Citizenship in School by Kliewer

I think this week's article is rather difficult. Its difficult in the sense that I do not know how to respond to it. Many of the values held by the author of this article are also my own. I believe that everyone can learn and advance, especially if given the right atmosphere. I believe that kids with Down Syndrome can learn and not be a burden to society. They can become contributing members of society and form relationships in which both sides can learn and benefit. I do believe all that, and if I had a child with Down Syndrome in my elementary school class I would do my best to integrate them into the curriculum. I wholeheartedly believe Vygotsky's words, "Why do the higher functions fail to develop in an abnormal child? Under development springs from what we might call the isolation of an abnormal child from his collective." (p. 199)

However, I do not completely "buy' this article either. The author presented many theories and ideologies, but very little practical explanations for how his theories could be implemented in schooling. I agree that completely integrating children with Down Syndrome can work in preschools and even in elementary schools. As one teacher of pre-school aged children said,
"It's not like they come here to be labeled, or to believe the label.
We're all here-kids, teachers, parents, whoever-it's about all of
us working together, playing together, being together, and that's
what learning is. Don't tell me any of these kids are being set up to
fail."It works when all you are doing is playing and learning about the environment.

But I do not see how kids with severe Down Syndrome (I have worked with kids with Down Syndrome before) could perform on the same level in high school. I do not see how they could do Calculus or Chemistry ( I am terrible at both myself). But I suppose if a child with Down Syndrome sits in the class, it might benefit their development and it probably will not affect the class for the other students. Down Syndrome is rare, and there probably would not be more than one child in a classroom ever. I also think that they should always have an assistant with them.

I did find one statement that slightly answered the question of how integrating people with Down Syndrome could be implemented.
"As early as the first grade, Japanese students are posed arithmetical problems
of some complexity and allowed up to a week to solve the problems. They are to criticize one another's approaches, and to tryout different roles vis-a.-vis the problem. Teachers deliberately avoid serving as a source of answers, although they may coach, direct, or
probe in various ways. (Gardner, 1991, p. 221)"

I also just want to mention that there is a huge variation in severity when it comes to Down Syndrome. The severity determines how behind the subject is from the norm. I am sure that there are plenty of people who do not have a severe form of Down Syndrome who could function very successfully in society and probably should not be segregated from regular education classes under any circumstances.

To conclude, I did some research on Down Syndrome and found a great statement in Wikipedia that reflects my beliefs with some modifications, "In education, mainstreaming of children with Down syndrome is becoming less controversial in many countries. For example, there is a presumption of mainstream in many parts of the UK. Mainstreaming is the process whereby students of differing abilities are placed in classes with their chronological peers. Children with Down syndrome may not age emotionally/socially and intellectually at the same rates as children without Down syndrome, so over time the intellectual and emotional gap between children with and without Down syndrome may widen. Complex thinking as required in sciences but also in history, the arts, and other subjects can often be beyond the abilities of some, or achieved much later than in other children. Therefore, children with Down syndrome may benefit from mainstreaming provided that some adjustments are made to the curriculum.^{[17]
I do not think there should be "adjustments in the curriculum" because I do not want to see the learning experience of the majority affected. But I do think each child with Down Syndrome should have an assistant with them, someone who will work with them individually in order to push them along and make sure they are following the class.}

Social Justice Event

Yesterday I attended a social justice event at Brown University. I searched online and found an event titled "A Day Without a Mexican", and even though we did not specifically discuss Mexicans and illegal immigration in class, I thought it would be great social justice topic because it is an issue that is very relevant to today's society. There were many other events about other cultures, Indian cooking, Slavic Dances, etc. , but I went with "A Day without a Mexican" because its an actual current issue (even though the Slavic Dances were very enticing, since I am Slavic myself).
When me and my husband got there, we noticed that we were the only really white people there. There was Mexican candy laid out on the table. Just for the record, Mexican candy is very hot and spicy. Burn-your-tongue-off kind of spicy. Then we watched an hour and forty minute long mockumentary about the importance of Mexicans, and other Latino workers, to the American, and especially Californian, economy.

