Beyond some vague assertions of “democracy,” do you see anything that unifies the three readings for this week (Stemhagen and Henney, Fine, and Santoro)? If so, what? If not, pose some questions that the readings bring to mind?
Dana RD When looking for references to the words “democracy” or “democratic” in the four readings for this week’s class, I found many in the Stemhagen and Henney article, two in Fine’s chapter 3 (pp. 31), and none in the two articles from Santoro. These widely contrasting results (although not independently verified) suggest to me that any unifying elements across the publications are not necessarily in the specific words the authors' used, but in some shared “points of view” that guide their thinking about the world, or the lines of research inquiry they pursued, or the environmental context of the research they conducted, any of which involved aspects of a “Democratic Approach”. One factor that initially came to mind is that all four dealt with human dilemmas and unjust treatment nested deeply in aspects of our U.S. public school system, which is historically viewed as one of the core components of our democratic structures and the environment where the “civic virtues of democracy”, knowledge of how our “democratic governmental institutions” are intended to operate, and initial exposure to public civic engagement practices are supposed to be learned by “the next generation” of youth. In these four readings all of the authors applied critical research perspectives and empirical investigation to draw out and “call out” particular elements of unjust practices and systemic attitudes and power structures associated with our public schools, and then placed moral claim to transformative changes that can break through the existing “status quo” that reinforces continuance of the unjust conditions and their disabling effects. Santoro wrote of these unjust impacts as the “demoralization” and “moral madness” of teachers, Fine characterized them as messages of “fundamental disposability” messaages and “academic ignorance and civic alienation” effect for poor childer and youth, Stemhagen and Henny described the “cordoning off” of advanced math education from the masses, with “far-reaching injurious social consequences. One other common thread related to “democracy” that I noted across three of the readings (excepting perhaps the Fine chapter) were references to Deweyen thought in their articulation of the philosophical grounding for their persoanl research orientations.
The common thread I saw running through all three of our articles this week was condescension. All three papers discuss a competition or conflict where one side is dismissive and patronizing to the other. In Santoro's paper from 2016, she reflects on how authorities would dismiss the legitimate concerns of the teachers who may have been coming from a good place. In her 2014 paper, she touches on the pressure teachers face to stay in schools despite the lack of respect and compensation necessary to convey teachers' importance to society. And in the Stemhagen and Henney chapter, they discuss the dueling paradigms of traditional, objective approaches to teaching mathematics and the more student-focused, constructivist approach to teaching mathematics, and the traditional side tends to view constructivists as subjective and, in some cases, silly (my words, not theirs).
What we are looking at is a classic case of Western, oppressive hegemony creeping into all different sorts of conversations. In all three papers, we can see a patriarchal dismissal of feminine coded activities, be it teaching as a profession or education that comes from a place of caring. It also should not be understated that we are witnessing conflicts between the old and the new; objectivist, authoritative thought is the more established philosophy, and despite the prevalence of his words and works everywhere in education research, Dewey's constructivist philosophies have not made it into mainstream education practices. I liken this to boomers making fun of millennials/gen Z kids for being "triggered" so easily; to them, millennials/gen Z students are sensitive snowflakes. In reality, emotional wellness and maturity will never be a bad thing, but it took decades (and the growth of millennials into the workforce and positions of power) for that understanding to stick.
Some would view this as an excuse to rest on our laurels, confident in the knowledge that progress is inevitable. But without courageous change within the field, we will only find ourselves looping back to these condescending conversations again and again. Our field is doomed to continue to have sectors looking down on others if we continue to train teachers and educators to have the same mentality. The difficult part is coming up with an actionable solution for this. We can talk in circles about how education needs to change and what theories we should pull from, but what should we be doing? From what I can tell, that question remains largely unanswered. Maybe we're too busy fighting over paradigms to see the cliff we are fast approaching.
