The Up Series Part 1

How much of our future is determined by the time we are 7?

Yesterday in class we watched a very interesting video. The video, which took place in Britain, followed a number of children around the age of seven. The children were from a wide range of social classes from a lower class orphan to upper class prep school children. They were asked various questions about their thoughts and beliefs, and what they wanted to be when they grew up. It was so interesting to hear how the answers varied between the social classes.

First, it is important to reiterate how our formal system of education differs from that in the UK. Schools in North America are open to everyone, whereas in the UK schools are open to everyone … as long as you have money. Those who are wealthy in the UK attend the best schools and will go on to the best universities. In addition, in North America, it seems that the material taught is relevant for the most part. On the other hand, in the UK, topics and literature studied are more traditional and based on high culture. For example, Latin is often learned in the UK because it shows high class. In North America, there is a lot more opportunity to change classes and it is unlikely to know what lies in store for your future when you are seven. In the UK, class and level of future occupation are predetermined.

It seems as though all of the children in the video knew what class they were from and what it meant for their future. Those upper class boys who attended the prep school already knew what universities they would attend and what house they would belong to. Their language was much more advanced than the lower class children and I would imagine that they will become very successful. Those children who were from a lower class did not set high standards for themselves and understood that it would be difficult to be successful. It was often difficult to understand what these children were saying. Another noticeable difference was that the upper class children were more disciplined both at school and in the way they spent their free time while the lower class children had more freedom in this regard. The upper class children looked down upon lower class people, including minority races.

Thinking back to when I was seven years old, I had no idea what I would be when I grew up and I did not consider any limitations that I may face. I did not consider that it would be too difficult for me to become what I wanted to be. It was sad when the boy, Paul, said he wanted to become a policeman but that it would be very hard for him to get the education to fulfill this dream. In addition, when I was seven, I changed what I wanted to be every 5 minutes (actually I probably did that until I was 20). In our society, it seems we get to experience more before we decide what we want to be and there are not as many limitations.

After watching this video, we were asked to make predictions about where we thought these children would end up in life. Next class, we will be shown what actually happened to these individuals. I am very interested to find out if their futures are as predetermined as they seem.

Something to Consider ...

ANNA

“WHEN YOU ARE A KID you have your own language, and unlike French or Spanish or whatever you start learning in fourth grade, this one you’re born with, and eventually lose. Everyone under the age of seven is fluent in Ifspeak; go hang around with someone under three feet tall and you’ll see. What if a giant funnelweb spider crawled out of that hole over your head and bit you on the neck? What if the only antidote for venom was locked up in a vault on the top of a mountain? What if you lived through the bite, but could only move your eyelids and blink out an alphabet? It doesn’t really matter how far you go; the point is that it’s a world of possibility. Kids think with their brains cracked wide open; becoming an adult, I’ve decided, is only a slow sewing shut.”
- Jodi Picoult,
My Sister’s Keeper


I have just finished reading this book by Jodi Picoult and I made a note to remember this quote from the novel. I wanted to share it with other teachers so it’s a good thing that I have this blog to do so!

I found so much truth in this quote and also found it sort of sad. It reminded me about how children aren’t afraid to take chances and will often throw many creative ideas at you. As we get older, that seems to stop. Do we feel as though we are too old for Ifspeak? Do we realize more about the world and forget we once had limitless imaginations?

Teachers of all grade levels should encourage creative thoughts and establish a classroom environment in which students should feel comfortable to take risks. For some reason, students in older grades are so afraid of giving a wrong answer or getting made fun of for an idea that some truly amazing thoughts may not be escaping. This would definitely be a challenge to overcome – especially with middle and high school students. This is just something to think about as future teachers and also as adults who should remember that we can still be imaginative and creative! The great thing about being an educator is that those qualities only add to the effectiveness of our practice.

Are Norms Necessary?

After reading a couple of blog posts of my colleagues on the topic of norms (These Unwritten Rules Called Norms & Norms…it can be a scary thing). I started to wonder if norms are necessary for society to function harmoniously. There has been some discussion concerning the notion of not conforming and not following the norm, but I think this just causes problems for the most part. But what happens if we don’t agree with the norms put in place? Should we still follow them?