The video was actually really funny and well-made. It shows what would happen if all the Mexicans suddenly disappeared. The disappearance of Mexicans from California first and foremost effected California's agricultural economy. All the fruit was rotting and tomatoes became an expensive commodity. Most of the restaurants closed down because of the lack of employees. Schools closed because 20% of elementary school teachers in California are Latino. Many industries suffered due to the lack of consumers. The border patrol was out of a job. All of California was in chaos. Here is an alternate view about how the immigration of Mexicans hurts America, although the film claims that the amount Mexicans take in welfare payments is nothing compared to the economic contribution they make as low-wage workers.

The topic of invisibility and marginalization (Carlson) was brought up. Although the film was about the marginalization of Mexicans and not gays, Carlson's article really pertained to the film. The Mexicans were often marginalized and labeled as "the others". It wasn't until their disappearance that the rest of California began to appreciate them and call them "our Mexican brothers and sisters". It wasn't until they became literally invisible, that the community really started to care about them.

One could also notice many of the points Peggy McIntosh made played out in the film. For example, she said, "I can be pretty sure that my neighbors [in a new] location would be neutral or pleasant to me". Many Mexicans can never be sure of that, since when Mexicans move into an area, they are often seen as polluting the neighborhood, and in this film, they were seen as the pollutants of the whole state of California. Another one of McIntosh's points that literally applied was "I am never asked to speak for all the people of my racial group". In the film, there was only one Mexican who was "left behind", and she became a sort of spokes person and representative for all the missing Mexicans. Another very relevant one is"If a traffic cop pulls me over, or if the IRS audits my tax return, I can be sure that I havent been singled out because of my race". The same is certainly not true for Mexicans, who are often more suspected by authorities. Many many more of the points in the McIntosh article apply to Mexicans and other Latinos, and the film certainly portrayed that from beginning to end.

Kozol could also be applied to the film, since much like the blacks and other minorities that inhabit Mott Haven, California has plenty of areas that are similarly inhabited by Mexicans. Many of them also live in poverty and in conditions similar to that of Mott Haven. Many cant get the benefits they deserve, even if they are not illegal aliens. Its safe to say that many Mexicans are assumed to be illegal just because of their race.

Overall, I really liked the film. It was hilarious to watch and very practical in the sense that it showed that we should appreciate Mexicans and that they are indispensable to our society and community. However, the film did not exactly line up with the "equality" topic that is so central to our class. The film did ask white Americans to work to place Mexicans on an equal level with themselves, or even see Mexicans as equal human beings. It was more of like, "We need the Mexicans to do our dirty work, and we cant live without them". Nevertheless, I still liked the film and I thought it was very relevant and realistic, without focusing on idealistic goals and on visions for the future society of America.

"Social Class and the Hidden Curriculum of Work" Anyon

I thought this article was very interesting to read and I have certainly experienced many of the points made in the article throughout my own schooling experience. Although I have only went to working and middle class schools, I think the same patterns can be observed within one school. In my high school, we had the low level classes, college prep classes, and high honors classes, as well as a few AP classes. The working class schools described in the article can be compared to the low-level classes at any given school and so on.....

"...the working classes for docility and obedience, the managerial classes for initiative and personal assertiveness".
This statement is certainly true, according to my own experience. Most of the low level classes that I observed from day to day at my high school focused heavily on discipline. The kids in those classes cared about discipline more than anything else, and talked about disciple much more than school work. They always seemed to feel like they were going to get in trouble. I never felt like I was threatened with "getting in trouble", and it was strange to me that they had those kinds of attitudes. I always felt like I was able to negotiate with teachers and explain to them the situation, even if I had done something wrong. And even if I did not have a good excuse, I did not blame everything on the administration, like the kids in low-level classes often did. It seems like to them, school was a policing agent that was always on their case...One of the quotes said that "The teacher's control thus often seemed capricious", and I have certainly observed that kind of attitude from the kids in the low-level classes. In the honors classes, on the other hand, every student expected the rules to be logical and necessary, which they usually were.

"There were several writing assignments throughout the year but in each instance the children were given a ditto, and they wrote answers to questions on the sheet."
This is certainly true in low level and even college prep courses. They are often not very analytical and require very little essay writing. Most of the honors courses required many analytical essays throughout the year.

