recently ive noticed that when i was younger "gay" and "gay" jokes were seen as an insult and now ive noticed my peers making a different type of these jokes where friends pretend to flirt with one another as a joke and I personally still see this has harmful because when two straight girls are making jokes of flirting its almost making fun of LGBTQAI+ relationships and still making a mockery of them. its interesting to see how these jokes are still around today but just in a different form.

In my high school since it was an add girls school with a uniform skirt the admin (majority women run school) were very careful with who they hire and were very concerned about liability. in my four years at this school two male teachers (2 out of the 7) were fired for weird traits and behavior they exhibited around the girls and being a little too kind to certain students. the second admin caught on to this they fired the teachers. I think all schools should do this to protect their students the second something is weird or off or there might be a liability they should play it safe and protect their students.

for students to see the broader picture and to make an informed opinion and decisions they should be taught a broader picture to see both sides by their teacher who should teach from a natural stand point that way the students are not lacking any one side and able to make a completely informed opinion/decision. it's important that all sides, pictures, and information is conveyed to students. especially when some kids parents may only tell them one side its important at school they hear all sides.

also when teachers make it so students have to participate in the democratic discussion for points makes students feel unsafe because they either A don't have a stance and do not feel comfortable making one or B that makes them a target to other students who do not feel the same as them and it gives an unfair bias against students to be treated differently once their political opinion is outted.

in my education ive noticed that some teachers and classes say that everyone is allowed to have their own opinion but the professor has a clear view point and directs the conversation to one side making people feel unable to and not comfortable to share their opinion because their professor isn't keeping a neutral classroom.

I think change is good and needed as the education system grows and taking things you learn from colleges to implement in your classroom continues to deepen the knowlege and education. change can be scary since these teachers know what works for them and change can mean that something can fail but without trying new things and trying for change then that limits how a topic can grow and evolve.

I think it's extremely important especially in these schools where a lot of students are low in come and possibly have a lot going on at home, who work to help their parents, who need to watch their younger siblings because daycare is not an option, its important to stray away from this one teaching style and reflect on what would be more beneficial for their class. a lot of these students may need extra attention, help, advice, and compassion. I think teachers need to see what the needs of their class are and switch the teaching style to be that.

this is a very tone def statement to make to students assuming all of them come from a family that has money to borrow, many students are not able to go to college and get the education because they or their parents can't afford it let alone borrow $20,000 from their parents to start a business. Many business starters have to have money in order to start a business these students with low income do not have that luxury to take a $20,000 risk like that.

this passage depicts the harmfulness of the gifted program and why it excludes many. in my k-8 school they did not have the gifted program instead they had free programs for struggling students where they get extra time to practice reading, writing, and math. i think many more schools should have this free resource for these children instead of excluding them from programs.

many families do not have the privilege of picking a home and area code based off if the schools are good or bad they are limited to picking a address at which they are able to afford. the statement of how far behind your child is when they get to kindergarden also favors the wealthy because many parents aren't able to send their child to a day care before school starts where they can get a head start along with many families work full time and are not able to teach their children at home before kindergarden.

the cycle of generational poverty is seen because once kids get to working age a lot of them have to work and help their parents make ends meet. this takes away time from studying and school and many kids are not able to afford to go to college which limits their full time jobs since a lot of large paying jobs require degrees which puts these kids at a disadvantage and stuck in the cycle.

I recognize this problem because there was a large debate in the bay area town that I'm from a few years ago about letting kids do inner city transfers so they are able to go to the "better schools" a town or two away and give them a better chance and resources to get into a 4 year college.

I agree with this statement poor student do not perform poorly because of their inability to preform its because of the system's lack of support and faith in them. many wealthy schools will pay teachers more higher the top of the line teachers have any resources for kids but schools with lower income have a harder time getting teachers to teach when down the street at the private school they will get offered 2x the pay. low income schools also do not have the same resources that others have. its a clear line of the system is failing these kids and not giving them the chance they deserve.

this reminds me of a Tiktok that I saw of a substitute teacher saying she will not take sub jobs at the "bad schools" because she does not want to deal with "bad kids" perpetuating that just because a school is more low income that she is able to make assumptions about the kids there which is a false narrative. Teachers like this continue the cycle of low income families not being able to get the education they deserve because people stereotype them and refuse to teach them.

this statement is very powerful and really highlights how for many first generation students or students from low income families do not have the same resources and luxuries that higher class generational families do. for instance buying books, uniforms, transportation to and from school, school supplies, are all things many families do not have the privileged of being able to budget for increasing the dropout rate.

this text highlights the transition of American Dream from being more of a everyone for themselves they only care about their own personal American Dream and they want to get above others is now switching to the public school system now making education more accessible for everyone so they are able to create their American Dream rather than just the rich being able to have education.

the highlight of disagreements over education policy can never completely be resolved highlights the differences in the way everyone views their American Dream. Many care more towards free accessible education so more people have access to be educated and better their American Dream. On the other hand many people have disagreements because they more a more exclusive education to be deemed as more pristine. This reminds me of my public k-12 school that had a lot of teacher parent strikes due to many disagreements on what districts my school would allow children to enroll from. Many parents wanted their kids to go to the better schools a town over but then the parents of that town did not want them to because they said that would "take spots from them". The American dream of parents wanting their children to go to a good school but others trying to stop that.