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.