I found it really interesting to read about Canada’s system of education in the text. Although I already knew a lot of this information, I also never really considered it before. Canada’s system of education is highly decentralized at a national level but is centralized within each province and territory. This means that each province/territory controls its own education system. On a federal level, the government deals with such issues as the equalization of funding between the provinces/territories (Barakett & Cleghorn, 2008, p. 19).
Even though Canada’s system is decentralized and each province has a separate system of education, according to Barakett and Cleghorn (2008), they are remarkably similar (p. 18). One possible reason for this is to allow students to move around Canada without being behind or ahead of their classmates. In other words, most provinces agree on what a child should learn by each grade level. If a child were to move from another country however, they may be significantly behind or ahead of their peers.
The unique structure of the education system in Canada has some advantages and disadvantages in my mind. First of all, I think that is it good that each province/territory is in charge of its own system of education. The ministry of education of each system in Canada can determine what is important in their education system and can focus on issues that are significant to their area. On the other hand, one area that surprised me was the teaching time spent in schools. Because our system is decentralized on a large scale, the amount of time spent teaching varies greatly from province to province. Specifically, Ontario is considerably lower than other provinces at ~3.75 hours per day. This is just one example of the difference between provinces.
Because I went to school in Saskatchewan and now am doing my post-secondary in Alberta, I notice a lot of differences between our school systems – especially being in the education faculty. I will admit that I really didn’t know what diploma exams and provincial achievement tests were all about until I moved here. A lot of Alberta students don’t realize this but in Saskatchewan we don’t have to do those. As a teacher in Saskatchewan, you can achieve a type of certification that allows you to write your own finals. Therefore, every final exam I wrote in high school was written by my teacher. When I found out that in Alberta you had to write a standardized test worth 50% of your mark in grade 12, I thought it sounded ridiculous – no offense Alberta! After I got into the education faculty, it seemed as though that was all anyone talked about. It seems like such a huge issue here, whereas in Saskatchewan it isn’t. I find that really interesting because we are right beside each other! That is yet another example of a difference.
Is it a good idea to allow these differences between provinces or should we be more centralized across the country?
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Comparing Theories – Functionalist, Conflict, & Interactionist
We have spent the last few classes focused on discussing and comparing various sociological theories. Since I have already discussed functionalism in some detail, this post will focus on conflict theorists and interactionist theories. To be honest, I was wondering what the significance in learning all of these theories was to studying education, but I understand now how important it is to understand these theories so that I am able to relate back to them when discussing the education system.
One of the most important aspects of conflict theorists that I took away was the idea that all institutions are controlled by and benefit the dominant class. Your social class is determined by your relationship to the “means of production” – basically your power. Conflict theorists seek the answers to questions that address whose interests institutions serve. According to conflict theories, the dominate ideas in society are those of the dominate class and one role of the school system is to transmit the ideology of this dominate class. In addition, schools train students for their already determined place in the economy. That is, those working class children will be streamed into shop class while their elite counterparts will be streamed into more academic courses. After reading Eric’s blog post - The Role of Schools and Education (Marxist/conflict theorist point of view) - I completely related to what he was saying about his experience in school. It is clear that this theory is not without flaws but sometimes this is the case. In the high school I went to, it seemed that many of the “lower status” (or working class) individuals were not encouraged to go to university and it was the role of the school to determine what job they should go for after high school and how to prepare them for it. According to this theory it is not our role as teacher to provide knowledge but to instill the “right” attitudes and lead them to their predestined roles. (Side note: I also hope that my degree gets me more that just credentials.)
While functionalists ask “How does it work?” and conflict theorists ask “Whose interest does this serve?”, interactionists ask “What does it mean?” For interactionist theories, according to Joyce Barakett and Ailie Cleghorn (Sociology of Education, 2008), “the task is to understand how structural variables become incorporated into the individual’s perceptions and interpretations of social action and how he or she acts on the basis of these” (p. 39). Within these theories, underlying assumptions and hidden meanings are addressed. In addition, it is explained how our perceptions of problems and what is in reality the problem have little to no connection. I think that this will be interesting when discussing the issues of education.
