1. While there is a clear contrast between cultural deficit theory and cultural difference theory, cultural subordination theory is presented as flowing conceptually from cultural difference theory. What are the conceptual connections between these latter two theories, in your view, and what difference might these connections make to the classroom teacher?
Mere differences, in and of themselves, may not place one particular culture in a position of dominance. This occurs only when differences are accompanied by wide population discrepancy. The majority will tend to "dominate," simply because it is the majority, not necessarily because it is superior. The situation is free of ethical snarls until you reach the question of how this domination is to be handled.
Difference theory recognizes and makes allowances for cultural variety. Subordination theory seeks to understand why this variety tends to place certain cultural groups at a disadvantage. Teachers can use subordination theory to guard against a creeping, unconscious discrimination that difference theory does not entirely address.
2. Enid Lee says there is "no neutral ground" regarding taking multicultural education seriously. What does she mean by this, and do you agree? Explain.
Lee is saying that, since this issue affects every aspect of schooling, teachers will be treating it in a particular way, whether this treatment is deliberate or not. You can ignore the question in principle, but not in practice. While I'm sure I don't agree with all of Lee's prescription, I do see the logic in this portion of her analysis.
3. Lee writes, "What we are talking about here is pretty radical; multicultural education is about challenging the status quo and the basis of power. You need administrative support to do that." This seems like a contradiction: can teachers really expect administrators, who hold the greatest power in the school building, and in the school district, to support a challenge to the basis of their power? How might Lee be interpreted so that her argument is valid? How might she be interpreted so that her position is faulty? Explain.
Administrators may be persuaded to adjust their policies, but not necessarily to relinquish their power. Like most people, they are convinced of the correctness of their opinions, and will work to maintain their authority in order to most effectively propagate their views.
If by using the word "power" Lee is referring to some force other than the administration, the statement holds up. However, what she may be referring to specifically is unclear, and in the context of revolution, the statement does seem rather contradictory.
4. Several different views of multicultural education were presented in the chapter: not just the five taken from Grant and Sleeter, but also James Bank's view and the authors' implicit position as well. Are any of these viewpoints consistent with Enid Lee's concept of anti-racist education? Are any inconsistent? Explain how closely her perspective is reflected in selected perspectives from this chapter.
Enid Lee tacitly extends her concept of anti-racist education to include liberal education. ("I encourage people to look for the voice of people who are frequently silenced, people we haven't heard from: people of color, women, poor people, working-class people, people with disabilities, and gays and lesbians.") This is a substantial departure from a true anti-racist agenda.
The various viewpoints were defined clearly enough to usefully delineate between them.
5. In what regard might it be said that bilingual education is a form of multicultural education? To what degree is bilingual education consistent or inconsistent with Enid Lee's conception of anti-racist education? Explain your position on both questions.
Language figures a prominent part in any culture. To practice bilingual education is to practice multicultural education, although in a basic sense. To naturally expand bilingual education to include content drawn from the culture of the language being studied reinforces the multicultural nature of the instruction.
To the extent that bilingual education is based on an affirmation of student's inherent cultural identity, it seems to align with Lee's position. Bilingual education with the goal of assimilation or subordination, however, is incongruent with Lee's opinions.
6. If you do not speak Spanish and therefore cannot offer bilingual instruction, how can you best support the learning of children whose first language is Spanish and who are limited in their English proficiency? How does this relate to the approach you will use with speakers of English as a second language from other language backgrounds, such as those of Asia or Eastern Europe? Finally, is any aspect of your approach relevant to supporting student learning for speakers of black English vernacular? Explain your position on all three issues.
1) Learn Spanish.
2) You can't learn every language, but you can show sensitivity and understanding toward students with an alternate first language besides English. Activities that draw out and develop their core strengths should be pursued, while those that communicate a sense of inferiority should be avoided.
3) Students who use black English vernacular should be treated as speakers of a distinct dialect, but should be informed about how their diction - for better or worse - is perceived by the larger society. For education to paint a rosy, unrealistic picture in the name of non-discrimination is hardly useful.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Monday, April 23, 2007
School & Society: Ch. 12 Study Questions
1. As you consider the prospects of academic success for Wind-Wolf in the reading for this chapter, how do you assess his potential as a learner in American schools? What characteristics in Wind-Wolf, in the school, and in the interaction between the student and the school need to be addressed to answer this question thoroughly? Finally, how can teachers best respond to Wind-Wolf to make his academic success as well as his cultural self-respect more likely? Support your position.
Every aspect of this situation is colored by the problem of compulsion. The institution need be under no obligation to provide a custom-fit education for each child, provided the child is under no obligation to be in attendance. As a result of requiring attendance, the institution is working overtime merely to avoid destroying cultural minority students, let alone make them into successes.
Indian culture places less value on academic success than the dominant culture. The two interests are therefore incompatible. Assimilation is denied in name but carried out in practicality.
2. We often think of "motivation" as a highly individualistic character trait. Individuals within any racial or ethnic group may be highly motivated to achieve or apparently lacking in motivation altogether. Yet some authors argue that ethnicity is important in shaping motivation to learn and other attitudes toward schooling. Evaluate this argument.
Different ethnicities should not be stereotyped as more or less motivated. I agree that motivation is very much an individual quality. However, there may be cultural passwords that unlock barriers and help develop motivation in students from varying racial backgrounds. In this respect the argument may have some merit.
