According to Linda McNeil standardization reduces the quality of what is taught and learned in schools. In addition standardized controls reduced the scope and quality of course content, diminished the role of teachers, and distanced students from active learning (McNeil, 2009). The long-term detrimental effects of standardization is that it creates inequities. Subsequently, increasing the gap between the quality for education for the poor and minority youth, then that of white, privileged students.
Standardization of curriculum or the Curriculum Dijour (Stiler, 2009) has a couple different agendas. First it enforced the expectations and desire of the state government. Second, it created a prescriptive reform system to improve student performance (at least this was the desired outcome). So I ask the question why are we in the standardization movement that we are! The policy makers that created and enforced standardization upon us were desiring uniform activities, "sameness", accountability, and expected teacher performance.
The short and long term effects of Standardization of Curriculum are already apparent. Some of the short term effects that we see already are the diminishing roles of teachers. Teachers no longer have the freedom to take the standards and frameworks and use their creativity and expertise to present the curriculum as they choose. Instead, they follow a prescriptive curriculum that says teach page 10 on Monday, page 11 on Tuesday and so forth. As a result it also reduces the quantity and quality taught and learned in school. Teachers teach what they have to in order to appease their administration. The long term negative effect is that it perpetuates inequities, while at the same time increases the achievement gap between privileged and non-privileged students. This parallels the idea that it's my way or the highway!
So the my way students (White Middle Class) appear to be absorbing the curriculum. Many did not find what was taught in school to be credible, due to the numerous resources available to them (Cable TV, Educated parents, Internet, Educated peers, etc) Both students and staff work to appease the bureaucratic requirements of the school/system. There is a huge disconnect between the classroom and the administration.
The contradictions of such control are schools and districts were teachers are not under a legislated curriculum (Juvenile Court Schools). The administration is structured to enforce rules but to support teaching. Teachers feel supported and able to incorporate their deep understanding of the subject matter taught. Students are invited to have their own questions, interpretations, and understandings as part of the learning process. There is a strong understanding between school organization , what is taught and best practices.
As a result a battle exist between those that advocate Standardized Curriculum and those that believe in Contradicting Control and Defensive Teaching. With that being said, there is still hope, that our legislatures will open their eyes and realize that what they are doing, just isn't working like they expected it to.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Feminist Analysis of Gender and Schooling
Misogynist- hate toward women or negative attitude towards women! Misandry- hate toward men or negative attitude towards men!
I wanted to start off this blog with a couple of key terms I learned this past week. They both are a good segway to help us understand the Feminist Analysis of Gender and Schooling. The theories that will be explored are grounded on Socialist Feminism and Critical Educational Theory "Schooling of girls is a complex process that contains contradictions and points of resistance which must be analyzed in each particular historical instance" (Weiler, 2009).
I wanted to start off this blog with a couple of key terms I learned this past week. They both are a good segway to help us understand the Feminist Analysis of Gender and Schooling. The theories that will be explored are grounded on Socialist Feminism and Critical Educational Theory "Schooling of girls is a complex process that contains contradictions and points of resistance which must be analyzed in each particular historical instance" (Weiler, 2009).
Weiler identified three stages dealing with Feminist Reproduction Theory. Stage 1 is that people have the capacity to make meaning of their lives and to resist oppression (McRobbie, 1978). According to Claire Thomas the rejection of school ideology leads them to a definition of their own sexuality that leads back to the oppressive sexism of working-class culture. As a result girls were able to combat the oppressive features of schools by asserting their femaleness. They did so through demonstrating their success and competencies in education.
Stage 2 was the period when people were starting to understand and resist the oppression of women. They understood that such oppression also was specific to class, race and gender positions. Fuller (1983) that black females were able to meet their needs and assert their humanity by focusing on academics. He also described a term known as triple oppression (gender, race, and class). During this period, Anyon (1984) stated that to combat the oppression of women could not be fragmented and isolated from group efforts. It must be public and become a culture of resistance in order to be effective.
