Social Justice Warriors need to take a seat

                I can't stand people who cling to the tenets of social justice, but refuse to accept how  disconnected many of the claims and beliefs are from the actual populations they like to talk about. A prime example of this is when I see articles written from my Alma Mater describing education inequality and income inequality. They'll talk about we need to create self determination and need to take back important things such as language, agency and culture. How about we take back some food? Honestly, many of the people writing these pieces are so disconnected from the reality of things. They post studies, statistics and theories illuminating why they are right and everyone else is ignorant. I used to be one of them and one of the best decisions I ever made was to follow the convictions I believed in. So I put aside my contempt for the gentrifying force that was Teach For America and took advantage of the fact that someone was going to pay me to go home and teach kids from where I was from. And that's when I truly learned Social Justice because instead of being in the nice sterile environment of a college dorm room, I was confronted with people who had far more pressing needs. Rent, your job, taxes, food to eat, gang violence, these are things we rarely talk about when discussing the oppressive nature of "whiteness." And how am I to condemn my white co-workers who work side by side to help fight for our kids? They clearly are outsiders coming in, but they've taken their licks and earned their stripes. Stop it with the pretension.
        Well Raymond looks like you've sold out. No, I haven't. I still hold almost all of the beliefs I've learned in college about critical race, and gender theory to be true. I still believe the institutions that exist are oppressing our children. I've only learned how to articulate these things in a manner that doesn't reek of the ivory tower. I am not out there splitting theoretical hairs. I don't deal with gestures of what may be right and wrong. I don't think these endeavors are completely useless. I've just grown to take displeasure with what has become a mostly passive movement. I want my students to march with me and know what they're marching for. I want the parents in my community to feel like they don't need to read my blog to tell them about the movement because they are the movement.
       My message to social justice warriors out there is to try and remove yourself from your social justice bubble and begin to breath the regular air. Then tell me how easy it is to remain true to your beliefs. That's what I believe is the hardest part of the journey we call social justice. I'm just glad that I can go to bed at night knowing I do something that matters and have remained true to my beliefs.  

Why does behavior intervention fail so often?

                  So you have a problem student and they continue to manifest negative behavior in the classroom. You try the gamut: detentions, calls home, ignoring, corrective behavior, behavior plan, etc. and finally you muster up the energy to go to the dean and ask for an intervention. This is typically done after a serious incident such as a physical altercation or a breakdown in the classroom. The kid is out of control in your mind and your hope is that an intervention will curtail their negative behavior. And then the meeting produces no useful results whatsoever. Who's at fault? The parents? The student? The teacher? The dean/behavior specialist? Well from my small experience and from countless veteran teacher discussions, I see similar factors that render behavior interventions useless.

1. Teacher calls for intervention too late- Yea, I'll admit sometimes I should have intervened much earlier than I chose to and my student's behavior reached a point where it could not be controlled. The intervention naturally was ineffective because the child had already reached huge levels of disruption which allows them to only slightly deescalate their behavior in order to stay in the clear.  An intervention typically tells a kid that they have crossed the line. So in their minds if they take a step back they'll be fine. In more concrete terms, a kid who "punched another kid in the face" and then received an intervention will rationalize that all of their behavior before that moment (e.g. play fighting, neck slapping, etc.) was acceptable behavior that they can get away with. The teacher who felt like the intervention was clear on physical interaction will find themselves frustrated because the student only dialed it back slightly. We need to draw the line around clear positive expectations. If respect other people's spaces is the rule in your classroom, then any infraction against that rule must be taken seriously. You need to call the intervention immediately. Don't wait...unless your administration keeps you.

2. Administration is not responsive- Just to be clear when ever I talk about dysfunctional administrations I'm never talking about my own. In fact, the only time I reference things from my school are criticisms of my own actions (my previous admission is a good example of this). But I have plenty of friends who have administrations that don't want to be stressed with the "small stuff" and that makes perfect sense. Administrations need to be focused for when huge serious issues occur, especially in schools that serve high needs populations. What do you do when a student is arrested? What do you do when you have a student potentially engaging in drug dealing within the school? Administrations are hard at work preventing those issues rather than talking to Brian Wilkers (completely made up story) about why he decided to get on his desk and start twerking in the middle of chemistry.

