Reflections of Beyond the Bake Sale: A Community-Based Relational Approach to Parent Engagement in Schools by M. Warren, C. Rubin, and P. S. Uy

The research and discussions in Beyond the Bake Sale was compelling to me.  As a teacher in a culturally-diverse, urban high school I am certainly interested in ways to engage the parents of my students.  In fact, I would say that bridging the communication gap with my students’ parents has proved to be one of the more challenging aspects of my new career.

The article cited three case studies that exemplify different ways that a community-based organization (CBO) can partner with schools to engage parents in their children’s schooling.  As the title suggests, this engagement is intended go well beyond simple fundraising or one-way, school-to-parent communication.  Although some differences existed between the three models, a common thread was evident—active development of parental leadership within their school districts by creating relationships between parents first and foremost.  By successfully bonding parents to one another, the imbalance of power between the school and individual parents becomes remedied through collective parental empowerment.  The authors suggest that this healthier balance of power precedes successful bridging between the schools and parents.

How can the CBOs help?  In the case studies discussed, the CBOs act as go-betweens, providing health, educational, language and cultural services.  Additionally, they often are key resources of funding, either through grants or other partnerships.  One could argue that the positive results go well beyond an increase in parental engagement in their children’s education.  For example, the education of parents seemed to be of equal importance in the partnerships.  This education included a variety of topics of interest to the community at large, leadership training, English language skills, and parenting assistance.  Additional and significant training also occurred via employment opportunities given to many parents within the school districts and CBOs.  All in all, these efforts use public education as a springboard for social and economic community development. 

While reading the article, I found myself thinking about LCHC and the Teen Coalition.  I was so impressed with our own local CBO during my recent observation and lesson.  I can definitely see LCHC as the same conduit for community empowerment as the examples cited in the article.  It makes so much sense to me that parents would want to build relationships with others parents—especially those with similar language and cultures—before having the confidence to take leadership roles in their communities and schools.  Just like parents, teens also need to build social and cooperative relationships before becoming leaders themselves.  In my view, the Teen Coalition is doing a wonderful job developing the adolescents of the Greater Lowell area by providing projects and programs that enable empowerment and decision making.  When I look at the services that LCHC is providing to the community, it is clear their efforts are impactful in Lowell and the surrounding towns.  I would be very interested to see how they are extending their reach to parents and if they are actively engaged in bridging parent-to-school communication.  Further, I would like to find ways to promote their efforts in Greater Lowell Technical High School where I teach.  I believe their contributions could help our students and bridge the relationships to the parents and communities we serve.

My final thoughts are on a topic that the authors touched on in the article.  They mentioned the importance of CBOs’ focus on assets rather than needs.  I believe this is a very important point.  Community development is most impactful when done from within, utilizing the natural assets and talents of the community.  Often the traditional “gap analysis” with subsequent outside intervention further exacerbates the power imbalance, leaving community members isolated with no clear direction on how to help.  Again, I think LCHC is an excellent example of how a CBO uses any and all assets within its own footprint to enrich and develop the community.  I thought the the following excerpt from Building Communities From the Inside Out:

A Path Toward Finding and Mobilizing a Community’s Assets by J. Kretzman and  J. McKnight  to be convincing in this regard.

Building Communities from the Inside Out

Reflections on Sexuality Education and Desire: Still Missing after All These Years by Fine and McClelland

While the authors discussed a variety of topics in Sexuality Education and Desire:  Still Missing after All These Years, the bulk of the article focused on a specific part of a 1981 federal law called the Adolescent Family Life Act that introduced funding for educational programs advocating sexual abstinence only until marriage (AOUM).  While I have certainly been aware of this campaign by Christian churches over the years, I had no idea that AOUM was a well-defined program—funded by nearly a billion federal dollars—taught in public schools across the entire country.  No wonder why the Jonas brothers got themselves abstinence rings; virginity pledges are big business!   

                The original AOUM curriculum set out to educate and motivate adolescents of the eight central tenets—all of which promote monogamous marriage as the only safe context for sexuality.  A congressional -commissioned review of the program in 2004 revealed that the AOUM curriculum had morphed into distorted scare tactics including inaccurate and often misleading information about birth control reliability, transmission of STDs, and the life-threatening consequences of sex (p. 309).  Further, many school districts abandoned broad sex education altogether leaving adolescents ill-advised on contraception use.  Additionally, AOUM not only abandons the support and education of the LGBTQQ community with an enforced heterosexual marriage model, one could easily argue the program inherently promotes homophobic intolerance.  

