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!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Of course everyone wants 'what's best for students', but the question is, what is that exactly? One person may feel it's developing a students potential as an artist; the next may feel that is a waste of time, and what a kid really needs are the skills to get a job; the next person might think it is about preparing for the next life. Or whatever. Everybody is concerned with meeting kids needs and the needs of society, but the needs they see most clearly are the ones that work for them and to their own benefit -- which may look like evil manipulation to other lobbyists....
ReplyDeleteSimilarly, nobody says, "let's keep that working class kid in his place"; but they might well work to ensure that their own kids get the benefits to which they are entitled -- which amounts, in the long run, to the same thing, without anyone quite recognizing it.