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.