Self assessment #2

1) I'd like to discuss how the the American public and government thwart human rights such as gay marriage. I'm actually excited to write a paper this time.

2) Gay marriage. With just those two words, instantly the controversy starts. Currently in the USA as of now, only seven states and a few tribal areas allow for gay marriage. So, why only a minimal amount of states? Why does gay marriage stir up such a controversy? It is a common fact that religion has a large role to play in the choice to ratify same sex marriage laws, but is there more to the story? In all honesty, a majority of citizens, I believe, are uninformed and uneducated as to the reasons why same sex marriage should be legal.

3) I'm going to definitely use Pratt's "Arts of the Contact Zone" because the gay community and straight community are both the same and different. In a different sense, they are two cultural groups, both with their own set of values and morals that they hold dear. The connections I can draw from Pratt's ideas would definitely help my paper.
I'm also going to use Adichie's "The Danger of a Single Story" because many heterosexual people have only a "single story" of the gay community. By bringing up different points and relating them to Adichie's speech can only enlighten people on the many different stories that the homosexual community  has to offer, not just a single one.
I also need to reference McIntosh's "White Privilege and Male Privilege". Although there's no mention of heterosexual privilege or homosexual privilege in this essay, the ideas that McIntosh brings up on majority privilege can be directly related to my topic.

4) The connections I can draw from my question and my developing hypothesis are more related to the text because they address the reasons why gay rights and marriage are being debated. The texts in this piece, unlike my other essays, will come into better use to properly do their job; back me up. Luckily there are texts that we've gone over that have main themes that directly coincide with the topic that I'm writing about.

5) I'm interested in this topic because I really big on equal rights, especially homosexual rights because I have friends who are gay. I respect them and they've taught me a lot of things because they're apart of a minority group that's been discriminated against. I've never known what that's felt like, so it's really awesome to hear their stories and to understand where they're coming from. I'm actually excited to write this essay because I've always wanted to learn more about this topic, so I'm actually looking forward to it. I'm the most excited to see what I come up with to back up this subject.


1) Basically, I need to focus up on how my texts connect with my paper. They both need to pertain and relate to the same topic, not to different ones. Although I did got credit for giving a thorough background on my topic, I didn't do enough with the "so what?" question. I need to find a way to better develop an evolving thesis and keep it with the same idea the entire essay. I need to find a way to link the quotes that I'm using because quotes already give credibility to an essay, but linking them together with create an extremely strong web of credibility that I need to have in my essay.

2) Since I'm writing a new essay, the feedback I've gotten from EP #3 will help me because it's given me a new light on my weaknesses. I kind of already knew a few of them, but it's also let me know new things that I need to improve upon, which need to be perfected by the time the portfolio is due!!

Essay project 3 comments

Journal Entry #6

The main project of Shorris' writing is to show that when people are given the right tools, told the information being taught will actually be USEFUL, they start  becoming involved in what is going on in the classroom. Students become eager to learn to help themselves, and thus learn how to be successful. Shorris sees that those who are poor are like that for a reason. But it's Neicie who actually explains why, it's' because children don't have "...a moral alternative to the street." This moral alternative is a way to learn things that can actually help you get through life in an alternative fashion. Politics and morals and logic need  to be taught a little differently to properly induce the transference of information from teacher to student.

I don't really understand what the "limits" of his argument are, but his argument goes something like this: being poor, but uninformed gets you nowhere, being poor and informed can get you anywhere. Being a little more specific, knowing what's going on can get allow you to do anything or get anywhere.

In today's society there are the rich and the poor, the smart and the dumb, the famous and the non-famous. But those who are low on the ladder--the poor, the dumb, and the non-famous-- are on those rungs for a reason. It's because they are products of the environment they reside in. It's the fact that they have no way of alternatively learning how to be successful in a way that is actually productive to their lifestyle. Poor folks can't become well-off because they haven't been taught like the well-off. It's a difference in the teaching of children, rich or poor, that can keep them rich, or make them poor.

Now to attempt discussion questions.

1) What is stopping more of these alternative teaching programs from starting?

2) What could be the reasoning for a project like this to start?

