I found it interesting that the article mentioned that teachers avoid discussion about class structure. But, when I think about it, this is true. My history courses back in high school did not go into detail about this area to much either. This confirms the ideas in the article. Although discussion about class structure may be a touchy subject for both the students and the teachers, it’s important to talk about these things, especially in a school setting where people come from different backgrounds. Talking about these issues at home with families may influence students follow one set belief, but in schools they can learn from other students as well. Self-worth does impact how people view themselves and what they believe they can accomplish in the future. Just like the article mentioned, when children come from families with few resources they may not view themselves as able to accomplish all of their goals. In my opinion, teachers should act as role models and try to relate to their students. They should encourage them to do well and be there to talk to them. In all, class structure needs to be discussed in greater detail than it is in text books because students learn from other’s opinions, beliefs, and experiences. However, since this topic may cause students to feel uncomfortable teachers should develop strategies to help with such problems. How do teachers plan for this? What strategies may be helpful? Also, how do you encourage students who may have a low self-worth to have more confidence and work towards goals?
I really enjoyed reading this article and found it to be extremely interesting. After reading the article I tried to think back to when I was in high school, and I could not recall ever being taught about class structure. The only time history books or any of my teachers is when they are talking about social mobility and how if people work hard enough they can overcome anything and move up in society. The author of this article clearly does not believe that this is true and quite frankly I agree with him. Not very many people move up in society anymore, especially nowadays with the recession and everything happening. In today's society a college degree is almost required for most well paying jobs. Then when students do go to college they come out with mounds of debt and no guarantee of a job.
I found the Loewen article to be very interesting. After reading it, I tried to look back on my history classes from high school. I do not remember ever learning anything about class systems and structures. In fact, I do not remember really learning anything about class structures until I began taking college classes. This is something that I find quite disturbing. I do not think that it is ever okay to attempt to shelter students from ideas and concepts that are essential to understanding our society. Isn’t one the main goals of education in America to create knowledgeable citizens? If we, as educators, are keeping essential information from our students we are ultimately failing them, in my opinion. I do not think that education should be censored. I think it is important for students to be educated on controversial topics and even more important for students to learn about these topics from educated people, like their teachers. I think the classroom is a much better environment for students to learn and get the correct facts rather than hearing about something through another source that might not have all the details. Ultimately, school is where we should be teaching children as much as they need to know to become well-educated citizens therefore we should not be keeping information from them that might be somewhat controversial.
The Land of Opportunity article was not anything I had not heard before. I disagreed with certain parts of the article, but also think it made some very valid points as well. I agree with the article in that the more affluent the school is the more successful the students passing through will be in life. I believe this is a huge flaw i the funding of our school districts that we do not have more equal opportunities in the poorer schools. Despite the backgrounds of the students, where they are coming from, or what homes they grew up in, given the opportunity through schooling (equal schooling) if the student was motivated and determined to change their life around I strongly believe they could. There are plenty of people who have done this without equal schooling, however yes the way that we have such poor funding for poorer school districts and inner city schools is very unfair. Our society, however, has not figured out a way to make this possible yet. I also though it was very interesting that the author says social stratification is never talked about in schools or textbooks. I had a very different experience. We talked about social classes and stratification in society very much in high school and also in my sociology course here at OSU. The one thing I really could not understand was why teachers were "distressed" when the poor children were excelling or succeeding in school? I can understand perhaps that they be surprised but I cannot understand being distressed by this positive experience.
In Chapter 3, Strike and Soltis discuss a case about library books. It was this case that stood out to me the most. I, being an avid reader, was shocked by the parent's reactions to the books that their children were reading. No offense, but if they wanted their children's literature to be censored based on promiscuity and irreligious thoughts, then they should be sending their children to a religious based school. We are talking about a public school system; a public junior high. What their children are reading should be the least of their worries. These are adolescent children who are going through puberty. Some parents are so oblivious as to what really happens in middle school. Censoring the books aren't going to stop these children from learning about parties, drinking, promiscuity, and thoughts other than religious ones. Children are exposed to these kinds of behaviors in school and in the environments around them. Reading books based on these topics will help inform the students and allow them ask questions. Parents can use them as teaching tools. It's just my opinion, but parents can only censor so much from their children. Isn't it better to make them aware of their surroundings and let them know that it is okay to ask questions?
While reading the article, Land of opportunity I tried to think back to my highs school history classes. I remember some things we learned but it would be interesting to get one of my old history textbooks and see if what Loewen is saying about the textbooks is true. I believe that he is a little harsh when he discusses what the teachers aren’t telling their students. Are they really purposefully not talking about certain topics like class structure because they are uncomfortable talking about it? However, I do agree that I didn’t learn much about the class structure today; it is an interesting think to think about. I feel like students really don’t understand the history behind why their family is wealthy or not. It is not right for students to think that their family is poor because it’s their fault. The article mentions how social class correlates strongly with SAT scores; is there anything that can be done to change this? Is it possible that maybe these scores shouldn’t even be taken into consideration when it comes to getting into college; wouldn’t it give more people more opportunity?
Well of course like everyone else who has blogged about the article so far, i tried thinking about when i was in history in High School. It was of course my least favorite class, but i DO know that they never really gone into detail about social structure. I get why now, maybe its because they dont want to scare us. In a classroom you have upper, middle and lower class children to teach, and its so easy to predict their outcome by knowing their social class so maybe its done not to judge anyone. In my opinion though coming from a lower class makes you work harder and it doesnt always mean that you will end up as a lower class as well like your family. Im in college and doing very well for myself for someone in college and i come from a very low class family, and people dont even realize it. I think the article was a great insight to us to make us realize what are schools are failing to teach children, when its such an important issue. I guess i would want to ask that if the children of today are out future do we really want someone with such little knowledge of our history running for things such as a government position?
After reading the chapter on intellectual freedom and the Land of Opportunity section, I realized I hadn’t thought about or considered these topics much. One point the book stated was, “institutions such as free speech and freedom of the press are necessary if truth is to be sought and ideas improved. To censor an idea is to deny people the opportunity to consider it, to test their own views against it, and, thus, to learn.” As I was thinking about it and reading further, I suppose I agree with that. If things were censored because people found them offensive, current ideas would not be debated or challenged. Without censoring, people have the option to see what is out there, research, and decide things for themselves. It seems that in this way, people can be exposed to real issues and debates and find out for themselves how they feel.
Something interesting from the Land of Opportunity was when the author said, “social science research shows that teachers are often surprised and even distressed when poor children excel.” They also said that children of low-income parents have a good chance that they will often receive careless attention from adults in their high school. This surprised me and I am looking forward to disproving this in my classroom. As a teacher I want to give every student opportunities to succeed in what they are doing. I want to help them reach their goals and grow as individuals and as learners. Reading that chapter reminded me that I want to ensure that each of my students feel comfortable and respected in my classroom. I do not want their identity to be in their social class, but in who they are as people. I want them to know that they are important and can make a difference.
My question would be: Have we seen any changes to this? In our experiences, have we seen teachers treat children of low-income parents the same as children who come from families who are well off? Or does this statement still hold true today in many classrooms?
In Strike and Soltis, they begin by highlighting 3 of the NEA Code’s statements, and one in particular ties in well with the article reading - 3. The educator shall not deliberately suppress or distort the subject matter relevant to the student’s progress. It seems, with respect to the article, that this is Loewen’s main complaint, that educators have largely ignored the topic of America’s history, consequentially reigniting the cycle. On page 41 of Strike and Stolis, they write that “uncontested ideas atrophy”, and this only emphasizes the relevance of bringing forth our past and discussing why things have happened, why they still are, or are now not, and what we hope to use in our past to better direct our future. Since Mill so strongly contests that personal growth requires freedom, how can we expect our students to grow by providing only stunted knowledge, and tailored information?
I was particularly interested in the second case described in the third chapter of Strike and Soltis. I feel like censorship has become a bigger and bigger issue lately, in an era that leans pretty extremely toward being “politically correct.” To me, morality and values should be taught at home. If there is an issue raised at school that parents disagree with, they should discuss this with their own child, not try to change something at the school. Especially with these classic novels that have been around for so many years, parents should not have the right to take the opportunity to learn from these books away from other children. I respect that some people have different moral standards than others, and what may not offend one person may greatly offend someone else. But in a public school, personal views such as these don’t really have a place. My question is: If we start to censor based on these personal views, where do we stop? You can’t please everyone all the time. Someone can find something wrong with anything if they try hard enough. I liked the compromise that Mr. Corey and the school board had submitted, which allowed parents to request that their children be prevented from taking certain books from the library. This way, the parent can censor their own child, without harming the education of other children.
The story about Eddie trying to publish his revenge in the textbook kind of surprised me. I assume that Mr. Lane has final say in who and what gets published, and he gets more stories than there is space in the newspaper. That means that he is forced to perform censorship with every publication due to pure space restrictions. I don't feel like there would have been much of a dilemma for me in his shoes. His job isn't to simply weed out the submissions that lack technical skill but to choose the submission that meets certain standards (whatever his may be) in writing form and content. I would reject Eddie in a heart beat. The kid probably has a facebook, twitter, blog, etc., so denying him won't stop his ideas from making it to the information market place, and it sends a message to the rest of the school about Mr. Lane's feelings on this story. After all, reading some annoying kid's rant on facebook is one thing, but reading a racy story that is obviously about people at school in the school newspaper is another. My question is then, should freedom of speech in a school setting even be protected when school is meant to be a safe welcoming environment for learning not publishing?
In Chapter 3 of the textbook, I enjoyed reading the case study about parents wanting books to be banned from the school. I thought this was a good case to look at, because there is a very good chance as a future teacher I could have an experience with something like this. I think there are many parents in today's society that are concerned with the books that are on schools' shelves. In this case, I don't think the possible compromise Mr. Corey and the school board presented was a very good solution. First of all keeping all the books in the library doesn't solve the problems the parents had with them in the first place. Secondly, just excusing a child from an assignment because you disagree with it isn't a good excuse. If that were the case, I think many kids would have their parents complain just so they could get out of the assignments. When it comes to situations like these I think there are definitely better situations. Plus what would happen to the students who miss out on the assignment, just because their parent didn't approve of the book choice? Aren't there better solutions than just banning the books or being excused from the assignment?
“The Land of Opportunity” provides an interesting insight into how the system of social stratification maintains itself. Whereas America is thought of as the land of opportunity in some cases it is not. When a child who lives in a poor school district does not have the same opportunities to succeed as as child who lives in a more affluent school district then it's not really a matter of their merits/performance but the circumstances of their birth. While some things cannot be fixed in the short term, one thing educators can do is treat students of all backgrounds equally. A teacher shouldn't be distressed or anxious because a student from a lower socioeconomic background is excelling, they should regard any student's success with pride. Should people not have at the least freedom of opportunity?
After reading through chapter three, I couldn’t help but keep thinking about Eddie in the beginning of the chapter. I really just kept thinking back to how exactly Mr. Lane should handle the situation. This really helped further my understanding of nonconsequentialist and consequentialist thinking. After pondering both approaches, I have decided that I am more of a nonconsequentialist thinker with a smidge of consequentialist thrown in the mix. I like to play by the rules allowing little to no room for error. I believe that if I follow the rules then I will have no consequences to pay. If I catch myself thinking about what the consequences of what my actions would be if I were to deviate from the rules, then I know that I should probably reconsider my choice. If I were Mr. Lane, I would pull Eddie aside and let him defend himself with his well thought arguments. I would do my best to comfort him and then I would let him go home and calm down and approach the subject the next day. I believe that by letting him make his argument and letting him go home to reconsider his arguments that it would be make for a better, less tense conversation. I agree that Mr. Lane definitely needs to protect both the student and teacher, and if Eddie cannot do as Mr. Lane suggests (which would be to just re-word a few things), then Eddie doesn’t deserve to have his piece published for the entire student body to read. I would not want to hinder Eddie’s personal growth in any way, and I truly believe that I would be aiding his personal growth by guiding him along the correct path. He may not appreciate the way that I handle the situation at that particular moment, but he would be able to look back a few years later and see that I was only helping and protecting everyone involved. On page 46 it says, “a central claim to nonconsequentialist views is that persons are of value because they are moral agents”. I firmly believe this, because I know that I myself am 110% a moral agent. I live my life to people please and not to hurt anyone. I have encountered a lot of misfortunes and hurt and I myself have been the one providing the misfortunes and hurt in the past. I recently made some major life changes and decided that there is no reason to act the way that I was and that if everyone truly followed the rules and respected one another that there could be more peace and harmony amongst humans. If I were Mr. Lane, I would be striving to keep the peace and harmony and would be the one to determine what Eddie should do by having him do his very best to try and see the situation through the minds of everyone involved. -Emily Mink
In response to the Loewen article, I didn't take away as much as I thought I would based on the title. Obviously, school districts don't control what goes into a text. When districts map out their curriculum, they have to pack in as much information as they possibly can within the framework of the class. My freshman year dealt with U.S. history. My sophomore year was World History. Junior year was Global Studies, and Government was required during senior year.
