The school’s dress code stipulates that clothes should “not distract or interfere with the educa-tional environment . . .
The idea that girls’ clothing could be a “distraction” implies that boys’ inability to focus is the responsibility of girls, shifting blame onto female students and reinforcing sexist double standards. The enforcement of these rules disproportionately impacts Latinas, who are already sexualized by cultural stereotypes.
A common narrative in society, and repeated at SCHS, is that the sexual-ity of Latinas, relative to Whites, Asian Americans, and their male counter-parts, is a problem needing control (Garcia 2012).
By positioning Latinas’ sexuality as a “problem,” the school reinforces harmful narratives that blame Latina students for potential disruptions (like teen pregnancy) rather than addressing systemic inequalities or providing comprehensive sexual education. These beliefs justify punitive and controlling measures that target Latinas’ bodies and limit their autonomy, while ignoring their actual needs and realities.
Latinas at the high school encounter constant monitoring of their bodies, beliefs, and actions. These are among the disci-plining mechanisms occurring in our schools.
Latinas face unique, intersecting forms of surveillance based on both race and gender. Their bodies are scrutinized under assumptions of hypersexuality, their actions are monitored for signs of deviance, and their beliefs are shaped by institutional expectations of assimilation. This constant policing creates a school environment where Latinas are disciplined not just for what they do, but for who they are perceived to be. The quote reflects how these disciplinary practices are tied to stereotypes that portray Latinas as promiscuous, rebellious, or culturally deficient, leading to school policies and interactions that control their self-expression, limit their agency, and undermine their educational experiences.
Some students are given the benefi t of the doubt and multiple chances; others are presumed guilty and receive no chances at all. They are heavily surveilled and punished. These are among the forms of discrimination Summer believes Hispanics or Latinas, such as herself, encounter at her high school.
Summer Reyes explains that school discipline is not applied equally across all students, pointing out the racial and gendered disparities in how students are treated by school authorities. Her quote reveals that Latinas are more likely to be heavily surveilled, punished quickly, and denied second chances, while other groups (likely white or male students) are afforded leniency. This unequal treatment reflects a broader system of institutional bias and discrimination, where students of color are not only over-policed but also viewed through a lens of suspicion.
Everything is fenced up, and I feel like everybody is watching us.
This quote from Angelica Vega shows how the school environment feels like a prison to students, reflecting a system of surveillance and control that makes students feel trapped and constantly monitored. To see students feel like this nowadays is so normalized which is so sad to me. Why is this happening??
The exciting aspect of creating a classroom community where there is respect for individual voices is that there is infinitely more feedback because students do feel free to talk-and talk back. And, yes, often this feed-back is critical. Moving away from the need for immediate affirmation was crucial to my growth as a teacher. I learned to respect that shifting paradigms or sharing knowledge in new ways challenges; it takes time for students to experience that challenge as positive
By emphasizing the importance of community, hooks argues that education should not be a passive experience but an interactive one. Students should be able to challenge and learn from each other in an environment that encourages vulnerability and critical reflection. This approach allows for deeper engagement with both the material and the broader social issues at play.
I have talked about the need to examine critically the way we as teachers conceptualize what the space for learning should be lik
This quote reveals the tension between the desire for social change and the comfort of the traditional classroom setup. hooks underscores that meaningful change in education requires educators to reflect on their own practices and biases, even when it is difficult or uncomfortable.
ly liberatory liberal ar
Throughout the passage, Hooks' highlights the discomfort that may arise from challenging dominant narratives in education. Teachers must be willing to step outside their comfort zones and allow students to critically examine societal norms, which requires vulnerability and a commitment to social change.
Let's face it: most of us were taught in classrooms where styles of teachings reflected the hotion of a single norm of thought and experience, which we were encouraged to believe was universal. This has been just as true for nonwhite teachers as for white teachers. Most of us learned to teach emulating this model.
This quote emphasizes the transformative potential of education. Hooks' advocates for creating spaces where students are encouraged to think critically about societal norms and structures. By doing so, education becomes not just about imparting knowledge, but also about engaging students in shaping their communities.
nadequate nutrition, und1~gnosed d1fficult1es prior to childbirth and treatable in vitro illnesses all contnbute to the poorer health of these fut~re scholars. And because so many poor neighbor~oods are veritable "food deserts" where fresh produce, meats, and healthy items are
Things like nutrition, access to healthcare, stress, and exposure to toxins all play a big role in a child’s development and, in turn, their ability to succeed in school. Kids born into poverty are more likely to face health and developmental challenges that affect their learning. The author makes the case that if we want to fix educational inequality, we need to start by addressing the bigger social and economic issues that affect kids long before they even set foot in a classroom. It’s a much more complex problem than just what happens at school.
