Gender Ads

Hey guys,
One of my colleagues sent me this website which is a really interesting look at the implicit messages about gender conveyed through advertising:

http://www.genderads.com/

I would say "enjoy" but this is a little disturbing...

Happy spring break!
Maureen

Controversial?

While Leigh was reading "And Tango Makes Three," I remembered an article I had to read for an undergraduate Children's literature course. The article listed children's books that are controversial and even banned in some schools.
One of the titles really stuck out to me in relation to this week's readings. It's called "The Sissy Duckling," which is basically about a boy duckling who is considered a "sissy" for possessing feminine qualities. It's also banned because it has "gay themes."

What do you think about this? What about the other titles on the list, such as "Happy To Be Nappy" in relation to race?

http://www.amazon.com/Controversial-Childrens-Picture-Books/lm/R2CIX4GT87K99O

the words...the WORDS!

Check out these articles.
When my dad sent me an article that stated that The Catcher in the Rye and To Kill a Mockingbird (my favorite book of all time) were being cut from school curriculums in favor of more nonfiction informational texts, I actually started to tear up and followed it up with a series of angry tweets (obviously it didn't solve anything).  What I can't get a handle on is what's actually going on.  Yes, there's a push for more informational nonfiction texts, founded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.  Reports are saying English teachers are "overreacting."  Judging by my response maybe we are. ...Are we? Teaching nonfiction texts should be spread across all subject areas.  Why is fiction getting the axe?  As a creative writer and avid (avid, avid, avid) reader, I feel crushed a bit, though I recognize that some do prefer nonfiction to fiction.  What I wonder is why the analytical skills we hone through reading and analyzing fiction are any less relevant than those gained from nonfiction texts.

I don't really know exactly what's going on or what to believe, but here are just two of the many articles I found floating around out there...


Washington Post Article

Telegraph Article

Group 7 Discussion

    1)  A man and his son are driving home from a game together. The father is exhausted from a long day at work and swerves off the road and gets into a car crash. The paramedics and police rush to the scene, both the son and father are critically injured and rushed in separate ambulances. They are taken to two different hospitals. The son is rushed into the operating room and the doctor who receives the boy cannot perform the surgery required to save his life. The nurse looks to the doctor and ask why? The doctor replies, “ this boy is my son”. Who is the doctor? According to the New York Times article there are many forms of sexism towards women in the scientific community. With the riddle being presented to many they all assume that it is the father who cannot operate on the boy, but to most people’s surprise, the mother is the doctor. Girls from a young age are not encouraged to be “good a math” or often times discourage to “ apply to MIT” as educators how can we start molding our young students to think outside the box of gender specific careers?

  

     2)   Nothing seems to be off topic now a days on television shows that target teens like Glee, Teen Mom, and 16 and pregnant.  It seems now a days a traditional sex education classroom is obsolete. Yet we are restricted on the material that may be covered in this class, so schools will have strict protocols that we as educators need to oblige by. In our groups we should discuss about how we can use the media to be our teaching tool and how we can revamp our old “traditional” sex education lesson plans. Students can see a birth easily on YouTube, or see pictures of STDs that were once used as scare tactics, what do we have left?

Computer Coding in K-12

I came across this great video that reminds us the technology is really booming, and we depend so much on it. This video possess a great question, when should we start teaching our students to read and write computer codes? There are many jobs out there that need people who can do this, but we are not producing enough to fulfill the needs.

http://www.code.org/

Check out the video!

On satire

A different take on the tweet about Quevenzhané Wallis.

Who's naming who?

Solid gender thinking, y'all!

We'll be opening this week's class with some images and clips from Sunday's Oscar ceremonies. To be honest with you, if I don't teach this course someday solely through Calvin and Hobbes or South Park, it will be through current events and Louis CK alone. I digress.

Check out this essay, one of myriad analyses of the text and subtext of Sunday's ceremony. We'll be talking about gender, race, intersectionality, satire, and what Sunday shows us about the chinks in the armor of our society.

