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.

Indeed the fox is now guarding the henhouse

I enjoyed Lounsbury and Vars's use of the metaphor of the fox now guarding the henhouse to discuss the ways in which the consolidation of the corporate and political elite means that the corporate elite are setting public policy that will, in the end, help sustain their own interests, not the interests of the average middle school student, and certainly not the interests of poor middle school students.  Related to this is the current emphasis on standardized tests and mandated assessments that claim to provide a better education for all, but instead, really create a pedagogy that contradicts the teaching of critical thinking skills and manufactures a crisis that is used to push for a specific political agenda: for the use of vouchers and for profit management of education.  Consider the following quote "is it too extreme or an exaggeration to suggest that high-stakes testing may be lobotomizing an entire generation of young people?"  Yes, it is a little extreme, but there is also a kernel of truth there.  

I also enjoyed the discussion present in a couple of the articles about the necessity of teaching the middle school student how to become a good citizen.  However, I also thought it was interesting how much what it means to be a good citizen can vary depending on who is doing the defining.  For the Carnegie foundation, a good citizen is one who accepts responsibility, is a "doer not just an observer," who will understand the genesis of the United States and its basic values, and will participate in "appropriate ways" in the government.  Although, on the surface, these all sound like good things, I think what is significant to this is what it does not mention.  What are the values of the United States?  What does it mean to participate in "appropriate ways?"  What is a "positive sense of global citizenship?"  

I don't know where to start.

First, I am disturbed by the trend in our society of sexualizing young people, especially girls.  We talked about this a little in class.  Our body ideal for women is one that is prepubescent.  It is not a surprise, then, that prepubescent girls also become sexualized.  Our toys, clothing, and appearance expectations for girls represent them as miniature adults.  Some of my favorite examples of this is clothing from stores like baby gap and old navy selling miniature versions of adult clothes - down to low rise jeans for toddlers.  Really, nothing is more practical then low rise jeans for kids who are still wearing diapers.  It reminds me of the SNL commercial for thong diapers.  Which brings me to my next example: thongs being sold at abercrombie for kids.  I'm sorry, but I don't think that any 7 year old should be wearing a thong.  There is also the current trend of selling girls' dress shoes (for kids aged 3 and up) with heels.   I think libby lu is also a good example of this weirdness.  I am so glad that they have gone out of business!  

As for the beauty pageant business, as creepy as we all seem to think it is, I would venture that some of us are watching toddlers in tiaras, a new show on TLC, I think, about child beauty pageants.  Why do we watch them?  I think I do because, honestly, it's like watching a sideshow act.  You can't look away.  It's why the film "Little Miss Sunshine" was so funny.  But I recognize my culpability in indirectly supporting beauty pageants by watching this show.  I should probably stop watching it.  By the way, did you know that many child beauty pageants now have swimsuit competitions as part of the pageant?  I don't get it.  Kids on toddler with tiaras get spray tans, bleached hair, more makeup than you can shake a stick at, and these things called "flippers" which are false teeth so that their smiles are perfect during a time when they might be losing their baby teeth.  oy.  The question, to me, is not IF these practices are damaging to young girls, but rather, what can and should we do about them?

On the other hand, the stats from the teen bashing article are confusing.  I agree with other posts that he seems to both critique and support some statistics in order to make his point in ways that seem hypocritical.  I also agree that there have been article written more recently (Barry Glassner has a whole chapter in his book, "CUlture of Fear" that deals with the myth of killer kids.)  that may seem more relevant.  But I think it is important to point out that this doesn't mean we should reject the use of statistics entirely, but rather, make an informed decision about which statistics have the most credibility.  I think a lot of the people in this class grew up in the wake of Columbine, and this has affected our understanding of youth violence.  But, it's important to point out that although school shootings seemed like an epidemic for a while, this is largely because of the media coverage.  School shootings are incredibly statistically insignificant.  As Males points out, youth are exponentially more likely to be killed by an adult family member than they are to kill anyone, themselves.  I think Males' best point is considering WHY the problem is constructed in this way.  The answer is that it benefits groups who make a living based on this idea - the media - who sell papers and commercials based on this premise, government politicians who run campaigns based on these beliefs, and "specialists" who make money treating the "violent kids."  

