Friday, February 10, 2012
Annette Lareau's Unequal Childhoods
Please post your discussion questions based on the three Lareau readings for 2/16. Focus on extending the conversation on social class, social stratification, and opportunity/blocks. Keep in mind the two caveats from the start of the 2/9 class about exceptions and patterns and informed questions about what to do.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWith Lareau's further explanation of Bourdieu's theory of field, capital, and habitus in mind along with the idea of working- and lower-class families having a distrust of schools as an institution that can take their children away, how does the habitus of a teacher (their disposition and views based on how he/she was raised) affect the disposition of the families and thus the child towards school? Is there too much of a capital difference between working- and lower-class families and the teachers of their children to find common ground on which to discuss students in the field of school?
ReplyDeleteAs educators we need to work to understand what a parent's own educational goals are for their child and then work ensure the parents that we have the same/or at least similar education goals for their children.
DeleteThe capital differences will only play out if the focus moves from the student to the adults in his/her life. Even if parent teacher relationships are strand I believe that working to show parents that teachers are individuals who care about children rather than part of a cold institution will help alleviate some of the fear the parents may have.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Lareau, many middle class families practice concerted cultivation when raising their children. Essentially, middle-class parents attempt to cultivate their children’s talents through organized activities and active roles in their children’s education. How does this parenting style perpetuate the cycle of inequality and social immobility in the field of school? How would a more lax approach to child rearing, compared to concerted cultivation, affect a child’s potential academic success?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteA few times throughout the reading, Lareau explores how the access to resources impacts children, including art supplies, parental involvement, and participation in extra curricular activities. How do resources impact the achievement gap? Is this changing as a result of types of resources that may limit creativity?
ReplyDeleteLareau cited some studies that found that even though Black youth are MORE likely to pursue higher education than whites, their overall educational attainment was far LOWER. Using Bourdieu's ideas of capital and habitus, what are some potential causes of this finding? What are some ways that the field of higher education is directly or indirectly discouraging educational attainment for Black youth?
ReplyDeleteLareau emphasizes Bourdieu's importance of field as an outlet for cultural and social capital. The reinforcement of reasoning in schools allows for middle class families to have an advantage over working class families who may resort to violence or statements over questions in dealing with their children. This difference in classes has a direct impact on student's school and home life. If Bourdieu (and it seems as if Lareau agrees) argues that schools reinforce the dominance of middle class values, how can we as a society integrate the capital of working class families? By pushing away their values (such as violence) how are we supposed to allow working class student's to succeed in schools? Is it a matter of combining the values of different classes or is there some other alternative?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteLareau describes the family-school relationship as “schools, as dominant institutions, selectively legitimate(ing) child-rearing practices in the larger culture (96).” Thus, the middle class families have “invisible benefits” because they know how to “play the game,” like using reasoning when scolding the children or having a friendly relationship with the schools.
ReplyDeleteAccording to recent statistics, “nearly one-quarter (23.8 percent) of the 70.9 million children under the age of 17 in 2009 had at least one immigrant parent.” Every year, more and more immigrants move to the U.S., enrolling their children in the U.S. schools. Unfortunately, these parents most likely don’t know “the rules of the game” of the American school system. First, there is the language barrier issue, so it is hard for these parents to have a close relationship with the teachers. Second, their authoritative parenting style or corporal punishment may appear unfit by the professional standards encoded in schools.
Then, what are some of the things we can do as educators to lessen this barrier while respecting their cultural practices, without “imposing” what we “believe” is the correct standards of proper child rearing and what constitutes as incorrect child rearing?
In chapter 2 Lareau provided great insight into the differences in social structural experiences, as well as some similarities. Despite the differences in economic capital between the two schools she profiled (Swan and Lower Richmond) the teachers had very similar views in terms of cultural capital (in what skills they value, how they feel about parental involvement, etc.) If values are generally kept constant, is the difference in economic capital to blame for the inequality between these schools? How does social capital (i.e. who you know) play into the gap between the two schools?
ReplyDeleteWhile underprivileged inner-city students are obviously placed at a great disadvantage simply by their social standing, there are also problems that can arise from too much or the wrong sort of parental involvement in suburban students' educations. Expanding on the analysis on page 22 of the reading, what kind of problems might arise that would put these students at a disadvantage?
ReplyDeleteChapter 2 compares and contrasts two very different schools. Both schools identify some struggles that they deal with consistently. However the difficulties at the Swan School would certainly be a welcomed challenge at the Lower Richmond School. The driving force behind the divide is clearly the social economic status and capitol differences.
ReplyDeleteHow can teachers at the Lower Richmond School (or similar schools) impact the field to improve the student’s experience? Can they add to the cultural capitol of the students through deeper exposure to arts or literature that the students wouldn't otherwise experience? Could this exposure coupled with a clean, safe functional learning environment work toward improving the student’s habitus? How could such changes have an impact on the community?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete