September 30th online class: Villanueva in conversation with Rose; Bootstraps vs Boundaries

9/25/2019

Because we will not meet face-to-face this Monday (30 September 2019), I'm asking you to post a modified Reading Journal to this space. Additionally, I am inviting both the DAY and the EVENING students to post and comment in the same space and to have a conversation with all 35 of you engaged in the work of the class.

WHAT TO POST
POST: Consider the reading we've done in Mike Rose's Lives on the Boundary, consider his experience as a student and a teacher, what he has to say about the optimal conditions for literacy instruction. Consider what he says about the aims of literacy instruction. Then consider our reading in another, similarly constructed memoir of educational experience by Victor Villanueva (Bootstraps: From an American Academic of Color). Similarly, consider Villanueva's discussion of his own history of literacy instruction as a student, his perspective on teaching and teachers of reading and writing. In 300 words, compare and contrast these two perspectives. In what ways do the seem to be saying the same thing? In what ways do they seem to differ--potentially not just in what they say but in how they say it. Are they telling hopeful stories? Angry stories? Frustrated stories? A bit of all three? But at different times? Ultimately, what do we understand about how we should be teaching reading and writing from these two authors?

REPLY: Once you've submitted your 300 word post, please select at least one other person to respond to. Keep your response to 150-200 words. Please don't just right "yeah, I totally agree."

WHEN TO POST (DEADLINES)

You must post your 300 words by 7:30 at night on Monday, 30 September2019.
You must have your 150-200 word reply completed by Wednesday, 2 October 2019.

HOW TO POST
TO POST: when you are ready to post your 300 words, simply click on the "comments" button in the top right or bottom left of this screen. A dialogue box will pop up.
Enter the identification information (your name, email) and then enter your 300 words in comment section. Click "submit" and you are done.

TO REPLY: Simply click the "reply" button at the bottom of any post or scroll all the way down to the last post to the "Leave a Reply" section. Fill out the dialogue boxes like you did for posting and click "submit."

52 Comments

9/25/2019 08:10:38 am

Test

Shauna Ridley

9/29/2019 04:54:55 pm

In both writings Mike Rose and Victor Villanueva aim to express that the reason students aren’t competent in literacy is because the education system lacks knowledge on minority backgrounds. The dominant culture has trouble understanding these people because they have not experienced the struggle from the other side. Their use of personal stories/experiences expose aspects of learning that dominant society wouldn’t have known. They agree that language acquisition skills is not the issue it is the inability to recognize people of other cultures, background etc. It creates a divide between teachers and their students. Villanueva and Rose notice that drilling grammar is not the problem it's merely that, “Language is also race in America. Spanish is color”, showing that Americans are oblivious to their incorrect labels and its oppressing the ability of students confidence in learning. Thus suggesting that teachers need to be more conscious when planning and creating assignments so it is attainable by all students.
A difference in each of the writings is how they relay the information. Rose mostly speaks on individual experience he was a part of which drew on emotion. When he talks about Harold it’s easy to see the injustice that the education system has done to its students stating “Harold was, in a sense, excluded from the school, pushed further away from the healing possibilities…” when all he needed was extra help (123). Roses frustration shows his passion for finding a solution that we feel when reading. The feeling that educators don’t really care if their solution works as long as they’re doing something. Meanwhile Villanueva's focus appears to draw on theories, facts, and experience. This makes his less emotional and more logical. He draws on facts such as the usage of the copulative verb in America to the lack of usage in other dialects and languages. “If the copulative verb is the measure of abstract intelligence, America has spent the last half-century competing with (and sometimes losing to) a people whose language has no copulative” (29). Rather than making it seem as though nobody cared, he points out that educators just don’t know how to help. It feels like he is relaying information as it is as opposed to subconsciously integrating his feelings into it.

Sam Smith

9/30/2019 01:00:11 pm

I agree, as I do think that one of the major points advocated by both writers is that more attention and care needs to be given to the diverse backgrounds and diverse needs of students. After all, there are infinite possible obstacles that students may be facing that a teacher likely will have no knowledge of. Rose and Villanueva do choose to get this point across in different ways, and I think you’re correct in thinking that Rose’s delivery is more engaging since he draws on real experiences he has had with real students that were underserved by the system, such as Harold. Villanueva’s approach definitely is less compelling since it lacks the personal story Rose employs. Villanueva does have lots of powerful language and strong imagery, but I think his narrative would benefit greatly from more personal connections similar to Rose’s.

Demi Riendeau

9/28/2019 09:33:58 am

Mike Rose and Victor Villanueva depict a similar narrative in the sense that they both detail the struggles faced by students while trying to become linguistically proficient. The two texts do this in different ways by focusing on an underlying large idea of labeling. Rose’s text talks a lot about labeling in the sense of classroom placement, teacher labeling, and self-labeling of students. Villanueva’s text talks about mainly societal labeling and forced assimilation among specific groups of people. Both texts focus on how this labeling is detrimental to the success of many people and how unfair it is for society to implement such barriers. Both of their texts have moments of anger; but Villanueva’s text is written with more overall anger than Rose’s is. The main difference between these two texts is the format in which they are written. Rose tells many stories of different individuals and himself to explain his point, while Villanueva talks about his experience (in a unique switch between 3rd and 1st person) while incorporating supporting statistics and cited facts.
These two texts scream for a similar theme and idea when teaching students to be better reader and writers. This theme is for freedom and creativity within the world of literacy in conjunction with being dedicated to student’s success. Both texts depict how a rigid system of education does not work. In Rose’s text that is shown when he is working with children in the cafeteria and he gives them open ended sentence writing assignments and their work improved with more practice of writing freely. In Villanueva’s text this is demonstrated through the historical context given of bilingual schools throughout history before the first world war. Villanueva uses this information to depict how freedom of language used to be a right given to those of this country, but it was taken away and people were forced to assimilate. He also depicts how the version of “Standard English” is a white-middle- class version of English that all are expected to learn and know. Both of these ideas differently display how the idea of labeling is harmful to any student trying to get an education in the current era of our country.
The last thing both texts display in different ways is the power of being cared about when learning about reading and writing (or anything). Rose displays these many times throughout his book, through teachers like Jack MacFarland that cared about him (in a mildly inappropriate manner) to Rose himself caring for the kids in his cafeteria group by going to meet their families and learn more about their background, likes, dislikes and passions. Villanueva supports this same idea through a different method in his text; he depicts what it is like to not be cared or supported by those leading you. Detailed is a Filipino drill sergeant yelling at all of his men, that they will not survive anyway, that they will be unsuccessful. He also details being forces to cut his hair and other things in order to be at school, shaving away his individuality; proving that that teachers within his school did not care about him as a person and did not give him an outlet to learn freely and creatively.

Sara Collins

9/28/2019 12:20:10 pm

Hi Demi! I really appreciate the consideration you made about labeling. Although Rose talks more about teacher labeling/placement and Villanueva talks more about societal labeling, both authors would agree with the idea that labels in the classroom lead to students feeling down outside of the classroom as well. This could lead to even more judgement by society if you really think about it, compounding the effects even more. Another part of your post I liked was when you said the theme for “freedom and creativity within the world of literacy” is relevant in both readings. I agree that it is a strong message in both texts and think that they are right. Having more freedom in the classroom would open up more opportunities to talk about different cultures, heritages, socioeconomic situations families face etc. It would destigmatize a lot of the things students get judged for and give students a platform to express themselves, share personal experiences and understand other people’s backgrounds.

Sara Collins

9/28/2019 12:00:30 pm

Both Mike Rose and Victor Villanueva let readers in on their own experiences to highlight main ideas about education and literacy. Villanueva talks about literacy not only being the ability to read and write, but a group of exclusive members that he cannot seem to fit into. His experiences make him relate literacy to the feelings of being “other” and he knows that in order to succeed he must assimilate or “take the path of racelessness” (Villanueva 44). One aspect of literacy to Mike Rose on the other hand is “an understanding of the rich mix of speech and ritual and story that is America” (Rose 238). He thinks that in order to improve literacy in the American education system, we need to bring more focus towards people’s differences and see weaknesses or errors as the starting points of learning. Villanueva believes these same ideas and states that “English Only legislation” for example “provides nothing to foster a faster language-learning rate” and only gives people the option of sinking or swimming (Villanueva 48).
Both authors think that a strict education system will not work, and educators should be more accepting of differences in the classroom. At one-point Villanueva states that “Hispanics, Latinos, are a multitude of differences” and does so “to point out how [he and his people] are the victims of racism in being regarded as all alike” (Villanueva 42). By treating everyone the same, people form a “fictive kinship” that does nothing besides devalue differences (Villanueva 42). This idea is like some of the arguments Rose makes because they both believe that people’s cultures should be used as a tool in their literacy development. By noticing differences, areas of error/weakness, and parts of someone’s background that may affect their literacy skill, Rose believes that students will be better served. Although Villanueva is not talking directly about education here, the ideas are parallel.
Both authors are telling their stories and show some hope for change but are frustrated at the state of the educational system at the time in which they wrote. Ultimately when thinking about how we should be teaching reading and writing in America, both Rose and Villanueva think that students should be the focus, teachers should take special care in helping students learn in a way that best suits the individual, and cultural differences should be used as a tool to promote new learning.

