1. "To those of you who received honors, awards, and distinctions, I say, well done. And to the C students, I say you too can be president of the United States." -George W. Bush
How do we conceptualize this knowledge, that merit does not always lead to the ultimate success, in light of Pres. Bush's comment? Is education the medium for the destitute to rise up? Do those born of privilege merely have to exist- be there- to find equal, or more success? How do we battle students' awareness of this injustice (that being the"best" doesn't mean you'll get the best in life)? Is Pres. Obama's election helping aid in reversing the appearance of injustice or in light of the "new black" consciousness, is his success irrelevant to today's black youths? More so, regardless of students of color, is his success irrelevant to society as a whole? Who exactly is Bush speaking to in his message- what C students get to become the president of the United States? How does Pres. Bush (or the belief he presents) complicate the educator's role and the student's motivation, across all backgrounds? Does this hint at systemic inequality/injustice? Why?
2.
Notice on p. 97 in the chart, after the 1960's (civil rights) there was an increase of ~14% in high school completion as well as ~3% jump in completion of a B.A. or higher (larger than any other year/decade prior).
3. "'Democracy does not require a uniform distribution of the world's goods' or a 'radical equalization of wealth.' What it requires instead is a 'continuous process by which power and privilege may be automatically redistributed at the end of each generation'...By giving every student- from the most humble to the most privileged- an equal educational opportunity at the beginning of life..."
Is this true? Is this how our democratic education system functions? If there still exists a correlation between social class and educational/capital achievement, how can this merit-based ideology persist? Especially in urban education when students are tracked and "begin" their lives and schooling with disadvantages the ruling class doesn't seem to have.
4.
In terms of tracking, "all the factors that could conceivably be taken to measure cognitive ability and academic performance together explain less than half of the variations in track placement." Keep in mind, 5 out of 6 urban schools in American utilize some form of tracking. How can this be justified when tracking explicitly limits student choice, mobility, and functions off of self-fulfilling prophecies? Does it not just further segregates students in urban education? WHY is this still an option?
5. "When working-class children became better represented in high school, college became the key to higher social status. When working- and lower-middle-class children began to enter college in large numbers, the system shifted again to a higher point, and graduate or professional school has become the key to higher success. Thus, increases in educational attainment are completely compatible with stable levels of social inequality and class reproduction."
Does this mean that social mobility is in fact a fabrication? An illusion created to give the appearance of change, of betterment? When the system is actually working, quite strenuously, to maintain the status quo?
6.
This leads me to my final discussion of a point made in the end of the article about "no variable can explain a constant." If "the inequalities reproduced across generations are substantial but far from perfect... [and] as a result, some rich kids fail and some poor kids succeed," does that mean the few successes of "upward mobility" actually represents a variable, an unaccountable deviance, fate/luck/whatever you have it/hard work that does not have any bearing on the constant- the constant being that rich kids succeed and poor kids fail? If that is true, does that not mean the system is static, fixed, and no variable can shake it? Or does that mean something larger than variables need to happen to cause the constant to shift?
Bourdieu Article
1. "As the educational qualification, invested with the specific force of the official, becomes the condition for legitimate access to a growing number of positions, particularly the dominant ones, the educational system tends increasingly to dispossess the domestic group of the monopoly of the transmission of power and privilege- and, among other things, of the choice of its legitimate heirs from among children of different sex and birth rank."
How does this quote relate to Question 5 posed above? How does it relate (or is explained by) Bourdieu's theory of "the social world [as] accumulated history" and the forms of capital (economic, social, cultural)?
Lareau Article
1.
Lareau writes in depth, using case studies/research, of the differences between members of middle-class society and working-class society's viewpoint and connection to "schools" (fields). Why do these differences in attitudes, and fear, arise... from what history? How are middle-class families legitimized within the field and working-class families left on the defense? In terms of sociolinguistic factors, how do these two "classes" differ and how does this tie reflect conversations and discourse we read about family-work relations? (~p. 90-93)
2.
What are the implications for us as modern, urban educators? What do we have to do to "bridge" this divide and make urban and working-class families/parents more responsive, inclusive, and safe within the field ("school")? How do we do this without imposing dominance and ideology of the dominant ruling class without dominating the conversation, expectations, and outcomes?
No comments:
Post a Comment