Learning is Good!

Because of the constant trouble I have had with the configuration of this blog site, I am moving my blog to a new address. The new address is:

 matthewross35.wordpress.com

Please come and join me and begin a conversation with me about anything. I obviously have lots of thoughts on education and race relations, but I am up for dialogues on the suggestions of whomever.

          Bourdieu’s concept of cultural capital refers basically to all the sets of beliefs, practices, ways of thinking, knowledge, and skills passed on from ones social class; the idea is that certain cultural behaviors or norms carry along with them certain stratified value. These behaviors also give certain groups advantages in their ability to navigate through social institutions. Examples include but aren’t limited to mainstream English, appearing “clean-cut”, valuing things like public education and organized religion, fine art, golf, and designer clothes.
          In a general sense, middle to upper class students are taught and possess the cultural capital that is valued in our social system. Nonetheless, all students have cultural capital, but all cultural capital isn’t valued the same. Groups belonging to the upper crust of society typically determine what is viewed as acceptable behavior and what behavior is deemed valuable. Though other groups possess valuable cultural assets, they aren’t rewarded by our society and are actually seen as inferior.
          Success in school has been linked to certain students having been transmitted the cultural capital that a given society rewards. These students learn how to emulate the behavior that elicits the rewards/resources of mainstream culture. Thus Bourdieu assumes that many students are successful not because they are superior students so much as these students knowing and appreciating the things that will bring them “merited” rewards.

The book, Rethinking Mathematics: Teaching Social Justice by the Numbers is a solid resource. Examples of some of the activities in it include but aren’t limited to exercises like Historical, Cultural, and Social Implications of Mathematics, “Home Buying While Brown or Black”, Sweatshop Accounting, and Chicanos Have Math in Their Blood. Teaching mathematics in the context of social justice is both engaging and fun. Students enjoy learning in a context that is meaningful and has a connection to their personal lives. Much of math is taught in contexts that are arbitrary and has little application to students–especially students of color. This supplement is great because it provides an engaging context for which mathematical content can be taught in.

 

Ethnomathematics has this same potential depending on who is teaching it i.e. how it is manipulated. Social justice teaching typically “one-ups” ethnomathematics because it asks critical questions instead of passively presenting information; for instance, why do we not hear about the math from 3rd World Countries? Why is it that certain methods of mathematics are popularized and others aren’t? Who has the power to make those decisions and why? Why have the same groups repeatedly ended up at the bottom of the achievement gap year after year after year? How is it that many if not most students of color feel like math isn’t for them? How is it that girls often come to feel like higher level math is for guys? What are schools doing structurally that isn’t inviting to groups historically underrepresented in mathematics? Ethnomathematics provides a lot of math that isn’t “popularized” as math–who made that so? What can and should we as teachers do about it? How do we provide our students with the tools they need to help deconstruct these realities? Why haven’t we answered (or even explicitly talked about) any of these questions this term?

 

This supplement provides a start to this conversation. It supplies a platform for teachers and students to not only ask these questions, but also to answer them critically. We as teachers need to be asking these questions and finding creative ways to bring them up in classrooms so that our students become critical thinkers and problem solvers, not just in the content of mathematics, but also in their personal interactions with people and policies. This consciousness will help us reach all children which is so often purported in the literature and in grad programs throughout the country—yet this isn’t happening (the achievement gap backs me up here). There are other supplements like these but not many. Maybe you and I will be next in orchestrating a context in which to teach math that is engaging, inviting, and liberating.

