Mary Simmons wrote:
"Any statement that starts with the idea "what you people need to do is..." is
very condescending."
I agree. And it is also a clue to me that the comments are coming
from a place of dominance and are an invitation into the game of
of power and control. It can provide an opportunity to understand
how I get pulled into power plays and whether I find some pleasure in it.
I'm interested in learning how to speak from a place of personal
responsibility which, I think, moves me away gender issues.
Whether I am understood by another is not always key for me. As I
don't want to base my speaking on someone else's response. Sometimes
I speak in order to maintain my own integrity and am willing to take
the consequences. Nor do I want to continue the violence perpetrated by
the "for your own good" school of education.
Unfortunately, I have an assumption that when
white males speak, no matter how good intentioned, their unconscious
agenda is to preserve the status quo. This is a gender analysis.
If I make a racial analysis I find, as a caucasian women, I have more
invested in the status quo than women of color. I think I experience
both the place of privilege and oppression. I'm not sure white
males do. I think I experience the fear of letting go of the status
quo as much as I recognize the need to do so if humans are to
survive.
lea
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Apr 24 11:20:07 MDT 1995
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 1995 10:21:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: Faith Freewoman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Sue Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: "Stix" and Education
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Mon, 24 Apr 1995, Sue Adams wrote:
> Well, Faith, I'm not sure whether your idea of "the stix" is a
> stereotype, or just based on some assumptions with which I disagree. Is
> it generally true that in the U.S. students living in rural areas are
> receiving substandard education? "Go to pot" in what sense? Are there
> compensating factors for whatever element you see as being inferior to urban
> education?
Actually, sadly, this particular conviction is *not* a stereotype. I
assiduously researched high schools in more rural areas around us,
comparing them with the high school which my daughter attends now. They
couldn't hold a candle to the current school, on almost any terms. Of
course, the school which she attends now is the "flagship" of a district
which is becoming nationally known for its advanced thinking regarding
education ... it's one of five high schools nationwide which the SAT
people are observing for new ideas, and people come from all over the
country, almost weekly it seems, to observe HOW they're teaching, HOW the
kids are responding, and what happens to 'em when they graduate.
The other reason I'm so committed to this school now is the fact that my
daugher has been seriously learning handicapped; we were told when she
was 9 that we could not expect her to be able to read a newspaper with
full comprehension as an adult, and would have to worry about her ability
to function out in the world.
She is now a straight-A student, and NOT in learning handicapped
classes. I credit a lot of this to the way this district, and especially
this school, has rethought how they approach education, and how they
specifically teach math and other core subject. I also credit it to the
much healthier environment of the Northwest (as compared to S. Calif).
Pretty impressive stuff, IMO, and pretty hard for most schools to
complete with, rural or urban.
And, a further note ... the high schools in the more rural areas of my
county (Snohomish, just north of Seattle's King County) are MUCH better,
according to my research anyhow, than the downtown Seattle or north
(suburban) SEattle public schools. More support for not stereotyping
rural schools.
Faith