3. Conversation is framed in a broad or intangible manner-
What many people think would happen
Dean: Ok let's outline the negative behaviors this student does, let's outline the positive behaviors. Now let's create a plan to remove the negative ones and reward more heavily the positive ones.
Teacher: Sure, he is awesome at helping in the classroom, but he is horrible during the mini lesson
Parent: Well I know he has trouble focusing, maybe we can find a stress ball?
Dean: great we'll give him the stress ball and we'll tell him to keep his helper job he needs to focus in class.
Parent: I'll check up on him every week about how is focus is and corroborate what he says with the teacher.
Teacher: I'll be sure to upkeep communication with the parent and I'll create a point reward system that gives him rewards for keeping focus.
Dean: Ok bring him in so we can discuss these tangible next steps to change behavior.

What actually happens:
Dean: Ok let's lay into this kid for about 30 minutes.
Teacher: he's horrible, he's a nuisance. He's capable, but lazy. I want him to learn. It's not me, it's him. Etc. Etc.
Parent: I'm going to respond either in complete helpless agreement or I'm going to be overly defensive and claim my child is an angel and you are the only one having issues with him
Teacher: I'm either going to agree with your agreement or be passive aggressive about your disagreement the entire time.
Dean: ok now that we've established you have all these things wrong with you, how are you going to change your behavior
Student: here's a contrived and forced set of steps I will not follow and my teacher will have no way of holding me accountable to. Also, please accept my forced apology.
Dean: ok well hopefully that's the end of it.

Honestly, that's what ends up happening all the time. Behavior interventions needs some more concrete steps to follow.

4. Parents don't show-
No judgement here. Parents often have difficult lives and to expect them to come at moment's notice for meetings is actually pretty ridiculous. Just because a parent hasn't shown or call doesn't necessarily mean they don't care. Life is hard, so keep the judgement somewhere else. However, when a parent doesn't show up, all it accomplishes is reaffirming to the child that there are no real consequences for their actions.

5. Lack of a stable classroom environment-
        As a new teacher my classroom management is so shaky. I can admit that I have a lot to work on as a manager of the classroom as most first year teachers do. So when I have a student who's chronically a behavior problem, it's important for me accept a fraction of responsibility for their actions in the classroom. If I maintained a strong classroom, many of them would not act the way they do. It's often due to unclear and poor maintenance of expectations that classroom chaos ensues. That chaos can be enough to set off students who have poor control of their behavior. Of course don't ever let students use this as an excuse for bad behavior.