          In Design, Ecology, Ethics, and the Making of Things, Bill McDonough contends: “In this complicated world, prior modes of domination have essentially lost their ability to maintain control….The industrial idiom of design, failing to honor the principles of nature, can only violate them, producing waste and harm, regardless of purposed intention”. I thought this statement did a great job summarizing the theme of this article and pointing the reader in the proper direction. Art can and should be used in ways that allow for creativity and social liberation, at the same time, it should be used to adequately connect innovation within the structure of nature. In other words, design should include an astute measurement of its natural impact. As educators we must educate future students on this necessity and back up what we teach with our daily lives.
          Elliott Eisner, who I recently found out writes and educates on more issues than art, in The Role of the Arts in Cognition and Curriculum makes a number of crucial points. Art in today’s society has a stigma as not being “intellectual” and has been relegated to being seen as strictly an “emotive” form of communication. Eisner calls these stereotypes into question and gives logical and substantive refutations of each of them. I focus here on the one that I think plays the most insidious role in modern education. Eisner says that “this view has created a dubious hierarchy among subjects taught in schools”. This is such the case in the Portland school districts that art is seen as extra or some type of adjunct to education; art has become a subject that the wealthy and advantaged participate in but unnecessary for an adequate education. This article is key in making plain the connections that cognition and art have which are equally as arduous as any other subject, including mathematics, and that “Education is the arts cultivates sensitive perception, develops insight, fosters imagination, and places a premium on well-crafted form”.
          Nancy Lambert wrote a thought provoking article relating to critical thinking. This article is called Enhancing Critical Thinking and that’s exactly what she diagrams. I was especially impressed by the section Inquiry-Based Instruction. Lambert was clear that inquiry was an aid in the problem solving process of students from k-12 and through college. Students can benefit from this inquiry based instruction through every subject that they may be exposed to. At its base, this instruction or pedagogical approach to education has to do with prompting or asking students questions that encourage or lead them into deeper thought and critique. This includes putting past and present information together as well as learning how they distinct. In the field of art, I was taught that critical thinking applies and is necessary in the decision-making process. An advanced artist compares and contrasts art from different eras and genres which encourages an enhanced eye for their own production.
          As far as the inquiry-based instruction, in detail, this is explicitly asking students “question stems”. Question stems are direct questions like what are the implications of…, explain your reasoning, explain why, and what are the dynamics of the counterargument. As Lambert says, “these questions facilitate higher order thinking by requiring students to reflect upon and reconcile various perspectives and solutions for open-ended and ill-structured problems”. When students answer questions like these they implant critical thinking into their memory. In other words, through a search or analysis, content becomes a part of the students thinking versus something that someone told to them. Certain traditional methods of teaching encourage students to “learn” material to past tests and then eject the memory of this information as soon as the test is over; inquiry-based instruction encourages students to make the information their own which encourages them to retain what they’ve learned.

          With respect to the African-American English controversy, many African-Americans and Whites see this dialect as an impediment to economic success in American society; some call it “broken English”; others claim that it is a language deficit to learning “standard” English; and others see it as slang or a form of African-American slave talk.
          On the contrary, there is much substantive evidence that this dialect of English is a complete language. William Labov and other researchers have demonstrated that AAE is a separate but equivalent system as complex and rule governed as “Standard” English. AAE has some alternative rules and conventions for expressing the same syntactic relationships and semantic content. Speakers of AAE know when the rules vary. There is functional usage between style and content in this communication. Examples include playing the dozens (i.e. cappin’ or stingin’) and providing narratives of personal experience. This language has lexical, phonological, and syntactic and semantic patterns that are intertwined with structures in general English. This evidence constitutes that AAE is a complete language whose speakers are capable of logical thinking.
          Since “Standard” English is the version of English that is the measure of success in the larger society, it is necessary to have full competence in it as well as AAE. This should be viewed as language expansion not assimilation. This perspective is paramount to successfully teaching students with this dialect. There are a number of strategies to teaching AAE users curriculum in “Standard” English: role playing, response drills—where students not only translate “Standard” English into AAE but also translate AAE into “Standard” English, discussions on when certain dialects are most appropriate, students recording themselves telling a story and playing it back, and various contrastive methodologies which provide practical, natural contexts.
          There are a few key points that need to be avoided when teaching these students: first and foremost is teaching that AAE is not inferior or a less intelligent language—variant dialects are different not deficient, teaching AAE users that they really don’t need to master “Standard” English, when showing students correlating phrases in AAE and “Standard” English—be accurate—this causes teachers to know the rules of “Standard” English and AAE, teaching students that they should never use AAE, and teaching students to leave their language (part of their culture) at the door—key to students learning the difference between the two dialects is noticing the phonological distinctions.

           For a more in-depth review of why I choose to put Standard English in quotations, please see my post on mainstream English.

