Responses must be posted to the blog by midnight Wednesday.
Rose:
L.S. Vygotsky:
- Based on his experiences with Vocational education, it seems as though Rose invokes his buoyancy metaphor, (students will float...), pejoratively; is there way in which it can be viewed positively? (Please explain)
- Rose described the “Voc Ed” track as a “dumping ground for the disaffected”; first of all, what does he mean by this? And, secondly, do you feel that remedial tracks still represent a “dumping ground” of sorts? Why or why not?
- What does it mean to be “groomed for the classroom”?
- On page 37 of the reading (the last full paragraph), Rose describes his subjective experience with literacy: which of Scribner’s three metaphors best encapsulates the relationship that Rose depicts?
L.S. Vygotsky:
- Starting on Page 80 of the reading, three theoretical positions, regarding the relationship between learning and development, are posited, which of the the theoretical postulations seems most plausible. And contiguously, which of the three positions (re-conceptualizations) would be most efficacious with regard to pedagogy?
- How does the Zone of Proximal Development represent a paradigmatic shift in the way in which the relationship between learning and development is conceptualized?
- Vygotsky argues that “writing must be relevant to life (pp. 118 of reading)”, what does he mean by this? Is this argument consistent with conceptualizations of culturally relevant pedagogy?
- According to Vygotsky what is the difference between (merely) teaching written letters and actually teaching written language?
- Wink and Putney argue that Vygotsky’s theorization of learning as social and cultural represents a paradigmatic shift in the way that the relationship between learning and development is conceived of (pp. 85 of the reading). What types of theoretical problems or dissonance does Vygotsky’s theory foment for proponents of and arguments for standardized testing?
- Create your own metaphor of ZPD; then, please explain it’s constituent parts, (in much the same way that Wink and Putney did in their text).
- What would the Vygotskyian concept of reciprocity look like in a classroom based tutoring environment?
In stating that “writing must be relevant to life” (118), Vygotsky emphasizes the importance of writing not as a mechanical tool, but as a cultural one. Accordingly, written language differs from written letters in this crucial aspect of a deeper meaning to the letters. Rather than simply second-order symbolism, in which the letters represent sounds that signify meaning, language contains essence in and of itself for all functional purposes. In order to imbue letters with this significance in a child’s mind, it is therefore necessary to make the written letters relevant to the child’s interests.
ReplyDeleteIn the subsection “Symbolism in Writing” of his chapter “The Prehistory of Written Language,” Vygotsky cites a study demonstrating that the applications of writing prioritize mnemotechnic purposes, descriptions of quantity, and descriptions of quality (115). When a child is capable of manipulating these roles of writing for his own purposes, the written word becomes “something the child needs” to express himself (117). Once the child understands how writing is essential to his personal desires, it becomes a tool for Willis’ creative self-actualization. In “I Just Wanna Be Average,” Mike Rose succinctly and effectively stated, the written word “enabled [him] to do things in the world.” Furthermore, the egocentric language of the young child reinforces the importance of relevance in writing; children are largely interested in that which is directly linked to them. Vygotsky’s conclusions are therefore entirely consistent with conceptualizations of culturally relevant pedagogy.
A practical ramification of this approach is a renewed focus on the child as an individual, and an additional responsibility on the part of the teacher to treat the student as an individual and cater to specific needs. In a classroom based tutoring environment, it becomes altogether vital that the tutor respond to the unique interests of the student.
I believe Professor Hull addressed the first question in class, but one way of turning the buoyancy metaphor into something positive is to set higher expectations for students. Just as students will turn in low-quality work as a result of low expectations, students who have high expectations placed on them will turn in work reflective of those expectations. Of course, the bar can be set unreasonably high at times, but I feel it is better to set it too high than to set it too low.
ReplyDeleteThe Zone of Proximal Development changes the way in which the relationship between learning and development is conceptualized by showing that learning and development are connected, but they do not coincide, nor do they move in parallel motion. Instead, learning is always a few steps ahead of development, and this difference creates a zone of proximal development. Thus, it can be said that development is a result of learning, and that development is the process through which a child (or anyone) works to move through this zone of proximal development. When this goal has been achieved, the child has moved from her actual development level to what was previously seen as her potential development level; in other words, her development level has changed, but so has her level of learning.