Being a polite and respectful member of society is important in my opinion. We should be open to following norms in public such as waiting in line, walking in an organized manner in high traffic areas, holding doors open for each other, and keeping our outbursts to a minimum. However, like Brandie mentioned in her post, what if the opposite becomes the norm … should we still follow it? I think for the most part, the norms in our society are put in place to keep everyone happy and to encourage people to behave “properly” in public. Maybe it’s just me but I don’t like when people don’t follow the norms when it affects me (well maybe I only care about the “common courtesy” norms…). I feel as though they think they are above being polite and waiting their turn.

I used the example of going to the movies in my comment on Vanessa’s blog. It just blows me away what some people do – especially when it’s busy. People push, are upset about waiting in line, talk through the whole movie, make loud annoying predictions about when Eric Bana will show up next in The Time Travelers Wife, and so on. I would be embarrassed if I did things like this in public. However, there are no repercussions for people who don’t follow these simple norms, other than my built up anger of course, so why not do whatever you want?

I realize that conforming and following norms when you don’t agree with them is not a good thing, I just feel that perhaps society needs some norms in order to function cordially.

Even though I clearly had a bad experience with people not following the norms… go see A Christmas Carol 3D, it was awesome.

Social Mobility

I found today’s lecture regarding social mobility really interesting. Social mobility refers to the movement of an individual from one social class to another. I had never really considered what my social class is or will become before. I would consider the family I came from to be middle class. I don’t feel as though my status will change much from that once I become a teacher and start my own family. Therefore, I feel that I will experience very little intergenerational social mobility. Intergenerational in this sense refers to the difference between parents and children regarding their status. This is interesting because my parents did not attend university but because social status is most often based on occupation and wealth, education does not seem to play a large role in this case.

I couldn’t say for sure where I personally fit right now. I feel like I am kind of in limbo as a student … I don’t have a career yet, I owe money, I don’t own a house, I don’t own an Oxford tie, etc. but at the same time I don’t consider myself lower class because I know that when I earn my degree and get a job things will (hopefully) change and I can actually consider myself to be middle class again – I will have earned my way there.

Intragenerational social mobility refers to the change of status within one’s own life. It is hard to say how much this could change in a person’s life because our society is based on contest mobility and with that can come personal insecurity. In the contest mobility model, individuals must compete for success and earn their elite status (this reminded me a little of meritocracy which basically says that you get what you put in). You can become a member of the elite in many different ways by earning your place there. According to this view, everyone has the same chance of reaching elite status; it is all based on ambition.

In contrast to our society’s contest mobility, we also learned about sponsored mobility which is based on Britain’s social mobility system. Within this model, status is given, rather than taken. There is some predetermination and everyone knows their place from day one. You become a member of the elite by being considered a suitable candidate and then recruited. There is also an emphasis on early selection of elites. This way there is more time for the individual to be shaped to fit the mold. Within this model, it seems that it is unlikely to change your social status and most people accept their predetermined place in society.

As much as it would be awesome to have elite status for being chosen for doing well on some test at age 11, I prefer our contest mobility model. Status should be earned and those who work hard should be rewarded. However, our society recognizes many different types of elite individuals and some definitely don’t deserve to be there (i.e. Paris Hilton…). Status should also not be predetermined; however, unfortunately a family’s status can have great effects on where their children will get to in any society. It is not correct to say that everyone has an equal chance. Sometimes people get where they are because of money or who they know. There are definitely some exceptions within this contest model but overall I think that the right idea is there.

The Hidden Curriculum (Process) Presentation

Today’s presentation was really well done. I really enjoyed it and found it very interesting! It definitely expanded my knowledge about hidden curriculum and socialization. I appreciated that the presenter approached this topic in an impartial way. That is, she was not criticizing this type of hidden curriculum; she was just explaining how we use it every day in the classroom and how it affects our students’ behaviours – especially in early elementary school. I found that this approach allowed me to think more about my experiences in school as both a student and a teacher, and determine the function and implications of this hidden curriculum.

