Is it not true that, like all good Horatio Alger novels, the only thing standing in the way of unlimited success for each individual is a little initiative and a whole lot of elbow grease (whatever that is)?
Though the collective American consciousness holds firmly to the optimistic “American Dream” that initiative and hard work are the only ingredients needed for unlimited social mobility, the true reality is that every individual is constrained by numerous factors outside of his or her control that dictate economic and social outcomes. Think about your own life for a moment. There is a good chance you, along with every other person in our class, was dealt a pretty decent hand of privilege cards (likely middle to high class, with educated parents, and a cute dog named skip). What if you had been born the child of newly arrived illegal immigrant parents with little schooling, no advantageous social connections, and with no savings? Would it be likely that you would be part of this class and participating in this blog about social stratification and education? Doubtful (though there are always extraordinary exceptions to every generalized rule, let us focus on the rule and not the exception).
The point is that no matter how “fair,” “equal,” and “democratic” we believe America to be, there exists a well-defined social & economic hierarchy that is very difficult to advance in (there have been numerous studies that have reported the limited occurrences of true social mobility). And if you are like me, after this week’s readings you have now been awaken to the chilling reality that the great “democratic” American educational system is in fact one of the primary forces that preserve this inherently unequal and undemocratic structure in America.
The Practical Modern Debates:
1. High-Stakes Testing.
In brief, one of the strongest arguments against high-stakes testing is that they are biased towards the dominant culture, and thus necessarily handicap individuals not in line with dominant culture. Studies have shown that high-stakes tests often test more accurately for cultural capital than intellectual capital, thereby limiting educational mobility and preserving the status quo.
2. Narrowing the Achievement Gap.
Much of the debate concerning the achievement gap has focused on the perceived deficiencies in individual students and their cultures, thus placing the blame directly on the students for their failure. Though helpful in some ways, this outlook ignores the dramatic roles that schools play in contributing to the failure of minority students. The readings seem to lend viewing minority divergent from the dominant culture as different rather than deficient, and thus placing on educators the responsibility of explicitly equipping students with the skills and dispositions needed to succeed in the dominant culture.
Questions to think about and discuss.
- Do you agree with the authors that educational systems inconspicuously reproduce social and economic classes? Defend your answer.
- What implicit values, skills, and dispositions are needed in order to succeed in the American educational system? Why are these necessary and not others? Provide specific examples of how minority cultures differ in regards to the values, skills, and dispositions necessary to succeed in school. How can schools and educators explicitly teach these values, skills, and dispositions in order to promote minority student achievement?
- Is it possible to create a standardized test that is not culturally biased? If so, how? If not, what can be done to increase the equity of the test for members of minority cultures?
- Can you identify any other modern educational debates and/or issues that these readings apply to?
15 comments:
One of the most important things needed to succeed in the American educational system is a positive attitude of school in the home. Studies have shown a correlation between involved parents and high achievement in school. It is important that the 6 hours of school that a child goes to each day are not disregarded when a child gets home. Families where parents are able to focus on their child’s school achievement are important not only for the individual students, but for the teacher as well, so that through collaboration they can better educate the student and address their needs. It is my own feeling that interest breeds interest, and apathy breeds apathy. This happens not only in schools, but in businesses, social groups, and politics.
Also, addressing the issue of standardized tests and their cultural bias, I do not think that it is possible to fully eliminate cultural bias from tests; however I do feel that a decentralization of the test is the only way to even get close to having tests be fair. Currently we have standardized tests, but no standard curriculum. You cannot have one without the other, and since I feel that it would be foolish to disregard the differences in region by advocating a national curriculum, I think that standardized tests should not only be standardized by the region, but by the school district. This brings up a large amount of funding issues, but money aside, if a school district could create their own standardize tests, they would be far fairer, and eliminate teaching to the test. Since the school district knows all the different curriculum being used in the schools they could actually test the actual content of the curriculum (a novel concept). A school district knows its cultural make-up and is far less likely to disregard the different minority groups than is done so nationally.
I totally agree with Chuck about standardized testing. I also think that our current curricula, even though we are migrating away from this or attempting to, is still very Western based. So, in essence, it's monocultural instead of multicultural. As far as becoming culturally unbiased, I'm not sure if that is possible at all. Everything in history is linked to a culture because those moments come from different societies. Fortunately and unfortunately, the "moments" that our culture has deemed important, come from Europe and other Western thinking countries (i.e. many scientific, mathematical, and historical events). If we were to move to a less Western setting, America would have to change what they value, because what they value is what is getting taught.
