The concept of Meritocracy is quite fascinating to me. I don't understand why this technically shouldn't be the best way of having a society work. Obviously it doesn't work, since the rich still get richer and the poor still get poorer (I don't think that every rich person is better than every poor person).
I want to almost piggy back on one of the things I read in Amanda's blog, "Meritocracy - Revisiting Functionalism ". She was talking about the brain surgeons being a critical part of our society (I read a little sarcasm into that point). I have to question what some of the vital positions in our society are. Could MOST of us survive without a brain surgeon? What about the garbage being picked up? The teacher that taught us everything? The NFL football player who is paid millions a year to tackle the opposing team? Which of those four could we probably survive our normal day to day life without? NFL player??? brain surgeon??? yet those are the 2 highest paid of the 4. I think our society needs to revamp our priorities. Is it because not everyone can do those jobs? or is it because not everyone was given the opportunity to try out those activities/jobs?
Quite frankly, as a student of MANY years and now a teacher in the making I feel it is okay to admit NOT EVERYONE CAN BE A TEACHER. I think that there is a misconception about teaching - that everyone can teach. Everyone can go through the motions and maybe be a technician of teaching and I emphasize the maybe... but actually teach? NO!!! We have all had that teacher where we have dreaded the class, couldn't make it through the class, couldn't understand what they were trying to convey to us. So many things go into making an "educated" teacher that not everyone can do it. So if we are basing our pay scales on how valuable we are, teachers should be at the top of the list. Brain surgeons didn't get through how many ever years of school without teachers. They didn't teach themselves!
I really would like to get the respect that we deserve. I feel we do a very important job for this society and quite honestly, sometimes it scares me!
:) Brandie :)
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Structure and Governance
Decentralized vs Centralized
I am not sure where I want to stand on this spectrum. I think that there are definitely areas of our country that would need more knowledge on certain information and other areas that wouldn't need that information (perhaps at all). So I think it would be great to have some centralized knowledge that is mandatory (a baseline of knowledge) and areas that can be used for specific knowledge required to the specific area. I think that this is basically what is going on from the observations found on page 18. What knowledge should be baseline and what should be extra would be a national level decision, but heavily influenced by teachers as well as other important representatives of the society.
One thing that I don't necessarily agree on is the differing lengths of teaching time in secondary schools. Ontario is just above 3.7 hours a day and Alberta is just above 4.4 hours a day (Figure 1-3 pg 19). This is almost a complete hour difference! I think that students are really going to be under time restraints to learn all that they are supposed to in the little amount of time they are given. As well, it really takes away from the "educated teacher" vs the "trained teacher". We can't use too much variation because we don't have the time. What about creating a learning environment, would they have time for that?
Perhaps teachers have bargained down their amount of hours to teach, but I then think that students will need more after hours help. Students need to have the time to ask questions, do examples. These students aren't in university where it is more of an independent learning setting, they are still in secondary school. This isn't the year before they go and spread their wings in university and you are just trying to prepare them for that... and even so, some aren't going to choose to go to university so is it fair to them?
One of the current issues that school boards are considering is this - 3rd Friday off or no schools in the afternoon and in some cases no classes Friday. Not only does that affect the school but what about the parents who don't have every 3rd Friday off, or have to work afternoons. Who is watching the children? Keeping them out of trouble? or at least trying to steer them away from poor decisions?
As a student I may have loved this but is it in the students' best interest? I worked at a school who only had school on Friday until 1pm or so. I think this left students up to thinking that Fridays were kind of a "blow off" day. It is awesome when sports teams don't have to miss school in order to travel (as a student athlete it could get really challenging to play catch up missing every Friday afternoon class) but what about the rest of the students? Is it possible that they think, hey it is only a half day, lets go party Thursday night. Are they getting anything out of Friday?
Please comment on how you feel about going to shortened Fridays and even no Friday class at all. From both a teacher and a student perspective.
Hope this was a little more positive! :)
:) Brandie :)
I am not sure where I want to stand on this spectrum. I think that there are definitely areas of our country that would need more knowledge on certain information and other areas that wouldn't need that information (perhaps at all). So I think it would be great to have some centralized knowledge that is mandatory (a baseline of knowledge) and areas that can be used for specific knowledge required to the specific area. I think that this is basically what is going on from the observations found on page 18. What knowledge should be baseline and what should be extra would be a national level decision, but heavily influenced by teachers as well as other important representatives of the society.
