Sociology 4320

Bill 44

2009-12-08T12:47:00.000-08:00

I feel that Bill 44 is a step backwards. Most of the information I have gathered so far on Bill 44 is from my professors here at the University (I really do need to investigate further.)I found this great article dated September 14, 2009 from the National Post by John Carpay and Karen Selick. It is titled God and Government. It started out with two great lines: "What could possibly go wrong with children gaining a general knowledge of the world's major religions and the differences among them?"

"Plenty, if the government requires that all children be taught that all religions, and all non-religious moral codes, have equal merit."

That got me thinking. I don't believe that just because teachers point out the differences between religions means that he/she is taking away the merit of one religion over another. It is a fact that the Catholic faith is different from Buddhism. (Although you would be amazed at the similarities between most of the major world religions....hmmm would that be a way around Bill 44..to teach the similarities of religions? But I digress)

The article then goes onto discuss that parents do not wish to have their children exposed to teachings that go against the religious teachings which contradicts what is taught within the students home. I do have to stop and pause here, to say that although I do not have any children, I get this idea. I hope that I would not be adverse to my children being exposed to ideals that do not fit my own, but when it comes to religion I think it is a whole other story. What about religions that go against some of the basic tenants that have been deemed human rights in Canada? I am still stuck on this question.

The article brings up another interesting point: some parents do not want their children forcibly exposed to religion at a young age. I am not sure how this would be detrimental? Another point is that the information that is presented is not "even-handed." That some religions are focused on more, for example within a Catholic school the Catholic faith would most likely be given more credence. This idea was backed up with the notion that most religions "include as one of its tenants, a superiority over rival systems (or else why adhere to it?) This is a rather sticky issue and I hope that teachers do not shy away from teaching religion in the future, as it is something that defines some of ones students and should not be looked at as controversial. Like rock and roll in the 50’s when it was banned, that secrecy created more issues than it was worth.

'The Book ' Blog 31

2009-11-26T20:01:00.000-08:00

Chapter ten continued …

Free Schools

The free school reform was born out of questions such as: Why in a democratic society, should an individual first contact with a formal institution, such as schooling be so undemocratic? Is it really necessary for schools to be so ridged and create a need for such conformity?

The ideals from the individuals behind the free school movement united themselves with a common vision: a democratic, cooperative, and unstructured education – a vision of schools that promotes rather than retards personal development. The authors have noted a discrepancy with-in this movement: there must be a rejection that schools are independent of society. This then places schools in a social and economic context. (As was mentioned before, this requires a change in the economic system.)

In and of itself a liberated education will only produce unhappy workers as there is a disconnect that exists – while ones education may be liberated, the work force to which one enters is not.

Another shortcoming of the free school movement is that it ignores its own class composition. The main supporters of free schools are comprised of a limited and privileged section of society. A true revolution and democratization of economic life requires united action of diverse social classes and groups. There must be a conflict free alliance among these groups. As well, by treating the free school movement as universally valid, it ignores the social forces which gave it its ground on which it grew.

Yet it takes more than personal discontent and job blues to create a movement capable of transforming the structure of society. The potential revolutionary impact of the free school movement will not depend on the creation of mini utopias in our schools so much as the ability to create awareness among its participants. Free schools must create not a temporary and privileged oasis of freedom, but an understanding of oppression and how to fight it in capitalist society. The free school movement must teach the tools of liberation. This depends on the development of a political self- understanding of the movement itself.

A note here must be that the free school movement in part has been created by the elite who are now being faced with the segregation of their own work lives, to create a situation that deals with the contradictions in their own lives. Due to this the movement may not be respected or accepted by repressed minorities.

** The political impact of the free school movement will largely depend on the on the objectives that will be pursued. If this movement is pushed to restore the lost privileges in the hierarchy of production, they will isolate themselves from other workers. What needs to occur is the politicization of the free school movement, an egalitarian workers democracy, and a strategy for alliance with all oppressed groups. Then and only then will the movement gain any ground.

As I mentioned in the previous blog, I am a firm believer that change needs to be made somewhere and that children are one of the many starting points to create that change. What I think is that the authors have described what sounds dangerously like a revolution and the need to over throw capitalism. The ideas that they have put forth are very good ones, but it sounds like there is a need to radically change the mind-frames and unite large groups of individuals, who historically in the past have been divided. I am not quite sure what to make of that. It is not to say that I do not think that the free school movement does not have its merits and it would be a great way to run individual class room. What I think would be more feasible is to incorporate an element of the free school movement into today’s classroom. I think that with the way in which our government operates, particularly in Alberta, it would be easier to reform elements of the pre-existing education structure. I think that future teachers need to take advantage of the freedom they have over their own classroom and work with their administrations to make the free school movement possible.

De-Schooling

A very interesting concept that was brought up in the last part of chapter ten was the idea of de-schooling. It is a concept that was proposed by a man named Ivan Illich. He proposed that schools be eliminated altogether. He believes that values in society are geared towards goods and services and their consumption. Illich believes that society has created a vicious cycle of consumption that we have been told will satisfy us. Schools are a source of this manipulation. Illich believes preventing this manipulation is to get rid of the maniplualative institutions. (De-schooling.) The authors feel that this completely misses the point, because this manipulation of consumerism has its roots in capitalism, and not in social intuitions such as schools.

I think that schools sole purpose cannot just be to manipulate students into conforming to the consumerism cycle. There are many facets outside of the life of the economy where school plays a crucial role. It makes me wonder if Illich has spent any time with children, or had any of his own.

'The Book ' Blog 30

2009-11-26T19:59:00.000-08:00

Chapter ten continued ...

The authors go onto say that the egalitarian school reform must be political. Its aim must be to undermine the capacity of the system to perpetuate inequality. This entails three objectives:

1. Educational reforms must make it clear that equality is not a question of sub cultural values, biological or just an economic issue. It is a political issue and equality in society can only be solved through political struggle.

2. The existing myths that inequality appears to be beneficial or unavoidable must be dispelled.

3. There must be unification within diverse groups and there must be an attempt to combat the segmentation of workers of different social circumstance.

What the authors are saying here does make sense, but in today’s political climate, particularly in Alberta, I think that to essentially change the government will not happen in my life time or my children’s life time. The way that education is looked as in Alberta seems to some what mirror part of what the authors have been proposing in this book. That education is a tool that is used to prepare our children for the work force, and the values that the workforce is typically comprised of – in Alberta is based on our bread and butter. By this I mean big business and oil.

The rest of this section looks at open enrollment in higher education in regards to the three objectives stated above.

1. The authors feel that open enrollment could meet the first objective. If youth of minority and blue collar workers could attend higher education, thus gaining the educational credentials that were used by the individuals as a legitimization of the hierarchy of labour, the reasoning behind organizing this division of labour along class and race lines would be drastically undermined. The continued exploitation of labour and social oppression of minorities would be then seen as rooted in the political power of elites rather than a cultural or biological issue, or a skill deficiency on the part of the workers themselves. Yet it is interesting to note that along with more open admissions comes a stronger internal tracking system, which symbolizes the new education stratification.

2. Open enrollment has laid to rest the idea that only a select few can benefit from higher education, yet some of these minorities have been faced with a hostile faculty.

3. Finally, the authors state that open enrollment can play a significant role in unifying workers. Higher education breaks down can break down artificial cultural distinctions among working people. This does come with a cautionary tale: the political arena must be on board with the funding necessary to facilitate this change in the school system.

'The Book ' Blog 29

2009-11-26T18:46:00.000-08:00

Chapter Ten
Educational Alternatives

What needs to be understood before looking into the first of the three sections of this chapter is that the social problems to which these (educational) reforms are addressed have their roots not in the school system but in the functioning of economic system. The authors have been stating this throughout the book. What school reformers need to look at is the role that education plays in reproducing the economic order. The movements that need to take place are in all spheres of life and not just within the classroom.

Equal Education

The proposals for more equal education can be grouped under three headings:

1. Open enrollment: This would reduce the years of schooling obtained by individuals.

2. Programs that seek to equalize the way in which resources are divided.

3. Custom-tailored programs for children with special needs.

The authors note that the most important objective of these programs is to reduce inequality of educational opportunity – education can be obtained regardless of ones socio-economic background.

The errors that the authors picked up on is that school should not be looked at as an independent entity outside of society, but that schooling is very much part of the production and reproduction of class structure. The primary relationship between schooling and inequality cannot be discovered in a model that assumes that schools are the cause of inequality.

I find it interesting to note that the authors state that schooling can and does play a role in creating a more equal society – but that the reduction of economic inequality is ultimately a political - not an economic question.