That gives them one year to cram our heads full of important events and wars. Our society is entirely focused on dates, events, and racial/gender issues. Economic issues would almost need an entire class devoted to it. The author sounds like a conspiracy theorist with a clear democratic agenda. Not only does he blame the Republicans for not "properly" educating students on socioeconomic issues, but he also blames them for creating such a wide gap between the rich and the poor.
It's the same story we all know, the rich have more opportunities than the poor. However, I completely disagree when they are both put in the same classroom. I don't know how a teacher can live with themselves by teaching differently to students of different social class. If a teacher holds different standards for the upper class students than the lower class, then the teacher has no business teaching a class.
Loewen is saying that teachers are not discussion certain topics with students because they do not want to, however I do not believe this to be entirely true. While I can see how most of the topics that are not discussed due to their controversial nature would be difficult or uncomfortable for some to teach, we must also take into account the schools’ structures, state and national standards, and just the factor of time. The school may be the one’s prohibiting the teaching of certain topics, not the teachers. This is still not good, but it shows that it may not just be up to the teacher. In terms of standards, controversial issues are not all in the guides of what a teacher is required to teach, and therefore a teacher may not touch on a subject because he or she is not “required” to. Furthermore, a teacher may just run out of time to touch on issues that they may want to, because there is so much more information that they are focusing on. With all that being said, I do not want to seem like I am against teachers discussing controversial issues, I am just saying that there are many more obstacles and reasons that a teacher may not be teaching them. One issue that was discussed in the article was the fact that many teachers do not discuss class structure, and the concept of social mobility. I was trying to reflect on my high school career, and I (like most others who have already blogged about this topic) only remember being told that if a person tries hard enough they will be able to succeed, and move up in social class. I know that in this day and age that there are many more factors, beyond just putting forth your best effort, that are extremely important and equally as unlikely that are necessary for this movement. Loewen seems to hold the same opinion as I do, in that he does not believe that these movements are made often. He continues with this line of thought even discussing how he believes that upward mobility may not even be possible. I think that is a pretty pessimistic view, but recently I have come to agree with it more and more.
I found chapter three to be very appealing to what happens in classrooms today. Censorship seems to be more existing in classrooms nowadays than when I was in high school a few years back. Eddie’s case seemed to be very interesting to read and think about. I was really confused on which way should I approach the case, from the consequentialist or nonconsequentialist point of view. I side more with the nonconsequentialist theory, because Eddie as any other human being, including myself, is a moral agent. He has the right of free speech, and free press. The book states that “Both moral theories have strong arguments for liberty, and both make maturity a consideration...” (Strike and Soltis, pg. 49) So with taking in consideration that Eddie is a moral agent and should be granted all his rights of free of speech and press, we should also consider his level of maturity. Eddie believes that his article is completely on the topic and should be published so everybody can read it. As a moral agent, who is responsible for his actions, Eddie should consider the consequences which follow his actions. In this case Eddie does not take into account the consequences, which makes his level of maturity questionable? I am not saying that his article should be censored in anyway, I am totally against censorship. I believe that students have the freedom to write about any topic that feels appealing to them as students and might provide them with some security. But, on the other hand, I think the nonconsequentialist theory gives us the chance to discuss ideas. I think Mr. Lane should ask Eddie if he was in Beth’ shoes, how would he feel if that article was about him? If he would be humiliated? Then he should be given the choice to either change the wording of his article and some of the characters or for his article not to be published. Would Eddie feel though that his rights have been violated if he was denied the publication of his article? I think he would. So my question is: for intellectual freedom, from a nonconsequentialist point of view, do all moral agents have the right of speech and freedom regardless of maturity level? Are we allowed to ignore the maturity of children? And if we do, how can we guarantee that their publications is morally accepted by the society?
I enjoyed the excerpt from Lies My Teacher Told Me. I think it made some very good points as well as identifying reasons behind feelings identified within a social class. Looking back on my high school years, ways in which lower or middle class people challenged the workings of society was often overlooked. Even in the suburbs of Chicago, the Haymarket massacre of 1886 is not emphasized for bringing about International Workers Day. The date was moved from May to September by U.S. President Grover Cleveland out of fear the day could be commemorated by riots. Through my youth, I could not identify why Labor Day existed. I thought it was just a day off for all the hard labor workers did every year. I never associated it with a reflection for the rights of workers and the positive impact middle and lower class workers have. On page 208, the author says, “…the idea that America is a meritocracy goes unchallenged in schools.” I believe this to be true, and I would like more information on how history books she referenced were picked. I understand that few people are able to beat the odds and find success from being in poverty; it needs to be appropriately acknowledged as the exception. My father was one of these exceptions. He grew up below the poverty line. My grandfather earned about $4000 a year to raise a family of 6. My father earned a scholarship to Ohio State and was given the opportunity to make something of himself. This should happen more often, but it doesn’t. It did not even happen with my father’s siblings or peers. Education is one of the few opportunities to find success, but it seems more necessary and difficult for poverty stricken kids to go to college every year.
After reading chapter 3 of the Strike and Soltis I was slightly shocked at the first case. While I understand that there is a personal dilemma for the teacher, being that he doesn't approve of censorship, it's plain to see that, in the interest of the student body, that this article be published. While Eddie might not see the harm in publishing this story now, he soon would. Many of the students, I feel, would be angry with him for the story, and therefore would outcast him. He would also be hurting the two people that the story is about. If I had been the teacher in this case I would have absolutely not published this story. I would have, however, looked more deeply into the situation, with the help of the principal, to make sure that the allegations against the other teacher were not true. I would also have told Eddie that while his writing was good, the story itself was not appropriate for the school paper, and that I would hope that he would try writing something different for the next edition to the paper.
I really enjoyed reading Lies My Teacher Told Me, because it points out a fundamental problem with the not only the education system in this country, but the entire political system as well. Since the first grade we as students of the U.S. public education system have been taught to believe that the U.S. is indeed the "the land of opportunity". What they don't tell us is that this typically only applies to white male who comes from significant means. That's not to say that history doesn't provide us with numerous examples of individuals who have overcome significant hardships. The truth of the matter is that for every John D. Rockefeller, there are millions of countless individuals who are unable to overcome the injustices our system places on them.
I believe strongly that the schools today should include discussions on American social structure in all districts affluent or poor. The author is correct in stating that doing so in the poorer school districts can lead to a sense of empowerment. It might also allow the students coming from middle class, and affluent districts to better understand the plight of those less fortunate. One has to wonder why at this point in our history do we not discuss such issues. Is it not unethical for teachers today to ignore the obvious problems caused by the system? Isn't it our duty as teachers to provide our students with truthful information that will impact their future? -Bryan Stumpf
I’m glad that this excerpt was selected. Ever since coming to Ohio State, I have learned history in a completely different way than I did in the first 18 years of my life. The history instructor I had last quarter challenged the exact same ideal that this reading challenged: has American history been a process that has lead to equality and freedom, or has it always been a witness to the inequality of men and the innate inability for the poor and underprivileged to overcome this disparity? I was shocked to see the reality of history as it has played out in the United States, especially in the last 150 years. I often feel indignant learning that I was taught history in a way that brushes reality under the rug. I was glad that the author identified some possible reasons for these appalling omissions, but I still wonder: why are these parts of American history omitted? Why can we not talk about social class and how the gap between the rich and poor is getting wider? Are we, the middle class (and above) simply suppressing these truths, in an attempt to further justify our greed and ability to climb the social ladder? Whatever the answer, I hope that our country (more importantly, those who teach history and print history textbooks) will someday decide to start portraying a realistic history of the United States, not some fable that perpetuates ignorance of social classes. -John Thesing
I enjoyed reading the Intellectual Freedom chapter in the text this week. Mr. Lane had a difficult choice to make concerning Eddie's paper. I personally do not know how I would handle the situation. Personally, I would want to let Eddie turn in his paper. Eddie's paper shows the depth of his creative intellectualism at such an early age. His writing talent should not be stifled. Throughout history, young people have made significant contributions to the arts and sciences. Just imagine if someone stopped Mozart from writing music, for example?
Despite his young age, Eddie's writing shows his level of maturity. He obviously already has an understanding of some very adult concepts. It must be conceded that some things should be shielded from children. Pornography, violent images, and other things of graphic nature have no place in a child's life.
The case "Censorship?" was really intriguing to me because I have heard of stuff like that happening in schools before. I was glad that it was addressed in this class since it is also such a tough subject, and one that almost all of us will have to deal with in our future careers. It's hard for me to decide what I would do in those situations because I am completely against censorship, and yet I do not want my kids to be taught something that I do not agree with. However, I feel that our children, when they reach a certain age, should not be sheltered from issues because they will most likely have to deal with them in their lives. Censorship is such a complex issue where almost everyone has two points of view on it, how do we decide what is right?
I found the excerpt from Lies My Teacher Told Me a compelling read, if not new information. That schools fail to teach students about our country's social class system is not terribly surprising. This avoidance of unpleasant facts/uncomfortable issues occurs in other areas as well, beyond social class. Students are not taught much of anything that puts our society or government in an unflattering or truly negative light. This leads students, as Loewen points out, to leave school with a naive and incomplete understanding of the world around them, and I believe it is a great disservice we, as a society, do them. I believe that students should have a thorough understanding of how our country works on every level; if they don't understand how the "system" works to keep most people in the socio-economic class they were born into (or, for example, that it is not just foreign governments that have behaved reprehensibly throughout history), how can they effect change in their own lives or in those of others? I had the uncommon opportunity to attend an elite liberal arts college, but I was certainly not of the same class as most of the students there. At least half the student body there could afford the full $45,000/year tuition. My parents, on the other hand, have both always held low-paying blue collar jobs and with three kids, money was always tight. So going to college was almost an experience of culture shock. I was not without a sense of shame for my background at times, and was almost always at least conscious of it. I knew why my family was not affluent, but how liberating it was to learn formally how society perpetuates class inequality and hear rational explanations for how this happens. It was also very interesting to see wealthy students' reactions when I explained aspects of coming from a lower class background. They would have benefitted just as much from a more forthcoming and honest education about this country's history in terms of socio-economic class. It shouldn't require an exceptional college education for our students to learn these things that are so integral to all of our experiences, regardless of background. -Kelly Dewey
I enjoyed reading "The Land of Opportunity" by Loewen. Although he states some interesting facts, I actually disagree with a few things that he says. He often states that children do not learn enough information about social class. Although many social studies textbooks may not have enough information about social class, Loewen does not know what the teachers themselves teach the students. In my social studies classes, mainly high school from what I can remember, we talked about social classes many times. We learned that in the past, white men had much more advantages than anyone else. My teachers also would show us statistics with social status, and how even up until today, white men still have more advantage than women, African Americans, etc. We also learned how white men always had more opportunities, such as job opportunities. For example, a white man and woman would go in for the same job interview, but the white man would get the job because of his status. In high school, I learned a lot about how unfair society is in America, and we were also asked if America was truly "The Land of Opportunity." Loewen states that most social studies texts do not talk about this information, but in reality, not all teachers teach from a textbook. I had many teachers that hardly ever used a textbook, but taught great lessons and some were in greater detail than what the text gave. Also, just because the text may not talk about this information, it does not mean that it is never brought up in classrooms.
The case about Eddie who wrote a "revenge paper" towards Mr. Waters was very interesting. It was difficult for me to come to a conclusion about what I would do in a case like this if I were the teacher. In my opinion it came down to the fact that Eddie was misrepresenting the character of his teacher and putting one of his peers in a terrible position. I think it would have been irresponsible for the teacher to put a piece like that out in the public to see. Looking at the situation from a consequentialist perspective I think the most good would be done for the group if the teacher was to censor the writing to make it less of a direct representation of Mr. Waters and Beth. When thinking about the situation from a nonconsequentialist perspective I think the age of the child and the fact that he is still in school, so therefore subject to the rules of the teacher and the school, should be taken into consideration here. Children should still have their rights to freedom of speech but this is different because a staff member is being misrepresented in a terrible light. It is wrong to do this and I dont think censorship, especially in a school setting, is a violation of freedom of press and freedom of speech.
I would like to discuss chapter three of Strike and Soltis. As I read the first case regarding the faculty adviser of the school magazine, I kept finding myself going back and forth between censorship (which I have never agreed with) and allowing the article to be published. What makes this decision so difficult is that it involves "children" and their freedom of speech rights. Adults have the ability to do something to interfere with what a child is doing because that adult deems the action as wrong. I personally think that this article deserves to be published. I understand that this might negatively affect the young girl, however, a literary work that is so well written does not deserve to go unnoticed. One of the worst things you can do to a child is hide their creativity. Some of the best works of art, music, and literature have blossomed from someone that had a lot of passion and creativity and was able to put that into something that is timeless. In our society, we are constantly trying to make students smart and intelligent, but we are missing a key factor. This factor is their creativity. Art, literature, dance, and music allows students to take this creativity and change the world with it. In the case of Mr. Lane, I would allow the article to be published and allow the students read something that a creative and intellectual peer wrote. These students are also in high school and will soon be attending college where they will be strongly encouraged to be themselves and be unique and create something new. If this student does not get the article published now, he will at another time when he is able to because he is not restricted by high school.
