Reflection: Sleeter - The Academic and Social Value of Ethnic Studies

A lot of people (especially those who align with the political right) tend to look at courses that fall under the title of “Ethnic studies” and deem them “unnecessary” or even “dangerous.” Last year, conservative nonprofit organization PragerU partnered with Tom Horne, Superintendent of Public Instruction in the state of Arizona, to push a curriculum that seems to combat the topics not just found in Ethnic studies, but any topics covered that are deemed “woke.” However, educational activist Christine E. Sleeter fuses multiple studies of students’ experiences with Ethnic studies, specifically the experiences of “students of color who are members of the group under study” and “for diverse student groups that include White students.”

Sleeter first defines the curriculum that schools in the United States have used for decades as “Euro-American Studies.” This definition is given due to the distinct lack of acknowledgment or coverage of the diversity of the population of the United States. White educators tend to think that authors and publishers of the educational curriculum have already exposed and eliminated most forms of bias, but, as Sleeter writes, “Systematic analyses...consistently find the opposite...deeper patterns and narratives that reflect Euro-American experiences and world-views [have remained] intact” (2). Even through the attempts that have been made to diversify not just our educational curricula, but also just the general histories and current climate of art, theater, and music, White people have continuously been given the spotlight, even over persons of color who have put in similar or higher efforts in their respective fields. I always like to highlight classical composer Florence B. Price, the first African-American woman to premiere a symphony in 1933. But notably, theatrical powerhouses such as Cynthia Erivo (Wicked, The Color Purple), Maleah Joi Moon (Hell’s Kitchen), and Paul Tazewell (In the Heights, Hamilton) have also rightfully been given their spotlights in recent memory. However, non-White actors are continually given limited roles that tend to “put them in a box,” for lack of better words: African-Americans are often portrayed in the context of slavery, Asian Americans and Latinos are portrayed as field workers with no history, etc. And, even though racism of the past has started to be acknowledged, it is being disconnected from the racism that we see today, displaying racism as “the actions of a few” rather than as a system of oppression.

 

Ethnic studies provide a unique perspective on the history that we have learned in our primary and secondary education. They urge us to really think about what we are reading, the point of view from which what we are reading is coming from, and how it can effect the history that we are covering. I’ve recently started reading Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States, which aims to provide a detailed account of the rigged systems that America has built to favor a small portion of the wealthy elite from across the political parties. In the first chapter, Zinn writes about the enslavement of early Native American civilizations, accusing Christopher Columbus and his crew of committing genocide, and tells history from the perspective of the Arawaks, the indigenous peoples of South America and the Caribbean.

https://tucson.com/news/local/education/precollegiate/article_fc169fa4-c075-11ee-9a1c-3fc1b1d0b20d.html

Reflection - "Shifting the Paradigm from Deficit Oriented Schools to Asset Based Models"

In terms of education, more focus tends to be placed on what we as students cannot do. If we struggle on topics in a lesson, we must not be trying hard enough. Something must be broken within us, and it must be fixed. Maybe our brains aren’t wired properly enough if we cannot properly understand what is taught. This model of learning is described as the “Deficit Model.” On the other hand, education can focus on what students are capable of doing. It can focus on students’ strengths, skills, talents, and so much more; this is what’s described as the “Asset Model.” The deficit model is one that I believe is not allowing students to perform at their “full potential.” I believe that rather than just implicitly believing that those who learn differently are deemed “lesser,” educators ought to work with the students to find where their strengths are and how they can use those strengths to receive the high quality education they deserve.

So, how do we as educators tap into these “assets” and prepare students for a positive future? Renkly & Bertolini believe that when education focuses more on these assets, the community can become more involved with the school, providing different opportunities for students to build positive relationships with the community around them and to build important qualities such as leadership, good health, and support for their peers. In Renkly & Bertolini’s analysis of “assets” in young students, they found a large drop in assets around 7th-8th grade. However, many schools tend to provide fewer asset-building resources, especially in middle school (25). Middle school was found to be the deciding factor in high school success and likelihood of graduation, where students can either continue on their path towards success and achievement, or fall off track and progress towards failure and frustration.