Although it is not explicitly stated as such within each piece, I see the major theme of each article (at least in relationship to democracy) as the identification of a correlation between educational equity and the power of a single voice within a democracy. Although Santaro's conception of morality in her "Cassandra in the Classroom" article is not exclusively tied to democratic agency, it is inherent in many of the issues she describes. When looking at the central issue - the simultaneous exaltation and villainization of schoolteachers, there is a clear link to political power within our democracy, which is visible in current pandemic politics - teachers are simultaneously marketing materials (politicians point to them as the subject of their advocacy, whether accurate or not) and villains (when teachers try to advocate for their health or the health of their students, they are often accused of laziness or cowardice).
Stemhagen and Henney address the connection between education and democratic agency through the lens of the student - they draw an explicit link between opportunity and success in school (specifically in mathematics). Both articles are attuned to a common thread - the idea that democratic agency is the result of social currency, and that a chief source of social currency is the perception of being intelligent or well-educated.
The question this brings to my mind is referenced early in Stemhagen and Henney - the impact of educational equity on voter turnout. Personally, I would identify two education-related drivers of voter turnout - the perception of being politically empowered, and the reality of being politically empowered. The reality is most tied to cultural and socio-economic equity. Political forces that suppress votes target those who are already disempowered, regardless of how they perceive that power. However, there is another insidious aspect of voter suppression which is a sense of voter self-efficacy. If a voter's sense of political power is corroded (perhaps by a belief in a corrupt system, or by a sense that their vote is worthless, or by a sense that they are too uninformed to vote properly), than they may not vote, even if their vote's impact was higher than anticipated. I wonder if there is a responsibility we hold as educators to focus on this sense of political power - to educate students on the power of a single vote and voice within a democracy, to avoid suppression of votes without raising a legislative finger.
All the three reading falls under Critical Paradigm/Transformative Paradigm. Under the Critical paradigm, the research is situated in social justice issues and attempts to address social, political and economic issues. Such issues lead to conflict, social oppression and power structure at whatever levels they might occur.
Stemhagen and Henney’s pragmatic approach would provide methods of research that is more practical approach by allowing a combination of methods and that could shed some light on actual behavior of students. The beliefs that stands behind those behavior and the consequence that are likely to follow from different behaviors. Hence use of mixed methods as a pragmatic way would be used to understand teachers and student behavior in Mathematics and Mathematics education. I failed to locate the democratic approach (DME) in the literature as mentioned in the paper.
I think all three of these texts are unified by the way they address the tension surrounding morality with education. This really came full circle for me in the Santoro article when she addressed moral madness. The idea that teachers are forced to always decide between their own moral beliefs and practices and those that the profession imposes upon them. It goes back to a question we always struggle with in regards to who holds the real power. While democracy and agency get us in the door, what are the next steps to creating permanent change within the field rather than temporary trends. I think the pandemic really highlighted how much education is intertwined and riddled with social, political, and economic issues. With that, now would be the perfect time to be very intentional about creating change.
Themes of power and access were woven across the readings for this week. In Santoro’s reading on Teaching and Moral Madness, she dives into the feelings of powerlessness with the stories of Monica and Cassandra. Monica’s story highlights the experience of an educator’s voice not being heard or considered, even when others in her field feigned interest in her perspective. Cassandra’s story describes strong actions of shouting and shrieking without her voice being heard. Cassandra’s goal was to minimize potential harm, however, those in power beyond her labeled her as not a credible source and her voice was silenced. In Santoro’s article on Philosophizing Theories of Dissatisfaction, her conclusions discuss how researchers can use their power to amplify moral discourse by interviewing teachers about their experiences and values. Santoro argues that the feminine voices like who were silenced in her Moral Madness article, to be amplified in her Theories of Dissatisfaction piece.
Stemhagen and Henny discuss the concept of dualism, or “either or thinking.” They argue that this thinking, particularly in mathematics, limits its social benefits. Expanding outside dualism, creates a broader social context that allows for more accessible ways of understanding mathematics. Those who gatekeep mathematics as having a “right way” and “wrong way,” hold power that limits who engages with it, who relates to it, and who can benefit from learning it.
