School as a Site for Identity Formation

As I was reading this week's reading (in the MUL book), I just kept thinking about something one of the presenters in the FutureLab session at the conference said:
"What sort of curriculum can we make for the kind of people we want to make for the kind of future we want to make?" In other words, we need to stop thinking about curriculum first (maybe we don't think about curriculum first), and start thinking first about the kind of society we want, the kind of people that we need to have in that society, and then work on the kinds of curriculum that make those kinds of people.

As mentioned in the article, we value people who are multi-layered, we seem to value the diverse workplace, and civic pluralism seems to be the model for the future (I won't go on a rant about how our country is failing in this regard here...), and we need to work on building a curriculum that allows for that sort of identity formation. School is a key place of identify formation, perhaps even as influential as the home because it is at school that students begin to figure out how their private identities operate in a public space; it is in school that students learn to navigate a world that they have little control over, how to act like themselves while working toward goals they may not have chosen. Particularly for young people who are not involved in many other social activities, school is the one of the first and main sites of socialization. So, if we want children to be socialized in an environment that creates multi-layered, multi-modal people, we need to create an environment (not just a curriculum) that allows for this type of identity formation.

I tend to get annoyed when articles make this kind of a call to action without offering some sort of possible solution for how we get there, so I appreciated that Cope and Kalantzis didn't just stop here with a call to action: the last few pages (and, really, the entire book...) function as a way to say, "THIS IS HOW WE CREATE THESE SORTS OF LEARNERS!" I've appreciated not having to read all of this book, but I almost feel like after this class is over I would like to read it from start to finish because I feel like I'm having a bit of a non-linear experience with it, but nevertheless I think that the ideas we've had around available designs and SOCT (which is the acronym I think we should all adopt) all work to help us create the kinds of students we want to create. These goals seem lofty, but it's entirely possible to tweak our framework just a bit to help students become the kinds of people they need to be.

How many words is this supposed to be? 451, right?

Reading Response 6 – Pluralism

I was totally unprepared for this chapter – I did not expect this forum of discussion based on the title, “The Changing Role of Schools.” This chapter was not only interesting to me because it was somewhat cynical in its perspectives – it appeared to me to have a kind of biting wit to it – but because Alisha, my wife, is currently in a multicultural education course at UVU and she absolutely hates it – because it is not pluralism. Of course, she did not know this term previous to my reading the chapter, but we have had discussions on the subject-matter and, as I read, I had to read to her the following passage:

The first is a veneer of tokenism in which it appears diversity is honoured – a spaghetti and polka multiculturalism – but in which nothing really changes in terms of patterns of educational outcomes.

For me, I could not help but think of her because she frequently talks about how all multiculturalism in the classroom is (according to her professor and much of her learning) exactly this idea of “spaghetti and polka multiculturalism” as it pertains to saying, “Hey look, we’ve got some Hispanics in our class…let’s talk about the ‘Day of the Dead’…” This hearkens back to the previously written idea that:

Education as a superficial kind of multiculturalism means that, at a surface level, the system recognizes, even honours, the variability of lifeworlds, but deep down, you’ve still got to make yourself over in the image of those lifeworlds closest to the culture of institutionalized learning and ‘mainstream’ power.

So, what are the implications of this thought? Pluralism, in my perspective, says that every student should be working in a kind of “self-directed study” with a learning plan specific to their lifeworld because we cannot be truly pluralist unless we actually change the form of our educational system to meet the individual, not the other way around. Again, we’re back to the “portfolio person.” Now, I could be misinterpreting this.

The final question of the text talks about “productive relationality” – essentially connecting with, entering in, and learning from (in a productive manner) other lifeworlds not our own. I got interested. They pointed to articles within the text (which is nice) that would inform us regarding the “how” of pluralism – and then I noticed that they all seem to do with learning a different language or collaboration. So, in essence, we have to do some kind of expatriate activity that gets us involved in the language of and collaboration with other lifeworlds…and all this within our schools? I love the idea of pluralism but its implementation kind of exceeds my abilities to perceive – perhaps it is too ideal even for me?

