F**king White Guy (is that title appropriate i dont know...)

At school there was stereotypes for everyone – the Chinese, Vietnamese, Japanese, Indian, Sri Lankan, Arab, and Aboriginal, but there was no stereotype for the white male. There were insults for every racial category, except the white male. While the Asian may have been labeled ‘nerdy’ or ‘stingy’, the white guy was simply white. There was no adjective used to describe the white male, the lack of racial stereotype saw the insertion of profanities, while one may say “you stingy Asian!” all that could be said was “f**king white guy!” The white male was boringly normal, it was his characteristics to which others were compared, and labeled different as a result. 'Whiteness’ traits would not be insulted, because everyone wanted them. If an insult was to be said, a white male would be called 'rich'. Fozdar writes that whiteness "has always been associated with relative prividlege and a higher status."1

            Fozdar writes that “one of the central points of whiteness studies is that whites are often rendered invisible, even as they contribute to the ‘noticing’ of other races, or rather, the races of the Others.”2 Upon reflection on the Fozdar article it occurred to me – my race was never an issue because it never existed, it simply went unnoticed. While they were ‘Asian’, I was ‘normal’, there was nothing special about being white, because it was seen as the norm, my race was rendered invisible. If my ethnic friends did something differently, it was them that was ‘weird’, with the exception of mixing cake and ice-cream together.

            There are schools for Greeks, for Jews. There are societies on campus for Chinese students and Taiwanese students, but no ‘white student association’. Whiteness is too normal, while there are special schools for different races, 3 there is no school for white people because every school is a school for white people. When you fit the norm then the system accommodates you, you don’t get different treatment because you are not different. You are not white in the same way a black person in black, by being white you are, according to Fozdar, invisible. Your racial status is removed as you become the norm by which racial difference is determined.

---

1. Fozdar 182
2 Fozdar 181

3 http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/tensions-build-over-race-school-plan-20110315-1bvx5.html

Personal Education Experience.

Personal Education Experience.

This blog will explore my personal experiences of culture and identity in relation to education. It will draw from Hall, Neitz, and Battani (2003), as well as from cultural pieces in the Sydney Morning Herald, and will be constrasted to a previous blog by Lucas Widdison on the subject.

Lucas observes Hall et al’s writings on individualism and how it mirrored his educational experience writing that “school is perhaps the place where this individualistic culture is really cultivated.”[1] Hall et al write about expressive individualism, “with its goal of the cultivation and expression of the self.”[2] Expressive individualism is an idea that Proctor’s research shows to be dominant in the public and not the private spheres of education. Proctor quotes one staff member of an elite private school who says that “We are not as ‘You must carve your own way’ as other schools might be. I think for instance in the [government schools] there would be a more – ‘What are your values? Tease them out for yourself. Live by them honestly’. We would probably lie more towards the ‘What are your values? These are ours. How do you line up against that?’” I attended Sydney Boys High School, a school which is not sure if it is a public school or a private school. While being government funded (with a few extra contributions from old boys), it has all the trademarks of a private school, and behaves accordingly. While Sydney Boys may not have said ‘here are our religious values, how do you compare to that’, they still had sets of values that students would compare and contrast themselves to. Expressive individualism, was not one of these core values. The school was very much un-individualistic, students were taught to serve the school, to serve each other, and the community. Sydney Boys has one of the largest old boys networks in New South Wales (NSW), and the most successful and influential old boys in the state[3]. Once a member of the community, you never leave.

My own culture was also very much anti-individualistic. This can be seen in not only my family, but in the Christian culture and biblical truths guiding my life, shown recently in the Archbishops address at Synod where Peter Jensen said that people “exist in dependence on each other.” As well as in the words of Mumford and Sons who write in ‘Sigh no more’ that “Love that will not betray you, dismay or enslave you, It will set you free. Be more like the man you were made to be.”[4]

Sydney is a city full of different cultures, full of people with different experiences. I am shaped by my experiences, by my family, by my context, but while these influences affect my thinking I am shaped first and foremost by an event 2000 years ago. I was destined to rightly face God’s wrath as I rejected him in his world. Jesus took that punishment. No amount of schooling and culture can affect my identity more than that event, because that event is where my identity is found. 

---

[1] Lucas blog

[2] Hall 22

[3] Sydney Morning Herald Article

[4] Mumford and Sons - Sigh no more.

Religion and Schooling

Australia is becoming increasingly multicultural, as a result, it is also becoming multi-faith. While the separation of church and state may be contentious enough, the new multi-faith Australia also poses challenges to religious education. Sydney has experienced a changing educational landscape, government schools have seen decreasing enrolments as students choose independent schools, usually with a form of religious affiliation. This blog will observe the rise and role of religious education in secular Australia.

