On an Adapted Curriculum:

The section in “Affirming Diversity” about the “Family” curriculum was very intriguing. I am personally really drawn to any curricula that require interdisciplinary teamwork. It is the perfect assignment to begin or end a school year (my money’s on the end, though), as it the culmination of the project is an open-house of sorts, inviting family and guardians to witness the students’ work. When I become a teacher, this is the sort of curriculum that I would want to bring to a team. It is engaging, vital for personal worth and identity, and fun!

I particularly liked how students felt compelled to do well on this assignment and reported so on their self-evaluations afterwards. The Teaching of Writing course at UML, stressed the importance, and difficulty of proper self-evaluation. It demands that the students take ownership of their work, and have one more opportunity to validate their creations. For the teacher, it is equally important, because we can see where students admit to finding difficulties or boredom with the project (not every project is supposed to be fun, but if it could be, shouldn’t it be?), and make adjustments for future classes. I think it is also important for the teacher to self-evaluate. Where did we find the lesson difficult, or losing its edge? What parts did we stumble over that we would want to better prepare for the next time? What parts did we enjoy along with the students? I think a good self-evaluation will highlight not only the weaknesses of a lesson, but its shining strengths as well.

At one point, the section called for the class to come up with their own inclusive definition for the term, “family.” I think this is an excellent exercise for group-work. It, again, allows the students to take ownership of something. “As a class, we all agree that blank means blankety-blank-blank blank.” For at least a small portion of time, this could allow everyone in the class to be on the same team, to have something in common. This activity could be amended to cover other terms that have lost their exact meanings over time, or whose meanings have just recently become archaic. (like good, evil, power, friend, etc...).

In terms of teaching a diverse population, I liked how the lesson began with teachers presenting their families as topics for discussion. While the example in the book placed the teachers at the “heads” of their families, I think this activity could work equally well for younger teachers like myself, who still identify as son and brother, versus father and husband. I can only imagine how many of my students are also the older sibling to a sibling of opposite gender who is annoying as anything. This also helps model the project for the students in terms they can better comprehend. Regardless. this sort of introduction gives us, as teachers, another tool to prove we do not just power down in the class closets overnight. It gives the students a chance to relate to teachers and their families. I think that while it is important to get to know our students (diversity class motto?), trust can only really be gained when the path of information flows both ways.

On Special Needs:

Getting through the Hehir article was difficult. Beyond the [rampant] typos, I had to stop every few minutes, because I was either able to relate directly to the subjects in the article, or I was that taken aback by a school system’s disability in providing for students with disabilities. Also, let’s talk about that term: disability. The point I was trying (and failing) to articulate during last class is that this label immediately puts the student on a lower level than other students. It makes them inferior and lacking. While I don’t think it’s perfect, I think a more appropriate title is “special needs.” I may be horribly wrong here, and if that’s the case, I welcome the input to correct this, but I think “special needs” refers only to the means needed to reach similar success as non-special needs students. I admit that I detect a whole philosophical debate looming here, so I’ll move on.
Being an aide, I was particularly drawn to the comments regarding aides essentially doing the work for the student. One of my proudest moments in the [behavioral and emotional] classroom, I asked a student, “Why would I ever want to remove the opportunity for you to be responsible for yourself?” In a world of excuses, I think it is important to not only engage a student in a lesson, but empower them to do it independently. Where the article discusses aides performing unnecessary and unwanted tasks for the students, I was able to recall the complaints from my co-workers regarding inefficient colleagues. I consider myself lucky to be in this position, because I know that I will need to utilize one in my desired career. It’s vital that the teacher be able to use an aide appropriately. As the article suggests, I am “not (or at least should not be) a chaperone, an administrative spy, a surrogate parent, or a personal servant.” I am a conduit from teacher to student, observing, clarifying, and doing everything I can to prepare a student to be on their own.
Working in a classroom where the student’s needs heavily impact their behaviors, there are days when there is more management than teaching being done. I don’t consider this ableism, mainly because we are not purposefully taking time away from a standard-fulfilling lesson to pay attention to a “disability.” While we do not devote specific periods of time to teaching the kids how to deal with aggression and stress, there is a program being put in place to help them with those items.
In regards to vision-impaired students, I absolutely agree with the article’s stance on the importance of being able to read braille. There was a guest on NPR a few weeks ago who was talking about how there was such a large percentage of the blind community who were considered “illiterate” because of their inability to read braille. There are many options for being able to interpret the written word audibly, but the ability to decode is lost when the work is done for you. If effort isn’t being applied, that part of the brain that goes to work to process written symbols into a rich language goes to mush.
I have to admit, being involved in special education is tough. Hehir laid it out really well, though by reminding us that students with disabilities aren’t unable to learn or succeed. Rather, they are able to comprehend the world we live in differently than others. Whether a blind student relies on their sense of touch to comprehend text, or a student with ADHD is unable to control their emotions during a lesson, it is our job as educators to see that their needs are met, not only as students, but as human beings. We are not there to coddle or pity, we are there to educate. If a student is to stand on their own two feet, it is our job to ensure that the ground they stand on is steady, strong, and stable.

