TE 250 Section 4

Final Project Portfolio

Emily Hart Dec. 6, 2012.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contents

I. Service Learning Journal Entry #1

II. Cultural Autobiography

III. Theory Paper

IV. Items 2 & 3 Reflection

V. Course Term Entries

Service Learning Journal #1

TE 250

Emily Hart

For my Service Learning placement in this TE 250 course, I have been placed at Red Cedar Elementary school in Ms. Medlers Kindergarten class. Early into my placement I learned that Ms. Medler used to teach 1st grade but was assigned to teach kindergarten two years ago. She has been teaching for around 29 years and her classroom was extremely well equipped with learning materials as well as fun, entertaining toys and games.

My assigned time to help out in the classroom was between 12:10 and 2:10pm every Wednesday. This time slot included the students just getting back from lunch recess and beginning their rug time where they discussed the weather and days of the week/month. I would usually be grading their papers during this time by putting stars or notes about fixing the activity and then proceeded to file them in the students designated cubbies or folders. They would also go to gym about half an hour later, and then would go to library about 10 minutes before my time was over for the day. I think having such a variety of specials for children, especially young children, is extremely beneficial and helps to build their human capital. The knowledge and skills they acquire in gym, library, science, and the ELL help room really build a good foundation in them at such a young age. In between their special activities the classroom agenda usually centered around math and writing. The bulk of my time was spent circulating around the tables during math or writing time and helping to scaffold the students in their spelling or numbers while making sentences or equations.

In relation to the discourse of TE 250, I have found the content of the class very beneficial when thinking critically about what I see in this service learning placement. In a very simple example, when we were sending letters home to parents about the upcoming trip to Potter Park Zoo that would cost $12, I asked what would happen if a family wasnt able to pay that, and Ms. Medler told me that there were scholarships for those students who may not be able to pay it, and reassured me that everyone would be able to go. I think this type of equal opportunity is important for students to have from the very beginning of their education and was very pleasantly surprised to hear that everyone was able to go regardless.

Since 11 of the 22 students in this class are from countries other than the U.S., there are many language barriers within the teaching context. I noticed during snack time one day that some of the kids were taking Goldfish crackers from a boy that did not speak English, and he wasnt able to speak up for himself because he didnt have the linguistic means to in a language that they would understand. (In this case, English) The linguistic privilege of the English speakers allowed them to take advantage of the boy, and was a form of individual discrimination. Some of the other ELLs in the class would use hitting or shoving as a way to get through to their classmates when frustrated, and two of them would scream out until they were reprimanded for their behavior.

Since none of the students in this class have any physical or learning disabilities (that I am aware of) I am unable to discuss any experience with disability in educational context.

The age range in Ms. Medlers class ranges from three years old to six years old, so there are not only language differences but also cognitive differences because the students are at different levels I have not noticed any lower expectations toward the Black or Latino students, although instead of actually working on getting a boy named Servonte to write his name correctly, students and Ms. Medler will all say He doesnt know how to write his name, so.. and either write it for him or just allow him to write an S.

Overall, the first part of the semester was a lot of learning how Ms. Medler handled various behavioral situations within the classroom, and watching the students interact and get to know each other. After all, this is the first time they are interacting in a structured school setting and with twenty plus other children. It will be interesting to see how they change and learn throughout the rest of my time in the classroom.

Emily Hart

A44583434

TE 250 Section 4 Cultural Autobiography

To compete fairly, everyone must have access to education free of the fetters of family background, gender, and race. (Mickelson, page 50). As I, and many others in this world may like to think that success is solely a result of hard work and motivation, the reality is that even though there is competitive opportunity in life, a persons success in education and the work force is highly impacted by their background. Though our education system may be more equal today than it has ever been in the past, there is no denying that success is also a result of many other outside factors. Unlike many others, I have grown up in an environment free of many of the non-dominant characteristics that have been shown to negatively affect educational experiences in some cases. As a white citizen from a standard mother-father-sibling household and middle class socioeconomic background, I have always had the odds for, rather than against me when it comes to opportunities and access to resources that would improve my education. Being female has given me a unique non-dominant trait perspective that has also made an impact in the way I was educated as well as the views I currently have on success today.

