Teach Out Reflection

For my teach-out project, I landed on the idea of having a one-on-one conversation with my Dad on the subject of white privilege. The concept surrounding white privilege was something I had an idea of before taking this class, but not a complete understanding. The very same could be said for my dad– he is a very relaxed guy, liberal leaning, but not necessarily someone active in that political space. The only times such sensitive topics such as race and white privilege appear is at the dinner table. My dad is also a teacher, and time and time again has experienced diversity seminars at his school. This is important, since he and I both teach in a very diverse district. However, these seminars, especially those focused on the subject of whiteness, rubbed him the wrong way. At dinner, my dad would complain he didn’t like being targeted for being a “white old man”, and didn’t understand why– he isn’t racist, and in his words did not actively use being white to his advantage. After learning what I’ve learned in this course, I realized that my dad would really benefit from a complete understanding of white privilege. I thought, if I could just talk to him honestly about it, instead of being talked down to in a seminar, maybe that barrier could be broken, and we could have an open discussion on white privilege and what it means.

I chose two materials for this teach out: Alan Johnson’s Privilege, Power, and Difference, and Mellody Hobson’s color brave TED talk. Both share similar ideas on the subject of not being a part of culturally dominant groups. They make it clear that there are dominant groups in the United States, brought to life by social constructs meant to keep white people in power. Important too, was the fact that these materials stress taking ourselves personally out of the equation when discussing it– the issue of white privilege is less about us as individuals, and more so about the groups we belong to. How we as white people obviously benefit from being so– we have to worry far less about being stopped in a store, or being pulled over, or attaining better career paths. Where there is privilege, there is oppression. White privilege has more to do with how we are treated by the people surrounding us than it does ourselves personally. These ideas made a big impact on me when I first learned of them in this class, which is part of why I chose these two materials in particular. I also chose the Mellody Hobson TED talk because I knew this was a video my dad definitely watched in one of his school’s diversity seminars. I wondered if he would have a different perspective on it after the first part of my teach out.

The teach out itself went great. We started with a discussion on what we believed white privilege was. My dad understood that it meant white people had certain advantages they could utilize. He believed that his age group was a target of diversity seminar because the “pendulum was swinging the other way”-- meaning, socially underprivileged groups are finally getting exposure, but with this “extreme” comes unnecessary targeting. My dad reasoned things would eventually even out again, and his group wouldn’t be targeted. Part of what I learned in this class was actually meeting someone at their level. Instead of telling him that he was outright wrong, I instead got to the root of why he was feeling what he was feeling. Once that is exposed, it is possible to break down that understanding bit by bit. From here we talked a little bit about popular media depictions of representation, how every show has a diverse cast now. I reasoned with him that while that may be true, media depictions might not necessarily represent real struggle. If things were truly “evening out”, I don’t think we would still be fighting for LGBTQ rights or fighting against the censorship of history. We also talked about shows that he grew up with, and what they say about white privilege– why was it that the white main character of “All in the Family” was allowed to be a racist bigot? Would the show have been greenlit in the first place if it was instead a black main character?

From here, I brought out the Alan Johnson reading and explained his key ideas– unearned privilege, the nature of obliviously benefitting from white privilege without actively “using” it, the Diversity Wheel. I tried to reason how we would be treated differently if we were a different race, and how this unequal treatment is a result of our own cultural pedagogies benefitting white privilege. He was apt to listen, which was motivating. Finally, we watched Mellody Hobson’s TED talk, which I have mentioned, we have both watched before, but I wanted to see if he would have a new perspective on it after our talk.

