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?

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.

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?

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?

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.