Blogpost #12 - What Stands Out as Meaningful

When I look back at the semester, three pieces of our work continue to stand out because they changed the way I think about schools, students, and what learning is supposed to do.

1. Khan, Chapter 2: “The Broken Model”

Khan’s description of the traditional school model as outdated and inefficient really stuck with me. The idea that students are moved along regardless of mastery made me think about how many kids get labeled as “behind” when the system itself never gave them a real chance to understand the material. This reading made me rethink what “success” looks like and pushed me to imagine learning environments that prioritize depth, flexibility, and actual understanding.

2. Finn, Literacy With an Attitude

Finn’s distinction between “domesticating” literacy and “powerful” literacy completely shifted my perspective on what it means to teach reading and writing. His argument that working-class students are often taught compliance instead of agency made me realize how schools can reproduce inequity without ever naming it. This is something I will carry with me because it reminds me that literacy should empower students, not train them to stay in their place.

3. Shalaby, Troublemakers

Shalaby’s framing of “troublemakers” as canaries in the coal mine changed the way I see student behavior. Instead of viewing challenging behavior as something to control or punish, she helped me see it as valuable information - evidence that the environment might not be meeting a child’s needs. This perspective will stick with me because it pushes me to approach every student with curiosity, empathy, and a commitment to creating true belonging.

Blogpost #11 - RI Laws and Policies; and Queering Our Schools and Woke Read Alouds: They, She, He Easy as ABC

 After doing this week’s readings on RI Laws and Policies, Queering Our Schools, and watching Woke Read Alouds: They, She, He Easy as ABC, I kept thinking about how schools can either affirm students’ identities or erase them. What stood out most is that creating inclusive spaces isn’t just about “being nice”—it’s about safety, belonging, and legal responsibility.

Quote #1 (RI Laws & Policies): Many Rhode Island statewide guidance documents emphasize that “all students have the right to a safe and supportive school environment, free from discrimination based on gender identity or expression.”

This reminded me that inclusion isn’t optional. It’s literally the law. Schools must protect students and treat their identities with respect. Reading this made me reflect on how often students have had to “prove” their right to exist comfortably in school, even though the policy already backs them up. It makes me realize that educators not only have a moral obligation to honor students - they have a legal one too.

Quote #2 (Queering Our Schools – Airton): Airton argues that schools must move beyond celebrating diversity and instead “interrupt the assumption that everyone is straight and cisgender unless stated otherwise.”

This hit me hard because it shows that the problem isn’t just a lack of representation; the problem is the default assumptions schools are built on. I thought about how often people say “boys and girls” without even thinking about it. Those little habits send big messages about who belongs and who doesn’t. This quote pushed me to rethink what it means to create a queer-inclusive classroom - not adding a rainbow poster, but removing the assumptions that make some students invisible.

Quote #3 (Woke Read Alouds – They, She, He Easy as ABC): In the video, the narrator explains that “everybody has a way to express who they are, and pronouns are just one way we share our truth.”

I loved how simple and joyful this explanation was. It takes something adults often turn into controversy and brings it back to what it should be: helping kids understand themselves and others. Watching it, I kept thinking about how representation in children’s books matters so much. Kids deserve to see families, pronouns, identities, and expressions that reflect the world they actually live in - not a reduced version of it.

Overall, these materials made me reconsider how schools define “normal,” and how easily that definition can exclude. Inclusive education isn’t about forcing an agenda on kids; it’s about acknowledging reality and giving every student space to feel fully human. RI policies establish the baseline. Airton’s work challenges the mindset behind the daily interactions. And the read-aloud video shows what it looks like in practice - simple, warm, and affirming.

Taken together, this week’s learning makes me think about the kind of teacher I want to be: someone who doesn’t wait for a student to correct me about their identity, someone who doesn’t reinforce narrow boxes of who kids are supposed to be, and someone who treats inclusion not as an add-on, but as the foundation of a safe classroom.

Blogpost #10 - On Neurodiversity (Child Mind Institute)

 After reading the preface/introduction of On Neurodiversity, I found myself rethinking what “normal” means in school — and why we often treat kids whose brains work differently as problems to be fixed instead of people to understand. The way the article describes neurodiversity really resonates with what I want education to look like: inclusive, accepting, and strength-based.

Quote #1: “Neurodiversity is the concept that there is natural variation in how people’s brains work. The idea is that there’s no ‘correct’ way for the brain to work.” 

That first line felt like a breath of fresh air. I thought about all the times I or classmates were judged because our learning or thinking didn’t match the “standard.” This quote reminds me that different doesn’t mean wrong. It makes me wish more schools recognized that maybe we don’t need to fit everyone into the same mold.

Quote #2: “Some kids who are neurodivergent have strengths that neurotypical kids don’t have, like memorization skills or the ability to hyperfocus.” 

