Reading Response #3 Assignment 1 Summary
Jen Gilbert is the author of Sexuality in School: The Limits of Education, which was published in April of 2014. Gilbert discusses the issues our LGBTQ youth go through in our schools and curriculum and how they feel neglected at times. She also mentions how there are not enough educators who are comfortable with any topic pertaining to LGBTQ. I have decided to focus my paper on Chapter 3, which is called ‘Histories of Misery: It Gets Better and the Promise of Pedagogy.’ Jen talks about a campaign that was started in 2010 called It Gets Better which was started by Dan Savage and his partner Terry Miller. “…in response to the media coverage of a rash of suicides by gay youth, sex advice columist Dan Savage and his partner, Terry Miller, created a short video that directly addressed struggling gay youth” (Gilbert, 45). In Dan and Terry’s first video, they acknowledge that high schools are normally not a safe place for LGBTQ youth because Gilbert states “…Savage and Miller ask gay youth to remember that even if their high schools, homes, or towns are inhospitable, they should know that life gets better when you: leave high school, move out of your parents’ house…” (45). Gilbert goes on and lays out the pros and cons to It Gets Better and how schools are not acknowledging the campaign for students.
My next step is to find two more articles that relate to LGBTQ youth in our school systems and see if other writers have the same agreement as Gilbert does; that the schools are not doing enough to make them feel safe and our curriculum not benefiting them.
Reading Response #2: Curriculum Theory & Practice
Thinking back about when I was in elementary and high school, the Tyler Rationale was always being implemented through the teachers and school board. It is the standard curriculum that majority of western schools in the world (and more) view as ‘the right way.’ We are taught that having a strong understanding in the four core subjects are most important for your education and that any other subjects are not nearly as ‘needed’. I remember when I was in elementary school, I was quite good at art for my age. I thought for a while that I would want to do something with it one day. I will never forget when my aunt told me that “I would not make a good enough living if I chose the art path for a career.” I was basically told to put my interests and hobbies aside and I should be focusing on something that will ‘make me successful’….In elementary.
The major limitations within the Tyler rationale is that it does not give students the opportunity to focus on a subject that they know they have a passion in, such as phys ed, visual art, music, theatre etc. We follow a strict routine with curriculum and have been for decades. This could limit a students chance who is wanting to focus on something that might not fit the Tyler rationale criteria. This can break a students confidence if we tell them that something they enjoy is not seen as important compared to one of the four core subjects because it does not fit within the Tyler rationale.
One of the benefits to having the Tyler Rationale is that having those four core subjects being taught to you for years will allow you to have many options on what you want to do after high school. Every single University program needs you to take an English class and majority will also require you to take a math, or science, or both. If you were to stop focusing on subjects within the Tyler rationale, then your options may be limited once you graduate high school as you may struggle in a post-secondary program compared to a student who did focus highly on the Tyler rationale subjects.
Reading Response #1: The Problem of Common Sense
Kumashiro learns very quickly that your idea of what might be known as ‘commonsense’ has a huge impact on the environment and society you’re raised in. He is used to a life in the United States where he can cook any meal he wants for himself and not be judged for it or can use water whenever he desired too. A regular life in Nepal has many differences to a life in the United States. Kumarshiro defines common sense in multiple ways throughout the article. He learns that his common sense is not the way a Nepali citizen would view common sense due to them living different culturally and geographically. Kumarshiro writes “[O]f course, these routine activities of village life were carried out for good reasons, but without knowing how people generally lived their lives, and without being a part of the life in this village, it took time to change how I thought about meals, water, time, privacy, and other aspects of daily life in Nepal.” I believe he is saying that if you want to understand another person’s view of commonsense, you need to push your own thoughts aside and essentially put yourself in their shoes. You need to allow yourself to be accepting of others and what they believe is ‘commonsense’ and why.
It is important to pay attention to commonsense wherever you go because you can learn how people in a different society view commonsense as. Commonsense will vary wherever you go especially if you are approaching a new environment, demographically or geographically different to what you may be used too. You will gain plenty of knowledge if you allow yourself to learn and listen about commonsense within an environment you are not used too. It is a respectful matter to want to learn about another environments commonsense so you do not ‘do something wrong’. Of course if you do something that is considered ‘not proper’ but you were not told about it first, then you most likely will not be in any trouble but rather just be told what that society may consider to be ‘the right way’ and you remember for next time. For example, when Kumashiro was told about the faucet routine, he would know not to use the faucet when the women are using it for dishwater.