3. This chapter focuses on gender as well as on race, ethnicity, and social class in considering the issue of educational and social equity as it concerns different groups of students. To what degree do you find that considering all these different variables in one treatment obscures important differences among them, and to what degree does it illuminate similarities that are profitably considered together? Defend your view.
1) The ideology of equity presented in this chapter parallels the ethnic divide with the gender divide. This is a mistake. There is a fundamental disparity between the sexes in regard to physical, emotional, and mental composition. Denying the distinction is disastrous. Society has taken up arms because they confuse diversity with inferiority.
2) It is useful to analyze these issues in company, as Education must develop a comprehensive answer to them. And all of these issues together deplore the weakness of a centralized institution in engaging the diverse needs of a multi-faceted society.
Every aspect of this situation is colored by the problem of compulsion. The institution need be under no obligation to provide a custom-fit education for each child, provided the child is under no obligation to be in attendance. As a result of requiring attendance, the institution is working overtime merely to avoid destroying cultural minority students, let alone make them into successes.
Indian culture places less value on academic success than the dominant culture. The two interests are therefore incompatible. Assimilation is denied in name but carried out in practicality.
2. We often think of "motivation" as a highly individualistic character trait. Individuals within any racial or ethnic group may be highly motivated to achieve or apparently lacking in motivation altogether. Yet some authors argue that ethnicity is important in shaping motivation to learn and other attitudes toward schooling. Evaluate this argument.
Different ethnicities should not be stereotyped as more or less motivated. I agree that motivation is very much an individual quality. However, there may be cultural passwords that unlock barriers and help develop motivation in students from varying racial backgrounds. In this respect the argument may have some merit.
3. This chapter focuses on gender as well as on race, ethnicity, and social class in considering the issue of educational and social equity as it concerns different groups of students. To what degree do you find that considering all these different variables in one treatment obscures important differences among them, and to what degree does it illuminate similarities that are profitably considered together? Defend your view.
1) The ideology of equity presented in this chapter parallels the ethnic divide with the gender divide. This is a mistake. There is a fundamental disparity between the sexes in regard to physical, emotional, and mental composition. Denying the distinction is disastrous. Society has taken up arms because they confuse diversity with inferiority.
2) It is useful to analyze these issues in company, as Education must develop a comprehensive answer to them. And all of these issues together deplore the weakness of a centralized institution in engaging the diverse needs of a multi-faceted society.
Friday, April 20, 2007
School & Society: Ch. 11 Study Questions
1. This chapter contrasts the aims of vocational and liberal education. To what degree are these aims significantly different, and to what degree are they similar? Explain and defend your point of view.
The aims of vocational education are narrow, practical, and defined; the aims of liberal education are broad and full of possibility. Vocational education aims to prepare the individual towards a particular end; liberal education aims to prepare the individual for life in general, and to give him the ability and confidence to choose this end for himself. It is not that they are aiming at separate targets but rather that liberal education is aiming at a larger one. Liberal education casts a wide net, knowing that the vocational question will be answered somewhere within this larger circle.
2. This chapter appears to take the position that (a) all students are capable of benefiting from an academic, as opposed to a vocational education, and (b) an academic curriculum is the most appropriate one for all students. To what degree does the chapter adequately support this position, and to what degree to you agree with it? Justify your position.
The text's pursuit of objectivity is somewhat admirable, but it hinders the author's ability to defend a specific, subjective position. Therefore, I think the material presented in this chapter would be inadequate for anyone who was inclined to disagree with the position. A stronger case could be made.
I agree with these points with a few reservations. I would hold that all students may be capable of benefiting from an academic education, by which clarification I wish to imply that this should not be determined by educational establishment, but rather by the students themselves. As to the second point, I agree that an academic curriculum is fundamentally appropriate for all, but it need not be the only curriculum used. Other curriculum, especially curriculum that is more kinetic, should not be ostracized.
3. It was remarked early in the chapter, in response to the purposes of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Act Amendments of 1990, that "critics will continue to observe that educational goals framed in terms of the needs of the workplace, instead of in terms of the full intellectual development of students, are not educational goals at all, but are instead economic goals in which students are but means to ends that do not serve their interests well." To what degree do you find that the historical record supports this criticism? Support your view.
This is noble rhetoric, to be sure, but it must be evaluated in light of the economic problems presented by publicly subsidized education. No economy has the luxury of placing all of it's children in ivory-tower schools devoted ad nauseum to the "full intellectual development of students." This is simply impractical. It is only reasonable for a society that has taken upon itself the financial burden and responsibility for education to be interested in what it is getting for its money and effort. This is another instance showing that the privatization of education would be a wise move.
The critics raise a valid point, but it is not one that the present educational institution - caught in the whirlpool of socialism - can answer.
4. Evaluate John Duffy's argument in favor of mixed-ability group instruction at the secondary level, and explain the degree to which his argument is relevant to critics' concern about vocational education.
There is substantial and legitimate value in learning in a peer context, but this structure has been pursued to unhealthy excess. Learning properly takes place in a community context, which includes, but is not limited to, peer groups. To make education a strictly peer activity is a mistake.
The critics seem to oppose the very idea of a "track." Duffy argues that a "track" may be useful, provided it is voluntarily chosen by, not imposed on, the student.