Matthew Ross
Robert De Anda
CH/LA 450U Exam 1

Question 1: Valenzuela argues that subtractive schooling undermines the achievement of U.S.-Mexican students. What is subtractive schooling? How does it affect U.S.-born Mexican students and immigrant students? Please define terms and provide examples from the book.

          Subtractive schooling refers to the type of schooling that divests youth, in this case Mexican youth, of important social and cultural resources, leaving them progressively vulnerable to academic failure. This type of schooling also dismisses the Mexicanidad definition of education which is grounded in Mexican culture; in addition, subtractive schooling is structurally designed to deprive Mexican students of their culture and language. A key consequence of these subtractive measures is the constant erosion of students’ social capital that is evident in the network of relationships among immigrant and U.S.-born youth. Other results of subtractive schooling include but aren’t limited to: disaffection towards schooling (not education), psychic withdrawal, resistance, social ties, and academic aspirations.
          Both U.S.-born and immigrant Mexican students eventually have adverse reactions to subtractive schooling, but they are initially affected in different ways. Generally speaking first and second generation Mexican students outperform their third and fourth generation counterparts. U.S.-born minority youth are seen by schools and society as lacking the linguistic, cultural, moral, and intellectual traits the assimilationist curriculum demands. The alleged “deficiencies” of regular-track, U.S.-born Mexican youth from a low-income community, are themselves symptomatic of the consequences of subtractive schooling; moreover, the so-called generational decline in academic achievement is better explained as a result of the subtractive schooling that is structured in many U.S. educational institutions.
          It is necessary to note that both subtractive schooling and social capital overlap. Mexican students’ lack of social capital—the social capital that is rewarded in North American institutions—can be seen as a product of subtractive schooling. Many examples from the results of subtractive schooling are also examples of the social capital that these student’s lack, this is what is meant by there being an overlap. A few examples of these overlaps are students’ lack of social ties, connectedness with other students and adults, a bilingual/bicultural network of friends and family, and peer group associations with schooling. These and other examples can and may be used to explain both subtractive schooling and social capital.
          Though U.S.-born students get the worst end of the deal, the text is replete with examples of how subtractive schooling affects both U.S.-born and immigrant Mexican students. A vivid marker of an effect on some U.S.-born students is captured in the beginning of chapter four. The author asks a student, Adriana, about another student who happens to be a recent immigrant. Both students are of Mexican descent yet Adriana responds, “she’s one of them…they talk to each other in Spanish and all…they think they’re better than us Chicanos…she’s from Mexico! Mexico sucks! I’d rather be American than Mexican any day”. Subtractive schooling produced this division in such a way that this frame of mind eventually appeared customary.
          The division between Mexican students has far reaching consequences. Because the students come from different backgrounds and have different life experiences, they are provided with rich experiences that they can share with and learn from each other. This separation has made this sharing (of social capital) non-existent. The author notes examples of these consequences such as U.S.-born students having limited access to both English and Spanish dominant peers and elders, little or no connection to a homeland culture, and no pride in Mexican heritage.
          An example of how subtractive schooling affects both U.S.-born and immigrant students is illustrated by statements made by Mr. Johnson, the self-proclaimed student advocate. While talking to Valenzuela loud enough for a number of his ninth-grade students to hear, Johnson speaking about his student’s states, “they are immature and they challenge authority. Look at them, they’re not going anywhere. I can tell you right now, a full quarter of these students will drop out of school come may”. Johnson suffers from an extremely popular view that many of the teachers at his school hold. Valenzuela summed it up: 

“The schools obvious systemic problems, most evident in its astronomical dropout rate, are brushed aside and the burden of responsibility and the struggle for change is understood as rightfully residing first with the students, their families, and the community…Mr. Johnson articulated th[e] belief that students’ academic performance is primarily a matter of individual initiative and motivation…” (65)

It’s clear (from many Seguin teachers’ point of view) that educators have a passive role in the shaping of students’ academic success. This attitude leads to neglect of complicity and legitimizes low expectations. Johnson’s preconceived notion that a quarter of his students will dropout by May is picturesque of his faith in his own ability as an educator and what he thinks of his students. This more subtle form of subtractive schooling affects both study groups in insidious ways by normalizing failure.
          Immigrant students fair much better academically than their counterparts, yet they are also subject to be in classes with teachers who generally look at their students like Mr. Johnson. Low expectations abound at Seguin. Even the immigrant students who mirror what many educators see as model behavior and the social capital that is rewarded (quiet, respectful, obedient, and goal oriented) fall prey to being in an environment that doesn’t academically challenge them to the degree that it should.