And what does this have to do with schooling? Structure and agency - so we must talk about societal patterns to think about how schooling reflects, refracts, rejects, and jams those messaging systems.

Group 2 Discussion Questions

1.  Ashcraft's article looks at the ways in which popular culture can spark constructive dialogues about sexuality, gender, and education.  Ashcraft states that American Pie, the film, both breaks down and perpetuates the dominant discourse on teenage sexuality and gender roles.  In light of the recent criticism of Seth Macfarlane's performance, I would like us, as a group, to discuss the ways in which his use of humor and parody during the Oscars both perpetuates and subverts dominant views on women and gender relations.  By actually going through the process Ashcraft suggests, I believe we will be able to better appreciate what she proposes in the article.

2.  In the New York Times article, Dr. Barres stated that he always identified with the male identity.  How does this complicate the idea of him crossing over from the female to the male role?  This also begs the question, is there any way to truly understand both the male and female perspective?  Barres changed realms physically, but mentally, he was always associated with the male/dominant perspective/set of expectations.  How does the Thorne article complicate this idea of "crossing-over" with race?  What do you believe is more dominant or more at the forefront of our negotiations with 'others'--race or gender?  While it is obviously difficult to experience a shift in understanding genders, is it easier, more difficult, or impossible to truly experience and understand differences in race?


3.  The Newkirk article delves into the fact that the majority of male writing seems to reflect the dominant expectations of male tendencies towards violence or deletion of women and discusses the possibility that, to young males, the writing is not so much about the content, but about subverting authority, gaining autonomy, building relationships, and experimenting with humor.  How does this also relate to the varied reactions to the Oscars?  How does this article, along with the Ashcraft article, seek to challenge the way in which we challenge texts and understandings?

Group 1 : Becoming Gendered

1. Newkirk's article talks about the importance of students' "calculated," or "controlled resistance" (such as parody writing), in response to assignments or tasks that require a student to "identify with the interests of those with power over him- parents, teachers, doctors, public authorities." He suggests that students embrace such resistance, because to "completely accept 'the embrace of the institution' is to lose a sense of personhood." How can we understand Newkirk's theory in relation to other elements of schooling? What student resistance should be accepted, and how should it be met? How do our methods of meeting student resistance challenge or support the power structure?


2. Thorne's discussion of gender divides explores how the "feminine" is implicitly defined in our social structure as the "failed male." "Tomboy" females thus have gained skills and social standing, while "Sissy" is used as a pejorative term for a male who is deemed to have "qualities of immaturity or weakness."  How can we understand this phenomenon, in relation to Newkirk's discussion of the outperformance of males by females in writing? What aspects of our social structure supports writing differences, as well as other gendered patterns in school?  What is the function and value of wider gender boundaries our society constructs, and how can they be challenged in schools?

Group 5 - Becoming Gendered

1. Thorne claims that boys avoid “girls’ games” not because of a lack of skill but because they are considered solely for girls. Does this claim support the argument in the New York Times article that there is a lack of women in the sciences because it is not considered a female discipline? Does Thorne’s claim corroborate or support this idea regarding women in the sciences? Based upon your own schooling experience, could Thorne’s claim about gender crossing translate beyond the playground and into the classroom setting and academic subjects?
2. Newkirk asserts that boys are at a slight disadvantage in schools in terms of writing do to stereotypes and what is deemed as acceptable writing. The New York Times article states that men are at an advantage within science related fields. How can you reconcile the ideas from Newkirk’s article regarding the alleged writing gap between boys and girls in schools and the gap within science related careers? Can it be generalized that one gender is always advantaged while the other is disadvantaged? Have there been times in your life when you have benefitted from your gender and times when you have been at a disadvantage?
3. Ashcraft discusses the possibilities of restructuring and rethinking sex education curriculums. Her ideas revolve around gender stereotypes and provide a means at breaking down gender stereotypes through discussion and analysis of new types of media. Do you find her proposals compelling in combatting gender norms? Why or why not? Have you experienced any other means to combat gender stereotypes in a reflective, meaningful and lasting manner? 