Ashleyrae Cabral

9/28/2019 04:11:33 pm

Hey Sara!

I love that you mentioned the "kinship" part as I did. I feel like that was a crucial part to the meaning of the piece. I feel as if Villanueva is frustrated with the fact that every bi-lingual human either sinks or swims; there’s not in between. Both also speak about the importance of teachers working with students at THEIR pace to learn the language. Each student should be assessed as an individual as opposed to “grouped” or assumed to be the same. Everyone learns at different rates and everyone should be given a fair chance. It is the teacher’s job to adjust accordingly. There should be no “sink”. Sinking should not be an option. Making accommodations for your learner is important. Realizing everyone does not learn the same is even more important. You also touched on this towards the end of your first paragraph.

Shauna Ridley

9/30/2019 07:04:24 am

Hi Sara!
Your point about teachers being more understanding in the classroom is something that I also talked about and focused on. In Villanuevas writing he states "I also discovered how much the teachers could not understand about being of color and of poverty, but how much they would change if they could make real changes. I discovered teachers' desperate struggles to understand" showing that educators do care but they cannot figure out how to fix the problem. I'd have to agree with you that teachers need to take the time to identify culture and background so they can incorporate it into assignments. This would start to close the gap because now students will be not only engaged but correlated to the assignment making it achievable. It almost seems like dominant culture in a way makes other cultures wrong and aims to fix them when we should really be incorporating them. Your post helped me to think more critically about the messages they were trying to get across. Great read, thanks!

Sydnee Midura

10/2/2019 09:01:46 am

Hi Sara,
Your reading journal hit important points that Mike Rose and Victor Villanueva make about education and their experience. They both think that having a diverse experience is important for students. Although their experiences growing up in education differed, they have similar ideas of what should be done in the classroom. Having a strict educational system does not benefit all students and their different needs. Like both authors mentioned, it is important for students to make mistakes and learn from them instead of being penalized. I agree with the tone that the authors were giving about the education system, they were frustrated with their own and the way their students were experiencing it. They are hopeful towards a better future for students to make them the main focus. Cultural aspects are important to be embraced in education and used as a tool like you mentioned. Your descriptions of their views are really broken down and hit the main points of both authors arguments.

Ashleyrae Cabral

9/28/2019 04:03:00 pm

I found it very interesting that both of these writers seem to have very different perspectives. Rose is a white male; Villanueva’s story is of non-white decent. At first, I thought they were going in the same direction. Yet, Villanueva seems to take a completely different approach. On page 40, Villanueva talks about how African Americans and others of like decent, try to steer clear of kinship. Although, this is risky considering they “weren’t fully accepted by the whites”. So, not only are they giving up their “kinship” (connection to others of their race) they also don’t have the approval on the other end. Villanueva goes on to talk about how everyone who is not white is categorized. Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, etc. are assumed to be all using the same dialect. This is actually very untrue and honestly, unfair!
I really enjoyed reading Villanueva’s piece and found myself constantly comparing to Rose’s point of view. Since Villanueva is coming from strictly a minority student point of view and Rose mainly gives his views later in the book on being a mentor/teacher, they are very different in my opinion. Bizarrely enough, Villanueva is telling a frustrating story without seeming actually frustrated. Where as Rose, is a mix of confusion and hope. Rose continued his studies with all the trials and tribulations, where as Villanueva’s story tells the opposite; he actually joined the military.
Rose is very aware of other races and wants to help them learn English, which is why he become a mentor. Villanueva speaks about almost being forced to learn English; naturally being around people outside the home (48). He does not appreciate the forced language learning and feels as if some will sink or swim… that’s the only outcome. There’s not in between. Rose had a never give up point of view: everyone can be taught, don’t sell anyone short, try hard. Villanueva talks about how people may be left behind if they do not learn English and speak it fluently. “It provides nothing to foster a faster language-learning rate than people's abilities will allow. English Only laws provide no new schooling. Instead, they are being used to end bilingual programs. Children, in particular, will have to sink or swim.” (48)

Mackenzie Byck

9/29/2019 04:03:38 pm

Hey Ashleyrae!

I found it so interesting that you talked about the difference in ethnicity and therefore perspective of the two authors, Rose and Villanueva, since I didn’t orginally consider this difference. It seemed so basic to me that I didn’t give it a second thought. Your idea of how everyone who is not white is categorized to be the same and have the same dialect reminded me of how Villanueva talked about the “correct and standard” way of speaking English. I completely agree that this is such an unfair way of going about things. Realizing the truth of what you were saying about how students have to learn the correct way of speaking and being literate made me think about how there is no adjusting per student occurring. I’ve always thought as a future teacher that it’s so important to adjust curriculum in some way to each students so that it is easier and more applicable for them and your response only made me think about this further!

Chelsey Daly

10/1/2019 10:10:51 am

Hey there Ashleyrae,

I really enjoyed reading your take on the differences of the books and their authors. Villanueva's story really touched me and made me feel sad and slightly resentful that people of different races and cultures are expected to sound like the white middle class. I can fully understand why this causes anger and a divide in cultures. It is so important to embrace all cultures and let students know they are accepted exactly as they are in your classroom. This needs to be a focus within today's society. The United States was created from immigrants looking for better opportunities than they had in their homeland. We as a nation need to embrace each others backgrounds and stories and reassure everyone that you are not meant to fit in a box filled with labels of what others think you should be.

Michaela Tobin

9/29/2019 10:54:26 am

Mike Rosa and Victor Villanueva’s texts are different styles they discuss similar issues students face with learning literacy. Rosa discusses throughout much of his writing about labeling students, and about how he focuses too much on their writings. He says, “I had been paying a lot of attention to the children’s writing and had been avoiding the full meaning of the rest. Suddenly I felt like some weary psychoanalyst, seeing sorrow and damage wherever I looked.”(Rosa 101). Rosa started this discussion by seeing what students were writing in comparison to pictures. I found this intriguing that Rosa said he focuses too much on writing, much like in an earlier text in class, we discussed how linguistics is the basis of writing. The two connect in a way that makes sense. Later on Rosa discusses how that his students began to write in more detail when he came up with the idea of doing a story based on pictures the children found. Rosa found that this made students want to write and that even the poor writers were focusing and working harder on their stories. As a student myself when working on a paper or project that has more meaning and a personal connection to me, I find that I work harder on that project. Villanueva’s writing is different from Rosa’s in the way that Villanueva comes from a different perspective, that including race. Villanueva discusses a labeling that society has made up on a student of color in a predominantly white school. Villanueva uses two terms that are “racelessness” which is the denial of other-cultural affiliation, a denial of the collective, any collective and it is embracing the ideology of individualism. The second term is “fictive-kinship” which is demonstrated when high achieving Afican American students distance themselves from that kinship. Rosa and Villanueva both describe language meaning importance to writing and having a student stay true to themselves. Language is the first way to become a better writer because writing is language that is text. The difference between the two authors is that Villanueva writes from a perspective of being a student and evolving as he grows in his experiences, and Rosa focuses on his experience as a student and teacher but teaching he where he gained most of his knowledge.

Mackenzie Byck

9/29/2019 03:55:35 pm

Mike Rose and Victor Villanueva both speak of similar narratives: difficulties of students who do not fit the societal norms of literacy. The difference however is the way these groups face these difficulties. Rose speaks of the students who struggle with being labeled individually. These are the “kid’s who don’t know grammar” or the “kid who has stopped doing his homework”. The way that these students are labeled and judged is holding them back from being on a path to education that will help them succeed. Villanueva focuses instead on groups of people who face a difficulty not only in the classroom but in society too. He discusses general groups and the insecurity that comes with race. He notes this saying: “I didn’t always see myself as a person of color. Nor did I question my competence back then, though the more awareness of color , the greater the insecurity as I grew older.” (Villanueva xii).

Focusing in on literacy specifically, Rose speaks more of freedom and choice in the classroom. He highlights how each individual student isn’t reaching their potential because they are being held back by the confinements of the classroom. Villanueva’s take on confinement explores more of the social side of language. He explains that he “was pushed into racelessness in California” and that this racelessness is “clearly marked linguistically, sometimes even by denying that one is choosing to learn to speak white English”, which is the “‘correct’ English” (Villanueva 40). While they both focus on the harm that confinement brings, they are focusing on it through different lenses.

With these different lenses, their stories are told differently.
Rose shows his struggles through stories of other people and himself, portraying a more hopeful view. Villanueva’s anger is prevalent in discussing his personal experience with assimilation and race in the United States. Albeit these differences in the lenses or tone, the message of both of these authors is clear: there needs to be a change in the education system to be more inclusive otherwise many students are going to be cheated of the education that they are trying to achieve.

Eric Santos

9/29/2019 06:07:39 pm

Hey Mackenzie,

I like your analysis. I was primarily interested in your second paragraph. Confinement is very important to understand from a social and academic perspective. When students find themselves in a classroom they find is limited and strict, they are not able to grow as learners and are less engaged. Also, when students from other backgrounds feel alienated in the classroom, they will not be as successful in academic success. Your paragraph is effective in the sense that we, the readers, can connect how the different concepts from Rose and Villanueva are different but interconnected. I'm not sure of your personal views of confinement in the classroom, but it is definitely an issue that teachers should be cautious of. So, uh, yeah, that's all I've really got to comment about for this reader response. Am I at 150 words yet? Almost... ok. Well have a great semester and keep up the good analyzing.

colby

10/1/2019 04:44:10 pm

Hey Mackenzie, I wholeheartedly agree with some of the points you are making. For one, the fact that these students in the Rose book are simply labeled as nearly illiterate and even the professors teasing them for their literacy is despicable. Rose’s point of having these types of students and seeing progress in their literary skills is every English teachers wish. Villanueva pointing out how students from various cultural and ethnic backgrounds are struggling with Standard American English is a problem. Vernaculars of English such as AAVE (African-American Vernacular English) is spoken in many households, yet these student’s uses of syntax is deemed unacceptable by the standard of the U.S. Department of Education. I agree with you, that these two problems are on the same branch of one tree, essentially. Villanueva digs deeper into why many of these students are struggling, and the disadvantages POC have in this country as far as schooling is concerned. There are reasons to be upset, and there are reasons to be hopeful, such as you said these two authors are conveying.

Eric Santos

9/29/2019 05:48:25 pm

It appears that Mike Rose and Victor Villanueva both focus on students who have difficulty grasping English literacy in America's education system. Rose appears to focus more on a student's background and living circumstances, while Villanueva specificates the difficulty for students who come from a minority background. Rose's style of writing is also in the perspective of a first person autobiography, while Villanueva's takes a third person approach mixed with a first person account. Rose focuses on helping improve a student's ability to read and write, and he describes his different methods in Lives on the Boundary. Meanwhile, Villanueva focuses on how minority students go through an identity crisis of sorts, which hinders their ability to succeed in the classroom; ambitious African American students have tried to reject their own races culture to be accepted by whites, but have they instead isolate themselves from both groups. Villanueva also addresses how students who are not originally English speakers must adapt at the same pace as the other students or fail. There is an obvious difference in tone between the Lives on the Boundary and Spic in English as they reached their conclusions. Rose is hopeful for the future generation of students, as he shows how he was able to positively impact the lives of targeted remedial students. The tone of Villanueva is disgruntled, as he only ends with stating how the education system fails minorities, as he compares a neglecting teacher to a harsh military captain. However, they both support the ideas that teachers should engage with their students and provide them a positive learning environment. Overall, it appears that Rose and Villanueva both believe America's education is flawed, but Mike Rose has a more optimistic view on improvement, while Victor Villanueva offers less solutions on how to fix the problem. Given this information, teachers should make sure they are able to teach to a diverse population of students, not just appeal to white culture. To accomplish this, teachers should be selective in picking works of literature that can gauge interest from students of any culture, as engagement is key to literary success. It also important for teachers to help ESL students refine their skills, instead of relying on next years set of teachers to do it instead.

Brittany Prokop

9/30/2019 08:48:39 am

Hi Eric,

I like that you identified the difference in point of view of the readings. I noticed I had a much easier time reading Mike Rose's "Lives on the Boundary" because he didn't switch up points of view. I kept having to go back while reading "Bootstraps" because I couldn't figure out when or why the POV changed. Also, his underlying tone is more aggressive, or "disgruntled" (nice word choice by the way) than Rose's, who appears extremely gruntled.
I don't necessarily believe that Villanueva provides less of a solution though. I think he is meaning to he hopeful for the future of the education system but has only provided his background thus far. So it's unfair to assume Rose offers a "better" solution than that of Villanueva. Like if we'd only read chapter one of "Lives on the Boundary" instead of 1-5, I'd say Rose only tells us about the failure of a system.
Overall, I agree with your post. Both authors have faced struggles with their education due to some sort of labeling whether it was formed by a teacher, peer, ethnocentrism, or standardized test. Hopefully as future teachers we can figure out ways to help build our students skills, and widen their cultural horizon through literature.

Brittany Prokop

9/29/2019 06:16:34 pm

In Mike Rose’s “Lives on the Boundary” and Victor Villanueva’s “Bootstraps,” both authors identify the negative impact of being labeled as a student—whether that’s due to academic achievement or ethnicity. Rose speaks to the harm of labeling a kid as stupid if he or she is grammatically incorrect. He also mentions his socioeconomic status being that his family is poor and colored, and they were living in a mostly white neighborhood during its ethnic transition. Like Rose, Villanueva has had a similar experience of being labeled as a “white Hispanic” affecting his ability to succeed in school. Both authors aim to express that, no matter the label, their experiences have motivated them to change what is happening in classrooms.
Rose mentioned the overwhelming fear of failure due to feelings of inadequacy that came about from being placed in a vocational classroom. This fear caused him to retreat back into himself, avoiding asking teachers for help because he was already labeled as stupid. Instead, he avoided assignments and kept falling further behind. Villanueva had a similar experience, dropping out of high school and pursuing a GED because the systemic forces caused him to feel inadequate. Although he admits that part of the blame is on himself for giving up, the stigma of being different racially caused teachers to prematurely label him as someone who lacks sophisticated speaking skills. It’s clear that these negative labels push students deeper into insecurity, thus leading them to feelings of failure.
Even though both authors tell stories of anger and frustration, their message is meant to be hopeful. In chapter three of “Lives on the Boundary,” Rose says: “It is an unfortunate fact of our psychic lives that the images that surround us as we grow up—no matter how much we may scorn them later—give shape to our deepest needs and longings.” Everything they have been through has brought them to where they are now. Rose and Villanueva have taken their bad experiences with discrimination and turned it into an opportunity to make a difference as an educator.

Shauna Ridley

9/30/2019 07:06:06 am

Lionel Lafleur

9/30/2019 03:04:37 pm

“Language is also race in America. Spanish is color” has to be one of my favorite quotes from that piece. I want to highlight another sentence you say later on in the response, “Rather than making it seem as though nobody cared, he points out that educators just don’t know how to help.” I feel that really encapsulates what Villanueva is saying in his work. This idea that the system is so rife with issues that sometimes it’s not so much that the educators perpetrating these issues but rather that they just don’t know how to handle issues they’re presented with.

Kayla Roy

9/30/2019 09:10:24 am

In Bootstraps and Lives on the Boundary, both Villanueva and Rose talk about the socioeconomic, racial, and class tensions that underpin the problems in the American education system. However, in reading both texts, I found that Mike Rose talked more about these issues in the context of his own experiences and what he personally saw. Rose’s narrative was much more the emphasis of Lives on the Boundary, but in contrast Victor Villanueva talked more about political background and historical context that feed these issues. From the outset of both texts they make socioeconomic and class issues a focus of their narratives, however Mike Rose is mostly supported by his own experiences and encounters, while Victor Villanueva’s narrative is backed more by concrete historical accounts and legislation.
I feel as though they are essentially establishing the same points: that in both educational and professional spheres in America socioeconomic status, race, and class have massive impacts on people’s ability to achieve success. However, I feel that Villanueva attacks the issue much more directly than Rose. Villanueva does not hesitate to establish issues that he feels are inherently racist or call out direct bias in historical legislation. Rose may not have directly said these things, or used undisputable evidence from history, he establishes the same points with personal experience. While Villanueva uses history to establish his ethos and credibility, Rose prefers to use personal experience to infuse his narrative with pathos to establish credibility in a different way. I feel that though they have different takes on these issues, they manage to establish the same points and are both valid ways to develop the same argument.
I think in both instances that they tell stories that are frustrating, disappointing, and angry. But I think in the fact that they are willing to expose these issues and call attention to the problem while also providing practices that can help diminish the situation provides some hope that one day these issues will no longer be evident throughout our society, or at the very least be lessened.

