I cannot believe that the semester is coming to an end already! This semester has just flown by and it is crazy to think that this is my last semester on campus ever. After PSIII, I will be finished my post-secondary education!
I enjoyed this blogging experience so much. Not only was I excited to express my own views and opinions in my blog, but I also thoroughly enjoyed reading my classmates' blogs and commenting on them. I liked that we had the option to post a comment on a classmate's blog instead of posting our own. I tried to do this at least once a week to fulfill the requirements of this assignment but also to enrich my experience with the assignment. I also made an effort to respond to the comments left on my blog. It was a great way to have discussions outside of class and to see things from another person's perspective. I also appreciated all of the comments that my classmates made on my blog. I feel as though I benefited greatly from using this blog as an outlet for my ideas because I am not as keen to express my opinions in class. I think this allowed everyone to have a voice and that is so important.
I hope that you all enjoyed reading this blog as much as I enjoyed reading yours. I definitely gained a lot from your ideas and feel that I got a lot out of this experience!
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Five Models of Failure
In the last lectures of class, we discussed the "Five Models of Failure." These theories attempt to explain why some groups of students do better in school than others. This is really interesting because we often discuss groups that are "at risk" of failing. This can be a problem because we, as teachers, must be careful not to just write these children off and expect less of them. Although I do believe that there can be some truth within these theories, they are also not definite. We should encourage all students and not expect less because we are told by their IQ, family life, race, or social class that they are not able to succeed.
The first model we discussed was Social Darwinism. This theory is focused on the individual. Basically, this model believes that students fail because they are stupid and/or lazy. Any inadequacy lies within the individual themselves and not with their family, culture, class, or school system. This theory simply does not make a lot of sense and goes against almost everything we have learned throughout our education. Who defines what "being smart" is? When considering Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences, we know that students learn and express their knowledge in different ways. The problem is that many tests that determine intelligence don't take this into consideration.
Psychological Deprivation was the second model we discussed. Basically, this theory states that students who come from poor homes are likely to fail because of lack of nourishment, role models and stimulation. At first I felt that this theory made the most sense. It is so hard for a child to learn when they are hungry and are basically taking care of themselves without a responsible parent in their life. We also know that students are more likely to excel when their parents take an interest in their learning and participate in learning activities with them at home. Even though I think that family has a big influence on their children, it does not mean that the children from poor homes are doomed. It is sad that a lot of teachers seem to give up on these students which is exactly the opposite of what they need.
The third model attempts to answer the question of why some families' values and attitudes are at odds with the school. This is called the Cultural Deprivation model. This model says that certain cultures are likely to fail. This is something that has come up a lot in education classes. It is not that certain cultures are less smart or less determined. It is that a lot of the measures of intelligence are biased towards white middle class culture. In addition, their first language may not be English which poses many challenges when entering school. What teachers can take away from this model is just to be aware of cultural difference. They should be embraced in the classroom. I think recently there have been some efforts to eliminate this problem such as ESL programs which is very important.
The Reproduction model was the next model to be discussed. This model looks at why only certain subcultures are at risk of failure. Central to this model is social class. It says that family transmits their values to their children and that these children are limited to their parent's occupational level - social class is reproduced. This can also be seen to an extent in our society. Some individuals may not attempt to go to university because they feel that they are not able to because no one in their family has. Experiencing large amounts of social mobility from parents is not very likely. However, hopefully with more and more educational opportunities available we can change this view. Teachers can encourage their students to pursue any interests they have and help them get there.
The final model of failure we discussed was the Administrative Model. This theory focuses on money and funding and the barriers individuals may face because of this. Advancing does cost money and it is often difficult to further one's education without loans, bursaries and part-time jobs. Because of this, educational advancement may not be available for everyone. There are ways to get there of course, but it can be a lot harder for certain individuals than others.
As Robert mentioned, the interesting thing about these models is that the teacher and school system are never blamed for the students' failure. I believe that what we need to take out of this discussion is that we should not subscribe to these models, even if we see truth in them. It is our job to help our students overcome these barriers. Of course, the student needs to want to succeed as well which is where other challenges may arise. Nevertheless, no child should be labeled as a "write off" and hopefully we never give up on or expect less of a student that falls into one of these models.
The first model we discussed was Social Darwinism. This theory is focused on the individual. Basically, this model believes that students fail because they are stupid and/or lazy. Any inadequacy lies within the individual themselves and not with their family, culture, class, or school system. This theory simply does not make a lot of sense and goes against almost everything we have learned throughout our education. Who defines what "being smart" is? When considering Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences, we know that students learn and express their knowledge in different ways. The problem is that many tests that determine intelligence don't take this into consideration.
Psychological Deprivation was the second model we discussed. Basically, this theory states that students who come from poor homes are likely to fail because of lack of nourishment, role models and stimulation. At first I felt that this theory made the most sense. It is so hard for a child to learn when they are hungry and are basically taking care of themselves without a responsible parent in their life. We also know that students are more likely to excel when their parents take an interest in their learning and participate in learning activities with them at home. Even though I think that family has a big influence on their children, it does not mean that the children from poor homes are doomed. It is sad that a lot of teachers seem to give up on these students which is exactly the opposite of what they need.
The third model attempts to answer the question of why some families' values and attitudes are at odds with the school. This is called the Cultural Deprivation model. This model says that certain cultures are likely to fail. This is something that has come up a lot in education classes. It is not that certain cultures are less smart or less determined. It is that a lot of the measures of intelligence are biased towards white middle class culture. In addition, their first language may not be English which poses many challenges when entering school. What teachers can take away from this model is just to be aware of cultural difference. They should be embraced in the classroom. I think recently there have been some efforts to eliminate this problem such as ESL programs which is very important.
The Reproduction model was the next model to be discussed. This model looks at why only certain subcultures are at risk of failure. Central to this model is social class. It says that family transmits their values to their children and that these children are limited to their parent's occupational level - social class is reproduced. This can also be seen to an extent in our society. Some individuals may not attempt to go to university because they feel that they are not able to because no one in their family has. Experiencing large amounts of social mobility from parents is not very likely. However, hopefully with more and more educational opportunities available we can change this view. Teachers can encourage their students to pursue any interests they have and help them get there.
The final model of failure we discussed was the Administrative Model. This theory focuses on money and funding and the barriers individuals may face because of this. Advancing does cost money and it is often difficult to further one's education without loans, bursaries and part-time jobs. Because of this, educational advancement may not be available for everyone. There are ways to get there of course, but it can be a lot harder for certain individuals than others.
As Robert mentioned, the interesting thing about these models is that the teacher and school system are never blamed for the students' failure. I believe that what we need to take out of this discussion is that we should not subscribe to these models, even if we see truth in them. It is our job to help our students overcome these barriers. Of course, the student needs to want to succeed as well which is where other challenges may arise. Nevertheless, no child should be labeled as a "write off" and hopefully we never give up on or expect less of a student that falls into one of these models.
Monday, December 7, 2009
The Homework Issue
Homework is a topic that has come up a lot in class discussions and also in some blog posts that I have read so I thought that I should discuss it as well.
If anyone reading this has not heard of the homework issue in question, you can visit the link Calgary Family Negotiates Homework Ban. Basically, a family voiced their concerns about the homework load their children were receiving and signed a contract with the school to eliminate homework altogether. The students will be marked instead only on work done in the classroom. They will, however, still be required to study for tests on their own time.
This is a really interesting topic to discuss. In my experiences the deal is - if you do your work in class, you will not have any homework. I agree with this method to an extent. However, it seems that students are often sent home work that they did not (or could not) complete in class. This concerns me because this could very likely mean that the student is not understanding something. Sending more work for the child to complete at home will not help them understand the concepts. Time needs to be set aside to work with the student. If the child is not completing work in class because of distractions, remove the distractions.
In my experience in PSI and PSII, both of my Teacher Associates did not believe in sending home assignments. I feel that this made sense when working with Grade 2s. It was very apparent that those students not completing their work were struggling with the content. Therefore, as teachers, it is our job to work with the student until they understand. However, when I was teaching a Grade 9 class in a school that did not really allow homework, some problems arose. I was required to give my students way too much class time (in my opinion) to complete projects I had them working on. Often they were off task and wasted their time. I tried to have a "one student to another" conversation with some of them asking them why they were doing this. I told them that I would LOVE it if my profs in university gave me time to finish all of my assignments during class and that they should take advantage of the time they had in class. I could not understand why they did not want to participate in activities they enjoyed at home instead of doing work. Most told me they preferred to do things at home. Why... I never understood. It made me lose a lot of teaching time.
On the other hand, I do believe that homework has its place. When working on certain projects, it is sometimes easier to complete at home due to space or materials. In addition, it sort of prepares them for the future because, as mentioned, university work is typically completed at home.
Instead of sending home "busy work", teachers should encourage parents to spend time with their children and be interested in their learning. Reading together or discussing events. This could be completed with literacy backpacks, family history interviews, etc. Teachers should be careful about what sort of work they are sending home and must make sure it is not just "busy work" or work that the child was unable to complete because they did not understand. We should be enhancing their learning through homework, not using it as a punishment.
Friday, December 4, 2009
Does the "Glass Ceiling" still exist?
During the presentation yesterday, we had a short class discussion about whether or not we felt that there was still a "glass ceiling" in our society. Basically, the glass ceiling refers to a situation in which a qualified individual is essentially stopped from advancing further in their career due to some form of discrimination. In the context we were focusing on, we were discussing sexism. We were asked if we thought there was still this invisible barrier for women in the work place.
I have discussed this concept very briefly in other courses and it's interesting because I have always sort of felt that it was an outdated term. However, after reading some blogs and listening to class discussions, it seems as though that may not be the case. A classmate made the comment that men were getting paid significantly more money for doing the same job as some women. This doesn't make any sense and I was a little skeptical about this statement. I just can't see how employers would get away with that. I would agree that it is often easier for men to advance in certain careers but if a man and a woman are at the same level, they should be getting paid the same. I would say that presently, this is not as prominent as it once was although it seems that discrimination of some form in the workplace will always exists.
It still seems that there are certain jobs that are considered to be a man's job or a woman's job. I remember my first days of university at the U of A. We were placed in groups based on our faculty for orientation. I remember everyone recognizing who the engineers were because 98% of them were male. We could also easily recognize where the nursing faculty was as their group was 98% female. This is changing slightly but looking around the classroom, there are way more women than men in all of my education classes. That field is still dominated by women. However, it was brought up that although there are a lot of female teachers, most administrators were men. This is definitely not the case anymore. Both of the schools that I did my practicums in had female principals. I definitely think that is changing a bit and women are able to advance a lot more.
But is it going too far? Sometimes I feel as though certain sexes are more suited for a job BUT on the other hand, I also think that sex should NOT be looked at when being considered for a job. Employers should be looking for skills, experience, qualifications, etc. In some cases, a position is given to a woman just because she is a woman. I have a relative who is a firefighter. He says that their company is required to have a certain number of women, and also that he feels as though some of those woman would not be able to pull him out of a burning building should the situation arise. That is a little bit scary. Don't get me wrong, I am not discouraging women from becoming firefighters. I just feel as though everyone should be looked at based on their qualifications not on gender... Or race for that matter. Many companies are required to hire so many minorities and schools also need to admit so many. How is that fair? Why can't people just be looked at based on their qualifications? It seems as though everyone is trying not to discriminate but doesn't know exactly how to approach it fairly.