Lastly, Fine discusses power and disenfranchisement in many ways throughout her chapter. She brings up a concept she calls, “critical bifocality.” She mentions that is not enough to highlight voices of marginalized populations in research. Fine argues that research must also be contextualized within theories and histories. It should be circulated in realms that is it not always accessed. There is power that the researcher or ethnographer has, and the way that it is wielded must be intentional and thoughtful.
Something that stood out is the idea of responsibility. Who is responsible for all of this? The three readings together, make me think about all of the stakeholders that are responsible for outcomes. In Fine she discusses the students starting to internalize the failures that the system created for them. I wish she would have discussed that more. I meet with so many students that have internalized failure at the collegiate level. They feel just like the students in the Fine chapter. They believe that they if the fail it is on them and they should not seek help or are underserving of it. Stemhagen and Henny made me think about how math is the gatekeeper for many students that I work with. I have watched students struggle with pre-calc at the collegiate level and it is a good predictor of success in the biology major. With that said, students are getting less and less help from actual professors and more time with a computer program (ALEKS). It is shifting the responsibility from professors to students for their own education. Santoro’s speaks about the responsibility that teachers face but are often given competing interests. A teacher is expected to be loyal to themselves and students while also following commands from those above even when those are competing.
One of the things I noticed in the Fine and Santoro texts is the kind of data that is used and how it is used. It is interesting how both writers acknowledge the meaning of quantitative data, but use qualitative to, not just amplify the voices of the participants, but center the conversation on their experiences. I understand that this is often what qualitative research does, but in this week’s readings the effectiveness of using both types is particularly effective. It is striking to compare Santoro’s saying, “I did not take the position, as might a journalist, that the participants in my study lost possession of their words once they were uttered. (page 177)” to how data was used to silence Monica and the other teachers’ voices in Cassandra in the Classroom. The quantitative data in Chapter 3 of Fine’s text isn’t wrong, but it is easily dismissed with a shake of the head and shrug of the shoulders. But when the qualitative data is analyzed and attached to the principles of democracy, the voices of the students are more than “amplified”, they are centered. The same can be said about the quantitative data about teacher retention. The quantitative data around teacher pay, job satisfaction, etc. allows us to look at numbers. By framing the experiences of participants’ as moral dilemmas, it somewhat forces the reader to reflect on their own morality. The link I see with Stemhagen text is that DME centers mathematics as belonging to all and would develop in students the ability to use math as a language to explore and express their experiences and the experiences of others.
One of the similar themes that I found between the readings for this week had to do with reform and the issues surrounding it, and positive change in general for underrepresented populations and women. Basically anyone beyond the group of learners that Stemhagen and Henney first mentioned when referencing math education. I noticed this first in Stemhagen and Henney when they said “In a climate of confrontation and hyperpolarization it is far more difficult for thoughtful and beneficial to reform to occur” (p 7). In Santoro’s Cassandra in the Classroom, while her main theme was clearly centered around morality, she still tied in reform “In an era of market-based education reforms, commitments to ethical relations in schools come off as quaint”. I feel like both of these ideas are showing the difficulty in education reform and the roadblocks that educators can have when trying to get meaningful change across. In Fine’s Chapter I was struck by how much of the change that was needed was so surface level, obviously deeper change is needed, but students talking about having qualified teachers, teachers that didn’t “treat us like inmates”, or even having a toilet seat and enough toilet paper in the school bathroom. You don’t always realize how these small things can boost or deplete the confidence of someone who is so young - or maybe they do and don’t care? - comment by Lauren Mortensen
One common theme that I believe these readings share is the idea that the systems of public education are flawed at the intrapersonal, interpersonal, institutional, and policy levels. The members of this system that are at the personal levels (students and teachers) often feel disenfranchised to break away from the challenges placed upon them (the student who doesn’t have a math brain, the teacher who feels silenced, the students who are in dirty overcrowded classrooms, the teachers who leave the profession for moral dilemmas, etc.). When members of the system at the lower levels of the hierarchy feel as though their voices do not matter, those students and teachers can become disenfranchised to other systems in which they live, such as the democracy of the country as a whole. The effects of this disenfranchisement can lead to shame, guilt, helplessness, and hopelessness which, in turn, can cause these members of society to disengage in elections and other systems that could help to minimize the barriers placed in front of them.
