Great Educator

The cultural contexts can be seen as both problematic and opportunistic. Within the cultural realm we encounter the realities of children today. The advancement of technologies and the advancements on what families accept as “normal” present challenges in the education environment.

First, educators must realize and get acquainted with all the newest technology available to students because that is their world. If we are to mold instruction as Dewey suggested around students’ interests, teachers must be up to date on incorporating technology to their advantage. Obviously lack of knowledge of technology builds a world of distance from communicating with students and from addressing their learning style. The students of today are even smarter because of the environment they have. Having access to the media via any modern technology exposes students to many positive and negative things, but at the same time raises their IQ compared to children 10 years ago.

Second, we cannot counteract the negative effects of the cultural contexts. We are sending students mixed messages. For one part they hear in school that discrimination is not acceptable and that women, slaves, and minorities had to fight to receive equal treatment and yet the media in general portraits an acceptable even admired ridiculed image of what constitutes the essence of this nation. The increase in poverty and in violence has changed the way students act. A negative effect is the lost in trust in adults, but in the other hand, we have students with sets of “street knowledge” a teacher cannot surpass because it is not her cultural context. Students are learning to survive and adapt to their environments.

If schools are secondary to the wider society, we must take into account the diverse knowledge that students bring with them to instill the skills needed to survive in their cultural environment. We must not close our eyes to the possibilities. We must adapt to new ways of learning and teaching. Incorporating students’ interests and addressing negative issues with a learning goal in mind will help students learn from their own world. Why should teachers even try? Because our students today are our leaders tomorrow and unless we try to influence the way they perceive the world despite all the negative effects of the evolving world, we would have failed as educators.

Allowing students from rural areas relate to skills and knowledge will create an inviting and meaningful learning experience. Likewise allowing students from the city to relate as activities are purposeful created around their own cultural context will yield more powerful learning.  Allowing our diverse students to be teachers will empower them and build the confidence needed to survive in this competitive world.  Educators must embrace change and bring the best of us to students as they will one day bring the best of them to society and to themselves.     

Cultural Hegemony and the Hidden Curriculum

Cultural Hegemony is the “unequal power relationships between two or more cultures, ideologies, socioeconomic groups and so on” that allow people to understand the legitimization of the miseducating tendency in order to preserve non democratic power relations (Tozer, Senese & Violas, 2009, p. 270). The hidden curriculum refers to those values and knowledge that are not indented in the prescribed curriculum, but are passed on and many times acquired by students in the school environment.

The school system being a factory of policies and regulations, which many times are value laden, are interpreted differently at the many levels of the chain of command including teachers, students and parents. It is through the individual beliefs that policies about curriculum, rules and regulations are implemented through the eyes of each individual. Schools pass on values of “democratic” content yet students are faced with inequality of power every day. By holding students responsible to follow guidelines and regulations established by persons not necessarily directly connected with them, the school plays a major role in perpetuating cultural hegemony.

In the classroom, the teacher in charge may choose to strictly adhere to the curriculum, however, even then and maybe unintentionally, lessons are being presented with her own values in mind. When teachers acknowledge the disagreement with a certain procedure such as standardized testing, they are transmitting a hidden curriculum that stays with the student regardless of our intentions. We are teaching students to be submissive as we state things such as “…but we have to do it” or “I know this rule is ridiculous.” Students are being taught that even though we don’t agree with something, we must comply.

Pluralism favors the equal participation of all members of society embracing their differences. Schools are certainly not a pluralist arena because there students do not have equal participation or political rights in their own education. When students assimilate the values of an organization such as the school, these groups looses their democratic rights as they are “brain washed” to believe it is in their best interest to assimilate. Minorities and students in general are marginalized as their potential power is diminished by what person in power think is best for all. We want all students to succeed after they graduate and yet, they spend 12 years as a suppressed group, who only must obey fulfilling prerequisites to obtaining a “balanced education.”

Are we educating students to become productive citizens in what we think a successful life should be? Or are we perpetuating a cycle of marginalization of the masses that will not respond adequately to the current demands and crisis and submerge even deeper in desperation and impoverishment? Having access to free and appropriate education is still not fulfilling the role of education as students are not being considered an integral part in the development of curriculum and policies.

School Reform

Ideally in a democratic society, the voices of everyone should be considered. Everyone is important in reforming and forming of educational opportunities and innovations. Students should be involved in the learning opportunities that are being provided. Parents should be valued for the information about students they can provide, which in turn can help modify instruction and objectives. The curriculum should reflect students’ interest and their societal context. Teachers responsible of the direct interactions with students should be allowed to voice their opinions and recommendations in the development educational strategies and the legal mandates that are only handed down currently.  Community members should be allowed to state their point of view on the quality and equality of education provided to students as they are the ones who open the doors once students are out or even in the later years of public schools. Local school board members having the political power endowed by the nature of their position, should voice their opinion incorporating the school community they represent. State and federal level politicians in their role of leaders should be heard given that that they have knowledge and hear the voice of the school members who work more directly with students. If we all worked together considering all aspects equally important, the quality of education would improve.