After writing that, I feel like I wrote myself into a hole, so don't get me too hard :)
Even though I don't want to agree with the authors about systems creating classes, I am forced to based on observation. School zoning sets itself up to create these classes. Generally speaking (because generalizations exist for a reason), the upper class are very involved in the child's success in knowing exactly what they need to know to get there, who to talk to, what teachers to get, etc. and are a very active part in the child's education, and lower class children tend to have to worry about more "real life" issues where their parents aren't home to help them or capable of helping, or perhaps they're in high school and having to work to support the family instead of studying to "get that A." And the issue of bridging that gap is a very complicated issue because it all relates back to what happens at home. Unfortunately, not all schools get the same budget, which is also a reason why different classes get different education. Richer neighborhoods lend to more income tax, which better funds the schools in that district, which means that those students get the technology and instruction. Vice-versa for the lower class, and you guys know all of this.
As teachers, we cannot control what happens to the budget (really) or what happens at home. However, being AWARE and caring can help shape how to teach the curriculum to accommodate certain external factors so that the end result is close to the same as what you would ideally want.
Devri states, "If we were to move to a less Western setting, America would have to change what they value, because what they value is what is getting taught."
While I agree that curriculum is based upon what is valued in society, I would have to argue that these values remain somewhat constant around the world. Instead of specific subjects, I would like to argue the different skills resulting from subjects are what is really important cross-culturally. Learning how to learn, how to think, how to improvise and deal with the world around you are likely the most important things taught inside a school. (I guess it comes down to what we think education is really about).
These skills are really what can be considered the "national equalizers." While I admit that as Devri stated, "not all schools get the same budget" and people who are wealthier are provided more resources, there is no reason these people have to be equipped with more skills than those of lower SES. Just because they may not have the resources does not mean they do not have the same opportunities for learning. The same skills can be learned in different ways. It's about teachers getting creative and learning experiences becoming more meaningful...about passionate faculty who believe in students...and ultimately about students being passionate about their education (which will be a result of the prior).
Lower class students are able to learn the same skills as a student from higher class. The divisions of class could potentially be alleviated so long as these students are given educational opportunities (from teachers) that allow for the development and perfection of such skills. It becomes incredibly important for teachers to have high expectations for every student as well as opportunities for achievement. Only when a student believes in their ability inside of the classroom can they envision success in the future-however that success may be defined by the student.
I want to respond to Matthew's question regarding how and if these readings apply to any modern educational debates. As I am sure all of you know, it is no surprise that the current presidential race has addressed some of the issues Bourdieu raised. In the beginning of the semester we watched both McCain and Obama's opinions regarding education. I wanted to point out the last two minutes of Obama's "Education Plan" video (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/education/). Obama discusses how all students should be able to have lower-interest rate loans in order to further their education. Additionally, he discusses how some schools (specifically in "the corridor of shame" in South Carolina) have extremely limited funding and underpaid teachers and he talks about how every child needs to have a chance to excel. The video ends with him describing how we aren’t making an investment in all of the schools and that it’s “no wonder that children aren’t succeeding” because this shows to the children that we don’t truly “value” education.
The lack of equal funding for all schools I think is a major issue that contributes to the achievement gap. If all students were provided with the appropriate resources and funding at their schools…I think we would begin to see the achievement gap shrinking. Think about the articles we read regarding the Metro schools that received NCLB funding and how they were able to turn their schools around. The minute those schools lost their funding…the entire school (students, teachers and families) suffered.
I would like to address these two questions Matthew raises in his post:
Do you agree with the authors that educational systems inconspicuously reproduce social and economic classes?
How can schools and educators explicitly teach these values, skills, and dispositions in order to promote minority student achievement?
I do agree, but feel a little overwhelmed as to how to even tackle the topic. As an educator, I am responsible for not only helping children become knowledgeable and responsible persons, but also for giving them the tools they need in order to become active and intelligent citizens in society. With this great responsibility in mind, it is crucial that I am aware of curriculum ideologies that shape education as well as how the curriculum I implement in my classroom influences students perceptions of themselves and of the world.
Although there are efforts to improve opportunities for minorities and children of lower-income homes, the social mobility structure of public education only perpetuates the "white advantage."
