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.
Social Networking
How is technology changing the way we communicate?
The other day I sat with a few friends and enjoyed a conversation about the different types of climbers. We talked about trad climbers, sport climbers, and boulders. We also laughed over some blog posting about guys trying to hook up with girl climbers. The blogger said that female climbers are as rare as “lobster vampire bats.” The ironic part about that comment was that I was the only guy present.
So the point of this post is not to talk about sexism in climbing, which does exist, or how funny blogs can be, which is only a matter of opinion. What I want to address is how technology is changing the way we communicate.
Little did I know that during most of our conversation, two of my friends were text whispering behind my back. Well, they were actually text whispering in front of my face. My lack of tech savviness and their practiced text whispering made it all too easy to carry a completely different conversation right in front of me.
Is it now a social norm to text whisper behind someone’s back? Is it not rude to exclude someone who is right in front of you from a conversation and to talk behind their backs? Is technology challenging politeness? I would argue no it is not. We are capable of communicating in multitude of ways. Body language and facial expressions are just a couple of examples. Depending on the circumstances it may be possible to communicate solely through body language. It is also possible to communicate in this manner right under the noses of other people who are part of the main conversation.
So what might this mean for me in the classroom? Are cellular phones making it easier for students to whisper behind the teacher’s back? Yes I would say so. Is this one of the reasons why schools are banning cell phones? Maybe. I find it interesting that there is a fear of text whispering. Take away the cell phones and the students will find other ways. The students in during my PSII practicum were passing notes. I intercepted some of them, but not all of them. Even without technology students will find a way to communicate. In the end though, I think that technology, e.g. cell phones, has made it easier to do so.
The problems are timeless. Technology has just added a new dimension.
The other day I sat with a few friends and enjoyed a conversation about the different types of climbers. We talked about trad climbers, sport climbers, and boulders. We also laughed over some blog posting about guys trying to hook up with girl climbers. The blogger said that female climbers are as rare as “lobster vampire bats.” The ironic part about that comment was that I was the only guy present.
So the point of this post is not to talk about sexism in climbing, which does exist, or how funny blogs can be, which is only a matter of opinion. What I want to address is how technology is changing the way we communicate.
Little did I know that during most of our conversation, two of my friends were text whispering behind my back. Well, they were actually text whispering in front of my face. My lack of tech savviness and their practiced text whispering made it all too easy to carry a completely different conversation right in front of me.
Is it now a social norm to text whisper behind someone’s back? Is it not rude to exclude someone who is right in front of you from a conversation and to talk behind their backs? Is technology challenging politeness? I would argue no it is not. We are capable of communicating in multitude of ways. Body language and facial expressions are just a couple of examples. Depending on the circumstances it may be possible to communicate solely through body language. It is also possible to communicate in this manner right under the noses of other people who are part of the main conversation.
So what might this mean for me in the classroom? Are cellular phones making it easier for students to whisper behind the teacher’s back? Yes I would say so. Is this one of the reasons why schools are banning cell phones? Maybe. I find it interesting that there is a fear of text whispering. Take away the cell phones and the students will find other ways. The students in during my PSII practicum were passing notes. I intercepted some of them, but not all of them. Even without technology students will find a way to communicate. In the end though, I think that technology, e.g. cell phones, has made it easier to do so.
The problems are timeless. Technology has just added a new dimension.
Aboriginal Schools
Manitoba is suggesting implementing aboriginal only high schools.
A slight flaw is that it appears that this initiative is grouping First Nations people into one homogeneous group. I do not know exactly the number of different tribes in Manitoba, but is realistic to assume that they are all exactly alike and would benefit from just one initiative, i.e. a school just for First Nations peoples? By grouping them all together would their individual needs be overlooked?
My concern is that if there is some credence to what the functionalists are saying, then these schools will just perpetuate the problems facing FNMI students. I want to know why the school model is even being suggested. Did the FNMI people attend schools as we know them before the Europeans colonized the “New World?” Would not the best way to educate these FNMI children be in their traditional education system? Schools are a product of culture and reflect and reinforce a culture. Why not implement an education system more reflective of FNMI values and cultures?
I read some graffiti that said, "We cannot solve problems with the same thinking that created them." Keeping FNMI students in the Canadian school system may just be trying to solve the problem with the same thinking that created it.
A slight flaw is that it appears that this initiative is grouping First Nations people into one homogeneous group. I do not know exactly the number of different tribes in Manitoba, but is realistic to assume that they are all exactly alike and would benefit from just one initiative, i.e. a school just for First Nations peoples? By grouping them all together would their individual needs be overlooked?
My concern is that if there is some credence to what the functionalists are saying, then these schools will just perpetuate the problems facing FNMI students. I want to know why the school model is even being suggested. Did the FNMI people attend schools as we know them before the Europeans colonized the “New World?” Would not the best way to educate these FNMI children be in their traditional education system? Schools are a product of culture and reflect and reinforce a culture. Why not implement an education system more reflective of FNMI values and cultures?
I read some graffiti that said, "We cannot solve problems with the same thinking that created them." Keeping FNMI students in the Canadian school system may just be trying to solve the problem with the same thinking that created it.
A Glimmer of Hope?
Can I actually make a difference? Robert told us a story about his brother, who is a teacher. His brother was assigned to teach the students who had been left behind and deemed not worth teaching. Undeterred, his brother set out to teach these students. Yes students do actually want to learn. Since he actually believed that his students could learn, not surprisingly, they started to learn. Unfortunately, it got to the point where these students were demanding that their other teachers should actually start teaching them too. Actually, it would be incorrect to say that the students demanding better instruction was unfortunate. The students were demanding the education to which they are entitled by right.
Unfortunately, for this teacher though, the demands from the students on the other teachers did not go over well. It got to the point where he had to eat his lunch in his classroom, having been cast out of the staff room. But he kept on teaching his students and they kept on achieving.
This story does inspire me to keep my commitment to making a difference. However, my hope died a little when the story ended with his brother was transferred to teach the International Bachelorette program. It was not stated, but I am assuming that his former students were left with a teacher who had already given up on them. My glimmer of hope died a little because it appears to me that an individual teacher was able to make a difference but only for a brief moment, potentially not long enough to affect long term change. I am still left with some doubts as to how much of a difference I can make. I haven’t thrown in the towel yet.
