One article that interested me was Improving Education for Minorities by Shirley McBay. This article did make good points. She pin pointed the areas in which she felt that needed to be fixed in order the better the education of the minorities. She presents 9 principles that will led to more students in improving the education they received. She also does do a great job in pointing out the various studies and programs that have been done and have demonstrated change. I understand where she is coming from but at the same time , because of what I am studying, I feel the history behind the education system is missed.
One principle she does mention is in one study the Texas-based AVANCE demonstrated that the parents who participated in the program were “more likely to be involved with the child’s school and serve as a parent leader.” I also feel this is important and a huge step towards education. However, it is not explained why it that these parents were not going to meeting or more involved with the school and their child’s education She presented the solution to the problem but did not explain why there was a problem. And I feel that is important in changing the way parents feel. What was it about this program that urged parents to participate more? What did the program change for them in their lives?
Another interesting point made, or comment is , “ the school’s physical location allows students to work in , and feel connected to a middle class environment that provides ordinary but important role models for the,” Yes , students do need minorities, but to me was what struck me was, “ the schools physical location ” and “feel connected” To me it seemed that the differences between middle and low class needs to be better explained. Why would feeling like being a part of the middle class have an impact on a student? What are the thought concerning the middle class and why is it so important for the students to feel connected? I understand the context of the excerpt I used but, at the same, I feel the urge to connect it to the idea that a minority may feel connected but will not be a part of it. In other words, the idea of never being accepted into mainstream society and being on sidelines.
At the beginning of the article I felt a sort of disconnection because the word minority was used repeatedly. It seemed that it was a group of minorities and that to me was interesting because it was as if all the minorities were lumped together. I understand fort eh purpose of her paper and her study it may have been easier to lump them together, but at the same time that assumes all minorities are all the same and these 9 principles will change that. However, at the end of the article, I did notice that she used the term “our children” at the end unifying not just the minorities but also the “majorities”. Even the term “majorities” stuck out to me. Who are majorities? What she means by the usage “majorities” would be interesting and why she uses it would be interesting and important.
From your comments it seems clear that McBay needed to do a better job at defining what and who the population was when she was referring to “minorities” and “majorities.” These terms are commonly misused especially in literature that is not written from an Ethnic Studies scholar’s perspective. You are also correct when pointing out that all minorities should not be lumped together. However, when McBay was discussing the importance of a school’s physical location as a way for the children to feel connected I believe that is important. If you take class out of the situation and consider the simple location of a school, it becomes clearer. I a child, of any race, attends a school within their own community, they are going to feel a specific attachment to that school versus a school that requires a commute outside of their community. This local school is made up of people they grew up with and in a place they are familiar with. Now inserting the idea of class, being considered part of the middle class when one may not financially be, can also open a new door of acceptance. A child can be exposed to different opportunities if they feel situated into a school within their community that is above their economic class. However, this idea also introduces the idea of social hierarchy at a early age, which has its own negative affects.
ReplyDeleteI also like how you addressed the issue of why parents do not participate in their child’s schooling. It is a relevant issue everywhere and the most accurate way to find a solution is to analyze the reason it is happening. According to you McBay seems to leave this part out, which brings up the question of how credible her solutions can be and does not give confidence that it is fact-based information.