My Dad: Gregory Alvarez (1921 – 2015)

by Barbara U. Alvarez, guest contributor

1921.  That is the year my father, Gregory Alvarez, was born.  As a high school teacher of American literature, I reveled in sharing this fact with my students, marveling to know someone who had seen firsthand so much of what for me and them is just American history:  the Roaring 20s, the Great Depression, World War II, the Sixties, and – for them still – the dawn of the 21^stCentury.

My father passed away this year and my living record of history is no more.

The author with her father Gregory Alvarez in 1962.

A native of Chicago, I have come to appreciate the vigil rituals of Texas funerals I’ve experienced in my 20 years here; after scheduled prayers, mourners are offered the opportunity to give a eulogy – a few words celebrating the life of the passing loved one.  Dad’s funeral rites happened in Chicago and - as I expected - no opportunity was afforded for giving a eulogy.  So here is mine, what I would have said given the chance…a written tribute to my dad.

His lessons were many.  I did not recognize which ones stayed with me until recently.

I was bothered by panic attacks in my 20s, going so far one night as believing myself to be having a heart attack, making my mom and roommate drive me to the emergency room.  By the time I arrived there, the attack had begun to subside, my heart no longer raced, and - but for the gracious doctor who assured me it was “always better to check these things out” - I would have felt completely idiotic, wondering why I had given in to such anxieties.  Dad said, “Get out of your head.  Stop thinking so much about yourself.  Focus on something else.”  Simple.  No psychologist, just the wise man who knew his daughter.  I never had another panic attack to that degree, and have always, always been able to talk myself out of any anxiety I experience by recalling Dad’s words, and focusing on something else.

My father often rode as passenger to my driving.  Young drivers, trying to impress or look competent, change lanes a lot, seeking the advantage, looking to be first.  Either because I lane-changed too often or because he saw others doing it, Dad said this:  “Pick a lane and stay there.  Move only to avoid an obstacle.  You won’t get where you’re going any faster, and it is safer just to stay in a lane.”  Studies prove that those who drive aggressively, weaving in and out of traffic, gain only a two second advantage over other drivers.  They are still stopped by the same red light that stops me, only they got there sooner and spent a lot of gas in getting there.  Dad was right.

When I consider them, the lessons are the same.  Be patient.  Stay focused.  Consistency in temperament, in approach to life, is more effective than erratic changes looking for the advantage.  Dad lived these principles himself, faithfully, facing challenges we today would find daunting:  six kids, Catholic education for all, college for all, one income, one wife (for 63 years).  Who today would not panic and seek a different path in the face of such responsibilities?  Yet for the years I knew him, he worked for the State of Illinois, which he touted proudly, in the department of unemployment compensation.  It is the position from which he retired.  And to subsidize, he sold furniture part time at District Furniture Store, Monday and Thursday nights and all day Saturday.  For years.  Without tiring.  Calm - and staying in the lane.

After retiring, he and Mom bought the house next door to mine, moving to San Antonio, Texas, being my neighbors.  A lane change – but having made it, staying there until he passed.

Was he perfect?  No.  He liked his martini and a couple of beers each night, which I feel made him somewhat short-tempered with me in my youth when added to his exhaustion at day’s end.  He didn’t trust workmen – even those called to service my house had to endure his scrutiny of their work – his words were not always kind.  But now that he is gone, I know that his influence on me was immense.  I am the person I am because of him.  I too, stay in the lane – married to the same man, working at the same profession, faithful to my religion and parish – because I saw him do it first.  Most consistent was his love, which he did not so much convey with words, but which I felt in important moments.  When I moved into a flat in Chicago’s Little Village, searching out who I wanted to be, I was overwhelmed with the presence of roaches in the flat and the amount of work I would have to do to clean it.  Not wanting to admit defeat – I had been so adamant about wanting to live in this seemingly notorious area – I did ask him, through tears, if I could move back home if I found I had made a mistake.  His reply was an emphatic “yes” – it proved to be the support I needed to continue on, persevering to clean the flat and chase away the bugs.  Those were the happiest three years of living on my own that I had, because I knew my dad had my back.

Now teaching my 17 year old daughter how to drive, I found myself giving her the same lesson.  “Abuelo taught me, ‘Pick a lane and stay there.  Move only to avoid an obstacle.  You won’t get where you’re going any faster, and it is safer just to stay in a lane.’”

“Ok, Mom,” she responded with attitude, dismissing me in the manner of teenagers.  But I know the lesson will stick, at least for driving.  I do believe that she will one day quote the same lesson to her children, and her grandfather, my dad, Gregory Alvarez, will continue to live through that lesson.

Author's Bio: Barbara U. Alvarez lives with her husband Jeff and their daughter in San Antonio, Texas, teaching eleventh and twelfth grade English (and doing most anything else the school needs) at Providence Catholic School.  She is the oldest child of the six children of Gregory and Lupe Alvarez, oldest sister of Dr. René Luís Alvarez, one-half of The Mexican Intellectual team.

