Just How far We've Come (Class Assignment no. 6)

This week in class was a tremendous learning experience. The theory behind the "Human Relations" practice in education that Sleeter/Grant presented in the reading was fascinating. Even more interesting were the answers to the "Equity and Diversity Awareness" quiz, that proved to crystallize for me just how egregious the systemic barriers for people of disadvantaged groups are. As a matter of fact, my reaction to the results of the quiz were so charging that I would have blogged about it regardless of the assignment.

I got 11 out of the 15 questions correct, which is not too bad. As an ardent skeptic, not much surprises me about just how corrupt the network of bipolitical institutions in America are. However, the ones that I did get wrong were so shocking that it proves to color my picture of our nation in an even darker light, which really is something.

Specifically the 8th question:

"According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the median annual income for U.S. white men, 25 years or older, who have earned graduate degrees is $80,000. What are the median annual incomes for Latina and Native American women, 25 years or older, who have earned graduate degrees?"

The answer was "50,000 and 40,000 respectively." That is horrendous. I honestly did not think that the professional world was that cruel to people who had their degrees. I would hope my alarm is understandable. If the problematic attitudes that create these discrepancies are still at work in this day and age, then when will they end?

And then the more heartbreaking question that surprised me was the 2nd actually:

"Compared with white women, how likely are African American women in the U.S. to die during childbirth due to lack of access to prenatal care...?"

The answer is not twice as likely. It's four times as likely. This is an outrage. This is an outrage that teachers need to be knowledgeable about in order to successfully get to know and educate his/her repective class.

As a matter of fact, taking this quiz may help students understand one another better and what things their peers go through because of their respective differences. This is pursuant to the Human Relations approach posed in the Sleeter/Grant reading. Specifically, in handling the role the perception plays in the process of peer categorization (Allport).

One thing that taking this quiz revealed to me is the importance of the social justice portion of Multicultural Education. That is, in the long run, effective Multicultural Education--while I still contend the goal is still mutual understanding--should also aim to mitigate these systemic problems that create such a fragmented social in this country. it's just difficult to mend these fragements when you're unaware that they exist.

http://www.edchange.org/multicultural/quiz/quizNEW.pdf
--TAHS

Education Policy Successes, Failures and Restructuring (Class Assignment no. 5)

So this week's reading for EDUC440 was indeed the most interesting to me since reading Anderson's critical analysis of the failures of Brown vs. Board of Education (which was superbly educating). Herein, the authors conveyed a look at the ways in which standardized testing and standardized test-taking are problematic in addressing the cultural affectations of a diverse classroom.

More specifically, Professor and education expert Linda Darling-Hammond examines the promise, success and failures of President George W. Bush's 1000 page "No Child Left Behind" act 2002, expanding on the understanding of uneven schooling in the Unites States. She critiques the use of punishmentand sanctions that pressure schools to educate students to test well rather than expand their academic abilities and understandings.

Coupled with the already uneven schooling situation in the wake of an improperly executed "Brown vs. Board of Education," the sactions that fund schools that are able to perform better encourage the better teachers to work at under-performing schools as only a temporary spring board into the former schools, further disadvantaging students. Since the problems of NCLB were not clear to me up until I began taking this class, here is a link to a fictional analogy that parodies the situation, which can help anyone understand the issues without being an educator or education student:

http://www.trelease-on-reading.com/no-dentist.html

Delpit, Anderson and Wayne Au all expand Hammond's picture of a problem-ridden school system by racializing the questions of why NCLB does not work. The ability for a child to test well, as NCLB encourages, is contingent on his/her ability to thrive in an Anglo-American classroom that instills test-taking strategies: "I believe we must overcome... the narrow and essentially Eurocentric curriculum... so that they do not reflect the only... 'the public lives of white Western men.'" (Delpit, 181). To illustrate her concerns, Delpit explores many examples of social location making success in accessible for diverse students such as the problems brought about by decontextualized multiple-choice problems that would otherwise be accessible for a wider range of students, the stereotyping that leads to "[in]appropriate instruction" of individuals, and the misinterpretation of community norms that do not match the mainstream norms such as Native American story-telling codes.

