Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Talking Points #10 (Johnson)
What Can We Do?
Becoming Part of the Solution
Allan Johnson
Johnson argues that change does not lie in the present but yet looking at our past and learning from it to help change the future. The things we need to change, issues created by this use of privilege, are ongoing and need to be changed by everyone, not just the group it directly affects.
"To be an effective part of the solution, we have to realize that privilege and oppression are not a thing of the past. It's happening right now. It isn't just a collection fo wounds inflicted long ago that now need to be healed. The wounding goes on as I write these words and as you rea them, and unless people work to change the system that promote it, personal healing by itself cannot be the asnwer. Healing wounds is nor more a silution to the oppression that causes the wounding than military hospitals are a slution to war. Healing is a necessary process, but it isn't enoough."
So this quote pretty much sums up a large portion of what we have discussed this semester. It is the idea behind the Brown article, the South Bronx article, etc. All these authors and articles express how the "band-aid on a bullet wound" solution is NOT effective yet it is still practiced.
"The greatest barrier to change is that dominant groups don't see the trouble as their trouble, which means they don't feel as obliged to do something about it."
This once againsts attests to everything we have talked about. For example, the white race sees no problem with the Brown ruling because in their eyes, they did their part, their "good deed." Its like this huge, cocky attitude that the white race has. Its like they want a pat on their backs for passing Brown, for "lending their time" to "fix" something. Its also like no one else can fix it except whites. Granted, the valididty to this statement is that in a way they are the only ones who can really do something because they control most of the power being the dominante race. As repeptive as this, hopefully with Obama as president more progress can be made in sharing that "privlege" power like it should be.
"If you don't make a point of studying history, it's easy to slide into the belief that things have always been the way we've known them to be. But if you look back a bit further, you find racial oppression has been a feature of human life for only a matter of centuries."
Ok, I have a problem with this. At another point in the article, he emphasized oppression based on other fomrs of culture but the part that bothers me is that he says hundreds of years. I'm sorry, does Johnson not know of the slavery in Egypt? The Jewish culture has been oppressed for thousands and thousands of years. The Islamic beliefs go back to 7th century, which more than emphasizes the oppression of woman. 10th century brings us to Chinese foot binding...hello oppression of women! In a biblical sense, Eve was created from Adam...male dominance!! Lastly, we've got the Russians. These people have been oppresed far too much. You've got the Vikings & the Mongols, both which oppressed the Russians hundreds and hundreds of years ago. I mean, we can ever discuss the Greeks and the Romans, but I'll stop. If we want to generalized, oppression is really when any group of people/civilization takes over another group/civilization, which is pretty much the epitome of history. As long as there have been people, there has been oppression, not just "a few centuries worth." I just honestly think Johnson should stick to privlege and diversity matter and leave the history to historians.
Overall, this article was repetitive. Considering we read the same author in the beginning of the semester, it was deja vu for me. As you can tell by my last quote, I was getting very frustrated with Johnson and his "historical tidbits." Easy read, just frustrating and repetitve.
Here is a "list" of oppression-esque matters.
Becoming Part of the Solution
Allan Johnson
Johnson argues that change does not lie in the present but yet looking at our past and learning from it to help change the future. The things we need to change, issues created by this use of privilege, are ongoing and need to be changed by everyone, not just the group it directly affects.
"To be an effective part of the solution, we have to realize that privilege and oppression are not a thing of the past. It's happening right now. It isn't just a collection fo wounds inflicted long ago that now need to be healed. The wounding goes on as I write these words and as you rea them, and unless people work to change the system that promote it, personal healing by itself cannot be the asnwer. Healing wounds is nor more a silution to the oppression that causes the wounding than military hospitals are a slution to war. Healing is a necessary process, but it isn't enoough."
So this quote pretty much sums up a large portion of what we have discussed this semester. It is the idea behind the Brown article, the South Bronx article, etc. All these authors and articles express how the "band-aid on a bullet wound" solution is NOT effective yet it is still practiced.
"The greatest barrier to change is that dominant groups don't see the trouble as their trouble, which means they don't feel as obliged to do something about it."
This once againsts attests to everything we have talked about. For example, the white race sees no problem with the Brown ruling because in their eyes, they did their part, their "good deed." Its like this huge, cocky attitude that the white race has. Its like they want a pat on their backs for passing Brown, for "lending their time" to "fix" something. Its also like no one else can fix it except whites. Granted, the valididty to this statement is that in a way they are the only ones who can really do something because they control most of the power being the dominante race. As repeptive as this, hopefully with Obama as president more progress can be made in sharing that "privlege" power like it should be.
"If you don't make a point of studying history, it's easy to slide into the belief that things have always been the way we've known them to be. But if you look back a bit further, you find racial oppression has been a feature of human life for only a matter of centuries."
Ok, I have a problem with this. At another point in the article, he emphasized oppression based on other fomrs of culture but the part that bothers me is that he says hundreds of years. I'm sorry, does Johnson not know of the slavery in Egypt? The Jewish culture has been oppressed for thousands and thousands of years. The Islamic beliefs go back to 7th century, which more than emphasizes the oppression of woman. 10th century brings us to Chinese foot binding...hello oppression of women! In a biblical sense, Eve was created from Adam...male dominance!! Lastly, we've got the Russians. These people have been oppresed far too much. You've got the Vikings & the Mongols, both which oppressed the Russians hundreds and hundreds of years ago. I mean, we can ever discuss the Greeks and the Romans, but I'll stop. If we want to generalized, oppression is really when any group of people/civilization takes over another group/civilization, which is pretty much the epitome of history. As long as there have been people, there has been oppression, not just "a few centuries worth." I just honestly think Johnson should stick to privlege and diversity matter and leave the history to historians.
Overall, this article was repetitive. Considering we read the same author in the beginning of the semester, it was deja vu for me. As you can tell by my last quote, I was getting very frustrated with Johnson and his "historical tidbits." Easy read, just frustrating and repetitve.
Here is a "list" of oppression-esque matters.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Talking Points #8 (Kliewer)
Citzenship in School:Reconceptualizing Down Syndrome
Christopher Kliewer
Kliewer argues that community should represent real life and therefore encompass all aspects of a community, including children with Down Syndrome. The community "web" needs to include all types of people and exclusion of any people, for whatever reason, is wrong and injust. Also, Kliewer discusses the difficult path that lie in the path of social acceptance and that any and all modicatiosn necessary to create that social acceptance should be taken.
" 'Now we know that people with disabilities can learn and have a full, rich life. The challenge is to erase negative attitudes about people with developmental disabilities, get rid of the stereotypes and break down the abarries for people with disabilities.' "
Even though this was not the author's own words, I still wanted to include it. I read it a few times and I don't know if I just couldn't shake the original thought from my head but I got a negative vibe from this quote. It mainly lies within the first sentence. When I read this, I get the feeling of discrimination, a type of "racism." To me, this sensentece sounds like the revelation of a white Southerner after the Civil Rights movmement. 'Oh, I guess African Americans aren't bad or unequal people.' To me, it sounds like this is the type of realization this sentence brings. I just personally don't like the wording of this sentence and it gives me a negative view of the subject.
" 'It's not like they come here to be labeled, or to believe the label. We're all here--kids, teachers, parents, whoever--it's about all of us working together, playinmg together, being together, and that's what learning is. Don't tell me any of these kids are being set up to fail.' "
Once again, I know this quote is not Kliewer's own words, but it just stuck out to me so much, I had to include it. I really like this quote. I love the wording and how it is phrased. Disabilitiy aside, this is a great atmosphere to want to be in. However, when the disability aspect is added on, I know it makes me (as a future educator) thrilled that there are people in the worl who think this way. We are taught from the earliest of ages to "not judge a book by its cover" but yet we learn by demonstration. Therefore, when our teacher segregates and therefore labels a students in a classroom, it is merely natural for the students to follow because they do not know any better. It is the like the acitivty we did in class in regards to the Oakes article. We all did the worksheet and responded in manners that we have become accustomed to from our teachers over the past 13 years of pre secondary ed. Therefore hearing this teacher discuss the irrelevnace of any type of label and the collaboration of all involved in that child's life sort of "puts the hope" back in a teaching system that many have lost hope in. Also, I liked the last part with the "setting kids up to fail." More often than not, if someone labels you, especially with a disability, if you do not have a good support sysmte and good slef esteem, you can fall victim to becoming that label, which is the worst. I feel like this woman would strongly advocate for those who would fall into this label black whole and help students not fall in and get lost.
"School citizenship requires that students not be categorized and separated based on presumed defect. The phenomenon of categorization at the expense of indvidual value has been described as a "disability spread" in which we 'extrapolate the characteristics we associate with the notion of disability to the particular individuals we meet. These perceptions are often based on stereotypes and what we think we know about a particular disability. They are expressed in predictable way. For example, 'All people with Down Syndrome are happy.' ' "
I feel like part of this explains my VIPS experiance. There are two children who "have ADD" in the classroom and are therefore separated. I understand that children with attention disabilities are sometimes better suited to be sitting alone but one of the students is literally in the front corner and has to read the board or projector screen on an angle. That doesn't make sense! Regardless, it is wrong to stereotype someone or a group of people. I mean, I fight to not get considered a "typical college teen" because I don't consider myself in that category. And I think its horrible that because of a group of people others who may or may not consider themselves in that group get placed in it as well. But I mean, thats nothing in terms of being stereotyping with disability. Thats just wrong, professionally and as an individual.
Generally speaking, this article was interesting but lengthy, which presents problems in keeping my attention. I liked it however because my concentration is Special Education so this article brought up some thoughts from my Sped 300 class. I tryied to incoporate those ideas in my quotes and felt like I read this article differently because of my background in this course and in my sped course. I feel like if I read this article a few months ago, I might have had a differnet mindset and not have been so in tune with some of the ideas presented.
Christopher Kliewer
Kliewer argues that community should represent real life and therefore encompass all aspects of a community, including children with Down Syndrome. The community "web" needs to include all types of people and exclusion of any people, for whatever reason, is wrong and injust. Also, Kliewer discusses the difficult path that lie in the path of social acceptance and that any and all modicatiosn necessary to create that social acceptance should be taken.