Growing up in a small town with an entirely Caucasian population, with very few exceptions made for an extreme lack of diversity in my schooling experience. However, even if there was no diversity in race, there were other differences between my peers and I. The most notable difference, being socio-economic background. Although its something I never thought much about when I was little, I now look back and reflect on how lucky I was, and still am, to be from a middle class background which was a dominant trait in my community. There are always instances in schooling where students families are required to purchase books, school supplies, field trip admittance, and many other things themselves. Although my family never had an excessive amount of money to throw around, I was always able to have and do these extra things that were sometimes required of us. I look back now and can see how these extras were a positive impact in enhancing my educational experience throughout grade school.

When youre young, a lot of how well your day goes revolves around the social and menu atmosphere of lunch time. However, I now realize that lunch may not have been everyones favorite time of day. Being able to have a well balanced lunch packed by my mom every day of the week was something that I probably took for granted back then. I now know the importance of food for energy and performance in school, and the nutrition aspects that are vital to childrens growth. I was always aware of my friends who would have to go and get their free and reduced lunch tickets before we lined up, and those who were not able go on field trips because of the cost. Although there were never any blatant actions of inequality between us as classmates, these instances were probably psychological things that affected those students, even at a young age. Being from a middle class, well off position enabled me to go through school without worry or care given to these situations, and allowed me to be able to focus on learning and making the most of my education.

To contrast my experiences with having a dominant trait, my education has also been affected my gender and the non-dominance associated with it. There has been drastic advancement for women and young girls in todays society compared to how it used to be. However, there are still many inequalities and discrepancies in treatment. I began to notice this in elementary school when for some reason, between grades three and five, it was just an understood notion that the boys were cooler than the girls, and that the only way to be friends with a boy was if you played and talked sports with them. During these years, I went through a tom boy phase and had many unsuccessful attempts at athleticism trying to be one of the boys. I definitely felt like I had to conform at school even though I was perfectly accepted for who I was at home.

Later on, I noticed that boys were not only cooler, but that they seemed to have more ease remembering facts and with regular schoolwork. I remember my fifth grade teacher assigning boys to be the leaders of the history groups, where the girls, myself included, would ask them questions because at that time it was understood that they held most of the answers.

This past summer I began to notice gender inequality in the workforce, realizing that my female coworkers and I had extremely menial and trivial tasks compared to the other interns in our age group who were male. The guys would talk about their work in actuarial mathematics, while the females would talk about how we answered phones and made letter templates. It is also important for me to note that there were no female CEOS or higher-ups at this company and how I was surrounded by women who do the grunt work while the men went to meetings and made decisions.

When we think about our multiple identities, most of us will find that we are both dominant and targeted at the same time. But it is the targeted identities that hold our attention and the dominant identities that often go unexamined. (Tatum, page 57). I agree and relate to this view, because even though I have many dominant traits working for me. I cannot deny the fact that I am going into a female oriented profession, or that I justify being bad at math because of the stereotype that most girls are. As I reflect, I can honestly say that most of the decisions I have made in my life are based on my role as a female and what is most common and accepted for my gender in todays society, rather than observing and taking into account the bulk of my dominant oriented identity.

Citations

Mickelson, R.A., & Smith, S.S. (2004). CAN EDUCATION ELIMINATE RACE, CLASS, AND

GENDER INEQUALITY?

Tatum, B.D. (2000). The Complexity of Identity: Who Am I?

Theory PaperA common notion that people hold in regard to what life in the United States offers to individuals, is that this nation is a land of limitless opportunity and that any dream can be achieved if the effort is put forth. This view of America as a meritocracy may hold true for some, but certainly not all. Its statistically impossible for every single person to be at the top, and see direct and immediate results from work and effort, no matter how hard. Aint No Makin It explores some of the common patterns in American society that contribute to either the mobility or immobility that individuals experience between the class they were born into, and the class that they eventually end up in. In response to the idea that there is very little mobility for individuals between original and potential classes, Jay Macleods primary theoretical objective with this collection of interviews, research, and observations is simple; to get a better idea of why there is a continuous occurrence and tendency for children to end up in the same class as their parents or primary surroundings.

Contrary to the aforementioned popular belief that the American Dream is indeed the staple of life in the U.S., the social reproduction theory at the heart of Aint No Makin It strives to show how in all actuality, the rich keep getting richer and the poor just stay poor. In Macleods words (2009), Social reproduction theory identifies the barriers to social mobility, barriers that constrain without completely blocking lower- and working-class individuals efforts to break into the upper reaches of the class structure (p.8).