To test or not to test

                 The opt out movement is hitting fast and hard. Scores of parents in NYC are saying no to what they consider to be unnecessary standardized testing. There are a multitude of reasons to opt out. Some are opting out because they feel the tests are merely political and don't serve a serious pedagogical purpose. Others are opting out because they feel the rigor of the test is too high and won't accurately assess their child's intelligence. And some are opting out in solidarity with teachers who will now have 50 % of their rating determined by how their students perform on the exam. All in all, there are plenty of reasons to opt out. The issue is how quickly we are forgetting why these exams are so important for some of the most vulnerable students in the city.
               Unlike most places, New York City has a high school system that requires students to apply to programs within high schools in order to determine where a student will attend. This has taken what should be a smooth and seamless transition from adolescence to young adult hood into an incredibly stressful and confusing process. While some programs have alternative criteria, the bulk of programs choose students based on grades and standardized exam scores. For a student who is exceptionally bright and did poorly in school, the state exam could be your saving grace. Zone schools which exist to protect those students who truly have no other options are plagued by discrimination based on income disparity. It should be no surprise that the poorest neighborhoods are home to the worst zone schools. Students in low income neighborhoods even at the young age of 6th grade are aware of their need to "get out" of their current school system and into one of the more prestigious options New York City has to offer.
               For this reason many of these poor students can't afford to "opt out." Especially when the convention for students who opt out hasn't been determined. Will a high school judge a candidate without standardized test scores in the same manner they judge a candidate with standardized test scores? The answer is probably not. Especially if the student comes from a school in a poor district because regardless of what high schools claim in their selection process, many of them are privy to which schools produce the best quality of students and which schools simply don't. Furthermore, huge high schools might not even bother to look at students without test scores. It's much easier to organize students by 4s, 3s, and 2s and just take from the top till you reach capacity.
          Some parents may be wondering, "should I opt out my child if I know they are going to perform poorly on the state exam?" One might consider this question to be "gaming the system", but when we are dealing with a high school process that in many ways is more complicated and difficult than the college application process, every little bit helps. The answer to that question is really determined by you and your child. Where do you want your child to attend and do you think that high school will be uncomfortable admitting your child without state exam scores to evaluate?
        The reality of education is it is far easier to obtain a 90 or above average in the classroom than it is to even perform on grade level in the state exam. Furthermore, with the introduction of the ICT classroom setting in many schools, the mean level of rigor in the classroom has been brought down due to the lack of students being able to perform at such a high level of rigor. For example, if my child was bright and hard working there should be no reason for them not to score a high 3 or even a 4 on the state exam. Why don't we see many students scoring 4s from poor districts? The quality of their peers is significantly lower, making many of them perform at a low to medium level of rigor. When the exam comes they perform exceptionally well on most of the material, but due to their unfamiliarity with difficult material, they tend to be unable to reach the upper echelons of standardized testing scores.
        So back to the original question. If I was confident that a high school would not penalize my child for opting out of the state exam, then I would definitely have my child opt out. There is a higher likelihood my child performs better in the classroom than the state exam, which allows my child to be more competitive in the high school application process. But that is a big if and I doubt many high schools would go in blind. In a way this would actually hurt the quality of education because when the state exams become pointless, the level of rigor needed in the classroom has a huge variance. Teachers are not bad, they just respond to external stimuli. Teachers love their students and so if it helps their students to create grading schemes that allow for an average of an 85, then that is what teachers will do. Good teachers will still have high level work, but will also have safety nets so that their scores don't dash the ability of low performing students to compete in the high school process.
      Where does this leave us? To test or not to test? I'm unsure of what the answer to that question should be but in the spirit of not only being a nit picker, let me provide an alternative to the current system. First, we need a standardized test score that measures two things:content mastery and intelligence. The reality is we want schools to choose students in a holistic manner. Not all schools need the "smartest" students. Intelligence is not always a good measure of whether a student is the right fit for a school. Some high schools might have great vocational programs built into their schools. These programs don't need the most "intelligent" students. Instead they need students who have mastered a specific bulk of content. The standardized exam should be able to provide that information. A 2 on the state exam could be describing a student who is proficient in content or a student who is highly proficient in a specific kind of content. For example., if I have a student who is horrible in algebra, but excellent in geometry, then there is a chance that the student performs exceptionally well in all geometry questions (including those of high rigor) and performs poorly on algebra. Compare this to a student who is able to answer all the low rigor questions for all the content areas on the exam. Both students could end up scoring similarly on the state exam. A vocational high school wants a student who has a basic understanding of most content. The geometrically inclined student is not a good fit for the school. Unfortunately the state exam does not provide this information. We need state exams that can measure both a students mastery of content and a student's ability to apply content in a rigorous manner.
          Once we are able to distinguish between these types of students, there is no need for high schools to function in a monolithic manner. Meaning a vocational high school does not need to be devoid of high performing students. Different programs, which exists in the current high school application system, can be implemented in order to have a diversity of intelligence in the school. How useful would it be for future engineers to begin working side by side in high school with many of the mechanics and workers that will probably assist them in the field? Separation does need to occur by high school, but it should not be isolation. It is time we stop trying to teach everyone the same liberal arts education and instead center their education based on a well rounded support for their potential future career. The advantage of having the high school system New York City has is we can legitimately provide students with the ability to choose what their potential careers might be. It might seem young, but the reality is that the high school they go to in a large part will determine their career choices no matter what. If your student is not given high levels of math and science, the likelihood of them entering those fields in college is very low. Instead of pretending we leave students as blank slates, let us allow students to start the beginnings of their adult self when they choose their high school in conjunction with their parents.
         There so much more I can write, but for now I'll leave it like this. All I can emphasize is the necessity for these exams to be useful. Data driven instruction is only useful when placed in the context of a student's success. Unfortunately it seems like New York State and essentially the rest of the country is stuck in an inferiority complex. We are obsessed with these abstract standardized exam scores and forget that the data is intended to allow us to guide students to their best possible outcomes in life. Let's refocus on what's important: our students, our children, our future. And for parents who have decided to read what honestly is a slightly informed opinion, I hope you take my advice with a grain of salt. The landscape of education is changing rapidly and so many of my opinions may be invalidated with a swift signature on a piece of paper. 

