Taking Some Contingent, Recursive Action
Dictionary Entries for this Post:
Traditional Perspective: First promoted by G.S. Hall in 1904, this perspective is "grounded in a biologically driven discourse" (139) which infers that attempts are made by educators to address all middle schoolers as in a like stage of aggression, overactivity, and in being deeply "at risk".Critical Perspective: A perspective that moves from the traditional perspective by looking at middle school youth from a "multi-faceted, contextualized view of adolescence" (139).
Both/And Perspective: A view that "addresses both the individual and the socio-structural dynamics at the local and national level, as they shape adolescents and their educative relations with other" (140).
Bridling Thoughts:
The first thing that was obvious to me was the fact that the Middle School was a governmentally created entity, that was based on theories of Developmentalism, in the most traditional sense, which was created to support the development of white males in the 20th century. By believing that there are unique and specialized characteristics attributed to this age, an entire branch of the American Educational system was created in the formation of Middle Schools. The problem with this however, as mentioned, is that the developmental theories used to do this, only took into consideration young, white males, and discounted other contributing factors to development such as SES, race, gender and previous educational experiences. To me, in the viewpoint of someone who taught in the classroom for 20 years, I can say definitively that no student is alike to the point that we coul determine a nationally recognized profile of where they are in their development, but more importantly, who they are and how they all, collectively, should be taught.I have to admit however, that there do seem to be some things, that regardless of contextual influences of the political atmosphere, the community, the family, SES, or the classroom dynamics, that do appear to be common in all of their experiences, such as talkativeness, a need to move, and the developing of peer-relations. However, I cannot support the ideas that the few things this age group has in common, on any level, is enough to determine their entire educational experience which from the get go, was not developed for more than a small handful of the actual population it was forced upon.
Enora Brown's chapter, "Both/And/All of the Above" was the internal piece in this reading that carried the most meaning and identification for me. In my personal research and studies, I have been looking into individualized instruction and learning styles as well the theory of multiple intelligence. All of these fit nicely into the idea that students, even middle schoolers, are individuals, with their own personal characteristics about them, influenced by a myriad of things in their contextual settings. It baffles me, honestly, how this nation could have ever thought that a "one size fits all" method of education would have had any successful impact on the total population of students. But Brown suggests that this was, perhaps, the plan to fuel a : " a microelectronic, global capitalist economy, neoliberal agenda and privatization of public education" (144). She is adamant that there is a link between public policy and conceptualizations of youth. With the descriptions laid out in this, and all the subsequent portions for this week, I can say that I see the connection as well.
In conclusion, I have to say that until I entered my doctoral studies, I had for a long time considered how we were teaching our students, but I had never questioned where, what or why. The readings for this week really solidified my need to ask all the questions. It is part of developing my own critical theories of education and to explore the ideas of those with like and unlike minds.
