I love the quote, "How absurd to be judged by others at all." LOVE THAT QUOTE. I feel for this women from the beginning of the article. Not that I can say that I have ever had a disability or have been segregated into another classroom due to my differences from other students; however I do know the feeling of being judged, and it is extremely frustrating. This article hits the points of segregation, education, silence, etc. "Dialoge cannot occur...between those who deny others the right to speak their word and those whose rigth to speak has been denied them." This completely relates back to the reading from Delpit; "The Silenced Dialogue". Now even though the circumstances may be different, it is still the truth. How can one get their word across if no one will listen, or allow them the right to speak? It's absurd.
Just as I had stated in class a couple weeks ago when talking about tracking; I feel that a student should have the right to chose how their education should go. Meaning, they should be able to chose what classes they would like to take and where they would like to go in life. I do not believe it should be up to others. Every student deserves an equal opportunity to get a good education in the world. Just as Kliewer's example of the woman in the beginning of the article, Mia -- she states that she did not like the classes she was in. She had to go through special ed. all of her life. She was unable to take classes that interested her.
I am not promoting or stating that I think that a student with behavioral problems or severe special education would do well in a classroom with other students that are not at that level. However, how am I to judge what those students may want or need? Everything in life is a trial run basis. We test things out; cars, books, t.v's, the latest technology, etc. Why can't students be able to test run a class that may interest them?
I will finish this post with a personal experience of mine. My senior year of high school I was part of a test run group. The group was made up of 8 upper classmen and we were paired with 8 other under classmen students who had a Asperger syndrome, a form of Autism. We each had a student that became our "buddy". The 8 upper classmen that were chosen were students that exhibited good communication skills, worked well with peers, and might be able to get these other 8 students to come around. It was one of the most rewarding experiences of my life. Working with these kids was probably one of the best things I could have ever done. These kids were perfectly "normal" they were just behind the 8 ball in regards to their social skills. Giving them a person to say hello to in school hallways or eat lunch with really helped them out more then anyone could ever imagine. I know that this doesn't really connect with down syndrome, but it's just another example of how students all over sometimes need a little push, or a VOICE, and that could be the best thing for them.
Kels!!
Monday, November 19, 2007
Monday, November 12, 2007
"One More River to Cross" Brown vs. Board
This article hits key points of race, segregation, and denial. After reading the handout that was given to us in class last week, I was able to have a better understanding of the different issues and topics that were discussed in this paper.
After all of the discussions that we have had in class, in regards to power, privilege, codes of power, S.C.W.A.A.M.P, etc. this whole topic has had its ups and downs. After reading this article I do agree with Lawrence that this country is still in denial. However, I do not believe that all over the United States there are still racial tensions at an all time high. But yes, we are all still in denial. I am NOT a racist, I am not prejudice, I have been brought up in an environment where I was taught to have an open mind, and respect others. I have lived up to everything I have been taught. But I do see segregation at times. But not to the extremes where we are forced to sit at different ends of buses, or drink from different water fountains; even in Donovan you see how there are certain tables where a large group of Hispanics or African Americans will sit. This is NOT done intentionally. I sit with my friends and the people that I am friendly with just as everyone else does. It is interesting though to see that first hand at your College or University.
I think the thing that stood out to me right off the bat was at the end of the first paragraph of the article. "Each step forward was just that, a step. There would always be 'one more river to cross". This is unfortunately true. I believe that Lawrence is saying here that racial tension will never be completey done and over with. But I would like to think that one day everything will be equal; and not just in a racial sense, but for men and women in the work place, or between upper and lower class, etc. Perhaps the first step is electing a female or African American male into office? I think that would be pretty cool if you ask me.
Kels!
After all of the discussions that we have had in class, in regards to power, privilege, codes of power, S.C.W.A.A.M.P, etc. this whole topic has had its ups and downs. After reading this article I do agree with Lawrence that this country is still in denial. However, I do not believe that all over the United States there are still racial tensions at an all time high. But yes, we are all still in denial. I am NOT a racist, I am not prejudice, I have been brought up in an environment where I was taught to have an open mind, and respect others. I have lived up to everything I have been taught. But I do see segregation at times. But not to the extremes where we are forced to sit at different ends of buses, or drink from different water fountains; even in Donovan you see how there are certain tables where a large group of Hispanics or African Americans will sit. This is NOT done intentionally. I sit with my friends and the people that I am friendly with just as everyone else does. It is interesting though to see that first hand at your College or University.