Proctor recounts the transition of Sydney’s elite private boy’s schools away from the testerone fuelled schools of the 20^th century, to the more tempered schools that emerged in the 1990’s. Proctor identifies this change as occurring in all aspects of school culture, both the sports field and the chapel. According to Proctor there was a “resurgence in expressive, evangelical forms [of Christianity] in a number of elite schools.”[1] This new teaching saw Jesus portrayed as the ideal man – both strong and compassionate. The Jesus of the boys private school is not the wishy washy Jesus, but the man who sacrificed himself for you. Proctor’s research reveals that the schools new teaching did not shy away from the tough topics, with some interviewees feeling alienated by what they labeled as ‘hellfire and brimstone’ teaching. Elite private boys schools, notably Anglican, had a new vigour, they were presented with their saviour, but also with what they needed saving from.

This evangelical charge paved the way for the expansion of the non-elite Anglican schools sector, united under the Sydney Anglican Schools Corporation (SASC). SASC started in1947 with five schools, and grew to 17 schools by 2012, with 12 of the schools created post 1990, the latest started in 2012. Unlike their elite counterparts, these schools make no attempt to hide their faith behind history and prestige, the mission statement of the corporation is clear “The SASC seeks to provide quality, affordable education to local communities. An important aspect of the Corporation's activities is to communicate the Gospel of Jesus Christ, encouraging students to consider a Christian worldview.”[2] The SASC do not back down, but proudly proclaim their crucified King, writing that school’s “provide an opportunity to bring the Gospel to many thousands of young people.”[3]

Australia’s educational climate differs to most other secular nations, as scripture exists in government schools. The church has formed the backbone of Australian society, quietly serving the community in education and welfare. To remove either Anglicare, UnitingCare, SASC, or Catholic Education in Sydney would decimate the Educational and welfare system. What is the role of religion in education? Religious schools have placed themselves as a necessary part of the educational framework, yet, are becoming increasingly evangelical. This raises questions for a secular and multi-faith society.

---

[1] Helen Proctor (2011): Masculinity and social class, tradition and change: the production of ‘young Christian gentlemen’ at an elite boys’ school’, Gender and Education, 23:7, 843-856 849

[2] Website SASC

[3] SASC Website.

Advertising, Policies and Politics: How Culture Influences Policy

Kenway and Bullen’s text Consuming children: Education-Entertainment-Advertising provides many interesting insights into how the education system and more specifically schools are being run in contemporary society. The authors comment that schools ‘see themselves as free-standing entrepreneurial small businesses’ (Kenway and Bullen, 123) with parents and students ‘encouraged to adopt a consumerist stance to schools and to knowledge.’ (Kenway and Bullen 123) This article was published in 2001 with numerous references made from earlier articles written by the pair so it would be unfair to say that policies by recent governments have attributed to this. It could however be suggested that policies are a result of these social movements. For example, Jack Waterford in his editorial piece in the Canberra Times on the 4^th September 2012 writes that ‘Labor’s post-Latham shorthand for an education policy... made Labor seem fairly with it.’ These policies included introductions to laptop computers as well as ‘national standards and testing and... the MySchool program.’ These policies mentioned by Waterford link nicely with what Kenway and Bullen say. Kenway and Bullen comment that there is a claim ‘made that new technologies will eventually liberate educational consumption from certain time and space restrictions’ which tie in nicely as to why a government would be inclined to fund a technological revolution like the one seen in recent years. Waterford also mentions the MySchool policy which can be linked to why schools are actively pursuing advertising. Kenway and Bullen state that ‘advertising is selective and seeks to persuade’ yet it ‘stands in direct opposition to education in the sense that education... encourages students to consider issues from many angles.’ (Kenway and Bullen, 128) One has to wonder as to why this is the case yet an answer could be seen that a policy such as MySchool is a result of a consumerist culture. Schools are finding the need to advertise in order to gain members who will contribute to their schools ranking. This can be perhaps morally ambiguous because, using girls schools as an example, some are advertising ‘the status aspects of private schools... and others drawing from liberal and cultural feminist agendas’ (Kenway and Bullen, 130); therefore suggesting schools essentially want to pick and choose their clients rather than be fully inclusive. Despite this article preceding most of these policies it provides some information as to why schools feel the need to showcase themself and why governments are willing to implement strategies which Waterford suggests are just politically charged in order to win elections. He comments that ‘fundamental issues in education go well beyond throwing money... at the problem’. Perhaps that is exactly what schools are doing, throwing money into things which are more or less superficial and not beneficial to the pursuit of knowledge.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/gillards-education-crusade--flounders-20120904-25cyg.html Jack Waterford (4th September 2012)

Kenway, J. & Bullen. (2001) Consuming Children: Education-Entertainment-Advertising. Buckingham: Open University Press. Chapter 5: Designer Schools, Packaged Students.

