While reading Jay MacLeod’s text, and with the recent State of the Union speech still rattling around my head, I was reminded of then-Senator Obama’s 2004 DNC convention speech, in which he declared that we should “eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white.” MacLeod cites several theorists who explore the possible determinants of such self-perpetuating negative characterizations. Pierre Bourdieu, for example, conceives of the habitus -- “a conglomeration of deeply internalized values” (MacLeod 15) -- as a system that produces one’s aspirations (or lack thereof). With the array of social, economic, and cultural factors that comprise the habitus, what steps (small or otherwise) can a classroom teacher take to combat the education system's apparent rhetoric of dreamlessness, what MacLeod refers to as “depressed aspirations” (MacLeod 6). MacLeod’s example of the computer teacher who tells his students that they can get a good job if they do well in his class appears less than inspiring. Are there other strategies, hypothetical or real, that might meaningfully disrupt a student’s internalized voices?
Consider the validity of this quote in conjunction with the following discussion questions: "Anything is possible in America if we have the FAITH, the WILL, and the HEART." (Ronald Reagan, 1985 State of the Union Address).
Building a Positive School Culture: Reality or Hallucination?
If American schools today endorse a notion of "the rich get richer and the poor stay poor, [and not a] land of opportunity" (MacLeod 11), how can we as future/current educators better understand and address the varying valorization in mental and manual labor some students may have? In essence, what would make a school a place where any student can transcend beyond their perceived reputation?
The Difference Between a Private and Public Education:
The studies addressed in Chapters 1 and 2 of MacLeod's, "Ain't No Makin' It," are applied to those students who are pursing a publicly funded education, but can these opinions and findings of select social reproduction theorists be fairly applied in the assessment of agency afforded to students who attend private or charter schools? Also, according to MacLeod, why do you think a student who attends a private school has greater chances of success in life than the individual who attends a public school?
Bowles and Gintis theorize “schools train the wealthy to take up places at the top of the economy while conditioning the poor to accept their lowly status in the class structure” (Macleod 12). Although this is true for most students, some manage to become the exception to the rule by transitioning to a different social class. Against all odds, some students from working class families make the shift to a higher social class. What factors could account for this phenomenon? Conversely why do some individuals from “elite” families fail to fulfill their potential when they seemingly possess all the markers (cultural expectations, family aspirations, quality education) needed to succeed?
Heath, one of the theorists discussed in Macleod's Social Reproduction article, focused on language patterns to explain the lack of social mobility between generations. She found that “the mismatch between the language used at home and the language demanded by the schools is a serious stumbling block for working-class and nonwhite pupils” (Macleod 18). What steps can we take, as educators, to bridge the gap between the language used at home and needed in school so students from these backgrounds can achieve academic success?
Pierre Bourdieu speaks about cultural capital and habitus in terms of how those born into a certain class will stay in the class for most of their lives. Our way of life seems to be trying to forever reach a certain class, or being upwardly socially mobile. We are taught in schools the "correct" ways to speak, act, and sometimes think about situations because of the dominant cultural capital that is applied to our lives. As those of us going into education, can we use non-dominant forms of cultural capital in our perspective workplaces and still be adequate at what we do? Is the dominant form of cultural capital the "correct" way of being?
In Chapter 1, MacLeod discusses Mike, a young man whom MacLeod maintained a steady relationship with since Mike graduated from the youth program. MacLeod offers a desk in his college dormitory so Mike has a place to work on a paper, and MacLeod provides support by contacting teachers and family members to ensure Mike fulfills his potential. Mike also talks about his occuptional and educational goals and expectations wih MacLeod. Upon reading this, I reflected upon my own teaching practice, and the relationship MacLeod describes between himself and Mike reminded me of student/teacher relationships I have had with former students. As educators, should our responsibilities extend outside of the classroom, where we provide social and emotional support for our students, or is our role best limited to the school building, where the focus is on teaching and assessing prescribed learning standards? Additionally, is the relationship between MacLeod and Mike best left to social scientists and mental health professionals as opposed to educators?
