Chapter 1 continued...
The book then goes onto the discuss the how the capitalist society is also a social process, in the fact that the purpose of education is to prepare students to enter the work force. This concept was discussed in class and hopefully will come back to you as you read this blog. Essentially employers need to keep their employees complacent and exploit them for profit without anyone being the wiser.
Schools teach the necessary skills to become better workers and prepares students for the relationships that exist within the work force. There were five implications that came from these two ideas:
1. Economic inequality is actually defined by the market, property and power relationships that exist; capitalism naturally creates inequality because of this. Power is exchanged between the powerful, the rich keep getting richer. This brings me back to the example that was mentioned earlier...the likelihood of a high school graduate attending college was still just as dependent on the socio-economic status of his / her parents as it was 30 years ago, when this book was written.
2. The education system does not help or hinder the issue of inequality, rather it is where we have the smooth integration of youth into the labour force. This is because of the following:
* The way in which schools reward and promote students is based on meritocracy.
*Schools reinforce patterns of social classes (cliques) and racial and sexual identification. (The presentation done on gender equity spoke to this idea.)
*School teaches students how to relate and fit into the eventual place they will end up: some where in the production process, the world of work.
*Schools create a surplus of skilled workers which only feeds the power the capitalist economy has over its workers: If there are more workers than jobs available then employers have the power to hire and fire. This lends itself to what we discussed in class...the idea that big business can control the curriculum. They can decide what kind of workers they need and then filter those requests down into curriculum changes. This may be the reason their is such a focus on math and science.
3. Schools really do not intend to mirror the work force it just naturally happens:
*Authority and control between administrators and teachers / teachers and students / students and students / and students and their work mirrors the vertical hierarchy of power that exists within the work force.
*The control students have over the curriculum mirrors the control low level workers have over the content of their own jobs.
*The motivation system in school and the threat of failure mirrors the role of wages and unemployment in the workforce and how employees are motivated.
*The rule - orientated culture of high school mirrors the close supervision of low level workers and the relatively low supervision once you reach university mirrors the white collar jobs in the work force.
4. The school system does serve the interests of profit but also created some quirks...once people become educated and realize what is going on they tend to rail against what capitalism stands for...and some people use education for other purposes than the goals of a capitalist society.
5. Current education reforms reflect what is occurring in society at the time.
*For example the comment our teacher made in class in regards to what Peter Lougheed did when he came into power in Alberta in 1970.. he started making cuts to education as his background was an MBA from Stanford... and he had a completely different agenda set out for education than what was currently in existence that was stemming from the social credit ideals.
*Education reforms have failed due the fact that no one has questioned the structure of property and the balance of power.
In short the authors believed that the balance of power needs to be returned to the hands of the people, basically a switch to socialism. As we all know that will never happen in the U.S.A or in Canada.
So we will see what chapter two has to say...
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
'The Book' - Blog 3
Hello my Fellow Classmates,
Chapter 1 continued...
We left off when everyone was pointing the finger at everyone else in order to place the blame for why society was plagued by failed liberal / educational reforms. The war on poverty had failed, the poor were getting poorer and education was not the answer. The reforms that existed were now band-aid remedies, which could explain why, as mentioned in the previous blog, there was a strong feeling of pessimism within the intellectual and political circles at the time. From this situation there were two camps of people who were actually optimists. The first group believed that the old methods that were relied on could still work, and the 1960's was just a quirk. The 'old methods' that I think the authors were referring to here, came from the eternal optimism that was created after W.W. II. Now this is just a thought on my part, but from what I have learned the climate just after the war around 1945 to the early 1960's was one of pure optimism. The war was over, the creation of suburbia was born, the baby boom started and all was 'swell.' A great example of the decadence of the time I think is the T.V. series Mad Men. It is currently in its third season on A.M.C.
The second camp of optimists were a group of individuals who understood what was going on, but inherently believed that things would get better. The authors at this point became aware that education played a role in economic life. They then go into arguments for concrete evidence as to why the liberal reforms were not working. One of their main arguments that liberal / education reforms were not working was that despite the fact there was an increase in college enrollments, the reason for this was not because racism had been conquered or society had changed. The authors felt they knew this because the chance that a high school graduate attended college, at the time the book was written, was still just as dependent on their parents socio-economic status as it was 30 years ago. Now that is depressing if that is true.
