Thoughts about the Pledge of Allegiance

I have some thoughts on our discussion of the pledge of allegiance from Monday. I wanted to sit and let them stew for a while so they can be well developed, but now I have some responses to the two questions that Dr. Banks posed to us.

1. Would you have your class say the pledge of allegiance?

Yes, I would. I think it is a valuable opportunity for teaching American values. These are my main points. Firstly, I would teach around it, it is at best useless if it is not explained and at worst it encourages students not to think about their nation. I would explain where it came from, what all the words mean, why we say it, and what we can learn from it. I would do this as part of the beginning of the year classroom routine setting so that they begin saying it while knowing it's meaning. I also think that the fact that our nation does not have liberty and justice for all, and it certainly doesn't, is a good reason to not say it, on the contrary, it turns the pledge to a call to action. I see the pledge as an oath of service to a symbol that stands for certain ideals. I believe these ideals to be good ones. A Republican form of government (in the classical sense of the word deriving from the Latin Res Publica meaning "the thing of the people", not the political party) with popular sovereignty, clear limits on the power of the government, checks and balances between different branches of government, and a written set of laws. One indivisible union of states who maintain their differences but work together towards a common good. Justice and liberty for all people before the law and among the citizenry. I think these ideals are good ones, and I also know that I do not live up to them, and that our nation and government do not always live up to them and have often flatly contradicted them. I see the space between ideals and reality to be the place where citizens can work to affect change, and by reminding ourselves and our students of these ideals, and making our oaths not to any person but to a set of principles, we become agents in the good work of bringing these ideals closer to reality.

2. Would you change any part of the pledge of allegiance?

No, it is beyond my power to do so. The pledge as it is has been appointed to be that way by the rightful authorities in government, and whether their decisions are good or ill, as an agent of the government it is my duty to represent it truthfully. If I were the person in power I would make one small tweak, and I think it is a good idea to ask students if they would change anything if they were the ones in power. Now, if the pledge I think perpetrated some great evil or lie, or put forth ideals that I believed to be harmful, for example if it promoted some sort of fascist or communist regime, I would not say it. However, I believe that the pledge is for the most part good for the reasons enumerated above. Secondly, I would not change it to a pledge to earth or humanity because we are not part of the government of earth or humanity, we are citizens of this nation, and it is our responsibility to do the good work in our own home. That is not to say that one should not advocate for people abroad, in fact it is good to do so, and I even think the government can be just in affecting change abroad. I think though that while one can have allegiance to all mankind, there is a special category of allegiance to one's own nation and this is called citizenship, and an oath like the pledge belongs within that context, there are other oaths that apply to our global neighbors. While the ideals may be for everyone, the responsibility for Americans is realizing them in America.

That was awfully long winded. The short version is this, The pledge is valuable for Americans as a way of improving America with ideals that are for everyone.

Thoughts on our Religion in Schools discussion

I think our class discussion on Religion in the Public Schools yesterday was really quite interesting, and I've been thinking about this and have a couple of questions/comments on religion in school and classroom community.

1. The scenario with the child who upon being asked what they did over the weekend says, "I was saved by Jesus." This is a delicate situation that requires a delicate touch by the teacher, but I think one thing that should be avoided is what I think of as the "kids say the darndest things approach." This is a really easy approach, and totally understandable, especially for those teachers that themselves are not religious. However, I think that it's important to acknowledge that this it is very likely that this is an important part of this child's life. If a teacher, someone whose opinion the child probably values hugely, does not seem to take the child seriously, is this building bridges to the child? Would instead a comment like, "I'm very happy for you, that must have been an important moment for you, I'm glad you felt you could share that with me," be legal/appropriate?

2. The scenario that was brought up where one child, I'll call him Johnny, offends another child's, I'll call him Paul, takes exception to this due to religious beliefs. While I understand, and support, the fact that I can't tell Johnny to put his feet down because Paul's or my own religions have some compunction against it, can I turn this into a lesson on classroom community? Could I for example explain to Johnny that when he puts his feet up it makes Paul feel like he is not welcome in our class, and while he may not himself see anything wrong with putting his feet on the furniture, everyone is different, and it helps our class when everybody loves and respects each other.Does this constitute state advancement of a religion, or does it constitute promoting a tolerant and welcoming classroom community? Or maybe both?  I hope that made sense, on a grammatical level.

I thought it was a really interesting discussion we had yesterday and I value the cohorts opinions on these matters. Whether we as individuals are religious or not, religion is in our classrooms, in incredible diversity, and this is a great opportunity! Religious freedom is an intrinsic part of the American Republic, and I am so glad we live in a nation where a students religion is not repressed. Many countries even in the developed world, I'm looking at you France, do not give this liberty. Considering that this is how America is, what do we as teachers do about it?

Flavius Arrianus

Education, Community, and Atticus Finch (Journal #3)

This week's readings on building safe and multicultural community have really got me thinking. They have me thinking about what it means to build a safe community. They have me thinking about how the school that I work at is not really a safe community, at least not entirely. And they have me thinking about my favorite book, To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee. If you have not read this masterpiece of American literature, then some of this post may not make sense. I also recommend you read it, or at the very least see the movie, it has Gregory Peck and is a very good and faithful adaptation of the great American novel.

The Greene Article discusses the need for imagination in order to build a safe community, imagination to think as others and to be outside of ourselves. This reminds me of when Atticus tells his daughter, that you never really know a person until you consider things from his point of view, until you step into his skin and walk around it. The thing is, this is not always easy, and is often very difficult, which is why many people do not do it, the benefits do not outweigh the costs for them. But teachers cannot afford to make it a choice, it is a matter of duty for those in the profession. Trying to understand a person does not always lead to agreeing with them, but what is not needed is a universal consensus, what is needed is a universal respect, and this is what builds a safe community.

The article by Sapon-Shevin discusses building a safe community for learning by embracing both student's differences and similarities alike with clear rules and structures in place. I really liked the idea of the teacher facilitating safe community building through rules and activities created by the teacher, as well the establishment of clear rules and expectations. This really spoke to me, since that's what America is all about. Our similarities and differences are both celebrated through a strong Republican government. America is not a democracy, which rules by the omnipotent will of the majority, there are clear rules in place that prevent that from being the case, and that allow real freedom and diversity to thrive.  In To Kill a Mockingbird, Atticus Finch fights for these ideals in the court, which he claims are "the nations great leveler." He charges the men on the jury to do their duty to what's right, to make the town of Maycomb a safe place for all people to not only celebrate their differences, but to celebrate being American together. American schools likewise can also function as a great leveler, if teachers will do their duty to make them a safe place for everyone. The very ethos of American civilization is expressed by Thomas Jefferson who claimed that, "all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." If it is God that made all students equal in dignity, and equal in worth, who am I to put my prejudices above the almighty?