Reform. Reform. Reform. Fail.

Dear George W. Bush,

You suck. "No Child Left Behind" has created a chasm. A separation of haves and have-nots. It has done the exact opposite of what you had anticipated. It has created standards that are unrealistic and unfair to the most impoverished schools in the United States. You have created a system where the lowest-achieving schools receive less funding based on how low their test scores are. Uhm, isn't that a little backwards? Shouldn't the schools that aren't high-performing receive more money in order to ensure better education, motivated teachers, healthier buildings, and smaller classrooms? Wouldn't that solve the problem of our education system? How is it that "No Child Left Behind" has left SO many students behind in the dust to drop out of school and live on the streets? Truly, shouldn't it be named "No White Child Left Behind"? That may sound cynical but I'm sick and tired of Whites always getting ahead in the system. Why aren't there movements, why aren't there uproars against the dominant culture's ideals. They are sustaining their lives at the expense of the most under-privileged. Why have these reforms failed? Because they are too focused on standardized testing and not focused enough on improving the quality of neighborhoods, schools, and students' lives. Can we PLEASE get a sociologist in the President's cabinet?

Ban on Ethnic Studies

If the inequalities in the United States were never exposed until this documentary came out, I would argue that it should have been one of the most eye-opening and challenging documentary any pair of eyes has seen. Apparently in Arizona, they like to be racist. I mean why not? They stole the state from Mexico--isn't that what always happens... colonizers like to complain about immigrants when really, they're the ones who immigrated. So what is the argument against ethnic studies?

• It's anti-American (anti-white)
• It's racist (against whites)
• It segregates (as if segregation wasn't already occurring)
• It teaches communist ideals (watch out everyone, Marx and Che are taking over!)
• It's unfair (to whites)

Ironically enough, these arguments prove that White Privilege exists in this country. Those who banned ethnic studies were 1) white and 2) male. Surprising! They are trying to convince themselves that ethnic studies doesn't educate; rather it segregates. It doesn't improve the lives of Latinos; rather it teaches them the wrong "morals". It doesn't give them freedom; rather it's anti-America. These arguments are purely from those who are subconsciously and consciously attempting to maintain the status quo. It makes little to no sense to ban a REFORM movement. These ethnic studies empowers Latinos. They are learning about their history, their culture, their way of life and it has been taken from them (like it wasn't enough to take away their land). Latinos are of the highest minority group to drop out of college after their sophomore year yet these ethnic studies graduates almost all of the students who took the class and they send 80 percent of those students to college. That is a feat. Why doesn't Arizona recognize that dramatic change? If these classes were offered at the 9th grade level, we can only imagine how it would affect the students. It gives them their freedom back and liberates them from the false and romanticized history they have been learning their entire lives in this education system. Give them a fair chance at positive reform instead of taking it away. You've already done enough, Arizona.

Discrepancy in the Occupational Realm: Gender

Evidence shows that girls are outperforming boys in our schools. This is a huge shift especially from the time when women couldn't even attend school. Unfortunately, women are still underrepresented in the occupational realm especially in areas of power. We are made aware of this discrepancy yet women still remain in school, why is that?

1. Women actually believe that men and women are equally rewarded based on merit
2. Differential reference group where women compare themselves to other women--they base their future on other women's achievement
3. Social powerlessness hypothesis which is where the young expect to attain rewards from their husbands therefore better educated women will have better educated men
4. Gender-role socialization where women respond to external validation as opposed to internal
5. Women are more likely to evaluate education as a means to enhance all aspects of life--a way of developing a more holistic sense of self

The fact that women still believe that men and women are equally rewarded based on merit is surprising, considering the amount of movements in our country that emphasizes the equal rights for all women--especially in the occupational field. I wish we made as much as men even in our current day but we are still making 75 cents to a man's dollar which is absolutely absurd. We obviously work just as hard if not harder to even achieve higher education. There is clear sexism occurring in our occupational realm which is clearly unfair to those who are rewarded in school for the hard work but not in their career. Yes, there are some women in power like Hillary Clinton and Condoleezza Rice but again, they are the minority. It's hard to find women CEOs, we've never seen a women president, and we rarely see women in high ranking positions. Somehow, even though men don't work as hard in school and are bothersome, they still find a way to reach higher positions than women. There is an obvious bias in our country.

