Week 12 Quotes

"In a culture that values intellect more than intuition or emotion, typical environmental education too often emphasizes facts and information in lieu of experience." (Pelo 2009)

This quotes comes under the heading embrace sensuality. As someone who emphasizes science, I will often fall back on facts and logic. But I must always remind myself that there is a sensuality and spirituality to the natural world. One of my pet peeves is people (especially scientists) who view science as cold, hard logic. Even if we use facts and logic to explain natural processes, they do not diminish the spiritual/sensual nature of the world. Sure we can explain why blackberries taste so sweet, facts can't explain why it has such a specific, delicious taste or why experience the flavor affects each person differently on an emotional level. Sure I can explain the forces that govern subatomic particles, but that explanation in no way diminishes my amazement that such a physical system arose in such a way as to be able to create atoms, molecules and so on such that we are living, breathing things. To me, this quote speaks to fostering that feeling of wonder toward the natural world in tandem with those cold, hard facts.

"Culture - The practices, beliefs, traditions, moral norms that give the people a common sense of identity and way of understanding their relationship to the environment and to each other." (EcoJustice Dictionary)

After reading this definition, I began to wonder if we as Americans really have a culture. Actually, we do have a culture, but is it a culture that we are actually aware of. This definition includes some very deep concepts and ideas. Do we really live our lives in full awareness of our culture? Do we fully understand how and why we interact with each other in the way we do? Do we truly connect to the environment in a manner that we are conscious of. I keep thinking back to the Lee Mun Wah video The Color of Fear in which Victor points out that white men have lost their culture. White men like me have a culture, the culture of consumerism. Is it a meaningful one? Is it one that actually allows for deeper connections implied by this definition? My answer is no, and because of that I am truly saddened.

"Place-based education (PBE) immerses students in local heritage, cultures, landscapes, opportunities and experiences, using these as a foundation for the study of language arts, mathematics, social studies, science and other subjects across the curriculum." (Place Based Education)

I really like the ideas on this website, and it gives some really inspiring and constructive stories for how to actually utilize place-based education in the classroom. All too often, classroom teaching occurs in a bubble that separates it from the outside world. We cannot continue an isolationist approach to teaching if we want to be successful. Even if one were to follow a traditional pedagogy that prepares students to enter the work force, it doesn't make sense to not connect to the community where they will be putting those skills into practice. What I'm saying is, although place-based education is more transformative, from a logical perspective it is a great tool regardless of one's views toward the purpose of education.

Week 11 Quotes

"Well, I think there’s a taboo these days around men talking openly about their sexual fantasies or their participation in the sex industry. Right now, it’s quote-unquote not OK for a man to have sex with a prostitute or to be married and go to a strip club, and that’s partly due to political correctness and partly due to feminism that those things are pathologized." (Clark-Flory 2011)

I brought up the issue of pornography in my other class with Dr. Love as it relates to feminism, and I thought this article raised some good points. Often feminism seems to demonize the sexual desires of men, which can be counter productive. Before I continue, I want to make it clear that this is not a defense of the sex industry; the industry has exploited women and has many moral issues to answer for. It can certainly be seen as an extension of male power over females. But when discussing feminism, we should aim to discuss how patriarchy can be questioned and overcome. Sexuality is not really an issue here. Certainly some practices within the sex industry promote patriarchy. But as a male my sexual attraction to women is a biological drive. It's not something I can choose or necessarily control. The initial quotes from this article from a 24-year-old male regarding how he simply wants companionship struck home, as I'll admit that I have been in that position before. In such a case, where the male is simply opening up his inner-most loneliness and emotions to a random woman, can we really say he's exerting power over her? I would not go so far as to say stripping/pornography empowers the woman, but in that example it doesn't seem to me like the male is the one in control. I guess I can sum this up best by saying in criticizing patriarchal practices, we must be careful not to vilify sexuality itself.