Stage 3 as stated before, resistance can not be an individual effort. Schools can now be a sphere for change and encouragement to resist oppression of women and could be a catalyst for building a critical counter-hegemony via critical pedagogy. Unfortunately, at this stage, the oppression of others has become much more covert and subliminal. It comes in a deeper form of domination that is embedded in sexist, racist and classis society!. Therefore, the effort to eliminate the oppression of others has become even more complex. However, programs such as the University of Redland's Educational and Social Justice Doctorate program is such a place that has become a safe haven against any type of oppression or injustices. Further, it has become a program and a leader in the community to create systemic change. It will take time, but the one constant is that it has started and nothing will stop our movement now!
Language Diversity and Learning
According to Lisa Delpit, developing language diversity in the classroom allows all students to be connected to the classroom and the learning environment, rather then be disconnected and marginalized from the curriculum. There are a number of items teachers must consider. They need to understand how students acquire English and they need to avoid effective filtering.
Students are able to acquire English through a number of instructional strategies such as role playing, acting, corrective writing and narration. In order for these instructional strategies to work, conditions must be optimal, students need to be motivated, the teacher needs to be able to identify with the student, students need to praised instead of embarrassed. Teachers need to give students time when they try to explain themselves because they often struggle with direct question techniques. Oral expression needs to embrace the students of color by strengthening their proficiencies by sharing their experiences with their classmates. Some of their experiences are connected to the their families, community and personal identities. So having the students build on their experiences is important for English acquistion and growth.
The teacher demands of how the student acquires English can impact the student's ability to learn English in a negative way. Teachers need to be be leary of having low expectations of their English leaners. They also need to avoid overcorrecting their students, focus on code and pronunciation blocks and avoid correcting reading miscues that are dialectic in nature. If students are constantly corrected, they may become resentful towards reading and learning English. Teachers should also be aware of different styles of literacy with students learning literacy. There are cultural differences in the way they organize their ideas, while other languages are very brief, instead of wordy like English.
The question to ask at this point, is how does this fit into being an issue of edcuational justice? It fits because assumptions are made about students learning English. Some see such students as being poor students, not wealthy. This is not always the case. Even then, students are group or stereotyped by race or by the inability to speak or read English. Both examples are cases of "isms." One being classism, the other being racism. When an ism is taking place in the classroom or school setting, injustices are taking place, students are being treated differently and equal access is being denied to all students. When this happens, inequitites are present and so is educational injustices.
Students are able to acquire English through a number of instructional strategies such as role playing, acting, corrective writing and narration. In order for these instructional strategies to work, conditions must be optimal, students need to be motivated, the teacher needs to be able to identify with the student, students need to praised instead of embarrassed. Teachers need to give students time when they try to explain themselves because they often struggle with direct question techniques. Oral expression needs to embrace the students of color by strengthening their proficiencies by sharing their experiences with their classmates. Some of their experiences are connected to the their families, community and personal identities. So having the students build on their experiences is important for English acquistion and growth.
The teacher demands of how the student acquires English can impact the student's ability to learn English in a negative way. Teachers need to be be leary of having low expectations of their English leaners. They also need to avoid overcorrecting their students, focus on code and pronunciation blocks and avoid correcting reading miscues that are dialectic in nature. If students are constantly corrected, they may become resentful towards reading and learning English. Teachers should also be aware of different styles of literacy with students learning literacy. There are cultural differences in the way they organize their ideas, while other languages are very brief, instead of wordy like English.
The question to ask at this point, is how does this fit into being an issue of edcuational justice? It fits because assumptions are made about students learning English. Some see such students as being poor students, not wealthy. This is not always the case. Even then, students are group or stereotyped by race or by the inability to speak or read English. Both examples are cases of "isms." One being classism, the other being racism. When an ism is taking place in the classroom or school setting, injustices are taking place, students are being treated differently and equal access is being denied to all students. When this happens, inequitites are present and so is educational injustices.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Being privileged in America, Just What the Heck Does that Mean?
