Final Remarks

I would just like to say I actually liked doing this blogging because it was nice to read the opinions of others and discuss the various issues that came up in class and in the content throughout the course. I feel like I am a lot more aware of everything that goes along with teaching and in the school, and I hope that I can do as much as possible to make the schools I work in better places, and the students more successful. What I have become the most more aware of now is hidden curriculum, whether it be in the process or the content that we are using in the classroom. I hope to be very conscious of it when I'm teaching in my practicum this coming semester, and hope not to instil any biases of any sort in my students, or put beliefs in their head that they shouldn't be thinking! I hope everyone has a great christmas and good luck during your practicums and future teaching!

Failure Models

Today in class we finished up the course by talking about different failure models. The first I'm going to discuss is the psychological deprivation model. This model says that students failure is caused by poor home environment which includes not enough or lack of nourishment, poor role models if any, no books or literacy exposure, etc. I think that yes some of these things might have an effect on a student. For example if a student is hungry they aren't going to have much energy and will be constantly thinking about food and probably not feel well. This is what breakfast programs were created for, to give these students a boost in the morning. But I mean, just because a kid has a bad role model at home or doesn't have books to read at home, doesn't mean he or she is doomed to be a failure in school. That is where the teacher comes in. It is the teachers job to help these students and all students to achieve in school, become literate, and do the best that they can do. Perhaps students can take books out from the library and bring them home. The teacher can have meetings with the parents or guardians and figure out what they can do in order to give the best chance of success to their child. It definitely isn't impossible and failure should not by any means be based on what home life is like, even though it might pose a challenge.

We also talked about the need for achievement which I believe was in the same model. We talked about the example of kids in the class shooting a basketball into a garbage can, and those who went right up to it, or those who had a need for achievement and would continually move backwards and try and get it in. I don't think those with a lack of need for achievement are doomed to fail. All students should want to achieve because with no motivation they will find it harder to be successful and achieve. But again this is something as teachers that we can help our students to overcome. Sometimes the easy route is the best way, like the students who stood right by the basket.

When we looked at the cultural deprivation model, we talked about "black language" as well as stereotyping. Saying that certain cultures are destined to fail I think is absolutely ridiculous. If you go by stereotypes and think that that is what all people of that culture are like, that is what you are going to look for and what you will expect of those students. There is nothing wrong with having one's own culture and having certain believes and perhaps speaking in a different dialect than others or having a different language. Like we talked about with Italians in Toronto, they were set up to fail because their first language was italian, they didn't know much english, and were taught in english. So what do you expect? When changed to half and half the students did much better. We as teachers need to try and accomodate and incorporate our students' cultures and backgrounds as much as possible to make them feel comfortable, a part of the classroom community, and to allow them to succeed in the best way possible.

We then looked at the reproduction model which says that class society reproduces itself. Therefore the values of your parents will be passed on to you, and you are destined to do the work that your parents do. Therefore if your parents work at a grocery store, no need for you to try in school to be anything better than that because you are going to work in the grocery store too. I don't think this is true at all especially in todays society. I think that everyone is becoming more independent and seeing what success they can achieve. School really is the gateway to the future therefore we need to open up as many doors as possible for our students and let them know the world is theirs if they want it. You don't have to do what your parents do because that's the way things have been for the past 50 years.

Finally, the administrative model talks about money and government funding. It is unfortunate that some people can't afford school therefore settle for less. There is a lot of money out there if you go looking for it. The road doesn't stop if at one moment in time you don't have enough money.

All in all I don't like these models and I don't think any one person is doomed to fail for any set out reason. Teachers can do a million things to overcome any difficulties children have, and allow them to achieve and succeed in school. A challenging student is another learning opportunity that we should embrace to allow us to become better educators for the people of the future. Even though some students might be seen as "doomed to fail", this is NOT the case!

Making a difference

We also talked today about teachers trying to go against the norms and making a difference, trying to change the system. I think it is definitely something difficult to do especially if you're the only teacher in your school trying to do it, but it's possible. We talked about the "loser classes" having teachers teach them like normal students which allows them to be successful. I don't think it is right at any point to give up on a student and teach them less, give them less opportunity, because they are seen as hopeless. Perhaps the right teacher hasn't been able to motivate them, they aren't being taught in their preferred learning style, or they never get to learn about things that interest them. If one teacher can change these things for those students, a whole new world can be opened up to them.

For my PSIII I am going to be teaching a grade 5/6 class where the students' reading abilities range from a grade 1-9 level. Am I going to give up on the students who are below level and give them ridiculously simple materials to read because they shouldn't be helped and pushed to learn? Absolutely not. I am going to help these students reach their full potential and try and help them grow as much as they can in the time that I am with them.

I hope after talking about this in class that we all go out there with really positive attitudes and don't take the easy way out of not helping, challenging, or caring for the students who need more help than others. If I was one of those students I would definitely want the help but maybe wouldn't be brave enough to say it out loud to the teacher. So we need to keep our eyes open, get to know our students, and do the best we can to help then learn, grow, and achieve!

"The glass ceiling"

Today during the presentation we had a discussion about whether or not things have advanced or changed in the area of women and work. I think like people said, things have changed but there is still a lot more change that needs to happen. Why on earth do men get paid more for the same job a woman is doing and when they equal education? That makes absolutely no sense to me. I'm sure the woman is just as good at her job as the man is. Perhaps in some cases the man is better and in some cases the woman is better. But if the job is the exact same why should they be getting different salaries? Also there are still many jobs that are considered men's jobs and many that are considered women's jobs. We talked about how in schools, I would so more so elementary schools, the teachers are predominantly women. Adminstration positions are predominantly men all across the board. Why is this? Is elementary teaching seen too much as a "mom" job, hence it is womens work? Do men continue to take the dominant roles everywhere including schools? As a student I have always had male principals, and in both PSI and PSII I worked with male principals. However for my PSIII I will be working with a female principal so I am very interested to see what the dynamics are of the school and how she acts as principal. I for one wouldn't want an administrative position so I can't saw I would want to change the way things are going. But I don't see any reason as to why not a woman can't have an administrative position and be in a more powerful role. I also think men make great elementary school teachers so I don't know why there aren't more of them. When I went to school, for k-2 I had female teachers and 3-5 I had male teachers therefore I had a spread. I thought all of my teachers for the most part were great. The sex did not matter.

I'm hoping that in other areas of work opposite roles than what the "norms" are are becoming more accepted. For example, male nurses, and females doing trades. Honestly what is wrong with that? A lot of male nurses I think get made fun of, and if a girl is doing a trade she is considered "manly" and tough and not feminine enough. I think these kind of things definitely need to get changed around especially nowadays when people are or should be more open minded. I loved taking wood class in high school and building a coffee table. I chose that over taking "girly" classes. So perhaps we need to push students more in high school to try new things or choose the option that people think is not for them because they just might like it. I talked about in my paper on hidden curriculum how boys are less likely to take cooking and sewing classes more so than girls are less likely to take shop classes. But shop classes are still dominated by male students. There were only a few girls in the wood classes I took for grades 9, 10 and 11. I don't think there were any boys in my foods 9 class. We need to take these ideas out of peoples heads as soon as possible so that they can explore their interests and not think their career opportunities are limited because of their sex.