"Women's Studies courses are often viewed as not seriously academic because so much "personal stuff" is discussed. Fear that their courses will be seen as "gut" classes has led many feminist professors to rely more on traditional pedagogical styles. This is unfortunate. Certainly, the radical alternative to the status quo should never have been simply an inversion." (bell hooks)

This touches upon the larger point I was skirting around in the first quote. As a male, I feel that feminism sometimes seeks to place blame or guilt on men simply for being men. I am absolutely NOT trying to deny that men have more power in society; they do, and we must work toward ending patriarchy at a societal level. But feminism should not and cannot be simply a radical inversion of power such that men are made to feel guilty. When we began our semester with racism, many whites in the class (myself included) were so reluctant to discuss the issue because we felt that we were being told to feel guilty simply for being white. But we cannot help being white any more than I can help being male. Guilt in either case is counterproductive and ultimately hinders efforts to address legitimate issues of privilege. As a male, I feel as though all too often feminism takes this approach. It's refreshing to discuss it in a context where I'm not made to feel guilty and we can discuss the real issues.

"How do we as feminist teachers use power in a way that is not coercive, dominating? Many women have had difficulty asserting power in the feminist classroom for fear that to do so would be to exercise domination. Yet we must acknowledge that our role as teacher is a position of power over others. We can use that power in ways that diminish or in ways that enrich and it is this choice that should distinguish feminist pedagogy from ways of teaching that reinforce domination." (bell hooks)

Feminist pedagogy ultimately is not about male vs. female, it is about issues of power. In society, we have a patriarchal power structure. Feminist viewpoints are marginalized time and time again, so much so that some women end up seeing the solution as the aforementioned radical inversion. But this does not eliminate the issue of power that is the true issue. In utilizing a feminist pedagogy, students should be encouraged to question traditional power structures. They should not accept anything as-is, but should understand fully the power structure behind the construction of any knowledge. Students can still choose to accept the dominant view, but they must be able to understand where it came from and the ramifications of accepting that view.

Week 10 Quotes

"The more students work at storing the deposits entrusted to them, the less they develop the critical consciousness which would result from their intervention in the world as transformers of that world. The more completely they accept the passive role imposed on them, the more they tend simply to adapt to the world as it is and to the fragmented view of reality deposited in them." (Friere)

The reasons for emphasizing critical and transformative pedagogies are shown in these quotes. Schooling that 'trains' individuals does not create actively involved individuals. It creates machines. It creates a complacent 99% who do not question social structure. Time and time again we see major problems that humanity faces, and time and time again we look to those in power to do something to fix these problems. We grow frustrated when our leaders seem unable to enact change. Yet do we do anything ourselves? Usually not; we have been 'trained' to accept society for what it is. If we don't adopt new approaches to education, how can we ultimately solve our problems?

To do this, teachers also need to be skilled at asking “authentic questions,” or questions that don’t necessarily have predetermined answers that fall into the binary of right/wrong. Teachers need to take time to research and understand these current topics, know and develop meaningful relationships in the community, and turn them into cognitively appropriate questions for students to explore and investigate." (Love)

As with any pedagogical approach, the teacher is only as strong as his or her own comfort level on a subject. Thus teachers must constantly strive to continue learning themselves. In the case of transformative pedagogies, this means teachers must keep up to date with current events, community news, as well as new information relevant to their specific field of expertise. Many teachers, as active and involved people, do this on a personal level. But how often do teachers bring this new knowledge into the classroom. Specifically, how often do teachers facilitate community connections? Many teachers know it is important for people to connect to their communities, but when it comes to teaching, the classroom is separated from the outside world. Truly good teachers should attempt to teach outside this educational bubble that seems to exist.

"The same students who routinely skip class or avoid going to school reengage when they can work in a community garden, take part in painting a mural, act in a tableau, and especially when a teacher treats them as worthwhile human beings who have a voice and deserve validation." (Love)

I think it's important to realize how much alternative approaches to teaching can engage students who are bucking the system. If a student is bored by worksheets and reading, traditional pedagogy takes a behaviorist approach and attempts to punish the student for not working. But this does not treat the underlying problem of the student being bored by this type of work. We cannot choose what excites us and what doesn't, and while life is not always about enjoyment, a student who is bored by the traditional approach to education will find it difficult to even find a purpose to applying his or herself to school. There is only so much teachers can attempt to force this student to reengage before we have to admit that our methods may be at fault.