Now that we have some information about sociological theories under our belts, I am looking forward to discussing how these theories relate to education.
Barakett, J. & Cleghorn, A. (2008) Sociology of Education: an Introductory View from Canada. Toronto: Pearson Education Canada. p. 39-41.
One of the most important aspects of conflict theorists that I took away was the idea that all institutions are controlled by and benefit the dominant class. Your social class is determined by your relationship to the “means of production” – basically your power. Conflict theorists seek the answers to questions that address whose interests institutions serve. According to conflict theories, the dominate ideas in society are those of the dominate class and one role of the school system is to transmit the ideology of this dominate class. In addition, schools train students for their already determined place in the economy. That is, those working class children will be streamed into shop class while their elite counterparts will be streamed into more academic courses. After reading Eric’s blog post - The Role of Schools and Education (Marxist/conflict theorist point of view) - I completely related to what he was saying about his experience in school. It is clear that this theory is not without flaws but sometimes this is the case. In the high school I went to, it seemed that many of the “lower status” (or working class) individuals were not encouraged to go to university and it was the role of the school to determine what job they should go for after high school and how to prepare them for it. According to this theory it is not our role as teacher to provide knowledge but to instill the “right” attitudes and lead them to their predestined roles. (Side note: I also hope that my degree gets me more that just credentials.)
While functionalists ask “How does it work?” and conflict theorists ask “Whose interest does this serve?”, interactionists ask “What does it mean?” For interactionist theories, according to Joyce Barakett and Ailie Cleghorn (Sociology of Education, 2008), “the task is to understand how structural variables become incorporated into the individual’s perceptions and interpretations of social action and how he or she acts on the basis of these” (p. 39). Within these theories, underlying assumptions and hidden meanings are addressed. In addition, it is explained how our perceptions of problems and what is in reality the problem have little to no connection. I think that this will be interesting when discussing the issues of education.
Now that we have some information about sociological theories under our belts, I am looking forward to discussing how these theories relate to education.
Barakett, J. & Cleghorn, A. (2008) Sociology of Education: an Introductory View from Canada. Toronto: Pearson Education Canada. p. 39-41.
Admission to the Faculty
I just finished reading and commenting on a colleague's blog! I'd like to hear more comments on this topic. Here's the link:
Faculty of Education Admission Requirements On Trial
http://thesociologyofeducation.blogspot.com/2009/09/faculty-of-education-admission.html
Faculty of Education Admission Requirements On Trial
http://thesociologyofeducation.blogspot.com/2009/09/faculty-of-education-admission.html
Monday, September 28, 2009
More Criticisms of Functionalism
Although I have already addressed what I thought the problems with functionalism were, I think it is important to address what was discussed in class as well – just to reinforce my thoughts and close the discussion of functionalist theories.
As mentioned in my previous post, the notion of meritocracy just did not make sense. I discussed how the social class you are born into affects your ability to achieve higher education. This was reinforced in class by discussing the fact that those of higher socioeconomic status are more likely to go to post-secondary education institutions. However, just because one individual went to University after high-school, it does not necessarily mean that they will be of a higher social class that an individual who entered the work force right away. Depending on the degree you obtain, it might be difficult to get a job out of University that pays well.
One problem that I did not think to discuss is the ability to get a job even if the playing field is apparently equal based on education, talent, ability and work ethic. During the time this functionalist perspective of schooling was established, there was a lot of inequality in the states between white people and African American people. Although black individuals achieved levels of education equal to others, it was very difficult for them to get jobs because of their race. This discredits the functionalist perspective of meritocracy. In addition, there was what is referred to as the “glass ceiling” for women in the working world. This basically explains how women could not advance as much as men at their jobs regardless of merit.
Another problem with this theory is apparent when looking at the notion of the “expert society”. According to functionalists, with the many advances in technology, we have moved into a more expert society in which people need more complex education through formal schooling as opposed to learning skills in the home. Because of the advances in society, we would need educated people to fill positions in these expert fields. However, these assumptions were wrong as it has been proven through studies that many of the skills learned in school are not applicable in the future when those individuals are in the work force.