The Privileged Overstep speech

               People want answers when institutions screw up. When the government is caught stealing public information from phone records, we raise our fists and yell angrily "how could this happen!" When a southern fraternity gleefully uses the N word in what seems to be a long standing tradition, we stand aghast as if this society is not riddled with these issues. And even when we accept that perhaps more work needs to be done, there is always someone who likes to come along and trivialize these issues to the point where no meaningful action can be taken against institutions that are clearly culpable. This process of obscuring issues to the point where responsibility becomes a shared burden rather than a weight tied to a perpetrator is what I call "the privilege overstep." It is when someone looks to an overarching societal problem as the root cause of what ever negative behavior a typically privileged institution commits. It's not their fault that they used the N-word, race relations are tense and we don't have discussions around race. It's not the financial sectors fault that the housing bubble set off a domino effect in the economy, we were all caught up in the hysteria of fake profit. When one uses a privilege overstep, they move responsibility from a privileged institution onto at best all of society and at worst (covertly) onto an oppressed group. It's unfortunate that women are often victims of sexual assault in college. We need to have more conversations surrounding these issues, perhaps starting with special nail polish and self defense techniques (cue the victim blaming).
             To be fair it's not like when ever someone engages in the "privileged overstep speech" they have malicious intent. Often the polarized nature of these issues make it so that both sides prevent any culpability to begin with. But the effects of such obfuscation paints those who pursue justice as hot-blooded and narrow minded. It is from this paternalistic explanation of "how the world is riddled with root evils" where the minority is not justifiably disgruntled, but instead an irrational and angry person. When one engages in the overstep speech, they often make a false equivalency between genuine concerns (e.g. sexual assault, racism, food stamps) and their fictionalized counterparts (fake accusations, reverse racism, deficit spending). The "privileged overstep speech" is yet another way people refuse to acknowledge confront their own privilege. In its most repugnant form, it maintains the systems of oppression by preventing any meaningful institution change. We must not be fooled when someone claims that issues are inherent in society and meaningful and targeted steps cannot be taken to keep institutions from perpetrating further injustices. 

Who am I?

                I seem to be what I'm not you see...I'm lonely and no one can tell. - "Great Pretender"
Let's play a game! Who am I?

        I don't speak Spanish. I like Radiohead. I like Aventura. But that isn't enough for you. I don't like kidney beans. I have had arroz con any meat you can possibly imagine, but you will still doubt whether I know what actual Puerto Rican food should taste like. I am not the Latino your family will love. I am a college graduate who speaks with a pompous inflection. I am not Latino to you. I am marble to you, but you cannot see your reflection in my glossy surface. I am pale to you. You will continue to compliment my eyes and my hair, but you will never love my slacks and loafers. I ask myself everyday who am I? You will not love me because I  do not have a fade hair cut with a mohawk. You will not love me because I don't act with a machismo attitude. I don't need your love. I will never be the son who will say la bendicion. I will say I love you and when you are not there I will talk about how my mother got me through college. I cannot dance bachata, salsa, and merengue well. I can write. I can get poems published in literary magazines.
              I will never be white. I am not tall enough to be white. I do not have blonde hair. I cannot get a fake tan, my skin will turn copper on its own. I do not like how I met your mother. I do like It's always sunny in Philadelphia. I am not ethnically ambiguous.I am Puerto Rican first, Latino second. I do not have American pedigree. My family traces themselves back to the Taino. I want to be a Lawyer. I am a school teacher. I will say Teach for America first. Your parents won't be comfortable if you first tell them I'm Puerto Rican. Your parents will love how respectful I am. I am not expected to succeed. My back has been patted out of paternalistic need. I have some hair that turns blonde in the sun. My beard goes blond. I have hazel green eyes. My genes are brown eyed. I have watched someone get jumped. I have hurt other people. I am not innocent. I am not a thug.
        You have rebuked me. I will persist in the belief that if I become tremendous, you will want to become me. But you will never want to become me. I don't want to become me. I can only sound white or inauthentic to you. I am not white. I am not a traditional Latino. 

Click on this to learn the secret to criticizing white privilege without alienating half of your friends on facebook!

              How can minorities talk about white privilege without alienating most white people? Introducing the "upper middle class" reassurance gag. Make most white people feel like your post isn't about them by specifying you're only talking about white upper middle class people. Since even the upper middle class thinks their not in the upper middle class, while the rich believe they are the upper middle class, you'll pretty much only offend a small percentage of the friends on your facebook. In the mean time you get to rip into all the aspects of white privilege you hate the most. I hate that words like dude and totes are considered eccentric, while the words homie and "mad" are considered unrefined and ghetto. Darn those whit... I mean upper middle class white people! If you want to take your race avoidance to a whole new level, omit any mention of race. Affirmative action is cool when it's only based on SES! Keep up with this practice and you too can be a trendy social justice writer who has bunch of reblogs on tumblr.

Note: use of this technique may result in massive reduction in realness
Second note: I know this is super corny, I was bored. 

Things I wish someone would have told me before joining Teach For America

                I have finished my first few months as a teacher and while it hasn't been easy it also wasn't the miserable experience everyone told me it would be. The tips and advice I was given by a variety of people about Teach For America was mostly useless in my opinion. Here are a few things I wish someone told me before I joined the Corp. This reflects my personal opinion and your decision to join or not join should be your own.