Macleod explores these barriers in the context of two different groups in the neighborhood of Clarendon Heights. The first group, comprised of predominantly white boys is called the Hallway Hangers. The second group mainly consisting of young black men, go by the title of the Brothers. Since the essence of social reproduction is that individuals have no true and significant control in how they might be able to move from their initial culture and class to another, the two differing outlooks of members in the Hallway Hangers and Brothers bring insight to how social reproduction happens at a realistic and individual level. Instead of recognizing the advantages they have in society by simply being of dominant race and gender, the Hallway Hangers resort to victimizing themselves and thinking that they are actuality in the minority when compared to African Americans and Hispanics. They are under the impression that the achievement ideology, which is essentially the name for the definition of the American Dream, does not apply to them because of the threat they think other races pose to their identities and job outlook. They dont understand how their families ended up living in poverty if there indeed is equal opportunity. Their view of reverse discrimination and resentment of other races makes them forget about the power they actually have with their own, and depreciates any internal goals or hopes. On the contrary, the Brothers are firm in their belief of the achievement ideology because they think that racial prejudice and other connotations have been nearly eliminated. Their optimism is bludgeoned by the reality of todays job market regardless of race. Instead of being limited by their mentality, like the Hallway Hangers, the Brothers are limited by the actuality of the economy. Each group has different barriers, whether they be conjured in their minds, or real. However, one barrier that they have in common is a form of oppression called powerlessness. According to Young (2000), The powerless lack the authority, status, and sense of self that professionals tend to have. The status privilege of professionals has three aspects, the lack of which produces oppression for nonprofessionals. She makes the distinction between professionals (middle class) and nonprofessionals (working class). This supports the hypothesis of social reproduction because regardless of the Hallway Hangers inherent racial and gender advantage, and the Brothers hard work and support of the achievement ideology, each group lacks the necessary experience and connections that professionals have, which will make it nearly impossible to achieve a that status when starting in their own lower, nonprofessional status where they have been accustomed to being subordinate.

Of course, Macleods take on social reproduction is not the only one. Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis concur that, similar to the core of communism, students are essentially controlled in the school setting and trained to go on the path that is associated with the status they were born into as well as the expectations and standards that education authority have for them. Along these lines, Pierre Bourdieu takes a more cultural perspective and uses cultural background and capital as the defining point for class, in that schools place students from more prestigious culture on a pedestal while lower class and its associated culture are belittled. Henry Giroux dares to go beyond the concentration of schooling as the primary source of inequality, and suggests that there is a broader picture to be considered when trying to determine the ways that individuals are influenced and shaped in relation to society and class.

Aint No Makin It focuses solely on the Hallway Hangers and Brothers, so it is only fair to assess the legitimacy of social reproduction as a way to describe the class and social inequality within their personal context. As MacLeod periodically revisited the lives of these men in subsequent years, the overwhelming conclusion was that although a few of the men have moved away from Clarendon Heights, they confessed that they have not been fully able to rid themselves of the association and part of their identity that occurs because of their class and cultural background. Despite the autonomy that they have as American citizens, their decisions and life choices have been majorly influenced and shaped by their previous environments back in Clarendon Heights. One of the men witnessed first hand that success often relies on who you know, which goes hand in hand with the oppression that they face because of the powerlessness that they were dealt in their class structure. In a generalized sense, the crime, racism, alcohol and drug abuse, economic instability, and competition found in Clarendon Heights and many, many other areas in this country combine to create an environment that may not facilitate success or improvement. These environments may easily breed generation after generation of individuals striving to function and survive without any opportunity to develop actual skills or social capital that would allow them to improve their situation. In situations like this, people are a product of their society and unless they completely remove themselves from that area and lifestyle and miraculously make all the correct decisions and connections that land them in a job or position within a higher class, then they will inherently not have the tools, skills, and relations to function as someone of that higher class. Therefore, social reproduction does indeed seem to be an accurate prediction and explanation of social inequality.

