Christopher Kleiwer
Argument:
In this article Christopher Kliewer argues that a democracy is defined by the contribution of all citizens in the community. In this respect we must recognize the diversity of society and that everyone has something to contribute to the community. In the context of schools students should be seen as individuals who can contribute to the school community in specific and unique ways. Students should not be placed under rigid standards of development but rather recognized for their own unique contributions to the school community.
Quotes:
1. "Judith Snow (1996)holds that
the dialogic of democracy is ultimately a set of values based on respect,
humility, and creative listening:
[Community] requires a willingness to see people as they are-different
perhaps in their minds and in their bodies, but not different in their spirits or in their willingness and ability to contribute to the mosaic of society."
This quote shows that though everyone in society is different in mind and body but we all come together in the common thread of community. Everyone has a part to play, a role, in our society and by denying that role in the community we deny the individual the right to contribute. By doing this society loses out because community is built on the contributions of all individuals. This is why we society loses out when we deny minorities access to the dominant culture.
2. "Colleen Madison agreed with Shayne that no child was inherently an intellectual burden to a classroom; in fact, she argued, each student contributed a unique and potentially valuable dimension to the web of relationships that formed a school community."
In this quote Colleen Madison an educator argues that no child is a burden in the classroom rather every child has a valuable contribution to the school community. This just goes to show that rather recognizing what a child "can't do," focus on what a child "can do," and think of how they can use what they know to contribute in a way that "can" for the benefit of others. Instead of focusing on the negative focus on the positive and use what you know about each student to facilitate access to the school community.
3. "They're different in terms of what their bodies are like, how they best communicate, what they're like socially, their interests. And with those three kids in the room it
would be hard to say, "This is how you should teach kids with
Down syndrome." They are not at all alike."
I particularly liked this quote because it is so powerful. It is the norm in society to see an individual with a disability and focus on the "disability." This causes everyone to focus on the disability rather than the individual. In this quote from Shayne Robinson, an educator, she argues that not every student with down syndrome looks, acts, or thinks the same. Instead of looking at the "disability" we must look at the individual. Not all students with autism are a like, not all students with Corabel palsy are a like, not all students with down syndrome are a like. We must recognize the differences in the individuals and instruct students according to their individuality.
Questions/Comments/Points to Share:
I found this article particularly interesting. I think that it was an easy read and I really enjoyed seeing the perspectives of teachers and students with disabilities. I think this article is very important because it shows how people are a product of their environment. This has been a running theme throughout this course this semester. Rather than looking at individuals in a diverse society and how everyone can contribute to society the dominant culture focuses on the "burden" of minority groups and by doing this we are loosing out the true concept of democracy. I particularly liked the story about Isaac in this article and how Shayne saw how Isaac interpreted the world around him as well as contributed in the school community in a unique way which inspired the other students to learn in a different unique way. This is just one example of how students with disabilities can contribute to the school community in their own unique way. We must recognize the differences in individuals and create, as Kliewer says, a "constructive" curriculum that focuses on how students learn from and contribute to the world.
Just like Oakes and Carlson argue by isolating these students from the "norm" society we create the defects, as Kliewer argues, that hinder their development. Instead of seeing these students as a burden we should focus on what these students can do, how they learn, and create meaningful ways for them to contribute to the school community. Just like the example from the text about John, an individual with Down Syndrome, who moved to a different community in California that was more excepting. By moving to this community which allowed him to become an active member John excelled in his academic and functional skills and became an active member in the community. We are all a product of our environment and if we allow all students of diverse abilities to contribute to the school community rather than being isolated from it we foster a more human, excepting, healthy democratic society.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Monday, November 10, 2008
Talking Points: #7: "One More River to Cross"-Recognizing the Real Injury in Brown
Charles Lawrence
Argument:
Charles Lawrence argues that the courts failed to recognize the institutional impact of segregation on labeling blacks inferior and how simply desegregating the school system was not enough but that we need to challenge the systems of segregation as well as the ideologies in which they stand.
Quotes:
1. "The second is that blacks are injured by the existence of the system or institution of segregation rather than by particular segregation acts."
It seems like Lawrence is saying that the idea or ideology of segregation is what causes inequality or a feeling of inferiority among blacks rather than the action itself. It is the systems or the ideologies that must be challenged fundamentally in order for real change to take place. Just like the SCWAAMP activity we did in class, it is not enough to simply treat everyone as equals, we must go a step further and recognize the ideologies of the institution.
2. "in the North, state action is absent because segregated schools occured as the result of segregated housing patterns."
I found this fact particularly interesting because we are a product of our environment. In this case it was not the schools who were segregating the students but society. As a result of the segregation of society the schools inherently became segregated.