5. Duffy focuses not on the contrast between vocational education and liberal education, but instead on the idea of a "critical pedagogy." What does he mean by that term, and how similar or dissimilar is it to the aims and methods of liberal and vocational education? Support your view.
By "critical pedagogy," Duffy means an educational method that respects the student, expects the student to excel, emphasizes dialogue, and seeks to stimulate the student's native innate to learn. This approach can be used in different settings: liberal education, vocational education, or even, (as Duffy seems to advocate,) liberal vocational education.
6. Critics have argued that liberal education is an outmoded ideal because it is grounded in an educational approach that is historically racist, elitist, and gender-biased. To what degree does Duffy's approach appear to be consistent with liberal education ideals and yet responsive to these criticisms? Defend your positions.
This seems to be an attempt to brand liberal ideology as guilty by association. If we accept this logic, it seems we must also discard the Constitution, which was conceived amidst the same historical climate of "bias." Great truths articulated by great thinkers and borne out through the annals of history should not be discarded because they step on our sociologically sensitive toes. They can be adapted to modern social sensibilities with little effort, at least less effort that is expended in reinventing the wheel.
7. Grubb identifies seven important purposes to be served by the new integration of vocational and liberal education. To what degree are these an improvement on the traditional goals of vocational programs, and to what degree is it likely that these goals will be successfully achieved in the new integration? Support your assessment.
These purposes are an improvement over traditional goals of vocational programs in that they shift the end responsibility for the student's proper placement and subsequent success from the establishment to the student. Instead of the institution accepting responsibility for directing students, it instead accepts responsibility for equipping students to direct themselves. Both intellectual and vocational programs are made available to all, and imposed on none.
The success or failure of this integration depends on how effectively teachers can reshape their educational ideology to fit Duffy's "critical pedagogy." To achieve these goals will require more effort from all.
The aims of vocational education are narrow, practical, and defined; the aims of liberal education are broad and full of possibility. Vocational education aims to prepare the individual towards a particular end; liberal education aims to prepare the individual for life in general, and to give him the ability and confidence to choose this end for himself. It is not that they are aiming at separate targets but rather that liberal education is aiming at a larger one. Liberal education casts a wide net, knowing that the vocational question will be answered somewhere within this larger circle.
2. This chapter appears to take the position that (a) all students are capable of benefiting from an academic, as opposed to a vocational education, and (b) an academic curriculum is the most appropriate one for all students. To what degree does the chapter adequately support this position, and to what degree to you agree with it? Justify your position.
The text's pursuit of objectivity is somewhat admirable, but it hinders the author's ability to defend a specific, subjective position. Therefore, I think the material presented in this chapter would be inadequate for anyone who was inclined to disagree with the position. A stronger case could be made.
I agree with these points with a few reservations. I would hold that all students may be capable of benefiting from an academic education, by which clarification I wish to imply that this should not be determined by educational establishment, but rather by the students themselves. As to the second point, I agree that an academic curriculum is fundamentally appropriate for all, but it need not be the only curriculum used. Other curriculum, especially curriculum that is more kinetic, should not be ostracized.
3. It was remarked early in the chapter, in response to the purposes of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Act Amendments of 1990, that "critics will continue to observe that educational goals framed in terms of the needs of the workplace, instead of in terms of the full intellectual development of students, are not educational goals at all, but are instead economic goals in which students are but means to ends that do not serve their interests well." To what degree do you find that the historical record supports this criticism? Support your view.
This is noble rhetoric, to be sure, but it must be evaluated in light of the economic problems presented by publicly subsidized education. No economy has the luxury of placing all of it's children in ivory-tower schools devoted ad nauseum to the "full intellectual development of students." This is simply impractical. It is only reasonable for a society that has taken upon itself the financial burden and responsibility for education to be interested in what it is getting for its money and effort. This is another instance showing that the privatization of education would be a wise move.
The critics raise a valid point, but it is not one that the present educational institution - caught in the whirlpool of socialism - can answer.
4. Evaluate John Duffy's argument in favor of mixed-ability group instruction at the secondary level, and explain the degree to which his argument is relevant to critics' concern about vocational education.
There is substantial and legitimate value in learning in a peer context, but this structure has been pursued to unhealthy excess. Learning properly takes place in a community context, which includes, but is not limited to, peer groups. To make education a strictly peer activity is a mistake.
The critics seem to oppose the very idea of a "track." Duffy argues that a "track" may be useful, provided it is voluntarily chosen by, not imposed on, the student.
5. Duffy focuses not on the contrast between vocational education and liberal education, but instead on the idea of a "critical pedagogy." What does he mean by that term, and how similar or dissimilar is it to the aims and methods of liberal and vocational education? Support your view.
By "critical pedagogy," Duffy means an educational method that respects the student, expects the student to excel, emphasizes dialogue, and seeks to stimulate the student's native innate to learn. This approach can be used in different settings: liberal education, vocational education, or even, (as Duffy seems to advocate,) liberal vocational education.
6. Critics have argued that liberal education is an outmoded ideal because it is grounded in an educational approach that is historically racist, elitist, and gender-biased. To what degree does Duffy's approach appear to be consistent with liberal education ideals and yet responsive to these criticisms? Defend your positions.