Following the teach out, my dad said I did a great job explaining it. He said that I did a better job of it than even the diversity seminars at his school! This fact I wasn’t really surprised by; after experiencing one in my district, it doesn’t help that the people teaching these don’t really care about the subject either. My dad said he had a far more complete understanding of what it meant, and how our privilege leads to another group being oppressed. We talked further about how this info was important, especially teaching in such a diverse school district. He pointed out how much of his school’s faculty was exclusively white, and we talked about what that says about white privilege, and opportunities. At the end of our conversation, he asked me what he could do, if he had no control over being old and white in this current system. I told him to simply talk about it– as Alan Johnson put it, the first step in solving a problem is addressing a problem to begin with. I hope my teach out had a lasting impact on my dad.

Thank you for such a great class! It was really enlightening and refreshing to talk about these subjects in such an open and honest space. I hope everyone has a good rest of their year!

Teach Out Presentation

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1fIsxiflFl6f-ntKOUeaRjphBK4OI8PtuZJmyCCyWSis/edit?usp=sharing

Week 10- Eliminating Ableism in Education

Going into this reading, I wasn't sure what to expect. I had heard the terms "ableist" and "ableism" thrown around before, but I didn't really have the context for those words. I understand now this relates to disabilities and how disability is treated in our society. I am certain this reading has more to do with how it is presented in a classroom setting and interpersonally, but I was also thinking about how navigating around a school is a possible issue promoting ableism. In my school alone, there are no ramps or elevators inside the building-- students who have an injured leg have to stay in a single room all day. I know these Rhode Island schools were built many years ago, but the fact that such considerations were not standard or to code, even in the 1950s and 1960s, is honestly mind boggling. It really wasn't that long ago!!

"Ableist Assumptions"

• "Penny was quickly developing the view, held by most disability advocates, that while disability is not a tragedy, society's response to disability can have tragic consequences for those who have disabilities" (p. 2)
• It's clear from this parent's experience that society's expectations of the disabled are not of success, but of failure. If students are placed in this mindset or set against such low standards, how do our systems ever expect them to succeed?
• From this same section, it's clear too that not only does society not offer the same protections to disabled students as regular ones, but any protections that are in place are completely obfuscated. Why did Penny have to learn about laws protecting her child from discriminaiton from a second-hand source? Shouldn't this have been one of the first things presented to Penny by her doctors or local school district?

"Ableism and Schooling"

• "In short, in the eyes of many educators and society, it is preferable for disabled students to do things in the same manner as non-disabled kids" (p. 3)
• Somehow, society both places low expectations on disabled students, while at the same time expecting them to act and perform in the same way as non-disabled students? There should be a greater focus on the strengths of the student, not the so-called "weaknesses". How can we help disabled students succeed in their own way, express themselves in their own way?
• "Both of these dominant stereotypes of disability, "Tiny Tims" and "supercrips," have at their core ableist perspectives, the failure to accept and value disabled people as they are" (p. 4)

"Education of the Deaf"

• "...there is significant history and research to draw on that should guide our efforts to improve education for the deaf" (p. 5)
• Again I see the recurring theme of applying societal, ableist standards onto disabled youth. Oralism was clearly a pushback against the success of sign language and other such programs. To read that the inventor of the telephone--who had a deaf wife-- fighting to BAN sign language is... shocking. There must have been lead in that 1800s water, I swear.
• "...only 30 percent of speech can be read from lip movements" (p. 6)
• I'm glad that ASL became commonplace in the later half of the 1900s. It allows deaf students to succeed in their own way, as opposed to applying our own standards.

"Toward Ending Ableism in Education"

• "As is the case with racism and sexism, progress towards equity is dependent first and foremost on the acknowledgement that ableism exists in schools"
• "Though students with disabilities have individual needs, by and large their education should be based on the same cirriculum as that of nondisabled students"
• The big takeaway I am gaining is that awareness is a large factor in removing ableism, but also having resources to assist disabled students in their goals and education is paramount. There is no one size fits all solution-- each student must be given specialized assistance

Heir argues that ableism projects unrealistic expectations onto students with disabilities. Society's failure to prop up and support individuals who are disabled starts in the schooling systems. The best way to combat and change this mentality is to better specialize education to support the needs of disabled individuals, as well as promoting general diversity among student populations.