Being privileged in America, Just What the Heck Does that Mean? I do not mean that sarcastically, but I truly want to know how being privileged is defined and who is defining it. As I have learned in class tonight, there were so many privileged subgroups, that it made me wonder, just how long is our list for subgroups of people that are not privileged?
So let me list a few of the privileged groups we listed and try to come up with some sort of classification system that identifies subgroups that are truly privileged and those that are not.
Privileged groups: Membership status, Attractiveness, Dialect, geographic, ethnicity, colorism, banding in organizations, corporate, handedness, smokers, athletically gifted, team membership, Hetero, Gender, ability, experience, Age, stature (body type), English Speaking, Blonde, Blue Eyed, Intellectual, Straight and Married, Class, Avid, Possessions, Job Status, Religion, etc. As one can see, this is just the start of list that seems to have no end. So can we assume that the list of those that are not privileged would be similar?
So here we go, here are a few groups that fit into the less then privileged groups: racism (isn't this colorism?), left handedness, non-smokers (really?) athletically challenged, physically challenged, non ambulatory, non verbal, deaf and hard of hearing, visually impaired, brown or black hair, Religion, Poor (low socio-economics), short, obese, homosexual, gay, brown eyed, English Learners, etc...
I've made my point, obviously there are so many underprivileged groups, that is makes it difficult to conceptualize the reality that many subgroups are marginalized. According to Bell Hooks, class is more then just a question of money, but it is also about values, attitudes, social relations, all that formed the bias that informed the way knowledge would be given and received. Conservative discussion of censorship and silencing, according to Karl Anderson is the "most oppressive aspect of middle class life." As a result students were force to be quiet and shut their mouths, unless they were endorsing whatever power existed. Some students who exhibited loudness, emotional outbursts and unrestrained laughter were considered unacceptable and vulgar disruptions of the classroom social order.
So is it a privilege to be able to speak our thoughts, as long as it is in agreement with those in power. However, we are oppressed if we dare speak in disagreement with the majority power. It amazes me that in a country where we have the freedom of speech, that same speech we choose to exercise can subject us to oppression. Go figure!
So let me list a few of the privileged groups we listed and try to come up with some sort of classification system that identifies subgroups that are truly privileged and those that are not.
Privileged groups: Membership status, Attractiveness, Dialect, geographic, ethnicity, colorism, banding in organizations, corporate, handedness, smokers, athletically gifted, team membership, Hetero, Gender, ability, experience, Age, stature (body type), English Speaking, Blonde, Blue Eyed, Intellectual, Straight and Married, Class, Avid, Possessions, Job Status, Religion, etc. As one can see, this is just the start of list that seems to have no end. So can we assume that the list of those that are not privileged would be similar?
So here we go, here are a few groups that fit into the less then privileged groups: racism (isn't this colorism?), left handedness, non-smokers (really?) athletically challenged, physically challenged, non ambulatory, non verbal, deaf and hard of hearing, visually impaired, brown or black hair, Religion, Poor (low socio-economics), short, obese, homosexual, gay, brown eyed, English Learners, etc...
I've made my point, obviously there are so many underprivileged groups, that is makes it difficult to conceptualize the reality that many subgroups are marginalized. According to Bell Hooks, class is more then just a question of money, but it is also about values, attitudes, social relations, all that formed the bias that informed the way knowledge would be given and received. Conservative discussion of censorship and silencing, according to Karl Anderson is the "most oppressive aspect of middle class life." As a result students were force to be quiet and shut their mouths, unless they were endorsing whatever power existed. Some students who exhibited loudness, emotional outbursts and unrestrained laughter were considered unacceptable and vulgar disruptions of the classroom social order.