One thing that I don't necessarily agree on is the differing lengths of teaching time in secondary schools. Ontario is just above 3.7 hours a day and Alberta is just above 4.4 hours a day (Figure 1-3 pg 19). This is almost a complete hour difference! I think that students are really going to be under time restraints to learn all that they are supposed to in the little amount of time they are given. As well, it really takes away from the "educated teacher" vs the "trained teacher". We can't use too much variation because we don't have the time. What about creating a learning environment, would they have time for that?
Perhaps teachers have bargained down their amount of hours to teach, but I then think that students will need more after hours help. Students need to have the time to ask questions, do examples. These students aren't in university where it is more of an independent learning setting, they are still in secondary school. This isn't the year before they go and spread their wings in university and you are just trying to prepare them for that... and even so, some aren't going to choose to go to university so is it fair to them?
One of the current issues that school boards are considering is this - 3rd Friday off or no schools in the afternoon and in some cases no classes Friday. Not only does that affect the school but what about the parents who don't have every 3rd Friday off, or have to work afternoons. Who is watching the children? Keeping them out of trouble? or at least trying to steer them away from poor decisions?
As a student I may have loved this but is it in the students' best interest? I worked at a school who only had school on Friday until 1pm or so. I think this left students up to thinking that Fridays were kind of a "blow off" day. It is awesome when sports teams don't have to miss school in order to travel (as a student athlete it could get really challenging to play catch up missing every Friday afternoon class) but what about the rest of the students? Is it possible that they think, hey it is only a half day, lets go party Thursday night. Are they getting anything out of Friday?
Please comment on how you feel about going to shortened Fridays and even no Friday class at all. From both a teacher and a student perspective.
Hope this was a little more positive! :)
:) Brandie :)
Monday, September 21, 2009
Feedback so far!
Thanks for commenting on the Blog for those of you who did! Definitely excited to start looking around at everyone else's blogs!
In regards to the comment about- what is in the best interest of the students?
I never really thought about, what I see as most important for students as not being important. (that sounds really self-centered and I don't mean for it to but I guess I never really thought about it from this angle) Is this partially maybe why we have a public and a private system of education? Public is more the basics, where as private is maybe more so to entitle them to privilege of what school them came from. Honestly, I don't have a lot of knowledge on what a private school is like, I never attended one. I am just going off horrible shows (which I love) on TV such as Gossip Girl and others like it. So maybe I should not have an opinion at all. It isn't informed so perhaps I should maybe keep it to myself until I have done some research.
In regards to Eric, (thanks for commenting!!!) I did start ranting and raving. In school I always saw the older teachers as ones who had the issues with the government and all these "social issues" . In looking back maybe they were just more aware of what was going on, they knew how the game was played... If Sociology of Education is being banished from everywhere than it makes sense that other people(teachers) wouldn't necessarily know of the issues coming out of university. I literally chalked up their "gripes" about the education system to them just reminiscing about the good ole days! or they were getting close to retirement... now I have become that (or maybe are becoming that).
In discussions with my dad this weekend, he just kept repeating - if all the teachers band together they can make such changes... (he is really against this Carbon Dioxide into the ground thing that the government is doing... they are giving 2 billion for that I believe (not for sure!!!) ) Quite frankly when I heard that my jaw dropped! are you kidding me?!?! we are losing money and the government is putting money towards this?.. it isn't even completely researched yet (from what I have been told!) I will be doing a bit of research on this a little later because I want to make sure his facts are correct... but either way, if they are putting such great amounts of money towards this maybe we don't need our education to be cut!?!?!
On a positive note, I was home this weekend and it just made me more and more excited to become a teacher and start working with kids all the time!!! I hope you all still feel excited to get out into the "real world" and I use that term loosely (since I think most of us already are)!!!
:) Brandie :)
In regards to the comment about- what is in the best interest of the students?
I never really thought about, what I see as most important for students as not being important. (that sounds really self-centered and I don't mean for it to but I guess I never really thought about it from this angle) Is this partially maybe why we have a public and a private system of education? Public is more the basics, where as private is maybe more so to entitle them to privilege of what school them came from. Honestly, I don't have a lot of knowledge on what a private school is like, I never attended one. I am just going off horrible shows (which I love) on TV such as Gossip Girl and others like it. So maybe I should not have an opinion at all. It isn't informed so perhaps I should maybe keep it to myself until I have done some research.
