When I initially saw this assignment on the syllabus for ED500, I was dreading it. I have made several failed attempts to blog on my own personal interests, and now to have to do it about what we will be studying in class? It'll be just another hassle, I thought. However, once I understood Dr. Shutkin's concept and purpose behind the assignment, I became more openminded. Perhaps this would be an interesting way to stay connected to what we're learning in class. I knew that in order for me to genuinely succeed in a class, that being earning good grades AND developing comprehensive and analytical applications of the knowledge, I have to be engaged. Traditionally I accomplish this by class participation, but I realized that in our larger class setting, I might not get to say everything I want to, or I might think of things later and not get the chance to explore them. With this web long concept, however, I now had space to do such further exploration of ideas and make connections to real life history, present and future! It was an avenue of taking those "intellectual risks" that Dr. Shutkin had mentioned at the start of the course. And for me, who is much more effective in communicating through writing than speaking, this web log assignment has been an academic gift. In all seriousness, I have never been given this opportunity before, and what was great about this was we were given actual class time to discuss the themes of our blog posts with other members of the class! The concept is quite marvelous, and I am so grateful for having had this learning experience.
Thank you.
Spring, J. (2011) The American School : a global context from the puritans to the Obama era. 8th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
reflection on writing circle 5
Today the group discussed where they are in the process of writing their research papers and how they plan to integrate their personal experiences into the historical research of their papers. I did get an understanding of how some people will integrate these two aspects in their papers, and I think it would be informing and interesting to read their final work. I appreciated support for overcoming my current frustrations in the brainstorming process, and the attention a member gave to a previous post of mine. I do wish there was an opportunity to discuss with someone the information I found on Ellen Richards though, as I found it very intriguing.
Monday, July 9, 2012
further investigation of Ellen Richards
In chapter 8 of our text, Spring sheds light on the emergence of the domestic sciences and the field of home economics in the late 19th century and early 20th century. He cites that the aim of the undefined "home economics experts" was to professionalize the role of the domestic housewife, and that by applying the domestic sciences, she would be liberated from the drudgery of her household duties to more freely pursue further education and to engage in social reform.
Upon rereading this section and doing elementary research on Ellen Richards, I've concluded that I was misled by Spring's summary introduction of this sections, in that I assumed when he cited " home economic experts" of the day that he meant men, when in fact the term "home economics" was only coined by Ellen Richards herself at the convention of the 1899 Lake Placid Conference on Home Economics. It seems to me that Spring places Richards in a context to demean the academic integrity of her studies, because he does not mention in what specific field her degree was from MIT, which was a Bachelor's of Science in Chemistry, nor does he cite the fact that she fought the institution for the opportunity to earn her doctorate degree, but that they adamantly refused to give such a distinction to a woman.
I am glad to have the increased knowledge of such a pioneering woman in the field of education, though I admit I still find conflict with what seems, based on Spring's depiction of the movement, to be a settling for a study of a less academic, or less scientific arena of domestic science. I am inclined to scoff at the notion of the "professionalization of the domestic housewife", as I consider that phrase to be an oxymoron. Simply put, there is no professional license or even proof of any kind of achievement or engagement of study to fit the role of domestic housewife. Now, it could also be argued that the role as commonly conceived is a social construct in itself, and the word by it's very etymological nature defines and supports the biased gender divisions of labor in the society of this time. My argument originates from an intolerance to accept domestic duties, or those relating to the management of the home, as a sole or even primary responsibility of a woman, wife or otherwise. Further, such entrenchment of biased gender roles not only directly contributes to the obstacles she is to find in her pursuit of equality in all things afforded to men, but it also quells and suppresses any attempts at societal change or advancement of an equality perspective.
