Blog Entry Compilation of Reading Reflections

Blog Entry Compilation of Reading Reflections EDCI 6605 Critical Studies in Multicultural Education, Spring 2010 Your name: Deborah R. Davis

Book 1 - Ehrenreich, Barbara. Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting by in America. New York, NY: Henry Holt, 2002. Print.

Question 1(#1): In the wake of recent welfare reform measures, millions of women entering the workforce can expect to face struggles like the ones Ehrenreich confronted in Nickel and Dimed. Have you ever been homeless, unemployed, without health insurance, or held down two jobs? What is the lowest-paying job you ever held and what kind of help -- if any -- did you need to improve your situation?

During the period of May 1980 through June 1981, I held two and sometimes three jobs. At one point, I waitressed at Denny's for the breakfast shift, a steakhouse for the dinner shift, and had a sleeping job at a storage facility. The best thing I could hope for was to coordinate my days off so that they were in sync. This was a choice I made at the time. My parents were willing to support me if I continued as a full- time student. I, however, wanted to do whatever I wanted and was determined to do it on my own. Because of my hard work, I was able to maintain an apartment, a vehicle, and my own health coverage. I did choose to have a roommate. For Ehrenreich, I can see how not having a roommate would be the way to work her program. For her, privacy was paramount. For her, the situation was artificial. For me, the issue was monetary. Having a roommate allowed me to save money for emergency expenses. The lessons I learned from this period of my life allowed me to determine another path. The path of hard work, arduous work, is not meant to be fun, but it is a viable method of supporting oneself!

Question 2 (#16): Nickel and Dimed takes place in 1998-2000, a time of unprecedented prosperity in America. Do you think Ehrenreich's experience would be different in today's economy? How so?

In today's economy, the minimum wage is higher, but so is every other expense. Beyond that, there are few, if any changes. There will always be poor people. There will always be those who struggle. There will always be those who are galvanized to change their circumstances and willing to do whatever it takes to do so. I believe that her experience would be much the same in today's economy. The bottom line question was about living on minimum wage. While her living circumstances were a bit artificial, the reality is that one can live in some places on minimum wage. However, one must be willing to sacrifice. I have neighbors who are on public assistance to pay heat and rent, but they have satellite television and cell phones. In today's society, there is such a blurring of needs and wants, that people don't seem to know the difference. I fear that the wants overcome the needs, and the people suffer accordingly.

Question 3 (#15): Many of Ehrenreich's colleagues relied heavily on family -- for housing and help with child-care, by sharing appliances and dividing up the cooking, shopping, and cleaning. Do you think Americans make excessive demands on the family unit rather than calling for the government to help those in need?

I think that American's tend to make less demand on their family and more on the government. Further, I believe that most people find themselves where they put themselves. By that I mean that many

Davis 1 represented in Nickel and Dimed have made choices that resulted in difficult circumstances. Alcohol and tobacco are expensive habits. Having children during or just out of high school and trying to raise them is exceedingly difficult. Choosing to struggle rather than share expenses with a roommate or two or three presents challenges with which one must deal as a consequence of one's choice. Alternatively, those who stay in school, and push for good grades can get scholarships to advance educational goals. Stipends are available, and living expenses can be mediated by sharing space. As a young person, I reached a point where my nightly meals were based on which bar had free food which night. While working multiple jobs was never easy, nor was sharing a home, it was a means to an end. I believe that individuals of character can succeed if they have the desire and are willing to do

Book 2 - Fadiman, Anne. The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down: A Hmong Child, Her American Doctors, and the Collision of Two Cultures. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 1997. Print.

Question 1 (#5) : Dr. Neil Ernst said, "I felt it was important for these Hmongs to understand that there were certain elements of medicine that we understood better than they did and that there were certain rules they had to follow with their kids' lives. I wanted the word to get out in the community that if they deviated from that, it was not acceptable behavior" (p. 79). Do you think the Hmong understood this message? Why or why not? What do you think of Neil and Peggy?

