I just read through three blogs about HOMEWORK. Apparently there is some kind of debate going on about the importance of it and the degree of homework given depending on age.
After reading through them all, I think I have to agree that less homework is important in the elementary years. Six hours at school is a long time for them and quite stressful. At this age children are much more eager to learn if they are given the right motivations for their readiness, learning styles and interests. Reading is probably the most important aspect of their education at this level because if they are illiterate as they move up, they will not be as successful in ANY of the subjects required as they could be. Reading at night is a good family practice anyways. I think growing up it was a nice slow down to the evening, it was time spent with the people I loved, and it was a story! In some cases I think math should be done as homework as well because for some children they need assistance all through class to get the concepts, but are they able to take learning into their own hands or to complete the questions independently? They won't be successful if they cannot do it on their own either. Also, if students are not given any homework in the early years, they will get to the higher grades and be overwhelmed and unorganized when trying to keep track of what is required for them in all their classes.
I agree that children need extra-curricular activities, time with family, and time to just relax and/or play. I think everyone does. Its a big part of mental health. I also have a motto that goes "Work hard, Play hard". It's the concept of work ethic and meriting a break. Do you deserve the break?
My other comment regarding homework goes along with the saying "Practice makes perfect", well I like to re-amp it a little to"Practice makes better", because you can't always expect perfection. Think about all the extra-curricular activities kids have though. Dance, music, hockey, volleyball, etc. they are all based on practicing in order to be successful! School is no different in that aspect. Children need practice in order to be successful in literacy and arithmetic.
Friday, November 27, 2009
High Post-Secondary Grades and Successful Teachers
We had a really interesting research presentation this week trying to make a correlation between high post-secondary grades and successful teachers. The question was, is there a positive correlation between the two?
Some of the research focused on how long teachers stayed teaching. "Success" was defined as still teaching after 7 years. Doesn't really seem like a rational definition to base research on in my opinion. I think success should be measured by student success, classroom management and environment, teacher's well-being and happiness, etc. There would also be a large number of teachers that may have changed careers and moved up the ladder elsewhere, or moved overseas, or began a family and maybe chose to return teaching later on. There are a lot of factors I think were not taken into account for the published research. Anyways, the results were that full time teachers were most successful in the transition from student to teacher. So teachers who are most successful have had more experience for longer consecutive periods of time. Well that seems feasible to me.
I'm going to step aside from the research presented and talk more about the question, why do we use GPA to get into the Education Faculty?
The research above basically says the more hands on experience you get the better the teacher you will be. And in discussions I have had with others and in my own experience, teachers that have mastered a subject and its content are not guaranteed to be good teachers. It is important to be able to explain a method or a concept in several different ways so that students can absorb what is important. I have had decent grades throughout university. I think I am sitting somewhere around a 3.4, but I wouldn't say that makes me a good and qualified teacher. I think it means that I have studied hard, read the materials I was told to, maybe even went to class, and am able to write essays. It is my practicum in the classroom that shows my abilities as a teacher. It's there that I show if I can be prepared, punctual, responsive to children, and a facilitator of learning. I am certain a lot of great teachers have been turned away because they were not as successful on the GPA scale. Why is this the case?
Some of the research focused on how long teachers stayed teaching. "Success" was defined as still teaching after 7 years. Doesn't really seem like a rational definition to base research on in my opinion. I think success should be measured by student success, classroom management and environment, teacher's well-being and happiness, etc. There would also be a large number of teachers that may have changed careers and moved up the ladder elsewhere, or moved overseas, or began a family and maybe chose to return teaching later on. There are a lot of factors I think were not taken into account for the published research. Anyways, the results were that full time teachers were most successful in the transition from student to teacher. So teachers who are most successful have had more experience for longer consecutive periods of time. Well that seems feasible to me.
I'm going to step aside from the research presented and talk more about the question, why do we use GPA to get into the Education Faculty?
The research above basically says the more hands on experience you get the better the teacher you will be. And in discussions I have had with others and in my own experience, teachers that have mastered a subject and its content are not guaranteed to be good teachers. It is important to be able to explain a method or a concept in several different ways so that students can absorb what is important. I have had decent grades throughout university. I think I am sitting somewhere around a 3.4, but I wouldn't say that makes me a good and qualified teacher. I think it means that I have studied hard, read the materials I was told to, maybe even went to class, and am able to write essays. It is my practicum in the classroom that shows my abilities as a teacher. It's there that I show if I can be prepared, punctual, responsive to children, and a facilitator of learning. I am certain a lot of great teachers have been turned away because they were not as successful on the GPA scale. Why is this the case?
Preparation
During the presentation this week we looked at strengths and weaknesses in our program at the university. We had a look at a little quiz created by professors asking university students and first year teachers to rate the preparation and importance they placed on certain aspects of their training. Even for myself I only rated one item at the highest possible placement on the scale and all the rest below.