As for the Stemhagen and Henney chapter, I was intrigued by the math war between traditionalists and constructionists. We’ve discussed these paradigms in class and I have gravitated toward the belief that the concept of knowledge/truth depends on the context in which it is observed/created. In my mind, math contains absolute truths but I also believe that there are multiple ways that it can be interpreted, analyzed and derived. Do the differing interpretations mean that the absolute truth does not exist? I, for one, don’t think that the two have to be mutually exclusive. It’s like the conundrum: If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? Does the sound exist if no one is around to hear it? I feel as though this is a very ego-centric view to believe that everything revolves around the human mind. Do these things exist? Yes. Can they be interpreted in various ways? Yes. There’s room for both.
Our government and society are directly reflected in our schools. Schools have this telescopic effect that allow schools to mirror or even feed the issues in society at large. The disparities the students experienced in the schools described in the fine book are a prime example of students whose experiences in schools may impact their views of government and feelings of alienation after school is over. The connection I saw in the readings was one of relationships. Maybe I am over simplifying, but I just saw the domino effect of the polarization in government and education that has the pieces tumbling out of control. All of the readings describe a polarization between two forces that create a sort of stalemate. While Santos focused on the teacher aspect with the inability to truly speak out against the pressures that squash their once optimistic outlooks, the Stemhagen and Henney focus on creating equity in math education that is a little more student focused. Although opening up math education for all students and making it more accessible is a good thing for everyone, I felt the student was the focus. This chapter also shows a similar pull as the other readings. Both situations create the moral issues that Santos discusses and causes teachers to lose interest in the profession and leave and causes students to give up in a similar fashion. The leaving perpetuates Fine's concerns about the inexperienced teachers and the students who want the quality instruction from a seasoned veteran are not getting it. This leads back to the need for teacher retention and the need for teachers to feel they have a voice. The issues are all connected.
When reading the articles this week I found that they all have a connection to morality intersecting with what is perceived to be needed in education. Santoro’s article on teacher dissatisfaction reflects the outcomes that students are seeing in chapter 3 of Fine’s book. Stemhagen & Henney discusses how reconceptualizing math for individuals to make meaning of it would help to improve social issues in society. When teachers join the profession, some feel like they have a moral obligation to help students succeed however there is a disconnect between what teachers believe is needed for student success and what the job calls for. This leaves teachers feeling dissatisfied and burnt out, or “moral madness”, thus leaving the profession. What students are speaking about in chapter 3 of Fine’s book is the aftermath of teacher burnout such as various substitutes, turnover, etc. Reconceptualizing math as Stemhagen & Henney suggests unfortunately isn’t at the top of the agenda for education systems when stakeholders are not on the same page.
