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!