Keira Chapter 3

Although I was feeling pretty skeptical of Smith and Wilhelm's project at the end of Chapter 2, I revived my receptivity considerably during Chapter 3. Unfortunately, Chevys did lose me again at the end of this Chapter (I'll explain why later in this entry). But most of Chapter 3 was compelling to me.

In Chapter 3 Smith and Wilhelm bring together Csikszentmihalyi (the flow guy) and Dewey (Democracy and Education). (They do not explicitly return to the distinction between the aesthetic and efferent stance that played such a crucial role in Chapter 2, but I could see the continued relevance of that distinction, and I predict that it will be explicitly re-invoked in Chapter 4.) I did not see this marriage (so to speak) coming at all, and I did actually experience what felt like a revelation. ALL the boys in the study understood education as preparation rather than as a process of growth (the distinction between preparation and process of growth comes from Dewey); most went so far as to construe "school and reading" as "an obstacle to overcome to get where you want to go" (67). "Children proverbially live in the present: that is not only a fact not to be evaded, but it is an excellence," writes Dewey (qtd. in Smith and Wilhelm 66). It's an excellence compatible with Csikszentmihali's flow experiences--well, AND with the aesthetic stance as described by Rosenblatt and others. And yet, the boys did not experience "healthy work" as Dewey understands it in English class; relatedly, they did not experience "flow." They did not successfully occupy an aesthetic stance when reading for class. What was a kind of breath taking for me was the extent to which they didn't even think of this healthy work/ flow/ aesthetic reading as a POSSIBILITY in connection with "schoolish" reading.

They didn't even know it when they saw it. 

What I mean by this last statement is that, when the boys in the study read a profile of a boy who is an enthusiastic reader, they are ALL completely blind to the description of his experience. Here are the second, third, and fourth sentences of the profile: "Occasionally, Andre feels overwhelmed by family pressures. However, reading puts his mind at ease. When Andre reads a book, his mind is completely absorbed by the characters" (60). Smith and Wilhelm tell us that they expected their boys to call Andre a "faggot" or "sissy" and just generally reject him as not adequately masculine; other studies in this field have concluded that the problem with boys and English class has to do with their perception of school reading as "feminine" (71). But, interestingly, only one of the boys in the Chevys study had anything like that type of reaction to Andre. The other boys generally admired Andre and focused on the future success they imagined for him as a teacher or librarian!!!!! Again: they did not acknowledge Andre's absorption in his reading. They focused on his FUTURE.

Clearly, these boys don't know the excellent children's librarian at my local branch of the SF Public Library who can never get more than 20 hours of work there per week. Or all my friends with PhDs in English earning $3000 per course (with no benefits or job security). They definitely don't know that 75% of teachers in US higher education are stuck in PART-TIME jobs. They clearly don't know me.

If we're talking about money here and future security, the boys could be better off fixing them some chevys.

The boys completely, utterly, totally misconstrue what is--or should be--on offer in English class. Smith and Wilhelm blame the teachers. I might at least acknowledge that it's the culture at large that's at the root of the problem, but I do agree with the authors of Chevys that English teachers in secondary school can and should do better.

*********************************************************************************

Now for what I didn't like about Chapter 3. I was underwhelmed by the description of the themed unit that Wilhelm taught to his class. The theme was "What are the costs and benefits of the American emphasis on sports?" Wilhelm bemoaned the fact that he somehow (due to the demands of curriculum) work in Death of a Salesman, but he did stick the play into his unit--but way too apologetically, in my view. I was reminded of my Grade 11 teacher who was obliged to teach The Two Solitudes (note: I grew up in Canada. Americans will not have heard of this book, but it's a Canadian Classic). Anyway, the teacher in question marched angrily into class, slammed down a great big box of books and declared: "OK, kids! This is going to be a TRIP TO THE DENTIST!"

Understandably, I kind of put off reading the book. But, when I did get around to it, I found it very moving.