I would just like to conclude with a question. Why is it that some of the best teachers seek to teach “the best” students. Would it not be more beneficial if the most talented and gifted teachers worked with those who are “left behind?”
Unfortunately, for this teacher though, the demands from the students on the other teachers did not go over well. It got to the point where he had to eat his lunch in his classroom, having been cast out of the staff room. But he kept on teaching his students and they kept on achieving.
This story does inspire me to keep my commitment to making a difference. However, my hope died a little when the story ended with his brother was transferred to teach the International Bachelorette program. It was not stated, but I am assuming that his former students were left with a teacher who had already given up on them. My glimmer of hope died a little because it appears to me that an individual teacher was able to make a difference but only for a brief moment, potentially not long enough to affect long term change. I am still left with some doubts as to how much of a difference I can make. I haven’t thrown in the towel yet.
I would just like to conclude with a question. Why is it that some of the best teachers seek to teach “the best” students. Would it not be more beneficial if the most talented and gifted teachers worked with those who are “left behind?”
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Homework
This topic is a little dated, but here it goes. A Calgary family has negotiated with their school for a no homework agreement.
I think that this is not a bad precedent. I am not saying that I would not assign homework so that I would have less marking, but that homework may not be the most effective method for teaching students.
One professor commented that homework is sometimes assigned for the wrong reason. In particular this professor said that some teachers, since they are unable to teach the student the concept, expect the parents to teach it to the student. The problem with this is that if a child is unable to learn the concept in class, there’s a very slim chance that the child will be able to learn it at home.
Sometimes homework might be used as a classroom management strategy. It might be used as a threat. I have said it myself, “if we don’t get through this, I’ll assign it for homework.” This might condition students to think that anytime anything is sent home, it is a punishment. There have to be better ways to keep students on task than threatening homework.
Now I am not saying that students should not take “work” home. Homework should not be busy work, it should be “work” that is a bridge to extend learning outside the classroom, to involve the family in the learning community. Literature backpacks are an example of this. This philosophy recognizes that learning has a social component; learning exists in a social setting, which does not always include the classroom.
Some may argue that we need to assign homework so that we can cover the entire curriculum. Well, if there’s a trend that teachers are having difficulty covering the curriculum, maybe it is an indication that something is wrong with the curriculum. Is the content more important than the process?
Another argument for homework is that it prepares students for university. If universities would like students who are able to do homework, maybe they should take ownership of that and “teach” their students how to do homework. Why should universities off load this expectation on the high schools?
The only problem that I have with this homework ban is that it seems to undermine the authority of the teacher as a professional. Should teachers as professionals not be able to make decisions regarding a child’s education? I think they should.
Ultimately, I think letting families spend time together outside of doing homework is a great idea.
I think that this is not a bad precedent. I am not saying that I would not assign homework so that I would have less marking, but that homework may not be the most effective method for teaching students.
One professor commented that homework is sometimes assigned for the wrong reason. In particular this professor said that some teachers, since they are unable to teach the student the concept, expect the parents to teach it to the student. The problem with this is that if a child is unable to learn the concept in class, there’s a very slim chance that the child will be able to learn it at home.
Sometimes homework might be used as a classroom management strategy. It might be used as a threat. I have said it myself, “if we don’t get through this, I’ll assign it for homework.” This might condition students to think that anytime anything is sent home, it is a punishment. There have to be better ways to keep students on task than threatening homework.
Now I am not saying that students should not take “work” home. Homework should not be busy work, it should be “work” that is a bridge to extend learning outside the classroom, to involve the family in the learning community. Literature backpacks are an example of this. This philosophy recognizes that learning has a social component; learning exists in a social setting, which does not always include the classroom.
Some may argue that we need to assign homework so that we can cover the entire curriculum. Well, if there’s a trend that teachers are having difficulty covering the curriculum, maybe it is an indication that something is wrong with the curriculum. Is the content more important than the process?
Another argument for homework is that it prepares students for university. If universities would like students who are able to do homework, maybe they should take ownership of that and “teach” their students how to do homework. Why should universities off load this expectation on the high schools?
The only problem that I have with this homework ban is that it seems to undermine the authority of the teacher as a professional. Should teachers as professionals not be able to make decisions regarding a child’s education? I think they should.
Ultimately, I think letting families spend time together outside of doing homework is a great idea.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
A Meassure of Success
In the last several classes we watched parts of The Up Series, a series that follows the lives of a group of participants at seven year intervals. To start, we watched the series for when the participants were seven and then the series when the participants were 28.
It bothers me to think that we measured success in terms of cars, houses, marital status, occupation, and so on.
Whether or not one lives in a society based on contest mobility or status mobility, defining success by cars etc simply means that an individual is buying into the hegemonic values. Essentially, these values are only valued because we are socialized to believe in their value.
What’s really the value in a car? Hardly a more destructive invention has there ever been. The car has brought on climate change, road systems that arbitrarily divide communities, suburbia, just to name a few. Is happiness really driving through two hours of rush hour five days a week? What does it really say about someone who has to define him/herself by the car s/he drives?
Why not find other ways to define success? Why shouldn’t success be measured by contributions made, smiling at a strangers, steps taken to reduce your carbon footprint, social norms challenged such as sexism, and the list could go on.
If one defines success by the rules of the game, especially in a contest or status mobility society, then one is not doing anything to better society. Conformity will never bring change. Fellow classmates have blogged on which society is better. But I say neither of them is better. Our “society” doesn’t work. Children are still going hungry. Countries would still rather drop bombs on each other than negotiate. Corporations are still telling teenagers what to wear. People still listen to Paul Anka, which is only a matter of taste.
If you play by the rules of society, you are doing nothing to change society.
It bothers me to think that we measured success in terms of cars, houses, marital status, occupation, and so on.
Whether or not one lives in a society based on contest mobility or status mobility, defining success by cars etc simply means that an individual is buying into the hegemonic values. Essentially, these values are only valued because we are socialized to believe in their value.