My question to all of this is how can we allow students to be creative in a way that does not hurt other people so that we do not have to censor them or is this unavoidable?
The Loewen article took me back to my high school history class where we discussed the notion that America is this sort of subset of a utopian society where everyone is middle class and class conflict is a thing of the past. Text books talk about the American inclination to social mobility as though we are all in some Horatio Alger story. In reality, however, this is not usually the case. Many people living in poverty work harder than those in the middle or upper class all their lives just to get by. Even the idea of the "middle class" is quickly becoming a myth as more people fall below the poverty line.
One of the best examples of the class divide is in our schools. Even here in Ohio, we can see that coming from an affluent household gives a child a better chance of getting a quality education. Children in rural school districts are crammed into small, run-down classrooms with old textbooks and limited materials, while students in suburban districts go to school in state-of-the-art buildings with seemingly unlimited resources. A student's ability to learn is very dependant upon the environment in which they are learning.
So while the article did not really tell me anything I did not already know, it brought up some good points. Maybe we should not be teaching our children a myth about a shiney happy middle class society unless we intend to make it a reality.
Class structure is something that is discussed in very little amount. When I was in high school, I don't remember going over the class structure at all really. I think this article really does a good job in allowing a reader to know the mistakes some teachers are making. Class structure should be taught and explained to the students and not avoided I believe.
Lies my Teacher Told Me also caught my atattention very quickly. Do we realyl teach children anough about social class? I seem to be stuck on both sides of this. I don't know if it really is the teacher's main job to teach social class. I think social class comes from experiences you face in life. Your parents have a huge impact on this, as well as your friends. You can learn a lot through experiences, and I believe that is what ultimately teaches you about social class. I do think teachers should still teach it, but I don't think it is a huge area that they need to cover. Students will learn the majority of information through experiences in life.
Loewen, "The Land of Opportunity", was a particular interesting in the content that was presented to the reader of the article. It goes into depth about many issues in educational classrooms. The article talks first about the use of textbooks in the classroom, and how not everything is included in textbooks that has occured in our history and in the history of other countries. The governement purposely in my opinion censors what is included in textbooks given to our studnets. They decide waht students should and should'nt be educated about. Why should the governement decide what should be taught in our schools, should'nt we be aware of these other events in history not included in our textbooks? Continuing on reading the article it tells the reader what is and is not included in textbooks today. Most of the information not included in textbooks includes information the government feels unnessary teaching students about. For example, the histrocial trend caused by Reagan-Bush administrations accerlating the shrinkage of the middle-class. I agree with Loewn this is something that should be included in textbooks, so students become more aware of the affects the governement has on our society and the censorship of what is being taught to them in school. Also I feel like when Loewen talks about teachers avoiding the topic of social class, it is not because the teachers choose to but because it is a topic that is more tough to discuss. I believe that teachers try and avoid discussing social class because their are multiple different opinions on social class, and its a topic that the governement and some parents do not want to include in their child's education. However, I feel that children of a certain age should have access to these materials, so that they are aware of the the issues of social class and censorship and how it plays into the education that they are recieving. I am curious as to how a person goes about decideing what should and should not be included in the education of our children?
I found the first case study from chapter 3 in the textbook to be very interesting. As a I read Mr. Lane and Eddie's story I at first found myself unsure of what the correct way to handle this situation would be. I don't think that any teacher should allow a student to potentially harm another student whether it be emotionally or physically. However, Mr. Lane has never censored another student's work before, so why should he censor Eddie's? Prior to reading this case, I had never considered situations like these that may someday arise within my own classroom. I believe that the hardest question to answer within this situation is when is "is it appropriate to grant Eddie the right to freedom of speech given his age and maturity"? I found it very interesting that the chapter discussed how Eddie may someday regret his decision to publish the article if Mr. Lane does allow the article to be published. Seeing as this is a possibility, I think that Mr. Lane should make the decision not to allow Eddie to publish the article in its current state. Instead, Mr. Lane should sit down and discuss with Eddie his concerns with the article. Eddie should then be given a chance to fix the article so that he will not offend other teachers and students. My question is, How can we as educators be fair to all students while not withholding rights?
I'm responding to the Loewen article. Personally, as many have said, it's nothing I haven't heard before. In a class I took a previous quarter, we spent an entire 2 classes discussing how teachers usually avoid discussing certain topics because it makes them feel uncomfortable. On top of social class, similar topics include racism, religion and sex. While I am tempted to say that this is wrong, I have not been in a situation before where I've had to discuss an issue, such as the ones listed above, with a classroom of young students. However, I believe it is something we should be trained in. I've spent many classes dicussing how teachers avoid or whitewash these topics in their classrooms, but never some guidance on a constructive and comfortable way to bring these things up. Additionally, teachers don't write the textbooks. We use the ones given to us/listed in the cirriculum. While I do think there is a problem that lies in how teachers go about teaching arguably controversial topics in the classroom, I believe the main problem lies in the textbooks. These books are being whitewashed and written from an American standpoint. In the same class last quarter, we read an article on how 4 different countries portrayed the events of WW2, and it was amazing how different the perspectives were. If you read a British textbook, you wouldn't think much of America's involvement. I've gone off on a bit of a rant. My main point is that these topics are ones that teachers need to be comfortable discussing. Regardless of the school district, all teachers, at some point, will experience students of different social classes, races, and religions in their classrooms; and it is important that we know how to address them in a mature and educated way. -Christina M.
I have decided to write my blog this week about the case studies found in this chapter. For the first case study about Mr. Lane and Eddie and the newspaper article, the book talked about whether or not Mr. Lane should post Eddies article. I believe that if there is any part of Mr. lane that thinks it should be censored then he should censor the article. The book mentions that even though censoring a person’s article, that it does not necessarily apply to kids and I think a high school writer should have boundaries within the school. This article could hurt another student badly and the consequences Eddie will face could be harsh and critical. Mill talks about a marketplace of ideas and to censor an idea is to pretty much deny people the opportunity to consider it/test it/learn from it. I believe freedom of speech is extremely important but there is a time and place for a child to be critically honest to which he will hurt one of his classmates. The second case study talked about censorship. I do not have children so my opinion could change but I want my kids to read about everything. I think some parents disagree with discussions on sex, drugs, and alcohol but unfortunately those things are part of today’s society and there really is no way of avoiding it by censoring the books our children read. For example, there was a story I heard about 2 penguins that were homosexual and they actually live in Central Park zoo together. The zoo keeper adopted an egg to give these two male penguins. The story is called And Tango Makes Three and it is banned at a lot of schools because it teaches homosexuality, which I disagree with. I think children need to know about this and to know it’s ok because it is happening in our world today.
Ok, so first, I found this chapter and the posed case studies actually less didactic than those in the first chapter. To me, it seemed less engaging. Perhaps this is solely because the ideas of consequentialism and non-consequentialism are now familiar. I don't know...
I do agree with some of the tenets from Mills and the reading. The ideas that free speech and freedom of the press are paramount for finding truth and improving ideas, as well as that personal growth require freedom seem intuitive. Teens and parents often clash because teens are trying to assert their self-determination and independence, so having a level of freedom during this time period to learn and grow is important. But just having freedom doesn't necessarily lead to positive results. Even holding someone accountable for their actions with that freedom doesn't necessarily eliminate certain "negative" factors of freedom. Take the whole Wiki-Leaks controversy. Just because what was leaked/reported may have been the truth, it doesn't mean that it should have been released to the masses. Instead, it could have disastrous results and harm to many people. I guess this is a consequentialist viewpoint, but it is important to look at how actions have an affect. When talking about freedom of speech, it doesn't mean that a person can say or do whatever they want. As the book mentioned, there are civil repercussions, like liable lawsuits, and even criminal laws against things like ensuing panic with one's speech - such as yelling "fire" in a crowded public space. I think, therefore, that a person is generally limited in what they say and do because of certain conventions and the idea of avoiding harm. I agree with that.
I am the first in line to agree with Loewen that our government is shady. They try to cover up issues and events that threaten to push the United States off of it's high horse. HOWEVER, blaming the teacher is something I will not endorse. As teachers we are given curriculum standards that must be met or we'll be out of a job. Even if I did want to enlighten my students to the hidden history or the dark secret of social class, I'm more concerned in keeping my job. In high school, my sophomore history teacher tried his hardest to follow the rules, but open us to this wealth of information that is otherwise under wraps. He showed us Loose Change (a video that explores the possibility that 9/11 was a consipiracy) by putting the video up and leaving the room saying... "I'm going to the bathroom for a little while and if one of you happens to press play, so be it." He also told us about the book this chapter is from, Lies My Teacher Told Me, but was careful never to say we should read it. He simply said, "If you're interested, there is some interesting information in there." He was actually my favorite teacher because I felt as though he respected us enough as people to give us the responsibility to explore and question. However, I'm sure not all students felt this way. Is sharing "banned" information in a school crossing a line by forcing particular views on the students? Should it be the parent's responsibility to teach it?
From a purely antidotal perspective I didn’t know diddily squat about social stratification until I took Soc 463 a few years ago, which subsequently changed my worldview more than any other class I have ever taken. It honestly blew my mind. Maybe I was half asleep in high school and just glossed over the social stratification and inequality lessons, because I do not remember taking them. The material in Soc 463 was completely new to me. It was exciting and revealing. Up until that class I had been living in reality that was blind to the ills of capitalism. Having learned more about social stratification over the past few years I have to agree with the dominant themes in the Loewn article. High school students today are fed a watered down version of U.S. history that paints a rosy and nationalistic portrayal of American society. If teachers direct class solely based on textbooks then students are going to continue to be uniformed. As future teachers we have to go beyond the boundaries of the canon if we really want to make an impact. I think teachers get shit on enough to where they simply take the easy road, which consists of lesson plans based on textbooks. It is unfortunate.
I agree with the idea that James Loewen had in Lies My Teacher Told Me concerning the “Land of Opportunity.” Textbooks leave out information about classes. In school I remember learning that America was so great because we did not have a rigid class system, but I think through the information presented in this articles, there is a rather rigid gate separating the classes and sometimes someone can sneak through to advance to another class but most cannot. The article states that many publishers do not talk about class because they do not want to appear Marxist. One can talk about the fact that classes exist in America and that people for the most part, people are stuck in the class that they were born in throughout their life without being a Marxist. Textbooks and teachers need to inform students of class especially the class system in America. If we let kids think that there is not a class system in America and then they get into the real world and they will experience a great realization and probably a great fall. Not teaching kids about class and the classes’ quicksand effect is dangerous, once you are stuck in a class you are most likely stuck there. Teachers are then not preparing students adequately for the world outside of the classroom walls. Although I agree with putting class into textbooks and showing kids the reality, I do buy into the “land of opportunity” myth that is presented in this article. Children need to be told that they can do anything and be anything. If teachers do not do that, what are teachers supposed to tell them? “You are poor now and you will be poor when you grow up so just deal with it.” That is ridiculous, that would not motivate anyone to try to advance themselves in the social system. Children from a poor family do not need another obstacle for their future, they need encouragement and support from a teacher because they are not going to get it anywhere else. Now here is the problem, how to integrate class and its structures into a text book and I really do not have the answer for that problem. Should it be a little colorful box on the side of the page that has a little anecdote about a poor man who became an executive? I feel like that is continuing the problem, kind of like the publishers threw it into the book to appease the poor kids and families. There is no simple solution to this problem obviously, but it needs to be dealt with to show kids a glimpse of the real world, so it is not a surprise when or if they graduate high school. And just a little side note about the experiment they did with the two cars and the stop lights, I would honk anyone who does not go on a green light. It would not matter if it was the president or station wagon, they all get honked at. Katie O'Connell
After reading the textbook chapter on intellectual freedom and the Land of Opportunity selection, I have decided discuss the Land of Opportunity excerpt. The topics discussed here are ones that I really had never thought about before in regard to teaching. One part that I found especially interesting is the part where it talks about when teachers and textbooks both skip around certain topics because they do not want to feel as if they are exposing the students to things that are beyond their control such as social structure. The fact that this is overlooked in curriculum can end up harming the children when they are faced with the reality that there is a structure to society that they were previously unaware of. I also thought it was interesting when the author discussed how many teachers feel different when a student coming from a lower class background performs better than students from a higher class. Overall, this excerpt does do the topic justice and allows the reader to come to their own conclusion.
