Talking Points: Weil

“You need to engage boys’ energy, use it, rather than trying to say, No, no, no. So instead of having boys raise their hands, you’re going to have boys literally stand up. You’re going to do physical representation of number lines. Relay races. Ball tosses during discussion.” For the girls, Chadwell prescribes a focus on “the connections girls have (a) with the content, (b) with each other and (c) with the teacher. If you try to stop girls from talking to one another, that’s not successful. So you do a lot of meeting in circles, where every girl can share something from her own life that relates to the content in class.” I agree with this statement.  Boys generally are much more active and have a much more difficult time sitting still in class.  I find that usually, they direct attention to themselves or distract others because they are bored with the content or the method of teaching.  Girls I believe enjoy chitchatting more than boys.  If girls were given the opportunity to speak freely in a class discussion it would benefit both the teacher and the students.

So many variables are at play in a school: quality of teachers, quality of the principal, quality of the infrastructure, involvement of families, financing, curriculum — the list is nearly endless. Riordan says, “You’re never going to be able to compare two types of schools and say, ‘The data very strongly suggests that schools that look like a are better than schools that look like b.’ ” This has much to do with what is going on today.  We are constantly comparing schools to one another which I think is nearly impossible.  Riordan brings up a solid point.  How can you compare?  So many factors contribute and have an impact on a school.  There really isn’t and will never be a way to fully make things equal or at least equal enough so we are able to compare them.

Given the myriad ways in which our schools are failing, it may be hard to remember that public schools were intended not only to instruct children in reading and math but also to teach them commonality, tolerance and what it means to be American. “When you segregate, by any means, you lose some of that,” says Richard Kahlenberg, a senior fellow at the Century Foundation. “Even if one could prove that sending a kid off to his or her own school based on religion or race or ethnicity or gender did a little bit better job of raising the academic skills for workers in the economy, there’s also the issue of trying to create tolerant citizens in a democracy.” I don’t see this as segregating children.  Being in an all-boy or all-girl classroom isn’t a punishment; it is only to better their education and the child’s future in way that is proven more effective.  If children have the option to attend then the parents and their children can decide based their own beliefs on the school.  They are not being forced to be in different classrooms it is an option.  Personally, I would have loved to attend an all girl school.  I hated when I was younger being in a co-ed class.  I think that I would have benefited from having fewer distractions in the classroom.  I don’t understand how parents would see it as any other way. 

I can definitely see everyones point made in class (they oppose the situation).  I just think that in some cases, all-boy or all-girl classes can be beneficial to students at least to an extent or of a certain age.  I never considered completely seperate schools, the way I took the reading was that there was an all boy class and an all girl class.  I figured they could interact at lunch, or afterschool, possibly recess.  I agree with Ken's point- if something isn't working it's worth giving other things a shot.

Talking Points: A Particularly Cheap White Whine:WISE

For my quotes this week I took three of Wise's quotes about how the nation's educational system provides unfair advantages to people.

"The average white student in the U.S. attends school with half as many poor kids as the average black or Latino student, which in turn has a direct effect on performance, since attending a low-poverty school generally means having more resources available for direct instruction. Indeed, schools with high concentrations of students of color are 11-15 times more likely than mostly white schools to have high concentrations of student poverty."  I never really considered how this was taking a toll on students education... Schools with a high count of student poverty have some of the worst testing scores. Middle class students attend generally better school systems, get better grades,  get on the right track for a more society acceptable way of life.  Does this mean we should be mixing schools by district, income, and race?  Would that make things better or worse? I'm not completely sure.

"White students are twice as likely as their African American or Latino counterparts to be taught by the most highly qualified teachers and half as likely to have the least qualified instructors in class. This too directly benefits whites, as research suggests being taught by highly qualified teachers is one of the most important factors in school achievement".  I agree, being taught by highly qualified teachers is a very important factor in school achievement.  I think the school systems should be mixing the most highly qualified teachers, with new teachers and then from there they should work together whether it be in workshops on ways to improve or just generally planning curriculum together.  This way all students will have that same advantage (or at least SOME advantage of which they would benefit from).

