Blog Post #6

 After reading Lisa Delpit’s The Silenced Dialogue: Power and Pedagogy in Educating Other People’s Children, I noticed and took three direct quotes that I think show the power of how schools and classrooms are not just neutral spaces—they carry rules, expectations, and cultures that shape how students learn and succeed.

Quote #1: “Issues of power are enacted in classrooms. There are codes or rules for participating in power; that is, there is a ‘culture of power.’ The rules of the culture of power are a reflection of the rules of the culture of those who have power.”

The first quote she mentions makes me think about how the classroom is built around certain expectations, usually from those in charge or from the dominant culture. As a student, I’ve seen how some people already know these “codes” while others have to catch up, not because they’re less capable, but because no one explained the rules to them.

Quote #2: “Those with power are frequently least aware of — or least willing to acknowledge — its existence. Those with less power are often most aware of its existence.”

The second quote hits harder, because it reminds me that people in power, like teachers, administrators, or even people in society, sometimes don’t notice how much control they actually have. Meanwhile, the students who feel powerless notice those differences every single day. That gap in awareness creates silence, like Delpit says, because the ones most affected often don’t get to shape the conversation. 

Quote #3: “If you are not already a participant in the culture of power, being told explicitly the rules of that culture makes acquiring power easier.”

The last quote she talks about really shows the solution: don’t keep the rules hidden. If students don’t know what the expectations are, they can’t succeed. But if teachers are clear and open about those expectations, then students actually have the chance to step into that culture of power.

Overall, Delpit made me realize that power in education is not about taking control, but about opening doors. Teachers need to guide students by making the hidden rules visible, while also respecting where students come from. That’s how real dialogue and real learning can happen.

Blog Post #5

    After reading Christine E. Sleeter, Academic and Social Value of Ethnic Studies A Research Review, I couldn’t help but connecting her points to my own experiences as a student and as someone who is learning how education shapes identity.

Quote #1: “Whites continue to receive the most attention and appear in the widest variety of roles, dominating story lines and lists of accomplishments. African Americans, the next most represented racial group, appear in a more limited range of roles and usually receive only a sketchy account historically, being featured mainly in relationship to slavery.”

In the first quote, it states how textbooks and school lessons often spotlight white figures, leaving others in the background. I saw this growing up in school—most of what we learned was about the same “great men” of history, but rarely did we dive deep into Latin American stories, or even stories from Central America where my own family roots are. That absence makes me realize how much representation matters, because when you don’t see yourself, it’s easy to feel like your history doesn’t count.

Quote #2: “Ethnic studies scholarship by and about racial minority groups presents a different narrative that is shaped partially by histories of oppression in the U.S. as well as by the intellectual and cultural resources and traditions of those communities.”

In the second quote, Sleeter explains how ethnic studies gives students access to a different narrative—one that tells fuller, richer stories. I think about how much I’ve learned outside the classroom, through family stories or even researching on my own about Guatemala and Latin America. That knowledge feels empowering because it fills in the gaps left by school. Ethnic studies would make that empowerment available to everyone, not just those who go looking for it on their own.

Quote #3: “By the time they reach high school, students of color are not only aware of a Euro-American bias in curriculum, but they can describe it in some detail, and view it as contributing to their disengagement.”

In the third quote, Sleeter shows how students eventually notice the bias and how it turns them off from school. I’ve felt that frustration too, where it’s hard to stay interested in lessons that don’t reflect anything about my culture or experiences. That disengagement is real, and I see why so many students of color start to feel like school isn’t built for them.

Overall, this reading made me reflect on how important it is to bring diverse voices into the classroom. If I want to become the kind of teacher I imagine, I need to make sure my students see themselves in the stories we study. It’s not just about filling in history—it’s about giving students pride, connection, and a reason to engage.

Blog Post #4

 After reading Shannon Renkly & Katherine Bertolini,  Shifting the Paradigm from Deficit Oriented Schools to Asset Based Models: Why Leaders Need to Promote an Asset Orientation in our Schools. I noticed how they highlight the difference between seeing students for what they “lack” versus what they bring to the table.

Quote #1: “When working from a deficit perspective, the practices and assumptions that emerge tend to cover up the abilities of students and teachers (Weiner, 2006). On the other hand, an asset model, or abundance model, focuses on what a student can do: their strengths, skills, talents, interests, and competencies (Alber, 2013; Rose, 2006). (pp. 24)”

In the first Quote, she states that deficit thinking hides what students are actually capable of. I’ve experienced this myself in school when teachers assumed I wasn’t “good” at something just because I struggled in one area. It almost felt like my other strengths didn’t matter. Reading this made me realize how powerful it is when a teacher notices what you can do, instead of only pointing out what you can’t.

Quote #2: “According to Scales (1999), when schools shed their deficit model, it becomes easier for the community to become involved. Oftentimes, community members become overwhelmed when all they hear are the problems that adolescents have. When the focus shifts to assets, community members can easily work together to build up and nurture positive attributes in youth. (pp. 25)”

In the second quote, I connect this to my own community. When the conversation is always about problems, it makes people less motivated to help. But when the focus shifts to positive qualities, it creates energy and hope. I’ve seen this happen when working with peers—if we recognize each other’s skills, we naturally want to collaborate. It makes me think of schools and communities really can grow stronger when they stop labeling kids as “deficient” and start celebrating what they bring.

