“The political tensions between the rhetoric of equal opportunity and the reality of social

stratification have intertwined with philosophical debates over the purpose and conduct of
schooling in the United States for most of its history. Such debates continue today.”

When reading over pages 60-64 of ​Teaching to Change the World, ​I was struck at how
relevant the specific topics of these pages are to me. When it started out discussing the issues
of excluding certain types of students, I fully agreed. If the public classroom is meant and
designed to teach anybody, then it really needs to teach anybody. It can’t just exclude based on
race and gender. That’s not the way teaching was intended to be.
My point was proven in the next few pages when the book got down to the philosophies
behind teaching. It seemed that although there were many different ways to look at life and how
our minds worked, the fundamental notes that were taken from it was that there are ways to go
about and know things, but they aren’t the only way ​(Oakes, Lipton, Anderson, Stillman, 2013).
That made it seem like things would work out in the schooling with this viewpoint. However, that
doesn’t seem to be the case.
The next page goes on to discuss how even through this rational discovery that ideas
can have multiple right answers, schooling is still messed up. Elite and mass education are both
designed to teach individuals, however, they have different outcomes. Elite education is for
those who have wealth and come from “top-notch” families that allow them to pay for the
expensive education and get into universities. Mass education, i.e. public schools, will teach
their students, but without the expectation that they’ll go beyond that schooling. The way this
country is run usually means that the lower class and different races are put into mass teaching
schools while the wealthy and predominantly white population gets into the elite teaching
schools. As the book states, “​The political tensions between the rhetoric of equal opportunity
and the reality of social stratification have intertwined with philosophical debates over the
purpose and conduct of schooling in the United States for most of its history. Such debates
continue today” ​(Oakes, Lipton, Anderson, Stillman, 2013).
Education in the United States needs to take a stand, go back to the basics, and allow
for everyone to have an equal opportunity in the classroom. We all have brains and we’re all
human, so everyone should be treated equally.
References:

Oakes, J., Lipton, M., Anderson, A. & Stillman, J. (2012). Teaching to change the world (4th ed.).
Boulder, CO: Paradigm.

Responses:
I couldn't agree more that students have a right to use their home-languages at school. If they have
to completely cancel out their language and use only English at school, then how are they going to
learn English better? If they need to use English more than their other language that's fair, however,
they should at least be able to use their language as a stepping stone to help them learn their
English material.
I also thought that it was very interesting to see how education got it's start so long ago, and how
much it's evolved since then. I think it's important for people to go back and see the roots of the
education system.

I agree with you that it's important for schools to accommodate students who have language
barriers. If the schools aren't willing to do so, then how can they expect the students to stay there, or
become fluent in the language of our society? It's important for the schools to recognize that not
every student is the same, so they may require some special accommodations. That being said, it’s
fine to have their language used in moderation, considering that they are in an english-speaking
school, but if it helps them to learn our language as well as keeping up with other academics, there
shouldn’t be an issue incorporating that into the curriculum.

Reflective Journal 2:
After reading chapter 5 by Palmer, I had a few thoughts come to mind. I found it very
interesting how the author explained truth in the first couple of pages. The way that Palmer
discussed the difference between how an object is held at arm’s length while a subject was
more intimate to the learner was quite fascinating. I also never really thought about “knowers”
and how they all relate to the same subject. This leads me into the next part of the chapter that I
found to be interesting.
The whole idea of a subject-centered education in a teaching community is something
that I have never really thought of to the point that I could put it into words. I’ve had thoughts
about how there aren’t very many cases where it’s a happy medium between the teacher and
their power, and the students with theirs. This seems like an excellent idea to me that will make
all parties happy. If the subject, which is the whole point of their even being education, can stay
at the center of what goes on in the classroom, then it may be a smoother learning transaction. I
think that Palmer puts it beautifully at the end of the chapter, “By putting the “Secret” (subject)
that Frost wrote about at the center of the circle, we remember the passion that brought us into
this work in the first place--a remembering that cannot happen when we and our students sit in
the circle alone” (Palmer, 1998). Palmer is saying that, instead of the students and teachers
being the center, the subject should be so that everyone can remember the joy of what their
trying to learn in the first place.
I really liked this chapter, and I agreed a lot with it. I hope that when I’m a teacher I can
remember that and keep hold of that idea.
References:

Palmer, P. (1998). The courage to teach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Reflective Journal 3:
I was very interested in the article presented by Earl. As far back as I can remember, my
schools have put an emphasis on assessment of learning. I haven’t even realized that there are
other forms of assessment besides just testing the students. I really enjoyed learning about
these different types of ways to assess.
The assessment ​for ​learning was something that I really like a lot. What I appreciated
about this concept, was that “when they are doing Assessment ​for ​Learning, teachers collect a
wide range of data so that they can modify the learning work for their students” (Earl, 2003). I
can really get on board with this because then it shows the effort that the teachers are making to
help their students succeed while doing Assessment ​of ​Learning. As the author said, these
types of assessment all go hand in hand with each other. They need to flow evenly in order for
them to work and for both the students and the teachers to be successful.
I also really enjoyed reading about Assessment ​as ​Learning. I like that this concept really
emphasized the role of the student in this form of assessment (Earl, 2003). I’ve only personally
experienced this a couple of times in my own schooling career, but when I did it was
memorable. It’s a lot more of a comfortable feeling when a student knows a topic enough that
they can look back on their work and revise it for themselves. I think that this is an excellent idea
for teachers to incorporate in their classrooms because then it really helps to get the students
focused on the topics they are learning about. It’s also just much better than only using the
Assessment ​of ​Learning method. A lot of the time now, when I have discussions with others
about the school system, standardized tests are brought up and show in a bad way. After
reading this article I believe it’s because standardized tests are the focal point of all assessment
in the school systems. In order for assessment to benefit all parties, the strategies used for it
need to be spread out so that the students and teachers are getting assessed the right way. I
really enjoyed the prospects that Earl provided.
Reference text:

Earl, L. (2003) Assessment as learning: using classroom assessment to maximize student learning.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Reflective Journal 4:
After reading the texts from the What If Learning website, I was especially intrigued with
the “Faith” category. It started out as some information about what faith is to people, and how it
is viewed in today’s world. I found that part to be especially interesting. It then went on to
discuss how faith impacts the worldview of people and their cultures. This was good and
informative. It makes sense that when somebody is converted, their entire world changes and
shifts. They go from thinking one way to completely changing their “worldview” and taking on
another. This is what then lead the article into the topic of teaching science in a classroom.
I fully support the idea of faith going hand-in-hand with science, however, I feel like they
sugarcoated the concept of this a little bit. Perhaps I missed the point they were trying to make,
or maybe they are just referring to teachers who work at Christian-based schools, but I don’t
really see how a teacher can incorporate religious beliefs into a science lesson. The article
says, “if we teach science as though it has nothing to do with Christian faith, aren’t we then
reinforcing the message prevalent in society at large that science is the only trustworthy form of
knowledge and that it must be seen as the opposite of religion?” (​Theology:Faith).​ In my SCES
122 course, we read a packet called, “God Did it, But How?”. I thought that it had a very good
view of what this article is discussing. I think that science can be discussed without bringing in
religion every time. The idea is the underlying notion that God did everything, including scientific
processes, which is what we can study. That being said, I believe, since it would be nearly
impossible for a public school teacher to incorporate their religious views in a lecture, it’s okay to
just talk about the scientific portion of how things work. Again, I could be wrong or may have
misread the article, this is just an idea that I had while reading it, and I think it’s a valid
discussion for educators to have.
References

Theology: Faith​ (n.d.). Retrieved from What If Learning:

http://www.whatiflearning.com/big-picture/christian-distinctives/

Reflective Journal 5:

The Noguera reading was very interesting for me. I couldn’t agree more that one of they key
ways to unite students and staff is through community. I believe that it’s very important, even more
so than getting the curriculum to be effective immediately. I’ve actually seen a student be afraid of a
student before, and they took it and ran with it. We were in sixth grade, and my teacher and the
student got into an argument frequently. It got to the point where the student was physically
disruptive in class. On one occasion, he actually flew into a group of desks and knocked them over.
My teacher was so upset that she yelled at him to go to the principal’s and then cried.

Now, after telling this story, I realize that he was an extremely difficult kid to have in your
class, and the fact that he was bigger (he got held back more than twice), and used it to his
advantage to intimidate others didn’t make it any easier. It was just an instance that the reading
made me think of that could have potentially been the same issues being dealt with by the other
teachers. Upon saying this, a quote that stands out to me from the reading is

“New strategies for providing an education that is perceived as meaningful and relevant and
that begins to tap into the intrinsic desire of all individuals to obtain greater personal fulfillment must
be devised and supported. Anything short of this will leave us mired in a situation that grows
increasingly depressing and dangerous every day” (Noguera, 2008).

That boy in my sixth grade class knew he didn’t have much going for him (or so he was told).
He didn’t get any extra help other than disciplinary, and to him he perceived the school as a prison.
After reading this article, it made me think of the kids like him, and what we, as educators and
schools staff, can do for those kids who have been given up on, and seemed to have given up
themselves.

Noguera, P (2008). The Trouble with Black Boys: ... and Other Reflections on Race,
Equity, and the Future of Public Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.