Giedre N., response to Mike Rose's "groomed for the classroom"
ReplyDeleteMike Rose’s “groomed for the classroom” is a very versatile metaphor that refers to a number of things. First, as Rose himself points out, it’s understanding the basic literacy standards according to one’s grade level. Upon entering the classroom, certain abilities and skills are expected so that the further universal learning could resume. Second, it is the path of problem solving and reasoning that is acquired through classroom learning. Sure, one might come up with an answer, but it takes much more eloquence, communication skills and logical step-by-step explanation of how others could get there. While some of us have clever shortcuts or a peculiar manner in which we prefer to do things, educators rely on true and time-tested methods of teaching. Furthermore, learning builds on those basic blocks to solve more complex problems. Third, I believe that Rose hints to the mindset and expectations someone would have to possess upon entering a classroom. It would not only encompass the respect and rules of conduct in such learning environment but also a standard of performance which can only be met by dedication and conformance to the educational demands. In Rose’s case, no one has ever inquired as to what his future goals might be or how, in his opinion, things that he learned could be applied outside the classroom.
In Response to Rose:
ReplyDeleteWhen Rose describes the Voc Ed track as the, “Dumping ground for the disaffected” he is describing the attitude of the school, and indeed society as a whole towards children who are deemed as “underperforming”. This children who fall below the line of what is considered “average” are almost considered a nuisance because they aren’t as quick as others to pick up on math, or science, or reading. The teachers in the passage by Rose seem resigned to the fact that their job is to get students through the class and that is it. He says himself that it was very rare for a student to pass from a remedial class to the normal or college prep level, although the name remedial itself suggests that its purpose is to catch the students up. Even today, it seems that a child’s future is determined rather early and by relatively subjective guidelines. If a 4th grader does well on a standardized test, he or she is put into the gifted program. If he does poorly, he is immediately put in classes where he is expected to perform under the level of those considered average. From this point on, there is very little hope of advancing pas the remedial level. In my high school, Honors English started sophomore year. To get into 3rd year honors, one had to have been in 2nd year honors, and to get into AP English, the student (Normally) had to have been in 3rd year honors. Thus, if a child developed extremely writing prowess in his 3rd year, he would have no hope of growing, or advancing past the remedial level.
In response to which of Scribner's three metaphors for literacy Mike Rose exhibits during the last segment of the reading, he takes literacy as a means of creating a new identity for himself, which would be the literacy as power metaphor. Rose came to truly understood the utility of literacy and how it can be a communication bridge between people like him who were not marvelously physical or were not so disaffected about school that they resigned themselves to taking up their parents' trades. His teacher, Mr. McFarland, was able to get Rose to understand his potential and what he could do if he would just apply himself in his education and that had an effect on Rose that stayed with him and made him more interested. Literacy became more than just reading about people who may as well have not existed with how passively they stayed on the pages. Literacy was about becoming a hipster and becoming a teacher's apprentice with other smart students who were interested in films and talking to different people on Hollywood Boulevard. Literacy was an opportunity for Rose to make of himself something that his parents wanted him to be: successful. Rose was able to reverse his previous beliefs about himself through completely understanding the power of education and he has been able to get other people to understand as well.
ReplyDeleteWhen Rose describes the vocational education track as a “dumping ground for the disaffected,” he means that all the students judged as “below average” by the school and society or in other words, those that do not learn well in the standardized education of a classroom are “dumped” together into one class in an effort to place them with other students like themselves. As a result, the vocational education students are termed as underperforming or not capable.
ReplyDeleteIn a way, I feel remedial tracks still represent a “dumping ground” of sorts. Remedial programs, from my experience, tend to consist of students that either didn’t have the motivation to learn in the classroom or students that teachers did not want to put effort into actually teaching. I grew up in a city called Milpitas, and we had two high schools: Milpitas High School, where everyone in the city went, and Calaveras Hills High School, the remedial school for those who failed out of Milpitas High.
I remember a classmate of mine once telling me how Calaveras Hills was much easier than Milpitas High, and for those who just wanted to graduate high school and not pursue higher education at a top-tier school, it would be easier to drop out of Milpitas High and go to Calaveras Hills, where you only had to spend four hours in school per day to earn the same GED. I feel that the students at Calaveras Hills have much more potential but because of the way they are labeled as “remedial students,” they perform at a remedial level. This is the same as Rose’s concept of “students will float to the mark you set.” Remedial programs shouldn’t have lowered standards but should maintain high expectations and teach at a level that is more comfortable for those that have fallen behind in learning the basics.
Rose means that those students who perform poorly in placement exams, which schools like his own administer, are seen as incapable of learning according to their standard of what the student should know. The students are essentially “dumped” in such programs because they are not to par with the other students who performed well enough in the exam. The school then categorizes them as incompetent, or below average, and therefore are be taught differently or in this case a lower standard. In addition, I think that the words he uses are important because he states “dumping ground”, which is interesting because being on the ground in its literal sense is being at the bottom and it is as though programs like the vocational education keeps its students on the “ground” in the sense that, teachers do not teach students to learn or explore more than what they think is “sufficient”. And in general what they are expected to learn is not sufficient enough to leave such a vocational education program.