As discussed in class, functionalists are better at describing and identifying patterns than explaining the significance of them. This is good to get some basic information but other theories may be necessary to explain the significance of the findings.
As mentioned in my previous post, the notion of meritocracy just did not make sense. I discussed how the social class you are born into affects your ability to achieve higher education. This was reinforced in class by discussing the fact that those of higher socioeconomic status are more likely to go to post-secondary education institutions. However, just because one individual went to University after high-school, it does not necessarily mean that they will be of a higher social class that an individual who entered the work force right away. Depending on the degree you obtain, it might be difficult to get a job out of University that pays well.
One problem that I did not think to discuss is the ability to get a job even if the playing field is apparently equal based on education, talent, ability and work ethic. During the time this functionalist perspective of schooling was established, there was a lot of inequality in the states between white people and African American people. Although black individuals achieved levels of education equal to others, it was very difficult for them to get jobs because of their race. This discredits the functionalist perspective of meritocracy. In addition, there was what is referred to as the “glass ceiling” for women in the working world. This basically explains how women could not advance as much as men at their jobs regardless of merit.
Another problem with this theory is apparent when looking at the notion of the “expert society”. According to functionalists, with the many advances in technology, we have moved into a more expert society in which people need more complex education through formal schooling as opposed to learning skills in the home. Because of the advances in society, we would need educated people to fill positions in these expert fields. However, these assumptions were wrong as it has been proven through studies that many of the skills learned in school are not applicable in the future when those individuals are in the work force.
As discussed in class, functionalists are better at describing and identifying patterns than explaining the significance of them. This is good to get some basic information but other theories may be necessary to explain the significance of the findings.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Meritocracy - Revisiting Functionalism
After the discussion on functionalism we had in class today, I feel that I have gained a better understanding for it. Although I touched on it briefly in my previous post, I left out some very important concepts. For me, the discussion in class clarified the readings.
As mentioned, according to functionalists, the function of formal schooling is to allocate individuals to their place in society based on talent, ability, and achievement. Basically, this theory reinforces inequality in our society. The inequality of individuals in our society serves a purpose and so it can be seen as useful. The purpose is to allow society to function. According to this view, society is often referred to as a machine or living organism in which all parts need to work together to maintain a balance or equilibrium. This is why inequality is necessary; otherwise, society would not be able to function. That is kind of a depressing thought….
Apart from deciding our social status, another function of schooling according to this view is to “resocialize students from ascription and particularism to achievement and universalism.” Huh? … interesting … Well, this basically means that when children enter school they begin equal. They are no longer self-centered and special; they are part of society and must prove their merit. This is where the concept of meritocracy comes in.
Meritocracy is different from other systems we have been exposed to such as aristocracy, oligarchy, democracy, etc. Instead of receiving your position in society based on family, wealth, seniority or popularity, individuals are “given” their place in society based on their merit. Therefore, those who would fall in the upper class deserve to be there because of their ability and hard work, whereas those who are of a lower class deserve to be there because they did not work as hard.
Although we have not addressed the problems with this theory in class, there are some criticisms that I can think of. I do agree that people should be rewarded for hard work, but it still does not seem to be address appropriately according to this theory. My first criticism regards the notion that we all begin as equal and it is our merit that decides our status. It is a nice thought but the status you are born into often determines what is available to you. Education and schooling require resources, support and often money. This is not available to all individuals and thus they may not have the same chance to become a brain surgeon (a “crucial position in society”). It would require that they work very hard to achieve their education (i.e. having a part time job), whereas someone who has school paid for them may not have to work as hard overall. Therefore, I feel that those who are at the top or bottom of the scale do not necessarily “deserve to be there.” Natural talent and attributes play a role. There are so many factors that are left out of this theory that make it hard to buy in to. In addition, a second criticism is that merit is not defined. Who is it that judges which individuals have the most merit? How can it possibly be measured? Is it us as teachers that would determine who is to succeed based on what we individually think is impressive according to this theory? Do teachers need to pick out the student they think is the most intelligent and convince him/her to be a brain surgeon?