"Work tasks do not usually request creativity. Serious attention is rarely given in school work on how the children develop or express their own feelings and ideas, either linguistically or in graphic form. On the occasions when creativity or self-expression is requested, it is peripheral to the main activity or it is "enriched" or "for fun."
Although the creative approach is better than the approach of the working class schools, I often find that teacher's do not develop effective creative assignments. Most of the time, creative assignments are "just for fun". Most of the time, I thought the assignments were stupid, useless, and redundant. They often do not teach you anything new. They are often just for the sake of "creativity", just so the teacher can say he or she have added a creative component to their lesson plan. In my experience, I have had few well constructed creative assignments. Maybe its an area in which teachers need more expertise.

"Even if you don't know [the answers], if you think logically about it, you can figure it out."
This was certainly the attitude in my AP classes and most of my honors classes. Work was very independent. You were trained in analytical thinking. Connections, analysis, and independent learning were driving the class.
Here's another article I read on the topic of Social Class and schools

Gender and Education

Overall, I found it pretty hard to find much meaningful information about gender inequality and education. Most of the information online is either about third world countries, or higher education in the United States. Obviously, girls are disadvantaged when it comes to education in developing countries, but does the United States have the same problem?

I did non-stop research for about half an hour already, and I did not find much meaningful information regarding the United States. I only found one article that focused on gender in American K-12 classrooms.
Here's a short summary of the article:

• There are fundamental differences between the learning capabilities of girls and boys. The reasons for these differences are unclear, although biology is one of the factors considered. Regardless of the possible causes of these differences, educators must focus on equity, not equality.
  
• Girls, on average, receive higher grades than boys throughout middle and secondary schools.
  
• Teachers tend to give boys more attention since they are typically more aggressive and are more likely to have behavioral problems.
  
• Boys are more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD.
• Since girls get less attention, they get less positive or negative feedback from teachers.
  
• Stereotypes exist regarding what subjects are considered "girl" subjects and "boy" subjects.
• Despite the perceived stereotypes, gender gap in mathematics and science is closing (regarding enrollment and grades). It looks that this article was written a while ago, so I think the statistics are probably even more in favor of girls nowadays.
  
• Girls still lag behind boys however, when it comes to high stake standardized test scores.
  
• Females tend to do better in the humanities.
• Males tend to excel in technology related classes.
  

For the most part, I think the points this article has made are all true, although in my experience I have not noticed large gender gaps between the sciences and the humanities. In my high school, most of the students in honors classes were girls. Once again, in my experience, although there were more girls than boys in honors classes, the boys tended to do better on the SAT's.

"Between Barack and a Hard Place" Tim Wise

Whenever we do these blogposts, I always tend to write about the things I disagreed with. Its just that much more interesting...

"We are nowhere closer to a post racial society".
Although I agree that we still do not live in a society where skin color is not a factor, I think saying that we are "nowhere" closer is a bit exaggerated. Attitudes have changed drastically since Brown vs. Board of Education, and compared to that time, many new opportunities have been open to blacks. In fact, in the eyes of the law black people have all the same opportunities as white people. And that is all that is meant by "equality". Equality is never truly equal, because people cant ever all be equal. All "equality" promises to provide is equal opportunity, and we have certainly achieved that in this country. And like I already said, attitudes have come a long way as well. Racist attitudes have definitely went down, and I think its really reflected in our class discussions. Everyone in our class has favorable attitudes towards people of color, and in my experience its been like that everywhere - at my school, on TV, etc.

Tim Wise also said that the standards for a black president are very high, while the standards for white presidents are rather low. As if any of our presidents have been idiots...He mentioned a bunch of times about how Bush is an idiot. He was definitely playing of the popular opinion that Bush is an idiot. Bush graduated from Yale University and the Harvard Business school. Maybe he didn't turn out to be a great president (circumstances, mistakes) but he is certainly a good businessman. He is definitely just as well qualified as Barack Obama. And that was Tim Wise's best example of an "idiot president". Yes, its true that a black person must be very well qualified to be the president. But so does a white person. And please don't bring up the past, with different standards, and tell me that George Washington barely finished grade school.

The "stereotype argument" was a little "circular" in my opinion. I am sure that Tim Wise would agree that most black people are still not "equal" with white people (in regards to living standards, salaries etc). In fact, proving how black people are still worse of than white people is Tim Wise's entire agenda. If it wasn't true, Tim Wise would not have written his book. However, In the polls, when white people were asked whether they think that most blacks are poorer and less educated and answered yes, Tim Wise was astonished at the negative stereotypes Americans harbor towards blacks! Of course, blacks are less educated. Proving that blacks are stuck in bad schools is the whole point of this class. And I do no judge the people who think that poverty is due to laziness. Like I already said, this country does, by law, offer all the same opportunities to everyone. Most people just don't go as far to examine the complicated intangible factors as to why blacks might be poorer when answering these polls. Stereotypes exist for a reason. They exist because they are often true. And these "negative stereotypes" are really not all that negative when you look at it this way.

