Blog 2

1) "Learning itself-the learning of a skill, or the enjoying of a book, and even having an idea-is now defined increasingly not as a process or preoccupation that holds satisfaction of its own but in proprietary terms, as it were the acquistion of an object or stock-option or the purchase of a piece of land. 'Taking ownership" is the accepted term, which now is used both by the kids themselves and also by their teachers. Most people like to think they 'get' ideas, 'understand' a process or 'take pleasure' in the act of digging into a good book. In the market driven classroom, children are encouraged to believe they 'own' the book, the concept, the idea. They don't engage with the knowledge; they process it" (Kozol 97).

This particular passage grabbed my attention simply because of the way these educators are referring to how/what the students are "learning", or in their terminology, "owning". Seeing as the kids are also using this term, to me, shows that the natural enjoyment and desire to learn for the fun of it has been taken away. As the quote says, most people think they "get" ideas or "understand" a process, which also shows that these people acknowledge there is room for further interpretation or explanation on what they think they "get" or "understand". The way these teachers talk about their students and their knowledge makes it sound rather closed-minded or as if they are headed down a one way road. In this respect, they are doing exactly what the quote says; processing the information, but not engaging with it! Here, the students are learning because they have no other choice, and the way in which they are being taught doesn't allow them to actually "learn" the knowledge, more like memorize and never internalize. It is such a surprise to hear the way Kozol presents teachers and how they consider their classroom as more as running a business and preparing for various "management" positions!

2) "Teachers in the elementary grades within the districts generally feel they can allow themselves the luxury of letting youngsters wander off from time to time into a subject that holds interest for them, but has no direct, or even indirect, connection with the competencies to be measured by the state. It is a different story in too many inner-city schools where deviations from a charted road set off alarm bells for the supervisory officials and where teachers who are not eternally "on task"-one of a number of such stolidly directive terms imported from the world of industry-are made to understand that they will bear the burden of responsibility if the percentile gains demanded, for example, by one of those school improvement plans are not attained within the time prescribed" (Kozol 110).

This quote jumped out to me as I was reading because for me I feel like it is such a relevant statement and is certainly a current concern in today's schools. I think it is a shame that student's who aren't meeting sufficient levels on standardized tests, more specifically referred to here as urban schools, have to lose that opportunity for "fun" or other types of engaging activities beyond sitting and preparing for a test. Not allowing students to have that chance to just interact with one another based on personal interests and whatnot is damaging for the students with respect to their social skills and other developmental characteristics. Once again, as it is presented, if these teachers do wonder "off task" then it is primarily their responsibility to be ready to deal with the consequences or be able to bring the students back up to par with everyone else. The "burden" of responsibility almost humored me. Is it really considered that inconvienant for a classroom teacher, whether or not his/her students are passing or not, to allow for some deviation, but also be able to get back on track? The way the word "burden" was used definitely makes it sound like it isn't even worth trying to deviate!

3) "Requiring African American history will be "divisive", they claim, further tearing the city apart rather than uniting it. But what kind of argument is this? Are we to believe that standard American history has been unifying? The kind of history that largely ignores the contributions and struggles of persons of color in the U.S.? The history that too often paints an image of Africa suggesting there were no signs of civilization there before whites arrived, and thus that black history doesn't begin until slavery? The kind of history that relegates black folks to one month out of the year, and even then only teaches about a few prominent figures: Dr. King, Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, and perhaps Rosa Parks?" (Tim Wise "Black History Course").

When I started to read this article I was actually rather surprised as to how this was as big of an issue as it was proposed to be. However, the point made about having one month a year to dedicate to "black folks" isn't enough. In doing this, I have seen from working in the elementary schools, that students are very engaged and interested in learning about people like Dr. King, Harriet Tubman, and so on, who have all been an important part of our history. I think it is important to integrate all cultures and traditions into history, because afterall, there is so much more to history as Tim Wise notes than what lies behind American history. I do see this integration though and this is a positive part of what the students learn because it further emphasizes the importance of teaching about every "point on the line".

4) "Segregation invariably results in school systems that are "seperate and unequal" because segregated schools are differently funded, with fewer resources provided to schools in poor communities and vastly superior resources provided to schools in wealthier communities. Segregation also results in students receiving differential schooling on the basis of their social class,race, and ethnicity. In addition, schools that serve students of color tend to provide curricula that are watered down and at a lower level than schools that serve primarily White students" (Anthology--Canestrari 49/50).

I chose this quote because it reminded me of one of the videos by Kozol that was watched for the discussion board. The idea of being separate but "unequal" is proven through the facts that their is unequal funding distributed between school districts, students having teachers who perhaps aren't as educated as those we may find in a wealthier neighborhood, and so on. The same question that pops into my head time after time is why does it have to happen this way? What is it that creates an unequal distribution between funds? It is so surprising to see that our schools still today face these certain faults. However, I believe that unlike in previous years, today we are more desegregated but even more segregated in terms socioeconomic status. In the conclusion of this paragraph, it was said that "desegregating schools in and of itself does not guarantee educational equity". Then what will? If problems such as these are occurring and are well known, why is it that the most popular thing to do is to simply turn ones head the other way and hope that the next person will fix it? The students shouldn't have to suffer and have their education jeopardized for something that can be helped from the guidance of teachers, parents, community, and other influential people.

5) "The teacher, students and their families, the school, or even the school district alone cannot bring about meaningful change in urban schools. But together they can create highly successful schools that ensure achievement for all students and that function as a service to the community" (Anthology--Canestrari 162).

This shorter quote immediately reminded me directly of the blog I had just read for "Bridging Differences". The notion that TEACHERS alone are not enough to make a meaningful change was not as directly stated in Bridging Differences but rather inferred. These 2 texts were almost opposite with regards to supporting the idea of everyone in the community having to work as a whole to make a meaningful change versus the community and other educational leaders being against the teachers thinking it is their fault the students are meeting standardized test scores. I know the above quote is focusing on urban schools, but this is something that holds true for any school system or even society in general that is looking to promote a meaningful change in some way shape or form. I think when teachers dont collaborate, when parents aren't involved, and when the school district isn't even aware of certain problems that might affect the students' chances of receiving equal eduacation, then once again, it is the students that suffer in the long run. However, it isn't just the students as I learned in the Bridging Differences blog; the teachers seem to have had plenty to lose too if things weren't looking up for them!