Even more interestingly, Anderson uses the concept of "Stereotype threat" as a way to explore certain semi-structural problems in instruction that encourage students of color to become self-fulfilling prophecies of failure, or to concieve of their success in potentially harmful ways.

In my reading of the poor educational climate described hitherto, the need for education reform on multiple levels is dangerously necessary. I think Hammond's recommendation for a less flawed system of operation (ESEA), wherein a continuous improvement model that incorporates "multiple measure of achievement" (6), can allow enough flexibility in the classroom for teachers to also combat some of the racialized disadvantages that exist in classroom instruction. Essentially, if a teacher had more discretion in evaluating how her students live up to an educational standard, disparate cultural norms, means of expression and individual needs could no longer act as hindrances to a student's success.


--TAHS

The Capitalist and the Queer - A Love Story?

This blog entry was also inspired by a conversation with a certain man in my life who made the shallow assertion once that "capitalism loves us," referring to our brotherhood of homosexuals. And I was stricken, biting back my ardent protests, and was forced to think on the not inconsiderable ways that this was indeed true, and the many more ways that this assertion was false.

Freed from the reproductive constraints of the heteronormativity that our community, by its very nature is wont to defy, homosexual (men, for the purposes of this article) are in a position to be, on a whole, wealthier. No extra money is spent on larger living space for offspring, food for offspring, clothes, accessories, presents, doctor's visits or schooling for offspring. Since being Queer is an invisible identity, there is the added advantage for homosexuals to continue to rise in the ranks of their respective industries and make the same money at the top as the married heterosexual man with children. Consequently, we tend to be
afforded a greater deal of financial affluence.

With these factors in mind, a great number of businesses, industries and financial ventures are marketted to be "friendly" to the gay community. The reluctance of even the most conservative business empires to (quote) "piss off the homos," even at the risk of the dissatisfaction of their traditional family consumers, is testament to the discourse of gay financial power in capitalist society.

Between the factual circumstances that bring about this change to the ways in which businesses operate in order to capitalize on this percieved wealth of gay males, I can see where one would make the assertion that "Capitalism loves us."

Hmmm. But if only that were really the case. Firstly, the survey of the homosexual community is skewed by the overrepresentation of already well-to-do, able-bodied, white gay males as the face of homosexual community. These people have the money, class/race/gender privelege and subsequent access to resources to establish themselves as the only face of homosexuality. So if capitalism did in fact "love" homosexuals, this elite subclass is the population that they would love.

Now, more relevantly, I point to the historic relationship between capitalism and Christian hegemony. The infamous and long-standing campaign against homosexuals by traditional Christianity is inextricably linked to the need for the reproduction of capitol and the labor force. You can't have a successful capitalist economy that produces an unrivaled GDP if people aren't popping them out like rabbits. Period. Homosexuality is a threat to that. God forbid (no pun...) people refrain from reproduction because of the sexualities. The "Christian" (read: capitalist) population would wane and failure (of what? you ask) would be inevitable. The discourse of compulsory reproduction still continues to saturate Christian sermons in many traditional denominations that aim to (as my pastor put it once) "expand God's kingdom, one way or another."

Now that the world population is insanely out of control and Christian-Capitalism has reached so far across the world, the homosexual threat is barely consequential. Instead, now that there is increased "acceptance" (a foul word) of the overrepresented white, bourgeous gay man, they can be seen for what truly matters: their money.

Capitalism doesn't love gays. They love our money. And we--or SOME of us rather--have it. The corporate spirit operates like a temptress--or, more appropriately, temptor--who seduces us out of our money for "Gay Cruises," "Gay Day" at Disney Land, even "Pride Week" (yeah, I said it!). It is, however, empowering to know the value of our (whoever that may be) spending power, but as a Queer anarchist, I encourage us to question the powers at work that aim to "capitalize" on our spending power.