selling adolescence

Yes, the social construction of adolescence is pretty interesting to think about. Historical context plays a significant role in how we understand so many things. I think we tend to take for granted that if something has any biological basis, that makes it "natural." However, society's understanding of those biological changes is entirely dependent on historical context. I think it is interesting that the article mentions changing economic contexts but doesn't mention the role that marketing has played in the development of adolescence, or youth, and a cultural category. The article does discuss the changing economic context and increased economic security contributed to the development of a new transitional category between childhood and adulthood.  

But, it does not mention that after WWII, the economic boom in the United States led to the development of a new marketing category: the teenager. This wasn't the first time adolescence had been created as a marketing category, but it grew exponentially when marketers realized that teens had a lot of disposable income that had not been there a decade before.  For example, the combination of changing technologies that led to the development of 45's and adolescent disposable income changed to a new youth market in music.  This is what led to the popularization of rock n roll.

 Furthermore, economic conditions can alter the biology of puberty. The article mentions that the increase in access to good nutrition over the last 50-100 years has contributed to earlier menarche.  More recently, the increase in use of hormonal injections in dairy and beef cows is believed to have caused an even more rapid decrease in the age of menarche for girls.  

This, too has had an impact on marketing.  The way the marketing of menstrual products has changed over time reflects changing societal beliefs about menstruation and the age at the onset of menstruation.  Those silly ads that say to "have a happy period" actually have significant cultural meaning.  heh heh.  

Anti-Oppressive Education

I found Kumashiro's article both enlightening and frustrating.

As a sociology professor, I have taught about the exact issues that Kumashiro mentions for the past five years.  On the first day of every class, I tell my students that if they learn nothing else from the class, I hope that they will learn how to think critically.  For me, this is more than what Kumashiro suggests.  He critiques the critical pedagogy if it focuses on having the students react about their own experiences of oppression as "the other" by providing a sort of tokenism that demands that they speak for whatever othered group that they represent.  I'm not sure that I agree with this.  If teaching critically is done well, it does not single out any group.  You should teach all of your students to think critically.  It is the first and necessary step to ending oppression.  

I also agree that creating specialized units, by themselves, can reinforce the distinction of "the other."  Having unique, self-contained units on "The Native Americans" or "African-Americans" or "Famous Women in history" does not challenge the norm, in that it reinforces their "other" status.   Integrating the experiences of all Americans into an American History class just makes good sense.  Acknowledging the ways in which power is implicated in this story is important, too.  

I do agree with Kumashiro's advocation of reflexive thinking and I believe this should be a part of any teaching strategy.  Self-reflexiveness is an essential skill for both students and teachers.  I believe that self-reflexive writing about one's experiences of learning and teaching are necessary to being the process of "unlearning" and "relearning."  I believe that it can be a successful strategy for effecting change and eroding oppression.  I also believe that it cannot be the only strategy.  

 

Oppression is a structural problem.  As teachers, we can try to fight oppression on a structural level in the schools and to train a new generation to fight oppression in their own lives.  Just as Kumashiro suggests that awakening students to the oppression they experience and perpetuate can overwhelm them, upset them, and get them "stuck," I believe Kumashiro, himself, runs the risk of doing the same with this article. I understand that my academic background puts me in a position to agree with Kumashiro and understand his concepts in a way that some of the other students in our class may not.  That being said, I found myself overwhelmed reading the article, thinking "it's such a big problem, we can never eliminate oppression."  And, honestly, in our lifetimes, we probably can't.  It is hard for us, as potential teachers, not to get "stuck" because of this feeling.  Getting "stuck" can produce inaction.  And doing nothing, in and of itself, is an act.  But there are things we can do.  I would have liked some more concrete strategies of effecting change provided by Kumashiro in the article.  Even if we can't eliminate oppression all at once, we can push for change in the right direction.   Teaching is a learning process in the same way that being a student is.  We try strategies and see what works, and change to try to make things better.  We falter, but we keep fighting.