This seems to be an attempt to brand liberal ideology as guilty by association. If we accept this logic, it seems we must also discard the Constitution, which was conceived amidst the same historical climate of "bias." Great truths articulated by great thinkers and borne out through the annals of history should not be discarded because they step on our sociologically sensitive toes. They can be adapted to modern social sensibilities with little effort, at least less effort that is expended in reinventing the wheel.
7. Grubb identifies seven important purposes to be served by the new integration of vocational and liberal education. To what degree are these an improvement on the traditional goals of vocational programs, and to what degree is it likely that these goals will be successfully achieved in the new integration? Support your assessment.
These purposes are an improvement over traditional goals of vocational programs in that they shift the end responsibility for the student's proper placement and subsequent success from the establishment to the student. Instead of the institution accepting responsibility for directing students, it instead accepts responsibility for equipping students to direct themselves. Both intellectual and vocational programs are made available to all, and imposed on none.
The success or failure of this integration depends on how effectively teachers can reshape their educational ideology to fit Duffy's "critical pedagogy." To achieve these goals will require more effort from all.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
School & Society: Ch. 10 Study Questions
1. Jurgen Herbst was cited for arguing that professionalization in teaching has historically brought teaching under bureaucratic control, whereas professionalism in teaching emphasizes "the recognition and practice of a teacher's right and obligation to determine his or her own professional tasks in the classroom." To what degree, in your view, does the historical record support Herbst's contention? Further, has the historical trend been more positive or negative for teaching as an occupation? Defend your view on both counts.
There is a fundamental difference between pursuing rewards and earning them. As Booker T. Washington believed, it is usually more effective to work hard to merit your rights or rewards than to just sullenly insist on them. There is much wisdom in this humble strategy. And racial prejudice has a much stronger justification for revolution than wage dissatisfaction, which is more or less a reflection of the objective equilibrium of the market.
In the main, I believe the historical evidence supports Herbst's position. The wheels of justice and balance may grind slowly, but they grind inevitably.
It seems trends in teaching are more positive than trends in the educational institution as a whole, judging by the polls presented in this chapter and also the general mood of society, which seems to place the blame chiefly on the system, not the teachers.
2. This chapter noted on several occasions that the current professionalization movement stems from an expressed need to improve the quality of schooling in the United States. In your view, is professionalization of teaching a good way to improve schooling? Why or why not?
To the extent that professionalization means centralization and bureaucracy, it reeks of impotence. Hope for education lies in returning to a grassroots approach, emphasizing relationships, infusing interest, and custom-fitting the educational experience to the needs of each student. This dictates that most if not all primary and secondary education should occur at home.
Professionalization avoids the obvious and effective solution of privatization, where professionalization might take place on its own, as a natural result. This would, however, reduce the teaching industry to a much smaller size, consisting mostly of highly specialized teachers and schools. What the NEA and AFT are attempting to do is sail the ship faster without discarding any of the accumulated dead weight, which is economically impossible.
3. One might argue that this chapter has been unduly critical of the Holmes and Carnegie reports of 1985 in their efforts to improve the profession of teaching. In your view, what features of the Holmes and Carnegie reports are most promising for improving the quality of teaching and schooling? Are those features implementable, given the political, economic, and ideological realities of schooling in the United States? Defend your view.
Under the current model, advocates of professionalization have little choice but to take teaching farther down the centralization road - indeed, this is true of any industry. As long as the goal of such profession-reformers is to make more money and command more respect, it will be frustrated. The proper goal is to excel in teaching, and in this respect - and this respect only - certain features of the Homes and Carnegie reports may be useful. Effective implementation depends on the embracing of these ideals by the industry as a whole, which seems unlikely.
4. This chapter lists several reasons, from the economic to the ideological to the demographic, for the relatively low professional status of teaching. In your view, are there other reasons that should be included, or do the reasons presented have adequate explanatory value? Explain.
There is another reason, and that is the public nature of the industry. Is it surprising that it differs from other professions in so many respects when it is structured so different on a fundamental level? Were the education industry privatized, it would be spurred to excellence and rewarded accordingly by the tireless force of the market, instead of being petted and subsidized into apathy by a government that does not know what else to do.
5. Given that professional status, autonomy, and the material reward structure in teaching compare poorly to those of other professions, what do you expect to derive from teaching in terms of personal rewards? What evidence do you find in this chapter that your expectations are likely or not likely to be met? How adequate is that evidence, in your view? Explain your position.
Communicating information, knowledge, and skill is a rewarding task, in and of itself. Good teachers find purpose in the raw thrill of knowledge and the earned appreciativeness and stimulated enthusiasm of their students. Statistical evidence from this chapter suggests that roughly half to three-fourths of the teaching force is satisfied in a general sense with their work and worth. This evidence seems to accurately reflect the stability of the occupation as observed in the real world.
6. This chapter has presented a skeptical viewpoint toward the value of professionalization as a response to current problems in schooling. Yet, the Primary Source Reading by the National Commission clearly supports a national teaching board to enhance professionalism in teaching. Do you find their position persuasive? Does Barringer's point of view necessarily conflict with the view expressed in this chapter? Explain.
The National Commission seems to understand that to merit higher wages and higher respect one must work harder. And yet, in pursuing such zealous centralization and standardization, the Commission is further compromising the autonomy of the teacher, who is supposed to be the end-beneficiary. The Commission may be doing all it can from within the current government-based institutional model, but the experiment seems doomed to failure, as the necessary ingredients for a respectable, robust profession - not the least of which is competition - are still being overlooked.
