Okay, I need to start by saying that I seriously
can’t believe this is our last blog for class, and that the semester’s already
over! I’ve really enjoyed this adventure with everyone!
So, emotional segment over, down to
business! When reading “Empowering Education” by Ira Shor, I found myself
making connections to a number of authors we have read this semester with
almost every point she was displaying. Needless to say, this last blog will be
my connections piece, and I’ll attempt to tie together the ideas systems we
have learned thus far. The authors that really stuck out to me were Delpit
(She’s everywhere, I swear!), Oakes, Kohn, and Rodriguez, as well as the
ideologies described through SCWAAMP.
Shor explains the concept of
empowering and participatory educational systems, and their pros and cons. What
I gathered towards the end of this was that education is unfortunately very
political and ultimately situational. It depends on where the student is from,
who the teacher thinks they are and how they perceive the students in front of
them. Basically, education has become a series of reactions to situations
presented by and affected by the surrounding environment. I feel like I may be
talking myself in circles, but it made sense in my head I honestly!
My first connection was to Delpit,
when it says that “The deficiency is the curriculum in schools, which he
[Piaget] saw as a one way transmission of rules and knowledge from teachers to
students, stifling their curiosity” (12). Piaget said that it is not good to
have the classroom be a teacher-rules-all situation. This is where Delpit would
disagree. She argues that teachers need to explicitly explain and perform the
rules and codes of power to students, especially to those students who do not
learn them in their home environments. Piaget says that this is a problem- for
teachers to have full rule- and Delpit thinks it is the best mode of operation.
So, is there a happy medium? Of course! A compromise would be a “reciprocal
relationship” (promoted by Piaget as well) that would require the utmost
respect for the teacher, alongside student-centered enrichment. This way,
everyone is happy and equal! Yay equality!
The next connection was made to Oakes,
when it was said that “…schooling supports existing power and divisions in
society by sorting students into a small elite destined for the top and a large
mass destined for the middle and the bottom…”(19). Oakes studied this way of
schooling and determined that it is detrimental. It would be better for
students to have inclusive classrooms where no one is sectioned and everyone is
equal no matter their ability or disability. This fits perfectly with the
empowering and participatory schooling that Shor describes, because inclusion
does just that. It empowers every student to do their best and strive for what
they desire, without any limitations.
"Education is complex and contradictory." (Shor 13)
The
ideas of Kohn
were also shown in this piece, when Shor was explaining traditional classrooms.
Shor was explaining that teacher-centered classrooms have a negative impact on the
learning process for students. Also, it was mentioned that competition in the
classroom based on academic performance “…interfere[s] with the cognitive
development of many students…” (23). Kohn would whole-heartedly agree with this
sentiment, based on his findings explained in his chart about a successful
learning environment for a classroom. He says that it is worrisome for a
classroom to be teacher based, which would obviously interfere with student
involvement. Kohn also believes that interscholastic competition is detrimental
to self-esteem and performance of students who do not find their name next to
the gold stars on the wall.
This may be somewhat of a stretch,
but I believe that the ideas of Rodriguez can be found throughout most of the
article. Rodriguez emphasizes the difference between private identity and
public identity between different classes and throughout schools. I noticed a
connection to this when Shor was saying that “Humans do not invent themselves
in a vacuum…The goals of [empowerment] are to relate personal growth to public
life, by developing strong skills, academic knowledge, …and critical curiosity
about society, power, inequality, and change” (15). What children learn in
school and how they apply it to their society depends on their private and
public lives. In school they may act a certain way, which could be the complete
opposite to how they behave in a setting outside of the classroom. With
empowerment and participation enforced in the classrooms, especially at a young
age, students can be taught to mesh their private and public identities so that
they are consistently one person; a good citizen with an immense amount of
knowledge to offer the world in hopes of change. 
Finally, throughout this piece I was
able to identify the dominant ideologies described in SCWAAMP. Education is and always
will be situational and political. The quality and quantity of schooling provided
to a student is dependent on SCWAAMP. If you are “different” in any sense of
the word, and do not necessarily “fit” the ideologies created by our country, your
education could be in jeopardy. Let me just say that I think this is completely
unacceptable and it does not have to be like this, unfortunately however, it
will not change overnight. But let’s stay on topic. SCWAAMP is derived from
politics, and part of politics is funding. Shor mentions that “…more money has
always been invested in the education of upper-class children and elite
collegians than has been spent on students from lower-income homes and in
community colleges” (15). It saddens me that education is political instead of
an organic process that just comes to fruition because it needs to.
Hopefully
through empowerment and participation in the classrooms, the dynamic will shift
and students will be able to change the world. All it takes is one step in the
right direction!
No comments:
Post a Comment