On April 21st, Rhode Island College was graced with the opportunity to host the comedian and actress, Kate McKinnon, most noted from her work on Saturday Night Live, in Roberts Auditorium. The getting to see such a powerful female figure in today's society was absolutely incredible in-and-of itself, but it also gave me opportunities to connect her and her stand-up performance to what we have been going over in class.
I know some of you might be thinking, "How on Earth is she going to relate a comedian from SNL to what we've gone over in class?", but I assure you, there are multiple connections, especially from "Safe Spaces", the full Brown v. Board of Education segment of FNED 346, and "Schooling Children with Down Syndrome" because they all have one key component in common; acceptance.
As you already know, Kate McKinnon is one of the most popular comedians currently on SNL. That alone is a huge accomplishment, as when a lot of people are asked to name comedians, they mainly think of famous malecomedians rather than female. The connection to Brown v. Board is more closely based on gender, but none-the-less, still a valid connection. Although the article from Herbert states that, "Schools are no longer legally segregated, but because of residential
patterns, housing discrimination, economic disparities and long-held
custom, they most emphatically are in reality", this can be applied to gender, which can then be applied to SCWAAMP. It is believed that you can only truly succeed by being a male, while women continue to be segregated against in the work force, while out on their own, or really anything. Some believe that to be a woman is to be weak, dumb, and submissive, but women are moving up in the world finally thanks to some major figures. Along with others such as Amy Poehler, Tina Fey, Maya Rudolph, and Kristen Wiig, McKinnon has been helping to pave the way for women across the nation by not being afraid to show the world what women are capable of doing, refusing to let any boundaries get in her way of achieving her goals. In this way, her actions can be related to both the "Schooling Children with Down Syndrome" reading by Christopher Kliewer, although again replacing gender with disabilities, but in this case, again relating to SCWAAMP, the female gender can be seen as a disability. In the excerpt we were instructed to read from the book, Kliewer stated that we should form, "... actual educational arenas where all students are welcomed, no voice
is silenced, and children come to realize their own self-worth through
the unconditional acceptance of one another" (Page 74). This connects to McKinnon because through SNL and her career, she has found a place in her life where she is welcomed, isn't silenced in what she has to say about anything, and she realizes her self-worth based on her fans and her fellow actors who continue to support her every day, as she does with them.
Although both Brown v. Board and "Schooling Children with Down Syndrome" can be related to McKinnon and her performance, the reading that most closely connects to her and her stand-up routine on the 21st has to be "Safe Spaces". As some of you may or may not know, Kate McKinnon is a lesbian and completely open about her sexuality, going so far as to make a skit out of it on SNL with close friend and co-worker Aidy Bryant, which can be seen here. Even in her stand-up routine in Roberts, she made subtle gestures to her sexuality through a fake PowerPoint she created for senior thesis topics and saying how she finally had a partner which got a rousing applause, but then brought the audience into laughter by saying that it was her cat. In "Safe Spaces", August states, "Assumptions, if left unchallenged and unexamined, can devolve into
active bigotry. Bigotry is a heat-seeking missile- it will find its
target" (Page 88). Based this quote, Kate McKinnon, through her talent of comedy, has defied any prejudice against her by showing the world that she doesn't care what the world thinks of her; she knows who she is and she is proud of the person she has become. Her sexuality has a place in her life, but she doesn't let it control what people think of her
(Here a clip of one of the songs she made up for the show at RIC! Enjoy! :D )
For this week, I decided that I was going to base my post around Julienne's blog on her reflection and connections to the piece as an extended commentary!
Julienne, as always, I thought you did an amazing job on your blog post. You always go so in depth with your posts, which shows how dedicated you are to this course. Additionally, you did very well adding in your personal thoughts and connections, which definitely helped to make your blog all the more interesting. Great work! :)
At the beginning of her post, Julienne made some personal connections, noting how excited she was when she noticed how some of the previous authors we have studied (such as Finn and Christensen) were referenced in the reading.