ReplyDeleteI do feel as though remedial tracks still represent these dumping grounds because students who perform low in test are not necessarily incapable of learning what they should be learning. It may be more of a lack of interest from the student, or the teachers unenthusiastic manner of teaching the subject, and so forth. There are many more explanations than just that students are "incapable".
It is no surprise that students will still continue to be placed in such programs but the mistake that is being made is the fact that they are not expected to think critically or beyond what is expected.Therefore the student will remain in a vocational education program which my only harm them in the long run.
Of course there is a way that Rose's buoyancy metaphor can be viewed positively. Rose states that the school systems often turn their backs on Voc. Ed. students and they assume this self-fulfilling prophecy of believing that they won't amount to or achieve much. But this self-fulfilling prophecy can work both ways and Rose is a key example of how his education worked in this matter.
ReplyDeleteThrough motivation from Mr. McFarland ("Listen, you can write."), Rose was inspired and motivated to reach his true potential, even if it meant a lot of hard work and immersing himself in reading and writing. Under Mr. McFarland's syllabus and high intensity work demands, Rose rose to the occasion and the demanding amount of work soon became something of normalcy and opened doors to new routes that Rose had never explored.
The message to take away is that all students have this untapped potential and are capable of always achieving more. In this way, the buoyancy metaphor can apply to both extremes, especially the positive one.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteResponse to Rose: I believe that Mike Rose doesn’t have a problem with vocational schools as an institution itself; instead, I believe he has a problem with the way vocational schools are used as a “dumping ground” for underperforming students.
ReplyDeleteMike Rose’s metaphor, “students will float to the mark you set,” is reflective of his experiences with children in vocational schools. More often than not, their underperformance was a result of a teacher labeling a child as a failure from the moment they first got a bad score. The teacher’s label of the student as “unteachable” starts to resonate with the student, until they start to believe that they are unintelligent themselves.
The “dumping ground” that Rose refers to is a metaphor for the institution of vocational schooling. Students that teachers believe will not succeed in pursuing higher education are urged into vocational schools, so that they may learn a skill and use it to earn a living.
I am somewhat divided in my belief of whether or not remedial tracks still represent a “dumping ground” of sorts. I truly believe that the best (and most) learning occurs when students are in a heterogeneous environment, where they are able to learn from other students as well as the teacher. However, my high school had 2 distinct course selections: the advanced placement track and the “regular” track. When my classmates began applying to college, those who were on the advanced track had many more options than those who took regular classes.
The statement “students will float to the mark you set” is a beautiful articulation of what happens every day. Rose is lucky, in a sense, because even though he was the son of parents who did not achieve literacy even in our most basic understanding, he still aimed to surpass the marks his parents and society demanded. However, in most cases, only those inertly motivated to strive to be the best are exempt from this statement. Professor Hull’s example especially struck me. She mentioned that she taught a class of students “bellow average” the curriculum of students who were proficient in school and these students all tackled the assignments and did them. Furthermore, each student passed the exam to move on to the next grade. This is remarkable because it demonstrates just what can happen when we pigeonhole a student’s potential. The cause of this judgment of success I think ties in well to what Vygotsky labels an assumption that child development is independent of learning. Though I remember an experiment in which students had preconceived notions of why the Earth had seasons that were entirely false and resistant to instruction, ultimately schooling has a large role in a child’s development. Vygotsky lists an experiment to support this assumption where scientists ask students questions far out of their realm of understanding about the universe intentionally so they have no previous knowledge of the question. However, perhaps if the students were instructed in the basics of how our universe works and the logic behind it, they could use the schema taught to them to piece together at least a guess. If students are labeled too young or unintelligent to begin to learn something, they automatically have lesser expectations for themselves, further diminishing their potential.
ReplyDeleteThe buoyancy metaphor Rose implements to describe the expectations teachers have of students can be viewed in a positive manner. A teacher's expectations of his/her students affect how motivated the students are to achieve. The more a teacher believes his/her students will be able to exceed expectations, the more motivated the students become.
ReplyDeleteIf teachers expect a great deal from their students, then they will live up to their expectations. Students need motivation and encouragement to progress academically, and the school plays a large role in the motivation of students. Teachers should be open-minded and expect everyone to achieve great heights. It is the issue of teachers expecting too little of students that causes them to not "float as high."