Question 3: Valenzuela argues that social capital is central to the U.S.-Mexican students’ academic success. What is social capital? Is social capital evenly distributed between immigrants and U.S.-born students? How does the distribution of social capital affect academic achievement? Discuss examples of the utilization of social capital in the book. Provide examples from the book.

          Social capital refers to the supportive social ties and resources (in this case) important to academic success; it refers to supportive relationships between children and adults that encourage the sharing of norms and values, ways of doing things, and ways of thinking about things; it refers to networks of resources and interactions by which other forms of capital are often transferred. In other words, human, physical and cultural capital is often transferred through social capital relationships. Social capital resides in the interactive web of social relationships.
           In educational institutions, exchanges of information promote the development of mutual norms among participating individuals; these exchanges result in mutually beneficial outcomes. In more intimate relations, such as in a family, adults often present an educational advantage through the transmission of their human capital. This is in addition to the skills and knowledge community type social capital provides. In these interactions, students can be given relational skills that provide the means of attaining more sophisticated and often uniquely hidden social capital. The social capital U.S.-born students received from Michelle’s family are examples of this sophisticated advantage.
          Michelle’s family’s interaction with students is an example of how social capital affects student’s achievement. Michelle’s group of friends is made up of U.S.-born students who are among those who typically receive the least amount of rewarded social capital, yet they were able to attain what they needed to be academically successful. There are a number of examples that were provided by Valenzuela. Among them are these two: Michelle’s family interactions with the group and the group interactions themselves.
          Jason was a member of this group whose father disappeared out of his life. This caused trauma for Jason and his grades began showing the results of this. Michelle’s family took him in literally for a few months and her family, along with members of their group consoled and motivated him back into a stable, productive frame of mind. Without Michelle’s family, this opportunity would not have been afforded Jason. Jason asserts, “Michelle’s family’s great. There’s so many tios and tias [uncles and aunts] and a lot of them are like teachers and counselors—you know, people with good jobs and nice families. I’m their adopted son now”.
          Michelle’s family also includes encouragement and sound advice, specifically from her mother and two aunts. Her mother is a former bilingual educator and her aunts are graduates from the University of Texas. These individuals all encourage Michelle and her friends to remain fluent in both English and Spanish, while attending a college, preferably Texas, which is rigorous. Though it wasn’t made explicit from the text, it follows that Michelle’s family also provided the social capital to successfully navigate through educational institutions. So the relationships that this group was afforded through Michelle’s family provided norms and values, ways of doing things, ways of thinking about things, and group cohesiveness.
          The group itself also provided these students with social capital. When explaining how they came together to help Jason persevere emotionally and academically, one student maintained that they “all look out for each other”. This looking out for each other involved bicultural/bilingual networks, helping each other with homework, sharing resources, motivating each other to do well in school, and group values like speaking Spanish as much as possible. When the author asked the students why they wanted each other to speak Spanish so often, a student responded, “We just don’t want to lose our Spanish”. This small group of students who all met in the Spanish Club eventually bonded and through interactions orchestrated group norms and values in the form of social capital. This improved and successfully galvanized the group’s academic achievement. A more forward student in the bunch spoke up and summed it up perfectly, “if someone’s got a problem, we help them solve it”.

