Slide

 

3 things that will stick with me

 Moo In’s- To be truthful, when we first started the semester I thought the moo in’s were a bit childish. I understood the goal however I felt it could be presented less awkwardly (I.e we have to say “moo in” and “moo out”). Now that the semester is over I feel strongly that nothing should change about our morning introductions. The playfulness allows everyone to get comfortable over time which causes us to share more than we normally would in other classes. I feel as though if they were made more comfortable from the beginning of the semester, students would be less inclines to step out of their boxes and probably would speed through something that helps us all connect. 

Lisa Delpit’s Silenced Dialogue- More specifically, when Delpit speaks on the culture of power. This was one of those “aha” moments where I found a term for something I’ve recognized for a while. Reading her thoughts on the culture of power has helped me think more deeply about this topic. In all honesty I have effortlessly been able to connect it to all of my other classes and reference it in one of my fina papers in my Literature and Identity class.

Leading With- This was another moment where I put a grade to a thought I ad already had. The emphasis on leading with has been super important in my learning journey, especially when I see it in both of my classes with Leslie. When first seeing the anchors I was confused on what leading with really meant and how it would play out. Leslie has showed us through letting us talk about topics past scheduled times, changing assignments due to what we deserve/prefer, having students lead ice breakers, picking where we work in groups. Etc. The lack of dictatorship and the amount of care in both classrooms gave me a real life visual while learning our criteria. 

queering our schools

 Reading “Queering Our Schools” really drives home how deeply education shapes the way young people learn to see both themselves and others. The article highlights that even as society becomes more accepting, schools still carry invisible walls that make it hard for queer students and teachers to feel safe or seen. What stood out most is how the writers connect community and empathy to real youth development—showing that when students are encouraged to express who they are, they grow not just academically but emotionally and socially. Queer studies plays a huge role in this because it asks us to question the systems that define what’s considered “normal” and whose stories get told. When teachers understand this, they can create classrooms that don’t just tolerate difference but celebrate it. It’s not only about protecting queer youth from harm, but also about teaching every student that diversity isn’t something to manage—it’s something to learn from. The same goes for teachers themselves, if educators can’t be open about their identities, how can they model authenticity and acceptance for their students? Making space for queer perspectives in schools is ultimately about shaping a generation that sees empathy, inclusion, and justice as everyday practices, not exceptions.

Reading “Queering Our Schools” really connects to what we’ve been doing in my queer studies class this semester. The class has taught me that queerness isn’t only about sexuality, it’s about identity, perception, and understanding how different experiences shape the way people see the world. The article talks about how schools should be spaces where every student and teacher can feel safe being their full selves, which ties directly into youth development and how identity forms early on. It made me think about my Mean Girls project, where I’m creating a “Turn Book” instead of a Burn Book to flip societal norms and look at the movie through a new lens. For me, queering Mean Girls doesn’t mean focusing just on sexuality, it means going beneath the surface and seeing how gender, power, and conformity affect each character differently. Both the article and this project make me realize that queering something is really about opening your perspective, understanding that not everything has one right answer, and learning to see through experiences beyond your own.

Troublemakers

 The way Shalabay approaches the word "troublemaker" really caught my attention. The way she argues is like a child who sings more and more loudly each time they are attempted to be silenced. Educators should all be aware this might mean they are missing a signal and should open their eyes to another possibility. Comparing "troublemakers" to miner canaries was a powerful comparison, imagining their "problematic" behavior as warning cries "...that there is poison in our shared air... that someone is reusing to hear their voice." When children act out, it’s easy for adults to label them as “bad,” “disruptive,” or “attention-seeking.” But most of the time, their behavior is not the real problem it’s a message. Kids rarely have the words or emotional awareness to explain what they’re feeling, especially when they’ve learned that their voices don’t matter. When a child feels ignored, misunderstood, or powerless, behavior becomes their language. What looks like defiance can actually be confusion, sadness, or a desperate attempt to be seen. "It seems impossible to blame a caged bird for its own death in a toxic mine, but we  nonetheless manage to do so. " So many quotes in the preface stuck out to me. This comparison is also so powerful because it symbolizes how adults constantly blame children for repetitive uncontrolled behavior, as if children do not learn from their surroundings and depend on the adults around them. This idea is so important for people to understand because, like Shalaby points out, if we never question what we were taught about children and behavior, we’ll just keep repeating the same mistakes. Many adults were raised in systems where obedience was valued more than understanding, so it feels normal to expect children to simply “behave.” But if we don’t stop and recognize that behavior is communication, we end up silencing kids instead of helping them grow. Shalaby reminds us that this kind of teaching, where control replaces care doesn’t just shape classrooms; it shapes how children see themselves. They learn that being “good” means being quiet, even when something feels unfair or confusing. Realizing this changes everything. It pushes us to unlearn the idea that authority equals power, and instead focus on connection, empathy, and listening. When adults take time to understand what a child’s behavior is saying, it creates space for trust and healing rather than punishment and fear. But that shift can only happen once people realize that what they were taught  to discipline first, to demand respect, to control isn’t the only way. This reminds me of one of the anchor values focused on in my YDEV class, Leading with. This anchor is about how educators should focus on leading with their studetns, rather than just aiming to control. This is something Leslie has voiced to be difficult many times, but she points out it is very important. The goal is not to control, but to lead with.