IQ

Today when we were talking about the problems with the Social Darwinism model of failure, we talked a lot about IQ and IQ tests. I think IQ tests are pretty ridiculous and I'm happy that we don't have to write any sort of test like that in order to get into university. We talked about how being book smart doesn't mean you are necessary smart in every situation. An IQ test might be and probably would be a test you would study for if you had to do it in school. Therefore you are memorizing a bunch of information that perhaps you haven't actually learnt or are not going to remember 10 minutes after writing the test. A written test can only test so much and doesn't test all areas of knowledge. Therefore an IQ score is a glimpse at a piece of someone's intelligence at that given moment in time. Some people aren't good at writing tests but are extremely smart. As already mentioned some are smarter in other areas that they test might not include. Some people might have a talent for memorization therefore can regergitate a bunch of information for the test but might not really know what they're talking about. There are so many factors that go into this that really don't make an IQ test reliable or valid.

We also discussed how you are then given a number which can decide your future or what classes you are able to take or not able to take. Based on everything I just said it most definitely not right to deny people the access to certain things because of one lousy test that most likely isn't even measuring properly a person's knowledge and intelligence. As noted in class with the problems of this model, what skills are defined as intelligence? Who gets to say what is most important? A scientist might think knowing how to conduct an experiment and getting results is intelligence, however a basketball player might think knowing how to get by an opponent and scoring a basket is intelligence. There are all sorts of different intelligences that people possess and an IQ test should not be able to tell someone they are stupid because they didn't do well enough on some test.

I think that is enough ranting about this topic! I obviously don't think very highly of IQ tests!

Academic achievement vs teacher success

I think this is actually a very interesting topic. It is true as we discussed in class than many people miss the opportunity to become teachers because their GPA isn't high enough. However is there really any way to get around that? Teacher's definitely don't have to be geniuses and shouldn't be by any means like we also discussed because most people like that can't understand why other people don't get things as easily as they do therefore don't have patience for kids.

However if the faculty was to let just anyone in would that be a good idea? I'm sorry to say but I really don't think so. I think one of the things good grades show is that we are really determined and dedicated people trying to reach our goals. Yes for some people not much effort is put in and their academic talent comes naturally. However I would argue that this percentage of people is much much smaller than the percentage who actually have to put in a lot of effort. I for one could not get the grades I do without putting in effort; it would be a totally different story. Perhaps there should be some sort of interview process or other qualifications as well in order to get into the faculty and those with GPA's that are good but not great could still have a chance to get in based on their personality and other good qualities they would bring to the teaching profession. It is just a tough question all around. I definitely don't have the answer or a good solution as to what should be done for those who would make great teachers but don't have the grades. We do want teachers to be competent in their skill and knowledge therefore we shouldn't lower the bar too much I don't think. I don't know!!!

All in all, we know that great academic achievement doesn't automatically equal a great teacher. If you don't have the people skills and everything else that goes along with a teacher, chances are you aren't going to make it all that far with just straight A's. The A's might bring you through at the top in university, but they won't automatically keep you at the top in the teaching profession.

Homework

After reading what a few people have to say about the idea of homework, I figured I would write about what I think about it! As university students our lives are basically homework because atleast for education classes, most assignments are not done in class. Therefore we are forced to do work outside of the classroom. However it is much different for elementary, middle school and high school kids. In elementary school in my experience not a ton of homework is given. Like Eric said I also had the math sheets or the spelling words to take home. I must say I also gave my students some math stuff to do at home in my PSI but it was only if they didn't get it finished in class. Thinking about it now this does seem like some sort of punishment. In my beliefs it should be a bit of a punishment for the students who were goofing off and not using their time wisely in class and you even say to them, "Would you rather do this at home on your own time" and they continue not to do their work. However some students simply need more time and aren't capable of doing their work in a short period of time.

I don't think homework is all that necessary in elementary school. Sometimes we do want our students to do bigger projects and the work ends up getting taken home. In which case a lot of parent work goes into the projects as well. It's a tough call with that because sometimes we don't want to give the kids tests but rather projects for them to demonstrate their knowledge and skills in a certain area. However time just does not allow for this to happen in the classroom. What do we do about that? I'm not sure.

I think as kids get older especially in high school homework isn't a bad idea as it is something they will most definitely be doing once they reach college or university. I understand we also want kids to be able to have time to spend with their families and play sports and do other activities and school already takes up a large portion of their time. But I don't think it would hurt to give a bit of homework once and a while. I definitely don't think it should be a daily thing or a give students a big project over christmas break type of thing. However it helps them to extend their knowledge outside of the classroom. If we give them more meaningful homework assignments rather than do this worksheet maybe it wouldn't seem so much like homework. For example, science is all over the place, not just in the classroom. If studying weather have students watch the weather channel or put a bucket outside and see how many cm it rains on a rainy day. Have students do some reading every night no matter what the material is. Have students share something they learnt with their parents at the dinner table. It doesn't have to be complicating but we don't want students to only associate what they learn at school with school. It is important that they see value to this knowledge in their everyday lives!

Anti-racist pedagogies - text pg 102-107

Critical multicultural pedagogists believe that the sources of social injustices of racism and economic inequity should be discussed in the classroom. They look at how racial privilege is embedded in the curriculum and how their should be programs in schools which address different ethnic, cultural, and immigrant groups, and aboriginal people and their human rights.

The pedagogy of whiteness looks at the unquestioned acceptance of whiteness and how white people dominate. This assumption needs to be denormalized. They look at how identities are socially constructed in a historical context and how we need to start rethinking of whiteness.

Anti-racist black feminist pedagogists have autobiographical writings which enable students to examine their own internalized racism. Any women of colour should be able to express themselves. By teaching students about black feminism, white students can recognize what it means to be white in a culture of white supremacist capitalist patriarchy.

I have already discussed this topic as some people did a presentation about anti-racist education. It is definitely something our students need to be aware of and should be taught about other ethnicities and cultures whenever possible. We don’t want our students to lead sheltered lives nor do we want them to be racist. The acceptance of whiteness is definitely an interesting question. Most people really do just accept the fact that white people dominate. Growing up in a town with the vast majority of people being white I wasn’t really exposed to people of different race or culture, nor do I remember being taught much about it in school except perhaps a little bit in social studies. I think despite the fact that all my classmates were white growing up we still should have discussed different cultures and the issue of racism.

7Up video - Age 28

Today we saw what happened to 3 of the children after 21 years.

The first to discuss is Paul. Paul went to a charity boarding school. He did not seem very knowledgeable at age seven, for example he didn't know what university was, and he wanted to be a policeman however found out it would be too hard to do. At 28 Paul was now in Australia, and was a bricklayer (subcontractor). He was married to a hairdresser and they had 2 children. They were considered middle class or potentially upper-middle class. Paul had moved into the contest system which allowed him to move up to the position he was currently in. Had he stayed in England I don't believe he would have been experiencing the same sort of success and mobility in society. At 7 we saw Paul building a house in the playground which could have been a predictor of his future if that had been something he was truly interested in. It is definitely neat to see how these kids turn out. I'm really happy Paul made it out of the sponsorship system and is making a better life for himself.