Samuel Boure

10/2/2019 06:11:45 am

Hello Kayla!

The points you make about Villanueva’s use of historical evidence to push his story really stand out to me. I hadn’t thought about how Rose seems to step around explicitly stating the historical contexts of the time. Where he almost seems to give the education system the benefit of a doubt, Villanueva seems to bring the spotlight onto it, pointing out every flaw that most people are too nervous to publicly bring up. I think this might have to do with the ‘angry minority’ stereotype, and that by acting that way, you’re somehow less credible because you feel so strongly about a topic and express it a certain way. Reading Rose and Villanueva’s stories side by side is incredible because you do get these two great sides of a coin. There is the side that isn’t afraid to call out the racial injustice of the time, and you have the side that uses personal experiences to extract a different emotional reaction.

Samuel Boure

9/30/2019 09:19:47 am

Mike Rose and Victor Villanueva both share their perspectives of the education as minority students. In both instances, we see how the education has failed them; not because the system as a whole is flawed, but because it is not structured to accommodate non-white, lower-class students. Using his personal background as a platform to build from, Mike Rose helps similar students find a foothold in higher education. However, Rose met teachers who went out of their way to help him, and he was able to reach higher education. Whereas Villanueva struggles to break free from the oppressive system.
The story of Lives on the Boundary carries with it a hopeful tone; the idea that these systems can improve with time, but Bootstraps (the prologue and chapter portion we read) holds within itself an air of hopelessness. That despite all the efforts made, all the time and energy given to gain something better, it is never achieved due to the simple fact that they are not white. Villanueva didn’t have teachers who took time out of their lives to help him, or send out recommendation letters to professors so he could have a chance in college. Even though both Rose and Villanueva were in bad situations where the education system overlooked them, Rose still had better opportunities. Whether this was due to a lighter skin complexion, living location, or school district, Rose still experienced a form of privilege over Villanueva. Still, both of these authors dug deep into their childhood to find these memories and showcase them to the public.
The importance of these stories is unquestionable; minority students are continuously being given the short stick, as their school districts lack good funding (from segregation), their quality one-on-one time with teachers is shortened or none existent, and schools do not have programs in place to help students with literacy. Both Rose and Villanueva show that minority students need extra time with reading and writing, as their personal cultures are split, and they have to find a comfortable space between the two. Drawing from personal experiences also bolster literacy, as students are more likely to open up to material they are familiar with, rather than foreign academic texts.

Sydnee Midura

9/30/2019 11:35:34 am

Mike Rose and Victor Villanueva literary works, Lives on the Boundary and Bootstraps: From an American Academic of Color, speak to similar issues but have different perspectives because of how they grew up. Although Rose was an observer rather than someone who lived it, he is passionate towards helping the students. He understands that it is hard to know how to correctly work with students who struggle reading and writing since many teachers did not have that experience. Villanueva focuses on the struggle of being labeled based on looks: the bootstraps symbolize how far they can go in society; he explains it as some losing them before they get a chance to try. Their tones are different throughout their works; Rose has more of a hopeful tone while Villanueva seems angry Both of these literary works makes a statement towards labels that are hard to break. These are students who struggle to fit into society and the social norms in education. It is important for students to learn English and not be seen as “remedial” and students should use learning a second language as an advantage rather than a disadvantage. Rose suggests that we should not be looking at students’ mistakes as a negative thing but rather positive as students learn through their mistakes. We can understand through these readings that we should have a connection with our students and take their home lives into consideration, especially with ELL and students. Therefore, we should include more culturally based literary works keep the readings diverse. Rose pushes the importance of making the assignments and texts relatable and enjoyable for the students. These texts also suggest the importance of helping to push these students rather than just making everything easier for them. They need more help with reading and writing instead of being labeled as uncapable.

Sam Smith

9/30/2019 12:50:58 pm

The experiences described in both Rose’s and Villanueva’s novels are very similar, especially from the beginning of their journey with school. Both grew up in California and clearly came from low income families based on the childhood experiences that each writer describes. For example, Villanueva’s astonishment when he sees color TV and room service demonstrates how foreign those luxuries are to him. Also, both writers evidently come from an ethnic background based off of their vernacular, word choice and the incorporation of Spanish language in their novels. Therefore, both Villanueva and Rose grew up in low income, minority families and faced many similar challenges because of it.
Villanueva’s description of young Victor “swimming in foreignness” is an especially powerful image, as he is thrown into a completely unknown and incomprehensible world and expected to assimilate; however, it seems that Villanueva always knew that he was not destined to succeed in that foreign environment, as he always knew that there would be no college and he took initiative and prepared for life after school. For that reason, it makes sense that he was hardly interested in school since the content was foreign, disengaging, and he was well aware that school wasn’t leading him towards anything since college was not a realistic option. I’m sure that Rose felt similarly during his earlier school years, particularly before meeting Jack MacFarland and finally being introduced to higher education as a real, feasible possibility.
Villanueva spends a substantial amount of time addressing how innately similar assimilation and biculturalism truly are, although both actually breed tension as opposed to attaining the great American ideal. I could elaborate plentifully on this topic, but more relevant to the question at hand is Villanueva’s overall perception of how school systems in the United States tend to fail underprepared students. These are the students that are also often from diverse backgrounds, low incomes, and parents with less education, such as Rose and himself. Rose got a successful job through his mother and was promoted because a coworker went to the Navy. Luck was his ticket out. Rose went to college because Jack MacFarland saw and pulled something out of him that very few people, if any people, prior had recognized. What both men appear to be saying is that so much of the success or failure of minority students is dependent on luck and circumstance, not skill, intelligence or willingness to work hard. This is something that needs to be addressed at the administrative level because children will not understand the sink or swim mentality that education systems unfortunately often take. Children will not blame the system. They will blame themselves, leading to the failure of minority families to claim social and economic ladders to become cyclic over multiple generations.

Meka Auguste

9/30/2019 12:52:19 pm

Mike Rose and Victor Villanueva express in their novels their awareness that there is a relationship between class, color, and education. In Rose’s Lives on the Boundary he introduces this idea at the beginning, stating, “you’ll find clues, as well, to the complex ties between literacy and culture, to the tremendous difficulties our children face as they attempt to find their places in the American educational system.” (Rose 8) Announcing that teaching literacy is not as simple as teaching from a grammar book and following a set of literacy rules. It is much more complicated than that, and he gives the viewpoint that this is entirely okay. Rose entices readers with personal stories from himself, his family, his students, educators and their students, with purposeful and relatable narratives. He covertly opens the mind to the premise of education and culture being homogeneous to one another, and rather than trying to avoid this, we should adheringly foster this concept instead. Rose also addresses the notion of class being one of the complexities that tie into literacy. In an important quote he states,
“I see now, that are reflected in other working-class lives I’ve encountered: the isolation of neighborhoods, information poverty, the limited means of protecting children from family disasters, the predominance of such disaster, the resilience of imagination, the intellectual curiosity and literate enticements that remain hidden from the schools, the feelings of scholastic inadequacy, the dislocations that come from crossing educational boundaries.” (Rose 9)
In ways, one’s education can become a gateway into their social class. If poor, working class individuals can only afford to send their children to local public schools, their children’s chances of getting out of that socioeconomic class are made even harder for them. It is within this class that schools are limited, as are the educations of the students. Where they are being taught what Villanueva knows best, rhetoric.
Students are being forced to assimilate to American culture, only to never be fully assimilated. Villanueva states that, “Language is also race in America. Spanish is color.) (11) Therefore, if there are hues of your culture, it makes that much harder for one to assimilate. Through his story Villanueva illustrates this: on his street he is the closest to a white person due to some of his features, but to other ethnicities he is identified as a person of color.
Within Villanueva’s prologue he openly states, “I could see myself as poor, the working class. And there is a connection between class and color, some overlap” (11), a close comparison to some of Rose’s ideologies. The correlation between these two stories are striking. I believe the main difference in the two is how the authors chose to portray their stories. Rose is more welcoming with his story, it is apparent that he is passionate about these concepts, and even empathetic. He chose to open the mind along with the heart with multiple, relatable stories, along with focusing on individuality. Whereas, Villanueva’s stance is focused more on the loss of identity, and the process of assimilation, which in his perspective can’t really be completely achieved. Villanueva’s tone appears to be more resentful, but nonetheless still passionate. I can see the importance in both of their stories, and the central idea awareness that there is a relationship between class, color, and education. As a future educator it is vital that when creating lesson plans, talking with parents, and choosing novels that I put this knowledge to use.