Week 9 Quotes

"As John Dewey observed in his Experience and Education, 'the history of educational theory is marked by opposition between the idea that education is development from within and that it is formation from without.'" (progressive vs. traditional education)

I am a sucker for intellectual discussions like this involving reasoning through semantics. This one raises an interesting point. Educational theory is so often treated as sets of exclusively opposite theories. Even in our education courses here at Central, theories are often presented in this either-or fashion. The truth is, the process of learning and how the mind works is different for every individual, and often times the theories a teacher must employ can become muddled together. For one lesson, a traditional approach may be best; for another, a transformative approach. One student may respond to behaviorism while another may work better with constructivism. The important thing is that the teacher not shoehorn students into specific learning styles. Teachers should also not stick to strictly one way of teaching. Multiple theories exist for a reason - because all of them have strengths and weaknesses depending on the circumstances.

"Inductive reasoning, by its very nature, is more open-ended and exploratory, especially at the beginning." (Deduction & Induction)

In science education, we are being encouraged to utilize inquiry, a process that focuses on having students do work around a researchable question. The theory is not new, but it has been seldom practiced in science classrooms. Due to its exploratory nature, I would classify inquiry as more inductive, though as this article points out the two methods of reasoning can actually work quite well together in a cyclical fashion. I can see how inquiry-oriented lessons would provide better opportunities for learning, as the students are taking a more active approach to figuring things out. However, I'm finding it incredibly hard to teach. Designing a lesson that incorporates that open-endedness yet provides students with appropriate scaffolding can be very difficult and time consuming. This is not to say that I won't use inquiry, but I think there's a need to balance inductive and deductive reasoning both for students who are unfamiliar with inductive approaches and for myself as I gain confidence in my teaching ability.

"Despite the rhetoric of the centrality of critical thinking, a legacy of the progressive era, they have embraced the idea of school as a training ground, and have largely accepted the concept that the main problems of education can be resolved with money and greater access." (Aronowitz 2010)

Unfortunately, this semester has both encouraged and discouraged me when it comes to education in America. I have become encouraged at seeing the personal and professional growth I have gone through and the understanding I have gained of different approaches to teaching. However, in working with my cooperating teacher, I have become discouraged seeing the true state of the educational system. I have been told my teacher is one of the better teachers available for student teaching, and I should say that by no means is this comment an attack on her ability as a teacher. But her methods reflect this idea of viewing schools as training grounds. Her pedagogical approach is largely traditional with some liberal-progressive approaches thrown in. She would be the first to argue that students need critical thinking skills. But she rarely focuses on teaching critical thinking skills. This is no fault of her own; her methods are a product of a system that has reverted to the idea of schools training the next generation. I hope when I become a teacher that I can retain the passion and drive to resist falling into this mold.

Week 8 Quotes

"Boards of education are criticized for their elite membership, In other words, their membership primarily is drawn from the professional and business groups in the local community." (Spring 153)

We discussed this earlier, but I find this elitist gap an interesting problem. Certainly being composed of wealthier white community members creates a board that is out of touch and not representative of the actual community. In addition, most board members probably do not have a background in education. Communities are looking to these people to make decisions regarding local education when they are out of touch with both the community and the educational system. I wonder how we might fix this. I had suggested that this is a problem that results from the process of electing board members - in other words, those with more money and influence in the community are going to inevitably be elected. But removing public input hardly alleviates this problem.

"For-profit education companies claim to offer citizens greater control over the education of their children by expanding the notion of choice to include competition." (Spring 165)

I am extremely skeptical of the motives of any organization that is for-profit, even more so when claims are made that the product is for the public good. Schooling should not be competitive in any sense, because competition implies there are winners and losers. Who are the losing students when competition occurs in education? The underprivileged and minority students of course. The motivation of any for-profit group is first and foremost profit. It's not that these companies can't enact good educational practices, but everything they are doing should be scrutinized.