Finn

Reading Finn was a little challenging for me, solely based on the fact that at some points when they were switching back and forth from the kinds of schools they were talking about, I would get a little confused. But I do believe I grasped the main idea for the most part, especially with the help of the breakdown towards the end of the reading. The more I read, the more interesting the breakdown of Anyon's experiment became. The relation between teachers' attitudes, students' grades, criteria taught, and opinions on what is important. All of this reflects how your class affects everything in your life, especially education. In the lower working class and middle class, students are taught to obey the rules, stick to the book, and not to go against the grain. They are basically being trained to work their lives away; resistance was punished. The middle class, however, did seem to prioritize the teacher's knowledge more; that would be attributed to their "rewards" for going by the book and following rules (good grades, good school, good job). The teachers talked down more on their students, especially the lower-class teachers. They had almost no hope for their students' education and could see the social class difference. In affluent schools, students were more creative and focused on their individual education but also pertained to the community. Students would speak out to "the rich" while their parents were part of the 10%. Students were more encouraged to think outside the box and prioritize education. Finn said that the executive elite students were "learning to be masters of the universe." Education was prioritized, and creativity was more of a mockery. They didn't believe in individualism in the sense that they could create their own knowledge; everything had a right answer, and there were most definitely wrong ones. More responsibility and a harder curriculum were provided; teachers had a lot more faith in their students to move toward the right direction. 

Although not straight on topic, I wanted to share a video I recently watched where parents and teachers (some who are also parents) discuss what children truly need. In this video class is brought up when it comes to having to give up a job to become a mom or being a single parent with only one income and one person to do the work. One of the teachers stresses the problem of social inequity and how it has played a role in him struggling to help teach a student. He shares how difficult and overwhelming it can be for him to try and steer students on the right path, partially because he didn't grow up that way. While another teacher's background has helped her help children. It is a really beautiful video because everyone seems very vulnerable and honestly discussing real issues. They also take accountability.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIZGgRt5-ig 

checklist worksheets

 

Kohn/Intro Culturally Relevant Pedagogy

 Kohn- While reviewing the list of what a classroom shoud or shouldnt look like, I found many ascpects to be "givens", like students faces, teachers voices, around the school, ect. However there are things on the list that I am pleasently surprised to see. When looking at class discussion it was common in my elementary school days to only speak when talken to, but it is extremely important students feel comportable to use their voices. Same with the location of the teacher in the classroom, I remember the teacher to always be sitting at their desk infront of the room or standing infront of the board. When reading this list all I could think about was how these rules have affected my education, even in college. While at CCRI I found a lot of my classrooms to have students work surrounding the walls rather than rules or teacher chosen posters. In these cases I felt the vibe to be more comfoting and I was actually interested in reading the wall decor. Also it is common in college courses to not sit in rows and I have found this to envoke a lot more class discussion. Not to mention all of the professors I have had that enforce these classroom positives, tend to be my favorite and the classes I have learned the most in.

When watching the youtube video it stuck out to me when they said" Students do not learn as blank slates". This is such a beautiful way to explain in simple terms why culturally relevant pegagogy is important in childrens success. Children live for years in their cultures at home before they go to school it is bizzare to expect that all of these learnt behaviors, beliefs, emotions, just go out of the window. This video did a good job of explaining how children learn better and are more involved when their cultyres are taken into consideration. Building on students prior knowledge will help them understand new concepts and make connections to their culture with a possibly new learnt culture. Although we talked about it not too long ago, this immedietly made me think of the Tuscon High School students. When their MAS program was in affect some students whole lives were changed. Suddenly they had hope for their future after they were deemed devient, their families all saw a change in their drive. There was proof in grades, attdendance, and attitude that these students were positively affected by RAS and nobody was negetively affected. White students were still allowed to take this class, everyone was welcome. Yet state officials turned the racist card on this program claiming it to promote segregation. To me and most people in their right mind, this was a manipulative and victimizing tactic to accuse such a positive program of. Their situation and trial proved to me that those people didnt truly care about the well being of those latino students and they wanted their whiteness to show dominance.