One of the greatest sorrows of the situation is that this message was never truly communicated. However, Neil's message has elements of arrogance. While it is likely truth that the doctor's understood better the health problems and consequences of the issue, the idea that these American doctors could better understand the needs of their children is horrifying. All loving parents believe the want and know what is best for their children. In order to alter this perception, it is crucial to be respectful of it. Unfortunately, in Lia's situation, there was little time to be patient with her parents. Perhaps there are some Hmong support programs in place now, that weren't then. It seems every other ethnicity has them. Nonetheless, I think Neil 'n' Peggy did the best they could, and far more than many would have done. The doctors truly cared about this little girl, and their frustrations were magnified by the cultural barriers which prevented the parents from understanding the consensual desire for Lia's health.

Question 2 (#7): How did you feel about the Lees' refusal to give Lia her medicine? Can you understand their motivation? Do you sympathize with it?

My initial gut reaction to the Lee's refusal to give Lia her medicine is anger. However, I try to dig a little deeper than that, and I do have some sympathy for the situation. Having been a patient with extensive medication requirements, I know how confusing it can be - and I am an educated adult who speaks the same language as my doctors. The horrible side affects are enough to make anyone stop the medications. I know that for many people on anti-psychotics, the biggest problem is that when they take the medication, they feel better, so they stop. With the Lee's, there was a point at which the phenobarbital was working, so they considered her healed. With a socio-religious background which is violated by the inclusion of these artifices into the body, that make logical sense. Unfortunately, the logical short-term answer frequently does not apply. My reading indicates that the motivation for non-compliance was largely cultural. I think

Davis 2 anyone would agree that they loved their daughter and wanted the best for her. The cultural boundaries which prohibited understanding were the problem. This is one of the huge problems of immigration. If the immigrants are not indoctrinated into the existing community prior to these kind of problems, there is no way to fully communicate the issues. The work of Conquergood in the camp was a fabulous venue. However, as noted, they could not parade through the halls of MCMC. Unfortunately, the consequence was that the Lee's never truly understood that the Doctors also wanted the best for Lia, and therefore there was not a consensus of treatment. Consensus of treatment is the best way to garner success. As we noted last term, if the intrinsic and extrinsic motivation factors are concurrent, progress can be made.

Question 3(#10): How did the EMT’s and the doctors respond to what Neil referred to as Lia ’s “big one”? Do you think they performed as well as they could have under the circumstances?

The efforts by the EMT and the doctor's to Lia's “big one” were superlative. The EMT took the time to try, and recognizing the consequence of failure, made the decision to move with all due haste. Perhaps there could have been an alternative response, but I can not imagine it. It seems to me that while 14 minutes is forever when waiting, while working over a seizing child to save her, 14 minutes is a heartbeat. It is likely, in my experience as an EMT, that the primary did not realize the time at first as he was so focused on trying to help her breathe and stop seizing. I have found that first responders are extremely proficient at IV's. Considering it required a cut down to insert a venal catheter, the EMT did everything possible. The only fault I see at the ER, was that someone should have called Neil the moment she arrived. They knew Lia. They would have known that Neil was going to be called. I don't believe there would have been a different outcome at that point.

Question 4(#20): It is clear that many of Lia’s doctors, most notably Neil Ernst and Peggy Philp, were heroic in their efforts to help Lia, and that her parents cared for her deeply, yet this arguably preventable tragedy still occurred. Can you think of anything that might have prevented it?