I agree with the authors. I think that the way in which the capitalist society is run and the decisions that are made that effect education, come from a primarily political arena. I know that I need to do more research in this area, but to me it makes sense that one needs to tackle the system from which laws are passed and to change the mind frames of those who administer those laws – such as superintendents, administration, principals ect. Again I agree with the authors when this emphasis of change is brought up due to the fact that the economics of the Western hemisphere cannot fundamentally change itself. It is the people behind the economic sphere that makes these changes. It is nice to see that the authors finally admit to the fact that schooling can and does play a role in making the world a better place. Although they do not seem to put much stock in the power that I believe schooling has. I may sound naïve, but really you do have to start some where. I know this sounds far reaching and I was not sure if I was going to put this into the blog but I truly deep down in my heart feel that as teacher we are teaching and shaping the future. I think what we tend to forget is that the future is made up of individuals who create the events that occur, and not the other way around.

'The Book ' Blog 28

2009-11-26T18:39:00.000-08:00

chapter nine continued ..

The authors have described the process of educational change without identifying how exactly economic interests translate into educational programs.

The key inherent conflict in the capitalist system, is the conflict between the capitalist accumulation and the reproduction of capitalist order (class conflict). Educational reform has been used by the capitalist to mediate and reflect class conflict.

The process of educational reform is as follows:

1. Internal dynamics : Economic - constantly changing and adapting. Economics is not a static system. Education - is less dynamic and more stable.

2. This creates a mis-match of internal dynamics. Economic goals - extend wage - labour system. Alters the organization of work and the class structure. Educational goals tries to stabilize these aspects.

3. The accommodation of educational systems to new economic conditions.

a. Pluralist accommodations (interests of all stakeholders): the tendency of educators in periods of economic change to alter values conforming to new economic changes. Parents want education that is focused on obtaining a job. This is to secure a successful future for their children. When there is a financial crisis, like the one that occurred in the 1970's and like what we are experiencing today, education reforms tend to tighten up and focus more on getting jobs and not on the well rounded educational experience.

Note: All of these processes that lead to educational reform appear to be democratically controlled (This is key to the legitimization of the U.S. capitalist order.) Yet the authors claim that it is actually still being led by a changing structure of production.

b. There is concrete political struggle along the lines of class interest. This means when there is social uprising, a struggle among major social groups, the capitalist class through its extensive control over educational funding has been able to control the 'model' that will control this class conflict that is occurring. This control over information and educational values, exercised by the capitalist class in large measure through its foundations (controlling resources.) has played a crucial role in directing the process of educational accommodation to economic change.

Educational change has historically played the role, not of a compliment to economic reform, but as a substitute for it.

'The Book' - Blog 27

2009-11-25T20:12:00.000-08:00

Chapter Nine
Capital Accumulation, Class Conflict and Educational Change

The authors, as they have stated through out the book, claim that the changes in the structure of education are historically associated with the changes in the social organization of production. The causal importance of economic structure as a major determinant of educational structure.

The question that the authors pose is "What forces govern the process of educational change?"

How exactly does education change? The authors look into four historical theories.

1. R. Butts described the development of U.S. education as a search for freedom. The issue of control of schools was settled in favour of democracy. The governemnt was seen as a way of control that is fair due to the fact that it is the only institution which serves everyone equally and is controlled by everyone. This is referred to as the democratic imperative interpretation. The only role for conflict was the pace of change not the direction.

2. Other writers have stressed the role of conflict and have viewed the present system as the triumph of the little people over the powerful. Ellwood Cubberly stated that the battle for tax supported, publicly controlled and non-sectarian common schools was a huge battle that was won. Frank Carleton stressed the role of labour in the struggle: almost every working man took up the cause. This is called the popular demand for education.

3. The next view could be called the technological interpretation. The growth and structure of the U.S. education system has been represented by an accommodation to the labour training needs generated by the growth and structure of the economy.

The authors feel that the democratic imperative and technological viewpoints are flawed because they are based on false premises. The authors argue that education as a vehicle for freedom has never occurred. The popular demand interpretation failed due to the fact that the educational demands of groups of individuals such as farmers and workers were not met. Expansion of public education was supported by employers and other powerful people as well as organized labour. This prompts the question did working people get what they wanted from education? Workers spoke out for universal education and local control. What they received was quite a different story. Was the education they asked for one that was stratified and divided among classless?

A fourth viewpoint is called the revisionist viewpoint. The expansion of mass education was sparked by demographic changes associated with the industrialization and urbanization of economic and social activity. In this viewpoint, which I alluded to in previous blogs, was actually a form of social control of an increasingly diverse cultural and poverty stricken urban population. Katz, who was one of the most predominate revolutionists, thought that the ideals of capitalism were actually imposed on the workers and not won over by them.

The authors then move onto their view of the process of educational change. They claim it to be an extension of the analysis of chapter three -of the capitalist economy. The role of education that was outlined in chapter 4 and 5 in legitimizing the class structure and in fostering forms of consciousness consistent with its reproduction.

There is a key contradiction that exists between the accumulation of capital and reproduction of the capitalist relations of production.

I think what the authors are trying to get at from a practical standpoint is that the capitalist, to maintain their power, in the expanding capitalist system, they need to have a reserve of higher skilled workers than ever before. This is necessary to fill positions higher up in the job hierarchy. As one gets higher up in the hierarchy, it is harder to appease this group of individuals, due to the fact the there are no longer enough jobs to give to these highly educated workers.

From a more general standpoint, when individuals become more knowledgeable, they are more aware of the inequalities that inherently exist within the capitalist structure. It becomes increasingly difficult to have capable, educated and skilled workers that will 'swallow' the way in which the hierarchical division of labour is set up.

The expansion of mass education has been a central element in resolving - at least temporarily the contradictions between accumulation and reproduction.

Three turning points in U.S. history that have been covered in the book, all correspond to periods of struggle around the expansion of capitalist production relations.

1. The era of the common school reform (chapter 6) This was the rise of the factory system - the creation and expansion of the permanent wage - labour force.

2. The progressive education movement (chapter 7) This grew out of class conflicts associated with the joint rise of organized labour and corporate capaital.

3. The recent period according to the authors 1960's to the mid 1970's(chapter 8) was due to the integration of three major groups into the wage labour system: displaced southern blacks, women and small business individuals.

'The Book' - Blog 26

2009-11-25T18:34:00.000-08:00

Chapter eight continued...

The second half of the chapter deals with how students have reacted to this change in higher education. The authors feel that the origins of the student movements are not necessarily from with-in the university/colleges themselves but from the contradictions that are occurring with-in society.

Students feel that higher education has lost its luster and can no longer keep its promise of jobs that match their level of education. Students that graduate from higher education, see their professions as a way to make money AND to fulfill themselves personally. Due to the restructuring that has been occurring in the types of jobs that are offered and the way jobs are structured themselves is a rude awaking for university graduates.

It is interesting to note that the authors also discuss the fact that students are becoming increasing discouraged with the waste and irrationality that characterizes the way the capitalist society is run. There is the knowledge that by and large the services and products that are being produced are unless and actually feed the consumerism that makes capitalism possible. There is no longer a personal attachment to what is being produced in most jobs that are available. The student movements have been excelled by the obvious conflicts between the imperatives for profit and the requirements of human welfare and progress.

Around the time the book was written the green movement as we know it today had begun. It was not as full blown as it is now but I think that there were pockets of individuals who saw the waste and the destruction of the environment long before they were given a voice. Students were realizing that they were paying into a system that really did not give anything in return but a paycheck, that was meager compared to what corporations were making off of them. It is interesting that some students today still feel that same way. Although what does not make sense to me is the lack of involvement of students today, myself included. Back in the 1970's university campuses shut down due to lack of attendance in regards to the Vietnam war and the invasion of Cambodia. This would never happen today. It seems as though each discipline only works and discusses and gets together with other individuals in the same discipline. There are so many things going on today that could unite the campus such as the U of L, but there is no spark. I wonder why this has occurred?

The authors make a very interesting connection at the end of the chapter: Students values of independence, initiative and individuality reflect the unrealized dreams of their parents. I wonder if this is still happening today and what happened when most parents sent their children to university for four years and found out that there were no jobs to fulfill these dreams on both the part of parents and their children.

This consciousness that has been occurring, the authors predict, that workers in all occupational levels, as well as students will increasingly trace their frustrations to a common set of obstacles barring their pursuit of rewarding and a better life. The corporate capitalist economy, with its bias towards hierarchy, waste and alienation in production and an education system that reproduces the legitimacy behind the hierarchical division of labour may then be seen as the source of the problem. This is interesting due to the fact that Micheal Moore just released his movie Capitalism- - A love story that tackles the issue mentioned above.

The authors think that from the empty promises of higher education there will be political solutions that will arise. There will be a demand for the development of a liberating education and the efficient and humane social technology of production.

'The Book' - Blog 25

2009-11-19T18:42:00.000-08:00

Chapter Eight:
The Transformation of Higher Education
and the Emerging of the White Collar Proletariat

University used to be a privilege to attend. This is no longer the case. Around the time the book was written, the authors state that roughly half of the relevant age group attend University, or other post secondary institutions.

