I think this theme-based curriculum design approach is really meaningful. It not only enables us to find common emotions and experiences from the literature of different cultures, but also helps us understand these issues and their connections in real life more deeply. For instance, topics like "immigration" or "growth" are no longer just abstract words in textbooks. Instead, by reading representative stories, we can understand our own and others' experiences more empathetic.

I think this sentence reminds us of a very important point: Multicultural education should not merely be about achieving certain curriculum goals or doing superficial work, but rather a manifestation of values. It requires schools to truly consider: Have we created an environment that can accommodate students from different backgrounds? Has the diversity of students been regarded as a kind of resource? I hope that my school can reflect this "concept-first" attitude both in policy and practice, rather than merely presenting the appearance of "multiculturalism" on posters or activities.

I agree with this statement very much. I can clearly feel that when the classroom content and teaching methods really take into account our different backgrounds and experiences, learning is not just for exams, but becomes more meaningful. We are more likely to participate in discussions and are more willing to think about real-world problems. I think this teaching method can really help us become people with judgment and responsibility, rather than "student machines" who can only cope with tests.

I really feel the weight of this sentence. Many times the history we learn is beautified, emphasizing only success and heroes, but downplaying mistakes and discrimination. I think if education can help us "face the true face of the world as it has been and is now" as this sentence says, we will grow up to be more discerning and more able to understand the injustice of others and society. Although this kind of education that faces reality is uncomfortable, it is more valuable for us.

I particularly agree with this statement. The courses we have been taught since childhood often only present one perspective, making it difficult for me to truly understand the experiences of other ethnic groups. When the courses began to incorporate stories about multiple ethnic groups and cultures, I gradually realized the complexity and diversity of this society. This kind of learning not only increased my knowledge, but also made me more empathetic and open-minded. I believe that this kind of course is not only a manifestation of "fairness", but also a true cultivation of our future survival ability.

I really felt the impact of these changes. In college, I had the opportunity to take courses on Asian American history and gender studies for the first time, which not only made me understand myself better, but also made me start to rethink the definition of "mainstream" in society. These courses made me realize that education should not only tell the history of "winners", but also present various voices to help us form a more comprehensive worldview.

I think this statement is very true. If what I read in class is related to our own culture and background, I will be more interested in understanding and discussing it. Once, the teacher asked us to read an article about the immigrant experience, and I immediately resonated with it and was willing to share my own story. In contrast, it is difficult for me to engage with materials that have nothing to do with us. So I think multicultural content is not just "useful", but it really makes us motivated to learn.

I think this statement is very true. If what I read in class is related to our own culture and background, I will be more interested in understanding and discussing it. Once, the teacher asked us to read an article about the immigrant experience, and I immediately resonated with it and was willing to share my own story. In contrast, it is difficult for me to engage with materials that have nothing to do with us. So I think multicultural content is not just "useful", but it really makes us motivated to learn.

We rarely get to know non-mainstream cultural works in class, which makes me feel that our education seems to shrink the world. If I can learn the music and literature of different ethnic groups, it will not only broaden my horizons, but also better understand the people living around me. I hope that the classroom can become a window to true diversity, rather than a mirror that only reflects our own culture.

I think this sentence is particularly sad but also very true. At school, sometimes we can see that some students clearly need more help, but they are ignored due to insufficient system resources or teachers being too busy. Just like T.J., he clearly has his own study plan (I.E.P.), but no one really follows up or cares whether it has been implemented. This feeling of being pushed along by the system, I think, is actually experienced by many students. It's not because we don't work hard, but because no one really asks, "What do you need now?" This feeling of being ignored will make people lose confidence more and more and also make learning very lonely.

I think this sentence is particularly important because it reveals a problem that we often feel but are not easy to explain clearly: Teachers' biases can really affect our educational opportunities. Sometimes when we show a little difference, we may be labeled, especially when you are not a member of the "mainstream culture" of this school. In fact, we are not more "problematic" or "difficult" than others, but because of our different backgrounds, the probability of our behaviors being misunderstood is greater. This misunderstanding may determine whether we are assigned to special education or not, and even affect our confidence and performance in the future. I think education should pay more attention to the real needs of students rather than being dominated by judgments based on "racial impressions".