I think the thing that stood out to me right off the bat was at the end of the first paragraph of the article. "Each step forward was just that, a step. There would always be 'one more river to cross". This is unfortunately true. I believe that Lawrence is saying here that racial tension will never be completey done and over with. But I would like to think that one day everything will be equal; and not just in a racial sense, but for men and women in the work place, or between upper and lower class, etc. Perhaps the first step is electing a female or African American male into office? I think that would be pretty cool if you ask me.
Kels!
Monday, November 5, 2007
Tracking: Why Schools Need to Take Another Route
First off, let me start out by saying that the majority of my opinions and views are solely based on what I have experienced, ie: the school district I grew up in and the home environment that I was surrounded by.
This article was very interesting, because this is a topic that has been popping up in some of my conversations that I have been having lately. I didn't know what the correct term was for "tracking", I never knew it to be tracking. What I did know were A,B, and C, level classes but even then, school's accross the country have drifted away from using those terms. Which in my opinion is a good thing. My opinion on tracking is 50/50. And by reading Oakes' article I now know more information about tracking, which betters my understand of it.
My parents have always wanted me to do my best. My parents and myself know what my best work is. And it was always clear to me and them when I wasn't trying my best. I was pushed and told to always put my best work out there, but it wasn't in an "in your face" manner. As i got older, i knew that i had to do my homework and papers, without being reminded by my mom and dad. I learned how to be a "good student" on my own. Along with excellent encouragement from my wonderful parents.
Now that I have stated that, I will tell you that throughout high school I was in Honors and College Prep classes. I wasn't a brain, however I wasn't a slacker, low life either. I went into the classes that me and my parents felt were a best fit for me. Chariho used to go by the A,B, and C levels years before I went there. However, 2 years before I started my freshmen year they changed those classes to Honors and College Prep. I think this is a good thing. When I used to hear the other terms being used, the thought that came to my mind was if you were in a C or B level class, you weren't smart, or good enough. If that makes any sense at all. When you hear Honors and Collge Prep, I don't feel as though you are necessarly being grouped. If this blog is sounding confusing or not making much sense, i think i'll be able to better explain myself in class.
With this article however, there were some things that I completely dissagreed with. Oakes states that students in higher level English classes were "expected to learn vocabulary that would eventually boost their scores on college entrance exams." She was implying that ONLY those students in those higher level classes were being taught those words. I can for a fact, state that this is not the case. I took Honors English because that if my strong suit, and yes i did learn the "SAT Vocab words". HOWEVER, so did the students in the College Prep classes, in fact they learned the exact same words as me and used the same tools and packets as i did. So i disagree that with her statement that the students in those "lower level" classes aren't getting the same "education" as those in the higher level. AND why does she need to call the College Prep class a "lower level" class. It's on the same level as a B class, and these students are being PREPARED FOR COLLEGE.
I also disagree with her statement that the high ability classes have "better instructors". I can again say that this is FALSE. The teachers that I had for my English and Science Honors courses ALSO taught College Prep classes, as well as the classes below those. And those instructors taught the same material and used the same tools and required the same from each student.
The one thing that I can say however is that yes, in the College Prep courses, teachers do take a little bit more time on each chapter, subject, topic, etc. And I think this is a good thing. If a group of students needs a little bit of extra time or doesn't move at the same pace as others, then they should be allowed to be in a classroom that allows it. I mean if they are doing the same work as an Honors student just in a College Prep class, with other students who need the same thing, how is that bad? If all of these students in both Honors and College Prep classes are striving for the same goal, how can you argue that? How can you tell someone who is committed to a goal and doing well in school; how can you tell them that they now need to be placed in a classroom with people who are way ahead of them or WAY behind them. Schooling is to improve peoples skills and knowledge, we all want the same thing (most of us) and for those of us who are committed, we should be allowed to learn in the way the fits and works for us best.
P.S: Once again, if this is extremely confusing, just ask me in class to expand on my thoughts; I feel that i will be able to explain myself better without rambling on. : )
This article was very interesting, because this is a topic that has been popping up in some of my conversations that I have been having lately. I didn't know what the correct term was for "tracking", I never knew it to be tracking. What I did know were A,B, and C, level classes but even then, school's accross the country have drifted away from using those terms. Which in my opinion is a good thing. My opinion on tracking is 50/50. And by reading Oakes' article I now know more information about tracking, which betters my understand of it.
My parents have always wanted me to do my best. My parents and myself know what my best work is. And it was always clear to me and them when I wasn't trying my best. I was pushed and told to always put my best work out there, but it wasn't in an "in your face" manner. As i got older, i knew that i had to do my homework and papers, without being reminded by my mom and dad. I learned how to be a "good student" on my own. Along with excellent encouragement from my wonderful parents.
