Docile

Pathways probably had the best of intentions when trying to integrate with a non-White academic leadership, but their avoidance of racial discussion killed any benefit this might have had. If Jan deemed it necessary to have enrolled students the way she did, it was pertinent to address racial issues, like the one Sal and Bart brought upon.
Another thing that caught my eye was the deux ex machina reference on page 484, when visitors dissipate a tense situation, is an example of how teachers aim to merely get through their classes, not necessarily excel in them. Students like Duke and Derek are big issues for teachers not due to class or racial issues, but merely because they stray from the docility teachers attempt to instill.
Docility does seem to be the goal, considering that teachers themselves are made so by those above them. An example of this was Carrie, whom “would never, never contradict a director, especially in front of parents.” This statement illustrates both the weakness and hypocrisy that may be found in some teachers. In a school that supposedly had children at the center of their focus, Carrie doesn’t really support Derek though she at one point states the “what would I do if that were my child?” spiel. She may have been responsible for the Advisory Council assembly, but when it came time for her to act on her beliefs, she failed to do so. It seems that educators like Carrie, whom are more aware about the directors and teachers relationships than the others(496), are the ones allow magnet schools to die and bureaucratic schools to exist.

Defensive Teaching

In my view, we have finally reached the most important section in the book. It’s true that knowledge about discrimination, classroom behavior, and students’ identities are very important to teaching, but in the end it’s how we go about our jobs that will define the profession.
I strongly agree with McNeil’s examination of defensive teaching(392). “Teachers reduce requirements to avert opposition and gain compliance, omit or mystify curricular content for students, and fragment or grossly oversimplify course content.” Standards have become the buzzword and the students have been left in their wake. No Child Left Behind is the current policy and until there is a collective push to rid students of this, teachers will continue to fail their students.
Is every teacher failing their students? Of course not, only those that don’t have the courage to challenge the current system. It certainly seems that schools are more interested in “churning out workers and helping them become the citadel of corporate ideology”(413). Evidenced by the exorbitant amounts of money the U.S. recently poured into corporate bailouts, it is clear that business is much more important to the policy makers than the education of children.
Totally off the topic, there was a statement that caught my eye. “There was also my role as a white, male professional teaching Latino, working-class youth and trying (presumptuously?) to help them develop positive social and cultural identities”(447). I think that the inclusion of the question mark denotes that Gutstein himself believes that he is in fact presumptuous. I think that Gutstein reads too much into the cultural differences he has with his students. It’s obvious that his role is to help his students develop positive social and cultural identities. He would accomplish this by providing his students with the best education possible, not by highlighting the cultural differences they have.

Common Language

No offense to the LGBT community, but as a bilingual student in MPS for eight years, the Macedo piece was of a lot more interest to me (I also strongly disliked Anderson’s use of the term maricon on page 342 since homosexual would have sufficed). Macedo’s piece speaks to me because it addresses an important issue for me, a common language for all peoples.
I don’t care if it’s English, Chinese, Spanish, or an invented language, it’s a dream of mine that all peoples of the world will one day have a unifying mode of interaction. Language is not a biological trait-like a person’s sexual orientation- it’s a cultural construct that if all people shared would help reduce the strife that exists in the world today. Proponents of English only may have bigoted motives, but their desire that all people in America have no problems communicating with each other is okay with me.
Am I selling out my people by saying this? The answer is no. A person need not be defined by the language they speak. I am merely advocating a change that would allow me the opportunity to exchange ideas with any person in the globe. It’s a pipe dream due to the “empowerment”(377) that language seems to instill in people, but it’s something that I hope world leaders will one day think about.