                Interestingly, the numbers of unwanted pregnancies did go down from 1991 to 2003 (21%) despite the limitations of our public sexual education programs.  However, the authors make a convincing point showing teen pregnancies are three to four-fold higher among African-Americans and Latina, as compared to White teens.  This suggests that the lack of sex ed is unfairly affecting minorities.  Perhaps most convincing is the comparison to international teens.  The average age when European teens become sexually active is remarkably similar to the U.S. yet the pregnancy rate is two to four times higher here.  Clearly the use of contraception by European teens is more widely adopted.  It is not clear to me if this is a function of their sexual education, contraception availability, or both.  

                The authors then describe two distinct positions in America to teen sexuality education including the common ground between the two.  Below is my understanding of their summary.

                From my own perspective, as a parent of teen daughters and as an educator of high school teens, I would certainly put myself into the majority group as described.  However, I do not believe the complexities of the topic so neatly bifurcate as proposed by the authors.  When you peel back the onion there are intricacies with many issues surrounding sexual education and the roles of parents and public educators in the context of reproductive and religious/cultural freedoms.  The authors seem to believe that a small, yet powerful minority group of religious conservatives dominate the decisions, but I am not so sure it is that easy.    I believe that many Americans understand these complexities and do not view the issues with the same “black and white” lens used by the authors.   Notwithstanding the surprising persistence of AOUM supporters,   I certainly believe that most Americans support comprehensive sexual education in public schools and teen access to contraception.  However, the authors capture several other related issues in the same net; ones that I am not so sure the majority would agree with.   For example, they mention that schools are violating female students’ privacy by telling their parents of a pregnancy.  While it is true that Americans are afforded privacy rights on their personal health matters, I do not believe that privacy should include withholding information to parents or guardians of a minor and I suspect I am not alone in this view.   Similarly, the authors intimate that they believe the requirement of parental notification by abortion providers is a violation of the minor’s reproductive freedoms.  Again, I think there are many “adult” freedoms that should not be extended to minors and this is one of them.  I am not in favor of any surgical procedures done on a minor without notification to the parents.  Here, I believe the authors unintentionally lose support of a large, moderate audience.

                Overall, the authors made a compelling case that the current condition of America’s sexual education is woefully lacking, one-sided, and dangerous for our teens.  Further, they provided substantial research showing how some of America’s youth can obtain this needed information regardless of the limitations, but the under-served adolescent segments—minorities, low-income, and LGBTQQ—suffer the most.  As with most “lightening rod” issues, I believe that progress is generally made when common ground and compromise are emphasized and, as a mother and educator, I am optimistic that we can substantially improve on our current sexuality education policies.  

In a Different Voice

     I felt extremely irritated while reading the opening chapter of In a Different Voice by Carol Gilligan. I have a vague memory of learning about the work of Freud and his contemporaries in a class long ago and this reading reminded me of my previous annoyance with the obvious gender biases that were embedded in Freud’s research studies and many other pioneers in the field. I had to push myself through the first chapter but found the second chapter, which described the discussions between two sixth grade students, fascinating. While I reject the notion that the positions taken by Amy and Jake indicate anything of significance in gender development—or even moral development for that matter—I do find the commentary regarding the students’ positions interesting. Apparently, Jake’s clear stance regarding the dilemma posed equated to moral maturity on Kohlberg’s scale, while Amy’s response, “…appears naïve and cognitively immature”. Clearly Jake’s ability to choose one direction over another, articulate the logic of his decision, and demonstrate absolute confidence in his decision embodies all of the characteristics of American masculinity described in Masculinity as Homophobia. Our society values these characteristics and one could further say we ascribe them as leadership qualities. The fact that his decision could be disastrous is not relevant. Amy, on the other hand, could not be boxed in to a “door-number-one or door-number-two” decision. She perceives the world with greater complexity. It is not obvious to me whether this was the result of how she views the relationships within the scenario—as the author contends—or from something else. Either way, I concur with the author that Kholberg’s scale is clearly biased and not nearly sophisticated enough to draw any conclusions on moral development in adolescents.

