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.

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.

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?