Journal entry #5

While coming to terms with this essay, I began to have mixed feelings about this piece. It was a little frustrating being a male and being ripped on, but I can definitely see where she's coming from. I will agree with her when she says that giving up power is the more difficult than giving power, if that makes sense. What rubs me the wrong way is when she mentions that men are afraid to give up their power. She says that "they" (notice how she uses the "us" and "they" phrases when referring to men) won't relinquish their power, but I don't know how would let someone have my power, when I don't know I got it. I don't think the majority of men are afraid, I just think they don't know how to give their power away. If you worked for the authority you have, say building a kingdom from the ground up, then yes, you would know how to give it away because you saw it grow. In my case, I didn't witness how in society men gained power. I can read about it, but seeing it happen is completely different.

Anyway, time to come to terms. In this essay it's perfect how she starts with men vs. women privilege, moves to a more broad topic that everyone can relate to, then directly compares the two. It makes her argument very strong in the sense that she has everyone's attention by paragraph three. Being male, I am totally for giving women more power in the workplace and an increase in equality. This essay turned me off a little because Peggy McIntosh is quite the feminist. I am all for women's rights, but the way she talk about racism in the "us" "they" way, then refers to men in the same fashion is frustrating to say the least. Men aren't dumb, if you want to get equal rights talk to us. :)

Journal Entry #4

1) "He was frightened, he said, that his grandchildren would never learn Spanish if he gave in like the rest of the adults and spoke English with the children. Then, he said, they would not know who they were. At the end of our conversation he repeated adamantly that nothing could make him learn to speak English, that families and cultures could not survive if the children lost their parents' language, and, finally, that learning what others wanted you to learn can sometimes destroy you."

This passage is pretty self explanatory, but it what it's basically saying is that language is directly a part of who you are. If you saw a part of you that could possibly waste away by learning something else, wouldn't you not want to learn that thing?
Language is a huge part of culture, pride, and self-identification. When you speak a certain language, there's a set of traditions and values that come with it. If you saw your traditions and values being lost by learning something else, wouldn't you not want to learn that certain thing?
English can be largely associated with being white. Because English is the global lingua franca, it would seem only natural for people to learn English to communicate. But which would you choose, your culture or a language to communicate around the world with? It would seem culture and tradition win every time.
Pride is huge here also because it's awesome to know where you came from and speak a language that your descendants spoke. This is literally showing that knowing a language can tell you who you are. If you're Spanish, and speak Spanish, then you know where and what you came from.

Another place in the text where he mentions a key concept is when he says "Until we learn to distinguish not-learning from failure and respect the truth behind this massive rejection of schooling by students from poor and oppressed communities, if will not be possible to solve the major problems of education in the United States today. Risk-taking is at the heart of teaching as well."

This concept was kind of spelled out earlier in the essay, but it has a substantial impact on me. Kids can willingly not learn on purpose, whether it's due to pride, to beat racism, or to just be "cool".
I related this quote yo myself because I've been in these shoes before. Not wanting to learn things to not succumb to the simple and remedial lessons of school, or because I thought I was really awesome because I wasn't doing what the teacher said to do. In my defiance I chose to not learn. I willingly took my brain out of the equation and refused to conform. Not only have I seen it in me, but I've seen it in my peers. Especially a friend of mine, Reese Herber. He was a brilliant kid I went to PHS with, yet after he put in his six hours a day, that was it. He didn't do homework, he didn't do projects, and refused to participate. He learned indirectly, but he still vocally told the teacher, "no".
It's also very interesting to note that this not-learning theory to be directly linked to financial well being, youth upbringing, and ultimately what race the child is. Is being discriminated against fun? No, so if you're a poor black kid who no one respects, how can you gain respect? By telling authority what you want to do and when you want to do it. If you're playing by your own rules, will people still discriminate? Way less likely.

2) The second concept of discrimination can relate directly to Gatto's essay "Against School". It brings in another factor to why school is "boring", and "non-informative". Maybe it's not about what the system is teaching, but how we bring kids up in order for them to say, "Yes, I feel comfortable and able to speak with my peers," and not be judged by peers or friends or who ever. School wouldn't be "boring", according to Gatto, if students are completely willing to learn what they're being taught. When students are not-willing to learn subjects because they don't want to, this is what makes school drab and dumb. The way educators are relaying the information needs to change. In fact, I'm pretty sure Kohl's and Gatto's essays should no doubt be quoted along with one another because they will only help each other, in terms of the themes both articles have.
At this point I'm left with this question, why is there a need for a revamp of school material, when it's really the early stages of development in children that can induce school to be boring?