Now that I have stated that, I will tell you that throughout high school I was in Honors and College Prep classes. I wasn't a brain, however I wasn't a slacker, low life either. I went into the classes that me and my parents felt were a best fit for me. Chariho used to go by the A,B, and C levels years before I went there. However, 2 years before I started my freshmen year they changed those classes to Honors and College Prep. I think this is a good thing. When I used to hear the other terms being used, the thought that came to my mind was if you were in a C or B level class, you weren't smart, or good enough. If that makes any sense at all. When you hear Honors and Collge Prep, I don't feel as though you are necessarly being grouped. If this blog is sounding confusing or not making much sense, i think i'll be able to better explain myself in class.
With this article however, there were some things that I completely dissagreed with. Oakes states that students in higher level English classes were "expected to learn vocabulary that would eventually boost their scores on college entrance exams." She was implying that ONLY those students in those higher level classes were being taught those words. I can for a fact, state that this is not the case. I took Honors English because that if my strong suit, and yes i did learn the "SAT Vocab words". HOWEVER, so did the students in the College Prep classes, in fact they learned the exact same words as me and used the same tools and packets as i did. So i disagree that with her statement that the students in those "lower level" classes aren't getting the same "education" as those in the higher level. AND why does she need to call the College Prep class a "lower level" class. It's on the same level as a B class, and these students are being PREPARED FOR COLLEGE.
I also disagree with her statement that the high ability classes have "better instructors". I can again say that this is FALSE. The teachers that I had for my English and Science Honors courses ALSO taught College Prep classes, as well as the classes below those. And those instructors taught the same material and used the same tools and required the same from each student.
The one thing that I can say however is that yes, in the College Prep courses, teachers do take a little bit more time on each chapter, subject, topic, etc. And I think this is a good thing. If a group of students needs a little bit of extra time or doesn't move at the same pace as others, then they should be allowed to be in a classroom that allows it. I mean if they are doing the same work as an Honors student just in a College Prep class, with other students who need the same thing, how is that bad? If all of these students in both Honors and College Prep classes are striving for the same goal, how can you argue that? How can you tell someone who is committed to a goal and doing well in school; how can you tell them that they now need to be placed in a classroom with people who are way ahead of them or WAY behind them. Schooling is to improve peoples skills and knowledge, we all want the same thing (most of us) and for those of us who are committed, we should be allowed to learn in the way the fits and works for us best.
P.S: Once again, if this is extremely confusing, just ask me in class to expand on my thoughts; I feel that i will be able to explain myself better without rambling on. : )
Monday, October 15, 2007
Unlearning the Myths That Bind Us - Christensen & Karp
Right off the bat of reading this document, I was turned off. Christensen uses examples of popular stories and fairy tales that young children often love when they are younger; she tries to state that these stories try and teach kids how to "act, live, and dream". I completely disagree with this statement. Children find these stories amusing and interesting, because that's exactly what they are supposed to do. Stories and reading in general has always been pushed on kids because it expands the mind, and allows children to use their imagination. I highly doubt that when the authors of these fairy tales were thinking of all the way they could possibly "manipulate" young society. I just don't believe it.
I also do not believe in a "secret education". For Christensen to make a comment stating that racial thoughts and stereotypes are embedded in the minds of young children at an early age is just wrong. I look back on my childhood, and I enjoyed many of the films and storybooks that Disney and Pixar had to offer. Not once, ever in my memory, do I ever recall thinking, "oh, geeze...that seems a little racist to me". Never, not once. And I hate to sound like I'm on the defense right now, but I guess I sort of am. This disheartens me to hear that stories and movies that I as a child loved to read and watched, just as many other young children did at my age, are now being belittled and over analyzed. I did not read enough as a kid, but I do know that the books that I did read were ones that were interesting to me, and ones that I found and my parents found good for my mind and for the developing child.
Now, being 19 years old, I'm pretty sure about myself. I know what I believe in, I know the difference between right and wrong, and I am most importantly comfortable in my own skin. The books that I read as a child had an impact on me, a good impact. I have not grown up to be a racist biggit, and I have not grown into a person who is closed minded. So, once again, I apologize for being defensive right now. But I do not agree with this author and their views. I plan on becoming an educator and an English teacher at that, and I want my students and children of my own to read whatever they like, and whatever will stimulate their imaginations and minds.
Kels!