Things have definitely changed with respect to women and minority groups in the workplace. However, there are always still problems with the system. As you can see, I feel as though it can go both ways or be pushed too far. I like to think that we are moving in the right direction but I also know that my knowledge is limited on the subject as I have not experienced much of this first hand. Any thoughts??
I have discussed this concept very briefly in other courses and it's interesting because I have always sort of felt that it was an outdated term. However, after reading some blogs and listening to class discussions, it seems as though that may not be the case. A classmate made the comment that men were getting paid significantly more money for doing the same job as some women. This doesn't make any sense and I was a little skeptical about this statement. I just can't see how employers would get away with that. I would agree that it is often easier for men to advance in certain careers but if a man and a woman are at the same level, they should be getting paid the same. I would say that presently, this is not as prominent as it once was although it seems that discrimination of some form in the workplace will always exists.
It still seems that there are certain jobs that are considered to be a man's job or a woman's job. I remember my first days of university at the U of A. We were placed in groups based on our faculty for orientation. I remember everyone recognizing who the engineers were because 98% of them were male. We could also easily recognize where the nursing faculty was as their group was 98% female. This is changing slightly but looking around the classroom, there are way more women than men in all of my education classes. That field is still dominated by women. However, it was brought up that although there are a lot of female teachers, most administrators were men. This is definitely not the case anymore. Both of the schools that I did my practicums in had female principals. I definitely think that is changing a bit and women are able to advance a lot more.
But is it going too far? Sometimes I feel as though certain sexes are more suited for a job BUT on the other hand, I also think that sex should NOT be looked at when being considered for a job. Employers should be looking for skills, experience, qualifications, etc. In some cases, a position is given to a woman just because she is a woman. I have a relative who is a firefighter. He says that their company is required to have a certain number of women, and also that he feels as though some of those woman would not be able to pull him out of a burning building should the situation arise. That is a little bit scary. Don't get me wrong, I am not discouraging women from becoming firefighters. I just feel as though everyone should be looked at based on their qualifications not on gender... Or race for that matter. Many companies are required to hire so many minorities and schools also need to admit so many. How is that fair? Why can't people just be looked at based on their qualifications? It seems as though everyone is trying not to discriminate but doesn't know exactly how to approach it fairly.
Things have definitely changed with respect to women and minority groups in the workplace. However, there are always still problems with the system. As you can see, I feel as though it can go both ways or be pushed too far. I like to think that we are moving in the right direction but I also know that my knowledge is limited on the subject as I have not experienced much of this first hand. Any thoughts??
Thursday, November 26, 2009
How Prepared Are We to Teach?
Another interesting part of the presentation today was the questionnaire we filled out concerning how prepared we felt from the information we received in our on-campus education courses and how important these factors were in practicum.
To be honest, aside from a handful of skills that could have been taught more in depth, I felt fairly prepared for my practicums – as prepared as you can be with little actual field experience. There are definitely some things that need to be learned out in the field; however, having the information given to us in class was very helpful. I might not have felt completely confident in all of these areas entering the school but I knew that I would learn what I needed to through experience.
It seems as though a lot of people in the class felt underprepared in areas such as establishing rapport with students, developing interpersonal human relationships with peers and superiors, and working with parents. Touching on these issues in class is helpful, however, I don’t know if these skills can necessarily be taught. It has a lot to do with personality and life experience. As we progress with our careers, we will become increasingly confident in these important skills.
One skill that I had not really considered was number 16 – Understanding the changing nature of pupils’ families. This is something that is becoming very prominent. Many children are living in single parent homes or have parents who are divorced. There can be some very touchy issues there and this seems important to talk about before actually experiencing it. In my PSI experience, I had twins in my Grade 2 class whose parents were divorced. The parents did not get along at all, tried to turn their children against the other parent, blamed the other parent when the children came to school unprepared, and demanded separate parent/teacher interviews because they could not be in the same room. My TA was awesome when dealing with this situation but it really scared me because I would not know how to deal with this at all. It was helpful that I got to experience this. Maybe I will feel a little more prepared if I encounter this in my career.
I learn through experience. I don’t necessarily need all of the theories and strategies. A lot are VERY helpful don't get me wrong but putting them into practice is the most important. I think that this is why the U of L is often held above other Universities - because we get a lot of great field experience. All of our work here will be worth it!
To be honest, aside from a handful of skills that could have been taught more in depth, I felt fairly prepared for my practicums – as prepared as you can be with little actual field experience. There are definitely some things that need to be learned out in the field; however, having the information given to us in class was very helpful. I might not have felt completely confident in all of these areas entering the school but I knew that I would learn what I needed to through experience.
It seems as though a lot of people in the class felt underprepared in areas such as establishing rapport with students, developing interpersonal human relationships with peers and superiors, and working with parents. Touching on these issues in class is helpful, however, I don’t know if these skills can necessarily be taught. It has a lot to do with personality and life experience. As we progress with our careers, we will become increasingly confident in these important skills.
One skill that I had not really considered was number 16 – Understanding the changing nature of pupils’ families. This is something that is becoming very prominent. Many children are living in single parent homes or have parents who are divorced. There can be some very touchy issues there and this seems important to talk about before actually experiencing it. In my PSI experience, I had twins in my Grade 2 class whose parents were divorced. The parents did not get along at all, tried to turn their children against the other parent, blamed the other parent when the children came to school unprepared, and demanded separate parent/teacher interviews because they could not be in the same room. My TA was awesome when dealing with this situation but it really scared me because I would not know how to deal with this at all. It was helpful that I got to experience this. Maybe I will feel a little more prepared if I encounter this in my career.
I learn through experience. I don’t necessarily need all of the theories and strategies. A lot are VERY helpful don't get me wrong but putting them into practice is the most important. I think that this is why the U of L is often held above other Universities - because we get a lot of great field experience. All of our work here will be worth it!
Do Post-Secondary Grades Measure Teacher Success?
The presentation today led to some fantastic discussions at the end of class. It is interesting that there are so many differing opinions on the topic as well.
One issue that has come up many times in class and also in blog posts is the topic of being admitted to the faculty of education based only on GPA. We know that being highly intelligent and getting straight A’s does not mean that you will be a good teacher by any stretch so why are admissions based on marks? This is an interesting topic. To be clear, I don’t think that this is the best system. However, I disagree when people make the argument that so many people who would be great teachers don’t get there because of the admission requirements to get into the program. I feel that if a person has a strong passion to become a teacher, they will become one. When I took Ed 2500, my professor explained the admission requirements to us and he said not to worry and that if we wanted to be teachers, we would be. We might not get in right away and we might go to different institutions but we will get there if we want to. I agree completely with this. Perhaps grades don’t matter when you are a teacher but I think that people should be able to work for it. It’s not like you need a 4.0 to get in. I will admit that I did not get in the first year I applied because of my marks. However, I worked hard, reapplied and got in right away. If this is impossible for some people, I question whether they should be educators. It may seem a little harsh but that is just my opinion on that particular argument. On the other hand, I do agree that individuals who have struggled at some point in their academic career do make great teachers as they can relate to students and can better explain and break concepts down. I think we all have something that we have struggled with that can help us relate to our students.
Robert also brought up a really interesting point about giving marks in Education classes once in the program. I always wondered why education classes weren’t just “pass or fail.” It seems that everyone just got an A on everything anyway. What I did not consider was what this would do to a person’s GPA. Classes that are pass/fail are not calculated into a GPA and so may give an inaccurate representation of an individual’s undergraduate work. I understand this but I also think it is so important at this stage in our academic careers to really concentrate and reflect on our own learning and not worry so much about marks.
One issue that has come up many times in class and also in blog posts is the topic of being admitted to the faculty of education based only on GPA. We know that being highly intelligent and getting straight A’s does not mean that you will be a good teacher by any stretch so why are admissions based on marks? This is an interesting topic. To be clear, I don’t think that this is the best system. However, I disagree when people make the argument that so many people who would be great teachers don’t get there because of the admission requirements to get into the program. I feel that if a person has a strong passion to become a teacher, they will become one. When I took Ed 2500, my professor explained the admission requirements to us and he said not to worry and that if we wanted to be teachers, we would be. We might not get in right away and we might go to different institutions but we will get there if we want to. I agree completely with this. Perhaps grades don’t matter when you are a teacher but I think that people should be able to work for it. It’s not like you need a 4.0 to get in. I will admit that I did not get in the first year I applied because of my marks. However, I worked hard, reapplied and got in right away. If this is impossible for some people, I question whether they should be educators. It may seem a little harsh but that is just my opinion on that particular argument. On the other hand, I do agree that individuals who have struggled at some point in their academic career do make great teachers as they can relate to students and can better explain and break concepts down. I think we all have something that we have struggled with that can help us relate to our students.
Robert also brought up a really interesting point about giving marks in Education classes once in the program. I always wondered why education classes weren’t just “pass or fail.” It seems that everyone just got an A on everything anyway. What I did not consider was what this would do to a person’s GPA. Classes that are pass/fail are not calculated into a GPA and so may give an inaccurate representation of an individual’s undergraduate work. I understand this but I also think it is so important at this stage in our academic careers to really concentrate and reflect on our own learning and not worry so much about marks.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
The Up Series Revisited – Age 28
On Thursday, we were able to watch a few follow up videos of the Up series. As previously mentioned, the video we watched on Tuesday showed the thirteen children at age 7. The video we watched on Thursday focused on these individuals at age 28 but showed some footage from when they were 14 and 21. This was very interesting to see and I think the results surprised a lot of us.
Because of time constraints we were only able to watch updates on three of the thirteen children. Here were their results …
Paul
At age 7, Paul went to a Charity Boarding School and was considered to be lower class. Paul expressed his interest in wanting to become a police officer but realized that he would not be able to get into university to achieve this goal. We predicted that he probably would be working a lower class job in adulthood. However, at age 28, Paul is a successful brick layer in Australia. He lives in a middle class suburb with his wife. Their house it a descent size, they have two children and two cars. It appears that Paul has experienced social mobility by moving into the middle class. How did this happen? Well, it seems that the reason for his success is the fact that he moved to Australia. Australia is characterized by a contest system (like North America) whereas England is based on the sponsorship model. Because of his move, he sort of cheated the system. He was able to advance much further in life than he would have if he remained in the UK. Paul expresses how he hopes that his children can do even better than he did by receiving the education he was not able to receive. This is interesting because this is something that would happen in the contest system. In the UK sponsored system, parents expect their children to be of the same social class as them.