Likewi~e, th~ corres~ondence principle refers to the perpetu-ation of social class stratification by sifting the same types of individuals into various labor classes by design, over time, and in full collusion with the public education system in a capitalist society (Au, 2006). Whereas Bourdieu was con-cerned wit? the trans~ission of cultural values, norms, and capital writ large, !"1arx speci_fically desc~1bed the iiberimportant role of schooling in accomplish-mg the deliberate sortmg and generational reinforcement of the classes. Why are people poor? Because our historical and social structures mean them to be
Here, the author dives into how schools don’t actually break down social class divides but rather reinforce them. They talk about how wealthier students have more opportunities outside of school, like private tutoring, extracurriculars, and strong networks, which gives them a leg up academically and professionally. On the other hand, students from lower-income backgrounds often don’t get those opportunities and may even be placed in lower-level classes that limit their potential. This system keeps the same social classes in place, making it harder for people to move up. It’s a pretty eye opening argument against the idea that education alone can change everything.
On the basis of the inability of far too many people of color, as well as a vast number of Whites-neither of whom inherited wealth from their forebears-to purchase homes or, more important, to purchase homes in a "good school dis-trict,,, housing segregation continues to plague the educational and social out-comes of multiple members of the underclass.
Since schools are mostly funded by local property taxes, richer neighborhoods end up with schools that are well-funded, while poorer areas struggle. This means that kids in wealthier districts get access to better resources, better teachers, and more opportunities, while kids in poorer areas face underfunded schools with fewer resources. It’s a vicious cycle that keeps repeating itself because of historical policies that still affect us today. This really shows how deeply ingrained inequality is in the system.
Year after year, I continue to observ: that as a result of this flawed, deficit thinking, both pre-and in-service teachers have come to develop and staunchly cling to their disgust at what they perceive to be squandered opportunities. Poor children fail in schools because they are not taking advantage. Poor people exist because they wasted a good, free educa-tion. The poor themselves are the problem.
This part really made me think about how we tend to blame students from lower-income backgrounds when they’re not doing well in school. The author calls this “deficit thinking,” which basically says these students are somehow lacking or just not trying hard enough. This idea puts all the responsibility on the student and completely ignores the role of social and economic factors. The text challenges this way of thinking, suggesting that it’s not just about effort, it’s about how the system itself is set up in ways that make it harder for certain groups of students to succeed. It’s a reminder that we should be looking at the bigger picture.
orace Mann was on to something. When he witnessed an angry street riot in New England, his conviction that "the educated, the wealthy, the intelligent" had gone morally astray by abandoning the public was fortified {Johnson, 2002, p. 79). Mann chided the economic elite for shirking obligations to their fellow man by favoring private education over common schools. He conceptualized public
In the beginning, the author talks about Horace Mann’s idea that public education is meant to be the "great equalizer." The idea that education can provide everyone, no matter their background, a chance to move up in life. But the author quickly points out that, in reality, education doesn’t always work this way. Access to education might be there, but it’s not always the same quality everywhere. Some schools just don’t offer the same opportunities, meaning not everyone gets a fair shot at success.
hey simply will not permit distant politicians or experts in a centralized civil service to make educational decisions. The reasons for this preference are complicated, in-cluding the incredible diversity of the population and the huge size of the coun-try. Not least important, however, is the fact that local districts mirror and reinforce separation by class and race.
This last part is super interesting because it explains why education is so hard to fix. The U.S. is really big on local control, which means each district kind of does its own thing. That sounds great in theory, but in reality, it lets wealthy areas keep their advantages while struggling schools fall further behind.
The gap between belief and action has emerged in different school districts at different times over different issues; education policy has therefore been not only contentious but confusing.
This section really gets at why change is so slow, policymakers aren’t always making decisions based on what actually works. A lot of the time, they’re just going with whatever is politically convenient or won’t upset powerful groups. The author mentions things like integrating schools and equalizing funding, which research says would help, but people with influence fight against those changes. It makes me wonder how much of education reform is about actually helping students versus keeping certain people in power.
Yet this progress has met limits. Hispanics and inner city residents still drop out much more frequently than others, the gap between black and white achievement rose during the 1990s after declining in the previous decade, the achievement gap between students from lower-and higher-class families has barely budged, and poor students in poor urban schools have dramatically lower rates of literacy and arithmetic or scientific competence.
Despite all the policies and reforms over the years, some groups of students are still way behind others. It’s frustrating to see how progress is so uneven, like, we know things have improved in some ways, but we’re still stuck with major disparities in who actually benefits. It kind of makes me question whether these reforms are just band-aid fixes instead of real, lasting change.
Many issues in education policy have therefore come down to an apparent choice between the individual success of comparatively privileged students and the collective good of all students or the nation as a whole.
This part really hit me. Education is meant to give every kid an equal chance, but wealthier families always seem to find ways to keep their advantage. Whether it’s moving to a better school district, paying for tutors, or using connections to get their kids ahead, the system seems set up to favor those who already have resources.
Not all residents of the United States believe all of those things, of course, and some believe none of them. Nevertheless, this American dream is surpris-ingly close to what most Americans have believed through most of recent Amer-ican history. Public schools are where it is all supposed to start-they are the central institutions for bringing both parts of the dream into practice. Americans ex-pect schools not only to help students reach their potential as individuals but
The intro does a good job setting up the big idea that education is supposed to be the great equalizer in America, giving everyone a fair shot at success. But right away, the author points out a harsh reality: not everyone actually gets the same opportunities. I like how this contrast makes it clear that the “American Dream” idea is more complicated than it seems, especially when it comes to public schools.