"One answer is that teachers find their greatest reward in interacting with students." (Spring 205)

It bothers me any time someone suggests people go into teaching for the benefits or pay. Spring fairly clearly lays out statistics that show how teaching benefits lag behind those of other professions. being in this program, I know that the number one reason I am going in to teaching is because I want to teach; I get an emotional and spiritual satisfaction out of the act of teaching and interacting with students and exploring concepts of knowledge. Critics of teachers rarely seem to understand that most teachers genuinely want to teach. If you have not, I suggest you watch the following video from the Save Our Schools Rally: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFHJkvEwyhk. In it, Matt Damon defends teachers as people who do not ultimately care about the benefits or job security - they care about the students. Undoubtedly there are bad teachers, but then again there are bad people in any profession as Matt bluntly points out. The vast majority of people in teaching are good and want to teach.

Week 7 Quotes

"Testing is a for-profit industry." (Spring 182)

This one statement sums up why we must be so careful of relying on tests. With so many companies holding a monetary stake in testing, it become hard to argue that the goal of testing is purely educational. Clearly, a company such as McGraw-Hill is not going to make business decisions based on what is best for students. To do so would be bad business. But if we're talking about education, our number one concern should be exactly that: what is best for students. I have no doubt that lobbyists for testing companies support legislation like No Child Left Behind simply because it means business for them. But decisions on education in this country can't be based on profit.

"If you were to review the actual items in a typical standardized achievement test, you'd find many items whose correct answer depends heavily on the socio-economic status of a child's family. There are also many items that measure the verbal, quantitative, or spatial aptitudes that children inherit at birth. Such items are better suited to intelligence tests. Clearly items dependent either on the affluence of a student's family or on a child's genetic inheritance are not suitable for evaluating schools." - W. James Popham (Spring 184)

This quote touches upon what we discussed in our presentation: genetic inheritance of intelligence and the role of environment. What Popham seems to be getting at is that tests do not measure actual learning, merely base knowledge. The ability to retain facts could be a genetic component of intelligence, but that does not necessarily account for all learning by the individual. Similarly, placing value on certain pieces of knowledge can vary along cultural or socio-economic lines. As I see it, placing value on something is a purely opinion-based decision. I used to hate multiple choice questions that asked "What is the best.." or "What is the most likely..." because these are highly opinionated. Even at an early age, I found myself trying to think, "What is the intent of the test takers with this question?" Such questions place more emphasis on the reasoning and logical thought process. Therefore, the "right answer" isn't really important if the child can demonstrate use of logic and reasoning.

"'Accountability, as written into federal law, was not raising standards but dumbing down the schools,' she [Diane Ravitch] writes. 'The effort to upend American public education and replace it with something that was market-based began to feel too radical for me.'" (Dillon 2002)

It says a lot about the current system when one of its designers turns against it. Still, I can't help but harbor some resentment toward this woman for the system she designed. She refers to replacing education with a market-based system as too radical. Honestly, what did she think would come of emphasizing testing? As a prominant figure in education, I'd hope she has some basic understanding of sociology. Even with my limited coursework in sociology, it's not surprising that emphasizing accountability resulted in a system where educators focus solely on the scores from assessments. After all, it's their jobs that are on the line. And while it's nice to assume that educators are all benevolent and would focus on what is best for the children, that's not really how humans work. The current emphasis on accountability has only resulted in the majority of educators feeling like they need to do what they can to protect themselves and their jobs. Part of me is glad Diane Ravitch realizes NCLB is flawed, but I just can't help but feel upset as I read this article and learn about her reasoning for implementing it in the first place. It just seems so flawed.