" 'Now we know that people with disabilities can learn and have a full, rich life. The challenge is to erase negative attitudes about people with developmental disabilities, get rid of the stereotypes and break down the abarries for people with disabilities.' "
Even though this was not the author's own words, I still wanted to include it. I read it a few times and I don't know if I just couldn't shake the original thought from my head but I got a negative vibe from this quote. It mainly lies within the first sentence. When I read this, I get the feeling of discrimination, a type of "racism." To me, this sensentece sounds like the revelation of a white Southerner after the Civil Rights movmement. 'Oh, I guess African Americans aren't bad or unequal people.' To me, it sounds like this is the type of realization this sentence brings. I just personally don't like the wording of this sentence and it gives me a negative view of the subject.
" 'It's not like they come here to be labeled, or to believe the label. We're all here--kids, teachers, parents, whoever--it's about all of us working together, playinmg together, being together, and that's what learning is. Don't tell me any of these kids are being set up to fail.' "
Once again, I know this quote is not Kliewer's own words, but it just stuck out to me so much, I had to include it. I really like this quote. I love the wording and how it is phrased. Disabilitiy aside, this is a great atmosphere to want to be in. However, when the disability aspect is added on, I know it makes me (as a future educator) thrilled that there are people in the worl who think this way. We are taught from the earliest of ages to "not judge a book by its cover" but yet we learn by demonstration. Therefore, when our teacher segregates and therefore labels a students in a classroom, it is merely natural for the students to follow because they do not know any better. It is the like the acitivty we did in class in regards to the Oakes article. We all did the worksheet and responded in manners that we have become accustomed to from our teachers over the past 13 years of pre secondary ed. Therefore hearing this teacher discuss the irrelevnace of any type of label and the collaboration of all involved in that child's life sort of "puts the hope" back in a teaching system that many have lost hope in. Also, I liked the last part with the "setting kids up to fail." More often than not, if someone labels you, especially with a disability, if you do not have a good support sysmte and good slef esteem, you can fall victim to becoming that label, which is the worst. I feel like this woman would strongly advocate for those who would fall into this label black whole and help students not fall in and get lost.
"School citizenship requires that students not be categorized and separated based on presumed defect. The phenomenon of categorization at the expense of indvidual value has been described as a "disability spread" in which we 'extrapolate the characteristics we associate with the notion of disability to the particular individuals we meet. These perceptions are often based on stereotypes and what we think we know about a particular disability. They are expressed in predictable way. For example, 'All people with Down Syndrome are happy.' ' "
I feel like part of this explains my VIPS experiance. There are two children who "have ADD" in the classroom and are therefore separated. I understand that children with attention disabilities are sometimes better suited to be sitting alone but one of the students is literally in the front corner and has to read the board or projector screen on an angle. That doesn't make sense! Regardless, it is wrong to stereotype someone or a group of people. I mean, I fight to not get considered a "typical college teen" because I don't consider myself in that category. And I think its horrible that because of a group of people others who may or may not consider themselves in that group get placed in it as well. But I mean, thats nothing in terms of being stereotyping with disability. Thats just wrong, professionally and as an individual.
Generally speaking, this article was interesting but lengthy, which presents problems in keeping my attention. I liked it however because my concentration is Special Education so this article brought up some thoughts from my Sped 300 class. I tryied to incoporate those ideas in my quotes and felt like I read this article differently because of my background in this course and in my sped course. I feel like if I read this article a few months ago, I might have had a differnet mindset and not have been so in tune with some of the ideas presented.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
School diveristy getting crowded out
I found this article several day ago but I kept forgetting to post about it. Essentially, the article is discussing how schools in New York are becoming "less diverse" because more white families are sending their kids to public school. It is inferred (or at least I thought it was) that more white families send their children to non public schools while families of other cultures sned their kids to public school more than non public school.
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/education/2008/10/26/2008-10-26_school_diversity_getting_crowded_out.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/education/2008/10/26/2008-10-26_school_diversity_getting_crowded_out.html
Monday, November 10, 2008
Talking Points #7 (Lawrence)
"One more river to cross"--Recognizing the real injury in Brown:
A prerequisite to shaping new remedies
Charles Lawrence
Lawrence argues that Brown did not eliminate racial issues but merely started the fire. Lawrence also discusses how unless there is a major movement, the country will never be fully remedied and therefore, will not be able to be a whole nation.
"There would be no final victory in their lifetimes. Each step forwards was just that, a step. There would always be 'one more river to cross'."
This quote stuck out to me for two reasons. The first is that when i was younger, I was a literal thinker. So, when I first learned about the Civil Rights movement in elementary school, I legit thought that "equality" came about and was settled by the 1970s. I thought that just because it was set, it would happen. Obviously, these are the ideas of a naive and unexperiance mind. I soon learned otherwisde, via more education about the Civil Rights movement and the African American struggle for equality (among other groups of difference) as well as in my own life. The second way that this quote stuck out to me has nothing to do with the main context it is used in but rather my own life. It just seems that this describes my homework situation. I live with roomates who "finish" homework. Like literally, they have nothing to do (or so they say). Yet, I sit there and even if I finish homework that is due for that week, I could start some and get a crack at next weeks. And then once I am done school, the way the world is going I feel like I am never going to be "done." I know, teaching is a lifelong process you learn from but I mean like done with tests and training and schooling. I just, I am person who likes to cross things off and I hate it when I just for once want an empty to do list.
"Many black schools that exsisted within the segregated school systems of the South were in fact superior to their white counterparts. It is ironic that most of these schools achieved their excellence as a direct result of the discrimination inherent in a sergreated scoeity , in that the best black professional were foreced in teaching by their virtual exclusions from other fields."
This stuck out to me because in 99% of my research and knowledge of this case, I have never heard this side played. I then did a littld digging and after finding the high school listed in the endnote (Dunbar high school, located in Washington D.C.) and here is what I found. It was the first high school for African Americans students ( I do not know if it meant in America or in DC) and is a very good school overall. Now, here is my problem. I dont really consider DC in the South. Now, that is my opinion so I researched a little to make sure my inclinations were correct and it really isnt in the "South." It is bordering below the Mason-Dixon line, so that is a confirmation in literal terms and during the civil war, if I am not mistaken, DC was considered part of the North. I mean, Abraham Lincoln was president...considering it was under his rule that the slaves in America were granted freedom, it doesnt make much sense to have Washington be confederate. Also, the states did not want a capital of their nation being in Southern territory! To me, the "South" is Tenesse, Carolinas, Alabama, Georgia, Louisana and I would even settle for Virginia (parts of it anyway) But to me, this is pushing it. Give me an example of a school in any one of those states and I would be shocked.
"But the Supreme Court has refused to recognize that segregation will not die a natural death."
I feel like this sums up a point that relates to my first quote. Im sure that there are people in the country who think that segregation or racial inequality is not a problem. Like, Im sure those girls on My Super Sweet 16 dont think about those type of issues. But for the author to make such a claim that the Supeme Court of the United States feels and thinks this way is a powerful statement. I am by no means saying I do not agree with her; in all aspects one almost has to. Its just honestly terrifying when you think about it. I mean, if the Supreme Court cannot realize this, what hope does that provide for us? These are the people who make decisions on life altering cases. And I mean life altering for everyone in the United States (abortion, Miranda rights, disproving separate but equal, etc.). Its just...scary. Its like when you hear about corruption in major corporations or rigged elections. Its just not comforting.
Overall, this article was not hard for me to read in terms of the actual content. The writing was a bit wordy and some sentences had to be reread. However, I have done quite a bit of extensive research on the Brown case. In high school, Thurgood Marshall was the focus of an extensive research paper and in my Political Science course first semester, we had to do boook reports/research papers on books on Supreme Court cases. Coincidently, I had to read Simple Justice by Richard Kluger (which is a hefty 880 page book I do not recommend) so I pretty much know the ins and outs of the case through all this research and then through learning about in history classes, political science classes and government & law classes. On a side note, I wonder what Lawrence would think of Obama's win of President elect. I wonder if he would consider this a "step" in the right direction of affirming what Brown got rolling.
Oh, and an apology now if any part of my history explanation of my reasoning of DC is unclear or in anyway inaccurate. My history is a bit rusty and its actually harder to find a clear answer online than I thought it would be.
A prerequisite to shaping new remedies
Charles Lawrence
Lawrence argues that Brown did not eliminate racial issues but merely started the fire. Lawrence also discusses how unless there is a major movement, the country will never be fully remedied and therefore, will not be able to be a whole nation.
"There would be no final victory in their lifetimes. Each step forwards was just that, a step. There would always be 'one more river to cross'."
This quote stuck out to me for two reasons. The first is that when i was younger, I was a literal thinker. So, when I first learned about the Civil Rights movement in elementary school, I legit thought that "equality" came about and was settled by the 1970s. I thought that just because it was set, it would happen. Obviously, these are the ideas of a naive and unexperiance mind. I soon learned otherwisde, via more education about the Civil Rights movement and the African American struggle for equality (among other groups of difference) as well as in my own life. The second way that this quote stuck out to me has nothing to do with the main context it is used in but rather my own life. It just seems that this describes my homework situation. I live with roomates who "finish" homework. Like literally, they have nothing to do (or so they say). Yet, I sit there and even if I finish homework that is due for that week, I could start some and get a crack at next weeks. And then once I am done school, the way the world is going I feel like I am never going to be "done." I know, teaching is a lifelong process you learn from but I mean like done with tests and training and schooling. I just, I am person who likes to cross things off and I hate it when I just for once want an empty to do list.
"Many black schools that exsisted within the segregated school systems of the South were in fact superior to their white counterparts. It is ironic that most of these schools achieved their excellence as a direct result of the discrimination inherent in a sergreated scoeity , in that the best black professional were foreced in teaching by their virtual exclusions from other fields."