Adultified

Two representations of black masculinity are widespread in society and school today…as a criminal and as an endangered species(320). They are seen as mirror images, either way they are responsible for their fate(323). This is a harsh depiction of boys just wanting to be boys. Unfortunately for black boys, the color of their skin necessitates that their actions be seen as actions of deviant adults by a lens that is and has been altered by affluent whites for centuries.
The status quo won’t change anytime soon, what can change is the way that we treat students, regardless of their race, gender, or socio-economic status. As teachers we owe it to the children, as well as their parents and local community to be as fair as possible when dealing with discipline issues. Over the last few weeks we’ve witnessed numerous presentations that highlighted good techniques, based on a number of studies, to deal with children. We could research what psychologists and sociologists have said over the years on the topic of student-teacher relationships, but in the end I think I’ll just treat everybody as I would like to have been treated as a middle schooler.
The golden rule is more important to me than what these studies could ever recommend. I was once a student and I think I can translate that knowledge into molding the minds and attitudes of children at that very tumultuous time of their life. No two kids aren’t the same, but we do need to see them through the same unbiased lens.

The Peoples Among Who We Live

Adolescents live in a world that attempts to restrict their essence as much as possible (247), especially if they are of color. In this “social jungle” there’s no feeling of being alive without a sense of identity(253). Referring specifically to American teens, it has been argued that industrial democracy poses special restrictions in that it insists on self-made identities ready to grasp the perceived pervasive opportunity and ready to adjust to the changing necessities of life(255). Change itself can be a shock to the system of adolescents since it can break up the inner consistency of their hierarchy of expectations (257).
Minorities experience the psychosocial formation of identity(261) in a quite distinct manner than their white counterparts. For example, it has been inculcated into some African Americans that doing well in school is equated with “selling out” or becoming non-black(259). Although Janie Victoria Ward claims that African American females have two strikes to their being(268), I disagree with her. I think that minority men are the ones born with 2 strikes. Minority women can be discriminated for their color and possibly for their sexual practices, but they are not direct competitors of the elite white males. Minority male teens compete with white male teens in the academic, athletic, and social milieus.
From Enora R. Brown we gain an understanding of just how different the scholastic environments of these competitors can be. For poor minorities a JROTC and vocational curricula are the norm. Affluent white teens can expect the best in college and business-prep curricula. The militarization and privatization of the poor minorities’ schools are a way to continue the current social order, in which rich whites have the most to gain(277). Brown concludes with some suggestions to challenge the current educational inequities.

Teachers vs. Parents

Most people find it imperative that parents become involved with their child’s education, but can they go overboard at times? The short answer is yes. “Parent empowerment is deemed to introduce uncertainty into teacher’s work and to raise questions concerning their control over their professional discretion”.
“With their different concerns for the children, teachers and parents have often been described as enemies, rivaling over what is best for the children’s education”. If a parent sees something that they don’t like being taught to their children, they are apt to complain to the teacher. The teacher might then get upset because its authority in school is being challenged. Who is right, who is wrong?
I say that the teacher should be the main voice in a student’s schooling. The parent should provide moral support to the child, but maybe less involvement by parents is better. Teachers are trained in providing scholastic aid. If parents find fault in a teacher’s lesson, then they should do their best to come up with a suitable alternative. If in fact a fitting alternative is proposed, then, unless the teacher makes one hell of an argument that states why the lesson is detrimental to a student’s well-being. I may seem to be contradicting myself, having said that the teacher is in charge of the schoolroom, but a student deals with family more than teachers in a lifetime. Teachers should understand this and make a wholehearted effort to not discard parental involvement.

Hornbeck's self-esteem

I continue to be amazed by what some people will say when they are pushing a social agenda. When David W. Hornbeck, chair of the Task Force on Education of Young Adolescents, envisages the ideal 15 year old having a self-image of competence and strength. This isn’t too shocking for me. What is is his next statement: “This self-image will be based on the fact that the youth will be at least very good at something, because success is critical to a positive self-image.”
Hornbeck’s statement is one of the vilest things I have ever heard. I realize that kids should be given every opportunity to succeed, but success is not all there is to life. Teachers have the task of embedding virtues and values to students, not pushing them to be the best. Hornbeck must have a great self-image since he succeeded in producing one hell of a fallacy.
If Hornbeck’s words had any worth then almost nobody would participate in competition. Why would they? If they don’t think they’re very good, then there’s no use in even trying. If only very good people participate there will be further reduction in participation because only the truly gifted will be successful in such competitions. In terms of their future, Hornbeck is not inspiring teens, he is killing their spirit.