Along with this increase in the actual enrollment of students in higher education, the authors feel that colleges and universities play a role in the production of labour power, in the reproduction of class structure, and in the perpetuation of the values of social order. The capitalist society has reproduced itself into higher education. There are three historical tendencies that have influenced the recent conflicts and reforms that are occurring.

1. The demand for technical, clerical and other white collar skills.
2. White collar labour and privileges are being brought in line with profit and control objectives of corporate enterprise.
3. The demand for expanded access to higher education by minority and working class youth.

The technocratic viewpoint cannot explain why the social relations of higher education have developed the way they have. Why this creation of a reserve of skilled workers? Why has there been a stratification of education that has clearly been developing? These answers cannot be answered by the liberal or technocratic viewpoints.

The authors analyze this in terms of the idea that the recent expansion of of the state and corporate sectors at the expense of the family and agriculture / household / entrepreneurial sectors that have worked in two ways. There was an integration of minorities into the wage labour system. This served to legitimize the stratification process by relying on education credentials.

This lead to to a contradiction between social relations of higher education and the emerging economic order. The traditional system of education was suitable for training an economic elite, but was not very effective to accommodate this new wave of students. There was also a heightened degree of awareness of the part of minorities in the fact that there was now a large number of credentialed workers and only so few jobs to fill that needed this increased level of education.

This continued expansion for the economy has created the following: self-employed individuals are no longer a major part of the economy and the 'middle manager' role has been created. These roles have been in of themselves compartmentalized and mirror the roles of blue collar workers, which is all part of the divide and conquer strategy. The last item that has occurred because of this rapid expansion of corporate capital has brought on the need of new roles such as assistants, secretaries ect. that did not exist before.

The authors note that the expansion and over expansion of college enrollments have been, in part, due to the response to the change in the types of jobs that have been created, mentioned above. These increased enrollments have effected two changes in the social position of higher education: there is an increased scientific, cultural and social role of the college community and many four year universities have now moved beyond being the training ground for the elite and have taken up the task of training technical workers.

So with all of this expansion and restructuring of higher education the authors conclude that there is an attempt to fragment the culture of the college community, the means to stratify higher education through colleges and vocational schooling and the third is to slow down the rate of growth of post-secondary education system to restrict the army of white collar workers.

The fundamental issue of higher education poses problems that undermine the legitimacy of the capitalist society: Through the transmission of knowledge that makes one aware of the contradictions of the capitalist way of running things is necessary to divulge due to the need of capable skilled workers.

The authors feel that out of this specialization of jobs and an attempt to gain back control comes in the form of the fragmentation of studies. Students are discouraged to deal with the whole problem, this allows for the advancement in certain areas for a student. This in turn ignores the larger social consequences of ones work.

I did see some of this in the business degree that I have obtained. There were very few courses that were mandatory that dealt with the consequences of certain business practices. It was almost like the ethical side of business was one chapter in the texts I utilized in my degree, and they were an after thought at that. The ethics that were brought into play were usually ones that needed to be looked at in case they effected the bottom line of a company. I think that the idea that was brought up by the authors, that students only look at parts of a subject to be outdated in most subjects. This may be due to the fact that I am now in the Education program and there are so many angles we are to look at it almost makes you dizzy. We as future teachers, not only in this class, are encouraged and warned that if we do not look at the policies and laws that are being passed it could be at our own peril.

The authors also point out that higher education has developed a multi-tiered system. This system reflects both the social status of the families and the students and the hierarchy of work relationships into which each type of of student will move into after graduation. The authors are getting at the fact that vocational schools vs. universities are bring used to filter certain classes of individuals into their respective places within the hierarchic division of labour. I think that this may have been the case when this book was written but what the authors may be missing at this point is that certain individuals are tailored and want to go to school like SAIT and NAIT where they learn skills that are more suited to what they are interested in.

To be continued ...

'The Book' - Blog 24

2009-11-19T17:22:00.000-08:00

Chapter seven continued ...

The book then dives into the emergence of vocational schools. As large numbers of working-class and immigrant children began attending high schools, reformers of the time began to look at a system of stratification with-in the upper levels of education. The progressives of the time were arguing that education should be tailored to the needs of the child. Special curricula was developed for children of working families. The academic side of education was saved for those who might have an opportunity of 'book learning' later in life.

It was here that alarm bells went off in my head..like the British sponsor system, I find it incredible that teachers / educators think that they know who will benefit from 'book learning' way down the line... BUT according to the 'Up series' this actually may not be that far off the mark. After watching the section that corresponds to where individuals are at around 7 years of age, usually determines where they will end up in life, as was discussed in class for three of the individuals that partook in the study this was eerily true, as to where they were at 28. After class I called my mother and sure enough my mom knew where myself, my sister and my brother would end up, due to the way we were at 14 or so. Yet, this idea of tailoring education through the vocational system did not seem like it was based on the idea of it being efficient, or beneficial to the studetns who were receiving this 'specialized' training. It left a sour taste in my mouth. And sure enough, in the next chapter the reasoning behind vocational schools, and why employers were so eager to jump on this band wagon was as follows:

1. Employees of the time were actually starting to gain individual power in places like the shop floor, and employers looked at vocational training as a means to break the workers control over skills training.

2. It offered a useful method of training and labeling the growing sector of foremen to set them above production workers.

The vocational training of the time was used to track and classify races of individuals that lead them into lower level manual labour jobs.

The last section of the chapter is titled Testing and Tracking: Streamlining the Meritocracy.

The blatant openness by which students were streamlined into curriculum tracks due to their race and economic background eventually became quite clear. But by the end of the 1920's this was disguised by the so called 'objective' educational testing. It was these I.Q. tests that allowed ones genetics to get wrapped up in the picture. These tests were SO biased, as was outlined in the class presentation we had on this subject, which concluded that every one from immigrants to single mothers were feeble minded! Pretty much every one besides the elite it seemed was insane, a moron or feeble minded. These so called intelligence tests had big backers such as Rockefeller himself. A small group of individual heavyweights as I like to call them, donated millions...millions of dollars...and back in the 1930's ish this was more than enough money to push them into main stream. This, along with the full support of school administrators, leads us to where we are today with the massive support for standardized testing. I think that these tests are useless and biased, but I know some may disagree with me.

One does need to note here that the Progressive Movement was successful on some levels: It did create new types of social stability. It created some types of education that were public and accessible to all. Yet when it came to equality, it didn't really go beyond the organization that occurred at the turn of the century. The success and failure that has been laid out in this chapter highlight the contradictions of liberal education reform discussed in chapter 2.

The contradiction being: With-in the capitalist economy there is no compatibility with with the egalitarian and developmental functions of education.

'The Book' - Blog 23

2009-11-19T15:15:00.000-08:00

Chapter Seven
Corporate Capital and Progressive Education

From 1890 - 1930, the second major movement of education reform was born. The progressive movement was also fueled by unrest and social strife. This movement unlike the common school revival that was blogged about in chapter 6, was focused on diversity, the unity of the school with the community, and what we know as child centered instruction. It was around this time that public high school had finally extended to the masses. Although the authors note that this movement was not exactly what John Dewey had hoped for as we will soon see. This objective of social equalization and full human development did not lend it self to the outcomes of this era. In the end, unfortunately, the role of education was capitalist expansion, and the integration of youth into the wage-labour system was what came to dominate.

At the time there were individuals who realized that this was occurring. They were part of the Populist movement. This was occurring alongside an upheaval in the wage-labour system. These movements did not last as they did not produce any alternatives to what was happening. It was around this time period that the hierarchical division of labour was created. Corporations were becoming so large that it was deemed necessary to create levels of workers to keep companies running smoothly. It was this changing of the division of labour within the corporation, the conflict between capital and labour, and the changing of the occupational structure all had a major bearing on the educational system.

The expansion of education was pressed due to the fact that the elite sectors of individuals were becoming alarmed by the growing unrest in the wage - labour system. It was the social control arguments that had started to sound like a good idea. Again, like in the earlier reform, school was looked at a means to produce new forms of motivation and discipline that were necessary to serve the emerging corporate ideologies / hierarchical division of labour. As well it was hoped to be an antidote to urban labour. (As was mentioned in earlier blogs, education was thought to almost have magical powers!) Finally, with the closing of the Western frontier and the declining prospects of individuals to make it on thier own, education was seen as one of the few paths left towards mobility, security and social respectability. I think it is interesting that individuals have bought into this notion that higher education, I am talking about past high school, is the main way to achieve social respectability. I think that we have lost sight that there are many paths to success, and that one should not believe that a degree is the the only path to self accomplishment because it can very well be attained else where. This could be such things as inventing something, writing a book, or starting up a non profit group. I know that this was most likely not possible when this reform was occurring, but I am talking about now. I get the general sense that there is more credibility assigned to degrees then is warranted, depending on your subject matter.

