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.