Canadian History

Isn't it interesting how there are so many histories available about Canada, and yet there are so many discrepancies among them. It all depends on whose point a view the story is coming from. Perspective seems to take a major role in history.

Look at Nazi Germany for example. Their history books stated that they were working for the good of the father land, and they believed it full heartedly. On the contrary, the Allies' history books would tell you that the Nazi regime is guilty of genocide, and they are believed full heartedly. Yet, these are as different as black and white it seems. In the end, the triumphant group wins out history. Why is it that there is no worldwide, common history? Is it just the way things are? Is it because there are still too many power struggles not just between nations but also within social stratification that need to be changed?

When does history begin?

History, according to who?

Oh Canada. When does Canada's history begin? Is it when the French and English began colonizing her? Or is it when the Vikings first landed? Or is it when the First Nations People potentially crossed the Bering Strait? Which story is told most frequently and has the most focus in classrooms? Personally, I would say the group the has political majority has influenced Canada's history the most. So in other words, the English and French have written Canada's history from their point of view as a victory over savage and resourceful lands. It seems only as of late that the other histories - which are as true as the next - have begun surfacing more and more. As the minorities are beginning to have light shone on their rights, needs and beliefs so is the light beginning to shine on their side of the story.

Are you aware of the following terms that I have pulled from chapter one in "Sociology of Education":

First Nations
Residential schools
Cultural genocide
Christianity

We are looking at a people, a place, an event and an idea. What's the problem? These are the words which form one portion of Canada's history. The First Nations people were an oral culture close with nature and survival, but deemed savage by newcomers from Europe. The political majority established residential schools in order to educate these wild and uncivilized people. While trying to enforce their Christian values, they stole the purpose and pride of a people's culture, cultural genocide.

It doesn't paint a pretty picture does it?

I always wonder, why are those struggling for the highest degree of power so threatened by culture?
I am hoping that this world is slowly realizing that different is beautiful.

I think what has bothered me the most about the readings between pages 9 and 20 is the following statement:
the last residential school was closed as recently as 1984.

That is not very long ago. We consider ourselves modern, civilized, multicultural, tolerant, having rights and morals, etc. That date which is not so long ago, however, does not portray this image at all. We have left a people, the original people of this land, to be oppressed, suppressed and forgotten politically, economically and educationally. Maybe our European influenced system is not the best way of learning in school and we could learn a thing or two from their oral culture. Just because the European influence is the "winner", does not make it right.

Perhaps it would be a good idea for our education system to start looking back on the methods used prior to our own. Think of it like going back to antiquity, finding the forgotten curriculum. Survival. Kinship and Community. Nature. Mastery of talents. Strength in body, mind and soul.

Centralized vs. Decentralized

It seems just like Canada to be somewhere in the middle being its own little unique entity in the world that few know about.

Continuing in Chapter one, I read that Canada is decentralized at the national level but centralized at the provincial level. I was aware of this before reading it. It is interesting to compare Canada's system with others around the world. For instance, how France is completely centralized. It has been a long standing tradition and highly supported within their own country. Personally, I support our system because while it makes sense to centralize some aspects, for example overall themes or general outcomes. It makes sense to remain decentralized provincially because it is important to include local texts, history, information, etc. It makes learning relevant to each region. However, when looking internationally it is not quite so simple. Expectations and methodology are not universal.

As stated in the text, success is not necessarily achieved due to the content or how the system is set up, but rather how things are done in each classroom. Teachers are well aware that the methods of instruction they use and the performance tasks that students complete are much more closely tied to achievement. Whether that be strictly rote learning geared towards test results or be it using multiple intelligences strategies for students to complete chosen tasks.

Since reading the expected texts, I am beginning to question more the governance of our education systems. I came across the line that reads "who organizes the system, who controls it, and how is it controlled". I really do not know. It is true that often you just hear "they". Well, who is they? I generally resort to saying the government. But who in the government? And why do those people within the government or other "they's" get to choose? Am I even right in saying the government?

From a few conversations that I have been a part of or over heard in my education career, I often hear that depending on the economy and what jobs are in demand that determines largely which subjects students are pushed towards in high school and into university. The rumours float and that is where the general public heads for job opportunities. But who is it that generates the going word, or why is it exactly that those jobs are so much more important at certain times and others not at all?

