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.
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.
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”.
Here are two informative pieces from Dr. Wright. One is his speech to the NAACP a few days ago, and the other is from his interview with Bill Moyers, also a few days ago. Enjoy!
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/28/wright.transcript/
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04252008/transcript1.html
“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?