Group 6: Becoming Gendered

Midreading Masculinity- Newkirk:
1. Newkirk discusses the concept of boys using violence in their writing as a way to subliminally tell readers about their thoughts, how they're feeling, and what's going on in their daily lives. When boys were told they could no longer write violent stories, the boys were no longer interested in writing - a concept Newkirk calls "converting the natives." Newkirk quotes Peterson, "development in writing involves 'cross dressing,' a capacity to move out of stereotypical gender positions." In order to do so, Newkirk suggests to educators that they should acknowledge the cultural materials (ex: the affection for parody and action) that boys (and girls) bring to the classroom. Would you, as an educator, want to "convert the natives," even if it meant your students would no longer enjoy writing? Or would you try to incorporate the cultural materials the students' enjoy into your lessons? If students are using violence in their writing to express themselves, would you let them continue this trend or have them try something else? Many of the sources Newkirk quoted are from the 90s, so do you think these opinions on violence in writing would differ today?


Thorne & Ashcraft
1. In her article, Ashcraft states that movies and TV are one of the main sources for the production of cultural meanings and discourses. Ashcraft states that discourses are, "composed of representations, ideas, narratives, social norms, and practices that establish the dominant categories of knowledge." These discourses write "the predetermined social scripts," or in other words, conceptions of sexuality and gender. Thinking back to the time when you were in school, were there any movies or TV shows that had an impact on your conceptions of sexuality and/or gender? Did you see this movie/TV show before or after you encountered a sex ed course? Did that alter or change any conceptions you had when it came to sexuality or gender?

2. The term "tomboy" (a girl who goes against the "girly-girl" ways) and "sissy" (a boy or man whose character and interests are more feminine than masculine) are words that we have all heard, most prominently during our childhood. Thinking about Ashcraft's article, do you believe that our perceptions on "tomboys" and "sissies" are derived from movies and TV? What about from children's literature and cartoons? Young children seem to know what a "sissy" or a "tomboy" is without having to ask someone the true definition. If you remember, how did you learn what those two words meant (if you learned them at all)? Do you think that your perceptions on what a "sissy" is and what a "tomboy" is shapes your gender and sexuality conceptions later in life?

Group 4 Discussion Questions: Becoming gendered

New York Times article:

1. Looking back on your own schooling, have you ever experienced sexism—either negative feedback for crossing gender lines or positive feedback for staying within those lines—from teachers and/or administrators? How did you respond in the moment? How do you think you would respond now?

Newkirk's "Misreading Masculinity" article:

1. Newkirk brings up the issue of violence in the media and its “unlimited scope,” from “the death of Kenny in South Park” to “violence in great literature.” Do you think there is a difference between the violence of South Park and the violence within Hamlet or other school-taught literature? If so, what is the difference? If not, why do our schools treat these mediums differently, and what are students implicitly learning through this distinction?

2. Given the increase in school shootings in recent years (in which most if not all of the shooters are male), how do you feel about Newkirk’s defense of violence in boys’ writing and their affinity for violent TV/films? Do you think it can, as he says, “strengthen the bonds between friends,” as he suggests it does for Andrew and Jon? Or do you find it disturbing and potentially “pathological,” which he claims at the end of his article is a “most serious mistake”? As educators, how do we know where to draw the line between the positive encoded in the negative and just plain negative?

Ashcraft and Thorne articles:

1. Ashcraft states, “Cinema and television are particularly important sites for the production of cultural meaning and discourses” (39). Thorne posits that perhaps the word “tomboy” is not used as frequently nowadays because of the changes in the past two decades, such as challenges of gender stereotypes” (115).