This stuck out to me because in 99% of my research and knowledge of this case, I have never heard this side played. I then did a littld digging and after finding the high school listed in the endnote (Dunbar high school, located in Washington D.C.) and here is what I found. It was the first high school for African Americans students ( I do not know if it meant in America or in DC) and is a very good school overall. Now, here is my problem. I dont really consider DC in the South. Now, that is my opinion so I researched a little to make sure my inclinations were correct and it really isnt in the "South." It is bordering below the Mason-Dixon line, so that is a confirmation in literal terms and during the civil war, if I am not mistaken, DC was considered part of the North. I mean, Abraham Lincoln was president...considering it was under his rule that the slaves in America were granted freedom, it doesnt make much sense to have Washington be confederate. Also, the states did not want a capital of their nation being in Southern territory! To me, the "South" is Tenesse, Carolinas, Alabama, Georgia, Louisana and I would even settle for Virginia (parts of it anyway) But to me, this is pushing it. Give me an example of a school in any one of those states and I would be shocked.
"But the Supreme Court has refused to recognize that segregation will not die a natural death."
I feel like this sums up a point that relates to my first quote. Im sure that there are people in the country who think that segregation or racial inequality is not a problem. Like, Im sure those girls on My Super Sweet 16 dont think about those type of issues. But for the author to make such a claim that the Supeme Court of the United States feels and thinks this way is a powerful statement. I am by no means saying I do not agree with her; in all aspects one almost has to. Its just honestly terrifying when you think about it. I mean, if the Supreme Court cannot realize this, what hope does that provide for us? These are the people who make decisions on life altering cases. And I mean life altering for everyone in the United States (abortion, Miranda rights, disproving separate but equal, etc.). Its just...scary. Its like when you hear about corruption in major corporations or rigged elections. Its just not comforting.
Overall, this article was not hard for me to read in terms of the actual content. The writing was a bit wordy and some sentences had to be reread. However, I have done quite a bit of extensive research on the Brown case. In high school, Thurgood Marshall was the focus of an extensive research paper and in my Political Science course first semester, we had to do boook reports/research papers on books on Supreme Court cases. Coincidently, I had to read Simple Justice by Richard Kluger (which is a hefty 880 page book I do not recommend) so I pretty much know the ins and outs of the case through all this research and then through learning about in history classes, political science classes and government & law classes. On a side note, I wonder what Lawrence would think of Obama's win of President elect. I wonder if he would consider this a "step" in the right direction of affirming what Brown got rolling.
Oh, and an apology now if any part of my history explanation of my reasoning of DC is unclear or in anyway inaccurate. My history is a bit rusty and its actually harder to find a clear answer online than I thought it would be.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Talking Points #6 (Oakes)
Tracking:Why schools need to take another route
Jeannie Oakes
Oakes argues that tracking in schools is not a "good route." She states that a diffent path must be followed, which involved heterogenous classrooms which would mix high & low ability students together. She also states that unless teachers are willing to take the time and make the effort, this method will fail and tracking will resume, which results in wide gaps between students in all aspect of life.
"...tracking leads to substantial differences in the day-to-day learning experiances students have at school. Moreover, the nature of these differences suggests that students who are placed in high-ability groups bave access to far richer schooling experiences than otber students. This finding helps explain, at least in part, why it is that tracking sometimes seems to "work" for highability students and not for others."
When I read this quote, I immediately thought of my junior high experiance. At my junior high, we had a "team" system, which meant that kids were split up into all different teams, each having about 90 students. (making 2 teams of 7th graders and 2 of 8th graders) Within the teams, there were "high ability" classrooms. I was in these classrooms, and like the kids with me, 95% of us moved on to comprise most of the populations in the upper level (honors, AP) courses in high school. We are also a majority of the students who went on to colleges/universities or other options with a "plan." In other words, what the Oakes states happens, happened. I am by no means trying to say we were "better" than other studens or that we are better than them now. There are students who were non honors kids who are doing great after high school just like I am sure there are honors kids who are not doing great after high school. Regardless, this happened to me. And when I went through it, I thought nothing of it. Most of my "best friends" weren't in my classes and it was never an issue. But now that I look back on it, I can totally understand where the author is coming from.
"
students in high-ability English classes were more likely to be taught classic and modem literature, provided instruction in expository writing and library researcb, and expected to leam vocabulary that would eventually boost their scores on college entrance exams-,In these classes, critical thinking and problem-solving skills seemed to emerge
from the high quality ofthe course ce tent. Few low-ability classes, on 1 other hand, were taugbt these topics a skills. Students in the latter class learned basic reading skills taug mostly by workbooks, kits, and eo" to-read stories. Learning tasksconsist most often of memorizing and repe ing answers back to the teacher. Sin so much of importance was omitt from their curriculum, students in the low-ability classes were likely to ha
little contact with the knowledge a. skills that would allow them to rna into higher classes or to be success' if they got there."
This was my senior year English class. For senior year, the options were either AP or college prep, no honors. I chose not to take AP because the teacher who was going to be teaching I had had in 9th grae and she would constantly giving me failing or nearly failing grades on essays, telling me I could not write at all and providing no insight as to how I could fix my "problems." So, I was put in a college prep class. Essentially, it was an interesting group of people. I treated the class as I normally would for the first few weeks...and then I realized I was about 150 pages ahead of everyone in my class. Now, I do not mean to sound cocky but these are the kind of kids who just didnt try and more importantly, didnt care. SO i relaxed a bit.I mean, my teacher realized where I was and didnt even make me read the final book because he figured it was pointless. When final presentations came around, I literally had a fellow student tell me it was the best thing he had ever heard...I wrote it in 15 minutes while watching TV. Like, I had a test on the movie Braveheart! This was the type of class it was, totally laid back. I felt like this quote fit my experiance to a T...and I wish I didnt because its setting you up for failure then and later in your life. (If I came across as cocky, I really didnt mean to but I didnt know how else to explain this class).
"
First, lessons will probably be most successful if they require active learning tasks rather than passive ones, and if they have students working together rather than alone. "
I agree and disagree, with reasoning. My psych class in high school was often group based...and I learned nothing. Its probably why I hated the class because I would have to go home and re-teach myself. My teacher would give us topics in groups and we would have to learn them, summarize and present to the class. What bothered me was that different people think different things are important and more importantly to me was that my teahcer thinks different things are important. If the group thought they summarized the section, and my teacher just smiled and didnt add anything, you might think it was summarized and you may study off of that...but what if they didnt and the teahcer expects you to teach yourself the info anyway? If that is the case, what is the point of group work? On the flop side, group work is great when each person has something to bring, like going over math homework or a collaborative SL paper. You can pick up new tricks or learn new things to apply to your life. I just, I dont think group work is a successful way to have students of different speeds in a classroom be successful, when it is presented in the example I gave.
Overall, the article was an easy read. It reminded me a lot of my high school classes, especially English and Hisotry ( a little bit of Psych). It was interesting to look back at them this way. I had thought about it while in high school so it wasnt a huge shock. It doesnt seem "as bad" when it is you in the situation and I know in my school district, it probably wasnt a huge problem because there isnt much diversity ( in every aspect of the word). I feel like the last column on the last page also summed up what I was trying to say with my first quote. Overall, I thought it was an interesting article that got to the point, kept my attention and providen succint ideas.
Jeannie Oakes
Oakes argues that tracking in schools is not a "good route." She states that a diffent path must be followed, which involved heterogenous classrooms which would mix high & low ability students together. She also states that unless teachers are willing to take the time and make the effort, this method will fail and tracking will resume, which results in wide gaps between students in all aspect of life.
"...tracking leads to substantial differences in the day-to-day learning experiances students have at school. Moreover, the nature of these differences suggests that students who are placed in high-ability groups bave access to far richer schooling experiences than otber students. This finding helps explain, at least in part, why it is that tracking sometimes seems to "work" for highability students and not for others."
When I read this quote, I immediately thought of my junior high experiance. At my junior high, we had a "team" system, which meant that kids were split up into all different teams, each having about 90 students. (making 2 teams of 7th graders and 2 of 8th graders) Within the teams, there were "high ability" classrooms. I was in these classrooms, and like the kids with me, 95% of us moved on to comprise most of the populations in the upper level (honors, AP) courses in high school. We are also a majority of the students who went on to colleges/universities or other options with a "plan." In other words, what the Oakes states happens, happened. I am by no means trying to say we were "better" than other studens or that we are better than them now. There are students who were non honors kids who are doing great after high school just like I am sure there are honors kids who are not doing great after high school. Regardless, this happened to me. And when I went through it, I thought nothing of it. Most of my "best friends" weren't in my classes and it was never an issue. But now that I look back on it, I can totally understand where the author is coming from.
"
students in high-ability English classes were more likely to be taught classic and modem literature, provided instruction in expository writing and library researcb, and expected to leam vocabulary that would eventually boost their scores on college entrance exams-,In these classes, critical thinking and problem-solving skills seemed to emerge
from the high quality ofthe course ce tent. Few low-ability classes, on 1 other hand, were taugbt these topics a skills. Students in the latter class learned basic reading skills taug mostly by workbooks, kits, and eo" to-read stories. Learning tasksconsist most often of memorizing and repe ing answers back to the teacher. Sin so much of importance was omitt from their curriculum, students in the low-ability classes were likely to ha
little contact with the knowledge a. skills that would allow them to rna into higher classes or to be success' if they got there."
This was my senior year English class. For senior year, the options were either AP or college prep, no honors. I chose not to take AP because the teacher who was going to be teaching I had had in 9th grae and she would constantly giving me failing or nearly failing grades on essays, telling me I could not write at all and providing no insight as to how I could fix my "problems." So, I was put in a college prep class. Essentially, it was an interesting group of people. I treated the class as I normally would for the first few weeks...and then I realized I was about 150 pages ahead of everyone in my class. Now, I do not mean to sound cocky but these are the kind of kids who just didnt try and more importantly, didnt care. SO i relaxed a bit.I mean, my teacher realized where I was and didnt even make me read the final book because he figured it was pointless. When final presentations came around, I literally had a fellow student tell me it was the best thing he had ever heard...I wrote it in 15 minutes while watching TV. Like, I had a test on the movie Braveheart! This was the type of class it was, totally laid back. I felt like this quote fit my experiance to a T...and I wish I didnt because its setting you up for failure then and later in your life. (If I came across as cocky, I really didnt mean to but I didnt know how else to explain this class).
