Blog #12: Johnson, "What Can we Do?"

"What can we Do?"

by Allan Johnson

Author's Argument:

Passages of Interest:

Discussion:

Blog #11: Kliewer, "Citizenship in School: Reconceptualizing Down Syndrome"

"Citizenship in School: Reconceptualizing Down Syndrome"

by Christopher Kliewer

Author's Argument:

Passages of Interest:

Discussion:

Blog #10: Anyon, "Social Class and the Hidden Curriculum of Work"

"Social Class and the Hidden Curriculum"

by Jean Anyon

Author's Argument:

      In Jean Anyon's "Social Class and the Hidden Curriculum", she argues that the American system of education is divided into different social strata. The lowest and most poor would be the working class schools, the next lowest would be the middle-class schools, followed upwards by the affluent professional schools, the the executive elite schools. These different classifications not only cater to the varying cultures, but also reinforce the societal class systems. This is done by teaching different sets of skills to their given students.

Passages of Interest:

1)      This article is very eye opening. In the introduction, Anyon lays out explicitly exactly what she is trying to express in the passage. It is disheartening to see that such a system is in place as illustrated in this passage:

"-fifth graders of different economic backgrounds are already being prepared to occupy particular rungs on the social ladder. In a sense, some whole schools are on the vocational track, while others are geared to produce future doctors, lawyers, and business leaders."

2)      Anyon states that the children of working class parents are destined to follow in their family's footsteps, due to the fact that they are taught and develop according to the rules and reward systems taught to them in school. This is illustrated in the following quotation:

" In the two working class schools, work is following the steps of a procedure. The procedure is usually mechanical, involving rote behavior and very little decision making or choice. The teachers rarely explain why the work is being assigned, how it might connect to other assignments, or what the idea is that lies behind the procedure or gives it coherence and perhaps meaning or signifigance."

3)      Anyon's main point is further summed up in the following statement:

"These differences may not only contribute to the development in the children in each social class of certain types of economically significant relationships and not others but would thereby help to reproduce this system if relations in society. In the contribution  to reproduction of unequal social relations lies a theoretical meaning and social consequences of classroom practice."

Discussion:

      This article is very disheartening. Anyon's research shows that those without social privilege have very little choice in their adult lifestyles. The working class become clerks and janitors, the middle class managers, the affluent professionals would become doctors and the executive elites would become the heads of massive corporations. The rich stay richer, and the poor go nowhere.

Sad.

Blog #9: Lawrence, "One More River to Cross;" Wise, "Whites Swim in Racial Preference"

Authors' Arguments:
In "One More River to Cross", Charles Lawrence argues that despite the dominant cultures idea that desegregation ended segregation laws, this is far from the truth. He asserts that it was not the physical separation of black and white children that needed to solely be fixed, but rather the extremely more massive wound which started the cyclic, contagious, system in which black people were labeled as inferior to whites. He argues that the band aid of desegregation is not enough to heal this greivous wound. It is infected, and is but one of a hundred other festering sores that if only tended on the surface will still rot and eat away what is beneath.

In "Whites Swim in Racial Preference", Tim Wise (along with Johnson, and McIntosh) asserts that White culture is not even aware of how much an advantage it has in American society merely because of their skin color. He claims that White cultures generally is extremely critical of affirmative action programs, and as such are not only reinforcing their own ignorance and privelege, but insulting all those who have fought to bring about such corrective movements.

Passages of Interest:

1) It was enlightening to see how Charles Lawrence claimed cultural ignorance was present in our society. This privilege isn't just ignored, but often hidden in plain sight under a pretty blanket. This passage really jumped out at me in regards to this assertion:

"The refusal of white Americans to accept responsibility for the relative education, economical, social and political disadvantages of blacks is legally and intellectually justified by ignoring the continuing vitality of the Institution of Segregation and their own role in its maintenance."

2) In reading Charles Lawrences piece, something kind of dawned on me. While certain companies may not outright say "No Black People Allowed", they still adopt laws that will exclude the majority of black people due to the fact that their minority culture has put them at a "ignorable" disadvantage. The following quote made a giant light bulb go off:

"Now the District of Columbia Police Department was using a method of selecting its employees that measured not what kind of police officers the applicants would make but measured instead the proficiency of their verbal skills. Like the defendants in Green, the defendants in Washington v. Davis could count on the continuing effects of their never completely destroyed system of segregation to maintain their mostly white police department. There was no need to initiate new non-neutral acts."

I may be misreading, but this is the big click that went off in my head. Since statistics show that most black people are in a disadvantaged minority culture, they do not have as much access to the codes of power (in this case better verbal skill training in schools) privileged individuals do. There for, by having this police department accept applicants based on verbal skill, which the disadvantaged do not necessarily possess, than the disadvantaged do not get the job, the disadvantaged being black, leads to black people not getting as many jobs. Everything perpetuates.