I am compelled to ask the question as to why a woman as passionate about attaining knowledge of the sciences as Ellen Richards would agree and promote a system of grooming women to be not anything different than "the best domestic housewife", under the guise of an academic education, nonetheless. I am not saying that certain knowledge that she undoubtedly advocated be taught regarding sanitation, chemistry, or basic scientific principles was pointless, but that it had ought to have not been limited to domestic application, because such limitations can only reinforce that there is a cap on academic pursuits/opportunities for women, and it is at the level of housework. I found a quote from Richards explaining why she was interested in and advocated for the study of home economics: "Perhaps the fact that I am not a radical and that I do not scorn womanly duties but claim it as a privilege to clean up and sort of supervise the room and sew things is winning me stronger allies than anything else." (Gale Encyclopedia of Biography, 2006) This was likely true, as it can logically be presumed that her future accomplishments in the field of science were endorsed, promoted, and sustained by male "allies" in the field, given the lack of opportunities awarded to women in the professional world.
In conclusion, I have decided that while I am proud of Ellen Richards for her relentless and determined pursuit of her own education, as well as for her professional achievements and contributions to the scientific community, I do not idolize her acquiescence of the relegation of certain aspects of science to be aimed at what is a blatant method of maintaining the role of women to be managers of the house, and thus pre-defining their intellectual abilities to the scope of domesticity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellen_Swallow_Richards 7/9/2012
Upon rereading this section and doing elementary research on Ellen Richards, I've concluded that I was misled by Spring's summary introduction of this sections, in that I assumed when he cited " home economic experts" of the day that he meant men, when in fact the term "home economics" was only coined by Ellen Richards herself at the convention of the 1899 Lake Placid Conference on Home Economics. It seems to me that Spring places Richards in a context to demean the academic integrity of her studies, because he does not mention in what specific field her degree was from MIT, which was a Bachelor's of Science in Chemistry, nor does he cite the fact that she fought the institution for the opportunity to earn her doctorate degree, but that they adamantly refused to give such a distinction to a woman.
I am glad to have the increased knowledge of such a pioneering woman in the field of education, though I admit I still find conflict with what seems, based on Spring's depiction of the movement, to be a settling for a study of a less academic, or less scientific arena of domestic science. I am inclined to scoff at the notion of the "professionalization of the domestic housewife", as I consider that phrase to be an oxymoron. Simply put, there is no professional license or even proof of any kind of achievement or engagement of study to fit the role of domestic housewife. Now, it could also be argued that the role as commonly conceived is a social construct in itself, and the word by it's very etymological nature defines and supports the biased gender divisions of labor in the society of this time. My argument originates from an intolerance to accept domestic duties, or those relating to the management of the home, as a sole or even primary responsibility of a woman, wife or otherwise. Further, such entrenchment of biased gender roles not only directly contributes to the obstacles she is to find in her pursuit of equality in all things afforded to men, but it also quells and suppresses any attempts at societal change or advancement of an equality perspective.
I am compelled to ask the question as to why a woman as passionate about attaining knowledge of the sciences as Ellen Richards would agree and promote a system of grooming women to be not anything different than "the best domestic housewife", under the guise of an academic education, nonetheless. I am not saying that certain knowledge that she undoubtedly advocated be taught regarding sanitation, chemistry, or basic scientific principles was pointless, but that it had ought to have not been limited to domestic application, because such limitations can only reinforce that there is a cap on academic pursuits/opportunities for women, and it is at the level of housework. I found a quote from Richards explaining why she was interested in and advocated for the study of home economics: "Perhaps the fact that I am not a radical and that I do not scorn womanly duties but claim it as a privilege to clean up and sort of supervise the room and sew things is winning me stronger allies than anything else." (Gale Encyclopedia of Biography, 2006) This was likely true, as it can logically be presumed that her future accomplishments in the field of science were endorsed, promoted, and sustained by male "allies" in the field, given the lack of opportunities awarded to women in the professional world.