My Problem With Tracking

The Tracking system furthers oppression in America's education system. White children all over the nation are consistently being tracked into the higher level-learning classes at a quicker rate than that of minorities. Typically minorities, especially Blacks and Hispanics, are tracked into the lower level performing classes simply because of the color of their skin. Where is the equality in that system? No where to be found, quite honestly. Even tracking students who they know will be able to perform at a high level is dangerous because the school system only perpetuates the status-quo. This holds truth because as mentioned above, white students are more likely going to be taking AP, IB, and Honors classes than their minority counterpart. Why is that? Why does society believe that minorities are not capable of achieving at high levels? We all know how much media plays a role in portraying minorities as the "underdog."

Tracking has too many repercussions that outweigh the argued benefits. It doesn't give students to prove that they are truly capable of performing at the same or higher level as their white counterpart. We diminish the minority students chances of entering into the academically challenging classes that push you. They are deemed as incapable thus they are placed in classes that don't push them to their fullest potential. That is what they need--they need high expectations. We need to stop instilling false notions of incapability in their heads because once they internalize those false truths, they will look at themselves in the mirror and say "I'm not good enough because society tells me so." How incredibly disheartening is that? I have witnessed in my school career the negative impact tracking has on a student. My brother was tracked in school therefore he felt indifferent about school. He didn't really care about his grades nor did he care about his teachers or what he was learning. The system told him that he might as well give up because he will not be able to succeed in high-achieving schools. Luckily he did have a teacher who pushed him. She cared enough about his success that she would ingrain a seed of hope.

High achieving classrooms are seen as "white property." Only the whites can attend those classes and be successful. This isn't just the belief of the system--minorities are fully aware of this issue yet they have twisted it against them. Because of this idea that high-level classrooms only have white students in them, minorities start hassling and mocking minorities who are in those classrooms. "Oh, you're acting white" has been a common phrase I have heard my entire life--even coming to Whitworth. "You're conforming to the ideals of everyone else, Ticcia... you better watch out." It's a sad reality.

Who am I? A cultural straddler

There are three main ideological profiles that explains how racial identity interacts with school.
1. Main-streamers: expected members to assimilate into American culture and institutions
2. Non-compliant believers: aware of norms but they favor-embrace own class/ethnicities
3. Cultural Straddlers: maintain strong cultural identity but achieve academically, they are also capable of critiquing the system.

After reflecting on the three profiles, I realized that I very much fall under the "cultural straddlers." This is in part because I am constantly empowered to pursue all that I believe in--even if it's against the dominant culture's beliefs. I have not always maintained a strong cultural identity because I was so assimilated into the dominant culture. So I guess someone could argue that I haven't always been a cultural straddler. I know the reason why I was a main-streamer was because of my Dad who decided to assimilate into the United States after being born and raised in Puerto Rico thus I didn't know any different because I was surrounded by people who were forced to believe that they too needed to assimilate in order to succeed in this society. I wasn't aware that I could be proud of my identity, what I looked like, and where I come from until high school. I started to understand that everyone's cultural identity looks different and that it was okay for me to own mine. I truly believe that once I was able to dig deeper into my multi-racial identity, I cared more about school. It was the inner-anger in me that pushed me to prove statistics wrong: I was going to succeed no matter the barriers put in front of me.

As I entered into my college career I was even more exposed to identity development. Questions like: Who are you outside of what people think you are? Why are you pursuing a higher education? What makes you stand apart from others? What makes you, you? What are your passions and what is your goal in life? These are obviously probing questions that undergraduate college students struggle with daily but I finally came to a point of contentment with who I was made to be. My story, my experiences, my relationships with others are what make me, me. I am a Latina and also very proud of my Korean descent. Because my ethnicity is so different, I do my best to simply give minorities in general, hope. I know each racial group has their differences but as a whole, minorities are the most marginalized in our society. I want to show people that we are capable of defying statistics by achieving higher education, challenging the system while maintaining our cultural identity.

Excuse me, supreme court?