The authors also wanted to make it clear that they did not believe in the theory of I.Q. and its connection to poverty. This lends itself to what we discussed in class regards to why is G.P.A. such a huge requirement to get into the faculty. I have heard from more than one source that G.P.A. does not necessarily mean one will become a great teacher. One would have to question at this point if some of these ideals from the past have filtered down to the very policies we are dealing with today. At the time of all these failed reforms the free school movement was joining the discussion as to why all of these reforms were failing. There was a consensus that there was a problem but the authors state that the free school movement was not focused on the social logic behind the issue.
There is a shift that occurs in the book at this point, that explains the'social logic' mentioned in the previous sentence. This is where the authors get into the following idea: The guiding force behind socialization in schools was actually due to the fact that schools were preparing students for the labour force. So as was stated in the previous blogs, education reforms were not working, the school system could not cope with the social ills that had been occurring.
The following has been mentioned that I feel it is the main argument of the book:
This whole book is looking at how can we best understand the relationship that must exist between the education system and capitalism...and how does that effect the education system?
Educational reforms have failed to correct these social inequalities and the authors believe that society must turn to economic reforms.
To be continued ...
Chapter 1 continued...
We left off when everyone was pointing the finger at everyone else in order to place the blame for why society was plagued by failed liberal / educational reforms. The war on poverty had failed, the poor were getting poorer and education was not the answer. The reforms that existed were now band-aid remedies, which could explain why, as mentioned in the previous blog, there was a strong feeling of pessimism within the intellectual and political circles at the time. From this situation there were two camps of people who were actually optimists. The first group believed that the old methods that were relied on could still work, and the 1960's was just a quirk. The 'old methods' that I think the authors were referring to here, came from the eternal optimism that was created after W.W. II. Now this is just a thought on my part, but from what I have learned the climate just after the war around 1945 to the early 1960's was one of pure optimism. The war was over, the creation of suburbia was born, the baby boom started and all was 'swell.' A great example of the decadence of the time I think is the T.V. series Mad Men. It is currently in its third season on A.M.C.
The second camp of optimists were a group of individuals who understood what was going on, but inherently believed that things would get better. The authors at this point became aware that education played a role in economic life. They then go into arguments for concrete evidence as to why the liberal reforms were not working. One of their main arguments that liberal / education reforms were not working was that despite the fact there was an increase in college enrollments, the reason for this was not because racism had been conquered or society had changed. The authors felt they knew this because the chance that a high school graduate attended college, at the time the book was written, was still just as dependent on their parents socio-economic status as it was 30 years ago. Now that is depressing if that is true.
The authors also wanted to make it clear that they did not believe in the theory of I.Q. and its connection to poverty. This lends itself to what we discussed in class regards to why is G.P.A. such a huge requirement to get into the faculty. I have heard from more than one source that G.P.A. does not necessarily mean one will become a great teacher. One would have to question at this point if some of these ideals from the past have filtered down to the very policies we are dealing with today. At the time of all these failed reforms the free school movement was joining the discussion as to why all of these reforms were failing. There was a consensus that there was a problem but the authors state that the free school movement was not focused on the social logic behind the issue.
There is a shift that occurs in the book at this point, that explains the'social logic' mentioned in the previous sentence. This is where the authors get into the following idea: The guiding force behind socialization in schools was actually due to the fact that schools were preparing students for the labour force. So as was stated in the previous blogs, education reforms were not working, the school system could not cope with the social ills that had been occurring.
The following has been mentioned that I feel it is the main argument of the book:
This whole book is looking at how can we best understand the relationship that must exist between the education system and capitalism...and how does that effect the education system?
Educational reforms have failed to correct these social inequalities and the authors believe that society must turn to economic reforms.
To be continued ...
'The Book' - Blog 2
Hello Fellow Classmates,
Chapter 1 continued...
So we left off when society was going through massive upheaval and was starting to lose 'faith' in itself. It was around this time that according to the book the 'soft' human relations school of labour enjoyed a boom. The civil rights movement and woman's rights movements were in a sense repeated. The key response to the movement against repressive social relations appeared in education. The idea of the open classroom prevailed and liberal education saw this as a way to 'keep things from getting out of hand,' and to keep young individuals 'in line' in light of all of the chaos from which the end of the 1960's brought about. I have started the book titled The discipline of Hope, by Herbert Kohl who looks into this concept if you would like to look at the idea of open classroom further. He believed that students and teachers could learn from each other, and that the typical classroom setting was oppressive when trying to reach students.
The education system had become the laboratory where all of the solutions to the issues of personal liberation and social equality were tested and the arena in which social struggles were fought out. (Note: It is interesting how the book speaks in the present tense, where as I am speaking in the past tense, sorry I might switch between the two.) The authors stated that the school system is a pawn for the corporate economy. School was being used by the capitalist society to further accommodate it. Essentially it was used as a tool to keep corporate America running. There was a situation that occurred in the education system where the capitalist economy was instilling its values. I still remember being in school really wanting those brand name jeans.. any one remember Guess jeans...