The most common deficiencies found in the quiz were:
1. Classroom management
2. Understanding the changing nature of pupils' families
3. Working with parents
4. Establishing rapport with pupils
5. Working in an organization (relating with peers in productive interpersonal relationships)
I feel that we have discussed classroom management a great deal in my courses. We have been given a lot of theory on it and showed several practices that we could do in our own classrooms. We have also had several practicums where we should have been putting them into use and deciding which ones work best for us individually.
As for the changing nature of families, well I think we looked at this a little bit in social context in PSII.
Even so, we will become most prepared in these areas through experience in our practicums. It really doesn't seem feasible to have a course on how to make relationships, either you are a people person or you're not. If you're nervous, then practice will make better.
The strengths found were:
1. Writing and using lesson plans
2. Using audio-visual aids and media
3. Knowledge and Skill in computer based instruction
For the most part I would agree with these as well. With the exception of the computer instruction. We have had a few PD sessions offered on using the Smart Board and in PSI there was a technology course but I found it a waste of time. I did not really learn much new or retain anything if there was new stuff.
The most common deficiencies found in the quiz were:
1. Classroom management
2. Understanding the changing nature of pupils' families
3. Working with parents
4. Establishing rapport with pupils
5. Working in an organization (relating with peers in productive interpersonal relationships)
I feel that we have discussed classroom management a great deal in my courses. We have been given a lot of theory on it and showed several practices that we could do in our own classrooms. We have also had several practicums where we should have been putting them into use and deciding which ones work best for us individually.
As for the changing nature of families, well I think we looked at this a little bit in social context in PSII.
Even so, we will become most prepared in these areas through experience in our practicums. It really doesn't seem feasible to have a course on how to make relationships, either you are a people person or you're not. If you're nervous, then practice will make better.
The strengths found were:
1. Writing and using lesson plans
2. Using audio-visual aids and media
3. Knowledge and Skill in computer based instruction
For the most part I would agree with these as well. With the exception of the computer instruction. We have had a few PD sessions offered on using the Smart Board and in PSI there was a technology course but I found it a waste of time. I did not really learn much new or retain anything if there was new stuff.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
28 UP Nick
Finally, there was Nick.
- He was from a small farming community
- He went to school in a one room school house and was the only boy in his grade
- Had some social issues because he only associated with adults
- He spent most of his time on his own outside with animals and the natural elements of the world
- He was swept up after writing the 11+ exams in England
- Received grants to schools of the highest quality
- Re-socialized to fit into the elite
- There was a noticeable change in body language from age 14 as a young boy with his head between his knees to a young man of 21 who was a very confident Oxford student
- Took physics at Oxford, where he felt he needed to prove something as there were only 10 000 students
- Became an assistant professor in the USA where he noticed people had to go out and make things happen for themselves as there were populations of up to 40 000 students at one university
- He was the product of a Sponsorship system, which in turn made him the head of the Contest system when he moved to the States
- He noticed a difference in his thinking about finances once he switched systems, in the sponsorship he was taken care of whereas in the contest system he cared more about money because he had to make it for himself
- He was from a small farming community
- He went to school in a one room school house and was the only boy in his grade
- Had some social issues because he only associated with adults
- He spent most of his time on his own outside with animals and the natural elements of the world
- He was swept up after writing the 11+ exams in England
- Received grants to schools of the highest quality
- Re-socialized to fit into the elite
- There was a noticeable change in body language from age 14 as a young boy with his head between his knees to a young man of 21 who was a very confident Oxford student
- Took physics at Oxford, where he felt he needed to prove something as there were only 10 000 students
- Became an assistant professor in the USA where he noticed people had to go out and make things happen for themselves as there were populations of up to 40 000 students at one university
- He was the product of a Sponsorship system, which in turn made him the head of the Contest system when he moved to the States
- He noticed a difference in his thinking about finances once he switched systems, in the sponsorship he was taken care of whereas in the contest system he cared more about money because he had to make it for himself
28 UP Suzi
In the second part of the viewing we looked at Suzi.
- At age 7 Suzi was obviously from an upper class family, it was clear from the way she held herself, they way she spoke of her future and her physical appearance
- She wanted 2 kids with a nanny to take care of them
- She went to boarding school at 8 years of age which includes women's finishing school
- She spent her summers at her father's estate in Scotland
- At 16 she left school and moved to Paris, she just wasn't "interested" in school
- At 21 she was against marriage
- She wanted to get on with her own life
- She had a much more rebellious and feministic body language as she chain smoked, spoke of marriage and thought she knew everything but still had no real aspirations in life
- By 22 she was married, she said she just hadn't met the right man yet and didn't know what she wanted out of life yet at 21
- She married down but was still within a comfortable upper class standing
- At 28 she didn't see herself as moving up any further
- Hated boarding school because she was too young at 8 to leave her family, but has decided to send her children at 13 years old because it is a little older, and it is what she knows and so will send her children through the system she understands best
"The double rebellion"
- Rich upper class women go to university, generally have Marxist professors. The women rebel against their sexist, wealthy, elite upbringing. Then they graduate and marry someone of their own class anyways.