Week 6 Quotes

"U.S. court histories are filled with disputable efforts to define race." (Spring 62)

Reading Spring's history of how courts and the U.S. census bureau have defined race, I'm struck by the absolute absurdity of the decision histories. First, courts ruled skin color was not a valid criterion. So they instead adopted the idea of Caucasian identity. Then, that was rejected. I'm struck by how illogical the whole process is. I realize that racism often stems from misguided prejudice and ignorance, but there's simply a lack of reasoning behind these court decisions. If courts were not defining race based on skin color, then how can they possibly justify continued bias against people of color? I find the whole idea of replacing skin color criteria with Caucasian hilariously tragic, as if that someone clears up confusion. I think this whole history really helps to emphasize the idea that race is a purely social construct.

"Equal treatment by the law is the great principle unbderlying the idea of equality of educational opportunity. Everyone should receive equal treatment by the law. No one should receive special privileges or treatment because of race, gender, religion, ethnicity, or wealth." (Spring 64)

I feel like some of Spring's personal opinion is shining through in this statement. I'm beginning to question the idea that everyone should receive the same treatment. Everyone should certainly have the same opportunities. But to enable everyone to have the same opportunities, some individuals will need special treatment. A good example is the discussion we had a few weeks back regarding funding to schools. Many people might argue that solving the problems of urban schools requires even funding of schools. But money itself only goes so far, and sme of these schools face so many problems that the only way they will become functionally equal to suburban schools is through increased funding. The end goal of special treatment is still an equality of opportunity, but in some situations it will take more work to reach that level. This is especially apparent when discussing students of color trying to succeed in a white-dominated society.

"The lack of training of classroom teachers and the limited availability of aides and special education resources make implementing inclusion difficult. Not surprisingly, the lack of adequate funding underlies all." (Spring 78)

I have mixed feelings about inclusion. In principle, I fully support it. The idea that students with cognitive disabilities are not segregated from their peers is an agreeable one. I remember my elementary school years when inclusion was not a common practice. There was a special education classroom down the hall. We rarely saw or spoke to the students. Looking back on it, it seems so wrong and borderline cruel to isolate them like that. But in practice, inclusion seems largely unsuccessful. In my experiences as a substitute, many special education students get left behind in the regular classroom. The idea that they are motivated by the higher achieving students is largely a joke; the lower students more commonly become discouraged and begin to look down on themselves. Special education teachers seem to struggle to provide these students with truly meaningful, long lasting supports as opposed to quick, reactive supports based on whatever lesson they're working on at the time. And finally, in a system with standards and testing and so many other responsibilities, many teachers are simply logistically unable to individual lesson plans. I would be wary of saying the teachers are overburdened. While some may resent the idea of individualizing lessons, I think some would truly try if they had the time. But with all the problems inherent in the educational system, I just question how effective inclusion really is in terms of helping students with disabilities.

"The Court made it clear that it did not reject the idea of Bible reading as a part of a study of comparative religion or the history of religion. Nor did the Court exclude the possibility of studying the Bible as a piece of literature. What the court objected to was the reading of the Bible as part of a religious exercise." (Spring 267)

I think this is a very important distinction of how religion is used in the classroom. Unfortunately, this is often confused or misunderstood by many people. Schools can - and in my opinion should - bring the Bible and other religious texts into the classroom to promote an understanding of diverse religions. The schools are not asking students to actually believe in these religions, nor should a school ever advocate belief in a specific religion. But considering religion is a big part of the society we live in, it is vitally important that students have an understanding of it. It's no different that studying a political belief. Schools should not ask students to follow certain political views, but they certainly teach students why some people believe in a certain view. Similarly, students should understand what other religions believe, why they believe, and how that guides actions throughout history and in the present.

Week 5 Quotes

"The school was one of the many 'themed academies' that had been newly founded in New York, but it was academic only in its name and it turned out to be a bleak and grimy institution on the top floor of an old five-story building in East Harlem in the lower floors of which an elementary school was housed." (Kozol 142-143)

The word "academy" has really become a catch-all term in education to imply some degree of enrichment. I doubt any educator could really give a decent definition of it off the top of his or her head. Kozol highlights how academy is being used to describe special schooling for urban youth that, in principle, is suppose to enrich them beyond the regualr schooling. In practice, the academies are in some ways worse than the regular schools. But even outside of urban districts, the term has lost meaning. At one school where I worked, each day had a block of time known as "academy time." By using the term academy, the school hoped to imply that this time would provide extra enrichment. The block of time was little more than a glorified study hall, and teachers often scrambled to provide some extra activity outside of their regular curriculum as mandated by the administration. Forced enrichment is not really enriching.

