How to deal with race and standardization

The issue regarding how to deal with race in the classroom and school is a very tough one, but it can't be ignored. I intend on incorporating some literature that deals with issues regarding race, and depending on the types of literature I use, I'll have to plan accordingly to the maturity level of my students. But it is always important to remember that students will be bringing with them into the classroom issues that they face everyday, which includes being exposed to racism (especially for those in an urban environment). In order to successfully teach the literature to my students, I want them to be able to connect to it somehow, that way I know there is a possibility of them getting something out of it. One of the ways to do this could be to include a book in which the characters live in a racist society and are the targets of the racism. I could see myself getting so much out of the students if they can connect their lives to the lives within the literature. From there they can get a different understanding of what it is like to be the target of racism. Also, as I am white, I can get perspectives I have never been exposed to before so I can have a better understanding of where my students are coming from. I think one of the fears in dealing with race in the classroom, especially for white teachers in an urban school, is how they perceive racism, as well as how their students perceive them. Like the article mentioned, just because we don't think our actions are racist doesn't mean they aren't taken that way. If that ever happened to me, that would tell me that I am not connecting with my students, that I don't truly understand where they are coming from, and that they probably don't feel safe.

In regards to the issue of standardization, I have always detested it. I have suffered for years from test anxiety, which I only recently was able to get under control. What was so upsetting about test anxiety is that when I got my scores back, I felt horrible, especially since I knew the content. It was the manner in which they tested us that could never reveal how much I actually knew. I feel as though standardized tests can also only assess a basic understanding, and to me that doesn't really reveal how much a student understands. Also, I had many classmates that always seemed to do well on any type of quiz, test, or standardized test without having to ever really be "present" in the class, nor did they have to study. I always wondered how much they actually knew about the subject. I have usually found that most of those classmates that went onto college ended up doing very poorly, and I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that they just happened to be good at taking tests. That doesn't mean that every student that does well on a test doesn't really know the subject or didn't study or actually learn anything. However, I think that there are just too many factors that can affect how people actually perform on a test, which doesn't always reveal what was learned. Unfortunately, I feel that nothing can be done about it. And I feel horrible for the schools that don't do well with the standardized tests, and therefore don't get the funding they deserve that can improve how well the students learn. I do feel that for the schools that don't perform well with standardized tests reflects that those students aren't getting much out of their education. But because of that, they shouldn't be punished by not getting any help. I also don't understand how schools that do well with standardization should get money towards bettering the education that doesn't need much improving, but I don't see how any of that will change in the near future. But I guess I'll just have to get over my detest for standardized testing and accept the fact that I will probably have to cater my curriculum around standardization, but I won't let it take over what I really want my students to learn from me.

Making Use of Critical Pedagogy

Chapter 27 discusses how knowledge is socially constructed and I couldn't agree more, especially when I compare the rural school I attended and the urban school I did my CURRINS 100 field experience for. The schools that have more money are more likely to provide a better education because they can afford a multitude of books and supplies and can create an environment that is beneficial to the needs of the students. However, the urban schools, because they are in poorer neighborhoods and have this stigma attached to the community that there isn't much hope for success, really take a beating in a lot of ways. Because there is a lack of money, there aren't enough materials that can aide in teaching, and as a result, what the students are capable of learning suffers. But despite that, when I enter into an urban classroom, I won't let that get in my way of giving my students the best education they deserve. I will incorporate literature that is written from their perspective so they can make connections from their lives with what is portrayed within the text. Students will be bringing their home lives into the classroom, and it can be very beneficial to not ignore that. I can't just ignore real world issues that shapes their lives. And, that can help in building their knowledge and create a greater desire in them to learn. In order to achieve that, they need to know that they can be a part of the change in those issues to better the lives of the next generation. But because I will be an outsider in their community in the school, I will have to listen to them, to find where they are coming from, and then I will be able to go from there to decide what is in the best interest of the students and their education.