"
First, lessons will probably be most successful if they require active learning tasks rather than passive ones, and if they have students working together rather than alone. "
I agree and disagree, with reasoning. My psych class in high school was often group based...and I learned nothing. Its probably why I hated the class because I would have to go home and re-teach myself. My teacher would give us topics in groups and we would have to learn them, summarize and present to the class. What bothered me was that different people think different things are important and more importantly to me was that my teahcer thinks different things are important. If the group thought they summarized the section, and my teacher just smiled and didnt add anything, you might think it was summarized and you may study off of that...but what if they didnt and the teahcer expects you to teach yourself the info anyway? If that is the case, what is the point of group work? On the flop side, group work is great when each person has something to bring, like going over math homework or a collaborative SL paper. You can pick up new tricks or learn new things to apply to your life. I just, I dont think group work is a successful way to have students of different speeds in a classroom be successful, when it is presented in the example I gave.
Overall, the article was an easy read. It reminded me a lot of my high school classes, especially English and Hisotry ( a little bit of Psych). It was interesting to look back at them this way. I had thought about it while in high school so it wasnt a huge shock. It doesnt seem "as bad" when it is you in the situation and I know in my school district, it probably wasnt a huge problem because there isnt much diversity ( in every aspect of the word). I feel like the last column on the last page also summed up what I was trying to say with my first quote. Overall, I thought it was an interesting article that got to the point, kept my attention and providen succint ideas.
Monday, October 27, 2008
"Talking Points #5 (Kahne/Westheimer)
In the Service of what?
The Politics of Service Learning
Joseph Kahne & Joel Westheimer
Kahne/Westheimer argues that even though SL projects are great experiances and should be supported, there are criteria that should be fulfilled. They say that these programs should have their unerlying goals brought to the surface as well as making them widely available and allowing students to pick their own projects.
"His [Mr. Johnson] high school seniors were not asked to articulate an understadning of the conditions and contexts that might have contributed to the loss of a family's home or to a pregnant mother's decision to turn to crack cocaine. Ms. Adam's students, by contrast, began yheir work with a systematic and criticial analysis of the caused of homlessness an of the strategies employed to prevents it."
I thought it was interesting that the younger students look at the facts that sort of "shaped" the people they saw first hand and that the older students did not. I would think that these roles would have been reversed; not because the seventh graders are incapable but because many often think the younger grades might not "understand" or "be ready" to learn about the real world. Granted, telling a 12 year old the woes of crack cocaine and what they do to an unborn child can be life changing but isn't that the point. If something changes your life, you are going to remember it and therefore, they may keep it more in mind once they face tougher issues or drugs themselves as they get older. Or, if they are already experiencing that, it might help them make the right decision. I did find it odd however that the older students did not discuss the causes. As an educator, why wouldn't you want your students to understand where the information is coming from?
"...--students haves the opportunitities to experiance what David Hornbeck, fromer Maryland state superintendent, referred to as 'the joy of reaching out to others.' For example, many stuents left Mr. Johnson's project aware of the contributions that they could make toward helping others..."
I felt that this quote summed up my SL experiances. Granted, I may not agree with my teacher's methods but that dos not mean I have to suffer. I have worked with one boy a little bit each week and its great to help him and hear him read a word confidently that he couldn't read when he came to school that day. I mean, its why I wanted to become a teacher.
"For example, a music director at a middle school we studies wanted her surburban, upper-middle class students to perform at a nearby elementary school in a poor neighborhood. Some of the middle school parents objects, saying they they were concerned for their children's safety. In a written evaluation, the students said that they had imagined 'horrifying children running around on a dirty campus.' "
I felt like this quote was similar to my initial reaction. I didn't have my parents objecting and I didn't think I was going to see horrifying children but I knew my SL school was going to be different from my elementary school. But I knew it was going to be different in terms of the divsersity, which meant the children would just be different from myself and most of the kids I went to school with. I didn't think it was going to be this "jungle" of students who were crazy. The school itself looks old and not in the best condition so I figured the classrooms would look the same but I knew it wasn't all physical apperances that matter but the teaching that goes on in those rooms.
Overall, I didn't mind read this article. It was a bit lengthy but an easy read so I could read it pretty quickly and still felt like I understood it. I also thought it was interesting to see the differnces in SL projects and those are reflected in the quotes I selected.
The Politics of Service Learning
Joseph Kahne & Joel Westheimer
Kahne/Westheimer argues that even though SL projects are great experiances and should be supported, there are criteria that should be fulfilled. They say that these programs should have their unerlying goals brought to the surface as well as making them widely available and allowing students to pick their own projects.
"His [Mr. Johnson] high school seniors were not asked to articulate an understadning of the conditions and contexts that might have contributed to the loss of a family's home or to a pregnant mother's decision to turn to crack cocaine. Ms. Adam's students, by contrast, began yheir work with a systematic and criticial analysis of the caused of homlessness an of the strategies employed to prevents it."
I thought it was interesting that the younger students look at the facts that sort of "shaped" the people they saw first hand and that the older students did not. I would think that these roles would have been reversed; not because the seventh graders are incapable but because many often think the younger grades might not "understand" or "be ready" to learn about the real world. Granted, telling a 12 year old the woes of crack cocaine and what they do to an unborn child can be life changing but isn't that the point. If something changes your life, you are going to remember it and therefore, they may keep it more in mind once they face tougher issues or drugs themselves as they get older. Or, if they are already experiencing that, it might help them make the right decision. I did find it odd however that the older students did not discuss the causes. As an educator, why wouldn't you want your students to understand where the information is coming from?
"...--students haves the opportunitities to experiance what David Hornbeck, fromer Maryland state superintendent, referred to as 'the joy of reaching out to others.' For example, many stuents left Mr. Johnson's project aware of the contributions that they could make toward helping others..."
I felt that this quote summed up my SL experiances. Granted, I may not agree with my teacher's methods but that dos not mean I have to suffer. I have worked with one boy a little bit each week and its great to help him and hear him read a word confidently that he couldn't read when he came to school that day. I mean, its why I wanted to become a teacher.
"For example, a music director at a middle school we studies wanted her surburban, upper-middle class students to perform at a nearby elementary school in a poor neighborhood. Some of the middle school parents objects, saying they they were concerned for their children's safety. In a written evaluation, the students said that they had imagined 'horrifying children running around on a dirty campus.' "
I felt like this quote was similar to my initial reaction. I didn't have my parents objecting and I didn't think I was going to see horrifying children but I knew my SL school was going to be different from my elementary school. But I knew it was going to be different in terms of the divsersity, which meant the children would just be different from myself and most of the kids I went to school with. I didn't think it was going to be this "jungle" of students who were crazy. The school itself looks old and not in the best condition so I figured the classrooms would look the same but I knew it wasn't all physical apperances that matter but the teaching that goes on in those rooms.
Overall, I didn't mind read this article. It was a bit lengthy but an easy read so I could read it pretty quickly and still felt like I understood it. I also thought it was interesting to see the differnces in SL projects and those are reflected in the quotes I selected.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Media Literacy and Representations of Class
Alright, so one of my suitemates was "strongly encouraged" to attend the Media Literacy and Representations of Class with Dr. Dr.Pepi Leistyna because her History teacher was the coordinator. So, I went with her. I figured it might be interesting or at least provide me with some insight. Well, I don't really feel like either of these things occured. First of all, it was pretty hard to keep up with Dr. Leistyna because that man talks fast. And its not just like he's rambling, oh no no. He talks a mile a minute and it all makes sense. The problem is, by the time you figure out and catch up to what he just said, hes five minutes ahead of you. So, it wasn't bad. Then we watched his "documentary-esque" film, Class Dismissed. Well, I wasn't a fan. I did not enjoy Christensen's article and Dr. Leistyna's film was along the same lines. The film discussed how different TV shows express the working class on 5 different criteria such as poor work ethic, lack of intelligence, etc. Alright, that's all fine. But as my suitemate and I both noticed and discussed, the film that Dr. Leistyna showed was all based on white, sitcoms and only white sitcoms. He did not use any shows that are of a diverse nature nor did he use different media, even though he mentioned both of those in dialouge. He brought up The Cosby Show in discussion as well as how television is not the medium for finding this "portrayal" of working class America. We were discussing how to phrase this in a question but couldn't think of in an appropriate amount of time (we had to leave early to attend our 2:00 classes on time, considering I get locked out of mine if I am late). Its not like shows on television that focus on non white or non mainly white families do not also involve the working class. For example, Sister, Sister, George Lopez, The Cosby Show, The Jeffersons (including all spin offs of Maude), That's So Raven, Smart Guy, Everybody Hates Chris, etc. I realize these focus on African American families, with the exception of George Lopez, but like we have dicussed in class, there are not many television shows that focus on non white families, especially those of Latino or Asain race. I feel like he also limited himself in only using sitcoms. If we are to look outside the spectrum of sitcoms, we are presnted with other shows such as Gilmore Girls, Ugly Betty, Grey's Anatomy, Judging Amy, Smallville, Veronica Mars, etc. All of these shows discuss working class families (some are untraditional families, like Grey's) and all of them deal with a single, working parent...isn't this something you could have focused on Dr. Leistyna?
It also irritated me that people feel the need to interpret everything. There was an individual who made a comment about telelvision shows can give us "unrelaistic" aspects of life/goals. They used Gossip Girl as an example. Now, I am a fan of this show but I know it is just that. I know i have to work for what I get in life and I know the ewards of hard work. I understand that some people just have money but most have to work for it. But most of all, I know that it is fake! I know its a telelvision show and I move on with my life.
Dr. Leistyna also went off on crazy tangents, which made it hard to follow as well. I mean, he started talking about taxes, which was relevant partially but to me, I wished the discussion had been more geared to diversity and more about the portrayal of the working class.
The link below leads to a film review/synopsis of "Class Dismissed"
Monday, October 13, 2008
Talking Points #4 (Christensen)
Unlearning the Myths That Bind Us
Linda Christensen
Christensen argues that media instills negative messages into our brain at an early age. She expresses how these messages filled with racism, sexism and other negative diversity stereotypes must be identified and “un-learned” so people do not live their wholes lives with the negative messages they received as a child.