"You have to do what children do and breathe the air the children breathe. I don't think that there is any other way to find out what the lives that children lead in school are really like." (Kozol 163)

As I read Kozol's descriptions of the deplorable physical conditions within these schools, I'm reminded of the famous photographer and social worker Jacob Riis. Jacob Riis used the new technology of flash powder and photography to document the awful conditions in the ghettos of New York City at the turn of the century. People outside of the ghettos had heard of the conditions, but never before had they actually seen them. Riis used the new technology to actually share vivid, graphic images of human suffering in the heart of New York City. I'm wondering if someone could do something similar nowadays with the schools Kozol is describing. It's one thing to read about the conditions, but to actually see a video might really open some eyes. Showing some sort of video of a class might also show people the worth in these children. Too often, outsiders seem to characterize these children as troublemakers not worth the effort. Showing them in the class would go a long way toward dispelling myths.

"The original goals of public schools centered on citizenship training, equality of economic opportunity, and reduction of crime... Most of the original goals of schooling still guide the work of educators." (Spring 5)

I was surprised by this quote by Spring, as it seems quite idealistic. In principle, I guess these original goals are still the guiding principles. But in practice, they're not really the focus. Equality of economic opportunity has been replaced with workforce training. Students are now marched through schooling with the idea that they should be thinking of a future career. Reduction of crime is a bit of an odd goal, though ultimately by creating better citizens this goal is achieved. However, I think about the stories we've read about and heard from various sources about poor and minority students being marginalized. I believe Dr. Love said something to the effect of, "If you keep treating them like criminals, they're going to start acting like it." Is it any wonder crime rates seem to soar in urban areas when we as a society treat them as inferior? I wonder how many students the educational system has unintentionally railroaded into a life of deliquency. Finally, the idea of education being centered on citizenship training is, quite frankly, laughable. When I attended school, there were no civics or public policy classes offered. Social studies was equated with history and only history. And as we've discussed before, history is so often presented as being important "so that we don't repeat the mistakes of the past." Students are not truly taught how to participate in society or even to understand why the tensions in society today exist. The education system has created citizens detached from the society in which they live.

Week 4 Quotes

"In some schools, the principals and teachers tell me that the tests themselves and preparation for the tests control more than a quarter of the year." (Kozol 113)

Kozol went on to describe the afterschool test preparations, weekend test preparation sessions, and other huge time investments in preparing students to test. Having been in schools when testing takes place, I am sad to say I'm not surprised by the sheer amount of time Kozol described as having been dedicated to these tests. I can only speak to the testing in a suburban school system (Meriden has an odd population dynamic, but I'd ultimately say it leans toward a more suburban school as Kozol would define them). Even there, testing takes place over six times in one school year: five iterations of the Meriden District Assessment with the CAPT fit in there as well. This is not counting the prep time and lessons directed toward testing. What testing like this does ultimately is create a very stressful environment for teachers, students, and administration. There's a general unease and tension that is always present, but it builds during actual testing. Ultimately, teachers end up treating testing days as wasted time in terms of lessons. Though students do have regular schedules after testing sessions, they are often too burned out to focus on any serious content, and who can blame them?

"A fundamental aspect of multicultural education is that different students have different ways of knowing and seeing the world." (Spring 118, 14th ed.)