I also do not believe in a "secret education". For Christensen to make a comment stating that racial thoughts and stereotypes are embedded in the minds of young children at an early age is just wrong. I look back on my childhood, and I enjoyed many of the films and storybooks that Disney and Pixar had to offer. Not once, ever in my memory, do I ever recall thinking, "oh, geeze...that seems a little racist to me". Never, not once. And I hate to sound like I'm on the defense right now, but I guess I sort of am. This disheartens me to hear that stories and movies that I as a child loved to read and watched, just as many other young children did at my age, are now being belittled and over analyzed. I did not read enough as a kid, but I do know that the books that I did read were ones that were interesting to me, and ones that I found and my parents found good for my mind and for the developing child.
Now, being 19 years old, I'm pretty sure about myself. I know what I believe in, I know the difference between right and wrong, and I am most importantly comfortable in my own skin. The books that I read as a child had an impact on me, a good impact. I have not grown up to be a racist biggit, and I have not grown into a person who is closed minded. So, once again, I apologize for being defensive right now. But I do not agree with this author and their views. I plan on becoming an educator and an English teacher at that, and I want my students and children of my own to read whatever they like, and whatever will stimulate their imaginations and minds.
Kels!
Sunday, October 7, 2007
This was a very interesting article. The majority of our class discussions have to do with S.C.W.A.A.M.P, and this subject ties in very much so with that topic. We always focus on what is considered to be the "norm", and what "normal" lifestyles and such are. There's a very good quote on the first page of the article that states "Throughout much of this century, the dominant idea of community in America was represented by what i will call the normalizing community...white, middle class, male, heterosexual, etc.". That is basically all that we discuss in class most of the time. And often we wonder what is politically correct to say in regards to certain subjects, such as homosexuality. Carlson states that the "p.c." labels are "gay" and "lesbian". He also distinguishes between a homosexual orientation and a gay identity. Orientation, is a direction that a person might take involving sexual desires. Whereas gay identity has to do with visible appearance and how they present themselves out in the world.
One of Carlson's bullet points was The Normalizing School Community and Gayness. He stated that there were three techniques involved with normalization; 1) being that there is no real presence of gayness in any school curriculum. 2) the "closeting" and so called "witch hunting" of teachers, and 3) any form of verbal and/or physical abuse towards gay teachers AND students. These were three things that i hadn't ever really realized until brought to my attention. Carlson also states that there are many state throughout the U.S. that strongly prohibit the teaching of homosexuality. "Early in this century, the dismissal of gay teachers was legitimated as a way of keeping young people from being exposed to improper role models, lechery, and child molestation." This is a quote from Willard Walter, which Carlson added to his article. Walter also is quoted saying that, "nothing seems more certain than that homosexuality is contagious." In my opinion this is complete ignorance. How dare somebody every say that.
Another one of Carlson's bullet points was The Representation of Gayness in Popular Culture. Carlson speaks about a French film, La Cage aux Folles. Now as I'm reading what the plot of the movie is it is becoming extremely clear that i actually have seen this movie, but in an updated form. I have seen the film The Birdcage, which is the 90's remake of this early 80's film. I found that film to be hilarious. However, Carlson states that when he was first watching this film he was appalled and couldn't believe that Gay men were being viewed as some sort of comical diversion from what the film was really about. However, once he started taking the film for what it really was, he found the humor in it afterall.
Kels.
One of Carlson's bullet points was The Normalizing School Community and Gayness. He stated that there were three techniques involved with normalization; 1) being that there is no real presence of gayness in any school curriculum. 2) the "closeting" and so called "witch hunting" of teachers, and 3) any form of verbal and/or physical abuse towards gay teachers AND students. These were three things that i hadn't ever really realized until brought to my attention. Carlson also states that there are many state throughout the U.S. that strongly prohibit the teaching of homosexuality. "Early in this century, the dismissal of gay teachers was legitimated as a way of keeping young people from being exposed to improper role models, lechery, and child molestation." This is a quote from Willard Walter, which Carlson added to his article. Walter also is quoted saying that, "nothing seems more certain than that homosexuality is contagious." In my opinion this is complete ignorance. How dare somebody every say that.
Another one of Carlson's bullet points was The Representation of Gayness in Popular Culture. Carlson speaks about a French film, La Cage aux Folles. Now as I'm reading what the plot of the movie is it is becoming extremely clear that i actually have seen this movie, but in an updated form. I have seen the film The Birdcage, which is the 90's remake of this early 80's film. I found that film to be hilarious. However, Carlson states that when he was first watching this film he was appalled and couldn't believe that Gay men were being viewed as some sort of comical diversion from what the film was really about. However, once he started taking the film for what it really was, he found the humor in it afterall.
Kels.
Monday, October 1, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)