In regards to Eric, (thanks for commenting!!!) I did start ranting and raving. In school I always saw the older teachers as ones who had the issues with the government and all these "social issues" . In looking back maybe they were just more aware of what was going on, they knew how the game was played... If Sociology of Education is being banished from everywhere than it makes sense that other people(teachers) wouldn't necessarily know of the issues coming out of university. I literally chalked up their "gripes" about the education system to them just reminiscing about the good ole days! or they were getting close to retirement... now I have become that (or maybe are becoming that).
In discussions with my dad this weekend, he just kept repeating - if all the teachers band together they can make such changes... (he is really against this Carbon Dioxide into the ground thing that the government is doing... they are giving 2 billion for that I believe (not for sure!!!) ) Quite frankly when I heard that my jaw dropped! are you kidding me?!?! we are losing money and the government is putting money towards this?.. it isn't even completely researched yet (from what I have been told!) I will be doing a bit of research on this a little later because I want to make sure his facts are correct... but either way, if they are putting such great amounts of money towards this maybe we don't need our education to be cut!?!?!
On a positive note, I was home this weekend and it just made me more and more excited to become a teacher and start working with kids all the time!!! I hope you all still feel excited to get out into the "real world" and I use that term loosely (since I think most of us already are)!!!
:) Brandie :)
Friday, September 18, 2009
First REAL week of Class
Sociology is one thing that I have always thought would be really interesting to get into. I like thinking about society and similar things, but perhaps I was always thinking in too positive of a way. I am not a fight the system, fight the power kind of girl. I pick my battles but other than that I don't like to really rock the boat. Now in my previous blogs it is probably quite apparent that I am getting a little passionate about some of these issues. But I think some of the reason why they are so passionate is because the writers at times I felt were just trying to rock the boat to rock the boat and maybe not necessarily accomplish anything. I am not saying that what this sociologists and economists did were pointless BY ANY MEANS, I am just wondering what their true motives behind these studies are.
Yesterday in class we discussed being able to "anticipate the trends". How do I do that? If I have to figure the trend out before their is talk of it in legislation or by government, how do I do that? I can't even figure out fashion trends, something that is meaningless. But education?? How can I predict that stuff? I am all for saving education and making it the best that it can be! I fully say give our students that extra $2000. They deserve it, they will put up with hardships in the future, why not give them a little extra if we have it?
Currently I am very frustrated with our government. I believe this may be in part that I am taking Social Issues and this class but it is shocking how greedy our government appears to be. I am still very proud to be from Alberta and will most likely live here all my life but I am really wanting to start be a fight the system kind of girl in regards to our government. Why keep stealing from the hand that feeds you government? Who pays the taxes? What if we no longer are able to get a good enough education to get a great paying job because you guys kept cutting and cutting at the education budget. This is a vicious cycle! If you keep taking our money away from education -->education quality will be lower--> students will be less likely to get great jobs--> which means less tax money for government --> therefore where do they take money from???... EDUCATION!
Wowza, that was a crazy rant! I am shocked at how passionate I am getting over this stuff... maybe I am overloading on the social issues and education issues this semester! **I will definitely try to lighten it up in the next few blogs...
(Thought I should maybe put some information about our text up... just in case!)
Barakett, Joyce & Cleghorn, Ailie (2008). Sociology of Education. Toronto, Ontario: Pearson Canada Inc.
Yesterday in class we discussed being able to "anticipate the trends". How do I do that? If I have to figure the trend out before their is talk of it in legislation or by government, how do I do that? I can't even figure out fashion trends, something that is meaningless. But education?? How can I predict that stuff? I am all for saving education and making it the best that it can be! I fully say give our students that extra $2000. They deserve it, they will put up with hardships in the future, why not give them a little extra if we have it?
Currently I am very frustrated with our government. I believe this may be in part that I am taking Social Issues and this class but it is shocking how greedy our government appears to be. I am still very proud to be from Alberta and will most likely live here all my life but I am really wanting to start be a fight the system kind of girl in regards to our government. Why keep stealing from the hand that feeds you government? Who pays the taxes? What if we no longer are able to get a good enough education to get a great paying job because you guys kept cutting and cutting at the education budget. This is a vicious cycle! If you keep taking our money away from education -->education quality will be lower--> students will be less likely to get great jobs--> which means less tax money for government --> therefore where do they take money from???... EDUCATION!
Wowza, that was a crazy rant! I am shocked at how passionate I am getting over this stuff... maybe I am overloading on the social issues and education issues this semester! **I will definitely try to lighten it up in the next few blogs...
(Thought I should maybe put some information about our text up... just in case!)
