What Can We Do?

sorry i didnt post this yesterday...ive been swamped with work :(
i really enjoyed reading this article. i think that i agree with nearly every pointr Johnson makes and the article is an easy, interesting read. The point that Johnson is trying to make, running off of the other article we read by him, is that now that we know what the problem is (the what): "patterns of exclusion, rejection, privilege, harassment, discrimination, and violence" and knowing that we need to "change (these) patterns...that are everywhere in this society and have existed for hundreds (or in the case of gender, thousands) of years," ( the so, what), we now need to know how to change these patterns (the now what).
Johnson talks mostly about privilege and that fact that those who have privilege are either using it to help or to hurt others. There is no middle ground. If you are actively participating in the helping of underprivileged, then you are helping, but if you are doing nothing and coasting along, enjoying the perks that are given to you, then you are hurting those around you who arent privileged, who arent scwaamp. He says, "It (privilege) involves having what others dont have and the struggle to hang out to it at their expense." Whenever someone is privileged and getting all the benefits, someone else is missing out. To make a change, even a small change, everyone needs to actively participate in making that change. Small steps are all he is asking for. He isnt saying sell your house and give the money away to under priveleged peaple, he is saying that every little step you take in moving forward, away from the scaampy privilege, you are making a difference. He says, "A single grain of rice can tip the scale." I really like this quote. i think it sends a very powerful immage of something so small, a single grain of rice, making such a difference. Its a point that really shines through.
There are a lot of things in the text that i could relate to and i found that some of it helped me with knowing how to deal with people around me who are racist or sexist but i wish that it had touched more on those subjects with examples.

Citizenship in school: Reconceptualizing down syndrome, Kliewer

Christopher Kliewers article, "Citizenship in school: Reconceptualizing down syndrome," was an inspirational, eye opening piece about "eras[ing] negative attitudes about people with developemental disabilities." Kliewer believes that people with down syndrome can function in todays society if given the necessary opportunities. Instead of casting out people with this disability because they are different and may need different accomidations, the rest of society should be welcoming and accomidating because they, "...add a unique and valuable dimension to (that) community."
Diversity is all around us. Everywhere you look there is someone different than you. different races, cultures, some people are good at sports and some people are different in a way that seams to be very looked down on. A quote that was brought up a lot in class and for good reason was was Kliewer said, "To value another is to recognize diversity as the norm." He expands on this this by describing that recognizing diversity as the norm will benefit not only the students with dissabilities but also those without a dissability.
In my highschool, we had a student named Austen. he had a dissability. He had to walk with a metal wheeling box and was hard to understabd when he spoke. Despite his dissability, however, he was bright and funny and kind. He was in my phisics class with me and we worked on projects together, in groups, he took tests with everyone else, took notes, did everything that everyone else did accept he didntwalk into class with his legs like most students did, instead he wheeled into class, sometimes getting stuck on the door or had trouble getting into his seat but no one laughed at him, or thought of him as a burdon. Austen braught a lot to our classroom and wasnt only seen as an equal but was/ is an equal to the rest of the students that were in that class. The teacher used to make jokes sometimes about how lucky Austen was that he didnt have to walk around all day and would even sit in Austens wheely thing (i really wish i knew the nane of it) during class and wheel around the classroom in it. It seamed to make Austen feel comfortable and exepted because the class didnt only tolerate his dissability but saw it and loved him more for it. This recognition and equality exemplified Kliewers point that there is a, "fundamental right of every student to belong."
Another point in this article that i like was the huminization of people with down sydrome, really stressing at the point that they arent downsyndrome attached to a person, but a unique individual who has a dissorder and that dissorder is only one part of them. When Shaye Robbins talks about not having a set way to teach children with downsyndrome because, "they are not all alike," i could feel myself learning...i know it sounds strange but i wasnt just reading about something, i really fealt myself learning something that i could apply to much of my life. Just because people with down syndrome share this one likeness does not mean that they are like each other and able to learn the same was and like the same things. They are individuals and sticking them all in one classroom together is not going to help them learn any better then if they were placed in classes with students without dissorders. Like the parent said in the movie we watched, "it is all about expectations."
I feel that Kliewer did a really great job on this article. though i had to read many lines several times to fully capture the meaning, i fealt like it was worth the extra work because the purpose and message behind the big words was beautiful and important.