Suzy went to a private girls boarding school and was upper class. She was quite prissy as a seven year old and definitely acknowledged the fact that she was "above" many people. She already had that attitude of an elite member. She hated prep school when she was younger and ended up leaving school at age 16 to go to Paris. She went to secretarial and had a job by the time she was 21. She said she didn't want to get married or have kids and was a chain smoker. However two years later she was married and at 28 had 2 kids. She was a stay at home mom and married a wealthy man. Even though she didn't like private school she would have her kids go to private school when they were 13. She thinks it's different I suppose if they go at that age instead of 8 like her. I think part of her rebellion as a teen and still when she was 21 was because she was in the sponsorship system and was a member of the elite. Therefore she didn't have to worry about money or what would happen if she went off and did something else. I suppose that is one good thing about the system if you are in the elite. From the way she acted when she was younger I would say it was predictable she would have ended up with a rich man. However most of us thought she would have went to university. I think a lot of kids are like that though that are privileged when they are younger and go to private school (although I wouldn't necessarily consider it to be a privilege myself). They think they can do anything and don't really care about the consequences. Suzy definitely followed the sponsorship mobility model.

Nicholas was a lucky and smart boy. He was a farm lower class boy and wanted to learn about the moon at age seven. He was recognized as gifted after taking the 11+ exam and therefore was sent to boarding school which allowed him to eventually study at Oxford. He studied physics and by the age of 28 had obtained his PHD and was a nuclear physicist, teaching as a professor in the US. He was very successful and an extremely smart man. He also like Paul escaped the sponsorship system and moved over to the contest system. However Nick was at the top of the contest system when he moved to the US. He didn't realize how much he cared about money until this move. He was married however is relationship seemed to be rather rocky as his wife was an academic as well and they had mixed views about what would happen if they had kids. I was so happy to see Nick so successful. I think it's interesting he also pursued the interests he had when he was only 7. I'm curious to see where he ends up later on.

7up video - part 1

I can't say I remember what I wanted to be when I was 7 years old. However I do know all during middle school and high school I wanted to become a doctor. I wanted to go into the science/medical field right up until February of my grade 12 year when I changed my mind and decided I wanted to be a french teacher. These are two completely different and opposite things. I'm extremely happy now that I made the decision that I did because I can no longer even imagine myself as a doctor.

When we're 7 we have hardly experienced anything in our lives. I can't imagine deciding my path through life at that young of an age. It will be interesting to see where the kids in the video ended up and whether or not they stuck to the path they believed they would follow when they were 7. I would say most people change their minds several times about what they want to be throughout their schooling years, and even afterwards. Some people go to college or university, go out into the work force and realize they want to do something else and go back to school. We are very lucky in our society that we have the opportunity to do so and it is not seen as something completely wrong or weird. In the UK model and I suppose what actually occurs there, by age 11 they are put into a stream of schooling which will either allow them to go to university or not. I think if this happened to me I would have been allowed to go to university. However I know many people who don't start getting their act together until school becomes more serious in high school. Therefore these people would have missed out on their opportunity to have a better education and pursue a career they really wanted to do.

How much of what we are like when we're 7 sticks with us until we're 30 or 40 or 50? I think quite a bit does but I believe there is a lot of opportunity for change and many events that can occur throughout our lives that change who we are. For example some people might be in an accident, or have a significant other pass away, or win the lottery, or go bankrupt, and that is not something we can predict when we are young. However it will most definitely have an impact on the person we are and the person we will become after the fact.

I just think we still have a lot of growing to do. Even now, I'm 22, and I don't feel like I have experienced all that much. Is the person I am today the person I will still be when I'm 50? I have no idea!

Mobility Article

In the American norm of contest mobility, elite status is always up for grabs as it is the prize in an open contest, and there is room for movement within the society. In the English norm of sponsored mobility, there is controlled selection of elites in which recruits are chosen early and are inducted into the elites. The article discussed how the accepted mode of upward mobility shapes the school system both directly and indirectly through its effects on the values which implement social control.

In contest mobility, victory must be won by one’s own efforts. Those with moderate intelligence who claim victory through the use of common sense, craft, enterprise, daring and successful risk taking is more appreciated than victory by the most intelligent or best educated. Therefore elite status is earned. Sponsored mobility rejects contest and favours a controlled selection process. The elite choose people who have the appropriate qualities. They make the best use of talents by sorting people into where they belong. One must have obvious credentials such as material possession or mass popularity.

The norms and values in contest mobility include a futuristic orientation, ambition, and a general sense of fellowship with the elite. In sponsored mobility, the elite train the masses to believe they are incompetent to manage society, and that the elite have superior competence. The earlier the selection of the elite, the sooner others can be taught to accept their inferiority.

Paternalism toward inferiors, listening to the opinions of other elite, appreciation of aesthetic, literary, intellectual, and sporting activities, courtesy, and altruism are things that are taught to the new elite. No such thing happens in the contest system as elite can change at any time and there isn’t really anyone to tell them how to be.

In America, schooling is an opportunity and students are not separated into inferior and superior. The general level of occupational aspiration is unrealistically high. Education is valued as a means of getting ahead and emphasizes keeping everyone in the running until the end. University is competitive and has a series of trials each semester. In the English system, students are segregated early on by means of the promising and the unpromising. At the age of eleven these children take a series of tests that decides their future. There is a reduction in aspiration following this test. Schooling is valued for its cultivation of the elite and resources are put more into these schools. The secondary modern schools receive fewer resources, fewer teachers, fewer well trained teachers and a lack of prestige. Selection is complete before university.

Since we already discussed this topic in class I have already somewhat commented on what I think about it. But just to reiterate what I said, I like much more the contest mobility system as I believe everyone should have the opportunity to exceed and become an elite. It is rather unreasonabe to choose students at age eleven based on some test as they do in England. That is a ridiculous amount of pressure at a young age, and it also decides your fate for the rest of your life. After that test if you are in a lower school that is where you will still and there is much less chance if any chance at all that you will continue your education after high school. The elite to me sounds like a pompous group of people who believe they are better than everyone else. For some people they might be right to believe they are a little bit better if they have serious credentials and are very successful. However what about those who are chosen very young and simply don't have any talents and don't develop any over the course of their lives? Who says someone who wasn't chosen when they were young wouldn't make a much better 'elite'? I'm sure there are many who miss out on the opportunity however in my opinion I'm not so sure I would want to be a member of this group. The only reason I would would be because I would want to continue my education.

Turner, Ralph F. (1960). Sponsored and Contest Mobility and the School System. American Sociological Review 25 (26), 855-867.

Anti-Racist Education Presentation

I thought the presentation was quite interesting today and gave me quite a bit of information that I didn't have before.

I come from a small town in BC where there was only like 2 kids in my entire elementary school that were not white, neither of which were in my classroom. Therefore different races and cultures were not something I experienced very much of growing up. I guess this could either make racism a big issure or a small one. People who don't firsthand experience other cultures might buy into stereotypes a bit more and only believe what they hear because they have nothing else to go by. Or when they do see people of different colour they might give a big reaction becaue it's not something they are used to. However it could be a small issue because it just might never come up as we weren't experiencing other cultures in school. Like we discussed today it is most often found in social studies, perhaps in literature chosen in LA, but otherwise not all that much.

