Talking Point #10

Allan Johnson
from the book "Privilege, Power, and Difference"

-Chapter 9-

"What Can We Do?"

In this chapter Allan Johnson starts off by stating, "The challenge we face is to change patterns of exclusion, rejection, privilege, harassment, discrimination, and violence that are everywhere in society and have existed for hundreds of years." I don't think this pertains to me, a future educator, but to everyone in general. Johnson wants us as a society to challenge the things that be, because that's the only way to address them. He urges us to speak out when something doesn't feel or seem right, because silence only contributes to furthering the acceptance of it.

The topics he stresses us to speak out on is that of race, gender, sexual preference, disabilities, minority rights or anything that may seem as "controversial" He asks us to take risks and "Do Something" because privilege does exist weather you are blind to it or not. He provides encouragement and italicizes things you can do to help change the mold, like....

"Make noise, be seen/ heard"

"Find ways to withdraw support from paths of least resistance and people's choices to follow them"

"Dare to make people feel uncomfortable, beginning with yourself"

"Openly choose and model alternative paths"

"Actively promote change in how systems are organized around privilege"

"Support the right of women and men to love whomever they choose"

"Work with other people"

Much like his quote "Because just as the last thing a fish would discover is water, the last thing people discover is society itself and something as pervasive as privilege." I think what Johnson means by this is, just like a fish is so use to having water there to support them and keep them alive, so to is something like privilege. As a society we are so use to it (privileges) being there, that we forget it exists and take advantage of it because it benefits us, and why would we want to lose something that helps us gain more?

I like how Johnson ended his text with encouragement to make a change. He said "Don't let other people set the standard for you." Start from where you are at in this point and time, and make a change from there. Don't look down the road at the big picture, because in doing so your only setting yourself up for failure. Instead think of your subtle changes as building blocks thats leading to house something bigger and better.

"You dont have to do anything dramatic or earth-shaking to help make change happen. As powerful as systems of privilege are, they cannot stand the strain of lots of people doing something about it, beginning with the simpliest act of NAMING THE SYSTEM OUT LOUD."

Talking Point #9

Peggy Orenstein

"School Girls: Young Women, Self-Esteem, and the Confidence Gap"


Premise: (What is this About?)

1. Gender Equality
2. Sexism
3. Education/ Teaching

Argument:

I dont think there's a strong case for an argument here, but if i HAD to pick one i would think it's in the first two sentences that read,

"There is no single magic formula that will help girls retain their self-esteem. Scores of educators around the country are working to develop gender-fair curricula in all subjects and reexamining traditional assumptions about how children best learn."


My Thoughts:

First i wanna point out a quote from this reading that i found. It is by Emily Style and it reads, "Curriculum should be both a window and a mirror for students, that they should be able to look into others' worlds, but also see the experiences of their own race, gender, and class reflected in what they learn." More recently i believe this is becoming more prominant in schools, and is starting to be more of a preaching then a practice. To me it says that, what students learn should be a learning experience, all schooling requires some sort of learning, but it should also be reflective learning in which students can relate to based on their personal experiences. I have found this is be happening here at RIC in most of my classes, especially the class in which im writing this for, FNED 346.

But more on this reading, I liked how the teacher here, Ms. Logan incorporated here own idea on the curriculum of having the students present a monolouge on a FEMALE and MALE persona. She did this because she experienced this in which students had a choice and most of the time, female and male students would pick MALES. From my personal experience i have found this to be true. In my high school sociology class, the assignment was to give a presentation on ANYONE FAMOUS, teach everyone about someone who did something for society. Thinking back to it (we're talking like four years here) I believe EVERY one of my classmates picked a male (again i could be wrong) I personally chose a male comedian, Barry Horowitz a.k.a "Curly" from The Three Stooges lol. It's like in the story Ms. Logan said, "As long as it's required they accept it, But it wouldnt occur to them to choose it."