The Hills District

The Hills District

I find the 'Hills' district weird. I'm going to call it, they do things differently out there. In the East there is no public school market and there is no public school with the status of being the best. There is not fierce competition to get into the public schools, I am told however, that in the Hills this is not so.

This issue was first raised in a car trip when I was enquiring about life in the Hills district, my friend said that she went to West Pennant Hills High, and that there was competition between West Pennant and Cherrybrook Technology High School - one of the largest schools in the state. Discussion was had over school borders (thankfully I had some knowledge of the issue due to this course), and how families bought houses within the catchment area of their preferred school. But one day, she recounted, the unthinkable happened - the government changed the catchment boundaries. Havoc wreaked the Hills, families who had bought into the Cherrybrook catchment found themselves in the new West Pennant Hills catchment, others who had bought into the West Pennant catchment found themselves facing an uncertain future at Cherrybrook.

Brown writes in the Sydney Morning Herald that “[D]ata available on the My School website has driven families to settle also in the catchment areas for the top public comprehensive schools such as Killara High, Willoughby Girls, Chatswood High, Mosman High and Killarney Heights High.”[1] This idea of public school choice affects not only the North-west of Sydney, but also the North Shore. The article continues writing that “Northern Sydney Regional Council of Parents and Citizens Associations executive member Steph Crofts said parents kept a close eye on the academic performance of the public schools. 'You hear of families moving into the catchment areas for those highly ranked schools to get their kids in,' she said. 'I think that explains a lot of the movement.''’[2]

Research by Kenway and Bullen identified three main factor’s in school choice; proximity, pleasant feel, and performance.’[3] These ideas mesh with both the personal recounts on my friends, and the Sydney Morning Herald. Parents clearly want their children to attend school that perform well and have a pleasant feel. However, whilst some parents may send their children to schools near their homes, others appear to send their children to homes near their schools.

---

[1] Browne, ‘Upwardly Mobile Inundate North Shore Schools’, Sydney Morning Herald, September 2012.

[2] Browne, ‘Upwardly Mobile Inundate North Shore Schools’, Sydney Morning Herald, September 2012.

[3] Kenway, J. & Bullen, (2001). Consuming children: Education-Entertainment-Advertising. Buckingham: Open University Press. Chapter 5: Designer schools, packaged students. 130

Laptops and what they mean for the classroom culture



Source: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/education-revolution-hits-hi-tech-low-point/story-e6frg6n6-1226482124955

Before I start this blog there are probably a few things I should qualify. Firstly, technology and I don’t get along particularly well. Secondly, my preferred teaching method is discussion. Thirdly, due to lack of ‘powerpoint’ skills I tend to stick clear of digital lessons. With those in mind it should come as no surprise that this blog will be a rant about the federal government’s digital revolution. The Daily Telegraph has an article ‘Education Revolution Hits Hi-Tech Low Point’ (27^th September 2012) which discusses the failure of laptops within the classroom. The article points out that ‘families are being hit with upto $400 for repairs’ and due to the apparent failure of the laptop scheme ‘neither the federal nor NSW governments appear willing to commit to $100 million required to maintain the 1:1 computer to student ratio.’ The article is obviously a bit bipolar because firstly it comes across criticising the scheme but then backtracks to lamenting that the scheme will end and ‘kids will miss out’. However I’ll put it out there and say it is actually a good thing. Leonardo writes about power in the classroom. He writes that ‘educators are... an authority insofar as they possess critical amounts of training, knowledge and skills’ (Leonardo, 6) whilst along with this chatter in the classroom ‘becomes the ontological property of educators and students who enter communication as incomplete subjects in search of freedom.’ Where do laptops come in to this dynamic one might ask? Well they sacrifice the power of the teacher. Kids are easily manipulated by the programs on the computer rather than listening to the lesson. A real life example is from my recent alternative professional engagement where I sat in a class and observed one student playing Grand Theft Auto instead of listening to the lesson. The laptops have the potential to get in the way of the teachers role of ‘purveyor of knowledge in schools.’ (Leonardo, 9) and unlike the Laptop the teacher can take a role as an ‘organic intellectual [with] a socio-political... function’ (Leonardo, 9). Really, those of you who are reading this managed to get by school without having a laptop in the classroom. I’m not denying computers have a role in the school; I’m using one right now, but at a cost of ‘$2.4 billion’ is it really necessary for technology to suck the life out of education?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/education-revolution-hits-hi-tech-low-point/story-e6frg6n6-1226482124955 (27th September 2012)

Leonardo, Z. (2009) Affirming Ambivalence: Introduction to Cultural Politics and Education. In Z. Leonardo (Ed.), Handbook of Cultural Politics and Education (pp1-48), Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

School Choice - What Makes a Good School?