I think kids should definitely have the chance to learn about different cultures in the classroom, and have kids who have a different culture present that to the class so that everyone can learn more about it. We should also discuss the stereotypes and such and maybe have students do some research to learn what the actual facts are or to have a better knowledge of different cultures. We don't want students to have racist attitudes or behaviours obviously therefore if anything like that arises we would need to deal with it.

Since we are such a diversely populated country we should be more knowledgeable and inclusive of other cultures. I think experiencing other cultures is definitely beneficial and can also help you to understand your own culture better and make you more appreciative of things that you have or do.

A few different topics

Something I wanted to say a few days ago was about our norms which we talked about in class today. I was watching some home videos with my family, and at what I think was my eighth birthday I saw something I thought to be interesting. We were eating and I had a bowl of ketchup chips and I asked my friends who wanted some. Instead of saying me or I do or coming and getting some, a couple people put up their hands. I thought this was so funny. This is also something we are taught in school that if you want to ask or answer a question or you want to say something or whatnot, you raise your hand. When talking about norms today and how we line up and we know to line up we don't just swarm, it again reminding me of the whole raising your hand thing.

I think contest mobility is much better than what England has going on (sponsored mobility). I think it's a great thing that we can move up at any moment in time. Our fate isn't decided for us at birth or by taking a test when you are eleven. And speaking of that I think it's absolutely ridiculous. For one how much do you really know when your eleven and how focused are you on school and your future? And what if you're having a bad day or a really good day and your future is decided for you based on that one test? I don't agree with that at all. But as I mentioned, it's great we can move up. We can also move down which isn't so great but atleast our society is quite a bit more fair in my opinion. I also thought the whole elite business is stupid. Like the example of Paris Hilton or the guy going to Oxford and automatically being able to teach... neither of those examples deserved the elite title they held. Perhaps on his own the Oxford guy did for his chemistry but not as a teacher.

Hidden Curriculum Process Presentation

I thought todays presentation was great as well! I am definitely now feeling well informed about the hidden curriculum. This is the part that I think I was a little bit more aware about and not so much the subtleties in the texts we use.

Compliance and obedience and all the things mentioned I definitely believe to be huge in the school system. We do learn to follow many rules, procedues and routines and by the time we reach high school and much earlier as well, we do things without even realizing it or questioning it. We go to classes when the bell rings. We eat our lunch at 'lunch time'. We put our hand up to speak. We ask to go to the bathroom. We sit in 'our desk'. We do work quietly unless told otherwise. There is just an endless list of things we do all the time in school that we have been taught to do either implicitly or explicitly it's crazy! It is true though that we need our students to behave in these ways otherwise the classroom would be chaotic and work would not get done.

I thought some of the books were quite funny in the things that they were teaching kids, like listening to your parents is good behaviour and sharing with a partner and keeping a secret. Also, I forget exactly what it said but the book with the many pictures of a boy doing bad or gross things and how don't you wish you didn't have to look at him everyday? I don't think that's something we should really be teaching our students.

Anyways, hidden curriculum is definitely a huge part of schooling and it might be almost as important if not as important as the actual curriculum. Without the hidden curriculum when looking at this process stuff, students would be a lot less likely to succeed in society because they wouldn't understand norms and things such as respect for authority figures that were discussed.

Hidden Curriculum Content Presentation

I thought todays presentation was very well done!! It taught me more than what I knew about hidden curriculum before for sure and it definitely just makes you more aware of the messages the content you use are sending.

I hadn't heard of Bill 44 as I'm not really up with the news, politics, and current events... which I should be! I think that's going to make things rather tricky especially in middle school and high schools as students do get interested about sex education and sexual identity is definitely becoming a bigger deal I think. I personally was never really taught sex ed in school... maybe one class that briefly discussed sex but nothing in depth at all. Kids are definitely becoming sexually active younger and younger these days and I think if we are not allowed to answer our student's questions honestly and openly in the classroom then parents really need to take the initiative in talking to their children at a young age about sex. Because seriously.. the teen pregnancy rate in my home town, pretty bad I would say. Religion I understand more because some people are really strong about their beliefs and don't want their children to be taught otherwise or be forced into different beliefs and values. Us as educators I don't think should ever be pushing things such as that on our students. As was said in one of the videos I think we should be teaching them how to think not what to think. We just need to be sure that we aren't leaving out certain religions and as was metioned just have respect for everyone and their beliefs.

It doesn't surprise me that pictures of white people far outnumbered people of other races in textbooks. Other races are definitely underepresented. However one person in my group mentionned... but look at Alberta, how many black people or other minority races are there really? Our population does look to be majority white people so it's not necessarily an inaccurate representation of where we live. It is good to here that the genders are equally represented. However as we discussed, what are the women doing in the photos? Having them stand around or doing stereotypical activities doesn't really do anything. You might as well have more men then because it wouldn't make a difference. As for people with disabilities it's very sad that there aren't more pictures of them involved in different activities or being the scientist or whatever it may be. It is unfortunate they are only in pictures when discussing the disability because people with disabilities are not incapable of doing things therefore should not be shown in this manner.

That's about all for my opinions! Great presentation!

Gender Presentation

After reading others blogs it sounds like this was a great presentation. I unfortunately had to miss it however for a great reason, to witness the birth of my niece! However for my hidden curriculum paper I am going to discuss gender bias in the classroom therefore it would have been very useful to have seen this presentation! Therefore, I was wondering if anyone who did the presentation could give me a little review of what was mentionned in the presentation!

From reading I have already done I believe that gender bias is quite an issue in the classroom. However, a lot of the time it is unintentional and just something we are not really aware of. For example, when we have boys and girls line up at the door separately, or we shrug things off because 'boys will be boys', we are doing these things without realizing what we are instilling in our students. I think like Eric mentionned we do pay more attention to boys often because they are 'usually' the ones who cause more problems in class. However we need to find a way to deal with that issue so that we aren't stereotyping boys or leaving the girls out because boys are drawing more attention.

From my reading there are many things we could be paying attention to such as authors of literature and what that literature is about (the dominant characters and stereotypes), asking questions and helping equally boys and girls, having them work in mixed groups, watching gendered vocabulary that we use, and having everyone do similar tasks (not having boys do competitive things and girls doing quiet individual things).

I think it is very hard not to think about stereotypes and gender differences when teaching as well as other things. All of these things have been instilled in us from school, tv, media, our friends, everywhere! It's hard not to believe that most girls like shopping and most boys like sports because that is usually true!! What we need to realize is that not everyone fits into these categories nor should there even be categories. We need to treat everyone as individuals and not as a specific gender but just as a person.

Theories of Socialization

Text - Chapter 5

Socialization is a life long learning process in which individuals develop a sense of self and acquire the knowledge, skills, values, norms, and dispositions required to fulfill social roles. Family, school, peer groups and the media affect they way you are socialized.

Mead believes the self is reflexive. The individual notes, selects, and determines the responses and actions he or she will take. Therefore the individual is interpreting, selecting and then acting. Children role-play and act out the same responses that these roles would. The child then takes on the role of the generalized other, which are the attitudes of the community as a whole. Family background and schooling influence the socialization process as primary and secondary roles.

Shutz believes the self, language and interpretations of objects and situations through the copying of social types is how socialization works. We must understand how individuals act in the context of their common sense knowledge.

Freud’s psychoanalytic theory relies on biological factors to explain the development of identity, personality, and behaviour. Early childhood experiences determine adult socialization.

Piaget emphasized the development of perceptions and thought processes. Behavioural standards are the result of the child’s identification with his or her parents. Human behaviour is a mixture of biological and environmental factors.

The social learning theory focuses solely on environmental factors. The child is influenced by rewards and punishments for expected behaviour. Children also learn by imitating behaviour, beliefs and norms held by people close to them.

Teacher Expectations
Children get put into groups based on ability level, which is usually based upon standardized tests. Once students are put into a group, that’s what they believe they are. Therefore if they are in the low group they think they’re dumb and if they’re in the high group they think they’re smart. Once the groups are formed, they are usually rigid and these groups contribute to the child’s own definition of him or her self. Teachers also assess students’ character based on appearance, language ability, conformity to discipline, acceptance of academic role, general likeableness, and relations with peers.

Moral socialization is when schools instill an idealized version of society’s values. Political socialization is the role schools play in inculcating the values and norms that support the prevailing structure of society. A sense of national identity may be formed through school and the media.

The hidden curriculum is the norms, values, and dispositions that occur through students’ participation in social experiences in routine school activities. Students’ social experiences in school are important factors in analyzing the learning process.

Some argue that peer group values and behaviours might be more important in students’ behaviour than school or parental values, as subcultures develop. Popular culture may also affect school performance.

When talking about socialization I believe there are many many factors that contribute to the way a child is socialized. I believe it has a lot to do with what goes on at home in family life, as well as what happens at school and during extra curricular activities or clubs that children partake in. I also partially agree with Piaget that it has to do with environmental factors as well as biological factors.

In discussing the whole children being put into ability levels and getting stuck there, I really don't agree with that. I whole heartedly hope that teachers don't put children in groups and then leave them there forever. For one it might have been a false identification of the children's abilities. Two, every unit might be different for a student as we all have different strengths and weaknesses, especially in subjects such as math and science. And three, children do grow and also with what I just said they might start off in a unit that they are strong in but the next unit they are not therefore they shouldn't be left in the same group. We always need to be assessing the students and making sure they are being challenged and that they can also be successful.

I also agree that student subcultures are extremely important to students. I'm not sure if my friends would trump my family in the ways of my values and beliefs but they definitely could have an effect on my behaviour. Friends are very important to students at all ages but especially as students get older. Therefore subcultures are something we need to be aware of.

Hutterite Education (& french immersion)

In looking at another classmates blog I remembered the conversation we had about this topic. Should hutterites have their own school systems and be able to just leave school after grade eight? I believe everyone is entitled to their own culture and set of beliefs. I don't believe we should take these schools away from these people. However I also don't believe the parents of these students should be allowed to take away the right of their children going to a 'regular' school or continuing onto grade 9 in a regular school system. As was mentionned these kids have a lot of potential and are just as bright as the next kid. Therefore I find it very unfortunate that most of them don't go past grade 8. I don't believe it is our decision whether or not they continue on in their schooling. However we should use our voice as much as we can. As we know one teacher can make a huge difference in someones life. We should believe in everyone and encourage them to continue on in their studies.

Just a side comment. We talked about how there is so much money in french immersion because it is government funded. Then why do we not have more french immersion schools? This is a reoccuring topic in my blogs because I am all for french immersion school. I never had the opportunity myself and I wish I had. Children learn best when they are younger therefore if there is all this money for it why not make it more available. In some areas or as the case usually is, french immersion is for 'smart' kids, and 'regular' kids aren't allowed to take it. I think everyone should have an equal opportunity. I understand that it would be very hard to teacher kids in a second language when they aren't motivated and don't care to be there and their parents just want them there. But it is our job to get them motivated and have them enjoy learning the language!!

Education to help the economy

I think it's absolutely ridiculous to look at the function of education solely on the basis of how it will help the economy. The idea of who cares about the kids it's only about the money is pretty stupid. I think that it's very unfortunate that faculties would get cut or subjects taken out in schools because whoever thinks that it will do nothing for the economy.

At the school where I did my PSII, the french they had there was very limited. The french program got cut way back because their music program was really developing and taking off. Who is it to say that one is more important than the other? Who can say which is better for the economy? I mean maybe someone can say something about that. But think about how many people actually make it big as musicians, and how useful being bilingual could be in todays economy, especially in Canada knowing french. I'm not trying to say that I think french is more important than music I think they are equally as important. But I don't think it was fair to cut back on the french in order to boost the music. Unfortunately this year there is now no french at that school. All year students fundraised in order to go to Quebec in February 2010 for the winter carnival, and now those students will not have that opportunity. However don't worry, the music program is doing great! I was very upset to hear about this as was the french teacher.

Also, what happens when something is greatly needed therefore we train all these people for it, and then we have too many qualified people and the jobs go down? We talked a bit about this in class with teachers and that now the program is 5 years because we had too many teachers at one point. We can't always predict the trends and what is going to happen therefore how do we decide what we need more of and what we need less of?

Another thing I thought was interesting was how there used to be a surplus of money for education. I am not looking forward to having to use my own money to buy supplies for my kids because I don't have any money to do so. This is very unfortunate that education is not getting enough money, money I believe it deserves. Without education, what would we have? Everyone is trained in some sort of way to do their job so how would we even have an economy without education?

Chapter 4

This chapter begins by talking about Freire. He discusses the desire to achieve social change and the idea of critical consciousness. He believes it is all a system of oppression and domination and that the oppressed need to use critical consciousness in order to take a look at what is going on in schools. They need to critique knowledge they are gaining in school and link it to the interests of the dominant groups. Knowledge is power and it is also socially constructed. Therefore being socially constructed, the oppressed population needs to do something about it.

Next there is a discussion about resistance and The Alternate School. “Resistance is any behaviour, passive or active, that goes beyond simply opposing one or many elements of the dominant group” (Barakett, p.91). The Alternate School is for youth subcultures who are resistant to the power structures of schools and the knowledge that is imposed upon them. When they go to the Alternate School, they must first phone themselves to get an interview. Students who go there have experienced personal and social difficulties that have interfered with their academic success such as sexual crises, assault, alcohol abuse, etc. Students and teachers are like equals at this school and they discuss what is going to be learned together. They have a lot of freedom and are able to share their opinions and thoughts with everyone. A safe environment is created and students are able to talk about their difficulties. They do volunteer work to overcome the difficulties they have faced and even get offered jobs afterwards. Students here begin to feel empowerment and have their own voice.

The feminist theory discusses the need to have a gender-inclusive curriculum. This would include writings and life experiences by women, as well as their accounts of history and analyses of the body of knowledge that is currently the content of curriculum. Feminist pedagogy focuses on social transformation, is concerned about whose interests are being served, and issues of class, race, and gender. They would like to move toward social justice.

Some anti-racist pedagogies are looked at. Critical multicultural pedagogy believes classroom practices must emphasize the sources of social injustices of racism and economic inequity. The pedagogy of whiteness looks at the unquestioned acceptance of whiteness and white privilege in the dominant group. The anti-racist black feminist pedagogy states that women of colour should be able to express their fears and concerns associated with oppression.

