Within my visits to the school, there were slight attempts to acknowledge diversity. Although the school is one that lacks sufficient funding, some of my classroom's students are from private schools that were closed, and simply shuffled over. Other students truly don't have much money, and have never had the choice to attend private facilities. And then there is one of the most obvious diversifying factors: race. Though second-graders are too young for discussions of things such as the political aspect of education, or what socio-economic group is empowered the most through education, they are never too young to discuss issues of equality, in even slight ways.

This does not happen here. The closest the classroom comes to discussing difference is reading picture books that depict characters of color as the main subject. The classroom creates the illusion that race is inconsequential, and administers tests that way as well. It attempts to create an autonomous classroom. However, though that aim sounds pleasant, Delpit argues, "Many liberal educators hold that the primary goal for education is for children to become autonomous, to develop fully who they are in the classroom setting without having arbitrary, outside standards forced upon them. This is a very reasonable goal for people whose children are already participants in the culture of power and who have already internalized its codes."

In its quest to be an autonomous classroom, sometimes language is not even corrected. The students will say words with extra an extra s, or skip saying a word with an apostrophe because they do not comprehend the sound. Sometimes, they will use slang in their answers. The teacher will just continue on, without acknowledging the issue of the dialogue one must know culturally, and the formal english one must know to succeed. This sounds like a bit much to ask from a second grade classroom. However, after having seen their rows of posters giving lists such as state standards and rules for success; after having seen how they discipline students and teach obedience, it feels as if these students are already being treated as adults in certain regards. They must also be treated as adult and conscious enough to understand the need for formal english, and its impact on their future. If it is let go, it could have dire costs for them as they grow older.

The students also need a chance to learn material in different ways. Ira Shor argues that the traditional system of education teaches competition, by showing the classroom whose handwriting is the neatest, only hanging "the best" works of writing, etc. However, Shor finds such methods of teaching to be ineffective and create a negative attitude about schooling. Unfortunately, there is a very distinct reason teachers won't alter the way they teach: Shor was right, education IS politics.

On one of my later visits to the school, the teacher of my classroom showed me a book. It was the book of lesson plans she had been issued. She told me that she used to use her own lesson plans, and keep students in line through her own tactics. Occasionally, if she knew students were not paying attention, she would make an assignment a "quiz." She would grade it as originally intended, and it would count for nothing extra, but she would get every child's undivided attention simply by using the q-word. She does not use any of those little games or her own lesson plans anymore, nor does she craft her own speech.

She opened the lesson plan to a particular page, and I was aghast. "See that part written in blue?" she asked. "That's what I'm supposed to say outloud to the class. They tell you how to speak to the class about each activity." The activities all must be done in order and on schedule. At any given time, the teachers will be surprised by a visitor (such as the principal) and have to explain their lesson plan, citing its exact number. Though the teachers miss the creativity they used to have, they have their reasons for not rebelling against the system: seniority has been taken away.

With this privledge of teaching gone, anyone can be let go at any time. She gives an example: recently, an entire elementary school of teachers was laid off. They were all replaced with newer teachers. The schools, she explained, used the excuse that low-performing schools needed to change. So they would blame the teachers, fire them, and then pick up new teachers, who received less money. Now, when the schools fail again, it won't matter. At least they're paying 1/3 the price. Though teachers are evaluated to see how they perform, she is never at ease. Because the teachers are instructed to read the blue words from their planners verbatum, evaluations have become somewhat of a popularity contest. "Now it's a matter of who likes you and who doesn't," she said.

Who can blame her for not wanting to make waves?