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.