No Brothers

I thought that this essay brought up some very interesting points, and it portrayed them in a believable manner. I could picture most of the events happening exactly as they were described, and I thought that this was a welcome change from other things that I have read in the past dealing with student issues (not necessarily from this book).

During my fieldwork last year (it was just elementary observation - I havn't started my student teaching yet) I noticed a few of the things that the essay brought up, including the thoughts about whether some of the students were actually 'hard cases' or if the teachers assumptions about certain students bad behavior in fact instigated the bad behavior in the first place. This was described as a result of viewing certain situations through a 'problematic' lense from the onset which obviously led to problems. I had nothing but respect for the teacher I was working with (and I wouldn't presume to know better than she did) I just felt that with my unique position as a relative outsider and newbie I was able to see some of the problem students in a different way than some of the staff - and it sometimes seemed to me that they were unfairly picked out or punished for what some of the other students did on a regular basis.

I also thought that Kathe Jervis brought up some good points on the power relations between the school staff (including black vs white, and man vs woman) The situation with Derrick obviously brought most of these conflicts into light, and I appreciated the authors perspective on Don's role as a loud, confident, white-male teacher who, although he had a good teaching record, was generally unchallenged even when perhaps he should have been. Carrie, the black female counselor seemed to be the best at dealing with the tough problems, including the race issues and the assembly that she instigated at the end (with the fishbowl exercise) was the first real and important dialogue that was noted in the entire piece. However, two things that I would bring note, and this is probably just comming from my perspective as a white male (also with a loud voice) deals with the fact that the Jervis painted the situation as Don being a loud mouth and Jan agreeing with him. Also, the author and Carrie felt too powerless to stand in the way of the expulsion. This seemed a little bit like a cop out to me, in that Jervis didnt say anything to Don's face when it would have helped the situation - instead her and Carrie spoke about it privately (changing nothing) then she didnt hesitate to write about it in retrospect. I understand that the whole point she was making was that the power relations in place were at least partially responsible for her silence and I agree with this assesment whole-heartedly- I was just irked by the way I percieved the situation.

Discourses / Social Construct of Power

I've done a little bit of reading on the social construction of power along with dominant vs. non-dominant discourses in other classes, and I'm even a little familiar with Foucault, the French philosopher mentioned. I believe that this is an extremely important topic and it kind of ties into almost everything else that we've talked about in this class.

Reading something like this really makes me think. I mean, even the concept of 'truth' is called into question as a social construct as opposed to a simple given. I believe that as teachers we all will be aware of multiple discourses in the class room/ school environment, but it will be up to us to question the status quo and the standards in order to help every student find a voice. I also appreciate the fact that the author mentions helping the students achieve not only equality in power, but the necessary means to proactively fight inequality themselves.

Another part of the essay that I found especially interesting was on page 414-415 when McLaren was comparing male achievement to female achievement, and his discussion of possible reasons for the disparity. The one thing that stuck out for me was when he mentioned that male children often speak without being called on while females are repremanded for the same behavior. In essence, males are taught to be independent and decisive, while females are taught to be dependent. Simply being aware of this type information will no doubt have a positive effect on any of our future classrooms.

To end, I would also like to say that given Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, and Barack Obama's recent achievements, the section on page 410 when McLaren says that our society is unlikely to vote for a woman or black president can officially be declared out-dated.

breif thougts on the 'English Only' essay

Before I started taking classes towards a education degree, I never really gave much thought to what language means to individuality, to identity. In English 225, the core of the class dealt with dialogues (dominant vs. minority) and how language hass been used as a form of opression both directly and indirectly. Again, with Donald Macedo's essay- this idea is made abundantly clear. I also appreciate how he goes a step further and explains how language can be used as a tool to fight oppression and the status quo. Language is empowering.

I would also like to point out two quotes that I found especially helpful. The first is "Within the living present there are imperceptible changes which make the status quo a moving reality...Thus a new policy based on the present as past and not the present as future is backward for it is premised not on evolving conditions but on conditions that are already dying away" - And I think that this goes hand in hand with when the author is explaining native languages as beyond empowerment - they provide students with "...the basis for defining and transforming, rather than merely serving, the wider social order."

I think the point is that not only does teaching students in their native language help 'them,' but it helps 'us' and society grow as well.

I found Stacey Lee's essay, "Asian Americans: The Absent/Silenced/Model Minority" extremly thought provoking. I've obviously heard the stereotypes - like all Asians are good at math - or science, etc., and for a while (at least in highschool) I definitely didn't think that there was any harm in a flattering stereotype. Recently I've begun to see that any type of stereotype can be harmful and usually just represents one groups ignorance about another, however I never knew that the "flattering" Asian stereotypes (the model-American) stereotypes were specifically instituted to silence black people. It makes sense though, singling out one group and making them out to be really good at something in the face of adversity does hinder another group's issues with the same adversity - even if it's all bullshit. The essay said that this "singled out 'model' behavior" in essence killed two birds with one stone by silencing Asian Americans from speaking about what they actually experienced in American societies and making every problem in the black community seem like it's 'their' fault.