Suzi seems to follow this path. She rebels at some point but still ends up in the same comfortable status she was raised in and continues to keep her children in the same one as well. It comes down to inheritance and marriage. I think there is a trend in this behaviour because the women, and men, know that there will always be that safety net there for if they ever decide to return to the easy, wealthy life that is handed to them.
- At age 7 Suzi was obviously from an upper class family, it was clear from the way she held herself, they way she spoke of her future and her physical appearance
- She wanted 2 kids with a nanny to take care of them
- She went to boarding school at 8 years of age which includes women's finishing school
- She spent her summers at her father's estate in Scotland
- At 16 she left school and moved to Paris, she just wasn't "interested" in school
- At 21 she was against marriage
- She wanted to get on with her own life
- She had a much more rebellious and feministic body language as she chain smoked, spoke of marriage and thought she knew everything but still had no real aspirations in life
- By 22 she was married, she said she just hadn't met the right man yet and didn't know what she wanted out of life yet at 21
- She married down but was still within a comfortable upper class standing
- At 28 she didn't see herself as moving up any further
- Hated boarding school because she was too young at 8 to leave her family, but has decided to send her children at 13 years old because it is a little older, and it is what she knows and so will send her children through the system she understands best
"The double rebellion"
- Rich upper class women go to university, generally have Marxist professors. The women rebel against their sexist, wealthy, elite upbringing. Then they graduate and marry someone of their own class anyways.
Suzi seems to follow this path. She rebels at some point but still ends up in the same comfortable status she was raised in and continues to keep her children in the same one as well. It comes down to inheritance and marriage. I think there is a trend in this behaviour because the women, and men, know that there will always be that safety net there for if they ever decide to return to the easy, wealthy life that is handed to them.
28 UP Part 2
I have to start with the 28 UP part 2 because I missed the first viewing because of illness. Class was a little confusing when I walked in and people were making predictions on what would happen with Paul, Suzi and Nick. WHO?
What I got out of Paul was:
- He had no idea what a university was when he was 7 "What's university?"
- He had said he was quite lazy in school, and didn't have the "discipline" like the elite
- He had been discouraged from his occupational dreams of teaching because of his grades
- At 7 years old he could be seen building houses on the playground
- He had not been close to his family as his parents were divorced
- At age 8 he had immigrated from England to Australia
- He became a brick layer
- He married and traveled 15 000 km through Australia for 7 months
- He was from a working class in England and moved to a contest mobility country where he became upper middle class with his taking on of a trade
- He began to work independently
- He took on the view that "I don't sit on my bum all day, I chase it."
- He sees himself as just average, which shows a lack of self-confidence
- He shows aspiration for his kids
It's interesting that this man went through some very big life changing situations. I think as a child he was strongly influenced by his family social status as well as the detachment from family during the move to Australia. Because of his marks and his economic status in England he was not encouraged to pursue post secondary education, even at a very young age. His lack of confidence could be related to a lack of relationships and the types of encouragements he received growing up.
If he had stayed in England and still became a brick layer, he would have taken on the role and accepted as his place. Probably never aspiring for much more. However, because he was in a different context he was able to get some on hand training and make his way up fairly quickly and eventually work for himself, giving his children a good economic basis to live with.
What I got out of Paul was:
- He had no idea what a university was when he was 7 "What's university?"
- He had said he was quite lazy in school, and didn't have the "discipline" like the elite
- He had been discouraged from his occupational dreams of teaching because of his grades
- At 7 years old he could be seen building houses on the playground
- He had not been close to his family as his parents were divorced
- At age 8 he had immigrated from England to Australia
- He became a brick layer
- He married and traveled 15 000 km through Australia for 7 months
- He was from a working class in England and moved to a contest mobility country where he became upper middle class with his taking on of a trade
- He began to work independently
- He took on the view that "I don't sit on my bum all day, I chase it."
- He sees himself as just average, which shows a lack of self-confidence
- He shows aspiration for his kids
It's interesting that this man went through some very big life changing situations. I think as a child he was strongly influenced by his family social status as well as the detachment from family during the move to Australia. Because of his marks and his economic status in England he was not encouraged to pursue post secondary education, even at a very young age. His lack of confidence could be related to a lack of relationships and the types of encouragements he received growing up.
If he had stayed in England and still became a brick layer, he would have taken on the role and accepted as his place. Probably never aspiring for much more. However, because he was in a different context he was able to get some on hand training and make his way up fairly quickly and eventually work for himself, giving his children a good economic basis to live with.
Thoughts on Sponsored Mobility
England.
Sponsored mobility.
Status is given to you.
Early selection.
Only 1 elite.
Oxford tie.
Sounds just lovely, if you're in the right crowd. I already stated that I come from an upper middle class family, but I know it was worked for. It even sounds a little bit like the survival of the fittest. And yet not. If "fittest" is defined as wealth, then yes. If it is defined as hard working, then not necessarily.
I was raised in a meritocratic society. Work for what you believe in, work hard to be successful. And so I have. It bothers me when I know people cheat, lie or are just handed success. What did they do to deserve it? Is it jealousy or my value of work ethic?