Elicia Marshall

10/2/2019 09:00:36 am

Hi Meka
Your connection of class, color and education is well supported with the excellent quotes you chose. I really like the incorporation of your quote from Villanueve that “Language is also race in America, Spanish is color.”. It pushes your point across that we are able to see how a person speaks and writes as a criteria in order to be seen as an acceptable level of literacy. Your addition of the working class’s struggles after a failed education showcases specific evidence of how they are introduced into society lacking tools they need to be placed in a stable well income job. But these are all determined by race and color and the amount of wealth your family has going into the educational system.
When being able to identify the differences you pinpointed the presentation of the two extraordinary. The way you described Rose’s portrayal being more empathetic and directed towards a person's emotions by defining these situations that alter their lives. While defining Villieneva’s style you used the statement that he focuses on the loss of identity because it really goes along with what he's trying to put down about everyone trying to accommodate to this kinship.

Nic LaScola

10/7/2019 09:21:15 am

Hello Meka,

From my own post I feel as though we had similar views about what was being discussed by both Rose and Villanueva. I enjoyed that you incorporated quotes from the reading to write your post which added a strong emphasis to your argument. The issues of race and class in correspondence with education that you discuss in your post and the notion of assimilation without acceptance by Villanueva was somewhat eye-opening because I had not given much thought to the idea that students and families lose their culture through the education system because they are viewed as “others”. I agree that Rose seems more hopeful in his text and this is likely because of his background as white compared to Villanueva’s. From both articles, as you point out, there is the issue of disparity towards those who are not lucky enough to belong to the white and middle class or above. The loss of identity from Villanueva’s piece was one of the most prominent issues in the text and you point out that it is our job as future teachers to be aware of this when we create out lessons and choose material to use in class which I think is exactly right. The subject material can follow MA DOE standards without having to conform to the canonized work that is typically prescribed to the English classroom. To be advocates for our students' individualistic needs based upon their diverse backgrounds is the challenge we face based upon the educational system that is in place that we have to follow shown by both authors.

Lionel Lafleur

9/30/2019 02:46:56 pm

“Lives on the Boundary” and “Bootstraps: From an American Academic of Color” both hit the same coord of the struggles of non-enligh speaking Americans in a predominantly english educational system. I think the effort of both of these pieces aim to shed light on the same quote used by Villanueva, “...systemic forces that can even make bigots of those who are appalled by bigotry.” It’s a beautiful encapsulation of the system that we’re unfortunately saddled with to live inside while teaching. It’s also something as teachers and future teachers we need to be fully aware of and ready to face with the correct attitude.
Both authors are well on board with the idea that we need to have an attempt absolute cognisance when it comes to culture, and background. They speak about how literacy is not the end all be all for english, or any, teachers when dealing with a diverse student population. Both, I believe, have a heart felt understanding of this underlying problem in bi-lingual youth.
While both authors speak from personal account they differ in background and execution. Rose wants to help every child no matter what and want to help them learn English to improve their scholastic career. He presents such a kind demeanor which is apt for a mentor. Villanueva, on the other hand, denotes trace amount of frustration. His passion still shines and shows very clearly his point of systemic bigotry throughout the educational system and he overcame it. Rose tells a story to helping hands and luck; Villanueva tells a story of perseverance and overcoming. Neither piece denotes the use of the other’s methods, not outright or subtly.
These two pieces exist together, almost, to show that the system is there and working against them. This sounds like a downtrodden note but, truthfully, hopeful. Despite your culture of background there is a way to rise above. Rose wrestled with feeling of inadequacy and through some luck and through the use of “it’s who you know” he was able to not only succeed but help others succeed. Villianueva speaks on success through working with the grain and picking himself up (much like the title entails) and fighting from a G.E.D. where he accepts blame where it’s due all the way to a Ph.D. where also only accepts credit where it’s due and nothing more.

Kayla Roy

10/1/2019 11:35:52 am

Hi Lionel!
I think you hit the nail on the head with your analysis of both of these texts! It really is sad that this is such a widespread and systemic issue that teachers are forced to overcome and combat everyday in their classrooms, while the rest of society does little to help. It can definitely feel like an uphill battle sometimes. I like how you classified the two texts as it was in a way I hadn’t considered. You looked more at the mood of the piece, or it how they each make the reader feel, while I focused more on the differences between how they present their arguments and how that translates to us as readers. Once I read your post I definitely can see how Rose posed more of a hopeful and empowering story about luck and hardship, while Villanueva talked more about a frustration story about persevering and overcoming. I had looked at it more that Rose used his personal experience to call attention to these issues, while Villanueva used politics, history, and actual legislation to paint a very frustrating picture of the education system today. Also, I noticed that Villanueva was much more direct and upfront about calling out the racism in society which you also mentioned in your post. But I think both of these perspectives are super important to looking at these narratives, and together they give a really well-rounded look at this systemic issue and the different ways we can talk about it and motivate change. Awesome job!

Charles Pacheco

10/1/2019 03:12:56 pm

Hey Lionel,

I really enjoyed your take on the perspectives that both authors are coming from while also pointing that neither one is above the other, they both exist equally. I think this point is critical because we often times disregard opinions about social inequality from whites because we always anoint that they are speaking from a place of privilege, and that we can only hear about the struggles of minorities from said minorities. I like that you pointed out that both sides have merit purely because these issues cannot be battled from one side. It requires a joint effort to solve systemic issues so all because Rose has not faced the same struggles directly that Villanueva has doesn’t undermine his point of view. Both sides can make efforts to rectify these issues so in the end it makes sense why Rose’s perspective one of much more guidance and hope, while Villanueva’s was frustration and struggle. Great job with the analysis.

Chelsey Daly

9/30/2019 02:54:04 pm

Authors Mike Rose and Victor Villanueva both have similar ideas as to why students have trouble being successful due to the limitations that education and society has put on them. Rose highlights the ways that the education system has caused students to put themselves in categories, labeling themselves as a good or bad student. This begins at an early age and progressively affects their entire experience throughout grade school and often education after that. Villanueva discusses the ways society puts limitations on our abilities to succeed in education. Both Rose and Villanueva, highlight the detrimental roll that labeling plays in our society. While they both express their frustrations with the education system, Rose does so with examples from his own personal experience while Villanueva incorporates much more research based data and statistics.

Both authors express that as long as we have a narrow-minded education system filled with labels, students will have unequal opportunities to succeed. Looking at the perspectives of Rose and Villanueva, educators need to understand the importance of improving these limiting conditions. I feel that it is most important to focus on Villanueva’s take on the problems within education stemming from society. He gives his take on his experience from the perspective of a non-white male. Looking at societal issues today, we know that race still plays a huge factor in constraining people of color or many different races, while placing value on the “white man”. With these preconceived limitations on people of another race, we as an education system and educators are feeding into the lack of opportunity, trust, and confidence instilled in minorities. Through the lense of both Rose and Villanueva’s stories, it is clear that our education system in the United States is in desperate need of change.

Meka Auguste

10/2/2019 07:40:17 am

Hey Chelsey! I agree with you that both Rose and Villanueva are exposing the ways in which society’s labeling within the education system is incredibly harmful. While they both take a more personable viewpoint, Villanueva’s tone is sterner, and blunt. I can see why you feel it is important to focus on Villanueva’s perspective and I agree he makes valid points on the education system lacking diversity. However, I don’t think our education system is in need of desperate change; rather people are in need of reflection. Together, I take Rose and Villanueva’s perspectives as a reminder of how complex humans are. The educations of student’s are not solely dependable on grammar, linguistics, and rhetoric; which is a premise that needs more acknowledgement. It is drilled into as future educators that the student’s we will be teaching are diverse, and we should be empathetic and conscious of our unconscious biases. Nevertheless, our lessons should echo this further. It is okay to teach some of the classics but exposing our students to non-western and more diverse literature is also needed.

There seems to be this idea that our education system is broken, and it needs to be fixed. I have to disagree and say it is evolving, and we need to keep up. It’s a matter of being outdated, which I am hopeful, like Rose, that we can catch up.

