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.