing that I don't know how to do it, but not being told how to do it, as if in being told it would somehow remove part of the attainment I would feel by finally achieving. . . . It's as if the feeling of being unable to understand academic expectation is compounded by course information/learning support/staff being unclear and hard to understand, a paranoid conspiracy of not telling! . . . The frustration of lack of explanation [outweighs] the perceived tarnished attainment of the journey."
(Many students tune out and do not intellectually engage in the content if they believe the 'right answer' will eventually be given to them. Many tutors have found that asking students to volunteer some of the course content keeps them awake and attentive, and indeed old style teaching which did just hand out answers and expect students to regurgitate them later for the test has been repeatedly found to have a dulling effect on enthusiasm and enquiry. I disagree fully with Student D's suggestion.)
"[I perceive a] lack of understanding about what it actually feels like to take on academia/study when you have an SpLD. Sometimes, help is given from outside the understanding of what an SpLD is. E.g. it's as if the help being offered has been designed by someone who does not have an SpLD, so the information is not quite on the money, not quite helpful enough, just missing the mark."
(To what extent do people with learning disabilities help other people with learning disabilities? Do dyslexic people need non-dyslexics to help them, or could a network of dyslexics be self-supporting? Is there research on this subject?)
I've read an inclusion testimony from an MA student who is transgendered and struggles with her emotional health. She had a fairly positive experience at our school, which surprised her. She had one significant issue where external support was erroneously withdrawn, but her tutors were helpful during this period and she was able to continue to study. She did well in classes that focussed on the individual.
Issues that all of the testimonies seem to share:
-each disabled student feels it is appropriate to change the way classes are taught to more specifically cater to their disability.
-each student who by their declaration struggles with emotional and mental health expresses that they need and deserve dedicated, regular care from the school.
I must wonder. Is it appropriate to change the way classes are taught to more specifically cater towards intellectually disabled students? Should teachers adjust classes only when disabled students are known to be present, or change their teaching styles full-stop regardless of the student cohort? How will this impact neuro-typical students? How many students at our school could be described as neurologically typical? Emotionally typical?
A neuro-typical, emotionally "well-balanced" student would likely also benefit from the support that students with learning difficulties or mental health issues receive to bring them up to speed. What is the cut-off point for, for example, a dyslexic student, before one might question if the student is being unfairly advantaged? To what extent does our system of assessing new students unfairly advantage those who have managed to secure a diagnosis of a learning disability (usually at significant cost) over those who either have an undiagnosed or un-diagnosable learning disability, or are just not clever?
Is it appropriate to start with the assumption that all students, with suitable support, are equally capable of learning? Of high academic achievement? Is it ever fair for a student to fail because they didn't grasp the concept? Is it fair to slow down or belabour the point for an entire class for the sake of one student? Is it fair to leave a student behind on the classroom floor (metaphorically speaking) if they are able to record the session and have a private tutor? Who's responsibility is the private tutor? Why?
Where is the line when it comes to challenging a class to engage actively with the subject versus "spoon-feeding" them the right answers? We work in the arts--there rarely are right answers. Much of arts academia is exploration of questions and finding ways to site them within your own thinking. When your task is navel-gazing, who's belly button is the default?
Student C advises would-be lecturers to keep it simple and repeat themselves to reinforce concepts. This behaviour among lecturers would bore me to tears and probably push me out of the class. The whole point of higher education is to engage deeply, think critically, ask questions and expand not only your comprehension but the parameters of what you appreciate that you do not know. To what extent is accommodating for disabled people actively harmful to the able-bodied and able-minded?
Knee-jerk reaction (Reflexive reflection): We could be doing more, but what is reasonably practicable? This student deserves and is entitled to a learning environment that is ready for her, particularly when it comes to adaptive software, safe access and movement, planned egress routes and course design that allows her to participate fully. But I'm sympathetic to the staff members who were unprepared to assist her: to the best of my knowledge blind students are vanishingly rare at Central. It is not surprising or really disappointing to me that well-established teaching systems, licenses to software and advice for visiting lecturers were not in place before the student asked for them. While we should be ready and willing to leap into action to provide the support each disabled student needs, it is frankly wasteful to (for instance) pay to maintain a license to software to assist the blind when we don't have a blind student in the building, and won't know until we have one if the software we have is actually any good.
While yes it is best to have ramps, lifts and trained staff to ensure people of all mobility levels can get where they need to go and get out safely in an emergency, we must acknowledge that the oldest sections of the school were built long before the Disabilities Act, and it would require knocking down significant portions of a historic, listed building to make some of these areas accessible. Indeed, the changes that were made to the Embassy seating rake to make it handicapped-accessible have impeded the function of the seating rake. It is arguable that the rebuild caused new problems while it solved others. Once the building itself is approved as safe by the fire department, making unique plans for unique disabilities must be handled on a case-by-case basis in order to be useful.