That being said, do our contemporary* tomboys in TV, film, and literature challenge gender stereotypes, or do they subtly play into them? Are these tomboys fully able to resist or do they ultimately succumb to gender roles? (In reading this article, I thought of Katniss Everdeen from The Hunger Games, Mulan, Lisbeth Salander from The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo series. What other “tomboys” can you think of?). What are the implications for our students who are viewing these figures?

*Thorne’s article was published in 1993; therefore, I’m wondering whether more recent examples of tomboys resist to or succumb to gender roles.

Group 3 Discussion Questions

1. “One of the reasons is the belief by highly successful people that they are successful because of their own innate abilities. I think as a professor at Stanford I am lucky to be here. But I think Larry Summers thinks he is successful because of his innate inner stuff.” – Ben Barres. How does this quote, which was said in the context of gender in science, relate to other issues of race and class that we’ve discussed in the past few weeks? What does it suggest about the ways we’ve rationalized inequality in this country?

2. Ashcraft describes the differences in sex education between males and females by saying, “Young men are cast as manipulative or predatory beings who always crave sex”…and “Young women are given information and instructions on how to recognize the wily attempts of young men to get them into bed and how to say no in the face of such pressure. The instruction for young women is rather sparse or nonexistent when it comes to what to do if they feel like saying yes.” Outside of sex education, where have you seen these stereotypes about men and women reinforced? How does this example of sex education in schools relate to how boys and girls are taught to behave in society? Amongst each group, which sorts of behaviors do we reinforce/validate?

3. Thorne talks about the different connotations/levels of acceptability given to the titles “tomboy” and “sissy” and the gender constructions that are carried with these terms. How do the negative or positive connotations of these identities become reinforced in schools, particularly by teachers and other adults? In what ways do children reward or punish one another for staying within the roles associated with their gender?  

Changing the way we act to change the way we think

What Naysha and Laurent led us through in class on 2.21 was nothing short of changing the habits of our minds. To engage in restorative justice means beginning and staying with a constant regard and interest in others' human condition, and ultimately, how our conditions are bound together.

When we sit in a circle and honor the talking piece and who is speaking, we are retraining our brains not to be in competition, not to wait for our turn to talk and sound smartest, not to come up with the 'best' example. Instead, we are sitting in the circle to share but mostly just to listen, to hear what another person is saying. Make no mistake about it - this is a complete restitching to how we have been schooled to interact and, often, not interact. And it requires effort.

While much of how teacher ed is structured on the implicit theory that reflecting will change our practices, it's worth nothing that sometimes by changing how we act, we can then change how we think. Just listening actively creates neural pathways where the goal isn't to speak first, loudest, most authoritatively, but to listen to connect. Imagine if classrooms and schools ran on that ethic rather than the first hand raised wins.

Please feel free and invited to share any thoughts you have about the circles on this thread.

leigh.

Gaslighting, Gender Socialization

Here's the article I was mentioning in class about gaslighting and gender socialization. On 2/28, be ready to discuss the ways in which schools teach about gender and sexual identity while also teaching reading, writing, and 'rithmetic. Key words are still implicit and explicit curriculum.

And whether in schools or beyond, our challenge is to think not just about how this does a disservice to women but also to men.

Willingness to be Disturbed

“Willingness to be Disturbed”

This is an article that was assigned for reading in the Consultation and Collaboration class. Although not directly related to the concept of race I feel as though the overall message of the article is applicable to the nature of Social Contexts in Education. This is one of the best articles I’ve had to read thus far in my schooling . We talk a lot about the institution of schooling and the social reproduction theory. We’ve discussed white teachers teaching is predominately African-American schools, and why it’s not working. We’ve discussed personal identity and how we make subconscious decisions every day based on our personal identities.  I think this article speaks to those issues. We need to have a “willingness to be disturbed”.

Some of my favorite parts of this article are as follows...