It would be like not wanting people with brown hair in your club. You can't downright say you don't want brown haired folks in, that would cause public outcry. But you tell a secret to mostly just non brown haired people. You then make admission to your club based on how well someone knows the secret, not their outright hair color. Therefor most brown haired people do not get in.

I find this idea kind of disheartening and interesting.

3) Tim Wise's article seems to focus more on the consequences of those expressed in Charles Lawrence's piece. He looks at the many other wounds still infected despite the supposed cure all of desegregation. One that really made me pause was this one:

"A full time black male working in 2003 makes less in real dollar terms than similar white men were earning in 1967. Such realities are not merely indicative of the disadvantages faced by blacks, but indeed are evidence of the preferences afforded whites -- a demarcation of privilege that is the necessary flipside of discrimination.

Discussion:
Out of all the pieces we have read thus far, my favorite has been the above mentioned one by Charles Lawrence. After reading it and jotting tiny notes in the margin I came to a 'Holy Crap' moment where I got it. That being sad, I got a piece. I am not going to stake my stance on a single idea, as I have been for the past bunch of blogs talking about being fluid and adaptable. Still though, this was the reading which moved me the most.

It really made me see the system in a different light. Racism doesn't have to be Klansmen burning a cross on the front lawn, or White Only diners. It can be programs which seem completely seperate from racial discrimination, but which cater to strengths which by societal functioning, just aren't as easily attainable to minority cultures. This could be due to poor education, lacking social programs, probably a bunch of things. I can't put into words how impacting it was when this all kind of clicked together in my head. MCAT, standardized testing, they aren't tests just for whites, but whites do well on them because they test on white, or rather, privileged knowledge! I feel like I have been hammering at some walls in my brain over the past few weeks, and tonight one just unexpectedly fell down.

Yet at the same time, I felt vulnerable. It is like I got comfortable thinking about some of the issues we have been talking about, and then took the next step. And I got a little unsure. Am I just eating this stuff up? I am starting to feel really bad about being in this priveleged culture. Goldberg would hate me! Am I becoming too open minded a loosing my identity?

These two pieces, while really good (especially Lawrence's), really read to me with a tone of "You should be ashamed of yourself" and it really made me feel bad. Is that the point? Should I feel bad?

As I am typing this I get the feeling that this all is indeed the point. Rock you out of your comfort zone, and get the brain working.

Regardless of being on some unsteady ground right now, I still really enjoyed the articles.

Blog #8: Carlson, "Gayness, Multiculturalism and Community"

Carlson's Argument:
Carlson argues that schools, and society as a whole, ignores the queer culture as a whole. People are measured against a standard normalization established by the presiding culture of power. Practices like don't ask don't tell steal the voice of a marginalized population, and effectively quiets any calls of fire while a bridge between groups smolders to ash.

Passages of Interest:
1) Carlson's work brought up some thought provoking ideas, as well as some accounts of things happening that (once again) made me go "Wow, really?". Another theme common to the course was the idea of a culture of power establishing what is considered approriate, relevant and "normal". Carlson agrees that such a system exists as evident in the following passage:

"Throughout much of this century, the dominant idea of community in America was represented by what I will call the normalizing community. Within normalizing communities, some individuals and subject positions (i.e., white, middle class, male, heterosexual, etc) get privileged and represented as "normal" while other individuals and subject positions (i.e., black, working class, female, homosexual, etc.) are disempowered and represented as deviant, sick, neurotic, criminal, lazy, lacking in intelligence, and in other ways "abnormal".

SCWAAMP, very SCWAAMP.

2) Carlson explicitly outlines how the normalized society silences queer issues in the curriculum. It made me think how I would react if things that were important to me where given this treatment. Also, the idea listed as point (2) really bothered me for some reason. Teachers were really released for making it known they were homosexuals? That is really sad, and upsetting. The passage is below:

"Three techniques of normalization and (hence) marginalization have been of primary important in this regard: (1) the erasure of gayness in the curriculum, (2) the "closeting" and "witch hunting" of gay teachers, and (3) verbal and physical intimidation of gay teachers and students."

I tried rolling this idea around in my head a bit. I want to do more research on how homosexuality comes to be. What I mean is, I have heard alot of things saying you are born that way. While I tend to believe this, I wonder how much of it is scientifically proven, or if upbringing and culture has something to do with it. I still for the most part believe the former, but just want to know more.

3) The third passage that I really noted was this one:

"A male substitue teacher was greeted by [one of the students] ---- shouted across her English classroom: "That man's a faggot, right? Look at how he talks!' Arriving at her seat she yelled "Hey Mr.Faggot, I mean Sir, you got a pencil?"

When I read this, I didn't feel bad for the substitue initially. The reason is that I was really really angry upon reading it. That is so cruel and ignorant it makes my blood boil. I don't know why. I think it is because not only does the student completly disrepspect the sub as a person, but also as a teacher. How can you control a classroom? How could you, in the sub's position, control yourself from blowing up and verbally exploding on the kid? It made me think, what can you do if a class is so disrespectful and you lose control. How are you supposed to reach kids who feel they have dominated you, and not only show disrespect, but outright vile attacks?