The schools at the time were not up to the tasks that were given to them. There was an alarming gap between the democratic ideology that schools were supposed to be fulfilling and the social reality of the class structure that existed at the time. The first item the Progressive movement wanted to change was to gain more control of schools. It was a movement that sought to centralize the control of urban education in the hands of experts. Schools were to be removed form politics. As far as I can see this has not occurred. If anything it seems that politics plays a large role in today's education system. This brings me back to a class discussion we had about the influence politics have over school curriculum and what is taught. As I mentioned before when Peter Lougheed came into power he revamped the curriculum to suit more technical skills that he felt studetns should be learning. This seems like it was a throwback to the ideology's that came long before Peter coming into power.

The authors then discuss the fact that individuals who were running the reforms of the time were the elite members of society. I my self fail to see how this would create a more equal school system... This elite group of individuals also got their hands into how the schools were actually run. Uh- oh ... as you can imagine this ushered in an era of top - down control. Bureaucracy became the watchword of schools.
To be continued ...

'The Book' - Blog 22

2009-11-19T13:45:00.000-08:00

Chapter six continued ....

As was mentioned in the previous blog the force behind school reform was the rise of the factory system. The structure of the job market was changing and the education reforms of the 1800's reflected what was going on in the economy. The schools of the time that were highly regarded, were on corporation property and directly served the children and workers in the near by mills. There was still some backlash from manufacturers in due to the high taxation rate necessary for building and maintaining schools. Yet there was a increasing need to have workers fill up this growing hole in the labour force.

It is interesting to note here that I think this still does go on today. We did discuss the idea in class, that the push for students to become more competent in math in science, is coming from the economy. The building beside Turcotte hall on the U of L's campus will be for the business program. It is interesting to note that the drama department or the arts program has not been expanded. A major player in the business world felt it necessary to help the U of L with the business program. I also thought the class discussion about how arts programs get funding was interesting, and the suggestion that a good reason for funding should be framed in a way that will serve consumerism or the economy in a bottom line view point. I think that this is a dangerous game to play, to only focus on what makes a profit. Although I am biased because I am really into the arts, different cultures , music, reading for fun ect., yet at the same time I have a business degree. I think that I am able to see a glimpse of the necessity to have a well rounded economy / society, just like it is important to have well rounded students / citizens in ones country. The authors spoke to this earlier wen they discussed the issue of how money cannot be the only motivating factor. To have workers that will produce and 'buy' into the contest system you must appeal to all facets of an individual.

Mann who at the time was a man who believed in temperance, saw the fabric of society as breaking down and becoming somewhat chaotic. (He believed that 4/5ths of the poor and the issues that rose being poor could be attributed to liquor.) It was education he believed that would become the 'balance wheel of the social machinery.' Properly reformed and administered schools could provide a generation of 'sober, wise good men to prepare for coming events...' Mann was looking to incorporate an overall school system that would be public, tax - supported and nonsectarian.

So from what I have gathered so far, schools reforms at the time were taking place to facilitate the growing economy, and to create workers that were skilled enough to keep the economy going. As well there was the need to bring order to the Northwestern U.S. in light of all of the immigrants that had migrated. There was a need to teach the values that already existed, to the hordes to children who did not have parents capable enough to fulfill the task. As well there were now enough children to consolidate school districts.

Along with all of the change to the structure of education,that had to do with the values taught, there was a need to change the internalized structure of the way the actual classroom was run. Prior to Mann creating these reforms there was little or no direction with-in the classroom. This is when grades were created, different levels for different students according to age. A standardized curriculum was introduced along with graded texts, and the implementation of assigning grades to students. Those involved in education at the time were more concerned with the moral influence of school rather than the intellectual side of things. Again the reason why most large employers supported public education, which apparently related to the non-cognitive effects of schooling as was mentioned before. (The hidden curriculum served their purposes quite nicely.) This connection between moral training in schools and and the needs of the business world were not missed by educators either.. hmm I wonder if that is because most of their funding came from the corporate sector.

It is interesting to note that there was a replacement of a predominately male system of teachers, to wholly female. They were were cheaper and were thought to provide an extension of the home.

There did seem to be a lot of backlash as was discussed in class. The religious population of the time did not like the fact that Mann was for the separation of church and state. Large immigrant populations, farmers and some of the business owners though the taxation system was too high and that the schools were meddlesome, teaching useless information. There were many struggles that occurred and some set backs. So what did change? There was an increase in the number of children enrolled in what we know today as the public system as opposed to private schools. Mann as able to preserve the legal and economic foundations that were occurring at the time. I think what the authors want one to draw from this chapter is that education reform and the expansion in the 19th century was connected to the boom of the capitalist modes of production. They do note, however that political factors have intervened between economic structures and educational outcomes in complex ways.

As I mentioned in the previous blog, I think that the politics of the time that created many of the struggles the education reformers faced, had more to do with the policies that were created that the authors give credit to. This is coupled with the fact that there were large groups with-in the population that did not want schools run by strangers. The individuals who were in politics, much like today, most likely had more sway than the authors realized. They did note that this was a section that they did not put much research into.

Onto chapter seven.

'The Book' - Blog 21

2009-11-18T21:50:00.000-08:00

Chapter Six
The Origins of Mass Public Education

This chapter outlines the history of public education. The authors feel that this is an important piece of history to review to understand the following:

1. To discover how the school system has changed.
2. It will enrich ones understanding of the relationship between the educational structure and economic life.
3. One must know how we arrived here in order to make the necessary changes in order to move on.

It is interesting to note that the first public school was set up in Massachusetts. This was because of the booming industrial nature of the area. This is where most of the information for this chapter was pulled.

As was discussed in previous chapters, the means of production was by and large taken away from the family unit and the rapid change brought about from the industrial revolution that swept its way across the U.S., for many the education seemed to promise the respectability and security they were looking for. There was also a growing concern of the conditions of labour. The demand for elementary schooling actually came from what we would know as the middle class. There was an influx of immigrants to the Northwestern states and the small rural towns were rapidly becoming cities. The 'middle class' or the 'respectable' members of the time (around 1840's), which were primarily artisans and shop keepers believed that educated workers would would make better workers. Most of the immigrants of the time were uneducated and had their own distinct cultures. (There was a massive influx of Irish immigrants of the time.)

Since the means of production were taken away from the family unit, this was no longer a suitable venue in which to educate ones children as it had been previously. It was no longer fulfilling the needs of the work in the rising industrial sector. This coupled with the massive influx of immigrants school was seen as almost a substitute for the home. There was an interesting quote on page 162 which really gives a feel for how immigrants and children were looked at during this time period, and the value / need of education at the time.

Many of the cities children .. "have to receive their first lessons of subordination and obedience in the school room. At home, they are either left wholly to their own control, or, what is almost equally as bad, the discipline to which they are subjected alternates between foolish indulgence and exasperated tyranny."

The book alludes to the fact that the need for mass public education arose from the the industrial revolution, yet I feel that there was just as much of a need to essentially 'do something' with the massive influx of children. Up to this point in history children were home schooled and taught their parents trade. Or the fragmented schools that existed were getting by with rudimentary education. Once the population exploded the U.S. had another issue on its hands.

Once this influx of immigration occurred, the school structure that we essentially see now was born. The school board of the time consisted of almost solely of business owners. This is where the hidden curriculum came into play. The book calls it 'heart culture' over 'brain culture.' The school curriculum was beginning to mirror the workers necessary to fill the mills and factories. Subordination, neatness, order following, friendliness and loyalty were stressed. Then the depression years of the early 1840's hit and and the economic value of education began to surface. Leading the school reforms of the time was Horace Mann who was on the State board of education.

To be continued...

'The Book' - Blog 20

2009-11-18T19:45:00.000-08:00

Chapter five continued...

The last section of this chapter is titled family structure and job structure. The authors note that family prepares the youth for the integration into the work force, into the economic and social roles they will eventually have to face. The authors feel that the family impacts the the sexual division of labour. It is ones parents and their experiences that has an impact. Students can be influenced by school, media and shifts in job structure.

It is interesting to note that the authors feel family is a refuge from the capitalist functions. Thus the family sphere has a hand in reproducing this capitalist social consciousness, yet it will always have its other hand outside of the capitalist system. The close and emotional relationships of family life are remote from the impersonal bureaucracy of the wage-labour system.

A key question noted was how does the family help reproduce the sexual division of labour. A few key aspects where family life helps reproduce the social consciousness is through the sexual division of labour which occurs through child-rearing.

The sexual division of labour has been perpetuated through:

1. Sex role typing which stemmed from wives / mothers creating their self concept as household workers.

2. Children tend to develop self concepts based on the sexual division which they observe around them, which is transferred to the next generation.

