Social Diversity

The relationship between hidden curriculum and cultural hegemony are very closely related.  These two theories have many of the same tenets related to social and cultural groups.  There are those with power and those without power.  It is kind of like the old saying, “What came first…the chicken or the egg?”  Do we have cultural hegemony because of the hidden curriculum or do we have hidden curriculum because of cultural hegemony?  Our students learn, not only from their parents, but also from society and from school.  They learn which group is “smart”, which group is “pretty”, and which groups are “not”.  The hidden curriculum starts very young.  This was evidenced in the video “Gender Roles—Interviews with Kids”.  This video not only referenced gender, but also intelligence and character traits.  In every instance in the video, the white child would pick the light skinned picture as positive traits and dark skinned pictures as negative traits.  At this age, the hidden curriculum is home-based.  There has not been enough time in public school to learn from those experiences.  As our nation changes culturally, so must our schools.  We can no longer meet the needs of “Beaver Cleaver” when a majority of our students have such different needs. 

Assimilation is not the answer.  Often we think we can just change the student to fit our mold.  The idea of helping them fit their square peg into our round hole is not always the best choice.  This is much easier than changing the way we approach students that are culturally diverse.  It is best to introduce our students to the American cultural so they will be able to function in our society, however, it would be much more sensitive adopt a theory of cultural pluralism in our schools.  By allowing the all students to benefit from a culturally diverse student population and allowing the differences to enrich our education instead of stand out in a negative way would have a positive impact on our schools in today’s society. 

There is an ongoing debate in today’s educational environment regarding education for its own sake versus education for a particular role in society.  This debate is played out in today’s schools in a variety of ways. Most obviously, this is evidenced in the courses such as auto body repair, welding, and other vocational fields.  These courses promote an education for a particular role in society.  This is also evident in the higher level college courses that are offered in HS.  These students are set to attend college and take a business type role in society.  However, evidence of each side can be turned into evidence for the opposite side of the argument.   Though the higher level college courses prepare this group of students for a particular role in society, it also is evidence of obtaining an education for its own sake.  There is power in knowledge as they say. 

Hidden curriculum, cultural hegemony, assimilation, cultural pluralism, and the debate about the purpose of education are all intertwined and are major players in each theory.  None of these debates will be won anytime in the near future, but are all worthy of thought and contemplation. 

School Reform

School reform is funny thing.  The changes that are made due to school reform will mostly affect students; however, seldom are students consulted in the reform process.  School reform should be a function of all constituents.  Currently, teachers and teacher organizations, community members, and local school board members and school board organizations get a voice in school reform.  The decisions are ultimately made by state and/or federal politicians, but the voice of each of these groups get their time to make their opinions and ideas known.  It is the voice of the student that is continually overlooked and they are the ones that will ultimately have the most effect.  When considering school reform, it is important to consult experts in the field and for politicians not make decisions based on what sounds good in theory.  Practice and theory are not always harmonious.  Teachers, students, and local administrators should be a major part of school reform efforts. 

The impact a particular group has seems to diminish as you go down the proverbial educational ladder.  Politicians have the most impact because they have the greatest decision making power.  Teacher organizations and school board organizations speaking on behalf of their members make the next greatest impact.  This is the closest most educators get to making an impact on school reform.  Finally, community members, individual teachers and students have the least amount of impact on school reform.  This is unfortunate because these are the very people that will implement and have the greatest effect from school reform. 

The level of power each of these voices has is not a new thing.  Teachers feel like their thoughts and ideas do not matter, while politicians feel important and powerful.  I think politicians think they have the student’s best interest at heart, but many times putting their reforms into practice is not as easy as it is made out to be.  Students know they have no say in how schools should be reformed.  They voice their opinions to their teachers, principals, parents and sometimes to their school boards, but in most cases, they know they are not going to be heard. 

At the David School, the students seem to have more of a voice than their parents.  In the videos, parents are rarely a part of the decisions regarding their student’s educational requirements, expectations, and problems.  Only administrators, teachers, and students have a voice to make change or decisions regarding the students’ education while at David School.  This could be in part that it was left out of the film, or it could be the age of some of the students.  Regardless, the students at this campus have a much more powerful voice at this campus than most. 