In Chapter 2, one of the scholars MacLeod discusses is Basil Bernstein, a British sociologist who contended that "class membership generates distinctive forms of speech patterns through family socialization" (MacLeod 17). Upon reading this theory of linguistic cultural capital, I began to reflect upon my own teaching experience. Specifically, I thought about "code switching," or teaching students to speak "the language of success" as part of their education. Most of my former and current students are minority and low income, so I have encountered this issue repeatedly. As educators, is it our responsibility to address the linguistic codes of our students? If so, how do we approach this delicate issue without being perceived as patronizing?
1. Macleod states that the "existence of an 'underclass' in American Society is a living contradiction to those (American) ideals." (p.4) Can the American ideals of the "self-made" individual exist in another context outside of a capitalist society? Can we call someone "self-made" if they haven't come from an "underclass"?
2. In chapter 2 we learn that Bourdieu believes that "schooling is crucial to the reproduction and legitimation of social inequality." (p.16) How do you see this playing out in your schools today? What changes to the educational system would you make in order to stop this reproduction?
In his discussion of Bowles and Gintis, MacLeod notes the parallel of the structure of schools and capitalist society. "Specifically, the relationships of authority and control between administrators and teachers, teachers and students, students and students, and students and their work replicate the division of labor which dominates the work place." He also notes that this shows up in "the organization of power of authority in school and the workplace."
As teachers or authority figures in school, how do we exist in this model? If we are teaching in schools with low-income and marginalized groups, how do we both recognize student's potential distrust or skepticism of our role (which mirrors other oppressive authority figures in their lives) with our ability to help them find empowerment?
In chapter 2, MacLeod asserts that schools in working class neighborhoods and middle class neighborhoods are so different in their teaching, curriculum, and function in society that one produces employers while the other produces workers. Despite MacLeod’s continual critique of capitalist society’s effect on schooling, I had a hard time buying his argument that these schools could be so inherently different that one could be capable of crushing children’s aspirations. Do you agree with MacLeod? Do you think his argument is strong?
What factors do you think contribute to The Hallway Hangers and the Brothers difference in views? According to MacLeod, they live in the same environment and presumably attend the same school; the most notable difference he points out is race. However one only sees obstacles when envisioning his future while the other buys into Regan’s view that “Anything is possible in America if we have the faith, the will, and the heart.” Why?
MacLeod's chapters highlight the despondent reality of American capitalism and its effect on our culture, our job market, and mostly importantly our education system. Using young people from Clarendon Heights projects, he undergoes a project in which he tries to understand where the drive to succeed and the acceptance of failure comes from. Discussing "social reproduction theory" in which generations pass on aspects of a culture--including capitalism-- he left me wondering just how much this affects our schools. He brought up the idea that in America the "rich get richer" while the poor fall even further behind; with this, and the social reproduction theory in mind, how does tracking parallel with this idea? Many of our training materials encourage student centered curriculum where we seek to find and address the needs of each and every student. If tracking is meant to help those soaring through the curriculum to be challenged and those who are having trouble take it slow, is it better to track students or to stop this potential example of social reproduction theory that encourages the division of classes both in academics and labor (as many low-achieving students are often failing because of their schools and communities rather than their capabilities). While reading these chapters, I kept recalling a book I read for an intro to sociology class called "A Hope in the Unseen" by Ron Suskind. In it, Cedric Jennings-- a poor, black student from the low income area of Washington, D.C.-- works to push past his cultural and educational barriers toward a brighter future. He emerged from one of the nation's worst public schools to move on to Brown University. In our class, we discussed how the author of this book was white and how many high schools and universities--with an overwhelming white population-- assign this book to their curriculum. Thinking of this and Mcledod's chapters, how do stories like that of Cedric affect the aspirations of both middle-class and lower-class students? Do these books add to the hallucination that America is still the place where heart and soul matter or are they testaments to changes that need to be made in our school system?
