Wednesday, December 7, 2016

Promising Practicing

I truly enjoyed the key note address giving by Robert Brooks, that essentially was about how people become more resilient when having a positive impact on others. He spoke about his time at a dealing with mentally disable kids and how he could create that positive impact that drove him to be resilient. He did say that he had not so good days, allowing us to relate to him. One of his main points was that building meaningful relationship with kids could lead us to have a positive impact. He said that we must me charismatic adults, those who people can gathered strength from. I enjoyed that a lot it made me think about the impact I’m going to have on my future students. It made me think of those adults that played this role in my life. They did this by being empathetic. He did state something that made me think of Kahne and Westheimer, he stated that we should provide an opportunity to make people feel like they are making an impact. This sounds a bit like charity not so much change. So, is being a charismatic adult just charity or is it change? Can it have that strong of an impact that can lead to change in a young person? I think it could go both way depending on how the adult goes about it.  I would like to think I am going to be those charismatic adults that create a strong impact by providing a shift in the mentality of those I work with. Another thing he brought up was taking time to research the demographics and cultures of the students you are working with. To embrace the different cultures rather than shutting them down. This related to Rodriguez when he felt that he had to hide his culture to assimilate the culture of power. He wanted us to chllange that culture of power that Deplit explains.     
I went to my first workshop that had to do with mentoring. How building the meaningful relationship could have an impact that could last a life time to the students. One of the presenters was a young lady that was part of the mentoring program. She had mentor and I could tell that she this did help her. Gave her guidance.

The second workshop I went to was how mindfulness and meditation could create a resilient environment. This was my favorite part of the whole day. I was looking forward to this workshop and it did not disappoint. The professor that gave the workshop talked about how she would make her fifth graders meditate and the positive impact that it has. She went over the 5 yamas and 5 niyamas. It was a beautiful presentation. I am into this kind of stuff and seeing that there is a possibility to apply this to what I am pursuing was an eye-opening experience. I’ve read different articles that showed that mediation in a classroom can have a positive impact, but hearing it from someone else made it real. In this article many postive impacts are backed up with concrete research. I look forward to applying this as a future educatior. I loved the mini meditation we had last class!

Monday, November 28, 2016

Ira Shor

“People are naturally curious. They are born learners. Education can either develop or stifle their inclination to as why and learn”
Curiosity is something that is natural in everyone. Our education system should be set up in a way that allows everyone to embrace that. The curriculums that are common now are those that shut down curiosity. It provides an already written path on how to get an A and perform well on standardized test. It does not prompt the student to think why they are taking a test or why is that A important. Shor presents the reader with a new curriculum one that gives the student a chance to embrace their natural curiosity.
“Children naturally join the world around them. They learn by interacting, by experimenting…”
Shor establishes that participation is natural for students. Once again embracing what is already natural to students creates a more enriching environment. When students are presented with thing that they must obey and have no say in what they are doing, they lose interest. This leads them to act up or become nonparticipants. These students then become part of our democracy as nonparticipants. Change then is much harder. Cultivating individuals to follow rules favors the elite.
“In a participatory class where authority is mutual, some positive effects which support leaning include cooperativeness, curiosity, humor hope, responsibility, respect, attentiveness, openness, and concern about society.”

The positive effects of embracing what is natural is overwhelming. I think our education system goes out of its way to construct beings that are not natural. Following set rules without questioning them is not natural. Curiosity and being an active part of a community that is natural. That is what makes human so unique. Our curriculum should shine a light on this not hide it. 

Sunday, November 13, 2016

Patrick Finn

Patrick Finn establishes this idea that the students from lower socioeconomic classes aren’t taught the powerful literacy that the top class is. Mainly because of the fear the literacy will lead to knowledge that will allow those in the lower classes to raise to the top. This fear leads to our educational systems to be structure in a way that limits children from achieving the top. It’s not done through direct oppression but by indirect oppression as Jean Anyon observed in her study. She observed different schools with students who came from different classes and how the teaching methods that were practice differ. Resistance, possibility, and individualism are very distinct words to describe what should be the same. We are talking about the educational system in our nation. There should be some sort of a shared foundation though out the classroom across the nation. The fact that this study showed that our education system fundamentally differs depending on what socioeconomic class that the students come from just shows that some kids are being set up to mediatory while others are told that world is theirs. Kristof was very apparent in this article. This study showed the evidence that we do in fact live in a land of limitations. Those at the top are taught how to think for themselves and stay on top. Those at the bottom are taught how to follow the rules that have been established by the elite. And the middle class is taught that they can reach upper middle class but are still taught to stay within their class. 

