The hidden curriculum is “everything that is learnt by children in school but is not part of the formal curriculum (i.e. social norms relating to competition, achievement, and authority) (Barakett & Cleghorn, 149). One presentation explored how the hidden curriculum teaches children the social norms relating to conformity, delayed gratification, competitiveness, and obedience to authority figures.
But isn’t this a little top down and deterministic? Where does individual agency fit in? Or does individual agency fit in? On some level, do the children not have to willingly give into these norms? Might some children just give into them unquestioningly? Might some question them but somehow rationalize that they are valid norms? Might others not give into them at all and wear shirts baring profanities so that they can be sent to another school? Might others give into them, i.e. behave properly in class and get straight As, just so that when they are not in school or under parental supervision, they can take drugs, have sex, and throw kittens from fast moving vehicles?
Sure there is a hidden curriculum and it may be more subtle than the regular curriculum and therefore more surreptitious in its effects. But just because it is there, does it mean that children are mindlessly walking to it like flies to a bug zapper? Don’t they exercise some level of individual agency?
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Monday, December 7, 2009
Bill 206
I am just dropping a quick post to update the news on Bill 206, the "anti-bullying" bill, which would have possibly made bullying illegal. I posted a blog in late September on Bill 206.
The latest news is that Bill 206 did NOT receive a third reading, which means that Bill 206 will NOT be passed. It might pop up later, but it will have to go through the process from the beginning.
The latest news is that Bill 206 did NOT receive a third reading, which means that Bill 206 will NOT be passed. It might pop up later, but it will have to go through the process from the beginning.
Wear your Toque
Winter is here and, yep, it’s cold outside. Put a toque on! You’ll be warmer.
Why do we believe that if we wear a toque, we’ll be warmer? Did we just pick it up from our parents or from some winter safety program that we sat through in elementary school? Well if our parents say it’s so and if the winter safety people say it’s true, then it must be true. Well, it’s not. A group of scientists set out to debunk 5 common assumptions. One of which is wearing a toque will keep you warmer. I will talk about another myth that they debunked later in this blog. To see the article click here. According to these scientists,
“The myth is thought to have arisen through a flawed interpretation of a vaguely scientific experiment by the US military in the 1950s. In those studies, volunteers were dressed in Arctic survival suits and exposed to bitterly cold conditions. Because it was the only part of their bodies left uncovered, most of their heat was lost through their heads.
“The face, head and chest are more sensitive to changes in temperature than the rest of the body, making it feel as if covering them up does more to prevent heat loss. In fact, covering one part of the body has as much effect as covering any other. If the experiment had been performed with people wearing only swimming trunks, they would have lost no more than 10% of their body heat through their heads, the scientists add.”
The other myth they debunked is that sugar will make children hyperactive. According to their research, sugar will not make children hyperactive. You read it correctly; sugar will not make children hyperactive. “At least a dozen high-quality studies have investigated the possibility of a link between children's behaviour and sugar intake, but none has found any difference between children who consumed a lot and those who did not. The belief appears mostly to be a figment of parents' imaginations. "When parents think their children have been given a drink containing sugar, even if it is really sugar-free, they rate their children's behaviour as more hyperactive," the researchers write.” Is this an example in which the parents are falling victim to observation bias? If the parents are looking for children to be hyperactive after they eat candy they will most likely see hyperactive children. I think that children might be under a placebo effect as well. That is, if they think it will make them hyper, it will make them hyper.
One thing that this class sociology has done for me is question what I am told, to question what is “taken for granted” as true.
Why do we believe that if we wear a toque, we’ll be warmer? Did we just pick it up from our parents or from some winter safety program that we sat through in elementary school? Well if our parents say it’s so and if the winter safety people say it’s true, then it must be true. Well, it’s not. A group of scientists set out to debunk 5 common assumptions. One of which is wearing a toque will keep you warmer. I will talk about another myth that they debunked later in this blog. To see the article click here. According to these scientists,
“The myth is thought to have arisen through a flawed interpretation of a vaguely scientific experiment by the US military in the 1950s. In those studies, volunteers were dressed in Arctic survival suits and exposed to bitterly cold conditions. Because it was the only part of their bodies left uncovered, most of their heat was lost through their heads.
“The face, head and chest are more sensitive to changes in temperature than the rest of the body, making it feel as if covering them up does more to prevent heat loss. In fact, covering one part of the body has as much effect as covering any other. If the experiment had been performed with people wearing only swimming trunks, they would have lost no more than 10% of their body heat through their heads, the scientists add.”
The other myth they debunked is that sugar will make children hyperactive. According to their research, sugar will not make children hyperactive. You read it correctly; sugar will not make children hyperactive. “At least a dozen high-quality studies have investigated the possibility of a link between children's behaviour and sugar intake, but none has found any difference between children who consumed a lot and those who did not. The belief appears mostly to be a figment of parents' imaginations. "When parents think their children have been given a drink containing sugar, even if it is really sugar-free, they rate their children's behaviour as more hyperactive," the researchers write.” Is this an example in which the parents are falling victim to observation bias? If the parents are looking for children to be hyperactive after they eat candy they will most likely see hyperactive children. I think that children might be under a placebo effect as well. That is, if they think it will make them hyper, it will make them hyper.