“Yet I believe we will succeed in changing this world only if we can think and work together in new ways. Curiosity is what we need. We don’t have to let go of what we believe, but we do need to be curious about what someone else believes. We do need to acknowledge that their way of interpreting the world might be essential to our survival”

“When so many interpretations are available, I can’t understand why we would be satisfied with superficial conversations where we pretend to agree with one another”

“It’s not differences that divide us. It’s our judgments about each other that do curiosity and good listening bring us back together”

What do people think?? It's worth the read.

 

http://www.ode.state.or.us/opportunities/grants/saelp/willing-to-be-disturbed.pdf

We KANT remain 'immature' forever!

http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web%20publishing/KantOnElightenment.htm

Please excuse the pun in the title, I really couldn't help myself :)

The link I've posted above is Immanuel Kant's essay "What Is Enlightenment."  I find this reading to be an awesome supplement to what we have been learning in class.  It is one of the most valuable things I've read this year, and I cannot stop thinking about how it truly gets to the heart of human nature, our abilities, and our difficulties.  Kant discusses the idea of the necessity of thinking for oneself and using one's reason.  He begins by claiming that

"Enlightenment is man's release from his self-incurred immaturity. Immaturity is man's inability to make use of his understanding without direction from another. This immaturity is self-imposed when its cause lies not in lack of reason but in lack of resolution and courage to use it without direction from another. Sapere aude! "Have courage to use your own reason!" -- that is the motto of enlightenment."

Kant believes that humankind has allowed itself to become oppressed because some are either too fearful or too lazy to make assertions about truth and to enter into dialogues with other truth-seekers.  To Kant, dialogue and conflict (not violent conflict, but a conflict of ideas, a mental struggle) is the only way that people will be able to find Truth.

Later on in the essay, Kant discusses the difference between the public and private use of reason.  In the public, which Kant describes as "the whole community or of a society of world citizens,"  people can debate and proclaim their ideas freely, as scholars.  However, when one is relegated to the private sphere of reason, one is somewhat limited in what one can say, but one can still search for truth.  Kant gives here an example of a clergyman.  In order to fulfill his duty to his position, the clergyman must recite certain views of the church to his audience (ie a private sphere).  If the clergyman does not agree AT ALL with the views it is his duty to recite, then he should resign his post.  However, if the clergyman views a route to the truth within those views, he can carefully guide his parish to that truth.  When the clergyman is talking to the "society of world citizens," the public sphere, he can act like a scholar and be openly critical.  It is only in the private sphere of the church that the clergyman must be more gentle.  He runs the risk of alienating his audience, upsetting people who aren't ready for the truth, and losing his position.

What do you all think about the public/private use of reason?  Do you feel we are still in the same "immature state" when it comes to using our reason as we were when Kant wrote this in 1784?  Do you believe that the manner in which or the sphere in which one begins a dialogue matters?  How can you gauge if the person you're talking to is truly a truth-seeker?  What are some ways in which you can be self-critical?

The above are just some general insights/explications of the text.  I REALLY REALLY REALLY hope you all take the time to read the whole thing.  It's amazing, it's short, and you get to make Kant puns.

Molly

Week 4 Questions Group 2

Lareau and Social Mobility (or Lack of?)

1.)  Based on the Lareau article, we can see that there seems to be a desynchronization between the parents and teachers at the Swan school.  Taking into account what Coleman wants: "a vision of families and schools in a relatively open society where families can and should adopt certain norms to help advance their children's life chances," do we believe that these "norms" are based on social class, or do they suggest some objective lifestyle that any family can achieve?

2.)In the ways in which we talk about class, we often overlook the things we say that are based on our social class. 
For instance, "The idea that authorities would 'come and take my kids away' was never expressed in any observation or interview with middle-class parents in the way it repeatedly appeared among working-class and poor families" (Lareau 93).

I often think about what it means to be in social class.  I often wonder why lower class families--more often than upper-class families--tend to feel marginalized by the school system, while upper class families wonder why the school wasn't good enough for their child. 

3.)  How would you as a teacher synchronize schools and parents without offending parents who cannot afford to give their children tutoring lessons, and after school help?

