Herzberg: Oof X2
I have very mixed feelings concerning Herzberg's “Community Service and Critical Teaching” article. Though I am fond of universities encouraging community partnerships, I have reservations for their functionality on a practical level.
The cognitive load is worrisome. I get "challenging"...In fact, I love challenging; however, when stretching the mental capacity of students in search of this degree of growth, oversight is bound to occur. Margin of error? Exponential. Students who are introduced to the term ‘meritocracy,’ as they are introduced to Mike Rose’s Lives on the Boundary, as they are to Kozol’s Savage Inequalities, as they are to Gramsci’s theory on hegemonic systems such as Alger’s “Bootstrap” motif… these students are bound to implode.
Is Herzberg truly convinced that his students have reached an understanding, a firm grasp of the content, the theoretical frameworks, AND the pedagogical implications of their chosen strategies (…that’s right, they read Perspectives on Literacy, too!)? Herzberg even confesses, “It is difficult, as I have said, for my students to understand these ideas, let alone deal with them critically” (315). This is not to say I am not fan-girling over the philanthropic opportunities, rather I am disgusted by the impossibility of it all. Similar to critical pedagogy, how much is truly possible in the time we have, the system we’re given?
On top of introducing the myth that is American exceptionalism to students, students are expected to profile and tutor those who are illiterate, schizophrenic, second-language learners who struggle with phonetics, pregnant women, etc.? Like ten hours of preliminary tutor training “designed to sensitize them to the problems and attitudes of illiterate adults as well as to provide them with some teaching materials and methods” is really enough (310). Oof. Without this component (the actual partnership), I found this course to be a handful.
I think the conclusion illustrates how much is too much, really:
Some students referred to their tutoring experience in their papers…Most of the students did not, however, incorporate the tutoring experience in the research papers they wrote for my class. This was as it should be: The goal of the course was not, as I have explained, to facilitate the tutoring experience, but to investigate (316).
My question: If tutoring is not the experience, but rather the activity, does this not feel as though those tutees who chose to participate were cheated? Were treated as guinea pigs so that privileged students could dabble in disparity (“Now you know what it would be like to be _____”). Bigger oof.
More to come in a future response paper. I am not angered, but I have thoughts. I want this to work, but from my perspective (yes, of course, a novice amongst the great pedagogues), I’m still in a place of questioning “How?”
Kelli,
ReplyDeleteI really appreciate the points you've brought up here. Honestly, I was also at a loss for how this huge lesson/activity and transformation in students' thinking could take place in one semester. And though it's a nice idea, it feels that if we're placing this supposed accomplishment of Herzberg up on a pedestal, it puts teachers (especially new teachers, like us) under an incredible amount of pressure. If Herzberg can do it, can't we? I'm not saying it's necessarily impossible, but it doesn't feel like something I could pull off in semester, with all of our requirements for our courses in mind, and stay sane--let alone make sure my students are participating at the level necessary.
What I really liked what the point you brought up at the end, that the tutees (who are actually in need in this scenario) are being used as guinea pigs. I get that Herzberg was taking his students beyond this experience surface-level experience--they weren't supposed to come in, tutor these adults, and then come away with the idea that they were more fortunate and that they should recognize how much better off they are. It makes sense to me that they're thinking about levels of privilege--(white) students should get a conversation about privilege at some point. It's important. I think your point about not making the experience necessarily about actually helping the tutees is valid--because that's what the experience is for them. But at the same time, I think it's good that Herzberg is leading them to question the systems in place around us, as well as who put them there and who they benefit.
Lots of thoughts here . . .
Thanks for sharing, Kelli.