I believe that the Alternate School is quite an interesting concept. I like it and I don’t for a few reasons. I don’t like it because it is as if we are giving up on these students in the regular schools, or they are giving up on themselves and we are letting it happen. I think we as teachers need to be accepting of all students no matter what their background; no bias should be demonstrated because of something someone has done. Everyone should have an equal right to education. I like the idea because students who do decide to go to this alternate school are deciding they don’t want to completely give up on themselves. They are given the opportunity to discuss their personal difficulties, learn from them, and strengthen themselves by working with their difficulties in volunteer positions. I like the fact that the teachers really work with the students and try to be or do go to the same level as the student in order to not use any power over the students. It is great that these students develop a voice when they are done and can feel a sense of accomplishment, as well as attain success. These students do have to follow normal curriculum even though they also decide other things they are going to learn. They can be just as successful as students in the regular school program.

I am not a feminist but I do believe we should be aware of the male dominance that still occurs in society as well as in our school system. We should make sure that the literature we choose has an equal amount of male and female authors. We should make sure the characters in these stories do not have stereotypical roles and male dominance. We need to teach our students that males and females are equal and everyone can succeed and everyone has a voice. Things are different today than what they used to be but there is still gender bias and a strong male role in our schools.

Qualitative vs. Quantitative Research

I'm going to have to say that I think both types of research are necessary. I don't think you would get all the pertinent information you need from a study by just going one way or the other. As we discussed the pros and cons of each, in using the two I think we would be able to eliminate a few of the cons.

If I had the time, money, and talent to do an ethnographic study, I think that would be tons of fun. Being a language major, I would love to do some sort of study of France teens vs Quebec teens to see what their experiences are like as well as their views about french and english. I think it would be very interesting because in my experience thus far with french people I believe there might be quite a difference. However the difference might be greater in adults than in teens. It would definitely be an experience.

I think the idea of becoming a prisoner in jail to study murderers and things like that is rather interesting. However I would never want to do something like that myself. That takes a ridiculous amount of commitment and seriously putting your life on hold and potentially in danger.

Quantitative research is also very powerful as data can tell us many things. If I were to do an ethnographic study of french teens, I could also use quantitative measures to see what the 'subjects' think or have to say about english people and the other french people.

All in all I don't think one is better than the other and I think both are necessary.

The Organization of Teaching and Learning (Text pg. 57-78)

This chapter discusses how schools are formal organizations, which is an interaction which people’s behaviour is directed towards specific goals, with divisions of labour, clearly defined relationships among other things. Schools are also bureaucracies which is similar in nature. There is a fuss going on about schools being too bureaucratic which in turn trying to fix it is only going to make things worse. Free schools, home schools and open structured schools are discussed. Free schools are falling short, home schooling is doing fairly well as it seems those students are where they need to be, and open structured schools seem to be having classroom management issues as everyone is all over the place and there aren’t clear laid out rules.

Canada’s French Immersion Movement began with some parents in Montreal wanting their children to be bilingual. They started up a kindergarten of their own and after 16 years of remaining officially experimental, French immersion schools were all over in Canada and now thousands of students are enrolled in French immersion schools or programs. These schools contain two streams, a regular English taught stream and a French immersion stream. It is still unsure after all these years whether or not relations between French and English speakers have improved. There seems to be tension even between each set of teachers in an immersion school.

Different policies, roles of teachers and principals are discussed as well as different debates going on in teacher education which include whether or not the teacher knows enough about their subject matter and if they know a set of teaching methods. The chapter concludes with two approaches to teaching. The first is the transmission model. This model says that learning is an objective process, with only minor variations from one student to another, as well as the fact that all the students in one class can be taught the same material at the same pace and be tested in the same way. The second model is the constructivist model. This model sees teaching as socially situated, child centred, and developed through classroom social interactions. The teaching emphasis is on discussion, collaboration, and negotiation. The cultural capital of all children is acknowledged.

I would first like to comment on the French Immersion Movement. Being a French major, I am all for French immersion schools. I think they are a great idea and I think they should be absolutely everywhere in the country. I would have loved to have the opportunity to begin to learn French in school when I was 5 years old. That is the best time to learn another language therefore why aren’t we all starting there? I don’t like the fact that relations aren’t any better even after there are so many more bilingual Canadians now than there used to be. While studying in Quebec City for four months, I found most people to be very nice. However I did not like the fact that when they could tell you were English, they would begin speaking to you in English, even if your French was obviously better than their English. They should be very happy and proud that so many others have the desire and the determination to learn their language. I hope that in the future there are more immersion schools and that the relations between the French speaking and English speaking Canadians become better.

Reading the description about the transmission model kind of made me upset. I’m happy to know that most people use the new constructivist model, which is the way things should be. We learn so much about differentiated instruction, different methods and strategies of teaching, and how important it is to know each and every student. I hope that all of the new teachers don’t even consider using the transmission model and have more sense than to think that every student is going to be the same, can move at the same pace, and can learn in the exact same manner as every other student. That sounds absolutely ridiculous to me!

Perceptions vs. Reality

Ok to start off, I now must say, every time I do a blog I do it first in microsoft word and copy it into here. Today I forgot to do that. I pretty much finished writing my entry when I remembered. So instead of saving it on here, I was going to copy and paste it into microsoft word. However in that process I some how deleted and now I have to start again. Therefore, I am now not in the best mood and might not put the same amount of effort in as the first time :)

In looking at a classmates blog about the diagram we saw about what the perceptions are of hazards and what the reality is, I decided I wanted to comment on it as well. It as very surprising at the enormous difference between what is reality and what the perception is.

Some of things that surprised me:
People are very worried about terrorist attacks when the real chance of it happening is very small. Everyone is still worried about something that happened 9 years ago and feels like they need to stress over the hypothetical situation that it could happen again.

People are not very worried about cancer when it is a very big deal in our society today. Everything seems to cause cancer and there is cancer awareness everywhere. It seems as though once a week or once a month you hear about something else that causes cancer. What was brought to my awareness this summer however I was already somewhat aware, that tanning beds cause cancer! Big surprise!! So instead of walking around worrying about terrorist attacks, we should really be worried about all the cancer that is surrounding us today.

Plane crashes are another thing people are worried about when the hazard is very low. What people should really be worried about are car accidents. We drive cars or are passengers in cars almost everyday. We have to worry about what we are doing, pedestrians, other drivers, wild life, falling rocks, and anything else that can cause an accident. All of these hazards aren’t there when you are flying a plane. It is not very often you hear about a plane crashing. However we hear about car accidents every day. I don’t understand the logic behind what people are worrying about. It seems to me that people get stuck worrying about the huge things that only happen once every 10 years, instead of worrying about the things that affect us every day.

Ethnomethodology

I somewhat agree with symbolic interactionists in that everything is based on symbols we have created. The example given in class was about the invisible border that separates Canada from the United States. There is no physical line showing that one country is separated from the other. And yet, if you ‘cross’ that line, the rules change. What about money? It is simply pieces of paper or pieces of metal that allow you to purchase things. Who decided that it has the power to do such things? It is simply another symbol that we have created.

