Questions of Race

In answer to the first question, yes, I'm going to focus solely on Chapter 31 in this little blog (and no, not because it's longer, more because I find race more interesting than standardization). Moving right along, the thing I find really interesting in this article is that it focuses on making sure we all know that we're bringing our own cultural biases and predispositions toward race into the classroom. It also mentions how woefully unprepared most teachers are when it comes to the question of race. But I can't help thinking that all of my Curriculum and Instruction classes have at least spent some time talking about race, and some of them seemed to use it as their only criteria of knowledge. This might be the fault of the article's age, or maybe the faculty in question, but I couldn't help but be a little shocked at how some of the scenarios played out (which was good, in a way, as it kept me reading).

Take Derek's exile, for instance. Obviously most of the teachers labeled him as a "problem" rather than a student with some problems. And while I can understand being frustrated with a kid that really doesn't want to listen to you, I really doubt anyone in the classes I've had would make the jump from suspension to expulsion in less than a day, much less label someone (out loud, no less) as "damaged goods". The thing is, we've been trained to deal with things of this nature, and I think we can all relate (at least a little) to a kid who can't manage to fit into someone else's boundaries of good behavior. This became especially noticeable to me after the article listed all of Derek's strengths...my first reaction to his inability to keep his attention on the teacher and his need to lead was to think "Well...put the kid in a group setting more often, and let him use those leadership skills effectively." I realize that this isn't the panacea for Derek's case, but at the same time, all I'm noticing in terms of teacher response is a bunch of authority figures constantly telling this kid that he's wrong (with the obvious exception of Carrie). That's just not going to go well, you know?

As far as dealing with race in the classroom goes, I think, as a prospective English teacher, I've got it fairly easy. If I can work in a book like Octavian Nothing or Native Son (or even Dubliners), it almost begs for a lesson on race as a social construction. One of the great teaching moments I've witnessed recently was when a professor of mine had all the white students in his class raise their hands, and then put them down if they had German, Irish, Scandanavian, or Italian ancestry. He then went on to say that everyone who put their hands down (the vast majority of the class...think something along the lines of 20:1 and you won't be far off), would not have been considered white a mere 100 years ago. I'm not sure if I could get away with that in a high school (or middle school) setting, but I think it's a poignant example of the fluidity that the concept of race carries with it...and I think that's probably one of the most important things we can get across about race in the classroom (but heck, what do I know, I'm a six-foot white male, I obviously just expect my opinions to be heard and respected because of my color, gender, height and [somewhat] deep voice).


Questions for easy discussion:

1. This article takes place in New York City, where there are more stereotypes per capita than there are pigeons. What does this mean for those of us in Milwaukee, a city with admittedly fewer pigeons but plenty of stereotypes to go around?

2. Jervis spends a decent amount of time focusing on Don, and how his power as a white male dominated many discussions. Can Jervis criticize him effectively even though she didn't voice her own (conflicting) opinion to his face? Is she suggesting that it's a bad thing for white males to voice their opinions, since she argues that their expectation of being heard and respected overrides the opinions of others? Shouldn't everyone, including white males, have that expectation?

Kids Teaching Themselves

The Educational Leadership article did a very nice thing for me. It gave me the opportunity to blog about an article that didn't inherently irritate me.

The idea of creating a problem based learning exercise in order to increase student test scores in a school is a work of sheer genius. Not only does it have the desired effect of increased test scores; it also accomplishes what I consider to be the ultimate goal of teaching: giving students the opportunity to take responsibility for their own education. In creating their own strategies for improving their scores, these students have set the stage for a successful continuing education. Those of us who move beyond the classroom into the real world realize that education is a continuous process; those who want education to end when high school (or even college) ends are setting themselves up for failure. The high school or college degree doesn't mean that one's education is complete, it merely means that the student is at a point where he can begin to teach himself.

Bilingual Education

Okay, I'm going to try really, really hard to see both sides of this. Bear with me, as this may involve some slight bending of the rules of reality.

On the one hand, we have the English Only crowd. Basically, from what I understand, these folks seem to think that if people are not taught in Standard English and only Standard English, they'll continue to use their own native language as a crutch that will only inhibit their learning at higher levels, since higher level learning is generally less and less friendly to the bilingual education crowd. They presumably believe that there is no inherent value to a native language other than English in the United States, since English is the dominant language that we see everywhere. Only by assimilating to the English-speaking culture of the United States can children be assured of success. As far as that goes, it sounds vaguely logical. It does, however, gloss over some fairly big points. First off, most of American people are not Native Americans, so to designate English as the native language of English is a logical fallacy. That said, it is the dominant language...but it's not so dominant that other language groups don't make up a seriously substantial part of the population...and they vote. Next, the idea that these alternate language groups don't have anything to offer the English-speaking culture is also something along the lines of patently ridiculous. The fact that we have a whole major related to bilingual business practices tells me that bilingual education is something even stereotypical conservatives should be able to relate to. And if that's not enough, I'll end this little rant with the most powerful three-word argument of all time: Come on, seriously?