Well, I think I have written enough on the subject for now. I am very interested to discuss this more in class and will revisit the criticisms of functionalism and meritocracy in future posts.
As mentioned, according to functionalists, the function of formal schooling is to allocate individuals to their place in society based on talent, ability, and achievement. Basically, this theory reinforces inequality in our society. The inequality of individuals in our society serves a purpose and so it can be seen as useful. The purpose is to allow society to function. According to this view, society is often referred to as a machine or living organism in which all parts need to work together to maintain a balance or equilibrium. This is why inequality is necessary; otherwise, society would not be able to function. That is kind of a depressing thought….
Apart from deciding our social status, another function of schooling according to this view is to “resocialize students from ascription and particularism to achievement and universalism.” Huh? … interesting … Well, this basically means that when children enter school they begin equal. They are no longer self-centered and special; they are part of society and must prove their merit. This is where the concept of meritocracy comes in.
Meritocracy is different from other systems we have been exposed to such as aristocracy, oligarchy, democracy, etc. Instead of receiving your position in society based on family, wealth, seniority or popularity, individuals are “given” their place in society based on their merit. Therefore, those who would fall in the upper class deserve to be there because of their ability and hard work, whereas those who are of a lower class deserve to be there because they did not work as hard.
Although we have not addressed the problems with this theory in class, there are some criticisms that I can think of. I do agree that people should be rewarded for hard work, but it still does not seem to be address appropriately according to this theory. My first criticism regards the notion that we all begin as equal and it is our merit that decides our status. It is a nice thought but the status you are born into often determines what is available to you. Education and schooling require resources, support and often money. This is not available to all individuals and thus they may not have the same chance to become a brain surgeon (a “crucial position in society”). It would require that they work very hard to achieve their education (i.e. having a part time job), whereas someone who has school paid for them may not have to work as hard overall. Therefore, I feel that those who are at the top or bottom of the scale do not necessarily “deserve to be there.” Natural talent and attributes play a role. There are so many factors that are left out of this theory that make it hard to buy in to. In addition, a second criticism is that merit is not defined. Who is it that judges which individuals have the most merit? How can it possibly be measured? Is it us as teachers that would determine who is to succeed based on what we individually think is impressive according to this theory? Do teachers need to pick out the student they think is the most intelligent and convince him/her to be a brain surgeon?
Well, I think I have written enough on the subject for now. I am very interested to discuss this more in class and will revisit the criticisms of functionalism and meritocracy in future posts.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Theories of Schooling and Society
Reading through Chapter 2 from Sociology of Education (Barakett & Cleghorn, 2008) is a little overwhelming! It is important nonetheless. It was really interesting to read through the different theories regarding education and society and try to figure out which I most agree with. As with most theories, there are good and bad aspects of all of the theories mentioned. As we discussed in class, and as in mentioned in this chapter, sociology goes through various stages. According to Barakett and Cleghorn, “is it important to keep in mind that the process of explaining the relationship between school and society is not static – it is ever changing” (p. 31). Thus, it is pretty much a given that we find flaws in these theories. Not only are there biases in every theory, but they are also dependent on the context of which they were first theorized.
Because of the amount of information on these theories, I chose only a few to comment on.
Functionalist Theories (1950-60)
Basically, according to functionalist view, “the role of the school was to teach the necessary skills and norms for the individual to participate in society by sorting, selecting, and training people for jobs at each level” (p. 35). This would maintain the stability of social order. From the section on functionalist theory, we can see that this view indicates that in order to motivate individuals to strive be the most educated we must offer greater opportunities and “crucial positions” to those that have mastered the system and achieved higher levels of education. Although I feel that being well educated is very important in society, I find it funny that this theory states that crucial and important positions in the work force require high levels of education. When we look around our society, there are many important positions that do not require formal education. Also, as we discussed, just because you are highly educated, it does not mean that you are best suited for a particular job. In addition, higher social status cannot always be achieved with higher education. As it is critiqued in the text, this theory is static.