It is conceivable that had the Hmong stayed in the hills, Lia might have lived. Alternatively, she might have died a natural and peaceful death as did so many of those children. The entire issue of Involuntary Immigrants creates a problem. Are they really involuntary? Certainly, they were in an untenable situation, but their people have been for Centuries. Those who survive create the legacy of the proud, strong, definitive people they are now. While, I'm sure, this is not a popular opinion, maybe we (Americans) should have stayed out of it. Those who participated in the Quiet War did so with expectations of compensation, which they received. Millions of Public Health dollars were spent on these people. Is that fair? When I was in Somalia and Tanzania, a tribeswoman told me that she had 18 children. She was one of 20, and her husband was one of 17. She also told me that of her siblings, and her husbands siblings, only four survived to work the land and provide for the family. Then, the Red Cross came and gave medicine to all her babies. They all survived, and she could not care for them. She said that they did not bond with their children or name them until they were one year old, because so many died. All of hers that survived, only survived to suffer more. It would have been better for them not to have lived past one year. I can only imagine her life. I know spending time with her, changed my view of “helping the world.”

Davis 3 Book 3: Paley, Vivian. White Teacher. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard, 2000. Print.

Question 1(#3): How does being Jewish affect Mrs. Paley in her opinions and reactions to her students? Does her comparison of growing up a Jewish child to growing up a black child a fair comparison? Explain.

It seems that Mrs. Pauley feels that being Jewish puts her in the same orientation as her black students. In many ways, she identifies with those students as being isolated, and discriminated against. However, it seems to me that it is more of a cliquish factor than anything else. The “black girls” calling each other “girl” would be similar to the “Jewish children” referring to themselves as “kike.” While it is taboo for those outside the clique to refer to those in the clique in those terms, it is perfectly acceptable within the clique. Cliques hurt feelings. They are, however, a natural part of social development. There will always be those in the clique, those outside the clique, and those who create their own cliques. The important thing Mrs. Paley learned was to quick ignoring differences, and celebrate them instead. As Mrs. Hawkins pointed out, "It's a positive difference, and interesting difference, and a comfortable natural difference" (131). We are ALL different, yet we are ALL similar. It is in both our similarities and our differences that we determine who we are.

Question 2(#7): What are the most worthwhile “takeaways” from this book for you? Explain.

The individual efforts of teachers and students should never be taken for granted. Mrs. Paley learned to think of her students as individuals. At first, she didn't even realize that she had not been doing so! It was near the end of the text, when Sonia addresses the issue of “the black girls” as a term of collection, that Mrs. Paley realizes her need to change, again. Like all of us who desire to improve our abilities, we are constantly changing and altering our methods and personal knowledge bases. Mrs. Pauley presents the idea that each of us in the teaching professions brings something unique to our classrooms. Further, she allows the notion that each child also brings something unique to the classroom. These are notions I can embrace, and hope that I exemplify in my own classrooms.

Book 4: Kozol, Jonathan. The Shame of the Nation: The Restoration of Apartheid Schooling in America. New York, NY: Crown Publishers, 2005. Print.

Question 1: Not Required – Leadership Group this week.

Question 2: Not Required – Leadership Group this week.

Question 3(#2): The “tale of two cities” in Chapter 6 suggests the existence of a dual educational system in America. Explain this view presented in this chapter with three examples, and offer your own comments.

The “tale of two cities,” as stated by David Dinkins in 1986, really directs itself to the difference between schools in the South Bronx and schools like Stuyvesant (p.141). The whole concept is presented as an issue of “those in the know” and “those who do not know.”

Davis 4 For parents who have historically been white, upper-middle-class, the knowledge of the requirements of the schools are ingrained in them from their own childhood. For those who grew up in the Bronx, and may never have left, the idea that these schools exist is only some vague notion of an esoteric community to which they do not belong. Schools in Harlem are presented as full classes of 30 or more students with unqualified teachers. The district office does not present options that exist to the parents of children in that community (p. 144).

Another issue with these schools is the sever overcrowding – the example presented is Walton High, “built to hold 1,800 kids, the school held 3,400 (p.145). The lunch room sequence from 9:42 until 2:19 is just another horror story. The pure pity of it is that the Bronx High School of Science (BHSS) is nearby, and the students attending Walton, do not see BHSS as an option.

At yet another school, elementary and middle schoolers are learning to sew and to write checks. Roosevelt schools might have been disbanded but for the extreme ire of the neighboring schools. The students would not have been welcomed. While the community of East Meadow presents the issue as one of class, not of race, the two coincide so extensively, the division blurs.

