Month: September 2021

After going over the two readings: Kumashiro’s Preparing Students for Crisis: What it Means to be a Good Student and Painter’s A History of Education, there is a lot to think about in regard to what a “good” student is according to commonsense, who is privileged by this definition, and how is the “good” student shaped by historical factors. From my own experiences in elementary, highschool, and university the “good” student in the classroom is the student that actively engages in a lesson without being disruptive, gets good grades, and behaves according to what society wants. 

Kumashiro explains that a “good” student is one that adheres to the values that mainstream society chooses to place on specific types of behaviour, knowledge, and skills. In examples from his previous teaching years these behaviours are exemplified. His student denoted ‘M’ was a stereotypically “bad” student because she didn’t enjoy conforming to the structure that the classroom often brings. She had a hard time sitting down and being quiet during class times, often would speak out of turn, and not want to share with other students. Stereotypically, she was a “bad” student. However, she is only considered a bad student due to the societal expectations of what a “good” student should look like. Additionally, good students and educated students can be viewed in a very similar manner. Kumashiro states:  “educated students were those who ended the school year with more than they began, and effective teachers were those who helped fill students’ minds. Learning was about learning more.”. This often leads to the assumptions that teachers must only fulfill the expectations of having students develop more knowledge and learn more than they already knew. In the paper, Kumashiro goes on to discuss the feeling of discomfort when learning. Students come into the classroom with prior knowledge about concepts and situations, and there may be times when this prior knowledge may be challenged by what is being taught in the classroom. A “good” student would be one that acknowledges and desires to understand concepts to the expected or ‘status quo’. 

The students that are privileged by this definition of a “good” student, are those that often are part of the status quo, or those who do not fall into the categories of the oppressed. Unfortunately, “whether in or out of schools, students were and are learning things that reinforce an oppressive status quo”. This statement by Kumashiro reinforces the idea that students, and even educators, that come from a place or a background of privilege are the ones that gain advantage from the current education system and are reaffirming oppressive narratives. Additionally, the definition of a “good” student also supports students that don’t have exceptionalities in the classroom. One example of this would be a student who has behavioural problems; furthermore, these students may attain amazing grades, but due to them not reaching the expectations of society for behaviour, they would be considered a “bad” student. 

Historical factors have definitely shaped what a “good” student should look like in today’s society. As Painter explains, “education does not aim to develop a perfect man or woman, but to prepare its subjects for their place in the established order of things”. Although this quote doesn’t directly mention mainstream society or the status quo, it does mention that education is meant to be a preparation to enter the “established order of things”. Education has been viewed for a very long time as a way to prepare the younger people in civilization to enter society as functional members that are meeting the status quo. Painter is quite critical of other societies and how they chose to historically prepare their students to enter society, but fails to realize that Western cultures continued to approach education and creating the “good” student or functional member of society for decades. 

Throughout this detailed exploration of what makes a “good” student and how the definition of a “good” student provides advantages to certain groups and was shaped by historical factors led to some large realizations. An educators job is not simply to create students that fit into society, it is an educators job to help students critically analyze the world around them and guide them towards challenging the status quo.

Kumashiro (2010). Against Common Sense, Chapter 2 (pp. 19 – 33) – “Preparing Teachers for Crisis: What It Means to Be a Student” 

Painter (1886). A History of Education

While looking through the scholars and the concepts available for this assignment, I decided to use Arlo Kempf’s book The Padagogy of Standardized Testing the Radical Impacts of Educational Standardization in the US and Canada. Specifically in this book, the chapter The School as a Factory Farm: All Testing All The Time caught my attention (https://link-springer-com.libproxy.uregina.ca/chapter/10.1057/9781137486653_2).