To add a bit more legitimacy for viewing social reproduction as a main component of social inequality, we can refer to Coleman and Hoffers discussion of pertaining research (1987), Students from disadvantaged backgrounds, and perhaps those from deficient families, would do less well in schools surrounded by strong functional communities. They go on to discuss that if these students from disadvantaged backgrounds were suddenly put into a community with the resources and capital that have been guaranteed to be effective, they will still be stigmatized and held to lower standards because of their parents status and background thus reproducing that exact same status. Their research supports the aforementioned view of schools playing a large part in social reproduction theory. They go on to describe how these expectations and processes of labeling are nothing new, and are common in social psychology and sociology research and theory.

It may seem that these plethora of theories and ideas target lower class communities and individuals, but statistics show that 77% of college graduates say they've changed communities at least once vs. 56% of those with a high school diploma or less. College graduates are more likely to have lived in multiple states

(Jayson, 2008). There are opportunities and experiences that stem from the educational attainment, which reflect the same implications of the aforementioned professional and nonprofessional status. This correlation advocates that social reproduction theory is a viable way to predict social inequity and is much more widespread than the insight to Clarendon Heights suggests.

Reference Page

Coleman, J., & Hoffer, T. (1987). Human capital and social capital. Public and private

high schools: Schools, families, and communities. (pp.221-233). NY: Basic Books.

Jayson, S. (2008, 12/17). For family, there's no place like your hometown.USA Today.

Retrieved from http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-12-17-family-ties_N.htm

MacLeod, J. (2009).Ain't no makin' it: Aspirations and attainment in a low-

income neighborhood (Third ed.) Boulder, Colorado: Westview.

Young, I. M. (2000). Five faces of oppression. In Adams et al. (Eds.). Readings

for diversity and social justice (pp. 35-49). New York: Routledge.

Item 2 & 3 Reflections

At the beginning of this course, being asked to write a cultural autobiography really annoyed me. The sole reason for this was because I have so often resented having to write or discuss how I have no experience of adversity or discrimination of any way due to my race, gender or socioeconomic status. These types of assignments have usually always made me uncomfortable and left with a feeling of guilt because I have not done anything to earn any of these particular traits. However, this was before we got into the bulk of material in this class. Throughout the remainder of the course, I began to see the ways in which I was privileged when it came to social norms, but also how I may be on the opposite end as well. I think the Tatum quote I included in my cultural autobiography has remained true over the semester for me. When we think about our multiple identities, most of us will find that we are both dominant and targeted at the same time. But it is the targeted identities that hold our attention and the dominant identities that often go unexamined. (Tatum, page 57). However, I definitely have been given the opportunity to learn about why the dominant identities often go unexamined, and how this affects other members of society. One of my recent Tweets was along the lines of how the main thing I learned in TE 250 was that white people are the worst. While this is certainly a drastic exaggeration, I honestly do think it was very important to realize just how many instances of cultural imperialism there have been, and still are in our society. From trying to eliminate entire languages and cultures, to standardized tests that are practically only standard to mainstream white suburban English speakers, the people that control educational aspects also end up controlling the lives of some parts of society as well. To sum, my cultural autobiography essentially focused on how my seemingly dominant identity could have led to me having a one-sided mentality of what is good and right in education and what should or shouldnt be incorporated. As much as I have learned what good and effective ways to approach making decisions or teaching, this course has also taught me what I most need to avoid in order to not end up repeating what many people have in the past.

An aspect of my Theory Paper also coincides with this realization when I think about Coleman and Hoffers research that concluded that even if students from disadvantaged backgrounds or bad experiences jump over and start to attend school in a more developed and close knit community, they will often not see any significant improvement because the educators and members of the new community may still stigmatize and associate these new students with lower abilities and trouble. I saw this reflected several times within my hometown school district, and it was interesting to see that there have been actual studies on these reasons. The preconceived notions and stereotypes have to be eliminated in educators before we can see change in these situations, and it is imperative to have more of a comprehensive, personal, real life understanding of things that people go through in order to effectively educate and gain their trust and respect in the school setting.

TE 250 Section 4

Final Project

Course Term Wiki Portfolio

Emily Hart Dec. 6, 2012.

Collective Good

(In Education)

The idea that the purpose of schooling is to provide equal opportunity for all students as well as the ability to deal with diverse others in the public arena, a common core of knowledge, and a common set of democratic values and practices. [1]

Equal Opportunity

The typical American Dream vouches that if an individual works hard enough, they will be able to see the results and achieve an amount of success that correlates to the amount of work put in. The freedom for people in society to function with this idea in mind stems from the educational institution providing all students with equal funding, physical capital, opportunities, and assessment in order to maintain a level playing field during and after completing their education.