Technician vs. Autonomous professional

In class the idea of technician vs. autonomous professional came up. Basically, it means being trained and reactive vs. a reflective practitioner that is proactive. I started to question, where do I fit in? I often say that I am educated. I have a high school diploma and will be graduating with a BA/BEd. in less than one year. Don't I sound so smart!

But then I get to thinking about what kind of training I have had. Well, I have done two professional practicums in education. From which have I learned the most? In all honesty, I would say the practical experiences have left the biggest influence on my knowledge as a teacher. Most of the "education" I have had has been unbelievable amounts of information and facts. Facts and information that I should now be able to use to think on my own and be proactive. Well that all sounds good to me, but I don't see it as reality. At least not MY reality.

A term that came up in class was "trained incapacity" meaning training that has been pushed too far. The example given in class was building a bridge. The construction crew would simply build the bridge to be a perfectly strong structure the way they have been trained to do, but none would ask the bigger question "SHOULD we build a bridge here?" But is there such a thing as educated incapacity? At times I honestly would believe myself to fall under this idea. Something my father always says is don't become educated beyond your means. What he means by this is that there are people in our society that have been educated for so many years that they only know facts and information, they cannot deal with practical everyday issues or have any trade skills. The degree to which my education has taken me is what I like to call information overload. There is so much theology, ideology, research, terminology, etc. that I have studied and gotten the general idea about but never mastered, that I find myself being left with nothing to prove myself as an autonomous professional. The moment that the test has been written or the paper marked I move onto the next course and forget the previous material. If I were truly a reflective practitioner would I not be a better critical thinker?

(It is interesting how this concept branches off nicely from my previous post.)

As a student we are expected to think critically now because we are at a higher level of education. Once I am a teacher I will most certainly be expected to think critically, analyze and evaluate mine and others' work. According to some, I have been educated to do this. Then why is it that so often I feel that I am not capable of doing this? Does that make me a failure? Was I trained too much as a child through rote learning, or did I somehow miss a step in the education system called critical thinking and reflection 101.

I am finding a pattern in my own writing. I am seeing a sense of self blame, which falls under the myth of student responsibility in their achievement. Perhaps it is not all my fault, but that something in the performance tasks of self reflection, criticism and evaluation needs to be changed in curriculum. I am also seeing that I, as a student, feel the need for more training in some areas than the amount of education I have been given. It is interesting to me to think about the necessity for both training and education, but then where are they best suited and in what quantity.

Chapter One of "Sociology of Education" by Barakett and Cleghorn

Naturally, the first chapter is a run through of the basics of sociology and eventually sociology of education. There is a lot of jargon that is introduced. As a reader myself, I appreciate the review of terms, however it is quite like reading through the dictionary. Thankfully, as the reader, you also come to realize that the sociology of education deals with people, which I briefly stated in my personal portrait as something I am interested in. Looking at the sociological perspective of schools and their purpose in society is the hook in this chosen text. The focus, depending on the method, generally has to do with the tendencies and relationships between school administration, family, government as well as gender, ethnicity, and economic-status.

The topics that seemed to interest me the most in this chapter are the myths. For example:

1. If a student succeeds in school it is because of their own doing on tests that are "fair".
2. A student's success in school is not directly related to their home life.
3. Students learn to think critically at school.

These are ideas that I have been raised maybe even "socialized" to consider true. Now I question myself, do I believe these things to be truth because I have been told to or because through deductive reasoning I have come to these conclusions on my own. In all honesty, there may have been a time when I believe these ideas to be true but over the years of university I have been led to think otherwise.

Looking at the first myth, I still strongly believe that a large portion of a student's achievement rests on their own shoulders, however, it is also the responsibility of the teacher to ensure the use of the right methods of teaching so that the student can succeed. I would also go to say that a child's success rests in the hands of the education system as a whole, the child's network of family and friends, and finally the government. Looking at the big picture, I would say each individual child's success in school and in life rests on the community. A community is not limited to the immediate surrounding either. It may branch out nationally, or even internationally.

My previous explanation obviously feeds into the second myth. The environment that a child lives in is reflected in their achievement. Not one part of the environment solely affects their abilities in school, but all of them. Their influences are ever changing, day to day. For example, if a child's single mom couldn't pay the bills on time, that month the student may be more concerned about making some side cash to help out economically instead of on doing their math homework. Or, suppose a student has a basketball tournament and an English essay due the same week, one activity may have precedence over the other.