Aven Howell

9/30/2019 04:29:13 pm

Both Rose’s Lives on the Boundary and Villanueva’s Bootstraps deal with inequalities and hopelessness in the American education system. Though they are both dealing with similar topics, Villanueva tends towards the analytical where Rose favors the personal narrative. Rose leans most heavily on his own life experiences as evidence, but Villanueva draws examples and data from students and educators outside his culture.
Villanueva’s point about minority students having to sacrifice something of their own culture (and therefore themselves) to gain literacy in United States culture was striking to me. Rose touched a little on his minority status, but never discussed feeling a sense of loss or any struggles with multiculturalism the way Spic in English does. As a future English teacher, it’s important to think about and struggle with the legacy of the English language and English education – which is fraught with colonialism and the legacy of cultural steamrolling. The mentality of “sink or swim” is still alive and well in today’s schools (Villanueva 48). I hope to never lose sight of the legacy that the American school system was built upon. It’s important to acknowledge the flaws of the system that we are all a product of in order to fix it in the first place.
In order to improve the educational system, Rose and Villanueva both advocate for flexibility and care within the American school system. Rose only made it out of the vocational track and ultimately into college because he happened to score well on a few biology tests against all odds in his sophomore year. Before that, no one really seemed to bother with Rose or wonder about his academic potential. This “virtually impossible” switch was only dependent upon one teacher’s ability to see a different path than the pre-prescribed one for Rose (30). Bootstraps drives the same point home in a different way – by going farther into the individual policies that fail students so egregiously, rather than lauding or condemning individual educators.

Aven Howell

9/30/2019 04:30:02 pm

OST: Consider the reading we've done in Mike Rose's Lives on the Boundary, consider his experience as a student and a teacher, what he has to say about the optimal conditions for literacy instruction. Consider what he says about the aims of literacy instruction. Then consider our reading in another, similarly constructed memoir of educational experience by Victor Villanueva (Bootstraps: From an American Academic of Color). Similarly, consider Villanueva's discussion of his own history of literacy instruction as a student, his perspective on teaching and teachers of reading and writing. In 300 words, compare and contrast these two perspectives. In what ways do the seem to be saying the same thing? In what ways do they seem to differ--potentially not just in what they say but in how they say it. Are they telling hopeful stories? Angry stories? Frustrated stories? A bit of all three? But at different times?

Both Rose’s Lives on the Boundary and Villanueva’s Bootstraps deal with inequalities and hopelessness in the American education system. Though they are both dealing with similar topics, Villanueva tends towards the analytical where Rose favors the personal narrative. Rose leans most heavily on his own life experiences as evidence, but Villanueva draws examples and data from students and educators outside his culture.

Villanueva’s point about minority students having to sacrifice something of their own culture (and therefore themselves) to gain literacy in United States culture was striking to me. Rose touched a little on his minority status, but never discussed feeling a sense of loss or any struggles with multiculturalism the way Spic in English does. As a future English teacher, it’s important to think about and struggle with the legacy of the English language and English education – which is fraught with colonialism and the legacy of cultural steamrolling. The mentality of “sink or swim” is still alive and well in today’s schools (Villanueva 48). I hope to never lose sight of the legacy that the American school system was built upon. It’s important to acknowledge the flaws of the system that we are all a product of in order to fix it in the first place.

In order to improve the educational system, Rose and Villanueva both advocate for flexibility and care within the American school system. Rose only made it out of the vocational track and ultimately into college because he happened to score well on a few biology tests against all odds in his sophomore year. Before that, no one really seemed to bother with Rose or wonder about his academic potential. This “virtually impossible” switch was only dependent upon one teacher’s ability to see a different path than the pre-prescribed one for Rose (30). Bootstraps drives the same point home in a different way – by going farther into the individual policies that fail students so egregiously, rather than lauding or condemning individual educators.

Josephine Eisnor

9/30/2019 04:44:03 pm

Victor Villanueva’s prologue starts off with a discussion about race. He talks about having to assimilate, and never fully being able to assimilate. When remembering school he remarks on how “he remembers having spoken Spanish and Black English and the Standard English” (Villanueva 13). This relates to Mike Rose's Lives on the Boundary when Mike informs readers about the student who uses English as she usually would in her day to day life and then teaching students about “standard English” as it is used in school as a type of separate language. He made it through school by his bootstraps, the word “bootstraps” being important, as it is the title of the book itself. This title drop means that him barely getting by is important. He is from a Spanish family but has lived in America his whole life. He, classified himself as an almost white American, has barely made it through his education. Both Rose’s and Villanueva’s stories include struggling in school, but Rose as a white student had a different story than Villanueva as a non-white student.
After moving across the country to California, he enters into a new school system. He wanted to be an architect, but in that new school he was told that in order to be an architect he would have to go through college. College had not been in his plan, because he knew that extra schooling was not for him. He did not have the test scores to get into and complete college. He had completed extra classes at his old school that gave him the experience to be drafted into an architectural program, but now in this new area it was not enough. That meant he would either must somehow manage college or give up on pursuing his dream job. “Alone, and with no promise for better proffered by the schools, he drops out and goes to work” (59). He was given a frustrating choice, a choice that many under performing students have to make about their futures.

Colby Nilsen

9/30/2019 07:40:30 pm

The education stories of Mike Rose and Victor Villanueva are ones that both compliment and juxtapose each other in various ways.
For example, Villanueva tries here to capture the big idea of learning about language more so than Rose. Villanueva seems to be more focused on cultural backgrounds, and how one may have a predisposition to learn language differently based on say their families original language, and insinuates being white and from an American lineage makes it much easier for one to succeed in English language learning (especially writing). Furthermore, he touches upon the fact that English is just undoubtedly difficult to learn. What this means is that the language is very peculiar by the notion of not having mostly concrete rules, such as latin-rooted languages; instead, many of the rules are strictly learned and or memorized.
He feels it is a problem how Spanish- speaking and AAVE students being expected to learn Standard American English in order to be deemed proficient in the language, yet due to a vernacular that was learned and acquired differently (many times at a young age), their writing does not reflect how well they may know the language. What Mike Rose did was specifically highlighted teaching adult learners, and how learners from grim backgrounds need to have a bit of fun, via advice from his colleague, after she explained how some of their lives are grim and that doing something compelling will not only make them more likely to succeed academically, but it could potentially add a bit of metaphorical light to their day. While they do share some minute differences, both of these authors share the notion of how English is a challenging language to learn, especially due to its complexity and standard of only regarding one dialect as truly acceptable (SAE) when that version is tailored to the advantage of white-middle-class students: being of black or latinx descent puts many at a disadvantage in succeeding in SAE written English.

Charles Pacheco

10/1/2019 03:01:53 pm

Mike Rose and Victor Villanueva both dissect the impacts that language can have in our education system yet both of them go about it from different perspectives. First Villanueva speaks from his history as a Spanish speaking student and the societal struggles he had to face when pursuing his education. Villanueva stresses this idea of forced assimilation as an almost necessary for the upward advancement of his education purely because the education system in place does not know how to handle bilingual students, and by extension multicultural students. He mentions the idea of “racelessness” as a tool that minorities employ to allow themselves to even be allowed to be in same playing field as the whites. A method to distance themselves from their culture and assimilate. ON the other end of the spectrum Mike Rose tells a story of confusion and awakening almost as he guides us through his experiences with teaching minority students and the lessons he learned through their writing. While Villanueva’s story is one more of existence, Rose is that of awakening. Mike Rose realizes through his teaching that for the longest time he was too focused on the writing while ignoring the histories that his students were bring into the paper. By the end Villanueva goes in depth as to how these issues affect society as a whole and the way that culture seeps into the classroom. While Rose focuses much of his efforts to the classroom portion but their goals are the same. They both agree that language and the culture of these students should not be pushed under the rug inside the classroom but instead used as building blocks and a template to further enhance said students learning. Both outlooks show a sense of frustration in the current English focused system and their attempts to shun multicultural methods and instead promote a multi pipeline approach, instead of this “Americanization”.

Josephine Eisnor

10/2/2019 07:16:30 am

Yes! I totally agree with you when you say Rose's story is one of awakening. The “forced assimilation” you mentioned about Villanueva's story is of a negative learning experience in his education (which is why I think he struggled so much in school) , while Rose has learned from his educational experience and teaches his students in a way that seems to help them more. He addresses that his students come from varied backgrounds and bring different experiences and strengths to school with them. Instead of forcing different students to conform to the same teaching methods, students should be able to use their individual experiences to help them get through school. Rose brought to his students attention the fact that while they keep saying they are no good, they are actually highly intelligent and that the school system merely isn’t allowing them to grow as readers and writers. The example of the girl who wasn’t preforming well is powerful, because as she was struggling, she did not know that her thoughts were more advanced than she knew. She just did not have the foundations yet to explore her ideas of complicated writing.

Elicia Marshall

10/2/2019 08:26:56 am

Mike Rose and Victor Villanueva both explore racism as it is presented in the school's environment. Villanueva chooses to focus in on the labeling happening among students and the experiences they encounter based on their race and color but avoids the inclusion of his own journey through the educational system.While Rose opts to refer back to his own personal experiences as a student and how the lack of positive reinforcement on students with English as a secondary language can deteriorate their writing abilities. He transforms them into proficient writers with the ascendancy of his background onto his teaching qualities.

