Critical Review of 4 Papers about Education - Assignment Example

Gillborn, D. (2006). Citizenship education as placebo: ‘standards’, al racism and education standards. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice , 84-104. The aim of this article is to put forward a point of view and to initiate change. The author makes many forceful statements concerning institutional racism and he perceives it. The article also expresses hope that an understanding of racism beyond interpersonal race hatred will lead to fundamental societal changes. The author argues in this article that the real problem between races in Great Britain goes beyond individuals that discriminate and hate one another base don race. He argues that institutional racism is the real problem. Institutional racism is evident in many ways in Great Britain, especially in the educational system. Part of the problem is that Citizenship Education has been touted as the cure for the nation’s racial strife. The author argues that Citizenship Education does little more than make people feel good because it looks like the government is doing something to address the problem. In reality, the author contends that Citizenship Education acts as a placebo. He argues that it is impossible for the institution to eliminate racism if the institution itself is racist. Much of the author’s foundation for argument is based upon the findings of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry. Stephen Lawrence was an 18 year-old black college student. He was murdered by a group of white youths that have never been convicted of the crime. The subsequent report identified failings, bias and racial hatred not just in individuals but also in the institutions that should have brought Stephen Lawrence’s murderers to justice. The author then goes on to back this claim up with some powerful statistics. The white-black discrepancy in achievements in national standardized tests is discussed. AS are the shocking statistics that show white and black students begin their public educations in Great Britain scoring equal on standardized tests but from the preteen years onwards, black students begin to lag farther and farther behind. The author points to this as a clear indication of institutional racism. He then concludes his argument by showing the failings of Citizenship Education as something that ignores the institutional role in poor race relations. By focusing on interpersonal relationships, Citizenship Education fails to address the inherently unfair situation minority students encounter by being part of the public education system. One interesting theorist mentioned in the paper was Barry Troyna. While no one theoretical position was demarcated in the reading, this theorist’s idea of the “condensation symbol” was key in understanding the author’s objections to Citizenship Education. This theory explained that condensation symbols are used to achieve a specific political purpose. When utilized, they make people feel as though their needs are being addressed, but their use does little or nothing to truly address the root cause of the problem. This article is a powerful article to read. The author’s concerns are well stated and have caused me to rethink my views on racism. I must admit that I have always viewed racism to be something that occurs between individuals or small groups directed towards the “other” whoever that may be. This article has caused me to rethink the institution’s role in racism. I guess I often thought that the claims of institutional racism were more of an excuse used by minorities to cover up a lack of ability or effort on their part. But this article clearly shows that institutional racism has as direct an affect on race relations, as does individual race hatred. I agree with the argument of this author. I believe that institutions can be racist and that educational programs that ignore this fact will be less effective at improving race relations. I feel that the author’s use of data was especially skilful. The statistics utilized were succinct and had a great impact on my opinion of institutional racism. I am however left wondering what can be done about this problem. The author is good at pointing out what doesn’t work, namely Citizenship Education as it is currently constructed in Great Britain. What is unclear to me are any real concrete ideas about what will work. Ferfoljab, K. H. (2008). Playing it up, playing it down, playing it safe: Queering teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education , 846–858. The aim of this article is to initiate change in teacher education programs. The change being advocated is the inclusion of anti-homophobic and anti-heterosexist instruction for students studying to become teachers. The authors advocate the changing of the taught curriculum to include these subjects so teachers entering the field will be more aware of their own biases. Teacher education needs to change so we do not continue to produce teachers that perpetuate homophobic and heterosexist sentiments within their classrooms. The authors argue in this paper that homophobia and heterosexism are rampant in educational settings. This fact has a negative effect on the quality and equality of education received by gay and lesbian students. As long as heterosexuality is presented as the norm, homosexual and lesbian students will feel discriminated against. The authors feel that an important place to begin to bring down this discrimination is with the education of future teachers. Teacher’s perceptions greatly influence how students perceive and respond to homophobia and heterosexism. The authors believe that only systematic and continual change relative to the taught curriculum in teacher education courses will enact the degree of change necessary to ensure gay and lesbian students receive an equitable education. Several theories are invoked to add credence to this paper. The data collection consisted of a questionnaire filled out by educators of future teachers. Some of these teachers self selected the opportunity to be interviewed in an effort to establish another body of data for triangulation. These interviews were analysed with the Foucauldian notion of discourse. The discourses were evaluated in relation to