Yes, it was unacceptable that IT forgot to reinstall the useful software on the designated blind-accessible library computer after the update--but if you know our IT department, you know that that is par for the course with them. It was not a deliberate attempt to harm or get away with neglecting a disabled student, as they are just as likely to forget her software as the principal's. Yes, it was pretty shitty that a VL came in and made no adjustments to allow her participate in his or her class--but if it was the first (and probably last) time we saw that VL, how can we expect to improve them? VLs are transient by their very nature. We continue to try again. Sometimes we strike gold. Most of the time we don't.
Yes we have room to improve. But when do we have opportunities to practice? We can take classes and watch slide shows for months and have no more readiness than if we were merely reminded of the law once a year and only hired decent, well-meaning people.
Response to my initial response: Physically disabled students may be vanishingly rare at Central because we suck at accommodating them. We might be more popular among disabled people if we were more ready to begin with, if we made it clear that every show is disabled-friendly, or ready to be disabled-friendly with a little bit of notice. I don't know how practicable it is to, for instance, have a described service, or super-titles or BSL interpretation for at least some performances. I don't know what would be desirable for or most useful to students and members of the public, but I'm sure there are ways of finding out. I know that we can do more, but it would be helpful to understand if there is a compelling reason to do more.
Like in the workshop. Is it reasonable to accept a student into the class who is physically or intellectually incapable of using industry-standard workshop equipment safely? While it might be possible for a big institution to purchase or make adaptive tools and train everyone to work with and around a disabled person, are we really doing the student any favours in the long run? How likely is this person going to be to find a job out in the industry with the funding, time and people to help them work? Would training a student in this manner be disingenuous? Would we be giving them false hope that there is a place for them in the industry? Do we have a real chance of changing the industry from beneath or within to make room for disabled people? If it can be argued that industry-readiness isn't the point of education, how does that impact our relationship with ability-typical BATP students?
I've read an inclusion testimony from an MA student who struggles with mental health issues. I agree that we have no excuse for allowing teachers to judge students' appearances against one another. That's not just mean-spirited, it is academically useless. I'm a bit baffled as to what the teacher was trying to do in this instance. Odd.
I've read inclusion testimonies from two MA students who struggle with learning disabilities. Students C and D. Both of these women have difficulty with cognition and found classes frustrating, as they went too fast and seemed to plough through ideas with reckless abandon. Student C had a hard time paying attention to a lecture for more than an hour and believes all students benefit from repetition and simplicity in lessons. Student D found question-based teaching frustrating, and would prefer for the right answer to be provided clearly and succinctly if there is a right answer to be had.
An important takeaway from Student C:
"Most students in a room will appreciate clear signposting and structure. Start there first.
Two important takeaways from Student D:
"Intellectual frustration at not being able to grasp an academic concept, knowing that I don't know how to do it, but not being told how to do it, as if in being told it would somehow remove part of the attainment I would feel by finally achieving. . . . It's as if the feeling of being unable to understand academic expectation is compounded by course information/learning support/staff being unclear and hard to understand, a paranoid conspiracy of not telling! . . . The frustration of lack of explanation [outweighs] the perceived tarnished attainment of the journey."
(Many students tune out and do not intellectually engage in the content if they believe the 'right answer' will eventually be given to them. Many tutors have found that asking students to volunteer some of the course content keeps them awake and attentive, and indeed old style teaching which did just hand out answers and expect students to regurgitate them later for the test has been repeatedly found to have a dulling effect on enthusiasm and enquiry. I disagree fully with Student D's suggestion.)
"[I perceive a] lack of understanding about what it actually feels like to take on academia/study when you have an SpLD. Sometimes, help is given from outside the understanding of what an SpLD is. E.g. it's as if the help being offered has been designed by someone who does not have an SpLD, so the information is not quite on the money, not quite helpful enough, just missing the mark."
(To what extent do people with learning disabilities help other people with learning disabilities? Do dyslexic people need non-dyslexics to help them, or could a network of dyslexics be self-supporting? Is there research on this subject?)
I've read an inclusion testimony from an MA student who is transgendered and struggles with her emotional health. She had a fairly positive experience at our school, which surprised her. She had one significant issue where external support was erroneously withdrawn, but her tutors were helpful during this period and she was able to continue to study. She did well in classes that focussed on the individual.
Issues that all of the testimonies seem to share:
-each disabled student feels it is appropriate to change the way classes are taught to more specifically cater to their disability.
-each student who by their declaration struggles with emotional and mental health expresses that they need and deserve dedicated, regular care from the school.
I must wonder. Is it appropriate to change the way classes are taught to more specifically cater towards intellectually disabled students? Should teachers adjust classes only when disabled students are known to be present, or change their teaching styles full-stop regardless of the student cohort? How will this impact neuro-typical students? How many students at our school could be described as neurologically typical? Emotionally typical?