Diversity

Since overlap and conflict are bound to occur among individuals in any given setting, it is imperative for schools to prepare students to not only coexist, but also understand differences among each other. This includes gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, political views, religion, geographical differences, age, etc. Helping students learn and appreciate the differences that make up our nation will hopefully facilitate smooth pursuits of individual goals and the American Dream without discriminatory practices or treatment that may hinder success.

Common Core of Knowledge

Just as diversity and uniqueness are to be understood, so are the ways in which Americans are all united. Since it would be nearly impossible to provide every single student in the nation with the same exact education down to a T, it is imperative to at least provide them with some type of common knowledge before they leave the educational setting. Educators concur that graduates should not only know the outlines of American history, but also be able to communicate in English, be literate and arithmetically competent, and understand basic rules of politics and society, such as the purpose of elections and the meaning of the rule of the law. [1]

Democratic Values and Practices

Along the lines of common core knowledge, there is also a strong urge for students to obtain social values from their educational processes. Taking turns, being a graceful winner or loser, respecting authority, peacefully resolving issues and independence are all common practices taught in school. In addition to these social values, appreciation of our country and the methods of which it operates and maintains democracy are also seen as important knowledge. Therefore, it is common practice to teach the Constitution as well as the election process and other laws in American society. In addition, while teaching these democratic values and practices will almost inevitably bring up the concept of the American Dream.

Issues With Common Good In Historical and Current Practice

Although the practice of Common Good within education may have good intentions, there are several problems with this idea, and much of it has to do with the changes in American demographic as time has gone on.

There are huge differences between student funding in impoverished and affluent communities. Educational funding does not solely come from the government; in fact, nearly half of the funds come from property taxes, which, the higher the taxes and opportunity to tax will naturally correlate to more funding, making it nearly impossible to create equal opportunity in terms of funding as long as property tax remains a dominant method of contributing to student funding. [2]

Public schooling is generally in complete compliance with the notion of including students regardless of who they are, by law. However, private schools are able to be selective when it comes to admission and even curriculum, which may completely disregard any type of diversity. Historically, we see diversity as being a big problem. Segregation of schools was upheld until Brown v. Board of Education in 1954.

An increasingly controversial issue with the precepts of providing a common core knowledge is with the belief that every student should be able to communicate in English. [See entry on Linguistic Diversity] Essentially, if we hold that knowing English is a dominant standard, it may contradict the goal of preparing students to incorporate diversity.

A major representation of implementing democratic values and practices into education was the use of the Pledge of Allegiance in schools. A recent law passed in Michigan now requires the opportunity for students to recite the pledge of allegiance, but specifically states that no child will be compelled to say it. The passing of this bill makes Michigan one of 44 states to require the offering of the pledge. [3]

References

[1] Hocschild, J., & Scovronick, N. (2003). What Americans want from public schools. In The American dream and the public schools (pp. 9-27). New York: Oxford University Press.

[2]Biddle, J. & Berliner, D. (2002) Unequal School Funding in the United States. Educational Leadership, 59 (8), 48-59.

[3] WILX 10. Michigan lawmakers pass pledge of allegiance law. (2012, September 20). http://www.wilx.com/news/headlines/170541746.html

Social Groups

. . . A social group is a collective of persons differentiated from at least one other group by cultural forms, practices, or way of life. [1]

Social Relations

Social groups only exist when related to one or more different groups. For example, group A and group B have a social interaction and their differences thus identify them as relating to one group or the other. But if members of group A and B were to have a social interaction with another group C, more differences may come into play and the social groups may change with the addition of another component, and members who were originally in different social groups within A and B may now be in the same group for one reason or another. Members of these groups tend to relate and gravitate towards members of their own group because of the similarities that bond them. If a group were to only have knowledge or associate among other members of that group, they would essentially not even think of themselves as a group. However, it is when other people with various differences are introduced that these social groups are created.

Individuals Reflect Groups

The affinity with one group or another can influence an individual and make it more or less easy for someone to identify an individual as a member of the particular group due to similar mannerisms, language, aesthetics, habits, etc.