Educational Biography
          I was born and raised in Portland, Oregon. Besides visiting other places and vacationing, I’ve lived in Portland all of my life. My parents are both from Texarkana, Arkansas. They grew up in the same neighborhood and were high school sweethearts. Unfortunately for them and for me as a result, they were raised in a region and during a time that sharecropping was normal practice. This had a profound effect on their educational experience which in turn affects mine.
             Legally, sharecropping was supposed to be a situation that provided both signing parties a fruitful ending. It should’ve been a situation where a farmer fronted land and farming materials to a person or family that more often lived on the farmer’s land; housing was most often paid at the end of the year, the same time that the two signing parties “evened up” from crop sales and fronted materials. Both parties were supposed to evaluate how much was fronted versus how much was made by the sharecroppers. The family that was fronted was supposed to have this great opportunity to “better” themselves and get off the ground; in fact, at some point, this family would likely have their own farm. This concept almost reminds me of banks and other creditors that front poor people money knowing that they likely will never get out of debt.
           Anyways, my father filled me in on was how this actually played out in reality. Many sharecroppers had little to no education. It was thus next to impossible for them to adequately keep track of all their expenses. But regardless of this, the farmers always had the final say on how much was truly borrowed and how much was truly owed. This was enforced by intimidation if necessary. Lynching didn’t only happen when a Black man was caught having had sex with a White woman. Seldom did sharecroppers make anything after the tallying was complete; in most cases, they ended up owing money. Both situations kept them working for the boss and perpetually being in debt. This has far reaching consequences when we consider assessing accumulated assets and wealth.
           Since my parents were born into debt, they started life with a serious disadvantage. Tim Wise speaks on accumulated wealth or debt in the first chapter of his excellent book titled, White Like Me. The disadvantage my parents received was passed on to me. People born into this world are born into accumulated assets or accumulated debts. To compile this egregious circumstance, both of my parents only went to school the second half of the year, as they had to tend to helping their families’ farm, pick and chop cotton. In an attempt to be “good” White folks, there teachers always passed them even though they were unable to pass basic reading, writing, and mathematics tests.
           As one could imagine, this has had far reaching results on my education which started before I ever set foot into a classroom. I was hardly if ever read to as a child. Honestly, I don’t recall ever being read to. My memory of children’s books comes around the time I entered school. The language I was taught was one dimensional and that being African-American vernacular English which is considered primitive to mainstream society even though it isn’t true (Leading anthropologists and linguists confirm today that Ebonics or African-American vernacular English is just as legitimate of a dialect/language as mainstream English). This one dimensional aspect of literacy translated into little to no mainstream or academic language contact and a lack of exposure to and practice with mainstream discourses (i.e. “professional” behavior, social “norms” like dining etiquette, and valuing “education”). Many look at these things as norms, but it’s only normal to certain people. Others have to figure these things out as they go which equates to a disadvantage.
           Nonetheless, measured by mainstream standards I was a good student. Through the 10^th grade I was always on the honor roll and had a high B/low A average. Both my elementary and middle schools had students whose parents were overwhelmingly working-class. Seldom do I remember having classmates whose parents owned anything besides their homes and they typically worked jobs similar to my parents. Considering the teaching styles I encountered, I vividly remember coming to class and having many things written on the board so that my classmates and I could copy them in a journal; in addition, we had to have signed and dated hall passes to use the restroom. I was typically taught mechanical, rote memorization type of skills. It would be hard to say that we were being trained to be creative, express our thoughts on life, or lead the country through decision making. We were being trained to follow rules. One of the rules I never quite understood was standing in a line to travel throughout the school.  I remember being in the eighth grade and my classmates and I arguing with the teacher about how we didn’t need rules or to stand in line in order to travel to other classrooms. From my recollection, the teacher just didn’t think we were capable. My high school experience was a bit different.
           I went to a high school that had a significant amount of students from wealthy families. I remember going to parties in high school where my classmates had elevators in their homes. Some of my classmates lived on “the Ridge” (Alameda Ridge that is). In retrospect, it isn’t simply that these experiences are different because of the content of the curriculum, what is also equally important is how the information and experience is transmitted to the student. I had a math class that comes to mind. In this class, I remember being sent to the library for almost weeks at a time to do research creatively. We were given very open instructions as to how to structure our research and to what it could be on. I clearly remember feeling as though I wanted more rules. I also remember some of my classmates going right to it while I pondered; I wasn’t accustomed to having that type of freedom. That part of me, the creative side, had been suppressed.
            Honestly, I have spent the last few years trying to patch up the holes in my mathematics and grammar that I’m positive is a result of this inequity. Much of my math and writing have small unusual holes and gaps that don’t make sense. How can I do 400 level mathematics courses but not be clear on simple aspects of Algebra; how can I write as often and with such enjoyment as I do and never quite understand when and when not to use commas. Matter of fact, I remember asking a number of my writing instructors over the years what the “rules” were for this and I never seemed to get a concrete answer. Maybe I was only taught the basics. The color of my skin, my social class “category”, and my parent’s educational history has had a profound effect on my education. Much of my pertinent education has come outside of the classroom where I study on my own.