     I can’t help but wonder if Amy’s stubborn refusal to answer the question posed with a “yes” or “no” demonstrates qualities that our global society needs more of. Amy wants to change the dynamic altogether by finding ways to obtain the objectives while still maintaining a position of morality. We would call this a “win-win”. Perhaps our current politicians and diplomats could use these skills, rather than to decisively rush to judgment and subsequent action.

     Was Amy ahead of her time?

Thoughts about Children of Immigration

After completing my reading of the Children of Immigration by Carola and Marcelo Suárez-Orozco, my first thought was about the final quote in the epilogue, “… that the history of the United States is fundamentally the history of immigration.”  A couple of years ago, I subscribed to Acestry.com to research my own heritage, and it didn’t take me very long to discover that I would have to get a lot better at navigating the international records if I were to successfully complete my family tree.  In fact, I couldn’t go much further than the 1920s before all my ancestors were living in Ireland. 

I then started thinking about how immigration was dealt with by our public educational system and government in those early decades in the 1900s when immigration was peaking in the U.S.  What methods were used to teach these immigrants English?  Was it “sink or swim”?  How were the children of these immigrants treated in school? To some extent, I may be a product of the folkloric myth that the authors point out in Chapter 2, which idealizes these hard working immigrants who gladly entered the country, went to work, and readily assimilated into the American melting pot.     Everything I have been taught and told has instilled this vision in me and I associate—with pride—the entire American dream with these views.  As the authors point out, the reality of public opinion towards immigration was hardly as idealistic as this mythical folklore.  Clear historical evidence shows a strong trend of negative opinion, often directly correlated with the health of the U.S. economy at the time. 

Despite public opinion, the exponential growth of urban manufacturing in America was likely responsible for the many immigrants’ success during some of this time period.  Labor jobs didn’t require an education or high levels of English proficiency.  While there may not have been any accommodations made to improve their English proficiency or education, they were able to enter the middle class and, as a result, give their children upward mobility. 

Today, the percent of immigrants in the U.S. is almost as large as the early 1900s with a trend line predicting further growth.  As a result, I believe there has been an authentic desire by government and by school districts to focus on and improve the education of immigrants.  While some of these advancements, such as bilingual instruction, have since been retracted, many states are now mandating sheltered language instruction and professional development for content teachers and are assessing districts on their ability to instruct ELLs.  However, there are also macroeconomic factors at the same time which are not helping progress.  The U.S. economy is clearly faltering, limiting Americans’ appetite for investment in all areas of education.  The significant loss of manufacturing jobs in the country creates a bimodal distribution of low education/low wage jobs with high education/high wage professional ones, predominantly in the engineering, science, and business sectors.  The result, in my opinion, creates a similar immigration distribution.  On one hand, there is a group of immigrants entering the U.S. with low or interrupted formal education who are seeking a better and more prosperous life.  On the other, there is a significant and growing sector of immigrants who have high levels of education from the U.S. or elsewhere and are entering the U.S. to fill technology jobs.  The latter group generally has high levels of English proficiency, along with their children, while the former must master content courses despite their particular English proficiency levels.  Unfortunately for many, reaching this objective may be unattainable and, as the authors pointed out, these immigrants may quickly become disillusioned with the American dream and fall further behind. 

During these times of economic difficulty, tension is obviously growing between the haves and have-nots.  In my view, the American public often looks at immigrants as either the uneducated illegal aliens coming in to get a “free ride” or the wealthy immigrants coming in to “take our professional jobs.”  Either way, these polar and negative views can dominate political jargon and policy.  I am somewhat concerned that our political leaders fall prey to this public polling rather than focus on the real issue at hand—an economy that is limiting growth for all its residents.  As American history continues to be a story of its immigration, I am anxious to see whether the country will succumb to paranoia and distrust of immigrants or wisely rally around its newest members by utilizing their creativity, culture and labor to strengthen its weakened foundation.

Introduction & Comments on Racial Formation

My name is Karen and I am just finishing up my second year of teaching math at the secondary level.  I teach algebra and geometry to freshmen/sophomores, respectively.  I have been a graduate student at UML for a year now and will be finishing my class work this Fall.