The system as we know it right now places little importance on parents’ and students’ contributions in developing school mandates. Their involvement is valued more when it is informal and does not impede or interfere with the labors of those “in charge.” In the current systems the stakeholders that do not interact with students on a daily basis are the ones making the decisions that take a domino effect on the chain of command. Community members are welcomed if they are providing funds, however critiquing the decisions of school leaders or suggesting changes is currently not being taken seriously and deteriorates the partnership. Teachers despite their great contributions are heard only locally. Too much teacher involvement is not welcomed at the next level of command. School boards are being heard more than the previously mentioned, however, the voice that resonates to all is the one of policy makers at the state and federal level. The power that each of these parties exert on the educational system account for a “democratic” view that seeks to promote education capable of world competiveness. Driven by business like techniques, the ones with more power are making decisions that the rest are to obey resulting in discontent and disconnect of the real issues teachers, administrators, students and parents are currently facing. The lack of connection along with the implications that could exist if true communication and commitment to working together prevailed, prevent the current educational system from providing the best possible education for all children.  

At the David school we see that much value is placed on the voice of students. They are taken in consideration when extracurricular activities are proposed an implemented. They are taken in consideration when making goals and behavioral commitments. Since this is a private school we see little influence of state and federal stakeholders. The parents however are not actively voicing out their concerns for the education of their children. They are passive from what we have seen so far. We see administrators making decisions but they keep in mind the students’ goals and interest.

Gender Equity

Gender equity in schools has received too much attention. The media and literature concentrate on how the girls are not being treated fairly. Research has looked at the areas of technology, math and science and how education has focused in solving this issue. It is less likely to see ways in which boys are being discriminated. Klenfield (1998) makes it clear that while educators have focused on avoiding discrimination against girls, boys have been the real victims of education inequality. From grades to standardized testing, males, according to Klenfield, have been neglected. Conducting a library search did not give many hits on gender inequity toward males. Obviously we need more research on the subject. We have to consider that differences in achievement might not be due to bias, but other factors such as early exposure and self esteem. We have to think if we have created the learning environment necessary to promote learning for all students regardless of their sex.

 Since the passage of title IX, which prohibits discrimination based on sex many of the sports related issues vanished. Title IX gave girls the same opportunities for extracurricular activities and thus we have seen an inclusion of girls in male sports. We need to be realistic in what a girl can physically do and where the limitations may exist. In this line we find the “contact sport” exception. Are males than equal to females? I think potential and intelligence are not measured by gender but by perseverance and use of gray matter.  

When considering the approach needed for my schools and districts, I envision an environment where there aren’t girls or boys, but only students. Males and females need to be equally challenged and equally assisted in their areas of need. Providing unisex opportunities will promote a healthier learning environment where students can interact and learn from each other. If for any reason there is an activity provided for only males, the same activity shall be provided for girls and vice versa. Creating such an environment does not yield equal male/female participation, but it allows students the opportunity to decide. Teachers should be trained to respect students’ needs by treating them as students and learners. Teachers need to understand their own values to avoid using prejudice in teaching children. All educators need to flex their minds to avoid assuming and making judgments not only gender related issues, but diversity as a whole.

The David school is not bias from the evidence seen on part one and two. It seems that students participate equally in the educational activities. The creators of the documentary, however, did not include female participation in this film to the same extent as males. Why is Jessica only explored when the narrator talks about Cody? Other girls appear not as the main characters, but as secondary characters.

Rita

The Davis school provides the students with a degree of liberty of choice that many students are not ready for. Many times students need more structure and guidance to make their decisions. This campus places responsibility on the individual, however, while this is a beneficial approach, there needs to be a point where the administrator as an instructional leader needs to intervene. Furthermore, students need to have concrete and realistic examples of what they can become if they work hard. Obviously students do not believe in the encouraging phrase “you can be all you want to be.”

If Rita were the Principal at Davis School the quality of instruction would be different. The video shows more about the rapport of teacher and student, but the few excerpts of instruction provided are not engaging nor do they promote high levels of learning. We cannot have low academic expectations of students based on their socioeconomic status. With the antecedents we have about Rita we know that she will use her past teacher experience to revamp the ways students are being taught.

 In addition, she will not let students fall so much behind that they don’t graduate. Rita will monitor her students and utilize data to help her make decisions about how better assist students.  She will probably question the teachers about the poor progress of students and their contributions for improvement. Rita will not wait until students’ senior year to set limits and sign student contracts. Rita would probably set higher expectations from the parents and would create an incentive for students to attend school every day.

Rita will most likely embrace the current philosophical approach, but will advance with it making sure students are not falling in the cracks because of the academic demands.