If anyone watched Glee they know who this is. This is Chris Colfer he plays Kurt on Glee. Kurt's character is gay and they do a good job showing the hardships a homosexual deals with. I agree with him when he says that its good television is discussing and showing homosexual relationships now, as opposed to before when it was frowned upon. They discuss in this clip that Kurt's dad talks to him about being gay and if you watched the episode his dad although he felt uncomfortable doing it, informed Kurt about being gay and gave him pamphlets to read. I think it was good to show the relationship he has with his father because although he is gay, Kurt's father loves him no matter what and thats what it should be.
Glee does a great job discussing sensitive issues such as sexual orientation, able bodiness, racism, and also self image. Last night's episode talked about self image and how you should love yourself no matter what. One of the main character's is contimplating a nose job because she has a big nose and does not like it. She finally has an empiphany with the help from her friends on the glee team and decideds not to get it. I think topics like these are important to discuss and what better way to do it than on television because children watch it and it is entertaining. Thank you Glee for keeping us informed =)
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
How Willy Got His Wheels (Able Bodiness)
 |
Watching Sam's post about the dolphin loosing his fin and the whole concept of able bodiness for animals reminded me of a book I read as a child. This book How Willy Got His Wheels was about a dog who looses his back legs and gets adopted by a woman named Debroah and makes a wheelchair for him. This wheelchair helps him get around better because before he couldnt walk. I always thought this book was so inspiring and still remains as one of my favorites. Sam was correct we do not think about animals when we
think of able bodiness but this book is a good example of it.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Teaching Boys and Girls Seperately
This article made me think a lot on whether or not I agreed with the idea of if boys and girls should be seperated. I feel as though being seperated has its benefits and its downsides. The children can now concentrate on their studies instead of worrying about boys or being made fun of or anything. But it also takes away from social aspect of schooling. Maybe if classes were seperated based on sex then during lunch or recess children should be all together. This way they get the social aspect of being coed. Another downside might be that being seperated is teaching children that they are seperated because they learn differently when that might not always be the truth. Also, if a girl likes doing what boys do or vice versa then she might not fit in with the girls and be left out in an all girl classroom. I do not see the harm in classrooms being coed; afterall, thats how they have always been why change it. I am just fine and I went to coed schools all through life.
"David Chadwell, one of Sax’s disciples and the coordinator of Single- Gender Initiatives at the South Carolina Department of Education, explained to me the ways that teachers should teach to gender differences. For boys, he said: 'You need to get them up and moving. That’s based on the nervous system, that’s based on eyes, that’s based upon volume and the use of volume with the boys.” Chadwell, like Sax, says that differences in eyesight, hearing and the nervous system all should influence how you instruct boys. “You need to engage boys’ energy, use it, rather than trying to say, No, no, no. So instead of having boys raise their hands, you’re going to have boys literally stand up. You’re going to do physical representation of number lines. Relay races. Ball tosses during discussion.' For the girls, Chadwell prescribes a focus on 'the connections girls have (a) with the content, (b) with each other and (c) with the teacher. If you try to stop girls from talking to one another, that’s not successful. So you do a lot of meeting in circles, where every girl can share something from her own life that relates to the content in class."'
-This is a good explanation of how single sexed classrooms work; however, it is also stereotypical. Boys tend to be more rambunxious and girls tend to talk a lot. This statement is basically what Chadwell is saying and is where I disagree. However, I agree with what he says on instead of repremanding the children you enforce it, making boys to be physical and hands on and allowing the girls to talk and communicate. I do think that this should be done in all classrooms whether it be coed or not because no matter the sex child learn differently. I know if I went to school and they did this I would have enjoyed school much more. I will also try to use a similar technique when I become a teacher to keep the children's attention.
Overall, people have their own oppionions of different sex schools and both opinions should be viewed. Sexism still exists and usually is very stereotypical. Not only does sexism exist in schooling but also in many sports. I have first hand with this because I dance and I constantly hear "boys shouldn't dance, they should play football". This statement is ridiculous if the boy likes to dance let him dance. Also, many times girls are not allowed to play sports with boys and if they are they are not treated equally. Luckily, in my high school we had one girl play on the boys football team and she was treated equally, but many times she was called "butch" which I think is wrong. I think sex shouldn't matter if it does not harm anyone.
"David Chadwell, one of Sax’s disciples and the coordinator of Single- Gender Initiatives at the South Carolina Department of Education, explained to me the ways that teachers should teach to gender differences. For boys, he said: 'You need to get them up and moving. That’s based on the nervous system, that’s based on eyes, that’s based upon volume and the use of volume with the boys.” Chadwell, like Sax, says that differences in eyesight, hearing and the nervous system all should influence how you instruct boys. “You need to engage boys’ energy, use it, rather than trying to say, No, no, no. So instead of having boys raise their hands, you’re going to have boys literally stand up. You’re going to do physical representation of number lines. Relay races. Ball tosses during discussion.' For the girls, Chadwell prescribes a focus on 'the connections girls have (a) with the content, (b) with each other and (c) with the teacher. If you try to stop girls from talking to one another, that’s not successful. So you do a lot of meeting in circles, where every girl can share something from her own life that relates to the content in class."'