School reform is a long and tedious process in which many groups have a voice.  It would be nice for students to have a “louder” voice in the process; I do not see this as an immediate option. 

Gender Equity

Gender bias has been overblown in literature regarding public education.  This may have been a problem in our country’s past, but in 2011 gender bias is no longer a concern.  Accountability on many levels has evened the playing field for boys and girls.  Studies originally showed that girls fell behind boys in math and science.  According to Education Week, The Education Testing Service conducted a study where the results show that boys are now falling behind girls in these subjects.  Pai, Adler, and Shadiow make it clear that it is close to impossible to have a gender-free school.  For example, it is not appropriate to have a co-ed wrestling team or other contact sports team because of the biological differences of boys and girls.  It is much easier for schools to have gender-free curriculum than it is to have gender-free athletics. 

What the disparity boils down to in the classroom is the motivation of the student regardless of gender.  Rather than teaching a child in a particular way because of their gender, teachers should teach based on the student’s needs.  Needs of a student may be instructional presentation, extra help from the teacher, or help with motivation to learn.  Boys lose out as much as girls when it comes to lack of motivation to work hard and achieve to the fullest potential.  This is not an issue of bias, but lack of desire of the student and encouragement by educators and parents to succeed.

I would like to take the approach of being gender-sensitive in my own schools and districts.  Pai, Adler, and Shadiow describe this approach as only paying attention to gender when doing so can prevent gender bias or promote gender equality.  I think this approach is more appropriate than a gender-free approach.  Though I do not believe gender bias is still an issue, I think it is important that educators consider student needs that specific genders may have.  My teaching experiences are at the middle school level.  During these years of children’s lives, boys and girls have very different emotional needs.  The curriculum should remain gender-free, but the interaction and presentation should be gender-sensitive. 

From what I could tell, there was no evidence to support gender bias at the David School.  Because the film highlights two boys, it rarely shows interaction between the staff and other students.  There were times when students were learning skills that differ from society’s view of activities reserved for boys and activities reserved for girls.  In one scene, Cody was learning to sew while Mary (Chris’ girlfriend) was working on the building project.  The skills students learned while at The David School were not gender specific.  Additionally, the scenes from the academic classroom did not show bias to any one gender.  As far as extra support offered to students outside of the school, the film showed no evidence one way or the other. 

As stated earlier, I believe that academic gender bias is a problem of the past.  At least in my classroom experiences, this does not seem to be a problem any longer.  It is more of a motivational issue for students, which is not gender specific.  Learning how to connect with students on individual basis and applying gender-sensitivity is the best approach to addressing gender issues in public schools. 

Rita

Rita Martinelli is an instructional leader and principal of Wilson Middle school that strives for social justice.  She desires equity of educational opportunities for all of her students.  The David School is an alternative school in David, KY for troubled teens.  Many of the students are far below grade level when they arrive on their first day.  The school’s design has small classes, one-on-one attention, and a self-paced curriculum to meet the individual needs of its students.  If Rita was to come to David, KY to be the principal of The David School, I do not believe that she would need to make many changes.  The school is enrolling troubled students and meeting them where they are academically and socially.  The teachers, though slightly more than volunteers, invest their time and energy to their students to make sure that they are not only taking care of their school work, but finding their way in life.  This campus embodies many of the qualities that Rita wanted to incorporate into Wilson MS upon her arrival.  She wanted teachers to feel empowered to make a difference with the most difficult students and to integrate ALL of the students into the talent programs.  She would be impressed with the progress this campus has with students that are on their “last educational leg”. What has not been evident at The David School that is important to the success of children in poverty and at risk of academic failure is a strong support system at home.  To have the best shot at success, a student needs substantial parental support and encouragement.  This is one thing that I could envision Rita changing about the way The David School is currently operated.   There needs to be a bridging between the campus activities and home life even though these students commute many miles to attend this school.  In one of the student’s situations (Chris), the parents did not have positive experiences at school and only see the benefit of attendance in a governmental check and documentation to receive a driver’s license.  There is a need for parental counseling as well as student counseling.