Is it fair to give credentials to people based on their family name and wealth? And recruit the best of the best from the lower classes just to make the upper class stronger and more successful? The 11+ Club exam for example. Its a recruiting mechanism for brilliant children that would make it in Oxford crowd ONLY because they are smart. All because of a tie they wear and can sprinkle some Latin into their conversations, they will be a success.
I guess what I am saying is, I'm just not a fan.
It creates a monopoly of credentials.
ADDITION:
I also wanted to add that had my family been in a sponsored mobility situation, I may just be a housewife right now instead of a nearly successful post secondary graduate. My family may still be struggling at farming, working on the railroad, etc.
I know the view is different. People see themselves as and defined as a "brick layer". "My grandfather was an X, my father was an X, I am an X. I accept it and am proud of it." You know your place in society and are comfortable with it. Maybe I am just too eager and motivated to be restricted in that manner.
Sponsored mobility.
Status is given to you.
Early selection.
Only 1 elite.
Oxford tie.
Sounds just lovely, if you're in the right crowd. I already stated that I come from an upper middle class family, but I know it was worked for. It even sounds a little bit like the survival of the fittest. And yet not. If "fittest" is defined as wealth, then yes. If it is defined as hard working, then not necessarily.
I was raised in a meritocratic society. Work for what you believe in, work hard to be successful. And so I have. It bothers me when I know people cheat, lie or are just handed success. What did they do to deserve it? Is it jealousy or my value of work ethic?
Is it fair to give credentials to people based on their family name and wealth? And recruit the best of the best from the lower classes just to make the upper class stronger and more successful? The 11+ Club exam for example. Its a recruiting mechanism for brilliant children that would make it in Oxford crowd ONLY because they are smart. All because of a tie they wear and can sprinkle some Latin into their conversations, they will be a success.
I guess what I am saying is, I'm just not a fan.
It creates a monopoly of credentials.
ADDITION:
I also wanted to add that had my family been in a sponsored mobility situation, I may just be a housewife right now instead of a nearly successful post secondary graduate. My family may still be struggling at farming, working on the railroad, etc.
I know the view is different. People see themselves as and defined as a "brick layer". "My grandfather was an X, my father was an X, I am an X. I accept it and am proud of it." You know your place in society and are comfortable with it. Maybe I am just too eager and motivated to be restricted in that manner.
Social Mobility and ME
So there are two kinds of social mobility.
1. Intergenerational
2. Intragenerational
I got to thinking about my own position. In the past my families were humble farmers. My great grandfathers worked the land as well as additional work to support the family. As far as I know my one great grandfather worked on Canadian Rails and was involved in the Great War. My grandfathers were both farmers. The one had training in air mechanics for the Second World War while the other enrolled in the army. After the war they both returned to farming. One also worked odd jobs and drove the school bus.
My parents made the traditional nuclear family picture. My mom started out going through hair school, met a nice Christian man with a stable job. Dad had been working as a gas plant operator for a number of years before they met. They built their brick house on a hill and started their family of three. Kids were involved in sports, dance and music in their small farm community. Grandparents lived no more than an hour away and eventually got closer and closer. Mom went back to work just to keep herself busy once the kids were old enough to be left alone at home after school.
Then there was me. I am the youngest of us three. My oldest brother has had experience in several vocational domains but nothing overly steady. The middle child is a successful welder who will potentially be able to retire by the time he is 40. And I went on to post secondary education. A 5 year combined degree for French education.
I think there has been an intergenerational mobility. My grandparents and great grandparents would have been lower working class. They had to work extremely hard to make ends meet. They had strong community ties to ensure survival among neighbors. My mom married a stable successful middle class man that made a spot for himself on moving up the ladder. At present I believe he is the highest paid operator at the company because he has the highest superiority, time-wise. My dad worked his way up by staying with what he knew was going to support his family in a middle class situation. I would even venture to say he is upper middle class. He was able to keep farming just as a hobby and still allow his kids to follow their own dreams and support them as they needed it.
As for myself, I am lower class right now because I live below the poverty line. I live off of scholarships, a few months work in the summer and credit. However, once I am graduated and sign a contract I will become middle class. If I start at $57-59 000/year I would say I will be doing pretty good. I don't think I will climb any higher than where my parents are presently though. Perhaps my children will? Maybe its a trend of every other generation? We will see.
1. Intergenerational
2. Intragenerational
I got to thinking about my own position. In the past my families were humble farmers. My great grandfathers worked the land as well as additional work to support the family. As far as I know my one great grandfather worked on Canadian Rails and was involved in the Great War. My grandfathers were both farmers. The one had training in air mechanics for the Second World War while the other enrolled in the army. After the war they both returned to farming. One also worked odd jobs and drove the school bus.
My parents made the traditional nuclear family picture. My mom started out going through hair school, met a nice Christian man with a stable job. Dad had been working as a gas plant operator for a number of years before they met. They built their brick house on a hill and started their family of three. Kids were involved in sports, dance and music in their small farm community. Grandparents lived no more than an hour away and eventually got closer and closer. Mom went back to work just to keep herself busy once the kids were old enough to be left alone at home after school.