Reading this, I was reminded that former president of the US FDR was in a wheelchair. I was shocked to learn that his presence in a wheelchair was totally hidden from the American public until after the fact-- I wonder if he had publically spoken about it, it would have promoted a more inclusive mindset in the American populace. Such struggles could have been normalized and supported... but those were different times. His team may have worried that he wouldn't be taken seriously in a wheelchair.

Week 9 - Literacy With an Attitude

 3/26/2024

"Literacy With An Attitude"-- notes and other thoughts

It's a good thing that we didn't have class today, because I do not feel well haha. I hope my writing for this blog isn't too sloppy.

As I am skimming through this preface, I am reminded of a class I am taking right now on the side-- it is a book club offered to teachers at my school in which we read a book titled "Dispelling Misconceptions about English Language Learners". The book goes into detail the kinds of factors that contribute to misconceptions about ELL students, most specifically in terms of educational literacy. I think there may be a lot of shared thoughts between that reading and "Literacy With An Attitude". Still, I am not sure which direction this particular reading is going, so we will see.

"Over time, political, social, and economic forces have brought us to a place where the working class (and to a surprising degree, the middle class) gets domesticating education education and functional literacy , and the rich get empowering education and powerful literacy"

This is an idea I have thought about occasionally-- in my first months of teaching I felt guilty that I was not offering my kinds substantial teaching material, and subsequently the rest of my school wasn't. Not that the material was necessarily bad, but I think it's just as author Patrick Finn describes; it is an education that is often not born of creativity and and powerful thinking, but rather one that presents things as they are, unchangeable and matter of fact. How does this all tie in to bringing in social and political issues into the classroom? Is the eduation society has cultivated so limited due in part to limiting the discussion of social and political issues, out of fear that it may empower the lower classes?

"Compared to the more affluent schools in this study, there was less discussion of controversial topics such as labor disbutes, civil rights, and women's rights and less attention to the history of these issues"

To silence this kind of discussion is to silence creative thinking-- it ensures authority is unquestionable, and unaccountable for past struggles.

Finn talks about how these lower-class schools are fiercly step by step in their education-- shaped not by creative values, but by industry. Students are to become unquestioning, ideal workers. I get stressed and anxious thinking about this timeless struggle. I feel as though history has always been a story of rich vs poor, a truth obfuscated by years of deception and change in the system of schooling and education. What exactly can be done to stop this struggle? It boggles my mind, because surely discussion is not enough. How does one spur people into action?

"Work rarely called for creativity. There was little serious attention to how students might develop or express their own ideas"

"When students begin school in such different systems, the odds are set for them"

Finn argues that the language of literacy we should integrate into our classrooms should be one of power-- finding ways to learn and generate powerful literacy among working and middle class students. At this point, lower and middle class schools are designed to be as sanetized as possible, focusing on step-by-step procedure, as opposed to upper class schools, which focus on how such solutions to problems can be found creatively and with open discussion. Finn's argument, then, is that creativity and creative thinking is powerful, and the greatest way that we can foster powerful literacy in the lower and middle classes. To foster this creativity, there must be discussion and connection between the material being taught and the daily lives and struggles of students.

Maybe this one is too obvious a reference, but I am reminded of Pink Floyd's "Another Brick in the Wall Pt. 2". Many people who have misread the lyrics may only see it as an anthem of "we hate school" and "school sucks". The reality is the song is reflective of Roger Waters' (the band leader) time in a post WW2 British schooling system, which shaped and abused children into working class citizens, or "another brick in the wall". Such themes I think are reflective of the same exact struggles plaguing American schooling, where lower to middle class schools rigidly attempt to shape students into ideal workers, as opossed to upper class schools shaping students for ruling at the top.

Week 8 (...or is it week 9?)

 Would like to start this blog post by (again) apologizing for this late post. The last week has been quite hectic, but I'm glad I was able to slot out some time to work on this reading.