What’s really the value in a car? Hardly a more destructive invention has there ever been. The car has brought on climate change, road systems that arbitrarily divide communities, suburbia, just to name a few. Is happiness really driving through two hours of rush hour five days a week? What does it really say about someone who has to define him/herself by the car s/he drives?
Why not find other ways to define success? Why shouldn’t success be measured by contributions made, smiling at a strangers, steps taken to reduce your carbon footprint, social norms challenged such as sexism, and the list could go on.
If one defines success by the rules of the game, especially in a contest or status mobility society, then one is not doing anything to better society. Conformity will never bring change. Fellow classmates have blogged on which society is better. But I say neither of them is better. Our “society” doesn’t work. Children are still going hungry. Countries would still rather drop bombs on each other than negotiate. Corporations are still telling teenagers what to wear. People still listen to Paul Anka, which is only a matter of taste.
If you play by the rules of society, you are doing nothing to change society.
Friday, November 13, 2009
I, Consumer
I look at the Tim Horton’s coffee cup sitting before me. I see the BC and Canadian governments supporting a corporation through my student loan. I think ahead to my first pay cheque as a teacher and see the same Tim Horton’s cup, but this time it has a Roll Up the Rim to Win, and still see a provincial government supporting a corporation through my pay cheque. Am I only a consumer? Destined to buy stuff (groceries, cars, a house) with whatever funding I have?
Is my sole purpose to consume? Whether I am a teacher, doctor, cab driver, or a bee keeper, I’ll earn a pay cheque, for whatever value my toils are worth, and then I’ll need to buy stuff to live.
If I spawn forth little me’s, will they be destined to the same fate as a consumer? I can inspire them and support them to become whatever they want just so that they can earn a pay cheque. With that pay cheque, they will purchase the necessities, or frivolities, of life.
Consumers.
Are we really anything more than consumers?
Is my sole purpose to consume? Whether I am a teacher, doctor, cab driver, or a bee keeper, I’ll earn a pay cheque, for whatever value my toils are worth, and then I’ll need to buy stuff to live.
If I spawn forth little me’s, will they be destined to the same fate as a consumer? I can inspire them and support them to become whatever they want just so that they can earn a pay cheque. With that pay cheque, they will purchase the necessities, or frivolities, of life.
Consumers.
Are we really anything more than consumers?
Thursday, November 12, 2009
A Community of Bloggers
Are blogs creating a healthy, inclusive learning environment? From what I understand, blogs, discussion boards, and the Web 2.0 like, are changing the learning environment for students. Students that are not confident speaking in class might be more confident posting to a discussion board, which allows them to contribute to and participate in a form of class discussion.
One thing that I am noticing with our Education and Society blogs is that my classmates are making valuable, insightful, engaging, and sometimes humourous contributions on the lectures, class presentations, or other topics of interest. Great, fantastic even, please keep it up. However, what is the rest of the class doing? Are they losing out on this learning experience? Are these blogs creating another classroom? If so, this “other classroom” does not include our fellow classmates. Are our fellow classmates missing out?
Are we intentionally saving our contributions for our blogs and thus neglecting to bring them up in class? Are we doing a disservice to our classmates by not discussing these issues in class? I know that “other classrooms” may pop up when a group of classmates discuss a lecture or presentation over a beverage of sorts. So do I miss out on that learning experience? Or maybe my learning experience is enhanced when end up chatting with the professor after class. Does the rest of the class miss out?
I just find it interesting how we have this community of bloggers who are experiencing something different from the rest of the class. It also makes me wonder if there is any value in encouraging students to speak in class.
One thing that I am noticing with our Education and Society blogs is that my classmates are making valuable, insightful, engaging, and sometimes humourous contributions on the lectures, class presentations, or other topics of interest. Great, fantastic even, please keep it up. However, what is the rest of the class doing? Are they losing out on this learning experience? Are these blogs creating another classroom? If so, this “other classroom” does not include our fellow classmates. Are our fellow classmates missing out?
Are we intentionally saving our contributions for our blogs and thus neglecting to bring them up in class? Are we doing a disservice to our classmates by not discussing these issues in class? I know that “other classrooms” may pop up when a group of classmates discuss a lecture or presentation over a beverage of sorts. So do I miss out on that learning experience? Or maybe my learning experience is enhanced when end up chatting with the professor after class. Does the rest of the class miss out?
I just find it interesting how we have this community of bloggers who are experiencing something different from the rest of the class. It also makes me wonder if there is any value in encouraging students to speak in class.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Boy oh boy . . .
Toronto District School Board director Chris Spence is proposing all-boys schools as the solution to boys’ underachievement (see article). Really?
First of all, not all boys are underachieving and not all girls are achieving better than boys.
Saying that boys are underachieving reduces the problem to a ‘boy problem.’ No longer are boys seen as individuals with, possibly, individual issues/problems that are affecting their achievement. Other factors, such as socioeconomic background, parents’ attitudes towards education, and so on, affect student achievement.
Second of all, gender is a cultural construct. A recent study shows that there are strikingly few differences between the hardwiring of girls’ brains and that of boys’ brains. What makes a boy a boy and a girl a girl is the culture. I fear that same-sex schools would simply reinforce the dominant hegemonic definitions of gender. Not much is mentioned as to the staffing of these all-boy schools, but it might be not too much to assume that they would seek out male teachers. The problem with this is that again things are reduced. Put boys with male teachers and boys will do better. Things are reduced because male teachers are seen as a homogenous group. Not all male teachers are alike. Seeing male teachers as the solution to boys’ underachievement is fallacious in its reductionism.
The same article mentioned above, does conclude that there some between the genders.
"This idea that boys and girls learn differently is misleading. They clearly havedifferent interests and somewhat different needs as far as physical movement. But the idea that the process of learning how to read or do arithmetic is fundamentally different for boys and girls is wrong and probably even dangerous."
Moreover, "Knowing that children tend to play to their strengths, I think what we can do as parents and teachers is provide the cross-training that will benefit them later on. Learning is so cumulative; everything we know about the brain says the earlier you start the more successful you will be." So a broad range of teaching strategies will benefit all learners.