In conclusion, I have decided that while I am proud of Ellen Richards for her relentless and determined pursuit of her own education, as well as for her professional achievements and contributions to the scientific community, I do not idolize her acquiescence of the relegation of certain aspects of science to be aimed at what is a blatant method of maintaining the role of women to be managers of the house, and thus pre-defining their intellectual abilities to the scope of domesticity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellen_Swallow_Richards 7/9/2012
" Ellen Richards." 2012. Biography.com 12 Jul 2012, 11:35 http://www.biography.com/people/ellen-richards-9457351 7/9/2012
Thursday, July 5, 2012
reflection on writing circle 4 (and an anecdote)
I have realized that I have not exactly written cohesive, succinct Web Logs in a clear direction of a paper topic. While all of the topics on which I have written in my Web Logs interest me, I am thinking that I want to pursue research on the topic of women's education. I am very interested in uncovering the history and development of education for women, as well as examining any discrimination and biases that existed in various eras of history and in the present. While I have faint memories of gender bias occurring in the schools I attended, I am reluctant to classify any instance as one of outright discrimination. Favoritism, certainly. Biased expectations, of course. I do recollect feeling intense pressure and competition in terms of academic performance with a few of the recognized smart boys in my classes, but I am inclined to think of it more relative to my perspective rather than historical fact. At the same time, gender equality is an issue on which I am fervently passionate, and I believe that the research I will be doing will be most intriguing and stirring to this passion.
I do want to mention one occurrence from my college educational experience. In my senior year at JCU, of course most of my classes were more specialized in my majors, Spanish and Economics, but it was the first time that I was struck by the large ratio of boys to girls in the upper level economics classes. Actually, by the time we sat for the comprehensive exam in late April, I was surprised to find myself as one of four girls in the Economics major. I learned from a friend two years older than me that there were only two girls in Economics in her class. I was shocked. I hadn't realized that I was a minority in the field, and was startled at the feelings/perceptions that such a realization had on me. I felt much more nervous and insecure about my abilities in the subject. I noticed that it was often myself or one of the other girls who asked the majority of the questions in class, which inclined me to think that meant the boys understood the difficult material as it was first presented, and surely they didn't have to spend hours at home each night studying. I perceived that possibly this major was too hard for me; that perhaps I should have done something simpler. Mind you, no one had ever vocalized that thought to me, but I think the situation lent itself to contributing to such anxious, doubting thoughts.
Anyways, my goal is to tie this experience in my research somehow. Based on this experience, I am eager to explain why the situation was such, and how does this compare to the Economics majors at other universities? I anticipate much work and contemplation this weekend. Feedback and thoughts are much appreciated.
I do want to mention one occurrence from my college educational experience. In my senior year at JCU, of course most of my classes were more specialized in my majors, Spanish and Economics, but it was the first time that I was struck by the large ratio of boys to girls in the upper level economics classes. Actually, by the time we sat for the comprehensive exam in late April, I was surprised to find myself as one of four girls in the Economics major. I learned from a friend two years older than me that there were only two girls in Economics in her class. I was shocked. I hadn't realized that I was a minority in the field, and was startled at the feelings/perceptions that such a realization had on me. I felt much more nervous and insecure about my abilities in the subject. I noticed that it was often myself or one of the other girls who asked the majority of the questions in class, which inclined me to think that meant the boys understood the difficult material as it was first presented, and surely they didn't have to spend hours at home each night studying. I perceived that possibly this major was too hard for me; that perhaps I should have done something simpler. Mind you, no one had ever vocalized that thought to me, but I think the situation lent itself to contributing to such anxious, doubting thoughts.
Anyways, my goal is to tie this experience in my research somehow. Based on this experience, I am eager to explain why the situation was such, and how does this compare to the Economics majors at other universities? I anticipate much work and contemplation this weekend. Feedback and thoughts are much appreciated.
