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.