After an initial skim of the topics of each of this week's reading materials, it's clear to me there is a clear contrast between the laws put in place to protect LGBTQ youth, and the actual realities found in schools.

The official guidance put in place for Rhode Island Elementary and Secondary Education suggests a staunch stance against descrimination:

"The purpose of this guidance is to... foster an educational environment that is safe and free from descrimination for all students, regardless of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression..."

The guidance goes on further to suggest ways that LGBTQ youth can be supported, such as offering gender neutral bathrooms and alternatives, as well as protecting information about a student's orientation if it would endanger their living situation with their parents or caretakers.

The suggestion is a highly inclusive environment for RI LGBTQ youth-- but reality is far away from suggestion. There are laws in place to help protect youth, but whether or not schools follow through on these, and whether or not teachers and staff are aware of these laws, are a completely different story. I can say for certain with experience that I've heard numerous older teachers in my building say things about the LGBTQ movement that are at best microagressions. Teachers and students are not immune to their own prejudices or the prejudices that influence their families, and I think the second reading, "Queering Our Schools", is indicative of this.

I think the start of the reading says it best: "The terrain, in terms of legal rights and public conversation, is shifting rapidly...At the same time, homophobia, mysogyny, and other forms of hatred are alive and well, and even progressive schools and classrooms have a long way to go..."

The editors of "Queering Our Schools" argument statement is that while there are laws in place to protect against descrimination, there are still struggles and hurdles to cross when it comes to creating safe environments for descriminated groups, most especially in classrooms. My question is this: how can we create an environment safe for LGBTQ youth not only in the classroom, but in their homes as well? The addition of the community and families surrounding schools, as well as their own held prejudices, make the matter of making inclusive classrooms extremely diffficult.

"When you invite kids to talk openly and ask questions about gender and sexuality, you have to be ready for whatever happens. It's trickier than geometry"

If there were perhaps a demonstration of a fully functioning, inclusive classroom, or a completely inclusive school, might that open the door for parents and oppossing groups to see things differently? I feel as though a public school is a pillar of a local community, and perhaps focusing on upending a school to be completely inclusive might lead to better things.

How can we create these inclusive settings? "Queering Our Schools" suggests normalizing discussion and the suggestion of LGBTQ themes and struggles. Normalizing discussion and ideas such that they may repeatedly crop up, might challenge preconceptions that teachers, students, and parents hold surrounding inclusivity.

I think this is further supported by the other material for this week's reading, the "Woke Read Aloud" video, featuring a children's book promoting the discussion of different and preferred pronouns. A material such as this-- something that is welcoming and inclusive-- is a great starting point to not only discussion surrounding pronouns, but normalizing the concept in general. I love how the teacher in the video breaks down the concept even further, into something that is completely digestible not only to a child, but their parents as well. Granted, I don't know how many conservative parents would be showing their kids "Woke Read Alouds", but in a classroom setting this would be an excellent opportunity for discussion and normalization.

My final question of discussion is this: how can I create a better inclusive setting in my classroom, to facilitate discusison? I'm specifically a tech ed teacher, and I am trying to think of ways that I could perhaps promote that kind of discussion in some of my lessons.

Again this week, I am stuck thinking of what I could possibly hyper-link or attach as an image to this discussion. I was drawn back to this wonderful game I had played, "Celeste".

The game's story, about a youth's climb up a perilous mountaintop, is actually an alegory for the struggle of trans youth. The character is ambiguously gendered, and various parallels are drawn between their struggle climbing and the struggles of trans youth. "This memorial dedicated to those who perished on the climb" referring to those who had died on their transitioning journey-- deaths that may have been prevented if there were proper support systems and environments for trans youth to thrive in.

Slightly unrelated, but the game's soundtrack is great too. I attached one of my favorite tracks below.

Week 7- Teach Out Proposal

 I had originally written this on the green paper we were handed, I forgot we had to post this to our blogs (oops).