One thing that this class sociology has done for me is question what I am told, to question what is “taken for granted” as true.
Dehydrate, hydrate, repeat
In the 3 December 2009, release of the meliorist, the student newspaper, an article titled “Dehydrate, hydrate, repeat,” raises the issue of hydration. The author writes that “We live in an era where almost everything seems dangerous in some way. “ The author mentions microwaves, packaging, and H1N1. The author asks, “What else can we be scared of? It seems like we, as a society, can’t get much worse. However, we still haven’t tackled the issue of dehydration.” The article continues to talk about how the body is 50% to 75% water, that exercise leads to an increase in dehydration, and that your urine should be copious and clear. All valid points. But the author concludes, “Dehydration isn’t a big issue yet, but who knows at the rate society is going. Did you ever think you’d see hand sanitizer in the library? Just wait until proper hydration becomes a big deal. It’s coming.”
This article was originally published in The Brunswickan. Things might be a little different in New Brunswick, but last I checked right next to that hand sanitizer I often find a drinking fountain. That drinking fountain, I’m assuming, is not as easy to install as a hand sanitizer dispenser and was probably installed while the building was erected. Now maybe this is a piece of satire. Satire is sometimes lost on me. But if it is not satire, the author missed his mark. Hydration has been an issue all along. I can remember drinking fountains in my schools, in parks, in malls, and other public buildings for as long as I can remember.
I don’t know how to explain how this author is able to overlook something as common as a dirking fountain. Maybe that drinking fountains are so common is the reason why they are overlooked. Maybe this author has never worked out and had to run to the drinking fountain for water. Maybe this author has never worked with children and never had to take them for a water break, which usually involves finding the nearest drinking fountain. Maybe the media has not jumped on hydration as they have H1N1. If the media portrays hydration as it has H1N1, then yes maybe, as the author says, hydration will become a “big deal.”
Check out this link to rehydrate.org to see how water is a “big deal.” For example, “Some 6,000 children die every day from diseases associated with lack of access to safe drinking water, inadequate sanitation and poor hygiene – equivalent to 20 jumbo jets crashing every day.” cite Whereas according to the World Health Organization, “As of 15 November 2009, worldwide more than 206 countries and overseas territories or communities have reported laboratory confirmed cases of pandemic influenza H1N1 2009, including over 6770 deaths.” That’s the total deaths since the outbreak. Almost the same number of children die from dehydration in a day than the total number of people who have died from H1N1.
I just have to ask where our priorities lie. Should we spend millions on hand sanitizer or millions on ensuring children have access to clean water?
This article was originally published in The Brunswickan. Things might be a little different in New Brunswick, but last I checked right next to that hand sanitizer I often find a drinking fountain. That drinking fountain, I’m assuming, is not as easy to install as a hand sanitizer dispenser and was probably installed while the building was erected. Now maybe this is a piece of satire. Satire is sometimes lost on me. But if it is not satire, the author missed his mark. Hydration has been an issue all along. I can remember drinking fountains in my schools, in parks, in malls, and other public buildings for as long as I can remember.
I don’t know how to explain how this author is able to overlook something as common as a dirking fountain. Maybe that drinking fountains are so common is the reason why they are overlooked. Maybe this author has never worked out and had to run to the drinking fountain for water. Maybe this author has never worked with children and never had to take them for a water break, which usually involves finding the nearest drinking fountain. Maybe the media has not jumped on hydration as they have H1N1. If the media portrays hydration as it has H1N1, then yes maybe, as the author says, hydration will become a “big deal.”
Check out this link to rehydrate.org to see how water is a “big deal.” For example, “Some 6,000 children die every day from diseases associated with lack of access to safe drinking water, inadequate sanitation and poor hygiene – equivalent to 20 jumbo jets crashing every day.” cite Whereas according to the World Health Organization, “As of 15 November 2009, worldwide more than 206 countries and overseas territories or communities have reported laboratory confirmed cases of pandemic influenza H1N1 2009, including over 6770 deaths.” That’s the total deaths since the outbreak. Almost the same number of children die from dehydration in a day than the total number of people who have died from H1N1.
I just have to ask where our priorities lie. Should we spend millions on hand sanitizer or millions on ensuring children have access to clean water?
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Pyramid of Capitalist System
The other day in class, a classmate took on the ambitious task of presenting on Schooling in capitalist America by Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis. The presentation was a little depressing because of the message of the book. The authors argue that schools are a direct reflection of the capitalist society and as a result only reinforce the class structure. If someone is from the lower class, education will not give him or her a better chance at success. If someone is from the upper class, education will just reinforce his or her position in the upper class. The only way that the education system can change and act as an agent of change is if the capitalist society changes.