On Sexuality:

I used to work for a movie theater, doing everything from counting cash to running the projection booth. Our projectors worked off of a platter system, where the film sits on a giant platter, and it feeds from the center out to the projector. To keep the film from snagging or tangling, we have “brains” in the platters that make them spin at the appropriate speed to avoid film damage. Unfortunately, the “brains” we had would constantly malfunction, causing a “brain-wrap,” where the film would wind up tightly around the brain, causing the film to either snap or burn in the projector. When we upgraded to shiny new “digital brains,” we were told that these brains would keep the film from “brain-wrapping.” A normal brain-wrap would be anywhere from a ½ to whole inch. The digital brains did greatly reduce the amount of brain-wraps, but perfect, they were not. Brain-wraps around a digital-brain-created-to-not-have-brain-wraps were anywhere from 4-6 inches (and that much more difficult to fix). AOUM (Abstinence Only Until Marriage) is the digital brain. While it should fix all of our problems, it doesn’t. Further, when problems do occur (and they will) they are far worse than what a “faultier” program would offer.

Before I began the reading, I assumed it was just something to get through, because I wouldn’t need this information in a middle school. WRONG. According to the Anderson piece, adolescents are engaging in sexual activity and behavior as young as 11 years old.

WHAT THE WHAT?

Yeah. 11 years old.

While I disagree with ignoring sexual education until high school, I feel doubtful that 11 and 12 year olds (5th/6th grade) could truly appreciate the delicate, but important topic. By educating them, we are also empowering them, and I do question how beneficial that is to either the individual or society. Would an adolescent with sexual knowledge be more likely to commit a sexual offense?

I will admit though, education is empowerment, so at the same time, will an adolescent with sexual knowledge be more less likely commit an offense, or more likely to take necessary precautions?

I’m not entirely sure where I stand in terms of when sexual education should happen. There is no doubt in my mind, though, that it needs to happen. More importantly, it needs to happen in a manner where students are able to choose between abstinence, safe sex, or not safe sex. Abstinence is better than any condom, but the numbers presented by Anderson lead me to believe that an education in abstinence only is an education that is horribly lacking, and not preparing our students for real life. I also believe a progressive program would include lessons in LGBTQ sexuality as well.

As a prospective English teacher, I know it will not be my job to teach 30 students at a time how to put a condom on a cucumber. At the same time, it is my job as an adult in the school to be a responsible individual with an open ear. I will also need to choose appropriate literature that does not glorify one walk of life while debasing another. It is my job to empower students to, as individuals, make their own responsible decisions in whatever terms they define as responsible.

On Being Hardcore:

The Dance piece on “Being Hardcore...” was hitting a little close to home for me. Living in Lowell, a town being known for its increasing gang presence, I am always a little extra receptive to the negative effects of the “hardcore” culture. While I found the article enlightening, I did find a big piece of information that was missing: the influence of fear.