Then there was me. I am the youngest of us three. My oldest brother has had experience in several vocational domains but nothing overly steady. The middle child is a successful welder who will potentially be able to retire by the time he is 40. And I went on to post secondary education. A 5 year combined degree for French education.
I think there has been an intergenerational mobility. My grandparents and great grandparents would have been lower working class. They had to work extremely hard to make ends meet. They had strong community ties to ensure survival among neighbors. My mom married a stable successful middle class man that made a spot for himself on moving up the ladder. At present I believe he is the highest paid operator at the company because he has the highest superiority, time-wise. My dad worked his way up by staying with what he knew was going to support his family in a middle class situation. I would even venture to say he is upper middle class. He was able to keep farming just as a hobby and still allow his kids to follow their own dreams and support them as they needed it.
As for myself, I am lower class right now because I live below the poverty line. I live off of scholarships, a few months work in the summer and credit. However, once I am graduated and sign a contract I will become middle class. If I start at $57-59 000/year I would say I will be doing pretty good. I don't think I will climb any higher than where my parents are presently though. Perhaps my children will? Maybe its a trend of every other generation? We will see.
Norms
Norms are those unwritten rules that generally get followed depending on the culture. They are behaviours or ways we operate not because we HAVE to but just do it anyways.
For example, H1N1 lines. People stay in the lines in Canada. They might not somewhere else. There is no law saying you have to. We could push all we want. HOWEVER, there are cultural sanctions that take place such as getting disgruntled looks or in the case of the Flames jumping the lines, people get fired and the situation was strongly frowned upon by the media and general public.
I notice that in this sociological perspective course we take a step out of our little cultural bubbles and try to be unbiased about what we see. It almost appears that when we do that however, we tend to look at our own practices from a negative perspective and call it critical thinking. We step back and ask "Why do we do that? Who said we have to do that? Other cultures don't do that." It's almost a rebel stance. We become that teenage girl or boy saying "Well if that's what I am supposed to do, then why don't I do the opposite. There is no law, I can do whatever."
I think it is important to look at the positives and the negatives equally. Let's keep looking at the lines example.
What might be some negative perspectives on this practice? It might look silly, this long queue all the way down the street. It doesn't get you anywhere any faster. It might get you there even slower because some people break the norms and "budge". If supplies are limited why should you have to wait behind someone else if you might lose out.
What might be some positive perspectives on this practice? It reduces stress among crowds. At least in Canada, we seem to have these space bubbles where out of common courtesy you don't step over someone's personal boundaries. There is an element of politeness. Patience is seen as a virtue with our predominantly Christian backgrounds.
So I can see both sides of the story. But I think its better to create a calming environment. In this respect, I find our norms to be positive and useful in our culture and society.
For example, H1N1 lines. People stay in the lines in Canada. They might not somewhere else. There is no law saying you have to. We could push all we want. HOWEVER, there are cultural sanctions that take place such as getting disgruntled looks or in the case of the Flames jumping the lines, people get fired and the situation was strongly frowned upon by the media and general public.
I notice that in this sociological perspective course we take a step out of our little cultural bubbles and try to be unbiased about what we see. It almost appears that when we do that however, we tend to look at our own practices from a negative perspective and call it critical thinking. We step back and ask "Why do we do that? Who said we have to do that? Other cultures don't do that." It's almost a rebel stance. We become that teenage girl or boy saying "Well if that's what I am supposed to do, then why don't I do the opposite. There is no law, I can do whatever."
I think it is important to look at the positives and the negatives equally. Let's keep looking at the lines example.
What might be some negative perspectives on this practice? It might look silly, this long queue all the way down the street. It doesn't get you anywhere any faster. It might get you there even slower because some people break the norms and "budge". If supplies are limited why should you have to wait behind someone else if you might lose out.
What might be some positive perspectives on this practice? It reduces stress among crowds. At least in Canada, we seem to have these space bubbles where out of common courtesy you don't step over someone's personal boundaries. There is an element of politeness. Patience is seen as a virtue with our predominantly Christian backgrounds.
So I can see both sides of the story. But I think its better to create a calming environment. In this respect, I find our norms to be positive and useful in our culture and society.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Gender Equity
I came across the self-evaluation handout on Heightening Your Awareness on Gender Equity today.
At one time I thought that I tried to neutralize the way I treated my students, at least in regards to their learning, comfortability in the classroom and in the student-teacher relationship I shared with them. Turns out not so much. I didn't fail. But I wouldn't say it was an honorable pass either.
I answered 11/20 yeses. This means I got a 55% on Gender Equity in my classrooms.
I am fully aware that I use the words "hun" or "darling" specifically for girls and "bud" for boys. I also make comments towards socially acceptable self-expression and appearances. However, in my defense I haven't singled out or excluded students that show individuality through neutrality of gender or of cross gender appearances. I definitely give more attention to the boys because generally it is their behaviour and mannerisms are the ones that need to be in check more often. The novels I have used have been more likely to have male protagonists. I never considered the discussion of reversing the roles of males and females in the literature we read. I am more tolerant towards boys and roughness or foulness, than to girls.