The point here, is when given the choice most students will pick a male because their seen as the heroins, the saviors that did everything for this country, but what about the woman who were by their side? or aided in their accomplishments because YOU KNOW they exist.

The story mostly tells about a classroom where the curriculum is centered around woman, and some males accept it, others dont like it. Same thing for girls in the class, it shows them how important they can be, but some also dont feel like their learning anything because there is no male involvement. In the end it, the students learn gender equality as one student said, "I dont see what the big deal is about women, I mean as long as they're interesting whats the difference if their woman, Woman are people too"

Talking Point #8

Christopher Kliewer

"Citizenship in School: Reconceptualizing Down Syndrome"


Premise: (What is this about?)

1. Children with Down Syndrome
2. Conformation
3. Diversity
4. Citizenship
5. Perception

Argument:

Kliewer argues that, "Fundamental to constructivist teaching is a respect for each student as both an active agent in the learning process and an essential member of the learning community."


My Thoughts:

First off i want to say i like the story about Issac in this piece. The fact that the teacher took the initiative to find a way to conform the student with a disability within the classroom setting with a lesson plan that let ALL the students actively learn was a major role there. Not only that, but the fact that she recognized Issac as a human child, not a disabled child and let him learn on a level that showed he was grasping the lessons being taught.

With that said, there were a couple quotes that stuck out to me in here that really made me think and reflect. One was, "Dialogue imposes itself as the way by which people achieve significance as human beings" I couldn't agree more with this because as Americans, i think we value our English language in the sense of its dominance, and think that ALL cultures should learn it. In the way in which we carry our dialogue as well, in fact shows significance. For example if one person says to you "I kinda like made me think" versus " I pondered this conundrum" who do you think is going to be seen as more significant in society?

Others Included....

1. "Communication is built on one's ability to listen deeply to others."
2. "Dialogic of democracy is ultimately a set of values based on respect, humility, and creative listening"
3. "It's not Lee (a child with a disability) you're picking out. It's your stereotype, your mind-set. It's you, and it has nothing to do with Lee."
4. "Altering the culture of disability requires that a child be recognized as an active learner, a thinker, and a problem solver, but this cannot occur apart from the relationships that allow for such engagement."

The third quote there is what i think is the biggest problem when it comes to teaching disabled children, in addition to the story i briefly talked about in the beginning. It usually comes down to an educator "being stuck in their ways" and not opening up or accepting those with a disability and automatically labeling them as a "deficit." It is in fact about them, and not wanting to accept someone who is different, and changing their lessons to incorporate someone with a learning disability.

Talking Point #7

Charles Lawrence



"One More River to Cross"--Recognizing the Real Injury in Brown:





Premise: (What is this about?)

1. (De)Segregation


2. Traditions


3. Race


4. Power


5. Privilege

Argument:

Lawrence argues that "If Brown v Board of Education stands for the unconstitutionality of segregation, then the Fourteenth Amendment must guarentee blacks the right to be free from the continuing force and effect of that institution, or it guarentees nothing"


My Thoughts:

Before reading this, i had no idea about Brown or Green v the board of education. I've heard about it through word of mouth, but i never knew anything about it other than by its name. To some extent i'm still left a little puzzled after this article. What i took from this was that prior to these cases schools were segregated by race. Which i believe is morally wrong, but thats just the way the country was back in those times where everything was racist. How blacks were seen as inferior and were less likely to achieve educational status.

Racism and white supremacy and subjects along those lines are something i'm just not comfortable with. I mean it saddens me to think that somewhere even today it still exists and i just dont like to think about it. I believe in equality and just as the pledge of allegiance states "liberty and justice for all"

Talking Point #6

Jeannie Oakes

"Tracking: Why Schools Need to Take Another Route"


Premise: (What is this about?)

1. Schooling
2. Power
3. Privilege
4. Teachers

Argument:

That school tracking is both a response to significant differences among students and an ongoing contribution to those differences.


