Friday, June 19, 2009
Monday, June 1, 2009
workshop 3, synthesi
Workshop 3, Synthesis Paper
Current educational practice varies across different socioeconomic groups and cultures in a way that preserves the gaps in equity between groups of students that perpetuate the power of a limited few.
In his book, Literacy with an Attitude, Finn describes the many factors and conditions that result in students from varying cultural backgrounds and different socioeconomic classes being taught differently. Finn uses the research of Jean Anyon to describe the disparities in the delivery of education along the socioeconomic continuum of working class to gentry. Working class students are taught using prescriptive lessons with minimal higher order thinking questions and minimal problem solving in an atmosphere of strict rules and compliance. This is labelled as learning literacy to be controlled. Conversely, J. Anyon observed that upper middle class students and the gentry were taught in a way that involved ample practice in decision making and higher order thinking skills in an atmosphere of greater flexibility for rules and regulations. This is labelled literacy for control. The discrepancies between educational practices disadvantage the poor and perpetuate the societal control of more affluent students. Therefore, effective literacy instruction that promotes critical thinking is not always available to all students and is more apt to occur in schools with affluent students. Poor literacy instruction, devoid of critical thinking and missing the discourse that leads to power is more likely to be presented to students of lower socioeconomic backgrounds. As a result of the discrepancies in literacy instruction, schools become institutions that are either delivering literacy for control or literacy to be controlled. Finn suggests that school with low expectations of student achievement, cycle further and further away from effective teaching, ultimately reaching a point where only good behaviour or a good attitude is necessary to succeed.
Finn describes the two outcomes of these two opposing instructional practices as either the make believe school model or the real school model. He compares his two models of schools to P. Freire’s theory that education either liberates or domesticates. The opposing outcomes described by both Freire and Finn result in inequities of opportunity for students and the maintenance of the status quo of a powerful few. The ineffective instruction provided to the poor serves as a form of oppression in terms of participation in a democracy.
In addition to the discrepancies in instructional practice between the rich and the poor, Finn uses the research of Heath to suggest that students who are not socialized to the task of school dialogue and behaviour are further disadvantaged in schools. Finn suggests that the primary socialization of working class students at home is most likely inconsistent with the explicit language necessary to participate in classrooms discussions. Schools fail to support and teach students whose home language discourse is inconsistent with the language of the classroom or the teacher.
I agree with Finn’s concept that educators are trading student cooperation with lower academic expectations. Although, I believe that this cycle of reduced expectations may be more prevalent in working class schools, it is not limited to working class students. Ineffective instruction that focuses on the transmission of knowledge producing uncooperative bored participants is present in many public schools. I thought that Finn’s argument of a reduced cycle of expectations was consistent with K. Stanovich’s biblical analysis to long term literacy failure; the Matthew Effect, where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
My own reflections and observations of current educational practices have left me wondering if we are teaching children or just managing students. I believe that classroom management strategies and school rules often get in the way of effective instruction. I have often observed educators spending a great deal of time and energy ensuring that schools are orderly and students are well behaved. It frequently seems more important that students are following the rules than thinking. I have always thought of this teaching as ineffective, but have come to realize that the real travesty is the social injustice of limiting individual opportunities for learning.
If you want to measure whether a school is liberating or domesticating students, you only need to take a peek into the recycling bin in the photocopy room. If the bin is filled with meaningless, closed worksheets activities, then the teaching is likely one that promotes domestication or control of students. If the bin is filled with open –ended, rich questions that promote higher order thinking then it may be a school that liberates.
I have observed teachers as the ‘gate keepers’ of the opportunities of education. It seems easier to limit the learning experiences of children who have no parent advocacy. I have witnessed and participated in teacher-parent conferences that dismiss the concerns of parents who are purposely intimidated or confused by the educational jargon of the teacher. It is easier to give a poor evaluation to a student whose parent will not complain and prompt an investigation of instructional practice.
I have observed my own ‘make believe schools’ where cooperation is the currency for reduced learning expectations. Many a student watches an irrelevant ‘movie’ on Friday afternoons as a reward for good behaviour. Lots of struggling students sit alone in the hallway to think about the class rules. As teachers we are quick to use the deficit model to describe children who are difficult to teach or difficult to manage rather that reflecting on our own teaching. Despite all recent evidence to the contrary, we continue to use the transmission model of instruction. Are teachers oblivious to the injustice of teaching for low expectations and control?
Matthew Effect (Stanovich, 1986) may be the cause of a downward cycle of expectations. Students who struggle with literacy acquisition in the early grades begin to fall further and further behind as their time spent engaged in literacy learning is reduced and their skills get less practise. Conversely, higher achieving students begin to spend more and more time engaged in literacy activities and their skills improve. Struggling students begin a downward cycle of improvement and better students begin an upward cycle of improvement or, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Finn’s make believe schools may be the long term outcome of the struggling students receiving no early intervention for literacy learning.
In order to make literacy instruction more equitable there needs to be a prerequisite understanding among educators that all students can achieve and all students are deserving of effective literacy instruction. Professional development for teachers is necessary to help them recognize ineffective practices that permeate ‘make believe schools’. There needs to be a sense or urgency and a willingness to take action to improve instruction and keep expectations high for all students. Early intervention is critical to prevent the long term literacy failure. Teachers have a professional accountability to reduce the equity gaps in education and by delivering literacy for control. Teachers need to stop making learning contingent on home environments and begin to explicitly teach students the language of the classroom as they enter schools. Early intervention for struggling students is necessary to reduce the downward cycle of achievement and expectations.