Social Class and the Hidden Curriculum of Work

Jean Anyon wrote this piece to show the different ways in which different social classes are taught in schools as well as why they are taught that way and what happens because of it. The first thing that caught my attention was when she was talking about how children of different classes are rewarded. She says, "the working class for docility and obedience, the managerial classes for initiative and personal asstertiveness." i find that, through my experience, this is very true. Today i worked with me children in the service learning program and i have many examples which relate to this quote. There was a child in the hall who bumped in to one of my students and the teacher of that student scolded that girl until she was red in the face and almost in tears. She told her, "stop walking! turn around! come here, no, stand right infront of ths girl who you so rudely bumped into and say you are sorry."after the girl said she was sorry the teacher continued, "and what are you sorry for?" and continues still even after that... not only did this teacher humiliate her student and tell her exactly what to do but also humiliated the girl who got bumped. Another example is when we were sitting in phys ed class. there are two chairs for people sitting out of gym because they dont have sneakers and i let two girls sit in the seats and i sat oh the floor with another girl and a boy. Well, two teachers walked in and one said, "get outta that chair, i want to sit down." and then the other just looked at the other girl sturnly and she got up as well. i was shocked and horrified at the way that i saw students constantly being yelled at, made not to respect there teachers and other adults but to fear them. i was braught up around adults who respected me and in turn i respected them. if i got to the seat first, it was mine, especially if that seat was designated for students and the teachers were only there to flirt with the attractive phys ed teacher. The way that i was taught was the way that i believe people should be taught but, then again, i am from a different social class and, so, i believe my way is the right way because that is how i was raised.
The way that the middle class school is described sounds a lot like the way that some of my least favorite teachers used to handle the class. "If one accumilates enough right answers, one gets a good grade." i thought that this process was terrible and turned me off to both history and math. In highschool, i had many teachers, especially in history and science, who didnt care if you learned anything, it was all about memorizing dates to try and get a good grade. It didnt call for thinking or imagination at all and consisted of listening to lecures, usually read from notes or a text book, and taking notes/ reading from a text book.
Also, the mentioning the way that middle class language arts is taught reminds me of my service learning class. The students, today, had to write a letter to their teacher for next year. the teacher told them what to write and where and listed them in order on the board so they had something to look to. She said," open the letter by saying something nice, then say something about yourself, something you like and what your favorite subject is in school, then ask the teacher questions and end the letter by saying something like, "im looking forward to meeting you next year.""
i also love how Anyon mentions how much of the classwork is based around the homework. i always hated how we would go over things in class and then have to do the exact same thing for homework as we did in class...often times the homewirk would ask the same questions. i fealt as though i was doing busy work...drilling things into my head that i had just learned when i should have been applying the things that i learned to something more. Anyon talks about how, even when asking the class to make up answers, they read them from the book. The one big point that i noticed and liked about the middle class school was that, compared to the lower class schools, the teachers were much more trusting of the students and, most importantly, the parents were very helpful. i know that when i was younger, i had a folder that i kept my homework in and my parents were always willing to help me if i needed help but always made sure that i finished it until i was at an age where i wanted to and was responsible enough to get it done on my own.
I notices that, when reading about the Elite School and middle class school, i agreed with the majority of what they did. The teachers seam to give the children more freedome and respect, asking them questions and then not saying right or wrong, just wanting their oppinion, making the child feel that they, asan individual, matter. On teacher says, "It doesnt matter whether it is rigt or wrong. i bring them together and theres value in discussing there ideas." Another thing that i really liked is that children are able to leave the classroom as the please to go to the bathroom. "they sign their name on the chalkboard and leave." This is wonderful. The children see that they are trusted and respected and, so, dont want to abuse that trust.
I found that, though i believe my school is lower class, my teacher in the SL program does much of the same things that the middle class teachers do, her teachers aid, however, is the ideal model of a lower class teacher. My teacher says the same thing that a teacher Anyon uses as a example, "raise your habd if you do not agree." I feel like this is a good method and letting the children critique one another not only helps all of the children but the children who are being dissagreed with do not seam embaressed at all but want to know what they did wrong.
There are so many quotes in the elite school section that i agree with and love that i wont even try to list them all. The mutual respect that children and teachers seam to have for one another seams to play a big part in why the Elite schools seam to be so successful. The students are given loads of responsibility and trusted to do there work and because of the rest of the class also having this work, i believe that the students are driven to get it done in order to be up to speed with the rest of the class, not wanting to fall behind.