I also partially agree with one of the ideas of ethnomethodologists which is that people’s understandings are what drives their behaviour. If your understanding is that a green light means go, you are going to drive through the light when it’s a green. Chances are a symbolic interactionist would say you would drive through that green light because it’s a symbol that we have created. I would go in the middle and say that yes maybe it’s a symbol we have created but the understanding of that symbol is what allows you to follow through with the action. If you don’t understand the basics of golf, it is likely you won’t want to play or you will get angry when you do play because you aren’t very good. If you are having a conversation with a person, and you believe they are mad at you, you will behave according to that. Maybe they aren’t mad at you but because of your understanding of the situation, that is how you choose to react. I would say that is a pretty good methodology. It might not work for all situations or behaviours that we have, but it fits in certain places.

Is what we learn in school useful?

After today’s class, I would like to discuss some of Marx’s and Collins’ ideas about education. Marx believed that everyone has a predestined place in the economy. Therefore, children of upper class families would be streamed into more academic courses, whereas children of the working class would end up in classes like shop. I find this to be absolutely ridiculous. For one, who says that children of upper class parents are smarter than those of working class parents? And two, who says shop classes and things ‘better suited for working class people’ are easy? I would consider myself a fairly smart student, however if I was asked to do a task that an electrician or a mechanic could do, there is absolutely no way I would have the knowledge or ability to do it. All these upper class ‘smart’ people have other people do everything for them. So how smart can they really be? I do not believe at all that social class 100% determines where you are going to go in life. Like the functionalist point of view, people with talent should be able to display that, use it, and rise to the top, no matter what social class they come from.

There is also the discussion about the point that there is a weak link between the skills and knowledge obtained from school and what is actually used and useful for jobs. Collins said that a large percent of what you do in school is useless for the job, and that even if skills you learn are relevant to a job, you might not remember them anyways by the time you have the job. On this topic we also watched the video about the ‘5 minute university’. I can’t lie and say that I believe everything we learn in school will be useful to us in the future. I completely agree with the fact that we don’t remember a lot of the things we learn. For example, I could not tell you one bit of information that I studied in anthropology 1000 4 years ago in my first year of university. I obtained an A in the class therefore obviously did well at the time. However if I was asked now, what I learned or did in that class, I wouldn’t be able to say anything. I also don’t believe it is as simple as the 5 minute university although I did find that rather humorous. But there is truth in that we take a lot of courses that aren’t really going to help us with our future jobs. About the comment that we aren’t going to remember most of what we learned 5 years later, if ‘you’ want us to remember what we learn, don’t have a class simply based on tests, especially non-cumulative tests. If for 4 months, all we do is listen to a lecture, take notes, and write a few tests, that is pure memorization and something we most definitely will not remember 5 years later, never mind 5 months or 5 minutes after writing the test. Anyways that is just my opinion. Therefore I partially agree with the conflict theorists, but more strongly agree with the functionalist point of view.

Canadian Education

Text pg. 8-16

Each province developed its own ministry of education. Therefore Canada now has 13 different education systems for all the provinces and territories. The federal government only plays a role in higher education.

The education of Canada’s First Nations peoples has been controlled by the department of Indian and Northern affairs in Ottawa. Native children were isolated in residential schools a long time ago; the last one closed only 25 years ago. Because of this cultures and languages disintegrated. The situation of dropouts has been improving over the years in the aboriginal communities. The number of band operated schools as also increased. There are also more native teachers for these schools now as universities are offering programs for them.

In the 70’s, French was established as the sole language of instruction except for children who had a parent that was educated in English. A few years later, the Charter of Rights stated there would be access to public education in each province’s minority language ‘where numbers permit’.

I believe that Canada should be more united in its education systems. I don’t understand why each province and territory needs its own ministry of education. Everyone should be taught the same thing. It would make it much easier for students and teachers who have or would like to move to different provinces. Besides Quebec, are the people in BC really that different than those in Nova Scotia that we need to have a different education system? It really makes no sense to me.

Also I found it absolutely depressing that First Nations peoples have been losing their languages and cultures. I understand that it would be hard to keep them alive in schools because there is such a small minority of First Nations peoples who are able to teach these children. I think it’s great that more universities are offering programs to try and keeps these cultures alive. I believe everyone has the right to their own language and culture that they chose and we should be trying hard as a country to help keep these alive and make us more multicultural.

The topic of the French language in Canada is always a big debate as well as what goes on in Quebec. I am okay with the fact that children in Quebec must go to French schools unless they have a parent who has been taught in English. If these parents want their kids to speak English as well they can do it in the home and outside of school. It is a privilege to be bilingual therefore I don’t think anyone should be complaining. I think that all or at least the majority of schools in Canada that are not in Quebec should be French immersion so that everyone in Canada would be bilingual. Not only would that help you out in Canada but around the world and learning another language is very beneficial. I don’t see what all the fuss is about!

Meritocracy

I read what Brandie had to say about meritocracy and I completely agree with her and think that most people would except for those football players and brain surgeons who believe they are extremely important and deserve to be paid the big bucks. I think doctors are very important, we most definitely need them in our lives. But as it was noted, how would we get doctors if we didn't have teachers? When I think about the fact that I'm going to graduate in 8 months and be a teacher, it scares me. Over the course of our careers we will educate a ridiculous amount of young people, and have some sort of effect on what they do with the rest of their lives. We create the doctors, dentists, lawyers and business owners that are so well paid in this world. Therefore, if we are so essential to the function of society and economy, why are we not paid in the same manner? It makes zero sense to me that professional athletes are paid millions of dollars to play a sport. I understand that yes they have amazing skill and talent that not everyone possesses. However, are they really worth that much money? I can think of a lot of other jobs that could use that money such as education and health care. So, should our world be based on meritocracy? Yes it should!

Education in Canada

Pg. 17-20 from text

It is said that the structure of schooling in Canada is relatively the same throughout the country. There is universal access to elementary and secondary schooling and by law, students must stay in school until the age of 15 or 16. The length of the school year varies from country to country. However it is found that the amount of time spent in school makes no difference to academic achievement, rather the difference is related to how things are done in the classroom and the teaching strategies that are applied. Canada has separate education systems for all provinces and territories, however all the systems are quite similar. Therefore if a family wants to move to a different province, the students wouldn’t find it difficult to adjust. Students coming from other countries into Canada might find they are behind or more advanced in some areas.

I think that it’s great that the education systems are similar from province to province in Canada. I feel that being a country that is the way things should be. I am not sure it is just as easy for teachers to go from province to province. I know that up until a year ago, teachers trained in Alberta wanting to teach in BC had to take extra courses and there were specific requirements. I am happy this is no longer the case as I plan to teach in BC next fall. But I don’t understand why curriculum and teaching requirements should be any different throughout the country. I can understand if Quebec might be a little different as there are many French schools and they have cegep, but there is no reason for the rest of the country to be different!

Also I one hundred percent agree with the fact that it does not matter how many days you are in school in relation to academic achievement. What happens in the classroom, what the focus is, the teaching styles, strategies and methods of the teachers, are definitely the things that matter the most. If you’re teaching the subjects and not the students, not getting to know them in order to be able to teach the individual and adjust your teaching accordingly, you could spend everyday of the year in the classroom, and not have successful students.