Kempf begins this chapter by discussing the fact that “testing is not the only important development underway in education”. This chapter continues by explaining that testing should be viewed as a technology that is available for use by teachers; furthermore, there are three ways that standardized testing can be understood. The first way describes standardized testing as an impartial neutral tool used for assessment while the second understanding revolves around the idea that it is an accepted value of society with particular biases. Lastly, standardized testing can be viewed as a critical approach that believes that the politics behind its development are equally important as its application. Kempf then goes on to state “All policy, all technology, and all curricula move in a particular direction and represent a certain political and/or ideological approach”. The quantity of standardized testing in Canada between grades three to twelve is on average three to five standardized tests. The more standardized testing practices in place result in more classroom time spent preparing for these tests and higher costs for the tests, and the United States has significantly more standardized tests than Canada. 

In order for standardized tests to be objective they must be clear, accurate, and must be value-free (ensuring that social identity does not give advantages or disadvantages to students). Determining the objective of the test leads to the conclusion that they were not created to measure the quality of learning or teaching; however, they were designed to “the main objective of these tests is to rank, not to rate; to spread out the scores, not to gauge the quality of a given student or school”. It’s agreed that standardized testing fails to meet the standards of reliability and validity due to the norm-referenced design. Unfortunately, standardized testing practices fail to recognize differences, such as economic or cultural, amongst the student population. There seem to be direct correlations between low test scores and low income areas. Additionally, standardized testing is simply used to measure achievement which does not help teachers “plan a path forward”. The main idea behind standardized testing is the accountability it places on teachers, curriculum, and students to reach certain goals; however, there is no proof that it actually accomplishes these goals. Furthermore, school systems that are increasing the use of standardized testing are seeing a decline in academic performance.

My next steps for this assignment will be looking through the list of the authors and topics again to choose two more sources. I’m hoping that I will be able to touch on discussions about place-based curriculum as an alternative to a focus on standardized education. Additionally, I would also like to relate this critical summary to reconciliation and the curriculum or gender and the curriculum. I feel as though including these three as my focus for the critical summary will create connections of similarity and dissimilarity.

Kempf, A. (2016). The Pedagogy of Standardized Testing The Radical Impacts of Educational Standardization in the US and Canada (1st ed. 2016.. ed.).

The reading Curriculum Theory and Practice by Smith (www.infed.org/biblio/b-curric.htm) outlines many approaches to curriculum and curriculum development. One of these approaches to curriculum was developed by Ralph Tyler who provided a scientific model of curriculum that is focused on the product of teaching. Tyler poses four fundamental questions that outline the simplicity and effectiveness that curriculum could have:

1. What educational purposes should the school seek to attain?
2. What educational experiences can be provided that are likely to attain these purposes
3. How can these educational experiences be effectively organized?
4. How can we determine whether these purposes are being attained?

One of the major goals of the Tyler Rationale is to create a system that can be applied to multiple subject areas through behavioural objectives. 

After learning about the Tyler Rationale, I realized that this is definitely something that I have experienced in my own schooling. Teachers were very focused on getting through the entire curriculum without giving much thought to the students who weren’t quite attaining the outcome goals. In elementary school, often as the end of the school year was approaching, it would be easy to overhear them discussing how far behind they were and that they may have to cut out the ‘less important’ subjects to make sure the core subject curriculum goals were met. In highschool I realized that a lot of my schooling was based around the Tyler Rationale. In Grade 12, my Math, Chemistry, and Physics classes were all dependent on writing the departmental exam at the end of the semester. This put the entire focus of these classes on the teacher, quickly teaching each outcome while also hitting each indicator to ensure we had “all” the knowledge necessary to excel on the exam. Unfortunately, for most of my peers this led to them falling behind in the class and not learning enough to do well on the departmental. There was little to no consideration for those that fell behind because the students who were able to stay on pace with the teacher would then “suffer” as there wouldn’t be time to learn all the outcomes if more time was spent on an ‘old’ topic. 