One More River to Cross and Whites Swim in Racial Preference

Charles Lawrence wrote the article, One More River to Cross. His purpose for writing the article is clearly stated. He says, "It is the thesis of this paper that the Brown decision fostered a way of thinking about segregation that has allowed many judiciary and society at large to deny the reality of race in America, that the recognition of that reality is critical to the framing of any meaningful remedy-judicial or political- and that brown may ultimately be labeled a success only insofar as we are able to make it stand for what it should have stood for in 1954." to break this down a little, he is saying that, despite the views of many people that Brown was intended to do nothing but desegregate the school systems, Brown was far more than that and impacted people on a far greater level, making it a success. He says, "There is little doubt that the psychological impact of Brown was the spark that ignited the spontaneous combustion of boycotts, sit-ins, voter registration, marches, and political organizations that resulted in much significant change for blacks."He is saying that, despite the bad outcomes of Brown, it should still be considered a success because of the place it has brought us now. That it was one big step taken toward desegregation and equality as a whole for blacks.
i enjoyed this article. i had trouble reading it and focusing, however, because it is so cut and dry so i found myself having to read the same paragraphs over a few times but the overall purpose and meaning of the article was interesting and well put together. The format was very clear, like where he listed how segregation functions then went on to describe those "hows" more fully. it was not a article that jumped back and forth between topic to topic but,. instead, flowed fairly well.
The way that he described segregation jumped right off the page for me because it was very strong and made sense. Im not sure why i thought this, maybe i was told it when i was younger or something but i always though that blacks and whites were forced to go to different schools for safety purposes. Because the white children would be cruel to the blacks and the white teachers would treat black children unfairly because the were seen as being of lesser worth than whites. The way that Lawrence describes it makes it more intense, on a higher level then just fairness and people being mean to people. The way that he puts it really shows how government and people in power were pushing for segregation because the people in power were white and theyd like to keep "their people" in power. If everyone was equal, it would be harder to get to the top.He describes segregation as, "an instrument of subordination which used a strict and rigid caste system to clearly define and limit the social, political, and economic mobility of blacks," and he says that the purpose of segregation is, "...to create and maintain a permanent lower class or subcaste defines as race."
Another part of Lawrences article that struck me was when he talks about the court systems refusing to pull the wool from their eyes and see that they, "whites" are being unjust and that it is not only that blacks are being effected by being segregated but that it is wrong for them to be segregated in the first place. By saying that it is the effect that is the issue then they are leaving the door open for other types of segregation, however, if they said the real issue, segregation itself, the problem, for blacks at least, would be lessened. He says, "Instead of taking judicial cognizance of the fact that the manifest purpose of segregation was to designate blacks as inferior, holding such purpose constitutionally impermissible, the court chose to focus upon the effect of school segregation," also, "The courts refusal to recognize and articulate the real nature of segregation in brown and its progeny has fostered an attitude and approach to the elimination of segregation that necessarily be unsuccessful." He also expands on this point by showing that, even if segregation in schools was eliminated, the fact that it is seen everywhere else will make a huge difference i the way that children will feel towards each other. blacks will still feel inferior and whites superior, just now they are put together to feel that insecurity in the schools. How could you focus on learning any better when you are sitting next to a child who, because of their skin color, is seen as better then you, lives a better, easier life than you and probably sees you as crap, unworthy of sitting beside them? Lawrence says, "Once it is understood that the injury results from the existence of the label of inferiority, it becomes clear that the cure must involve the removal of that label. The mere placement of black and white children in the same school does not remove the brand imprinted by years of segregation."
Because of this longstanding feeling of segregation, changing a few little things, like putting children together in the same school will not make much of a difference on its own. Lawrence states the fact that, "many black schools that existed within the segregated school systems of the south were in fact superior to their white counterparts." This shocked mer at first but then i realized that it doesnt matter on the larger scale because no matter what they have, no matter how smart they are, they will still be considered inferior. This is where Lawrences second point comes in, that children are injured by the existence of the system, not just by particular acts.