Villanueva discloses the bias everyone faces and how it affects their day to day life. He chooses to use influential stories of bad experiences to guide the topic to how its influencing the literacy rate among students. He expresses this by the deteriorating use of ethnic languages and the enforcement of English. He goes on to depict students interpretation of bilingual education by stating, “Bilingual education, it seems to me, has less to do with language than with a lessening of the chances for alienation, the chance for negating the choice between the collective and racelessness.” (Bootstraps, 42) He wants to demonstrate that the American education system is trying to create a “fictive kinship” (Villanueve, 42) which means that they are trying to create an equal level of knowledge among students that is equivalent to the white man's abilities and to completely disregard their cultural background.

Rose chooses to see his experience in school as a way of passing time and just flying under the radar. When it comes to the actual curriculum he states, “you’re placed in a curriculum that isn’t designed to liberate you but to occupy you”(Rose, 28). They don’t value the growth of their students in literacy and only give you the tools to excel to the next level and nothing more. Furthermore these demonstrations of teaching helped him to dig deeper into each students experience and the underlying factors impacting their education. He wanted to see beyond their labels and help them overcome obstacles.

Kaleigh Rollins

10/2/2019 06:51:22 pm

Despite coming from two different backgrounds, what Mike Rose and Victor Villanueva say about literacy instruction are quite similar. Both were placed in lower level classes, the kinds labeled remedial or vocational or similarly named, yet went on to receive a higher education and teach. From their experiences, both as student and teacher, they seemed to reach the same conclusion, which is that by discriminating against students and placing them in lower classes we are denying them the resources they need to achieve and improve. Rose specifically worked with kids that had been labeled as illiterate or almost illiterate from a young age, and he found that they were not, in fact, as illiterate as they were labeled. With patience and some extra help, Rose was able to improve the children’s literacy. While the readings from Villanueva’s memoir do not go in as deep as Rose’s, Villanueva does say more about race and the history of how minorities were treated in reference to literacy instruction.
Rose’s narrative definitely comes across as more hopeful than Villanueva’s. Rose’s story shows the possibilities of what can happen when children are given the specific instruction and support that they need. Both stories do come across as frustrated and angry sometimes. Rose’s frustrations come from the hopeless environment he was brought up in, which even though he physically escaped the mental trap the environment created still has a hold of Rose’s mindset at times. Villanueva seems frustrated and angry with the discrimination minorities face, but he is bothered most by the great difficulty there is to overcome this discrimination in a nation that claims equal opportunities for all. His analogy about bootstraps conveys this the best. Everyone can succeed in America if they pull up their bootstraps and work hard, but what we do not acknowledge is that not everyone has strong enough straps or even boots in general. It is hard not to feel frustrated just reading about that horrible truth.
Overall, these writers stress the importance of teaching reading and writing to all groups and not denying students the help they need to learn and not neglecting select students’ educations because of their race or environment or other factor. Most importantly, they want everyone to understand that any student can succeed if they are given the time and help that they need.

Samantha Colon

10/3/2019 06:02:04 pm

Both Mike Rose and Victor Villanueva use their own experiences to emphasize and highlight the main ideas contributing to the issues in literacy and education. They both recognize the reasons for poor literacy of students is the fault of an educational system that lacks knowledge and the ability to teach minorities and recognize differences within students. However, while they both focus on differences that set students back from the average majority both writers differ in writing styles. In Mike Rose’s piece he focuses more on the aspect of labeling students and writing them off and how categorizing them sets them apart from their peers and other teachers as well. Mike focuses beyond the labels and test scores and considers where a student comes from and their background rather than just numerical values. Mike Rose’s stories come off as more hopeful yet frustrating as he is so passionate on the subject and confident in his students. Rose writes, “My students needed to be immersed in talking, reading, and writing, they needed to further develop their ability to think critically, and they needed to gain confidence in themselves…” (141). Mike comes off as frustrated with the education system and it is shown more when he digs deep especially when he mentions Harolds story and what he has gone through to shine light to the problem. However, Villanueva comes off as more logical and frustrated. Villanueva establishes his point differently than Rose because Rose uses a lot of personal stories while Villanueva uses historical facts in order to establish credibility and firmness on this issue. Like Rose he too speaks upon labeling but Villanueva focuses more on labeling in regards to race and fictive kinship in and outside the classroom and how this plays on a students insecurity. Ultimately, we learn from these two writers that in order to teach reading and writing we must be able teach students as individuals without categorizing them and we as educators should take into account cultural difference as a resource in order to obtain a successful education.

Andrea Foley

10/3/2019 07:34:35 pm

Mike Rose highlights his experience with a focus on the personal and direct help he received to guide him through the educational system. Without the influences of those who pushed him into doing more for himself there could have been a much different outcome of his future. There are several times he mentions how his hope was precariously balanced. The lengths he goes to provide need based care to his students reflects how he feels that what he similarly received was beneficial to his success as a student. Victor Villanueva is trying to represent that the system he grew up in was the problem that prevented those like him and Rose from further developing their skills. They are said the be the exception and not the rule. Villanueva is much more political in his discussion and comments on the differences in speaking English more so than reading and writing. He also has a very different style of writing. It seems more like a stream of consciousness rather than the organized thoughts of Rose. There is definitely a strong undertone of depression from both authors. They give off the sense of defeat and working their way through the difficulties presented by a flawed system that is not able to meet the needs of those who do not adhere to the same standards that the system was based on. Amidst the stories of sad and lonely children however there is also an aura of potential change. Having the resources to help everyone may be a possibility if the issues of inadequacy in some methods are reviewed and addressed. These two authors provide valuable insight into the teaching of reading and writing. I learned that it is important to not label students and to try alternate methods to get through to what makes learning important to them. These readings also say that the rules may be changing and what we once thought of to be the standard way of teaching and standard topics may need adjustment.

Kaleigh Rollins

10/4/2019 06:31:56 am

Hi Andrea,
I agree that while Rose and Villanueva are conveying similar idea, they do so differently, particularly in the tone they express their points in. Rose's piece comes across as more personal, whereas Villanueva's work definitely sounds more political. The reason for this difference most likely originates in the different purposes of their writing. Rose is telling a personal story with the hopes of others being able to learn from it. Villanueva, however, is trying to use his stories to speak for and represent the multitudes of minority students who don't have voices of their own.
I also like that you point out the depressed tones that can be seen in these authors' works. Personally, I felt it was more apparent in Rose's work. He often reflected back on his childhood environment. It was a sad, boring, and hopeless place that Rose was glad to have grown out of, yet he wonders if he has truly escaped the place. Years later while he is teaching, he can't help but to feel traces of that hopelessness creep into his mind. Despite this, Rose preservers and by doing so his writing maintains a hopeful tone for the future of education.

Arianna

10/4/2019 08:08:51 am

Mike Rose and Victor Villanueva both have similar stories of their life growing up. Rose lived in a poor neighborhood, his dad’s health was bad and his mother worked split shifts at a cafe. Villanueva’s dad was unemployed and his mom’s income barely covered the rent and food. He lived in the projects where there was violence and riots. Rose talks about how living your life in depressed communities and being able to journey up through the top levels of the American education system, you’re going to need a little help and guidance from people. The point he’s trying to make here is that if you grow up in poverty you’re going to struggle more. Villanueva makes this point too where he talks about getting a GED. Systemic forces, matters of race, culture, and class all an influence. Rose never even thought about college because the reality of higher education wasn’t in his scheme of things. No one in his family had ever gone to college and only two of his uncles completed high school. He figured he had everything in his blood to be set up for failure. Ultimately, he does go to college but he struggled there too. Rose talks more about his struggles and experiences and Villanueva talks of journey, his theories (and others), and theorists. Rose’s text seems to be more emotional whereas Villanueva doesn’t. Rose argues that invitation is important when it comes to education. The different programs that developed through the years helped to create possibilities for all kinds of people who had traditionally been excluded from schools. Ultimately, what I’ve learned from these two readings about how I should be teaching as a future teacher is that everyone comes from a different educational background, some stronger than others. No matter their color or background they should still have an equal learning opportunity. They might need some guidance and that’s okay because as a teacher that’s what you’re here for.

Rahel

10/4/2019 12:08:36 pm

Hey, Arianna!

I like the way you summarize the two stories of Rose and Villanueva short but succinct and in the end bring them together clearly.

I also like how you write that Rose realized that students are going to need a little help and guidance from people. Because this also applies to your final conclusion, which I completely agree with. As teachers we have to be aware of the background and the family situation of our students. Not all children are equally privileged and have great support from home. As you write: It is okay if the students need help, because that is what we are here for! There is also a lot that happens outside the classroom that can affect our teaching and the cohesion in a class. I think this is as well something which can have a big influence on a class and as teachers we should be aware of this.