Quote #3: “Scales (1999) sums up the vision of asset focused schools by stating, “If we surround young people with respect and love, help them safely explore their talents, interests, and values, give them chances to make a difference in their families, schools, and communities, we’re metaphorically letting them jump into our arms” (p.119). No matter how old a child is, they all need adults that are willing to mentor them, catch them if they fall, and encourage them to get back up and try again. This can only be done with an asset model. (pp. 26) ”

In the third quote, I love the image of “letting them jump into our arms.” It reminds me of times when mentors in my life supported me even when I stumbled. Having that kind of encouragement makes you want to try again and push forward. That’s the kind of teacher I want to be—someone who sees the best in students and helps them believe in themselves, even when they fail.

Overall, this reading showed me how important it is to build classrooms on assets, not deficits. When students feel recognized for their talents and strengths, they’re more willing to grow. And honestly, that’s what school should be about.

Blog Post #3

After reading Jean Anyon's What Counts as Educational Policy? I noticed how she redefines educational policy to include not just what happens inside schools but also the social and economic conditions that shape students’ lives. Anyon argues that poverty, segregation, and structural inequalities directly affect how children learn, and that real educational reform must address these wider forces.

I decided to focus on three quotes that highlight the ways poverty impacts children’s cognitive development, academic success, and behavior. These examples also show how race and class inequalities make the situation worse for minority families compared to white and affluent families.

Quote #1: "A calculation of families living with earnings up to 200 percent of the pov- erty line reveals that Black and Latino families face the greatest financial hur- dles. More than 50 percent of Black and Latino families earn less than 200 per- cent of the poverty level, compared to only 20.3 percent of White families, even though White families constitute a slight majority (50.5%) of families that fall below 200 percent of the poverty level (Mishel et al., 2001). In sum, poverty in the United States is higher than commonly perceived and is main- tained in urban areas by federal and metro-area policies and distributions." (p. 73)

This first quote emphasizes that poverty in the U.S. is not evenly distributed. Minority families, especially Black and Latino families, are disproportionately affected. Anyon shows how poverty is not just a matter of individual circumstance but something shaped and maintained by federal and urban policies. This means educational inequality is deeply tied to structural economic inequality.

Quote #2: "For example, poverty has been found to have consistently negative effects on children’s cognitive development (Duncan & Brooks-Gunn, 1997; Duncan, Brooks-Gunn, & Klebanov, 1994; McLoyd, 1998). Longitudinal stud- ies that have been carried out also demonstrate that “family income consis- tently predicts children’s academic and cognitive performance, even when other family characteristics are taken into account” (Duncan & Brooks-Gunn, 1997). Persistent and extreme poverty has been shown to be more detrimental to children than temporary poverty (Bolger & Patterson, 1995; Duncan et al., 1994). Family income may influence children through both lack of resources and parental emotional stress (Bradley, 1984; McLoyd & Jartayne, 1994; Smith, Brooks-Gunn, & Klebanov, 1997; Sugland, Zaslow, Brooks-Gunn, & Moore, 1995). Poor children have more health and behavior difficulties than those from more affluent families, which mitigates against educational success (Duncan & Brooks-Gunn, 1997; Houser, Brown, & Prosser, 1997; Klerman, 1991/2003; Korenman & Miller, 1997)." (p. 75)

The second quote explains farther how poverty affects children at a deeper level. Studies show that family income predicts children’s academic and cognitive performance, regardless of other family factors. Poor children often struggle with health problems, stress, and fewer resources, which negatively impact their ability to learn. Anyon uses this research to argue that schools alone cannot close the achievement gap. Poverty itself must be addressed.

Quote #3: "Indirect evidence is present in a longitudinal study completed in 2003 that found that improving family income reduces the negative (aggressive) social of children, which in turn is likely to lead to better school behavior and performance. For eight years, researchers studied children in rural North Carolina.  But halfway through the study, a local casino began distributing a percentage of its profits to tribal families. lifting many out of poverty. test showed that children in families who were no longer poor dropped to the same levels found among children whose families had never been poor (decreasing by 40%). Parents who moved out of poverty reported having more time to spend with their chil- dren, and researchers identified better parenting behavior. Researchers also identified the psychological benefits of not being poor as important to both parents and children. Poverty puts stress on families, which can increase the likelihood of children developing behavioral problems. One parent in the study told researchers that “the jobs [produced by the casino] give people the chance to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and get out of poverty. That carries over into less juvenile crime, less domestic violence, and an overall better living experience for families” (O’Connor, 2003, p. 2). (p. 77 - 78)

The third quote shows that when poverty is reduced, children’s behavior improves. In the North Carolina study, families who received income from casino profits were able to escape poverty. Their children’s aggression, anger, and behavioral problems dropped significantly, and parents reported having more time and emotional capacity to support them. This evidence makes a strong case that poverty reduction itself is an educational policy, because it directly impacts student outcomes.

In conclusion, instead of treating poverty as "Outside" issues, she shows they are central to whether children can succeed in school. The three quotes demonstrate that poverty not only reduces children’s cognitive development and academic achievement but also increases behavioral struggles. Most importantly, when families are lifted out of poverty, these negative effects decreases. In short, Without addressing poverty and inequality, educational reforms inside the classroom will always be limited.