Group 4 Questions - Week 4 (Lareau & Hill Collins)

1. In “Social Structure and Daily Life”, Lareau writes, regarding possible inequality in treatment of Black and White students at Lower Richmond, that “Although white administrators and teachers generally did not agree, other Black educators at the school echoed these concerns” (p. 18) Do you think this issue is entirely objective, and that Black students are necessarily being treated unfairly? Or is it necessary that where one side of the “argument” sees inequity, the other must see equity (in this case of the two schools, or in a case of role reversal), and it is only in terms of Black and White? Is this issue at Lower Richmond solely objective, or does race past and present affect the perceptions of both groups of educators? How can we work to make sure that educators acknowledge color, but do not allow color to affect treatment or preference? Is this possible, impossible, or just improbable, if some educators are not “able” to recognize inequity or inequality in treatment of students?
2. On several occasions, Lareau discusses disparities in financial capital and spending between urban and suburban schools, based on social class differences and overall socioeconomic status of residents. Should the focus, then, be on breaking down barriers of social class in an effort to mitigate the effects of stratification and resulting funding differences? Or should the focus be, at least in the short term, on redistributed allocation of ALL funds from all districts on a state or federal level, so that all schools at least have the same financial capital per student? With the rise of the Common Core and federal mandates of all schools, should this be the case anyway? Should this give way to equality of base performance to equalize results of social class? Would this in turn help schools to become one of the “great equalizers” (p. 15), as it is supposed to be under rules of meritocracy?
3. Lareau’s tone clearly changes as she describes the Lower Richmond and Swan schools. Is this simply because the qualities that Swan possesses are objectively nicer, or does the language used work to further create a sense of disparity. Consider this quote concerning the Swan school: “There are so many trees, flowering shrubs, and flowers that when the seasons shift, the presence of nature is almost overwhelming. In fall, burnt-orange-colored leaves carpet the ground; in spring, a sea of yellow daffodils appears, while overhead, white and pink dogwoods pop into bloom” (p. 20). Regardless of this very poetic language, there is clearly a drastic difference in the atmosphere of the two schools. However, how does Lareau utilize language to further emphasize possible extremes in environment. Should we use language in this way, or should we try to objectify the discussion as much as possible so that we can focus on the issues at hand? Or is this kind of language necessary to truly show readers how much of a difference social class and race make in schooling?
4. Lareau writes “Despite this close attention to multiculturalism, the emphasis on diversity [at Swan] is largely symbolic since, unlike at Lower Richmond, here nearly all students, educators, administrators, and service personnel are white” (p. 21). In “Toward a New Vision”, Hill Collins states that “from the perspective of the privileged, the lives of people of color, of the poor, and of women are interesting for their entertainment value” (p. 458). Does the display of diversity at Swan promote an awareness and celebration of cultures and equality, or does it simply prove Hill Collins’s point? Is this show of multiculturalism working to bring people together across race, gender, and class, or is its sole purpose to make the staff and student body feel better about what Lareau describes as a very white (and presumably relatively closed-off) community? How can we tell when these displays represent a commitment to diversity, integration, and equality if there is no sign of these ideas in action?
5. In thinking about “relationships of those of unequal power” (Hill Collins, p. 459), is it realistic to ask those in power to give up power? Is it human nature for one group to constantly strive for power over another, and is there anything we can do to change this? She also writes in her essay that “Few of us can manage to study race, class, and gender simultaneously” (p. 460).  Should we then work to end domination an inequality in one of those capacities before tackling the next, if so few can study (let alone affect) each of those? (I’m not sure of the answer to either of these, but wanted to pose this question for discussion.)