Finally the third myth feeds nicely into the following question I came across in Chapter One:

"What kind of education would teachers need to have in order to integrate critical thinking into the curriculum?"

First of all, I do not agree that schools teach critical thinking. In my personal experience, I did extremely well through school because I could regurgitate information from my teachers and tell them what they wanted to hear. Once I got to higher levels of education and had to begin formulating my own opinion and writing it in great lengths, I felt like too much pressure was being put on me. Who was I as a person in society to give their opinion? I was just a pon, not one to criticize or take the lead on any theologies. In all honesty, it was frightening.

So now to answer the question, according to my own perspective, integrating critical thinking into the curriculum is something that certainly would not come over night. Traditionally, education methods tend to use a lot of rote learning. There has been a swing towards hands on education and self expression, but again it has been a slow process and not universally used. It is hard to integrate into classrooms especially if teachers themselves have not had the training. I think it would have to start with the source, meaning teachers would need further training in philosophy and sociology. They themselves would need to feel more confident in putting themselves and their ideas out there in order to model for and teach students to follow in their own ways. But, on the other hand, some would see the expansion of self expression and critical thinking as more work for the teachers. How could they assess ideologies "fairly". However, once teachers have the training then curriculum goals and outcomes would have to be altered somewhat. Teaching students how to learn, how to express, how to take a stance, how to criticize and support would have to be integrated much earlier in the education system. Yet, how plausible is that if scientifically children are said to not have the capabilities to think that abstractly until later on. Activities and performance tasks would have to be extremely well thought out to ensure that students are using their own minds and finding strategic ways of supporting their thoughts and criticisms. Debates and looking at discussion topics from more philosophical and/or sociologically points of view would help in increasing student abilities in critical thinking.

It is hard for me to answer this question on my own partially because I am coming from a background where I did not learn to think critically until later on in life. I speaking from a point of view where even today it is hard for me to use critical thinking and abstract thought. Reading texts can often be the hardest task I have in a day because it is so full of theology and terminology beyond my training or ability. It is a often a whole other language that I have not learned, perhaps critical thinking is a language that needs to be taught in schools when students are still building their repertoire of language and creating representations of this world.

A New Self Portrait

In my first post I would just like to introduce myself a little so that you, the reader, can get a better feel for who I am.

First off, this is my second blog ever! The first one I did was for another Education course dealing with technology and Internet in the classroom. I actually found it quite helpful. I love to write and while I 'had' to blog as an evaluation tool, I found it rewarding. It really gives me a chance to explore my profession as well as my personal growth in this profession I have chosen; Education.

Anyways, because I feel that the previous blog I did did not hinder me in anyway, I have chosen to do a second blog for a Sociological Perspective Education course. I am very excited about this course! In my first years of university (this being my fifth and final year) I thoroughly enjoyed my sociology and anthropology courses. It turns out, I love people! I love to learn about the what, where, when, why, how and how much about people from all over. It just so happens that I also have a passion for education, which deals with people! This blog will be focused on the sociological aspects, predominantly but not limited to, education in Alberta, Canada.

As I have already mentioned I am a fifth year education student in Alberta. It has been a long hard go, but at the same time I would not change anything about my student career. I have worked hard for my achievements. I am currently registered as a Pre B.A./B.Ed. student with a major in French and a minor in English. This program has been exactly what I hoped it would be. I have enjoyed three and half years of fabulous arts and science courses offered by a range of faculties. I have also spent a semester abroad, living in Avignon, France, in order to increase my French proficiency. Coming from an extremely small farming community in central Alberta the move to Lethbridge and then to the south of France were life changing experiences for me. Small town girl gone city. No, that is not entirely true either. I will always be country at heart, but I do have an addiction for travel which will come out in my writing, experiences and teaching philosophy. I have also had the opportunity to complete my first two professional semesters teaching, first, grades 5/6 and then grades 9 through 12 FSL. In all honesty, the first placement was a challenge and nearly had me change my life plans. But, me being who I am and having such an amazing network of supportive family and friends I stuck with it. I am more than glad that I did because my second placement was a dream! It fully reminded me why I want to be a teacher and reminded me of the passion inside of me!

So now I am ready for my final semester of courses before finishing up the spring with my final placement! I hope this first post has given you a small insight into who I am before I begin getting into deeper conversation about the sociological studies and trends of education.