Milliken Case 1974: Detroit implemented an inter-district solution which transferred students across district lines to create racially integrated schools--declared unconstitutional because you could only do this if you could prove that the date was creating policies to segregate schools


Keyes Case 1973: Forced desegregation within a district--the court said no, unless they could prove that the school board was doing things to segregate schools


Dowell 1992: Desegregation decree should end if the board complied in good faith

There are other court cases in which desegregation and/or equality in school districts was addressed. YET the courts deemed these cases as irrelevant and completely disregarded the importance of equal access to good education. All of this happened after the important Brown vs. Board case which integrated schools. Unfortunately after B vs. B white flight occurred, de facto segregation in the North was prevalent, and there was inadequate funding across districts. I think the United States does a really good job at taking a step forward but two steps back. It seems as if any time we try to make progress, we're held back by other reoccurring problems. The Supreme Court has made unorthodox decisions and it makes me wonder how they can morally declare desegregation as unconstitutional. Well, we can easily look to see who controlled the Supreme Courth--upper-middle class, white men who clearly do not want any kind of upward mobilization for anyone except their own race. How did the Supreme Court get away with declaring all of these cases as unconstitutional when the Brown vs. Board case went in the favor of integration? How ignorant are we in this country? Fortunately we have made progress in the Supreme Court but there still seems to be a hidden system that continues to segregate schools.

Diversity DOES bring value to education

The article, "Diversity fails to deliver value in education" sheds light to the ignorance that I have been trying to challenge ever since I stepped foot on Whitworth's campus. The writer claims that diversity is racist; racist against whom? The White upper-middle class majority who fail to acknowledge the importance of diversity in the classroom? Diversity certainly isn't racist against minorities who are forced to think about the color of their skin, their socioeconomic status, religion or lack thereof, and sexuality on a daily basis. Those who represent cultural diversity actually do deliver so much value in education. How does one educate oneself if everyone around them thinks, acts, and speaks exactly the same way? Does someone who was raised in poverty--who is most likely of a different ethnicity--not have any value when they speak in the classroom? Our personal experiences, where and how we were educated before coming to Whitworth, the family we grew up in, and our identity ultimately shape how we contribute in the classroom. If we were to take out diversity and ignore the differences between each other we will accomplish nothing. To the man who wrote this article, how can you claim that diversity hasn't brought value to your education? Your major is Political Science which inevitably means you have been taught by a diverse group of people. You go to Whitworth... the university that prides itself on developing a diverse campus. I, as an Act Six Scholar, am on campus for the sole purpose of bridging the gap between those whose ignorance controls the way they think and those who are passionate about creating courageous conversations so we can all address the inequities in our country and around the globe. To say that my purpose doesn't bring value to education is a punch in the stomach. To say that what I contribute to the classroom is meaningless causes me to wonder why Whitworth is so committed to diversity. I am a Multi-Racial woman who grew up in an impoverished neighborhood. I am proud of that and I truly believe that my experiences will always deliver value in education. Society has told me and other minorities that our race does in fact matter; so let us prove you wrong in the classroom. Listen to our stories and rethink the message you portrayed in your article.

The importance of integration

When the South starting integrating schools, the initial response was backlash. Whites felt like their civil liberties were being trampled on and they were not willing to offer the education they received to black students. Some argued that there was no value to integrating schools but evidence shows there was true value. Even though both black and white students didn't feel the immediate importance of integration, it was seen in their morals and values they developed as time progressed. Whites increased comfort with blacks and they had a better understand of their social context. They were aware of their prejudices and they were given an opportunity to further their understanding of equality. Instead of increasing fear towards blacks, integration actually decreased the intimidation factor while allowing for empathy and insight to occur. It created a better working environment between two socially constructed races--which also played a significant role in the interactions between other races. Blacks were also able to develop effective ways to cope with how whites treated them since they were exposed to discrimination on a daily basis. It also allowed blacks to "learn" how to live in a "white" world. Life lessons are of the utmost importance and we cannot let ourselves look past these because it gives us a foundation for why integration today is so important.

One of the root problems of our modern education system is the segregation. There is clearly a distinctive difference between inner-city schools and suburban schools, and that is race. Jonathan Kozol in Shame of the Nation makes this distinction by describing the schools he visited where 99 percent of (so many) schools were black/hispanic and on the other side of two, 99 percent of the school was white. He claims that we have a current apartheid in our education system. He also argues, with sufficient evidence, that we are regressing. We aren't living up to the dreams of Martin Luther King Jr., JFK, Malcolm X, and so many other Civil Rights Leaders; rather we as a nation have created a densely segregated system. What happened to the importance of integration in our nation? Granted there are schools across the nation that are integrated and probably excelling but that doesn't give us an excuse to look past those schools with zero integration. We need to remember the importance of integration and how it creates even more cultural awareness. Too many people in our country aren't exposed (enough) to people who don't look like them. We cannot deny that we live differently depending on the color of our skin, that's simply ignorant. Let's integrate our school systems again... please?