Although I am still a strong believer in working hard and obtaining necessary degrees for life after school, I am much more aware of how my unintentional speak can give my students a false perception of the world around them. It seems only natural for a teacher to not name the many obstacles their students will encounter because one does not want to dishearten the spirits of their students, many of whom already have large loads to bear. But if we lead children into the world without truthful perspectives of the power structures that have and still do shape society, then we are doing our children a disservice and harming them rather than helping them. Especially since children are living these experiences and faced with these challenges everyday outside of school, to ignore them and pretend they are not there only insults and alienates them even more.
Through this understanding, I am more capable of educating children of diverse needs and backgrounds and provide them with the tools they need to succeed in system where the odds are against them. Little by little I am able to tear away at the stratified system of education by reorganizing the balance of power in my classroom and creating a community of learners where all children’s voices are heard. I am aware that this is not something done easily or quickly. When I am in the role of teacher, it is my responsibility to create a learning environment that acknowledges who my students are, where they come from, and where they are going. In order to be honest not only with myself but with my students as well, I must examine and critically analyze the curriculum I implement in my classroom within the context of the educational system strongly influenced by social mobility.
Matthew, your questions are really thought-provoking and can help us structure our thinking around the theories we read for this week. But not very many of them asked what we can do to make a difference. We've all seen and discussed the huge bureaucratic and, more importantly, ideological obstacles to altering the fundamental workings of a system, particularly one as monumental and deeply entrenched as education. Like Dr. McTamaney said, it's not malice or overt racism or classism that keeps the system the way it is, it's simply the people in charge working through the means and beliefs that they understand, and that worked for them--a fairly natural, human thing to do.
But there IS a lot of surprisingly overt racism and classism at the micro level of actual classrooms. I agree with Emily that what we need to do as teachers and future teachers (though I know not everybody in this class plans to go into the classroom) is "to have high expectations for every student as well as opportunities for achievement."
A few years ago, a more cynical me would have responded negatively to a statement like "Only when a student believes in their ability inside of the classroom can they envision success in the future-however that success may be defined by the student" (again, thanks Emily). But as I gain more experience, I'm beginning to see that this is not only the most accessible level on which we can make a difference, but perhaps the most important.
A lot of us are in Foundations of Education with Marcy Singer-Gabella, and we all seemed to be equally struck by an anecdote from one of our readings this past week. A researcher observed a 9th-grade English class for a year. In a high school that provided "choice-based" tracking into "regular," "honors," and "high honors," the administration did away with tracking for 9th grade English and instead put every student into a World Lit class taught at the "high honors" level. This raised a huge stink among parents of already successful students, who assumed that their kids would be "dragged down" by the other kids who would normally be in lower tracks. Many even withdrew their students and enrolled them in private schools. But as this researcher described, a lot of unique and extremely productive things happened in this racially and socio-economically mixed classroom. It wasn't a panacea, but it both assumed and proved what Emily said, that "Lower class students are able to learn the same skills as a student from higher class. The divisions of class could potentially be alleviated so long as these students are given educational opportunities (from teachers) that allow for the development and perfection of such skills."
The really sad part of the story, though, came at the end of the school year, and forgive me for this long quote, but I think it's really important:
"One day in the spring, I was shadowing a young White ninth-grader, Zach. It was the day he had to “choose” the level for his tenth-grade social studies. He and two African-American ninth-grade male students opted for high honors. I noted to myself how unusual it was for two African-American boys, in this system, to self-select into high honors. The town is filled with scuttlebutt that “the reason so few African-Americans are in high honors is that they don’t choose. Peer pressure, wanting to be with their friends, low self/teacher expectations keep them out.” Now, the threesome approached the social studies teacher’s desk and requested high honors. To my surprise, loud enough for us all to hear, the teacher responded, “High honors? You three are not mature enough to be in high honors. Honors will do.”
Zach, humiliated, visibly hurt and shaken, began pounding desks and lockers, insisting he would call his parents and appeal the teacher’s decision (all quiet admissible in this “choice” system). I approached the two other young men, the African-American students, and explained that they, too, could appeal. I would be glad to call home and suggest that their mother, father, or guardian elect high honors. They both “independently” responded, “No, that’s OK. I can be in honors. That will be fine.” And therein lies the perverse consequences of tracking, the limits of a “space” designed to interrupt hierarchy. As Franz Fanon (1967) predicted, Zach, the White boy, will appeal with an appropriate sense of outrage and entitlement. And he will prevail. The African-American boys didn’t, couldn’t, didn’t believe it was worth it, didn’t believe they deserved it. NO matter what the interior dialogue, the micropolitics of race and class operate through the bodies, the minds, the resistances, the assumptions, the resignations of youth.”