-This is a good explanation of how single sexed classrooms work; however, it is also stereotypical. Boys tend to be more rambunxious and girls tend to talk a lot. This statement is basically what Chadwell is saying and is where I disagree. However, I agree with what he says on instead of repremanding the children you enforce it, making boys to be physical and hands on and allowing the girls to talk and communicate. I do think that this should be done in all classrooms whether it be coed or not because no matter the sex child learn differently. I know if I went to school and they did this I would have enjoyed school much more. I will also try to use a similar technique when I become a teacher to keep the children's attention.
Overall, people have their own oppionions of different sex schools and both opinions should be viewed. Sexism still exists and usually is very stereotypical. Not only does sexism exist in schooling but also in many sports. I have first hand with this because I dance and I constantly hear "boys shouldn't dance, they should play football". This statement is ridiculous if the boy likes to dance let him dance. Also, many times girls are not allowed to play sports with boys and if they are they are not treated equally. Luckily, in my high school we had one girl play on the boys football team and she was treated equally, but many times she was called "butch" which I think is wrong. I think sex shouldn't matter if it does not harm anyone.
A Particularly Cheap White Wine
"The National Merit Scholarship, which is awarded to 15,000 students each year, based on pre-SAT (or PSAT) score, is distributed proportionately to representatives of each state, so that each state has the same number of winners as they have a percentage of the nation's overall high school graduates (4). Because the quality of schools varies dramatically across states, average scores on the PSAT will also vary wildly, but students in Mississippi will always get their 'fair share' even though many of them wouldn't have qualified had they attended school in a state like Massachusetts" (2).
-Having a merit based scholarship gives me mixed feelings. Yes it is solely based on merit and not race but the standards are different everywhere. I understand lowering the standards in states that have a lower graduation rate allows students there to receive aid, but it also takes away aid from people in other states with higher scores. For instance there could be a student in Connecticut who scored the same with a person in Missippi but the person in Mississipi would probably receive the aid and not the student from Connecticut. This could happen because the standards are in Connecticut are higher than Mississippi so eventhough they both had the same score the Mississippi ones are lower allowing that student to win the scholarship eventhough they both might have needed it and had the same scores. This reminds me of the qualifications to become a teacher. When I was taking the Praxis a man was talking about how in Connecticut it is much harder to become a teacher because their are more tests one has to take that are much harder than ones for Rhode Island. Similarily, he mentioned that Connecticut and other states are modeling after Colorado because they supposedly have the hardest qualifications. This reminds me of this quote because eventhough I might pass all the test according to Rhode Island I might not have passes according to Connecicut or somewhere else. However, having merit based scholarships is also good because they do this evenly because it allows everyone to get a chance to receive aid instead of just one state with high standards receiving all the aid; leading to the idea that, "to ignore this background context, and to award scholarships based solely on so-called merit, is to miss the ways in which the academic success and accomplishments of white students have been structured by unequal and preferential opportunity, and the ways in which students of color have been systematically denied the same opportunity to achieve" (3).
Overall, I want to say that having scholarships based on race is a double standard. I understand it is done because they try to get rid of racisim and segregation and spread equally, giving other races chances to receive aid. However, in doing this we are seperated by races; so as much as it is trying to eliminate segregation we are very much seperated. I think it actually does the opposite of its purpose, it seperates us more giving people scholarships based on their color.
-Having a merit based scholarship gives me mixed feelings. Yes it is solely based on merit and not race but the standards are different everywhere. I understand lowering the standards in states that have a lower graduation rate allows students there to receive aid, but it also takes away aid from people in other states with higher scores. For instance there could be a student in Connecticut who scored the same with a person in Missippi but the person in Mississipi would probably receive the aid and not the student from Connecticut. This could happen because the standards are in Connecticut are higher than Mississippi so eventhough they both had the same score the Mississippi ones are lower allowing that student to win the scholarship eventhough they both might have needed it and had the same scores. This reminds me of the qualifications to become a teacher. When I was taking the Praxis a man was talking about how in Connecticut it is much harder to become a teacher because their are more tests one has to take that are much harder than ones for Rhode Island. Similarily, he mentioned that Connecticut and other states are modeling after Colorado because they supposedly have the hardest qualifications. This reminds me of this quote because eventhough I might pass all the test according to Rhode Island I might not have passes according to Connecicut or somewhere else. However, having merit based scholarships is also good because they do this evenly because it allows everyone to get a chance to receive aid instead of just one state with high standards receiving all the aid; leading to the idea that, "to ignore this background context, and to award scholarships based solely on so-called merit, is to miss the ways in which the academic success and accomplishments of white students have been structured by unequal and preferential opportunity, and the ways in which students of color have been systematically denied the same opportunity to achieve" (3).
Overall, I want to say that having scholarships based on race is a double standard. I understand it is done because they try to get rid of racisim and segregation and spread equally, giving other races chances to receive aid. However, in doing this we are seperated by races; so as much as it is trying to eliminate segregation we are very much seperated. I think it actually does the opposite of its purpose, it seperates us more giving people scholarships based on their color.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)