Democracy

After reading both West and Chomsky's views on democracy in America, I realized the difference between an idealistic mindset on what democracy is versus the actual reality we face in our society today. West discusses democracy in very idealistic terms, saying what it should be and should mean to us in Americans. West says that democracy is "about individuals being empowered and englightened (and suspicious of authorities) in orer to help create and sustain a genuine democratic community. However, this does not seem to be what is happening in our society. West even says it himself, "to many, our democractic system seems so broken that they have simply lost faith that their participation could really matter" and according to Rukeyeser "we are people tending toward democracy at the level of hope". Democracy was put in place for each person to have a voice, to feel empowered. However, this is not what has been going on. Most Americans do not believe their voices will count so they choose not to say anything at all. As I said in class, I believe that we need to tell children as young as three or four years old that they have a voice in the government. It should just be one of those things kids know all of their lives, like their religion, their race, etc. Instead of this, we silence talk about the government until kids are in high school and by then it just becomes a subject to them in school. They memorize the amendments and their rights as a US citizen not as a personal right or a personal goal, but as a subject they will be tested on in school and later forget. There needs to be a new way of embracing democracy in our government. If we start of small as children grow up we can relate democracy to them on a more sophisticated level instead of impeding them. By the time they are able to vote, people tend to agree with Chomsky, that "the term democracy refers to a system of government in which elite elements based in the business community control the state by virtue of their dominance of the private society, while the population observes quietly". Why bother if our voices don't matterr any way? I know that has been my mentality all my life and it hasn't been able to change yet. I was brought up believing this and I will probably continue to believe this. I do not fully agree with John Locke but I think there is some truth to his tabula rasa theory. Children are not a complete blank slate, there are genetic factors which contribute to a person's life, but I do believe that children are easily molded. If we start ingraining opinions in them at a young age that democracy gives you a voice, and you should use your right, then maybe people would be more inclined to vote when they turned eighteen. Instead, our generation, believes our votes don't count and if we want to counteract this belief and embrace, as West says, our individual power and our individual thoughts, then we need to start implementing those thoughts into our young children.

censorship

censorship was a topic I never considered when developing a curriculum. Reichman says that "ambiguity and confusion are far less likely to result if a school's policies are set down clearly and concisely for all to see". But how is this possile? It is very hard to separate fact from opinion in a classroom. We all feel a range of emotions and compassion for the past. If a teacher is discussing the holocaust, can they do that without making the Germans seem like the bad guys? And what would happen if this belief went against the strict policies set down? And if a strict policy is set that means that these policy makers are strictly deciding what a student or should or should not learn. They can choose to take out parts of our history that they do not want children to learn in order to mold them. This topics came up in class and I thought more about it when I came home. The first genocide that ever occured came from thoughts and opinions within those people. Learning about genocides, slavery and the holocaust, teach us the negative outcomes of all of these events and they help to prevent history from repeating itself. If these events are just removed from textbooks and the curriculum people will not know what has happened in the past and it could potentially happen all over again and if it does, then who is to blame? http://www.ncac.org/education/schools/ This is the National Coalition Against Censorship site. It lists the reasons against censorship, including our first amendment right to free speech. I thought this would interest the class, I hope you all read it.

Povery as a Disability

When I came home I began thinking whether or not I believed poverty to be a disability. I looked at this website: http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:oQMtoBKhUJsJ:hcdg.org/definition.htm+poverty,+a+handicap+in+education&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=12&gl=us which included the World Health Organization's definition of a disability to be: “any restriction or lack (resulting from any impairment) of ability to perform an activity in the manner or within the range considered normal for a human being”. Naturally, we think of an impairment as a handicap, a physical abnormality. However, after reading England's take on it I began to think differently. According to England, "to label poverty as a handicap is to bring it up against the American dream where it cannot peaceably exist" (England 36). We don't want to label poverty as a handicap because, like England says, there are too many fairytales where people have pulled themselves out of poverty. But, disabled people are considered to have a disability if they are intellecually or learning disabled, or if they have long term illnesses, mental or psychological injuries (as stated on the website). Someone without money, someone who is living in extreme poverty can not possibly be expected to be on the same page intellectually as students who are middle class. They simply do not have the resources in education. Additionally, their diets are probably not as nutritional as others, which impairs their brain activity. People who are poor also can't afford proper health care, long term illnesses are considered to be a disability. Why as a society do we place poor and disabled into two separate categories? Being poor clearly has negative effects which are put in the disability category so why don't we just combine the two factors? As England says, a child who is disabled on the outside has all of these accomodations in the classroom for them, but the child who is poor, can't eat right, doesn't have parents to help them with their work, and doesn't have proper health care because they can't afford it, that child is left behind. Just because they don't look disabled does not mean they aren't. Poor students should have an opportunity for extra help, extra attention and extra consideration. Disabilities should be labeled as set backs. The World Health Organization even says a disability is a restriction from an activity so why isn't poverty in that category?