I think that #2 still does apply to today, in the fact that when children are younger they typically see their mothers in a role that is more domesticated than their fathers because it is the mothers that carry the children, breast feed ect. Yet I think the authors are missing the fact that as children get older, most mothers today tend to re enter the work force and this sexual division of labour is not as prevalent as it used to be.

I think that a typical family does not exist as much any more as per our discussion in class. The rate of two working parents has increased and this leads me to think that children look to teachers, the education system, friends and other mentors more than ever. This would not lead to such a concrete sexual division of labour. Any reproduction of social consciousness that is occurring would be taking place in other arenas. I feel that the media, due to the forms we now have, I would imagine that if the authors were writing this book today, that they would have to account for this influence in the reproduction of social consciousness. I also think that the ever changing economy and the relatively new force called globalization lends more of an influence of what the authors referred to as shifts in job structure as being an influence.

'The Book' - Blog 19

2009-11-18T18:33:00.000-08:00

Chapter 5 continued...

The authors describe the correspondence principle. The education system helps integrate youth into the economic system, through a structural correspondence between its social relations and those of production. Specifically, the social relationships of education - the relationships between administrators and teachers, teachers and students, students and students, and students and their work - which replicate the hierarchical division of labour.

As an example the authors comment that blacks and minorities are concentrated in schools whose coercive authority structures and minimal possibilities for advancement mirrors the characteristics of inferior job situations; predominately working class schools tend to emphasize behavior control and rule following; white schools in well to do suburbs imply relatively open systems, which favor greater student participation and a value system stressing internalized standards of control. The authors go onto to look at the idea that students with parents that are located with-in the upper levels of the hierarchy of management tend to favor qualities such as creativity and confidence vs. students with parents in the lower levels tend to favor qualities such as rule following and stricter education methods.

I do not think that there is such a distinct line that the authors are drawing here, in regards to the way in which schools are set up when discussing class distinctions. This may be due to the fact that I was raised in a well to do suburb in the south of Calgary. I feel that I was raised in an era where equality was a main focus. I think that today parents who are not that well off tend to instill values that will help their children get ahead and to not accept their station in life. Although I did not know many children who were not well off and this is an assumption on my part.

I can identify with what the authors are saying as to the possible segregation of classes with-in schools, as there as only one black child in my elementary school. Yet as I continued along with my education through to post secondary this was no longer as evident because there was a larger portion of different races. In colleges today, there is a mix of cultures and classes, this may be due to the fact that there is government support and the fact that it is now illegal to discriminate against minorities. As per our class discussion on Tuesday November 17th, we do not subscribe to such a rigid class structure as the British do / did. We are not destined at age 7 to a school path. Yet, ones economic back ground does have a connection still even today. For example my husband was accepted into law schools in Chicago and Florida. He could not attend these schools due to the fees.

Although come to think of it, most of the neighborhoods in Calgary, that are well off seem to be predominate white. I did go to predominate white schools, I wonder if neighbourhoods that are well off that may not have as many minorities recieve more funding and therefore have a higher level / quality of education?

Sometimes I think the authors link this inequality of income too much with inequality of class based on race, gender or some other external characteristic. This is evident when they link minorities going to the 'rule following school' while well off whites go to the 'open systems schools'. I believe though that what they are saying is independent of any of these external class distinctions. So while these different types of schools still exist with these different teaching methods preparing them for a certain role in capitalist society, there is no longer this tentative link to race or gender or an external characteristic.....the bottom line is that the capitalist system needs workers to occupy certain roles and they don't care what race, etc you are. It would be naive to think that the equality of external characteristics (race and gender) would solve the issue of inequality which the capitalist system produces.

'The Book' - Blog 18

2009-11-18T17:28:00.000-08:00

Chapter 5 continued...

The authors are stating that the capitalist system cannot satisfy all the needs of individuals, as new needs continually arise. This cannot be the only force that perpetuates the social consciousness that keeps capitalism running due to the tension that is created from needs not being met. The authors think that social relationships must be consciously organized to facilitate the reporduction of consciousness. The main force is the conscious organization of social relationships, through the capitalist controlling and forcing these relationships, that arise from the division of labour. These direct forces which reproduce the social consciousness is supplemented by the family and educational institutions.

The education system fosters certain behaviors and capabilities that fit into the hierarchical division of labour, while thwarting others.

1. Schooling produces many of the technical and cognitive skills required for adequate job performance.

2. Education system helps legitimize economic inequality .

3. Schools produce and reward characteristics and behaviors that are relevant to staffing positions in the hierarchy.

4. Through patterns of status distinctions, schools reinforce the fragmented consciousness.

I feel that education today is focusing more on individualism than it may have in the past. Through out the education degree it has been made clear that it is a necessity to differentiate ones instruction with-in the classroom. The specialization I have taken: Career Coaching Across the Curriculum has its focus rooted in developing ones self, which is a crucial aspect of what ones career path will be. The Government of Alberta has mandated that this process of self discovery starts in Kindergarten and continues right through to grade 12. It is clear that we as teachers must give our students life skills, not just career skills, in order to have a life that is well rounded. There is a stress on helping students create life styles that does not just revolve around work.

Sometimes I feel that the authors do not pay enough homage to the positive value of the capitalist system. By this I mean I think that there is some intrinsic value at seeking these materialistic needs and the way that the capitalist system allows these needs to be fulfilled. Now a days it seems that it is a lot easier to become ones own boss, and the attainment of dreams. Breaking through the class structure one is in seems more feasible. Since this book has been written there has been drastic social change and it seems that there is more value put on the idea and not who the idea has come from.

This reproduction of consciousness which the education system is fostering is not attributed to the dictates of technology, the most efficient way to run the economy (chapter three.) Or the developmental capacities of individuals (chapter four.) The education system is not geared towards the fulfillment of ones self but it looks to satisfy the needs of the capitalist class.

Next the authors look at the correspondence principal.

'The Book' - Blog 17

2009-11-18T16:16:00.000-08:00

Chapter Five
Education and Personal Development: The Long Shadow of Work

As was mentioned in previous chapters, major aspects of the way education is organized, replicates the domination and subordination that plays out in the economic sphere. This is coupled with the fact that education system has the task of integrating youth into adult roles. In doing so this constrains types of personal development, or the personal development function. The authors state that this propagation of the capitalist economy is also done through the reproduction of consciousness.

The question posed at the beginning of the chapter to explain this reproduction of consciousness is: "How are the social relations of work re-produced?"

To begin with you will need a definition of what is meant by the consciousness of workers to understand how it perpetuates the inequalities of the capitalist economy. The consciousness of workers is ones beliefs, values, self-concepts, modes of personal behavior and development that perpetuate and validate the economic institutions. The authors state that people voluntarily participate in the way capitalism is run and the social relations that spring from it. What they think they can accomplish, their hopes and dreams, are based in the capitalist system.

I agree with the fact that most individuals within the Western culture feel that capatalism is in its purest form the best way to organize society and that it is a voluntary process . Yet I think that we are all becoming aware of the issues that have been arising from the way in which we use our resources, the way in which our politics are being run and the fact that there seems to be so much inequality within the capitalist system and in other parts of the globe. I think that many do want change but not change that would fundamentally alter the way things are right now. The bottom line is that I don't think we are ready to give up the luxuries and the life styles that we have all become accustomed to for the grater good. Otherwise, there would have been the shift to a more 'socialist' ideology that the authors have been alluding to. On the other hand there seems to be more awareness, more movements, such as the green movement that speak to a shift in the way some people are thinking. It will be interesting to see what comes from all of this awareness.

I do think that the generally individuals look at the capitalist way of running things as something that must be 'dealt with.' Many people I have talked to feel powerless to change the way things are and go along with their day to day lives, and are concerned with paying their bills and taking care of their own families. The individuals that I have met that are more adamant about making change feel that it needs to be done through the course of politics not education, which mirrors what the authors are talking about. Generally these individuals feel that change takes a long time and comes in small steps.

The authors then go onto speak of the fact that reproduction of the social relations of production depend on this reproduction of consciousness which occurs when:

1. The economic system is embraced when the perceived needs of an individual are in line with what the economic system can objectively provide.

2. The view that fundamental social change is not feasible (consciousness of inevitability) which is not only a cultural system but is also facilitated by social distinctions. It is this divide and conquer ideology that is embedded in the capitalist society which perpetuates this.

This must be reproduced through the experience of daily life. This consciousness is developed through an individuals direct perception of and participation in social life. Individuals tend to channel the development of personal powers in a direction where they will have the opportunity to exercise them. I agree with what the authors are talking about here. I have many friends and relatives around my age who have not continued with post secondary education for a variety of reasons. I cannot tell you how many times I have heard the statement, "Well I don't know what to do now because I have no education or job experience that will get me to where I want to go." It is almost like these individuals create their own self-fulfilling prophesies. They feel that they are stuck within a certain rung of society and will never make more money or fully realize their talents. They are buying into what the authors were talking about in the previous chapter in regards to credentials, grades and the whole meritocratic ideology, which is the only way to get ahead. What they should be asking is, where are the supports for me to make the changes I need to, where or who can help me take the next step in life.

