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.
Monday, September 28, 2009
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.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
The Formula for Great Teaching
Today, in class, we discussed the difference between training and education. We concluded that training was more specific and direct. Those with this type of training do not have the ability to go beyond what they are told. It is basically the “how-to” knowledge. On the other hand, education refers to a much broader knowledge. Education allows us to go beyond the “how-to” and consider the “why”. With an education, we hopefully will have the ability to see what the underlying issues are. When thinking critically, we can define the real problems, not just solve the problems we are given.
A goal mentioned to reach by the end of university is to care more about our education and less about the training we have received. It sounds easy, but there are some major problems that arise with this notion. Throughout our training thus far in the Faculty of Education, we have been given formulas. Formulas for great teaching, formulas for lesson plans, formulas for classroom management, formulas for assessment tools, and so on. Problem = each teacher is different, each student is different, each school is different, and each class dynamic is different. It is impossible to create a formula for great teaching.
I have had personal experience with this problem throughout PSI and PSII. When beginning is PSI, it is completely understandable to provide training. Because I had never written a lesson plan or classroom management plan, it was a great idea to give examples of lesson plans and some techniques for managing a classroom. However, we should be able to adapt these training tools to suit our own needs and the needs of our students. Isn’t that the point? ... And now I rant … I had a lot of criticism from my university consultant in PSI regarding my lesson plans. He would not accept them as sufficient unless I revamped them to match his formula for doing lesson plans. It didn’t matter that his way did not work for me. I had to laugh in class today when Robert mentioned that his lesson plans are often pages long while his wife’s are written on a napkin. This doesn’t mean that one way is right and one is wrong, it just means people are different.
As beginning teachers, training is important. However, from the information we are given, we must be allowed to discover which methods works the best for us and our students. We are often told to keep our opinions to ourselves out in the field and agree and adhere to everything believed by our teacher mentors, administrators, and consultants. Although it is important to adhere to school policy and teaching beliefs, to be the best teachers we can be, we need to be able to answer the questions of why we are doing things. Is it the most beneficial way? How can we make it better?
A goal mentioned to reach by the end of university is to care more about our education and less about the training we have received. It sounds easy, but there are some major problems that arise with this notion. Throughout our training thus far in the Faculty of Education, we have been given formulas. Formulas for great teaching, formulas for lesson plans, formulas for classroom management, formulas for assessment tools, and so on. Problem = each teacher is different, each student is different, each school is different, and each class dynamic is different. It is impossible to create a formula for great teaching.
I have had personal experience with this problem throughout PSI and PSII. When beginning is PSI, it is completely understandable to provide training. Because I had never written a lesson plan or classroom management plan, it was a great idea to give examples of lesson plans and some techniques for managing a classroom. However, we should be able to adapt these training tools to suit our own needs and the needs of our students. Isn’t that the point? ... And now I rant … I had a lot of criticism from my university consultant in PSI regarding my lesson plans. He would not accept them as sufficient unless I revamped them to match his formula for doing lesson plans. It didn’t matter that his way did not work for me. I had to laugh in class today when Robert mentioned that his lesson plans are often pages long while his wife’s are written on a napkin. This doesn’t mean that one way is right and one is wrong, it just means people are different.
As beginning teachers, training is important. However, from the information we are given, we must be allowed to discover which methods works the best for us and our students. We are often told to keep our opinions to ourselves out in the field and agree and adhere to everything believed by our teacher mentors, administrators, and consultants. Although it is important to adhere to school policy and teaching beliefs, to be the best teachers we can be, we need to be able to answer the questions of why we are doing things. Is it the most beneficial way? How can we make it better?
Monday, September 14, 2009
Introduction: Why the Sociology of Education?
As an introduction, this post will be based around the first assigned readings for this course from Barakett and Cleghorn’s text. From the initial pages of this book, we can gain an understanding of how education can be viewed sociologically. I don’t plan on explaining all of the terminology in the readings. However, it will be important for future readings and discussions to present and review this background knowledge. Here, I hope to present a brief overview of how vast this topic is and how many issues have and will arise in education.
So, how do we study education from a sociological perspective? As explained by Barakett and Cleghorn (2008), “education is sociological because it involves a network of interrelated societal institutions and a social process, and because it has sociological functions, both intended and unintended” (p. 2). In English, this means that education takes place in an educational institution such as a school system which is also connected to other parts of society. Some of these societal links mentioned include the economy, the political system, the legal system, and the family (p. 2). The school system itself is linked to and a part of society.
Another way education is a social process is simply because it involves the interaction of people in society. In my personal opinion, this is the most interesting part. Teachers bring to the classroom their life experiences, values and beliefs. Not only is there diversity among teachers, but there is also diversity among students. Because there are so many different people together from various backgrounds, it is possible to take on the norms, values and attitudes from the culturally dominant group (p. 4).