Chapter Three of the Strike and Soltis book really stood out to me. The questioning of whether or not it is ethical to censor the writing of underage people is a topic that I dealt with first hand. In high school I was on the journalism staff; we put out a student written news magazine each month. My senior year was also the last year of my adviser's career. She had been the adviser for the magazine and yearbook for 27 years. Each spring we put out a magazine that dealt completely with sex. The issue we put out my senior year caused a huge stir in our community. Adults who didn't even have children in our school were calling in and writing letters saying it was completely inappropriate and they wanted our adviser to be fired. This was very upsetting to us; we felt we had the right to write about such a relevant topic to our audience, our adviser felt the sex issue was tastefully done and was against censorship. Obviously this had many parallels to the case of Mr. Lane publishing Eddie's article. In my opinion, it is the job or Mr. Lane to advise Eddie to make ethically responsible decisions. This doesn't mean not censoring his writing, it means guiding him to write in a way that does not harm others. I also found Loewen's "The Land of Opportunity" very interesting. While I don't remember being specifically taught about the different social classes in detail or their role in the individual's lives within those classes, I do understand them now so I was obviously taught about the subject at some point. One idea Loewen brings up is that many high school students do not know or understand the ideas about social stratification or it's role in society. With this, I thought about how whether or not I only have an understanding of these concepts because I am from an affluent family and have had the opportunities that comes from this social class. Further, does this mean that people of poverty and the lower class don't ever understand the perpetuation of their social class?
While reading the Loewen article about how students are not taught about social structure, this just reminded me of the many topics that are taught to students either wrongly, or from one point-of-view. Teacher may not teach about social structure because it can be a very touchy subject. There are teachers who have students that are so diverse culturally and economically, that it may be hard for them to teach it in a successful way.
However, I do not think we should shelter our students from "real" topics such as social structure. Teachers need to teach students the truth. Giving multiple perspectives on social structure and other topics will help students find what THEY believe in.
Mr. Lane, the journalism teacher from Strike and Soltis, could and should have prevented the publication of Eddie’s story based on the fact that it was a libelous representation of Mr. Waters and Beth. As the speaker explains, “…the similarity between the fictional Mr. Wells and the real John Waters, Springfield’s physical education teacher, would be lost on no one.” Assuming that Mr. Lane was able to make this connection, I don’t understand how he could allow something to be printed that would call into question the moral character of a colleague. In addition to the issue of censorship, Mr. Lane should also consider Eddie’s intentions. Is this really an appropriate means for someone to act on an unfounded grudge? If accusation of misconduct did arise because of the article, it could be traumatic for Beth; would it not be just as distressing for Mr. Waters, who could potentially lose his job? Surely a student as “astute” as Eddie could be persuaded to use the school’s literary publication solely as a display for stellar literature and speak to with teachers face to face about his issues with them. If not, the problems with Eddie’s maturity and social skills run deeper than any issue of censorship.
Loewen is right to accuse teachers of ignoring their responsibilities on educating students about socio-political topics like socio-economic status and its prevalence today. Educating students about class structure is a great way to show students how to exercise their responsibilities as citizens in a democracy. Eric Gutstein's Reading And Writing The World With Mathematics: Toward a Pedagogy for Social Justice shows one example of how a classroom can be used for social and political education can be incorporated into math which at first might be seemingly difficult in such a subject. Most of Gutstein's students are considered to be of low SES and he still shows how he manages to focus on state standards and his students excel (even on standardized tests) because they are using they are educated through localized relevant issues. Its work gaining the trust of administrators and parents and developing curriculum to educate students about SES, but despite the shortcomings of textbooks and perhaps even the fallacies of national standards it can and should still be done. How much longer can teachers ignore their obvious socio-political implications?
In response to the Lowen article, I have a problem with one of his examples that he cited on page 207 and 208. This section of the reading is discussing that "white middle class students believe that they deserve their low status". He goes on to talk about how society views poor people. Lowen apparently had 2 of his students conduct an experiment. He had them drive in Vermont and stop at a stop light and not move until someone honked at them. The first attempt was in a nice new black "rich" looking car. The next attempt was in a old junker that a "poor" person may drive. He then gives the averages of how long it was before someone honked. People gave the nice car longer time before they honked. His reaction for the experiment is this: Americans unconsciously grant respect to the educated and successful. While I find this experiment very interesting, I am rather shocked that he did such a small experiment and then used it as proof for such a large statement. Saying that Americans don't respect poor people is a big statement and I don't think you should make such a statement unless you have done EXTENSIVE research. Proper research would include doing this experiment multiple times and in different parts of the country. With this is mind...What would other people in other parts of the country do? Would certain areas of the United States be nicer at this stop light situation than in other areas? Do Americans really not respect the poor?
Like many others, I also found myself looking back on my school years while reading "The Land of Opportunity". Also, like many others I found myself remembering that while I was in school my teachers never talked a great deal about social classes. If the topic of the different social classes of America happened to get brought up they quickly said that we are American's have the priviledge to make our own future and can make our destiny. I disagree with this. As much as I think it is important to do the things we like and to do as best as we can, it is very hard to move up social classes. I think it is so difficult because education is so important, which it should be. My mom is very successful in her career but she does not have a college. She has told me many times that if she was just starting out in the business world wanting the job she has now with no college degree then there would be no way she would get the job. I think education has become such a prerequisite for better paying jobs and people that come from lower social classes may not be able to afford college, therefore leaving them with lower income, it is like an endless cycle. Although it is hard, it is not impossible to move social classes, but I do think that teachers just tell their students that people can move classes easily just to keep themselves out of trouble and to make sure that they are not stepping on people's toes.
While reading the Lowen excerpt I was considering all the times I have heard socio-economic status within my courses here at OSU as a Human Development and Family Science major. It is probably one of the most talked about aspects of person within a lot of the developmental classes. However, prior to being here at OSU I cannot think of any history text that I read which contained information on SES and hierarchy of wealth among Americans. It is interesting, because growing up I always knew the difference between working, middle, and higher class even though I did not learn it from history text.
I really appreciated when he discusses the amount and quality of vocabulary that "rich" kids are exposed to in relationship to the "poor" kids, because it is so true that the majority of those "rich" children not only test better, but have a higher chance at success. Everytime I hear this it blows my mind. I think it is so hard to believe because it is true. I just talked about this for the 10th time in a class last week. Children who have parents that are "professionals" will be exposed to many more words due to them just HEARING words all the time. Children who are in poorer families hear a shockingly low amount of words when compared to the more well off children. Crazy but true.
The article entitled "Lies My Teacher Told Me" brought um issues that I feel I will be aware of as a future educator. The idea that class is a major factor in Americas history, but is never taught in schools is a paradox that is true and often overlooked. I certainly have a different view of how class plays into success after reading this article as well. It is also interesting to note that with the current situation in Ohio regarding Senate Bill 5 just how much class is playing into these politics. A law is being passed that influences the lower labor working class by people who are of the upper class and will benefit from this. It is unequal representation and is giving way to a rise in tensions among classes. One aspect of history that is commonly true is that it repeats itself. It is for this reason I feel students need to be educated on these issues and topics because if social unrest has given way to major reform in society, we may be on the brink of another paradigm shift in our western culture.
When I began to read Loewen's excerpt I initially was surprised by this information of students being ignorant to "why are people poor" and "why are other families well off." I thought back to my freshman year in college and thought if I was one of these naive students that Loewen spoke of. I do not believe that I was one of these students but thinking back I can definitely think of some people who knew they were well off because mom and dad went to college and then got well paying jobs, while others were the opposite. The richer people believe that there are equal opportunities for all but this is not the case. One example of this is when finding a job, it is not all about what you know but more-so WHO you know. This is a prime example of why the wealthy are staying wealthy and the others are not rising up to reach them, they cannot because they do not have the opportunities to. Loewen goes on to describe that 6 out of 12 high school history books do not have all of the information they should have about social class and the riots and acts that have happened to shape the way America has developed into who we are today. Personally, I believe that if we, as the teachers, are supposed to be teaching the HISTORY of the nation we should include ALL of it, not leave out parts because the book does not include it. I think it would be worth noting to your students that these different events happened because of the lack of equality in the workplace and in the life here in America.
I found the library book ban was profoundly troubling. First I want to speculate the context of the conflict. Was this a small town? When did it happen? Obviously the historical atmosphere of this community could have been a factor in determining the level of irrational behavior of the parents towards the material in question. At the end of the conflict what the superintendent was dealing with was an allegory for the thin lines teachers walk with educational obligations and parental rights to their child's experiences. Where is the obscenity line in regards to those who are required to instruct and those dogmatic rights of a parent to a child? Michelle Leitzel
Growing up I would have to agree that we are raised with the stigma that those who are part of the lower and poor class are simply lazy and do not want to put forth the effort to better themselves. I finally came to the conclusion that this is not always the case and it is crucial to take into account the fact that not all people have access to the same resources.This can continue to be a cycle with the children born in poverty due to the fact it is extremely difficult to gain the resources needed to further their development. As a society we need to move in the direction to educate our children to the realization that those of the lower class are not lazy however not everyone has the same access to resources needed. Given the certain places that a child grows up depends on what they learn in school and how they learn it. There have been many history books that describe parts of history very differently given the background from where they come; given that they have books to even read. America has the stigma that everyone has a fair opportunity however those who have the most resources given to them are those who maintain the most power.
The first case study in chapter 3 was extremely thought provoking, and I found myself constantly going back and forth between ideas of what I would do if I were the teacher in this situation. In addition to giving me a much clearer picture of consequentialism and non-consequentialism in real life situations, I can see merit in both points of view. Certainly Eddie has created a wonderful piece of writing that his teacher, like any teacher that strives to evoke student creativity and expression, would like to share. The job of the teacher is to promote student growth, and this is often achieved best through writing, art, music, dance, etc. When Mr. Lane realizes this is a very accurate description of a student and another teacher at the school, he is correct in second-guessing the publication of this work in order to protect the reputation of those involved. What is the right thing to do? Of course Mr. Lane wants to see his student grow and succeed, in which censorship would hinder this achievement and he would probably lose a bit of respect from the student. But if published, what would come of the gossip and rumors of the innocent people involved in the story? It seems like the best thing to do would be to talk to the student, honestly explain the reasoning for the hesitance in publication of the story, and see if the student is willing to alter the characters or storyline so it is less obvious. But on the other side of that idea, will the student see the Mr. Lane as one who stifles creativity, infringing on Eddie's right to free speech? There are infinite gray areas in this situation in response to the issues of free speech and censorship in schools. Because the student is a "child" does that change anything? Is there an exception? If we continue to make exceptions for every situation, where is the cut off point?
It amazes me how students think that poverty is caused by the laziness of people. Yes, there are some who are lazy but not all of the. Some people have fallen on hard times and are just plain unlucky. I can say this because growing up in West Sacramento, California I saw first hand, families in poverty due to tough times, they were not remotely lazy. I don't understand why this idea has been perpetuated through out history and why it hasn't been corrected. This is making our society unsympathetic and ignorant. I believe that we should teach our children how to be free thinkers. Thinking for yourself is not something that is seen very often. Through research I believe that we can solve this problem. We should teach children how to research so they can figure the answers out by their want of knowledge. We should not feed our children lies. This has been a problem in schools. When I found out that what they were teaching in my high school about Pocahontas was not true, I went searching on my own. I found a wonderful resource. The name of the book is People's History of the United States 1492-Present by Howard Zinn. It corrected a lot of things that my teachers missed when I was in high school. I am surprised that we are not educating our children properly and we no longer have the drive to search for the truth, to ask questions about what we're being taught, to educate ourselves. This is embarrassing and we need to do something to fix it.
I found Loewen’s article to be very intriguing. I still am somewhat surprised that the data that points to students being unaware of class issues and the different statuses of their classmates. I remember being in school and using simple cues such as dress and transportation to school to be able to tell the different types of backrounds that each student came from. Students from better backrounds experience a better deal of success than their lower status counterparts, achieving better scores as well as better jobs. As teachers, our job is to provide our children with the best education possible so that they receive every advantage to bringing out their potential. What can we do to help make sure that even lesser off students get a fair start as well? Workshops and extra attention can be applied to help students, but sometimes we must take these a step further. Lower SES students need to be shown that although their journey to better times and a higher social class may be difficult, it is something that is not out of reach. In order to truly grasp their situation and potential, they first need to be given the information. We must make sure that each student receives the premium education that they are entitled to.
I found it interesting that the article mentioned that teachers avoid discussion about class structure. But, when I think about it, this is true. My history courses back in high school did not go into detail about this area to much either. This confirms the ideas in the article. Although discussion about class structure may be a touchy subject for both the students and the teachers, it’s important to talk about these things, especially in a school setting where people come from different backgrounds. Talking about these issues at home with families may influence students follow one set belief, but in schools they can learn from other students as well.
ReplyDeleteSelf-worth does impact how people view themselves and what they believe they can accomplish in the future. Just like the article mentioned, when children come from families with few resources they may not view themselves as able to accomplish all of their goals. In my opinion, teachers should act as role models and try to relate to their students. They should encourage them to do well and be there to talk to them.