Discussion:
Queer culture tolerance is relativly new. This piece really made me angry though that things aren't further along as far as acceptance. Then again, I guess I am not as tolerant as I should be, so how can I hold society to such a high standard. I know I self doubt alot in my blogs, but this one is probably the least self doubt and guilty I feel. The reason is that homosexuality really isn't a huge deal to me. I mean I may still be too coded to feel 100% comfortable having two guys making out on the hundred dollar bill, but I have known people who are of the queer culture and it really doesn't bother me at all.

I think people I know who are homosexual are as neutral as that word classification can be, they just like the same sex. I think the little hang up I may have is that homosexual people who are impersonal to me are all about sexual interaction. It is like the distinction between a person (someone you know) and people (the faceless mass). I guess the faceless mass is the one which is distorted the most by societies looking glass for me.

Blog #7: Rodriguez "Aria", Collier "Teaching Multilingual Children"

Authors' Arguments:
In "Aria" by Richard Rodriguez, he talks about how as a child he was forced to assimilate into the english speaking American culture, and thus it changed his private home life. He argues that this was worth it, for it gave him the key skills needed to succeed in the culture he lived in.

In "Teaching Multilingual Children" by Virginia Collier, it seems she asserts the benefits of teaching children in their primary languages. She believes that to truly learn, a student must absorb a curriculum through their strongest pathway of communication.

These two views seem to butt heads, Rodriguez arguing that letting go off some personal culture presents a rise to the challenge scenario, while Collier seems to suggest that students are able to learn and succeeded regardless of assimilation, so long as material is provided that they can understand.

Passages of Interest:
1) It seems that having read Delpit early on in this course, I have clung to the ideas of personal culture and using codes in that context to succeed. In Rodriguez's piece I found a paragraph that seemed to speak completely about the benefits of operating such culture of power codes:

"Weeks after, it happened: One day in school I raised my hand to volunteer an answer. I spoke out in a loud voice. And I did not think it remarkable when the entire class understood. That day, I moved very far from the disadvantaged child I had been only days earlier. The belief, the calming assurance that I belonged in public, had at last taken hold."

2) Even though Rodriguez seems to accept his "sacrifice", even to find much success in it, the piece seems to allude a small bit of sadness. It almost seems like an inevitable loss though. The following passage reminded me of someone who had grown up. By taking on responsibilty we all make the transition to adulthood. It is what we need to do to succeed. However, we can still look back longingly at children playing. We remember what it is like, but know we can not go back. This passage gave that feeling:

"Hearing a Spanish-speaking family walking behind me, I turned to look. I smiled for an instant, before my glance found the Hispanic-looking faces of strangers in the crowd going by."

This shows that Rodriguez does not hate his former culture, but rather has transitioned.

3) Virginia Collier's piece was not as easily digested as Rodriguez's. Not that it didn't have it's points, but it was just a very dry style of writing. One thing that I did like was the following:

"Teachers must be creative and flexible, serve as a catalyst for discovery as students learn to operate effectively in their multiple worlds, be able to mediate and resolve intercultural conficts, keep students on task, and serve as a support base. "Teaching is complicated, but also rewardingm in ways that many other jobs can never be. You have a chance to interact daily with live, growing, thinking maturing human beings, and that time is special, despite the complications of managing a bureaucratized, overcrowded class room or overtested, underchallenged students"

Discussion:

As I have said in my past posts, my mindset has been popped from one side of a teaching style continuity to the other with each new reading. I think the quite from Collier above takes a direct knock at Rodriguez's argument. Where it talks about bureacratized classrooms and overtesting. However Rodriguez piece acts as a counter argument. I think both readings work well together. 

I would agree mostly with Rodriguez. I think codes of power need to be explicitly taught, but the only difference is I don't think they should be mutually exclusive to personal identity and culture. It seems like things went a little too far in his case. Too much application of codes of power will lead to a continuation of Mott Havens, but lack of application will do that also. I think as future teachers it is our responsibility to our potential students to pack our heads with knowledge and experience. 

In class we talked about these assets as tools by which we will help build a future for those we will be instructing. Through reading and expanding our toolkit, we have to use all of our experiences. If we rely soley on our hammers, we wont be able to unscrew screws, but if we only use our screwdriver we can't drive in nails.

School Context Assignment

       When I came into Summer Session 08 at Rhode Island College, I was very much expecting a cake walk experience. After coming off a year and a half of almost all hard sciences, I looked at the prospect of a two hour a day education course as something that would be laid back and very easy. The first day however, things got a bit flipped upside down. Unbenknownst to me, this class entailed being placed in an inner city school tutoring children. Oh crap.

       

       I am a white guy, who works, studies and socializes for the most part with other white guys. When I got my assignment I was secretly nervous. The selected school had to be for the most part either black or hispanic, and a portion of the students had to be eligible for free or reduced lunch. Immediately scenes from "Stand and Deliver" flashed into my head. How was an oblivious white guy like myself going to enter an enviornment which I was sure would be chaos. 