The text presents two categories of functions that formal schooling provides – intended and unintended. The intended functions are those we think of when we think of schools – knowledge, skills, values, mental abilities, etc. The unintended functions are referred to as “hidden curriculum” which I hope to address in future posts. Unintended functions, as explained by Barakett and Cleghorn (2008), include those regarding social control that often end up defining who is to succeed and who is not, what subjects girls and boys should be interested in, etc (p. 6). In addition to social control, an unintended function of schooling is that it provides care for children for the majority of their day for the majority of the year. There are so many issues surrounding the responsibility of parents as they act as a substitute for parents during the day – this is referred to as in loco parentis (p. 7). Another hidden function of schooling is that it provides social interaction for students. It is at school that children develop their social skills and social relationships.
Because society and the school system are always changing, critical reflection and analysis of all current trends and issues in education is very important. This is what I hope to accomplish here. Now that I have stated a bit of the background knowledge I have acquired through the text readings. I will have a better understanding of the social process of schooling and what issues may arise and will be better able to present them following the class discussion tomorrow!
Reference:
Barakett, J. & Cleghorn, A. (2008) Sociology of Education: an Introductory View from Canada. Toronto: Pearson Education Canada.
So, how do we study education from a sociological perspective? As explained by Barakett and Cleghorn (2008), “education is sociological because it involves a network of interrelated societal institutions and a social process, and because it has sociological functions, both intended and unintended” (p. 2). In English, this means that education takes place in an educational institution such as a school system which is also connected to other parts of society. Some of these societal links mentioned include the economy, the political system, the legal system, and the family (p. 2). The school system itself is linked to and a part of society.
Another way education is a social process is simply because it involves the interaction of people in society. In my personal opinion, this is the most interesting part. Teachers bring to the classroom their life experiences, values and beliefs. Not only is there diversity among teachers, but there is also diversity among students. Because there are so many different people together from various backgrounds, it is possible to take on the norms, values and attitudes from the culturally dominant group (p. 4).
The text presents two categories of functions that formal schooling provides – intended and unintended. The intended functions are those we think of when we think of schools – knowledge, skills, values, mental abilities, etc. The unintended functions are referred to as “hidden curriculum” which I hope to address in future posts. Unintended functions, as explained by Barakett and Cleghorn (2008), include those regarding social control that often end up defining who is to succeed and who is not, what subjects girls and boys should be interested in, etc (p. 6). In addition to social control, an unintended function of schooling is that it provides care for children for the majority of their day for the majority of the year. There are so many issues surrounding the responsibility of parents as they act as a substitute for parents during the day – this is referred to as in loco parentis (p. 7). Another hidden function of schooling is that it provides social interaction for students. It is at school that children develop their social skills and social relationships.
Because society and the school system are always changing, critical reflection and analysis of all current trends and issues in education is very important. This is what I hope to accomplish here. Now that I have stated a bit of the background knowledge I have acquired through the text readings. I will have a better understanding of the social process of schooling and what issues may arise and will be better able to present them following the class discussion tomorrow!
Reference:
Barakett, J. & Cleghorn, A. (2008) Sociology of Education: an Introductory View from Canada. Toronto: Pearson Education Canada.
Welcome to my Education 4320 blog!
Welcome to my blog! Through the use of this medium, I hope to discuss current issues surrounding education and to critically analyze and discuss these issues from a sociological perspective. Discussions will be based around (1) readings from the textbook used for my Education & Society course, Sociology of Education: an Introductory View from Canada by Joyce Barakett and Ailie Cleghorn, (2) lectures and discussions experienced in said course, (3) scholarly journal articles applicable to the topic of education and society, (4) current education-related news items, (5) presentations attended during the semester, and (6) other blogs and web-pages pertaining to this topic.
A little bit about my background: I am completing my fifth and final year at the University of Lethbridge. In spring of 2010, I will graduate with a combined degree in the Social Sciences and Social Studies Education. That being said, I have had some experience with sociology before. Through my pre-professional courses, I have studied deviance, conformity and social control, mass communications, religion, social psychology, and risk from a sociological perspective in addition to completing a general introductory sociology course. Because I am an education student, I felt that studying education from a sociological perspective seemed like the next logical step. Through my on campus and practical experience within the Education Faculty, I have heard of and experienced many important issues regarding the education system, teachers, students, parents, the community’s view, and so on. I hope to use this course and assignment as an opportunity to further my knowledge and understanding of the topic, and also to develop my own opinions regarding the issue.
A little bit about my background: I am completing my fifth and final year at the University of Lethbridge. In spring of 2010, I will graduate with a combined degree in the Social Sciences and Social Studies Education. That being said, I have had some experience with sociology before. Through my pre-professional courses, I have studied deviance, conformity and social control, mass communications, religion, social psychology, and risk from a sociological perspective in addition to completing a general introductory sociology course. Because I am an education student, I felt that studying education from a sociological perspective seemed like the next logical step. Through my on campus and practical experience within the Education Faculty, I have heard of and experienced many important issues regarding the education system, teachers, students, parents, the community’s view, and so on. I hope to use this course and assignment as an opportunity to further my knowledge and understanding of the topic, and also to develop my own opinions regarding the issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