In all, class structure needs to be discussed in greater detail than it is in text books because students learn from other’s opinions, beliefs, and experiences. However, since this topic may cause students to feel uncomfortable teachers should develop strategies to help with such problems. How do teachers plan for this? What strategies may be helpful? Also, how do you encourage students who may have a low self-worth to have more confidence and work towards goals?
I really enjoyed reading this article and found it to be extremely interesting. After reading the article I tried to think back to when I was in high school, and I could not recall ever being taught about class structure. The only time history books or any of my teachers is when they are talking about social mobility and how if people work hard enough they can overcome anything and move up in society. The author of this article clearly does not believe that this is true and quite frankly I agree with him. Not very many people move up in society anymore, especially nowadays with the recession and everything happening. In today's society a college degree is almost required for most well paying jobs. Then when students do go to college they come out with mounds of debt and no guarantee of a job.
ReplyDeleteI found the Loewen article to be very interesting. After reading it, I tried to look back on my history classes from high school. I do not remember ever learning anything about class systems and structures. In fact, I do not remember really learning anything about class structures until I began taking college classes. This is something that I find quite disturbing. I do not think that it is ever okay to attempt to shelter students from ideas and concepts that are essential to understanding our society. Isn’t one the main goals of education in America to create knowledgeable citizens? If we, as educators, are keeping essential information from our students we are ultimately failing them, in my opinion. I do not think that education should be censored. I think it is important for students to be educated on controversial topics and even more important for students to learn about these topics from educated people, like their teachers. I think the classroom is a much better environment for students to learn and get the correct facts rather than hearing about something through another source that might not have all the details. Ultimately, school is where we should be teaching children as much as they need to know to become well-educated citizens therefore we should not be keeping information from them that might be somewhat controversial.
ReplyDelete- Kristen Calaway
The Land of Opportunity article was not anything I had not heard before. I disagreed with certain parts of the article, but also think it made some very valid points as well. I agree with the article in that the more affluent the school is the more successful the students passing through will be in life. I believe this is a huge flaw i the funding of our school districts that we do not have more equal opportunities in the poorer schools. Despite the backgrounds of the students, where they are coming from, or what homes they grew up in, given the opportunity through schooling (equal schooling) if the student was motivated and determined to change their life around I strongly believe they could. There are plenty of people who have done this without equal schooling, however yes the way that we have such poor funding for poorer school districts and inner city schools is very unfair. Our society, however, has not figured out a way to make this possible yet. I also though it was very interesting that the author says social stratification is never talked about in schools or textbooks. I had a very different experience. We talked about social classes and stratification in society very much in high school and also in my sociology course here at OSU.
ReplyDeleteThe one thing I really could not understand was why teachers were "distressed" when the poor children were excelling or succeeding in school? I can understand perhaps that they be surprised but I cannot understand being distressed by this positive experience.
In Chapter 3, Strike and Soltis discuss a case about library books. It was this case that stood out to me the most. I, being an avid reader, was shocked by the parent's reactions to the books that their children were reading. No offense, but if they wanted their children's literature to be censored based on promiscuity and irreligious thoughts, then they should be sending their children to a religious based school. We are talking about a public school system; a public junior high. What their children are reading should be the least of their worries. These are adolescent children who are going through puberty. Some parents are so oblivious as to what really happens in middle school. Censoring the books aren't going to stop these children from learning about parties, drinking, promiscuity, and thoughts other than religious ones. Children are exposed to these kinds of behaviors in school and in the environments around them. Reading books based on these topics will help inform the students and allow them ask questions. Parents can use them as teaching tools. It's just my opinion, but parents can only censor so much from their children. Isn't it better to make them aware of their surroundings and let them know that it is okay to ask questions?
ReplyDelete~Please excuse the rant...
Kristyn
While reading the article, Land of opportunity I tried to think back to my highs school history classes. I remember some things we learned but it would be interesting to get one of my old history textbooks and see if what Loewen is saying about the textbooks is true. I believe that he is a little harsh when he discusses what the teachers aren’t telling their students. Are they really purposefully not talking about certain topics like class structure because they are uncomfortable talking about it? However, I do agree that I didn’t learn much about the class structure today; it is an interesting think to think about. I feel like students really don’t understand the history behind why their family is wealthy or not. It is not right for students to think that their family is poor because it’s their fault. The article mentions how social class correlates strongly with SAT scores; is there anything that can be done to change this? Is it possible that maybe these scores shouldn’t even be taken into consideration when it comes to getting into college; wouldn’t it give more people more opportunity?
ReplyDeleteWell of course like everyone else who has blogged about the article so far, i tried thinking about when i was in history in High School. It was of course my least favorite class, but i DO know that they never really gone into detail about social structure. I get why now, maybe its because they dont want to scare us. In a classroom you have upper, middle and lower class children to teach, and its so easy to predict their outcome by knowing their social class so maybe its done not to judge anyone. In my opinion though coming from a lower class makes you work harder and it doesnt always mean that you will end up as a lower class as well like your family. Im in college and doing very well for myself for someone in college and i come from a very low class family, and people dont even realize it. I think the article was a great insight to us to make us realize what are schools are failing to teach children, when its such an important issue. I guess i would want to ask that if the children of today are out future do we really want someone with such little knowledge of our history running for things such as a government position?
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the chapter on intellectual freedom and the Land of Opportunity section, I realized I hadn’t thought about or considered these topics much. One point the book stated was, “institutions such as free speech and freedom of the press are necessary if truth is to be sought and ideas improved. To censor an idea is to deny people the opportunity to consider it, to test their own views against it, and, thus, to learn.” As I was thinking about it and reading further, I suppose I agree with that. If things were censored because people found them offensive, current ideas would not be debated or challenged. Without censoring, people have the option to see what is out there, research, and decide things for themselves. It seems that in this way, people can be exposed to real issues and debates and find out for themselves how they feel.
ReplyDeleteSomething interesting from the Land of Opportunity was when the author said, “social science research shows that teachers are often surprised and even distressed when poor children excel.” They also said that children of low-income parents have a good chance that they will often receive careless attention from adults in their high school. This surprised me and I am looking forward to disproving this in my classroom. As a teacher I want to give every student opportunities to succeed in what they are doing. I want to help them reach their goals and grow as individuals and as learners. Reading that chapter reminded me that I want to ensure that each of my students feel comfortable and respected in my classroom. I do not want their identity to be in their social class, but in who they are as people. I want them to know that they are important and can make a difference.
My question would be: Have we seen any changes to this? In our experiences, have we seen teachers treat children of low-income parents the same as children who come from families who are well off? Or does this statement still hold true today in many classrooms?
-Sarah Tidwell
In Strike and Soltis, they begin by highlighting 3 of the NEA Code’s statements, and one in particular ties in well with the article reading - 3. The educator shall not deliberately suppress or distort the subject matter relevant to the student’s progress. It seems, with respect to the article, that this is Loewen’s main complaint, that educators have largely ignored the topic of America’s history, consequentially reigniting the cycle. On page 41 of Strike and Stolis, they write that “uncontested ideas atrophy”, and this only emphasizes the relevance of bringing forth our past and discussing why things have happened, why they still are, or are now not, and what we hope to use in our past to better direct our future. Since Mill so strongly contests that personal growth requires freedom, how can we expect our students to grow by providing only stunted knowledge, and tailored information?
ReplyDeleteI was particularly interested in the second case described in the third chapter of Strike and Soltis. I feel like censorship has become a bigger and bigger issue lately, in an era that leans pretty extremely toward being “politically correct.” To me, morality and values should be taught at home. If there is an issue raised at school that parents disagree with, they should discuss this with their own child, not try to change something at the school. Especially with these classic novels that have been around for so many years, parents should not have the right to take the opportunity to learn from these books away from other children. I respect that some people have different moral standards than others, and what may not offend one person may greatly offend someone else. But in a public school, personal views such as these don’t really have a place. My question is: If we start to censor based on these personal views, where do we stop? You can’t please everyone all the time. Someone can find something wrong with anything if they try hard enough. I liked the compromise that Mr. Corey and the school board had submitted, which allowed parents to request that their children be prevented from taking certain books from the library. This way, the parent can censor their own child, without harming the education of other children.
ReplyDelete-Katie Kuvin
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe story about Eddie trying to publish his revenge in the textbook kind of surprised me. I assume that Mr. Lane has final say in who and what gets published, and he gets more stories than there is space in the newspaper. That means that he is forced to perform censorship with every publication due to pure space restrictions. I don't feel like there would have been much of a dilemma for me in his shoes. His job isn't to simply weed out the submissions that lack technical skill but to choose the submission that meets certain standards (whatever his may be) in writing form and content. I would reject Eddie in a heart beat. The kid probably has a facebook, twitter, blog, etc., so denying him won't stop his ideas from making it to the information market place, and it sends a message to the rest of the school about Mr. Lane's feelings on this story. After all, reading some annoying kid's rant on facebook is one thing, but reading a racy story that is obviously about people at school in the school newspaper is another. My question is then, should freedom of speech in a school setting even be protected when school is meant to be a safe welcoming environment for learning not publishing?
ReplyDeleteIn Chapter 3 of the textbook, I enjoyed reading the case study about parents wanting books to be banned from the school. I thought this was a good case to look at, because there is a very good chance as a future teacher I could have an experience with something like this. I think there are many parents in today's society that are concerned with the books that are on schools' shelves. In this case, I don't think the possible compromise Mr. Corey and the school board presented was a very good solution. First of all keeping all the books in the library doesn't solve the problems the parents had with them in the first place. Secondly, just excusing a child from an assignment because you disagree with it isn't a good excuse. If that were the case, I think many kids would have their parents complain just so they could get out of the assignments. When it comes to situations like these I think there are definitely better situations. Plus what would happen to the students who miss out on the assignment, just because their parent didn't approve of the book choice? Aren't there better solutions than just banning the books or being excused from the assignment?
ReplyDelete“The Land of Opportunity” provides an interesting insight into how the system of social stratification maintains itself. Whereas America is thought of as the land of opportunity in some cases it is not. When a child who lives in a poor school district does not have the same opportunities to succeed as as child who lives in a more affluent school district then it's not really a matter of their merits/performance but the circumstances of their birth. While some things cannot be fixed in the short term, one thing educators can do is treat students of all backgrounds equally. A teacher shouldn't be distressed or anxious because a student from a lower socioeconomic background is excelling, they should regard any student's success with pride. Should people not have at the least freedom of opportunity?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading through chapter three, I couldn’t help but keep thinking about Eddie in the beginning of the chapter. I really just kept thinking back to how exactly Mr. Lane should handle the situation. This really helped further my understanding of nonconsequentialist and consequentialist thinking. After pondering both approaches, I have decided that I am more of a nonconsequentialist thinker with a smidge of consequentialist thrown in the mix. I like to play by the rules allowing little to no room for error. I believe that if I follow the rules then I will have no consequences to pay. If I catch myself thinking about what the consequences of what my actions would be if I were to deviate from the rules, then I know that I should probably reconsider my choice. If I were Mr. Lane, I would pull Eddie aside and let him defend himself with his well thought arguments. I would do my best to comfort him and then I would let him go home and calm down and approach the subject the next day. I believe that by letting him make his argument and letting him go home to reconsider his arguments that it would be make for a better, less tense conversation. I agree that Mr. Lane definitely needs to protect both the student and teacher, and if Eddie cannot do as Mr. Lane suggests (which would be to just re-word a few things), then Eddie doesn’t deserve to have his piece published for the entire student body to read. I would not want to hinder Eddie’s personal growth in any way, and I truly believe that I would be aiding his personal growth by guiding him along the correct path. He may not appreciate the way that I handle the situation at that particular moment, but he would be able to look back a few years later and see that I was only helping and protecting everyone involved. On page 46 it says, “a central claim to nonconsequentialist views is that persons are of value because they are moral agents”. I firmly believe this, because I know that I myself am 110% a moral agent. I live my life to people please and not to hurt anyone. I have encountered a lot of misfortunes and hurt and I myself have been the one providing the misfortunes and hurt in the past. I recently made some major life changes and decided that there is no reason to act the way that I was and that if everyone truly followed the rules and respected one another that there could be more peace and harmony amongst humans. If I were Mr. Lane, I would be striving to keep the peace and harmony and would be the one to determine what Eddie should do by having him do his very best to try and see the situation through the minds of everyone involved.
ReplyDelete-Emily Mink
In response to the Loewen article, I didn't take away as much as I thought I would based on the title. Obviously, school districts don't control what goes into a text. When districts map out their curriculum, they have to pack in as much information as they possibly can within the framework of the class. My freshman year dealt with U.S. history. My sophomore year was World History. Junior year was Global Studies, and Government was required during senior year.