       So the first day came. I put on my shirt and tie. This day called for the top button to be done up, a feat not always easy for the large jowled men of my family. I wanted to be somewhat uncomfortable, it made me feel like I was putting on a costume. I believed I would have to be maintaining an act of bravery while secretly scared for my life. Leaving an hour early, google saying it was only 15 minutes but wanting to be safe, I made my way towards what would no doubt be a zoo of a first day.

       As I approached "J. Bailey Elementary", I was looking out my rolled up windows trying to spot the graffiti and bullet holes. Nothing. For sure the area must suddenly switch from suburbia to slum. It never happened though. As a parked my car I wondered if I was at the right place. The neighborhood was quiet, tucked away from a somewhat main road. While the skyline of Providence could be seen in the distance, this school seemed anything but deep in the ghettos of the inner city. My interest was peaked.

       The school itself was a large brick building, encircled by a moat of black top playgrounds and bordered with a tall chain link fence. When I arrived children were loudly being children during recess. There were no grass fields or jungle gyms, but the surrounding neighborhoods were full of trees. Despite the chaos of recess, the place seemed somewhat quiet and peaceful. I didn't notice any art, banners or even hop scotch courts. The main door was securely closed, and I had to buzz myself in. A "peanut free zone" sign greeted me as I headed to the main office.

      After signing in an being assigned to my classroom, I began to take notice of how J.Bailey Elementary functioned. The room I would be working in was quite large, and quite messy. The students sat in pods, while the teacher held court at the front corner opposite the door. Everything seemed to be a mess. Art projects half done, papers on the floor, velcro calendars with days missing from it. It just seemed like chaos. In the following days I would visit, it seemed students often switched spots and moved desks. 

       The teacher to who's room I was assigned was named "Ms. Krath". She was a "fourth" grade teacher and her pedagogy was immediately clear. Ms. K never broke her barking tone. She shouted her lessons and peppered in similar sounding corrections. It seems she kind of ruled with a respectable fear. Before I was in her classroom I was told she was a "diva". I think that is  nice way of saying she is a shouter. 

       As I was working with two small groups of children, I was unable to pick up on Ms. K's curriculum, thought several interupting shouts could still be heard. Instead I focused on the material I was teaching the students I was working. It was composed of fluency excercises. Some practiced simple reading, others inflection, and other poetry comprehension. The kid's seemed to like them them, but after several days I could see they were becoming bored. As a reward, at the end of our lessons, we would play reading Candy Land. The words didn't seem to challenge the students though, so I could see even the novelty of that was wearing out. 

       The informal interacton amongst students was different than I expected. I noticed they were often polite and sharing. The all seemed blind to one anothers ethnicity and gender, all sharing markers and laughing together. The teachers seemed to participate in a culture of exhaustion and bitterness. One even told me audibly in front of the children "You're in the wrong feild, get out while you can." I found this very unprofessional, especially within the earshot of students. It really seemed that most of the teachers were worn out, and really not enjoying themselves. This jadedness seemed to lead to snapping at children. It was kind of rough to watch.

       The demographic of J.Bailey breaks down as follows. 35% of students qualify for a subsidized lunch program, while 65% do not. Ethnically, 35% of students are white, 31% hispanic, 29% black, 4% asian, and 1% native american. This seemed accurate in the classroom I was working in. However, it did not seem that the classroom space or the school in general was a representation of this diversity. There didn't seem to be any maps, or indications of cultural differences in the halls. Everyone kind of did the same thing. From what little I saw of the library, it didn't offer an ethnic titles. However, the library did read a book about diplomacy and democracy set in a world populated by Bubble People.

       In a way J.Bailey seemed a partial success when measured against Lisa Delpit's views. The children all follow the same codes of conduct. I saw that the idea of Respect was continually represented on posters and in the actions of the students. They lined up military style, and listened when given instruction. However, the students seemed to be treated solely as students as opposed to little unique people.

       All in all, I was a little disheartened by what I saw at J.Bailey. It seemed like there were those who cared about the student's well being, but for the most part the staff just seemed so worn out and frustrated. It was almost as if they wanted to just get through the day. Ms. K never left her chair, and was quite snappy. A visiting art teacher grumbled and slouched in a chair with her eyes closed and hand on her forehead, exasperated. She crankily asked the students "How many days left?". It makes me worry that teachers enter their field with enthusiasm and a positive attitude, but eventually give up when they realize they can't change an oppressive standardized system.

Blog #6: McIntosh and Muwakkil

"White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack"
Peggy McIntosh

"Data show racial bias persists in America"
Salim Muwakkil

Authors' Arguments:
Peggy McIntosh is a woman, and thus admittedly outside of America's culture of power. While she is unable to draw direct comparison, in her piece she acknowledges that her own oppression by a male society allows her to relate to the opression that must present in black culture. She makes it a point to identify that she is not a part of the white/black separation, but can at least identify it's existence due to her inclusion in America's male/female separation. 