When firs reading Lawrences statement that, "white Americans deny responsibility for the position of blacks by denying that they have created a system of oppression that will continue ro exist and operate to their benefit until they have destroyed it,"i felt a little threatened and thought, 'im not responsible, i do deny it!' because i, alone, am not responsible but everyone as a whole is. One person will not change racism but many people together can. The way that he stated that quote was strong and threatening so i took it as an attack at me personally but, when reading it over, i feel as though, even though i dont like it, he makes a point.
This entire section of the article actually got o me because i felt that, as a white person, i was being attacked. He talks about how many whites are against affirmative action. He says that, "they argue that blacks should not be granted so-called, "preferential treatment" at the expense of whites who have played no part in denying them their rights. But if the system of racial defamation ad exclusion was designed to perpetuate itself, the right of blacks to equal protection must include the right to the active destruction of that system. And as long as the majority continues to allow that system to exist ( certainly as long as they benefit by its effectiveness), they play an integral part in the denial of the blacks right to equal opportunity." I know im quoting a lot but he also says, "The argument that the constitution is colorblind asks us to believe that society is color blind, that segregation has dies a natural death, and that each individuals success or failure is based upon a meritocratic measure of his or her ability and skills. This version of America is comforting to those who are presently in the best position to reap the benefits of privilege." These two quotes also seamed to push me down with information and then kick me when i was laying there. Knowing that i reap the benefits of society today and knowing that i do have good chances of being successful makes me happy on a normal day because i know that i will be able to raise my children and know that they will go o to lead happy successful lives as well but, in reading this, it made me feel bad fir being privileged, it made me feel like because i am white, i am crap and i am the reason for black peoples lack of privilege. Though it hurt me and made me feel extremely uncomfortable, i am glad that i read it and have to give a hand to Lawrence for writing a piece with suck vigor. My only fear, however, is that, with a piece written like this, many people wont say, i see where you are coming from and your right, whites do need to sacrifice some of their own privilege to allow blacks to be privileged as well to be equal, they will, instead, get angry and not want to do anything, denying with even more force that they have nothing to do with it. In my happiness because of my privilege i realize that i am saying exactly what i mentioned in my second or third paragraph that, "if everyone was equal, it would be harder to get to the top."
The second article, Whites swim in racial preference was an interesting and eye opening piece by Tim Wise (i think.) this piece is so strong and much of that strength has to do with the way in which it is written. it is almost in a poetic format the repeats itself and pushes its meaning into your face. It is hard for me to pull quotes from this text because every sentence is strong and meaningful. He states many facts that are powerful like, "white families have, on average a net worth of 11 times the net worth of black families." I believe that the purpose if his piece is extremely similar to the beliefs of Lawrence. He says, "...it is hardly an exaggeration to say that white America is the biggest collective recipient of racial preference in the history of the cosmos. It has skewed our laws, shaped our public policy and helped create the glaring inequalities with which we still live."
He compares white people to fish, saying that our privilege is water and that water is, "invisible precisely because we cannot imagine life without it." I suppose that this comparison makes sense and i could not imagine what it would feel like to live without privilege and i wouldnt want to. When talking about the University of Michigan, i found out a lot of overwhelming information. At first i was thinking, 'whats the big deal, white people should get points just like black people if they need the help, however knowing that a student could not get more points if thy have already received points for being a minority seams extravagant and obviously unfair. There isnt very much more that i can say about this piece. agree with its reasoning and an shocked by its data. It was well written and proves a very outstanding point that white privilege is being held in place by those in power, ensuring its existence which, in turn will also hold in place that lack of privilage that minorities have by not allowing that to go to the best schools because those spots are reserved for whites and the upper class.