Now that I reflect on my own experiences, I have observed this metaphor in action while I was in Advanced Placement courses in high school; I had two opposite experiences with my AP Biology teacher and AP Calculus teacher. One day after school, my AP Biology teacher pulled me aside after school and conveyed to me that she expected me to get a five on the test. A teacher has never been so honest about what they expect of me, nor have they had so much faith in me. One the other hand, my AP Calculus teacher was not nearly as supportive, and she often mentioned how she could not believe why any of us were taking such an advanced course. Needless to say I scored a five on my AP Biology test and I did not pass my AP Calculus class. The difference in expectations really impacted my attitude and motivation to succeed in those courses. Without the support from a teacher, it is hard to believe that you can achieve great feats.
Rose's boyancy metaphor illustrates how students have unlimited potential, but they are limited due to the lack of motivation and support from the people around them.
I have to say: your responses are awesome. I am so impressed with the quality of your writing and with your analytical skills. You all seem to have a good grasp of the hifalutin, graduate-level literacy material that we cover. Keep up the good work!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI too became aware of the slight negative connotation in Rose's "floating" buoyancy metaphor. There is certainly a way that the idea of kids rising to your expectations can be viewed positively. The main idea behind it though is something I've found to be very true in my own experience. Working with 7th-12th grade scouts in my Boy Scout troop, the one rule we were able to settle on for how to improve a scout's leadership ability was "set higher expectations than they have for themselves," As evidenced by Professor Hull's lecture on Tuesday and the content of our readings, this is a very viable and indeed preferable way to approach a classroom. Students will rise to your expectations, and even if they happen to fall short, hopefully they will at least have surprised themselves by how well they ended up doing. So in the light of the intensely positive benefits of having high expectations of your students, maybe it could be said that they are not "floating," but rather charging toward the bar of success. However, society's definition of "success" is a bit of a hurdle, and would make Vocational school an especially challenging place in which to try this method. Vocational school is commonly thought to be a lesser rung of the potential-career-path-and-life-goals ladder than a more conventionally intellectual field. With this pre-conception in mind, it is difficult to motivate students who already believe that the expectations for them are already lower than ideal. Ultimately, the problem that I had with Rose's (potentially unintentional) connotation was that I felt it implied the students would inevitably fall short of the expectations set for them, or get there too slowly to be adequate.
ReplyDeleteRose’s description of the “Voc Ed” track as a “dumping ground for the disaffected” refers to the way in which low achieving students are identified as unwanted, and therefore, separated from high achieving society. The bar is set so low that higher education would be wasted on them, and through tracking we are reaffirm that they will be incapable of institutionally-defined success and limit their opportunities, although vocational tracking is marketed as a way to improve students’ economic worth. In the same way, remedial tracks alienate low achieving and set up a precedent for their (lack of) success. It represents a choice by teachers to merely get their students through school, rather than prepare them to be assimilated into more educated society. Furthermore, both vocational and remedial tracking acts to reinforce traditional power structures, as represented by the racial demographic of lower tracks. For example, commercials for high school completion or trade schools, which always show in the middle of the day when most (assumed to be successful) people are at work, frequently show people of color as their star students. Here, vocational schools serve as an alternative to true success, and are assumed to only be necessary for low achieving people of color.
ReplyDeleteRose states that “vocational educational has aimed at increasing the economic opportunities of students who do not do well”. For him, the students there are not the “bright” ones who will go to college, but those who will end up with menial jobs out of high school. The problem with the vocational track is that they are not challenged. Being given remedial tasks reduces the amount of work the students are willing and eventually capable to do. As Rose said, “students will float to the level you set”, and by giving remedial tasks, that level is set very low.
ReplyDeleteSide note. I learned English in first grade in Australia. After moving to Canada, I was placed in the ESL class without a placement exam. The teacher noted that I wasn’t supposed to be in that class before I changed out. It also happened in 6th and 7th grade in the United States.
For Vygotsky, the difference between teaching written letters and written language is like being able to speak vs. able to converse. Written letters is just putting pen to paper and drawing symbols that match what should appear. In my opinion, written letters is textbookish, and appears to be learned with rote memorization. Written language is functional, and allows thoughts to be strung together. Learning written language takes time and practice, and is not learned (completely anyway) from a textbook.
A dumping ground for the disaffected: Vocational Education is a place for students who do not fit in with high school classes geared towards higher education. Whether it be athletes, deadbeats, or slow learners, Rose felt that these classes were for everyone else who did not have enough intelligence for a higher education, according to the school. However, Rose uses disaffected to make a point: his friends, whom he describes with vivid detail, are not unintelligent in a school setting but rather in their own unique way. They were not troublesome, had other passions, and felt differently about schooling. But from an authoritative stance, these kinds of students belong in a different track meant, as Rose puts it, not to liberate you but "to occupy you".
