OneAndOneIs2

Yesterday we were going over a bunch of Subject Knowledge stuff. As part of Newton's laws of motion, we talked about rockets and orbital mechanics.

Obviously it stayed with me because last night I dreamed I watched the space rocket take off, then that I was aboard when it docked at the International Space Station.

I suspect my dream was a little inaccurate here and there, unless there really IS a Starbucks on the ISS and it's genuinely close enough to Earth to have a breathable atmosphere. But the dream-vision of the Earth from space was very impressive.

Sadly, other days when we're at university aren't so hot. The non-subject ones, for starters. Usually they irritate mildly, but Monday really, really got to me.

We're supposed to write logs of what we've (allegedly) learned and how we'll apply it to our future teaching practice. Monday's activities lead me to write three pages of report that basically tear the entire day's activities and content to shreds - It was that bad. Normally it's little things like being told we must engage the pupils in two-way discourse - in an hour-long lecture - or being told how important it is to differentiate work for pupils of mixed ability - and then be sent off to all do exactly the same task - that get our backs up. I'm used to that and don't really bother recording it any more.

So now I'm debating whether or not to hand this report in, or just leave it as a rant and write a more tactful alternative. Bearing in mind that the person who will be marking it was responsible for everything other than the lecture on racism, what do YOU think..?

SESSION TOPICS: Homophobia and racism

Two lectures were delivered in the morning, one on homophobia and one on racism. Due to a lack of working projector, the presentations were hampered slightly by being paper printouts only.

The homophobia presentation provided interesting information but did not always supply relevant context: It is worth knowing that “50% gay students who had been bullied at school contemplated self-harm or suicide” but it is difficult to make a useful conclusion about this figure (Q21) without knowing what percentage of gay students are bullied or what percentage of non-gay bullying victims consider self-harm or suicide. Such information is vital to make the judgement posed later in the day as to which forms of bullying are “most important” to deal with. Additionally, the main emphasis on the rationale given for such bullying was that homosexuality disturbed “notions of masculinity”, making the bullies feel threatened – implying that homophobic bullying is an exclusively male issue.

There was also no attention given to the fact that homophobic name-calling does not necessarily equate to homophobic attitudes, but is simply a convenient insult to hurl: “Many adolescent boys say that the worst thing anyone can call you is 'gay'” (Mellor, 2004); nor was any mention made that “the majority of victims in schools are either too young to be certain about their sexual orientation - or are heterosexual” (Mellor, 2004).

As a result, I find this presentation difficult to use to reflect upon the issue it raised, as it left out what I consider to be key information. However, within my subject specialism, the main “scientific” objection raised against homosexuality is that “It's unnatural.” In fact, homosexuality is commonplace throughout the animal kingdom, something which can be stressed to challenge this preconception; and it can also be stressed that almost everything humans do is unnatural: Driving cars, wearing glasses, taking medicine, buying food, etc. so to consider one practice “bad” because it is “not natural” whilst others are unacceptable is hypocritical in the extreme.

The second topic was racism (Q18). Again, this presentation was difficult to use as a source of information on the topic. The only aspect of racism addressed was that between white and non-white ethnicities. There was no acknowledgement at all of the existence of any other type of inter-ethnic racism, despite this being a type of racism extreme enough to cause instances such as hundreds of deaths in “bloody conflict between Hispanic and black gangs” in Los Angeles (Guardian newspaper, 2007). Additionally, despite the presenter placing great emphasis on matters such as 'race' (Q19), she persistently referred to “English” when she meant “British” - to the resentment of some non-English British members of the audience; and played down audience questions/comments so brusquely that one individual who wished to make an observation commented afterwards that he was seriously considering making a formal complaint after the way he was dealt with. Such behaviour made it very hard to accept the notion that bullying and racial matters were as important as the presenter was saying: Inconsistencies between information and attitude are something I will try to avoid in my own practice.

There was a useful note made for the science teacher when it was pointed out that there was no “scientific” distinction between races: Genetically and physiologically, a human is a human, whether black, white, or Asian. This is something that can be usefully stressed in classes.

Following the second lecture, there was a regrettable continuation of the “mixed messages”, as statements about the importance of the topic and the value of debating it were sharply at odds with the constant pressure to deal with each issue as quickly as possible in order to move onto the next due to time constraints. This despite the fact that it has been observed that the best teaching “involved teaching in depth. Where done fleetingly, learners failed to see” (Historical Association, 2007) and that it might therefore have been better to cover one aspect thoroughly rather than skim over as many as possible.

Debate in small groups was constructive within the groups, but there was very little opportunity for the groups to share their conclusions with the rest of the class. Additionally, where stated views differed from the desired conclusions, there was no opportunity for inclusion of differing opinions via debate, but an almost-abrupt “No, that is wrong” attitude. One particular issue that several students felt strongly about was the argument that racist and homophobic bullying were more important than other types, with the sole justification given for this attitude being that children have been killed in racist or homophobic attacks. This blatantly ignores the fact that “at least 16 children kill themselves each year because they are being bullied at school” (Suicide and Mental Health Association International 2006) and these deaths are no less tragic for being less direct than the overt murderous attacks. A significant proportion of students felt that bullying in any form should be considered equally unacceptable, and compartmentalisation into subjective “more or less” important sub-groups could only harm efforts to prevent a bullying culture. It is regrettable that no time or credence was given to these views, as students felt strongly enough about it to remain behind after the timetabled end of the session to discuss it amongst themselves.

Lastly, the thing that made it most difficult of all to reflect upon the day's topic or build it into our teaching practice (Q7a) was the lack of information given on how to deal with it. This would have been valuable for standard Q5, but received only a simplistic “Challenge racist or homophobic epithets” and a very large handout, which there was no time to read and which was very difficult to extract relevant information on. It was very difficult to work out what exact action we as student teachers, or as NQTs in future, should take on this topic from this day's content. Too much time was spent on impressing the importance of the problem on pupils who would already have readily agreed that bullying exists and must be dealt with, and almost none was devoted to ways in which we could effectively deal with it as part of standard Q30. This in spite of the fact that the teachers recognised as being better at dealing with bullying are simply those who are better at listening to pupils (Oliver and Candappa, 2003), a piece of advice that could have been usefully given at any time throughout the day and which should have been highlighted, as it is a part of standard Q4 and thus a necessary part of becoming a teacher as well as a desirable attribute.

For these reasons, I was unable to apply the day's content to my own teaching practice and will have to instead rely upon my own researches into the matter (Q7b)


Bibliography:
Guardian newspaper (2007), “Gang mayhem grips LA” via website:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2036580,00.html

Historical Association, (2007), “Teaching Emotive and Controversial History” via the DFES website: http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RW100.pdf

Mellor A (2004), “Information for Schools on Homophobic Bullying”, website: http://www.antibullying.net/homophobicinfo3.htm

Oliver and Candappa (2003), “Tackling Bullying”, via the DFES website:
http://www.dfes.gov.uk/bullying/pdf/Childline%20DP%20Bullying%20(download).pdf

Suicide and Mental Health Association International (2006), “Common Symptoms of PTSD”, website:
http://suicideandmentalhealthassociationinternational.org/commptsdsym.html

Tactful, isn't it..?