Bottom line: What is needed are good teachers, regardless of gender, ethnicity, orientation, and so on.
Just a few concluding thoughts.
I am not saying that I want anyone to underachieve, but I have to ask why shouldn’t girls do better than boys? Is it really a bad thing? Is it just a matter of our patriarchic society to keep the boys on top? Who says that boys need to be on top anyway? It might be more important to ask who is to say that there needs to be a top?
First of all, not all boys are underachieving and not all girls are achieving better than boys.
Saying that boys are underachieving reduces the problem to a ‘boy problem.’ No longer are boys seen as individuals with, possibly, individual issues/problems that are affecting their achievement. Other factors, such as socioeconomic background, parents’ attitudes towards education, and so on, affect student achievement.
Second of all, gender is a cultural construct. A recent study shows that there are strikingly few differences between the hardwiring of girls’ brains and that of boys’ brains. What makes a boy a boy and a girl a girl is the culture. I fear that same-sex schools would simply reinforce the dominant hegemonic definitions of gender. Not much is mentioned as to the staffing of these all-boy schools, but it might be not too much to assume that they would seek out male teachers. The problem with this is that again things are reduced. Put boys with male teachers and boys will do better. Things are reduced because male teachers are seen as a homogenous group. Not all male teachers are alike. Seeing male teachers as the solution to boys’ underachievement is fallacious in its reductionism.
The same article mentioned above, does conclude that there some between the genders.
"This idea that boys and girls learn differently is misleading. They clearly havedifferent interests and somewhat different needs as far as physical movement. But the idea that the process of learning how to read or do arithmetic is fundamentally different for boys and girls is wrong and probably even dangerous."
Moreover, "Knowing that children tend to play to their strengths, I think what we can do as parents and teachers is provide the cross-training that will benefit them later on. Learning is so cumulative; everything we know about the brain says the earlier you start the more successful you will be." So a broad range of teaching strategies will benefit all learners.
Bottom line: What is needed are good teachers, regardless of gender, ethnicity, orientation, and so on.
Just a few concluding thoughts.
I am not saying that I want anyone to underachieve, but I have to ask why shouldn’t girls do better than boys? Is it really a bad thing? Is it just a matter of our patriarchic society to keep the boys on top? Who says that boys need to be on top anyway? It might be more important to ask who is to say that there needs to be a top?
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Sci Fi and Sociology
Brandie used a Stargate Atlantis episode as a subject for exploring a sociological perspective. I think that science fiction is a great resource for exploring and explaining sociological theory.
For example, Ray Bradbury in his Martian Chronicles explores some of the possible challenges that humans may face when we finally set foot on Mars. In Bradbury’s universe, Mars is inhabited by Martians, naturally. After a successful landing on Mars, the astronauts from one mission encounter the Martians who promptly lock them away in a hosptial for those with mental disorders. Bradbury’s Martians are capable of telepathic abilities, naturally. Martians that have mental disorders are not able to control their telepathic abilities and often manifest false illusions to other Martians. The Martians thought that the astronauts were Martians with a mental disorder who were casting themselves as aliens
Let’s see if I can explain things using sociologica theory. The astronauts were committed to an asylum because the dominant value system in Martian society does not accept the possibility of aliens and therefore seeks to explain the appearance of aliens within the dominant paradigm. In other words, aliens do not exist and there must be another explanation, namely, the astronauts are Martians with mental disorders who are trying to project the illusion that they are humans. But clearly the dominant paradigm is flawed because those who they locked away were genuine astronauts from Earth.
So I say, bring on the science fiction and the sociological perspective. Science fiction is often a social commentary that warrants closer examination.
For example, Ray Bradbury in his Martian Chronicles explores some of the possible challenges that humans may face when we finally set foot on Mars. In Bradbury’s universe, Mars is inhabited by Martians, naturally. After a successful landing on Mars, the astronauts from one mission encounter the Martians who promptly lock them away in a hosptial for those with mental disorders. Bradbury’s Martians are capable of telepathic abilities, naturally. Martians that have mental disorders are not able to control their telepathic abilities and often manifest false illusions to other Martians. The Martians thought that the astronauts were Martians with a mental disorder who were casting themselves as aliens
Let’s see if I can explain things using sociologica theory. The astronauts were committed to an asylum because the dominant value system in Martian society does not accept the possibility of aliens and therefore seeks to explain the appearance of aliens within the dominant paradigm. In other words, aliens do not exist and there must be another explanation, namely, the astronauts are Martians with mental disorders who are trying to project the illusion that they are humans. But clearly the dominant paradigm is flawed because those who they locked away were genuine astronauts from Earth.
So I say, bring on the science fiction and the sociological perspective. Science fiction is often a social commentary that warrants closer examination.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Violence
A Lethbridge student is suing the school board because he was assaulted by a fellow classmate after school. The attack was the result of an incident in class in which the student supposedly unplugged his soon-to-be attacker’s computer monitor.
By taking the school board to court, the student is showing a lack of faith in the school’s ability to keep him safe. Granted he was assaulted, but will his personal gain of $13 000, if he wins the case, keep the next student safe from an assault? Why not sue the school board to introduce better supervision policies or anti-bullying programs or conflict resolution seminars? These initiatives may leave a more lasting and beneficial legacy. Unfortunately, those programs and policies are only as good as the teachers, administrators, and boards that back them. Not be too cynical, but I am sure there are some great programs out there that are not implemented effectively because they are possibly either misunderstood, not valued, simply seen as an extra chore, etc.
Will this case add credence to legislating Bill 206? (See previous posting ‘Is Bill 206 the Answer?’)
But is this just a case of bullying? Or might it be better to ask why the attacker used violence to “resolve” his conflict? All along the way, students are exposed to violence (video games, sports, TV and movies, UFC, and the list goes on). Does exposure to violence lead to violent behavior? Not necessarily. But if violent behaviour is viewed as the accepted way to deal with something then that is a problem. I do think that the bigger problem here is violence. But how do we work towards a less violent society? Is the Dalai Lama correct in saying that the key is showing compassion and that each individual is capable of compassion? The Dalai Lama’s point of view is interesting because he seems to believe that change can result from individual action, not the substructure or that we are trapped in a functionalist society that preselects and reinforces our place in society. Is he naïve? Would he be any less motivated if he believed that he could not make a difference? Probably. Can individuals make a difference? Can we as future teachers make a difference?