Just as one year’s experience being labeled and accepted as automatically “high honors” worthy encouraged these boys to continue thinking of themselves as high-honors performers, even in another subject area, one insensitive teacher’s comment and administrative pencil was enough to essentially undo all of that work—so powerful are the greater messages of tracking and the racial and class politics inherent in our system. I guess the moral of the story for us as teachers is to be careful with our words, because we can make a difference.
One topic that has been discussed in class was Teach for America. One of the claims of this organization is to recruit students from high ranking universities that are high achieving. In a sense they would be students who have large amounts of cultural capital. They have successfully navigated through the system to the top. They were successful on 'standardized test', most likely had very supportive families, and now have extensive knowledge in their field of study. Shouldn't we have teachers that can impart this cultural capital?
Once they leave the 2 year program, it is expected that they will play a continued role in education policy. Because they have succeeded on getting into top schools it can be assumed they understand how the dominate culture functions based on their cultural capital. Can we not also assume that they will be able to affected greater amounts of change because of the knowledge of the educational system and the students in them.
I'd like to respond specifically to Kate's post, because I think that she brings up a lot of good points. Yet again this week, our readings have focused on the failings of our society and education system. While I think it's important to recognize what's wrong with our society in order to do something to fix it, I can't help but get discouraged as I think about all the problems we have to face in education. Kate says, "As an educator, I am responsible for not only helping children become knowledgeable and responsible persons, but also for giving them the tools they need in order to become active and intelligent citizens in society." That's a pretty big load for just one person. And how are we supposed to do so much in so little time and with so few resources? As a high school teacher, I will only have my kids for an hour each day, an hour in which I will attempt to make 25 to 30 kids "knowledgeable and responsible persons" and "active and intelligent citizens." I will repeat this attempt six or seven times a day, making me responsible for 150 to 200 persons/citizens per year. When I think about this, I can't help but get discouraged.
While I think it's important for us to know the problems in society in order to know what we'll deal with in schools, I don't think that we, as individual educators can be held responsible for those huge societal deficiencies.
I like how Kate deals with this problem. She says, "Little by little I am able to tear away at the stratified system of education by reorganizing the balance of power in my classroom and creating a community of learners where all children’s voices are heard." This is similar to the classroom in the reading from Foundation of Ed, which Nicole brought up. In that classroom setting, the students were introduced to literature from a variety of cultures, and each student's voice was valued. While I don't think there's much we can do about the larger social issues that affect education - for instance, I can't personally close the achievement gap - I think it's important for us as teachers to make sure that racism, classism, sexism, etc. don't happen in our classroom. If I can create one space in the lives of my students that truly demonstrates equality, then I have accomplished something. I have shown them that equality is possible and they can be a part of it. I can't change their backgrounds or how society treats them, but, hopefully, even in a small way, I can affect the ways they see each other, the world, and their place in it.
Zach, that probably is one of the ideas behind Teach for America, but I have to question whether it makes sense. You're right that the college grads who enter Teach for America have a great deal of cultural capital, but most of them probably acquired it with little conscious effort. I know that I have trouble teaching things that I learned quickly and easily, because I never had to engage on a conscious level with the process of learning (that particular thing). Somehow I doubt that recent college grads who did well on standardized tests and successfully navigated the system of higher education have had enough opportunity to critically reflect on how their performance at the elementary school level, where they are likely to be teaching with Teach for America, contributed to that success, so I'm not sure what they would be passing on to their students.
I may be misinterpreting your comment, though--are you talking about the effect these Teach for America folks would have on the education system after their 2 years in the program?
Also, let it be said that I know surprisingly little about how Teach for America actually functions, so these are just the thoughts of a naive observer.
I would like to add to Nate's question on "Can you identify any other modern educational debates and/or issues that these readings apply to?"