And here is a really interesting article about an Asian American about pushing diversity too far. Its kind of the opinion that I hold, but if I wrote this article, I would definitely be judged for being oblivious, or even racist. So its nice that it actually comes from the mouth of a minority student.

In the Service of What? The Politics of Service Learning by Joseph Kahne and Joel Westheimer

This article offers two views of service learning: one based on altruism and the other on critical and pro-active thinking.

"Mr. Johnson's curriculum included only minimal attention to any systematic analysis of the ills his students were helping to alleviate."
This kind of approach focuses on altruism and individual acts of kindness. It helps the students be able to relate to underprivileged members of their communities and fosters the development of self-esteem. Although this approach has many benefits and helps create more caring and involved citizens, Kahne and Westheimer argue that it does not create positive changes on the broader scale.

"Ms. Adams' students, by contrast, began their work with a systematic and critical analysis of the causes of homelessness and of the strategies employed to prevent it. "
This kind of approach focuses more on understanding the problem and learning about how to combat it at its roots instead of alleviating the effects. I think this can be much more affective in the long run than the previous approach. However, I think that it would not be good if all the students did was learn about theory and never actually went out to serve the homeless people. Altruism and charity are still important, and help create more caring citizens who will understand the need by experiencing it firsthand and will be more likely to initiate reform in the future. I think both charity and critical analysis should go hand in hand when it comes to service learning.

"...it is the combination of service and critical analysis, not either by itself, that seems most likely to promote interest in and insight into these complex social issues."
I definitely agree with this statement. It really takes both to get the most benefit out of service learning. I feel like by itself, each approach is a dead end, but together service and analysis can foster the kind of change this country needs.

"Unlearning the Myths that Bind Us" - Christensen

I thought that this was an interesting article and after reading this I would like to see some Disney movies and analyze them. However, I thought that Christensen's emphasis on the idea that children's stories and cartoons are damaging isa bit exaggerated. Again, I can’t say for sure since I did not yet see and discuss the specific films myself, but I definitely thought that he made it sound much worse than it is in reality.
Here are some quotes that I disagreed with:

"Many students don't want to believe that they have been manipulated
by children's media or advertising. No one wants to admit that they've been "handled" by the media. They assure me that they make their own choices and the media has no power over them -as they sit with Fubu, Nike, Tim berlands or whatever the latest fashion rage might be".
This is one instance where I think he is really exaggerating. Every culture has things that are considered "popular". Every culture has its own ideas of beauty and style. I agree that American culture is much more based on consumerism than any other culture, but I am not about to stop buying things I like just to prove some point, or to prove that I am an "independent thinker" or that I "have not been handled by the media". What other option is there? Am I going to sew my own clothes? Everybody follows trends to some extent, and I think its totally OK. I think I would be one of those students so judged by Christensen.

“For some students the cartoon unit exposes the wizardry that enters our dreams and desires, but others shrug their shoulders at this. It's okay for some people to be rich and others poor; they just want to see more rich people of color or more rich women, Or better yet, be rich themselves, they accept the inequalities in power and exploitative economic relationships”.
Again, I think I am one of those students he is talking about. I accept it as well. Its has been so all throughout history. I accept the fact that I am always going to be poorer than someone else. And its normal. Its not perfect -but its normal. If power and wealth were measured in gold thousands of years ago, and now they are measured in designer clothes than so be it. Its all the same and I see nothing discriminatory about that. Its no reason to start a movement against cartoons.

“The messages, or "secret education," linked with the security of their homes, underscore the power these texts deliver. As Tatum's research suggests, the stereotypes and world view embedded in the stories become accepted knowledge”.
This quote is the basis of everything Christensen talks about in the article. I do agree that her argument is primarily true. But I think its like that everywhere. Every culture has its own stories, its own stereotypes, and its own values. Values have often been based on stories. Again, I really do not think there is something inherently evil about that. Certain specific stereotypes can be evil or discriminatory, but I think there is nothing wrong in the big picture.