American Education - Spring
Chapters 2 & 3
My mind keeps going back to a conversation I had with a Canadian who was born very poor and through scholarships in the Canadian education system has become a very affluent actuary in San Francisco. When I explained to him that some cultures do not understand the importance of education he told me this was a foreign concept to him. As I agreed with him (having also grown up poor and through scholarship and educataion have far outsurpassed my parents income) I understood his bafflement. It is ironic that what the we have experience with as a tool for success others consider a waste of time. I fully agree that home and cultural beliefs will shape the feelings about school creating a perpetual system of hating school, doing poorly, making little, then raising kids with the same beliefs.
Some come to realize later in life that they should have paid attention when the school was free (as my husband's high school friend who is up for promotion in the Army has)
I found the statistics on Gender inequality highly biased. First a true measurement of comparison would be to compare men with women without children. Even more specifically with job choices mothers make for availability and flexibility in exchange for monetary gains. Similarly the professional degree is too broad in that a man or woman entering the teaching field would make less than anyone entering the management or marketing field. Instead of such biased statistics I think a better representation should be made to prove the point. Oh and please stop using up as a verb.
What I found interesting was the jump in the Asian earnings that made it equivalent to White workers. The obvious answer is the fields chosen. These statistics are so pathetical misleading I can't take them seriously.
As an aside I'd like to note that I just read that USA is the ONLY country in the world to differentiate race and ethnicity as two separate things.
I'd also like to take the time to note that I consider it offensive that the term working class which implies that those of use who earn more do not "work"
Oh and advantage isn't a verb either.
from my experience the lower class that I knew didn't remotely display powerlessness at school. In fact I have found that the poorest of the students had the most vocal of parents. This excludes those who do not speak English well.
Is the data used to suggest that the basis of entering the school is a limiting factor? Or is the home (which feasibly is continued through the school years) culture the limiting factor?
The poor are not getting poorer. the discrepancy in the income may be greater but they increase every year just as the highest level did.
Robin Hood failed. Friends who were bussed succeeded no matter what school they were sent to. The colossal failure in Kansas City supports this. Which leads me to chapter 3 where the (not even implied but explicitly stated)
I find it interesting that much of the resistance to inclusion comes from the parents of the special needs children with respect to the perceived needs of their child. I wonder how a person so concerned with the educational opportunity cannot favor a school voucher system.
How would the author explain the available funds, opportunity and ability of poorer San Antonio school districts on par with others and still with lower graduation rates, etc.?
Cultural Studies - Barker
Chapter 2
Wow how incredibly leading these questions are. Not that the Marxist views failed because they didn't account for true human nature or failed reasoning but on the inability of the people to understand their ideas.
I'll tell you what speak louder and slower and maybe I'll agree.
I disagree with the assertion that culture is not produced by the people if capitalism seeks to expand the audience. It may be the case that the culture is not utilized to the fullest by all portions of the society but that doesn't mean it wasn't initially created by a subgroup that many members of the society would appreciate.
I choose not to partake in the mass popular culture not because of the capitalist nature but because I think it infringes on my free choice of what *I* find entertaining. i also think there is intense pressure to like or dislike a topic based on popular consent and less on personal opinion. It removes the critical thinking of the society. I don't think of it as "left over" at all. I think it falls more in the domain of spoon-feeding. In fact I am likely to choose never to read a book or watch a movie based on the many people who read it (yet cannot critically discuss it).
I think popular culture is the new opiate of the masses. In addition all this is relative. While a man may make all the money, this does not mean that the man is dominating the woman. And I find a major dominating class to be those of educational elite who are pushing their ideas on those of us who disagree because they have a string of letters after their name even though they may not be as well read or hold a depth of knowledge any deeper than the rest of us.
How has popular culture incorrectly identified with the beliefs and behavior of the masses and how has that affected the society?
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Friday, January 15, 2010
Reading 1
American Education by Spring Chapter 1
"...some people argue that the goal of public schooling should be to reduce teen-age pregnancy..." (American Education, Spring, p.3)
I am not quite sure how to wrap my mind around this response. For the most part the education system historically reflected the moral beliefs at the time thoughout US history. As the moral beliefs changed then the education system changed due to the breakdown of families and support groups for children. If society accepts more options as viable then isn't education working at a cross purpose in attempting to educate and push for one option?
One main goal of the education system is crime reduction. This is a perfect example of my question. In the 1960s a liberal (in the sense of punsihment not necessarily political leanings) judicial system began a campaign to reform the system. In doing so many crimes that had previously held higher penalties were lightened. This in turn created a more levelled understanding of crimes in America and one became more or less worse than another (adultery not becoming a crime at all). An effect of this is a lightened viewpoint of the consequences of adultery.
Can and should schools work against human nature and the subsequent implications for historical problems (poverty)? In context, American poverty is very different from world poverty. What classifies as poverty here is upper middle class in Caribbean nations.
The fact that Jefferson wrote for public consumption that he wanted to rake from the rubbish (rubbish meaning all other school age children) some how amuses me (American Education, Spring, p.8). It is so very interesting to read something that is over 200 years old with a 2010 lens. I strongly agree with Jefferson that a main goal of the education system is to teach children to read. For me Reading = Power. Learning to read is more than a goal for society, it is a goal with the self-interest of the student in mind. Literal dangers await the illiterate at every turn and while there are many functionally illiterate people in the world, I believe the best and mostfair option is to teach everyone to read.
Slaveholders in the Antebellum South enacted laws to prevent salves from learning to read for a reason and it hurts my heart today to see many students choose to be ignorant by refusing to learn to read (or learn basic math).