Martin Heidegger describes this notion of individuals reflecting groups by a term called throwness. [1] An individual recognizes that they have always been a member of one group or another because groups have been associated with these preconceived definitions and stereotypes mentioned above.

Group Mobility and Variations

The idea of throwness would mean that a change in ones identity would essentially mean a change of groups, and that affinity to groups is not permanent. Thus, someone may be able to influence the precepts that define a group slightly (to include one thing or another), or they may go through a change that constitutes a complete jump from one group to another. Different branches of groups may come into being, but they are never solely created by one person because the initial group would have always been in existence. For example, the different variations within the LGBT community, different tribes within American Indian culture, or the many different levels and ranges of disabilities.

Oppression

An inevitable result of different groups in contact with each other is the historical and even current practice of oppression, whether it be intentional or not. Power struggles or differences among groups have, and may result in:

Exploitation: The work of one group solely benefits another group instead of their own.

Marginalization: The complete disregard or disuse of people. (Includes social disregard)

Powerlessness: The absence of ability, authority, status, or means to function in conjunction with people of professional status.

Cultural Imperialism: When one groups ideology infiltrates society and creates the basis of which standards are held while completely suppressing the other groups culture. (This can occur obliviously)

Violence: The deliberate violent action toward someone solely because they belong to a certain group.

Social Groups Within Education

There are numerous examples of social groups being oppressed in the past, often within legality. Control of Native American education in America began as early as 1643, and the efforts to eliminate their language and culture really proved to be successful. The cultural imperialism that occurred while trying to keep their different lifestyle and language at bay have severely impacted literacy rates and performance within Native American students when compared to how they achieved within the tribe controlled education setting. [2]

Latino education has also seen harm due to power and political struggles against a dominant group. Inequality due to stereotypes led to many students being placed or treated as low ability or on a vocational track. Their language was also suppressed by the efforts of people in control of education throughout the years. [3]

Current Relevance

There is still a long way to go in terms of providing equality among all social groups within education. It is important for educators and administrators to take into account the different attributes, historical past, stereotypes and culture of groups in order to effectively educate and bring awareness to what makes people unique, while still treating students as individuals when it comes to academics and not discriminating or placing students in accordance with those stereotypes.

References

[1] Young, I.M. (2000). Five faces of oppression. In Adams et al. (Eds.). Readings for diversity and social justice (pp. 35-49). New York: Routledge.

[2] Klug, B.J., and Whitfield, P.T. (2003). A brief history of American Indian education. In Widening the circle: Culturally relevant pedagogy for American Indian children (pp. 29-47). New York: Routledge Farmer.

[3]San Miguel Jr., G. (2003). Contested learning: Latino education in the United States from the 1500s to the present. In V. I. Kloosterman (Ed.), Latino students in American schools: Historical and contemporary views (pp. 1-18). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Discrimination

[Noun] The process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently. [4]

Any given person or group of people has the potential to discriminate against another with intention of harming or giving unfair treatment to them.

Forms of discrimination include individual, institutional and structural.

Individual Discrimination

Individual discrimination refers to the behavior of individual members of one race/ethnic/gender group that is intended to have a differential and/or harmful effect on the members of another race/ethnic/gender group. [1]

Examples

Historically, obvious examples of individual discrimination most notoriously include the KKK targeting black citizens, and other hate crimes and actions during, before, and even after the civil rights movement. This definitely affected schooling as well, because segregation carried over into schools and resulted in drastic inequality between designated black schools and their white and light skinned counterparts. [See also institutional discrimination]

Individual discrimination may also occur in schools in the form of bullying. A new movie released in early 2012 appropriately titled Bully recently sparked conversation about the serious actions going on behind the scenes in schools and buses that often gets dismissed as typical child or teen behavior. It is not secret that discrimination for one reason or another can, and does lead to suicide or other drastic attempts for escape. Bully has an online movement that can be found at http://action.thebullyproject.com/. [2]

Institutional Discrimination

Institutional discrimination refers to the policies of the dominant race/ethnic/gender institutions and the behavior of the individuals who control these institutions and implement policies that are intended to have a differential and/or harmful effect on minority race/ethnic/gender groups. [1]

Further Definition

Since dominant groups are usually those who create, enforce, and defy rules, norms, and laws in society, they are generally the ones who end up doing the discriminating rather than being victimized by it. White people, and affluent white males especially are usually more or less safe from discrimination

A common controversy regarding institutional discrimination in education is the implementation of affirmative action. Some people believe that while affirmative action aims to level the playing field for those of different races, it is actually discriminating against White people.