By taking the school board to court, the student is showing a lack of faith in the school’s ability to keep him safe. Granted he was assaulted, but will his personal gain of $13 000, if he wins the case, keep the next student safe from an assault? Why not sue the school board to introduce better supervision policies or anti-bullying programs or conflict resolution seminars? These initiatives may leave a more lasting and beneficial legacy. Unfortunately, those programs and policies are only as good as the teachers, administrators, and boards that back them. Not be too cynical, but I am sure there are some great programs out there that are not implemented effectively because they are possibly either misunderstood, not valued, simply seen as an extra chore, etc.
Will this case add credence to legislating Bill 206? (See previous posting ‘Is Bill 206 the Answer?’)
But is this just a case of bullying? Or might it be better to ask why the attacker used violence to “resolve” his conflict? All along the way, students are exposed to violence (video games, sports, TV and movies, UFC, and the list goes on). Does exposure to violence lead to violent behavior? Not necessarily. But if violent behaviour is viewed as the accepted way to deal with something then that is a problem. I do think that the bigger problem here is violence. But how do we work towards a less violent society? Is the Dalai Lama correct in saying that the key is showing compassion and that each individual is capable of compassion? The Dalai Lama’s point of view is interesting because he seems to believe that change can result from individual action, not the substructure or that we are trapped in a functionalist society that preselects and reinforces our place in society. Is he naïve? Would he be any less motivated if he believed that he could not make a difference? Probably. Can individuals make a difference? Can we as future teachers make a difference?
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
The Funnest iPod Ever
I am a little concerned about the current Apple campaign. Apparently, the new iPod is "The Funnest iPod Ever." Whether this is true or not is really of no concern to me. However, I am concerned over “funnest.” Last I checked the proper conjugation of fun was fun, more fun, and most fun. Maybe The Most Fun iPod Ever just does not have the same ring.
I am concerned because it suggests to me that Apple may have a chance to change the English language, and maybe more so than schools. If I am being paranoid, please tell me. Or am I just a traditionalist who is unwilling to change with the times? Yet, with the Internet Google has become a verb. Who should have the power? The Oxford English Dictionary? Apple? The classroom teacher? Is Foucault correct in suggesting that those who possess power shape the knowledge?
Grammar Girl explains the difference between using most fun and funnest. She seems to side on using most fun, which is ironic because her podcasts ranked number two podcast at iTunes.
Is “The Funnest iPod Ever” ad campaign an issue worth exploring in a Sociology course? Does it touch on anything that we have covered thus far?
In the end, this ad campaign makes for a perfect teachable moment for English and Social Studies. But, should we be wary next time a student brings an Apple to class?
I am concerned because it suggests to me that Apple may have a chance to change the English language, and maybe more so than schools. If I am being paranoid, please tell me. Or am I just a traditionalist who is unwilling to change with the times? Yet, with the Internet Google has become a verb. Who should have the power? The Oxford English Dictionary? Apple? The classroom teacher? Is Foucault correct in suggesting that those who possess power shape the knowledge?
Grammar Girl explains the difference between using most fun and funnest. She seems to side on using most fun, which is ironic because her podcasts ranked number two podcast at iTunes.
Is “The Funnest iPod Ever” ad campaign an issue worth exploring in a Sociology course? Does it touch on anything that we have covered thus far?
In the end, this ad campaign makes for a perfect teachable moment for English and Social Studies. But, should we be wary next time a student brings an Apple to class?
Monday, October 5, 2009
Only in Theory
Having perused some of my classmates’ blogs, I noticed that a trend emerged. My classmates are trying to align themselves with the theories covered in class. I find this encouraging because it shows that we are thinking about the theories and evaluating our beliefs based on those theories.
However, theory can be limiting. As mentioned in class, theory is not the truth. It is more of a tool to help explain why things are the way they are. I often equate applying theory to fitting the square peg of the research findings into the round hole of the theory. It may fit, but it will not fit perfectly. Introductions to academic literature read like a finely tuned recipe with a half cup of Foucault, a pinch of classical Marxism for kicks, and spoonful of neo-Gramscian theory to temper it all. Layering theories does not necessarily lead to contradictions; it provides a more eclectic view from more than one perspective.
Understanding and applying theory can take a lifetime and even then it may not be fully understood or correctly applied.
I just ask that you wait a little longer, try not to subscribe to one theory, and to keep an open mind.
However, theory can be limiting. As mentioned in class, theory is not the truth. It is more of a tool to help explain why things are the way they are. I often equate applying theory to fitting the square peg of the research findings into the round hole of the theory. It may fit, but it will not fit perfectly. Introductions to academic literature read like a finely tuned recipe with a half cup of Foucault, a pinch of classical Marxism for kicks, and spoonful of neo-Gramscian theory to temper it all. Layering theories does not necessarily lead to contradictions; it provides a more eclectic view from more than one perspective.
Understanding and applying theory can take a lifetime and even then it may not be fully understood or correctly applied.
I just ask that you wait a little longer, try not to subscribe to one theory, and to keep an open mind.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Comment on a Four Day School Week
I would like to comment on a classmate's posting, titled Structure and Governance, regarding a proposal to shorten the school week.
I am all for it. But, I disagree with why the current government is proposing it. I believe the only reason the current government is proposing to shorten the school week is to cut costs.
I would like to suggest why shortening the school week may not be a bad idea.