School was now the way for reform, which was discussed in class. The idea that the classroom was where all of the social ills would be taken care of. It was now the teachers responsibility to cover this hole in society, as was mentioned before in the first blog. The authors stated that the capitalist 'society' at the time was pushing schools and education as the answer for which all the problems were to be solved. This conveniently took the problem away from economic reform. (Later in the chapter the authors bring about the point that it is actually economic reforms that need to be instilled to solve these problems that were occurring in society.) I do remember from my own experience education getting a bad rap, but could it possibly stem from this? As was discussed in class which the authors speak to next, the education reforms that were being instilled were not working. Within political and educational circles, there was a sense of defeat. At the time there was a very disappointing result in the war on poverty. By the early 1970's a broad spectrum of social science opinions were ready to accept the view put forward by Jencks et al. that in regards to the study 'Inequality': A more open school system would do little to create a more equal distribution of income or opportunity. Where to go form here?
Out of all of this backlash against the way society was cleared the ground for the Conservatives to claim that I.Q. is really what matters. The poor are poor because they are intellectually incompetent. The cycle of poverty continued because of this low I.Q. factor which they claimed was a heredity issue, not an economic one. There was also the view point that liberal /education reform had failed because the problems were rooted in the values and attitudes of the poor and family patterns that arise from this. I was so turned around at this point that I am not sure what to say due to all of the finger pointing. Free-schools / the open classroom fared a little better amongst all of the finger pointing but not by much. The question that kept coming up now was "Can the youth really be capable of making good use of their freedom?" Groups in society were now thinking perhaps this is all we can expect from the education system: reforms that really don't work. This continued to fuel a mood of pessimism.
The mood at this time looked to be the culmination of of all of the dashed hopes of the past decade and a half. Through my own lens of learning about the 1960's, I think that the citizens of the U.S.A. were shaken and never fully recovered from the tragedy's of losing J.F.K, Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King to senseless violence. This pessimism seemed to touch the ways the average citizen dealt with the issues that were occurring, transforming from a celebration of the individual, as the book states, to an unhealthy way of coping, that consisted of sex and drug use. What was not mentioned in the book due to the year in which was finished, the AIDS epidemic started in the early 1980's which could not have helped the pessimistic view point at the time.
To be continued...
Chapter 1 continued...
So we left off when society was going through massive upheaval and was starting to lose 'faith' in itself. It was around this time that according to the book the 'soft' human relations school of labour enjoyed a boom. The civil rights movement and woman's rights movements were in a sense repeated. The key response to the movement against repressive social relations appeared in education. The idea of the open classroom prevailed and liberal education saw this as a way to 'keep things from getting out of hand,' and to keep young individuals 'in line' in light of all of the chaos from which the end of the 1960's brought about. I have started the book titled The discipline of Hope, by Herbert Kohl who looks into this concept if you would like to look at the idea of open classroom further. He believed that students and teachers could learn from each other, and that the typical classroom setting was oppressive when trying to reach students.
The education system had become the laboratory where all of the solutions to the issues of personal liberation and social equality were tested and the arena in which social struggles were fought out. (Note: It is interesting how the book speaks in the present tense, where as I am speaking in the past tense, sorry I might switch between the two.) The authors stated that the school system is a pawn for the corporate economy. School was being used by the capitalist society to further accommodate it. Essentially it was used as a tool to keep corporate America running. There was a situation that occurred in the education system where the capitalist economy was instilling its values. I still remember being in school really wanting those brand name jeans.. any one remember Guess jeans...
School was now the way for reform, which was discussed in class. The idea that the classroom was where all of the social ills would be taken care of. It was now the teachers responsibility to cover this hole in society, as was mentioned before in the first blog. The authors stated that the capitalist 'society' at the time was pushing schools and education as the answer for which all the problems were to be solved. This conveniently took the problem away from economic reform. (Later in the chapter the authors bring about the point that it is actually economic reforms that need to be instilled to solve these problems that were occurring in society.) I do remember from my own experience education getting a bad rap, but could it possibly stem from this? As was discussed in class which the authors speak to next, the education reforms that were being instilled were not working. Within political and educational circles, there was a sense of defeat. At the time there was a very disappointing result in the war on poverty. By the early 1970's a broad spectrum of social science opinions were ready to accept the view put forward by Jencks et al. that in regards to the study 'Inequality': A more open school system would do little to create a more equal distribution of income or opportunity. Where to go form here?
