As I arrived at RIC on Saturday morning to participate in
the annual promising practice I was in a very grumpy mood. My Saturday mornings
are usually dedicated to resting because of my busy work and school schedule
throughout the week. Despite the challenge of having to drag myself to the
conference the worst part was having to sit though the introduction. As I sat
there and listened to the guest speakers I couldn't help but notice how the
mayor said that every child can succeed, poverty is a factor not destiny which
made me think about Bob Herbert’s article in which he states that “residential
patterns, housing discrimination, economic disparities” do contribute to the
success of a child. Not every child will have the opportunities he did despite
the fact that he came from the same kind of background. In conclusion to the
intro part of this conference I came to the realization that after hearing all
of the guest speakers and the way the treated some of the individuals made me
really upset, I was not too fond of it. I prayed my first session would go well
and make me forget all about the introduction.
For my first session it dealt with Action Civics model within
democratic classroom structure. Going into this session I found it extremely difficult
to understand what it was that they were trying to teach me about action
civics. I think that if they had started with the definition of what Action
Civics is then I would have had a better understanding of what they were
looking. I was completely dumbfounded entering this session but after looking
up the definition I become a little more engaged with the conversation. Action
Civics is basically an applied education process where the voices of
participants are encouraged, valued and used to the fullest and how we could
incorporate civic participation in and advocacy within the classroom
pedagogies. This session reminds me of Christensen because she believes in taking
action step by step to solve the issue of secret learning. In comparison, this
session also deals with something called an advocacy hourglass which consists
of steps that have to be taken in order to resolve issues in the community
The second session on Student/Labor Solidarity as pedagogy.
I found this session to be even more challenging that the first one. I thought the
presenters were extremely quiet and expected us to know a bunch of information
on their organization. Every time they would ask questions that we didn't know
the answer to, things just got really quiet and awkward. However, after doing
my own research, what I understood from this organization was that students
from this organization were building relationships with local workers
organizations and unions. The students would team up with these workers and in
order to acquire benefits for these workers. For example, students don’t buy
school name clothing like Nike or Adidas sweaters so that sweat shop workers
produce in order for them to get the chance to get better pay. This meant that the
sweat shop workers wouldn't work until they are able to get a higher pay. At
the same time students aren't buying the clothing and sweat shop workers aren't
working. Which then forces the big companies pay more to the workers. Basically
it’s like a big protest. This reminds me of SCWAAMP because these big companies
that refuse to pay their workers less than minimum wage are basically power
junkies. They make tons of money off the materials they produce but still feel
the need to pay their workers crappy pay. These people clearly know that their
employees cannot live off of the pay they get; but no sympathy is felt
whatsoever. This organization is really striving for change and I think it’s
really great what they are doing.
Over all I think my day was very interesting and although I feel
like I didn't feel like even going to the conference at first, it ended up
being a great opportunity, and a learning experience.
Great reflections, Nelsy. Very strong post.
ReplyDelete