Reading Response 6

I selected Daugherty's "A Changing Role for Technology Teacher Education" to read in conjunction with Kalantzis and Cope's "Changing the Role of Schools." Daugherty's article stems from a study done is 2005. In 2003, the undergraduate program for Technology Teacher Education was changed and a survey was done of current (at the time) Technology teachers with 2 purposes:

1. To what degree do technology teacher educators support the Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology (Content Standards) and the Advancing excellence in technological literacy: Professional development standards?
2. To what degree is substantial curricular and pedagogical change required and/or supported in technology teacher education?

I almost stopped reading the article at this point. Doesn't it seem obvious that the standards would be supported? And who doesn't support pedagogical change in technology teacher education?

These articles both tapped into what I am most excited about and fearful of in the classroom.

Kalantzis and Cope's section of the article entitled "Education and changing patterns of work" is an idea that we've read before from Cope. Postfordism and productive diversity is the new work environment we want students to be prepared to enter upon graduation. The classroom is a work space as is and has the potential to adopt the theories and practices of a modern work atmosphere. I'm excited to be in the TTE field because I feel that I will have a step up on creating this environment of multiskilling and worker empowerment for students. Everything that I am learning in my undergraduate program suggest that I be the teacher described by Kalantzis and Cope. Professor Steve Shumway actually uses this text "Multiliteracies" in his undergraduate classes.

LET'S DO THIS THING!

In Daugherty's article, there is one question that halts my enthusiasm:

"Do you believe that your technology teacher education program offers the 'ideal' kind of curriculum?"

80% said no. Which is fine. No big deal, let's work with the curriculum. That should be done continually anyway, right?

The follow up question was why and the number one reason was "Bureaucracy and lack of support prevent change." That's disturbing. It's also interesting that there was no mention of lack of funding or materials. I don't want to be in a situation where I'm fighting with the Principal. It seems cruel to teach me an ideal and put me in a situation where it can't be met, but I guess that's the real world. Haha, just kidding, I'm not giving up that easily. I love a good fight.

Reading Response 6-The Role of Schools

Kalantzis and Cope’s “Changing the Role of Schools” offered up some interesting ideas pertaining to the educational system. I feel like the contextualization was comprehensive regarding education’s past, present, and future relationship to work, civics, and personal life, and it was interesting to see how the authors demonstrated the interconnectness of education and other elements within society.

While I see and understand the first two sections, work and civics, for me, personally, I think that the most interesting section was the one on personal life. I think that this is because it is within this realm that I am able to actually make direct connections to my individual practice. It is here that I see the most potential for realistic change as an individual teacher because it doesn’t take the alteration of an entire society to begin teaching in a way that respects “multilayered identities.”

In the article, the authors point out that, since the end of the Cold War, “Instead of mass consumption, we are experiencing increasing subcultural fragmentation around niche markets…When not through a language of its own, each subculture speaks in its own specialized discourse.” And while these subcultures are becoming more and more defined and exclusive, they are also interacting more and more closely with others, creating a very interesting conglomeration of subcultures in small spaces. Trying not to sound too cliché, I think that we can see this “separated togetherness” very clearly within our public schools. Whether looking at the division of race, socio-economic class, or even just “cliques” within a school, these personal identities greatly affect the learning environment within my classroom.

As a teacher, I can see the value of using education in this “multilayered identity” fashion. Any practitioner will tell you that an open acknowledgement, respect, and access of student individuality can have a significant positive impact on learning. I think, though, that the problem lies in the fact that until there’s a nuclear holocaust and we start it all from scratch, the evolution of the educational system to include these principles is going to very slow-going. Does that make it any less worthwhile? Of course not, and I think that if more teachers would engage with these ideas then the change would be more effective more quickly. As for me…I’m gonna at least try.