Differences Between Classes (SES)

Poverty deteriorates educational opportunities in several ways. If a student has poor health then they simply cannot focus whether it's due to vision, asthma, psychological effects, dental problems, and/or nutritional habits. The lack of supplies in a school contributes to the gap in resources between the affluent and impoverished societies. Students in poorer neighborhoods have to endure the countless hours their parents are working in order to make ends meet therefore they aren't able to help with homework. Sometimes families have to move from one place to another because of rent or bad neighborhoods. Aspirations and expectations of what you can accomplish are also an important factor in distinguishing a low-achieving school from a high-achieving school. More than likely, the students in poor schools have parents who either haven't gone to college or didn't even graduate from high school therefore they don't have a model to extends beyond the mold of a "working class" parent. Those in a more affluent school have parents who graduated from college and who sustain themselves well through their high-achieving job. 

Child rearing is also a significant way that poverty deteriorates educational opportunities. Salman Khan refers to the differences between how the working class and middle class respond to their misbehaved child. While the middle class parent will emphasize conversation and individualism, the working class parent will more than likely respond to the child forcing them to be obedient, punishing them, and/or making them conform to their ways. In effect, this perpetuates the gap of creativity. Middle class children are already ahead of the game regarding thinking for themselves as opposed to conforming. The working and middle class parents respond the way they do because of the type of work setting they're placed. Working class parents are most likely working in an environment that forces them to abide by rules but on the contrary, middle class parents represent a work place that allows for conversation and ability to think as an individual. So basically, both sets of parents were socializing children for future careers and it reflected their working environment.

In reflection, I can relate to the effects of child rearing because I was raised by a working father who was determined to discipline us every single time we did something wrong. We never had a conversation about whatever was done; rather he would tell us what we did wrong and how to fix it so that it ceases to happen again. My brother and I were very obedient children towards our Dad because we were scared to do something that would make him mad. This was reflected in my relationship towards my teachers throughout school. I saw them as an authority figure and didn't feel comfortable talking to them unless I had to. My Dad and I never held conversations outside of him disciplining me thus I rarely every spoke in the classroom. It's so interesting looking back on my education and the factors that play into how I received it. In retrospect I wish my relationships with my teachers and Dad were better and that there was an established two-way communication system rather than one-way.

Changing the Script

The question that is still lingering in my head from class is: if we really wanted to reform education, we would have to change the script, what if we did change the education system? What would happen?

This insinuates an idea that if we were to truly reach equality in the education system then chaos would ensue in society. Competition in the job market would increase because of the amount of qualified graduates there would be based on this notion of equality in the school. What would society look like? This is almost unfathomable not because I agree that we shouldn't change the education system; rather will the elite and the most affluent in this country be willing to do such a thing? NO! They're ultimate goal is to maintain the status quo and keep the have-nots at the bottom. As pessimistic as this sounds, it's reality. However, that idea will not prevent me from trying to change the education system so that the so-called "have-nots" can reach the idealistic "haves" and continue the cycle of change in our society.

We need to become a more selfless society. Our economy is structured by the differential outcomes of all people. Yes, some may stay at the "bottom" but we still need to give more opportunities to those who aren't capable of reaching to the top with money. They need to be given the option of changing the script and persevering through this system that inevitably pushes them down.

Educational Funding Matters

Affluent neighborhoods have better schools.

Poor neighborhoods have the worst schools.

This isn't news to anyone, at least I hope not. There are so many factors that go into the reasons why the above statements hold truth. Resources are either unlimited or very scarce depending on where a person lives. If you're living in a poorer/inner-city neighborhood then property value is low. This in turn determines the funds of the schools. Property taxes are going to be lower thus less money is given to schools in the surrounding neighborhood. I grew up in a pretty impoverished area where, in retrospect, property values were so low. All parents were working to make ends meet and therefore lived in the neighborhood of apartments (with cheap rent). There was an elementary school nearby that didn't receive adequate resources, had low test scores, and many children weren't receiving the education they deserved. 