ReplyDeleteThat gives them one year to cram our heads full of important events and wars. Our society is entirely focused on dates, events, and racial/gender issues. Economic issues would almost need an entire class devoted to it. The author sounds like a conspiracy theorist with a clear democratic agenda. Not only does he blame the Republicans for not "properly" educating students on socioeconomic issues, but he also blames them for creating such a wide gap between the rich and the poor.
It's the same story we all know, the rich have more opportunities than the poor. However, I completely disagree when they are both put in the same classroom. I don't know how a teacher can live with themselves by teaching differently to students of different social class. If a teacher holds different standards for the upper class students than the lower class, then the teacher has no business teaching a class.
Loewen is saying that teachers are not discussion certain topics with students because they do not want to, however I do not believe this to be entirely true. While I can see how most of the topics that are not discussed due to their controversial nature would be difficult or uncomfortable for some to teach, we must also take into account the schools’ structures, state and national standards, and just the factor of time. The school may be the one’s prohibiting the teaching of certain topics, not the teachers. This is still not good, but it shows that it may not just be up to the teacher. In terms of standards, controversial issues are not all in the guides of what a teacher is required to teach, and therefore a teacher may not touch on a subject because he or she is not “required” to. Furthermore, a teacher may just run out of time to touch on issues that they may want to, because there is so much more information that they are focusing on. With all that being said, I do not want to seem like I am against teachers discussing controversial issues, I am just saying that there are many more obstacles and reasons that a teacher may not be teaching them.
ReplyDeleteOne issue that was discussed in the article was the fact that many teachers do not discuss class structure, and the concept of social mobility. I was trying to reflect on my high school career, and I (like most others who have already blogged about this topic) only remember being told that if a person tries hard enough they will be able to succeed, and move up in social class. I know that in this day and age that there are many more factors, beyond just putting forth your best effort, that are extremely important and equally as unlikely that are necessary for this movement. Loewen seems to hold the same opinion as I do, in that he does not believe that these movements are made often. He continues with this line of thought even discussing how he believes that upward mobility may not even be possible. I think that is a pretty pessimistic view, but recently I have come to agree with it more and more.
I found chapter three to be very appealing to what happens in classrooms today. Censorship seems to be more existing in classrooms nowadays than when I was in high school a few years back. Eddie’s case seemed to be very interesting to read and think about. I was really confused on which way should I approach the case, from the consequentialist or nonconsequentialist point of view. I side more with the nonconsequentialist theory, because Eddie as any other human being, including myself, is a moral agent. He has the right of free speech, and free press. The book states that “Both moral theories have strong arguments for liberty, and both make maturity a consideration...” (Strike and Soltis, pg. 49) So with taking in consideration that Eddie is a moral agent and should be granted all his rights of free of speech and press, we should also consider his level of maturity. Eddie believes that his article is completely on the topic and should be published so everybody can read it. As a moral agent, who is responsible for his actions, Eddie should consider the consequences which follow his actions. In this case Eddie does not take into account the consequences, which makes his level of maturity questionable? I am not saying that his article should be censored in anyway, I am totally against censorship. I believe that students have the freedom to write about any topic that feels appealing to them as students and might provide them with some security. But, on the other hand, I think the nonconsequentialist theory gives us the chance to discuss ideas. I think Mr. Lane should ask Eddie if he was in Beth’ shoes, how would he feel if that article was about him? If he would be humiliated? Then he should be given the choice to either change the wording of his article and some of the characters or for his article not to be published. Would Eddie feel though that his rights have been violated if he was denied the publication of his article? I think he would. So my question is: for intellectual freedom, from a nonconsequentialist point of view, do all moral agents have the right of speech and freedom regardless of maturity level? Are we allowed to ignore the maturity of children? And if we do, how can we guarantee that their publications is morally accepted by the society?
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed the excerpt from Lies My Teacher Told Me. I think it made some very good points as well as identifying reasons behind feelings identified within a social class. Looking back on my high school years, ways in which lower or middle class people challenged the workings of society was often overlooked. Even in the suburbs of Chicago, the Haymarket massacre of 1886 is not emphasized for bringing about International Workers Day. The date was moved from May to September by U.S. President Grover Cleveland out of fear the day could be commemorated by riots. Through my youth, I could not identify why Labor Day existed. I thought it was just a day off for all the hard labor workers did every year. I never associated it with a reflection for the rights of workers and the positive impact middle and lower class workers have. On page 208, the author says, “…the idea that America is a meritocracy goes unchallenged in schools.” I believe this to be true, and I would like more information on how history books she referenced were picked. I understand that few people are able to beat the odds and find success from being in poverty; it needs to be appropriately acknowledged as the exception. My father was one of these exceptions. He grew up below the poverty line. My grandfather earned about $4000 a year to raise a family of 6. My father earned a scholarship to Ohio State and was given the opportunity to make something of himself. This should happen more often, but it doesn’t. It did not even happen with my father’s siblings or peers. Education is one of the few opportunities to find success, but it seems more necessary and difficult for poverty stricken kids to go to college every year.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading chapter 3 of the Strike and Soltis I was slightly shocked at the first case. While I understand that there is a personal dilemma for the teacher, being that he doesn't approve of censorship, it's plain to see that, in the interest of the student body, that this article be published. While Eddie might not see the harm in publishing this story now, he soon would. Many of the students, I feel, would be angry with him for the story, and therefore would outcast him. He would also be hurting the two people that the story is about. If I had been the teacher in this case I would have absolutely not published this story. I would have, however, looked more deeply into the situation, with the help of the principal, to make sure that the allegations against the other teacher were not true. I would also have told Eddie that while his writing was good, the story itself was not appropriate for the school paper, and that I would hope that he would try writing something different for the next edition to the paper.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading Lies My Teacher Told Me, because it points out a fundamental problem with the not only the education system in this country, but the entire political system as well. Since the first grade we as students of the U.S. public education system have been taught to believe that the U.S. is indeed the "the land of opportunity". What they don't tell us is that this typically only applies to white male who comes from significant means. That's not to say that history doesn't provide us with numerous examples of individuals who have overcome significant hardships. The truth of the matter is that for every John D. Rockefeller, there are millions of countless individuals who are unable to overcome the injustices our system places on them.
ReplyDeleteI believe strongly that the schools today should include discussions on American social structure in all districts affluent or poor. The author is correct in stating that doing so in the poorer school districts can lead to a sense of empowerment. It might also allow the students coming from middle class, and affluent districts to better understand the plight of those less fortunate. One has to wonder why at this point in our history do we not discuss such issues. Is it not unethical for teachers today to ignore the obvious problems caused by the system? Isn't it our duty as teachers to provide our students with truthful information that will impact their future?
-Bryan Stumpf
I’m glad that this excerpt was selected. Ever since coming to Ohio State, I have learned history in a completely different way than I did in the first 18 years of my life. The history instructor I had last quarter challenged the exact same ideal that this reading challenged: has American history been a process that has lead to equality and freedom, or has it always been a witness to the inequality of men and the innate inability for the poor and underprivileged to overcome this disparity? I was shocked to see the reality of history as it has played out in the United States, especially in the last 150 years. I often feel indignant learning that I was taught history in a way that brushes reality under the rug. I was glad that the author identified some possible reasons for these appalling omissions, but I still wonder: why are these parts of American history omitted? Why can we not talk about social class and how the gap between the rich and poor is getting wider? Are we, the middle class (and above) simply suppressing these truths, in an attempt to further justify our greed and ability to climb the social ladder? Whatever the answer, I hope that our country (more importantly, those who teach history and print history textbooks) will someday decide to start portraying a realistic history of the United States, not some fable that perpetuates ignorance of social classes.
ReplyDelete-John Thesing
I enjoyed reading the Intellectual Freedom chapter in the text this week. Mr. Lane had a difficult choice to make concerning Eddie's paper. I personally do not know how I would handle the situation. Personally, I would want to let Eddie turn in his paper. Eddie's paper shows the depth of his creative intellectualism at such an early age. His writing talent should not be stifled. Throughout history, young people have made significant contributions to the arts and sciences. Just imagine if someone stopped Mozart from writing music, for example?
ReplyDeleteDespite his young age, Eddie's writing shows his level of maturity. He obviously already has an understanding of some very adult concepts. It must be conceded that some things should be shielded from children. Pornography, violent images, and other things of graphic nature have no place in a child's life.
The case "Censorship?" was really intriguing to me because I have heard of stuff like that happening in schools before. I was glad that it was addressed in this class since it is also such a tough subject, and one that almost all of us will have to deal with in our future careers. It's hard for me to decide what I would do in those situations because I am completely against censorship, and yet I do not want my kids to be taught something that I do not agree with. However, I feel that our children, when they reach a certain age, should not be sheltered from issues because they will most likely have to deal with them in their lives. Censorship is such a complex issue where almost everyone has two points of view on it, how do we decide what is right?
ReplyDeleteI found the excerpt from Lies My Teacher Told Me a compelling read, if not new information. That schools fail to teach students about our country's social class system is not terribly surprising. This avoidance of unpleasant facts/uncomfortable issues occurs in other areas as well, beyond social class. Students are not taught much of anything that puts our society or government in an unflattering or truly negative light. This leads students, as Loewen points out, to leave school with a naive and incomplete understanding of the world around them, and I believe it is a great disservice we, as a society, do them. I believe that students should have a thorough understanding of how our country works on every level; if they don't understand how the "system" works to keep most people in the socio-economic class they were born into (or, for example, that it is not just foreign governments that have behaved reprehensibly throughout history), how can they effect change in their own lives or in those of others? I had the uncommon opportunity to attend an elite liberal arts college, but I was certainly not of the same class as most of the students there. At least half the student body there could afford the full $45,000/year tuition. My parents, on the other hand, have both always held low-paying blue collar jobs and with three kids, money was always tight. So going to college was almost an experience of culture shock. I was not without a sense of shame for my background at times, and was almost always at least conscious of it. I knew why my family was not affluent, but how liberating it was to learn formally how society perpetuates class inequality and hear rational explanations for how this happens. It was also very interesting to see wealthy students' reactions when I explained aspects of coming from a lower class background. They would have benefitted just as much from a more forthcoming and honest education about this country's history in terms of socio-economic class. It shouldn't require an exceptional college education for our students to learn these things that are so integral to all of our experiences, regardless of background.
ReplyDelete-Kelly Dewey
I enjoyed reading "The Land of Opportunity" by Loewen. Although he states some interesting facts, I actually disagree with a few things that he says. He often states that children do not learn enough information about social class. Although many social studies textbooks may not have enough information about social class, Loewen does not know what the teachers themselves teach the students. In my social studies classes, mainly high school from what I can remember, we talked about social classes many times. We learned that in the past, white men had much more advantages than anyone else. My teachers also would show us statistics with social status, and how even up until today, white men still have more advantage than women, African Americans, etc. We also learned how white men always had more opportunities, such as job opportunities. For example, a white man and woman would go in for the same job interview, but the white man would get the job because of his status. In high school, I learned a lot about how unfair society is in America, and we were also asked if America was truly "The Land of Opportunity." Loewen states that most social studies texts do not talk about this information, but in reality, not all teachers teach from a textbook. I had many teachers that hardly ever used a textbook, but taught great lessons and some were in greater detail than what the text gave. Also, just because the text may not talk about this information, it does not mean that it is never brought up in classrooms.
ReplyDeleteThe case about Eddie who wrote a "revenge paper" towards Mr. Waters was very interesting. It was difficult for me to come to a conclusion about what I would do in a case like this if I were the teacher. In my opinion it came down to the fact that Eddie was misrepresenting the character of his teacher and putting one of his peers in a terrible position. I think it would have been irresponsible for the teacher to put a piece like that out in the public to see. Looking at the situation from a consequentialist perspective I think the most good would be done for the group if the teacher was to censor the writing to make it less of a direct representation of Mr. Waters and Beth.
ReplyDeleteWhen thinking about the situation from a nonconsequentialist perspective I think the age of the child and the fact that he is still in school, so therefore subject to the rules of the teacher and the school, should be taken into consideration here. Children should still have their rights to freedom of speech but this is different because a staff member is being misrepresented in a terrible light. It is wrong to do this and I dont think censorship, especially in a school setting, is a violation of freedom of press and freedom of speech.
I would like to discuss chapter three of Strike and Soltis. As I read the first case regarding the faculty adviser of the school magazine, I kept finding myself going back and forth between censorship (which I have never agreed with) and allowing the article to be published. What makes this decision so difficult is that it involves "children" and their freedom of speech rights. Adults have the ability to do something to interfere with what a child is doing because that adult deems the action as wrong. I personally think that this article deserves to be published. I understand that this might negatively affect the young girl, however, a literary work that is so well written does not deserve to go unnoticed. One of the worst things you can do to a child is hide their creativity. Some of the best works of art, music, and literature have blossomed from someone that had a lot of passion and creativity and was able to put that into something that is timeless. In our society, we are constantly trying to make students smart and intelligent, but we are missing a key factor. This factor is their creativity. Art, literature, dance, and music allows students to take this creativity and change the world with it. In the case of Mr. Lane, I would allow the article to be published and allow the students read something that a creative and intellectual peer wrote. These students are also in high school and will soon be attending college where they will be strongly encouraged to be themselves and be unique and create something new. If this student does not get the article published now, he will at another time when he is able to because he is not restricted by high school.