While reading Jay MacLeod’s text, and with the recent State of the Union speech still rattling around my head, I was reminded of then-Senator Obama’s 2004 DNC convention speech, in which he declared that we should “eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white.” MacLeod cites several theorists who explore the possible determinants of such self-perpetuating negative characterizations. Pierre Bourdieu, for example, conceives of the habitus -- “a conglomeration of deeply internalized values” (MacLeod 15) -- as a system that produces one’s aspirations (or lack thereof). With the array of social, economic, and cultural factors that comprise the habitus, what steps (small or otherwise) can a classroom teacher take to combat the education system's apparent rhetoric of dreamlessness, what MacLeod refers to as “depressed aspirations” (MacLeod 6). MacLeod’s example of the computer teacher who tells his students that they can get a good job if they do well in his class appears less than inspiring. Are there other strategies, hypothetical or real, that might meaningfully disrupt a student’s internalized voices?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteConsider the validity of this quote in conjunction with the following discussion questions: "Anything is possible in America if we have the FAITH, the WILL, and the HEART." (Ronald Reagan, 1985 State of the Union Address).
ReplyDeleteBuilding a Positive School Culture: Reality or Hallucination?
If American schools today endorse a notion of "the rich get richer and the poor stay poor, [and not a] land of opportunity" (MacLeod 11), how can we as future/current educators better understand and address the varying valorization in mental and manual labor some students may have? In essence, what would make a school a place where any student can transcend beyond their perceived reputation?
The Difference Between a Private and Public Education:
The studies addressed in Chapters 1 and 2 of MacLeod's, "Ain't No Makin' It," are applied to those students who are pursing a publicly funded education, but can these opinions and findings of select social reproduction theorists be fairly applied in the assessment of agency afforded to students who attend private or charter schools? Also, according to MacLeod, why do you think a student who attends a private school has greater chances of success in life than the individual who attends a public school?
Bowles and Gintis theorize “schools train the wealthy to take up places at the top of the economy while conditioning the poor to accept their lowly status in the class structure” (Macleod 12). Although this is true for most students, some manage to become the exception to the rule by transitioning to a different social class. Against all odds, some students from working class families make the shift to a higher social class. What factors could account for this phenomenon? Conversely why do some individuals from “elite” families fail to fulfill their potential when they seemingly possess all the markers (cultural expectations, family aspirations, quality education) needed to succeed?
ReplyDeleteHeath, one of the theorists discussed in Macleod's Social Reproduction article, focused on language patterns to explain the lack of social mobility between generations. She found that “the mismatch between the language used at home and the language demanded by the schools is a serious stumbling block for working-class and nonwhite pupils” (Macleod 18). What steps can we take, as educators, to bridge the gap between the language used at home and needed in school so students from these backgrounds can achieve academic success?
Pierre Bourdieu speaks about cultural capital and habitus in terms of how those born into a certain class will stay in the class for most of their lives. Our way of life seems to be trying to forever reach a certain class, or being upwardly socially mobile. We are taught in schools the "correct" ways to speak, act, and sometimes think about situations because of the dominant cultural capital that is applied to our lives. As those of us going into education, can we use non-dominant forms of cultural capital in our perspective workplaces and still be adequate at what we do? Is the dominant form of cultural capital the "correct" way of being?
ReplyDeleteIn Chapter 1, MacLeod discusses Mike, a young man whom MacLeod maintained a steady relationship with since Mike graduated from the youth program. MacLeod offers a desk in his college dormitory so Mike has a place to work on a paper, and MacLeod provides support by contacting teachers and family members to ensure Mike fulfills his potential. Mike also talks about his occuptional and educational goals and expectations wih MacLeod. Upon reading this, I reflected upon my own teaching practice, and the relationship MacLeod describes between himself and Mike reminded me of student/teacher relationships I have had with former students. As educators, should our responsibilities extend outside of the classroom, where we provide social and emotional support for our students, or is our role best limited to the school building, where the focus is on teaching and assessing prescribed learning standards? Additionally, is the relationship between MacLeod and Mike best left to social scientists and mental health professionals as opposed to educators?