This is where the educational achievement gap starts. Inner-city schools are getting the brunt of education. Teachers don't want to work in these schools because pay is low, children are susceptible to problems like "ADHD", resources are hard to come by, and the government doesn't do a good enough job to fix these issues. The difference between high achieving affluent neighborhoods and low achieving poor neighborhoods is too significant to ignore. Educational funding is unevenly distributed to schools and this lack of funding perpetuates the problem in the education system. It isn't fair that children who unfortunately must live in low-income areas have to experience poor education. It is not their fault that they live in this kind of lifestyle and it's arguably not the parents' fault either. They system creates an apartheid. 

The government needs to take more initiative to properly fund schools so that children in the inner-city have an equal opportunity to achieve at the same levels of more affluent neighborhoods. These students should not be punished based on how much money they have. In this country, equality truly needs to be a priority through actions and not just words.

Teaching as a Profession

Do you believe that teaching is an occupation that should be considered as a profession? Is it comparable to doctors or lawyers? Should we view teachers as qualified and intellectual workers of our age? That's something that is hard to answer for some and easy to answer for others.

According to Richard M. Ingersoll and Elizabeth Merrill in their publication The Status of Teaching as a Profession some teachers are considered professionals depending on where they teach . Indicators to determine if an occupation is a profession are:

1. Credential/licensing requirements for entry
2. Induction/mentoring programs
3. Professional Development
4. Specialization
5. Authority over decision making
6. Compensation
7. Prestige

Teachers in Catholic schools and public schools in high income areas are more likely to be seen as professionals than teachers in private schools outside of the Catholic realm and public high schools in low income areas. Most private schools do not require their teachers to have as high of credentials nor are they required to have any kind of licensing. Low income schools more often than not receive the unqualified teachers without very much experience (and teaching subjects unrelated to their specialization) in their school which represents the lack of credentials. Catholic and high income schools will invest more time and money into induction/mentoring programs for the teachers and professional development. Districts in inner-cities consistently have problems with decision-making because there are not many funds available to implement wanted and needed programs. If you're a teacher in Catholic or high income schools your salary will be sufficient enough to support your family and have a little extra spending money.

What they say in this publication make sense. As a society we do not give the same honor or prestige to teachers as we do doctors and lawyers. Supposedly doctors and lawyers work harder in school and in the profession therefore they are paid more and mobilized to two of the highest statuses in our nation. I have nothing against doctors and [some] lawyers but with all things considered, aren't we discounting the experiences of teachers? Don't they have to go through schooling in order to maintain their license and heighten their credentials? Aren't they the ones who construct learning lessons 5 days a week for their students? They are pouring countless hours to see their students succeed. They are the ones who create doctors and lawyers.

Teachers influence the path of several students they encounter yet society deems most teachers (because many schools reside in the poorer areas) as unworthy of a decent compensation and respect. I see teaching as a profession despite what the indicators do have to say. These indicators just tell us how we need to improve the lives of teachers. Give them more requirements, induction/mentoring programs and development. Allow them to teach what they have specialized in and give them power to make decisions in the education system because after all they're the most important people we need in order for the school system to function.

Decreasing Classroom Sizes

I am a full advocate for decreasing classroom sizes despite what some scholars and politicians say about it not making a difference to the levels of achievement of students. In my opinion, they have not done enough research in schools to disagree that classroom size truly influences the achievement of students, especially the underrepresented population. The Tennessee STAR program is a great example of an experiment done with efficiency. Their findings indicated that if you decreased the classroom size to a small enough number then the success of students increased dramatically. It was important to begin in the early classrooms (K-1) because the standards of behavior will start to form, students receive the attention they need to succeed, there is a higher morale among teachers and students, and students are forming their attitudes about school culture. All of these reasons are important factors to effectively impact vulnerable students before they form the wrong impressions of their schooling.

If the Tennessee STAR program was so successful then why haven't we done anything about it? Where are our policy changes? Easy answer: money. Districts would need to hire more [qualified] teachers. With the lack of education funds from the federal government, it makes it nearly impossible for schools across the nation to decrease their classroom sizes (especially in the big cities) while figuring out budgeting/logistical problems that come alongside this program. Again, we're stuck between a rock and a hard place. How do we change and challenge the government to see that smaller classroom sizes, in the early grades and continuing until the 12th grade, make a difference? When does it stop being a political debate between conservatives and liberals and start becoming an issue of social justice? Students are deprived of their academic rights to succeed at their highest potential. If smaller classroom sizes can help solve the achievement gap then why hasn't the government answered the call?

