Sunday, October 23, 2016
Pinar
Well after reading Pinar I feel he may be as difficult a person to understand as Dewey.
I choose to read the articles in the order of which they were written, and I will have to say the first two seemed eaiser to understand than the last.
The first article "Aspects of Gender Analysis in Recent Feminist Psychological Thought and Their Implications for Curriculum" a few key points stuck out to me. One was the idea that issues of gender are everywhere in every culture, and that they are not born into individuals but they are learned through the culture (p. 114). It was interesting to look at the article in the time peroid of 1980 and compare to today, how more males are involved in the care of infants and the upbringing of children. One thing I still feel lacking from 1980 that Pinar pointed out, is the lack of males in the elementary school as teachers. I would say that the elementary school is still mostly predominatly female. In my elementary pre-service class at UCO I usually have 1-2 males to 24-30 females. I believe the role of males is so important for early childhood and elementary education espeically for the child who may not have this role model at home. As Pinar states "the absesnce of men gives children no way to experience the humanness of men as they exhibit the wide range of attitudes and moods that everyday contact allows" (p.123). What do you think in regards to the Pinar article and the role or lack there of of the male in elementary school?
In the article "Dreamt into Existence by Others:" Curriculum Theory and School Reform" I could clearly see the call from Pinar to restructre the school from the "assembly line education" to a "corporate model of edcuation" however Pinar seemed to state that this transfomation was underway and this was in 1991 when the article was written, however I still see that strong assembly line mentality lurking in our schools today. Do you agree that over the last 25 years the school has not transitioned much from the assembly line metaphor? I personally believe that this could be attributed to the NCLB or other national agendas which promote that children have learned based on standardized testing. One quote from this article that I thought quite a lot about was on page 239 when Pinar stated "schools are assumed to exist for the sake of job preparation, despite continuing if empty rhetoric linking education with democracy and politically-engaged citizenry." I feel like Pinar was stating that school should not only be for job preparation but also for the betterment of the individual and what that individual can do for society... however I do not think Pinar would say this individual would be created by empty memorization but rather active engagement in conversation? What do you think? Do you feel that educaiton is still primarly for job preperation.... I see it as college preperation now, but still not that deep questioning about one's place in society and their responsibilites to make society better.
I do find some hope from Pinar in the last article, how he addresses the "hiddend/ enacted curriculum" of teachers. He never uses these exact terms but he makes statements such as "an effort to persuade tose who will teach America's children to teach beyond their contractual obligations, toward self-realization and democratization, the realization of a progressive dream visible now only in the intellectual museums of our minds" (p. 121).
Well I would like to say Welcome Cacey! What do you and Barbara think about Pinar from these brief glimpses?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hey there! Thanks for taking me in this week and not leaving me as a orphaned blogger.
ReplyDeleteIn response to your first question, Alana, I think Pinar hits it right on the money. While it is the norm in our society for mostly females to teach elementary school, I could see the existence of positive male teachers as being very beneficial to young students. I know only a handful of men who have a degree in elementary education and of the few males who work in primary schools, most are in administration roles. Speaking from personal experience, many of us feel a financial burden to provide more for our families than what many teaching jobs can offer. The higher paying fields are a perk that education sadly doesn't offer at this time. This isn't to say that working in schools makes it impossible to provide a decent living, but I know many men do not consider teaching (or teaching longterm) because the costs of teaching outweigh the financial benefits. What do you all think? Do you think only salaries are keeping men from entering the field or are there other factors? Maybe some men simply don't like working with children?
Welcome Cacey! I clearly see more men in the elementary and secondary teaching fields, but as you stated Cacey, that is due in large part to the salary base. I have a family of male teachers and principals and they were always living pay-check to pay-check, but now, if it wasn't for the stipends they can also accrue (coaching primarily), I believe the numbers of men would be even less. Before I continue with the post, I want to remind you that I have lived for a couple decades longer than most students in the class...through the 70's (high school and college) and obviously beyond so I've experienced many changes within my gender role as a woman. Burning bras on campus in Berkeley (not me though!), the debut of Ms. magazine, the fights over the existence of "Barbie" dolls...not to even begin to speak of being the 1st this, or the 1st that during my corporate career days (I'll save all that for another day). I'm sure there are gender role issues within some textbooks and test questions that are aimed at being politically and gender correct, but I wonder if sometimes we aren't shining the light too bright on issues such as this. I believe there should be open discussion about all threads of our culture--poverty, social class, prejudice, and race relations. I'm up for gender discussions/debate on equal pay and equal opportunities, but I wonder if implications about school buildings emphasizing quiet, obedience, and industry can really suggest that is because they are maintained by men. Granted this was written in the 1980's, but today I see just as many women run their classrooms and buildings with the same authoritarian attitude with few men in the building. What are your thoughts?
DeleteCacey,
ReplyDeleteI know that the finanical burden is tough... A couple who really mentored me early in my math teaching career were a husband and wife (so this was secondary... but same pay as the husband was not a coach) they both taught math in the same school next door to each other now for probably almost 20 years... but I often wonder how they do it finiancially.... even 2 teachers salaries is not that much in today's economy.
I would say the money is a major impact, but I also feel males have to deal with a certain stigma when teaching elementary age children. I know a couple of years ago my daughter had Mr. James as her 4th grade teacher... she was ecstaric because she wanted Mr. James. But a lot of other parents were not super excited about this 38 year old male as their child's teacher... When I asked what problem they had with it beacuse I had heard from the year before he was great, they said things like "what is his agenda" "why would a man want to be an elementary school teacher" "do you think he is ok"..... to each one I told them shame on them, here is a man who went back to school to get a degree in education that he always wanted to do and they had the guts to question his motatives... anyway probably our best year of elementary school, he was a fantastic teacher and role model. All the kids took to him great and even some boys who didn't have postitive male role models at home can out of their shell and did great.