Julienne then proceeded with the rest of the blog by listing quotes from Shor's reading and then writing her reactions to them, similarly to that of a blog whose topic was quotes rather than reflection, but none-the-less, still powerful. The very first quote she listed was actually by Jean Piaget, whom she had been recently studying in her psychology class and had posted a hyperlink connected to Piaget's theory on cognitive theory. The quote stated, "If the aim of intellectual memory training is to form the intelligence rather than to stock the memory, and to produce intellectual explorers rather than mere erudition, then traditional education is manifestly guilty of grave deficiency." (Page 12)
Julienne reflected on this by stating, "The students are also forced to learn information that is not interesting to them. I always feel bad because anybody can just tell based on their body language that these fifth graders would rather be somewhere else. As future educators, we need to avoid forcing our students to shove information that they can care less about in their heads. Instead, we need to keep our lessons interesting so that our students maintain their enthusiasm in learning." and I couldn't agree more with her opinion. If students are having difficulty absorbing and enjoying the information that is being given to them, perhaps it is a better option to adapt our own means to educating the students rather than just staying with a certain method what we know and confusing the kids.
Everyone learns and must be told what to in various ways, as explained in the readings of Delpit and even being connected to Julienne's blog when she states, "Even though some of us may deny this, but we all do not like it when things change because we like to be in control and be familiar with things in our everyday lives. If the orthodoxies changed, then the culture of power would no longer exist. Whatever happened to change being a good thing?" The culture of power is always in effect, whether we agree with it or not, but in terms of being part of a classroom, it can either be a phenomenal or terrible thing, all depending on the teacher. If the instructor chooses to use the culture of power for the good of their students rather than just themselves, they can tailor the lessons they are teaching to their students individually, creating new and engaging ways to help get the lessons and ideas across rather than just simply throwing materials at the kids. In this way, the teachers are providing students with the opportunities to directly impact their future for the better. Change must be enforced since no one is exactly the same from our backgrounds, to the ways we look, and even to our academic and education levels.
Overall, I very much enjoyed Julienne's blog post. All of the quotes she used and her reflections on them were extremely informative, so much so that upon reading her post I was even able to better understand Shor's reading having gotten insight into what others thought. She kept me engaged the entire time while I was reading and her personal thoughts made the post seem more engaged rather than simply writing a reflection of what Shor was saying. All in all, amazing job on your final FNED 346 post Julienne! You're going to do great out there in the world of education!
(Video of Ira Shor giving input to his son's education, which similarly reflects his opinions that education should be a personalized, "homey" experience for students to feel comfortable and learn their best>)
After reading Chapter 4, "Citizenship in Schools: Reconceptualizing Down Syndrome" from "Schooling Children with Down Syndrome" by Christopher Kliewer, I got a major impression of his argument. Kliewer argues that children with Down Syndrome, students with other disabilities, and the classrooms in which they learn are being segregated from the rest of the educational community. Although I never witness this occurring at my own town's schools, I have become aware from friends around the state and country that this is indeed a problem and should absolutely be addressed and fixed.
Kliewer begins his argument stating by segregating the special education to their own classrooms far away from the rest of the student population, this is only emphasizes the belief that some people hold that if a child is diagnosed with a disability, they are immediately rendered useless, unable to learn, and a threat to the learning of other students without disabilities. He then proceeds to say that if classrooms were changed to be more diverse and accepting towards all students no matter who they are, where they come from, and what is a part of their lives, the educational community would greatly advance and improve the lives and self-esteem of countless individuals,. Additionally, this change would give all students the right they deserve to feel important regarding their educational experience and that they are cared about. Lastly, and probably most importantly, Kliewer expressed in his argument that in today's society, and in the future's, people must stop stereotyping, labelling, or naming others for being different than themselves because it will only prevent us from ever having a good and understanding democratic society. Through this, Kliewer states that we will be able to form "... actual educational arenas where all students are welcomed, no voice is silenced, and children come to realize their own self-worth through the unconditional acceptance of one another" (Page 74). Additionally, he enforces that being able to attend school, students with disabilities, especially Down Syndrome, are given opportunities to gain "(1) literacy development, of central importance in experiencing school success, and (2) friendship formation, a possible consequence of being recognized as communally valuable" (Page 74), which will greatly improve their likelihood to succeed academically, socially, and emotionally.