Suzy
At age 7, Suzy went to a Private Girls Boarding School and was considered to be quite upper class. Her days were very structured and her mom had picked out schools for her to attend. We predicted that she would probably attend school but end up marrying a rich husband and stay home to raise her children. What was interesting about Suzy is that she was quite rebellious at age 21. She had dropped out of school and said that she never wanted to get married or have children. By age 28, Suzy was married to a wealthy man and had two children. They had a nice home and she was raising her children. She indicated that she would send her children to a private boarding school even though her and her husband did not really enjoy the experience. She said that it was what they knew and also acknowledged the quality of education they would receive there. Even though she went through her rebellious stage, she still ended up more or less where we thought she would be.
Nicholas
Nicholas was perhaps the most surprising to me. At age 7, Nicholas lived in a rural community and was the only child his age in the village. He went to school in a one room school house and indicated that he wanted to learn about the moon and things. He was not considered to be high class or cultured. However, at age 28 … he is a nuclear physicist! He studied at Oxford and moved to Wisconsin with his (crazy) wife to be a professor at a university. I definitely did not expect this. So, how did this happen? At age 11, Nicholas scored very highly on the 11 Plus exam and was identified as gifted. Therefore, he was resocialized in the elite class and received a very good education from a prestigious institution. Even though he received this high education, there was apparently not much use for scientists at the time in the UK and he was not making much money. However, when he moved to the US, he makes more money. By switching from a sponsored system to a contest system, Nicholas was able to be more successful in his chosen field.
It was so interesting watching these follow up videos and I am very interested in watching more of them. It appears that it is difficult to change classes in the sponsored system unless you score well on the 11 plus exam. Both Paul and Nicholas were able to be successful because they moved to another system. I am interested to see if this is the case with all of the children.
Because of time constraints we were only able to watch updates on three of the thirteen children. Here were their results …
Paul
At age 7, Paul went to a Charity Boarding School and was considered to be lower class. Paul expressed his interest in wanting to become a police officer but realized that he would not be able to get into university to achieve this goal. We predicted that he probably would be working a lower class job in adulthood. However, at age 28, Paul is a successful brick layer in Australia. He lives in a middle class suburb with his wife. Their house it a descent size, they have two children and two cars. It appears that Paul has experienced social mobility by moving into the middle class. How did this happen? Well, it seems that the reason for his success is the fact that he moved to Australia. Australia is characterized by a contest system (like North America) whereas England is based on the sponsorship model. Because of his move, he sort of cheated the system. He was able to advance much further in life than he would have if he remained in the UK. Paul expresses how he hopes that his children can do even better than he did by receiving the education he was not able to receive. This is interesting because this is something that would happen in the contest system. In the UK sponsored system, parents expect their children to be of the same social class as them.
Suzy
At age 7, Suzy went to a Private Girls Boarding School and was considered to be quite upper class. Her days were very structured and her mom had picked out schools for her to attend. We predicted that she would probably attend school but end up marrying a rich husband and stay home to raise her children. What was interesting about Suzy is that she was quite rebellious at age 21. She had dropped out of school and said that she never wanted to get married or have children. By age 28, Suzy was married to a wealthy man and had two children. They had a nice home and she was raising her children. She indicated that she would send her children to a private boarding school even though her and her husband did not really enjoy the experience. She said that it was what they knew and also acknowledged the quality of education they would receive there. Even though she went through her rebellious stage, she still ended up more or less where we thought she would be.
Nicholas
Nicholas was perhaps the most surprising to me. At age 7, Nicholas lived in a rural community and was the only child his age in the village. He went to school in a one room school house and indicated that he wanted to learn about the moon and things. He was not considered to be high class or cultured. However, at age 28 … he is a nuclear physicist! He studied at Oxford and moved to Wisconsin with his (crazy) wife to be a professor at a university. I definitely did not expect this. So, how did this happen? At age 11, Nicholas scored very highly on the 11 Plus exam and was identified as gifted. Therefore, he was resocialized in the elite class and received a very good education from a prestigious institution. Even though he received this high education, there was apparently not much use for scientists at the time in the UK and he was not making much money. However, when he moved to the US, he makes more money. By switching from a sponsored system to a contest system, Nicholas was able to be more successful in his chosen field.
It was so interesting watching these follow up videos and I am very interested in watching more of them. It appears that it is difficult to change classes in the sponsored system unless you score well on the 11 plus exam. Both Paul and Nicholas were able to be successful because they moved to another system. I am interested to see if this is the case with all of the children.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
The Up Series Part 1
How much of our future is determined by the time we are 7?
Yesterday in class we watched a very interesting video. The video, which took place in Britain, followed a number of children around the age of seven. The children were from a wide range of social classes from a lower class orphan to upper class prep school children. They were asked various questions about their thoughts and beliefs, and what they wanted to be when they grew up. It was so interesting to hear how the answers varied between the social classes.
First, it is important to reiterate how our formal system of education differs from that in the UK. Schools in North America are open to everyone, whereas in the UK schools are open to everyone … as long as you have money. Those who are wealthy in the UK attend the best schools and will go on to the best universities. In addition, in North America, it seems that the material taught is relevant for the most part. On the other hand, in the UK, topics and literature studied are more traditional and based on high culture. For example, Latin is often learned in the UK because it shows high class. In North America, there is a lot more opportunity to change classes and it is unlikely to know what lies in store for your future when you are seven. In the UK, class and level of future occupation are predetermined.
It seems as though all of the children in the video knew what class they were from and what it meant for their future. Those upper class boys who attended the prep school already knew what universities they would attend and what house they would belong to. Their language was much more advanced than the lower class children and I would imagine that they will become very successful. Those children who were from a lower class did not set high standards for themselves and understood that it would be difficult to be successful. It was often difficult to understand what these children were saying. Another noticeable difference was that the upper class children were more disciplined both at school and in the way they spent their free time while the lower class children had more freedom in this regard. The upper class children looked down upon lower class people, including minority races.
Thinking back to when I was seven years old, I had no idea what I would be when I grew up and I did not consider any limitations that I may face. I did not consider that it would be too difficult for me to become what I wanted to be. It was sad when the boy, Paul, said he wanted to become a policeman but that it would be very hard for him to get the education to fulfill this dream. In addition, when I was seven, I changed what I wanted to be every 5 minutes (actually I probably did that until I was 20). In our society, it seems we get to experience more before we decide what we want to be and there are not as many limitations.
After watching this video, we were asked to make predictions about where we thought these children would end up in life. Next class, we will be shown what actually happened to these individuals. I am very interested to find out if their futures are as predetermined as they seem.
Yesterday in class we watched a very interesting video. The video, which took place in Britain, followed a number of children around the age of seven. The children were from a wide range of social classes from a lower class orphan to upper class prep school children. They were asked various questions about their thoughts and beliefs, and what they wanted to be when they grew up. It was so interesting to hear how the answers varied between the social classes.
First, it is important to reiterate how our formal system of education differs from that in the UK. Schools in North America are open to everyone, whereas in the UK schools are open to everyone … as long as you have money. Those who are wealthy in the UK attend the best schools and will go on to the best universities. In addition, in North America, it seems that the material taught is relevant for the most part. On the other hand, in the UK, topics and literature studied are more traditional and based on high culture. For example, Latin is often learned in the UK because it shows high class. In North America, there is a lot more opportunity to change classes and it is unlikely to know what lies in store for your future when you are seven. In the UK, class and level of future occupation are predetermined.
It seems as though all of the children in the video knew what class they were from and what it meant for their future. Those upper class boys who attended the prep school already knew what universities they would attend and what house they would belong to. Their language was much more advanced than the lower class children and I would imagine that they will become very successful. Those children who were from a lower class did not set high standards for themselves and understood that it would be difficult to be successful. It was often difficult to understand what these children were saying. Another noticeable difference was that the upper class children were more disciplined both at school and in the way they spent their free time while the lower class children had more freedom in this regard. The upper class children looked down upon lower class people, including minority races.
Thinking back to when I was seven years old, I had no idea what I would be when I grew up and I did not consider any limitations that I may face. I did not consider that it would be too difficult for me to become what I wanted to be. It was sad when the boy, Paul, said he wanted to become a policeman but that it would be very hard for him to get the education to fulfill this dream. In addition, when I was seven, I changed what I wanted to be every 5 minutes (actually I probably did that until I was 20). In our society, it seems we get to experience more before we decide what we want to be and there are not as many limitations.
After watching this video, we were asked to make predictions about where we thought these children would end up in life. Next class, we will be shown what actually happened to these individuals. I am very interested to find out if their futures are as predetermined as they seem.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Something to Consider ...
ANNA
“WHEN YOU ARE A KID you have your own language, and unlike French or Spanish or whatever you start learning in fourth grade, this one you’re born with, and eventually lose. Everyone under the age of seven is fluent in Ifspeak; go hang around with someone under three feet tall and you’ll see. What if a giant funnelweb spider crawled out of that hole over your head and bit you on the neck? What if the only antidote for venom was locked up in a vault on the top of a mountain? What if you lived through the bite, but could only move your eyelids and blink out an alphabet? It doesn’t really matter how far you go; the point is that it’s a world of possibility. Kids think with their brains cracked wide open; becoming an adult, I’ve decided, is only a slow sewing shut.”
- Jodi Picoult,
My Sister’s Keeper
I have just finished reading this book by Jodi Picoult and I made a note to remember this quote from the novel. I wanted to share it with other teachers so it’s a good thing that I have this blog to do so!
I found so much truth in this quote and also found it sort of sad. It reminded me about how children aren’t afraid to take chances and will often throw many creative ideas at you. As we get older, that seems to stop. Do we feel as though we are too old for Ifspeak? Do we realize more about the world and forget we once had limitless imaginations?
Teachers of all grade levels should encourage creative thoughts and establish a classroom environment in which students should feel comfortable to take risks. For some reason, students in older grades are so afraid of giving a wrong answer or getting made fun of for an idea that some truly amazing thoughts may not be escaping. This would definitely be a challenge to overcome – especially with middle and high school students. This is just something to think about as future teachers and also as adults who should remember that we can still be imaginative and creative! The great thing about being an educator is that those qualities only add to the effectiveness of our practice.
“WHEN YOU ARE A KID you have your own language, and unlike French or Spanish or whatever you start learning in fourth grade, this one you’re born with, and eventually lose. Everyone under the age of seven is fluent in Ifspeak; go hang around with someone under three feet tall and you’ll see. What if a giant funnelweb spider crawled out of that hole over your head and bit you on the neck? What if the only antidote for venom was locked up in a vault on the top of a mountain? What if you lived through the bite, but could only move your eyelids and blink out an alphabet? It doesn’t really matter how far you go; the point is that it’s a world of possibility. Kids think with their brains cracked wide open; becoming an adult, I’ve decided, is only a slow sewing shut.”
- Jodi Picoult,
My Sister’s Keeper
I have just finished reading this book by Jodi Picoult and I made a note to remember this quote from the novel. I wanted to share it with other teachers so it’s a good thing that I have this blog to do so!
I found so much truth in this quote and also found it sort of sad. It reminded me about how children aren’t afraid to take chances and will often throw many creative ideas at you. As we get older, that seems to stop. Do we feel as though we are too old for Ifspeak? Do we realize more about the world and forget we once had limitless imaginations?