To me, I have never considered the relationship between math and democracy. I had thought that the class design of general education was good for students. When I was in high school, I was very good at math; however, a lot of classmates were not good at it, which made them very frustrated. When I was a freshman in university, college maths still was a pain for most of my classmates. I felt curious about what we learned calculus for and why to put students in an awkward predicament if they were not good at math. Hence, I thought the general education in the United States was designed to protect every students’ confidence when my daughter began to choose her classes in high school last year. Democracy is a very sensitive topic, and seems hard to be measured. These three articles helped me deepen the conception of democracy and moral dilemma. Democracy seems to be put on the scale of morality, left or right are both dilemmas. I very resonated with the consideration of moral factors in education and letting the voices from teachers and students be heard. A "one-size fits all" approach may not always be suitable. Sometimes it's an act of inaction leadership that hurts both the student and the teacher, which results in students or teachers dissatisfaction. That reminded me of servant leadership. From Hui Sun
Dana RD
ReplyDeleteWhen looking for references to the words “democracy” or “democratic” in the four readings for this week’s class, I found many in the Stemhagen and Henney article, two in Fine’s chapter 3 (pp. 31), and none in the two articles from Santoro. These widely contrasting results (although not independently verified) suggest to me that any unifying elements across the publications are not necessarily in the specific words the authors' used, but in some shared “points of view” that guide their thinking about the world, or the lines of research inquiry they pursued, or the environmental context of the research they conducted, any of which involved aspects of a “Democratic Approach”. One factor that initially came to mind is that all four dealt with human dilemmas and unjust treatment nested deeply in aspects of our U.S. public school system, which is historically viewed as one of the core components of our democratic structures and the environment where the “civic virtues of democracy”, knowledge of how our “democratic governmental institutions” are intended to operate, and initial exposure to public civic engagement practices are supposed to be learned by “the next generation” of youth. In these four readings all of the authors applied critical research perspectives and empirical investigation to draw out and “call out” particular elements of unjust practices and systemic attitudes and power structures associated with our public schools, and then placed moral claim to transformative changes that can break through the existing “status quo” that reinforces continuance of the unjust conditions and their disabling effects. Santoro wrote of these unjust impacts as the “demoralization” and “moral madness” of teachers, Fine characterized them as messages of “fundamental disposability” messaages and “academic ignorance and civic alienation” effect for poor childer and youth, Stemhagen and Henny described the “cordoning off” of advanced math education from the masses, with “far-reaching injurious social consequences. One other common thread related to “democracy” that I noted across three of the readings (excepting perhaps the Fine chapter) were references to Deweyen thought in their articulation of the philosophical grounding for their persoanl research orientations.
The common thread I saw running through all three of our articles this week was condescension. All three papers discuss a competition or conflict where one side is dismissive and patronizing to the other. In Santoro's paper from 2016, she reflects on how authorities would dismiss the legitimate concerns of the teachers who may have been coming from a good place. In her 2014 paper, she touches on the pressure teachers face to stay in schools despite the lack of respect and compensation necessary to convey teachers' importance to society. And in the Stemhagen and Henney chapter, they discuss the dueling paradigms of traditional, objective approaches to teaching mathematics and the more student-focused, constructivist approach to teaching mathematics, and the traditional side tends to view constructivists as subjective and, in some cases, silly (my words, not theirs).
ReplyDeleteWhat we are looking at is a classic case of Western, oppressive hegemony creeping into all different sorts of conversations. In all three papers, we can see a patriarchal dismissal of feminine coded activities, be it teaching as a profession or education that comes from a place of caring. It also should not be understated that we are witnessing conflicts between the old and the new; objectivist, authoritative thought is the more established philosophy, and despite the prevalence of his words and works everywhere in education research, Dewey's constructivist philosophies have not made it into mainstream education practices. I liken this to boomers making fun of millennials/gen Z kids for being "triggered" so easily; to them, millennials/gen Z students are sensitive snowflakes. In reality, emotional wellness and maturity will never be a bad thing, but it took decades (and the growth of millennials into the workforce and positions of power) for that understanding to stick.
Some would view this as an excuse to rest on our laurels, confident in the knowledge that progress is inevitable. But without courageous change within the field, we will only find ourselves looping back to these condescending conversations again and again. Our field is doomed to continue to have sectors looking down on others if we continue to train teachers and educators to have the same mentality. The difficult part is coming up with an actionable solution for this. We can talk in circles about how education needs to change and what theories we should pull from, but what should we be doing? From what I can tell, that question remains largely unanswered. Maybe we're too busy fighting over paradigms to see the cliff we are fast approaching.
Ash TB
Although it is not explicitly stated as such within each piece, I see the major theme of each article (at least in relationship to democracy) as the identification of a correlation between educational equity and the power of a single voice within a democracy. Although Santaro's conception of morality in her "Cassandra in the Classroom" article is not exclusively tied to democratic agency, it is inherent in many of the issues she describes. When looking at the central issue - the simultaneous exaltation and villainization of schoolteachers, there is a clear link to political power within our democracy, which is visible in current pandemic politics - teachers are simultaneously marketing materials (politicians point to them as the subject of their advocacy, whether accurate or not) and villains (when teachers try to advocate for their health or the health of their students, they are often accused of laziness or cowardice).