Homosexuality and Middle School

After reading Chapter 22, "Lesbian and Gay Adolescents: Social and Developmental Considerations", I was glad that this article was included in our book. However, I was kind of upset that this article was so outdated, especially when you look at the dates that all of the references that were used were published. Most of them were from the 1980s, while the newest article was from 1992. I was six years old in 1992, and times have definitely changed since I was six years old. The students we will be teaching won't have the same experiences that we had when we were in middle school or high school, as a result of the way our society is changing. We didn't even have the same experiences as our parents did when they were in school, and I think that has a lot to do with the way our society has changed. "Gay and lesbian teens do not see the same diversity of adults with whom to identify as heterosexual adolescents do, because so many lesbian and gay adults do not publicly acknowledge their sexual orientation." (340). Although I believe that gay and lesbian teens don't see the same diversity of adults with whom to identify as heterosexual adolescents do, there are more adults that are coming out, whether it is the adults we know personally, or the adults we see on TV, the internet, and magazine covers coming out or talking openly about being homosexual.

Because our times are changing, and more states are allowing homosexuals to get married, so are schools. I heard recently on a Daytime TV talk show that in Milwaukee there will be a Gay Friendly Middle School: http://www.usnews.com/blogs/on-education/2008/12/17/milwaukee-to-form-gay-friendly-middle-school.html?s_cid=etRR-0305. I was shocked to hear about this on that show, rather than seeing it on the local news or reading about it in one of our local papers. I was also shocked that I found the article from U. S. News. According to the article, "The Milwaukee Public School System will expand the services provided by its gay-friendly high school and apparently become the nation's first school system to create a gay-friendly middle school." I don't know how I feel about this. On one hand, I like the idea of there being a safe environment for homosexual adolescents, but what will happen to them after school? Also, what about other students that are bullied but aren't homosexual? Another thing, I hear a lot of people say, not necessarily homosexuals, that some homosexuals knew they were gay when they were little kids. While that may be true, it isn't true for every homosexual, because think about all the homosexuals that don't realize they are gay until college or later in their life. I also think about the homosexuals that have trouble in coming out to their families. There is so much to think about in regards to this issue.

I'd like to see how everyone else feels about this. So, how do you feel about there being a gay friendly middle school in Milwaukee? Is this a good thing or a bad thing, and why? Do you think other cities will soon be following our lead? I'd also like to know if anyone has heard about this before I had?

School Rules

"School rules operate along with other elements of the formal curriculum such as standardized tests and grades to produce this ordered difference among children." (312). While I do agree that this is occurring within schools and I do think that this isn't very beneficial to any of the students, I feel as though this has become a norm in our society, an accepted norm, and therefore is what we will be entering into when we start teaching at whatever school we end up at. Because of that, it will be difficult for us, if we don't agree with these norms, to do anything to change this in our classroom. We can do as little of these things as possible, but eventually we will have to give into these norms or else we will be seen as some sort of rebel that doesn't play by the rules, and therefore doesn't belong in that district.

However, in regards to "...how manners, style, body language, and oral expressiveness influence the application of school rules and ultimately come to define and label African American students and condemn them to the bottom rung of the social order." (312). Unfortunately in our society today, it is still easy for us to apply stereotypes to any group of people. We tend to fall back on these stereotypes, whether it is due to a bad first impression or because we might have seen these stereotypes first hand. But it is important to remember that these stereotypes don't apply to everyone. Or, that just because our initial impression of someone was bad, that doesn't mean that that person will always live up to that negative view we had of them. At least we are aware of this, and can put a stop to how we view and treat people after we have been misguided. My cooperating teacher for CURRINS 100 would always get so upset and force her anger on some of the black male students (in second grade) when they weren't following the rules, getting out of line, talking back, etc. I hated to see her react this way to those young boys, and I hated that the other students had to be in that environment, but I felt that she and the school were setting these boys up for failure. There was very little these boys could do that would not get them into trouble. But there were times when I sided with the teacher because the school rules she was abiding by were ones that I had grown up with and have come to accept as the norm, and that simply that is the way it is. However, most of the time she got carried away. She looked at every little thing those boys did, and felt she had to punish them in some way. Even if we can't escape these school rules, the best thing to do is not get carried away by any little thing we see as disobedient. Also, the anger she exhibited did nothing to help their behavior, but only made it worse. That is also something to always be aware of, that our reactions can only escalate the problem that might not have been there to begin with, or could have been avoided.