I think that my highschool experience is a great example of one of the limitations that the Tyler Rationale presents to students. The plan (curriculum) assumes the greatest importance in the classroom which can cause some issues for the students. The plan gives little to no time for students that are struggling to receive the additional instruction time that is necessary for their success.  When a student falls behind, it is ‘their own fault’ rather than faults with the expectations. Smith elaborates by saying “If the plan is tightly adhered to, there can only be limited opportunity for educators to make use of the interactions that occur”. Additionally, the curriculum or plan is created “prior to and outside learning experiences” which again takes the focus away from the students. Students are told what they must learn, and then they must learn it. Smith then states “when all the items are ticked, the person has passed the course or has learnt something”; however, just because an item box is checked does it really mean they have learned that topic?

There are some positives when it comes to the Tyler Rationale. Since it is an objectives driven model, there is a clear and set outline for teachers in specific areas to teach to their students. It creates organization in our school systems giving teachers the direction that is necessary for teachers to have similar educational goals for students. I believe that the organization that this model gives is beneficial for the students when it isn’t also being used as the limiting factor in the classroom.

Smith, M. K. (1996, 2000) ‘Curriculum theory and practice’ The encyclopedia of informal education, www.infed.org/biblio/b-curric.htm.

Kumashiro (2009) begins this section of Against Common Sense: Teaching and Learning Toward Social Justice by describing the differences he experienced while living and teaching in Nepal compared to the Western World experiences. With this explanation from Kumashiro (2009), it is very clear that part of his definition of common-sense is that it is dependent on environment or culture. ‘Common-sense’ is not universally designed, but it is based around traditional ways of knowing and acting.

Additionally, Kumashiro (2009) explains that “common sense is not what should shape educational reform or curriculum design; it is what needs to be examined and challenged.”. This is one of the important reasons to pay attention to the common-sense items around us. There are many things we do or say in a school setting that aren’t necessarily inclusive due to our traditional sense. For example, oftentimes when a teacher requires help moving something considered heavy, they will ask the class “I’ll need some strong boys to come help me move these chairs”. What is this common-sense statement teaching our students? One thing that this obviously points out is a view that girls are not as strong as boys. Additionally, it can also provide this view that boys need a ‘break’ from their studies because they are active and louder while girls tend to be quieter and don’t need a break from the classroom setting. With this example, I’m hoping that it points out the fact that by paying attention to the common-sense sayings or actions in the classroom, we can make progress in creating an anti-oppressive classroom. As Kumashiro (2009) explains, “schools are always and already addressing oppression, often by reinforcing it or at least allowing it to continue playing out unchallenged, and often without realizing that they are doing so”. By being aware of these common-sense items, we can then begin improving the quality and experiences of students that are typically harmed by ‘common-sense’ in our schools. It is much easier to criticize ‘common-sense’ from a different location in the world, and to begin raising concerns because it doesn’t align with our own idea of what ‘common-sense’ should consist of. By critically examining our own ‘common-sense’ understandings, we can begin raising questions about whether they are useful, effective, or even have a purpose.

I believe that most of my educational experience from Kindergarten to Grade 12 was based around ‘common-sense’ ideas surrounding curriculum and pedagogy. In almost every class, it was taught as the traditional teacher at the front of the classroom lecturing about a topic from the curriculum while students wrote notes. After the designated unit was taught in this way, we were then expected to write a test or do an assignment that would help us demonstrate our knowledge. Although this pedagogy seems like ‘common-sense’, there is so much research to support that this is not the most effective way of teaching student’s information. Furthermore, the curriculum is what has been determined by the government and is what is required to be taught. As Kumashiro (2009) states, “curriculum has ‘traditionally’ consisted of these things. We do not often need to be told that teachers should teach in these ways and not those ways”. Curriculum is a ‘common-sense’ item that is quite set in stone as an expectation to be considered a professional and successful teacher.

Kumashiro. (2009). Against Common Sense: Teaching and Learning Toward Social Justice, pp. XXIX – XLI