Wednesday, July 4, 2012
high-stakes testing and the incentive to cheat
Over the past few weeks the hotly debated issue of high-stakes standardized testing has been discussed. These tests were implemented as part of the No Child Left Behind Act in 2002, which demanded accountability for teachers and schools. A potentially major design flaw is that based on the results of these tests, schools were either financially rewarded or punished by removal of funds and probationary statuses. As part of our past discussions non this subject, we have primarily focused on the advantages argument that the tests promote higher standards of learning and identify under-performing schools, and on the negatives argument that it forces teachers to "teach to the test" and doesn't accurately measure all forms of learning. I propose one aspect we haven't touched on yet, as suggested in the bestselling book "Freakonomics": the incentive these tests create for teachers to cheat.
Let's look at the incentive further. The teacher can be financially rewarded or punished based on the performance of her students (ie: given or refused a raise/promotion). Additionally, if her school is put on probation for its failure to meet these testing standards, she stands to lose her job, should the school be closed down.
The authors of the book reference a study that examined the results of standardized tests from the Chicago Public School system over 7 years, and by analyzing the answers and the corresponding student profile, detect cheating had occurred in over 200 classrooms per year in the district, which, by a conservative estimate, was 5% of the total per year. A survey of teachers in North Carolina revealed that 35% of teachers responded that they had witnessed a colleague cheating. The study in Chicago was reinforced with a follow-up re-test that involved the half the suspected cheating teachers' classrooms and half of the best teachers' classrooms as the control group. The drastic decline in students' performance on the re-test indicated which teachers had cheated on the original standardized test. These teachers were fired.
My point in relating all of this is that perhaps evaluations of NCLB and high-stakes testing needs to give more attention to the incentive of cheating as a negative aspect of such testing. I recognize that it may not be a major issue any longer in this decade, however, I find the study executed by the economists in this book to be very interesting and noteworthy. I suppose it is also a note of caution to us as future teachers, fallible human beings that we are, with innate tendencies to respond to incentives, to recognize the harm and disservice we would be doing to our students to fabricate their achievements on these standardized tests, no matter what judgments we hold about such testing methods.
Admittedly, I was surprised at first when I read that chapter of the "Freakonomics" book. How bold of those teachers to cheat for their students on those standardized tests! Upon further consideration, I realized that it makes sense, in a way, that they would. The pressure, the offer of bonuses, their future job stability; and the risk of getting caught was relatively low, so why not try it, if you were so desperate?
I anticipate there to be immense pressure on me as a teacher for my students to score as high as possible on such tests. I know it will be tempting to "teach to the test", possibly give them answers or solutions to types of problems without teaching them how to solve them themselves, and even possibly to fill in any blanks left. However, I intend to remind myself that while these tests are theoretically important, they are not the determinants for the future, nor are they fair assessments (as currently designed). I know in my heart that it is much more important for me to see that my students have learned via alternative creative measures of their comprehension. I also subscribe to a sense of morality in which cheating is wrong, no matter my personal views on the justice and fairness of such standardized tests. I will have to be mindful and maintain a degree of self-awareness to achieve a balance between adequately preparing my future students for a narrowly-focused test, and teaching them subjects, ideas, strategies and ways of thinking that will benefit them in their lives.
Dubner, Stephen J., Steven D. Levitt. "Freakonomics." New York, New York. 2009 p.22-34
Let's look at the incentive further. The teacher can be financially rewarded or punished based on the performance of her students (ie: given or refused a raise/promotion). Additionally, if her school is put on probation for its failure to meet these testing standards, she stands to lose her job, should the school be closed down.
The authors of the book reference a study that examined the results of standardized tests from the Chicago Public School system over 7 years, and by analyzing the answers and the corresponding student profile, detect cheating had occurred in over 200 classrooms per year in the district, which, by a conservative estimate, was 5% of the total per year. A survey of teachers in North Carolina revealed that 35% of teachers responded that they had witnessed a colleague cheating. The study in Chicago was reinforced with a follow-up re-test that involved the half the suspected cheating teachers' classrooms and half of the best teachers' classrooms as the control group. The drastic decline in students' performance on the re-test indicated which teachers had cheated on the original standardized test. These teachers were fired.