Examples

Along the lines of racial discrimination mentioned in Individual Discrimination, institutional discrimination occurred legally in the form of the Jim Crow laws during the early 1900s. The state mandated segregation of Black and Whites is one of the most iconic means of institutional discrimination in our countrys history.

In addition, an extremely recent example of institutional discrimination occurred when the state of Virginias legislature decide on their proposal to opt out of the No Child Left Behind law. They decided upon a new set of educational goals where students would be held to different grading standards depending on their race. This included White students being held to the highest percentage standard, Asians at the next down, and then Black, Latino, and disabled students at the lowest standard. [3] This new set of guidelines gives students non Caucasian students deliberate differential treatment solely based on their race and the stereotypes that they see in the academic setting.

Structural Discrimination

Structural discrimination refers to the policies of dominant race/ethnic/gender institutions and the behavior of the individuals who implement these policies and control these institutions, which are race/ethnic/gender neutral in intent but which have a differential and/or harmful effect on minority race/ethnic/gender groups. [1]

Differentiating Between Structural and Institutional Discrimination

Whereas institutional discrimination is the deliberate intent of discriminating against someone or some people, structural discrimination has no intent to harm anyone when creating policies or standards, but end up blindsiding minority groups.

Examples

The No Child Left Behind Act aims to bring student performance up to a certain level, which will then determine funding for the designated school. If students are not able to achieve this standard they may not be able to advance in their education, and will be impacted by removal or absence of funding. The intent of this act may be good, but it is impossible to assume that every student will be able to reach a certain standard by a designated time and has the potential to alienate students of lower achievement capabilities or special needs.

References

[1] Young, I.M. (2000). Five faces of oppression. In Adams et al. (Eds.). Readings for diversity and social justice (pp. 35-49). New York: Routledge.

[2]Weinstein Company Movie. YouTube. (2012, February 21). Bully Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1g9RV9OKhg

[3] Sanchez, C. Firestorm Erupts Over Virginias Education Goals. (November 12, 2012). http://m.npr.org/news/U.S./163703499

[4]Discrimination (definition). Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. A Britannica Company. Accessed December 1, 2012 from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discrimination

Dominance

Dominant groups, by definition, set the parameters within which the subordinates operate. The dominant group holds the power and authority in society relative to the subordinates and determines how that power and authority may be acceptably used. [1]

Dominant Traits In U.S. Society

Male Gender

Able Bodied

Caucasian

Christian Religion

Heterosexuality

Wealth

Non-Dominant Traits In U.S. Society

Female Gender

Trans/Intergender

Handicap/Disability

Ethnic Diversity

Homosexuality

Poverty

Societal Implications

Policies, laws, education structure, relationship and social norms are all determined by the dominant group in society. Often times this involves the dominant group having the most highly valued positions in society while non-dominant groups are automatically demeaned to lower expectations and opportunities.

The Dominant Side

Unlike members of subordinate groups --- especially visibly distinct (i.e., racially distinct groups --- dominant group members are less likely to be reminded of social and cultural differences on a day-to-day basis, less likely to have their identity anchored in overly ethnic institutions and social structures, and less likely to have experienced prejudice, discrimination, or disadvantage due to ethnicity or race. [2] Dominant traits are sometimes taken for granted because they are seen as the norm and are not questioned.

Along the lines of this oblivion, dominant groups may not understand the ways of life for the subordinates, but the subordinates will be very familiar with how people with dominance live.

Conferred Dominance

Conferred dominance is the power that goes along with dominance allowing the individual to exercise privilege over others, simply because they are in the dominant group.

Examples In Education

Students who have dominance in the educational setting would be able to go through without having their identities or aesthetics questioned, and may have conferred dominance in settings where it would constitute their word against another student of less, or no dominant traits.

There should be absolutely no preferential, or differential treatment given to students based on gender, race, sexuality, physical appearance etc. This includes giving boys physical tasks and girls cleaning tasks, for example.

It would be helpful for educators to take non-dominant traits into consideration in order to reduce instances of discrimination, special treatment, or ignorance that may inadvertently harm academic or personal growth in students.

