Single Sex Schools...

Peter Siner

“Foley Intermediate School began offering separate classes for boys and girls a few years ago, after the school’s principal, Lee Mansell, read a book by Michael Gurian called “Boys and Girls Learn Differently!” After that, she read a magazine article by Sax and thought that his insights would help improve the test scores of Foley’s lowest-achieving cohort, minority boys.”

I thought this was a little strange how the principal could change the entire system of the school based off of a reading that she had done.  I also find it strange that there wasn’t a complete uproar from the parents of the children, generally when something changes, people have a problem with it. I thought that fundamental changes in a schools system had to be done by the superintendent not the principal.

“Sax estimates that in the fall of 2002, only about a dozen public schools in the United States offered any kind of single-sex educational options (excluding schools which offered single-sex classrooms only in health or physical education). By this past fall, Sax says, that number had soared to more than 360, with boys- and girls-only classrooms”

The change from coed schools to split boys and girls public schools in the US greatly increased. However I wonder if the change has occurred due to results in other schools or because parents and school committee members like the idea of it. I would think that parents would want the interaction between boys and girls inside of the school to help promote a more socially inclined individual. However I really can’t say from experience as whether or not being in an all-girls or boys public school changes things, and if it does how much it actually does.          

“early proposals was that boys should start kindergarten at age 6, a year later than girls, in order to ease the “sense of scholastic incompetence” that so many boys feel early on because they tend to develop later.”

This concept seems to be a little ridiculous. It seems as though we are making an extremely soft generation by saying boys should be going to school later so they don’t feel bad that girls are doing better. I went to a public school, and I went to kindergarten at 5, whether I thought girls were smarter than me or not at the age, it hasn’t affected me now. As a matter of fact the top students in my class of high school were mainly boys. The sense of competition between boys and girls at the elementary age seems to be almost vital. Interaction between both boys and girls I would assume is important to a child, friendships are built at young ages as well as a general understanding for one another.

“That certainly appears to be the case for single-sex schools. The data do not suggest that they’re clearly better for all kids. Nor do they suggest that they’re worse. The most concrete findings from the research on single-sex schools come from studies of Catholic schools”

If I were a principal or super intendant this statement would have scared me a little bit. While there are certainly schools that have improved due to the change there were also those that did not have the same luck. In these cases I am curious as to if the change in the school environment led to improvement or the actual change from the coed school to a single sex. It would have been interesting if studies were done to compare coed classes that had changes done to the lesson plans and the schools that changed to a single sex school and compare any improvements.

Wise A particularly cheap white wine

A particularly cheap white wine (Wise)

"White students are twice as likely as their african american or latino counterparts to be taught by the most highly qualified teachers and half as likely to have least qualified instructors in class." 

            I found this quote to be ridiculous, the way the quote sounds makes it seem as though whites have more qualified instructors because they are white. While this may be true in some cases there are probably cases in which black students have more qualified instructors. It seems as though the correlation between poor environments and black people living there is what  allows for the accuracy of this quote, therefore this would change the very approach the author is trying to make. If the statement read:  wealthier people have a greater chance to be taught by higher qualified students than the poor then this would not be associated to race but social status and the correlation between race and social wealth. In this case a few more issues arise, why do students with less wealth obtain lesser education, and how are there teachers coming out of college that are less qualified than the next. Lastly, where is the data being used by the author to make these statements?

“Special efforts to provide access and opportunity to such persons should be made not because they are black, per se, or Latino or whatever; but because to be a person of color has meant something in this country.”

This really is a great counter-argument to the idea that it is unfair for people of minority to have greater chances than whites in certain aspects. The author is right, color means a lot more in this country than some others and the negative connotations and inequalities sometimes in place should be countered by helping those of minority to overcome racial injustices in society. However maybe this boost given to some minorities doesn’t encourage equality but inequality by allowing help to very certain individuals, however it may also promote equality by allowing minorities with any disadvantage or just in general to be at the same level as the majority. I do not disagree with this statement however I wish the mind set was that color no longer held any inequalities and that our country, the country of freedom and tolerance would be better and stronger than our ancestors country.

“As for racism, it is typically defined in two ways, both as ideology and practice.”

The quote goes on to define both of these different categories, ideology racism as being a sense of inherent superiority while institutionally, racism effects policies, practices or procedures that cause inequality between races.

This quote definitely categorizes some of the ideas of racism that are present in both an ideological as well as institutional sense, however I do not think this completely sums up racism. Racism is ignorance, complete ignorance. Many people form uneducated opinions about other races, these ideas are not only in the United States it is present across the world.  I feel as though racism within political policies has greatly decreased over the years. In many cases minorities are given extra support in college or employment opportunities.

Foxy News: The Cable News Home For Sexism & Scantily Clad Women

Just a few examples of FOX news sexism...

In The Service of What?