My point in relating all of this is that perhaps evaluations of NCLB and high-stakes testing needs to give more attention to the incentive of cheating as a negative aspect of such testing. I recognize that it may not be a major issue any longer in this decade, however, I find the study executed by the economists in this book to be very interesting and noteworthy. I suppose it is also a note of caution to us as future teachers, fallible human beings that we are, with innate tendencies to respond to incentives, to recognize the harm and disservice we would be doing to our students to fabricate their achievements on these standardized tests, no matter what judgments we hold about such testing methods.
Admittedly, I was surprised at first when I read that chapter of the "Freakonomics" book. How bold of those teachers to cheat for their students on those standardized tests! Upon further consideration, I realized that it makes sense, in a way, that they would. The pressure, the offer of bonuses, their future job stability; and the risk of getting caught was relatively low, so why not try it, if you were so desperate?
I anticipate there to be immense pressure on me as a teacher for my students to score as high as possible on such tests. I know it will be tempting to "teach to the test", possibly give them answers or solutions to types of problems without teaching them how to solve them themselves, and even possibly to fill in any blanks left. However, I intend to remind myself that while these tests are theoretically important, they are not the determinants for the future, nor are they fair assessments (as currently designed). I know in my heart that it is much more important for me to see that my students have learned via alternative creative measures of their comprehension. I also subscribe to a sense of morality in which cheating is wrong, no matter my personal views on the justice and fairness of such standardized tests. I will have to be mindful and maintain a degree of self-awareness to achieve a balance between adequately preparing my future students for a narrowly-focused test, and teaching them subjects, ideas, strategies and ways of thinking that will benefit them in their lives.
Dubner, Stephen J., Steven D. Levitt. "Freakonomics." New York, New York. 2009 p.22-34
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
reflection on Writing Circle 3
I appreciate how contemplative my peers were in response to my last blog. It made me so happy to hear them say that my words made them think, because that is the type of group collaboration and learning that I love and cherish; those moments when everyone is open to the experience/issue and analyzing it in all its capacities and we share in genuine intrigue and answer-seeking together.
I have had time to further reflect on my experience of "white guilt" and concluded that I will purposefully not refer to myself or any other white person in any relation to the narrow-minded outright racist people who were the founding fathers/politicians/elitists of the United States of America.
I have had time to further reflect on my experience of "white guilt" and concluded that I will purposefully not refer to myself or any other white person in any relation to the narrow-minded outright racist people who were the founding fathers/politicians/elitists of the United States of America.
Monday, July 2, 2012
shame on white people
First, I want to point out that I foreshadowed this reading/conversation with my first blog post re: the appalling depiction of deculturalization in Arizona, in which I included the link to the trailer. In the spirit of watching trailers this week, I encourage you to scroll down and check it out, and if ever you happen across the full length documentary, WATCH IT! It was eye-opening to say the least.
I'm going to revisit our group's discussion of the deculturalization of the Native Americans, particularly in the aspect of their being the original inhabitants of the land we know as the U.S.A. In a nutshell, European Americans were the conquerors who invaded the homeland of the Native Americans and forcibly uprooted them to increasingly smaller, more contained lands. Given that the Native Americans were the first foreign group of people the European Americans encountered, they were the first ethnic minority to be subjugated by the Protestant Anglo majority, and ironically, the last to gain citizenship. While Joel Spring certainly incriminates the injustices and tortures wrongly inflicted upon the Native Americans, he doesn't go in to much detail regarding their treatment on the reservations and in the boarding schools. When Meghan was searching for a video to share with the class, she and I watched one that was a poetic form of narrative describing the horrible brutality the Native American children faced at the Carlisle School in Pennsylvania. Not a single act by their authorities was benevolent or even just; literally everything described was an instance of barbarically inhumane abuse, on all levels: physical, verbal, mental, emotional, spiritual. The child, as subject of the poem, desperately resorted to literally her only way of escape: her own death. What a cruel and inexcusable tragedy! Prior to reading this textbook I admit to my own ignorance of the history of abuse of Native Americans on the part of the U.S. government and political leaders. More than a century later, and I, having no connection to the transgressors but for the color of my skin, feel immense shame and deploration.