Salim Muwakkil's article was really jaw dropping to me as a white man. Sometimes, as Johnson would assert, racist divides can be kept in the shadows when people meet face to face. Sometimes it takes the objectiveness of statistics to make it truly known. It is easier to fall into oppressive privlege trends (which aren't necessarily youre fault, but rather a societal system) when you are dealing with a paper resume as a opposed to a living applicant. Muwakkil's uses these facts to show that racism may not manifest as segregated schools and restaurants anymore, but it still is alive and well (unwell I suppose) in American culture.

Passages of Interest:
1) I felt my privileged hackles raise a bit upon reading Peggy McIntosh's work. I understood what she was saying, but it seemed her valid points were delivered in a shout rather than an unbiased tone. Maybe I am just reading it this way as a man, but this passage kind of made me be think "Woah, hang on, I didn't do this", though I am willing to acknowledge that I may be being unconciously biased myself:

"I have often noticed men's unwillingness to grant that they are overprivileged, even though they may grant that women are disadvantaged. They may say they will work to women's status, in society, the university, or the curriculum, but they can't or won't support the idea of lessening men's"

While my gut response is of defense, maybe she is right. It is real easy in our lecture and this blog to be Mr. PC, but will I really carry these lessons over into action? I am not sure if I am strong enough to let go of my manliness. Stirrings of Goldberg kind of make me think it would mean giving up some of my identity. Just stream of thought stuff.

2) Johnson spoke of the obliviousness those within power are to their own positions. Delpit also wrote about codes of power those with privilege carry unknowingly with them. With these ideas in mind, the following passage from McIntosh leapt out at me as a further hammering in of this point:

"I have come to see white privlege as an invisible package of unearned assets that I can count on cashing in each day, but about which I was 'meant' to remain oblivious. White privilege is like an invisible weightless knapsack of special provisions, maps, passports, code books, visas, clothes, tools and blank check."

3) As much as on the surface racism seems to be disappearing, and overtly is has to a major extent (segregated schools, widespread lynching, etc), it still exists in America. It is almost like weeds in a garden. The thorny, tangled leaves have been trimmed back a bit, but the nasty roots are still tangled up below the soil. This doesn't just make the weeds come back but also dictates how the rest of the garden will grow. The garden is growing very dishearteningly in this passage:

" The U.S. Bureau of Justice projects that 30 percent of black boys who turn 12 this year will spend time in jail if current incarceration rates stay constant."

That is nuts. How do we change this? Can we? Or is it too big. I guess if we all just keep trying to chip away it might change in someone's future lifetime.

Discussion:

Each one of these blogs makes me reflect a little differently, and I guess that is kind of the point. It seems strange, kind of like an old apartment being gutted. One article knocks down one section of the place, while another demolishes another portion. They really are opening up the place to some fresh air though.

These articles touched on old material, as well as some new. McIntosh really reinforced the idea of privilege, but I found her style a bit less objective than some of our past readings. She made points that seemed to relate to too narrow of a reference group. This made it feel somewhat impersonal. It reminded me of Dr. Bogad's us example, where one student felt excluded and turned off when "us" was used in lecture. McIntosh seemed to say us to me a little bit. 

Muwakkil's article was discouraging. It made me wonder if things will ever change. As much as we try to make America different, will racist roots still dictate our cultural development? I guess to give up would be to fall to the silence Johnson spoke of in our past readings though. I suppose though if we try to impart these ideas to our future students, and three of them get it, maybe they can each teach three more, then each of them three more. Maybe this is idealistic. 

Blog #5: Kozol, from Shame of the Nation vs. Goldberg, from 100 People

"Amazing Grace- The Lives of Children and the Conscience of a Nation"
Jonathan Kozol

"100 People Who Are Screwing Up America"
Bernard Goldberg

Authors' Arguments:

In "Amazing Grace", Johnathan Kozol seems to assert that America is not always "the beuatiful". He talks about how there are forgotten byproducts of the American dream, like Mott Haven. It seems that it is not only the "red bag" refuse which is burned away in the incinerator down there, but an entire class of people. Reduced like the garbage to human ash, easily looked over by the rest of the nation. Kozol seems to think that this is a natural excrement caused by the SCWAAMPy like system in place in America. It will not change unless the system functions differently. For this degradation is itself also a cyclical system.

In contrast to Kozol's argument, Bernard Goldberg, seems to push that America is not the monster it is made out to be in "Amazing Grace". He claims that writing such as this, while true in some cases, focuses solely on the minority bad while demonizing the majority good. He says that people are being brainwashed into hating America, thinking power does not afford protection and security, but instead is used solely to crush the unfortunate in a grinding class system. Pride in the USA is disappearing, and folks aren't focusing on all the positive things about our, as Americans, nation. He name's Kozol in particular, and claims that his biased accounts of poverty and bleakness of making everyone think things are worse than they are, and that their country is evil for making such conditions exist.