I am not in agreement with Mann's philosophy on education with a common political creed. Mann's beliefs are contrary to key human tendencies. That is that when confronted with conflicting opinions, humans tend to seek out people who are in agreement with them. Wayne Wanta a Professor of Journalism and Executive Director of The Center for the Digital Globe has done research to determine reasons why people become more polarized when discussing ideas instead of more central. Mann's attempt to "bring everyone together" was a failed Utopian ideal that we still cling to today.
"Both show pictures of gay couples, including a drawing of two men in bed." (American Education, Spring, p.17)
When boundaries are pushed sometimes people miss the forest for the trees. Were my 7 year old son to bring home a book with two men in bed my immediate response would not be to the fact that it is two men but that NO BED ativities should even be suggested to a 7 year old. Children are forced to grow up too fast in this society as it is. The picture is not age appropriate for a school to require as reading!
This question was disingenuous at best: "Why was there no mention of unions or churches?" (American Education, Spring, pg. 25) The obvious answer for the churches part is that the media consistently demands separation of church and state. How could that be included without immediate hue and cry in opposition?
Cultural Studies by Chris Barker
Right from the start I have respect for the author for admitting to selectivity and a form of bias (though not in a negative sense so much as an expected consequence of writing that which we are interested in and passionate about).
I'm having trouble understanding the question and picture of the world. I would consider a picture of the planet earth culturally irrelevant. In fact I consider it more objective than the creation of a globe (which occurred hundreds of years prior to space travel) which would contain political and geographically created boundaries.
I find the book lacking and biased in relying on a definition of capitalism through the use of Marxism and it's core beliefs on why capitalism is "bad."
I would be intereted to find how a country like the Czech Republic has changed as it has 3 main economic ruling ideas governing the countries in the past 100 years. This would be an fascinating study on how the culture has evolved or changed based on these changes and how the Marxist view of cultural studies can or may be affected by economics.
How does the language of Cultural Studies change with respect to written and oral text? Oral responses give more meaning and depth than written texts because they contain more than words; they contain nuance and phrasea and tone lost in texts.
"...some people argue that the goal of public schooling should be to reduce teen-age pregnancy..." (American Education, Spring, p.3)
I am not quite sure how to wrap my mind around this response. For the most part the education system historically reflected the moral beliefs at the time thoughout US history. As the moral beliefs changed then the education system changed due to the breakdown of families and support groups for children. If society accepts more options as viable then isn't education working at a cross purpose in attempting to educate and push for one option?
One main goal of the education system is crime reduction. This is a perfect example of my question. In the 1960s a liberal (in the sense of punsihment not necessarily political leanings) judicial system began a campaign to reform the system. In doing so many crimes that had previously held higher penalties were lightened. This in turn created a more levelled understanding of crimes in America and one became more or less worse than another (adultery not becoming a crime at all). An effect of this is a lightened viewpoint of the consequences of adultery.
Can and should schools work against human nature and the subsequent implications for historical problems (poverty)? In context, American poverty is very different from world poverty. What classifies as poverty here is upper middle class in Caribbean nations.
The fact that Jefferson wrote for public consumption that he wanted to rake from the rubbish (rubbish meaning all other school age children) some how amuses me (American Education, Spring, p.8). It is so very interesting to read something that is over 200 years old with a 2010 lens. I strongly agree with Jefferson that a main goal of the education system is to teach children to read. For me Reading = Power. Learning to read is more than a goal for society, it is a goal with the self-interest of the student in mind. Literal dangers await the illiterate at every turn and while there are many functionally illiterate people in the world, I believe the best and mostfair option is to teach everyone to read.
Slaveholders in the Antebellum South enacted laws to prevent salves from learning to read for a reason and it hurts my heart today to see many students choose to be ignorant by refusing to learn to read (or learn basic math).
I am not in agreement with Mann's philosophy on education with a common political creed. Mann's beliefs are contrary to key human tendencies. That is that when confronted with conflicting opinions, humans tend to seek out people who are in agreement with them. Wayne Wanta a Professor of Journalism and Executive Director of The Center for the Digital Globe has done research to determine reasons why people become more polarized when discussing ideas instead of more central. Mann's attempt to "bring everyone together" was a failed Utopian ideal that we still cling to today.
"Both show pictures of gay couples, including a drawing of two men in bed." (American Education, Spring, p.17)
When boundaries are pushed sometimes people miss the forest for the trees. Were my 7 year old son to bring home a book with two men in bed my immediate response would not be to the fact that it is two men but that NO BED ativities should even be suggested to a 7 year old. Children are forced to grow up too fast in this society as it is. The picture is not age appropriate for a school to require as reading!
This question was disingenuous at best: "Why was there no mention of unions or churches?" (American Education, Spring, pg. 25) The obvious answer for the churches part is that the media consistently demands separation of church and state. How could that be included without immediate hue and cry in opposition?
Cultural Studies by Chris Barker
Right from the start I have respect for the author for admitting to selectivity and a form of bias (though not in a negative sense so much as an expected consequence of writing that which we are interested in and passionate about).
I'm having trouble understanding the question and picture of the world. I would consider a picture of the planet earth culturally irrelevant. In fact I consider it more objective than the creation of a globe (which occurred hundreds of years prior to space travel) which would contain political and geographically created boundaries.
I find the book lacking and biased in relying on a definition of capitalism through the use of Marxism and it's core beliefs on why capitalism is "bad."
I would be intereted to find how a country like the Czech Republic has changed as it has 3 main economic ruling ideas governing the countries in the past 100 years. This would be an fascinating study on how the culture has evolved or changed based on these changes and how the Marxist view of cultural studies can or may be affected by economics.
How does the language of Cultural Studies change with respect to written and oral text? Oral responses give more meaning and depth than written texts because they contain more than words; they contain nuance and phrasea and tone lost in texts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