In the moral domain, service learning activities tend toward two types of

relationships. Relationships that emphasize charity we will call "giving." Those

that aim primarily to deepen relationships and to forge new connections we

will call "caring."

I feel as though using these two different titles for those who help out is a little unfair. To automatically assume that those who participate merely give and that those who participate in the long term are caring isn’t necessarily accurate. For some people whose busy work or school schedule don’t allow for much dedicated time for good cause writing a check is an easier and still efficient way of helping others. While it is most definitely true that there are those who write a check and don’t want to explore where the money or food or time is going to, can we really criticize them? I think the people who actually go into the needy community to help are caring, and they definitely must have the time to do so, but I don’t believe one person has more caring qualities then the other. For a person who works 50 hours a week and donates the money made from 5 of those hours, it’s still technically time they have put into it. I think both forms of giving are great and neither should be promoted as the better of the two. It’s hard to disagree with someone’s generosity whether it is in the form of a check, or actual time.

Those who focus primarily on charity believe

That, to be properly educated in a democracy, students must undergo

experiences that demonstrate the value of altruism and the dangers of

exclusive self-interest. They stress the importance of civic duty and the need

for responsive citizens. Volunteerism and compassion for the less fortunate

are the undergirding conceptions of political socialization associated with this

vision.

While both giving and caring are important aspects of society they provide different outcomes for the participating individual. A large check can be just as important as the time a person can give in some situations, however someone who “cares” rather than “gives” may experience a different experience and benefit from it. The ability to actually embrace a needy environment and lend a helping hand can help in the transformation from citizen t an educated and well-rounded citizen of a democracy. These people begin to learn selflessness and also form an appreciation for what they have by working with those who are in need of the given service. Charity doesn’t always result in a matured citizen but it does result in a good citizen with a desire to help others.

 We think it is better to be explicit about the numerous and different visions that drive the creation and implementation of service learning activities in schools.

"In the service of what?" is a question that inevitably merits the attention of

teachers, policy makers, and academicians who take seriously the idea that

learning and service reinforce each other and should come together in

America's schools.

The service learning projects greatly impact the students in the classroom as well as the person participating in the “service” By being able to recognize the impact one has on a classroom and even in other aspects of society there is evidence of improvement. The idea that learning and service reinforce each other is quite apparent now. After actually having a hands on approach to this servicing learning and helping out a classroom full of students I can see how actually being in the classroom is better than donating pencils. The impact one individual can have on many is quite incredible and is worth working on.

Christensen, "Unlearning the Myths That Bind Us,"

Christensen, "Unlearning the Myths That Bind Us," 

Peter Siner

Quote 1

“I start by showing students old cartoons… we both look at the roles women, men, people of color, and poor people play in cartoons. I ask students to watch for who plays lead, who plays buffoon…”

Let me start by stating how ridiculous this article is, Christensen is asking students to dissect their childhood and look into any kind of influence they had and find what’s racist or sexist about it, not at first glance but after thoroughly looking into it. I know things start to ware on people after a while but I don’t think I ever used analytic processes when I was five watching cartoons.  But let’s play along and answer Christensen’s questions, women and men generally played the lead roles, love was usually involved and some kind of power. Women were not always seen as inferior in fact the first movie, Snow White has a woman as the main character, she isn’t scantily clothed, and she is loved by the animals. Men’s roles vary drastically throughout the many movies so it’s hard to pinpoint what they are. I watched many Disney movies as a child the only people of color I can think of in these movies are those which play leading roles, also poor people in movies usually prosper at the end because of personality and merit. For instance Aladdin is about an Arab man who is poor; he falls in love with the princess but is not allowed to marry her. Already this depicts a poor person of color as the main character and a woman holding a dominant ruling role as princess. Although they cannot marry due to Aladdin’s social status his personality and perseverance changes the Sultans mind. This is racist?

In another movie a woman strives to fight for her country after her father dies, her determination leads her to enlist in the military and hide her gender in order to fight. Not only is this another movie where a woman is the main character but this woman is also Asian. The movie is Mulan. Another movie depicts a young boy raised by wolves after he is abandoned, he is adopted by a bear and taught by a lion, both of which are dark colors (dark gray and black). They are both characters that represent good; the evil characters are the orange tiger and the green snake. The boy is Indian, and the movie is the Jungle Book, another example of a story in which someone other than a white person in dominant.  To say that cartoons and Disney movies only depict other cultures as evil and stupid is an easy way to falsely accuse all cartoons of racism. Another movie Pocahontas, is about a Native American woman, she is beautiful and one with nature. Disney gives her a lot more credit than she deserves. The name Pocahontas is a nickname for the “naughty one” and John Smith said on many occasions that she would do naked cartwheels through the town to entertain him. Now if Disney was a racist and sexist propaganda producer why wouldn’t they use a true story to demine women and minorities? I find it somewhat hypocritical that we can look for the racism in Disney movies and then turn around and talk about why it’s good to introduce children to homosexuality by reading them a book about 2 rich kings who are gay,  doesn’t this glorify being gay a little?