(TW: Alcohol / drugs)

Although my time in middle school was short (my school only housed 7^th and 8^th grade at the time), a lot of what was said in this article regarding asset loss spoke to me because of what I saw happen to my peers in middle school. Around this time, a lot of my peers started experimenting with alcohol and drugs, and I saw these people change drastically going into high school. I witnessed people fall into a hole of addiction. I witnessed people overdose. But, even with everything, there was nothing for these students to access in order to receive help. All of the focus was on what they couldn’t do. All of the focus was on their faults, not on their talents. They were given no opportunities to get back on the path towards success. In a way, they were doomed from the start. How do we feasibly transition from our current model into the asset model? What needs to change before more students lose their way?

Argument: Anyon – What Counts as Education Policy?

Anyon perfectly describes the issue of education policies of urban schools in “What Counts as Education Policy?” She argues that “the quality of education in city schools is a complex problem, and education policy as historically conceived has not been adequate to the task of increasing urban school achievement to acceptable levels” (66). Essentially, policies enacted have given very little support to students attending schools in urban areas, citing numerous policies that intended to improve educational quality in these areas but ultimately faltered. Anyon especially emphasizes the state policies that emerged in the mid-to-late 19^th century, which were inserted into states’ constitutions to provide students with a free, “thorough,” “efficient,” or “useful” education (Odden & Picus, 1992). However, as Anyon cites, “none of the local policies [had] focused on the poverty of families or neighborhoods.” What was it exactly about these policies that seemed to give less priority to urban education? Why aren’t these students receiving the same quality education that students outside of urban areas receive? 

 

 

Anyon claims that education policy is not providing the quality of education it should be due to its lack of acknowledgement of the high levels of neighborhood poverty in urban areas. Furthermore, it doesn’t take into account that in these areas of poverty, these families do not have access to critical resources that will aid in educating their children about the real world, no matter if they excel in their classes. This is an issue that is still prevalent in urban schools today. Lack of funding, class sizes that seem far too large, and students struggling with poverty are just a few of the things that urban school students still struggle with. As of 2024, the child poverty rate sits at 14.3%, just 2% less than the statistic cited by Anyon (74). Has anything changed? Will anything change? Not if we don’t fight for our students.

 

https://www.americanprogress.org/data-view/poverty-data/ 

Reflection of Khan’s “The Broken Model” Chapter 2

What is “normal?”

I’ve written about my thoughts on the term previously, and my statements still stand. With how differently each person lives their life, it grows more and more difficult to come up with a concise and comprehensive definition for such a word. Khan brings up the long-lived adage of eating three meals every day. At least in recent memory, eating three meals a day is not as common anymore as it once was. Some eat two meals, or four meals, or even one. Why do we stick to such a habit? Why do we hold on to such traditions, even if most of them do not apply to our daily lives as much as they did all those years ago?

Continuing on with Khan’s writings, the “Prussian system” of education (the slicing into “core subjects”, division of the day into periods, etc.) largely rose in American schools through the first half of the 19^th century. A great number of these values are, to say the least, irrelevant in our modern society. Horace Mann wanted to apply Prussia’s process of “building a middle class capable of filling the jobs of a booming industrial sector,” but, as we see today, not many of the jobs taken are in what was part of the “booming industrial sector” of the 19^th century. At least from my perspective, not nearly as many people are working the traditional blue-collar jobs that were seen in the Industrial Revolution. Not to say that no one is taking these jobs—they are still an important part of our country’s infrastructure—but it seems less common among the younger generations entering the workforce.

  

To return to the idea of normal, psychologist Dr. Yvette Erasmus supports the belief that cultural norms are designed to create and reinforce social and political hierarchies (patriarchy, authoritarianism, etc.). The rigid gender roles of the mid-20th century and earlier are continuously being attempted to be framed as “normal”, regardless of how much progress we have made towards breaking these gender roles and allowing for a more cohesive and diverse workforce. Dr. Erasmus has also stated that “normal” has been used to judge and oppress those who have different feelings or needs than what is expected of them by society. Such suppression, Dr. Erasmus says, assists in maintaining control.

In essence, what may look normal (or what may be considered normal) does not always mean it is healthy for us as people or as a society. High stress is considered normal for many fields of life, but it has such a negative effect on us. An important statement that Dr. Erasmus makes is that the concept of normal was merely created as a method of control, and that if we lead a path to liberation with self-authenticity, we can let go of normal as a term.

https://yvetteerasmus.com/75-the-problem-with-normal/