Teachers of all grade levels should encourage creative thoughts and establish a classroom environment in which students should feel comfortable to take risks. For some reason, students in older grades are so afraid of giving a wrong answer or getting made fun of for an idea that some truly amazing thoughts may not be escaping. This would definitely be a challenge to overcome – especially with middle and high school students. This is just something to think about as future teachers and also as adults who should remember that we can still be imaginative and creative! The great thing about being an educator is that those qualities only add to the effectiveness of our practice.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Are Norms Necessary?
After reading a couple of blog posts of my colleagues on the topic of norms (These Unwritten Rules Called Norms & Norms…it can be a scary thing). I started to wonder if norms are necessary for society to function harmoniously. There has been some discussion concerning the notion of not conforming and not following the norm, but I think this just causes problems for the most part. But what happens if we don’t agree with the norms put in place? Should we still follow them?
Being a polite and respectful member of society is important in my opinion. We should be open to following norms in public such as waiting in line, walking in an organized manner in high traffic areas, holding doors open for each other, and keeping our outbursts to a minimum. However, like Brandie mentioned in her post, what if the opposite becomes the norm … should we still follow it? I think for the most part, the norms in our society are put in place to keep everyone happy and to encourage people to behave “properly” in public. Maybe it’s just me but I don’t like when people don’t follow the norms when it affects me (well maybe I only care about the “common courtesy” norms…). I feel as though they think they are above being polite and waiting their turn.
I used the example of going to the movies in my comment on Vanessa’s blog. It just blows me away what some people do – especially when it’s busy. People push, are upset about waiting in line, talk through the whole movie, make loud annoying predictions about when Eric Bana will show up next in The Time Travelers Wife, and so on. I would be embarrassed if I did things like this in public. However, there are no repercussions for people who don’t follow these simple norms, other than my built up anger of course, so why not do whatever you want?
I realize that conforming and following norms when you don’t agree with them is not a good thing, I just feel that perhaps society needs some norms in order to function cordially.
Even though I clearly had a bad experience with people not following the norms… go see A Christmas Carol 3D, it was awesome.
Being a polite and respectful member of society is important in my opinion. We should be open to following norms in public such as waiting in line, walking in an organized manner in high traffic areas, holding doors open for each other, and keeping our outbursts to a minimum. However, like Brandie mentioned in her post, what if the opposite becomes the norm … should we still follow it? I think for the most part, the norms in our society are put in place to keep everyone happy and to encourage people to behave “properly” in public. Maybe it’s just me but I don’t like when people don’t follow the norms when it affects me (well maybe I only care about the “common courtesy” norms…). I feel as though they think they are above being polite and waiting their turn.
I used the example of going to the movies in my comment on Vanessa’s blog. It just blows me away what some people do – especially when it’s busy. People push, are upset about waiting in line, talk through the whole movie, make loud annoying predictions about when Eric Bana will show up next in The Time Travelers Wife, and so on. I would be embarrassed if I did things like this in public. However, there are no repercussions for people who don’t follow these simple norms, other than my built up anger of course, so why not do whatever you want? I realize that conforming and following norms when you don’t agree with them is not a good thing, I just feel that perhaps society needs some norms in order to function cordially.
Even though I clearly had a bad experience with people not following the norms… go see A Christmas Carol 3D, it was awesome.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Social Mobility
I found today’s lecture regarding social mobility really interesting. Social mobility refers to the movement of an individual from one social class to another. I had never really considered what my social class is or will become before. I would consider the family I came from to be middle class. I don’t feel as though my status will change much from that once I become a teacher and start my own family. Therefore, I feel that I will experience very little intergenerational social mobility. Intergenerational in this sense refers to the difference between parents and children regarding their status. This is interesting because my parents did not attend university but because social status is most often based on occupation and wealth, education does not seem to play a large role in this case.
I couldn’t say for sure where I personally fit right now. I feel like I am kind of in limbo as a student … I don’t have a career yet, I owe money, I don’t own a house, I don’t own an Oxford tie, etc. but at the same time I don’t consider myself lower class because I know that when I earn my degree and get a job things will (hopefully) change and I can actually consider myself to be middle class again – I will have earned my way there.
Intragenerational social mobility refers to the change of status within one’s own life. It is hard to say how much this could change in a person’s life because our society is based on contest mobility and with that can come personal insecurity. In the contest mobility model, individuals must compete for success and earn their elite status (this reminded me a little of meritocracy which basically says that you get what you put in). You can become a member of the elite in many different ways by earning your place there. According to this view, everyone has the same chance of reaching elite status; it is all based on ambition.
In contrast to our society’s contest mobility, we also learned about sponsored mobility which is based on Britain’s social mobility system. Within this model, status is given, rather than taken. There is some predetermination and everyone knows their place from day one. You become a member of the elite by being considered a suitable candidate and then recruited. There is also an emphasis on early selection of elites. This way there is more time for the individual to be shaped to fit the mold. Within this model, it seems that it is unlikely to change your social status and most people accept their predetermined place in society.
As much as it would be awesome to have elite status for being chosen for doing well on some test at age 11, I prefer our contest mobility model. Status should be earned and those who work hard should be rewarded. However, our society recognizes many different types of elite individuals and some definitely don’t deserve to be there (i.e. Paris Hilton…). Status should also not be predetermined; however, unfortunately a family’s status can have great effects on where their children will get to in any society. It is not correct to say that everyone has an equal chance. Sometimes people get where they are because of money or who they know. There are definitely some exceptions within this contest model but overall I think that the right idea is there.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
The Hidden Curriculum (Process) Presentation
Today’s presentation was really well done. I really enjoyed it and found it very interesting! It definitely expanded my knowledge about hidden curriculum and socialization. I appreciated that the presenter approached this topic in an impartial way. That is, she was not criticizing this type of hidden curriculum; she was just explaining how we use it every day in the classroom and how it affects our students’ behaviours – especially in early elementary school. I found that this approach allowed me to think more about my experiences in school as both a student and a teacher, and determine the function and implications of this hidden curriculum.
The process type of hidden curriculum refers to everything that children learn in school concerning socialization and establishing social norms and values. Hidden curriculum is not part of the formal curriculum. Once a child enters the school system in Preschool or Kindergarten, they are no longer socialized exclusively in the home; the teacher and the school become another form of socialization. I have always thought of school as a socialization process but I never realized how much we do as teachers to reinforce what society views as important characteristics and values. Some that were listed today were: conformity, delayed gratification, competitiveness, and obedience to authority figures. I would consider the process of socialization to be almost as important as actual curriculum content. These are skills that will definitely be needed and utilized in the future.
We were asked to think about our first day of school as a young child. For everyone, it seemed to be characterized by a set of rules, routines and procedures that were to be learned and obeyed. Students are socialized to be somewhere when the bell rings, to listen when someone else is talking, to put up their hands when they want to speak, to be responsible for their possessions, to share and play nice with others, to be honest, to be positive about their abilities, to respect themselves and others, and the list goes on. Usually when we think about hidden curriculum, it has a negative connotation. However, in this case, I feel as though all of these skills are vital for success in school and later in life. We are not telling student they always need to conform and be like everyone else, we are implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) socializing them to succeed in school and society by understanding the standards put in place.
In my opinion, one of the most interesting topics discussed was the literature used by teachers (and parents) to explain these societal norms and moral lessons through the use of stories. Unlike the use of rules and procedures, this is something that I hadn’t previously thought a lot about. There are so many books about first days of school, listening to your teachers/parents, being a good friend, etc. I think this is a great way to teach children about these concepts (even though some of these stories seemed quite funny). Without these societal norms, the classroom would be chaos.
I plan on teaching early elementary and I definitely plan on having very clear rules and procedures set out. I think that this is absolutely necessary in the early years of schooling. It is a big transition for young students to go from being the center of attention to being a part of a group and I think they need to learn these behaviours early as they are also important later in life.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Bill 44 - A Step Backwards?
During the presentation today, Bill 44 was also brought up. I had heard of this before but the presenters really gave me a lot more information about it! Basically, Alberta passed a law in June of this year that allows parents to remove their kids from classes that discuss sexuality, sexual orientation, and religion. The school board must give written notice to parents when controversial topics are going to be covered in class. At first I was wondering how this could be accomplished as many controversial topics often come up unexpected in classes. However, after doing some research on Bill 44, it seems that there are no restrictions on casual classroom discussions but parents have to be made aware if it is directly in the curriculum content.
This law seems to be upsetting a lot of people because it is preventing our students from being educated about these issues and able to form their own thoughts and informed opinions. I understand and also have that concern for sure. We should be exposing young people to these issues and be able to discuss them in a positive manner in the classroom. Learning about different religions and different views on sexuality can be a very positive educational experience. It will increase awareness and acceptance of others which would hopefully teach us to respect one another. We should be able to form our own opinions but also be informed about and accepting of others’ values, beliefs and opinions. In addition, other critics of this law state that it is only further showing the close-minded intolerance of Albertans – why not teach our students to accept homosexual individuals as equals in our society and why not criticize religion in the classroom? According to those opposed to this law, this is a step back for education.
I very much understand the importance of discussing these issues but I also think that parents have every right to teach their children about these issues themselves. Parents obviously want their children to grow up with the values they have taught them and are probably just worried that teachers will not approach these topics in an appropriate way. It might not be that they want their children to be uneducated; it just might be that they are worried that the teacher’s values will get drilled into their children’s minds. If a teacher was challenging the values that I was instilling in my children, I would be upset. There are many controversial and sensitive issues that I would want to talk to my kids about rather than them learning about it exclusively at school. I’m not saying I would pull my kids out of classes such as these; I would just make sure they had enough knowledge to make an informed opinion regarding the new information they receive – in case the teacher wasn’t approaching it free of bias. I think it is better that parents have this right to pull their kids out of the class as opposed to the content being removed from the curriculum all together – which would be another extreme option.
Overall, I don’t fully agree with the Bill, I just understand why it was put in place. I think it is good for teachers to be able to inform students about different beliefs – as long as they are not telling them to believe a certain thing. For example, I think it would be great to teach students about all of the different religions. In Social Studies in Saskatchewan, we did exactly that – which I’ve learned now is not the norm. I went to public school and we learned a lot about all of the different religions and their foundations and beliefs. This was very informative and increased my knowledge on the subject. However, if this was done in such a way to say that one religion is better than the other or that clearly no religion is right it would be very worrisome. Perhaps this is why the bill passed.
Teachers should use these controversial issues to teach their students how to think not what to think. I would like to think that this would be the goal of most teachers and hopefully parents would look instead into how the information is being taught instead of preventing it from being taught at all. We need to open our students’ minds to these issues and new ideas while having respect for everyone involved. In which case, there would be no need for the bill.
The Hidden Curriculum (Content) Presentation
The presentation in class today concerned the topic of hidden curriculum. In particular, the group presenting looked at content as opposed to process. Process refers to the learning that takes place from the act of being at school. This would include rules, procedures, policies, and values that schools instill in students. On the other hand, content refers to those unintentional messages that are shown through content materials used in the classroom. The four examples discussed were race, religion, gender, and disability. Their discussion focused around how these groups are represented in recommended textbook materials – in particular science materials.