ReplyDeleteI feel that these secondary-learning tracks within our schools still harbor the disaffected. What's worse is that it maintains this apathy towards learning and further labels the students as "slow". Remedial tracks offer students who although not have the intellectual means to excel in class the opportunity to learn a skill or some practical knowledge suited for a work environment. Even though this sounds promising, students do not actually take the remedial tracks seriously. They know themselves that they are in the lesser caliber classes and as a result act as such. These students become second-class citizens in high school, void of any enjoyment in their schooling. A serious revamping and reevaluation of these tracks, I feel, is completely necessary and overdue.
From personal observations at my own high school I have seen the remedial tracks fail to educate and provide salient world experience. My high school’s Special Education track would have its students once a day or week wear plastic orange vests and pick up trash on campus wielding the garbage sticks. How is this supposed to give these students any skill in life? And even worse, how are these students supposed to interact with the rest of the world if they are just considered garbage collectors? When I discovered this one word came to mind: inhumane. I know this is a certain case since it is Special Education rather than some Vocational or Professional track, but it carries the same message as Rose.
Vygotsky describes three traditional positions about the relationship between learning and development that either assumes that development is a prerequisite for learning, or that learning is inseparably blended with the process of development. Vygotsky’s theoretical position represents a shift from the aforementioned theories because rather than describing learning as a process that lags behind the development process, he states that learning and development are different processes, and that organized learning leads to mental development. Before Vygotsky, it was believed that children could not learn a new concept or new material if they had not reached the necessary developmental level, but Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development implies that children are able to learn material that is beyond their actual development level with the continuous guidance of an adult, until they master and internalized the new concepts. Therefore, it is unproductive for educational institutes to focus on developmental levels that the children have already reached instead they should aim for higher standards or expectations for the students.
ReplyDeleteI think this concept can be applied to Rose’s experience as a child because all the students were chosen for either the college prep track or vocational track depending on their actual developmental level. However, once they were separated, kids in the vocational track were given lower expectations in accordance with their actual development level instead of reaching for higher developmental levels that would have permitted them to perform to their full potential.
In terms of Rose being liberated and being able to overcome she geographic limitation by reading books, ‘Literacy as power’ somewhat explains the relationship that Rose has. However, if choosing the best metaphor encapsulating Rose’s relationship with literacy, ‘Literacy as a state of Grace’ illustrates the relationship the best. In the paragraph, Rose said she was able to interact with the world outside of her geographic and social boundaries by means of reading books. And, Scribner illustrated that the literate individual’s life derives its meaning and significance from intellectual participation in the accumulated knowledge of humankind, particularly through written word. Rose’s excitement - for becoming the ‘bonding agent’ with the world and for accumulating knowledge that provides the critical perspectives of the world- for enabling to overcome the social and geographic limitation in the last paragraph fit into Scribner’s illustration of literate individual’s life.
ReplyDelete“Writing must be relevant to life” means writing should be something the child needs and, therefore, something child can be intrigued by. When the exercise has meaning for children, consequently, need is aroused in them.
If the writing is not relevant to life and the exercise is ‘mechanical,’ child is more likely to be bored with the exercise and, therefore, budding personality is likely to be restrictively developed. So, in the long run, writing relevant to life is most appropriate way for children to have effective writing exercise. Like making speech necessary, writing can become necessary by putting them in play situations. And this is achievable in our culture. Therefore, I think this argument is consistent with the conceptualization of our culture’s pedagogy.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMike Rose discusses that he and his classmates were “groomed for the classroom” in the sense that they did not do well in school. He explains that the teachers did not know what to do with these students. Rose suggests that the teachers should have been more creative when attempting to get the students to complete their work. Rose says that being groomed for the classroom is not as simple as succeeding in the classroom. He explains that it was not just a case of him not understanding concepts, but rather not knowing the ways of solving problems or making sense of language. In the sense that he and some other classmates were not groomed for the classroom, they did not have the proper techniques to address assignments. Furthermore, Rose was able to appear as if he were paying attention when in fact he was not listening at all. He was bored and indifferent about schoolwork and only did the basic requirements to get by.
ReplyDeleteVygotsky differentiates teaching written letters and teaching written language by comparing the two to learning piano. He explains that when a person is learning how to play the piano, one is focused on the keys and reading the music, but not the essence of the song. In the same manner, when learning to write, students are concerned with the individual symbols rather than the whole of the language. The two are completely different because one encompasses signs and sounds, while the other consists of signs for real individuals and interactions. Vygotsky argues that children should be taught written language, not just the physical representations of symbols. He explains that children discover the symbolic function of writing early on, and this should be connected to life in a manner that demonstrates the necessity of writing. Once the writing is relevant to children, they should be able to develop writing beyond the basic symbols and view it more as a necessity. Lastly, written language should be taught naturally rather than forcing children to learn letters and symbols. Vygotsky proposes incorporating language into everyday play, so that learning comes from with the child.