Rahel Krieger

10/4/2019 11:38:51 am

In both stories Mike Rose and Victor Villanueva, the protagonists, talk about their experiences in school growing up Non-American.

For Villanueva this time is characterized by not belonging to any group. Thanks to this experience, he learns that literature and language are far wider than just communication. Language unites a group, a culture - especially when it comes to bilingualism, much more than just literacy has to be invested in it!

Rose, who ends up in the support program due to a mistake made by the school, is especially committed in his career to helping pupils or people with poorer performance and has developed a genuine understanding for them, as he has found himself in such a situation. Rose realizes that the students he works with do not have a lack of intelligence but a lack of self-confidence.

Rose and Villanueva both learn to deal with their situation, but both are frustrated about the strict American school program where they say students are not given enough individual attention and are put in a box far too often.

This aspect brings me to an important point which I would also like to emphasize for my personal future as a teacher. As Villanueva writes, "Bilingual education, it seems to me, has less to do with language than with lessening of the chances for alienation, the chance for negating the choice between the collective and racelessness." (42, Victor Villanueva's Bootstraps) For me this means that every single student should have the opportunity to understand others not only linguistically but also culturally. A class and overall a school consists of an endless number of individual children and in order to promote mutual understanding. Teachers have to get to know their students, as well as talk and teach about different cultures. Integration inside as well as outside the classroom is important and allows the children's abilities to flourish. As both authors describe, an extremely strict school program cannot work. More than just standing in front of a class and handing out papers has to be invested in the children's education.

Andrea Foley

10/4/2019 05:25:42 pm

Rahel,

Your insight into these two authors stories is inspiring. Thank you for expressing yourself so clearly. Rose and Villanueva both have significant individual experiences that they use to better the opportunities of others. We all should be using this example as a guide to do as much good as possible within our ability. I especially like your comments on the cultural significance of language and literature. It really does have a way of bonding people that reaches deep into the combined psyche of humanity. It is important to consider these concepts as we move into our future roles as educators. I too want to share as much diverse cultural background as possible with students who would otherwise not be exposed. Not only does it provide a different perspective to consider but it broadens the sense of self to a point of empathy. I hope you are able to incorporate these practices as you envision them and your students will be receptive.

~Andrea

Nicholas Lance LaScola

10/4/2019 08:10:15 pm

From the reading both Villanueva and Rose discuss the socioeconomic and racial issues that are, and have been prominent throughout the history of the United States. The works become similar in their discussion of the disparity that is prevalent in the American education system. Both authors faced extreme hardships coming from non-affluent families. In the case of Rose there is a classist issue, based upon personal experience and what he viewed as issues that arose in his own life and those in his immediate life. From Villanueva’s perspective he depicts how these issues began to arise prior to a more contemporary history. I found it very interesting when he discussed that prior to WW1 there was a significant difference in the treatment of other languages being used in schools and communities such as the German influence of the Pennsylvania area. After WW1 the desire for an “English only” community became more popular. I also thought it was interesting to note that much of the U.S. prior to English colonization was founded on other languages but the dominant class issue of English as the first, and only, language began to press out others. While there are differences in the two authors expositions I believe what they discuss is rooted in similar grounds that the educational issues faced by similar citizens to Rose and Villanueva are based upon issues of classism and racism which creates a disparity between the “have” and the “have not’s”. Those that have a certain background have a greater, and easier, pathway towards a favorable outcome while those that do not have to struggle and resort to alternative measures (such as enlisting and seeking scholarship) to make it but with the great risk of failing anyway. While the two stories differ as much as the men who have written them differ, they both follow a pattern that is prevalent throughout U.S. history and is still a large issue today that there is disparity; an unequal, classist, and racist injustice to becoming successful in U.S. society. Students and citizens are not provided with equal tools to become successful economically which creates a domino effect for all those that are not the elite.
From both works there is a sense that the students should be the focus of education should be the students. The ELL student should not have to feel like he needs to assimilate and lose his/her sense of identity in the process. And the student stricken by poverty, and other extenuating circumstances should not be left to “sink or swim”. All these students matter and each, as an individual will have specific needs to be met when it comes to learning reading and writing and it is the responsibility of the educational system and its teachers to guide these students towards success.

Darlene Em

10/6/2019 06:48:39 pm

Both Villanueva and Rose talk about their experiences in school as colored students who grew up in poverty. In Villanueva's "Bootstraps: From an American Academic of Color" he writes, "She never did let me get away with anything in graduate school, wouldn't let me lie down when I grew tired of poverty, indignity, insecurity, when I knew I didn't belong and couldn't do it". The reason I add this part of his memoir is because it was that push his teacher gave him that helped him to accomplish what he has done to better himself today. Rose too explains his poverty by writing “My parents managed to salvage seven hundred dollars and, on the advice of the family doctor, headed to California, where the winter would be mild and where I, their seven year old son, would have the possibility of a brighter future.'' At such a young age Rose was aware of the struggles his family was going through. During m readings I was getting the feeling that in Villanuvea’s writing had more feelings of anger whereas Rose’s writing was more hopeful. In Villanuvea’s writing he talks of when his co-worker was congratulating him on his book but then goes on to say that he doesn’t view him as a man of color. He views his co-worker to be incompetent and ignorant for his remark and is unhappy that he didn’t just leave it at “congrats”. In Rose’s writing he writes of his memories as a kid that he spent with his father. Just in the beginning of the book he writes of all the students that he had encountered and how they aren’t doing well or dropping classes. Though it doesn’t sound hopeful when I say it, I do get the feeling of hope reading the way he describes the students. Their ways of writing have different feelings to them but it does not change the fact that they both came from hard lives.

Darby Noonan

10/7/2019 09:31:43 am

After reading Victor Villanueva Jr.’s novel titled Bootstraps: From an American Academic of color, I noticed many aspects that I found both interesting and well thought out. For example I appreciated the aspect of the differing points of views from both Victor Villanueva’s approach as well as Mike Rose’s point of view. I particularly appreciated the two varrying points of view due to not feeling like I had someone else's view projected on me while I was reading along. I could choose which path I thought fit best for me, and that is something I am not used to while reading a short passage. The topic of education and literacy is such a broad subject, when you think of teaching or even more specifically english you think of how it is one of the foundations of teaching children and young adults. Villanueva’s point of view of literacy differs in regards to Rose’s because Viilanuiva believes that literacy should go hand in hand with reading and writing, but also a drive to succeed. Where as Rose’s opinion is the mixture of more opinionated points.
Villanueva then talks about his homelife, as well as his childhood. He talks about the struggles of being an immigrant from Puerto rico and how he was never a genius when it came to academics. Unlike most people he went to college with, he spent most nights in the library buried in books and long hours of constant studying. Even when he failed a few assignments he was determined to do better no matter how much time or effort it took. This could stem from the fact that he was held to a higher standard by his family due to them not having the same level of education. A pressure to succeed is such a prevalent aspect in today’s world. Children, teenagers and college students are now held at such a high standard to succeed, graduate from collage and then go straight on to find a carrier, it is in such high demand at the moment in today's society. Villanueva writes “Color isn't always race when it comes to teachers. It's an attitude, more an understanding of where we live than where we're from.We came from any places back on the block” (Villanueva 19). Then in the novel it becomes clear that after finishing his bachelors degree, he went on to apply for his grad program, to then learn that part of the reason that he had been accepted was due to him being a minority. Not his impressive test scores, or intricate application, but because he was from Puerto Rico. This news was devastating to Villanueve due to putting so much hard work into being the best student he could possibly be for it only to boil down to where he was born.
On the contrast, both authors have made it clear that they have a similar view in the idea of a strict educational, and how they believe it would fail and not work as well as a more open and less rigorous approach. Even though these educators have different views about various aspects within the realm of education, it is important to note that they both have the same view on schools not being strict with education. Depending on the environment, it is possible that if a student is forced to go to school they could drop out, if they feel there is too much pressure placed upon them, they could drop out, if they feel the slightest hesitation within the education setting, they could drop out. Education is crucial in today’s society so it is important that students feel safe, at peace and welcomed within the educational community.

September 30th online class: Villanueva in conversation with Rose; Bootstraps vs Boundaries

Leave a Reply.

Torda's
(Fall 2019)
ENGL 301

Archives

Categories

September 30th online class: Villanueva in conversation with Rose; Bootstraps vs Boundaries

Leave a Reply.

Torda's​(Fall 2019) ENGL 301

Archives

Categories

Torda's
(Fall 2019)
ENGL 301