The process type of hidden curriculum refers to everything that children learn in school concerning socialization and establishing social norms and values. Hidden curriculum is not part of the formal curriculum. Once a child enters the school system in Preschool or Kindergarten, they are no longer socialized exclusively in the home; the teacher and the school become another form of socialization. I have always thought of school as a socialization process but I never realized how much we do as teachers to reinforce what society views as important characteristics and values. Some that were listed today were: conformity, delayed gratification, competitiveness, and obedience to authority figures. I would consider the process of socialization to be almost as important as actual curriculum content. These are skills that will definitely be needed and utilized in the future.

We were asked to think about our first day of school as a young child. For everyone, it seemed to be characterized by a set of rules, routines and procedures that were to be learned and obeyed. Students are socialized to be somewhere when the bell rings, to listen when someone else is talking, to put up their hands when they want to speak, to be responsible for their possessions, to share and play nice with others, to be honest, to be positive about their abilities, to respect themselves and others, and the list goes on. Usually when we think about hidden curriculum, it has a negative connotation. However, in this case, I feel as though all of these skills are vital for success in school and later in life. We are not telling student they always need to conform and be like everyone else, we are implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) socializing them to succeed in school and society by understanding the standards put in place.

In my opinion, one of the most interesting topics discussed was the literature used by teachers (and parents) to explain these societal norms and moral lessons through the use of stories. Unlike the use of rules and procedures, this is something that I hadn’t previously thought a lot about. There are so many books about first days of school, listening to your teachers/parents, being a good friend, etc. I think this is a great way to teach children about these concepts (even though some of these stories seemed quite funny). Without these societal norms, the classroom would be chaos.



I plan on teaching early elementary and I definitely plan on having very clear rules and procedures set out. I think that this is absolutely necessary in the early years of schooling. It is a big transition for young students to go from being the center of attention to being a part of a group and I think they need to learn these behaviours early as they are also important later in life.

Bill 44 - A Step Backwards?

During the presentation today, Bill 44 was also brought up. I had heard of this before but the presenters really gave me a lot more information about it! Basically, Alberta passed a law in June of this year that allows parents to remove their kids from classes that discuss sexuality, sexual orientation, and religion. The school board must give written notice to parents when controversial topics are going to be covered in class. At first I was wondering how this could be accomplished as many controversial topics often come up unexpected in classes. However, after doing some research on Bill 44, it seems that there are no restrictions on casual classroom discussions but parents have to be made aware if it is directly in the curriculum content.

This law seems to be upsetting a lot of people because it is preventing our students from being educated about these issues and able to form their own thoughts and informed opinions. I understand and also have that concern for sure. We should be exposing young people to these issues and be able to discuss them in a positive manner in the classroom. Learning about different religions and different views on sexuality can be a very positive educational experience. It will increase awareness and acceptance of others which would hopefully teach us to respect one another. We should be able to form our own opinions but also be informed about and accepting of others’ values, beliefs and opinions. In addition, other critics of this law state that it is only further showing the close-minded intolerance of Albertans – why not teach our students to accept homosexual individuals as equals in our society and why not criticize religion in the classroom? According to those opposed to this law, this is a step back for education.



I very much understand the importance of discussing these issues but I also think that parents have every right to teach their children about these issues themselves. Parents obviously want their children to grow up with the values they have taught them and are probably just worried that teachers will not approach these topics in an appropriate way. It might not be that they want their children to be uneducated; it just might be that they are worried that the teacher’s values will get drilled into their children’s minds. If a teacher was challenging the values that I was instilling in my children, I would be upset. There are many controversial and sensitive issues that I would want to talk to my kids about rather than them learning about it exclusively at school. I’m not saying I would pull my kids out of classes such as these; I would just make sure they had enough knowledge to make an informed opinion regarding the new information they receive – in case the teacher wasn’t approaching it free of bias. I think it is better that parents have this right to pull their kids out of the class as opposed to the content being removed from the curriculum all together – which would be another extreme option.