Although this reading had to do with the segregation of classrooms, such as in the "Brown vs. Board"readings we did in class, I felt that this particular reading was more closely related to that of the "Safe Spaces" reading by A. Vaccaro, G. August, and M.S. Kennedy. Both readings focused on the fact that schools need to strictly enforce that their classrooms are welcoming and open to anyone, regardless of their differences to others. Although "Safe Spaces" was more geared towards defending students of the LGBTQ community and Kliewer's reading on students with disabilities, they both had one thing in common; they discussed helping and defending students who are being discriminated against because of their DNA. No one chooses to be gay, bisexual, or straight, it's just a part of who they, just as it is for someone to be diagnosed with a mental or physical disability. We should embrace those in the world who are different from us and let them know they are important, not ship them off to segregated classrooms or ridicule them.
Question to Share:
I know several others have asked this question in their own blogs, but I thought it was an important question to be address: has anyone ever been in a school environment where special education students were segregated from the rest of the school community? I know in my own high school, students with disabilities were given a classroom of their own to work on their schoolwork with their aids, but they were integrated into the rest of the school environment for their legitimate classes (math, science, English, history, phys. ed, etc.). Did anyone else have a school like this, or was it completely different?
For this post, I chose to write a reflection of "Literacy with an Attitude" by Patrick Finn through comparing my own service learning environment to the ideas and beliefs of the Jean Anyon study expressed by Finn. I got the inspiration to do my blog about this based on Allee Krause's blog when I was posting comments on people's most recent blogs. I admired her take on the reading, so I decided to set up my newest post similarly to her's (great job on your bog Allee!).
Jean Anyon's study expressed how differences in the socioeconomic status of its students resulted in differences in the classroom, causing children to become labelled as executive elite, affluent professional, middle class, and working class based on their social and economic stability. In my service learning assignment, I am currently working in a school that can most likely be categorized as working class. Much like Allee's service learning though, the description of a working class classroom that Anyon produced didn't really match my classroom's environment. I thought this was understandable, as not every school under a certain socioeconomic category are all the same.
"In the working class schools, the dominant theme was resistance" (Page 12)
This does not seem to fit the theme of my service learning school at all; practically all of the students are pretty open to learning and appreciate being taught by such caring and interactive teachers. Resistance doesn't seem to the theme of any school I've been to in my life honestly.
"Knowledge in the affluent professional school was viewed as being open to discovery"
Although I don't necessarily agree that this quality is solely found in affluent professional schools, I do believe it has the possibility to be applied to and found in all types of school environments. In my service learning school, this particular aspect is much more apparent in its students compared to the previous quality of resistance. Whenever I've helped a student one-on-one, they seem extremely eager to learn from what I can help them with and they are constantly interested in their classwork because of how new everything is to them.
"Control involved constant negotiation" (Page 17)
Again, while this aspect was used in Finn's reading to describe qualities found primarily in affluent professional schools, I found this quite prominent in my own service learning "working class" school. The teacher I am assisting is constantly having her students engage in the learning process and always presents questions to them asking for their own ideas or inputs. I really admire this choice in how she teaches because it makes the students feel like their thoughts and opinions are truly being taken into account, resulting in a better learning environment.
Question to Share:
Even though I know Allee and I didn't find many matching qualities between Anyon's typical "working class" school and our own student learning experiences, did anyone else find their service learning classrooms did not match up with their supposed socioeconomic label? I personally felt this reading had a particular connection to Rodriguez's "Aria" based on the fact that both readings dealt with stereotypes in educational society. While Finn's reading focuses more on the socioeconomic stereotypes in schools, how they effect the students' learning, and ultimately how far they can go in life, Rodriguez's reading focuses on racial stereotyping and conforming to society in order to improve oneself, resulting in going further in life.