Alana, I have a male teacher across the hall from me that teaches 5th grade. He is by far one of the most popular teachers in our building---every students wants him for 5th grade. Great sense of humor, loves what he does, and is a great teacher and mentor for kids. Sad that men in some elementary schools have to be looked at as if they are some kind of predator. In the 1980's we looked at males as authoritative figures in schools, and now we question if they are predators due to their gender. Who or what is the culprit for our gender judgments?
DeleteI think a lot of it boils down to societal stereotypes. We just assume things based how we perceive various aspects of our lives. Take the media's portrayal of current events, political propaganda and our own insulated upbringings for example. Its amazing how powerful television images and rhetoric can be on a person's perception of the world.
DeleteI think a lot of judgements we place on people, gender or otherwise, generally seem to stem from fear -- Fear of losing power or control over our what we think we have control over. As a society, we tend to obsess over personal safety, so the fear of not being safe is one of the lenses we put on to look at the world around us.
I also just watched the Netflix documentary on the 13th amendment to the constitution. It does a really good job of looking at some of the societal issues of using fear of the "other" for political and economic gains. You all should check it out if you have a chance. I think it ties in really nicely to our readings this week.
I would agree that "fear" is what typically is used maybe subconsciously to "control" the masses. If those who are in power can keep the "others" below them in fear of something then this is a less likely chance that "other" will question or try to oppose the one in power.
DeleteI think to that some people just automatically fear something that is different or unknown. Since over the last couple of decades elementary education has been primarily a women's field then the difference of having a male in the classroom is what causes the general public to sometimes try to assimilate this difference by using fear as a tactic to keep people on their side.
I see this in many other areas than just males in education roles.... most are highly political but I believe that the government causes these fears of "immigration" or "terrorist" etc. to keep the general public from questioning too deeply what is really going on... I think we should start teaching children in school to question so that when they are adults they still have that questioning ability!
I see an aimlessness in school today--not so much in the elementary level because we are working at creating a strong foundation of reading, writing, and basic math skills that must exist in the early years. I primarily see an aimlessness in middle school and high school. What is the target? Is it to create students for the future job market? How can that be when we have no idea what many of the jobs will look like certainly for those students graduating 10 years from now. Students that go to college and major in English or Political Science...what impact will those degrees have on students graduating from college?
ReplyDeleteLast year I met with many state representatives and state senators and asked each one a simple question, "What are the outcomes you envision for students graduating from our K-12 schools?" Do you know I didn't have 1 of them give me an answer to that question, and most said either, "I'm not sure", or "I don't know".
Alana, to address your question asking if education is currently reflecting job preparation, I'd have to say no. When you read research of what abilities and skills our future job market will require, I wouldn't say we are building those characteristics or skills within our curriculum. I'm referring to critical thinking, problem solving, collaboration, and creativity.
Referencing Pinar, "Dreamt into Existence by Others", on page 242, he states, intellectual freedom would allow for mediative, contemplative modes of cognition, and for exploring subjects...isn't that what Dewey was also calling for with education. Allowing students to explore what they were interested in and what they also found they were good at, and then allowing them to pursue those interests to a deeper intellectual level. What would that look like? Would we gain back the creativity, the inventiveness, the drive for innovation if our students were able to find what they were good at and become inspired to learn more deeply about? Contrast that thinking with a high school student getting handed his semester schedule that reflects, "2 blocks of English, 1 block of US History, 1 block of Algebra 2, and 1 block of Spanish. Where is the connection between that block schedule and life?
You may be onto something, Barbara. The blocks of courses that all students take are in existence, so that all students can get the knowledge they need to be successful at the next level (high school for the middle schooler and college for the high schooler). Essentially, it is a construct that allows us to track that students know what they need to know to be "successful" at the next level.
DeleteI know Dewey and Noddings both will agree that student choice is vital to our students educational experiences in secondary school. Choice allows students to explore their passions and their gifts. I would speculate that allowing more choice in our schools would require a fairly substantial restructuring of the current system. One issue would be staffing schools with teachers that are able and willing to teach multiple preps.
Looking at it from the other side, many, like Quirk and Hircsh, would argue that having the block in place guarantee quality equal education for all. Ensuring that all students advance in mathematics, science, and writing, for example, would produce more well-rounded students. This would require teachers to simply be specialists within their discipline and makes schooling less complicated and more manageable. I'm not saying I agree, but I think it could be a compelling argument for some.
Alana, you asked in one of you later question if we think that our current education system is geared for job preparation. I think to some degree it is. Like you said, though, now I believe we are really trying to prepare all students for college. I was reading some Noddings yesterday and she is pretty adamant about saying that college is not for all students. On the surface this sounds like blasphemy, but the more I think about, I tend to agree with her. A lot of it stems back to how we view some jobs as worthy and some unworthy. As Americans, we tend to love sorting, categorizing, and labeling nearly everything. I think this simply carries over from our worlds and into our schools. Next time you're in a high school or talking with friends who have students in high school, I bet you'll see several initiatives to get kids to apply for college.
ReplyDeleteEducation has the power to break the cycle of poverty, oppression, and disenfranchisement for many students, so I definitely get it. But, if we're serious about giving students choice, will we also let them choose when it comes to postsecondary decisions?