Overall, I don’t fully agree with the Bill, I just understand why it was put in place. I think it is good for teachers to be able to inform students about different beliefs – as long as they are not telling them to believe a certain thing. For example, I think it would be great to teach students about all of the different religions. In Social Studies in Saskatchewan, we did exactly that – which I’ve learned now is not the norm. I went to public school and we learned a lot about all of the different religions and their foundations and beliefs. This was very informative and increased my knowledge on the subject. However, if this was done in such a way to say that one religion is better than the other or that clearly no religion is right it would be very worrisome. Perhaps this is why the bill passed.

Teachers should use these controversial issues to teach their students how to think not what to think. I would like to think that this would be the goal of most teachers and hopefully parents would look instead into how the information is being taught instead of preventing it from being taught at all. We need to open our students’ minds to these issues and new ideas while having respect for everyone involved. In which case, there would be no need for the bill.

The Hidden Curriculum (Content) Presentation

The presentation in class today concerned the topic of hidden curriculum. In particular, the group presenting looked at content as opposed to process. Process refers to the learning that takes place from the act of being at school. This would include rules, procedures, policies, and values that schools instill in students. On the other hand, content refers to those unintentional messages that are shown through content materials used in the classroom. The four examples discussed were race, religion, gender, and disability. Their discussion focused around how these groups are represented in recommended textbook materials – in particular science materials.

According to the presenters, one way an unrealistic view of gender is created in science is by omitting contributions that women have made to the field in curriculum materials. This is something that has come up in the presentation last week regarding gender. The group presenting on gender mentioned that when studying social studies and the history of Canada, male contributions are prominent. Unfortunately, this is part of our history and the predominant mention of male contributions to science and other subject areas in unavoidable. I don’t know if they necessarily “omit” contributions of women, I just think there were fewer contributions acknowledged from women. We cannot teach students that there were as many women contributors to early science when there simply weren’t - or they were not recorded as contributing. This is not to say that women weren’t capable of this study, it was just not allowed or encouraged. Instead of trying to change history, we as teachers should be explaining that this is how it was for men and women in our history. They will learn from that and see how it is not like that anymore and everyone should be seen as equal. There are many female scientists in more recent times that have done great things and discussing their contributions now would be beneficial. We can’t create more female contributions to the history of science when they simply aren’t there but we can encourage both men and women to pursue a career in science if that is where their interests lie. It was also mentioned by the group that when counting pictures of men and women in high school text books they were basically even which shows that we are hopefully moving in the right direction. Although science was previously dominated by men, times are definitely changing and we should be concerned with the present and learn from the past not try to change it.

Another topic that I would like to touch upon was the discussion regarding race representation (or lack of representation) in course materials. This is something that confused me. They were upset that white people were represented in ~70% of pictures in a particular science text book but previously had stated that textbooks should show an accurate representation of our society. I know that not everyone has had the same experiences as me, but all of the classes I have been in and all of the classes I have taught were at least 70% white. Those text books therefore may have been an accurate representation of the society I was in. I think it is great that they are trying to represent other races at all with our predominately white society. This is something that definitely would not have occurred a few decades ago and I find it encouraging (again, showing that we are going in the right direction). However, it is impossible to have a textbook that accurately represents everyone in your particular area – unless each area has its own textbook published. Each region will have a different percentage of each race mentioned and it would be impossible to get it right. Robert mentioned how FNMI are severely underrepresented in Canada’s curriculum materials depending on where resources come from. This is definitely true if the materials we are using are American. I’m not sure where the majority of materials come from in the field of science, but as a social major, I have used current Canadian social studies resources in the classroom. I feel as though the current books I used represented FNMI in a more even way. Even though I remember seeing this particular group represented, I did not consider how they were being represented. This is something that I will definitely consider now. Personally, I don’t think we should be concerning ourselves with how many individuals from each group are represented but more on how they are represented. We should be making sure that even though our textbooks show many cultures and races, that they are not showing these individuals in stereotypical roles – this is also true when concerning gender representation.

Hidden curriculum shows up everywhere - even when we are trying to be aware of it. We cannot control the text books we are given but we can teach our students to recognize biases and encourage them to create opinions based on the information we give them. Then again, I suppose that imposes an entirely different form of hidden curriculum…