First of all, what is the link between classroom achievement and number of school days? A study from 2007 A study from 2006, shows that Canadian 15-year-old students are among the top in world in math and science. China and Finland were the only other countries that outperformed Canada. According to recent figures, Chinese students and Finish students attend classes for 251 (Barakett and Cleghorn, 19) and 190 a year, respectively. Whereas Canadian students are in school for 185 days a year (Barakett and Cleghorn, 19). This would suggest that more school days equals better performance. But this is not necessarily so. Israeli students are in school for 215 days a year, Swiss students for 207, Italian 204, and English 192 (Barakett and Cleghorn, 19). It could be argued that more school days in the year does not necessarily mean higher student achievement. A 2006/2007 study, of nine-year-old Canadians suggests that other factors such as gender, socioeconomic background, “readiness”, province of residence, and whether the student is from an urban or rural setting, affect student performance. Another study out of the United States, suggests that student performance is more closely related to teacher performance than number of school days. This might be the case, considering all Finish teachers hold at least a Master’s degree, and that the Finish school system is so decentralized that Finish teachers have more room to act as autonomous professionals (source). It can be argued that more school days do not necessarily mean better student achievement. How a teacher teaches may be more important than the number of days the teacher teachers (Barakett and Cleghorn, 18).
There are a few caveats. The danger lies in how these data are used. Was the study of nine-year-old Canadians simply conducted to find that there was a connection between teacher performance, the students’ socioeconomic background, and readiness and achievement just so that those making the decisions can draw attention away from the connection between number of school days and student achievement? Notice that this study does not mention anything about number of school days. We should also question the value of comparing ourselves to other countries.
Caveats aside, I would like to promote a four day school week for another reason. There is caution in this reason because it may suggest that I am dreamer. In the above posting, my classmate mentions that children might go unsupervised because parents/guardians would be at work while the students are out of school. I would like to ask why is it imperative for parents to work five days a week? Who says that working five days a week benefits anyone but the corporate bigwigs? Is a five day workweek absolutely necessary for the economic well-being of a country? [As an aside: A preliminary study shows that long work hours present potential health risks.] What would happen if parents only worked four days a week? If parents only worked four days a week, then they could look after their children. This suggestion is a little simplistic, but would it not work? If schools only operated four days a week, teacher performance might improve too. Remember back to the argument that the better the teacher performance the better the student achievement. From having sat in a teacher’s lounge, it seems to me that teachers may be strapped for time. Imagine if teachers had an extra day of the week to plan, partake in professional development, or simply spend time with their own families. Would teacher performance increase?
I think implementing a four day workweek would take a radical change, which may not happen any time soon. But I think it would be great to dream that a four day workweek would be possible and that it would be out of this world if the shift towards a four day workweek started because of a four day school week.
Addendum:
Just a comment on the issue of not having enough time to teach the curriculum:
I would like to think that we teach children not curriculum. The curriculum is a vehicle for learning, not learning itself. In other words, just because teachers follow the curriculum and cover everything in the curriculum, it does not necessarily mean that the students are actually learning.
Work Cited
Barakett, J, & Cleghorn, A. (2008) Sociology of education: An introductory view from Canada. Toronto: Pearson.
I am all for it. But, I disagree with why the current government is proposing it. I believe the only reason the current government is proposing to shorten the school week is to cut costs.
I would like to suggest why shortening the school week may not be a bad idea.
First of all, what is the link between classroom achievement and number of school days? A study from 2007 A study from 2006, shows that Canadian 15-year-old students are among the top in world in math and science. China and Finland were the only other countries that outperformed Canada. According to recent figures, Chinese students and Finish students attend classes for 251 (Barakett and Cleghorn, 19) and 190 a year, respectively. Whereas Canadian students are in school for 185 days a year (Barakett and Cleghorn, 19). This would suggest that more school days equals better performance. But this is not necessarily so. Israeli students are in school for 215 days a year, Swiss students for 207, Italian 204, and English 192 (Barakett and Cleghorn, 19). It could be argued that more school days in the year does not necessarily mean higher student achievement. A 2006/2007 study, of nine-year-old Canadians suggests that other factors such as gender, socioeconomic background, “readiness”, province of residence, and whether the student is from an urban or rural setting, affect student performance. Another study out of the United States, suggests that student performance is more closely related to teacher performance than number of school days. This might be the case, considering all Finish teachers hold at least a Master’s degree, and that the Finish school system is so decentralized that Finish teachers have more room to act as autonomous professionals (source). It can be argued that more school days do not necessarily mean better student achievement. How a teacher teaches may be more important than the number of days the teacher teachers (Barakett and Cleghorn, 18).
There are a few caveats. The danger lies in how these data are used. Was the study of nine-year-old Canadians simply conducted to find that there was a connection between teacher performance, the students’ socioeconomic background, and readiness and achievement just so that those making the decisions can draw attention away from the connection between number of school days and student achievement? Notice that this study does not mention anything about number of school days. We should also question the value of comparing ourselves to other countries.
Caveats aside, I would like to promote a four day school week for another reason. There is caution in this reason because it may suggest that I am dreamer. In the above posting, my classmate mentions that children might go unsupervised because parents/guardians would be at work while the students are out of school. I would like to ask why is it imperative for parents to work five days a week? Who says that working five days a week benefits anyone but the corporate bigwigs? Is a five day workweek absolutely necessary for the economic well-being of a country? [As an aside: A preliminary study shows that long work hours present potential health risks.] What would happen if parents only worked four days a week? If parents only worked four days a week, then they could look after their children. This suggestion is a little simplistic, but would it not work? If schools only operated four days a week, teacher performance might improve too. Remember back to the argument that the better the teacher performance the better the student achievement. From having sat in a teacher’s lounge, it seems to me that teachers may be strapped for time. Imagine if teachers had an extra day of the week to plan, partake in professional development, or simply spend time with their own families. Would teacher performance increase?
I think implementing a four day workweek would take a radical change, which may not happen any time soon. But I think it would be great to dream that a four day workweek would be possible and that it would be out of this world if the shift towards a four day workweek started because of a four day school week.
Addendum:
Just a comment on the issue of not having enough time to teach the curriculum:
I would like to think that we teach children not curriculum. The curriculum is a vehicle for learning, not learning itself. In other words, just because teachers follow the curriculum and cover everything in the curriculum, it does not necessarily mean that the students are actually learning.
Work Cited
Barakett, J, & Cleghorn, A. (2008) Sociology of education: An introductory view from Canada. Toronto: Pearson.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Lost Male . . .