This sentence makes me feel very unfair and heartbroken. Originally, special education was supposed to help students in need, but for students of color, it has instead become a new label and restriction. Not only do they have to confront the already existing unequal treatment in the school, but they are also extra labeled as "special", isolated and misunderstood. This makes me think that sometimes we are marginalized not because our own abilities are insufficient, but because the system has preconceived judgments about us. Education should be the starting point of fairness, rather than a tool to magnify prejudice.

I think this sentence is extremely heart-wrenching because it exposes a problem that is often overlooked on campus: when a student is classified due to special needs or "being different", they are not only educated separately but also often socially "disappeared". This separation makes it very difficult for them to make friends and integrate into the group, and also conveys a message: You are the "problem" rather than a part of this class. I believe that inclusive education is not only about meeting the learning needs of different students, but also about enabling everyone to grow in a diverse environment. What is "overlooked" is not a child's ability, but their sense of existence and dignity.

Sometimes the advantages we have are "invisible". Things like skin color, social class and language, which we may not pay much attention to in our daily life, do quietly influence our experiences at school, such as whether we are misunderstood or easily understood and supported by teachers. The author's admission of her privilege is not to deny the difficulties she is facing, but to present a more comprehensive and honest educational perspective. I think this kind of self-awareness is also very important in the school environment, especially for us students. Only by learning to recognize our own position can we better understand the situation of others.

This sentence left a particularly deep impression on me because it made me think that many times, a family's definition of "success" is actually conditional. It's not just about having good grades, but also about conforming to a certain "normal" appearance, such as cisgender or heterosexuality. I also feel this hidden pressure. It seems that once I'm different from others, I'll be regarded as "inattentive" or "not good enough". This made me start to reflect on whether it is possible for schools and families to challenge this single "success" standard, so that more students of different identities can be seen and supported.

This sentence left a particularly deep impression on me because it made me think that many times, a family's definition of "success" is actually conditional. It's not just about having good grades, but also about conforming to a certain "normal" appearance, such as cisgender or heterosexuality. I also feel this hidden pressure. It seems that once I'm different from others, I'll be regarded as "inattentive" or "not good enough". This made me start to reflect on whether it is possible for schools and families to challenge this single "success" standard, so that more students of different identities can be seen and supported.

This sentence made me realize that in school, even just speaking up for LGBTQ students might become the target of bullying. I think this is really unfair and it also indicates the problems existing in the school culture: Many people are afraid to stand up, not because they don't support, but because they are worried that they will also be attacked. This atmosphere suppresses a lot of empathy and a sense of justice that should exist. Schools should be places that encourage students to support each other and express their positions, rather than being silent environments.

I think this sentence very directly points out a kind of prejudice hidden in the school environment. I do notice that many times, teachers tacitly assume that we are all heterosexual when giving lectures. For example, when discussing family structure or emotional topics, the situation of LGBTQ is never mentioned. Although this kind of "default" is not malicious, it makes non-heterosexual students feel that they are not seen or even allowed to exist. This sentence made me realize that true inclusiveness is not only about opposing discrimination, but also about proactively breaking this kind of invisible "default setting". We need a learning environment that is more open to all sexual orientations.

I was extremely shocked when I read this sentence. As a cisgender student, I have never thought that someone needs to hide their identity to avoid being suspected or excluded. We often take gender expression for granted, but for transgender students, it might be a kind of pressure or even a self-protection mechanism. This made me realize that if schools fail to create a truly inclusive environment, many students will be forced to suppress their true selves just to "appear normal".

I think this sentence is very true because when I was a child, I also often experienced the grouping method of "boys in groups and girls in groups". At that time, in fact, we didn't fully understand the meaning of "gender", but these arrangements imperceptibly told us that men and women are just different. This made me realize that some practices of the school, although seemingly harmless, might reinforce gender stereotypes in children's minds.