There is a fundamental difference between pursuing rewards and earning them. As Booker T. Washington believed, it is usually more effective to work hard to merit your rights or rewards than to just sullenly insist on them. There is much wisdom in this humble strategy. And racial prejudice has a much stronger justification for revolution than wage dissatisfaction, which is more or less a reflection of the objective equilibrium of the market.
In the main, I believe the historical evidence supports Herbst's position. The wheels of justice and balance may grind slowly, but they grind inevitably.
It seems trends in teaching are more positive than trends in the educational institution as a whole, judging by the polls presented in this chapter and also the general mood of society, which seems to place the blame chiefly on the system, not the teachers.
2. This chapter noted on several occasions that the current professionalization movement stems from an expressed need to improve the quality of schooling in the United States. In your view, is professionalization of teaching a good way to improve schooling? Why or why not?
To the extent that professionalization means centralization and bureaucracy, it reeks of impotence. Hope for education lies in returning to a grassroots approach, emphasizing relationships, infusing interest, and custom-fitting the educational experience to the needs of each student. This dictates that most if not all primary and secondary education should occur at home.
Professionalization avoids the obvious and effective solution of privatization, where professionalization might take place on its own, as a natural result. This would, however, reduce the teaching industry to a much smaller size, consisting mostly of highly specialized teachers and schools. What the NEA and AFT are attempting to do is sail the ship faster without discarding any of the accumulated dead weight, which is economically impossible.
3. One might argue that this chapter has been unduly critical of the Holmes and Carnegie reports of 1985 in their efforts to improve the profession of teaching. In your view, what features of the Holmes and Carnegie reports are most promising for improving the quality of teaching and schooling? Are those features implementable, given the political, economic, and ideological realities of schooling in the United States? Defend your view.
Under the current model, advocates of professionalization have little choice but to take teaching farther down the centralization road - indeed, this is true of any industry. As long as the goal of such profession-reformers is to make more money and command more respect, it will be frustrated. The proper goal is to excel in teaching, and in this respect - and this respect only - certain features of the Homes and Carnegie reports may be useful. Effective implementation depends on the embracing of these ideals by the industry as a whole, which seems unlikely.
4. This chapter lists several reasons, from the economic to the ideological to the demographic, for the relatively low professional status of teaching. In your view, are there other reasons that should be included, or do the reasons presented have adequate explanatory value? Explain.
There is another reason, and that is the public nature of the industry. Is it surprising that it differs from other professions in so many respects when it is structured so different on a fundamental level? Were the education industry privatized, it would be spurred to excellence and rewarded accordingly by the tireless force of the market, instead of being petted and subsidized into apathy by a government that does not know what else to do.
5. Given that professional status, autonomy, and the material reward structure in teaching compare poorly to those of other professions, what do you expect to derive from teaching in terms of personal rewards? What evidence do you find in this chapter that your expectations are likely or not likely to be met? How adequate is that evidence, in your view? Explain your position.
Communicating information, knowledge, and skill is a rewarding task, in and of itself. Good teachers find purpose in the raw thrill of knowledge and the earned appreciativeness and stimulated enthusiasm of their students. Statistical evidence from this chapter suggests that roughly half to three-fourths of the teaching force is satisfied in a general sense with their work and worth. This evidence seems to accurately reflect the stability of the occupation as observed in the real world.
6. This chapter has presented a skeptical viewpoint toward the value of professionalization as a response to current problems in schooling. Yet, the Primary Source Reading by the National Commission clearly supports a national teaching board to enhance professionalism in teaching. Do you find their position persuasive? Does Barringer's point of view necessarily conflict with the view expressed in this chapter? Explain.
The National Commission seems to understand that to merit higher wages and higher respect one must work harder. And yet, in pursuing such zealous centralization and standardization, the Commission is further compromising the autonomy of the teacher, who is supposed to be the end-beneficiary. The Commission may be doing all it can from within the current government-based institutional model, but the experiment seems doomed to failure, as the necessary ingredients for a respectable, robust profession - not the least of which is competition - are still being overlooked.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
School & Society: Ch. 9 Study Questions
1. What, in your view, does the functional literacy perspective contribute to our understanding of the political economy of literacy in the United States? If these are valuable contributions, is the functional approach an adequate view of literacy on which to base educational policy? Explain.
Each level of literacy builds on the preceding one, and each one adds more layers to the richness and complexity of society - from the bare bones conventional society, to the full-orbed cultural society, to the fearless and dynamic critical society. Functional literacy tells us how many people have the knowledge and skills to operate within society at a basic level, and this information is useful, as far as it goes. This level of literacy, however, should be expected as a bare minimum, and our actual educational efforts ought to be aimed much higher.
Therefore, while educational policy should be informed by the functional literacy perspective, it should not be based on it. To be merely functional is to be inert, and to be inert is to recede, for society must develop and grow if it is to thrive and prosper.
2. E.D. Hirsch argues that his conception of cultural literacy preserves the connection between literacy and liberty found in the views of Thomas Jefferson and Martin Luther King. Do you agree? Explain.