“In this passage and others in her dialogue with Dorfman, Justine displayed discomfort with prying apart her identity and discovery where she received her ideas; yet she also grudgingly admitted how necessary this process was if she wanted to move beyond where she was at the time.”
This quote stuck out to me because I feel like everyone does this at their lives, whether it be small and minor reflections or large and life changing. Personally, I have gone through a large and life changing experience where I had to look at myself and determine various things. This process ended with me losing 4 out of 5 of my closest friends from high school over the span of two years because I did not conform to the “norm” and stuck to my opinions. This to me has been a decision that I have thought a lot about and even though I lost my closest friends over it, have never regretted. I feel like it has made me a stronger and better person. In those two years, I also underwent changes in a personal way and through my family, which have contributed to me becoming the person I am today. Again, I am thankful for those experience and even though they seemed impossible to get through when they were occurring, I know I would not be half the person I am today without them. Mainly, I am grateful I underwent such a “process” at an “early” age because it means I have more of my life to live with the outlook I have now and can make more of a difference then if it had happened latter in my life. Granted, it made me grow up a lot faster than I would have liked but regardless, I am still thankful.
“ ‘Look, Ursula the sea witch is ugly and smart. Hey, she’s kind of dark looking. The young, pretty ones only want to hook their man; the old pretty ones are mean because they are losing their looks.’ ”
Alright. First of all, this quote bothered me because The Little Mermaid was my favorite Disney movie as a child. Who knows how many times I’ve watched it but never once did I think of it in this context. The characters physical appearance did not trigger anything inside of me. I simply watched it because I liked the story, the songs and I loved to swim. Therefore, I loved the movie. I never, ever regarded anything I watched as sending off negative messages about any time of racism, sexism, etc. I watched the movies and enjoyed their stories. I mean, I watched Aladdin along with The Little Mermaid and regarded them as the same time of story. The skin color or portrayal of sexes did not come to my mind and have had no affect on me. I would like to think I am a very open person to diversity and I grew up on Disney movies. Obviously, the family environment is going to have an influence on your thoughts on diversity. By no means am I saying anything against anyone’s family environment but I know I was raised to treat everyone equally. Granted, I did not experience a diverse culture until I came to college, as my hometown is predominately white. Nonetheless, I am open to diversity; I do not treat people different to any factor (race, gender, religion, etc.). The only reason I would treat someone differently is if I have a personal issue with them and then it doesn’t matter if you are the most powerful person or the weakest. I mean, its not like I was naïve as a child. I knew that not everyone wasn’t like me but it just didn’t matter to me; a person was a person and we are all different so what did it matter if one of those differences was skin color, religion, gender, etc..
“Students have also said that what they now see in cartoons, they also see in advertising, on prime time TV, on the news, in school. Turning off the cartoons doesn’t stop the sexism and racism. They can’t escape, and now that they’ve started analyzing cartoons, they can’t stop analyzing the rest of the world. And sometimes they want to stop. Once a student asked me, ‘Don’t you ever get tired of analyzing everything?’”
Ok, I get it. Its like once you see a bumper sticker somewhere and find out what it means, you see it everywhere (I know, poor comparison) but you can choose to stop. Not everything in the world is made to be important nor diverse but simply made for enjoyment; things you don’t have to think about. I mean, how many stupid movies come out every year? And I totally understand how everything should be made to be diverse to promote diversity and express how important it is for everyone to be equal. I totally agree. But going to the extent of expressing how the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles are “pointless” simply because it is about a bunch of talking, ninja fighting turtles is a bit extreme. Diversity aside, its made for pure enjoyment, like any for of media that we see. If these students found this cartoon to be “pointless” I can only imagine that they would find nearly every show on television pointless. I mean, why bother having a show about a fictional family who do not talk about diversity all the time on television? If we cut all the media that was “pointless” I’m sure we would just be left with the news, which to some/most people would also be considered “pointless.”
Ok, don’t get me wrong. I understand where Christensen is coming from and I think as many shows as possible can incorporate diversity. It should be effortless but meaningful. However, I think she takes this to the extreme. I personally have never had an affect of watching cartoons/Disney movies as a child. Then again, I am a white female from a middle class family so maybe because of those attributes I did not get a negative influence from those shows. The way I see it is that everything in moderation can’t hurt you. I didn’t watch excessive cartoons as a child so maybe that plays into the role as well. But I mean, it’s the same with how everything is all “organic” now. I work in a grocery store and literally, I have seen gluten free, sugar free and probably something else “free” Oreos. (I think they are called chocolate crisp crème cookies). Like…seriously? Call me old fashioned but sometimes nothing beats a good Oreo at the end of the day. I mean, I enjoy fruit and Luna bars as much as the next girl but at some point, I think again we just get too extreme. I think its great that they make gluten free and sugar free products because people are allergic to gluten or diabetic but simply getting them because you want to shield your child from “everything awful” in the world just doesn’t seem like it’s the only and best way to parent a child. Its not a horrible method but its sickening to me have these methods shoved in my face more and more. Who knows, by the time I have children maybe the trend will be to eat solely cardboard.
Ok…to move on from my huge rant, there was one other issue that bothered me with this article; the lack of positive diversity examples. Christensen provided the black Cinderella example but then it just kind of…subsided. If you want to get into extremes, I’m sure I can’t point out diversity in a Disney movie. I mean, in The Little Mermaid, a regular, non-merman human falls in love with a mermaid. Granted, they have the same skin color but they are from different world. In Beauty and the Beast, a regular human falls in love with, well a beast. Yes, these movies set up “false hopes” about life but its not like they are oblivious to the world in some way, shape or form. I mean, are we trying to say movies about talking cars or animals are better? Or, here’s a good one. Hannah Montana. Essentially, if you want to get particular, it is not teaching kids that its “ok” to lead two lives and not be true to who you are? (At least, that’s what I get from watching it with my cousin a few times) One cartoon I did think of was The Flintstones. Both Fred and Barney are “overweight” men and are married to attractive and skinny females. But is this mentioned in the article? I think not…
And I apologize for how long this is but I am in a car, on my way to Arlington to visit my brother so I was quite bored and just kept typing.
Linda Christensen
Christensen argues that media instills negative messages into our brain at an early age. She expresses how these messages filled with racism, sexism and other negative diversity stereotypes must be identified and “un-learned” so people do not live their wholes lives with the negative messages they received as a child.
“In this passage and others in her dialogue with Dorfman, Justine displayed discomfort with prying apart her identity and discovery where she received her ideas; yet she also grudgingly admitted how necessary this process was if she wanted to move beyond where she was at the time.”
This quote stuck out to me because I feel like everyone does this at their lives, whether it be small and minor reflections or large and life changing. Personally, I have gone through a large and life changing experience where I had to look at myself and determine various things. This process ended with me losing 4 out of 5 of my closest friends from high school over the span of two years because I did not conform to the “norm” and stuck to my opinions. This to me has been a decision that I have thought a lot about and even though I lost my closest friends over it, have never regretted. I feel like it has made me a stronger and better person. In those two years, I also underwent changes in a personal way and through my family, which have contributed to me becoming the person I am today. Again, I am thankful for those experience and even though they seemed impossible to get through when they were occurring, I know I would not be half the person I am today without them. Mainly, I am grateful I underwent such a “process” at an “early” age because it means I have more of my life to live with the outlook I have now and can make more of a difference then if it had happened latter in my life. Granted, it made me grow up a lot faster than I would have liked but regardless, I am still thankful.
“ ‘Look, Ursula the sea witch is ugly and smart. Hey, she’s kind of dark looking. The young, pretty ones only want to hook their man; the old pretty ones are mean because they are losing their looks.’ ”
Alright. First of all, this quote bothered me because The Little Mermaid was my favorite Disney movie as a child. Who knows how many times I’ve watched it but never once did I think of it in this context. The characters physical appearance did not trigger anything inside of me. I simply watched it because I liked the story, the songs and I loved to swim. Therefore, I loved the movie. I never, ever regarded anything I watched as sending off negative messages about any time of racism, sexism, etc. I watched the movies and enjoyed their stories. I mean, I watched Aladdin along with The Little Mermaid and regarded them as the same time of story. The skin color or portrayal of sexes did not come to my mind and have had no affect on me. I would like to think I am a very open person to diversity and I grew up on Disney movies. Obviously, the family environment is going to have an influence on your thoughts on diversity. By no means am I saying anything against anyone’s family environment but I know I was raised to treat everyone equally. Granted, I did not experience a diverse culture until I came to college, as my hometown is predominately white. Nonetheless, I am open to diversity; I do not treat people different to any factor (race, gender, religion, etc.). The only reason I would treat someone differently is if I have a personal issue with them and then it doesn’t matter if you are the most powerful person or the weakest. I mean, its not like I was naïve as a child. I knew that not everyone wasn’t like me but it just didn’t matter to me; a person was a person and we are all different so what did it matter if one of those differences was skin color, religion, gender, etc..
“Students have also said that what they now see in cartoons, they also see in advertising, on prime time TV, on the news, in school. Turning off the cartoons doesn’t stop the sexism and racism. They can’t escape, and now that they’ve started analyzing cartoons, they can’t stop analyzing the rest of the world. And sometimes they want to stop. Once a student asked me, ‘Don’t you ever get tired of analyzing everything?’”
Ok, I get it. Its like once you see a bumper sticker somewhere and find out what it means, you see it everywhere (I know, poor comparison) but you can choose to stop. Not everything in the world is made to be important nor diverse but simply made for enjoyment; things you don’t have to think about. I mean, how many stupid movies come out every year? And I totally understand how everything should be made to be diverse to promote diversity and express how important it is for everyone to be equal. I totally agree. But going to the extent of expressing how the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles are “pointless” simply because it is about a bunch of talking, ninja fighting turtles is a bit extreme. Diversity aside, its made for pure enjoyment, like any for of media that we see. If these students found this cartoon to be “pointless” I can only imagine that they would find nearly every show on television pointless. I mean, why bother having a show about a fictional family who do not talk about diversity all the time on television? If we cut all the media that was “pointless” I’m sure we would just be left with the news, which to some/most people would also be considered “pointless.”