Theories

Chapter 2 – Theories of Schooling and Society (same source as first entry)

Karl Marx, Max Weber, Emile Durkheim, and The Chicago School are the first theorists and school of theorists discussed. Marx had strong political ideas, and he ‘believed that the economic organization of a society is central to its class structure, institutions, cultural values, and beliefs’ (32) among other things. Weber was interested in explaining the rise of capitalism, but also wanted to ‘discover a causal explanation for social action’ (33). Durkheim studied social order and he did an analysis of social integration, social control, ritual and the moral base underlying society. The Chicago School developed perspectives of symbolic interactionism and interpretive phenomenological theory.

Next discussed are theories of schooling and society, which include functionalism, conflict or Neo-Marxist theories, critical theory, feminist theory, and anti-racist theory. Functionalism focuses on the analysis of social and cultural systems, which carry certain functions, and how these functions maintain social order. Conflict or Neo-Marxist has an emphasis on conflict and social change. Critical suggests ways that the educational system can address social inequality and generate social change. Feminist focuses on causes of oppression based on class, race, and gender. Anti-racist focuses on an action oriented, educational, and political strategy for systemic change in society’s institutions. (All information found on pg. 49).

In all honesty I struggled to read through this chapter. Theories are what bored me extremely in intro sociology, which is probably why I never took another sociology class. My brain doesn’t grasp them nor do I think much of what people came up with however many years ago. I care about the effects they have on today’s society and in this case their role in education. However I would rather just be told about what’s going on today and not have to study theories that don’t interest me. Therefore I have no opinion about this and don’t really know what to say. I’m hoping some of the sociology majors out there are blogging and will have opinions about this therefore I can comment on what they say and hopefully better understand what all of these theories mean for us as educators.

Are there advantages to a sociological perspective?

We discussed four reasons as to why having a sociological perspective as an educator would be advantageous.

This included, the sociological perspective:

• Looks at the big picture by placing one’s classroom within a larger social context
• Counteracts ideology meaning the over emphasis on the individual when analyzing social phenomenon
• Helps you question ‘reforms’ meaning seeing beyond immediate consequences of policy decision to question their unintended consequences
• Helps you be proactive meaning anticipating trends and to formulate a response before the issue comes crashing down.
  

I think these are absolutely great perspectives to have as an educator. If you aren’t looking at the big picture, looking at patterns instead of what is happening individually, looking at all the possible consequences to changing a certain policy before going through with it, or looking ahead to see what will potentially be a problem in your classroom, the world of education would be a huge mess. It absolutely astonished me that sociology of education has been almost completely wiped out of universities. Without it many teachers will probably be or are very close-minded and only look at themselves, their classrooms, and the here and now and not what they should be looking at (the things mentioned above).


For example, what if one science teacher, year after year finds that his or her students are not doing as well as they should be. The teacher thinks, maybe I’m becoming a worse teacher. Maybe the teacher of the grade below me is not a good teacher. Maybe the students are getting dumber as the years go on. But as a matter of fact, this is happening everywhere and it was really a problem with the curriculum, and the curriculum should have been changed years ago. If you’re not looking at the big picture, if you’re putting the emphasis on yourself, this is something that could really happen. Therefore I believe one hundred percent that it is advantageous to have a sociological perspective.

Education vs. Training

Today in class we had a discussion about education versus training. Training is a lot more specific than education. It deals with specific tasks, focuses on particular problems and skills, and can be rather repetitive. Whereas education, takes the focus beyond these specific skills and formulas, deals with reflective practice, and gives you the ability to know and understand why you are doing something, not simply what you are doing.

I completely agree with what the professor said. As teachers, we of course need the training otherwise we would be completely blind sided stepping out into the field. We would have no idea how to make a lesson plan, unit plan, how to evaluate and assess, and what the key tools are to being a successful teacher. However, I have had some pretty boring teachers who are definitely what one would call the “technical teacher” who goes by the books. If I really want to go by the books, I would go buy the books and teach myself. Autonomous professionals or reflective practitioners are able to go beyond the books and formulas and use different strategies and methods of teaching that make learning a lot more exciting. I absolutely love when teachers tell personal stories for examples and relate things to real life because it shows that what you are learning actually has some use in the real world.

Another problem with using formulas and not straying from the training you have obtained is nowadays, students with disabilities (whether they be learning, behavioural, physical or any other sort of disability that hinders their ability to learn at the level or pace that you are teaching) are included in the regular classroom. Therefore, the straightforward formulas do not discuss differentiated instruction and how you are going to have to make three different assignments instead of one in order to meet the needs of all of your students. Every student is not going to learn in the same way. You may need to think outside of the box to reach every student and have him or her meet the goals that you desire. You might need to make sure your lesson includes audio as well as visual aids. Whatever the case may be, one must go beyond being a trained professional, and be an educated professional as well.

Introduction - Are the unintended or intended functions of schooling more important?

“Sociology of education focuses on the relationship of schooling processes, practices, and outcomes to the organization of society as a whole, and on the school system and the school” (Barakett, p.2). Therefore, what are the social groups in schools, the relations between them, and what happens when students finish school and enter society? Also, we first take a look at informal and formal education; being what happens within the family and other groups such as sports teams or clubs, and what happens at school.

There are intended and unintended functions of schooling. The former includes: “Schools transmit: generalized as well as specialized knowledge; the existing culture from one generation to the next and to new members of society; new knowledge that is produced in universities and in industry; and schools provide opportunities for social mobility” (Barakett, p.3). The latter includes: “Social control, which includes all behaviours of students, and the role schools play in social class differences; custodial function, meaning children are safe at school; establishment of social relations and subgroup maintenance; and promotion of critical analysis, about society and global issues” (Barakett, p.6-7).

When students come to class from day one, they bring a background with them that includes many things such as their language, race, social class, gender, experiences and beliefs among other things. Although it is said that everyone has the same chance in school, all of these things play a large role in what happens in the classroom. I myself agree with this as I have experienced or witnessed children with different racial origins not succeeding as highly as Caucasian children, gender biases, children falling behind because of language barriers, friendships forming or not forming because of social class, and students missing out on learning opportunities because of their beliefs. In a perfect world none of these problems would exist. However the school system is far from perfect and many young people are forced to enter society, not knowing how to survive.

I believe the unintended functions of schooling are just as important as the intended functions. I currently do not have the knowledge to say which I believe is most important if either one is, but I will certainly give that opinion in three months time. We all know we gain facts, knowledge, and skills to help us start a career once school is over. But how do we learn how to function in society? This is where the unintended functions take the stage. How do we know how to behave in a job interview, when it is our turn to speak, if interrupting is rude, what to wear, are we now friends with this person, how are we going to work with others, what if they are of a different social status than us, is it ok to chew gum here? All these questions that we might ask ourselves upon entering society, are things that are taught in school, as unintended functions. Just think, you could be the smartest person in the country and have gone to the most recognizable university. But if you can’t answer any of those questions and do not know how to function in society, chances are you won’t get the job.

Now I ask you, which is more important, intended or unintended functions of schooling?


Barakett, Joyce & Cleghorn, Ailie (2008). Sociology of Education. Toronto, Ontario: Pearson Canada Inc.