When Vygotsky said, “writing must be relevant to life,” he meant that writing should be something necessary for a child to manifest his/her personality and needs, not just a mechanical act like “a matter of hand or finger habits,” or something one would come up for his teacher. As in the Montessori’s example, writing is taught as a motor skill and not as a complex cultural activity in most schools. However, writing should be relevant to life, and this is consistent with conceptualization of culturally relevant pedagogy.
ReplyDeleteI can sincerely relate to Vygotsky’s stance on writing, and if I did so too back in middle school, I think my writing experience would have been much more fulfilling. Like drawing, regardless whether you’re “good” at it or not, writing is a way to express the kind of person you are, like a signature. Of course, the importance of sound structure and appropriate choice of vocabulary should not be belittled, however, sadly our writing education is focused on the academic fulfillment, not personal fulfillment.
At the OMI, I saw a kid struggling in front of the computer trying to finish his essay for school so that he can go watch his friends play basketball. I was once that kid. I learned the joy of writing in college, because I loved what I wrote about. Only if we could get the kid to see the subject of the essay interesting in his point of view, in his cultural context, then writing could be more fun – I dare say – than playing basketball for him. Writing truly flourishes when you love WHAT you write.
I used to hold a similar view of the “disaffected” as Rose did. I don’t quite think he meant the word to hold a negative connotation, in fact for most of the story he is sympathetic to the Voc. Ed. Kids. Instead, I think it was more like the Voc. Ed. track was where those kids who “couldn’t care less” ended up, and were not necessarily placed there. Sure, perhaps there were some “slow” or “disadvantaged” kids placed in the class, but Rose himself turned out not to be one of them, yet he remained because he couldn’t be bothered, and didn’t realize the mistake at the time.
ReplyDeleteThough remedial tracks may have become “dumping grounds,” I do not think their concept is wrong. Actually I think we need more of the vocational education included up there in the normal curriculum. The purpose of vocational tracks was to at least equip those deemed incapable of further education with practical knowledge for their future jobs. Though the students may not learn much in the way of education, they are given (or forced) a direction to go towards. They are exposed to (admittedly undesirable) career paths as compensation for lack of academic progress, and some follow through into the working class. In contrast, the kids who are keeping up in school are continually being taught further abstract concepts, yet they miss out on the simple exposure to vocations that the remedial track kids go through. I, at least, was not forced to consider what I could do with my “adequate” education until much later in my education, and even then the exposure was shallow.
It seems to me that this low vocational exposure for those not in Voc. Ed. tracks can result in the cruel irony of competent kids, like Rose, becoming unmotivated/disaffected by their education and thus end up in remedial classes anyway; except this time due to lack of a goal rather than clerical error.
Rose refers to the “Voc Ed” track as a “dumping ground for the disaffected” because he sees this dead end track as a place to quite literally dump adolescents who the school system has deemed unteachable (unworthy, etc.) and a hazard to the learning environment. Often administrators treat these students like the plague, placing Voc Ed. classrooms far from other classrooms (usually distant portables) and grouping these classes in the same sections of school. The latter was especially prevalent at my high school. With friends in that track, it was often the case I would not see them for days. We would not cross paths because not only were they sectioned off to other parts of the school but Voc Ed. classes had different passing periods. The administration, in blatantly separating these classes, made it no secret they considered these students as diseases that could spread and taint the rest of the school’s population. This mentality at one point even reached the student population. Many students believed interaction with Voc. Ed. students could ruin their academic career, that they could begin this slippery slope of mediocrity and not return. So as to whether remedial tracks still represent a dumping ground, I would say most definitely. My high school would simply place anyone with behavioral issues into these classes, irrespective of their intelligence. This became a sort of permanent timeout box for high school students. People need only look at the gradual rise of Voc. Ed. students from 1st year to 4th year to recognize that Voc. Ed. is still the “dumping grounds” of schools across America.
ReplyDeleteRose states that vocational school is a “dumping ground for the disaffected”. The grading system in the society divides students into different categories. Students with As are considered as successful good students. However, students who are not doing so well in their classes are “given” an alternate choice which is going to vocational school. It is because the society is shaped in a way that we see students with bad grades are lazy and less intelligent. Therefore, vocational schools are set up to train students with hands on skills so they could survive.