I've been reassuring myself since the start of this course and its exploration of the sins and violations committed by the white man that I am in no way responsible for the atrocities of the past, only for how I handle myself in the present. Literally, I sit in my seat and repeat this inside my head, so as to ease the creeping guilt building in my heart. I remind myself that I did not choose my skin color, and I am not a man (and therefore by historical social convention and gender discrimination not at fault for the history of brutality), and that since childhood I'd wished for darker skin, so that I could be apart of a different group than the one I'd known, and love my body and be beautiful like the black girls I saw. And I rationally know that my professor, classmates, and even Mr. Joel Spring are not accusing me of co-conspiring with the racist and discriminatory U.S. politicians of the past. So why, then, do I still feel such guilt and angst over a situation that cannot be undone?? Perhaps the answer lies in the psychology of empathy, or perhaps it's something else; I really don't know.
I do know that I find it particularly bothersome and confusing when people use the pronoun 'we' in reference to these primarily Protestant Anglo racists and xenophobic psychos ruling the majority in American culture and politics. I am not one of them. Not now, and not then. And neither are you.
I'm going to revisit our group's discussion of the deculturalization of the Native Americans, particularly in the aspect of their being the original inhabitants of the land we know as the U.S.A. In a nutshell, European Americans were the conquerors who invaded the homeland of the Native Americans and forcibly uprooted them to increasingly smaller, more contained lands. Given that the Native Americans were the first foreign group of people the European Americans encountered, they were the first ethnic minority to be subjugated by the Protestant Anglo majority, and ironically, the last to gain citizenship. While Joel Spring certainly incriminates the injustices and tortures wrongly inflicted upon the Native Americans, he doesn't go in to much detail regarding their treatment on the reservations and in the boarding schools. When Meghan was searching for a video to share with the class, she and I watched one that was a poetic form of narrative describing the horrible brutality the Native American children faced at the Carlisle School in Pennsylvania. Not a single act by their authorities was benevolent or even just; literally everything described was an instance of barbarically inhumane abuse, on all levels: physical, verbal, mental, emotional, spiritual. The child, as subject of the poem, desperately resorted to literally her only way of escape: her own death. What a cruel and inexcusable tragedy! Prior to reading this textbook I admit to my own ignorance of the history of abuse of Native Americans on the part of the U.S. government and political leaders. More than a century later, and I, having no connection to the transgressors but for the color of my skin, feel immense shame and deploration.
I've been reassuring myself since the start of this course and its exploration of the sins and violations committed by the white man that I am in no way responsible for the atrocities of the past, only for how I handle myself in the present. Literally, I sit in my seat and repeat this inside my head, so as to ease the creeping guilt building in my heart. I remind myself that I did not choose my skin color, and I am not a man (and therefore by historical social convention and gender discrimination not at fault for the history of brutality), and that since childhood I'd wished for darker skin, so that I could be apart of a different group than the one I'd known, and love my body and be beautiful like the black girls I saw. And I rationally know that my professor, classmates, and even Mr. Joel Spring are not accusing me of co-conspiring with the racist and discriminatory U.S. politicians of the past. So why, then, do I still feel such guilt and angst over a situation that cannot be undone?? Perhaps the answer lies in the psychology of empathy, or perhaps it's something else; I really don't know.
I do know that I find it particularly bothersome and confusing when people use the pronoun 'we' in reference to these primarily Protestant Anglo racists and xenophobic psychos ruling the majority in American culture and politics. I am not one of them. Not now, and not then. And neither are you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)