Because these school rules have become the norm, will there ever be a point in our society for every school where these rules can change to set the students up for success, and that these school rules will not be defining and labeling students so they are set up for failure before we really get to know them?

Inequality in Education

Chapter 18 gave some good insights as to how schools don't provide the same type of environment for a good education that each student deserves. But from what I have witnessed in Milwaukee, particularly with doing field work for CURRINS 100 at an urban school, I wasn't too surprised when I read about Groundview Technical High School, though the school I went to wasn't as extreme as Groundview. But what I found most interesting about both Groundview and Mountainview Township High School was that both schools environment, educational opportunities, and so on catered to the type of future the students at either school were to expect after graduating (which was more likely to happen at Mountainview). It is upsetting to me that these schools, particularly Groundview, are setting these kids up for what could be either a success or a failure at life. What does that say to those students at Groundview? I have a feeling that if I was a student there, I would learn early on that I would be restricted to this type of lifestyle, one that limits me to only a lower class way of life, because that is what I would be surrounded by within the community.

But what intrigues me about Mountainview, a Utopian paradise that I never had the opportunity to experience (nor do I think I would want to), is the affect is has on the students. How are they viewing themselves in this "culture of privilege"? Do they truly appreciate what so few students throughout the country can afford to have? I feel as if this would do more harm than good. Yes, they get an ideal education and experience, but what have they done to earn it? Just because they are wealthy does that mean they deserve it more? And what happens when they get out into the real world--which will probably never happen for most of them as it seems they will just move on to the next stage of this Utopian education and go to a college that provides the same experience--because it seems to me that if they don't experience what it is like to know that success is a rarity, then schools like Groundview may never get the chance to improve for the benefit of the students. I only say this on the possibility that privileged students understand what it is like to live with failure as their future, and then will want to do something so that every student gets the best education they deserve, which I feel should be the same for every student. Also, it seems the only hope schools like Groundview have for changing for the better is if they get the money to help them do so, which likely won't happen unless policies change.

For me, though, the most interesting contrast between the two types of schools was what was occurring within the classroom. Groundview provided "...more stringent, standardized forms of rote education...", whereas Mountainview was "...equipped with state-of-the-art facilities in comfortable, resource-rich environs that encourage the freedom of mobility and thought to discover, problem-solve, and create." and "...promote independent thought, analysis, and creativity." Since I will probably end up teaching at an urban school, and therefore will be having to work with the stringent, standardized forms of rote education, but I would like to think that I won't always have to give into that way of teaching and will encourage a critical thinking that will promote independent thought, analysis, and creativity in my students. Maybe then the students will develop some optimism, push themselves harder than they thought they were capable of, and realize that they have a successful future outside of a school like Groundview.

A question to consider: if we end up working at a school like Groudview, what are our responsibilities as teachers to provide the best education for our students, and how can we achieve this if school and the resources provided are limiting?

Building a Classroom Community...

My group is focusing on building a classroom community while trying to meet the needs of all the various students we will encounter. I am focusing on students that come from racially and culturally diverse backgrounds. Upon doing my research, I only thought about the minorities I will be teaching, therefore closing myself off from the idea of what it means to come from either a racially or culturally diverse background. As my research broadened, it occurred to me that this isn't just about race or culture, and that "diverse" isn't limiting to only the minorities. We are all diverse. We all come from different backgrounds. Just because a student is white or male or middle-class or whatever, that doesn't mean that they are at more of an advantage at attaining a good grade and meeting our stereotypical expectations of good student performance in the classroom. All of our students will be coming in with their own various strengths and weaknesses, and it is up to us as the teachers to recognize this in our individual students to influence our teaching. Which also serves as a good wake up call--it is extremely important that when we ask our students a question in regards to the content we are teaching, we can't expect the students to know what the "correct" response is. Just because what we have learned to be the answer, doesn't mean it is the only answer. Students, and everyone else, think differently because they come from different backgrounds. Therefore, we all get something different out of what we learn. This may pose a challenge for when students are required to take standardized tests (and that is a whole other issue at hand), but that doesn't mean that the students didn't learn something when they were taught in the classroom. And, it may be very difficult for most of us to understand how some of our students are learning, but if we are patient enough and pay close attention to all of our students, we will be able to pick up on the strengths and weaknesses of our diverse, individual students.

