Lefty’s “crash courses in the higher superstitions of certain autism and education experts” has made Lefty see fairy tales in a new light.
In my childhood memories, (The Ugly Duckling) simply tells how someone who looks uglier than his more conventional peers can ultimately come into a beauty of his own. But then last night, as my daughter and I discussed how our hero wouldn’t seem ugly to swans, I suddenly saw his story as allegorizing the negative impressions wrought by narrow socio-cultural standards.
Imagine a world whose norms (are) . . . “appropriate†interactions with peers and eager participation in group projects and class discussions. Such norms convert the quiet, disengaged introvert into an uncooperative, undeserving freak.
Until, we hope, she finds birds of a feather who appreciate all she is.
Is there less room for odd ducks in today’s schools?
To answer your question: it, unfortunately, depends. It depends on the administrator: is he or she the type of person that would give a student Saturday School for having a swash of color in their hair? It depends on the teacher: is he or she the type of person that remembers what it was like to spend your school days wrestling your identity, even going so far as to put that swash of color in your hair to try out a new costume for the day?
Case in point: I am a middle school teacher who finds that many of these “odd ducks” are quite successful in her classroom. In fact, in meetings with other teachers, I have heard them exclaim about a particular shared student, “What a pain” or, “That kid does nothing.” But as Matthew Needleman says, “They’re not bored, you’re boring.” Anyway, every year the recommendations for 8th grade honors comes around and every year I look over my 7th grade brood and get excited at how many are academically eligible to apply. And then I look at the bulleted list of requirements and sigh. #3 on the list? “Amiable Personality.”
I argue every year. What the heck does that mean? Who gets to judge what is unamiable and what is creative academic protest in the presence of an intolerent teacher?
And how ’bout this little tid-bit: in a Title I school of 49% Asian and 49% Latino, our honors classes are only made up of Asian and Caucasian (a group that makes up less than 1% of our district population).
Now, I’m not saying that our current honors teacher makes certain groups purposefully ineligible. I am saying that the teachers who recommend these students do so based on criteria that does not encourage diversity.
I have recently been approached to teach 8th grade honors next year. (Cue the villainous wringing of my hands and the obligatory neh-he-heh). I hope that the “odd ducks” (who make up, by my estimate, at least 10% of our school’s population) get proper representation. And that bulleted line that says, “amiable personality?” That will be replaced by “critical, creative thinker.”
We need to be accepting of, but wary of strangers – and friends.
One of my children is an “odd duck.” That is one of the reasons we ended up homeschooling. He isn’t a kid who fits in easily or quickly. In homeschooling circles he gets along pretty well, but has limited success with the public-schooled kids he encounters in scouts, little league, etc.
I was thrilled to come across Lefty’s site. Thanks for posting the link.
Re Heather W-G.
The opposite of “amiable” is not “unamiable,” it’s “surly.” Any of which can be attached to “critical, creative thinkers.” I’m a high school teacher who has no problems with misfits and odd ducks; but creative anarchists need a den of their own to gather in and decry the normalcy of doing well at what they are supposed to be doing in school. Perhaps your 8th grade honors class would be a nourishing environment for them?
I think there’s a place for group work in education, and of course some kids are better at it than others. That’s why it’s better to do it once in a while, when it really supports what you happen to be doing, and absolutely not every single day.
The real problem is administrators at all levels who take the preposterous position that there is only one way to teach, and that everyone must teach this way and all kids must learn this way all the time.
Every September I see these people, and every September they say they were all wrong last September, but that this new way, whatever it may be, is the one and only way, and that no human progress can occur until absolutely everyone follows it all the time. I marvel that these people continue to draw salaries to say these things.