ReplyDeleteIn Chapter 2, one of the scholars MacLeod discusses is Basil Bernstein, a British sociologist who contended that "class membership generates distinctive forms of speech patterns through family socialization" (MacLeod 17). Upon reading this theory of linguistic cultural capital, I began to reflect upon my own teaching experience. Specifically, I thought about "code switching," or teaching students to speak "the language of success" as part of their education. Most of my former and current students are minority and low income, so I have encountered this issue repeatedly. As educators, is it our responsibility to address the linguistic codes of our students? If so, how do we approach this delicate issue without being perceived as patronizing?
1. Macleod states that the "existence of an 'underclass' in American Society is a living contradiction to those (American) ideals." (p.4) Can the American ideals of the "self-made" individual exist in another context outside of a capitalist society? Can we call someone "self-made" if they haven't come from an "underclass"?
ReplyDelete2. In chapter 2 we learn that Bourdieu believes that "schooling is crucial to the reproduction and legitimation of social inequality." (p.16) How do you see this playing out in your schools today? What changes to the educational system would you make in order to stop this reproduction?
In his discussion of Bowles and Gintis, MacLeod notes the parallel of the structure of schools and capitalist society. "Specifically, the relationships of authority and control between administrators and teachers, teachers and students, students and students, and students and their work replicate the division of labor which dominates the work place." He also notes that this shows up in "the organization of power of authority in school and the workplace."
ReplyDeleteAs teachers or authority figures in school, how do we exist in this model? If we are teaching in schools with low-income and marginalized groups, how do we both recognize student's potential distrust or skepticism of our role (which mirrors other oppressive authority figures in their lives) with our ability to help them find empowerment?
In chapter 2, MacLeod asserts that schools in working class neighborhoods and middle class neighborhoods are so different in their teaching, curriculum, and function in society that one produces employers while the other produces workers. Despite MacLeod’s continual critique of capitalist society’s effect on schooling, I had a hard time buying his argument that these schools could be so inherently different that one could be capable of crushing children’s aspirations. Do you agree with MacLeod? Do you think his argument is strong?
ReplyDeleteWhat factors do you think contribute to The Hallway Hangers and the Brothers difference in views? According to MacLeod, they live in the same environment and presumably attend the same school; the most notable difference he points out is race. However one only sees obstacles when envisioning his future while the other buys into Regan’s view that “Anything is possible in America if we have the faith, the will, and the heart.” Why?
MacLeod's chapters highlight the despondent reality of American capitalism and its effect on our culture, our job market, and mostly importantly our education system. Using young people from Clarendon Heights projects, he undergoes a project in which he tries to understand where the drive to succeed and the acceptance of failure comes from. Discussing "social reproduction theory" in which generations pass on aspects of a culture--including capitalism-- he left me wondering just how much this affects our schools. He brought up the idea that in America the "rich get richer" while the poor fall even further behind; with this, and the social reproduction theory in mind, how does tracking parallel with this idea? Many of our training materials encourage student centered curriculum where we seek to find and address the needs of each and every student. If tracking is meant to help those soaring through the curriculum to be challenged and those who are having trouble take it slow, is it better to track students or to stop this potential example of social reproduction theory that encourages the division of classes both in academics and labor (as many low-achieving students are often failing because of their schools and communities rather than their capabilities).
ReplyDeleteWhile reading these chapters, I kept recalling a book I read for an intro to sociology class called "A Hope in the Unseen" by Ron Suskind. In it, Cedric Jennings-- a poor, black student from the low income area of Washington, D.C.-- works to push past his cultural and educational barriers toward a brighter future. He emerged from one of the nation's worst public schools to move on to Brown University. In our class, we discussed how the author of this book was white and how many high schools and universities--with an overwhelming white population-- assign this book to their curriculum. Thinking of this and Mcledod's chapters, how do stories like that of Cedric affect the aspirations of both middle-class and lower-class students? Do these books add to the hallucination that America is still the place where heart and soul matter or are they testaments to changes that need to be made in our school system?