My Thoughts:

Jeannie Oakes talks about school tracking here in this article and the advantages and disadvantages of it. How tracking puts together kids on the same "education level" together in a classroom and how privileged they are or become because they are labeled as smarter than the norm. Now she's not also saying lets mix the smart kids with the dumb ones and that will solve all our problems, because in fact that will only cause more for both sets of students. She offers some alternatives to tracking in hope to shorten the gap between the privileged and non-privileged students.

Oakes raises a good point here that I agree with, she seems to think there is a need to change they types of knowledge that children are expected to acquire in the social organization of schools and classrooms. I agree with Oakes here because from what I've acquired through my schooling career, I'll say a good amount of it I'm not going to need to know for my future. For example who the 17th president of the United States was (Andrew Johnson by the way), or the fact that "Au" on the table of elements is gold. Like that is basic high school knowledge that you are expected to attain, yet in the "real world" the only time your going to need to know that is on a jeopardy question. Oakes also suggests that classrooms fail to provide all students with time, opportunity and resources they need to learn, and that unless teachers and administrators believe and expect all students to learn well, they will be unlikely to create school and classroom conditions where students believe in their own ability and exert the effort it takes to succeed.

Oakes also suggests that when curriculum is organized around the central themes of a subject area rather than around disconnected topics and skills, all students stand the greatest chance of enhancing their intellectual development. I think this means that when teachers present a subject topic that all students can relate to, and are open to voice their opinions or personal experience maybe, then it enhances the students learning.

Talking Point #5

Jeannie Oakes + Martin Lipton

"Teaching to Change the World"


Premise: (What is this about?)

1. Schooling
2. Teachers
3. Tradition
4. Hope
5. Merit
6. Competition
7. Progress

Argument:

That the postmodern world is abandoning the notion of progress through universals and predictability. That "teachers" embrace empirical research and theory that illuminate from multiple perspectives schooling dilemmas and their effects on particular students.


My Thoughts:

I don't know where to really go with this, mainly because it was ALOT of reading. What I took from this was that it was about the history of schooling and its traditions. From the early years where it was only 5 years of education and it was based on skill. How it was preparing you for a job out in the "real-world" rather then actually advancing your mind. How ability and determination held the key to success and upward mobility, and I believe those traits still hold true today. How civil rights and war on poverty try to create equality by offering free/reduced lunches, and head start pre-schools for low-income families but it only scratched the surface of the problem. How the American sense of schooling emphasizes the role of the individual and de-emphasizes the responsibilities of school or society. How because of war, in the 60's, 70's, and 80's woman became the teachers because they were willing to work for less, wouldnt leave, and were "naturally" more nurturing. Men were the principles, superintendents, etc. That schools were run like factories and in someways are still like that today. That students of color were more likely to be successful when placed with white students in a classroom, that somehow "doing better" had more to do with the presence of whites. But when it was really due to the available resources, qualified teachers, and school cultures that expect and make possible higher aspirations and achievements.

Just some things I underlined in the reading that stuck out to me...

"Individuals do not inherit their social status; they attain it on their own" I agree and disagree with this statement. I agree that someone can achieve a social status based on their actions or achievements. But based on perception, is with why I disagree with this statement. Based on your "appearance" you could be placed into a certain class, for example if you are poor and dress "out of style" then the general public will assume you to be poor and would think lowly of you. Therefore you are given your social status, and to attain a better one would be to change who you are and your appearance to attain it.

"The American Dream is held out as a genuine prospect for anyone with the drive to achieve it"
Basically, if you are willing and determined then you will achieve the "American Dream" which is ideally a house, white picket fence, wife and children, dog, etc.....(SCWAAMP)

"If the poor and poorly educated did not lift themselves with the aid of national programs, then the fault lies with them and with their misguided helpers"....I hear Kozol here.

"The surest guide to doing the "right thing", remains doing better than the others"
How success is measured by doing better then someone else

Talking Point #4

Linda Christensen

"Unlearning the Myths That Bind Us"





Premise: (What is this about?)

