#HACCSOCI201 globalization research

[jtoybox]

Research and Critical Thought Pt II: The Rational Economy of Public Education

p.tab { margin-left:40px; } p.par { text-indent:2em }

My maternal grandfather was a TV repairman until the late 1990s.  Around the same time, I repaired VCRs for a short while.  Neither of those jobs exist anymore.  Over time, globalization has made it far more economical to discard and replace our consumer electronics.  In his theory of Rationalization, sociologist Max Weber labeled this phenomenon Appropriation, whereby "all physical means of production [become] disposable property (University of Regina, 1999)."   

I would argue that while the profession of teaching persists, the job itself, as it was in those days, also no longer exists. Public education has become a means of producing employable members of society, all of whom will ultimately make good consumers.  As Shelley Wright (2014) tells us, "Essentially, this imposition seeks the most efficient (read, easiest) way to get a student from kindergarten to grade 12."  George Ritzer (1983), speaking to what he calls the McDonaldization of society, wrote, "Administrators have difficulty assessing teaching quality and thus substitute quantitative scores. Of course each score involves qualitative judgments, but this is conveniently ignored (p. 104/375)."  With the 2001 passage of No Child Left Behind, public educators have been placed under an even broader microscope.  A Colorado teacher named Kathleen B. complains, “Reducing children (and teachers, too) to data points and numbers demoralizes us. Children (and teachers, too) are more than a number or a rating on a rubric (Education News, 2015)." 

Weber's Calculability, wherein "Results can be ... estimated by adopting assumptions and considering the methods by which results will be achieved (University of Regina, 1999)," has become the de facto standard of public education. Making the situation even worse, administrators aren't even good at it.  Two weeks ago, a local middle school teacher asked for my take on the samples and methodologies applied to two research studies, which allegedly demonstrate that connection is essential to a child's education, presented to her and her fellow middle school teachers during a training session.  

The first was an observational propensity score analysis from Zurich, Switzerland.  The heterogeneous sample of 1067 students were examined over several years, and the student-teacher relationship of each was assessed via 105 covariates against the backdrop of several variables of attitude.  What they found was that a positive relationship between the students and the teachers had a bearing on the students' later academics, as well as their lives in general (Obsuth, Murray, Malti, Sulger, Ribeaud, & Eisner, 2017).   My first point to her was that, being an observational study, causality cannot be inferred. The correlation, however, is impressive.  My second point was that, while the sample is clearly reflective of the overall population of Switzerland, that democratic socialist country is an entirely different world from the United States.  This is my first objection.

The second research study presented to me was not a research study at all.  Nevertheless, it was presented to her as evidence that the Zurich study applies here in the U.S.  As Dr. Donyall D. Dickey (2019) states, "Wanting to better understand the impact of student-teacher relationships and teacher expectations on student achievement, I extensively interviewed eight African American middle school boys in a high-poverty, urban middle school in the Northeast." No disrespect to Dr. Dickey, but this sample hardly reflects the student population of this country.  Therefore, his conclusions can be overlooked as assumptive, and based entirely on anecdote.  My first objection still stands.  It's not that I don't think that student-teacher connection won't demonstrate similar results here as was seen in Switzerland.  The issue is that it hasn't been properly examined, and assumptions are not a good foundation for policy.  

My second objection is that connective relationships are subjective.  This was qualitatively well addressed within the Zurich study (Obsuth et al., 2017), but that doesn't necessarily mean that their definition will translate to our society.  My third objection, and this is key, is that even if we were to give those trainers the benefit of the doubt and grant them that student-teacher connection is key, what the Zurich study (Obsuth et al., 2017) actually found was that by the time students reach middle school, it's already too late to see high retention rates.  Clearly, these administrators, pushing the Socratic Seminar Protocol, did not comprehend the very lesson that they intended to hand their teachers.  In fact, I am increasingly convinced that bureaucratic organizational structures don't truly understand the consequences of the rational economy under which they reside. 

References

Dickey,D. (2018, December 3). What do high expectations have

to do with authentic student engagement? Retrieved March 20, 2019, from https://educationalepiphany.com/what-do-high-expectations-have-to-do-with-authentic-student-engagement/

Education News. (2015, February 20). Educators share how No

Child Left Behind has affected their classroom. Retrieved March 20, 2019, from https://educationvotes.nea.org/2015/02/20/educators-share-how-no-child-left-behind-has-affected-their-classroom/

Obsuth, I., Murray, A. L., Malti, T., Sulger, P., Ribeaud, D.,

& Eisner, M. (2017). A Non-bipartite Propensity Score Analysis of the Effects of Teacher–Student Relationships on Adolescent Problem and Prosocial Behavior. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46(8), 1661–1687. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0534-y

Ritzer, G. (1983). The “McDonaldization” of Society.

Journal of American Culture, 6(1), 100–107. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1542-734X.1983.0601_100.x. Retrieved from http://fasnafan.tripod.com/mcdonaldization.pdf

University of Regina. (1999, October 14). Sociology 250

- Notes on Max Weber. Retrieved March 20, 2019, from http://uregina.ca/~gingrich/o14f99.htm

Wright, S. (2014, August 16). The McDonaldization of Education:

the rise of slow. Retrieved March 20, 2019, from https://shelleywright.wordpress.com/2014/08/16/the-mcdonaldization-of-education-the-rise-of-slow/

[babyboomerme-blog]

Do Dads Treat Their Children Differently based on Gender?

     Do dads really treat their children differently based on the gender of the child?

     In speaking from personal experience, I can tell you this was my life.  I was raised by the stereotypical mom who was very much the “Leave It To Beaver, June Cleaver”, minus the dress.  She was the stay at home mom who was expected to cook, clean, take care of the children, and have supper on the table when dad got home. Dad on the other hand was a cop with an ego the size of the county he protected.  The girls were expected to mind their manners, help their mother, and learn how to run a house.  The boys on the other hand were expected to learn to be men, take care of household chores, and provide for their families.  I’m sure it came as quite a surprise to my dad when my sister and I broke the mold and became outspoken strong females, while one of my brothers was more interested in strapping on an apron and helping out in the kitchen.

     According to Dr. Jennifer Mascaro who researched this topic, “fathers sang more to their daughters and even opened up about emotions, such as sadness. This could be because they’re more “accepting” of girls’ feelings over boys’.  Fathers would play with their boys more, though, and used more “achievement-related” language with words like proud, win and top. The researchers noticed the dads used “analytical” language with their daughters.  Analytical language has been tied to future academic success, the study notes.  The researchers even conducted MRI brain scans on the dads. Fathers looked at images of adults and kids, along with their own child wearing happy, sad or neutral facial expressions. When dads saw images of their daughters – happy or sad – the areas of the brain tied to reward and emotion regulation lit up more compared to dads with sons.” (Chai.2017)

     Future research should address one of the biggest questions as a result of the research. Is a fathers’ differences in behavior toward the two genders the result of a biological difference in their reactions about different genders, or is this a product of internalized norms about how girls and boys should act and behave?(Park.2017) #socialization #HACCSOCI201

 (372 words)

References:

 Chai, C.(2017). Here’s how dads treat daughters differently than sons, according to scientists. Health Global News

Park, A.(2017).How Dads Treat Their Daughter’s Differently Than Sons.TimeMagazine