These students who were involved in the Tennessee STAR program progressed through school as high achievers and more likely than their counterpart (students in bigger classrooms) to attend college. I could extend this further and presume that those attending college are defying statistics and breaking stereotypes that are often placed on them. It's important to look at both the educational and social results of decreased classroom sizes. These students are encouraged to move forward and are not as exposed to the barriers preventing them from mobilizing up the social ladder.

Priorities in the Organization

The organizational side of the education system may seem unrelated to addressing issues within a district or the system as a whole but in reality, we have to understand the implications of each level of organization in education. If we want to change the policies and structure of the education system we must look at the roles and status of the districts, schools, classrooms, and individual students. The resources the district uses looks a lot different than the resources an individual student uses. For example, money. How does a school function? it functions with money--whether it's coming from the parents or taxes. The district decides how the money is going to be allocated and what the needs of each school are so that schools have the fair amount of funds for the year.

Money is a vital resource and we have the ability to challenge where those funds go. In Tacoma the amount of money the superintendent made was exposed to the public which caused a lot of anger and confusion. It's understandable that the man or woman in charge of all the schools in their district is making more money than most but why are teachers taking cuts to their salaries while the income of the superintendent exceeds the salary of 3+ teachers together? This is where we need to start addressing the inequalities in the education system; from top-down.

Teachers sometimes have to sacrifice their time and money to compensate for the lack of funds given to them by the district. Unfortunately not every teacher decides to sacrifice those things which hurt the individual students' instruction further down the road. It's unfair to expect all teachers to give more and more money to their classroom so that their lessons are effective. It would be ideal if the district prioritized their money with the students' achievement as their number one priority.

Reorganize the system to mirror a place that empowers the younger generations.

Maintaining the Status-Quo

"The school system is set up to maintain and perpetuate the status-quo; keeping the haves at the top and the have nots at the bottom."

Does the above statement just not tear your heart apart? We are dealing with Marxist theory right now--this notion that this capitalist society will continue to encourage and even develop more stratification between classes. The social institutions that are embedded into our culture disallow the growth and potential of students who are inevitably in the sphere of have-nots. They resist from succeeding in school because their entire life they have been told that they must remain at the bottom in order for the haves to maintain their power. The school system has set up students for failure and have created a false consciousness. It's not obvious that these inequalities occur because what school wants to boast that they are intentionally tracking students to keep the status-quo?

Tracking students is another terrible way of structuring the education system. The students who are placed in the least of these groups will not succeed. They are not pushed nor challenged by their teachers and administration. Social ties become obsolete in classrooms such as these because all of the attention is geared toward the highly capable students. From there, the system has unintentionally told the students at the bottom level that they are not worth the time and effort it takes to advance them to the next level. It makes little to no sense at all to track students because it increases the achievement gap as well as the poverty rate. Equality is promised for all but in reality, society has told their future generations that they better grow up in an affluent society in order to have any kind of upward mobility.

Stigmatized and Socialized

School is a vital function of society. Without the education system we wouldn't be able to produce bright scholars we so often witness changing the face of society. Because we are at such a progressive time in our culture, elders rely on the intellect of their children to continue this era of progress. We want to see the best and brightest in the most important positions of society but in order for America to function there is an unspoken need for blue collar jobs that allow the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer. The job market feeds off the  products of the school system.

Who are the garbage collectors and who are the doctors of our society? I would venture to guess that those labeled as disruptive, unsuccessful, and failures are more likely to be in the blue collar positions. On the other hand those who are seen as successful, committed, and often called on in class are mobilizing themselves into the more affluent jobs.

There are students in schools all over America right now who could potentially reach beyond what others tell them. They could defy what statistics say about where they come from, the color of their skin, and how poorly they perform on standardized tests. Unfortunately the reality is that these students have internalized the labels they have been given and meet the "standards" others set for them. It's a cycle that needs to stop if we want to close the achievement gap. Schools board members, administrators, and teachers need to understand the psychological effects of their actions towards students who are assumed to be unteachable.