Out of all of this backlash against the way society was cleared the ground for the Conservatives to claim that I.Q. is really what matters. The poor are poor because they are intellectually incompetent. The cycle of poverty continued because of this low I.Q. factor which they claimed was a heredity issue, not an economic one. There was also the view point that liberal /education reform had failed because the problems were rooted in the values and attitudes of the poor and family patterns that arise from this. I was so turned around at this point that I am not sure what to say due to all of the finger pointing. Free-schools / the open classroom fared a little better amongst all of the finger pointing but not by much. The question that kept coming up now was "Can the youth really be capable of making good use of their freedom?" Groups in society were now thinking perhaps this is all we can expect from the education system: reforms that really don't work. This continued to fuel a mood of pessimism.
The mood at this time looked to be the culmination of of all of the dashed hopes of the past decade and a half. Through my own lens of learning about the 1960's, I think that the citizens of the U.S.A. were shaken and never fully recovered from the tragedy's of losing J.F.K, Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King to senseless violence. This pessimism seemed to touch the ways the average citizen dealt with the issues that were occurring, transforming from a celebration of the individual, as the book states, to an unhealthy way of coping, that consisted of sex and drug use. What was not mentioned in the book due to the year in which was finished, the AIDS epidemic started in the early 1980's which could not have helped the pessimistic view point at the time.
To be continued...
'The Book' - Blog 1
Chapter One
Beyond the Educational Frontier: The Great American Dream Freeze
Beyond the Educational Frontier: The Great American Dream Freeze
The book starts out by discussing the western frontier as the 'Great American Dream.' This was around 1850 and America was advertising the west as an oasis of opportunity. Although this was not the case and very few actually reaped any benefits. This was due to the fact that individuals who were higher up in the railroad companies, mine owners and successful farmers and ranchers were those who benefited from the 'Great American Dream' being advertised at the time. While I was reading the first few pages it brought to mind the movie Far and Away and the style in which America was being advertised in the mid to late 1800's to those in Ireland. The movie depicted this era as America having land that was being given away for free. All one had to do was show up and work hard and all their hopes and dreams would come true. It was this 'folklore' of capitalism at the time that enticed so many to come to the 'new west.' Although the truth was the majority of individuals that arrived were no better off than they were before.
The next 'folklore' of capitalism came from educational reformers. This idea has been discussed in class, that education actually is the panacea for all of the social ills that exist, such as racism, and if one could not make it then it was because they were basically not too bright or lazy. I do not believe this theory because I think that there is still racism and sexism so deeply embedded in society that we either cannot see it, or choose to ignore it. For example, two weeks ago I was watching the news and somewhere in the U.S.A a group had burnt the following into a field: I (insert the swastika sign here) Obama. I still am not quite sure what to think about this. These education reformers at the time believed that education was the end to all economic strife. All we need to do is to give each child the opportunity to make something of themselves. The following situation has also also been discussed in class, by the time the 1950's rolled around there were too many grads from high school and university. They were starting to saturate the economy. By 1968 - 1973 public support for education started to wane. School had started to fail in its ability to support the myth of equal opportunity. In class our professor mentioned the fact that citizens with Ph. D's were driving cabs.
The 1960's - early 1970's brought about complacency in regards to education which lead to unrest. It was a decade of upheaval. JFK, Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King were assassinated, the 'summer of love' came to a terrible end with the free Rolling Stones concert at Altimont, where the Hells Angels were hired for security and a young black male was beaten to death with a pool cue, which in retrospect many believed to be the antithesis of Woodstock. Four students were shot dead at a riot at Kent State in 1968. There were countless other revolutions going on at the time that dealt with the Vietnam war that was a losing battle, human rights movement for blacks, the woman's movement, gay right movement (MILK is a very good movie in my opinion that deals with this issue) and rights for those who where handicapped to name a few situations. It was quite the time to be alive. The privileged believed that social programs could restore harmony. Many individuals believed that within the free enterprise system, social progress could be achieved through the pursuit of enlightenment and government initiative, especially in the realm of vocational training.
To be continued...
The next 'folklore' of capitalism came from educational reformers. This idea has been discussed in class, that education actually is the panacea for all of the social ills that exist, such as racism, and if one could not make it then it was because they were basically not too bright or lazy. I do not believe this theory because I think that there is still racism and sexism so deeply embedded in society that we either cannot see it, or choose to ignore it. For example, two weeks ago I was watching the news and somewhere in the U.S.A a group had burnt the following into a field: I (insert the swastika sign here) Obama. I still am not quite sure what to think about this. These education reformers at the time believed that education was the end to all economic strife. All we need to do is to give each child the opportunity to make something of themselves. The following situation has also also been discussed in class, by the time the 1950's rolled around there were too many grads from high school and university. They were starting to saturate the economy. By 1968 - 1973 public support for education started to wane. School had started to fail in its ability to support the myth of equal opportunity. In class our professor mentioned the fact that citizens with Ph. D's were driving cabs.