ReplyDeleteI believe that different people have different talents. Some are good at memorizing all the information from the book however they do not have any practical skills. The grading system killed a lot of students mentally. Schooling should serve more than a factory. The system is copying and crafting students in the same way. Students are limited in their thinking. “Banking education” termed by Paulo Freire can be harmful to the students. Students are eating the books but not digesting the information. They discharge the information after exams. The point of education is lost in this case.
I believe that students can benefit more from democratic education because teachers often turn into their mentors. In addition, teachers can understand more of the students’ difficulties. In the case of Rose, without the help from MacFarland he wouldn’t be able to go to college. When will our society realizes that different people have different needs. Students with less advantage need a little push and help. We should not see them as the surplus in our society.
By saying that the vocational education class was a “dumping ground for the disaffected,” Rose was referring to how students that scored lower on tests and were on the remedial track were automatically labeled as rebellious. Also, since dumping grounds are typically viewed as a place where items of little importance culminate, Rose is claiming that the students in the vocational classes are viewed by society as being hopeless. I do believe that the remedial track still represents a sort of dumping grounds because the students of the vocational education program are only trained and taught to attain a mediocre job rather than to challenge higher thinking. In this sense, the education system deprives these students of a real education just because the grade system does not work in their favor. Since the notion that a student’s performance in school already predetermines the kind of education and attention they should receive, this leaves the teachers of the vocational classes to only associate their students as another part of the “dumping grounds.” Therefore the teachers set low expectations for these students and teach accordingly. Although the idea of a vocational education option sounds like a perfectly great idea on paper, the way the program ends up being treated because of the label set on the students is actually more detrimental because it does not challenge the students that need it the most. Since I feel as though I benefit more when I am challenged by the standards and mentality of the people around me, putting the children in the vocational education program back into college-prep paced classes will help the remedial track students learn more.
ReplyDeleteAccording to his experiences with Vocational education, i believe Rose doesn't question about the vocational schools itself. When he is describing it as a “dumping ground for the disaffected,” he means that all the students judged as “below average” by the school and society. In this case, he questions about the vocational schools are used as the “dumped” excuses for the students who are underperforming in the standardized education. Instead of providing higher education, these vocational schooling are basically giving them a skill that allows them to earn a living. Usually these students are not unreachable for the higher education, however, their teachers labeled by their academic result and eventually made them believing too.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, students who perform low in test do not mean that are “unteachable.” I did not do well when i was in High School cause i found there a lot of things are much worthy for me to gain. Working in student organizations as the leader gives me a lot of experience that i don’t gain from text books. Now, i found my interest in Media and Advertising and i am doing well in my classes. I believer i am classified as “unteachable” as well but it is more like a lack of interest from my school material. There are many reasons that students are unsuccessful. Labeling them by them academic reason is not what a good educator should do.
In regards to the three theoretical positions on learning and development, the best argument for pedagogy (and the most plausible) lies in the third theory--that maturation and learning are mutually dependent and interactive processes. Maturation prepares learning, which in turn facilitates further maturation. A very abstract example of this is the developmental milestone of self-produced locomotion in infants. Learning to crawl or walk facilitates a multitude of developments, in areas like spatial cognition and attention--these in turn prepare specific processes of learning.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, the most dangerous assumption to make in regards to pedagogy is the theory that development is a prerequisite for learning--this belief inherently implies that not all children are equally capable of learning. That "a child's mental functions have not properly matured", or the fear of children being "taught a subject before [they] was ready for it" could potentially place them in predetermined tracks.
The fact that the "voc ed" track represents a dumping ground ties with what Professor Hull had mentioned in class--that students will float to whatever expectations you set for them. When she herself taught the lower track students, she had the belief that they were among the best at the school--the way she treated them allowed all of them to pass their exams. In Rose's example, the beginning of his higher education began when he was placed in a biology class that was structured similarly for all students regardless of their track.
A very literal example of how lower tracks are a "dumping ground" occurs in the German schooling system. Children are placed into one of four different types of schools--one, of course, producing bright and prodigal university-bound students. The lowest school prepares children for low-level careers and vocational school. This is hardly fair, as the school segregation begins in the 5th grade.
Rose described how students will float to the level that they are set at. In other words, the students in vocational track who were not expected to do as well were treated in such a way that was unintentionally demeaning, and as a result caused the students to settle at that lower level. Rose's description of a buoy gives a negative image on the studnets, presenting as if the students were lost and happen to float to the level that they are told to go. However, I see that description as one that represents the students as ones that will not go lower than the set high level. So as the water (the expectation) rises, the buoy (the student's work results) also rises. The reason for this is because the students don't know/ can't know the existence of a higher level unless they are exposed to it.