Ok, don’t get me wrong. I understand where Christensen is coming from and I think as many shows as possible can incorporate diversity. It should be effortless but meaningful. However, I think she takes this to the extreme. I personally have never had an affect of watching cartoons/Disney movies as a child. Then again, I am a white female from a middle class family so maybe because of those attributes I did not get a negative influence from those shows. The way I see it is that everything in moderation can’t hurt you. I didn’t watch excessive cartoons as a child so maybe that plays into the role as well. But I mean, it’s the same with how everything is all “organic” now. I work in a grocery store and literally, I have seen gluten free, sugar free and probably something else “free” Oreos. (I think they are called chocolate crisp crème cookies). Like…seriously? Call me old fashioned but sometimes nothing beats a good Oreo at the end of the day. I mean, I enjoy fruit and Luna bars as much as the next girl but at some point, I think again we just get too extreme. I think its great that they make gluten free and sugar free products because people are allergic to gluten or diabetic but simply getting them because you want to shield your child from “everything awful” in the world just doesn’t seem like it’s the only and best way to parent a child. Its not a horrible method but its sickening to me have these methods shoved in my face more and more. Who knows, by the time I have children maybe the trend will be to eat solely cardboard.
Ok…to move on from my huge rant, there was one other issue that bothered me with this article; the lack of positive diversity examples. Christensen provided the black Cinderella example but then it just kind of…subsided. If you want to get into extremes, I’m sure I can’t point out diversity in a Disney movie. I mean, in The Little Mermaid, a regular, non-merman human falls in love with a mermaid. Granted, they have the same skin color but they are from different world. In Beauty and the Beast, a regular human falls in love with, well a beast. Yes, these movies set up “false hopes” about life but its not like they are oblivious to the world in some way, shape or form. I mean, are we trying to say movies about talking cars or animals are better? Or, here’s a good one. Hannah Montana. Essentially, if you want to get particular, it is not teaching kids that its “ok” to lead two lives and not be true to who you are? (At least, that’s what I get from watching it with my cousin a few times) One cartoon I did think of was The Flintstones. Both Fred and Barney are “overweight” men and are married to attractive and skinny females. But is this mentioned in the article? I think not…
And I apologize for how long this is but I am in a car, on my way to Arlington to visit my brother so I was quite bored and just kept typing.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Youtube timeee
Sooo
I was on youtube...and wasn't looking for videos on diversity but they just kind of fell into my lap. They are quick, brief but I thought it was interesting. I tried to figure out how to put in my blog for like 2 minutes but I got frustrated and just stopped trying because it's probably wicked easy. So here's the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=al5Euju-rOg
There are other videos too that go along with the IBM company. I saw links for ones for African Americans, women, Aboriginal, East and South Asian, people with disabilities, etc., Pretty interesting. They even have a religious accomadations video ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nL-IBE5NZXA&feature=related ).
This is from the IBM website as well, discussing their diversity committment:
http://www-03.ibm.com/employment/us/diverse/?sa_campaign=message/aimm/all/aimm
I was on youtube...and wasn't looking for videos on diversity but they just kind of fell into my lap. They are quick, brief but I thought it was interesting. I tried to figure out how to put in my blog for like 2 minutes but I got frustrated and just stopped trying because it's probably wicked easy. So here's the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=al5Euju-rOg
There are other videos too that go along with the IBM company. I saw links for ones for African Americans, women, Aboriginal, East and South Asian, people with disabilities, etc., Pretty interesting. They even have a religious accomadations video ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nL-IBE5NZXA&feature=related ).
This is from the IBM website as well, discussing their diversity committment:
http://www-03.ibm.com/employment/us/diverse/?sa_campaign=message/aimm/all/aimm
Talking Points #3 (Carlson)
Gayness, Multicultural Education and Community
Dennis Carlson
Carlson argues that it is in the power of educators to teach students (and everyone for that matter) that individuality should be celebrated and not supressed. Everyone should learn about differences in society and learn to act with them and not against them.
"It is also a community with a less benign face, one that maintains a dominant culture through oppressive tactics used to keep Others 'in their places.'...refer to this as a community organized around the 'will to purify'..."
This quote originally stuck out to me because of the word choice. The word benign sticks out to me because I initially always relate it to cancer. So, when I was reading this sentence and came upon 'benign' my mind referred itself to cancer and I had to stop reading the sentence. It took me a few times to get threw the sentence without taking benign out of its current context but this sentence still stuck with me. So, I made a lose connection that the author could be referring to how "gayness" is the "benign" tumor on the body of society. Like...when its worded that way, for me, it really just makes me disgusted with how people think.
The other part of the quote (the fragment from the next sentence of the text) was what also popped into my mind when i read "benign." Again, I connected it to cancer but its like saying not matter how much radiation, chemo & other treatments we throw at this "stuff" it keeps coming back. Its like saying no matter how much we fight to have unequal rights remains for those who are gay, they still insist on being gay! I feel like that conversation takes place in a big room in Texas full of older, die hard conservative men, smoking cigars and talking about "the good old days."
"The commonsense perspective on language is that words refer to or stand for things, so that it does not really matter what you call these things. But words do not meraly stand in for 'things.' They emerge out of and take on meaning within particular discourses and practices."
First off, I thought it was great how he clarified his word usage before he really got deep into discussion. More so to the point, I feel like this quote is the epitome of our entire class. Just because there might be more than one word to describe a person does not mean you get to decide what they want to be called. This reminds me of that other article/poem we read in class, "For the white person who wants to know how to be my friend" as well as the video Dr. Bogad posted on her blog. Races often assign names to other races without knowing them. Its automatic judgement. And I really shouldn't limit that to races--everyone does it for their opposite. Whether thats skin color, gender, socio-economic class, culture, etc., So, like I said, I feel like this quote was almost written for our class. Every day we learn how to address individuals based on their prefernces as a person first, attributes second, not attributes first, person second.
"Straight women, because they have developed their own critique of patriarchy and because they can relate to marginalization, have generally been most supportive of the gay movement. The challenge is to engage straight men in a deconstructive analysis of how they understand 'being straight' in ways that involve treating women and gays as Others."
I really like this whole surronding section. I thought Carlson's analysis on why different genders "respond" to the gay atmosphere the way they do was interesting. I also think its interesting to think of how women are more supportive because they too had to earn (and still have to earn) their equality among men and therefore society. Its like the male gender is that one person who always tries to make you feel like you aren't worthy, like their problems are bigger than yours when in actuallity you are not only a better person but have actually overcome more obstacles in your life and have a better outloook than the person who has had evetything handed to them. Now, I'm not saying one gender/race/class/culture is better than any, I was just using an example. So, I will use another as well. Ok, so this also made me think of the show Exiled on MTV. Its the one where they "exile" the Super Sweet 16 girls off to poorer,more unfortunate countries to actually learn how to appreciate life. So I thought of that show because here you have citizens of a country who have to do anything they can to surive and have completely different customs then we do but they are still happy and are overjoyed just to be with their family. And then you have this bratty 18 year old girl who comes to your country in her Gucci outift and complains about a mterial object that the people she is living but have never even heard of. I know, its a stretch but its the villagers are the people who do not have equal rights (gays) and the girl who is exiled are the ones with the rights telling the villagers they cant have any rights (govt, society). I dont know...it just seems totally crazy to me.
I dont really know if I have any more feedback...I kind of just said everything I was feeling in my quotes. And I realized I said 'like' a lot and for that I apologize. I wasn't a big fan of Carlson's writing style but it wasn't too bad to get through it. The beginning felt like a lot of other articles we have read where it is addressing how the article will discuss how a groupf of people aren't getting treated equally. I thought it brought up some good points, mainly around the quotes I picked out but I'm sure there are a bunch of other ones that demonstate better or even clearer points. I guess to summarize this I would only be able to say what I have been thinking after every article we read. What is so difficult about treating everyone in the country equally? Im not saying make them un-individualistic by any means. Simply, appreciate everyone's differnces but don't turn around and use those differences against them, especially because its not a legit reason to. ( I don't think it is anyway)
Dennis Carlson
Carlson argues that it is in the power of educators to teach students (and everyone for that matter) that individuality should be celebrated and not supressed. Everyone should learn about differences in society and learn to act with them and not against them.
"It is also a community with a less benign face, one that maintains a dominant culture through oppressive tactics used to keep Others 'in their places.'...refer to this as a community organized around the 'will to purify'..."
This quote originally stuck out to me because of the word choice. The word benign sticks out to me because I initially always relate it to cancer. So, when I was reading this sentence and came upon 'benign' my mind referred itself to cancer and I had to stop reading the sentence. It took me a few times to get threw the sentence without taking benign out of its current context but this sentence still stuck with me. So, I made a lose connection that the author could be referring to how "gayness" is the "benign" tumor on the body of society. Like...when its worded that way, for me, it really just makes me disgusted with how people think.
The other part of the quote (the fragment from the next sentence of the text) was what also popped into my mind when i read "benign." Again, I connected it to cancer but its like saying not matter how much radiation, chemo & other treatments we throw at this "stuff" it keeps coming back. Its like saying no matter how much we fight to have unequal rights remains for those who are gay, they still insist on being gay! I feel like that conversation takes place in a big room in Texas full of older, die hard conservative men, smoking cigars and talking about "the good old days."
"The commonsense perspective on language is that words refer to or stand for things, so that it does not really matter what you call these things. But words do not meraly stand in for 'things.' They emerge out of and take on meaning within particular discourses and practices."
First off, I thought it was great how he clarified his word usage before he really got deep into discussion. More so to the point, I feel like this quote is the epitome of our entire class. Just because there might be more than one word to describe a person does not mean you get to decide what they want to be called. This reminds me of that other article/poem we read in class, "For the white person who wants to know how to be my friend" as well as the video Dr. Bogad posted on her blog. Races often assign names to other races without knowing them. Its automatic judgement. And I really shouldn't limit that to races--everyone does it for their opposite. Whether thats skin color, gender, socio-economic class, culture, etc., So, like I said, I feel like this quote was almost written for our class. Every day we learn how to address individuals based on their prefernces as a person first, attributes second, not attributes first, person second.
