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.
Friday, October 31, 2008
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)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)