In the interest of fairness (and because I'm pretty sure the pro-bilingual crowd might be taking a bit too narrow a focus too), I'll take a look at the other side. The bilingual education crowd has this nice idea that non-native speakers of English should be taught English alongside their own native tongue, thereby empowering them to use their unique cultural perspective in an English-speaking setting to effect social change (count the buzzwords people, I just said something important). While this is well and good (great, actually), I notice that the article doesn't mention anything about native speakers of English using bilingual education to socially empower them. I mean...if the interest is social justice, then everyone should be equal, right? So...bilingual education should include, for example, non-native English speakers from Mexico learning English alongside Spanish in...say, L.A. These same schools hopefully (and probably do) involve native English speakers learning Spanish alongside English. If it helps minorities to be socially empowered by knowing two languages, I imagine it'd help them even more if the majority could speak several of those languages as well. That way, instead of this article sounding like it wants to use bilingualism as a weapon against the cultural elite, we'd have an education system that sounds more like a community of equal people getting along...which just sounds nicer, you know?

So here's a disturbing reality:

I found a lot to muse about in the first article...the second...well...just creeped me out (as I'm sure it did for a lot of the rest of you). But anyhow, onto the main points that struck me in the first article:

- So Males (as in Mike Males, not general male people) spends a really large amount of time bashing media moguls and political personages for not telling the "real" story about teens. I'm not sure if Males is just an idealist here, or has completely disconnected from reality, but I've got a bit of news for him: Media does not exist to give readers/watchers/listeners/fish the news, it exists to sell itself in order to turn a profit in order to make investors happy in order to keep the economy running. It is not there to actually tell us what's going on in the world. If we want to find that out, we actually have to work at it. And most people don't. As he aptly points out, news stories about adults doing bad things make adults unhappy; since adults have all the buying power, and they don't want to buy that image, they won't, hence, the media doesn't sell it. Politicians, by the same token, do not exist to serve the will of the people, the exist to get re-elected in order to continue reaping the benefits of a cushy government job in seats of power. If the agenda of the people happens to coincide with that politician's agenda, so be it, but if it doesn't, the politician will probably change his/her agenda somewhat to fit with what seems popular at the moment in order to get re-elected, and since adults do the re-electing...I don't have to spell this out twice, do I?

-Males also points out that media coverage always blames the teenage girl for her unwanted pregnancy. While I'll admit this happens more often than it should (i.e. pregnancy is usually a decision two people make, outside of the rape scenario), we do have plenty of coverage on those males as well. Generally, we don't call them "the fathers in the situation of unwanted pregnancy with a teenage girlfriend" because that'd really take a long time. I'm pretty sure the common term is "pedophile," and I know the media runs plenty of stories on them, because, well, they sell.

-In yet another segment, Males goes into the ineffectiveness of teen rehabilitation programs, and details how worthless they are given the rather low ratio of teen:adult violent crime. I'd counter that point by saying that the rehabilitation programs exist for teens and not for adults because society as a whole tends to think that teens have the possibility of changing their destructive behaviors , while adults simply need to be locked away forever for the good of society. If we could change our attitudes about adults, maybe they could have rehabilitative programs too, instead of spending time in the rather cyclical system of incarceration.

Alright, I've probably written enough of a novel for anyone by this point (thanks for struggling through it, folks).

Some questions for easy discussion (even though it's 2a.m. and you've probably already discussed by now):

1. Males goes on and on (and on and on) about the lack of positive mentions for teens in the news, as well as the absence of negative adult reporting. But what does he expect the media folks to do? Admit its all a sham and clean up their reporting?

2. Giroux's article talks a lot about children acting like "mini-adults." Is this something of a return to social ideologies of about a century ago, when children were assumed to be mini-adults, or are we all just a bit sick?

Well Jimmy, your body is changing!

I'm not sure I can really speak for most about this, but I don't really recall the physical process of puberty and adolescence all that well. I do remember watching a great deal of really bad films on it, however. And something I remember about that came up in these chapters as well: embarrassment, mostly among males. No matter how many films they watch about testicles dropping and voices changing, most of them would pretty much like to ignore the process entirely and pretend it's not actually happening.

My response: can you blame them?

Society as a whole tends to tell males that to be successful, they need to be big, strong, and not afraid of anything under 17 feet (unless it happens to have tentacles). Having one's voice crack while answering an algebra question isn't exactly conducive to that image, and neither is a round-table discussion amongst peers on who's growing pubic hair and who isn't. Competition is the name of the game amongst adolescent males...and usually it's the ones who end up losing who turn into those "popular psychologists" the text mentions who are always calling on men to share their feelings more. In actuality, from what I remember, I sincerely doubt too many people would be all that interested in my feelings as an adolescent; generally, I'm sure they could be classified under the heading of "sheep syndrome" (i.e. if Larry in row 3 looks a bit more smug than anyone else in class, we should probably all be doing whatever he's doing). Other than that, I probably spent most of my time thinking about girls with a minute or two for wondering what assignments were due the next day.