Quote 2

While there is no one quote to sum this up, there is a lot of talk about how people that are darker are evil while white is peaceful and good, for example Ursula from the Little Mermaid. Yes she is dark, she is also a squid or an octopus which are generally dark, not to mention their ink is black. This idea that black magic means bad because of black people is also nonsense. It is correct that Western world views black as evil and white as good, but Asia and Africa do just the opposite. Russians, Chinese, Japanese, and many South Africans are white skinned so if this notion that good and bad colors are based on peoples skin doesn’t make much sense.  The very idea of black magic being evil and white being good actually dates as far back as Ancient Egypt during the invasion of the Cush Tribe. Are we to say that people who had never seen a white man and people whose population made up of black people thought their own skin color should depict evil?

Quote 3

“They graded each show A through F and wrote a brief summary of their findings”

The students graded childhood’s shows and movies, Duck Tales, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and Popeye. I would like to note that these shows were not very prominent, I watched all of them but Popeye was made in the late 60’s which is a little outdated. Things were different during that time period, blacks had very unequal rights and there was segregation and white prominence so of course a cartoon is going to reflect its culture. However I still believe America is the greatest country, it’s called Nationalism, it’s not racist or ignorant to have pride in your country especially one that so many have died for. The other is Duck Tales; they claim that this show depicts an uncle who claims money is the only important thing in the world. If this was the only plot I don’t think they could make 100 episodes and a movie. The Uncle is named Scrooge McDuck, Scrooge should sound familiar considering it is the name of the main character from A Christmas Carol, in this play Scrooge is a greedy and money-hungry character.  Lastly they rate Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, they claim that this show falsely shows children you can eat pizza and fight and not get hurt. This is such a broad view, what about the fact that even with turtles it shows the values of good and evil. I think parents and other social outlets have enough power to counter the supposed influence talking turtles have on children.

Carlson Think Piece

Gayness, Multicultural Education, and Community

Carlson

Peter Siner

QUOTE #1

"Public schools in particular have often promoted such "normalizing" conceptualizations of community that are based on defining a cultural center or "norm" and positioning class, gender, race, and sexual Others at the margins."

I disagree with this statement, while I agree schools mainly teach the social “norm” I do not believe everyone that isn’t white is simply thrown in the margins. People with ethnic backgrounds are found in almost every modern text book, we no longer only discuss whites. As far as teaching about things that classify as the norm or categorizing things as a norm actually makes sense, after all homosexuality isn’t normal if you follow what normal actually means. Normal- conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural. While I don’t find gays or lesbians to be wrong in their actions I do think it is quite obvious it isn’t the mainstream way of life. The majority of people are not gay therefore they set the standard of heterosexuality which homosexuals stray from. There are way too many things to discuss that don’t follow the “norm” of society, the normal school year is only about 6 months, there are curriculums that must be followed and talking about everyone’s way of life isn’t one of them. This is another example of a few people wanting to change the mindsets of the majority. I believe gays should have equal rights including the ability to form a union however I do not think there should be open discussions in elementary schools or middle schools about homosexuality specifically but a broader discussion of how everyone deserves equal respect.

QUOTE #2

"The objective of classroom discourse is thus not so much to achieve consensus on one ‘true’ or ‘objective’ depiction of reality, but rather to clarify differences and agreements, word toward coalition-building across differences when possible, and build relationships based on caring and equity.”

This quote really sums up what must be done in the school systems. English, math, history, science: these are all extremely important aspects of our schooling careers but what about being a human. I think being well-rounded and understanding of other cultures and ideas is equally as important. You cannot teach someone to think being gay is ok, you can’t even teach someone to not be racist because unfortunately these things can be passed down through generations, you can however teach someone the value of respect for others. If schools taught a unified sense of respect it would have a great impact on many people.

Quote #3"

“If students in the school community can be kept shielded from "bad influences" and provided only "positive" representations of community life, that they can be molded into "good", "well adjusted" citizens and workers”

This quote is very unrealistic. Of course if someone lives under a rock and is only told the “good things” and is sheltered from anything bad then they would become good people. We live on the planet Earth however, and in this world we have influences from family, television, movies, books, the internet, friends, the radio, even teachers. All of which in some way have or continue to spread what may be considered “bad influence.” We watched a short clip of Ace Ventura in which he kissed a man and so he excessively washes and brushes his teeth, are we supposed to ignore the fact that this is comedy and a reaction of straight man or are we supposed to be sensitive about everything and call this ignorant and a disgrace. I think some people need to relax, there will always be disagreements. If the clip showed “Ace Ventura” using ethnic slurs then of course it would be inappropriate and racist, this however was funny. Society has always had an impact on the world and I don’t see that changing. If we can make our students realize that they must respect others and refrain from making racist or discriminatory remarks we will see a very different America from the one we live in.