Reading this, I thought of students whose differences have often been misunderstood or dismissed as weaknesses. What if instead we celebrated those strengths - the focus, creativity, memory, curiosity? If we honored those, school wouldn’t just tolerate difference - it could build on it.

Quote #3: The article emphasizes that neurodivergent is not a flaw: “a kid’s brain functions differently … those differences are to be embraced and encouraged.” 

That changed the tone for me. Instead of framing learning or behavior challenges as deficits or problems, this perspective suggests they are simply differences in human variation. It makes me wonder how much more kids could thrive if classrooms and educators truly embraced that idea.

Overall, this reading feels like a call to widen our definitions of “normal,” “smart,” or “successful.” It reminds me that difference is not a barrier but an opportunity: an opportunity for richer perspectives, for classrooms where more kinds of minds are welcome, and for teaching that sees students as whole people with unique ways of being, learning, and knowing.

Blogpost #9 - Preface + Introduction from Shalaby, TroubleMakers

 After reading the Preface and Introduction of Troublemakers, I felt unsettled in a good way. Shalaby challenges everything I thought I knew about “misbehavior” and what it really means to belong in a classroom. She invites us to reconceive “troublemakers” not as broken kids in need of fixing, but as young people raising a warning “canaries in a coal mine.” 

Quote #1: “I think of the children who make trouble at school as miners’ canaries.” 

This quote made me pause. It reframes “troublemaking” from a personal flaw to a signal - a signal that something in the system is wrong. It made me ask: what if those children aren’t problems, but our wake-up call? What if their discomfort, restlessness, or defiance is less about them being “bad,” and more about school failing to meet their needs?

Quote #2: “These alternate images allow us to view children as complex and beautiful human beings rather than caricatures of troublemakers.”

Reading this, I thought about how many times I or others have judged kids harshly for refusing to fit in. This quote reminds me of something I believe deeply: no child is a caricature. Everyone carries whole histories, feelings, fears, potentials. When we reduce kids to “troublemakers,” we erase their humanity and we lose the chance to understand what they might teach us about fairness, belonging, and freedom.

Quote #3: “Where children are taught merely to sit still and listen, we reproduce a dehumanizing social order but when we teach children to think, question, and use language to act on their own interests, we build a foundation for justice and self-determination.” 

This really hit home. It speaks to what school often is a place for compliance. But if we truly care about justice and dignity, calling kids to comply silently isn’t enough. We must give them room to question, move, speak, and be themselves. That’s not chaos. It’s life. It’s freedom.

Overall, this reading unsettled me but that’s important. It made me question: What if the problem isn’t the child, but the school system? What if “discipline,” “obedience,” and “behavior management” are really tools of exclusion, not care or growth? Troublemakers challenges us to imagine schools where belonging is not conditional, and where difference, energy, curiosity, even disruption are seen not as problems, but as signals that we need to change how we teach, listen, and belong.

Blogpost #8 - Finn, from Literacy with an Attitude

 After reading Literacy with an Attitude, I felt challenged and also hopeful about what school could — and should — be. Finn describes how many working-class children are offered what he calls a “domesticating” literacy: a functional, compliant form of reading and writing meant more to prepare them for routine labor than to help them wield power or autonomy.

Quote #1: “Working-class schools… often teach compliance, not citizenship; they prepare children for routine labor rather than for leadership, creativity, or autonomy.”

In this moment I nodded hard — I’ve seen how some schools treat reading and writing like tasks to check off, rather than chances to think, question, and push back. It reminds me of times when I was told to “just follow the directions” rather than explore what I felt I needed to express. Reading this made me want more for students: not just to read and write, but to use those skills to understand the world and speak for themselves.

Quote #2: “Literacy-with-an-attitude… is not a gift, but a right of citizenship — a means for working-class and poor children to claim their civil, political, and social powers.”

This idea struck me as powerful because it frames literacy as more than schoolwork. It’s about dignity and agency. It makes clear that education shouldn’t just reproduce class divisions — instead, it should equip all students to understand their world and assert a voice in it. I think about what it could mean if more of my peers had been taught with that mindset.

Quote #3: “Where children are taught merely to sit still and listen, we reproduce a dehumanizing social order — but when we teach children to think, question, and use language to act on their own interests, we build a foundation for justice and self-determination.” 

When I read this, I couldn’t help but remember times when school felt like a cage: I was meant to absorb, not challenge; to be quiet, not curious. That approach doesn’t teach you to engage — it teaches you to obey. But when teachers encourage questioning, when writing assignments invite personal meaning, that’s when something real — and dangerous, in the good way — begins: students become thinkers, critics, agents.

Overall, this reading rocked my assumptions about what “literacy” means. If we settle for teaching only functional reading and writing, we risk training students to fit into a social order rather than to change it. But when we teach with an attitude — teaching powerful literacy — we give them tools to understand, challenge, and reshape their world. And honestly, that’s the kind of school I want us to build.