According to the presenters, one way an unrealistic view of gender is created in science is by omitting contributions that women have made to the field in curriculum materials. This is something that has come up in the presentation last week regarding gender. The group presenting on gender mentioned that when studying social studies and the history of Canada, male contributions are prominent. Unfortunately, this is part of our history and the predominant mention of male contributions to science and other subject areas in unavoidable. I don’t know if they necessarily “omit” contributions of women, I just think there were fewer contributions acknowledged from women. We cannot teach students that there were as many women contributors to early science when there simply weren’t - or they were not recorded as contributing. This is not to say that women weren’t capable of this study, it was just not allowed or encouraged. Instead of trying to change history, we as teachers should be explaining that this is how it was for men and women in our history. They will learn from that and see how it is not like that anymore and everyone should be seen as equal. There are many female scientists in more recent times that have done great things and discussing their contributions now would be beneficial. We can’t create more female contributions to the history of science when they simply aren’t there but we can encourage both men and women to pursue a career in science if that is where their interests lie. It was also mentioned by the group that when counting pictures of men and women in high school text books they were basically even which shows that we are hopefully moving in the right direction. Although science was previously dominated by men, times are definitely changing and we should be concerned with the present and learn from the past not try to change it.
Another topic that I would like to touch upon was the discussion regarding race representation (or lack of representation) in course materials. This is something that confused me. They were upset that white people were represented in ~70% of pictures in a particular science text book but previously had stated that textbooks should show an accurate representation of our society. I know that not everyone has had the same experiences as me, but all of the classes I have been in and all of the classes I have taught were at least 70% white. Those text books therefore may have been an accurate representation of the society I was in. I think it is great that they are trying to represent other races at all with our predominately white society. This is something that definitely would not have occurred a few decades ago and I find it encouraging (again, showing that we are going in the right direction). However, it is impossible to have a textbook that accurately represents everyone in your particular area – unless each area has its own textbook published. Each region will have a different percentage of each race mentioned and it would be impossible to get it right. Robert mentioned how FNMI are severely underrepresented in Canada’s curriculum materials depending on where resources come from. This is definitely true if the materials we are using are American. I’m not sure where the majority of materials come from in the field of science, but as a social major, I have used current Canadian social studies resources in the classroom. I feel as though the current books I used represented FNMI in a more even way. Even though I remember seeing this particular group represented, I did not consider how they were being represented. This is something that I will definitely consider now. Personally, I don’t think we should be concerning ourselves with how many individuals from each group are represented but more on how they are represented. We should be making sure that even though our textbooks show many cultures and races, that they are not showing these individuals in stereotypical roles – this is also true when concerning gender representation.
Hidden curriculum shows up everywhere - even when we are trying to be aware of it. We cannot control the text books we are given but we can teach our students to recognize biases and encourage them to create opinions based on the information we give them. Then again, I suppose that imposes an entirely different form of hidden curriculum…
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Awareness of Gender Equity
I thought that the presenters today did great! They clearly put a lot of work into researching their topic of “Gender in the Classroom” and did a great job of conveying their knowledge. They did a great job of increasing my awareness of gender creation and solidification in the classroom. This is something that teachers should definitely be made aware of because a lot of the time the teacher’s actions are done unconsciously. It was great that this presentation made me aware of all of the ways that I was encouraging or discouraging gender equity in my own teaching experience.
One of the issues that they discussed was how teachers unconsciously pay more attention to the boys in their class than the girls. I definitely noticed this in my PS II; however, I was consciously doing it to an extent. In my grade nine class of 50 students, seven students had Individual Program Plans (IPP), all of which were boys. In addition, I had three Knowledge and Employability (K & E) students. Again, all three were boys. That being said, it was my job to provide more attention to these students and to check more often for their understanding. In addition, during times when we were working on assignments, the girls more often would ask me questions to see if they were going in the right direction while the boys did not. Thus, I would often check in with all groups anyway. Perhaps these reasons may skew the results a little bit, although, I consciously tried to treat everyone the same overall.
Perhaps I am just being optimistic but I don’t think that gender equity is quite as big of an issue as it was when we entered school. There are so many women who have jobs now and I am sure that young students recognize that. I also think that there is a lot of literature available that has both male and female protagonists. Although gender equity should be considered, I also feel as thought it can go too far in the other direction by focusing all of our attention on making everything equal when we should be focused on student interests. In or society, it is often frowned upon for a woman to stay at home, relying on her husband to make the money. Don’t get me wrong, I am very happy that I am able to go to school, get a degree, and have a career in education but I would also love to stay home and be with my [future] kids and watch them grow up. That is just not as likely to happen nowadays and it is not something that women are encouraged to do. But is it so wrong?
As a future teacher, I would like to think I can change the world. However, with regards to gender roles, it is very hard for us to change the interests and values in our students. Until children start living at school, the parents still have a big influence in their lives and will learn gender roles from them. In addition, as our presenters showed us, students are exposed to many gender stereotypes in the media. Making students aware of gender equity may help them understand it better.
Students should all be treated as individuals and should be encouraged to pursue their unique interests whether they follow gender stereotypes or not. If a girl is interested in reading books about princesses and a boy is interested in reading books about cars, they should not be discouraged (this would work the other way of course). We should have many opportunities available to both boys and girls and we should not push them in any specific direction. We should help them understand that they have many opportunities and that they should make the choices that best appeal to them.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Multiple Choice Math & Science - Whose interest does this serve?
Discussing how the economy controls education got me thinking about the decision to cut all of the written components from the math and science grade 12 diplomas in Alberta. These exams now rely exclusively on multiple choice questions. (I know it was a long time ago that this was brought up in class but I didn’t get a chance to make a comment about it).
First of all, this would really freak me out as a student. I really don’t like multiple choice questions - for math in particular. Basically, if you make one small mistake in a calculation, you get the entire question wrong. You get no recognition for using the correct formula or process. Also, the detractors are often answers the student would arrive at if he/she made a common mistake. When they see that that answer is an option, they choose it automatically (this was basically me in my intro Stats class at U of A … sidebar). This type of exam will hardly show accurate knowledge or problem solving skills of students. This change does not seem fair to students and does not serve their interests in the least. So, whose interest it is serving?
According to an article in the Edmonton Journal, Alberta spends about $12 million on diploma exams each year. This cut will “save” the province about $1.5 million. Because only multiple choice questions are used, the answers can be scanned instead of being marked individually by teachers – saving a lot of time and money. I would understand wanting to save money and save teachers having to mark exams endlessly if the exams still allowed students to showcase process knowledge. In addition, this change seems to contradict the new math curriculum in Alberta. I have had a little bit of experience with the new curriculum. I attended a professional development course on the new grade 2 math curriculum during my PSI. It seemed to me that the new program focused on process, reasoning, problem solving, and visualization. It was more important how they arrived at an answer, than if they got the correct answer. Communicating how students arrived at an answer is very important.
Because there are two sides to every argument, I think it is important to talk about some pros that have been expressed. According to Education Minister Dave Hancock, assessment of the diplomas showed that students scored “much the same” on the written portion as on the multiple choice section. In addition, it will shorten the exam period by two and a half days, will give more time for teaching in the classroom, and will reduce test anxiety. Also, the exam is still only worth half of the final mark, so process and problem solving skills can be assessed in the classroom (CBC News, September 18, 2009).
Just as I would argue that how a student arrived at an answer is important, I would also argue that once out in the real world working on an engineering project for example, the correct answer does matter. Both are important. However, I would question whether or not this change will result in changes in teaching methods. Often we hear of teachers only “teaching to the exam.”
This change has definitely been a topic for discussion for many teachers, parents, and administrators. I will be interested to see how it plays out.
Reference:
CBC News. (September 18, 2009). Alberta math, science exams to be multiple choice. Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/09/18/calgary-exams-alberta-multiple-choice.html
O’Donnell, Sarah. (September 16, 2009). Diploma exams go multiple choice: No more long-answer segment for Grade 12 math, science tests. Edmonton Journal. Retrieved from http://www.edmontonjournal.com/technology/Diploma+exams+multiple+choice/
1999290/story.html
Four Models of Education
The “Four Models of Education” that we discussed in class include the Enlightenment Model, the Human Capital Model, the Manpower Model, and the Consumerism Model.
The Enlightenment model was prominent in the 1950s. Within this model, education is seen as learning for the sake of learning. Basically from this view, the more education a person receives, the better person they are. They become cultured members of society.
The next shift led to the Human Capital model which was dominant from the 1950s to the later 1970s/early 1980s. In the 1950s, economists changed their view of education from “consumption” to “investment.” Education would increase personal capital and so education would be an investment. From this view, education would be used to fix social problems. If everyone is educated, then everyone is equal. Because education was seen as an economic priority, the school system experienced massive expansion. So how did this expansion affect teachers? This model basically led to improved salaries and social prestige but, on the other hand, teachers (and school systems in general) were expected to solve social and economic problems. The reason why this model was subject to criticisms is the fact that positions were not available to all educated people equally. In addition, if more people were able to be educated, there would be an oversupply of over-trained individuals.
It is interesting to think about the amount of money that was spent to expand the school system. At this time, teachers were paid more and were given money to enrich their classrooms. That is definitely not the trend currently. Teachers often have to use their own money to purchase supplies for the classroom. It is not seen as an investment anymore to put loads of money into schools and towards teachers’ salaries.
The next model to emerge was the Manpower Model which has been dominant since the early 1980s. The purpose of education is for directed economic development. An investment in education was still an investment in the economy; however, only those areas that demonstrated a need for graduates would be invested in. For example, during this time, the importance of the arts began to decline. The curriculum was determined by government planners and society’s needs were seen as more important than the students’ needs. Teacher salaries also decreased.
As a companion to the Manpower model, the Consumerism Model also emerged in the early 1980s. Both models are current. From this view, education was only invested in if it would demonstrate an economic return. Any aspect of education than would not demonstrate economic return became privatized.
Education currently seems to be entirely controlled by money. The interests of the economy are put ahead of the needs and interests of the students (and teachers). This doesn’t really seem right to me at all (On the other hand, having an oversupply of overly education people would not yield the best results either). It is unfortunate that areas of education, such as the arts, are not considered important and are not as often invested in. In order to receive the funding, the importance of the subject/project to the economy must be proven. The importance to the students is not a factor. In addition, the program to be certified as a teacher became extended greatly to reduce the number of teachers looking for jobs due to an oversupply of teachers.
This new information made me wonder what the next shift in education will lead to and what implications it will have for me as a future teacher.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
In it for the money ... ?
Today’s class discussion really got me thinking about my “investment” in my education. After being in school for five years, money is always an issue. Because I am putting so much time and money into my education, I’ve started to question if it is worth it. In class we discussed how much exactly is invested in our education. Cost of tuition, cost of books, rent and other expenses such as food, internet, and phone, plus the amount of money we would be making if working full time – it all adds up really quickly. Multiply that by 5 years. It’s crazy to think about. In addition, there is no guarantee that there will be a job waiting for me in the location I want when I complete my degree. I’m going to need to work for a while to make up everything I have invested. Thus putting off other plans I have for my future such as having a family. Am I really going to be a better teacher because I went to school for 5 years instead of 1?