To get into a gang, a prospective member needs to be “beat in.” This involves a certain number of gang members (around five, I think) beating on you for a certain amount of time (again, I think it’s thirty seconds to one minute). If the member wants out of the gang, they need to be “beat out,” which involves typically twice the amount of members beating on you. The phrase “within inches of life” comes to mind in this case.

A student once confided in me that they were “beat in” to a gang in Lowell, and that they were afraid to go back, because they wanted out, and were going to need to be “beat out.” I’m not sure that one of Dance’s “ideal-types” fits my student, because none of the ideal-types presented addressed wanting out, or fear of the “hardcore” lifestyle. The student was afraid. In all honesty, I was afraid, too. If the student went back to the gang, and got “beat out,” he/she would be left for dead. If the student decided to rejoin the gang, rival gang fights could also have a final say in a life. Without an intervention from a higher power (school system, law enforcement, protective services, etc) I was sure to see a familiar name in the obituaries.

To my argument, fear is not only looming for current gang members, but I imagine over prospective members, and outsiders as well. The Valenzuela chapter reminds us that the students of Seguin don’t feel the teachers care about them, and this is mostly due to teachers not being in this environment. I don’t think many gang members going onto college (and grad school) to become teachers. Violence begets violence, not change or motivation for change. More so, the teachers of Seguin thought students didn’t care about school, and with living situations as they were (are), I don’t blame the students. If I was fearing for my life, or the lives of loved ones, I would not care about what Shakespeare had to say, or why Stem and Leaf Plots are necessary (they aren’t, but the principle of the matter is that they wouldn’t care).

As teachers, I think its important to (prepare yourselves, this is mind-blowing news coming up, here) know where our students are coming from and going to. It is more important, in addition to that, that we fill that seven-hour day with as much positivity as possible. Whether that be a stable environment, where there are consistent rules, rewards, and consequences, or a safe environment, where the student can feel free from outside pressures, and open to discuss the burdens of life (of course, this also involves a code of trust between student and teacher). Structure and accessibility are two tools that no teacher can afford to be without.

On Caring:

Some of the accounts presented in the Rolon-Dow article were disheartening at best. It was depressing to read Ms. Nadler’s response to the changes in the community, as she regarded “diversifying” as “getting worse.” More-so, Mr. Weiss’ account of the view of the school was also less than pleasing, as community members saw it as a “necessary evil.” How bad has it gotten over there, that education is looked at as such a triviality? James Middle School, the school in question, is in the the Northeastern United States (sound familiar?). Attitudes, like Ms. Nadler’s, are ones that I equate with border guards and the 1950’s, and are not making a bad situation any better. You can’t blame a community for being of any background. Walmart doesn’t carry neighborhoods of white people for restocking your town.
The comments about parent’s not caring is a something we’ve also covered in class. In many cases, the parents have been unable to help, typically due to some form of inadequacy: unfamiliarity with the topic, or inability to communicate appropriately with their kids. One teacher mentioned that she knew it was wrong to “put my values on these kids.” While it is important to let the parent be the parent, why can’t we, as teachers, instill social values in our students? We are not robots. We have the ability to determine between right and wrong. Why can’t we pass that along? I understand that we shouldn’t be pressing any religious matters in school, and that’s fine, but to my knowledge, no religion has a copyright on being a good person.
I think my least favorite, and yet, most intesting account was Mr. Rosenfield describing his interaction with a student’s mother. He insulted the student’s home life, by suggesting she grew up in a barn, and when the parent came, he supposedly convinced her that it was the daughter that had the problem, not he or the parent. Now, this parent, according to Mr. Rosenfield has not been around the school to often, so it is clear that his comment really insulted her, to the point where she would visit the school in person. I wish we had gotten a taste for this mother’s life beyond her interaction with Mr. Rosenfield, because I am willing to bet she was a struggling to be a parent, either financially, or within the relationship of mother-child. I say this because the insulting comment was in regards to her ability to keep a clean home. If I was working my butt off, and someone had the nerve to make a comment like that, I’m sure that I’d be upset, too. I think I am most disappointed in Mr. Rosenfield for not understanding his student (regardless of parental contact over the school year), and for failing to recognize how such a little comment could leave such a negative impact on his relationship with a student. His inability in handling a parent interaction also made the situation worse. He openly talked about how the student was bad, not her behavior or actions. He was unable to get any real information from the parent (like if there was something he should know about the student or her home life), because he asked less questions than he offered criticism. His comments regarding the student were general and unspecific, most likely due to any observations of the student being undocumented. To top it all off, he didn’t offer any sort of plan for improvement.
If I was in a similar situation to Mr. Rosenfield’s, I would be sure to have documented any negative behaviors exhibited by the student, not just that “today Jimmy was bad,” or “Stephanie was a pain in the butt.” Once these have been shared with parent, it’s important to come up with a way of correcting the behavior. Scare tactics are only effective if the target is given a strategy or option to avoid danger or failure. Further, if I am getting the idea that I am viewed as the “bad guy,” then I’d be very quick to find out why. Maybe I didn’t realize the thing I said was offensive to the student or their family. Maybe I’ll have an opportunity to redeem myself, as I would want the student to be able to redeem his/her self.
Ideally, a teacher should be able to relate to their students. If this is not happening, the teacher needs to find out why. Ask questions. Call the parents (not every parental phone call is bad news!). The Caring Theory places such an importance on the relationship with a foundation of trust between student and teacher, and a student isn’t going to be the forger of this relationship, it’s the responsibility of the teacher.