A neuro-typical, emotionally "well-balanced" student would likely also benefit from the support that students with learning difficulties or mental health issues receive to bring them up to speed. What is the cut-off point for, for example, a dyslexic student, before one might question if the student is being unfairly advantaged? To what extent does our system of assessing new students unfairly advantage those who have managed to secure a diagnosis of a learning disability (usually at significant cost) over those who either have an undiagnosed or un-diagnosable learning disability, or are just not clever?
Is it appropriate to start with the assumption that all students, with suitable support, are equally capable of learning? Of high academic achievement? Is it ever fair for a student to fail because they didn't grasp the concept? Is it fair to slow down or belabour the point for an entire class for the sake of one student? Is it fair to leave a student behind on the classroom floor (metaphorically speaking) if they are able to record the session and have a private tutor? Who's responsibility is the private tutor? Why?
Where is the line when it comes to challenging a class to engage actively with the subject versus "spoon-feeding" them the right answers? We work in the arts--there rarely are right answers. Much of arts academia is exploration of questions and finding ways to site them within your own thinking. When your task is navel-gazing, who's belly button is the default?
Student C advises would-be lecturers to keep it simple and repeat themselves to reinforce concepts. This behaviour among lecturers would bore me to tears and probably push me out of the class. The whole point of higher education is to engage deeply, think critically, ask questions and expand not only your comprehension but the parameters of what you appreciate that you do not know. To what extent is accommodating for disabled people actively harmful to the able-bodied and able-minded?
Did somebody say Academic Reflection?
And welcome back to round two. It has been just over five years since I last dusted off this page to smear academic writing on it, and I'm not entirely sure if I still remember how, but let's make a go of it anyway.
This year we are engaging with the Postgraduate Certificate in Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, or PGC-TLHE. Duplo Scenery is out! Augusto Boal is still probably in! But gone are those Abramovician days of the empowered, dangerously intoxicated audience injuring the actor for the sake of art! From now on unnecessary risk is Strongly Discouraged. I think. Unless it can contribute to an enhancement of pedagogy, or it is demonstrable that vulnerability on the part of the teacher or project leader can contribute to a more inclusive learning environment. I rather selfishly hope that physical vulnerability does not significantly benefit student engagement.
What do I hope to get out of this? I'm not entirely sure, in all honesty. It seems to change as a matter of routine. Sometimes I want to identify where I can improve my teaching, and discover new avenues to reach challenging students. Sometimes I want to be congratulated on my current abilities and sent away with a pay rise and a trophy, my skills completely uncontested, my presumptions and habits still firmly in place. While I am the poster child for the rule that everyone has room for improvement, and even exceptional professionals need at least a periodic chance to brush up on best practice, it sure would be nice to turn up to class only to discover that you're freaking perfect and don't need any guidance or training. Alas, after two weeks of sessions I can readily confirm that I need this class, embarrassing learning opportunities and all. hash-tag notmessiah.
So this is an intro page, or I suppose an end-point for any reader who started at the top and may be scrolling slowly backwards through my PG-Cert reflections. Hello reader. This is the end of the document but the beginning of the narrative. Everything beyond this point, while it of course in some way has impacted my thinking and will by virtue of the fact that it's a product of the same small university with the same unique ethos be in some way relevant to the text above it, is not specifically or intentionally related to my current course. Read on only if you are curious about how I thought and created while a somewhat-different student during a somewhat-different time.
This year we are engaging with the Postgraduate Certificate in Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, or PGC-TLHE. Duplo Scenery is out! Augusto Boal is still probably in! But gone are those Abramovician days of the empowered, dangerously intoxicated audience injuring the actor for the sake of art! From now on unnecessary risk is Strongly Discouraged. I think. Unless it can contribute to an enhancement of pedagogy, or it is demonstrable that vulnerability on the part of the teacher or project leader can contribute to a more inclusive learning environment. I rather selfishly hope that physical vulnerability does not significantly benefit student engagement.
What do I hope to get out of this? I'm not entirely sure, in all honesty. It seems to change as a matter of routine. Sometimes I want to identify where I can improve my teaching, and discover new avenues to reach challenging students. Sometimes I want to be congratulated on my current abilities and sent away with a pay rise and a trophy, my skills completely uncontested, my presumptions and habits still firmly in place. While I am the poster child for the rule that everyone has room for improvement, and even exceptional professionals need at least a periodic chance to brush up on best practice, it sure would be nice to turn up to class only to discover that you're freaking perfect and don't need any guidance or training. Alas, after two weeks of sessions I can readily confirm that I need this class, embarrassing learning opportunities and all. hash-tag notmessiah.
So this is an intro page, or I suppose an end-point for any reader who started at the top and may be scrolling slowly backwards through my PG-Cert reflections. Hello reader. This is the end of the document but the beginning of the narrative. Everything beyond this point, while it of course in some way has impacted my thinking and will by virtue of the fact that it's a product of the same small university with the same unique ethos be in some way relevant to the text above it, is not specifically or intentionally related to my current course. Read on only if you are curious about how I thought and created while a somewhat-different student during a somewhat-different time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)