3. "Black children will remain 'less qualified' until we gain representative influence in both the institutions of preparation and the institutions for which they are being prepared."
I think that this quote is particularly important because it shows that merely preparing students of minority to be successful in a dominant society is not enough. We must change the ideology of the dominant society because no matter how much we prepare students to be successful they will still be constricted by the dominant ideology of society.
Comments/Questions/Points to Share:
I think that this article was interesting. I had a difficult time getting through parts of it because of some of the vocabulary but I think I was able to grasp the over all idea. I think that Lawrence's argument is true. Brown vs. the Board of Education was a step in the right direction and it certainly opened doors that were not previously opened before but that there is much more to do, to change the injures effects of segregation on blacks in America. Just like Oakes argued in her article about tracking it is not enough to simply change the act of segregation and put students together but we must go further to change the ideologies created by segregation. Just like Kozol's article about Mot Haven it is like putting a "band-aid on a broken leg." It does not help the black children to simply put them together with the white children but we must go further and change how people think about segregation. It is the institution rather than the individual that must be challenged.
Argument:
Charles Lawrence argues that the courts failed to recognize the institutional impact of segregation on labeling blacks inferior and how simply desegregating the school system was not enough but that we need to challenge the systems of segregation as well as the ideologies in which they stand.
Quotes:
1. "The second is that blacks are injured by the existence of the system or institution of segregation rather than by particular segregation acts."
It seems like Lawrence is saying that the idea or ideology of segregation is what causes inequality or a feeling of inferiority among blacks rather than the action itself. It is the systems or the ideologies that must be challenged fundamentally in order for real change to take place. Just like the SCWAAMP activity we did in class, it is not enough to simply treat everyone as equals, we must go a step further and recognize the ideologies of the institution.
2. "in the North, state action is absent because segregated schools occured as the result of segregated housing patterns."
I found this fact particularly interesting because we are a product of our environment. In this case it was not the schools who were segregating the students but society. As a result of the segregation of society the schools inherently became segregated.
3. "Black children will remain 'less qualified' until we gain representative influence in both the institutions of preparation and the institutions for which they are being prepared."
I think that this quote is particularly important because it shows that merely preparing students of minority to be successful in a dominant society is not enough. We must change the ideology of the dominant society because no matter how much we prepare students to be successful they will still be constricted by the dominant ideology of society.
Comments/Questions/Points to Share:
I think that this article was interesting. I had a difficult time getting through parts of it because of some of the vocabulary but I think I was able to grasp the over all idea. I think that Lawrence's argument is true. Brown vs. the Board of Education was a step in the right direction and it certainly opened doors that were not previously opened before but that there is much more to do, to change the injures effects of segregation on blacks in America. Just like Oakes argued in her article about tracking it is not enough to simply change the act of segregation and put students together but we must go further to change the ideologies created by segregation. Just like Kozol's article about Mot Haven it is like putting a "band-aid on a broken leg." It does not help the black children to simply put them together with the white children but we must go further and change how people think about segregation. It is the institution rather than the individual that must be challenged.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Talking Points #6: "Tracking: Why Schools Need to Take Another Route
Jeannie Oakes
Argument:
In this article Jeanie Oakes argues that tracking creates greater achievement gaps between the higher and lower groups of students but simply making heterogeneous groupings is not enough, we need to change the way we teach our students so that all of them can be successful no matter what level they are on.
Quotes:
1. "Since so much of importance was omitted fro their curriculum, students in these low-ability classes were likely to have little contact with the knowledge and skills that would allow them to move into higher classes or to be successful if they got there."
This quote reminds me of Delpit's argument about the rules and codes of the culture of power. It is clear that by tracking these students we are not giving students that are outside the culture of power the rules and codes to participate in the culture of power. So they will always be outsiders. They will never succeed while the students that are in the culture of power, the high-ability students, will have access to these rules and codes, thus they will continue to succeed.
2. "It's ironic that when other, less able students are offered similar advantages, they also seem to benefit. No wonder we find a 'rich get richer and poor get poorer' pattern of outcomes from tracking."
This quote is in regards to giving identical instruction to high and low level groups which the higher groups performed the same and the low groups benefit as well. By keeping these groups separated we continue to provide quality instruction to the high groups while the low groups are denied access. How can we expect the students at these low groups to succeed when we do not challenge them as we do the students in the high groups. If you continue to teach a student on a seventh grade level the student is never going to progress from that level.
3. "When evaluations are more formalized, they probably need to be 'student-referenced' or criterion referenced; that is, they should compare what a student knows after instruction with what he or she new before."