Oops? As I have defended my actions before in that I agree with socialization to some degree, I don't feel that my giving compliments or "pet names" to boys or girls does not harm them. I think it builds a relationship and builds their self image in our culture. If I were in another country I would probably give complements that would be appropriate for that culture so that children feel accepted and comfortable in their environment as they have been raised. If a social construction crosses a moral boundary that is when I have an issue.
However, I did take the effort to eliminate stereotypes. I made an effort while creating a powerpoint for FSL 10 for a lesson on occupations. I had made the powerpoint with images, quite stereotypically. I noticed this as I looked back through it. So what did I do? I went back and "messed" up a bunch of them! I turned nurses to men, servers to men, etc.
At one time I thought that I tried to neutralize the way I treated my students, at least in regards to their learning, comfortability in the classroom and in the student-teacher relationship I shared with them. Turns out not so much. I didn't fail. But I wouldn't say it was an honorable pass either.
I answered 11/20 yeses. This means I got a 55% on Gender Equity in my classrooms.
I am fully aware that I use the words "hun" or "darling" specifically for girls and "bud" for boys. I also make comments towards socially acceptable self-expression and appearances. However, in my defense I haven't singled out or excluded students that show individuality through neutrality of gender or of cross gender appearances. I definitely give more attention to the boys because generally it is their behaviour and mannerisms are the ones that need to be in check more often. The novels I have used have been more likely to have male protagonists. I never considered the discussion of reversing the roles of males and females in the literature we read. I am more tolerant towards boys and roughness or foulness, than to girls.
Oops? As I have defended my actions before in that I agree with socialization to some degree, I don't feel that my giving compliments or "pet names" to boys or girls does not harm them. I think it builds a relationship and builds their self image in our culture. If I were in another country I would probably give complements that would be appropriate for that culture so that children feel accepted and comfortable in their environment as they have been raised. If a social construction crosses a moral boundary that is when I have an issue.
However, I did take the effort to eliminate stereotypes. I made an effort while creating a powerpoint for FSL 10 for a lesson on occupations. I had made the powerpoint with images, quite stereotypically. I noticed this as I looked back through it. So what did I do? I went back and "messed" up a bunch of them! I turned nurses to men, servers to men, etc.
Friday, November 13, 2009
ROME
Contest mobility
A system of movement in society based upon meritocracy.
It is a popular belief in the USA. You need both talent AND effort in order to merit the shift in status. It is an earned status. This means however that there is room for movability between classes if one is willing and capable to work for it. An example given is the story of the Tortoise and the Hare. The hare shows to be lazy and thinks himself superior to the tortoise. The tortoise has a steady and positive work ethic. It is also a system that is open as long as possible.
However, you must have visible credentials in order to move up the ladder. There is also a known competing elite. That may be politicians, actors, and corporate leaders.
An interestingly, with the contest mobility concept in the USA at present is Obama becoming president. He shows that the American Dream carries some sense of truth to it. Through the murky reality of racism in North America, the vision of equality and working your way up is open to people of different races, color and status.
Even more interesting, there is a parallel that can be made with Rome. While Rome had some influential leaders and corrupt political schemes, there is the idea that the empire may have fallen had there not been some substantial changes in leadership. Rome was at its strongest point in history when a General was named Emperor. The Empire survived an additional 300 years. The USA is known for its global influence and control at the moment and a black man was just named president. How long will their reign survive?
A system of movement in society based upon meritocracy.
It is a popular belief in the USA. You need both talent AND effort in order to merit the shift in status. It is an earned status. This means however that there is room for movability between classes if one is willing and capable to work for it. An example given is the story of the Tortoise and the Hare. The hare shows to be lazy and thinks himself superior to the tortoise. The tortoise has a steady and positive work ethic. It is also a system that is open as long as possible.
However, you must have visible credentials in order to move up the ladder. There is also a known competing elite. That may be politicians, actors, and corporate leaders.
An interestingly, with the contest mobility concept in the USA at present is Obama becoming president. He shows that the American Dream carries some sense of truth to it. Through the murky reality of racism in North America, the vision of equality and working your way up is open to people of different races, color and status.
Even more interesting, there is a parallel that can be made with Rome. While Rome had some influential leaders and corrupt political schemes, there is the idea that the empire may have fallen had there not been some substantial changes in leadership. Rome was at its strongest point in history when a General was named Emperor. The Empire survived an additional 300 years. The USA is known for its global influence and control at the moment and a black man was just named president. How long will their reign survive?
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Push for Literacy
The other day we were talking about how their is always a push for literacy and math skills. It is continually increased for children of younger and younger ages. Basically, if a child does not already know their alphabet by the time they come into gr.1 they are already behind.
There seems to be a global competition.
It is both at a political and a parental level.