For all the horrors present by Kozol, there has been change. Stuyvesant was present by Kozol as being less than 3% minority. While the graph I was able to find (http://www.bigappleed.com/schools/107- stuyvesant-high-school) did not give numbers, it is apparent that between a third and a half of the students there are now minority. To enter Stuyvesant requires a score on an achievement test. The test is available to anyone, and can be free upon request. Students from areas, such as Harlem and the South Bronx, do not try for Stuyvesant, they may not even know it is an option.

Informed choices make a difference. As Kozol notes repeatedly, those who attend better elementary schools, frequently attend better middle and high schools. The issue needs to be addressed at the lower level schools. While the students at the middle and high schools are certainly not beyond redemption, it is my considered opinion, that a marked change in early elementary education and pushed from the bottom up would make the most lasting change.

Question 4(#6): A political movement is a necessary answer” to the problem of school racial segregation, cited Gary Orfield in Chapter 9. Explain his position, and offer your own comments.

Gary Orfield presents that “A political movement is a necessary answer” (p.221), and goes onto require a “broader sector of the nation to initiate a struggle” (p. 222). Gary Orfield moved his organization, The Civil Rights Project, with himself to UCLA in 2007 from Harvard where it was established. In his work, he presents that the model of integration in the Berkely Unified School District (BUSD) should be followed elsewhere.

Instead, BUSD uses geography on two different levels: (1) three attendance zones and (2) 445 “planning areas” consisting of 4–8 residential blocks that are assigned a diversity category according to the area’s racial-ethnic, economic and educational demographics. (http://www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/)

Davis 5 His work has not really changed. He still presents that, “it is increasingly important for these racial justice workers to make effective use of research and policy analysis, and to reach out more aggressively to the media, legislators, school leaders and other key players” (http://www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/policy.php).

Orfield notes that those in the federal government have good ideas, but fail to look at local situations. As I see it, a broad brush-stroke of equality painted across our nation will leave streaks of unchanged territory. Mandates from Washington, must be implemented in places like Long Beach, California without the resources at the local level to do so. While the program in Berkely may be successful, it has taken years of focused effort to make it the model of integration that it is. He believes in mandates from the federal government, but sees a still greater importance in the engaged efforts of state an local politics.

While I concur in the need for engaged efforts and communication between local, state, and federal politicians, my background leads me to believe that the community to district relationship is of a more critical value. I harken to Kozol's examples in New York, where commissioners of schools are worn through with the effort of bringing balance out of inequity. Again, I must reiterate my stance from my other blog. The change must start in the earliest levels of education. Each child deserves a sound education. However, the constructs of education need to begin with the youngest of students. If an effort were pushed with more focus onto those little children, the results would pay out within ten years! In the constructs of social time, ten years is little enough to make the effort more than worth the money.

Question 5(#2): What is Kozol’s view about the “small school initiative” (P. 277) for improving minority students’ education? What do you think should be done to make it successful?

Kozol agrees with the Advocates for Children that the small schools may be the best hope for an adequate education, but adds a requirement that they focus on diversity rather then on paralleling the demographics of the area. He sees the biggest harm in a two-fold dynamic. If the setting is drastically one particular race, then there should be diversity infused. The second fold is more critical – re Segregation. The idea of compounding the problems of lacking diversity by isolating ethnicities should be broadly discouraged. Kozol transitions from this issue of small schools back into his gripe about standardized testing. Schools, whether magnate, charter, public, or private, need to teach children what those children need to live and explore their dreams. If the children learn what they must, test scores, and eventually jobs, will follow. The problem is in giving children so many testing requirements that the teachers have no time for teaching. The best teachers teach in a fashion that makes children unaware of how much they are learning. Evaluation is an important facet in education, but it has been overestimated in importance. It would be hard to dispute that children in smaller schools, with more direct teacher contact, will learn more than those in large schools with crowded classrooms.

Davis 6