The 1960's - early 1970's brought about complacency in regards to education which lead to unrest. It was a decade of upheaval. JFK, Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King were assassinated, the 'summer of love' came to a terrible end with the free Rolling Stones concert at Altimont, where the Hells Angels were hired for security and a young black male was beaten to death with a pool cue, which in retrospect many believed to be the antithesis of Woodstock. Four students were shot dead at a riot at Kent State in 1968. There were countless other revolutions going on at the time that dealt with the Vietnam war that was a losing battle, human rights movement for blacks, the woman's movement, gay right movement (MILK is a very good movie in my opinion that deals with this issue) and rights for those who where handicapped to name a few situations. It was quite the time to be alive. The privileged believed that social programs could restore harmony. Many individuals believed that within the free enterprise system, social progress could be achieved through the pursuit of enlightenment and government initiative, especially in the realm of vocational training.
To be continued...
'The Book' - Blog 1
Hello Fellow Classmates,
I have decided to take on reading the book that our teacher had mentioned in the first week of our course titled: Schooling In Capitalist America: Educational Reform and the Contradictions of Economic Life by Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis. It has been quite the book so far and it looks like I am in for quite the ride! I think the reason it look me so long to get through the first chapter is because half way through I realized the authors were summarizing the whole book.
NOTE: The first chapter took me four blogs to explain but this is because, as was mentioned above, it tackles the whole book at once. The following chapters in my blogs will not be as extensive and I will just pull the main concepts.
What I will do it title any blog that has to do with this book, 'The Book' and number them separately. What needs to be noted as well is that this book was written in the late 60's, early 70's.
'Those who take the meat from the table preach contentment, those who eat their fill speak to the hungry of wonderful times to come, those who lead the country into the abyss call ruling too difficult for the ordinary.'
I have decided to take on reading the book that our teacher had mentioned in the first week of our course titled: Schooling In Capitalist America: Educational Reform and the Contradictions of Economic Life by Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis. It has been quite the book so far and it looks like I am in for quite the ride! I think the reason it look me so long to get through the first chapter is because half way through I realized the authors were summarizing the whole book.
NOTE: The first chapter took me four blogs to explain but this is because, as was mentioned above, it tackles the whole book at once. The following chapters in my blogs will not be as extensive and I will just pull the main concepts.
What I will do it title any blog that has to do with this book, 'The Book' and number them separately. What needs to be noted as well is that this book was written in the late 60's, early 70's.
I thought the first quote of the book was interesting, so I decided to add it before starting my summary...
'Those who take the meat from the table preach contentment, those who eat their fill speak to the hungry of wonderful times to come, those who lead the country into the abyss call ruling too difficult for the ordinary.'
Bertolt Brecht, 1937
(The first chapter does seem to mirror the first month of our course.)
Class Presentation - October 27, 2009
Hello Fellow Classmates,
I would like to say that the presentation that was completed today on gender equity within the classroom was very well done, and made me realize quite a few things about my own personal style within the classroom setting. The first aspect that was brought up in the presentation had to do with gender: how we are raising our children to be like a typical 'boy' or 'girl' and influences such as media, magazines and advertising that perpetuate these particular stereotypes. There was a shift in the presentation that dealt with what theorists had to say on the issue. The functionalists stated that the inequalities that may arise due to being female or male, served the function of creating a situation where students would work harder to be better to overcome these inequalities. I do not agree with this as it seems to me to be an excuse to ignore inequalities that exist, and then a culture within a classroom that is not equal would be perpetuated because of this systemic discrimination.
There were ideals that stemmed from the symbolic-interactionists that made more sense to me, such as the way that students / children interact with each other is where they find their own personal sense of identity. This is how one could explain cliques that exist within the school system. I decided to look a little further in Mead, a theorist that was spoken of very highly within the presentation. The following was pulled from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
The organized community or social group which gives to the individual his unity of self may be called "the generalized other." The attitude of the generalized other is the attitude of the whole community. Thus, for example, in the case of such a social group as a ball team, the team is the generalized other in so far as it enters—as an organized process or social activity—into the experience of any one of the individual members of it.