The difference between cultural and critical literacy is not knowledge and information, it is attitude and action. The presence of a critical literacy is less dependent on specific educational content and more dependent on the nature of educational institutions and instruction, and indeed the nature of society as a whole. The need for critical literacy is another problem that betrays the inadequacies of the institutional model, which by nature is defined by compliance, not subversion. But I digress.
In the case of Jefferson or King, we can see that these men translated their profound cultural literacy into critical action. This required a particular kind of upbringing and a good deal of raw courage. Not every student will be a Jefferson or King, but what made these men great is worthy of study and emulation. We must develop educational content that informs the student, and an educational and social environment that encourages him to do something with this information.
3. To what degree do you find the critical literacy perspective consistent with John Dewey's democratic ideal, expressed in Chapter 4, of "the all-around growth of every member of society"? Explain how critical literacy theory does or does not serve this ideal.
The "all-around growth of every member of society" is not always equivalent to the all-around growth of society itself. Critical literacy is subversive, dangerous, and robustly democratic - imagine: teaching people to think for themselves! And yet, while the critical faculty is a necessary component of the complete man, it need not be overemphasized to the excess of chronic cynicism.
4. What features of contemporary U.S. ideology and political economy come to light in the critical literacy perspective that do not emerge in the other literacy perspectives? In your view, should teachers try to take these features into account in their approaches to teaching? Explain.
Critical literacy begins to expose the deterioration of the pure democratic ideal in American society; it enables you to "rethink the system." Democracy is dependent on the acceptance of personal responsibility at the individual level. This has become distasteful for most of the population, as it tends to involve a great deal of work.
As educators we can withstand the "dumbing down" of society by instilling in those we teach a vigorous work ethic, a sense of ownership regarding the well-being of others, and a respectful distrust for the status quo.
5. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the critical literacy perspective, in your view, as illustrated in Bigelow and Christensen's classroom? If you identify any practical obstacles to such a pedagogy, to what degree are they grounded in political-economic and ideological conditions in the United States? Are these conditions insurmountable - or is critical literacy theory an inadequate foundation on which to base teaching aims and educational policy in the first place? Defend your position.
Critical literacy is a valuable concept, but it is inconsistent with the institutional model. We must go one step further and reevaluate the viability of institutionalized education. The exercise conducted by Bigelow and Christensen is ironically revealing in this regard: "almost half the instances of rights violations took place in school." Does that not tell us something?
I maintain that we should not teach criticism for its own sake, but rather a broad and keen cultural awareness that leaves the door open for criticism, if and when it became necessary. As Bigelow observes, unchecked emphasis on criticism is counterproductive: "The danger of students becoming terribly cynical as they come to understand the enormity of injustice in this society and in the world is just too great." We need not accept where we are, but we must begin where we are.
6. What kinds of learning seem to be taking place in Bigelow and Christensen's classroom that might not likely take place in other classrooms? At what expense, if any, is such learning taking place? Explain and defend your view.
What Bigelow and Christensen are doing, in part, is doing away with the intimidating awe of the "right answer" and showing that all answers have some value, provided they are genuine and intelligent. They are attempting to create a human connection that validates their students and gives them the confidence and energy necessary to excel. They are bringing out the jumper cables. We do not wish to take the student all sorts of places in our own vehicle - we wish to teach him to drive.
This learning is taking place at the risk of creating an arrogant, disrespectful attitude. The satisfaction of an argument won, or a slight avenged, is remembered. Without counterweights, validation can turn to flattery and lasting damage may be done to the student and the society which must endure him.
7. Which of the perspectives on literacy presented in this chapter do you think is the most important for individual teachers and for schools in general to embrace in the United States today? Defend your view, taking into account relevant dimensions of political economy and ideology as you understand them.
I choose cultural literacy, as students today are already too convinced of their own omnipotence to be fed more critical literacy. Besides, we must have something to be critical about, and that is being lost. Students are not tackling the big questions. They are not capable of interacting with the volume and complexity of cultural and international issues. This deficiency must be set right.
Each level of literacy builds on the preceding one, and each one adds more layers to the richness and complexity of society - from the bare bones conventional society, to the full-orbed cultural society, to the fearless and dynamic critical society. Functional literacy tells us how many people have the knowledge and skills to operate within society at a basic level, and this information is useful, as far as it goes. This level of literacy, however, should be expected as a bare minimum, and our actual educational efforts ought to be aimed much higher.
Therefore, while educational policy should be informed by the functional literacy perspective, it should not be based on it. To be merely functional is to be inert, and to be inert is to recede, for society must develop and grow if it is to thrive and prosper.
2. E.D. Hirsch argues that his conception of cultural literacy preserves the connection between literacy and liberty found in the views of Thomas Jefferson and Martin Luther King. Do you agree? Explain.
The difference between cultural and critical literacy is not knowledge and information, it is attitude and action. The presence of a critical literacy is less dependent on specific educational content and more dependent on the nature of educational institutions and instruction, and indeed the nature of society as a whole. The need for critical literacy is another problem that betrays the inadequacies of the institutional model, which by nature is defined by compliance, not subversion. But I digress.
In the case of Jefferson or King, we can see that these men translated their profound cultural literacy into critical action. This required a particular kind of upbringing and a good deal of raw courage. Not every student will be a Jefferson or King, but what made these men great is worthy of study and emulation. We must develop educational content that informs the student, and an educational and social environment that encourages him to do something with this information.