Chicago School Chief Shows Little Understanding of What Constitutes Good Teaching

Last week, Chicago Public Schools CEO Barbara Byrd Bennett unveiled a new Interdisciplinary Latino and Latin American Studies Curriculum (ILLSAC) for the city’s kindergarteners through 10^th graders.  According to CPS’ press release, this curriculum “focuses on the history, arts and culture, and contributions of Latinos and Latin Americans, along with the cultural diversity of the Americas, including Central and South America and the Caribbean.”  Bennett stated in the press release that these diverse populations’ “triumph over ignorance, prejudice and discrimination is the quintessential American story – and finally that story will be told in every grade and in every school across CPS.”  The curriculum consists of individual units of study and “launch lessons” aligned with Common Core standards.  The new curriculum is expected to make CPS a “pioneer.”  “This is huge,” Bennett told The Catalyst, adding, “We copyrighted it so we can sell it.”

Image from Chicago Public Schools
Available at http://cps.edu/Spotlight/Pages/Spotlight362.aspx

While the inclusion of previously underrepresented populations into school curricula is a positive development, CPS’ new ILLASC unfortunately represents what is wrong with current educational reforms.  The top-down development and dissemination of prepackaged curricula from administrators to the classroom is the worst form of teaching, demonstrating a lack of awareness of students’ academic abilities and intellectual needs.  There are several reasons why this is.

First, disseminating a prepackaged curriculum of lesson plans, instructional materials, and assessments assumes what students already know and are able to do.  Good instruction should be based first on teachers’ assessments of their students’ knowledge and abilities in order to tailor instruction for their students’ cognitive and academic needs  Students cannot be expected to get to point “C” unless their teachers know if they have been to points “A” or “B” to begin with.

Second, prepackaged curricula like the ILLSAC advance a homogenization of students’ knowledge and abilities.  Teaching an out-of-a-box curriculum with predetermined lessons, supporting materials, and assessments not only assumes all students know all of the same content and possess all of the same abilities, but also assumes that all students can and should progress along the same learning curve towards the same outcomes.  The fact is that each teacher’s classroom contains a multitude of students who possess a variety of skills and different levels of content knowledge.  This holds true for teachers across the city as well as for teachers within a particular school.

The irony with this of course that in devising a curriculum that promotes awareness of and appreciation for diversity, Bennett ignores students’ diversity of skills and knowledge.  When speaking of diversity, administrators, policy makers, and politicians tend to speak solely in terms of race and ethnicity.  What often left out are other forms of diversity, such as language abilities, cognitive abilities, gender, and socio-economic status to name a few.  Granted some students do receive additional supports in the forms of special education or bilingual education, but recent treads of shrinking financial resources supporting those with differentiated instructional or language needs does not inspire much confidence, nor does the fact that some of these other aspects are not addressed at all.

Finally, Bennett’s declared intent to sell this curriculum should raise concerns among all educators.  The lack of explanation of how the ILLASC will be sold and who will reap the profits of such sales is problematic indeed.  More so, however, is what I have outlined already.  Bennett’s implicit assumption is that students outside of Chicago will benefit from a curriculum designed for the students of Chicago.  As such, the city’s schools chief assumes that all students – regardless of location, educational backgrounds, or other aspects of their existence – are just like CPS students in what they know, what they can do, how they learn, and how they develop educationally.  This is an unfortunate assumption Bennett and her ilk have made about contemporary teaching and learning, representing the worst kind of education.

Politics and the Academy Awards

Last night’s Academy Awards ceremony contained some of the more politically charged acceptance speeches I have seen in some time.

Patricia Arquette used her Best Supporting Actress win to speak in favor of ecological preservation and against wage inequality. Musical artists Common and John Legend used their win for Best Original Song to bridge the past of the African American Civil Rights Movement to present struggles of human rights. The crew responsible for Best Documentary winner Citizenfour described how the country's democracy is lost when the government spies on citizens with impunity. Adapted screenplay winner Graham Moore spoke directly to young people struggling with societal alienation because of their sexual identity. Finally, the ceremony became a venue to discuss U.S. foreign policy and immigration – either for the better or for the worse.

These issues share a common origin - emanating from governments making decisions that affect the lives of millions of people.  That the producers or director of last night’s broadcast chose not to interrupt these speeches and have the orchestra play off the speakers as their comments drifted towards the political is terrific.  Indeed, parts of last night’s event harkened to a time when cinematic artists used the Academy Awards to promote awareness of serious issues affecting millions of people.  Marlon Brando, for example, famously boycotted the event in 1973 to raise awareness of the plight of Native Americans, while Sacheen Littlefeather explained Brando’s refusal of Best Actor statue for The Godfather.

Certainly, in the decades since, the Oscars ceremony seems to have become an over-produced affair in the hands of network executive control freaks eager to avoid any controversy.  Last night’s proceedings suggest somewhat of a changing environment, but there also seems to be an inherent hypocrisy in all of this.

Twelve years ago, Michael Moore accepted the Best Documentary award for Bowling for Columbine - an excellent film that examines American gun culture and the violence it creates.  During his acceptance speech, Moore criticized the administration of George W. Bush for leading the country into an invasion of Iraq while questioning the legitimacy of Bush’s presidency itself.  While some in the audience applauded, Moore received more jeers than cheers for his comments.  In light of more recent events in Iraq, it seems Moore was ahead of the curve with his observations at the time.

The issues of civil liberties and human dignity that this year’s Oscar  winners highlighted in their acceptance speeches are important and need addressing because they affect us all.  Those among the Hollywood elite and their supporters, however, ought to be mindful that it is much too easy in a free society to applaud someone who advocates for a social issue with an opinion you agree with.  It is braver and more honest to applaud those you do not agree with and who stand for something not because it is popular, but because it is right.