School Uniforms

I just watched a video (click here) on YouTube about school uniforms all over the world. Most people have a particular stance on how they feel about uniforms in schools and if they are being worn for the correct reasons. In Morris (2005) article he notes how students and teachers interacted when it came to dress and manner and how it alienated race, class and gender. If used for the right purpose uniforms are OK but I personally believe having clothing rules is better. Some people may not feel comfortable wearing a uniform and there are still ways of individualizing oneself while wearing it (hair, makeup, shoes, etc). I think the original purpose of uniforms has passed and are now being used as a type of prestige and are all about cultural capital.

Governmentalization of Education?

I was reading this article on CBC news On Independent Schools in Saskatchewan (click to read) and could help but see the connection between it and Simon and Masschelein's (2000) article on Governmentalization of Education. By the government giving each independent school 5000 dollars per student "IF they qualify by following the Education Ministry curriculum and meeting other criteria". By the government offering this money to schools I believe they just want their hand in ALL schools. 5000 per student would be really tempting for an independent school who may be lacking in funds since the student population is quite low. I think parents should have a say in where their children go to school and I also believe that all schools should be given government funding BUT not if that funding comes with strings attached. By giving the schools money the government will be getting more and more say in what happens in the school and sooner or later that school will not appear any different then any other public school in the area. This article made me think of the quote  “within the social rationality of governing, educationthus became a governmental concern, and the national government started tothink of itself as being responsible for governing the relation between“education” and “society” (p. 395).

Critical Reflection Four: Governmentalization of Education

Simons and Masschelein (2008) discuss the governmentalization of education and the history behind it. I found this article had many similarities to last week’s article by Deacon (2006) since they both draw from Foucault and his ideas on education. Simons and Masschelein’s main argument is education is all about learning and how learning brings people experience. In terms of learning “we” as a people are less about “how, at a particular moment in history, “we” have come to understand who and what we are and do in terms of learning” (Simons and Masschelein, 2008, p. 392). By having the continual ability to learn “we” “play a central role in the present regime of governmentality (p. 393). Simon and Masschelein take special interest in analysing the important reasons why we learn and the present at which we can “question whether the experience of learning indeed results in the freedom and collective well-being that is being promised” (p. 393).

           

Critical Reflection Three: Foucault on Education

                The chapter this week by Roger Deacon (2006) discusses Michel Foucault’s thoughts on education and its progression from past, present and future of schooling. Though Deacon (2006) discusses Foucault’s work, Foucault himself never wrote on education in great length rather in just two texts. Foucault’s interest in education can be dates back to “his involvement in the ‘May events’” in 1968 (Deacon, p. 178). The three themes Deacon discusses (and I will further elaborate on) are “the ‘technico-political’ history of the school, the everyday mechanics of schooling as ‘moral orthopedics’, and the modelling of education as a ‘block of capacity-communication-power’ (Deacon, p.178).

           

Critical Reflection Two: Banking System

The chapter this week in class by Paulo Freire (2000) discusses the idea of a “banking” educational system between teachers and students. It is a common practice that the teacher knows everything and the student is to be like an empty deposit box and all the information will just fill their minds. This type of education is based on knowledge which “is a gift bestowed by those who consider themselves knowledgeable upon those whom they consider to know nothing” (Freire, pg. 72). No creative or individual input is needed since the teacher does all the deciding on what is valid for a child to learn. Children are like sponges and they absorb information at a much faster pace but they also do not question why they are being taught a particular way. Freire writes “it is the people themselves who are filed away through the lack of creativity, transformation, and knowledge in this (at best) misguided system” (pg. 72). As individuals continue on to post-secondary education they start to question authority more and learning becomes a lot more creative and individualized.

        

Critical Reflection One: Disciplinary Reform

The article by Edward W. Morris (2005) discusses disciplinary reform in education with regards to dress and manner. Morris notes how students and teachers interacted when it came to dress and manner and how it alienated different race, class and genders. Focusing on mainly African American girls, Latino males and white and Asian males Morris describes how each is perceived by educational authorities. Clothing and manner “can function as very important and visible aspects of cultural capital” (Morris, p. 26). It is assumed when people choose to dress a particular way it is to stand out but in many cases it is to fit in and not feel alienated from the people that you want to associate with (i.e. your community). Morris states his “literature suggests that race, class, and gender are not inherent characteristics people possess but identities people work to inhabit and re-create” (p. 28). I personally believe that these stereotypes of class, race and gender-based cultural capital have impacted my own education and those of my peers.