Passages of Interest:

1) Kozol's piece was a real eye opener. There was a line in the first paragraph which made me stop and go "Wow, really?". It pretty much showed a perfect gradient upon which our modern class system exists. It reads:

"When you enter the train, you are in the seventh richest congressional district in the nation. When you leave, you are in the poorest."

2) Kozol exmaines the culture of Mott Haven as related by a young man named David Washington. This kid is amongst all of the horrid, horrid poverty. Amongst the murders, AIDS, violence, amongst stuff most white people such as myself could only imagine in movies. And yet, David doesn't view himself as in the worst possible position, he sees others still beneathe him. That put alot of personal problems I have been through. It is amazing that this kid, who's mother is practically dying, can still have pity for someone other than himself, as seen in this passage: (He relates how drug dealers look at him with hatred, and responds when Kozol asks why)

"I think they hate you because you are not in their condition. 'I am in hell and you are not and so I hate you and I have to try to bring you down to where I am.' I feel pity for them and fear, because they are lost."

Kozol seems to scratch the surface of the ignored plight of Mott Haven by interacting with David, but David shows us that it goes even deeper than Kozol as an outsider can even begin to understand.

3) Bernard Goldberg critiques the liberal education techniques put forth by Johnathan Kozol. He asserts that being American is not something to wear like a sin or shame, that this sort of thinking is perpetuated by the suggestions of the monster American power system. This is apparent when he talks about American youths loosing their national culture, which Kozol influenced educators have branded as evil:

"To be sure, there are a number of ways that the American education system has broken down over the years. Far too many of today's schools are violent, and far too many are filled with kid's who don't care about learning. Yet, what may be even worse, and in the end even more dangerous, is that so many of today's schools are turning out 'smart' kids with little understanding of how precious their heritage is."

Discussion:

The work by Kozol was both eye opening and heart breaking. Goldberg would say that the feelings I had upon reading it are exactly those Kozol had angled to elicit. I can see where both authors are coming from. One of the main points I think this course is moving us towards is balance. I don't think either Kozol or Goldberg are wrong. In chemistry, there is a reaction state known as equilibrium. Different chemical species react with one another, but keep going back and forth from the reagents (starting material) to the products (end materials). A very basic chemical reaction looks like this:

X + Y <---> XY

This means that the product swings back and forth, continually coming undone and reforming. When there is a high concentration of the "X + Y" side, the reaction will compensate and go more towards the "XY". This works both ways.

I think as teachers, we need to be like an equilibrium reaction. 

Kozol is right about society being broken, but Goldberg is also right about it not being all bad. This also can be seen going all the way back to Johnson. If "XY" is white privilege, and we refuse to acknowledge the "X+Y", then nothing is going on. No reaction is going forward and nothing is changing. Further correlation can be drawn to Lisa Delpit's idea of the duality between codes of power and personal identity. While Johnson, Delpit, Kozol and Goldberg all focus on one side of a reaction or the reaction as a whole, it seems that the main idea is to recognize sometimes you need to do all of these. What I mean is, sometimes it is better to focus on "X+Y", the transitition equilibrium, or the "XY" or a combination of the three. Don't settle on one portion, because people and persons are not something that can be nailed down with one answer.

So I think the big picture is starting to be shown that we as teachers must be open, fluid, and recognize that it is unwise to set something in stone. We will need to evolve with our students and the times. To remain stationary would be to become jaded and fail what I feel is the main objective of our calling, to better our world. This is hard though, because as humans we want a definitive answer, we want things codified and ordered. That simply will not work when dealing with human beings on such an important level as student to teacher.

Also, it is hard for me to talk like this without thinking I am being overly dramatic and self righteous. I spent years mocking the deep sensitive types. Not too sure if I am breaking out of my privlege shell, or if I just like hearing talk(or I gess seeing myself type). I genuinely hope though it is the former.

Blog #4: Relationship to the Culture of Power

Relationship to the Culture of Power:

In our lecture, we discussed at length the privilege of power here in America. This dominant culture , backed up by the writings of Johnson, is associated with those who are somewhat affulent, white, Christian, male, heterosexuals.

I am all those things.

My family never really had to struggle growing up. Granted we were not rich by any stretch of the imagination, even going through so really tough times, but I never had to worry about a roof over my head, or where my next meal was coming from. I always had the benefit of having health insurance, and growing up was able to visit dentists and other doctors pretty when needed. When I was younger, I always knew about and felt different than poor people. It was well and good to care about such individuals, but I was brought up definetly being aware that they were them, and we were us.

My heritage is almost entirely Irish. As far as pigmentation, few get more literally white than I do. If, knock on wood, I ever needed an IV put in, I am sure the doctor could have me stand in front of a bright light and see the outlines of my veins behind my translucent pale skin. Where I grew up in New Jersey, there were many other ethnic groups. I had friends who were hispanic, african, asian, west asian, jewish. A big mix. For some reason the idea that I wasn't a member of these groups didn't start until I moved to New Englad, and a little bit older. I now very much feel that I am white, and definetly experience some of the guitlt hat comes along with White Culture.