The Middle School Stigmas

After reading the articles, I had a bigger understanding as to why there is such a stigma attached to middle school, the students, and what it means to teach middle school. In "From The Emergent Middle School" by William M. Alexander, I was introduced to the term "in-between-ager", or someone who is in between childhood and adolescence. I do not like the use of this term. I feel that it creates a negative image of a youth who is experiencing all these physical, mental, and emotional changes and that this youth will be difficult to work with. I also think that this implies that this age level isn't as important as either the childhood age level or the adolescent age level. But what I really don't like about this term is that it implies by the time you reach middle school, you must be an "in-between-ager", because if you are either still considered a child or are becoming an adolescent, you won't fit in. To me, there should be a flow between childhood and adolescence, not some in between stage. This flow will be rocky for each student, and will occur at different times in each of their lives, and it won't exactly flow, but there definitely won't be exact stages that these youths should fall into.

In the section of that article entitled "Young People in Transition: Summary", there were nine summaries of characteristics of young people during this transitional period, not to mention stereotypes and high expectation. In the third and fourth summary, the basic idea is that there will be "an awakening interest" in the opposite sex, and will be "developing many social skills in interacting with persons of the opposite sex." As this has been mentioned in some of the blogs a few weeks ago and in class, I find this horribly offensive yet again. Some of these young people will be questioning their sexuality, or discover that they are gay. And, all of the young people will be developing social skills to also interact with persons of the same sex, and this should include friendships or getting to know their peers on a more personal level when encountering them throughout school and the community. I also noticed that the social skills included in the fourth summary for example were "learning to use cosmetics" or wear appealing clothing to the opposite sex. First, this focuses more on the females, and second, not every female will be doing this. I, and many other of my female friends in school, were not doing that. On a different note, the ninth summary was focused on the "new mode of intellectual operations" with "an establishment of a level of adult-like-thought (when the adult is his logical best)". This is a lot of pressure to put on someone who is not an adult, but rather, an "in-between-ager". To me, that is expecting too much out of the young people we will be teaching, and isn't very realistic. They will be thinking at a higher level, but not as advanced as this summary implies.

In "Turning Points: Preparing American Youth for the 21st Century" by the Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, there were two things that stuck out to me. The first was mentioned right in the beginning, where it was said, "All of these changes represent significant potential in our young people and great opportunity for them and society." (170). I understand that eventually our students will be entering into society and contributing to society, but this is not why I want to be a teacher. I want to pass on a knowledge that will better my students, and while this will affect what they will be contributing to society, my focus is how I impact each individual student. I also think it is important that we do have a strong society, but I want to provide a greater opportunity for the individual. I feel that there is too much focus on the students future after school, and not as much on how they will be growing in school. I found this to be true when the task force focused on the 15-year-old after middle school. I'd rather hear about what should be occurring in the schools and teaching process of the student before they are 15, not what they should have learned and should do by the time they are 15. There were a lot qualities placed upon their 15-year-old, and that puts a lot of pressure on both the teachers and the 15-year-old, and creates more of a fantasy idea rather than a reality. And again, there are then too many expectations placed on the 15-year-olds that if they don't end up measuring up, it will look like they have failed.

And finally, in "The Future of Middle Level Education: Optimistic and Pessimistic Views" by John H. Lounsbury of Gordon F. Vars ended their article in a way that I felt was why I want to be a teacher, and how I can be successful. "The greater need is to guide the overall development of young adolescents in ways that will equip them with the behavioral attributes, attitudes, and values they need to make wise choices in all aspects of their lives." It is the "their lives" that I really appreciate, because I will be impacting the lives of each of my individual students, and I should be focusing on each of those lives.

With that being said, my question was in regard to the Carnegie Council article and their focus on society. If our society does not do well after our students will be fully contributing to it, will we, the teachers, be the ones to blame because we didn't prepare them correctly, and set them and society up for failure?