1. Stereotypes
2. Cartoons
3. Identities
4. Education

Argument:

Christensen argues that the media, cartoons specifically alter the views children have or will have on American Culture and Society.


Evidence:

1. "Secret Education" as Dorfman dubs it, delivered by children's books and movies, instructs young people to accept the world as it is portrayed in these social blueprints.
2. When we read children's books, we aren't just reading cute little stories, we are discovering the tools with which a young society is manipulated.
3. Women appear as Jessica Rabbit, Overweight people appear as buffoons, Men as the "savior"

My Thoughts:

Upon reading Christensen's piece, it made me look back at my childhood and realize, that growing up I was altered by the movies and cartoons I would watch. Now i don't have the same prejudices as portrayed in some of these shows, as first hand experience has changed my views, but to think that these shows teach these things to children is mind-blowing.

This piece hit home a little bit mainly because of the examples it gave. My first "Cartoon Crush" I guess you could call it was on Jessica Rabbit. I remember watching her and Roger and thinking it was hilarious, but my main affection was for Jessica. She was beautiful in every sense of the word, and as a young boy what else are you really looking for other then beauty? I too watched "Duck Tales" and looking back at it now, I realize the images that it gave about money. That it was "everything", that it will get you "everything", and how it was the main focus of the whole show. While money will buy you a lot of things you may want and need, it certainly wont buy you happiness, and that's what that show is expressing to young children.

One quote that stuck out to me, and I think I can relate to was that of "it can be overwhelming and discouraging to find that our self-images have been formed by others, but if we don't dissect them, we will continue to be influenced by them" I think this means exactly what it states, that it sucks to think that other people have manipulated our views and opinions, but it's up to us to change them by stepping back and taking another look to see what exactly something is "saying"

Talking Point #3

Dennis Carlson

"Gayness, Multicultural Education, and Community"

Premise: (What is this About?)

1. Gay, Lesbian, Homosexuality
2. Ignorance
3. Individuality
4. Silencing
5. Invisibility
6. Stereotypes
   

Argument:

Carlson argues that homosexuals are discriminated against because of their appearance and/or effects in society. They are given less "power" in the community because they are seen as abnormal.

Evidence:

1. "In such an environment, it should hardly be surprising that major textbook publishers avoid gayness like the plague."


2. "To the extent that gayness is recognized in the curriculum, it is likely to be in the health curriculum, where it is associated with disease."


3. "Homosexuality and communism were closely linked as threats to the "American Way of Life."

My Thoughts:

After reading Carlson's article it makes me wonder why the American society views homosexuals as abnormal. This also reminds me of the SCWAAMP piece we did in class were Straightness and Christianity are so woven into "American Culture" that gayness is looked at as wrong in some sense. Evidence shows that slowly, homosexuality isn't as taboo as it once was, as their are marriage laws (only in some states) that legally acknowledge two people of the same sex wanting to live their lives together as one. In addition to the clearest sign, that gayness is collapsing in the mainstream (TV, media,) and their finally discussing issues of homosexuality as it was once completely ignored.

I believe that if homosexuality wasn't ignored to begin with then maybe it wouldn't be seen as abnormal. In this case ignorance isn't "bliss" because obviously something like isn't going to just go away. If by making homosexuality visible to the communities, people wouldn't classify nor judge against others as being "normal" or "abnormal" due to the fact that it would be more commonly known of.

Talking Point #2

Richard Rodriguez
"Aria"


Premise: (What is this about?)

1. Voice
2. Identity
3. Silence
4. Compliance
5. Socialism

Argument:

Richard Rodriguez argues that, children lose a degree of individuality by becoming assimilated into public society.

Evidence:

1. When the children started speaking English more, the Spanish language lost some of it's meaning.
2. The closeness within Richard's family slowly diminished as Spanish was "flushed" out of their language. Conversations between family members came to a halt.
3. As Richard started understanding the English language, he started to feel a sense of belonging at school, and in public.