So is it a privilege to be able to speak our thoughts, as long as it is in agreement with those in power. However, we are oppressed if we dare speak in disagreement with the majority power. It amazes me that in a country where we have the freedom of speech, that same speech we choose to exercise can subject us to oppression. Go figure!
Thursday, February 12, 2009
After race: an introduction
Tonights guess speaker, Dr. Lee Feigon was able to give us an interesting perspective on the history and transformation of China's educational system. I mention his presentation because it ties in with our readings for this week. During the Mau Dynasty, China's educational system endured a transformation from schools in urban settings to schools moving out to rural settings. This transformation of education into the agriculture society of China allowed China's student population to grow from 9 million in 1965 to 67 million in 1976. The enable China to compete in the global economy!
Unfortunately, China's educational system shifted back to the urban schools and left the farmer culture, where schools closed. As a result, China Gini Coefficient of 47. According to Dr. Feigon, such a coefficient rating can be dangerous and lead to insurrection. Quite interesting and a parallel that questions the Gini Coefficient is that the United States has the same Gini Coefficient of 47. According to Dr. Feigon, this rating has greater implications in a developing country where people in society are learning to read and write. During the Great Depression the United States had a Gini Coefficient of 42. So where is this leading us???
I wanted to use Dr. Feigon's presentation as a segway to our reading of "After Race: an introduction". According to our readings, economic exploitation has always been central to the emergence of racism. Whether it incorporated slavery or indentured servitude, racialized systems of labor perpetrated in Europe against immigrants, including the Irish, Jewish and Polish workers, as well as against indigenous populations around world (Darder & Torres, 2009). As a result, Darder and Torres are challenging us to refuse to accept racialized demarcations of raced or problem populations. They wants us to disconnect from "race" as it has been constructed in the past and look at race as an ideology on the lives of all people. Unfortunately, we have quite some time to reach that point. So, why is that?
Some of the answers that we learned about in our readings were related to "racial constructions". Once again, unfortunately our own U.S. Census system has perpetuated the racial demarcations of our present society. Our Census system currently utilizes 26 different classifications for measuring race. In 2000, "ethnicity" was added to cause even more confusion
(Darder & Torres, 2009). With that being said, how do we move on and grow from our own census system which forces us to make decisions based on their judgements of who we are? It is apparent that our own government must address the issue of perpetuating race after racism. Only then, can we move on as a nation of Americans, then a nation of many races and ethnicities.
Unfortunately, China's educational system shifted back to the urban schools and left the farmer culture, where schools closed. As a result, China Gini Coefficient of 47. According to Dr. Feigon, such a coefficient rating can be dangerous and lead to insurrection. Quite interesting and a parallel that questions the Gini Coefficient is that the United States has the same Gini Coefficient of 47. According to Dr. Feigon, this rating has greater implications in a developing country where people in society are learning to read and write. During the Great Depression the United States had a Gini Coefficient of 42. So where is this leading us???
I wanted to use Dr. Feigon's presentation as a segway to our reading of "After Race: an introduction". According to our readings, economic exploitation has always been central to the emergence of racism. Whether it incorporated slavery or indentured servitude, racialized systems of labor perpetrated in Europe against immigrants, including the Irish, Jewish and Polish workers, as well as against indigenous populations around world (Darder & Torres, 2009). As a result, Darder and Torres are challenging us to refuse to accept racialized demarcations of raced or problem populations. They wants us to disconnect from "race" as it has been constructed in the past and look at race as an ideology on the lives of all people. Unfortunately, we have quite some time to reach that point. So, why is that?