I was raised a Roman Catholic, but never really felt like it set me apart. As I said earlier, I had many Jewish friends as a kid, and the only real thoughts I had on it were ones of jealousy. I can distincly remember crying once when I was six or so because my Jewish friends were already celebrating Chaunukah and I had to wait a few weeks for Christmas. Other than that though, religous culture is only something I feel part of when it is called into question. An example would be the whole Happy Holidays vs. Merry Christmas stuff that has been going on in past years. Even though I consider myself somewhat open minded, the defensive feelings that I can't explain which arise when people say "Don't say Merry Christmas it's wrong" just shows that I am part of that culture.

There is no doubt that America is a man's culture. I am a man, but I can try and be objective and recognize some of the signs which assert this notion. I try and think of what the situation be if genders were reversed. So much of it then seems so alien and "wimpy", that it proves that I am in this male culture. I feel weird when my girlfriend pays for things, it would bother me if men were plastered on billboards as objects.

I was trying to think of a snappy way to start this paragraph about being heterosexual, when the mere thought process proved to me I am in the heterosexual culture. I was literally just about to write "Lastly, and definetely most assuredly, I am heterosexual." The idea that I have to assert that so much so as not to be confused with someone who is gay should show how much homosexuality is taboo and scary to a straight man. It is a definite gut check reaction brought about by culture, because for some reason homosexuality is really not a big deal to me. Would I judge a straight person on what I thought of their boyfriend or girlfriend? No. I have had plenty of friends who I didn't care for their girlfriends or boyfriends, it doesn't make me think any differently of them.

So in conclusion, my name is Kevin, and I am part of the Culture of Power.

Blog #3: The Silenced Dialogue

Other People's Children

by Lisa Delpit

Delpit's Argument:

It seems that in Lisa Delpit's "Other People's Children", she argues that it is the responsibility of educators to teach students the codes and rules that will allow them to be successful within their encompassing culture of privilege. This doesn't mean that a students individual culture must be assimilated and lost, but rather they must learn how to put a mantle of codes on with the rest of their identity.

Passages of Interest:

Delpit seems to argue that both a student's personal side (culture, identity, etc) must be respected and nurtured, but within the confines and understandings of larger codes dictated by the prevailing culture of power. The below passage paints a stark picture of what mechanical education within respect for the students personal side can lead to:

1) "Dear Teacher:
I am a survivor of a concentration camp. My eyes saw what no person should witness:
-Gas Chambers built by learned engineers.
-Children posioned by educated physicians.
-Infants killed by trained nurses.
-Women and children shot and burned by high school and college graduates.
So I am suspicious of education. My request is: Help your students become human. Your efforts must never produce learned monsters, skilled psychopaths, educated Eichmanns. Reading, writing and arithmetic are important only if the were to make our children more human"

I think this quote is amazing. We can't set a standard and force everyone through as a statisic. Sure the passage is shaped by the culture of power, but by handling those who move through it all the same we are going to break something.

Based off of our past assessment of Johnson, Delpit seems to echo the idea that people don't want to talk about their differences within a culture of power. Instead they are either silent, or beat around the bush and create further miscommunication. This is illustrated in the passage below:

2) "When deemphasizing power, there is a move toward indirect communication. Therefore, in the interview setting, those who sought to help, to express their egalitarianism with the East Indian applicant, became more and more indirect-and less and less helpful- in their questions and comments."

Another point that struck me from the readings, is the idea that it is so difficult for those within the culture of power to guide their culturally unique students through the codes needed to get by. It seems both Johnson and Delpit assert that the reason for this is that those within a culture of power are oblivious to the fact that they are measuring students against themselves, even when they mean well. This can be seen in the following passage in which black anthropologist John Galwey states that:

3) "-the biggest difference between black folks and white folks is that black folks know when they are lying to you."

Comments/Discussion:
It is only recently that I have begun to take life seriously. I lived at two ends of the specta. The lovable, but unachieving party animal and now the devote goal drive chemistry major. I have seen alot of positive results in the latter. For almost two years I have been working solely on the science side of my major. Strict self guidelines dictating my success. I began to believe that impossible expectations were the way to get both results in myself, and results in others. This was the philosophy I was going to bring to teaching.

Then certain things happened which made me question this. I started to slide into the mind that it was solely the student that was important, and as long as they turned out to be a good person, the material didn't matter.

Both times I was wrong. Or rather I guess both times I was right.

I know I have just started this course, but I really like what these readings are doing to me. One will knock my view to the extreme of impossible expectations, then another will slam it back down to the side of focussing solely on the student. Even if the texts are not so contrasting, I find it still makes my mind flip flop. This black and white may just be the way I think. For awhile I have known this and wanted to change it.