Just like the only black male student in my friend's class never dared to speak up until one day when we were having lunch together, he said, "I'm afraid that if I say something wrong, it will be considered that 'all black people think this way.' The so-called 'safe classroom' is a comfort zone for privileged groups, but a minefield for marginalized groups.

Finally someone has revealed the truth! The required reading list for English class, from Shakespeare to Hemingway, is full of white men, and girls and minorities can only play supporting roles. The most outrageous thing is that when I wanted to do a book report on Toni Morrison, the teacher suggested that I "choose a more classic work." So what is a more classic work? Is it the one on the required reading list?

Finally someone has revealed the truth! The required reading list for English class, from Shakespeare to Hemingway, is full of white men, and girls and minorities can only play supporting roles. The most outrageous thing is that when I wanted to do a book report on Toni Morrison, the teacher suggested that I "choose a more classic work." So what is a more classic work? Is it the one on the required reading list?

My high school history teacher was an example - every time we discussed race, he would quickly switch back to a "safe" topic, as if he was afraid the classroom would explode. They called this "staying neutral", but in fact, allowing prejudice is a stance in itself.

Kindergarten: Rich kids go to "Ivy League affiliated kindergartens", poor kids have to queue up for the special education program. Junior high school: No one tells you what the PSAT is, and by the time you find out in high school, you've already missed out on scholarships. University: Children of alumni get into prestigious schools through connections, poor students are considered "affirmative action charity" even if they are in debt. This is too real, it's basically a class inheritance assembly line.

This kind of thinking is so common! My cousin is in a low-income school district, and the teacher always says they "don't work hard", but no one mentions that the heating in their school is sometimes good and sometimes not. The problem is not that the students are lazy, but that the system has already put them in a broken starting line. It's like forcing someone to race a bicycle against a sports car, and then blaming the cyclist for being slow.

Ideals are full, but reality is skinny! Schools are called "balancers", but in reality they are more like "photocopiers", copying the advantages of rich children and magnifying the disadvantages of poor children. For example, a school is short of laboratory equipment, while students in the private school next door are already doing gene sequencing. What kind of "balance" is this?

Ideals are full, but reality is skinny! Schools are called "balancers", but in reality they are more like "photocopiers", copying the advantages of rich children and magnifying the disadvantages of poor children. For example, a school is short of laboratory equipment, while students in the private school next door are already doing gene sequencing. What kind of "balance" is this?

It feels like the policy is always swinging between "fairness" and "privilege". In China, houses near schools are usually more expensive. The better the school, the higher the housing prices around it. Rich people buy houses near good schools, and poor students can only go to schools with poor resources. The government says it wants fairness, but when it comes to real reforms, parents with resources will oppose it, fearing that their children will lose their advantages. As a result, policies change over and over again, and those who really need help still don't get support.

On the surface, it seems to have improved. For example, schools can no longer have racial segregation, but in fact, it is not like that. Some schools still treat students differently. In my sister's school, many white people are in good classes while black or yellow people are in ordinary classes. The distribution of teacher resources is also unbalanced. Nowadays, college admissions are increasingly based on family background, so SAT tutoring classes, extracurricular activities, recommendation letters... all of these cost money. How can children from ordinary families compete?

This is really contradictory! The school always says "as long as you work hard, you will succeed", but the reality is that some students have rich families, can go to better schools, hire tutors, or even directly get into good universities through connections. I witnessed a very rich classmate in high school, but his grades were not good. Because his family was rich, he found a good agency to help him apply for college, and he successfully entered NYU, my dream school!

This is really contradictory! The school always says "as long as you work hard, you will succeed", but the reality is that some students have rich families, can go to better schools, hire tutors, or even directly get into good universities through connections. I witnessed a very rich classmate in high school, but his grades were not good. Because his family was rich, he found a good agency to help him apply for college, and he successfully entered NYU, my dream school!