Some of the answers that we learned about in our readings were related to "racial constructions". Once again, unfortunately our own U.S. Census system has perpetuated the racial demarcations of our present society. Our Census system currently utilizes 26 different classifications for measuring race. In 2000, "ethnicity" was added to cause even more confusion
(Darder & Torres, 2009). With that being said, how do we move on and grow from our own census system which forces us to make decisions based on their judgements of who we are? It is apparent that our own government must address the issue of perpetuating race after racism. Only then, can we move on as a nation of Americans, then a nation of many races and ethnicities.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Resistance and Deviance
Historicity is the study of history as it continues through time and to be conscious about things we are not aware of, or thought about it. I wanted to build on this term due to a conversation I had with Dr. Merci earlier today. We were in a discourse about non-violent resistance and protest, specifically the example we analyzed was the work of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Dr. Martin Luther King was seen as a Religious and Ethnic Deviant (Dr. Stiler, 2009). I would also categorize Dr. King as one who practiced "resistance". He challenged the dominant and/or hegemonic white culture of American Society. Specifically he focused on oppressive races, class, and authoritarianism. Discussing Dr. King's practices allowed me to connect his efforts to our efforts today. Our Goals for social and educational justice focus on transforming the culture of schools as well as the culture of our society. Other theorists that support such change are Arnowitz and Giroux. They state that not all oppositional behaviors have radical intentions (1985). What may be viewed as resisitance, may actually be only a deviant act. Regardless, the intention is to transform society and cultural norms.
The lesson learned for me was that earlier in my studies within this program I viewed Dr. King's acts as criminal in nature, regardless of intent. I analyzed his behavior strictly from a dominant culture point of view, based on the law and nothing else. Without question, I understood the intent of his actions. However, I did not agree with breaking the law. But if he didn't break the written law, new laws would not have been inacted. Change towards equality may have been delayed for many more years to come. His intellectual courage gave him the strength and willingness to sacrifice his own saftey and subsequently his life to transform the dominant culture of this society, to a society that actually started to see all men and women as equals. Of course this journey continues to take place, even today, the struggles continue in our cities and in our classrooms.
The day after President Obama's inauguration, I read an article on MSN.com that described Obama as being a transformational leader. It is evident that he intends on transforming the cultural beliefs of this country, as Dr. King did as well. However, this is the beginning of his journey. Over time, we will see if he is truly a tranformational leader. We will see if he chooses to resist the norms of our society and the norms of our government. Will he possess the same intellectual courage that Dr. King possessed? We will soon see. I pray that he does and I look forward to fighting the battle that he is about to enter, and to assist him with doing my part towards transforming our country to a country that truly promotes democracy and freedom for all men and women based on one reason, because they are Americans, and human beings, nothing else.
Dr. Martin Luther King was seen as a Religious and Ethnic Deviant (Dr. Stiler, 2009). I would also categorize Dr. King as one who practiced "resistance". He challenged the dominant and/or hegemonic white culture of American Society. Specifically he focused on oppressive races, class, and authoritarianism. Discussing Dr. King's practices allowed me to connect his efforts to our efforts today. Our Goals for social and educational justice focus on transforming the culture of schools as well as the culture of our society. Other theorists that support such change are Arnowitz and Giroux. They state that not all oppositional behaviors have radical intentions (1985). What may be viewed as resisitance, may actually be only a deviant act. Regardless, the intention is to transform society and cultural norms.
The lesson learned for me was that earlier in my studies within this program I viewed Dr. King's acts as criminal in nature, regardless of intent. I analyzed his behavior strictly from a dominant culture point of view, based on the law and nothing else. Without question, I understood the intent of his actions. However, I did not agree with breaking the law. But if he didn't break the written law, new laws would not have been inacted. Change towards equality may have been delayed for many more years to come. His intellectual courage gave him the strength and willingness to sacrifice his own saftey and subsequently his life to transform the dominant culture of this society, to a society that actually started to see all men and women as equals. Of course this journey continues to take place, even today, the struggles continue in our cities and in our classrooms.