3. To what degree do you find the critical literacy perspective consistent with John Dewey's democratic ideal, expressed in Chapter 4, of "the all-around growth of every member of society"? Explain how critical literacy theory does or does not serve this ideal.
The "all-around growth of every member of society" is not always equivalent to the all-around growth of society itself. Critical literacy is subversive, dangerous, and robustly democratic - imagine: teaching people to think for themselves! And yet, while the critical faculty is a necessary component of the complete man, it need not be overemphasized to the excess of chronic cynicism.
4. What features of contemporary U.S. ideology and political economy come to light in the critical literacy perspective that do not emerge in the other literacy perspectives? In your view, should teachers try to take these features into account in their approaches to teaching? Explain.
Critical literacy begins to expose the deterioration of the pure democratic ideal in American society; it enables you to "rethink the system." Democracy is dependent on the acceptance of personal responsibility at the individual level. This has become distasteful for most of the population, as it tends to involve a great deal of work.
As educators we can withstand the "dumbing down" of society by instilling in those we teach a vigorous work ethic, a sense of ownership regarding the well-being of others, and a respectful distrust for the status quo.
5. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the critical literacy perspective, in your view, as illustrated in Bigelow and Christensen's classroom? If you identify any practical obstacles to such a pedagogy, to what degree are they grounded in political-economic and ideological conditions in the United States? Are these conditions insurmountable - or is critical literacy theory an inadequate foundation on which to base teaching aims and educational policy in the first place? Defend your position.
Critical literacy is a valuable concept, but it is inconsistent with the institutional model. We must go one step further and reevaluate the viability of institutionalized education. The exercise conducted by Bigelow and Christensen is ironically revealing in this regard: "almost half the instances of rights violations took place in school." Does that not tell us something?
I maintain that we should not teach criticism for its own sake, but rather a broad and keen cultural awareness that leaves the door open for criticism, if and when it became necessary. As Bigelow observes, unchecked emphasis on criticism is counterproductive: "The danger of students becoming terribly cynical as they come to understand the enormity of injustice in this society and in the world is just too great." We need not accept where we are, but we must begin where we are.
6. What kinds of learning seem to be taking place in Bigelow and Christensen's classroom that might not likely take place in other classrooms? At what expense, if any, is such learning taking place? Explain and defend your view.
What Bigelow and Christensen are doing, in part, is doing away with the intimidating awe of the "right answer" and showing that all answers have some value, provided they are genuine and intelligent. They are attempting to create a human connection that validates their students and gives them the confidence and energy necessary to excel. They are bringing out the jumper cables. We do not wish to take the student all sorts of places in our own vehicle - we wish to teach him to drive.
This learning is taking place at the risk of creating an arrogant, disrespectful attitude. The satisfaction of an argument won, or a slight avenged, is remembered. Without counterweights, validation can turn to flattery and lasting damage may be done to the student and the society which must endure him.
7. Which of the perspectives on literacy presented in this chapter do you think is the most important for individual teachers and for schools in general to embrace in the United States today? Defend your view, taking into account relevant dimensions of political economy and ideology as you understand them.
I choose cultural literacy, as students today are already too convinced of their own omnipotence to be fed more critical literacy. Besides, we must have something to be critical about, and that is being lost. Students are not tackling the big questions. They are not capable of interacting with the volume and complexity of cultural and international issues. This deficiency must be set right.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
School & Society: Ch. 8 Study Questions
1. It might be argued that James B. Conant's major educational initiatives were entirely consistent with progressive-era educational reforms and that he deepened and extended those reforms. To what degree is such a conclusion warranted by the material presented in chapters 4 and 8?
Conant advocated a pragmatic and socially-oriented approach to education. In the main, this aligns with and develops the ideals of progressivism.
2. This chapter suggests a significant connection between standardized testing in schools and what might be called cold-war ideology. What connection is being suggested - and do you believe this is a valid association to make? Explain.
As educators scrambled to combat Communism, they missed one important point, namely, that Communism is both an ideology and methodology. In their haste to stem the red ideological tide, they succumbed, at least in part, to the tempting shortcuts proffered by the use of red methodology. They couldn't trust freedom to protect itself. As Van Doren puts it so well, "Democracy when it is secure will not deny its inferiority to persons. The superiority of its persons is its only strength. To say as much is to say that democracy lives dangerously..." America had become an "insecure democracy," and an insecure democracy is no longer much of a democracy at all.
3. What are Conant's ideological and political-economic justifications for the system of tracking or ability grouping? Are these justifications consistent with what John Dewey (in Chapter 4) called the "moral meaning" of democracy, namely, that all social institutions should contribute to the "all-around growth of every member of society"? Defend your view.
The problem was largely about the varying learning rates and aptitudes among students. It bears notice that this only becomes an issue in an institutional setting - in individual or home-based education, each student is maximized without being dragged along. Conant and his colleagues were attempting to unravel this problem within the institutional context, which necessitated statistical methods such as standardized testing. Conant's approach seems a reasonable compromise between the interests of classroom and individual when considered within the flawed institutional structure.
4. To what degree does your high school experience reflect the education vision Conant expressed for the "comprehensive American high school"? Did such a school serve your educational and long-term interests well? Did it serve the interests of all students, from all social and ethnic backgrounds, equally well? Explain your position on each of these issues.