Saturday, October 29, 2016

The Problem We All Live With

There have been many attempts to solve under performing schools. No child left behind, as Nicole Hannah-Jones, doesn’t solve this issue just kinds of masks it. It doesn’t lead to the change that is needed. Kahne and Westheimer, would agree with Nicole when she explains that integration is not a charity project for low income students but the institutional change that is needed. Integration allows low income students an opportunity to be part of that culture of power, as Deplit would call it. It gives them the same opportunities that the other better off districts have. Then they are not limited because of the socioeconomic that they were born into. Kristof would say that those students in Normandy have been oppressed because of the institution. It is not the individual student that is determining their path. It has already been determined by the unaccredited school. A failing school could only lead to students to go down the path of failure. The fact that the solution is clear and backed up with concrete evidence but still not put into practice is frustrating. These kids are the ones whose futures are at stake. They will be the ones who suffer if this change doesn’t happen soon. Many are just focused on how to provide a short-term solution.  Eliminating the culture of power by it being more inclusive is the perfect way to solve this issue. Students should not be oppressed by the system; they must be able to reach their full potential. This can be done with integration.

Wednesday, October 26, 2016

Service Learning

There are many points made by Kahne and Westheimer in this article.
The first point that is made by them is that there are two ways to approach service learning. They both have pros. The first way is to be fully engaged with the personal interest and the community. This drives students to explore something they enjoy and help them see that direct impact that they can have in a community. The second approach is more systematic and analytical.

At first I was a bit confused on the main points of the article. I had written the previous paragraph before class and I did not fully understand it.  After class, today it was clear. The main point is how service learning could promote charity or change. Charity tends to be geared to providing an individual fulfillment. Knowing that “others” are being helped, that for that moment you’ve made their lives a bit easier by providing a service or a needed object, makes you feel good. And I don’t think that is a bad thing. It’s good to have that moment because that leads you to care more and dive into the issue. Then that could create a chain reaction for change. For change to occur students must engage in critical thinking, as the article explains. The article discusses how having the students change or have a direct impact on an issue it will teach them how to be better citizens. Change is more political than charity. Charity feeds the moral being. Having students do service learning to change their community has a greater impact not only on them but the community as well. That’s what I think is the primary point of the article.  

Saturday, October 15, 2016

2016 Presidential Election

The degree of sexism that has been seen in this election is something that Hillary has faced all her life. She must constantly prove herself in a society that favors men. The recent comments that have been revealed to the public that Trump has made about women, shows that females are still being disrespected in such a vulgar way. The fact that Trump is claiming it to be a normal locker room talk between guys to make sound like he thinks it’s okay to talk about women like this just shows how we need a change how women are perceived. I like how the article by Jill Soloway explains that men tend to categorized women into two groups those are not to be spoken about in a locker room and those who are. The women who are sexually active, drink a bit much than the average women or are “bad” don’t deserve to be disrespected in any locker room. Because if a man does the same thing he is held as an alpha male in a locker room. The fact that Hillary’s voice is a factor to her being a president but it hasn’t been a factor for other male presidential candidates shows how intense the double stander is. Hillary has been breaking the glass ceiling, making the pathway for other women, and inspiring young ladies. She is not conforming to the feminine role that society has to offer. She is creating a new role for women. Where power, leadership, authority are words that can describe a women without robbing her of her femininity.   

Wednesday, October 12, 2016

Safe Spaces

The following post is an extended comment on Cassies’s and Christian’s response.

Safe Spaces was a very interesting article. There was of ideas that were mentioned. Cassie did a good job of choosing the three quotes that summarize the chapter. The first quote that Cassie used was essentially the thesis of the article. The second quote that Cassie uses shows the stand of the author and it’s a similar stand that Christian takes in his post. “In society today people see LGBT people as outcasts, almost as if they are their own breed of human beings.”  Christian. I enjoyed the way he describes that LGBT people are being pushed away and isolated to the point that dehumanizes them. Throughout his post he makes known that he does not approve of this. That when he becomes an educator isolation of LGBT students will not happen in his classroom. That kind of strong passionate views is what is going to bring the change that our classroom needs. Safe Places describes a college student response to Marley’s assignment to teacher candidates where the student shows some degree of discrimination towards the LGBT community.  To see that there are future educators that have the courage like Christian to show acceptance to LGBT students shows me that in the close future more and more safe places will be created. Cassie finishes her post with “Everyone is equal no matter what you identify by.” Also showing that she will create that safe place environment in her classroom. 
The future of our education is dependent on teacher candidates like us to have the courage to stand up for what is right.