Here goes!

February 19th, 2013 

ideas from our papers… 

-we all want to respect other ways of being literate, appropriateness of language depending on where you are 

-the dominant discourses changes based on location 

-this assignment places a value on experiences and we can gain ideas from other's experiences--creating a porous classroom (Freire) 

-confronting a teacher around power, she didn't understand that the student was making a choice.

-is there place for negotiation in the classroom?

-should we sacrifice ideas for "correct writing" "academic writing" 

-can slang or conversation writing be accepted in the classroom? 

-writer based to reader based prose as a delicate dance 

-literacy as "static" vs. "dynamic"--literacy as a space to evolve 

-how do we build literacy as a place for negotiation if we are taught not to use certain words in our writing but as we grow older exceptions are allowed …

-does the technical at the beginning of our learning cut off options for later learning because students don't engage 

-if you had more language for challenging the teacher could you break out with a earlier age? 

Annette Lareau’s research for her book “Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life,” while obviously noteworthy and perhaps groundbreaking two decades ago, does pose some problems as we look at it today. Her choices to include certain participants and exclude others seem to be based solely on whether they could help her check off several boxes that she prescribed for her study. She needed to have a selection of cases where each child was a unique mix of two possibilities for gender, race, and class. This method made it easy for Lareau to classify middle class families into a tactic of concerted cultivation, and working and lower class families into the strategy of accomplishment of natural growth. This is frustrating, because it seems to be much too narrow of a focus, much too literally black and white to really presume to be truly applicable to the larger population. By ignoring factors outside of the strict dichotomy of lower/working and middle class and white and Black, Lareau limits the amount of significance that can be extrapolated from her work.

Relfective Protocol (an incident from last week)

February 12th, 2013 

How do you know the difference between abuse and discipline? 

Abuse                vs.                     Discipline 

types of Discipline: 

• Threats 
• writing lines
• spanking 

Similarities? 

cyclical/cultural 

Traditional vs. Progressive Discipline 

In class it has been mentioned that current events have not really been integrated into our classes. So here is a debate going related to education. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/19/education/gym-class-isnt-just-fun-and-games-anymore.html?hp&_r=0

I have noticed that the word, "discourse" is in many posts! Great! It definitely became part of my vocabulary after taking this course in Fall 2012. From you all, I would love to know how you define "discourse." What is your definition? What does the word capture when you use it? What are its limitations?  How has using ut, or knowing it well (?), shaped your outlook in the class and/or beyond?

Would love to hear comments! Looking forward to reading more posts...

Best,

Esteniolla M.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/12cnhpVm_aXcjTXk7tU2u7V1cG9Rpr2jhdjnZIhm--_M/edit

Lareau states her theoretical perspectives regarding the inequality of education and educational institutions which encompasses different philosophies of child rearing, psychology, and socioeconomic standings and their correlation to each other. According to Lareau, middle class families tend to employ the concerted cultivation approach, while lower income families tend to employ the accomplishment of natural growth approach. She seeks to prove how concerted cultivation leads to a sense of entitlement in children while the accomplishment of natural growth leads to a sense of constraint. Although Lareau attempts to validate both approaches, she notes the significant advantage of the concerted cultivation approach and how it prepares the student for the inevitable life ahead of dealing with the masses of faceless institutions (and how this advantage automatically places others at a disadvantage). While I feel Lareau's theories hold some truth, I find her approach extremely reactionary and her study blind to the other causes of disadvantages in the classroom. In many cases, her observations are skewed to fit her theory and her attempt to distinguish her theory as binary in nature often leaves out the dynamic aspect of family lives, child-rearing methods, and situations. Because of this, the significance of her theory is stunted.