To be continued...

'The Book' - Blog 16

2009-11-12T21:17:00.000-08:00

Chapter four continued...

Although higher levels of schooling and economic success tend to go together; intellectual abilities developed or certified in school have little causal contribution to getting ahead economically. Thus the economic function of schooling is primarily something else.

The public around the time the book was written believed in the nearly exclusive importance of I.Q and skills obtained. The education system has etched the meritocratic perspective into pop culture. Yet for the most part schooling is not more productive for those who have a higher I.Q. The authors believe that this justification of the meritocratic orientation of higher education in the name of 'economic rationality,' is actually a facade that facilitates the stratification of the labour force. Education reproduces inequality by justifying privilege and attributing poverty to personal failure.

Onto chapter five...

'The Book' - Blog 15

2009-11-12T20:00:00.000-08:00

Chapter Four: Education, Inequality, and the Meritocracy.

The authors feel that the meritocratic view only explains things partially. This view in and of itself is not getting the job done so to speak. It is not leveling the playing field like it claimed it would. If you recall from previous chapters this view believes that the education system would create a level playing field, due to the fact that one can get ahead simply based on ones merit. The authors argue that the association between the length of education and economic success cannot be accounted for in terms of cognitive achievements or I.Q. Competitive grading and objective test scores does not really relate to social efficiency. Ones G.P.A. does not determine whether or not one will become a good teacher. Basically schooling does not equal economic success.

The authors discuss the concept of the legitimation of inequality. It is this legitimation that is maintaining social conditions. This is maintained through the technocratic-meritocratic ideology. People who have more success have done so through their technical skills and or merit. Inequality is 'justified' through the idea that was brought up in previous chapters: It is your fault if you are not successful due to the fact that you did not acquire the necessary skills to do so. It is more effective to have a top down power structure because it is a superior way to collectively organize technical skills. This process links technical skills to economic success. As was stated above the authors do not believe that technical skills equals economic success.

An interesting example is the objection of open admissions in colleges and universities. Based on the technocratic-meritocratic viewpoint the individuals with the best grades should be allowed into higher education. If social efficiency is the objective, who ever benefits the most from schooling should be allowed into higher education. The studies show however, that individuals with low scores after high school get just as much out of school as individuals with high scores. The authors comment that open admissions threatens the legitimacy mechanism by rendering school success a less important factor to obtaining higher education. The authors argue that the objective and meritocratic selection and reward system of U.S. education does not link to a system where efficiency, rationality and equity reigns supreme, but it actually legitimizes the economic inequality that exists.

It is understandable that every society must and will reward individual excellence, but what one needs to question here is the manner to which this done. The competitive nature in which intellectual achievement is rewarded in U.S. schools is not aiding creative rationality, but is done so a privileged class can justify an irrational and undemocratic system.

To be continued...

'The Book' - Blog 14

2009-11-12T19:28:00.000-08:00

chapter three continued...

The last section is called the inequality and social relations of work. This looks at the hierarchical division of labour. How and why are people promoted? What attributes are looked at? How does this relate to sex, class and race?

1. Cognitive capacities and skills is the first category. The authors found that there is an access and denial of skill training that maintains economic inequality.

2. Personality traits: this means understanding hierarchical roles. This also has to so with ones motivation, perseverance, and docility. These are traits that enables one to operate effectively within a job.

3. There are modes of self-presentation. This may be used by employers in their efforts to stabilize and legitimize the power relationship.

4. Ascriptive characteristics and acquired credentials: (race, sex and age) : The policy of basing pay on race, sex, credentials, and seniority is used by employers to control wages in the pursuit of profits.

Studies from the book: Avenues for getting ahead work most effectively for the already economically advantaged. This is the same for seniority and education credentials. This is not just in the idea of white vs. black but also includes high vs. low socio-economic class.

The authors conclude the chapter stating that economic life must be democratized to realize John Deweys ideal society. Failure of liberal educational reform must be linked to fundamental characteristics of the economy.

Onto Chapter 4...

'The Book' - Blog 13

2009-11-12T17:52:00.000-08:00

Chapter three continued...

The chapter then looks at the traditional argument that technology gives rise to this alienation of labour. The authors do not agree with this statement. Within the confines of existing technologies work could be organized in such a way that it is more satisfying to workers. The authors feel this is happening because employers are unresponsive to workers needs.

The second idea is that the 'captains of industry' do not want their authority threatened. If technology actually worked along side employees and gave them more power instead of fragmenting jobs then the power balance of the top down (hierarchy division of labour) would be disrupted. The third idea is that alienated labour is not a technical process, but is driven from a social process. This is because the majority of labour is done by individuals and not machines. Computers do hold a vast majority of power but it takes a human to make it work. Thus capitalist production is at heart a social and not merely a technical process. And alienation is a class and not a technological phenomenon. Therefore technology should not produce alienation of labour. (Technology is not an independent force it is guided by corporations.) Technology is a tool that is used by the upper management / corporations to exert control over their employees.

The next idea that the authors tackle is the long held assumption that the hierarchical division of labour is actually the most efficient way to run a corporation. The authors do not agree. Some may say that the hierarchical division of labour is the most efficient way due to the fact it was so successful when it was first implemented during the industrial revolution. The authors would argue that the only reason it was so successful was due to the fact that there was a tapping into cheap labour, an extension of work hours and an increased (forced) pace of work. This reminds me of the Christmas Carol play / movie. The authors feel that this top down form of control is actually a form of social and economic control. It justifies having the subordinate relationships that exist within the workplace today. An employees lack of control through fragmented jobs justifies the control upper level management has. It is a policy of divide and conquer.

The hierarchical division of labour maximizes the control of management, increases the accountability of workers by fragmenting jobs and responsibility, thwarts the development of stable coalitions among workers.

The next section of the book is titled the structure of economic inequality. It looks at the roots of inequality which is found in the class structure and the system of sexual and racial power relationships. The school system perpetuates this structure of privilege. It does not produce it, but only reflects it. This is why school is a weak tool for economic equality. When 1960 rolled around the natural tendency toward equality was not so. This was despite the fact that there was a vast increase in education opportunity and increase in social security, income equality still had not changed. The degree of wealth inequality had not changed much since WWII.

Historically there was persistent income inequality. There was a distinction made between the inequality of economic opportunity and the inequality of economic outcomes. The liberal reformist focused on the economic opportunity and not the economic outcome. They felt that the economic outcome was not an issue, under healthy competition the best person would be hired for the job regardless of their race and ethnicity. Yet income inequality still existed! The authors believed that economic opportunity and economic outcomes are inseparable and both are related to market and property relationships.

To be continued ...

'The Book' - Blog 12

2009-11-07T23:24:00.000-08:00

Chapter three continued...

To clarify, the definition of class is: groups of individuals who relate to the production process in similar ways. This is important to note because this is how we relate to each other, as groups. The reason the authors bring up this idea is because economic life does not mindlessly produce social outcomes, it changes and develops through class relations. The authors offer a critique of the way work in set up and the clash between work and personal development. It is this connection between work and social life that is one of the central questions in sociology.

The authors argued that the technocratic-meritocratic view failed because it stressed the technical rather than the social relationships of work and the production process. The authors feel that Dewey had too much faith in the democratic nature of work. They feel that a new social structure must be developed, not new technologies to increase the personal development of workers. This is because material satisfaction is only one area of work, job security, social relations and most importantly the development of human potential is what needs to be fostered.

This connection between work and social life is so important because work on some level defines who we are. (When you first meet some one it seems that the main question you hear or ask is what do you do for a living?) The authors looked at a few studies and it was found that the more satisfied you are with your work the longer you live. Work seems to spill over into all aspects of ones life. Yet the authors found that most people view work as a painful necessity. This is coupled with the idea that most individuals realize that they are working for a profit for a company and not contributing to social welfare. This is coupled with the fact that most companies operate with the bottom line in mind. Workers are seen as commodities and this in turn leads to alienation of the labour force, in that it creates powerless and underemployed social groups.

To be continued...

'The Book' - Blog 11

2009-11-07T22:25:00.000-08:00

Chapter three continued...

The authors move onto breaking down where inequality exists within the capitalist society. Their findings are quite shocking. In 1971 there were 12.5 million businesses. Over 3/4 of these were small and individually owned. (farms / stores / restaurants)

Less than 2 million were corporations. The largest 200,000 businesses (1.6%) captured 3/4 of all sales. The largest 1/10 of 1% of all of the corporations, owned 43% of manufacturing assets and 49% of the manufacturing profits in the manufacturing sector. In 1971 the largest 500 manufacturing corporations employed 3/4 of all the workers in the manufacturing sector.