Conflict Theories (1970)
From this point of view, the school system is seen as an authority and means of social control. School teaches a “status culture” in which it is argued that the lifestyle of the dominant culture is deemed desirable (Barakett and Cleghorn, p. 37). Those students who are compatible with the standards presented by the dominant culture are rewarded. This theory questions how the education process contributes to equality and inequality. I feel that this theory has some truth to it. We are often shown how school books and some exams are geared towards the dominant culture. However, because these biases are being identified, I feel that the theory is not entirely true any longer. We are definitely moving towards more equality in education – from my perspective anyway.
Feminist Theories (1970s)
The feminist perspective on the relationship between society and education has often been excluded from theories prior. Gendered dimensions became a concern in the classroom and the feminist theories looked at domination and exclusion in the classroom (p. 53). Criticisms of the patriarchal ideology are often addressed from this perspective. Similarly to the changing trends regarding the dominant culture, is it still important to look at gender biases apparent in schooling. I feel that gender differences often still become apparent when considering the skills and career choices of different genders. As mentioned, hopefully we are moving towards gender equality as well.
Barakett, J. & Cleghorn, A. (2008) Sociology of Education: an Introductory View from Canada. Toronto: Pearson Education Canada. pp. 31-56
Because of the amount of information on these theories, I chose only a few to comment on.
Functionalist Theories (1950-60)
Basically, according to functionalist view, “the role of the school was to teach the necessary skills and norms for the individual to participate in society by sorting, selecting, and training people for jobs at each level” (p. 35). This would maintain the stability of social order. From the section on functionalist theory, we can see that this view indicates that in order to motivate individuals to strive be the most educated we must offer greater opportunities and “crucial positions” to those that have mastered the system and achieved higher levels of education. Although I feel that being well educated is very important in society, I find it funny that this theory states that crucial and important positions in the work force require high levels of education. When we look around our society, there are many important positions that do not require formal education. Also, as we discussed, just because you are highly educated, it does not mean that you are best suited for a particular job. In addition, higher social status cannot always be achieved with higher education. As it is critiqued in the text, this theory is static.
Conflict Theories (1970)
From this point of view, the school system is seen as an authority and means of social control. School teaches a “status culture” in which it is argued that the lifestyle of the dominant culture is deemed desirable (Barakett and Cleghorn, p. 37). Those students who are compatible with the standards presented by the dominant culture are rewarded. This theory questions how the education process contributes to equality and inequality. I feel that this theory has some truth to it. We are often shown how school books and some exams are geared towards the dominant culture. However, because these biases are being identified, I feel that the theory is not entirely true any longer. We are definitely moving towards more equality in education – from my perspective anyway.
Feminist Theories (1970s)
The feminist perspective on the relationship between society and education has often been excluded from theories prior. Gendered dimensions became a concern in the classroom and the feminist theories looked at domination and exclusion in the classroom (p. 53). Criticisms of the patriarchal ideology are often addressed from this perspective. Similarly to the changing trends regarding the dominant culture, is it still important to look at gender biases apparent in schooling. I feel that gender differences often still become apparent when considering the skills and career choices of different genders. As mentioned, hopefully we are moving towards gender equality as well.
Barakett, J. & Cleghorn, A. (2008) Sociology of Education: an Introductory View from Canada. Toronto: Pearson Education Canada. pp. 31-56
Sunday, September 20, 2009
The Implications of "More Math and Science!"
In class last week, we had a group discussion regarding the implications of increasing the focus and importance of science and math. This is a very interesting topic to discuss critically because if we are to increase one portion of the curriculum, another area will have to be decreased OR students will need to spend more years in school. If we require students to take more years of schooling to cover all necessary material, costs will increase, which is perhaps not the best option. On the other hand, taking another area of study and decreasing the time spent on it has implications of its own. It seems that the field of science is often given more importance than other subject areas. This is even true in University. An individual getting a science degree rarely gets questioned but when completing a history or dramatic arts degree for example, the individual often will hear “well, what are you going to do with that?”