On Identity and Masculinity:

Water’s article on ethnic/immigrant identification was everything short of eye-opening or mind-blowing. It was interesting and easy to read, but I didn’t feel like I really learned anything by it. It seemed like it was just spewing common sense. If identifying as a an immigrant or as an American benefited an individual, they identified appropriately. The benefits of identifying covered getting a good career to just getting along in school. I will say that I found it interesting that Waters explains how much parents strictly regulate their daughters’ lives, because (and Waters admits this by the end), the boys have it much harder, both in employment and social events.

As teachers, it seems important to remain sensitive to social pressures to conform. There’s a gazillion (I rounded up) posters on being an individual in my school, but you never see the poster discussing the benefits of “fitting” into an identity. While I think it’s important to convey the importance of being an individual, and not doing something or behaving in some way to fit a category or group, I recognize that beyond the pressures of “fitting in” there are also benefits. I am unsure of how to use this to my students’ advantages, though.

Moving on, I found Kimmel’s piece on masculinity very interesting. I felt it really tied in with the Gilligan reading, in regards towards males creating ourselves as the complement, or antithesis of females, in particular, of our mothers. I also found it interesting how the history of American masculinity presents itself as not just the opposite of “sissy’s,” but also of different races given the time period. I was taken aback by Italians and Irish not being considered “manly,” however, that could be because my scope of masculinity has been narrowed down to the opposite of femininity. Qualities that I think partially represent a decent human being (modesty, cleanliness, politeness, and neatness), were looked on as of feminine demand, and therefore, not masculine. Not only must we be set apart from females, any and all valid perspectives of and demands on our character must come from the manliest of manly men (no girls allowed). The Waters article also touches on how the inability to be like your group (race, ethnicity, etc) resulted in an un-masculine view: being perceived as homosexual. To combat all of this, Kimmel proposes that the very idea of masculinity is “homosocial,” which, shockingly, looks a lot like the word “homosexual.” We are now eliminating certain types of men from being “masculine.” Kimmel goes further to show all of the groups that have been used as the counterpoint for masculinity, many of which make up a great portion of the men in the United States (I may have failed to say that the views presented above tend to reflect a US masculinity, not a global masculinity). So... 1% of men get 80% of the masculinity. I am the 99%.

On a disturbing note, Kimmel works through the Freudian concept of Oedipal growth, mentioning how the son eventually sees himself as a continuation of masculine tradition by identifying himself in terms of his father. That in itself is not disturbing, but I am left wondering about the children of abusive, negligent, or inconsistent parents. We know that violence begets violence, and abused children learn the nature of abuse, and eventually execute it. What about negligent parents, or the child who moves his way through a foster system, having multiple parents. Do they identify with what little experience they have with the father, or are they given some divine gift to define themselves on their own terms?