Gayness, Multicultural Education, and Community (yay, my internet is back!)

Dennis Carlsons, Gayness, Multicultural Education, and Community, is about welcoming homosexuality and gayness into the American way of life like we have begun to welcome different cultures and ethnicitys. He feels strongly that people should not be at a disadvantage for being gay in the workplace or socially but also that homosexuals should be free to say that they are homosexuals and be able to talk about it without feeling uncomfortable or scared.

This piece started out kind of boring to me because of the way that its written but quickly picked up and then i couldnt put it down. The way that he talks about gay as being not just a sexual preference but a way of life that impacts everything about you is a strong message. He calls this the 'gayness' being the way that you dress, act, speak, all showing you to be gay. He wants the topic of homosexuality to be taught in school, not just that it is a sexual preference but that it is a way of life. He says, "... Normalizing texts systematically exclude and neglect the culture of those outside the norm for the purpose of ratifying or legitimating the dominant culture as the only significant culture worth studying." i believe that this is also true with people of different ethnic backgrounds. A lot of what Dennis says actually could be related to racism. He says that though many men and woman who are gay are "out" to some co-workers, "...the intimidation still continues...this policy ("dont ask dont tell")... has not been forcibly challenged by gay teachers in public schools yet, perhaps because they feel (probably rightly so) they could not win if they pushed their case. This reminds me of the struggle of a black man in a racist America because it is like asking him to wear white makeup and pretend that he is white even though you know he is not, just to make things easier. i agree with Dennis' point that being gay is not just a sexual preference, it is a way of life, a culture that you can not get rid of, it is part of you (though you can try to hide it.)

There is a story that Dennis tells about a student and teachers being mistreated for being gay and feeling "afraid to stand up for themselves" fearing that they may get beat up or fired. This reminded me a a Denzel Washington movie, "The Debtors" that i just watched. In the movie a black man runs over a white mans pig and has to pay the man all the money that he has, his entire pay check even though it was an accident and the pic wasnt worth that much because the white man was intimidating and the black man was, what Dennis would call an "other," afraid that a court may take favor of the white man like a school system may take favor of a straight man. I understand why people are afraid to stand up for themselves. they are afraid that by defending themselves they will constantly be causing waves and seam as though they are always starting something when they could just walk away. It is hard to defend yourself when you have the risk of losing your job and all that youve worked hard for when it is so much easier to just let people harass you or make you put on white makeup and pretend you arent black or arent a religion other than christian or arent gay.