If science and math are given the highest importance, it is likely that the humanities and fine arts will become increasingly less important and will have less time and money devoted to them. I strongly disagree with placing the importance of math and science ahead of the humanities and fine arts. These subjects are just as important as math and science. Although math and science are more “universal” than a language arts course, the skills learned in English class are definitely of equal importance. An article titled “New Studies a Cause of Concern: Literacy Levels Low” written by Sherri Gallant in the Lethbridge Herald from September 9, 2009 reads, “in southern Alberta, more than half of the adults (16 and up) are functionally illiterate; at level two or lower on a literacy scale of one to five (five being the most literate).” This article shows how important language arts classes can be and perhaps more time should be spent there. On the other hand, it is clear that Language Arts appears to be becoming less important with the increase of technology. For example: most spelling and grammar can be corrected for you, handwriting is out, the availability of audio versions of most books, etc. In any case, language is very important and should be placed on the same level as science. In addition, Social Studies is becoming so important in classrooms – especially with the curriculum changes. As a Social Studies Major, I was able to teach two units on the subject to Grade 2 and Grade 9 students – both new curriculum versions. The subject is very applicable to real life and I feel it is so important for people to understand the implications of current events, think critically about events, and have some knowledge of how their government is run.
The Humanities are not always considered less important, however, fine arts are often given the lowest level of importance. Drama, art and music are so important for many areas of development and should be given a very high importance. As mentioned in class, some parents would argue that these activities could be saved for outside of school. However, many families are not able to pay for music lessons and rely on music and band in school for their children. In addition, every student is unique and will automatically excel at and enjoy different subjects. It is unfair that even at a young age we are essentially expressing that being involved in art, music or drama is not as important as being able to do calculus.
To close, I have attached the link for a really interesting article I used for an assignment for a summer course I was in. In “The Role of Artistic Play in Problem Solving” by Eliza Pitra, the importance encouraging the arts, particularly in early childhood, is expressed.
Article can be found through JSTOR at http://www.jstor.org/pss/3193924
Reference:
Gallant, S. (2009). New studies a cause for concern: Literacy levels low. Lethbridge Herald, September 9, 2009.
If science and math are given the highest importance, it is likely that the humanities and fine arts will become increasingly less important and will have less time and money devoted to them. I strongly disagree with placing the importance of math and science ahead of the humanities and fine arts. These subjects are just as important as math and science. Although math and science are more “universal” than a language arts course, the skills learned in English class are definitely of equal importance. An article titled “New Studies a Cause of Concern: Literacy Levels Low” written by Sherri Gallant in the Lethbridge Herald from September 9, 2009 reads, “in southern Alberta, more than half of the adults (16 and up) are functionally illiterate; at level two or lower on a literacy scale of one to five (five being the most literate).” This article shows how important language arts classes can be and perhaps more time should be spent there. On the other hand, it is clear that Language Arts appears to be becoming less important with the increase of technology. For example: most spelling and grammar can be corrected for you, handwriting is out, the availability of audio versions of most books, etc. In any case, language is very important and should be placed on the same level as science. In addition, Social Studies is becoming so important in classrooms – especially with the curriculum changes. As a Social Studies Major, I was able to teach two units on the subject to Grade 2 and Grade 9 students – both new curriculum versions. The subject is very applicable to real life and I feel it is so important for people to understand the implications of current events, think critically about events, and have some knowledge of how their government is run.
The Humanities are not always considered less important, however, fine arts are often given the lowest level of importance. Drama, art and music are so important for many areas of development and should be given a very high importance. As mentioned in class, some parents would argue that these activities could be saved for outside of school. However, many families are not able to pay for music lessons and rely on music and band in school for their children. In addition, every student is unique and will automatically excel at and enjoy different subjects. It is unfair that even at a young age we are essentially expressing that being involved in art, music or drama is not as important as being able to do calculus.
To close, I have attached the link for a really interesting article I used for an assignment for a summer course I was in. In “The Role of Artistic Play in Problem Solving” by Eliza Pitra, the importance encouraging the arts, particularly in early childhood, is expressed.
Article can be found through JSTOR at http://www.jstor.org/pss/3193924
Reference:
Gallant, S. (2009). New studies a cause for concern: Literacy levels low. Lethbridge Herald, September 9, 2009.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