The day after President Obama's inauguration, I read an article on MSN.com that described Obama as being a transformational leader. It is evident that he intends on transforming the cultural beliefs of this country, as Dr. King did as well. However, this is the beginning of his journey. Over time, we will see if he is truly a tranformational leader. We will see if he chooses to resist the norms of our society and the norms of our government. Will he possess the same intellectual courage that Dr. King possessed? We will soon see. I pray that he does and I look forward to fighting the battle that he is about to enter, and to assist him with doing my part towards transforming our country to a country that truly promotes democracy and freedom for all men and women based on one reason, because they are Americans, and human beings, nothing else.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Metanarrative Analysis
Tonights metanarrative about the perception of female Disney characters reminded me of the days when I learned what Barbie Dolls were all about. I imagined that every woman should be a vuluptous woman who had a slender figure with prom queen hair.
Much to my disappointment, not all women looked like the Barbie Dolls and Disney ladies that I once watched on TV and seen in magazines. So why did I think this? Was I living in my own fantasyland? Of course I was. Disney, Mattel and others were able to capitalize on their marketing schemes that captivated young men with grand delusions of tall, vuluptous women. While destroying the self esteem and confidence of young girls and ladies that did not look like the figurine models and princess that both Disney and Mattel portrayed in their characters that they created and presented to the public and the world.
So why is it that we have manufacturers of products and propaganda that wants to create these images of what women should look like. Why can't our princecess and Barbie Dolls be short, fat, tall, skinny, or anything other then tall, slim, and endowed? Perhaps they have a prejudicial bias towards such physical appearance and stereotypical entitlements such as being a princess who will be swept off her feet into Paradise by her handsome, charming, tall, good looking Prince.
Is this the message we want our kids to see and learn? Of course not, our children should learn that we all have different appearance, different opportunities and that not all people are privileged. Perhaps we should portray young ladies that become independent and become role models to their siblings and peers. Perhaps we should show people immigrating to America and making their dreams come true through hard work and dedication to their goals. Very few of us will live the fairy tale dream. So what we once fantasized about, we eventually became depressed and discouraged about. Most of us didn't become the Prince or Princess. So did Disney fail us, or did Disney give us something to strive for? Some would say they failed and others would say why would we want to strive towards something that is not even a reality. Either way, their capitalistic view of what women should look like has had it's toll on the perception of society about what a woman "should" look like according to Disney and Mattel and not according to the Norms of our society and the "real world!" Even then, I sure would like to date a few more Barbie Dolls and Princesses, I wonder why??? ;-)
Much to my disappointment, not all women looked like the Barbie Dolls and Disney ladies that I once watched on TV and seen in magazines. So why did I think this? Was I living in my own fantasyland? Of course I was. Disney, Mattel and others were able to capitalize on their marketing schemes that captivated young men with grand delusions of tall, vuluptous women. While destroying the self esteem and confidence of young girls and ladies that did not look like the figurine models and princess that both Disney and Mattel portrayed in their characters that they created and presented to the public and the world.
So why is it that we have manufacturers of products and propaganda that wants to create these images of what women should look like. Why can't our princecess and Barbie Dolls be short, fat, tall, skinny, or anything other then tall, slim, and endowed? Perhaps they have a prejudicial bias towards such physical appearance and stereotypical entitlements such as being a princess who will be swept off her feet into Paradise by her handsome, charming, tall, good looking Prince.
Is this the message we want our kids to see and learn? Of course not, our children should learn that we all have different appearance, different opportunities and that not all people are privileged. Perhaps we should portray young ladies that become independent and become role models to their siblings and peers. Perhaps we should show people immigrating to America and making their dreams come true through hard work and dedication to their goals. Very few of us will live the fairy tale dream. So what we once fantasized about, we eventually became depressed and discouraged about. Most of us didn't become the Prince or Princess. So did Disney fail us, or did Disney give us something to strive for? Some would say they failed and others would say why would we want to strive towards something that is not even a reality. Either way, their capitalistic view of what women should look like has had it's toll on the perception of society about what a woman "should" look like according to Disney and Mattel and not according to the Norms of our society and the "real world!" Even then, I sure would like to date a few more Barbie Dolls and Princesses, I wonder why??? ;-)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)