"Straight women, because they have developed their own critique of patriarchy and because they can relate to marginalization, have generally been most supportive of the gay movement. The challenge is to engage straight men in a deconstructive analysis of how they understand 'being straight' in ways that involve treating women and gays as Others."
I really like this whole surronding section. I thought Carlson's analysis on why different genders "respond" to the gay atmosphere the way they do was interesting. I also think its interesting to think of how women are more supportive because they too had to earn (and still have to earn) their equality among men and therefore society. Its like the male gender is that one person who always tries to make you feel like you aren't worthy, like their problems are bigger than yours when in actuallity you are not only a better person but have actually overcome more obstacles in your life and have a better outloook than the person who has had evetything handed to them. Now, I'm not saying one gender/race/class/culture is better than any, I was just using an example. So, I will use another as well. Ok, so this also made me think of the show Exiled on MTV. Its the one where they "exile" the Super Sweet 16 girls off to poorer,more unfortunate countries to actually learn how to appreciate life. So I thought of that show because here you have citizens of a country who have to do anything they can to surive and have completely different customs then we do but they are still happy and are overjoyed just to be with their family. And then you have this bratty 18 year old girl who comes to your country in her Gucci outift and complains about a mterial object that the people she is living but have never even heard of. I know, its a stretch but its the villagers are the people who do not have equal rights (gays) and the girl who is exiled are the ones with the rights telling the villagers they cant have any rights (govt, society). I dont know...it just seems totally crazy to me.
I dont really know if I have any more feedback...I kind of just said everything I was feeling in my quotes. And I realized I said 'like' a lot and for that I apologize. I wasn't a big fan of Carlson's writing style but it wasn't too bad to get through it. The beginning felt like a lot of other articles we have read where it is addressing how the article will discuss how a groupf of people aren't getting treated equally. I thought it brought up some good points, mainly around the quotes I picked out but I'm sure there are a bunch of other ones that demonstate better or even clearer points. I guess to summarize this I would only be able to say what I have been thinking after every article we read. What is so difficult about treating everyone in the country equally? Im not saying make them un-individualistic by any means. Simply, appreciate everyone's differnces but don't turn around and use those differences against them, especially because its not a legit reason to. ( I don't think it is anyway)
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Talking Points #2 (Rodriguez)
Aria
Richard Rodriguez
Rodriguez argues that language barriers in a classroom can end up taking over and breaking up a once close family. To take this out of the prespective of the article, issues and changes with one individual can often transpond over to other individuals, resulting in a "tremor" in a once fluid system.
"Without question, it would have pleased me to hear my teachers address me in Spanish when I entered the classroom. I would have felt much less afraid. I would have trusted them and responded with ease."
I picked this quote because I think everyone can feel this way, whether or not you do not speak the language of the majority. For example, like most older citizens, my grandparents have all had their fair share of medical setbacks. So when it comes down to me listening to a doctor ramble off his procedure that he is about to perform on someone I love, I don't feel comforted or confident. I feel scared, aloned and segregated. I feel like the doctors simply come out and talk to families because they have to not because it will help the family rest a little better or inform other citizens of the "wonders" of the medical world. Is this what teachers feel like in a classroom that has non english speakers in it? That they "have" to "try" to explain English to those who don't understand it and not help them because they want to improve their quality of education? And if I feel this way around doctors as a fairly well educated, middle class white girl, I can't even being to imagine how alone, terrified and helpless a young child of a different culture feels like in a prodominately English speaking classroom.
"In an instant, they agreed to give up the language (and sounds) that had revealed and accentuate our family's closeness."
I feel like this quote stuck out to me because it is basically saying the the majority race "demands" everyone else to give up what makes them different and their own person to conform to what is assumed to be a "better" race. (By better, I mean more prodominent and more accepted--I do not by any way mean that the white race is the best or bettet than any other race.)
"We remained a loving family, but one greatly changed. No longer so close; no longer bound tight by the pleasing and troubling knowledge of our public separateness."
This quote stuck out to me because I think it could be an example of "long term" effects of teaching in a non-Delpit style. To me, teaching in a non-Delpit style would be having every child in your classroom, regardless of anything, learn all the same ways. So, if you have a child do this (like force them to learn English and change their culture in doing so) I believe this to be non-Delpit. I think this could an effect of that teaching style as it would make the child (or children in this case) more like everyone else, which segregates them from their parents. Its like sending your kids off to school in the morning to find out that they have been "replaced" with just another white American child. It really seems to just strip a child of their individuality almost because the teacher just doesn't want to deal with their differences--this is something I hope never to intentionally do in my classroom.
Overall, I actually enjoyed this article. I thought it was interesting to see how separated a family becomes out of their use of language. But when its put into perspective, it all kind of made sense. You often seen families of other cultures that are closer together--even as a comnunity. But when you look at white families, you do not get that same impression. Yeah, they might know their neighbors but they don't interact as much as other cultures do. And within a "nuclear" family, there are those huge separations; children at school, who are involved in activities and clubs, parents who are constantly at their jobs or running errands. And, as the society becomes more and more based on money, whenever people are not at school or working, they are out spending their money. Its not like they save it and go on a family vacation and actually spend their time together--they probably go off and have their own activities. Its really unfortunate and I think everyone could see how separate their families are in reading this article. It also made me thankful for how close my family is but I know how hard we work to keep it that way as well considering my brother now lives in Arlington after 4 years of college in D.C. and I live at school. Granted, its half an hour away but I am really close to my parents so its still a big deal. One last point what that iwas interesting to see a family "broken up" by a language issue--usually you see this happen with drugs, drinking or just other forms of trouble. But then again, maybe those are more "white" based problems and families of different culture may also experiance these problems but much more complicated ones that can be cured with rehab or moving to a different town.
On a side note, I googled the word "aria" and found out it was a term used in music. It was often a way of a melody, usually in refrence to singing. However one alternate definition included: "to describe a self-contained piece for one voice usually with orchestral accompaniment" I feel like this connects to the article in that Richard's original voice, his native language, was that aria. It was self contained and alone but it completed the orchesta of all different voices. By "americanizing" himself, I feel like that orchestra is still complete but not nearly as interesting.
Richard Rodriguez
Rodriguez argues that language barriers in a classroom can end up taking over and breaking up a once close family. To take this out of the prespective of the article, issues and changes with one individual can often transpond over to other individuals, resulting in a "tremor" in a once fluid system.
"Without question, it would have pleased me to hear my teachers address me in Spanish when I entered the classroom. I would have felt much less afraid. I would have trusted them and responded with ease."
I picked this quote because I think everyone can feel this way, whether or not you do not speak the language of the majority. For example, like most older citizens, my grandparents have all had their fair share of medical setbacks. So when it comes down to me listening to a doctor ramble off his procedure that he is about to perform on someone I love, I don't feel comforted or confident. I feel scared, aloned and segregated. I feel like the doctors simply come out and talk to families because they have to not because it will help the family rest a little better or inform other citizens of the "wonders" of the medical world. Is this what teachers feel like in a classroom that has non english speakers in it? That they "have" to "try" to explain English to those who don't understand it and not help them because they want to improve their quality of education? And if I feel this way around doctors as a fairly well educated, middle class white girl, I can't even being to imagine how alone, terrified and helpless a young child of a different culture feels like in a prodominately English speaking classroom.
"In an instant, they agreed to give up the language (and sounds) that had revealed and accentuate our family's closeness."
I feel like this quote stuck out to me because it is basically saying the the majority race "demands" everyone else to give up what makes them different and their own person to conform to what is assumed to be a "better" race. (By better, I mean more prodominent and more accepted--I do not by any way mean that the white race is the best or bettet than any other race.)
"We remained a loving family, but one greatly changed. No longer so close; no longer bound tight by the pleasing and troubling knowledge of our public separateness."
This quote stuck out to me because I think it could be an example of "long term" effects of teaching in a non-Delpit style. To me, teaching in a non-Delpit style would be having every child in your classroom, regardless of anything, learn all the same ways. So, if you have a child do this (like force them to learn English and change their culture in doing so) I believe this to be non-Delpit. I think this could an effect of that teaching style as it would make the child (or children in this case) more like everyone else, which segregates them from their parents. Its like sending your kids off to school in the morning to find out that they have been "replaced" with just another white American child. It really seems to just strip a child of their individuality almost because the teacher just doesn't want to deal with their differences--this is something I hope never to intentionally do in my classroom.
Overall, I actually enjoyed this article. I thought it was interesting to see how separated a family becomes out of their use of language. But when its put into perspective, it all kind of made sense. You often seen families of other cultures that are closer together--even as a comnunity. But when you look at white families, you do not get that same impression. Yeah, they might know their neighbors but they don't interact as much as other cultures do. And within a "nuclear" family, there are those huge separations; children at school, who are involved in activities and clubs, parents who are constantly at their jobs or running errands. And, as the society becomes more and more based on money, whenever people are not at school or working, they are out spending their money. Its not like they save it and go on a family vacation and actually spend their time together--they probably go off and have their own activities. Its really unfortunate and I think everyone could see how separate their families are in reading this article. It also made me thankful for how close my family is but I know how hard we work to keep it that way as well considering my brother now lives in Arlington after 4 years of college in D.C. and I live at school. Granted, its half an hour away but I am really close to my parents so its still a big deal. One last point what that iwas interesting to see a family "broken up" by a language issue--usually you see this happen with drugs, drinking or just other forms of trouble. But then again, maybe those are more "white" based problems and families of different culture may also experiance these problems but much more complicated ones that can be cured with rehab or moving to a different town.
On a side note, I googled the word "aria" and found out it was a term used in music. It was often a way of a melody, usually in refrence to singing. However one alternate definition included: "to describe a self-contained piece for one voice usually with orchestral accompaniment" I feel like this connects to the article in that Richard's original voice, his native language, was that aria. It was self contained and alone but it completed the orchesta of all different voices. By "americanizing" himself, I feel like that orchestra is still complete but not nearly as interesting.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Talking Point #1 (Kozol)
Amazing Grace
The Lives of Children and the Conscience of a Nation
Jonathan Kozol
Kozol argues that people living in the poorest oparts of the country still deserve to have quality lives (good hospitals, streets they can walk down without being asked to buy drugs, etc.) but do not get these lives. These people also get any shot of hope or freedom taken away from them either by disease or other hardships they face (welfare getting taken away).