"It is students' engagement in learning that matters - not superficial results on a website" - Chris Bonnor

In the article 'Good Schools Give a Hoot', the central topic is what makes schools "good" and in turn who should they be "good" for: students? parents? or the nation? This is an important current educational issue as parents are becoming very particular about the school they would like to send their children to, and at the same time, many schools are becoming selective and only demanding students that are gifted and talented.

I think that to define a "good school" with the absence of any faults would be extremely difficult. However, some of the main aspects of a good school should include: 
1. Good and productive teachers that know their students and their subject content, who are themselves learners and work alongside colleagues to improve practice across the school.
2. A positive teaching environment where all students are surrounded by positive relationships, and are thus encouraged to participate in all classroom activities.
3. The promotion of tolerance and acceptance of culture, heritage, and religion among staff and students, as well as anti-bullying and discrimination instructions.
4. The development of an intellectual quality that produces deep understanding of concepts, creative, communicative, and critical skills and ideas.

Chris Bonnor states that: "most schools teach the same centralised curriculum with similarly trained teachers catering for mainstream students...where effective teaching and authentic learning are nurtured and constantly developed to help students achieve". Theoretically, because of this, he argues that any school has the ability to be a good school, and I support this argument completely however, despite whether the school is "good" or not, what really concerns parents is the reputation of the school. Humans' primitive demand is to always want the best quality of anything and this idea is regurgitated when parents school hunt for the best schools to send their children to. 

In 'Going Public: Education Policy and Public Education in Australia', Jane Kenway makes a valid point as she states: "For students, a school's bad reputation often centres on drugs, alcohol, sexuality (girls' short skirts, and juvenile pregnancies), trouble makers, fighting and knives... But reputation is also intimately connected with the suburb and its associated habits and styles of consumption, as those outside this suburb imply that suburbs have 'sign value'". This is a valid argument that is also reflected in the way that parents depict schools, however parents tend to rely on reputation through research and they look for aspects such as the academic levels of student achievement, the school's sense of discipline, test results that show where the school sits in relation to other schools, and the kind of children that are already enrolled at the school. All this information can be extracted from the MySchool website, but as Kenway also argues: "The talk among parents and particularly students; the rumours and gossip; the exaggerations; and the innuendo are what makes and breaks the reputation of the school". 

Chris Bonnor argues that in the process of school hunting by relying on reputation and results: "we equate the achievement of students with the achievement of their school - and cite each school's alleged good or bad features as the root cause of success or failure". The problem with this is that a majority of the school achievement is created not by the school, but in the homes and neighbourhoods of the enrolled students. This is one of the reasons as to why many schools are choosing to be more selective of the students that they admit, and are only selecting gifted and talented students that will create a positive image for the school.

All in all, in relation to what makes a good school and how parents should decide, Chris Bonnor states that: "The challenge for parents is to discover the real depth of student engagement and learning. In the process they have to reserve judgment about such things as raw test scores, student ranks, neat and full workbooks, docile students in neat rows and hours of homework". 

I completely agree with this statement as I feel that parents should not spend their time researching the test results and overall reputation of a school to solely use that information to determine whether the school is right for their children. Instead, parents should be researching aspects such as whether the school has suitable facilities, productive and engaged teachers, a positive learning environment with positive relationships between peers and teachers, the promotion and development of creative and critical skills, tolerance and equality among students, what the motto, ideals and goals of the school are and in turn what the school attempts to achieve for its students. These are just a few aspects that I feel provide a decent foundation for a "good" school. 


References:

Chris Bonnor, (2012). 'Good Schools Give a Hoot'. [Online Article] retrieved from the Sydney Morning Herald Website: 
http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/good-schools-give-a-hoot-20120715-223zb.html

Jane Kenway, (1998). 'Going Public: Education Policy and Public Education in Australia'. Chapter 5: Consuming children? Public education as a market commodity. pp. 52-54.