I am lost, lost in theory. Let me explain. Social feminist theory suggests that gender is a social construct. I buy that. South Asian culture has what is considered a third gender. The members of this third gender are known as hijra. The notion that gender is a social construct is empowering because it means that the concept of gender can be changed. For example, it means that women, just because they are of the female gender, do not have to marry, stay at home with the children, and never amount to anything more, if they so choose. Great! Let’s challenge the system, challenge perceptions, and create a more equal society. Is the potential not there?
Before I digress too much, I would like to explain my confusion. I am trying to wrap my mind around the feminization of the teaching profession. I think that it is an issue, but how is it an issue? Is the feminization the result of norms reinforced by a patriarchal ideology or can it be better explained by the concept of male hegemony? Either way, what I really want to know is this: if gender is a social construct, why does it matter if a teacher is male or female? Are there not people already that if you didn’t meet them in person, e.g. maybe in a chat room, that it would be impossible to tell the gender? Theoretically, could a male and female not share the same values, norms, etc, and be equally qualified and skilled as a teacher, and the only difference would be their sex? How would it make that much of a difference to the students?
Is my take on applying the theory sound? Am I out in left field on this? Should I feel encouraged when people tell me that it’s good that I’m becoming a teacher because the children need more male teachers? Do the children need more male teachers or do they just need teachers that will inspire them?
Before I digress too much, I would like to explain my confusion. I am trying to wrap my mind around the feminization of the teaching profession. I think that it is an issue, but how is it an issue? Is the feminization the result of norms reinforced by a patriarchal ideology or can it be better explained by the concept of male hegemony? Either way, what I really want to know is this: if gender is a social construct, why does it matter if a teacher is male or female? Are there not people already that if you didn’t meet them in person, e.g. maybe in a chat room, that it would be impossible to tell the gender? Theoretically, could a male and female not share the same values, norms, etc, and be equally qualified and skilled as a teacher, and the only difference would be their sex? How would it make that much of a difference to the students?
Is my take on applying the theory sound? Am I out in left field on this? Should I feel encouraged when people tell me that it’s good that I’m becoming a teacher because the children need more male teachers? Do the children need more male teachers or do they just need teachers that will inspire them?
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Theoretically Speaking . . .
I am not a cog. Or should I say that I do not want to be a cog in a machine that perpetuates the status quo.
So how does my ambition to be more than a cog fit in with the readings on social theory?
It is necessary to see the role of schools and education from multiple perspectives. However, a functionalist theory that suggests schools are simply reinforce norms and values that perpetuate inequality leaves me a more than a little depressed. I am a dreamer and believe in the value of education as a means to advance people beyond their current standing. I tend to fall in with the critical theorists that suggest that schools can address social inequalities and initiate social change.
Taking a look at the theories allows me a chance to explore the impact that education can have on the individual and society. It brings to light, for me, the effects of unintentional repercussions of my actions. For example, if I consistently only respond to the boys during a science lesson, I might be sending a message to the girls that only boys can understand science. As a teacher, I possess the power to shape the childrens’ attitudes towards race, gender, and class. My own attitudes towards inequality, and the role schools play in generating change, will shape the way that I teach.
Sure the education system leaves students behind, but that does not mean that it has to. Theory can be used to understand the root of possible problems. The research of Bowles and Gintis does suggest that the leading determinant in educational success (or lack of success) is based on the socioeconomic background of the students. Should this not suggest to those seeking change that maybe, on top of an education/school experience, something should be done to improve the living standards of children?
In closing, I can see a trend towards education leveling the playing field. I believe that the new Social Studies curriculum will give students the knowledge, skills, and attitudes to examine the status quo, see the inequalities, oppression, and shortcomings, and make change. Children are the future.
So how does my ambition to be more than a cog fit in with the readings on social theory?
It is necessary to see the role of schools and education from multiple perspectives. However, a functionalist theory that suggests schools are simply reinforce norms and values that perpetuate inequality leaves me a more than a little depressed. I am a dreamer and believe in the value of education as a means to advance people beyond their current standing. I tend to fall in with the critical theorists that suggest that schools can address social inequalities and initiate social change.
Taking a look at the theories allows me a chance to explore the impact that education can have on the individual and society. It brings to light, for me, the effects of unintentional repercussions of my actions. For example, if I consistently only respond to the boys during a science lesson, I might be sending a message to the girls that only boys can understand science. As a teacher, I possess the power to shape the childrens’ attitudes towards race, gender, and class. My own attitudes towards inequality, and the role schools play in generating change, will shape the way that I teach.
Sure the education system leaves students behind, but that does not mean that it has to. Theory can be used to understand the root of possible problems. The research of Bowles and Gintis does suggest that the leading determinant in educational success (or lack of success) is based on the socioeconomic background of the students. Should this not suggest to those seeking change that maybe, on top of an education/school experience, something should be done to improve the living standards of children?
In closing, I can see a trend towards education leveling the playing field. I believe that the new Social Studies curriculum will give students the knowledge, skills, and attitudes to examine the status quo, see the inequalities, oppression, and shortcomings, and make change. Children are the future.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Is Bill 206 the Answer?
I felt inspired after reading a classmate’s blog. She takes the time to comment on current affairs that are relevant to education. I am inspired to follow the news more closely and comment on news that may affect me as a future educator. Not only will I raise my own awareness of current issues in education, hopefully, I will also be able to develop my skills on predicting the effect of the current issues on the future of the education system.
I would like to start by looking a proposed bill that may legally ban bullying.
A recent series of hazing rituals by Alberta students has raised the issue of bullying. Heather Forsyth, MLA for Calgary Fish Creek, has proposed Bill 206, which is intended to enhance student and teacher protection from bullying. One clause in particular, has the potential to legally ban bullying.
Sure passing this bill may put more stress on the teachers and administrators by increasing the amount of paperwork when dealing with bullying. It may tax the police because they will be required to become the new experts on bullying. And, if bullying cases go to the courts, then the courts, and possibly penal institutes, will feel the burden.