The corporate sector as a whole, less than 1/10 of all firms employed nearly 1/2 of the paid labour force. Individuals are increasingly joining the corporate sector. This is a situation where a large majority of individuals have a decreasing amount of control over decision making and their working activities. How did this happen? The beginning of the 1880's saw the birth of the manufacturing sector. The first phase of the corporate merger saw the control of the basic commodities: oil, sugar, rubber and whole sale grains fall into the hands of corporate giants. This shift to corporations gaining control was mirrored in the education reform / theory to the progressive era (as was mentioned before to the egalitarian theory, that it is all up to the individual to make it in life and these issues you may be struggling with are not due to the way the economic system is set up.)

The next section of chapter three looks at what the authors call uneven development. They are referring to how the capitalist system has developed. There is rapid growth in some economic sectors, such as consumer goods and private services. Whereas social welfare tends to stagnate or even decrease along with the quality of the environment and social justice. Urban areas tend to develop faster than rural, and there is an ever widening gap between rich and poor nations. The authors focus on the uneven development in regards to the corporate sectors versus the independent / household sectors. The authors feel that this is directly related to the unequal distribution of ownership of capital and the fact that there is an inequality in political power and access to economically relevant information. (A great example of power being in the hands of the few is illustrated in the movie called Charlie Wilson's War. I have seen it a few times, it is very eye opening. )

Some of this power does trickle down, yet direct access is denied to the general public. (This makes me think of Reganomics and the trickle down effect, which didn't work.) So it looks like we have this uneven development of the corporate sector. Next we look at the uneven development of the labour force.

Groups with distinct social / ethic classes have historically been drawn into the wage - labour system. I think the authors are referring to blue collar work. Each group is branded as inferior and exploited until another wave of individuals replace them. (This is most likely referring to the wave of immigrants that come into the U.S., or groups of individuals who have historically been 'put down' such as women and blacks.) This then leads to an uneven development of the labour force. An example from the book was that women have been oppressed in the work force, this is due to the fact that they are in and out of the wage - labour system while maintaining their place in the house hold sector. (This could be due to the fact that they are in and out of the 'work world' because they were raising children.)This lead to highly qualified females limited to low level jobs. ( Again Mad Men the T.V. series is a great example of this.)

This uneven development of the economy lends itself to segmentation of workers into distinct groups. This segmentation is based on historical experiences (slavery on the part of blacks / outright oppression of women ect.)

The authors then go onto speak of what they mean when they refer to classes, and how this class system is essential to understanding the connection between economics and education.

To be continued...

'The Book' - Blog 10

2009-11-07T21:41:00.000-08:00

Chapter three continued...

The authors feel that it is the quest for profits that is the root of what is creating this 'undemocratic' capitalist system. Along with the process of getting an increased amount of labour for the lowest possible wage. As was stated before the authors see most of this inequality stemming from the unequal ownership of production and financial resources that creates this undemocratic society. From this balance the only 'bargaining chip' that employees have is to trade their labour for a wage. Therefore power is given over to owners and managers. Employers also have the power to hire and fire employees (when the cost is high to the workers being hired and fired.) This is due to the fact that there is an abundance of capable workers. This is coupled with anti-labour laws that exist. Yet the authors feel that it is not really the laws that are enforcing this unbalanced relationship. It is the widely accepted social ideology.

This is in the form of the technocratic - meritocratic viewpoint described in the previous chapter.
It is this viewpoint that keeps capitalism running. (That one can get ahead based on their merits, skills and it is essentially your fault if you do not get ahead. This idea was discussed in class when our teacher looked at the following: If you do not get into the education program it was because you did not work hard enough, or you just didn't score well on that test you took. It takes the responsibility away from the system judging you to the fact that you failed. It is this meritocracy that enables the capitalist society, to put the fault in the hands of the workers and not because the system is actually flawed.)

The authors then look at the market and property institutions in the U.S. and relates it to how the minorities (corporations) can exert social control over the majority.

1. The private ownership of the means of production (owners have full control)
2. Workers do not own by and large the tools of his / her trade. This is where the 'bargaining chip' mentioned above comes into play, the only control a worker has is exchanging labour for pay. This separates the workers from the means of production, which means they are relatively powerless, which brings about this idea of social control.

The authors then pose the following idea: They compare the social relations of the work process with those of the education system. What is the nature of the day to day work relationships? Understanding the market relationships alone cannot reveal what it is really like to work in factories and offices. This is what they want to look at in their analysis of the U.S. education system.

To be continued...

'The Book' - Blog 9

2009-11-07T21:02:00.000-08:00

Chapter Three - At the Root of the Problem: The Capitalist Economy

This chapter looks at the economic system and how issues such as inequality need to be attacked here and not within the school system. Equality and full human development is actually related to the nature of capitalism and the structure in which schools must prepare students to enter. In the previous chapter the authors looked at how education reforms failed which they believed was due to an incomplete understanding of the economic system. Most education reformers took the economic system at face value. Yet it is the nature of the U.S. economic system which first must be understood, in order to implement alternative education theories that have a chance of working. So this chapter will be looking at precise that: The U.S. economic system prior to 1975.

The people - production process in the workplace and in schools is dominated by the pursuit of profits rather than human need. There is a necessity of growing up and getting a job. The authors feel that this makes us less free, less secure and less happy. It is the need to put ones self in a box that hampers ones potential. The authors point out a contradiction of the so-called democratic system in which we live: the vast majority of workers are controlled by a small minority. (This was a problem that was discussed in chapter two that was occurring in the mid to late 1800's with the birth of the factory system.) This continually occurs in the democratic society in which we live in.

The following is a contrast that the authors have pointed out, the differences in the way decisions are made in the political arena versus the economic arena. While politically the process looks to be democratic, economically the process looks to undemocratic.

Democracy is based on ensuring the maximum participation of the majority in decision making, protecting minorities against prejudice and protecting the majority from any undue influence on the part of an unrepresented minority. (For example this would be watching that oligopolies do not have a chance to form.)

This is in sharp contrast with the way the U.S. capitalist system works. It depends on the following: Ensuring minimum participation by the majority (workers), protecting a single minority (management) against the wills of the majority, and this minority (management / corporations) having a large amount of control over the majority (workers.)

*It is interesting to note that high school texts tend to dwell on the issues of how to make democracy work, but do not really discuss the issues that spring from capitalism.

I wonder why?

'The Book' - Blog 8

2009-11-07T19:37:00.000-08:00

Chapter two continued...

It was at this point in the industrial revolution that the potato famine occurred in Ireland and there was an influx of Irish into the Northeastern U.S. The education system at the time saw schooling as a necessary means to "integrate this uncouth and dangerous" element into society, and education reformers saw this influx of Irish immigrants as a moral and social issue. Education of the time (around 1850) saw education as a way to 'enlighten the ignorant.' This was when education was seen as having the following objectives: To promote equality and a form of social control. Schooling was something that was done FOR and TO the poor. At this time in history education reformers did not question the fundamentals of capitalism, which was the control a minority had through owing the means of production, which controlled the majority of citizens. Education was seen as a way to preserve this capitalist relationship that existed.

The function of the education system was to develop the necessary skills to enter the workforce. There was a fundamental view that was held by the majority of individuals at the time that classes and races of individuals are equipped differently and it was through these racial differences that occurred naturally, and certain people were destined to fill certain roles in the work force. The purpose of education was to elevate the masses which would guide everyone fairly into the work force. So education was used to create a system where it prepared individuals to enter into the workforce at the level they would be fit for. Schooling was considered to reflect the class structure. This was done through education as being the means of enhancing wealth and morality, which would work to the advantage of all. It would be the amount of education you had that would place you in your class. This was how education could be used as a tool to get the masses to accept the inevitable. To make the best of what one had. Which at the time for the majority of people was not much. This put social control and social justice at odds. The authors then switch from the past to writing about the issues within the education at the time they were writing, late 60's early 70's.

The authors restate their idea that the number of years of schooling one attained was highly correlated to what their parents socio economic status was. (Their parents income, occupation, and education level) and that this was the same now as it was 50 years ago, therefore the idea that school can be an equalizing force does not hold. There was data collected in 1962 which supported this idea. Families earning less than $3,000 per year had children who were 6 times as likely not to attend college. There were also differences in scholastic achievement in that parents who were well educated, had children that scored well over 3 grade levels in scholastic achievement. Some might argue that this is due to unequal intelligence levels and not due to class inequalities in regards to college admittance. The elite of the time believed that it is based on ones I.Q. which leads to higher education. It is these I.Q. test scores and individuals who have parents with a higher socio economic backgrounds who typically have children who enter into university. This is not based on a whole host of reasons why one should be allowed to enter higher education, which is looked at next.