ReplyDeleteMy question to all of this is how can we allow students to be creative in a way that does not hurt other people so that we do not have to censor them or is this unavoidable?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe Loewen article took me back to my high school history class where we discussed the notion that America is this sort of subset of a utopian society where everyone is middle class and class conflict is a thing of the past. Text books talk about the American inclination to social mobility as though we are all in some Horatio Alger story. In reality, however, this is not usually the case. Many people living in poverty work harder than those in the middle or upper class all their lives just to get by. Even the idea of the "middle class" is quickly becoming a myth as more people fall below the poverty line.
ReplyDeleteOne of the best examples of the class divide is in our schools. Even here in Ohio, we can see that coming from an affluent household gives a child a better chance of getting a quality education. Children in rural school districts are crammed into small, run-down classrooms with old textbooks and limited materials, while students in suburban districts go to school in state-of-the-art buildings with seemingly unlimited resources. A student's ability to learn is very dependant upon the environment in which they are learning.
So while the article did not really tell me anything I did not already know, it brought up some good points. Maybe we should not be teaching our children a myth about a shiney happy middle class society unless we intend to make it a reality.
-Katie Petrolo
Class structure is something that is discussed in very little amount. When I was in high school, I don't remember going over the class structure at all really. I think this article really does a good job in allowing a reader to know the mistakes some teachers are making. Class structure should be taught and explained to the students and not avoided I believe.
ReplyDeleteLies my Teacher Told Me also caught my atattention very quickly. Do we realyl teach children anough about social class? I seem to be stuck on both sides of this. I don't know if it really is the teacher's main job to teach social class. I think social class comes from experiences you face in life. Your parents have a huge impact on this, as well as your friends. You can learn a lot through experiences, and I believe that is what ultimately teaches you about social class. I do think teachers should still teach it, but I don't think it is a huge area that they need to cover. Students will learn the majority of information through experiences in life.
Loewen, "The Land of Opportunity", was a particular interesting in the content that was presented to the reader of the article. It goes into depth about many issues in educational classrooms. The article talks first about the use of textbooks in the classroom, and how not everything is included in textbooks that has occured in our history and in the history of other countries. The governement purposely in my opinion censors what is included in textbooks given to our studnets. They decide waht students should and should'nt be educated about. Why should the governement decide what should be taught in our schools, should'nt we be aware of these other events in history not included in our textbooks?
ReplyDeleteContinuing on reading the article it tells the reader what is and is not included in textbooks today. Most of the information not included in textbooks includes information the government feels unnessary teaching students about. For example, the histrocial trend caused by Reagan-Bush administrations accerlating the shrinkage of the middle-class. I agree with Loewn this is something that should be included in textbooks, so students become more aware of the affects the governement has on our society and the censorship of what is being taught to them in school.
Also I feel like when Loewen talks about teachers avoiding the topic of social class, it is not because the teachers choose to but because it is a topic that is more tough to discuss. I believe that teachers try and avoid discussing social class because their are multiple different opinions on social class, and its a topic that the governement and some parents do not want to include in their child's education.
However, I feel that children of a certain age should have access to these materials, so that they are aware of the the issues of social class and censorship and how it plays into the education that they are recieving. I am curious as to how a person goes about decideing what should and should not be included in the education of our children?
I found the first case study from chapter 3 in the textbook to be very interesting. As a I read Mr. Lane and Eddie's story I at first found myself unsure of what the correct way to handle this situation would be. I don't think that any teacher should allow a student to potentially harm another student whether it be emotionally or physically. However, Mr. Lane has never censored another student's work before, so why should he censor Eddie's? Prior to reading this case, I had never considered situations like these that may someday arise within my own classroom. I believe that the hardest question to answer within this situation is when is "is it appropriate to grant Eddie the right to freedom of speech given his age and maturity"? I found it very interesting that the chapter discussed how Eddie may someday regret his decision to publish the article if Mr. Lane does allow the article to be published. Seeing as this is a possibility, I think that Mr. Lane should make the decision not to allow Eddie to publish the article in its current state. Instead, Mr. Lane should sit down and discuss with Eddie his concerns with the article. Eddie should then be given a chance to fix the article so that he will not offend other teachers and students. My question is, How can we as educators be fair to all students while not withholding rights?
ReplyDeleteI'm responding to the Loewen article. Personally, as many have said, it's nothing I haven't heard before. In a class I took a previous quarter, we spent an entire 2 classes discussing how teachers usually avoid discussing certain topics because it makes them feel uncomfortable. On top of social class, similar topics include racism, religion and sex. While I am tempted to say that this is wrong, I have not been in a situation before where I've had to discuss an issue, such as the ones listed above, with a classroom of young students. However, I believe it is something we should be trained in. I've spent many classes dicussing how teachers avoid or whitewash these topics in their classrooms, but never some guidance on a constructive and comfortable way to bring these things up.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, teachers don't write the textbooks. We use the ones given to us/listed in the cirriculum. While I do think there is a problem that lies in how teachers go about teaching arguably controversial topics in the classroom, I believe the main problem lies in the textbooks. These books are being whitewashed and written from an American standpoint. In the same class last quarter, we read an article on how 4 different countries portrayed the events of WW2, and it was amazing how different the perspectives were. If you read a British textbook, you wouldn't think much of America's involvement.
I've gone off on a bit of a rant. My main point is that these topics are ones that teachers need to be comfortable discussing. Regardless of the school district, all teachers, at some point, will experience students of different social classes, races, and religions in their classrooms; and it is important that we know how to address them in a mature and educated way.
-Christina M.
I have decided to write my blog this week about the case studies found in this chapter. For the first case study about Mr. Lane and Eddie and the newspaper article, the book talked about whether or not Mr. Lane should post Eddies article. I believe that if there is any part of Mr. lane that thinks it should be censored then he should censor the article. The book mentions that even though censoring a person’s article, that it does not necessarily apply to kids and I think a high school writer should have boundaries within the school. This article could hurt another student badly and the consequences Eddie will face could be harsh and critical. Mill talks about a marketplace of ideas and to censor an idea is to pretty much deny people the opportunity to consider it/test it/learn from it. I believe freedom of speech is extremely important but there is a time and place for a child to be critically honest to which he will hurt one of his classmates. The second case study talked about censorship. I do not have children so my opinion could change but I want my kids to read about everything. I think some parents disagree with discussions on sex, drugs, and alcohol but unfortunately those things are part of today’s society and there really is no way of avoiding it by censoring the books our children read. For example, there was a story I heard about 2 penguins that were homosexual and they actually live in Central Park zoo together. The zoo keeper adopted an egg to give these two male penguins. The story is called And Tango Makes Three and it is banned at a lot of schools because it teaches homosexuality, which I disagree with. I think children need to know about this and to know it’s ok because it is happening in our world today.
ReplyDeleteOk, so first, I found this chapter and the posed case studies actually less didactic than those in the first chapter. To me, it seemed less engaging. Perhaps this is solely because the ideas of consequentialism and non-consequentialism are now familiar. I don't know...
ReplyDeleteI do agree with some of the tenets from Mills and the reading. The ideas that free speech and freedom of the press are paramount for finding truth and improving ideas, as well as that personal growth require freedom seem intuitive. Teens and parents often clash because teens are trying to assert their self-determination and independence, so having a level of freedom during this time period to learn and grow is important. But just having freedom doesn't necessarily lead to positive results. Even holding someone accountable for their actions with that freedom doesn't necessarily eliminate certain "negative" factors of freedom. Take the whole Wiki-Leaks controversy. Just because what was leaked/reported may have been the truth, it doesn't mean that it should have been released to the masses. Instead, it could have disastrous results and harm to many people. I guess this is a consequentialist viewpoint, but it is important to look at how actions have an affect. When talking about freedom of speech, it doesn't mean that a person can say or do whatever they want. As the book mentioned, there are civil repercussions, like liable lawsuits, and even criminal laws against things like ensuing panic with one's speech - such as yelling "fire" in a crowded public space. I think, therefore, that a person is generally limited in what they say and do because of certain conventions and the idea of avoiding harm. I agree with that.
I am the first in line to agree with Loewen that our government is shady. They try to cover up issues and events that threaten to push the United States off of it's high horse. HOWEVER, blaming the teacher is something I will not endorse. As teachers we are given curriculum standards that must be met or we'll be out of a job. Even if I did want to enlighten my students to the hidden history or the dark secret of social class, I'm more concerned in keeping my job. In high school, my sophomore history teacher tried his hardest to follow the rules, but open us to this wealth of information that is otherwise under wraps. He showed us Loose Change (a video that explores the possibility that 9/11 was a consipiracy) by putting the video up and leaving the room saying... "I'm going to the bathroom for a little while and if one of you happens to press play, so be it." He also told us about the book this chapter is from, Lies My Teacher Told Me, but was careful never to say we should read it. He simply said, "If you're interested, there is some interesting information in there." He was actually my favorite teacher because I felt as though he respected us enough as people to give us the responsibility to explore and question.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I'm sure not all students felt this way. Is sharing "banned" information in a school crossing a line by forcing particular views on the students? Should it be the parent's responsibility to teach it?
JUSTIN BEATTIE
ReplyDeleteFrom a purely antidotal perspective I didn’t know diddily squat about social stratification until I took Soc 463 a few years ago, which subsequently changed my worldview more than any other class I have ever taken. It honestly blew my mind. Maybe I was half asleep in high school and just glossed over the social stratification and inequality lessons, because I do not remember taking them. The material in Soc 463 was completely new to me. It was exciting and revealing. Up until that class I had been living in reality that was blind to the ills of capitalism. Having learned more about social stratification over the past few years I have to agree with the dominant themes in the Loewn article. High school students today are fed a watered down version of U.S. history that paints a rosy and nationalistic portrayal of American society. If teachers direct class solely based on textbooks then students are going to continue to be uniformed. As future teachers we have to go beyond the boundaries of the canon if we really want to make an impact. I think teachers get shit on enough to where they simply take the easy road, which consists of lesson plans based on textbooks. It is unfortunate.
I agree with the idea that James Loewen had in Lies My Teacher Told Me concerning the “Land of Opportunity.” Textbooks leave out information about classes. In school I remember learning that America was so great because we did not have a rigid class system, but I think through the information presented in this articles, there is a rather rigid gate separating the classes and sometimes someone can sneak through to advance to another class but most cannot. The article states that many publishers do not talk about class because they do not want to appear Marxist. One can talk about the fact that classes exist in America and that people for the most part, people are stuck in the class that they were born in throughout their life without being a Marxist. Textbooks and teachers need to inform students of class especially the class system in America. If we let kids think that there is not a class system in America and then they get into the real world and they will experience a great realization and probably a great fall. Not teaching kids about class and the classes’ quicksand effect is dangerous, once you are stuck in a class you are most likely stuck there. Teachers are then not preparing students adequately for the world outside of the classroom walls. Although I agree with putting class into textbooks and showing kids the reality, I do buy into the “land of opportunity” myth that is presented in this article. Children need to be told that they can do anything and be anything. If teachers do not do that, what are teachers supposed to tell them? “You are poor now and you will be poor when you grow up so just deal with it.” That is ridiculous, that would not motivate anyone to try to advance themselves in the social system. Children from a poor family do not need another obstacle for their future, they need encouragement and support from a teacher because they are not going to get it anywhere else. Now here is the problem, how to integrate class and its structures into a text book and I really do not have the answer for that problem. Should it be a little colorful box on the side of the page that has a little anecdote about a poor man who became an executive? I feel like that is continuing the problem, kind of like the publishers threw it into the book to appease the poor kids and families. There is no simple solution to this problem obviously, but it needs to be dealt with to show kids a glimpse of the real world, so it is not a surprise when or if they graduate high school. And just a little side note about the experiment they did with the two cars and the stop lights, I would honk anyone who does not go on a green light. It would not matter if it was the president or station wagon, they all get honked at.
ReplyDeleteKatie O'Connell
After reading the textbook chapter on intellectual freedom and the Land of Opportunity selection, I have decided discuss the Land of Opportunity excerpt. The topics discussed here are ones that I really had never thought about before in regard to teaching. One part that I found especially interesting is the part where it talks about when teachers and textbooks both skip around certain topics because they do not want to feel as if they are exposing the students to things that are beyond their control such as social structure. The fact that this is overlooked in curriculum can end up harming the children when they are faced with the reality that there is a structure to society that they were previously unaware of. I also thought it was interesting when the author discussed how many teachers feel different when a student coming from a lower class background performs better than students from a higher class. Overall, this excerpt does do the topic justice and allows the reader to come to their own conclusion.