Barakett, Joyce & Cleghorn, Ailie (2008). Sociology of Education. Toronto, Ontario: Pearson Canada Inc.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Theories of Schooling and Society
In this chapter I found myself questioning it a lot... for instance about bias and then why no female perspectives but then it all came around.
The Bowles and Gintis perspective when they started discussing how education creates students that "are docile and complacent" this hit home for me. In my either freshman year of sophomore year of university I wrote a term paper in one of my anthropology classes about this. At the start of our test we had a few minutes to discuss with our peers and all of a sudden this idea hit me about in school we do teach the students to just listen and do as directed. I was writing in regards to the military though. (the time frame of my paper was during the start of the "war on terror") (yes I am OLD)
My paper went on to talk about how the president would not want the soldiers to do anything but what they were told. Wouldn't want someone to question the motives behind the attack or anything else really. I wrote this and I believed it. But I don't know if I do anymore.
Yes, I would love it if all my students did what I told them to do, when I told them to do it. But I don't want mindless drones for students. Isn't critical thinking part of almost all curriculum? In Social Studies we were always taught to think about all the angles, what else could be playing a role, or effecting the situation? So no longer can I agree or even not get infuriated that Bowles and Gintis think that this could be a part of educations purpose.
As well, during this chapter when I pictured education the way that they were portraying it I couldn't help but picture kings and queens holding the strings of education. But I don't agree! Perhaps I am naive in my belief of the good of man but I think education is in the best interest of everyone. People in control of education want the best for the students, if they didn't why would they be a part of it?
If I had to label myself, it would be as a functionalist. I don't completely agree with functionalism, however, I do think it is functional to have everyone educated. Imagine a world of uneducated people. Would we be where we are? I definitely would not be reading critiques of education if we had no education because I would not have the skills to do so... and no one would have the skills to write about it.
At times I think that Alberta because of our economy may be the exception to some of these theories. If a student gets how to play the game of education then they get a higher education and therefore will be more successful and have a higher social status. Where I am from lots of people who didn't get how to play the game (didn't make it through or didn't graduate) got jobs that were VERY well paying. Working in the oil field where I am from pays really good money. Now perhaps that isn't the highest of status job but it brings in a lot of money and money is a huge deal in our society. This in turn causes problems with cultural capital and academic capital. If these students who didn't learn how to play the game have got great paying jobs where does their money go? Because academic capital is suppose to come from the people who mastered playing the game. So what does that mean for the future of education? Is their capital not good enough? Will it go to an inferior education system called the public system?? I wonder how education is going to look a few years down the road, especially in a city like mine that is heavily employed by the oil industry.
I think this chapter opened my eyes to a lot of things, however, I don't feel negative towards education and feel that social status is going to play the role that they believe it will in my classroom. I feel that it will be EXTREMELY important for all students in the lower grades to make sure they all stay on the same level and are all excelling! And that no one is slipping through the cracks, this will help make sure that later in their education careers that economic status can't or won't play as much of a factor that some of these sociologist believe it to.
Excited to hear the debates on this tomorrow in class :)
Hope this wasn't too dismal or depressing for you readers!
The Bowles and Gintis perspective when they started discussing how education creates students that "are docile and complacent" this hit home for me. In my either freshman year of sophomore year of university I wrote a term paper in one of my anthropology classes about this. At the start of our test we had a few minutes to discuss with our peers and all of a sudden this idea hit me about in school we do teach the students to just listen and do as directed. I was writing in regards to the military though. (the time frame of my paper was during the start of the "war on terror") (yes I am OLD)
My paper went on to talk about how the president would not want the soldiers to do anything but what they were told. Wouldn't want someone to question the motives behind the attack or anything else really. I wrote this and I believed it. But I don't know if I do anymore.
Yes, I would love it if all my students did what I told them to do, when I told them to do it. But I don't want mindless drones for students. Isn't critical thinking part of almost all curriculum? In Social Studies we were always taught to think about all the angles, what else could be playing a role, or effecting the situation? So no longer can I agree or even not get infuriated that Bowles and Gintis think that this could be a part of educations purpose.
As well, during this chapter when I pictured education the way that they were portraying it I couldn't help but picture kings and queens holding the strings of education. But I don't agree! Perhaps I am naive in my belief of the good of man but I think education is in the best interest of everyone. People in control of education want the best for the students, if they didn't why would they be a part of it?