I had to seize on this quote, despite being one of the first sentences of the chapter, because it links so directly to a point I was making last week. Previously, I had mentioned that I thought a more integrated approach to bilingual education would be beneficial. What I failed to elaborate on is the cultural component that is touched upon here by Spring. Anyone who has studied a second language knows that direct translation word-for-word is not always possible. This is because language has a strong cultural component linked to it that reflects how members of that culture see the world. In ESL programs, the focus is too often on learning words. The cultural component and the understanding of ideas is what really matters. As an example, I took German in college and would often answer "Nicht schlect" when asked how I was doing. That translates to "Not bad," a phrase used often by Americans to describe when things are going fine. On a trip to Germany, a woman kindly explained to me that in German it has a negative connotation - in other words, "Not bad, but not good." Good multicultural education would pick up on cultural connotations and get students to understand different cultural viewpoints. I was very pleased to see that Spring went on to touch upon this key component of multicultural education.

"Leaders of the multicultural education movement... are concerned with empowering oppressed people by integrating the history and culture of dominated groups into public school curricula and textbooks." (Spring 125, 14th ed.)

I think it's important to note that empowering other cultures is an excellent tool, but it can easily be implemented the wrong way. It is particularly counterproductive when it becomes clear that the dominant culture (White) is the culture attempting to spearhead the empowerment of other cultures, as it shows a clear lack of understanding. Two cases come to mind. When I grew up, I noticed very early that many American history books, in talking about the Boston Massacre, mention that one of those killed was Crispus Attucks, a black man. The mention ended with that. This point was made in every teaching of the Boston Massacre. I always wondered, aside from being black, what made this man's story important. The books never mentioned why he was singled out, but they pointed him out as if to meet some quota of mentioning African Americans. The second is the general idea of Black History Month. The notion that black history should be particularly emphasized in just one month is absurd. All too often, black history is relegated to this month alone, and the well-intentioned idea behind this month becomes counterproductive. Luckily, empowerment is changing. Assisting in several social studies classes while subbing, I got to experience units involving history of various Asian cultures. In one class, an entire unit focused on just India. By contrast, my own world history schooling always avoided Asia, as there was no time to study it. Things are changing for the better, but in a white dominated society, it still needs to progress a long way.

Week 3 Quotes

"She also spoke with sharp discernment of the race-specific emphasis of the curriculum. 'If we were not a segregated school,' she said, 'if there were middle-class white children here, the parents would rebel at this curriculum and they would stop it cold - like that!'" (Kozol 75)

I tend to disagree with this quote based on personal experience. During middle school, I was always part of the honors level group - those children who were the highest achievers. Not surprisingly, this was a segregated group of almost entirely white students. But when a new teaching technique came along, it was forced upon us the same as it was lower groups. I remember the specific example of M6D - a method of writing a formulaic paragraph that, while constructed properly, was boring as all hell. The students in my group understood the problems with this approach being forced upon us, but still every teacher tried to utilize it. And while my parents didn't like this newest fad from an educational consultant, they never went to board of education meetings or spoke out against it. Kozol's point is that much more of this rigid, rote learning goes on in segregated schools, which I don't doubt. But to say it doesn't occur in non-segregated schools is basically saying that bad teaching doesn't happen in white schools - it does!

"She therefore had developed what she called 'the MultiModal Pumpkin Unit' to teach science (seeds), arithmetic (the size and shape of pumpkins, I believe - this detail wasn't clear), and certain items she had adapted out of language arts, in order to position "pumpkins" in a frame of state proficiencies." (Kozol 80)

Maybe we don't have all the details, but what Kozol describes here is, in my opinion, good teaching! This teacher made connections to the topics using an example. The pumpkin basically provides an excuse to branch off into science, geometry, and cultural studies. I'm not saying everything a teacher brings into the classroom needs to be connected, but a good teacher can find those tangential connections and make them come alive for the students. That this teacher was afraid of it not meeting standards seems to speak to a lack of confidence in her own abilities. Standards can be troublesome, but like them or not teachers need to work with them for the time being. This strikes me as an excellent example of being creative within the framework of state standards and not letting it limit the lessons.