ReplyDeleteStemhagen and Henney address the connection between education and democratic agency through the lens of the student - they draw an explicit link between opportunity and success in school (specifically in mathematics). Both articles are attuned to a common thread - the idea that democratic agency is the result of social currency, and that a chief source of social currency is the perception of being intelligent or well-educated.
The question this brings to my mind is referenced early in Stemhagen and Henney - the impact of educational equity on voter turnout. Personally, I would identify two education-related drivers of voter turnout - the perception of being politically empowered, and the reality of being politically empowered. The reality is most tied to cultural and socio-economic equity. Political forces that suppress votes target those who are already disempowered, regardless of how they perceive that power. However, there is another insidious aspect of voter suppression which is a sense of voter self-efficacy. If a voter's sense of political power is corroded (perhaps by a belief in a corrupt system, or by a sense that their vote is worthless, or by a sense that they are too uninformed to vote properly), than they may not vote, even if their vote's impact was higher than anticipated. I wonder if there is a responsibility we hold as educators to focus on this sense of political power - to educate students on the power of a single vote and voice within a democracy, to avoid suppression of votes without raising a legislative finger.
All the three reading falls under Critical Paradigm/Transformative Paradigm. Under the Critical paradigm, the research is situated in social justice issues and attempts to address social, political and economic issues. Such issues lead to conflict, social oppression and power structure at whatever levels they might occur.
ReplyDeleteStemhagen and Henney’s pragmatic approach would provide methods of research that is more practical approach by allowing a combination of methods and that could shed some light on actual behavior of students. The beliefs that stands behind those behavior and the consequence that are likely to follow from different behaviors. Hence use of mixed methods as a pragmatic way would be used to understand teachers and student behavior in Mathematics and Mathematics education. I failed to locate the democratic approach (DME) in the literature as mentioned in the paper.
I think all three of these texts are unified by the way they address the tension surrounding morality with education. This really came full circle for me in the Santoro article when she addressed moral madness. The idea that teachers are forced to always decide between their own moral beliefs and practices and those that the profession imposes upon them. It goes back to a question we always struggle with in regards to who holds the real power. While democracy and agency get us in the door, what are the next steps to creating permanent change within the field rather than temporary trends. I think the pandemic really highlighted how much education is intertwined and riddled with social, political, and economic issues. With that, now would be the perfect time to be very intentional about creating change.
ReplyDeletePost by Sierria
DeletePost by Mia Liadis
ReplyDeleteThemes of power and access were woven across the readings for this week. In Santoro’s reading on Teaching and Moral Madness, she dives into the feelings of powerlessness with the stories of Monica and Cassandra. Monica’s story highlights the experience of an educator’s voice not being heard or considered, even when others in her field feigned interest in her perspective. Cassandra’s story describes strong actions of shouting and shrieking without her voice being heard. Cassandra’s goal was to minimize potential harm, however, those in power beyond her labeled her as not a credible source and her voice was silenced. In Santoro’s article on Philosophizing Theories of Dissatisfaction, her conclusions discuss how researchers can use their power to amplify moral discourse by interviewing teachers about their experiences and values. Santoro argues that the feminine voices like who were silenced in her Moral Madness article, to be amplified in her Theories of Dissatisfaction piece.
Stemhagen and Henny discuss the concept of dualism, or “either or thinking.” They argue that this thinking, particularly in mathematics, limits its social benefits. Expanding outside dualism, creates a broader social context that allows for more accessible ways of understanding mathematics. Those who gatekeep mathematics as having a “right way” and “wrong way,” hold power that limits who engages with it, who relates to it, and who can benefit from learning it.