I feel as though I tried to analyze and not be too introspective. :/
Did my best!

self assessment #1

I think I'm doing pretty well so far in English. I'm enjoying what we're reading because I've always tried to question the meaning of school, or how it pertains to me and my peers. It's nice to know that I'm not the only one that believes that school shouldn't be about just learning and regurgitating. Plus, some of those who are criticizing the system are college professors and doctors!
I've begun to learn the difference between juicy claims and non-juicy claims (which are new terms for me to classify theories and opinions and what not). In the past it's been difficult for me because I never really looked at writing as we have in this class, so it's been am interesting change from my post-high school norm. Just from one conference with my teacher, I've already seen what I need to do and how I need to do those things better. Citations and elaborations are what I've been told I need to do better, so I intend to, it's as simple as that.
What I'd like to learn is how to write like a pro. I know that sounds pretty vague, but when I see an essay from someone like Gatto or Friere, I'm just blown away. I wanna be able to break down what I want to say and how I want to say it in a sweet essay. I have an appreciation for writing that is well thought out and meaningful, so that's the kind of writer I would like to be. I wouldn't want to make a career out of it mind you, but writing for leisure couldn't hurt a bit.

IWA #2

In keeping with autonomous, fraternal models of community, analyses of language use commonly assume that principles of cooperation and shared understanding are normally in effect. Descriptions of interactions between people in conversation, classrooms, medical and bureaucratic settings, readily take it for granted that the situation is governed by a single set of rules or norms shared by all participants. The analysis focuses then on how those rules produce or fail to produce an orderly, coherent exchange. Models involving games and moves are often used to describe interactions. Despite whatever conflicts or systematic social differences might be in play, it is assumed that all participants are engaged in the same game and that the game is the same for all players. Often it is. But of course it often is not, as, for example, when speakers are from different classes or cultures, or one party is exercising authority and another is submitting to it or questioning it. Last year one of my children moved to a new elementary school that had more open classrooms and more flexible curricula than the conventional school he started out in. A few days into the term, we asked him what it was like at the new school. “Well,” he said, “theyre a lot nicer, and they have a lot less rules. But know why they're nicer?” “Why?” I asked. “So you'll obey all the rules they dont have,” he replied. This is a very coherent analysis with considerable elegance and explanatory power, but probably not the one his teacher would have given.



When linguistic (or literate) interaction is described in terms of orderliness, games, moves, or scripts, usually only legitimate moves are actually named as part of the system, where legitimacy is defined from the point of view of the party in authority--regardless of what other parties might see themselves as doing. Teacher-pupil language, for example, tends to be described almost entirely from the point of view of the teacher and teaching, not from the point of view of pupils and pupiling (the word doesn’t even exist, though the thing certainly does). If a classroom is analyzed as a social world unified and homogenized with respect to the teacher, whatever students do other than what the teacher specifies is invisible or anomalous to the analysis. This can be true in practice as well. On several occasions my fourth grader, the one busy obeying all the rules they didn’t have, was given writing assignments that took the form of answering a series of questions to build up a paragraph. These questions often asked him to identify with the interests of those in power over him--parents, teachers, doctors, public authorities. He invariably sought ways to resist or subvert these assignments. One assignment, for instance, calle


What kind of invention would help you? How would it help you? Why would you need it? What would it look like? Would other people be able to use it also? What would be an invention to help your teacher? What would be an invention to help your parents?d for imagining “a helpful invention.” The students were asked to write single-sentence responses to the following questions:




In my opinion Pratt's theory can be described as whoever is in the authoritarian position, has the power to except and acknowledge subordinate voices. This is very apparent in the media, which we view everyday of our lives. If you flip on the television, you'll see a million different stories about fires and robberies and floods, but are these stories actually helping the public directly? It's not to say that being informed about a string of robberies in a neighborhood one lives in isn't necessary, but it's not helping to advance person to person relations or a need to promote acceptance of sexual preference. If you watch carefully, you'll notice that 80% of the stories that make it on the air are all for shock value, and in turn make you want to do something about what you just saw. But if the proprietor of a network only airs what he/she wants to air, then the only issues getting solved are those that the administrator deems acceptable. If a network is biased on issues (Fox), then other issues, say for example the public wants to have solved, won't be even glanced at due to subordinates having little power against 'authoritarian power" (the voice that authorities have).This is asinine because the millions of people who are subjected to carefully chosen subjects everyday, are only convinced that what the TV is showing, is what needs to be done.