“As racial isolation deepens and the inequalities of education finance remain unabated and take on new and more innovative forms, the principals of many inner-city schools are making choices that few principals in public schools that serve white children in the mainstream of the nation ever have to contemplate….Curriculum materials are allegedly aligned with governmentally established goals and standards and particularly suited to what are regarded as ‘the special needs and learning styles’ of low-income urban children have been introduced…a new empiricism and the imposition of unusually detailed lists of named and numbered “outcomes” for each isolated parcel of instruction…an openly conceded emulation of the rigorous approaches of the military and a frequent use of terminology that comes out of the world of industry and commerce…although generically described as ‘school reform’, most of these practices and policies are targeted primarily at poor children of color… ‘If you do what I tell you to do, how I tell you to do it, when I tell you to do it, you’ll get it right’, said a determined South Bronx principal”.                                                                                                              –Jonathan Kozol–

                As a future educator, this passage has far reaching implications as to what I may be expected to participate in and what I will likely have to fight against. Not only are funds not proportionally allocated to all schools, but in low-income schools the teachers are being given the job of what I consider perpetuating previously established inequities. Described above are the strategies of rote memorization, simple rule following, and mechanical behavior that allows little room for critical thinking and the expression of the creativity that these along with all other children possess. The children in these schools, who are primarily children of color, are overwhelmed by low expectations, overly rigorous discipline, and a huge lack of resources. How can they be expected to survive? I guess the question becomes at some point, are they expected to survive or are they expected to follow the path that many have followed before them into jails and at best menial jobs that keep them following unquestioned rules and living from check to check?

Matthew Ross
Instructor: Tom McKenna
ED 420 Assignment #1
October 2007
Good Intentioned Educators

Good intentioned educators come in all shapes, sizes, colors, religious backgrounds, and people groups.
Good intentioned educators think they’re helping students by telling them to stop using their “broken-English” and replacing it with “standard English” only.
Good intentioned educators think they’re helping by postulating dominant culture norms as “normal” and “good” and everything else then as abnormal and not good.
Good intentioned educators think that whatever they do is okay because of the notion that they’re trying with “good” motives.
Good intentioned educators think of certain students’ cultural qualities as deficiencies rather than assets.
Good intentioned educators perpetuate oppression by stereotyping their students.
Good intentioned educators perpetuate oppression by not actively fighting against it.
Good intentioned educators think that because they aren’t overtly racist that they can’t be upholding racism.
Good intentioned educators think that because of the Civil Rights Movement, “things have changed” and oppression and racism has all but disappeared.
Good intentioned educators never challenge the current systems of our country that were orchestrated by and for racist people hundreds of years ago.
Good intentioned educators subconsciously teach students to be dependant rather than independent.
Good intentioned educators think that mediocre results from some students are normal and the best that some students can do; in other words, these educators have low expectations for certain students.
Good intentioned educators naively think that their academic success will properly prepare them to be successful teachers of all students.
Good intentioned educators think that if what they were taught in school doesn’t work with students then there’s something wrong with the students.
Good intentioned educators are many times liberal, non-religious, environment-friendly, and “tolerant”; at the same time good intentioned educators can be scary to me and I wish many of them wouldn’t teach.
Having good intentions is not enough to become a successful teacher of all students. Successful educators of all students admit when they’re wrong, seek out to build harmonious relationships with their students, look at differences as assets, and hold all students to high expectations; in addition, successful educators weave their students’ related and meaningful cultural facts into their entire curriculum so as to give students a connection and promote high esteem.

 Successful educators are liberators!!!