reading two

Readinng two put into words a lot of the thoughts I previously had about the adolescent period. It wasn't very easy for me to really get into this reading, I kept finding myself asking what point the authors were trying to make other than that being a kid in middle school is tough business. From my experience at least, middle school was an awesome time even with all the bodily changes we all go through. I did like the insights made about how other countries view the adolescent stage in contrast with how Americans view it because it was interesting to see another spin on the craziness of puberty.
The other part of the reading that I really found interesting was when the author discusses how boys and girls each handle/view reaching puberty. Especially how the author explains that boys very rarely discuss the changes they're going through with their parents, this was something that mirrored my experience and made me think about why this is so. I figured it's because puberty is such a less scary thing for boys, what do we really need to learn or be warned about when puberty hits? Which brings me to sex education and how much of a joke it really can be. I don't mean this to be an attack on the foundations of sex ed, but perhaps 4th graders haven't reached the maturity level to learn about the human body. I remember being in sex ed in the 4th grade and I don't think there was a time in elementary school that I laughed more during class. Not only was my teacher not prepared to teach it (he always turned red) but I don't think I was ready to hear all that. I was more worried about recess and pop-warner football than I was about the difference between girls and boys and where babies come from. HOWEVER, I do think that sex ed at the highschool level can be informative. It's definitely too late to begin sex ed, but the whole idea of intercourse is much more real as a freshman than it was in fourth grade, and unfortunately so are the risk of STDs which is why I would argue that sex ed in the highschool should remain mandatory.

reading one

I really liked Kumashiro's article because he presented the topic of representing the "other" in a way that portrays the complexity of the issue. Introducing the "other" to a classroom in a way that is respectful to everyone is not a task that is easily accomplished. Personally, I liked the way that Kumashiro presented the problems with each point of view in his article because in that way Kumashiro showed that anti-oppressive education is not something that will happen overnight, nor is it something that has a single or easy answer. Kumashiro talks about one difficulty of anti-oppressive education on page 34 when he discusses time restraints that make teaching difficult, "there is only so much time in the school year, and it is literally impossible to teach adequately about every culture and every identity, especially given the multiplicity of experiences within any cultural community." This is a problem that is very difficult to overcome, especially with expectations that accompany standardized testing, but Kumashiro does not disappoint. He goes on to explain that "lessons about the other need to include learning to resist one's desire to know, to essentialize, to close off further learnings. The goal is not final knowledge (and satisfaction), but disruption, dissatisfaction, and the desire for more change."(34) To me this is Kumashiro explaining that it may not always be possible to include EVERYONE in lessons but as teachers we must do our best to teach our students to be respectful of everyone regardless of their background.
Although I really enjoyed Kumashiro's article, I took issue with a passage on page 32. Here he is discussing reasons why the majority of students have such a poor understanding of the other, "schools often contribute to this partial knowledge through the selection of topics for curriculum, such as the celebration of industrial inventors and the relative absence of any discussion of labor exploitations in US history textbooks." This quote may not seem bothersome; in fact it makes a lot of sense. I actually took issue with the fact that in this instance, Kumashiro was quoting a source from 1979. I remember learning about these issues in high school, and my history books did cover these issues, maybe this was a true statement in 1979, but teaching of the Social Studies has come a long way in thirty years.
Reading Kumashiro's article was very helpful especially with student teaching a few days away because while this was an issue I was aware of, I never had the chance to see an article that discusses the complexity of introducing the other in a way that Kumashiro does. The article did leave me with a few questions though; first, what strides have been made since Kumashiro wrote this article in 2000? I graduated in 2004, and I can honestly say that the education I received discussed the other in a way that I had a strong grasp of other cultures and backgrounds when I graduated. Another question that I had after reading was what Kumashiro viewed as the strongest view? (maybe this was something I just read over??)