Sexual Orientation in The Classroom

My most pointed memory and reaction to GLBT issues in the high school classroom actually happened shortly after I went to college.  I hated English in high school, and many of my English teachers.  But my junior year I had a teacher I really liked.  She not only told us she was going to treat us like adults, but actually did.  She also gave us eye opening, higher level reading.  Farewell to Arms was way beyond anything I had read before, and I loved it.  At the time I didn't realize she was gay.  I never really put much though to it, and it wouldn't have mattered if I had known.  Fast forward back to college.  Taking the train, talking to old classmates I found out she had left under pressure.  One student's mother really didn't like the teacher and had berated her over some offensive language in one of the books in the list for summer reading.  Then a student came out and said that the teacher had flirted/propositioned her.  The teacher was suspended and the witch hunt really began.  I feel like it was an attack on the teacher's way of life and how she did treat us more like adults than children.  in the end the school found out that the claims made against the teacher were false, and tried to bring the teacher back.  She told them to pound sand and went off on her own way.  The reason this sticks out in my mind is that I don't remember having many if any GLBT conversation in high school.  There was some type of diversity club, but nothing was ever discussed outside of that.  So now my only memory of how GLBT is treated at my old school is it's either not discussed or a negative. That's not how I want my classroom and school to be.  We may not agree with the students' way of life, but we should still be accepting.        

Intelligence

It seems like there are two opposing forces in the world of intelligence today.  One side is interested in the output from the person, how they react to the world, and can they function in it.  And the other side is looking for each individual process in the brain.  Even though there is an overlap of the two there are also many differences.  In Gardner's article he omits intelligences that seen as socially important as others.  but these individual intelligences that aren't as important might build to others that are.  I think the best way to truly discover the different intelligences is from the ground up.  Find as many isolated intelligences as possible, then build them to see how they effect each other.  The only problem is this means you need to isolate each part of the brain, or shut off all others.  Only by systematically going through the brain can you really discover each individual intelligence and where it is located in the brain.  But outside observations and even observations that scan the brain aren't sufficient because they don't allow for enough of a control.  There are too many factors that can be overlooked, and even if you see part of the brain light up, there might be a secondary point that is also important, but isn't as busy.  So I feel like until this is done there will be more debate than consensus on what defines intelligence and how it can be used to rack and stack students in the classroom.  Because that is what measuring intelligence is about.  It's about projecting which students should be challenged in what areas then  let off in others.      

Dow Critical Care

This article missed the mark for me.  It left me wanting more but not in a good way.  For spending two years at the school she seemed much more interested in talking about theory than the student's responses.  Even though she did use quotes from them, she went into very little detail about each student and for as long as the article was didn't make their situations impact me as much as the books or other articles have.  "My identity, interests, and past personal and professional experiences influenced how I approached this study, as well as how I was able to gain access and build relationships at the research site"(Rolón-Dow 2005).  This quote also scared me a little.  It looked like she went to the school with this paper already written and picked the best fitting quotes to make it work.  Many of the teachers did show evidence of subversive racism, Mr. Rosenfield was a great example.  But I think although she acknowledged it early on she didn't equate some of the teachers' remarks to them being short staffed and underpaid.  If I spent 30 years like that I would likely make some harsh remarks without meaning to be racist.   So although I liked parts of the article, on the whole it seemed to be written more for other scholars or as a self-fulfilling prophecy rather then personal growth or growth of the issue.

Kimmel Article

I really liked this article although it leaves more questions at the end.  If Freud is correct and when going up we compete with our fathers innately, then how do we counter homophobia later on?  And is it really that children fear being gay or are they using that as a cover for their own inadequacies?  I believe it is the latter which then can help answer the first question.  If children are lashing out at each other because they fear being weak that's where the father needs to step in and show the child how to be a man, and where strength and kindness are important in life.  And this can help separate homophobia from  inadequacy.  And when they are separated homophobia becomes easier to combat because it now doesn't conflict with the child's inner desires.  The child can learn that being gay doesn't mean being weak and being straight doesn't mean being strong.  Even though the father is the lead is most of this, any male figures can help show the child how to be an adult.  So as a male teacher I will be a role model for how a grown male should act and respect others.  