Summation? Someday, male adolescents might talk about their feelings more; on the whole, we probably won't learn that much from it.

Questions for easy conversation:

1. The second chapter spent a great deal of time talking about how female puberty is generally looked upon as a negative thing; it then went on to say that females generally talk to each other and their mothers more about their pubescent experience...does the natural support network that females seem to have regarding puberty cancel out the negative notions attributed to it?

2. The reading mentioned reports done almost a century apart. It got me to thinking...if each generation feels that the members of the next generation face new and more frightening challenges than ever before...what do you think the generation two generations from now will be facing (my bet is either nuclear holocaust or the re-emergence of Big Band music as a popular art form, with both being pretty much equally horrifying).

Anti-Opressive Education, 1/27/09

After finishing Kumashiro's piece, I couldn't help but feel...well...a little marginalized. I'm fairly sure that the demonizing of middle class white heterosexual males wasn't Kumashiro's ultimate point, but belaboring the point that such individuals are the most privileged class in western society distracts from his urgency in pushing the anti-oppressive education concept. It's also somewhat hypocritical, since marginalization of any group, including those who enjoy social privilege goes against the idea of anti-oppressive education. Maybe, just maybe the idea of a safe place in the classroom for all students would be a more palatable one. Otherwise, what incentive do those who are privileged have to surrender or share their privilege with others? Leading with righteous indignation against a group of people who - for the most part - are more than willing to share resources hoarded by their more avaricious ancestors might not be the most intelligent way to resolve differences between the "Norms" and "Others." I also somewhat resent Kumashiro's pretension in both inventing his own terms to describe marginalized people and by deliberately provoking controversy by using pejoratives as a part of academic discourse (especially when one recognizes the pejorative and admits to using it mostly for shock value, page 43). While doing so is probably fairly impressive around the academic water cooler, it doesn't do anything to actually help the marginalized people themselves (which I assume was the point).

His research itself was also a point of contention, as some of it is just plain out-dated and wrong. He mentions on page 32 the lack of "discussion of labor exploitation" in school curriculums, and cites a source from 1979 as his support. From personal experience, I know this to be untrue, since I not only had an entire history unit in both grade school and high school on the rise of the labor movement to combat the dismal factory conditions found in the industrial revolution, I also taught the same basic unit to a fourth grade class during my Currins 100 placement (and I assure you, that wasn't thirty years ago).

Kumashiro is also guilty in this piece of a faulty syllogism; i.e. just because one calls his piece an article doesn't make it less of a survey of scholarship. He fails to introduce any original ideas (aside from his extensive quotes from his own past work) until the final page, where he suggests that the principles of Buddhism might make for an interesting educational study, and that their partial implementation in western schools might make for a less oppressive atmosphere. I too would be interested in seeing the results of this, even though it makes Kumashiro's point all the more irrelevant. Why? Because in stressing the absence of self (while at the same time denying the past and future to exist solely in the moment), Buddhism effectively erases Kumashiro's "marginalized Others," since there can be no gender, sexual, or racial differences if there is no self. What Kumashiro fails to mention is that without the self, there is also no cultural diversity to be embraced by educators.

I realize that I'm not cutting Kumashiro any slack here, so maybe I'll do that for a paragraph. I do like his idea that the classroom should be a safe place where stereotypes and negative cultural imagery can be discussed and disowned. I've never been a proponent of the idea that if one simply ignores differences in class, gender, race, or sexual orientation that things will all work out without any problems. These issues need to be brought up in a safe environment, or the same prejudices of the previous generation will simply play out again in the current one. There are reasons why things like the anti-gay marriage amendment passed in California, namely ignorance and intolerance. Racism and sexism remain alive for the same reasons. Such topics can and should be talked about in the classroom, but if and only if they relate to the subject matter being discussed. I will not, for example, be talking about gay-rights while reading The Jungle with a high school English class. I might just touch on class differences and inequalities in what should be a fully democratic, equal society, however.

Some questions for a finisher:

1. Kumashiro often mentions that being "queer" is considered a sign of sexual deviancy. To what extent is this actually present in our local environment (in terms of things like "Fair Wisconsin Votes No", etc.) and is there any way of making a discussion for this topic outside of, say, a social studies or English classroom? Could a math teacher do so? How?

2. Throughout most of the survey, Kumashiro calls for changes in education to make it less oppressive and more welcoming to the "Others." He later mentions (page 46) that change for the better isn't the right goal, and that educators should seek change simply for the sake of change. Is this a contradiction? Why or why not?


Just for Fun:

1. How many times does Kumashiro quote himself in this survey?

2. How many times does he use the word "pedagogy" (double points if it's in a parenthetical)?