Lastly, Fine discusses power and disenfranchisement in many ways throughout her chapter. She brings up a concept she calls, “critical bifocality.” She mentions that is not enough to highlight voices of marginalized populations in research. Fine argues that research must also be contextualized within theories and histories. It should be circulated in realms that is it not always accessed. There is power that the researcher or ethnographer has, and the way that it is wielded must be intentional and thoughtful.
Something that stood out is the idea of responsibility. Who is responsible for all of this? The three readings together, make me think about all of the stakeholders that are responsible for outcomes. In Fine she discusses the students starting to internalize the failures that the system created for them. I wish she would have discussed that more. I meet with so many students that have internalized failure at the collegiate level. They feel just like the students in the Fine chapter. They believe that they if the fail it is on them and they should not seek help or are underserving of it. Stemhagen and Henny made me think about how math is the gatekeeper for many students that I work with. I have watched students struggle with pre-calc at the collegiate level and it is a good predictor of success in the biology major. With that said, students are getting less and less help from actual professors and more time with a computer program (ALEKS). It is shifting the responsibility from professors to students for their own education. Santoro’s speaks about the responsibility that teachers face but are often given competing interests. A teacher is expected to be loyal to themselves and students while also following commands from those above even when those are competing.
ReplyDeleteGerron Scott
Michelle Carter
ReplyDeleteOne of the things I noticed in the Fine and Santoro texts is the kind of data that is used and how it is used. It is interesting how both writers acknowledge the meaning of quantitative data, but use qualitative to, not just amplify the voices of the participants, but center the conversation on their experiences. I understand that this is often what qualitative research does, but in this week’s readings the effectiveness of using both types is particularly effective. It is striking to compare Santoro’s saying, “I did not take the position, as might a journalist, that the participants in my study lost possession of their words once they were uttered. (page 177)” to how data was used to silence Monica and the other teachers’ voices in Cassandra in the Classroom. The quantitative data in Chapter 3 of Fine’s text isn’t wrong, but it is easily dismissed with a shake of the head and shrug of the shoulders. But when the qualitative data is analyzed and attached to the principles of democracy, the voices of the students are more than “amplified”, they are centered. The same can be said about the quantitative data about teacher retention. The quantitative data around teacher pay, job satisfaction, etc. allows us to look at numbers. By framing the experiences of participants’ as moral dilemmas, it somewhat forces the reader to reflect on their own morality. The link I see with Stemhagen text is that DME centers mathematics as belonging to all and would develop in students the ability to use math as a language to explore and express their experiences and the experiences of others.
One of the similar themes that I found between the readings for this week had to do with reform and the issues surrounding it, and positive change in general for underrepresented populations and women. Basically anyone beyond the group of learners that Stemhagen and Henney first mentioned when referencing math education. I noticed this first in Stemhagen and Henney when they said “In a climate of confrontation and hyperpolarization it is far more difficult for thoughtful and beneficial to reform to occur” (p 7). In Santoro’s Cassandra in the Classroom, while her main theme was clearly centered around morality, she still tied in reform “In an era of market-based education reforms, commitments to ethical relations in schools come off as quaint”. I feel like both of these ideas are showing the difficulty in education reform and the roadblocks that educators can have when trying to get meaningful change across. In Fine’s Chapter I was struck by how much of the change that was needed was so surface level, obviously deeper change is needed, but students talking about having qualified teachers, teachers that didn’t “treat us like inmates”, or even having a toilet seat and enough toilet paper in the school bathroom. You don’t always realize how these small things can boost or deplete the confidence of someone who is so young - or maybe they do and don’t care? - comment by Lauren Mortensen
ReplyDeleteOne common theme that I believe these readings share is the idea that the systems of public education are flawed at the intrapersonal, interpersonal, institutional, and policy levels. The members of this system that are at the personal levels (students and teachers) often feel disenfranchised to break away from the challenges placed upon them (the student who doesn’t have a math brain, the teacher who feels silenced, the students who are in dirty overcrowded classrooms, the teachers who leave the profession for moral dilemmas, etc.). When members of the system at the lower levels of the hierarchy feel as though their voices do not matter, those students and teachers can become disenfranchised to other systems in which they live, such as the democracy of the country as a whole. The effects of this disenfranchisement can lead to shame, guilt, helplessness, and hopelessness which, in turn, can cause these members of society to disengage in elections and other systems that could help to minimize the barriers placed in front of them.
