Our social foundations class first opened my eyes to how history has shaped education, but I have not thought about the history of schools in relation to families and the community, as explained in this section of the text. Looking at the policies regarding non dominant groups throughout history helps me understand why schools have not yet moved beyond the traditional role of the parent as a supporter of the school's mission and values. Our history is not an excuse, but rather a catalyst for moving forward so that as teachers, we can positively relate to others. This makes me wonder, how can we as teachers, help schools to move forward? Later in this chapter, the authors go on to describe the Freirean approach of critical parent involvement, parents as community organizers to promote a more holistic approach to education, and making connections between home and school based on funds of knowledge. All three of these approaches, when brought together, could be really powerful in creating a new dialogue around parents and the community in relation to education. Making home to school connections based on funds of knowledge seems to be the most accessible to me as a classroom teacher, whereas the other approaches seem more challenging to take on. I'm wondering how these two other approaches can begin in a school setting that has a very negative discourse about parents. What are your thoughts?

Distributive Leadership is becoming more and more common in DPS, and teachers can fill amazing new roles where they still are in the classroom part-time but also impact more decisions and do more coaching and develop PD. I love that the district is expanding these opportunities, but this article helped me see where distributive leadership falls short when compared with Freirean leadership. I wonder how the district might change for the better if there was more of a focus on "reconceptualized social relationships" or even on involving the complex contexts that surround schools.

I really like the choice of words here that describe urban education: "multiplicity, power, difference, capital, change, and intersectionality." I often find myself stumbling for language that is dignified but doesn't sugarcoat the struggles that urban communities face. As mentioned in this article, it is easy to become overwhelmed by the discourse surrounding struggling urban schools, but using this language seems to develop awareness and also takes away some assumptions or the single story that we might have about a school or community.

This sentence seems to summarize the article and Freirean leadership. One of the guiding questions in our Social Foundations class was about locating ourselves in the conversation around teaching for social justice. I know that the BJS program is only a year, but I am curious from the folks who work at BJS how you see the school and the TEP demonstrating this kind of Freirean leadership? And how do you think you will take what you have learned and bring it to the new settings you will enter into next year?

This makes me think of how in public education, a child is certainly influenced by the culture of the classroom and of the school. But what the child may not be aware of yet, is how district, state, and national conversations shape what happens inside the walls of schools. For example, standardization is happening at a younger age than before, altering the experiences a child has in school. Also, segregation in schools is largely a result of our history as a nation. The exosystem and macrosystem seem to encompass the systemic forces acting on education. Later in this reading, Bronfenbrenner writes about experimenting with the macrosystem to better understand the ecology of human development. I wonder how experimenting with these big ideas can lead to change in some of today's issues in public education.

I often talk with families and the conversation implies that children are different beings at home than at school (behaviorally, socially, emotionally, etc.). I have made this assumption for many years. We sit in a parent-teacher conference and the parent seems surprised: “Is that my child you are talking about?” Why do I think this? How can my understanding of the child change to be more comprehensive and include the interactions both at home and at school, and the influence these interactions have on each other?

This idea of "controlling in" reminds me of the work we did in our ADAC planning, in relation to involving families and the community. The process of making lists of all the possibilities for connection supports this ecological theory of children developing within broader contexts of the classroom.

When do you recommend reaching out to this family for the interview? Will we discuss how to conduct an effective interview/questions in class?