"Whites are twice as likely to be placed in honors or advanced placement classes, relative to black students, and that even when academic performance would justify lower placement for whites and higher placement for blacks, it is the African American students who are disproportionately tracked low, and whites who are tracked higher ." This statistic probably correlates with the two prior points.  Students are placed in honors or AP classes more often because they are generally doing better in classes.  If more white than black students are being placed in these classes it could very well be because they are poverty stricken and have not benefited from some of their teachers.  They overall have not had the same opportunities as white children may of had.  They also may not do as well on standardized testing as well because they did not have the same childhood and bringing up as everyone else.  Such as in Meier's reading and examples in class... Some students are read to and children look at the pictures/read along, some are told stories and allowed their imagination to run wild.

In service of what?

“The approach to service learning taken by Mr. Johnson stresses charity and the ways in which participating in service and reflection can develop students' sense of altruism…  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.”  It was interesting to hear the contrasts between the outcomes of each service learning project.  If I were to do a service learning project with my future students then I would definitely choose a combination of the two approaches.  Depending on the age of students I would have them analyze the cause and strategies but I would also allow them to choose to complete their service learning with something they are passionate about, rather than something I alone am passionate about.

“Students tutor, coach softball, paint playgrounds, and read to the elderly because they are interested in people or because they want to learn a little about poverty and racism before they head out into the waiting corporate world . . . . We do not volunteer "to make a statement," or to use the people we work with to protest something. We try to see the homeless man, the hungry child, and the dying woman as the people they are, not the means to some political end.” I agree with this statement much more than the others.  William T. Grant foundation has a much more positive outlook on things.  It isn’t about politics it’s about the people.

I definitely question the difference between charity and change.  In table one it states that “charity is giving, part of a civic duty, and intellectually has an effect of an additive experience.  Whereas change states it is caring, part of social reconstruction and the effect is a transformative experience.”  However I still have trouble differentiating between the two… I see charity as part of change.  Giving is caring.  Everyone needs to be involved in civic duty in order to reach a level of social reconstruction.  Lastly, what may start as an additive experience can turn into a transformative experience and really have an everlasting effect on one’s life.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xv1_ga_zKbU&feature=related

Talking Points 4: Unlearning the Myths that Bind Us

One of Christensen's student had written, "It can be overwhelming and discouraging to find out my whole self image has been formed mostly by others or underneath my worries about what I look like are years (17 of them) of being exposed to TV images of girls and their set roles given to them by TV and the media...So why dissect the dreams? Why not stay ignorant about them and happy...My dreams keep me from dealing with an unpleasant reality."  I actually agreed with this statement (written by a girl named Justine), more than anything else in the writing.  I feel comfortable with who I am, how I look, and the life I lead.  Granted, I know it is hard for many to deal with their self image (TRUST ME- I've been through 3 pant sizes over the past few months before suckering into buying the ones with the elastic band at the top), but as long as you think you look good, that's all that matters.  It's nearly impossible to not to be influenced by others, you would probably have to completely shelter yourself.  If you just make an effort, put yourself out there and open your mind to others then I believe you'll truly live your life to the fullest, no matter what your shape, size, or color is.

I also liked Christensen's "Charting Stereotypes" section.  That to me, really made me think about how these things can be racist or sexist.  Perhaps Disney is sending a subliminal message to us and children. Should that really stop us from showing them to our children though?

"Pam and Nicole swore they would not let their children watch cartoons". I just can't see telling my child that he can't watch a cartoon or a movie.  As a kid the thought of someone being white, black, male or female never even crossed my mind.  They just were who they were and that was it.  Looking back at the movies I'm thinking "Wow that really is pretty bad.." But at the same time, there never will be avoiding media.  Maybe parents don't have to tell children what's wrong about the movie but maybe they can talk to them or give them insight on people from different cultures.