One more thing that I wanted to touch on was from the other essay, (Capter 20) and it dealt with teachers having an attitude. A black student was interviewed and he pointed out that the teachers would display the same attitude problems with him (raising their voice, being antagonistic, etc.) that they got him in trouble for. I'm sure this happens all the time (I can even remeber it happening to me in school) and I think we will all have to work extra hard so that we aren't 'that guy' in as teachers. I think what it in essence comes down to is controlling your temper and not taking things personally. Easier said than done, however.

JROTC / WORKING CLASS POOR - fighting to maintain the status quo

Enora Brown brings up some difficult points in her essay "Freedom for Some, Discipline for 'Others': The Structure of Inequity in Education" (Chapter 18). On a side note - I'm wondering if the names of the two schools "mountainview" and "groundview" were each school's actual name respectibly or if the names were applied simply for this essay - I ask because the contrast between the two names seems almost too perfect for this topic.

Anyway, I could guess what the differences between the two schools were going to be before I read the essay (as I'm sure everyone could) - the affluent school was more of a junior liberal arts campus than anything - with freedom and plenty of great cutting edge rescources at the student's disposal. Teachers made more money, almost everyone was white - blah blah blah. This stood in stark contrast to the bleak picture that was painted of "groundview," with it's 100% black student population, metal detectors at the doors, and rote-type learning apparatuses in the classrooms. We've all heard this before - however, what I found provoking about this essay was the juxtaposition of the ruling elite (mountainview) with the JROTC working class poor. Before it was explicitly stated I was thinking to myself that it seems like the system is set up to send the poor people out on the front lines of battle to do the dirty work in order to keep the ruling class in power. Then the author said this - in more eloquent words. She used terms like monopoly of culture which I found both fitting and biting. There were great points brought up here - I just feel like the situation is almost beyond repair after reading these kinds of things because the class system is so entrenched I dont't possibly see how it could ever be changed. Society can't just raise black people / working class-poor / etc. up without asking the people at the top to give up a bit of their privelage (and by "their" I'm icluding myself in the group as well), and I think it's obvious that those in power won't just give it up for the hell of it. I agree that something needs to be done - I'm just not sure what that is.

Differentiation

The question that my group is working with deals with instructional differentiation. I'm sure that many of you who have taken multiple teaching courses before have probably heard of it, but I myself was not so familiar with the concept to begin with. However, once I started to grasp what it meant to employ differentiation I felt that it was an obvious tactic to enhance education- and I'm sure it happens all the time. Differentiation simply refers to tailoring lesson plans for individuals as opposed to a one-size-fits-all style. As teachers we can implement differentiation in the content that we teach, the processes we use, the environment in which we teach, etc., and if we do this - everyone benefits. Actually, the very act that I am committing right now (writing a blog) is a great example of differentiation. It's not a standard paper or test, but in fact it's more of a forum for discussion and we as students have the power to bring up topics that we think are interesting. As Amy said in the first class, the technology is out there and we have to follow it and use it so we dont get left behind by the students we will one day be trying to teach. Anyweay, I guess I'll be explaining more tomorrow with my group.

I'm probably over simplifying, but it seemed like much of the focus of the reading was changing from a 6-3-3 system to a 5-3-4 system of school, the ladder which employs a 'middle school,' the former which employs a 'junior high.' I guess I am not completely privy to what the big difference is. I understand that there is a 'middle level' of human development from childhood to adolescence, but it feels like we're just playing word games - junior high or middle school - to me they are the same thing. I think what is more important was covered in the final chapter for the week, chapter 11.

The chapter ended by saying that the pessimistic view was probably the view of tomorrow, where as the optimistic view could be saved for the day after tomorrow. In other words, there are too many flaws in the system for a ringing endosement now, but we need to be optimistic about the future of middle education and there are promising trends. It seems that most of the problems that the pessimistic writer expressed stemmed from the top-down bureaucratic decision making. The 'No Child Left Behind Act' was mentioned, and it seemed like the systematic testing was at the heart of every faul that was mentioned. I totally agree with this assesment. It seems like the very schools that need extra help arent getting it because they fail to meet bogus criteria from racist, and class prejudiced tests that only recognize the lowest forms of thinking - information regurgitation.

It was funny, the other day I was at work and the radio was on and there was a political add. It was republican attacking Obama, and it was on a primarily black radio station - V100 Jamms. Anyway, it was a black female suggesting that the 'No Child Left Behind Act' was working very well and was helping the black community to get ahead. Just from what is common knowledge about the standardized tests inherent in the 'No Child Left Behind Act' I was actually a little irritated with the glaring contradictions that I felt the add portrayed. I was wondering if anyone eles heard any rediculous adds and what they thought of them.