Finn, P. J. (1999). Literacy with an Attitude: Educating Working-Class Children in Their Own Self-Interest, State University of New York Press
Stanovich, K.E., (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the development of reading fluency. Reading Research Quarterly 16: 32-71
Current educational practice varies across different socioeconomic groups and cultures in a way that preserves the gaps in equity between groups of students that perpetuate the power of a limited few.
In his book, Literacy with an Attitude, Finn describes the many factors and conditions that result in students from varying cultural backgrounds and different socioeconomic classes being taught differently. Finn uses the research of Jean Anyon to describe the disparities in the delivery of education along the socioeconomic continuum of working class to gentry. Working class students are taught using prescriptive lessons with minimal higher order thinking questions and minimal problem solving in an atmosphere of strict rules and compliance. This is labelled as learning literacy to be controlled. Conversely, J. Anyon observed that upper middle class students and the gentry were taught in a way that involved ample practice in decision making and higher order thinking skills in an atmosphere of greater flexibility for rules and regulations. This is labelled literacy for control. The discrepancies between educational practices disadvantage the poor and perpetuate the societal control of more affluent students. Therefore, effective literacy instruction that promotes critical thinking is not always available to all students and is more apt to occur in schools with affluent students. Poor literacy instruction, devoid of critical thinking and missing the discourse that leads to power is more likely to be presented to students of lower socioeconomic backgrounds. As a result of the discrepancies in literacy instruction, schools become institutions that are either delivering literacy for control or literacy to be controlled. Finn suggests that school with low expectations of student achievement, cycle further and further away from effective teaching, ultimately reaching a point where only good behaviour or a good attitude is necessary to succeed.
Finn describes the two outcomes of these two opposing instructional practices as either the make believe school model or the real school model. He compares his two models of schools to P. Freire’s theory that education either liberates or domesticates. The opposing outcomes described by both Freire and Finn result in inequities of opportunity for students and the maintenance of the status quo of a powerful few. The ineffective instruction provided to the poor serves as a form of oppression in terms of participation in a democracy.
In addition to the discrepancies in instructional practice between the rich and the poor, Finn uses the research of Heath to suggest that students who are not socialized to the task of school dialogue and behaviour are further disadvantaged in schools. Finn suggests that the primary socialization of working class students at home is most likely inconsistent with the explicit language necessary to participate in classrooms discussions. Schools fail to support and teach students whose home language discourse is inconsistent with the language of the classroom or the teacher.
I agree with Finn’s concept that educators are trading student cooperation with lower academic expectations. Although, I believe that this cycle of reduced expectations may be more prevalent in working class schools, it is not limited to working class students. Ineffective instruction that focuses on the transmission of knowledge producing uncooperative bored participants is present in many public schools. I thought that Finn’s argument of a reduced cycle of expectations was consistent with K. Stanovich’s biblical analysis to long term literacy failure; the Matthew Effect, where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
My own reflections and observations of current educational practices have left me wondering if we are teaching children or just managing students. I believe that classroom management strategies and school rules often get in the way of effective instruction. I have often observed educators spending a great deal of time and energy ensuring that schools are orderly and students are well behaved. It frequently seems more important that students are following the rules than thinking. I have always thought of this teaching as ineffective, but have come to realize that the real travesty is the social injustice of limiting individual opportunities for learning.
If you want to measure whether a school is liberating or domesticating students, you only need to take a peek into the recycling bin in the photocopy room. If the bin is filled with meaningless, closed worksheets activities, then the teaching is likely one that promotes domestication or control of students. If the bin is filled with open –ended, rich questions that promote higher order thinking then it may be a school that liberates.
I have observed teachers as the ‘gate keepers’ of the opportunities of education. It seems easier to limit the learning experiences of children who have no parent advocacy. I have witnessed and participated in teacher-parent conferences that dismiss the concerns of parents who are purposely intimidated or confused by the educational jargon of the teacher. It is easier to give a poor evaluation to a student whose parent will not complain and prompt an investigation of instructional practice.
I have observed my own ‘make believe schools’ where cooperation is the currency for reduced learning expectations. Many a student watches an irrelevant ‘movie’ on Friday afternoons as a reward for good behaviour. Lots of struggling students sit alone in the hallway to think about the class rules. As teachers we are quick to use the deficit model to describe children who are difficult to teach or difficult to manage rather that reflecting on our own teaching. Despite all recent evidence to the contrary, we continue to use the transmission model of instruction. Are teachers oblivious to the injustice of teaching for low expectations and control?
Matthew Effect (Stanovich, 1986) may be the cause of a downward cycle of expectations. Students who struggle with literacy acquisition in the early grades begin to fall further and further behind as their time spent engaged in literacy learning is reduced and their skills get less practise. Conversely, higher achieving students begin to spend more and more time engaged in literacy activities and their skills improve. Struggling students begin a downward cycle of improvement and better students begin an upward cycle of improvement or, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Finn’s make believe schools may be the long term outcome of the struggling students receiving no early intervention for literacy learning.
In order to make literacy instruction more equitable there needs to be a prerequisite understanding among educators that all students can achieve and all students are deserving of effective literacy instruction. Professional development for teachers is necessary to help them recognize ineffective practices that permeate ‘make believe schools’. There needs to be a sense or urgency and a willingness to take action to improve instruction and keep expectations high for all students. Early intervention is critical to prevent the long term literacy failure. Teachers have a professional accountability to reduce the equity gaps in education and by delivering literacy for control. Teachers need to stop making learning contingent on home environments and begin to explicitly teach students the language of the classroom as they enter schools. Early intervention for struggling students is necessary to reduce the downward cycle of achievement and expectations.
Finn, P. J. (1999). Literacy with an Attitude: Educating Working-Class Children in Their Own Self-Interest, State University of New York Press
Stanovich, K.E., (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the development of reading fluency. Reading Research Quarterly 16: 32-71
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)