differences in subjectivity and power differentiation. Also prominently featured is Queer theory. This theory holds that all identities are performances, so something such as sexuality is not fixed, but is instead fluid and changing. In Queer theory, anything normative is wrong and harmful to other people. Someone will always be outside of the norm. A final theory that is used is Halloway’s concept of investment. This idea is used to explain why some academics feel so strongly about including anti-heterosexist and anti-homophobic instruction in their teacher education lessons. Unfortunately, these strong feelings of investment can be read by others as having a personal agenda. Investment, according to the authors, is not the most effective way to implement the needed change. The main points of the author’s argument stem from research they conducted. Questionnaires were mailed out to academics that teach education courses to future teachers. Most people did not respond to the survey. In addition to the survey, some faculty self-selected a further interview with the researchers. The interviews were analysed to discover broad themes. Discussing these themes constituted the bulk of the paper. In general, the researchers found that most teachers agreed that instructing future teachers in anti-heterosexual and anti-homophobic teaching techniques was important. Many questioned where the teaching could fit into and already packed curriculum. Anecdotal evidence from the interviews revealed that educators that identify themselves as gay or lesbian feel most strongly that this sort of instruction must be made part of the taught curriculum. A question concerning modelling occurred to me during the reading. The authors state that modelling is not a proven method of instructing of influencing student behaviour. They were making this statement to force their opinion that the only way change could be enacted is through the taught curriculum. What the authors are actually advocating is affective education. Many studies suggest that modelling is the best way to conduct affective education. Students do emulate the example set for them by teachers, whether it is by the way they approach a maths problem or how they resolve conflict. By denigrating the importance of modelling in an attempt at aggrandising the taught curriculum, the authors use poor logic and make statements that defy historically and scientifically backed teaching methods. I understand the authors’ attempts to justify this addition to the taught curriculum. No one should be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation. The problem I see with this implementation of anti-heterosexual and anti-homophobic in the taught curriculum lies at the very heart of Queer theory. Any instruction in what the norm should be is wrong. I agree with this statement. But the reality of an existing norm does not disappear simply because it is not taught. Those outside the norm will still feel different than most other people. I feel that what Queer theory is actually stating is that by being a part of the norm, you have no right to recognize yourself as such. No one is allowed to be “normal” because all identity is based on performance. The essence of Queer theory seems to state that there is not real norm. Everyone is queer or can be with a shift in performance. The adherents to Queer theory seem to want a world without pejoratives. What they have done is create new pejoratives of their own such as the term normal. Martino, W. (2003). We just get really fired up: indigenous boys, masculinities and schooling. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education . The author identifies the aim of this article as a blatantly political one. He states that the voices of Aboriginal and Torres Strait boys were absent from academic literature relative to their experiences at school. Specifically, the author stated that when non-black interviewers viewed their black interviewees, three outcomes tended to happen. The boys were either depicted as victims of an unfair predominant culture, underpriviledged scions of the lower social economic tier or with dewy-eyed, liberal hopefulness. The author’s aim was to give voice to these experiences relative to masculinity and racial prejudice in an educational environment witout letting his “whiteness” get in the way. The point the author is trying to make is that systematic and pervasive racism directed towards Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander boys causes them to react in ways that can make them appear disruptive and aggressive. This is especially true when considering the complex process of developing a masculine identity within these cultures. The author attempts to show that the boys react to the racist remarks used by white boys in ways that serve to heighten their individual standing within their peer group while simultaneously asserting and reinforcing their self-concept of masculinity. No one theoretical perspective was identified as the dominant one in this paper specifically. Yet it is clear that the author is writing from a Foucauldian perspective. All of the analysis is taken from a perspective of positions of power and subjectivities that strive for dominance over one another. Many individual theorists are cited in response to statements made by the students. These theorists were used to shed light on and place in context the words of the interviewed students. The key points of the article are the analysis of interviews conducted with 18 secondary school students in Australia. All of the participants were male. All of them were Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. The interviews were semi-structured and were designed to have the boys share their experiences at school. Several important themes surfaced during the interviews. First is the fact that all of these boys had experienced racist remarks at the hands of white boys. These remarks were often viewed by the minority boys as attempts by the white youths to spur them into physical altercations. A second theme of masculinity evolved. Many boys reported that white boys will often insult black girls by calling them names or calling their virtue into question. Several of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island