Granted this is only a drop in the ocean of what this man discovered, but it really is a powerful draw, the 'collective group' when processing ones self identity, especially when peers are such a vital part of ones social group prior to graduating from grade school. I personally did not belong to any one clique in school as I hung out with my family / extended family vs. any friends I would have particularly had within my own peer group. It always did fascinate me, the social power that these individuals had over a school as large as the one I graduated from (Bishop Grandin in Calgary, with a student population of roughly 2000 students) was astounding. It would be interesting to see if these cliques that exist are formed on the basis of some gender stereotypes that exist, such as do 'Jocks' become a group due to the stereotype of being a man depends on being into sports?
But I digress, what I wanted to focus on was the issue of gender equity within the classroom.
I think that it is a very important to be aware of the gender stereotype issues that exist within ourselves when dealing with our students. The presenters passed out a very informative self-evaluation that deals with this issue. It appears in the book titled Together and Equal written in 1997. The questions that stood out for me were: 1. Did / Do I read as many books to my students about females as I do about males? 2. Did I avoid making judgmental comments on children s appearance (ex. stating that a girl has pretty long hair, or commenting on the neatness of a females writing instead of her ability.) This issue needs to be addressed and is a very serious one. Self-esteem of both females and males can be effected due to gender inequality. The messages that were presented in the power point slide that our females and males receive throughout their lives, especially in the area of what girls should look like (thin) and that males need to be powerful and strong, were quite alarming.
I am a beliver that one's gender does not effect or limit what that individual is capable of. What I wanted to bring up in light of the gender equity issues that were brought up in the presentation, is that it seems somewhere along the way we have lost sight of the validity that the traditional roles hold within our society. I am not agreeing with what used to be said about females in the 1960' s and 1970's due to womens' liberation: that the family was being corrupted because women chose to leave the family home to work. That is pure nonsense in my opinion, and not just because I am a woman : ) I do believe that women today who choose to stay home and raise children do not receive the respect that they deserve in today's society. I think that we have become so politically correct that we have stepped over a line and into a realm where there is a type of reverse discrimination. It is important to realize that it is an ongoing journey towards realizing gender equity, and the central theme of 'equity' means choices should be available to individuals regardless of gender, and not to over-compensate by forcing a specific gender to make a certain choice because they didn't have the opportunity to make that choice in the past. (Like my example with women pressured to not be stay-at-home moms)
I would like to say that the presentation that was completed today on gender equity within the classroom was very well done, and made me realize quite a few things about my own personal style within the classroom setting. The first aspect that was brought up in the presentation had to do with gender: how we are raising our children to be like a typical 'boy' or 'girl' and influences such as media, magazines and advertising that perpetuate these particular stereotypes. There was a shift in the presentation that dealt with what theorists had to say on the issue. The functionalists stated that the inequalities that may arise due to being female or male, served the function of creating a situation where students would work harder to be better to overcome these inequalities. I do not agree with this as it seems to me to be an excuse to ignore inequalities that exist, and then a culture within a classroom that is not equal would be perpetuated because of this systemic discrimination.
There were ideals that stemmed from the symbolic-interactionists that made more sense to me, such as the way that students / children interact with each other is where they find their own personal sense of identity. This is how one could explain cliques that exist within the school system. I decided to look a little further in Mead, a theorist that was spoken of very highly within the presentation. The following was pulled from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
The organized community or social group which gives to the individual his unity of self may be called "the generalized other." The attitude of the generalized other is the attitude of the whole community. Thus, for example, in the case of such a social group as a ball team, the team is the generalized other in so far as it enters—as an organized process or social activity—into the experience of any one of the individual members of it.
Granted this is only a drop in the ocean of what this man discovered, but it really is a powerful draw, the 'collective group' when processing ones self identity, especially when peers are such a vital part of ones social group prior to graduating from grade school. I personally did not belong to any one clique in school as I hung out with my family / extended family vs. any friends I would have particularly had within my own peer group. It always did fascinate me, the social power that these individuals had over a school as large as the one I graduated from (Bishop Grandin in Calgary, with a student population of roughly 2000 students) was astounding. It would be interesting to see if these cliques that exist are formed on the basis of some gender stereotypes that exist, such as do 'Jocks' become a group due to the stereotype of being a man depends on being into sports?
But I digress, what I wanted to focus on was the issue of gender equity within the classroom.