--TAHS

The Conversation We Don't Want To Have (Class Assignment no. 5)

The chapters in the Wayne Au book for this week were pretty interesting to read, as they produced a bit of tension. The confrontations and conversations around race that were reported, especially in the Tolentino article, were extremely uncomfortable. I think mainly of Carlen's outburst at a seemingly innocent inquiring.

Clearly this indicates a lot of deep pain that results from the racialized experiences of students of color. As this class continues, I'm starting to see more and more that there is a fine line between ignoring differences of the students and overmagnifying the issues to an essentializing degree. Granted, the teachers in these chapters actually did a good job of navigating this, having the necessary conversations to breach the gaps in mutual understanding without reducing the children's beings to solely their ethnic identities. Specifically, in handling questions about the N word, Tolentino explained the positions but ultimately maintained that no one in the class could use the word because they were all on equal ground. The message was clear: that no matter what the outside world tells them what they can and can't do because of race and what discriminations they face, it did not effect who they were as respectful human beings in the classroom; this did not mean that their experiences did not count for anything in the class either. (Funny, horribly offensive and inappropriate video below that points to this cultural dialogue around who can and can't use the taboo words).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jApXLlyiJNg

Some thoughts that I had after reading these articles was about the sheer difficulty that teachers of high schools have in addressing these issues. In my high school there had been no talk of the racial experience as it pertained to the students in the classrooms--only to characters in books or people a long time ago that may have well been fictional. Also, in high school, I did not have either the language, the experience or the confidence to stare my own racial experience in the face claim it and use it as a point of bridging the gaps in understanding of my Irish American and Italian American classmates. (Granted, I didn't have any teachers that had the tools or the initiative to instill that in me either).


Moreover, I thought about the questions raised in class about the readings. What "qualifies" the teacher to handle such a discussion? What level of training or experience gives the teacher the tact and strategic agility to navigate these conversations skillfully so that they would be more educational and less hurtful? I cannot offer any answer other that the teacher knowing the history of race relations in this country and knowing his/her class.

This video shows one teacher actually discussing how she as a white women "became qualified" to handle such issues in the classroom.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhXQDQZdKq4

--TAHS

Tackling Diversity in the Classroom (Class Assignment no. 4)

The topic for this week's class was "Facing Difference." The article by (then) educator Rita Tenorio describes the ways in which she tackles the color, racial and ethnic differences in her classroom in order to instill a sense of understanding and mutual respect between these lines.

Herein, Tenorio describes six activities implemented in her classroom to get out dialogues, not only about the inherent differences in skin color, lifestyle and heritage, but also about the attitudes attached to them. The early elementary aged children reveal the truth about their conditioning regarding "the Other" (ie. pg. 257 "my mom says that you can't trust black people" etc.)

Additionally, the activities reveal the internal anxieties already beginning in some of the children, such as the dark-skinned girl who refused to put her arm out on the table to compare with her classmates.

After much debate about the effectiveness and potential harm of these activities with myself, I eventually found these activites wonderfully helpful at attacking alterity anxiety head on and untraining the beginnings of prejudices. The 'Skin color and Science' activity demonstrated how each child can associate their color with something in the world that was not lesser or greater than another. The 'Writing about skin color' demonstrated the training of a more balances sense of their own color the students had and seemed to speak to the reversal of some colorism in the classroom.

The chapter reinforced my view that much can be gained by tackling these issues head on and getting discussions out in the open. My initial criticisms were based on the youth of the classroom that she was working in, but on further reflection I found that this is perhaps one of the more important stages to do this in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2w1sVsDrGDs

The video here previewed encourages similar kinds of dialogue at the high school level where these things have alreadt affected the students' experiences. the ultimate consequence of not tackling these issues can be best illustrated in the vignette from "Mean Girls" wherein the protagonist attempts to find a table that she feels most comfortable at.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsPvRtQIKG0

Naturally, my wonder is if every early elementary classroom adopted these activities, would it truly change the racialized sociality of most high schools as portrayed in "Mean Girls?" Thoughts?

--TAHS