A first year teaching salary is not exactly amazing. At the same time, am I going to have to start paying expenses out of my own pocket to provide quality educational materials for those students in my classroom because funding gets cut? Let’s face it, the amount of time and money invested in our education is hardly reflected in our pay. So why do we do it? Hopefully the answer for most is because we love to teach, we want to make a difference, we find the field interesting, or we want to use it as a means to a different end. It’s interesting that we go to school just as long as pharmacists and make less than half what they do in the first year of work. In addition, they are able to sign contracts with a pharmacy to guarantee a position and often receive bursaries to pay for some of their education. I know that this is a very very important job but is it THAT much more important than teaching? Why is it that schools don’t invest in their educators’ education? Educators are not getting the funding and recognition they greatly deserve.
Luckily for me I love children and I love to teach. It will all hopefully be worth it when I am finished. It is more valuable to me to enjoy going to work and make a difference than it is to have a lot of money. Still, the discussion is a little depressing (did Robert mention that this class would be depressing?? I don’t remember). Well, everyone should read this speech and hopefully it will brighten your day! Check out the youtube video as well – it makes me laugh.
What Teachers Make by Taylor Mali
www.taylormali.com
He says the problem with teachers is,
"What's a kid going to learn
from someone who decided his best option in life
was to become a teacher?"
He reminds the other dinner guests that it's true
what they say about teachers:
Those who can, do; those who can't, teach.
I decide to bite my tongue instead of his
and resist the temptation to remind the other dinner guests
that it's also true what they say about lawyers.
Because we're eating, after all, and this is polite company.
"I mean, you're a teacher, Taylor," he says.
"Be honest. What do you make?"
And I wish he hadn't done that
(asked me to be honest)
because, you see, I have a policy
about honesty and ass-kicking:
if you ask for it, I have to let you have it.
You want to know what I make?
I make kids work harder than they ever thought they could.
I can make a C+ feel like a Congressional medal of honor
and an A- feel like a slap in the face.
How dare you waste my time
with anything less than your very best.
I make kids sit through 40 minutes of study hall
in absolute silence. No, you may not work in groups.
No, you may not ask a question.
Why won't I let you get a drink of water?
Because you're not thirsty, you're bored, that's why.
I make parents tremble in fear when I call home:
I hope I haven't called at a bad time,
I just wanted to talk to you about something Billy said today.
Billy said, "Leave the kid alone. I still cry sometimes, don't you?"
And it was the noblest act of courage I have ever seen.
I make parents see their children for who they are
and what they can be.
You want to know what I make?
I make kids wonder,
I make them question.
I make them criticize.
I make them apologize and mean it.
I make them write, write, write.
And then I make them read.
I make them spell definitely beautiful, definitely beautiful,
definitely beautiful
over and over and over again until they will never misspell
either one of those words again.
I make them show all their work in math.
And hide it on their final drafts in English.
I make them understand that if you got this (brains)
then you follow this (heart),
and if someone ever tries to judge you
by what you make, you give them this (the finger).
Let me break it down for you, so you know what I say is true:
I make a difference! What about you?
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Conflicting Paradigms - Research Methods in the Social Sciences
Positivism vs. Post-Positivism
In class, we learned that Positivism is “a system of philosophy that excludes everything from consideration except natural phenomenon and their interrelationships.” There is also a verifiability principle which means that all results obtained can potentially be tested for their validity. Positivists use statistical methods to analyze data and conduct research using a large sample population from which results can be generalized. Studies are objective and quantitative, and rely on scientific methods. Functionalists usually rely on positivism. Just as functionalism has been recently rejected, so has positivism.
Within the field of Social Science, there are many limitations to this type of research. One of the most obvious limitations is the fact that humans and society are very complex and it is hard to reduce the human experience to variables. There would be too many. Also, it is very hard to generalize data because there are so many individual differences between different members of society. It is also difficult to control the research and nearly impossible to replicate some events to attempt to generalize and verify certain phenomena.
Instead, we might look to Post-Positivism which includes more qualitative research such as Naturalistic Inquiry and Ethnographic Research. Naturalistic inquiry basically rejects positivism by rejecting causality, statistical analysis, prediction, deduction, absolutes, and the forcing of social phenomena into variables. Naturalistic inquiry is qualitative, carried out in a natural setting, purposive as opposed to random sampling, and involves the subjects being observed. When conducting ethnographic research, the observer uses continuous observation to record everything that occurs in the setting under study. Research is also contextualized.
At first, I thought this qualitative method of research made the most sense and didn’t see a problem with it. After all, one of my main peeves about sociology is that is seems like everyone is trying to generalize everything and determine how all of society functions when in actuality you can’t put society in a box and research and findings should be based on context (in my opinion, there are always exceptions). Apart from being contextualized, this type of research offers data that is based on observation, hopefully providing a complete picture. That is why I liked this method. However, some disadvantages were presented. These included observer biases, difficulty in recording absolutely everything that is observed, long hours, costly studies, requirement of highly polished language skills, difficulty in quantifying and interpreting field notes, and potential role conflicts on the part of the observer.
After considering all of the advantages and limitations of both paradigms, I would agree that both can be valuable and one may not necessarily be better than the other. Specific studies may require one or the other, or both methods. Also, it is definitely an asset to understand these advantages and limitations when reviewing research. All types of research can be put together to provide us with an accurate conclusion.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Research Tools!
Over the last week of classes we were exposed to many different online sources and learned how to use them to our advantage. Although I am very familiar with journal databases, there was definitely a handful of really useful things I learned! I also found it interesting that only half of the class had been involved in a session such as this one. Throughout my university career, I believe I have taken 5 of them. I feel that this is something that is so important but it is also important to make sure everyone is on the same page. I think that sessions such as this should be required in first year university. In fact, why not start in high school? After completing my PS II, it was amazing to see how poor my Grade 9 class’s research skills were. In addition, I think that determining whether or not a source is reliable and accurate is even more important than learning to use databases. I know a few individuals at the university who were caught either using inaccurate sources or plagiarizing. The weird thing was it that they didn’t even realize it or understand why it was a bad thing. That just sounded crazy to me and so it is apparent how sessions such as these can be vital to success in university.
One of my favorite new references to use is Credo Reference. With this resource, you can do a basic search or an advanced search of any topic you wish to research. It offers dictionary and encyclopedia information. You can also choose how to organize your results. One component of this tool that is really cool is the concept map option. Instead of listing results, a concept map of all sub topics is created. This source is very valuable. However, there is an obvious limitation. We are only able to use it because we are U of L students and the U of L is registered to use it. I think that this would be a great tool to expose high school students to but it would only be available to them if the school has a subscription. It would be great to encourage students to use this source instead of Wikipedia or dictionary.com.
Fortunately, we also went over how to use sources online that are available to everyone. For example, when searching topics in Google, everything under the sun can come up. However, using tools such as Google Scholar allows the user to know that the results they are getting are reliable. In addition, if you like the visualization option available with Credo Reference, you can use a search engine called Kartoo. Using this resource allows you to organize your information in a web and allows you to refine your topic visually.
One source that I thought was really interesting was the Way Back Machine. This tool allows you to look at archives of a website that are no longer available on the current site. This can be very valuable. However, when I tried to use it, it would not allow me to set my search any later than 2005. This would not be useful for sites that change monthly. However, I do not have a lot of experience using this tool so I’m sure I am missing something.
Having sessions such as this is very important and topics discussed should definitely be address to secondary students. I wish I knew about all of these earlier in my academic career!
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Structure & Governance – Centralized versus Decentralized
I found it really interesting to read about Canada’s system of education in the text. Although I already knew a lot of this information, I also never really considered it before. Canada’s system of education is highly decentralized at a national level but is centralized within each province and territory. This means that each province/territory controls its own education system. On a federal level, the government deals with such issues as the equalization of funding between the provinces/territories (Barakett & Cleghorn, 2008, p. 19).
Even though Canada’s system is decentralized and each province has a separate system of education, according to Barakett and Cleghorn (2008), they are remarkably similar (p. 18). One possible reason for this is to allow students to move around Canada without being behind or ahead of their classmates. In other words, most provinces agree on what a child should learn by each grade level. If a child were to move from another country however, they may be significantly behind or ahead of their peers.
The unique structure of the education system in Canada has some advantages and disadvantages in my mind. First of all, I think that is it good that each province/territory is in charge of its own system of education. The ministry of education of each system in Canada can determine what is important in their education system and can focus on issues that are significant to their area. On the other hand, one area that surprised me was the teaching time spent in schools. Because our system is decentralized on a large scale, the amount of time spent teaching varies greatly from province to province. Specifically, Ontario is considerably lower than other provinces at ~3.75 hours per day. This is just one example of the difference between provinces.
Because I went to school in Saskatchewan and now am doing my post-secondary in Alberta, I notice a lot of differences between our school systems – especially being in the education faculty. I will admit that I really didn’t know what diploma exams and provincial achievement tests were all about until I moved here. A lot of Alberta students don’t realize this but in Saskatchewan we don’t have to do those. As a teacher in Saskatchewan, you can achieve a type of certification that allows you to write your own finals. Therefore, every final exam I wrote in high school was written by my teacher. When I found out that in Alberta you had to write a standardized test worth 50% of your mark in grade 12, I thought it sounded ridiculous – no offense Alberta! After I got into the education faculty, it seemed as though that was all anyone talked about. It seems like such a huge issue here, whereas in Saskatchewan it isn’t. I find that really interesting because we are right beside each other! That is yet another example of a difference.
Is it a good idea to allow these differences between provinces or should we be more centralized across the country?
Even though Canada’s system is decentralized and each province has a separate system of education, according to Barakett and Cleghorn (2008), they are remarkably similar (p. 18). One possible reason for this is to allow students to move around Canada without being behind or ahead of their classmates. In other words, most provinces agree on what a child should learn by each grade level. If a child were to move from another country however, they may be significantly behind or ahead of their peers.
The unique structure of the education system in Canada has some advantages and disadvantages in my mind. First of all, I think that is it good that each province/territory is in charge of its own system of education. The ministry of education of each system in Canada can determine what is important in their education system and can focus on issues that are significant to their area. On the other hand, one area that surprised me was the teaching time spent in schools. Because our system is decentralized on a large scale, the amount of time spent teaching varies greatly from province to province. Specifically, Ontario is considerably lower than other provinces at ~3.75 hours per day. This is just one example of the difference between provinces.
Because I went to school in Saskatchewan and now am doing my post-secondary in Alberta, I notice a lot of differences between our school systems – especially being in the education faculty. I will admit that I really didn’t know what diploma exams and provincial achievement tests were all about until I moved here. A lot of Alberta students don’t realize this but in Saskatchewan we don’t have to do those. As a teacher in Saskatchewan, you can achieve a type of certification that allows you to write your own finals. Therefore, every final exam I wrote in high school was written by my teacher. When I found out that in Alberta you had to write a standardized test worth 50% of your mark in grade 12, I thought it sounded ridiculous – no offense Alberta! After I got into the education faculty, it seemed as though that was all anyone talked about. It seems like such a huge issue here, whereas in Saskatchewan it isn’t. I find that really interesting because we are right beside each other! That is yet another example of a difference.
