WWSD

I think a major difference between teaching standardized curriculum versus a praxis model is the praxis model requires educators to be much more prepared, present and observant. When using standardized curriculum, yes a teacher may run into difficulties relaying information in the banking model of education, but typically the problems will be routine. There will be FAQ's that the teacher will be prepared to handle and probably some behavioral issues as well. Let me just say I am in no way saying teaching is easy. However in the praxis model of education the limits as to what is and isn't curriculum are expanded, the lines of real life and education are blended together making the questions and topics much more personal and relevant and in turn more important to the students and hopefully educators.

In Shultz's case he was able to work with his students, not just as an advocate but along side them towards a common goal. This required him to be more prepared and ready to pick up on 405's desire to make change. I think Shultz's ability to preserve space to go where he never imagined is one of his best qualities as a teacher who is successful in a praxis model. To limit the possibilities of 405's project would smother the classroom energy and desire for change. Shultz picks up on key moments of frustration in the classroom and allows the students to control the direction of their learning. "Most of the problems on that list have to do with our school building bein' messed up. Our school is a dump that's the problem!" In this instance Shultz creates the space for the students to be in charge of their own project and education. Shultz is also present, he is able to identify the strengths of his students in the classroom. Acknowledging his students capabilities and strengths gives Shultz the ability to understand how to assist their education. "..They told me, there was little nurturing of the strengths or abilities learned outside of school, but rather a devaluing of their adaptive abilities and street intelligences.


  



  
  

Why Relavent Pedagogy?

According to our readings, our educational structure in the current climate is set up to create winners and losers. The winners become economically successful with sometimes fulfilling jobs and live in economically prosperous neighborhoods with well-funded schools. The losers end up with typically labor intensive jobs in economically deprived neighborhoods with under-funded schools. Our public school structures promote these social and economic inequities through generalized standards across the board independent of the opportunity students have to be successful in this system. It's set up to create winners and losers and Duncan points out that the system does exactly what it is designed to do.

Relevant pedagogy escapes the suffocating nature of an educational system based on standards and tests. It redesigns curriculum to shift the focus towards issues relevant to students lives and communities. Duncan states that factoring communities and students lives into education can prevent the student from having to choose between their community and an education. When there is that pull between choosing home or education I believe that diminishes the experience of learning. Education is good and I believe education can be freeing for everyone because it helps you learn how to expand on your beliefs, thoughts and interests. When there is a separation between what is relevant to you and an expectation of what should be important(curriculum) there is a loss of self which is unfortunate because it hurts the reality of the experience. Shifting the focus from standardized curriculum and making it relevant creates opportunities for learning that are otherwise lost. I believe creating opportunities to involve students in praxis is a good way to achieve real education.