"Shadowy Lines that Still Divide" - Scott & Leonhardt - 25 views
started by Lauren Tripp on 02 Apr 13
started by Lauren Tripp on 02 Apr 13
Start a New Topic » « Back to the EDF3604 - Social Foundations of Education group
I agree with Ernie Frazier. I think that if someone works hard enough, no matter their social class, they will be given opportunities. There is always a chance to move around from class to class, and a lot of that in my opinion has to do with how much effort the person puts into it. Also, I feel that teachers in the classroom should pay attention to students with talents in a specific area, not necessarily just math and science, and give them opportunities to grow in that subject and become presented with opportunities that will further them in their life.
This starts with a person's education. The phrase "constitutionally optimistic" struck me because the idea of equality and classlessness is literally written into our constitution, with equal opportunity to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" for all. Jefferson's meritocratic pyramid scheme for education was also based on these principles, but the class system in America still has semblances of aristocracy. In order to close this gap, schools need to provide all citizens with the same, base education from which leaders can emerge and pursue further education based on their merits. This requires standardizing curricula across the nation, no only so students achieve on grade level and have similar core knowledge, but also to ensure that these standards of quality education are met by all schools in all areas. In order to make this happen, I think the federal government has to create legislation or committees to form these standards, and provide financial support to the public education system. All citizens need quality, comprehensive educations in order to be have equal access to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," so America needs to promote (and fund) that change.
You picked an intersting quote and I agree with you that if a person works hard enough they can change their socioeconomic fate. Fact of the matter is most people who are born poor, die poor and vice versa. Even if you work really hard, how far out of your class does one really get? I guess it all depends on the person and what kind of education they get. Still even if you are only able to rise only a level above the status you had growing up, you still broke through a barrier. Hopefully it can only go upward from there when that person has a family of their own assumng their children work "hard enogh".
I agree with you that a standardized curricula is exactly what this country needs to give every student an equal learning opportunity no matter what. I feel that it would be more on the difficult side to be able to enforce this quality with all teachers because every teacher is different and has different motivational levels to really make sure the student is absorbing the information they are receiving. However, the government would need to set even more standards so that this would not even be a problem and the quality was continuous throughout the country. Also, the funding is also an important part of this change. The poorer areas would could really use the funding and make their students eligible for opportunities they might otherwise not get. This would be such a good thing for this country and hopefully something like this could happen in the future.
I totally agree that standardizing curricula, encouraging core knowledge for ALL people (and ALL socioeconomic groups, for that matter), and accountability to make sure these standards are met is a great way to level the playing field. From what I understand, No Child Left Behind was set into motion with those same ideals - have a standard curriculum, rely on assessments to enforce those standards, and provide financial incentives (i.e., federal funding) to those schools that buy into the whole program.
It sounds like a great plan in theory, but I can also see why so many people complain about NCLB. Who gets to decide what this "core curriculum" is? Are the tests fair - are they ACTUALLY testing learning constructs from the core curriculum (or are they testing cultural knowledge, mastery of english, etc)? Are students actually learning or are they drilling and drilling for hours to learn how to take tests? And after all is said and done, is this core curriculum even accomplishing the goals of education - do we want our students to know the place values of decimals, or is it more important for them to know the basic parts of an engine?
Social class has an enormous effect on the education of young Americans. For example, students living in a wealthy area will have the opportunity to attend better schools than students living in a poorer area. Wealthier schools are able to provide students with up-to-date course materials as well as extra resources such as laptops, smartboards, quality teachers and staff, extra curricular programs etc. I believe that some sort of standardized curriculum should be implemented in the United States public school system. Actually providing ALL students with the SAME education would help to bridge the gap between levels of opportunity across socioeconomic groups.
I do think schools are just teaching children how to take test. I worked with a middle school class for an entire semester and all I saw was the teacher dictating work in forms of how it is going to be portrayed on the FCAT. My question is what happens when the FCAT is over, now what do the students learn? I think the only reason we are educating these students is to well on their exam is to beat the other countries. We are so motivated to be on top it doesn't matter how we do it or who we affect on the way up. Unfortunately the ones who are negatively affected are the people with low SES
I agree to an extent that a person's willingness to work will bring them success. I think this is true for a large group of our population, but there are some people with extraneous circumstances that would prevent them from achieving success. For example, if you compare a person like myself, (middle class family, good parents, good elementary-secondary education, college expenses paid for etc.) to a single mom of lower socioeconomic status who grew up in a poor, rural town and now works full time, has a family to support, has outrageous medical bills because her child has cystic fibrosis, and has no help from extended family for childcare, or financial burdens.. This person works 10 times as hard as me and all of her money goes to the bare necessities of life and her child's medical bills. How on earth would she afford, much less have the time, to attend college? What are her career options without a college degree? My point is, hard work definitely contributes to success, but sometimes, hard work is only enough for some individuals to achieve the bare minimum.
I like your post. Money, it seems, is everything these days. People with it use it to get ahead and help their children get ahead. With money comes resources and connections. They say money can't buy happiness but it would make those who are destitute a little happier. Chances are if you have the resources to provide to your children, you will use them. All of us if given a chance to get these resources would do the same.
You are both right, standardizing curricula will/would be a difficult, maybe unrealistic, task. I think, in my vision, if this curricula were to work then the standards would have to be broad and flexible. This may seem to defeat the purpose of a "standardized curriculum," but this standard should be a skeleton that each school, classroom, and teacher interprets and specifies. It's not simply the hard work of creating these curricula and implementing them on a federal or national level, but also depends on what the individual educators do with the curricula. The idea of students knowing decimals versus the parts of an engine intrigues me. I think that accepting and embracing the idea of these flexible curricula opens so many opportunities for broader, expanded curricula, if American educators are willing to do the necessary work and provided with the proper resources.