I think that it is a very important to be aware of the gender stereotype issues that exist within ourselves when dealing with our students. The presenters passed out a very informative self-evaluation that deals with this issue. It appears in the book titled Together and Equal written in 1997. The questions that stood out for me were: 1. Did / Do I read as many books to my students about females as I do about males? 2. Did I avoid making judgmental comments on children s appearance (ex. stating that a girl has pretty long hair, or commenting on the neatness of a females writing instead of her ability.) This issue needs to be addressed and is a very serious one. Self-esteem of both females and males can be effected due to gender inequality. The messages that were presented in the power point slide that our females and males receive throughout their lives, especially in the area of what girls should look like (thin) and that males need to be powerful and strong, were quite alarming.
I am a beliver that one's gender does not effect or limit what that individual is capable of. What I wanted to bring up in light of the gender equity issues that were brought up in the presentation, is that it seems somewhere along the way we have lost sight of the validity that the traditional roles hold within our society. I am not agreeing with what used to be said about females in the 1960' s and 1970's due to womens' liberation: that the family was being corrupted because women chose to leave the family home to work. That is pure nonsense in my opinion, and not just because I am a woman : ) I do believe that women today who choose to stay home and raise children do not receive the respect that they deserve in today's society. I think that we have become so politically correct that we have stepped over a line and into a realm where there is a type of reverse discrimination. It is important to realize that it is an ongoing journey towards realizing gender equity, and the central theme of 'equity' means choices should be available to individuals regardless of gender, and not to over-compensate by forcing a specific gender to make a certain choice because they didn't have the opportunity to make that choice in the past. (Like my example with women pressured to not be stay-at-home moms)
In class discussion - October 22, 2009
Hello Fellow Classmates,
For my first blog I would like to comment on what took place within a classroom discussion on October 22, 2009. The issue I would like to look at had to do with a discussion around the following: Within Southern Alberta there are quite a few Hutterites, according to the link CBC News in-depth: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/hutterites/ (which gives a brief background as to who these groups of individuals are and what they stand for) in 2006 there were 3,715 Hutterites in Alberta and 5,110 in Saskatchewan. The question that was posed in our class was should these colonies have the right to run their own schools that have a completly different set of priorities than that of the Education system in place in Alberta.
According to what was said in class and what was mentioned in the CBC link above, children typically leave school at the age of 15, although some do continue on to become teachers that come back to help and teach the members of their colonies. Before I branch into my thoughts on the issue I will give a little bit of a background as to what we were discussing before this question was posed at the end of class. Our teacher was going through the history of Alberta's education system starting in 1909. In the 30's and 40's grade eight was considered graduation status. When schools were first starting up they were one room school houses. (There is a great example in Heritage Park in Calgary if you would like to see first hand what the conditions were like at this time for teachers.)
The issue was that you could not have a school district that was larger than what a student could walk to. With Alberta being as big as it is, and towns and farms being spread out over large distances, this created a problem for some students because there wasn't enough tax payers money to fund all the schools needed. (Hence having one room school houses.) These schools covered all of the grades being taught at the time by one teacher. The West in 1909 was in the stage of being 'settled by farmers' and apparently what the government was doing at the time was going to places like the Ukraine and bringing back whole villages to help with this effort. It was these different cultures that were brought back to Canada, along with many farmers at the time, that did not understand why they needed to send their children to school when they were needed as farm hands. On the family farm was where their children were taught all they needed to know according to some groups at the time.
The classical curriculum, such as Latin, did not have any relevance to their children, and it was costly to send their children to school. Paying taxes for this seemingly useless service created a backlash against the education system. Around the 1940's came the era of the school bus which eliminated the issue of students only being able to attend schools within walking distance from their homes or farms, yet the issue of cost to these students parents and the fact that they did not feel the curriculum was at all relevant remained a lingering issue. This brings me to the issue of this blog: In regards to particular groups in Alberta and Canada such as Hutterites do they have the right to their own cultural beliefs when it comes to something as universal as the Canadian education system?
This is a issue that is very hard to tackle. To begin, in Canada we have laws that protect such groups from discrimination. The religious beliefs and the way in which the Hutterite 'culture' is run within their own colonies are rights that they have as free citizens of this fair country we call Canada. Becoming a teacher, I feel that this is one the most difficult tasks I will have to face, is to be open minded when confronted with beliefs that do not coincide with my own. This is a situation where I am not in agreement with how Hutterites run their education system. For students to leave school at the age of 15 seems to create a situation where there is a lack of opportunity for these children. I feel that the 'teen' years are a great opportunity to grow and learn about ones self. As a future teacher I believe that introducing students to a myriad of subject / ideas can foster this time of personal self development. I am specializing in career coaching across the curriculum which in part looks at this issue and tries to integrate it into the education system from Kindergarten onwards. I feel that if you are living in Canada you should not have the right to trump the school system in place because of who you are or what affiliation you belong to.