Is it a good idea to allow these differences between provinces or should we be more centralized across the country?
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Comparing Theories – Functionalist, Conflict, & Interactionist
We have spent the last few classes focused on discussing and comparing various sociological theories. Since I have already discussed functionalism in some detail, this post will focus on conflict theorists and interactionist theories. To be honest, I was wondering what the significance in learning all of these theories was to studying education, but I understand now how important it is to understand these theories so that I am able to relate back to them when discussing the education system.
One of the most important aspects of conflict theorists that I took away was the idea that all institutions are controlled by and benefit the dominant class. Your social class is determined by your relationship to the “means of production” – basically your power. Conflict theorists seek the answers to questions that address whose interests institutions serve. According to conflict theories, the dominate ideas in society are those of the dominate class and one role of the school system is to transmit the ideology of this dominate class. In addition, schools train students for their already determined place in the economy. That is, those working class children will be streamed into shop class while their elite counterparts will be streamed into more academic courses. After reading Eric’s blog post - The Role of Schools and Education (Marxist/conflict theorist point of view) - I completely related to what he was saying about his experience in school. It is clear that this theory is not without flaws but sometimes this is the case. In the high school I went to, it seemed that many of the “lower status” (or working class) individuals were not encouraged to go to university and it was the role of the school to determine what job they should go for after high school and how to prepare them for it. According to this theory it is not our role as teacher to provide knowledge but to instill the “right” attitudes and lead them to their predestined roles. (Side note: I also hope that my degree gets me more that just credentials.)
While functionalists ask “How does it work?” and conflict theorists ask “Whose interest does this serve?”, interactionists ask “What does it mean?” For interactionist theories, according to Joyce Barakett and Ailie Cleghorn (Sociology of Education, 2008), “the task is to understand how structural variables become incorporated into the individual’s perceptions and interpretations of social action and how he or she acts on the basis of these” (p. 39). Within these theories, underlying assumptions and hidden meanings are addressed. In addition, it is explained how our perceptions of problems and what is in reality the problem have little to no connection. I think that this will be interesting when discussing the issues of education.
Now that we have some information about sociological theories under our belts, I am looking forward to discussing how these theories relate to education.
Barakett, J. & Cleghorn, A. (2008) Sociology of Education: an Introductory View from Canada. Toronto: Pearson Education Canada. p. 39-41.
One of the most important aspects of conflict theorists that I took away was the idea that all institutions are controlled by and benefit the dominant class. Your social class is determined by your relationship to the “means of production” – basically your power. Conflict theorists seek the answers to questions that address whose interests institutions serve. According to conflict theories, the dominate ideas in society are those of the dominate class and one role of the school system is to transmit the ideology of this dominate class. In addition, schools train students for their already determined place in the economy. That is, those working class children will be streamed into shop class while their elite counterparts will be streamed into more academic courses. After reading Eric’s blog post - The Role of Schools and Education (Marxist/conflict theorist point of view) - I completely related to what he was saying about his experience in school. It is clear that this theory is not without flaws but sometimes this is the case. In the high school I went to, it seemed that many of the “lower status” (or working class) individuals were not encouraged to go to university and it was the role of the school to determine what job they should go for after high school and how to prepare them for it. According to this theory it is not our role as teacher to provide knowledge but to instill the “right” attitudes and lead them to their predestined roles. (Side note: I also hope that my degree gets me more that just credentials.)
While functionalists ask “How does it work?” and conflict theorists ask “Whose interest does this serve?”, interactionists ask “What does it mean?” For interactionist theories, according to Joyce Barakett and Ailie Cleghorn (Sociology of Education, 2008), “the task is to understand how structural variables become incorporated into the individual’s perceptions and interpretations of social action and how he or she acts on the basis of these” (p. 39). Within these theories, underlying assumptions and hidden meanings are addressed. In addition, it is explained how our perceptions of problems and what is in reality the problem have little to no connection. I think that this will be interesting when discussing the issues of education.
Now that we have some information about sociological theories under our belts, I am looking forward to discussing how these theories relate to education.
Barakett, J. & Cleghorn, A. (2008) Sociology of Education: an Introductory View from Canada. Toronto: Pearson Education Canada. p. 39-41.
Admission to the Faculty
I just finished reading and commenting on a colleague's blog! I'd like to hear more comments on this topic. Here's the link:
Faculty of Education Admission Requirements On Trial
http://thesociologyofeducation.blogspot.com/2009/09/faculty-of-education-admission.html
Faculty of Education Admission Requirements On Trial
http://thesociologyofeducation.blogspot.com/2009/09/faculty-of-education-admission.html
Monday, September 28, 2009
More Criticisms of Functionalism
Although I have already addressed what I thought the problems with functionalism were, I think it is important to address what was discussed in class as well – just to reinforce my thoughts and close the discussion of functionalist theories.
As mentioned in my previous post, the notion of meritocracy just did not make sense. I discussed how the social class you are born into affects your ability to achieve higher education. This was reinforced in class by discussing the fact that those of higher socioeconomic status are more likely to go to post-secondary education institutions. However, just because one individual went to University after high-school, it does not necessarily mean that they will be of a higher social class that an individual who entered the work force right away. Depending on the degree you obtain, it might be difficult to get a job out of University that pays well.
One problem that I did not think to discuss is the ability to get a job even if the playing field is apparently equal based on education, talent, ability and work ethic. During the time this functionalist perspective of schooling was established, there was a lot of inequality in the states between white people and African American people. Although black individuals achieved levels of education equal to others, it was very difficult for them to get jobs because of their race. This discredits the functionalist perspective of meritocracy. In addition, there was what is referred to as the “glass ceiling” for women in the working world. This basically explains how women could not advance as much as men at their jobs regardless of merit.
Another problem with this theory is apparent when looking at the notion of the “expert society”. According to functionalists, with the many advances in technology, we have moved into a more expert society in which people need more complex education through formal schooling as opposed to learning skills in the home. Because of the advances in society, we would need educated people to fill positions in these expert fields. However, these assumptions were wrong as it has been proven through studies that many of the skills learned in school are not applicable in the future when those individuals are in the work force.
As discussed in class, functionalists are better at describing and identifying patterns than explaining the significance of them. This is good to get some basic information but other theories may be necessary to explain the significance of the findings.
As mentioned in my previous post, the notion of meritocracy just did not make sense. I discussed how the social class you are born into affects your ability to achieve higher education. This was reinforced in class by discussing the fact that those of higher socioeconomic status are more likely to go to post-secondary education institutions. However, just because one individual went to University after high-school, it does not necessarily mean that they will be of a higher social class that an individual who entered the work force right away. Depending on the degree you obtain, it might be difficult to get a job out of University that pays well.
One problem that I did not think to discuss is the ability to get a job even if the playing field is apparently equal based on education, talent, ability and work ethic. During the time this functionalist perspective of schooling was established, there was a lot of inequality in the states between white people and African American people. Although black individuals achieved levels of education equal to others, it was very difficult for them to get jobs because of their race. This discredits the functionalist perspective of meritocracy. In addition, there was what is referred to as the “glass ceiling” for women in the working world. This basically explains how women could not advance as much as men at their jobs regardless of merit.
Another problem with this theory is apparent when looking at the notion of the “expert society”. According to functionalists, with the many advances in technology, we have moved into a more expert society in which people need more complex education through formal schooling as opposed to learning skills in the home. Because of the advances in society, we would need educated people to fill positions in these expert fields. However, these assumptions were wrong as it has been proven through studies that many of the skills learned in school are not applicable in the future when those individuals are in the work force.
As discussed in class, functionalists are better at describing and identifying patterns than explaining the significance of them. This is good to get some basic information but other theories may be necessary to explain the significance of the findings.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Meritocracy - Revisiting Functionalism
After the discussion on functionalism we had in class today, I feel that I have gained a better understanding for it. Although I touched on it briefly in my previous post, I left out some very important concepts. For me, the discussion in class clarified the readings.
As mentioned, according to functionalists, the function of formal schooling is to allocate individuals to their place in society based on talent, ability, and achievement. Basically, this theory reinforces inequality in our society. The inequality of individuals in our society serves a purpose and so it can be seen as useful. The purpose is to allow society to function. According to this view, society is often referred to as a machine or living organism in which all parts need to work together to maintain a balance or equilibrium. This is why inequality is necessary; otherwise, society would not be able to function. That is kind of a depressing thought….
Apart from deciding our social status, another function of schooling according to this view is to “resocialize students from ascription and particularism to achievement and universalism.” Huh? … interesting … Well, this basically means that when children enter school they begin equal. They are no longer self-centered and special; they are part of society and must prove their merit. This is where the concept of meritocracy comes in.
Meritocracy is different from other systems we have been exposed to such as aristocracy, oligarchy, democracy, etc. Instead of receiving your position in society based on family, wealth, seniority or popularity, individuals are “given” their place in society based on their merit. Therefore, those who would fall in the upper class deserve to be there because of their ability and hard work, whereas those who are of a lower class deserve to be there because they did not work as hard.
Although we have not addressed the problems with this theory in class, there are some criticisms that I can think of. I do agree that people should be rewarded for hard work, but it still does not seem to be address appropriately according to this theory. My first criticism regards the notion that we all begin as equal and it is our merit that decides our status. It is a nice thought but the status you are born into often determines what is available to you. Education and schooling require resources, support and often money. This is not available to all individuals and thus they may not have the same chance to become a brain surgeon (a “crucial position in society”). It would require that they work very hard to achieve their education (i.e. having a part time job), whereas someone who has school paid for them may not have to work as hard overall. Therefore, I feel that those who are at the top or bottom of the scale do not necessarily “deserve to be there.” Natural talent and attributes play a role. There are so many factors that are left out of this theory that make it hard to buy in to. In addition, a second criticism is that merit is not defined. Who is it that judges which individuals have the most merit? How can it possibly be measured? Is it us as teachers that would determine who is to succeed based on what we individually think is impressive according to this theory? Do teachers need to pick out the student they think is the most intelligent and convince him/her to be a brain surgeon?
Well, I think I have written enough on the subject for now. I am very interested to discuss this more in class and will revisit the criticisms of functionalism and meritocracy in future posts.
As mentioned, according to functionalists, the function of formal schooling is to allocate individuals to their place in society based on talent, ability, and achievement. Basically, this theory reinforces inequality in our society. The inequality of individuals in our society serves a purpose and so it can be seen as useful. The purpose is to allow society to function. According to this view, society is often referred to as a machine or living organism in which all parts need to work together to maintain a balance or equilibrium. This is why inequality is necessary; otherwise, society would not be able to function. That is kind of a depressing thought….
Apart from deciding our social status, another function of schooling according to this view is to “resocialize students from ascription and particularism to achievement and universalism.” Huh? … interesting … Well, this basically means that when children enter school they begin equal. They are no longer self-centered and special; they are part of society and must prove their merit. This is where the concept of meritocracy comes in.