I am new to teaching because I am a career changer.  My undergraduate degree is in electrical engineering and I spent a number of years working in the semiconductor industry as an IC designer.  In the 90's, I transitioned out of engineering and onto the business track working in several roles from product line management to technical marketing and business development.  I have experienced success and learned a lot in my previous career yet I have often thought about becoming a math teacher.  Two years ago, I decided to walk from my job and take the plunge.  I think my husband and children didn't recognize me for a while as they were used to the wife/mother who spent a lot of time on conference calls, perpetually leashed to a Blackberry and laptop.  After taking a summer off, cooking a lot and trekking to the beach, I got my teaching license and was fortunate enough to find a job right away.  I am happy to say that I genuinely enjoy teaching and have no regrets.  Teaching, I believe, is a calling.

Having grown up in the blue collar suburbs of Syracuse, NY, I had little understanding of what cultural diversity was.  My neighborhood--and the ones on either side of it--were homogeneous and there was a clear understanding of where the "bad areas" were and who lived there.  My dad was fairly bigoted (and still is) but he raised us to debate ideas and politics profusely.  As such, I remember long arguments with him about race, taxes, welfare, etc even though I had no real experience to defend my positions.  After graduating from high school, I moved further upstate to attend Clarkson University in Potsdam, NY.  Potsdam is in the middle of nowhere, yet diversity was much more evident compared to my home town.  This is probably because the school was almost entirely an engineering college that attracted students globally.  Despite this new experience, my "circle" continued to look the same as my friends in high school.

After college, I did something 'radical'--at least in the eyes of my parents.  I moved to Southern California to take my first engineering job at TRW.  I had never really traveled anywhere before and the thought of moving out West was exciting to me.  The move turned out to be great in many ways and I stayed there for five years making friends with people from all walks of life and cultures.  Finally, in this place, I could build experiences that both validated and broke down my previously held beliefs.

As I read Racial Formation by Michael Omi and Howard Winant, I immediately thought about my time in California.  I was young, inexperienced and idealistic.  Rather than focused on the concrete differences of race, my views epitomized what the authors contend as, ".. the opposite temptation:  to imagine race as a mere illusion, a purely ideological construct which some ideal nonracist social order would eliminate."  These idealistic views changed quickly the more time I spent with my new best friend, Robin.  She grew up in South Central LA (Compton) and continued to live there while I worked with her.  Robin and I loved to go shopping during our lunch hour and I quickly discovered how differently sales people treated her at the mall.  Her skin color elicited the strangest reactions from store clerks:  a combination of both snubbing her while at the same time monitoring her every move.  Once they realized Robin and I were shopping together, there was an immediate and noticeable change in their disposition--a reaction that did not go unnoticed by either Robin or me.

These simple experiences turned out to be the "tip of the iceberg" and after five years of living in Redondo Beach, I gained quite an education on racial and gender bias.  My previous notions that America was well on its way to obtaining nonracism was under siege with the reality around me, not the least of which was constant gang violence that was often racially motivated.  By the time I left California, I had a healthy appreciation for the tangible differences in race and culture that we all experience in everyday life.

Once I moved to the Boston area, I became  focused on career advancement and traveled extensively throughout this country and internationally.  These experiences have deepened my understanding of racial differences and similarities and I can relate to the authors' comments in Racial Formation when they describe today's racism as "... no longer a virtual monolith...<but rather>..."messy".  My overwhelming observation with working with many Asian and European business people is just how similar we all are despite our vast cultural differences and upbringings.  On the other hand, I realize that the people I have been working with have also traveled and worked globally, and are therefore a product of their experiences much the same way I am.  Still, the racial divide is noticeably apparent between Japanese, Korean, and Chinese corporations and to a some extent, their European counterparts.  My observation, however, is that the post-WWII racial biases  are slowly giving way to post-911 ones.  For instance, the tensions between increasing native and immigrant Muslim populations with their European and Asian governments seems to be taking center stage in public debate.  In this context, it seems obvious to me that the authors are correct when they contend that "ideological beliefs have structural consequences and that social structures give rise to beliefs."  For example, religious bias has led the way to tangible, structural consequences for Muslims since 911 and clearly radical beliefs have gained traction as a result.

As a teacher, I believe educators have an obligation to provide a platform for the discussion of diversity in the classroom.  As an urban teacher, I think it is a necessity given the diversity within a single class.  My students are acutely aware of their cultural differences, but I am happy to say, are arguably more tolerant and open than previous generations.  Nonracism may eventually be achieved.