After reading this week's Lareau article, we learn that the school's definition of parental involvement is in direct correlation with the behaviors and social culture of the mid to upper class. As teachers ( and I am included), we tend to judge a lack of parental involvement as a parent's lack of value in education. However, Lareau suggests that we are judging unfairly. We need to look at the factors in each child as is relates to their social class (such as parent's academic background, level of comfort in approaching academic matters, and resources available) in order to modify our ideas of what is termed "cultural capital" in the education world. Each social class possesses cultural capital and teachers should adapt their behaviors and previous notions on parental involvement to accommodate them.
Like Lindsay, I felt overwhelmed by last weeks readings and discussions. I found last weeks class particularly disheartening, and found myself reacting very strongly for various reasons. I don't want to go into my reactions, while pertinent to the discussion, because I am not convinced that I could explain things properly. However, something that struck me while reading this blog and the subsequent responses was the great focus on what is missing from the education system. WHile it is important to know what is unavailable, I think that focusing too much on that aspect of our education system hinders our abililty work with what is available. Sun Tzu said "We shall be unable to turn natural advantage to account unless we make use of local guides", which I understand to mean that we need to use resources that are available in order to be successful in our undertakings.
In particular, funding is mentioned a lot. As an educator, you should know that funding is unequally distributed, and lacking for the most part. However, instead of focusing on that, shouldn't you just acknowledge the problem and be creative in your teaching methods instead? Maybe if we don't dwell on what we probably can't change (I'm almost positive that we can't change how schools are funded) and instead work on using our imaginations, we will be better equiped to teach the children how to overcome disadvantages. I am not cynical enough to believe that social mobilization is impossible, and as such I feel a calling to help those students who are trying to get beyond their current circumstances. I won't succeed if all I do is focus on something I will never have.
You are all raising really compelling issues here... ones which I wish I could say there was clear consensus upon in the field, but alas...
I hear implicit in some of these comments (and explicit in others!) a growing frustration about what seems to be insurmountable issues in education. I want to address that proactively.
First, it's important to remember the structure of this course. We are just moving from our historical overview to the specific issues of social justice and equity. In order to understand richly the context of contemporary issues, it's important that you understand how they got where they are. I understand that can be disheartening, and I attribute that emotional response to the fact that you are all deeply concerned and committed to education.
It is not to say, though, that this is a course focused on all that's wrong. Time and again, the research supports two specific areas that both significantly impact student achievement AND lie within the role of teachers to affect. The first is parental involvement (which we'll unpack this week.) The second is teacher capacity (which, hopefully, you are being supported in developing in your other coursework!)
There are, indeed, enormous challenges in the way that our schools are structured, in the seeming inconsistency of values there and in our larger cultural chaos about the role and expectations of these critical environments. But there are enormous opportunities as well, which many of you have acknowledged, to nonetheless do this work and to do it well.
Jacques Barzun said, “In teaching you cannot see the fruit of a day's work. It is invisible and remains so, maybe for twenty years.”In Montessori, we refer to it as teaching the "unseen child."
It may be little consolation, but I have no doubt that the same vigor and commitment and frustration that you bring to class every week you'll eventually bring to your own classrooms (yes, even you, Zachary & Michelle!)... and that it will be in the small influences of exceptional teachers that we will make the greatest change.
I know you've seen it before, but go watch Dalton again: http://www.teachertube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=3d732ec124eb9aef562f
Thank you for the reminder, Dr. McTamaney. I don't want to overload with inspirational videos, but here is one I always watch when I need a few goosebumps:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpog1_NFd2Q
This is Taylor Mali, former 7th grade teacher and current slam poet. This clip is his performance on Def Poetry Jam. It's called "What Teachers Make." Different versions of this poem have circulated online, but nothing beats the original version, and Taylor Mali's delivery. This is what he has to say about it: http://www.taylormali.com/index.cfm?webid=51
After reading everyone's rather intense and through comments, I don't have much more to add to the subject, but I will comment on the positive aspects that Dr. McTamaney mentioned.
I think it's important for all of us to be aware of these issues and how they impact our careers as well as how we operate with children. However, I also think it's important for us not to get so caught up in how bad the system is.
Many of us here are and/or know people who have successfully made their way through the system of education, so obviously it's not all that bad. I think we need to be aware of all of these issues and know the negatives and positives they present, but only to further empower our abilities.
I'm in a positive mood right now, but I really believe that we as teachers have much more influence on the situation then it may seem.
Post a Comment