References

[1] Tatum, B.D. (2000). The Complexity of Identity: Who Am I? In M. Adams, W.J. Blumenfeld, R. Castaeda, H. W. Hackman, M. L. Peters, and X. Zuiga (Eds.). Readings for Diversity and Social Justice (pp. 9-14). New York: Routledge.

[2]Doane Jr., A. (1997). Dominant Group Ethnic Identity in the United States: The Role of "Hidden" Ethnicity in Intergroup Relations. The Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 38, No. 3, (pp. 375-397). http://www.jstor.org/stable/4121150

Linguicism

Tove Skutnabb-Kangas first defined language discrimination in the form of lingucism; discrimination based solely on language. [1]

Language Terms

English Language Learners

Individuals whose native language is not English, but are learning English.

Monolingual

The ability to speak only ones native language.

Bilingual

The ability to speak a native language as well as another language fluently.

Multilingual

The ability to speak multiple languages fluently.

Limited English Proficient

An older term for English Language Learners.

Language Minority Students

Students who speak a minority language in the United States. [1]

Language In Relation To Learning

In spite of such evidence, schools may disregard language minority students native languages and cultures for that they believe to be good reasons: because they link students English language proficiency with prospective economic and social mobility, teachers and schools may view English language learners as handicapped and thus urge students, through both subtle and direct means, to abandon their native language. [1] Asking students to completely subdue their native language is both individual and institutional discrimination. In direct correlation with dismissing someones language is dismissing their culture and history as well.

Brenda K. Gorman debunks common myths associated with bilingual education, especially that being bilingual does not delay learning or cause deficit in learning. [2]

Historical Significance

The United States has had a track record of valuing the English language as an academic stronghold and marker of capability. Attempts to eliminate languages other than English have been common especially with Native American and Latino people. However, the year of 1974 marked a significant change in law regarding students whose native language is not English, in the form of The Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA). The EEOA focuses on lessening the challenges and language barriers in schools that would not be offering equal opportunity or participation without it. Essentially, the Act deemed it necessary to have bilingual education in order to combat the academic struggle that would occur if a native speaker were not able to have their language support while learning English.

Since use of the English language plays into loyalty and patriotism in the U.S., some people may be wary of people who choose to not, or just cannot speak English. A recent example of linguicism and other discrimination occurred in Tucson Arizona. Mexican-American Studies classes were prevented from continuing on the premise that they promoted the overthrow of the American government etc. [3] Selected literature was banned from schools, along with a list of about 80 books that arent banned; but are prohibited in classrooms. [4]

Examples In Recent History

In this example, an Iranian couple which are now citizens of the United States decided that it was time to obtain their drivers licenses. Since they had only been living in the U.S. for a few years, their English skills were not at the level that the Bartlesville Oklahoma Department of Public Safety expected in their standard driving exam. The couple requested that they be able to take the exam in an alternative form with pictures or graphic symbols, or if they could accommodate by providing the test in the couples native language of Farsi. The Bartlesville department refused to allow the couple to take the test if it wasnt in English because it is the standard for knowing the material. The couple moved to Kansas (25 miles north of Bartlesville) and took the test with graphic symbols both individuals passed, and then moved back to Bartlesville.

This article is both an example of how language is and is not seen as a measure of cognitive ability. The Bartlesville department thought that without the written test in the standard English language, then citizens were not capable or deserving of the license privilege. On the other hand, the department in Kansas that provided the exam with graphic symbols proves that written language, particularly English, is not the only true measure of cognitive ability. [5]

References

[1]Nieto, S. (2006). Linguistic diversity in U.S. Classrooms. Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education, 6th edition (pp. 208-230). Boston: Pearson Education.

[2]LinguaHealth YouTube. (2012, February 9th) Myths About Bilingual Children. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVYhpCprtzQ

[3]Siek, S. CNN In America. (2012, January 22). The dismantling of Mexican-American studies in Tucson schools. Retrieved from http://inamerica.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/22/how-tucson-schools-changed-after-mexican-american-studies-ban/

[4]Gina Ruiz. (2012, January 20). Banning History In Arizona: Banned Book List. Retrieved from http://banninghistory.blogspot.com/p/banned-book-list.html[5] The associated press. (2008). Tulsa World: Iranian immigrants want Farsi-language Oklahoma driver's licensetesting. Retrieved from http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080401_1__OKLAH23086