Politically speaking, the curriculum changes every few years. It changes perspective depending on the group in power as well as by the complexity of the content. It is noticed that for example Chinese education has a much more difficult literacy program and so Canadians must be challenged just as much. It is noticed that French education systems increased their annual in school hours so Canadians should consider longer hours as well. Learning objectives and content delve deeper and deeper.
On the parental scope, parents are more and more concerned about what level their child is at. They realize that the neighbors kids can already use cursive writing, so their children need to step it up. Children are being put into more complex preschool programs to get them "ready" for gr.1.
Isn't it interesting thought that each child's brain develops at a different rate? That different areas mature differently by sex, genetics, and, for the sake of argument, puberty. It takes a child on average at least 18 months before they can begin to communicate using language and syntax. Some take longer, some less time. Depending on the hormones and genetic construction of a child will their pubescent changes begin to occur. Once they do, different abilities will become stronger. Girls and boys who hit puberty earlier on in life are more likely to increase their literacy skills at that time. Therefore those that hit puberty later on will have a much smaller area devoted to language in the brain. Those that hit it later, also are generally better with spatial skills. Generally it is the girls that mature earlier and the boys later. However, statistics show that that is not always the case and so there are hormonal and sex differences in learning capabilities.
There is a correlation between literacy and math skills and development or puberty.
Why when all the scientific research and evidence is there, is it not taken into account when setting up curriculum goals?
There seems to be a global competition.
It is both at a political and a parental level.
Politically speaking, the curriculum changes every few years. It changes perspective depending on the group in power as well as by the complexity of the content. It is noticed that for example Chinese education has a much more difficult literacy program and so Canadians must be challenged just as much. It is noticed that French education systems increased their annual in school hours so Canadians should consider longer hours as well. Learning objectives and content delve deeper and deeper.
On the parental scope, parents are more and more concerned about what level their child is at. They realize that the neighbors kids can already use cursive writing, so their children need to step it up. Children are being put into more complex preschool programs to get them "ready" for gr.1.
Isn't it interesting thought that each child's brain develops at a different rate? That different areas mature differently by sex, genetics, and, for the sake of argument, puberty. It takes a child on average at least 18 months before they can begin to communicate using language and syntax. Some take longer, some less time. Depending on the hormones and genetic construction of a child will their pubescent changes begin to occur. Once they do, different abilities will become stronger. Girls and boys who hit puberty earlier on in life are more likely to increase their literacy skills at that time. Therefore those that hit puberty later on will have a much smaller area devoted to language in the brain. Those that hit it later, also are generally better with spatial skills. Generally it is the girls that mature earlier and the boys later. However, statistics show that that is not always the case and so there are hormonal and sex differences in learning capabilities.
There is a correlation between literacy and math skills and development or puberty.
Why when all the scientific research and evidence is there, is it not taken into account when setting up curriculum goals?
Neutralizing gender and Parents
How do you deal with parents disagreeing with neutralizing gender?
This is a question that came up in class after the Sex and Gender presentation. I think it is a good question and a difficult one to deal with. Coming from a small farming community, gender roles are quite well defined and it is easily noticed and talked about if someone is doing differently.
As teachers we are encouraged to step out of the bubble and look into the community we are working with in order to see things from a non biased perspective. It makes it much more easy for us to neutralize gender in our eyes. Individuality and choice are what we value. However, when dealing with pink vs. blue it is a controversial concept.
Parents raise their children as boys and girls, blue and pink. Perhaps it is because they are less likely to look at the imposed genders we have in our culture. They are following the norms as they see fit and acceptable. So when the teacher makes a comment about how Jocelyn likes to wear guy jeans and be called Joe, and that that is her personal decision and is not to be seen negatively, mom and dad may disagree.
I think in our white western Christian culture it is "natural" to identify things with male vs. female roles. It is tradition. It is "written". To neutralize these standards and values is threatening to Biblical account.
So how do we deal with confrontation from parents?
It is important to always remember who we have behind us. Administration is there for back up. However, it doesn't hurt to sit down and get on the same page with the parents. Be sure to stress that in no way do you wish to offend their beliefs.
This is a question that came up in class after the Sex and Gender presentation. I think it is a good question and a difficult one to deal with. Coming from a small farming community, gender roles are quite well defined and it is easily noticed and talked about if someone is doing differently.
As teachers we are encouraged to step out of the bubble and look into the community we are working with in order to see things from a non biased perspective. It makes it much more easy for us to neutralize gender in our eyes. Individuality and choice are what we value. However, when dealing with pink vs. blue it is a controversial concept.
Parents raise their children as boys and girls, blue and pink. Perhaps it is because they are less likely to look at the imposed genders we have in our culture. They are following the norms as they see fit and acceptable. So when the teacher makes a comment about how Jocelyn likes to wear guy jeans and be called Joe, and that that is her personal decision and is not to be seen negatively, mom and dad may disagree.
I think in our white western Christian culture it is "natural" to identify things with male vs. female roles. It is tradition. It is "written". To neutralize these standards and values is threatening to Biblical account.
So how do we deal with confrontation from parents?