Week 3 Readings

     Both of the readings were a bit of eye openers for me.  But the book by Lee was much more so than the textbook reading.  The reading on language was interesting because I really hadn't though much about it before.  It's always interesting to hear someone's accent but I never put it into the grand scheme of how I or society looks at people who speak differently.  After hearing so many different accents I try to hold off any judgements of a person based off their accent.  But at the same time the accent and the culture behind it are very interesting to learn.  Over time hopefully I can get to learn the complete person.
     The book by Lee really shook my mind though.  I have put very little effort over the years in thinking about Asian minorities and the trials they face.  Other then the periods during WWII and their initial immigration to the western US I thought that Asians faced little discrimination.  But in the reading it made a lot of sense.  Due to the success of many Asians they are in a weird grey area.  They are not quite White, but neither are Black or Hispanic.  And the book likes to show how most people also look at the minority culture like I do.  I'm still in the processing  phase so I don't know what more to write. I will have to think more on this subject.     

Reaction to Children of Immigration

     While reading this book I thought a lot about one of my old co workers.  Looking at her allows me to put both the positives and negatives of immigration, legal and illegal into context.  Brenda was a salad/prep cook that worked in the kitchen.  She came here on a work visa from Guatemala.  One thing that many people often criticize and this book often talks about is immigrants stealing jobs away from Americans.  Well after she left we never had that position consistently filled, because it was a hard position that didn't pay well.  The only ones who might take it were high school students, and they often flaked out.  So I really do have a hard time believing immigrants steal all of these amazing jobs from us.  Most aren't jobs we would take, even if we had a choice.  But another issue that I think is a bigger point is that immigrants draw out from the economy more then they put in.  And not necessarily in services but as an overall effect.  Brenda worked several jobs but lived very lightly, and this was because she sent the vast majority of the money back home to help her relatives.  And this is money that isn't being fed back into the economy.  Even if she pays for her relatives to move here, they will then do similar.  So even though she isn't drawing much services she also isn't adding much to the economy.  And this was further expanded  when her work visa expired, yet she still stayed here.  She was fired from her job where I worked, because the owner didn't want to have an illegal immigrant working for him.  But she found another place that would hire her and pay her under the table.  So then she was making money, that wasn't being taxed, and sending it overseas.  With enough people in similar situations, the economy could be hurt a little or even a lot.  But I agree with this book that immigration is demonized more then it should be.  And it was interesting to learn how many illegal immigrants weren't from South America, but from other countries and had just overstayed their visa.
      This book has had some impact on how I will teach, but not a lot.  I still want to learn about my students, both immigrants and those who's lineage has traced back here generations.  I think that understanding and allowing your students to express themselves is the best way to have them grow and learn.  That's why I really liked how this book looked into different motives for immigrants to come here.  Because the difference in attitude, motives, and outlook between a group that moved to make more money and one that moved to escape persecution is something that you need to be able to look for and understand.  And I think how this book opened my eyes to why different groups have moved here and how it effects them will allow me to be a better teacher. 

I really enjoyed the text Racial Formation much more than White Privilege.  The second text was a smaller point of view encompassed in Racial Formation.  And it also felt very whiny and gave no real solutions to the problems faced in this country by minorities.  It just stated a few issues and left me more bored than anything else.  But Racial Formation had a lot more background information.  It was brief, only twelve pages, but looked at the issues surrounding race and racism from multiple points.  Even though the passage came to similar conclusions as White Privilege, it made a much better argument for them.  It also showed some of the flaws of the liberal point of view, as well as discussing the pros and cons of the  neoconservative point of view.  It allowed me to better understand my own point of view and where it fits into two of the major points of view.  I personally have a view closer to the neoconservative view, but it's more moderate and falls somewhere in between the two points of view.  The past needs to be studied and remembered, else we are doomed to repeat it.  And equal rights in this country have really only been around for fifty years of the countries almost two hundred and fifty year history, so there is still work to be done.  But I don't want to live in the past and exaggerate the problems of the present as the liberal point of view does.  And reading Racial Formation help solidify these beliefs but also opened my eyes to some of the struggles still faced.  It was a very enlightening read.