When first reading this piece i thought to myself, when he says, "homophobia and oppression are directed against homosexuals as a group," that men are oppressed more so than gay women. However, looking back at my junior high years, i remember that i had a gym teacher who was a lesbian and she used to sit in the locker room while we changed to make sure we werent fooling around. This freaked all of us out and we used to always make fun or her and look to see if she was watching us when, in fact, she was usually reading a book or news paper while we changed. Even recently if i was asked about that teacher i would say "ew, she was a lesbian and used to watch us change" just because that was the thought process that i was in. It is sad that if i hadnt known that she was gay that i would probably have never thought twice about it but knowing that she liked woman, if a student had complained or something than she probably would have been fired.

Another example from my past teachers was a gay highschool english teacher that i used to have. When Dennis spoke about, "verbal and physical intimidation of gay teachers..." that teacher came to my mind. He was often times getting in trouble for stupid little things and every time new freshman would come in us upperclassmen would here him being made fun of behind his back and, in fact, when we were freshmen, we used to do the same thing until we got to know him and accept him. What also reminded me of this teacher was when Dennis talked about how straight teachers can talk about gayness. especially if they are saying that it is wrong, but a gay man has trouble even talking about a text with gay themes. A teacher said, "Theres a kind of terror that runs through my mind." I totally understand what he is saying because, looking back at my English teacher, if he had being teaching us about homosexual symbolism in Whitman some of the students may have felt uncomfortable and he may have gotten in trouble whereas a straight man talking about it may not have thought twice because he doesn't have to deal with that same fear.

Whitman is a wonderful writer and i actually didnt know that he was gay. When Dennis says that, "This cleansing of gayness from the literary canon is often defended as an effort to maintain the reputation... of authors." This is funny to me because, although they may be maintaining the authors good rep. for the time being, it is just hurting the "gay name" as a whole because it is taking away the successful people who could vogue for homosexuality and say that its ok to be gay and even though you are gay you still still be a wonderful, famous writer. This same striking at gayness is seen through the number of gay children who are involved in drugs and killing themselves. He says, "...up to one third of all adolescent suicide victims are gay, approximately one quarter of all homeless youth in the United States are gay and drop out and drug abuse rates among gay youth are likewise high." The reason for these gay children killing themselves and doing drugs is because they feel unaccepted, however, the outcome of these suicides etc. are making gay people seem like insane, bad remodels, with serious issues.
ok...my Internet is back in business so... these are my final thoughts:
As i stated earlier, the way that people are reacting on the issue of gayness is much like the way that people react to racism. Dennis actually uses this as an example in the text. He says, " in recent years, popular culture representations of gayness have moved beyond the stereotypes embodied in La Cage aux Folles, much as representations of blackness have moved beyond the stereotypes of Amos and Andy." I also want to look at this quote from a different angle because what it is saying is that we should not be stereotyping and that, thankfully, stereotypes are starting to fade. His description of a stereotypical gay man is described as, "flamboyant, emotionally unstable, feminized..." This strikes me because, though we should be moving away from stereotyping gay people like they do in The Birdcage, most of the gay men that i know (im a musical theatre major, i know many) are, in fact, flamboyant, emotional (not to the level of unstable) and very feminine. i do not mind that he criticises the movie the birdcage for the way that is represents homosexuality because he knows what he is talking about and has the right to his own opinion. however, in the movie we are seeing two gay men that are also drag queens at a nightclub they own. If the movie was about two gay lawyers that act like this then i would understand being critical, however, looking at the background of these man, from my experience, gay men in show business act like a stereotypical gay man and we can not expect that the stereotype will go away until gay men that act flamboyant and feminine also go away. This, however, i believe will not happen and am thankful for it. i love my gay friends and acquaintances and their flamboyant, emotional attitudes.
Dennis also mentions that, not only are steriotypes starting to fade, but there are more and more support groups for people who are gay and want to be able to speak freely about it to non judgemental people. However, he mentions that, " For the most part the institutions that make up the gay community are not open to adolescents, so most gasy youth continue to stay unattached and even unaware of this potential unity of support." I would like to take this opportunity to praise my highschool because we had a gay streight alliance that way established my freshman year by some friends of mine and is still up and running. They have meetings once a week and are able to tell stories or do whatever they want in that free, safe environment. They also try to raise awareness by holding events and posting the times of their meetings saying that, "anyone and everyone is welcome." It is a great thing when schools do these types of thing but i feel that Dennis still does make a huge point when it comes to youth even younger than in highschool. Im not sure that it would be very possible to set up institutions for these young children because they are, in fact, so young that it may be crossing a line to speak to them about homosexuality. I think that most children may just go to councelors who, hopefully, do not tell them that they are strange but, instead, guide them to accepting themselves.
Another point that Dennis makes that i can very much relate to is his statement that gay people are seen and represented as mostly middle class because they have "found more acceptance within the middle class and among the college educated then within the working class." i believe that this is because many college educated people may not be as ignorant to the idea of homosexuality because they have been exposed to it more. He says that many working class people, especially men, are "failing to come to terms with homophobia." An example that i have about this is my environment and my friends/ co-workers behaviors in contrast to my boyfriends. he is a working class man that drives fork lifts at staples, many of his co-workers are older man, non of which have a college education and he, as well as he co-workers are slightly homophobic (which pisses me off beyond beliefe but thats another subject.) Anyways, his co-workers are constantly making gay jokes and, despite many of their mature ages, they make stupid, imature, gay comments. For example, if a male was eating a bannanna he would get harrassed by nearly every other man in the work place. They would say something like, "oh, you like those bannannas dont you? or something dunb like that because that is the environment that they have been xposed to. had andy of them gone to college or made a gay friend or even taken a class that exposes them to the reality of "gayness" they may act differently. My life is very different than this and if i ever heard one of my friends, who are by the way far younger than many of the adolescent sounding individuals at staples, make a joke about a man eating a bannanna, i would be shocked and displeased because it id not only immature and naive but it is making a mockery of the homosexual lifestyle.
The final statement that i have to make is about the Public Schools and Community In The Postmodern. Dennis talks says, "For the time being, at least, this means that the public schools are caught in a dilemma over gayness, unable to please anyone, and unable to act without inviting attack from one side or the other." i understabd this statement and i believe that there is no way that public schools could please everyone when it comes to this topic, however, since when do we need to please everyone? We need to do what is right. We were not pleasing everyone when we allowed and even pushed for black people and white people to start going to the same schools and have equal opportunity. We faught for what was right, we faught for change and we pissed a lot of people off but thank God we did and how is this any different? Yes, we do allow gay people into our schools but we do not allow them to feel comfortable expressing their gayness and, in many cases, we push them to hide their gayness. There is nothing taught in schools about being gay and THESE are the reasons why we are in the rut that we are in. We are stuck in this rut because we are not exposing people to gayness so they may learn to accept it. We are, instead hiding gayness and pushing it aside like i stated at the begining of this blog when i talked about Whitman and the statistics about gay adolescents drug use and suicide rates. It is because of our neglegence to expose people and teach people about homosexuality that people are fighting homosexuality in the way that they are.

