Rose
- Based on his experiences with Vocational education, it seems as though Rose invokes his buoyancy metaphor, (students will float...), pejoratively; is there way in which it can be viewed positively? (Please explain)
- Rose described the “Voc Ed” track as a “dumping ground for the disaffected”; first of all, what does he mean by this? And, secondly, do you feel that remedial tracks still represent a “dumping ground” of sorts? Why or why not?
- What does it mean to be “groomed for the classroom”? On page 37 of the reading (the last full paragraph), Rose describes his subjective experience with literacy: which of Scribner’s three metaphors best encapsulates the relationship that Rose depicts?
By describing the “Voc Ed” track as a “dumping ground for the disaffected,” Rose meant that the program was one in which teachers traditionally placed students who simply were not performing up to the average academic standard of their peer group. Rose also describes the track as a “euphemism for the bottom level,” conveying the idea prevalent at his school that everyone who was placed in Voc Ed was simply not good enough, or underachievers, students who would not be able to handle the work level of the College Prep students and were thus not expected to go to college at all. Students who were placed in the Voc Ed track at Rose’s school, in short, were placed there because their teachers saw them as being hopeless cases who would not be able to get into college or get jobs requiring higher level education and qualification. Remedial tracks today inevitably vary from school to school, but for the most part I think that they are becoming seen as less of a “dumping ground” and more of a way to help underachieving students catch up to the level of their peers at a less strenuous pace and raise their grades before being put into the standard level courses with them. They are also increasingly designed with the mindset that they are temporary and that students will only be in them for as long as it takes for them to catch up to the average level, when they can join their peers in standard (or even honors) classes, and thus are becoming more like “transitional grounds” rather than “dumping grounds.”
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the claim that Rose invokes such a metaphor in a derogatory way, as I interpret this statement in a very positive manner which can be applied to lowering the standard, or conversely raising it. In the case of Rose, the bar was set so low in Voc Ed, that floating to the such a level was below expectations of the main stream students. If there were to be general level set among all students of a higher level, the students would have no choice but to rise to the occasion. If the bar is set high, the students will perform high, and if they cannot reach the bar, the aim will be so elevated that when they top-out in their performance, they would still be relatively high. If the bar is low and the student does not perform to the expectation, then they will be that much lower.
ReplyDeleteBy claiming that Voc Ed is the dumping ground for the disaffected, Rose means to say that the Voc Ed track is a lower-level class that students are relegated to when the institution of the school does not know how else to deal with a student that is not performing at a certain level (or is unwilling to allocate necessary resources to bring that student the 'proficient' level). In Voc Ed, the studnet becomes disaffected and is given little attention or enthusiasm in terms of their education. I do agree that often the remedial track is a overlooked and under-resourced track that schools send students that they care not to even deal with.
Being groomed for the classroom means to have been allotted the proper resources to be successful in school. And in regards to the totality of this piece, I think that Rose makes a strong case for the 'Literacy as Power' metaphor, in that those placed in Voc Ed are destined to a lower education and therefore a lower societal placement, compared to those place in high levels of education tracks.
I think that Roses's comment that "students will float to the mark you set" can be taken to be a neutral comment, simply a statement about the situation of schooling as Rose sees it. In his book it may be perceived as a pejorative comment only because the next sentence says that he and his friends in the vocational classes "were bobbing in pretty shallow water." However, this is a reflection of the education system failing to set higher goals for the students in the vocational program because they viewed them as lost causes, and not a negative reflection on the general idea that "students float to the mark you set." As the above poster pointed out, this comment can be interpreted positively, since if the bar is set high in classes, students will work harder to meet that bar and thus achieve more success in their studies. Whether or not the comment about students floating to the mark set before them is pejorative depends on the individual context/situation in each school and on how high or low they set their mark for their students.
ReplyDeleteBy describing the vocational educational track as a dumping round for the disaffected, he means that it is a place where teachers can put students that are not performing up to par, more specifically, students that are deemed to have no hope of surviving in regular College Prep classes. In my opinion, students that are placed in college prep classes have already been given up on by their teachers and the counselors. It is a much easier task in terms of teacher’s effort and time to place a student in these tracks than help them catch up to their academic level. Today, I think if there is a functional remedial program with dedicated teachers that focuses on helping the students catch up, then it would serve its ideal purpose. Often times, however, there are remedial programs that are just like the one Rose describes. One student that I tutor outside of Education 140 is in an ELD remedial program aimed at helping her language skills improve and meet up with her peers’ skills. Although in her report card she gets straight A’s, when I speak to her or teach my group of students, she often exhibits the same tactics Rose uses when he just wants to escape the frustration and monotony of the class. Often times, she does not understand the questions I ask or what I am saying, even in a regular, friendly conversational level. I can see that remedial programs can work, but based on my limited experience, I still see it working as a dumping ground for students.
ReplyDeleteThe metaphor “students will float to the mark you set” can describe both students’ behavior to sink down to low expectations, or rise up to meet high expectations. In the reading, the teachers were portrayed as having very low standards and expectations. Students like Rose could not be challenged by the curriculum offered, so they lost motivation and sank to meet what the teachers expected of them. Without the motivation and cause of high expectations, students can become easily bored and seek to just pass. However, when someone, like a teacher, sets high standards in the classroom, it becomes a challenge and an opportunity for a student to prove their capabilities. In Rose’s last high school year, even though he was in the Vocational track for two years, he was still able to prove his talents in writing through the positive encouragement and high expectations of his English teacher. It seems that this metaphor can be applied to both students who are not challenged enough, or who struggle and succeed in rising up to the new standard and high esteem that a teacher can show through high expectations.
ReplyDelete