On the other hand the children that grown into adults that live within this culture are taught what they need to know right within their own communities. Why would they need to attend a school that does not coincide with their culture when they are for the most part self sufficient. It does make sense that they have a self sustained community that needs to continue the way it is, if their way of life is to progress into the future intact. Yet what happens to those that choose to leave their colonies at 18 or 20? These individuals are not prepared for life outside of their colonies with just a Grade 8 education.
I would suggest, as a modest compromise, to allow some influence from Alberta Education to ensure that individuals who want to leave the colony, or are simply interested in being better educated, are made aware of the choices available outside the colony. While it is important to respect the cultural differences, I believe it is very important to allow individuals, especially kids, the opportunity to receive further education if they so desire.
For my first blog I would like to comment on what took place within a classroom discussion on October 22, 2009. The issue I would like to look at had to do with a discussion around the following: Within Southern Alberta there are quite a few Hutterites, according to the link CBC News in-depth: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/hutterites/ (which gives a brief background as to who these groups of individuals are and what they stand for) in 2006 there were 3,715 Hutterites in Alberta and 5,110 in Saskatchewan. The question that was posed in our class was should these colonies have the right to run their own schools that have a completly different set of priorities than that of the Education system in place in Alberta.
According to what was said in class and what was mentioned in the CBC link above, children typically leave school at the age of 15, although some do continue on to become teachers that come back to help and teach the members of their colonies. Before I branch into my thoughts on the issue I will give a little bit of a background as to what we were discussing before this question was posed at the end of class. Our teacher was going through the history of Alberta's education system starting in 1909. In the 30's and 40's grade eight was considered graduation status. When schools were first starting up they were one room school houses. (There is a great example in Heritage Park in Calgary if you would like to see first hand what the conditions were like at this time for teachers.)
The issue was that you could not have a school district that was larger than what a student could walk to. With Alberta being as big as it is, and towns and farms being spread out over large distances, this created a problem for some students because there wasn't enough tax payers money to fund all the schools needed. (Hence having one room school houses.) These schools covered all of the grades being taught at the time by one teacher. The West in 1909 was in the stage of being 'settled by farmers' and apparently what the government was doing at the time was going to places like the Ukraine and bringing back whole villages to help with this effort. It was these different cultures that were brought back to Canada, along with many farmers at the time, that did not understand why they needed to send their children to school when they were needed as farm hands. On the family farm was where their children were taught all they needed to know according to some groups at the time.
The classical curriculum, such as Latin, did not have any relevance to their children, and it was costly to send their children to school. Paying taxes for this seemingly useless service created a backlash against the education system. Around the 1940's came the era of the school bus which eliminated the issue of students only being able to attend schools within walking distance from their homes or farms, yet the issue of cost to these students parents and the fact that they did not feel the curriculum was at all relevant remained a lingering issue. This brings me to the issue of this blog: In regards to particular groups in Alberta and Canada such as Hutterites do they have the right to their own cultural beliefs when it comes to something as universal as the Canadian education system?
This is a issue that is very hard to tackle. To begin, in Canada we have laws that protect such groups from discrimination. The religious beliefs and the way in which the Hutterite 'culture' is run within their own colonies are rights that they have as free citizens of this fair country we call Canada. Becoming a teacher, I feel that this is one the most difficult tasks I will have to face, is to be open minded when confronted with beliefs that do not coincide with my own. This is a situation where I am not in agreement with how Hutterites run their education system. For students to leave school at the age of 15 seems to create a situation where there is a lack of opportunity for these children. I feel that the 'teen' years are a great opportunity to grow and learn about ones self. As a future teacher I believe that introducing students to a myriad of subject / ideas can foster this time of personal self development. I am specializing in career coaching across the curriculum which in part looks at this issue and tries to integrate it into the education system from Kindergarten onwards. I feel that if you are living in Canada you should not have the right to trump the school system in place because of who you are or what affiliation you belong to.
On the other hand the children that grown into adults that live within this culture are taught what they need to know right within their own communities. Why would they need to attend a school that does not coincide with their culture when they are for the most part self sufficient. It does make sense that they have a self sustained community that needs to continue the way it is, if their way of life is to progress into the future intact. Yet what happens to those that choose to leave their colonies at 18 or 20? These individuals are not prepared for life outside of their colonies with just a Grade 8 education.
I would suggest, as a modest compromise, to allow some influence from Alberta Education to ensure that individuals who want to leave the colony, or are simply interested in being better educated, are made aware of the choices available outside the colony. While it is important to respect the cultural differences, I believe it is very important to allow individuals, especially kids, the opportunity to receive further education if they so desire.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)