Aria and Teaching Multilingual Children

The articles "Aria" by Richard Rodriguez and "Teaching Multilingual Children" by Virginia Collier are both wonderfully written pieces of work that argue completely different sides on the issue of teaching multilingual children in school.
At first i was a little unsure about what Richards point was. At the beginning of the article he was very back and forth on the idea of speaking English. All in the first two paragraphs he says, "Without question it would have pleased me to hear my teachers address me in Spanish when i entered the classroom...i would have trusted them and responded with ease," and "My first grade classmates could have become bilingual..." Both of these quotes show that Richard thought that having a bilingual classroom would have been a good idea for both him and his English speaking classmates. However, in the sentence before the latter quote he contradicts himself by saying, "what i needed to learn in school was that i had the right - and the obligation- to speak the public language of los gringos."
The entire article seams to have this same back and forth feeling about only speaking English. When his parents start to speak English he, himself, must have been feeling unsure about whether it was a good or bad thing because his family was loosing its closeness but , at the same time, they were able to open up to other people and become more social, comfortable, and welcome into the community. There are many examples that he gives about his family being uncomfortable around each other, not knowing what to say or what language to say it in but the example that stood out to me the most was when he said, "i no longer knew what words to use in addressing my parents...i would try to get their attention with eye contact alone." This is familiar to me because i have the same issue with my boyfriends parents. i have no idea what to call them because i don't want to over step my bounds with mom and dad, be disrespectful with their names or be uncomfortable and distant and call them Mr. and Mrs. Because of the relation i have with this example it hits me harder with the point he is making because i a not close at all with my boyfriends parents and could not imagine being so distant from my own parents that i dont know what to call them and a afraid to ask them what they'd feel comfortable being called.
another example that hit me is when he talks bout his father being called shy and his mother making excuses for his shyness. This relates back to when the teachers used to call Richard shy, saying, "that Richard seams especially timid and shy," when he really isn't shy, just uncomfortable, in an unfamiliar place much like his father being surrounded by unfamiliar language.
My assumption about this piece is that Richard is trying to say that it is best to teach strictly English in the classroom to allow students to better adapt. However through the examples and much of the text, "his voice summoned a deep longing," it is clear that you must be ready to give up a part of yourself in doing so. His final statement is, "So they do not realize that while one suffers a diminished sense of private individuality by becoming assimilated into public society, such assimilation makes possible the achievement of public individuality. "
Colliers piece is arguing from a completely opposite side of the spectrum as Richards piece. She believes that children's cultural backgrounds and languages should be accepted into the classroom and lists things that should be done and why and how do get them done. She is a very professional sounding individual that seams to know what she is talking about. Both the way that the article is written and the information provided make Collier seam to be a very reliable source. I like a lot of the information and example of how things should be done, in particular letter F on page 224. It says, "The focus of thee whole conversation is on communication, not on grammatical form or pronunciation. also, on 225, "The critical distinction to maintain is between how children acquire the capacity to converse casually in a second language, and how they learn to become proficient students using second language. These two are entirely different processes." Even these small bits of information are so important and helpful. This one article is like a handbook on how to be a better teacher.
Collier strongly argues for the teaching, or perfecting of the child's home language before trying to teach them grammar and other skills in a second language. I cant find the quote but she says that it is easier for children to learn to be proficient in a second language after they have mastered their first language.
i believe that holding onto your own language is important in maintaining your identity. Collier says, "To dismiss the home language in literacy development instantly places immigrant children at risk." This is a sad statement because it is more often than not that children have bee forced to speak English and only English like in the "Aria" story. Another example from the text that reminded me of Aria was #2 on page 226. She says, "do not think of yourself as a remedial teacher expected to correct so- called "deficiencies" of your students. Richard was taught that his own language was not as good as English, he even felt at the beginning of the piece that he was unworthy of speaking the language. This same idea is seen in Colliers #3, she says, "Dont teach a second language in any way that challenges or seeks to eliminate the first language."
A great idea that Collier has is to "Provide a literacy development curriculum that is specifically designed for English language learners. This would be great for children, helping them learn a second language while still appreciating and valuing their own language. There are some school systems that have little helpful things like this set up, where children learning a second language are given special attention but none that i know of that are at the level that Collier is talking about. It would be so wonderful to see a type of curriculum that was specifically for English language learners but, sadly, i dont see it happening very soon. First, you would have to have a school system that had enough English learning children to set up this curriculum. you would need the money to set it up, you would need to find teachers that are fluent in the languages spoken and on top of it all, Collier states when referring to encouraging home language literacy that, "...some states forbid schools to offer these tools directly to children."
I read this specific article twice. The first time i was very bored and just wanted to hurry up and finish it because it is very clean cut and to the point, not flowered up like i like. However, the second time that i read it, i loved it and got very passionate about the subject. Smiling and nodding my head, trying to remember the good ideas for when im a teacher and, also, finding myself getting all worked up and upset when hearing things like '"...English reading skills in fourth graders who were not literate in their home language, were three years behind fourth graders who had three years of schooling in their home language before arriving in the U.S." and knowing that we are not doing much to help those children who are behind.
Collier is obviously saying that we need to make significant changes in the way that our school systems are set up in order to help immigrant children. She does a great job of stating her case and persuading the reader to make some changes and realize that changes need to be made.