Group 5 Questions.... Structure, daily life and a new vision

Educating is a social responsibility shared between the teachers, the parents and the students themselves. To accomplish this we build a structure "the school" in the hope to educate and prepare the (all important) student for the world outside.
In doing this there is always a power struggle between the vertices of a triangle the teachers, the parents and the administration (the system). And the area of this triangle being quality and quantity of eduction the students have access to / are constrained to learn within. This triangle lumbers under the weight of the the economic, class and race relationships within and without the system.
In such an environment, it is the role of the teacher to address, empathize with and be a part of all this while maintaining the balance of teaching, providing students the education they come to school for.

• What defines success or failure as a teacher? Not just from his / her perspective, but from that of the parents, the system (who employ the teachers) and the students.
• When should the teacher feel satisfied? Do they even have the privilege of defining it?

Sports, symbols and commodification

One of the takeaways from Alex' visit to our class last week was the ubiquity of corporate symbols. He opened our class by stating that we cannot go a day without interacting with some kind of corporate symbol. Extending on that, what drives us to place value far above material worth and imbue symbolic worth on some brands? To put this in relief, think of the brand names that mean a whole lot to you but make zero sense to someone not in your social/cultural circle. For example, I am forever teasing my friend Bree for her Vera Bradley bags which I call "old lady bags," but I recognize that the appeal of these accessories lies not in the pattern and quilting but in who else is carrying the bags. You should be hearing some echoes of Bourdieu and cultural capital here. For a more pointed discussion of the symbols in sports marketing and the ideologies in those symbols, check out Macklemore's commentary below.

Should corporate symbols be a part of everyday life in schools? Is it possible to imagine daily life without these symbols? In the ongoing quest of figuring out your end game, to what extent is privatization of school acceptable? necessary? predatory?

Discussion Questions-Week 4: Hill-Collins and Lareau

Group 3 Questions

1. In "Toward a New Vision..." Patricia Hill-Collins theorizes, in references to building bridges to connect to one another and try and understand people that are not "like us," so to speak, that we must "share a common cause....Hear one another....and develop empathy for each other's point of view." In order to do this, we must first decide to be a part of a "coalition" that addresses the issue of race inequality. As an educator, how do you plan on uniting your students so that they can hear and empathize with one another, especially if there are a diverse group of learners in the classroom?
2. Lareau begins her discussion of social institutions by describing that all people play a role in one or more of these "groups to which they belong." She continues by stating that we then begin to fall into the norms of this group, thereby making it more difficult to stray from what is socially acceptable in that institution. Thinking about your schooling experiences, in what ways were you playing the quintessential "role" of the institution of school as a student? Do you think that those roles have changed since you were a student in middle school or high school and how?
3. According to Lareau's account of Swan School, a clear source of the school's contention lies in the support, or lack thereof, of the teachers and administrators by the parents. The teachers are insistent that some of the students' attitudes are reflective of their parents' lack of support or faith in their abilities. What may be some of the implications of this power struggle between teachers and parents affect the social structure and student performance at the school? How would you, as a teacher, handle feeling this lack of support from a large quantity of parents?

Intersectionality

Extending on our conversations about race, this week we're going to focus on how race alone is insufficient to address systems of privilege and marginalization in society. As a start, check out the TED talk below as Cameron Russell discusses the genetic trifecta she won that enables her to be a model.

In this piece, Russell goes on to to wonder why her TED talk has received so much attention while other, arguably more pressing issues from more accomplished people (e.g., General Colin Powell), stay on the back burner. If you have the intersectional privilege of being a tall, slim, white, cis female with symmetrical features and you have the stage, what are your responsibilities?

Let's talk about race (baby)

Many people feel fatigued from talking about race and yet it is often both not uttered at all, not uttered in useful ways and perhaps goes to extremes. As we are discussing race, here are a few ground rules.

First, even though our syllabus and readings will have us concentrate on particular aspects at a time, let's aim for awareness of intersectionality (interlocking structures in society and what that means for how we are raced, classed, abled, and gendered simultaneously). Just like People Like Us taught us, status and social class is never about just one of these nodes. So what do we learn not just about race but also gender from watching and being fans of major league sports, for example?