If I had to label myself, it would be as a functionalist. I don't completely agree with functionalism, however, I do think it is functional to have everyone educated. Imagine a world of uneducated people. Would we be where we are? I definitely would not be reading critiques of education if we had no education because I would not have the skills to do so... and no one would have the skills to write about it.
At times I think that Alberta because of our economy may be the exception to some of these theories. If a student gets how to play the game of education then they get a higher education and therefore will be more successful and have a higher social status. Where I am from lots of people who didn't get how to play the game (didn't make it through or didn't graduate) got jobs that were VERY well paying. Working in the oil field where I am from pays really good money. Now perhaps that isn't the highest of status job but it brings in a lot of money and money is a huge deal in our society. This in turn causes problems with cultural capital and academic capital. If these students who didn't learn how to play the game have got great paying jobs where does their money go? Because academic capital is suppose to come from the people who mastered playing the game. So what does that mean for the future of education? Is their capital not good enough? Will it go to an inferior education system called the public system?? I wonder how education is going to look a few years down the road, especially in a city like mine that is heavily employed by the oil industry.
I think this chapter opened my eyes to a lot of things, however, I don't feel negative towards education and feel that social status is going to play the role that they believe it will in my classroom. I feel that it will be EXTREMELY important for all students in the lower grades to make sure they all stay on the same level and are all excelling! And that no one is slipping through the cracks, this will help make sure that later in their education careers that economic status can't or won't play as much of a factor that some of these sociologist believe it to.
Excited to hear the debates on this tomorrow in class :)
Hope this wasn't too dismal or depressing for you readers!
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
First Impressions
**All of my references to the "text" will be regarding Sociology of Education by Joyce Barakett and Ailie Cleghorn. Class references will be Education 4320 with instructor Robert Runte**
This was one of my most interesting first reads of any class. I was delighted by the reviewing of some of the basic sociology terms. I think this will make for a much easier understanding of the concepts that we will be addressing and therefore will be able to get much deeper into the actual "meat and potatoes" of the controversy versus trying to decipher all the jargon.
While reading the paragraph about notions of what girls and boys should act like it made me wonder or question if there are even defined ways to act anymore. In reflection upon classes that I have either been a student in or have been teaching, actions are varied in many different aspects. Kids used to always raise their hands if they had anything to say, is that the status quo anymore? Does that happen in all of our classes? Shouldn't we be completely trained? What about all the variation in teachers as a whole? Are we all the same? Do we all have the same exact ways of doing things? *I don't think we can say that students in the present, especially a gender separation, have set ways to behave.
The text almost stated (perhaps I was a bit too offended) that elementary school was basically a facility to watch the kids while the parents were away. If elementary school is just a place to "babysit" the children, why is it then that children learn how to read? do basic math? Learn pretty much every basic skill that is needed for every grade after elementary school!?!?
Honestly, I think that elementary school teaching is most likely the most important and hardest age level to teach. Students do not yet have the skills to teach themselves, read, make informed decisions or even interact on the "accepted" basis. I was quite irritated by the way the text portrayed elementary school or teachers as a "custodial function".
That seemed quite negative, however, I did feel quite positive about this text. I am intrigued by what I will read next. :)
This was one of my most interesting first reads of any class. I was delighted by the reviewing of some of the basic sociology terms. I think this will make for a much easier understanding of the concepts that we will be addressing and therefore will be able to get much deeper into the actual "meat and potatoes" of the controversy versus trying to decipher all the jargon.
While reading the paragraph about notions of what girls and boys should act like it made me wonder or question if there are even defined ways to act anymore. In reflection upon classes that I have either been a student in or have been teaching, actions are varied in many different aspects. Kids used to always raise their hands if they had anything to say, is that the status quo anymore? Does that happen in all of our classes? Shouldn't we be completely trained? What about all the variation in teachers as a whole? Are we all the same? Do we all have the same exact ways of doing things? *I don't think we can say that students in the present, especially a gender separation, have set ways to behave.
The text almost stated (perhaps I was a bit too offended) that elementary school was basically a facility to watch the kids while the parents were away. If elementary school is just a place to "babysit" the children, why is it then that children learn how to read? do basic math? Learn pretty much every basic skill that is needed for every grade after elementary school!?!?
Honestly, I think that elementary school teaching is most likely the most important and hardest age level to teach. Students do not yet have the skills to teach themselves, read, make informed decisions or even interact on the "accepted" basis. I was quite irritated by the way the text portrayed elementary school or teachers as a "custodial function".
That seemed quite negative, however, I did feel quite positive about this text. I am intrigued by what I will read next. :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)