It is important to always remember who we have behind us. Administration is there for back up. However, it doesn't hurt to sit down and get on the same page with the parents. Be sure to stress that in no way do you wish to offend their beliefs.
Gender vs. Sex
During one of the presentations we've had in class, the following discussion question was given:
If you woke up tomorrow and were the opposite sex how would your life be different?
I said:
1. I would be more inclined to work in the oil patch than to be at university in order to make fast money.
2. I would be better at sports.
Some other really good comments were made.
Some of the people in class are married and they said that they would have less stress when thinking about the possibility of starting a family. At the moment their career would be put on hold and they would expect to stay home and raise the children. Whereas if they were the man, their life would not be much altered because they would just continue their day job to support the family financially.
The guys said they would probably still be teachers. However, the one comment was made that they would fit into the program better because as it stands there are only about 4 men in the class. As men they are a minority group in the education program.
How do these roles affect us?
If you woke up tomorrow and were the opposite sex how would your life be different?
I said:
1. I would be more inclined to work in the oil patch than to be at university in order to make fast money.
2. I would be better at sports.
Some other really good comments were made.
Some of the people in class are married and they said that they would have less stress when thinking about the possibility of starting a family. At the moment their career would be put on hold and they would expect to stay home and raise the children. Whereas if they were the man, their life would not be much altered because they would just continue their day job to support the family financially.
The guys said they would probably still be teachers. However, the one comment was made that they would fit into the program better because as it stands there are only about 4 men in the class. As men they are a minority group in the education program.
How do these roles affect us?
Shift to Man Power Model
The provinces of Canada are the who set up curriculum. Basically education is decentralized. However, the education systems are not so different across the country probably because there is an international standard that is expected to be met.
The Man Power Model is a shift away from student centered education to national standards. Which is said to shift throughout the industrial world. While the content decisions are made by the province, the federal influence is significant. Originally curriculum was set by a group of teachers. It has since transgressed into the hands or rather influenced by "members of community" aka MP's and their friends.
The functionalist view on this is that of orderly progression and management of conflict.
The conflict theorist view on it is that those who want their influence in curriculum must be powerful enough politically to have what they wish in the curriculum. For example, an MP may wish to have more emphasis on the importance of vocational education put into curriculum and would likely get what he/she wanted. Whereas an artist or a professor may wish to see more emphasis put on the arts or foreign language classes and would not see it done.
The model is a practice of teaching what they need in this precise moment, for example, pipe welders. It is cheaper for the employer to have under-skilled workers doing a single job rather than the highly educated and experienced workers.
Conflict theorists call it "de-skill" and see it as a threat to education.
Functionalists say it makes sense because employers need someone doing a specific job at a specific time in order to keep the flow of production going.
How does it make better workers? Teachers?
Well, it doesn't. If there is not a demand for more artists, then grants and funding in that area goes down. If the research shows a need for a specific skill at a specific time in order for money to be made, then the budget is likely to be approved.
A new concept is "Teacher proofing". Sort of sounds like child proofing a medicine bottle, also called dummy proof. Not an overly flattering term is it? It allows for tests to be narrowed in content, lays out the content of the questions for the teachers. Originally it was thought that a lot of complaints would come of it, but there were none. It simplifies the teacher's job. It also centralizes the content and what is tested. The idea of it is that teachers can't screw up because of the restriction given. Teachers are no longer independent professionals.
The Man Power Model is a shift away from student centered education to national standards. Which is said to shift throughout the industrial world. While the content decisions are made by the province, the federal influence is significant. Originally curriculum was set by a group of teachers. It has since transgressed into the hands or rather influenced by "members of community" aka MP's and their friends.
The functionalist view on this is that of orderly progression and management of conflict.
The conflict theorist view on it is that those who want their influence in curriculum must be powerful enough politically to have what they wish in the curriculum. For example, an MP may wish to have more emphasis on the importance of vocational education put into curriculum and would likely get what he/she wanted. Whereas an artist or a professor may wish to see more emphasis put on the arts or foreign language classes and would not see it done.
The model is a practice of teaching what they need in this precise moment, for example, pipe welders. It is cheaper for the employer to have under-skilled workers doing a single job rather than the highly educated and experienced workers.
Conflict theorists call it "de-skill" and see it as a threat to education.
Functionalists say it makes sense because employers need someone doing a specific job at a specific time in order to keep the flow of production going.
How does it make better workers? Teachers?
Well, it doesn't. If there is not a demand for more artists, then grants and funding in that area goes down. If the research shows a need for a specific skill at a specific time in order for money to be made, then the budget is likely to be approved.
A new concept is "Teacher proofing". Sort of sounds like child proofing a medicine bottle, also called dummy proof. Not an overly flattering term is it? It allows for tests to be narrowed in content, lays out the content of the questions for the teachers. Originally it was thought that a lot of complaints would come of it, but there were none. It simplifies the teacher's job. It also centralizes the content and what is tested. The idea of it is that teachers can't screw up because of the restriction given. Teachers are no longer independent professionals.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