"Completely revising the educational justification for segregation, the judge argued that 'evidence clearly shows that Spanish-speaking children are retarded in learning English by lack of exposure to its use by segregation.'" (Spring 91)

I find this comment from as early as 1946 interesting, as it hints at the later findings that exposure to a language facilitates learning it and that students exposed to two languages fair better than those who speak just one. It's sad, therefore, that much segregation still occurs even within supposedly non-segregated schools. In my hometown, ELL students are often placed in seperate classes for most of the day. Placing ELL students in special classes is not necessarily a problem, but it becomes a problem when the classes are segregated from the larger student population. The point of having them be in schools with English-speaking students should be to immerse them in the language. When their only interactions with English are in passing in the halls, I fail to see the benefit. In addition, ELL programs seem to have the wrong approach in mind. They often focus solely on teaching the students English. The programs should allow ELL students to bring their language into a predominantly English classroom. Language is not merely about words, but ideas. Bringing a second language into a classroom allows students to understand how ideas are conveyed between languages, to understand differences between the cultures that the languages come from, and to therefore actually know the language as opposed to simply knowing words.

Week 2 Quotes

"When I asked a group of fifth grade boys who Thurgood Marshall was and what he did to have a school named after him, most of the boys had no idea at all." (Kozol 23)

This quote seems to speak to a real disconnect between what should be taught and what is actually taught. First of all, I wonder why the students are not taught about Thurgood Marshall. Do teachers simply stick to a bad curriculum year after year that does not cover his contributions? Or is there a more deceptive reasoning behind this - namely that learning about his contributions would highlight the poor conditions of the school - as if they aren't already aware of the inherent unfairness. I don't think the intent of the administrators is sinister in any way, but it may be simply misguided good intentions. Whatever the reasoning, the students are being done a great disservice. Even disregarding race, it strikes me as a very targetted glossing over of history and a very poor educational practice. Even if knowing Thurgood Marshall's contributions would make students aware of the unfair conditions, it is something that should be taught, for the first step to solving any problem is awareness of the problem.

"One of the reasons for these incantations in the schools that serve black and Hispanic children is what is believed to be the children's loss of willingness 'to try,' their failure to believe they have the same abilities as do white children in more privileged communities." (Kozol 35)

I feel that the issue touched upon here is one of the central issues to understanding racial tensions in this country, and a point that many even on the liberal left do not quite understand. I myself have argued with my father over this, who can hold very old-fashioned views. From my experiences in schools, it's true that the non-white students often do not try as hard or can often be troublemakers. But their unwillingness to try should not be blamed on their personal choices. They live within a system that keeps them down, treats them as inferior. That these students are expected to rise above this is absurd. When placed within a harsh system and presented with hardship after hardship, it should come as no surprise that the children lose faith in their own abilities or even develop a bitterness. To act in such a way is basic human nature regardless of race. As a future teacher, I will need to accept that many minority students may enter the classroom already feeling bitter or experiencing a loss of faith in their own abilities. It will be my job to ask myself how I can begin to reverse such a degredation of self-confidence.

"'I don't bear any guilt for knowing how to write a grant,' he said, a statement that undoubtedly made sense to some but skirted the entire issue of endemic underbudgeting of public schools attended by children of poor people who did not enjoy his money-raising skills or possible connections to grant makers." (Kozol 49)

The context in which Kozol placed this makes the PTA leader seem very uncaring of the larger societal issue, and perhaps he is, though I am unable to judge based on one quote. But he touches upon an issue I feel the need to address, namely the issue of guilt. I do not disagree that society favors whites over non-whites, but the solution should not and cannot involve making people feel guilty for whether or not they are privileged. This feeling becomes more apparent reading any of Tim Wise's articles. I do not disagree with anything he says, but I walk away from it feeling guilty simply for being white. And a feeling like that is not, in any sense, constructive. In the case of public school grants, administrators of predominantly white schools should not feel guilty for wanting more funding for their students. After all, they just want what's best for their students, and that cannot in any sense be a bad thing. The guilt, to me at least, should fall on the grant foundations and policy makers who should be able to look at the history of grants they write and see a clear disregard for funding segregated schools. But the blame for this cannot be placed squarely on the parents and administrators, be ause they have little influence on the larger system.