school context

Robert L. Bailey Elementary school is is located off of a busy main road in Providence. The school is tucked away and is beautiful compared to the city around it. It is a big, colorful, brick building with freshly painted walls and is filled with friendly, smiling faces. i was pleasantly surprised to see the beautiful building when i drove up to it because it is far nicer than the school that i went to for first grade. 78% of the children at Bailey are eligible for subsidized lunch. You never would have known it through looking at the building but the area where the school is located reflects the class of the majority of children in the school.
The class room that i worked in was Mrs. M's room. Because the majority of children are unable to pay in full for lunch, the teacher helps these children by providing a snack for them. This is a good idea, however, not all of the children get free snack, only those who have reduced lunch. The girl i worked with today didn't bring a snack and, so, didn't get one. Something else that i noticed that reflects the poverty level of the school is the fact that many of the students don't have erasers. it is probable that they have lost them since it is the end of the year but they don't have extras, instead the children share.
The children at bailey are 22% African American, 7% Asian, 1% native American and 5% white. These many different ethnic backgrounds are not seen or celebrated in any way that i have noticed in the school. There are books that Ive seen with pictures of black children in them but that is all i have noticed. I heard other people in the class mentioning how their schools have flags and pictures up of multiple ethnic backgrounds. it would be a good idea for my school to do something like that.
26% of children in my school are bilingual. i haven't seen any languages other than English being celebrated or used. All of the children in my first grade class speak English but I'm not sure if they speak anything else because they only speak English in the class room. The walls around the school are very bare and have nothing on the walls that celebrate different backgrounds or languages.
there are 2 students in my class that i know get gen ed w/ support. These children leave the room some days and go work on the things they need help with. The children who leave do not seam to be proud of the fact that they get help but they don't seem embarrassed either. The process of them leaving the classroom actually seams very hush hush, probably so that the rest of the class isn't distracted from what they are doing when the children getting help leave. What happens is; a woman walks in and when the teacher notices her, she sends the children that need help out of the room and then continues on with what she was doing.
Looking at the class room, youd never know that the majority of the children come from lower class families. The room is clean and full of stuff, very busy but not at all cluttered. There are fuzzy chairs and a carpet. There's a fish tank, tad polls, and a lot of books. Each child also has their own, individual locker with their name on it. The class room is welcoming and fit for the children. It is a homey, friendly environment and the children know where everything is. For example, the multiple helpful posters on the wall are scattered around the room. They include, math tables, colors and spelling tips.
The curriculum includes Mainly math, reading and writing. The teacher is very go-go-go and needs to be because a first grade class is very energetic and it is hard to keep their attention for too long. For most of the day the children sit on the carpet and raise their hands to answer the teachers questions. This group activity is stimulating for the children because they are competing against each other to get the right answer but also helping each other when someone gets an answer wrong. Focus and attention are very valued in this class room. The teacher keeps things moving to make sure that the children are focused and if someone is talking while the teacher or another student "has the floor" then they are scolded for having done that. This is a wonderful class, they are all very well behaved and respectful. The teacher is strict but not mean or snappy at all. The class seams to respect her for the fact that she doesn't let them get away with anything like forgetting to say excuse me or thank you or speaking out of turn.
the teachers style, being strict but still friendly and sweet reminds me of one of the packets we read. i cant remember which one but the author stated that teachers need to work around there students needs and an example that he/ she gave was that a little back boy respected the teacher that was strict and thought that the more layed back teacher was a push over. The students in Mrs. M's class seam to respect her very much and this fact backs up the statement of the author of the packet we read. The teacher is not short tempered or angry but stays on top of things and doesn't let anything slide. She has the rules set, the students know them, and she doesn't bend the rules for anyone or anything. This structured, consistent way of teaching is wonderful for these children and i have noticed, through the children's behavior, that is works very well in creating a happy, organized learning environment.
the children walk in lines and where each student stands is predetermined. The floors are made up of squares and each student knows that they must stand in their own square, being sure that they arent too close or too far from any of the other students. also, when the students stand in line, they put their finger up to their mouth to show that they arent making noise and are being good. some teachers will walk by and see the class being good and say "good quiet standing class" the class wont say thank you or start talking after the comment but simply smile. The children dont squirm or wiggle around when they are standing and when one does the teacher gets on top of it and says something like, "is something wrong? no? then stand still."
Though the students are very formal during class and in the halls, outside and during gym they go crazy. This shows that the teacher is strict for the benefit of the childrens learning but is also lenient when it is time to have fun. one thing that bothers me, however, is that when a child is in 'red' which means they have been acting up and misbehaving that day, they arent allowed to participate in gym. i would think that having them run around in gym class would help them to calm down and release all of their extra energy. Instead, the student sits still with all of their extra energy and watches the other children have fun. i feel as though it would have the opposite effect that the teacher intended.
Learning and good behavior are valued very much in this class room. The children seam to want the teacher to be happy with them. instead of the reward system that many teachers have, this teacher has an opposite approach. students arent rewarded for being good but, instead, expected to be good and are put in yellow orange or even red if they are bad. This seams to work very well because being good is expected by both teacher and student.
As i stated before, the children are usually pretty formal for children. They are usually very polite and smiley. One informal interaction that i had with a student was interesting to me and really made our differences stand out. A black girl came up to me at the end of the day one day and asked me what i was. she named off many minority ethnicities and then gave up on guessing and wanted me to tell her. I thought this was funny because i dont think that i look Spanish or black which are too things that she asked but it occurred to me that most of the people that she knows are minorities and, so, she probably didnt think to ask if i was white. i told her that i was french and English and Irish and Scottish and she said 'wow thats a lot and then started trying to relate to my background by saying that she met someone once who spoke french and asked me if i could. i told her one of the few phrases that i know which is "fom le bushe" (i totally spelt that wrong but it means shut your mouth.) i told her it meant be quiet and she giggled because the French sounded funny.
the children i work with are wonderful and i never would have expected them to be so well behaved knowing that they live in the city. i was expecting to be chasing after children running down the hall but instead i am sitting and Reading with kids, helping them with math and writing and am actually bored some of the time, not feeling that needed because the teacher has everything so under control.