The story "Aria" as told by Richard Rodriguez, is one that tells the history of him and his family learning the English language. Growing up, Richard was accustomed to speaking Spanish as his primary language. Between family, friends and relatives that's all he knew how to speak. Starting school however, he had to learn the "society's language" that being English. He started off slowly, mumbling his words in class and not speaking out loud afraid that he would be treated differently because he was bilingual.

That all changed one day, as his school teachers, the nuns, came to Richard's house to talk to his parents about his inability to speak English. The teachers quickly noticed that Spanish was their spoken language at home, and it would only help if they started to speak English around the household. Richard's parents agreed and from there on forward, he started to understand the English language and how it was spoken. That certain words had feeling and emotions depending on how they were said.

But this all came with a price, as slowly Spanish was being forgotten about within his family. Coming home Richard would hear his parents speaking to one another in Spanish, but as soon as they realized he was there listening, they would start talking in English. Other things to note was that his dad would hardly speak to them, let alone in English or Spanish, and the conversations within the family were far and few between. The "closeness" that once existed was gone, due to the fact that English was taking over their lives.

My Thoughts

If I were to post blame on one single event for the demise of the Rodriguez family, it would be when the Nuns intervened. When they came to visit, they basically told the parents to start speaking a different language then the one their use to. When English started taking prevalence over Spanish, is when the family started to decline. It's like they took away their "culture" and told them to live a new life.

I think that if they just let Richard be, and let him learn English on his own pace within the school setting, and with a little help he would have started to develope his own "voice" in the language. While the Nuns thought they were doing the right thing at the time for Richard, it only helped him gain an advantage in the social society, and took away what may matter most, his family.

Talking Point #1

Jonathan Kozol
"Amazing Grace"

Premise: (What is this about?)

1. Segregation
2. Religion
3. The Poor
4. Faith/ Belief
5. Sex/ Drugs
6. Power
7. Education (or lack thereof)

Argument:

Jonathan Kozol argues that, if the poor behaved "rationally" they would seldom be poor for long in the first place.

Evidence:

1. The adults in this story are riddled with the HIV/AIDS virus
2. The town has a high rate of murder in the town and prison
3. The drug addicts try to bring you down with them, sell you or try to get you addicted to drugs

The story "Amazing Grace" by Jonathan Kozol describes the poor side of a town in New York that is racially separated by a river from the wealthy. When taken on a tour throughout the town by a young boy he meets at a local church named Cliffe, he discovers the poor living conditions that exist. The houses are like miniature sauna's where the heat is so bad its possible to die, not to mention making citizens irritable and the rats and roaches you'll find living in the houses as well. There's a town incinerator that is used to burn anything from bottles, used needles, cars, and other various metals, in addition to a flood of prostitutes which leads to a high case of AIDS, and poor hospitals to take care of the sick.

You would think with such negativity surrounding everyday life it would affect everyone in the town top to bottom. Upon meeting Cliffe, a very friendly, courageous young boy in the church, Kozol asks him about God and is given a very stereo-typical answer. Cliffe tells him that God has long hair, can walk on water, and has taught him how to share. He also mentions that his heroes are Michael Jackson and Oprah. The two alarming factors are that he has no idea who George Washington is, and how he thinks the world is coming to an end because of drugs.

My Thoughts:

I agree with Kozol here, in the sense that I believe life is what you make of it. The decisions you make, have an effect on you and those around you and can have an impact now and in the future. In a poor society today, events like the ones told here in "Amazing Grace" exist and it up to not only some outside force to provide support, but internally for the people of the society to first realize what they're doing in order for change to occur. If they do not see anything wrong with what is going on (in relation to denial) then there would be no sense of help at all.

This story was somewhat hard for me to read, I don't know about most people but reading something about helpless people, AIDS, and death isn't exactly fun to read. I believe there's a moral to this story, and is that of if you do not do something good with your power (power being anything. Fortune, fame, knowledge) to help the less-fortunate, then you are contributing to the negatives in society.