ReplyDeleteChapter Three of the Strike and Soltis book really stood out to me. The questioning of whether or not it is ethical to censor the writing of underage people is a topic that I dealt with first hand. In high school I was on the journalism staff; we put out a student written news magazine each month. My senior year was also the last year of my adviser's career. She had been the adviser for the magazine and yearbook for 27 years. Each spring we put out a magazine that dealt completely with sex. The issue we put out my senior year caused a huge stir in our community. Adults who didn't even have children in our school were calling in and writing letters saying it was completely inappropriate and they wanted our adviser to be fired. This was very upsetting to us; we felt we had the right to write about such a relevant topic to our audience, our adviser felt the sex issue was tastefully done and was against censorship. Obviously this had many parallels to the case of Mr. Lane publishing Eddie's article. In my opinion, it is the job or Mr. Lane to advise Eddie to make ethically responsible decisions. This doesn't mean not censoring his writing, it means guiding him to write in a way that does not harm others.
ReplyDeleteI also found Loewen's "The Land of Opportunity" very interesting. While I don't remember being specifically taught about the different social classes in detail or their role in the individual's lives within those classes, I do understand them now so I was obviously taught about the subject at some point. One idea Loewen brings up is that many high school students do not know or understand the ideas about social stratification or it's role in society. With this, I thought about how whether or not I only have an understanding of these concepts because I am from an affluent family and have had the opportunities that comes from this social class. Further, does this mean that people of poverty and the lower class don't ever understand the perpetuation of their social class?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLarry Taylor-
ReplyDeleteWhile reading the Loewen article about how students are not taught about social structure, this just reminded me of the many topics that are taught to students either wrongly, or from one point-of-view. Teacher may not teach about social structure because it can be a very touchy subject. There are teachers who have students that are so diverse culturally and economically, that it may be hard for them to teach it in a successful way.
However, I do not think we should shelter our students from "real" topics such as social structure. Teachers need to teach students the truth. Giving multiple perspectives on social structure and other topics will help students find what THEY believe in.
Mr. Lane, the journalism teacher from Strike and Soltis, could and should have prevented the publication of Eddie’s story based on the fact that it was a libelous representation of Mr. Waters and Beth. As the speaker explains, “…the similarity between the fictional Mr. Wells and the real John Waters, Springfield’s physical education teacher, would be lost on no one.” Assuming that Mr. Lane was able to make this connection, I don’t understand how he could allow something to be printed that would call into question the moral character of a colleague. In addition to the issue of censorship, Mr. Lane should also consider Eddie’s intentions. Is this really an appropriate means for someone to act on an unfounded grudge? If accusation of misconduct did arise because of the article, it could be traumatic for Beth; would it not be just as distressing for Mr. Waters, who could potentially lose his job? Surely a student as “astute” as Eddie could be persuaded to use the school’s literary publication solely as a display for stellar literature and speak to with teachers face to face about his issues with them. If not, the problems with Eddie’s maturity and social skills run deeper than any issue of censorship.
ReplyDeleteAnthony Tipton
Loewen is right to accuse teachers of ignoring their responsibilities on educating students about socio-political topics like socio-economic status and its prevalence today. Educating students about class structure is a great way to show students how to exercise their responsibilities as citizens in a democracy. Eric Gutstein's Reading And Writing The World With Mathematics: Toward a Pedagogy for Social Justice shows one example of how a classroom can be used for social and political education can be incorporated into math which at first might be seemingly difficult in such a subject. Most of Gutstein's students are considered to be of low SES and he still shows how he manages to focus on state standards and his students excel (even on standardized tests) because they are using they are educated through localized relevant issues. Its work gaining the trust of administrators and parents and developing curriculum to educate students about SES, but despite the shortcomings of textbooks and perhaps even the fallacies of national standards it can and should still be done. How much longer can teachers ignore their obvious socio-political implications?
ReplyDeleteIn response to the Lowen article, I have a problem with one of his examples that he cited on page 207 and 208. This section of the reading is discussing that "white middle class students believe that they deserve their low status". He goes on to talk about how society views poor people. Lowen apparently had 2 of his students conduct an experiment. He had them drive in Vermont and stop at a stop light and not move until someone honked at them. The first attempt was in a nice new black "rich" looking car. The next attempt was in a old junker that a "poor" person may drive. He then gives the averages of how long it was before someone honked. People gave the nice car longer time before they honked. His reaction for the experiment is this: Americans unconsciously grant respect to the educated and successful. While I find this experiment very interesting, I am rather shocked that he did such a small experiment and then used it as proof for such a large statement. Saying that Americans don't respect poor people is a big statement and I don't think you should make such a statement unless you have done EXTENSIVE research. Proper research would include doing this experiment multiple times and in different parts of the country. With this is mind...What would other people in other parts of the country do? Would certain areas of the United States be nicer at this stop light situation than in other areas? Do Americans really not respect the poor?
ReplyDeleteLike many others, I also found myself looking back on my school years while reading "The Land of Opportunity". Also, like many others I found myself remembering that while I was in school my teachers never talked a great deal about social classes. If the topic of the different social classes of America happened to get brought up they quickly said that we are American's have the priviledge to make our own future and can make our destiny. I disagree with this. As much as I think it is important to do the things we like and to do as best as we can, it is very hard to move up social classes. I think it is so difficult because education is so important, which it should be. My mom is very successful in her career but she does not have a college. She has told me many times that if she was just starting out in the business world wanting the job she has now with no college degree then there would be no way she would get the job. I think education has become such a prerequisite for better paying jobs and people that come from lower social classes may not be able to afford college, therefore leaving them with lower income, it is like an endless cycle.
ReplyDeleteAlthough it is hard, it is not impossible to move social classes, but I do think that teachers just tell their students that people can move classes easily just to keep themselves out of trouble and to make sure that they are not stepping on people's toes.
While reading the Lowen excerpt I was considering all the times I have heard socio-economic status within my courses here at OSU as a Human Development and Family Science major. It is probably one of the most talked about aspects of person within a lot of the developmental classes. However, prior to being here at OSU I cannot think of any history text that I read which contained information on SES and hierarchy of wealth among Americans. It is interesting, because growing up I always knew the difference between working, middle, and higher class even though I did not learn it from history text.
ReplyDeleteI really appreciated when he discusses the amount and quality of vocabulary that "rich" kids are exposed to in relationship to the "poor" kids, because it is so true that the majority of those "rich" children not only test better, but have a higher chance at success. Everytime I hear this it blows my mind. I think it is so hard to believe because it is true. I just talked about this for the 10th time in a class last week. Children who have parents that are "professionals" will be exposed to many more words due to them just HEARING words all the time. Children who are in poorer families hear a shockingly low amount of words when compared to the more well off children. Crazy but true.
The article entitled "Lies My Teacher Told Me" brought um issues that I feel I will be aware of as a future educator. The idea that class is a major factor in Americas history, but is never taught in schools is a paradox that is true and often overlooked. I certainly have a different view of how class plays into success after reading this article as well. It is also interesting to note that with the current situation in Ohio regarding Senate Bill 5 just how much class is playing into these politics. A law is being passed that influences the lower labor working class by people who are of the upper class and will benefit from this. It is unequal representation and is giving way to a rise in tensions among classes. One aspect of history that is commonly true is that it repeats itself. It is for this reason I feel students need to be educated on these issues and topics because if social unrest has given way to major reform in society, we may be on the brink of another paradigm shift in our western culture.
ReplyDeleteWhen I began to read Loewen's excerpt I initially was surprised by this information of students being ignorant to "why are people poor" and "why are other families well off." I thought back to my freshman year in college and thought if I was one of these naive students that Loewen spoke of. I do not believe that I was one of these students but thinking back I can definitely think of some people who knew they were well off because mom and dad went to college and then got well paying jobs, while others were the opposite. The richer people believe that there are equal opportunities for all but this is not the case. One example of this is when finding a job, it is not all about what you know but more-so WHO you know. This is a prime example of why the wealthy are staying wealthy and the others are not rising up to reach them, they cannot because they do not have the opportunities to. Loewen goes on to describe that 6 out of 12 high school history books do not have all of the information they should have about social class and the riots and acts that have happened to shape the way America has developed into who we are today. Personally, I believe that if we, as the teachers, are supposed to be teaching the HISTORY of the nation we should include ALL of it, not leave out parts because the book does not include it. I think it would be worth noting to your students that these different events happened because of the lack of equality in the workplace and in the life here in America.
ReplyDelete-Kristina Cassidy
I found the library book ban was profoundly troubling. First I want to speculate the context of the conflict. Was this a small town? When did it happen? Obviously the historical atmosphere of this community could have been a factor in determining the level of irrational behavior of the parents towards the material in question.
ReplyDeleteAt the end of the conflict what the superintendent was dealing with was an allegory for the thin lines teachers walk with educational obligations and parental rights to their child's experiences. Where is the obscenity line in regards to those who are required to instruct and those dogmatic rights of a parent to a child?
Michelle Leitzel
Growing up I would have to agree that we are raised with the stigma that those who are part of the lower and poor class are simply lazy and do not want to put forth the effort to better themselves. I finally came to the conclusion that this is not always the case and it is crucial to take into account the fact that not all people have access to the same resources.This can continue to be a cycle with the children born in poverty due to the fact it is extremely difficult to gain the resources needed to further their development. As a society we need to move in the direction to educate our children to the realization that those of the lower class are not lazy however not everyone has the same access to resources needed. Given the certain places that a child grows up depends on what they learn in school and how they learn it. There have been many history books that describe parts of history very differently given the background from where they come; given that they have books to even read. America has the stigma that everyone has a fair opportunity however those who have the most resources given to them are those who maintain the most power.
ReplyDelete-Cortney Hall
The first case study in chapter 3 was extremely thought provoking, and I found myself constantly going back and forth between ideas of what I would do if I were the teacher in this situation. In addition to giving me a much clearer picture of consequentialism and non-consequentialism in real life situations, I can see merit in both points of view. Certainly Eddie has created a wonderful piece of writing that his teacher, like any teacher that strives to evoke student creativity and expression, would like to share. The job of the teacher is to promote student growth, and this is often achieved best through writing, art, music, dance, etc. When Mr. Lane realizes this is a very accurate description of a student and another teacher at the school, he is correct in second-guessing the publication of this work in order to protect the reputation of those involved. What is the right thing to do? Of course Mr. Lane wants to see his student grow and succeed, in which censorship would hinder this achievement and he would probably lose a bit of respect from the student. But if published, what would come of the gossip and rumors of the innocent people involved in the story? It seems like the best thing to do would be to talk to the student, honestly explain the reasoning for the hesitance in publication of the story, and see if the student is willing to alter the characters or storyline so it is less obvious. But on the other side of that idea, will the student see the Mr. Lane as one who stifles creativity, infringing on Eddie's right to free speech? There are infinite gray areas in this situation in response to the issues of free speech and censorship in schools. Because the student is a "child" does that change anything? Is there an exception? If we continue to make exceptions for every situation, where is the cut off point?
ReplyDelete-Margaret Blasko
It amazes me how students think that poverty is caused by the laziness of people. Yes, there are some who are lazy but not all of the. Some people have fallen on hard times and are just plain unlucky. I can say this because growing up in West Sacramento, California I saw first hand, families in poverty due to tough times, they were not remotely lazy. I don't understand why this idea has been perpetuated through out history and why it hasn't been corrected. This is making our society unsympathetic and ignorant. I believe that we should teach our children how to be free thinkers. Thinking for yourself is not something that is seen very often. Through research I believe that we can solve this problem. We should teach children how to research so they can figure the answers out by their want of knowledge. We should not feed our children lies. This has been a problem in schools. When I found out that what they were teaching in my high school about Pocahontas was not true, I went searching on my own. I found a wonderful resource. The name of the book is People's History of the United States 1492-Present by Howard Zinn. It corrected a lot of things that my teachers missed when I was in high school. I am surprised that we are not educating our children properly and we no longer have the drive to search for the truth, to ask questions about what we're being taught, to educate ourselves. This is embarrassing and we need to do something to fix it.
ReplyDeleteI found Loewen’s article to be very intriguing. I still am somewhat surprised that the data that points to students being unaware of class issues and the different statuses of their classmates. I remember being in school and using simple cues such as dress and transportation to school to be able to tell the different types of backrounds that each student came from. Students from better backrounds experience a better deal of success than their lower status counterparts, achieving better scores as well as better jobs. As teachers, our job is to provide our children with the best education possible so that they receive every advantage to bringing out their potential. What can we do to help make sure that even lesser off students get a fair start as well? Workshops and extra attention can be applied to help students, but sometimes we must take these a step further. Lower SES students need to be shown that although their journey to better times and a higher social class may be difficult, it is something that is not out of reach. In order to truly grasp their situation and potential, they first need to be given the information. We must make sure that each student receives the premium education that they are entitled to.
ReplyDelete