Rules are not inherently neutral

I am currently struggling trying to find my own understanding of Ferguson's commentary about the use of rules in the classroom.  I don't think that the existence of classroom rules, by themselves, are inherently oppressive.  And I don't *think* she is saying that either.  I do agree that it is important to understand that rules are not neutral.  The rules that we write can cater to particular students more than others, and we may not even realize that they are doing that.  For example, some of the students in the article were punished for not speaking "proper English."  The rejection of the students home language patterns in this way, sends a message to the students that they, and their families, are not respected by the school or their teachers.  It's not surprising that they would develop methods to try to save face as a result.  By developing and enforcing rules that reinforce the valuing of the "normal" white culture,  school rules do end up operating as instruments of normalization that help keep those who are in power in power.  

I also think that what is the most important lesson in this article is that rules are not enforced in an equal way.  I think we all know that when we were in school some kids got away with stuff that other kids couldn't.  The ways in which these rules are enforced tends to correlate with societal expectations of race, class, and gender.  (There is a great article called "The Saints and the Roughnecks" that talks about how socioeconomic status affects this.)   Biased enforcement of school rules can also carry over into how students are tracked.  "Troublemakers" are more likely to be tracked into more remedial classes.  If race affects who is considered to be a troublemaker, then it is no surprise that tracks are racially segregated even within ethnically diverse schools.  This was certainly the case at my high school.  Segregated tracking contributes to a social reproduction that reinforces power relationships in our society.  

Social Reproduction

The readings for this week, especially the article about Mountain View and Ground View schools reminded me of a quote from that article "Still Separate Still Unequal," by Jonathan Kozol.  Kozol interviewed some students at a school like Ground View about their school and the classes available to them, like sewing and hairdressing 1 and 2.  One particularly astute kid explained it this way: "The owners of sewing factories need laborers. It’s not going to be their own kids. You’re ghetto so we send you to the factory. You’re ghetto, so you sew."  Schools like Mountain View trains students to be working class or poor adults.  It sends these students the message that they aren't valued.  The metal detectors, ID badges, and prominently displayed class schedules send them the message that they are expected to misbehave.  That they are expected to be criminals.  And, perhaps, by now, we are all beginning to realize this.  I think we all know that something needs to be done about this.  

The flip side is trickier, though.  Should we be changing Mountain View?  These kids are learning the opposite of the kids from Ground View.  They are learning to be executives.  They are learning to lead.  Is there anything wrong with that?  Isn't that the ideal? I'm not so sure.  They are also learning to be entitled.  They are learning that they are the norm.  That everything that is different from them is "less than", not simply "different from."  

And to a certain extent, we learn the same thing.  As Saltman explains, when we think of kids from working class and poor backgrounds as having "risk factors," "we assume that the privileged position is the norm, the benchmark, or the ideal against which other identities will be judged."  But an identity that includes an overdeveloped sense of entitlement is not ideal.  The flip side of inequality is privilege.  To have true equality, we need to equally consider both.

what are our values, as teachers?

I am in the social action group.  I conducted research based on the idea of incorporating social justice into the curriculum.  One idea that came up over the course of my research was one's approach to "teaching values."  On the surface, this is a general idea, which can be defined in all kinds of ways.  I have frequently heard the idea that teachers should be apolitical.  We should be objective and value-neutral.  I think this is impossible.  And I am not alone.  At some point in most of the articles that I have read, each author mentioned that teaching is not an objective, value neutral activity. 

We are told to avoid "difficult" and "uncomfortable" topics like racism or oppression so as not to make our students uncomfortable or offend their parents.  But this is not value-neutral.  Whenever we make a discussion about what content to cover in class and what to leave out, we are making decisions that convey values.  As Kraft (one of the authors of my articles) explains, "choosing to avoid serious discussions about social issues is a value judgment that perpetuates injustice, racism, sexism, classism, and inequality."  We cannot remain silent on these issues unless we want to perpetuate these problems.

Furthermore, encouraging your students to take action and teaching them about examples of social activists who have effected change is no more biased than pretending that the world is fair and equal.  Doing nothing is not value-free or objective; it is irresponsible. Regardless of what we say or do, or don't say or don't do, we are role models.  I, for one, would like to be a role model that suggests that the world should and can be changed for the better.  I would like to be a role model that shows that fighting racism, sexism, classism, and homophobia are moral imperatives in our society.