Second, remember (or maybe know explicitly for the first time) that race does not have a biological base. It is a social and cultural construct. As just one small example, consider how race is defined in two diametrically opposed ways for different political purposes in the United States. People are considered (and often consider themselves) to be African American if they have one drop of African blood in their ancestry (hypogenetics). And, at the same time, legal codes calculate Native American status through blood quantum (if you are 1/16th Cherokee and you partner with an Anglo, your children would then be 1/32nd), necessitating diminished status over time. These completely contradictory relations of race and rights are both codified into law into this country. We utter race so often and use racial categories that it's easy to forget that we are actively raced all the time. To the same point, people are not racial minorities and majorities free floating - they are racially - active process. 

Consider that, let us have a much better conversation about race than trying to figure out if a single person is racist. Check out what is now almost a classic video from Jay Smooth on this (below). This is a society based, in part, on race and class stratifications. So, how would that not be in all of our consciousness to greater and lesser extents?  Our better question is what shape it's taking and how to work with it, dismantle it, open it up, whatever we think is wise action, particularly in schooling.

So what do you think of race in America? Bring up whatever you like here, respond to each others' discussion questions, maybe share the first time you remember being made aware of your race. 

Discussion Questions Week3- Kunjufu, Carter & Hughs

Esther (Yeah Eun) Park- Group 4
1) In Carter’s reading, Equity and Empathy: Toward Racial & Educational Achievement in the Obama Era, it asks, “How does one come to love and respect his fellow students if fear and apprehension about his neighbor’s social and cultural groups are firmly embedded in the psyche?” (292) With this mind, go back to Kunjufu’s reading about schools hosting multicultural day. Is it enough? If not, how can educators or administrators in schools “make” students not merely care, but WANT to care and WANT to appreciate the culture of others?

2) In chapter 2 of Kunjufu’s reading, it says, “White teachers have tendency to make the only African American student the expert on all African American affairs” (29-30). Also, Kunjufu states that silence is the affirmation of accomplices’ beliefs. Have you had the experience of being that one minority in the classroom? Or have you been the part of the majority that kept silent? If you were to be put back into that situation, would anything change after having read this article? And how would your race factor into your reaction?

3) Consider the following statements from Hughes’ article.

• “The NBA exemplifies a broader phenomenon in which explicit talk of Blackness as the object of White control can be made to disappear into the language of management” (177)
• “It is along these lines that management continues the history of comforting the unmarked majority through the policing of “others,” while failing to reflect on- let alone challenge- the larger social and historical causes of racism from which dominant White interests continue to benefit tacitly.” (178)

The article states that the NBA, in confronting its issues of diversity, is somewhat heroic and admirable. Having read the two statements and seeing the words like “White control” and “policing of ‘others’”, how does that change your view of NBA and its efforts to tackle the diversity issue? What are their true intentions?

4) Why do you think there is no talk for lack of diversity in organizations like NHL where, according to the stats, there are only about 20 Black players total in the organization? Why is confronting “Blackness” or “minority” more prominent than confronting “Whiteness” in this multicultural melting pot we call America?

Structure and Agency

Here's an excellent discussion of structures and agency and the distractions of pseudoscience, this time in relations to gender inequity in the STEM fields. Kate Clancy is an evolutionary biologist and highly skilled public intellectual.

Testy testing

The Unites States ranks far behind other countries (17th) in achievement and aptitude in maths, science, and literacy as measured by the Program for International Student Achievement. Check this link and consider that the top two scoring countries (Finland and Korea) use diametrically opposed approaches to testing, teacher training and salary, and educational culture. Also consider that this link and sponsoring video is from Pearson Education, which is making buckets of money providing tests and 'technical assistance' to schools and teacher education programs (this may be familiar for those of you who did the PPA dance not too long ago).

And then consider the testing mania we have in the states, and the pushback starting to happen, such as in Garfield High School in Seattle. Here's an article about that and a sign that was provided to support, encourage, influence (what do you think?) students to abstain from the standardized test.