It seems that Delpit asserts that it is neither black nor white, but (corny) a marriage of both. I am begginning to think that a teacher needs to be almost undefinable, and adaptable. It makes me feel kind of silly with how much I am eating up this material, but that might just be the butterflies stirring from me peeking out from behind my own personal privilege blinders.

Blog #2: Johnson and S.C.W.A.A.M.P.

Privilege, Power and Difference

by Allan G. Johnson

Johnson's Argument:
In Johnson's work, he argues that we all live and exist in a world dominated by Privilege. He asserts that this privilege is blinding, and often those who possess it are unaware. In this blissful ignorance, those with this privilege are unaware that having such benefits are often at the expense of another group. There is no high without a low to measure it against. Those with this privilege are so afraid to confront this fact. This aversion to acknowledgment seems to be a major issue Johnson addresses in this piece, and argues different ways by which the privileged can approach their own status.

Passage's of Interest:
Several passages in the text really hammered home Johnson's argument. In addition to those, there were some which made me pause and say "Wow". Some of these selections are listed below:

1) "More than once, I've been asked to talk about consequences of social domination, subordination, or oppression. At such times, I feel like a doctor trying to help a patient without ever mentioning the body or naming what's wrong. We can't get anywhere that way- and we haven't been. Our collective house is burning down, and we're tiptoeing around afraid to say "Fire""

This seems to me to encapsulate completely Johnson's argument. It is almost as if no one in the metaphor wants to shout fire for fear of being blamed for starting it. Rather than acknowledge that a gap does exist, an often ugly gap, people try and keep steady their own lives and merely ignore such concerns. This calcifies on a larger scale into the blinders of privilege.

2) "Whites can assume that when they go shopping, they'll be treated as serious customers, not as potential shop lifters or people without the money to make a purchase. When they try to cash a check or use a credit card, they can assume they won't be hassled for additional identification and will be given the benefit of the doubt."

This literally made me stop reading and be like, "Really?". I kind of took a step back and thought "Wait. Could me thinking this is so out there be because I am privileged and just never even conceived this?" Not only never conceived it, but would never be able to because of who I was? It made me think a bit.

3) "Regardless of which group we're talking about, privilege generally allows people to assume a certain level of acceptance, inclusion, and respect in the world, to operate within a relatively wide comfort zone."

I am privileged. Like Johnson I am a heterosexual, white male. While my parents were never breaking the bank, and even struggled a bit, I never had extreme financial problems growing up. Upon reading this passage, I realized I am not alone in finding it difficult to understand people different than myself. I consider myself a very open, understanding, and tolerant person, but I would be a liar if I said that the ills that come with privilege still don't cling to me. It is strange to come across a work like this at the point I am at in my life. I have been frustrated by the fact that I will never be able to walk in someone else's shoes. This article makes me think that it is because I am a part of a larger privileged culture, and as much as I try to be 100% understanding, I can never hit that number. All I can do is continue to try.

Comments/Discussion:

While it sounds like the canned response, I really did enjoy this text. I consider myself an empathetic person, but have lately been trying to not self compare others while being empathetic. The main thing that I took away from this is that we are all different, I don't mean that to sound so corny and Dawson's Creek, and since we can't ever experience another person's complete life experiences, we have to be unafraid of confronting the tough issues rather than falling back into our warm comfy ignorance. To stand outside of this is scary and leaves you open for criticism. I am not brave enough to do this all the time, but reading texts like this at least allows me to poke my head out.

Different than I Thought

I had my first VIPS assignment today, and it was great. Walking through the halls with my folder, shirt and tie, I really felt like the kids were looking at me like a teacher of some kind. It felt good.

It was good to hear the kids ask when I would be back, and I was amazed with how much little stuff they picked up on. When talking to folks my age, small talk is kind of just used to fill empty space and is quickly forgotten. These little students picked up tiny details that I didn't even remember saying. Really cool.

One thing I think I would have trouble with is enforcing punishment and discipline. I know from the training manuals this is not my place, so I wouldn't (nor would I have needed to) but at the end of the day a child had to sit out of a group activity for being bad. Being a big softy it would have been tough for me to see him sitting there with his head down on the desk while everyone else is having fun.

Overall though I liked it alot and can't want to go back. It was really satisfying to see them change over so quickly from a mousy little kid, to someone who seems to be enjoying the excercises they are working on. I worked with two students at a time, and it was almost like balancing a see-saw. If you didn't pay equal attention one would start to drift, so it was a fun challenge to keep them both involved and excited.

Blog #1: Summer Session I

My name is Mr. Murphy, and this is my first blog. I am currently studying secondary education at Rhode Island College, with a concentration in Chemistry. Up until this May, I have only studied the scientific side of my major. In the next five and a half weeks however, I will be beginning the Education side of my schooling. From May 19th until June 25th I will be covering the entire course of Schooling in a Democratic Society. It is alot of material, but I am looking forward to switching gears from hard science to something a little more abstract and thought provoking.