ReplyDelete"Groomed for the classroom" is a curious way to describe "good students" in our society. The description entails children who are required to sit still and listen, participate in activities, and think what the teacher instigates the students to think, and be earnest about the work that needs to be done in class or at home for the class. Now that I think about it, it's a wonder how so many people can fit these criteria. Students, who's bodies and minds are changing, and perhaps wish to be outside roaming around are forced to sit in rooms for hours at a time and listen quietly to the teacher... It is in my opinion quite a skill to conquer. The students have different skills at learning, and to train oneself to become uniform as to be good at listening, taking notes, or however the teacher teaches the course requires "grooming" essentially, to fit society's ways for how to learn. I feel that there can be better and more effective ways to teaching a class full of students who differ, and learn in different ways. Or perhaps, it is a necessary step to make students learn to follow regulations in different ways, or else we may result in a chaotic world where rules cannot control the mass.
Reading this particular reading lead me to think of my experience tutoring children in high school, and what people have told me in the past about what the correct is to teach. Every time I tutor someone, I instictively try to go with the clearest mind possible, to prevent myself from judging what level the student is at. However, I realize through this reading that this method is ineffective for having the student grow. Even though the method I follow makes the student feel comfortable because I never accuse him/ her of not knowing something, this method also doesn't get the student anywhere. Not saying that I would accuse the studnet of not knowing something, but saying that it doesn't challenge the student to do better, to excell past what is expected of them. Through tutoring at OMI I will be aware of what more I can do to have the student excell past the 'norm', or the 'expected'.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete‘I just wanna be Average’ is a perception inside people’s mind. This perception showed that people have no interest on what they are doing, so they have no desire to push themselves to worker hard and do better, like students in vocational class in Rose case. Some of our classmates suggested that we should set higher expectation, so that people will float at higher level of the average as “students will float to the mark you set”. I partly agree with it because it is not going to success unless they have build up a foundation of knowledge and skills. Higher expectation and higher standard may push students to work hard; however, student may overwhelm by the pressure and eventually loss their interests to study. So how to truly motivate student to study hard is let them find their benefits of study, for example see literacy as power for self advancement and social mobility, or as a skill to adapt new environment, or as state of grace. Moreover, teachers should, like Jack MacFarland, help student to build up foundation of knowledge slowly. Rose’s success is not only made by the encouragement and expectation from his teacher, but also the efforts they rebuilt the foundation knowledge together.
ReplyDeleteRose described the “Vocational Education” track as a “dumping ground for the disaffected”, because school placed all the students who were unable to do well in formal curriculum to learn some practical skills for their future career. However, learning those practical skills required the knowledge they learned in formal curriculum, such as hypotheses development, problems solving technique, and communication skill, which they did not do well on it. Therefore, without support of these bases of knowledge, they could not learn the practical skills in the Vocational education. Moreover, teachers did not work hard to build the foundation knowledge of the student, but ignored the students’ fundamental problem. They even categorized students as ‘Slow’ and ‘Stupid’ which further discouraged them to study hard to change their disadvantage situation. This situation is like a vicious cycle. So “during his time in vocation education, Rose developed further a mediocre student and a somnambulant problem solver.”
When Vygotsky argues “writing must be relevant to life” he is referring to the idea that writing should be done based on the writer’s culture rather than done mechanically. When writing becomes more personal and cultural, the growth and development in the writer will increase and the writer’s personality will come through as well. In order for a child to develop in writing, “reading and writing must be something the child needs”. If its something they don’t need, then their progress will cease, but when its something a child needs, they are more determined to actually do it and get better at it.
ReplyDeleteA metaphor that can be used to explain Vygotsky’s ZPD is an elevator. The ground floor is a child’s actual development level and the top is his or her potential development. Each floor of the elevator is a different zone of proximal development. But at any given time the elevator can break or stop due to the mechanics, and there is no control in this. Also, depending on the weight and amount of people in the elevator, the elevator can move faster or slower at any given time.
In the reading Mike Rose states that students will float to the bar you set but in the Vocational education it was negatively perceived because teachers in such a system did not expect much from their students. They believed they were the underachieving students who did not care about their education, and therefore the teachers had low expectations as well. However, I believe that this could possibly be turned into a positive thing because if teachers expect more from their students, the students will see that the teachers believe that they are capable of achieving and perform better than if teachers had low expectations. This can then motivate the student to try and do well in class because they have a fundamental support system behind them, who are willing to help. These students will then do better than if teachers did not care how well they did in class. On the other hand, teachers cannot have too high of an expectation that are far fetched because students will again feel incapable of achieving such expectation.
ReplyDeleteLiliana Zarate
Education 140 AC