Mike Male's Article vs. My Bias

I have to say that I was definitely intrigued by the readings for this week. Mike Males made some very thought provoking points in his essay about "bashing youth," and many of the points that he made spoke directly to my personal biases. I believe/believed that children - young adults(mostly 16-24 year old males) especially in poorer neighberhoods were responsible for a majority of violent crimes - and I tacked this belief up to lack of wisdom. I thought that younger males might not be old enough to notice the significance of their actions. I've known many people who have been mugged- and it has always been a group of teenage boys doing the muggings, and I've known at least two victims who were mugged at gun point. It seems like gun violence is up (I'm not sure if that's true) and the easy accessibility of guns along with a young, immature, and poverty-stricken youth is a recipe for bad things. In relation to the rap wars of the early 90s, Biggie once said something to the effect that back in the day people would settle disputes with their fists whereas now everyone seems to have a gun. The problem: Bruises heal but taking a life is forever. --Personally, I believe that it takes a certain amount of wisdom to understand the gravity of what a life is, wisdom that some youth might not have.

But then after reading chapter 7, I was surprised by many of the statistics including the fact that 30+ year olds were responsible of most homicides, and that it is primarily adults who vicitmize children, not children who victimize other children. This article just shows me a few of the areas in which I am going to have to open my mind if I am to be an effective teacher.

Also I would like to comment on the "Two Sides, Same Bias section" on page 124. I have alsways been all for handing out free condoms, etc. and I always thought it was silly to teach abstinence. Teenagers and adults aren't going to fight natural urges because a class told them not to. But then Males brought up the fact that "...even if every high school boy abstained from sex or used a condom, most "teen" pregnancies would still occur." The problem that Males points out is ADULT males victimizing CHILD females, which is a cyclical problem that continues to perpetuate itself. Again, it is the adults that victimize the children, not the children victimizing other children.

Adolescence as a Social Construct

Being primarily a history student (and hoping to be a high-school history teacher) I was quite surprised by much of Chapter 2 as well as the whole of "The Social Construction of Adolescence" section. I have never really given any thought to the idea of puberty being as much of a social construct as a physical one. In fact, just last week in class when we were asked to come up with some concerns about teaching in the middle school environment, practically the first thing that came to my head was dealing with all of the tumultuous hormones that middle school entails. I understood this as a given and never questioned its relevance or truth. After reading these sections I am open to the idea that although physical changes are occuring in youth at this age, it's neither fair nor true to characterize all the students by this simple fact. How the changes are dealt with is just as important as the changes themselves.

Also, the idea that adolescence was first spoken of / studied in the early 20th century as a way to subjegate minorities and women while boosting the white male's position in society was surprising. Another fact that I found interesting was that the idea of adolescence only exists in developed countries where an education is possible before a young person enters the workforce. Obviously, barring malnutrition, people in all countries develop at around the same time and in the same way, it's just the makeup of a society that determines how these changes are dealt with. Being that this is such an important time in someone's life, I'm surprised that these facts aren't common knowledge.

Kumashiro - yet another response

As I would expect from any essay written on educational theory, Kumashiro's "Toward a Theory of Anti-Oppressive Education was a bit dry and wordy at times - however, I'll allow that the man did make some excellent points. I appreciated his use of the word "Other" and although I havn't necessarilly heard this exact terminology before, the topics that he brought up were very similar to others that I have discussed in a previous Currins class, as well as English 225 (I believe that was the number).
Anyway, I have read a few of the other responses and I do agree with the notion that Kumashiro was perhaps a bit negative with his assessment of the weaknesses of his 4 "anti-opressive" teaching methods but I also thought that there was some subtle optimism as well. First, it seemed to me that he listed the 4 methods in order from weakest to strongest - each method sort of building off of the strengths and weaknesses of the previous. Kumashiro made the point it's not enough to simply invoke empathy for "others" although it is a start. It is also not enough to simply incorporate "others" into lesson plans a couple of times a year when it is convenient - when in fact every lesson plan should be made as relevant as possible to all students at all times. (This of course is much easier to say than to do) Going further with this idea, I agree with Kumashiro's critical ideas about traditional teaching on page 39. He says "Critical pedagogy needs to move away from saying that students need this/my critical perspective since such an approach merely replaces one (socially hegemonic) framework for seeing the world with another..." I personally believe that in the middle school (or especially high school) setting, a good dialogue that involves student opinions and experiences is essential to everyday learning. A teacher is just a human and has the capacity to be wrong at times and should be open to other ideas and opinions. However, I'm sure the difficulty comes when trying to be open but at the same time retain an important authority over your students.
Finally, being a "non-queer" (I use this term half jokingly - this guy really liked the word queer) white male, I specifically liked when he spoke of privelage in pages 35-37. It's much easier to think of "others" as being under-privelaged and to attack the issue of oppression from this angle as opposed to looking at yourself as privelaged. It's easier to try to help other people get more - that is until you yourself are told that you might have to give something up - even if it is only just and right. I would be interested in hearing any other thoughts on this subject.