Blog #5: The Academic and Social Value of Ethnic Studies - Christine E. Sleeter

 Argument

 In The Academic and Social Value of Ethnic Studies, Christine E. Sleeter argues that most mainstream education focuses almost entirely on White/European history, while sidelining the perspectives, histories and worldviews of people of color. Backed by several longitudinal studies regarding student engagement, she advocates for Ethnic Studies as a necessary tool to re-engage students and provide a more accurate, multi-perspective view of history.

    Sleeter’s central focus is that the American educational system has not yet achieved true multiculturalism; instead, it has merely "added" diverse faces to a narrative that remains centered on Euro-American experiences. She argues that although obvious stereotypes may not appear as often in textbooks, the messages and storylines in K–12 curriculum still center White individuals as the main drivers of progress and nation-building. With this narrative, the histories of marginalized groups are often simplified, framed about "contributions" or "victimhood" roles, separated from the larger systems of power and racism that shaped those experiences. She also explains that the curriculum often separates racism of the past from racism today, portraying racism as the actions of a few bad individuals rather than part of a larger system. She contends that this is curricular bias and creates a significant gap between the lived realities of students of color and the version of history they encounter in school. 

    She goes on to argue that when curriculum overlooks the experiences of students of color, or reduces their histories to “distant tragedies”, they often become academically disengaged, or begin to distrust schools. If schools instead focus on and build curriculum around the realities and intellectual contributions of these communities, while addressing issues such as institutional racism and colonialism, it can create a more inclusive environment where students are likely to be more engaged in school. Overall, she emphasizes that Ethnic Studies is more than simply adding new content to existing curriculum, but reshaping the curriculum to one that recognizes and values all students and their experiences and perspectives.

Blog #4: Shifting the Paradigm from Deficit Oriented Schools to Asset Based Models - Shannon Renkly and Katherine Bertolini

 Reflection

Blog #3: What 'Counts' as Educational Policy? Notes toward a New Paradigm -Jean Anyon

 Connections

    In her article "What 'Counts' as Educational Policy? Notes toward a New Paradigm," Jean Anyon argues that when educational policies focus solely on school-based reforms such as curriculum and testing, they fail to address the underlying socioeconomic conditions that stunt educational growth of urban students. The two readings, “The Broken Model” and "Privilege, Power, and Difference” focus on the frameworks surrounding the educational system and privilege in society, and directly tie into the arguments Anyon makes. All three authors explore how deeply ingrained social and institutional systems that we’ve come to accept as “normal” perpetuate inequality and limit human potential. 

    One of Khan's main focuses is examining the current education system as a whole, specifically the stubbornness and uniformity of the standard system.He argues that tracking and testing fail to measure deep understanding or long-term retention and hinder creative potential. By prioritizing static data such as rote memorization or test scores we capture only a glimpse of a student’s performance. Using this data to "label kids" and "squeeze them into categories" mirrors Anyon's argument that traditional policies focus on increased academic standards and teacher professional development while ignoring the "economic arrangements" that produce the poverty surrounding city schools. Anyons argument ties directly into Khan's critique of tracking and testing, pointing out that socioeconomic status (SES) is the strongest predictor of cognitive development, even before children start kindergarten. Standardized test scores also significantly impact funding; high-performing schools may secure grants, while underperforming schools risk losing funding. This creates a cycle where lower-scoring schools receive fewer resources. Hurdles of poverty create the very "labels" that Khan identifies as part of the broken school model.

    Allan G. Johnson’s work, Privilege, Power, and Difference, offers the sociological foundation needed to understand the socioeconomic obstacles identified by Anyon. While Anyon focuses on how education is impacted by external economic factors such as poverty and housing, Johnson explains the privilege system behind those factors. One of the main arguments that Johnson makes is that we are stuck in a sort of paralysis because we as a society avoid having these difficult conversations surrounding privilege and power. When policy makers continue to favor "school-only" reforms, it allows them to avoid the uncomfortable, systemic changes to the "structures of privilege" that Johnson discusses. He further argues that the "trouble" surrounding privilege is sustained by social systems rather than individual actions and that social categories like race, gender, and class are simply social constructs that organize power and privilege in society. This directly relates to Anyon’s claim that educational failure is tied to macro-policies, such as poverty-level minimum wages and regressive taxation, which maintain these hierarchies. Johnson’s emphasis on the problems of difference in privileges falls on everyone, and not only to those negatively impacted, supports Anyon’s argument that the failure to address urban poverty is a collective policy choice. When the wealthy do not contribute equitably to public expenses, funding for essential services like education will decline, perpetuating educational inequality.  

Reflection: 

There is such a large achievement gap in both funding and achievement between high and low poverty schools. Instead of focusing on the underlying factors that cause this, we continue to make stricter curriculum and aim to increase academic performance, when the real reason low academic performance is happening is external factors. When basic needs are not being met such as food, students cannot be expected to perform well academically. The focus needs to be on how we can help students and families in poverty, because this is when academic performance will improve. 

Blog #2: The Broken Model - Khan

Quotes

    “What's needed, in my view, is a perspective that allows us a fresh look at our most basic assumptions about teaching and learning, a perspective that takes nothing for granted and focuses on the simple but crucial questions of what works, what doesn’t work, and why”. This quote truly explains the focus of this reading. By calling for a “fresh look”, Khan is calling for examining the system we use in education, and what we can change or fix. It identifies the main issue that the current education system as a whole needs to be looked at, and we need to examine where this Western classroom model originated. Khan goes on to argue, what doesn’t work is the stubbornness and uniformness of the standard education system, the fixed-time and tracking, which stems from an 18th-century Prussian model designed to produce compliance rather than creativity.

    When we look at the Prussian model and the original reasons for the structure of modern schools, it becomes clear that although widely practiced, the model no longer serves the needs of the contemporary world. “The idea was not to produce independent thinkers, but to churn out loyal and tractable citizens who would learn the value of submitting to the authority of parents, teachers, church, and, ultimately, king.” This prussian model – characterized by age-based tracking, bells, and fragmented subjects may have been in some parts innovative for the time, much of it is rooted in political indoctrination, and no longer align with a world that requires independent thinkers and creativity. The quote is relevant because it shows that we continue to follow these educational systems simply because they are what we are used to.

   If we were to translate standardized testing and assessment methods in schools to other situations, it is clear that the methods of tracking used on students fails to measure deep understanding, long-term retention, creative potential, and types of unconventional/intuitive intelligence. Khan states, “Imagine if we assessed student dancers purely by their flexibility or their strength. If we judged student painters purely by their ability to mix colors perfectly or draw exactly what they see. If we appraised aspiring writers purely by their mastery of grammar or vocabulary. What would we actually be measuring?” The core argument here is that modern education has become "reductionist." Khan argues that the current system of testing and grading filters out the creative and different thinking people, "squelching" creativity. When we focus on quantifiable metrics—like memorizing a formula or right answers on a multiple-choice test—we are just taking a snapshot of the student in that exact moment, and only measuring the tools of a discipline, not the application of it. If instead, we praise students on the learning process and independent thinking  instead of solely performance, it can foster a mindset of growth and long-term mastery instead of short-term performance.

Reflection

Based on my experiences with learning at this age, I think it is an unnatural expectation that all students will learn the same way and at the same pace. I struggled with ADHD, and often felt inadequate and “dumb”, and it left a permanent impact on my confidence and self-identity. This was only changed when my creativity was valued and my needs were acknowledged, and I valued and capable rather than inadequate.