ReplyDeleteAs for the Stemhagen and Henney chapter, I was intrigued by the math war between traditionalists and constructionists. We’ve discussed these paradigms in class and I have gravitated toward the belief that the concept of knowledge/truth depends on the context in which it is observed/created. In my mind, math contains absolute truths but I also believe that there are multiple ways that it can be interpreted, analyzed and derived. Do the differing interpretations mean that the absolute truth does not exist? I, for one, don’t think that the two have to be mutually exclusive. It’s like the conundrum: If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? Does the sound exist if no one is around to hear it? I feel as though this is a very ego-centric view to believe that everything revolves around the human mind. Do these things exist? Yes. Can they be interpreted in various ways? Yes. There’s room for both.
Josh Hurley
DeleteOur government and society are directly reflected in our schools. Schools have this telescopic effect that allow schools to mirror or even feed the issues in society at large. The disparities the students experienced in the schools described in the fine book are a prime example of students whose experiences in schools may impact their views of government and feelings of alienation after school is over. The connection I saw in the readings was one of relationships. Maybe I am over simplifying, but I just saw the domino effect of the polarization in government and education that has the pieces tumbling out of control. All of the readings describe a polarization between two forces that create a sort of stalemate. While Santos focused on the teacher aspect with the inability to truly speak out against the pressures that squash their once optimistic outlooks, the Stemhagen and Henney focus on creating equity in math education that is a little more student focused. Although opening up math education for all students and making it more accessible is a good thing for everyone, I felt the student was the focus. This chapter also shows a similar pull as the other readings. Both situations create the moral issues that Santos discusses and causes teachers to lose interest in the profession and leave and causes students to give up in a similar fashion. The leaving perpetuates Fine's concerns about the inexperienced teachers and the students who want the quality instruction from a seasoned veteran are not getting it. This leads back to the need for teacher retention and the need for teachers to feel they have a voice. The issues are all connected.
ReplyDeleteWhen reading the articles this week I found that they all have a connection to morality intersecting with what is perceived to be needed in education. Santoro’s article on teacher dissatisfaction reflects the outcomes that students are seeing in chapter 3 of Fine’s book. Stemhagen & Henney discusses how reconceptualizing math for individuals to make meaning of it would help to improve social issues in society. When teachers join the profession, some feel like they have a moral obligation to help students succeed however there is a disconnect between what teachers believe is needed for student success and what the job calls for. This leaves teachers feeling dissatisfied and burnt out, or “moral madness”, thus leaving the profession. What students are speaking about in chapter 3 of Fine’s book is the aftermath of teacher burnout such as various substitutes, turnover, etc. Reconceptualizing math as Stemhagen & Henney suggests unfortunately isn’t at the top of the agenda for education systems when stakeholders are not on the same page.
ReplyDeleteJasmine Williams
To me, I have never considered the relationship between math and democracy. I had thought that the class design of general education was good for students. When I was in high school, I was very good at math; however, a lot of classmates were not good at it, which made them very frustrated. When I was a freshman in university, college maths still was a pain for most of my classmates. I felt curious about what we learned calculus for and why to put students in an awkward predicament if they were not good at math. Hence, I thought the general education in the United States was designed to protect every students’ confidence when my daughter began to choose her classes in high school last year. Democracy is a very sensitive topic, and seems hard to be measured. These three articles helped me deepen the conception of democracy and moral dilemma. Democracy seems to be put on the scale of morality, left or right are both dilemmas. I very resonated with the consideration of moral factors in education and letting the voices from teachers and students be heard. A "one-size fits all" approach may not always be suitable. Sometimes it's an act of inaction leadership that hurts both the student and the teacher, which results in students or teachers dissatisfaction. That reminded me of servant leadership.
ReplyDeleteFrom Hui Sun