It could be argued that the authors see the class system as relatively fixed. The class system might be interpreted in the image below. The interesting thing about this image is that it was copyrighted in 1911. Has anything really changed since then? Is society still stratified like this?
On the level that reads “We Fool You,” are the religious leaders. I am going to dive into that debate. But what I would like to ask could educators be on that level too? Can educators, if they are trapped in a capitalist system and possibility perpetuating the contest mobility paradigm, actually do anything but reinforce the dominant class structure? If Bowles and Gintis are right, are educators just fooling their students into believing that an education will lead to success?
It could be argued that the authors see the class system as relatively fixed. The class system might be interpreted in the image below. The interesting thing about this image is that it was copyrighted in 1911. Has anything really changed since then? Is society still stratified like this?
On the level that reads “We Fool You,” are the religious leaders. I am going to dive into that debate. But what I would like to ask could educators be on that level too? Can educators, if they are trapped in a capitalist system and possibility perpetuating the contest mobility paradigm, actually do anything but reinforce the dominant class structure? If Bowles and Gintis are right, are educators just fooling their students into believing that an education will lead to success?
Technology in the Classroom
I am currently also enrolled in an online course on the Internet and education. It is a worthwhile course. I it find surprising that during our online class discussions a number of my classmates continually state that it is inevitable that technology will enter the classroom. This belief of inevitability concerns me. Shouldn’t teachers be autonomous practitioners who are able to shape the learning experiences of the students? Should it not be the responsibility of the autonomous practitioner to determine how and when technology is used in the classroom?
I had not heard of the concept of the teacher as autonomous practitioner and the roles and responsibilities associated with this concept. How is it that I am able to learn about this concept and fold it into my teaching philosophy and my online classmates are not? Would my online classmates benefit from taking Society and Education from a Sociological Perspective? Maybe. I am just wondering how, even though we take different courses, we still graduate with the same degree. Even if we took the same classes would we learn the same things or take the same things out of these classes?
In the end though, I do believe that teachers can be an active agent in educating the students.
I had not heard of the concept of the teacher as autonomous practitioner and the roles and responsibilities associated with this concept. How is it that I am able to learn about this concept and fold it into my teaching philosophy and my online classmates are not? Would my online classmates benefit from taking Society and Education from a Sociological Perspective? Maybe. I am just wondering how, even though we take different courses, we still graduate with the same degree. Even if we took the same classes would we learn the same things or take the same things out of these classes?
In the end though, I do believe that teachers can be an active agent in educating the students.
Study on Admission Requirements for the University of Lethbridge
Right from the start I would like to draw attention to the study conducted by Vanessa regarding the admission requirements to the U of L Ed Program. Though the study draws on only a small sample of faculty members, it still provides food for thought. Follow this link to her study.
I am still wrestling with some things about the admission process. I just think that relying solely on GPA goes against everything that I have learned about assessment in the Ed Program. How can the very program that has taught me about authentic assessment not model this philosophy when it comes to admitting candidates into the faculty?
From Vanessa’s study, I get the feeling that those interviewed may not necessarily agree with the whole process, i.e. just relying on GPA, but that no other solution seems viable. For example, conducting interviews would be too time consuming. The general consensus also seemed to suggest that they all agreed that the admittance process should not remain static and should be open for assessment and reevaluation. I noticed that nobody mentioned when the process was last reviewed. How often should the process be reviewed? Has the admission process seen any significant changes over time?
I would still like to know how or if an open admission would change things. Just because anyone could be accepted doesn’t mean that everyone will graduate, which might actually be a drain, nor does it mean that everyone would secure a job as a teacher. School boards and administrators would still have a say in who would be hired as a teacher. What would open admission really change?
I am also wondering if it is ever possible to be completely fair?
Just in concluding, I would like to say well done Vanessa.
I am still wrestling with some things about the admission process. I just think that relying solely on GPA goes against everything that I have learned about assessment in the Ed Program. How can the very program that has taught me about authentic assessment not model this philosophy when it comes to admitting candidates into the faculty?
From Vanessa’s study, I get the feeling that those interviewed may not necessarily agree with the whole process, i.e. just relying on GPA, but that no other solution seems viable. For example, conducting interviews would be too time consuming. The general consensus also seemed to suggest that they all agreed that the admittance process should not remain static and should be open for assessment and reevaluation. I noticed that nobody mentioned when the process was last reviewed. How often should the process be reviewed? Has the admission process seen any significant changes over time?
I would still like to know how or if an open admission would change things. Just because anyone could be accepted doesn’t mean that everyone will graduate, which might actually be a drain, nor does it mean that everyone would secure a job as a teacher. School boards and administrators would still have a say in who would be hired as a teacher. What would open admission really change?
I am also wondering if it is ever possible to be completely fair?
Just in concluding, I would like to say well done Vanessa.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)