The authors feel that students with parents who are not well off, from K - 12 , are treated differently than other students. Education resources go to school districts that are more wealthy and that leads to social inequality within the school system. The authors do feel that these gaps are getting better due to the fact that things were way worse in the past, but that this is still an issue that needs to be dealt with.

The last point of chapter two is based on the following question: "Has the attainment of education lead to a closing of the income gap?" According to all of the theories that we have looked at so far the answer would be yes. But the authors say the income gap has actually gotten worse since WWII. This is exactly the opposite of what the egalitarian school reformers were claiming would happen. This was made clear in regards to the education gap between the blacks and whites. Blacks still earn less than whites, but this was due to inequality that existed outside of the school system. This idea was coupled with the fact that school was seen at the time as a way to punish students and keep them in line. It is this internalization of 'normal behavior' which mirrors that world of work. (Teacher vs. students, Boss vs. employees.)

The authors wanted to know why schools reward passivity and obedience? When actually at the time schools claimed that the purpose of was to let children develop naturally? The authors feel that this was never given a chance to be put into practice. Schools had administration that was more concerned about cost savings and control rather than the quality of education. This is when standardized tests were brought into heavy rotation, therefore all of this was not actually progressivism, but a mirroring of business values.

The next blog will start chapter three.

'The Book' - Blog 7

2009-11-06T22:24:00.000-08:00

Hello fellow classmates,

According to the two question above at the end of the last post, the authors state that inequality in the capitalist system still exists. Later on I will get into why this is happening.

Modern liberal views then get into the idea that work has become dehumanized and that the only way to combat this is to, according to Dewey, is to have the proper education that would then have individuals who are well balanced entering into the work force. If this is not done then there is not enough people who will tend to the human factors of the work world. Again, as you can see there is a trend to put all of the responsibility on education to solve the issues that exist in the work force. These ideals were the basis for educational reformers in the progressive era. (Early 1900's) Dewey thought that education could promote the movement of the industrial society towards more fulfilling work. As we will see later on that is not the case due to the actual structure of the industrial and the capitalist societies.

So the liberal theory, based mostly on Dewey's writings, believed that personal growth and democracy is a part of social development. (The development of the whole of society for the better.) and that this would occur automatically if every one had access to free education. (The book gets into why this is not so due to the fact that racism, sexism, and social classes exist into society, but more on that later.) The technocratic version looked at what Dewey was discussing, and believed that social order is not done automatically through the egalitarian (equalizing) power of the education system. That it does not occur naturally, equal access to education is not good enough, there actually needs to be enlightened policy - job training and education of the poor, and this will pick up the slack and everyone will then be on a equal playing field when entering the work force. Poverty and inequality that exist under this view are based on individual choices and not issues that stem from the way the capitalist society and the economics behind it are structured. What they (the technocratic view) was getting at was that we really need to fix people and not the economic structures that regulate their lives. (This is what the 'social power' of school means in this context and how schools can promote social equality.)

The book then states that the founders of the modern school system understood that the capitalist economy produces a gap between the rich and the poor which undermines the two view points mentioned above... but school reformers of the time (mid 19th century) were committed to the emerging industrial order even though they understood and could see the glaring inequalities of factory life. During the industrial revolution, industry feared a great social unrest due to the obvious exploitation that was occurring of employees of the time. A quote from Horace Mann who was involved in the education system at the time stated: "Education does better than to disarm the poor of their hostility toward the rich (which is not the point of education in my view) it prevents them from being poor. The reformers of the time saw education as a means of keeping individuals docile while not redistributing wealth or power at the time of the industrial revolution. The authors understood that this is not possible and that the leaders of the time believed that education had almost magical powers!

To be continued...

'The Book' - Blog 6

2009-11-06T21:49:00.000-08:00

Chapter Two continued...

So we left off with the introduction of liberal education policy. Liberal reformers believe that the education system must fulfill at least three functions:

1. Schools must help integrate youth into various occupations and adult roles required by an expanding economy. ( Integrative function of education.) Dewey called this the social continuity of life, which comes up again in chapter three.

2. Most liberals do believe that inequality in regards to economic privilege and social status are inevitable. Giving each individual a chance to compete for these is actually efficient. These liberal education theorists - including Dewey - believed that schooling does not only assure fair competition (through free education to all ) but actually closes the economic gap. (This is called the egalitarian function of education.)

3. The development function of education is the improvement of ones moral development. Dewey believed that successful individuals are more personally developed.

In the 1960' s the main train of thought was that social issues were arising from an unequal opportunity in acquiring skills.

An alternative view was the technocratic - meritocratic view. This view is based on the idea that within the work force there is an increase of complex production techniques, technology had begun to advance, and the development of the economy requires one to gather skills to combat this. If formal education was opened to all, then the upper level of the job hierarchy would be available to those who were motivated enough to obtain the 'right skills.' It is this economic importance that was placed on these mental skills that actually makes economic opportunity open to all.

This is not new thinking, before the civil war in the U.S. there was the idea that all disadvantages were erased when there is opportunity to acquire the necessary skills and is essentially called egalitarianism. (correcting the inequality that occurs within the capitalist system. ) This idea which comes up again in chapter three is complemented by the meritocratic orientation of the industrial society. It is through the competitive nature of schooling that that inequality is erased, it is based on ones merits and abilities and not discrimination that enables one to get ahead.

If inequalities still exist then it must be based on human differences in their intellect and / or free choice (ex. dropping out of school.)

The main question that the authors are asking is: "In the reality of the way society is set up can schools promote human development or social equality?"

AND " Can the racial, class, and sexual stratification (division) be modified by equal schooling?

To be continued...

'The Book' - Blog 5

2009-11-06T18:35:00.000-08:00

Chapter Two - Broken Promises: School Reform in Retrospect

This chapter begins with a review of liberal education theory and the fact that rarely has the education system been able to promote either social equality or full human development. The authors critique the traditional education notions and in chapter ten they outline education alternatives. I am very curious to see what they have to say in this chapter and if any of their alternatives have been implemented in the past 40 years.

This notion that education could be a tool to fix all of the social ills and a form of social reform and social policy is not a new idea. This dates back to 1890. From 1890 - 1920 the U.S. shifted to the corporate based economy, much like what we see now. A man by the name of Andrew Carnegie who founded the Carnegie foundation for the advancement of teaching believed that education was the way to fix all of the issues that were plaguing society such as social unrest. This was a view point that most people believed at the time. Even Lyndon Johnson the president in power in the U.S. from '63 - '69 was backing this statement. He was quoted saying that the answer for all of our national problems comes down to single word: Education. I don't know about you but that is a pretty lofty goal to place on teachers, to fix ALL of the national problems of the U.S.

So why education? Why this notion that education can fix all of these issues that had been cropping up? Well according to the book, when capitalism is left on its own, it can produce some amazing results, but it can also create some undesirable ones as well.

*fragmentation of communities
*decrease in the quality of the environment
*inhuman working conditions
*unequal distribution of income.

This classical laissez-fair ideal was rejected for what is called progessive liberalism. To treat these undesirable conditions mentioned above, social programs were erected. It was education and government intervention that would save the day. The liberals at the time believed that both had become essential to promote and foster economic growth. It was these two factors that could rectify social problems and limit the human cost that was associated with capitalism. It seem to me that individuals were starting to see that education was not the only way to solve the social ills that were occurring.

Yet the book goes onto say that obviously education and government intervention is important yet they have still not been able to solve the big issues of inequality, class stratification, racism, sexism, fragmented jobs and destruction of the environment. People of the time could not understand why things were not getting better as the economy continued to strive and grow. Critics of capitalism believe that you do not look only at the way capitalism operates but that there is a need for enlightened social policy, and the only constraints come from technology and human nature. These will show up in any advanced society. The authors do not agree, they do not think these social issues arise from human nature but actually within the structure of capitalism.

Next the authors look into the liberal education theory by asking the question "What exactly is the theory underlying the notion of education as a panacea or a fix to all the social ills?"

There are two strands / viewpoints that must be looked at: John Dewey and the 'Democratic School' and Functionalists and neoclassical economics.

This is best understood by analyzing how these two schools of thought deal with two major questions / ideas concerning the limits of educational policy.

1. The compatibility of various functions schools are to perform
2. The power of schooling to perform these functions.

To be continued...

'The Book' - Blog 4

2009-10-29T17:50:00.000-07:00

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...

'The Book' - Blog 3

2009-10-27T21:42:00.000-07:00

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 ...

'The Book' - Blog 2

2009-10-27T20:06:00.000-07:00

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...

'The Book' - Blog 1

2009-10-27T19:13:00.000-07:00

Chapter One
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 Book' - Blog 1

2009-10-27T18:01:00.000-07:00

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.

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

2009-10-27T16:24:00.001-07:00

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)

In class discussion - October 22, 2009

2009-10-27T14:34:00.000-07:00

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.