My concern on the issuer goes beyond the burden facing the teachers, administrators, and judicial system. Bill 206 may narrow the definition of bullying to acts such as physical and emotional abuse, theft, and so on, and to see bullying only in those terms instead of a symptom of a larger problem. Every action has a reason and the better we can understand that reason the better we can take action to solve that problem. An example came up in class in which older students were stealing lunches, often by force, from younger students. After a little investigation, it was determined that these students were from households that were neglecting to feed them. The school implemented a lunch plan, providing the much needed meals to the older children, and the students no longer stole lunches. Seeing this example of bullying in a larger context allowed the school to take action to solve the problem, instead of trying to remove the problem.
Speaking of narrowing things down, Bill 206 only seems to deal with the bully. From what I understand, bullying involves the bully, the bullied, and the bystander. Bullying is not a cancer that can be cut out. If a bully is removed from somewhere, he or she has to go somewhere and in that new somewhere odds are that he or she will still be a bully, even if that new somewhere is some form of incarceration.
Overall, this narrowing of the definition bullying and shift of focus to only the bully may not be the best solution to the problem.
Is bullying an issue? Absolutely. Do we need to take action? Absolutely? Is Bill 206 the best action? I am not so sure.
Come to think of it, have people under the age of 18 stopped drinking and smoking yet?
I would like to start by looking a proposed bill that may legally ban bullying.
A recent series of hazing rituals by Alberta students has raised the issue of bullying. Heather Forsyth, MLA for Calgary Fish Creek, has proposed Bill 206, which is intended to enhance student and teacher protection from bullying. One clause in particular, has the potential to legally ban bullying.
Sure passing this bill may put more stress on the teachers and administrators by increasing the amount of paperwork when dealing with bullying. It may tax the police because they will be required to become the new experts on bullying. And, if bullying cases go to the courts, then the courts, and possibly penal institutes, will feel the burden.
My concern on the issuer goes beyond the burden facing the teachers, administrators, and judicial system. Bill 206 may narrow the definition of bullying to acts such as physical and emotional abuse, theft, and so on, and to see bullying only in those terms instead of a symptom of a larger problem. Every action has a reason and the better we can understand that reason the better we can take action to solve that problem. An example came up in class in which older students were stealing lunches, often by force, from younger students. After a little investigation, it was determined that these students were from households that were neglecting to feed them. The school implemented a lunch plan, providing the much needed meals to the older children, and the students no longer stole lunches. Seeing this example of bullying in a larger context allowed the school to take action to solve the problem, instead of trying to remove the problem.
Speaking of narrowing things down, Bill 206 only seems to deal with the bully. From what I understand, bullying involves the bully, the bullied, and the bystander. Bullying is not a cancer that can be cut out. If a bully is removed from somewhere, he or she has to go somewhere and in that new somewhere odds are that he or she will still be a bully, even if that new somewhere is some form of incarceration.
Overall, this narrowing of the definition bullying and shift of focus to only the bully may not be the best solution to the problem.
Is bullying an issue? Absolutely. Do we need to take action? Absolutely? Is Bill 206 the best action? I am not so sure.
Come to think of it, have people under the age of 18 stopped drinking and smoking yet?
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Autonomous Practitioner
Today we were introduced to the concept of the teacher as autonomous professional. To be an autonomous professional, the teacher combines the skills developed through training, such as lesson planning and constructing valid and reliable tests, with a bigger-picture basis of knowledge that allows the teacher to understand the whys and wherefores of his or her teaching practices. The teacher reflects on and learns from his or her own decisions, which empower him or her to act instead of react. As a reflective practitioner, the teacher deftly sidesteps the trap of trained incapacity. Trained incapacity is a quagmire for critical thinking in which the individual may, unfortunately, assume that there is only one fixed way of reaching a goal, for example, believing that selected response tests are the only way to assess student learning. As a critical thinker, I can, in turn, model critical thinking skills to my students with the desired result of inspiring them to be critical thinkers.
This is all great and I agree that as a teacher I should know why I am assigning a research paper instead of administering a selected response test. But how autonomous can I be? Are there not limiting factors? Curriculum could be a limiting factor. Law dictates that I teach certain topics to students at set times in their academic career. In the beginning, I will not have any say over the curriculum. And the curriculum itself may not see revisions for another ten years anyway. Federal and provincial politics can also limit a teacher’s capabilities. When parties in power tighten their budgets, funding to education may decrease, which may limit a teacher’s access to resources, increase class sizes, hamper programmes for students with exceptionalities, and so on. Speaking of teaching resources, are publishing companies not in competition for selling their text books? Who wins in this competition? Are schools that can only purchase the most affordable textbook really receiving the best? [Just as an aside: Is it ethical to make a profit on something that is a basic right, i.e. education?] Curriculum, budgets, and access to resources, just to name a few, are factors that may be beyond my control but will influence my capacity to teach. Choices are being made for me that will limit my autonomy.
Since this is my first entry, it may resemble more of a misguided rant. As I gain more insight into the bigger picture and hone my critical thinking, I will find my stance on the issues and my voice to express it. Read, respond, reflect, or reject this blog as you see fit.
This is all great and I agree that as a teacher I should know why I am assigning a research paper instead of administering a selected response test. But how autonomous can I be? Are there not limiting factors? Curriculum could be a limiting factor. Law dictates that I teach certain topics to students at set times in their academic career. In the beginning, I will not have any say over the curriculum. And the curriculum itself may not see revisions for another ten years anyway. Federal and provincial politics can also limit a teacher’s capabilities. When parties in power tighten their budgets, funding to education may decrease, which may limit a teacher’s access to resources, increase class sizes, hamper programmes for students with exceptionalities, and so on. Speaking of teaching resources, are publishing companies not in competition for selling their text books? Who wins in this competition? Are schools that can only purchase the most affordable textbook really receiving the best? [Just as an aside: Is it ethical to make a profit on something that is a basic right, i.e. education?] Curriculum, budgets, and access to resources, just to name a few, are factors that may be beyond my control but will influence my capacity to teach. Choices are being made for me that will limit my autonomy.
Since this is my first entry, it may resemble more of a misguided rant. As I gain more insight into the bigger picture and hone my critical thinking, I will find my stance on the issues and my voice to express it. Read, respond, reflect, or reject this blog as you see fit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)