Meritocracy is different from other systems we have been exposed to such as aristocracy, oligarchy, democracy, etc. Instead of receiving your position in society based on family, wealth, seniority or popularity, individuals are “given” their place in society based on their merit. Therefore, those who would fall in the upper class deserve to be there because of their ability and hard work, whereas those who are of a lower class deserve to be there because they did not work as hard.
Although we have not addressed the problems with this theory in class, there are some criticisms that I can think of. I do agree that people should be rewarded for hard work, but it still does not seem to be address appropriately according to this theory. My first criticism regards the notion that we all begin as equal and it is our merit that decides our status. It is a nice thought but the status you are born into often determines what is available to you. Education and schooling require resources, support and often money. This is not available to all individuals and thus they may not have the same chance to become a brain surgeon (a “crucial position in society”). It would require that they work very hard to achieve their education (i.e. having a part time job), whereas someone who has school paid for them may not have to work as hard overall. Therefore, I feel that those who are at the top or bottom of the scale do not necessarily “deserve to be there.” Natural talent and attributes play a role. There are so many factors that are left out of this theory that make it hard to buy in to. In addition, a second criticism is that merit is not defined. Who is it that judges which individuals have the most merit? How can it possibly be measured? Is it us as teachers that would determine who is to succeed based on what we individually think is impressive according to this theory? Do teachers need to pick out the student they think is the most intelligent and convince him/her to be a brain surgeon?
Well, I think I have written enough on the subject for now. I am very interested to discuss this more in class and will revisit the criticisms of functionalism and meritocracy in future posts.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Theories of Schooling and Society
Reading through Chapter 2 from Sociology of Education (Barakett & Cleghorn, 2008) is a little overwhelming! It is important nonetheless. It was really interesting to read through the different theories regarding education and society and try to figure out which I most agree with. As with most theories, there are good and bad aspects of all of the theories mentioned. As we discussed in class, and as in mentioned in this chapter, sociology goes through various stages. According to Barakett and Cleghorn, “is it important to keep in mind that the process of explaining the relationship between school and society is not static – it is ever changing” (p. 31). Thus, it is pretty much a given that we find flaws in these theories. Not only are there biases in every theory, but they are also dependent on the context of which they were first theorized.
Because of the amount of information on these theories, I chose only a few to comment on.
Functionalist Theories (1950-60)
Basically, according to functionalist view, “the role of the school was to teach the necessary skills and norms for the individual to participate in society by sorting, selecting, and training people for jobs at each level” (p. 35). This would maintain the stability of social order. From the section on functionalist theory, we can see that this view indicates that in order to motivate individuals to strive be the most educated we must offer greater opportunities and “crucial positions” to those that have mastered the system and achieved higher levels of education. Although I feel that being well educated is very important in society, I find it funny that this theory states that crucial and important positions in the work force require high levels of education. When we look around our society, there are many important positions that do not require formal education. Also, as we discussed, just because you are highly educated, it does not mean that you are best suited for a particular job. In addition, higher social status cannot always be achieved with higher education. As it is critiqued in the text, this theory is static.
Conflict Theories (1970)
From this point of view, the school system is seen as an authority and means of social control. School teaches a “status culture” in which it is argued that the lifestyle of the dominant culture is deemed desirable (Barakett and Cleghorn, p. 37). Those students who are compatible with the standards presented by the dominant culture are rewarded. This theory questions how the education process contributes to equality and inequality. I feel that this theory has some truth to it. We are often shown how school books and some exams are geared towards the dominant culture. However, because these biases are being identified, I feel that the theory is not entirely true any longer. We are definitely moving towards more equality in education – from my perspective anyway.
Feminist Theories (1970s)
The feminist perspective on the relationship between society and education has often been excluded from theories prior. Gendered dimensions became a concern in the classroom and the feminist theories looked at domination and exclusion in the classroom (p. 53). Criticisms of the patriarchal ideology are often addressed from this perspective. Similarly to the changing trends regarding the dominant culture, is it still important to look at gender biases apparent in schooling. I feel that gender differences often still become apparent when considering the skills and career choices of different genders. As mentioned, hopefully we are moving towards gender equality as well.
Barakett, J. & Cleghorn, A. (2008) Sociology of Education: an Introductory View from Canada. Toronto: Pearson Education Canada. pp. 31-56
Because of the amount of information on these theories, I chose only a few to comment on.
Functionalist Theories (1950-60)
Basically, according to functionalist view, “the role of the school was to teach the necessary skills and norms for the individual to participate in society by sorting, selecting, and training people for jobs at each level” (p. 35). This would maintain the stability of social order. From the section on functionalist theory, we can see that this view indicates that in order to motivate individuals to strive be the most educated we must offer greater opportunities and “crucial positions” to those that have mastered the system and achieved higher levels of education. Although I feel that being well educated is very important in society, I find it funny that this theory states that crucial and important positions in the work force require high levels of education. When we look around our society, there are many important positions that do not require formal education. Also, as we discussed, just because you are highly educated, it does not mean that you are best suited for a particular job. In addition, higher social status cannot always be achieved with higher education. As it is critiqued in the text, this theory is static.
Conflict Theories (1970)
From this point of view, the school system is seen as an authority and means of social control. School teaches a “status culture” in which it is argued that the lifestyle of the dominant culture is deemed desirable (Barakett and Cleghorn, p. 37). Those students who are compatible with the standards presented by the dominant culture are rewarded. This theory questions how the education process contributes to equality and inequality. I feel that this theory has some truth to it. We are often shown how school books and some exams are geared towards the dominant culture. However, because these biases are being identified, I feel that the theory is not entirely true any longer. We are definitely moving towards more equality in education – from my perspective anyway.
Feminist Theories (1970s)
The feminist perspective on the relationship between society and education has often been excluded from theories prior. Gendered dimensions became a concern in the classroom and the feminist theories looked at domination and exclusion in the classroom (p. 53). Criticisms of the patriarchal ideology are often addressed from this perspective. Similarly to the changing trends regarding the dominant culture, is it still important to look at gender biases apparent in schooling. I feel that gender differences often still become apparent when considering the skills and career choices of different genders. As mentioned, hopefully we are moving towards gender equality as well.
Barakett, J. & Cleghorn, A. (2008) Sociology of Education: an Introductory View from Canada. Toronto: Pearson Education Canada. pp. 31-56
Sunday, September 20, 2009
The Implications of "More Math and Science!"
In class last week, we had a group discussion regarding the implications of increasing the focus and importance of science and math. This is a very interesting topic to discuss critically because if we are to increase one portion of the curriculum, another area will have to be decreased OR students will need to spend more years in school. If we require students to take more years of schooling to cover all necessary material, costs will increase, which is perhaps not the best option. On the other hand, taking another area of study and decreasing the time spent on it has implications of its own. It seems that the field of science is often given more importance than other subject areas. This is even true in University. An individual getting a science degree rarely gets questioned but when completing a history or dramatic arts degree for example, the individual often will hear “well, what are you going to do with that?”
If science and math are given the highest importance, it is likely that the humanities and fine arts will become increasingly less important and will have less time and money devoted to them. I strongly disagree with placing the importance of math and science ahead of the humanities and fine arts. These subjects are just as important as math and science. Although math and science are more “universal” than a language arts course, the skills learned in English class are definitely of equal importance. An article titled “New Studies a Cause of Concern: Literacy Levels Low” written by Sherri Gallant in the Lethbridge Herald from September 9, 2009 reads, “in southern Alberta, more than half of the adults (16 and up) are functionally illiterate; at level two or lower on a literacy scale of one to five (five being the most literate).” This article shows how important language arts classes can be and perhaps more time should be spent there. On the other hand, it is clear that Language Arts appears to be becoming less important with the increase of technology. For example: most spelling and grammar can be corrected for you, handwriting is out, the availability of audio versions of most books, etc. In any case, language is very important and should be placed on the same level as science. In addition, Social Studies is becoming so important in classrooms – especially with the curriculum changes. As a Social Studies Major, I was able to teach two units on the subject to Grade 2 and Grade 9 students – both new curriculum versions. The subject is very applicable to real life and I feel it is so important for people to understand the implications of current events, think critically about events, and have some knowledge of how their government is run.
The Humanities are not always considered less important, however, fine arts are often given the lowest level of importance. Drama, art and music are so important for many areas of development and should be given a very high importance. As mentioned in class, some parents would argue that these activities could be saved for outside of school. However, many families are not able to pay for music lessons and rely on music and band in school for their children. In addition, every student is unique and will automatically excel at and enjoy different subjects. It is unfair that even at a young age we are essentially expressing that being involved in art, music or drama is not as important as being able to do calculus.
To close, I have attached the link for a really interesting article I used for an assignment for a summer course I was in. In “The Role of Artistic Play in Problem Solving” by Eliza Pitra, the importance encouraging the arts, particularly in early childhood, is expressed.
Article can be found through JSTOR at http://www.jstor.org/pss/3193924
Reference:
Gallant, S. (2009). New studies a cause for concern: Literacy levels low. Lethbridge Herald, September 9, 2009.
If science and math are given the highest importance, it is likely that the humanities and fine arts will become increasingly less important and will have less time and money devoted to them. I strongly disagree with placing the importance of math and science ahead of the humanities and fine arts. These subjects are just as important as math and science. Although math and science are more “universal” than a language arts course, the skills learned in English class are definitely of equal importance. An article titled “New Studies a Cause of Concern: Literacy Levels Low” written by Sherri Gallant in the Lethbridge Herald from September 9, 2009 reads, “in southern Alberta, more than half of the adults (16 and up) are functionally illiterate; at level two or lower on a literacy scale of one to five (five being the most literate).” This article shows how important language arts classes can be and perhaps more time should be spent there. On the other hand, it is clear that Language Arts appears to be becoming less important with the increase of technology. For example: most spelling and grammar can be corrected for you, handwriting is out, the availability of audio versions of most books, etc. In any case, language is very important and should be placed on the same level as science. In addition, Social Studies is becoming so important in classrooms – especially with the curriculum changes. As a Social Studies Major, I was able to teach two units on the subject to Grade 2 and Grade 9 students – both new curriculum versions. The subject is very applicable to real life and I feel it is so important for people to understand the implications of current events, think critically about events, and have some knowledge of how their government is run.
The Humanities are not always considered less important, however, fine arts are often given the lowest level of importance. Drama, art and music are so important for many areas of development and should be given a very high importance. As mentioned in class, some parents would argue that these activities could be saved for outside of school. However, many families are not able to pay for music lessons and rely on music and band in school for their children. In addition, every student is unique and will automatically excel at and enjoy different subjects. It is unfair that even at a young age we are essentially expressing that being involved in art, music or drama is not as important as being able to do calculus.
To close, I have attached the link for a really interesting article I used for an assignment for a summer course I was in. In “The Role of Artistic Play in Problem Solving” by Eliza Pitra, the importance encouraging the arts, particularly in early childhood, is expressed.
Article can be found through JSTOR at http://www.jstor.org/pss/3193924
Reference:
Gallant, S. (2009). New studies a cause for concern: Literacy levels low. Lethbridge Herald, September 9, 2009.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