I think this is an important quote because so many times it seems teachers and schools fall into the trap of pitting students against each other. School becomes more of a competition rather than a place to grow and learn. In the tracking setting it is clear that the students in the low-ability groups know that they are not as good as the high-ability groups so they will not strive to succeed. Why try when you are always going to be compared to the higher-groups. If we put students against themselves they will always succeed. As a student grows and learns to better him or her self they will always strive to be better.
Questions/Comments/Points to Share:
I found this article very easy to read. I completely agree with Oakes argument on tracking. I can remember being in a tracking system in Jr. high school and I was in the lower group when I was in seventh grade. Being in the lower group is a terrible feeling, you know that you are not as good as the students in the higher groupings and why try to be better when you will never be a part of that group. Just like Delpit's argument about the culture of power this tracking system creates a culture of power in the high-ability groups. As Oakes shows in her article the students in this high-ability group get the best quality instruction, materials, and teachers. While the students in the lower group who are not in the culture of power do not have access to these "rules and codes" of power. As a result they do not try in school because they feel that they are doomed to fail.
Oakes also argues that simply putting the high and low groups together is not enough. Teachers need to change the way they teacher. Make instruction relate to the students, rather than teaching in a school context teach about the world and things that are going on in the world today so that students can relate. This will increase students interest in learning. Also Oakes argues that we need to engage in more student-referenced or criterion referenced assessment. Rather than comparing a student with other students compare the student with him or her self so that the student will have every opportunity to grow and succeed. Individualized instruction is important for all students to succeed. These are just some things to think about when we think about alternatives to tracking. However, as Oakes states teachers have to be willing to reorganize and be enthusiastic to fundamentally change schools.
Argument:
In this article Jeanie Oakes argues that tracking creates greater achievement gaps between the higher and lower groups of students but simply making heterogeneous groupings is not enough, we need to change the way we teach our students so that all of them can be successful no matter what level they are on.
Quotes:
1. "Since so much of importance was omitted fro their curriculum, students in these low-ability classes were likely to have little contact with the knowledge and skills that would allow them to move into higher classes or to be successful if they got there."
This quote reminds me of Delpit's argument about the rules and codes of the culture of power. It is clear that by tracking these students we are not giving students that are outside the culture of power the rules and codes to participate in the culture of power. So they will always be outsiders. They will never succeed while the students that are in the culture of power, the high-ability students, will have access to these rules and codes, thus they will continue to succeed.
2. "It's ironic that when other, less able students are offered similar advantages, they also seem to benefit. No wonder we find a 'rich get richer and poor get poorer' pattern of outcomes from tracking."
This quote is in regards to giving identical instruction to high and low level groups which the higher groups performed the same and the low groups benefit as well. By keeping these groups separated we continue to provide quality instruction to the high groups while the low groups are denied access. How can we expect the students at these low groups to succeed when we do not challenge them as we do the students in the high groups. If you continue to teach a student on a seventh grade level the student is never going to progress from that level.
3. "When evaluations are more formalized, they probably need to be 'student-referenced' or criterion referenced; that is, they should compare what a student knows after instruction with what he or she new before."
I think this is an important quote because so many times it seems teachers and schools fall into the trap of pitting students against each other. School becomes more of a competition rather than a place to grow and learn. In the tracking setting it is clear that the students in the low-ability groups know that they are not as good as the high-ability groups so they will not strive to succeed. Why try when you are always going to be compared to the higher-groups. If we put students against themselves they will always succeed. As a student grows and learns to better him or her self they will always strive to be better.
Questions/Comments/Points to Share:
I found this article very easy to read. I completely agree with Oakes argument on tracking. I can remember being in a tracking system in Jr. high school and I was in the lower group when I was in seventh grade. Being in the lower group is a terrible feeling, you know that you are not as good as the students in the higher groupings and why try to be better when you will never be a part of that group. Just like Delpit's argument about the culture of power this tracking system creates a culture of power in the high-ability groups. As Oakes shows in her article the students in this high-ability group get the best quality instruction, materials, and teachers. While the students in the lower group who are not in the culture of power do not have access to these "rules and codes" of power. As a result they do not try in school because they feel that they are doomed to fail.
Oakes also argues that simply putting the high and low groups together is not enough. Teachers need to change the way they teacher. Make instruction relate to the students, rather than teaching in a school context teach about the world and things that are going on in the world today so that students can relate. This will increase students interest in learning. Also Oakes argues that we need to engage in more student-referenced or criterion referenced assessment. Rather than comparing a student with other students compare the student with him or her self so that the student will have every opportunity to grow and succeed. Individualized instruction is important for all students to succeed. These are just some things to think about when we think about alternatives to tracking. However, as Oakes states teachers have to be willing to reorganize and be enthusiastic to fundamentally change schools.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