In brief, I think it is important for adults, especially public figures like teachers, to represent the positive characteristics of humanity, to be examples of what we’d want for our students, children, and neighbors’ children to identify as. More-so, Kimmel places a large burden on men’s shoulders: we will always look for approval of our masculinity from other men. To that point, we (men) need to be (and show that we are) proud of who are, as we are, and are not looking for approval on our character (beyond internal approval, of course). The terms that define masculinity have changed, and are most likely going to change again. As teachers, it is our duty to society to instill the positive kind of thinking in our students that will prevent masculinity from being a way of denying a culture or walk of life. As a male teacher, it is equally pertinent that we do not allow masculinity to be an excuse for a student to be a bully, or for another student to feel inadequate. We must be pillars of what masculinity should (and could!) be.

On Gender:

Before I even began reading the book, I felt that the premise is both outdated, and unfair. We’re living in a world where, according to a friend, who is a lesbian, “Gender is a social construct.” Despite the advances in science and all things exact and proven, elements as huge as “what makes a boy a boy and a girl a girl” are still determined by the individual, and there is no equation to predict how an individual will feel, or how they will identify. The truth of the matter is that we have so many different ways of identifying (straight male, transgender female, etc) that the gray area is, by far, too expansive to cover with labels of male and female.That being said, I’m along for the ride that the book is offering. I understand that you are either born with a penis, or a vagina, or both, or neither (I have no evidence to back up the latter), and that genetics have passed on to you a predetermined sex, which can have an affect on how you interact with your environment.

The book immediately places the blame (or credit) on the mother for the psychological differences between boys and girls, as girls are able to identify as a continuation of a mother-daughter lineage steeped in femininity, and boys, seeing themselves as separate from this heritage, are left to complement their sisterly counterparts by being masculine and manly and other macho words.

Regarding abortion, I liked how the arguments for and against come down to selfishness/selflessness or responsibility (to others or self). While I don’t feel adequate enough (not my body, not my call) to comment on the topic of abortion, I will say that I agree that the choice is not one easily made. I liked how the interview excerpts represented a wider variety of women considering/that have considered abortion, than the typical floozy or rape victim, in context of the arguments for and against abortion. The women presented had so many other conflicts to be concerned with than just ending or saving a life (one had a relationship that would end without an abortion). Considering the rest of the book, I suppose that it is safe to say that the focus on women does allow the author to present widely varied sample, from different walks of life, and possessing different perspectives. However, it is also safe to say that the perspectives presented do not speak for the entire female community.

I also took note of the children’s responses to hypothetical situations. Where the males were focused on law and justice, the females were more concerned with interpersonal relationships. This divergence in logical reasoning reminded me of my social psychology class when I was an undergrad. The professor was describing differences between men and women:

1. Women are more likely to trust someone.

1A. Men are more likely to discover/sense a liar.

2. Men communicate to report.

2A. Women communicate to build rapport.

These guidelines, I believe, are “supported” by Gilligan’s research. Do I think they are accurate? Nope. Do I think it’s a bit of a stretch? You bet.

Gilligan is able to “justify” these, though, in the sense that her analyses on interview subjects (particularly the interviews with the 27-year olds in the final chapter, where they are asked to describe themselves) tends to reflect the stolid, justified male, and the caring, soft woman. I find it tough to trust her analyses, because it seems as though she is looking for the response to carry the meaning that would fit her idea of the “female way of thinking” versus the “male way of thinking.” I feel if a man and woman were (separately) walking down the street holding holding ice cream cones, Gilligan would assume it typical of the man to have that, because the ice cream is cold, and the cone is hard; it would be equally assumed that it is typical of women to eat sweet things, and that the cone is in place of a wasteful styrofoam bowl, making her meal eco-friendly. In short, I believe that the differences between men and women is loosely supported from the data presented, although Gilligan’s pursuit in defense of her opinion causes some “facts” to be more apparent than others. I think this mostly stems from trying to find opposing factors in male and female psychology, again trying to cover the gigantic gray area in a simplistic manner.