"He doesn't answer me but smiles at the bears affectionately. 'I saw a boy shot in the head right over there,' he says, a moment later, in a voice that does not sound particularly sad, then looks up at me and asks politely, 'Would you like a chocolate chip cookie?' "
1.) I don't think I can verbally describe this quote but when I read it, it just stayed with me.
"A nurse who works there [Harlem Hospital], according to one press accountant, carries a card in her wallet with the message: 'Do not take me to Harlem Hospital in an emergency.' The relative merits if Brinx-Lebanon, however, do not offer Mrs. Washington much solace. 'It's the difference between terrible and worse than terrible.' "
1.) This quote is basically expressing the bottom line of how terrible the living conditions are in the place that Kozol is visiting. It appears that going to the hospital is worse than trying to take care of it yourself.
"I think they [drug dealers] hate you because you are not in their condition. 'I am in hell an you are not and so I hate you and I have to try to bring you down to where I am.' I feel pity for them and fear because they're lost."
1.) This quote gave me back hope after reading this article. It showed me that amid the mess that is described, there are still hopeful people in the world who literally have nothing to hope about it. It gave me back hope.
I felt that this article was easy to read. It was written well and the language was not complicated. I also felt like it kept my interest. Even though it was about 15 pages, it did not feel that long. As horrific as most of the details were, for some reason it just made me want to keep reading. I guess I was searching for the "hope" in the article.
I also felt it was hard to really describe the quote I picked. A lot of things stuck out to me in the article but to be able to write down what exactly it was about each quote that had such an influence on me was very difficult.
In addition, I am not used to reading about this type or material and literally felt like I was reading a script from a movie setting. Its not that I am naive or that I have never been to a part of the world that is like the places desecribe in the article. I guess a part of me just wants to hold on to that hope and not face the harsh reality that is described in the article. I guess I want to believe that even if life is horrible, that is some beacon of hope that gets people through their day.
On a separate note, when I started to read this article, I was prepared for a liberal lesson in the form of education reform. But I was suprised. As I read Goldberg's article first, I had a rough outline of how Kozol's article was going to read but it was not the case at all! Its almost difficult to see how Kozol could write the type or material Goldberg described when at the same time he produced this article.
The Lives of Children and the Conscience of a Nation
Jonathan Kozol
Kozol argues that people living in the poorest oparts of the country still deserve to have quality lives (good hospitals, streets they can walk down without being asked to buy drugs, etc.) but do not get these lives. These people also get any shot of hope or freedom taken away from them either by disease or other hardships they face (welfare getting taken away).
"He doesn't answer me but smiles at the bears affectionately. 'I saw a boy shot in the head right over there,' he says, a moment later, in a voice that does not sound particularly sad, then looks up at me and asks politely, 'Would you like a chocolate chip cookie?' "
1.) I don't think I can verbally describe this quote but when I read it, it just stayed with me.
"A nurse who works there [Harlem Hospital], according to one press accountant, carries a card in her wallet with the message: 'Do not take me to Harlem Hospital in an emergency.' The relative merits if Brinx-Lebanon, however, do not offer Mrs. Washington much solace. 'It's the difference between terrible and worse than terrible.' "
1.) This quote is basically expressing the bottom line of how terrible the living conditions are in the place that Kozol is visiting. It appears that going to the hospital is worse than trying to take care of it yourself.
"I think they [drug dealers] hate you because you are not in their condition. 'I am in hell an you are not and so I hate you and I have to try to bring you down to where I am.' I feel pity for them and fear because they're lost."
1.) This quote gave me back hope after reading this article. It showed me that amid the mess that is described, there are still hopeful people in the world who literally have nothing to hope about it. It gave me back hope.
I felt that this article was easy to read. It was written well and the language was not complicated. I also felt like it kept my interest. Even though it was about 15 pages, it did not feel that long. As horrific as most of the details were, for some reason it just made me want to keep reading. I guess I was searching for the "hope" in the article.
I also felt it was hard to really describe the quote I picked. A lot of things stuck out to me in the article but to be able to write down what exactly it was about each quote that had such an influence on me was very difficult.
In addition, I am not used to reading about this type or material and literally felt like I was reading a script from a movie setting. Its not that I am naive or that I have never been to a part of the world that is like the places desecribe in the article. I guess a part of me just wants to hold on to that hope and not face the harsh reality that is described in the article. I guess I want to believe that even if life is horrible, that is some beacon of hope that gets people through their day.
On a separate note, when I started to read this article, I was prepared for a liberal lesson in the form of education reform. But I was suprised. As I read Goldberg's article first, I had a rough outline of how Kozol's article was going to read but it was not the case at all! Its almost difficult to see how Kozol could write the type or material Goldberg described when at the same time he produced this article.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Talking Point #1 (Goldberg)
110 People Who Are Screwing Up America
Bernard Goldberg
Goldberg argues that Jonathan Kozol is messing the minds of Americans by enforcing a more liberal approach be applied to the field of education. Goldberg states that Kozol's practices and beliefs in a liberal society are not only praised but placed into effect in school systems, who now turn out children who have recieved biased education.
"Yet, what be even worse, and in the end even more dnagerous, is that so many of today's schools are turning out "smart" kids with little understand of how precious their heritage is."
1.) I felt that this quote was important in conveying the vast diaster Goldberg feels that Kozol's beliefs are contributing to the edcuation system.
"He [Kozol] says teachers should talk to their students about the architect of the Holocaust, Adolf Eichmann, whose 'own preperation for obedient behavior...was recieved in German public schools' ---which produced 'good Germans, or good citizens, as we in the United States would say.' "
1.) This is important in that it shows an example of Kozol's thinking.
2.) This is also important in that you get to see how Kozol thinks. He obviously uses the influence of other cultures (like Cuba as well). He also feels like the effect of "good thinking" isn't that important if he uses Eichmann as a example of a "good" student.
"All the book's model lessons aim to teach little children to withstand America's state-sponsored brainwashing and to open them up to the self evident truths of feminism, enviornmentalism, and the Left's account of history."
1.) This quote is important as it states Kozol's direct ideas and goals.
2.) This quote also stuck out to me for another reason. If Kozol is so anxious to have education be solely based on Liberal fact, is he not creating the same enviornment that education is already in? He would be closing off education to any other ideas, which is what he argues already exsists! A better idea would be to integrate liberal ideas into the exsisting form of eduction but still keep it open as to get a well rounded group of ideas and not just from one source.
Overall, this wasn't my favorite article to read. When it comes to politics, my interests drain a bit. Don't get me wrong--I'm interested in the upcoming election and the canidates but when it gets down to the "boring" politics, I just can't focus on it. Therefore, when this article started quoting Sol Stern, my focus went right out the window. I had to read this part over a few times to fully grasp what they were talking about.
On a different aspect, I thought Goldberg's writing style was easy enough to follow and the section was short enough where I could keep an interest and get through the article with little to no hassle (excluding the Stern quote).
Bernard Goldberg
Goldberg argues that Jonathan Kozol is messing the minds of Americans by enforcing a more liberal approach be applied to the field of education. Goldberg states that Kozol's practices and beliefs in a liberal society are not only praised but placed into effect in school systems, who now turn out children who have recieved biased education.
"Yet, what be even worse, and in the end even more dnagerous, is that so many of today's schools are turning out "smart" kids with little understand of how precious their heritage is."
1.) I felt that this quote was important in conveying the vast diaster Goldberg feels that Kozol's beliefs are contributing to the edcuation system.
"He [Kozol] says teachers should talk to their students about the architect of the Holocaust, Adolf Eichmann, whose 'own preperation for obedient behavior...was recieved in German public schools' ---which produced 'good Germans, or good citizens, as we in the United States would say.' "
1.) This is important in that it shows an example of Kozol's thinking.
2.) This is also important in that you get to see how Kozol thinks. He obviously uses the influence of other cultures (like Cuba as well). He also feels like the effect of "good thinking" isn't that important if he uses Eichmann as a example of a "good" student.
"All the book's model lessons aim to teach little children to withstand America's state-sponsored brainwashing and to open them up to the self evident truths of feminism, enviornmentalism, and the Left's account of history."
1.) This quote is important as it states Kozol's direct ideas and goals.
2.) This quote also stuck out to me for another reason. If Kozol is so anxious to have education be solely based on Liberal fact, is he not creating the same enviornment that education is already in? He would be closing off education to any other ideas, which is what he argues already exsists! A better idea would be to integrate liberal ideas into the exsisting form of eduction but still keep it open as to get a well rounded group of ideas and not just from one source.
Overall, this wasn't my favorite article to read. When it comes to politics, my interests drain a bit. Don't get me wrong--I'm interested in the upcoming election and the canidates but when it gets down to the "boring" politics, I just can't focus on it. Therefore, when this article started quoting Sol Stern, my focus went right out the window. I had to read this part over a few times to fully grasp what they were talking about.
On a different aspect, I thought Goldberg's writing style was easy enough to follow and the section was short enough where I could keep an interest and get through the article with little to no hassle (excluding the Stern quote).
Monday, September 8, 2008
Hey Girl Hey!
So.
My name is Alyson & I laugh a lot. I live on campus and am in my second year at RIC. I am an elementary ed major, focusing on special ed. I am also completely determined to graduate in four years and not a semester longer. As you might be able to tell by my blog title, I really like movies & all different kinds. I also like to swim, bake, read, and hang out with my friends. I'm really passionate about the things I love, which range from the Golden Girls to Chuck Norris to Todd English & i'm kind of a dork when it comes to history.
That pretty much sums it up!
=)
My name is Alyson & I laugh a lot. I live on campus and am in my second year at RIC. I am an elementary ed major, focusing on special ed. I am also completely determined to graduate in four years and not a semester longer. As you might be able to tell by my blog title, I really like movies & all different kinds. I also like to swim, bake, read, and hang out with my friends. I'm really passionate about the things I love, which range from the Golden Girls to Chuck Norris to Todd English & i'm kind of a dork when it comes to history.
That pretty much sums it up!
=)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)