Since the question assumes an institutional background, I am unqualified to comment.
5. To what degree does the educational position argued by Van Doren constitute a criticism of vocational education as recommended by Conant? Do you consider this criticism valid? Explain.
While Van Doren's position is a noble one, he is operating from higher up in the ivory tower than Conant, who is on campus, talking to teachers, watching the action on the ground. Van Doren makes few prescriptions regarding how to actually apply his ideology in practice. This blunts his criticism, if his aim is indeed to revise the institution. I would argue that Van Doren's ideal should be pursued, but independent of the educational institution, with which it is hardly compatible.
6. Although Van Doren wrote well after the progressive revolution in American schooling, it could be argued that his educational view is significantly grounded in both Aristotelian and Jeffersonian educational ideals. Evaluate that assertion, and evaluate also the degree to which Van Doren's viewpoint is responsive to your assessment of the needs of modern society.
Van Doren favors a grassroots strategy for social success. This is basically raw Jeffersonian thinking, and perhaps even more generous, considering how Jefferson advocated a "natural aristocracy." As far as the needs of modern society are concerned, Van Doren's viewpoint is timeless, although the present institutional model makes the implementation of such ideals nigh impossible.
7. In your view, which educational thinker - Van Doren or Conant - offers an educational vision that is more likely to serve the needs of all members of a diverse society such as our own: male and female, rich and poor, European-American, Hispanic-American, African-American, Asian-American, and other groups?
If you set out to "serve the needs of all members of a diverse society" you will end up failing miserably. The quest is presented on it's head. The right approach is to set out to serve the needs of the student in front of you. In this manner, the correct methods will fall into place and the result will be a superior education for society as a whole. Both Conant and Van Doren share the same goal - indeed, we all do. Only their methods differ, and I believe Van Doren's to be the sounder one.
Conant advocated a pragmatic and socially-oriented approach to education. In the main, this aligns with and develops the ideals of progressivism.
2. This chapter suggests a significant connection between standardized testing in schools and what might be called cold-war ideology. What connection is being suggested - and do you believe this is a valid association to make? Explain.
As educators scrambled to combat Communism, they missed one important point, namely, that Communism is both an ideology and methodology. In their haste to stem the red ideological tide, they succumbed, at least in part, to the tempting shortcuts proffered by the use of red methodology. They couldn't trust freedom to protect itself. As Van Doren puts it so well, "Democracy when it is secure will not deny its inferiority to persons. The superiority of its persons is its only strength. To say as much is to say that democracy lives dangerously..." America had become an "insecure democracy," and an insecure democracy is no longer much of a democracy at all.
3. What are Conant's ideological and political-economic justifications for the system of tracking or ability grouping? Are these justifications consistent with what John Dewey (in Chapter 4) called the "moral meaning" of democracy, namely, that all social institutions should contribute to the "all-around growth of every member of society"? Defend your view.
The problem was largely about the varying learning rates and aptitudes among students. It bears notice that this only becomes an issue in an institutional setting - in individual or home-based education, each student is maximized without being dragged along. Conant and his colleagues were attempting to unravel this problem within the institutional context, which necessitated statistical methods such as standardized testing. Conant's approach seems a reasonable compromise between the interests of classroom and individual when considered within the flawed institutional structure.
4. To what degree does your high school experience reflect the education vision Conant expressed for the "comprehensive American high school"? Did such a school serve your educational and long-term interests well? Did it serve the interests of all students, from all social and ethnic backgrounds, equally well? Explain your position on each of these issues.
Since the question assumes an institutional background, I am unqualified to comment.
5. To what degree does the educational position argued by Van Doren constitute a criticism of vocational education as recommended by Conant? Do you consider this criticism valid? Explain.
While Van Doren's position is a noble one, he is operating from higher up in the ivory tower than Conant, who is on campus, talking to teachers, watching the action on the ground. Van Doren makes few prescriptions regarding how to actually apply his ideology in practice. This blunts his criticism, if his aim is indeed to revise the institution. I would argue that Van Doren's ideal should be pursued, but independent of the educational institution, with which it is hardly compatible.
6. Although Van Doren wrote well after the progressive revolution in American schooling, it could be argued that his educational view is significantly grounded in both Aristotelian and Jeffersonian educational ideals. Evaluate that assertion, and evaluate also the degree to which Van Doren's viewpoint is responsive to your assessment of the needs of modern society.
Van Doren favors a grassroots strategy for social success. This is basically raw Jeffersonian thinking, and perhaps even more generous, considering how Jefferson advocated a "natural aristocracy." As far as the needs of modern society are concerned, Van Doren's viewpoint is timeless, although the present institutional model makes the implementation of such ideals nigh impossible.
7. In your view, which educational thinker - Van Doren or Conant - offers an educational vision that is more likely to serve the needs of all members of a diverse society such as our own: male and female, rich and poor, European-American, Hispanic-American, African-American, Asian-American, and other groups?
If you set out to "serve the needs of all members of a diverse society" you will end up failing miserably. The quest is presented on it's head. The right approach is to set out to serve the needs of the student in front of you. In this manner, the correct methods will fall into place and the result will be a superior education for society as a whole. Both Conant and Van Doren share the same goal - indeed, we all do. Only their methods differ, and I believe Van Doren's to be the sounder one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