boys said that as males, it was their job to defend the reputations and honour of their sisters and mothers. The author noted that this particular way of displaying masculinity often landed the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island boys in trouble at school. This willingness to defend females is also at the heart of the misconception that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander boys are more aggressive than other male populations. The author points out that the pervasive racism these boys experience leads to this hyper-masculinity, but also produces increased capacity for nurturing within these boys as they establish close relationships with other younger minority boys whom they regard as a sort of ward, due to their shared minority status. While reading the article I pondered one of the interviews more than others. Neil was especially interesting to me because he recognized the fact that he had never been in a real fight, had always been able to de-escalate confrontation because that is what his mother had taught him to do, and yet he still was viewed as a leader among the boys. It made me question if the author’s sample of 18 interviews was broad enough to really hear the voices that speak for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander boys relative to their masculinity and experiences at school. I agree with the findings of the author to a point. When taken in context of the stated intent, I feel the author was successful. He said that he wanted to simply add voices to the national discourse concerning the experiences these boys had at school. I say, mission accomplished. As far a generalizing the findings to a majority of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander boys, I find that more problematic. The author does recognize the need for triangulation with other studies, including those that include data from white boys to gauge their perspectives of interaction with minority students. Comber, B. K. (2005). Turn-around pedagogies:improving the education of at-risk students. Improving Schools , 121-131. The authors of this article state that they are sharing their research for several reasons. One is to facilitate the sharing of information between generations of teachers. They see this research as an exercise in passing the wisdom of one age down to the next. With standardized testing all the rage, the researchers were concerned that new teachers were not having the opportinity to really engage their students in meaningful ways that actually improve their literacy. The new teachers lacked the perspective of senior teachers who had seen many educational trends come and go over the course of their lifetimes. The authors hoped that by sharing the results of this study, senior teachers would be energized by sharing and receiving wisdom from new teachers. They hoped that the new teachers would gain some insight into what true literacy is by hearing the professional experiences of the senior teachers. The researchers argued that standardized testing is eroding teacher morale and student literacy. Too much time is spent preparing for specific state exams. Time is lost, especially with the most vulnerable students that were once spent on expanding the real literacy of students. The researchers assembled a team of twenty teacher-researchers to participate in a study. Ten of the teacher-researchers had less than five years of teaching experience. Ten of the teacher-researchers had more than twenty five years of experience. They all participated in a three year longitudinal study that had them track the pedagogy they used to engage their most difficult students in becoming literate. They then were able to show using data how the pedagogy had helped re-engage the students in learning. At the end of the study, senior and new teachers met to share experiences. These conversations were compiled into a book by the researchers. Some of the conversations were briefly shared in this article. A key point in the article was the deconstruction of the one-size-fits-all curriculum. The students in the study were students from the populations that traditionally score the poorest on standardized tests. They were the urban and rural poor, minorities and students with learning disabilities. The article showed that the first step in helping these students re-engage in literacy education is for the teachers to engage with them on a more personal level. Teachers made home visits and learned about special skills and interests they possessed. The teachers then were able to use technology and a new understanding of the students’ interests in developing a more engaging pedagogy that encouraged more depth of understanding. While some of the subjects of study and motivation, such as Bart Simpson and Shrek, concerned the senior teachers, it soon became clear that this type of engagement with popular culture produced superior educational products. My only question that arose during this reading was regarding the standardized testing of the students involved in these turn around pedagogies. It would be very interesting to see if the students with learning disabilities did better or worse on the state standardized tests after these pedagogies were utilized. I feel that even if they test poorly, the real purpose of education is literacy and understanding. For these kids that are already at a disadvantage, it seems criminal to strip them of their few chances at real understanding in regards to literacy simply because the state is requiring teachers to teach to a standardized test. I believe that the authors and I are in agreement on this point. Comber, B. K. (2005). Turn-around pedagogies:improving the education of at-risk students. Improving Schools , 121-131. Ferfoljab, K. H. (2008). Playing it up, playing it down, playing it safe: Queering teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education , 846–858. Gillborn, D. (2006). Citizenship education as placebo: ‘standards’, institutional racism and education standards. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice , 84-104. Martino, W. (2003). We just get really fired up: indigenous boys, masculinities and schooling. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education . Read More