1. The Corp is not a monolith
              Every Corp is different. The NYC Corp has a different culture from the Baltimore Corp. Every Corp has different quirks, challenges, benefits and hardships depending on the needs of that location. For example, every single NYC Corp member must go to grad school while in the Corp. This is optional in many other locations, making the stress of going to school and being a first year teacher particularly difficult. I'm sure other locations have different difficulties that the NYC Corp doesn't have. That's why it's so crucial for you to talk to a current first or second year CM from that particular region. They'll give you the truth of how things are.


2. Getting accepted is the easy part
          I don't intend to offend anyone who may have been rejected by Teach For America, as I know it's an arduous selection process. But when you are admitted you need to be prepared for the craziness of going on flights for interviews, getting your certification while still in college and also beginning to look for an apartment and roommates in your new location. This on top of finishing your final semester of college can become incredibly stressful, Also, the financial obligation is very taxing. Teach For America tries to alleviate the financial obligation, but there's only so much that they can do. You should honestly talk to someone at your location about what is to be expected from you before you join the corp.

3. You may not teach what you want to teach
          I am an English and Political Science major who is now teaching 6th grade special education math in an ICT setting. I hate math. I never wanted to teach math yet here I am teaching it and it's something I've grown to accept. You joined the corp committed to filling the needs of the community. You don't get to be upset and disgruntled because you don't get to be comfortable. Now that being said it's not like TFA tries to place you somewhere you don't want to be. On the contrary, they make a concerted effort to place you somewhere you'll fit well.

4. No one is going to teach you how to teach
        Sure institute is a month long crash course, but I promise you that institute just grazes the small surface that is teaching. Actual teaching is far more difficult and is something you learn while in the classroom. I am lucky enough to simultaneously take graduate school classes so I've been given extra support on proper pedagogy while also learning on the job. TFA has tons of resources at your disposal, but they aren't going to force you to use them. You need to take the first step.

5. The goal isn't to be an amazing teacher for 2 years. It's to eventually be an amazing teacher for 5 to 10 years
        You will hear stories of legendary Corp members who go into their two years burn themselves out doing everything possible for their kids, achieving amazing results, but find themselves too exhausted to continue. I wanted to be those corp members at first, but then I realized that isn't healthy nor is it even beneficial for my kids. I don't know if I'll stay in teaching, but I will definitely not return if I burn myself out. Sustainable teaching practices need to be promoted in order to have long lasting changes in our communities. Be open going into the corp, don't immediately assume you're going to quit.

6. Veteran teachers only hate you if you have an ego
      I trust veteran teachers in my school. They always prove to have insight that's worth far more than what any class could tell me. Teaching has humbled me and I now know that there's so much to learn. Don't go in thinking you're great. You're not. You're a new teacher.

7. Many of the people you meet in institute will quit
        Not everyone is cut out for teaching and not everyone is as supported as you are. Don't be judgmental or shocked when that teacher who won "transformational teacher award" during institute quits in their second month because they had a nervous breakdown. It happens. Teaching is difficult and in the schools we teach in sometimes you fall through the cracks. I learned that friendships don't end when someone quits unless you make them end. Be ready to be supportive of a lot of career changes and please don't ever tell someone to "suck it up"

8. TFA won't hold your hand through the growing pains
       When you hit rock bottom, there is rarely anyone else there but yourself. MTLDs can be amazing or they can be over worked and generally unhelpful. The seminars in TFA will often do nothing to help alleviate the dark hole that can be your first year teacher. Also, if you have a horrible administration it can feel like you're completely isolated. As a NYC corp member who has his family and friends to support him, I am shocked by those who come here from across the country and go through the hell that is your first year teaching alone.

9. Ignore the strong face culture, everyone is secretly crying themselves to sleep
       Ok everyone isn't crying themselves to sleep (especially not some charter folk), but there are plenty of people in the corp who come home from their job and begin sobbing due to the exhaustion. Being a first year teacher can suck and that friend who keeps telling you that her classroom is perfect and she has no problems at all is a huge liar. We all have our rough days. The best conversations I ever had were with corp members who lifted me up when I felt like a failure as a teacher (shout out to my buddies Schulze and Pagnotta :D) So don't stress that you haven't transformed a kid's life yet. The moment will happen if you keep believing in your kids.
I might edit this as I think of more. There's so many things I wish someone would have told me.
Edit #2: Added a few more, I may start another thread called " Things I wish someone would have told me before starting my first year teaching"