My initial idea was that I wanted to present the teach out to my dad. He's a really nice and sympathetic guy, but he has expressed in the past how he doesn't understand white privilege, or the dynamicism of PC culture. He's not a big fan of the race/cultural seminars at the schools either; not that he doesn't empathize but I don't think he understands the concepts surrounding white privilege, and feels offended for being targeted.

I propose to teach out to my dad, using a number of readings we have gone over so far in this course, including the Colorblind/Colorbrave readings, as well as any other materials touching on white privelege. I want to break down why we as white people are still culpable in white privilege, and how if one group is privileged, there is another group who is not. I am still not sure how I will break it down into something digestible and natural. I don't want it to sound like I'm reading from a script when talking to him.

An individual interview would be the best format to this. Speaking one-on-one with someone is a lot more personal, honest, and vulnerable. There is an opportunity for a better dialogue. That vulnerability that comes with that, I believe, is needed for this subject of teach out.

I am hoping the rest of the class's proposals will help me brainstorm ideas as to how I can format this. I really would like to make him understand fully.

Week 6- "Aria" and "Teaching Multilingual Children"

 2/25/2024

“Aria” and “Teaching Multilingual Children”-- Notes and other thoughts

Going into these readings, I believe this is the first time we’ve had two readings assigned with conflicting viewpoints. I am wondering what side of the spectrum I will fall on after digesting these readings– or perhaps both have something important to say.

In “Aria”, author Richard Rodriguez argues both for and against the assimilation of MLL students into English speaking. Reflecting on his own experience, while switching his primary language spoken at home to English helped him gain confidence in public situations, he found that his home and family life suffered as a result. In his head, English was far more impersonal than speaking to his family in Spanish.

“...they do not realize that while one suffers a diminished sense of private individuality by becoming assimilated into a public society, such assimilation makes possible the achievement of public individuality” (p. 39).

While more comfortable in public environments dominated by English speaking, Richard has lost a personal part of himself and a connection to his Spanish heritage as a result. I think this is indicative of the struggle of MLL students– assimilation makes the act of living in the US far easier, but how much is lost in translation? 

Should English be completely enforced, or should there be something more freeform in the way we speak in school settings? Spanish is quickly becoming a very dominant language in the US; English is dominant culturally, but perhaps it’s only a matter of time before there is far more widespread adoption of Spanish.

On the other side of the spectrum, “Teaching Multilingual Children” author Virginia Collier affirms the importance of both teaching English, while reaffirming the value of differing linguistic and cultural values.

“For younger children, it is recommended that the teacher’s focus be on the message– which is the child’s focus– rather than on the form of the message” (p. 224)

I think this is another quote that is indicative of the struggle of MLL students– such young students are still in the process of learning, and this is further complicated by understanding the language and form in which the information is being delivered. Should the focus, then, be on the learning material itself first before the delivery of the form?

“The critical distinction to maintain is between how children acquire the capacity to converse casually in a second language, and how they learn to become proficient students using a second language. These are two entirely different processes” (p. 225)

Collier further postulates that academic language further complicates things, especially as something that doesn’t come naturally to English speaking students as well.

The two readings are stacked against each other– while Rodriguez notes that he lost a sense of himself in detaching himself from his first language, his progress in English dramatically increased as a result. On the other hand, Collier points out that eliminating the first language completely is ultimately too damaging, and that there must be an understanding of the value of multiple languages and cultures in a single class room.

I think Rodriguez is speaking from a personal point of view, and from what I gather he regrets the elimination of his first language in his home life. I think this only further strengthens Collier’s points. While difficult, it is possible to have it both ways– learning a second language for public use while maintaining important cultural values. I am interested in hearing about what the rest of the class has to say about this.

This isn't exactly the most serious or meaningful clip, but I was reminded of this Family Guy joke that I think points out the use of a second language in a public setting in an absurd way.