Susan Bush
2/23/06
Analytical Reflection
The key to good teaching is a solid understanding of the sociology of the
classroom and how it affects student and teacher behavior. We cannot hope to create a
better society without a reevaluation of the educational system and how it fails many of
our students. Countless research studies have explored various sociological issues and
systems in controlled classrooms. It is most interesting, however, when sociological
theory can be observed and evaluated within a real working classroom. Through
classroom observations, we are able to form our own, personal philosophy on education
and teaching.
Functionalism is a classical theory of sociology that is acceptable to most people.
It says that everyone is suited to a certain future and should be socialized for that
purpose. We find our places in society. It seems clear that people are suited to different
professions and lifestyles, perhaps due to our different intelligences, if one is to consider
the Theory of Multiple Intelligences by Howard Gardner. Talcott Parsons article, “The
School Class As a Social System” approaches functionalism in very honest manner.
Parsons admits that the classroom separates students into groups as early as elementary
school to socialize them for their eventual societal roles. Early socialization is
problematic because it is almost always affected by gender, class, race, and ethnicity.
This problem will be discussed in more detail late in this analysis. Another major
problem with this theory is the role of the teacher. The teacher “is an adult and
‘represents’ the adult world.” (Parsons 41) In addition, “the teacher is institutionally
defined as superior to any pupil in knowledge of curriculum subject-matter and in
responsibility as a good citizen of the school.” (Parsons 44) This is problematic because
teachers are not in fact always representations of the adult world or good citizenship and
often do not have superior subject-matter knowledge. This sets up the teacher as the
single authority figure for students, informing them of their correct behaviors for their
determined societal roles. Another central flaw in this social system is that the entire
philosophy is informed by the elite class. The system in informed by a capitalist society,
which aims at socializing most people to be happy as “workers,” while elite children
become “professionals” and inherit the ownership of society. In the Weemes classroom
that I observed, functionalism did not seem to be the philosophy of the school, mainly
because the elite class was not represented. Students were mildly differentiated in Mr.
W’s classroom, but all grouping was flexible and was linked to chosen behavior and
consistent achievement.
Mr. W’s classroom was a better example of a Conflict theory based system. In
Conflict theory, or neo-Marxism, acknowledges education as a tool of repression used by
the elite to maintain a functional capitalist system. Without workers, society’s success
cannot be guaranteed. Of course, education is used not only to guide students to
appropriate work, but also informs them to accept substandard living conditions as part of
their social identity. Max Weber examined society a little differently and came up with
the modification that people are not defined solely by class, but instead by what they
consume and with whom they socialize. (Sadovnik et al. 124) It is important to
remember that people consume what is available and socialize within comfortable
boundaries- often those of a class and culture. According to the neo-Marxist philosophy
of education, the teacher must engage students in “a critical examination of the world,”
(Sadovnik 197) so that students are taught to evaluate those in authority, the system they
exist in, and their own place in society. This kind of socialization gives students the
ability to have some influence on their own futures. In the socialist democracies of
Europe, students have more equal opportunity because their functionalism is not predetermined by those in authority. In England, one of the most class defined societies,
students who choose to become professionals are sent to private-style academies and
University completely free of charge. This kind of non-capitalist defined functionalism
gives students socialization based on motivation and personal characteristics, instead of
class consumption and interaction. Conflict theory instruction emphasizes question and
answer method to lead students to discovery and change. In Mr. W’s classroom, question
and answer was used frequently to encourage students to look at the world just a little bit
differently. Students were asked to write creatively each day on different topics. Even
though these students were only in first grade, their papers were often in response to big
questions. Students were asked to respond to the morals in their in-class reading about
the animals and the birds and their grand baseball war to determine who was “better.”
Mr. W asked the students to write about whether the animals and birds should be fighting
about this and why they thought they were better than each other. The students came up
with interesting responses in their limited prose. In addition, Mr. W took advantage of
teachable moments. When students had something to share about their lives Mr. W
encouraged class discussion to explore the world. For example, one student told the class
that her aunt went to Hawaii on vacation. This led into an in-depth discussion about
islands, different states, how people were different around the country and the world, and
the concept of traveling for pleasure. This is clearly not an example of traditional
functionalism, as students are able to explore the nature of society and are encouraged to
think outside of the class system. The principles of Conflict theory education also
encourage teachers to change curriculum to suit their constructivist attitude. (Sadovnik
198) Mr. W adjusted his required curriculum to give a broader and more creative
worldview. When students were required to read an “Open Court” story about not being
afraid of monsters under the bed, Mr. W asked the students to talk and write about all the
things that they see in the dark. Imagination was not discouraged, as the curriculum
seemed to suggest it should be. This creates independent, critical people, instead of just
workers.
It is clear that teacher behavior is the basis for the these theories- students cannot
create curriculum, track themselves, or determine the style of authority. Problems arise
from the relationship between teacher behavior and the social class of the students. In
Kathleen Wilcox’s article “Differential Socialization in the Classroom: Implications for
Equal Opportunity” she discusses the teacher’s role as an authority figure in shaping
students for the functionalist society based on their class background. Wilcox compared
two classrooms, one with working class students and one with children of the
elite/professional class. She found, in this limited study, that teaching for upper class
students emphasizes intrinsic motivation to help them succeed in jobs that are selfmotivated. Working class children, on the other hand, were disciplined and rewarded
using extrinsic motivation, which would help them to function in working class society.
Wilcox cleverly paraphrases functionalism with her quote, “It would be cultural suicide
to socialize all children to fully expect and prepare to become doctors, lawyers, scientists,
or business executives. “ (Wilcox 302.) Although this clearly makes sense, training
children to remain in their classes leads to race, ethnic, class, and gender prejudiceperhaps eventual “cultural suicide.” Mr. W was teaching a classroom just like the one
that Wilcox studied, with all working class students, but he gives his students the
opportunity to develop intrinsic motivational skills. These skills will serve the students
well as assembly-line workers who still care about developing their creativity and
cognitive capacity in their leisure, as well as giving a few of them the opportunity to
fulfill the professional roles traditionally reserved for upper class children. After all,
some percentage of upper class students will end up doing non-professional jobs and they
seem to benefit from their experiences with intrinsic motivation. In schools intrinsic
motivation is particularly important because American culture is entrenched in reward
and punishment. Mr. W attempted to use intrinsic motivation frequently in his
classroom. When a student struggled to divide a circle into three pieces at the board, Mr.
W applauded his efforts said, “Good, You’re thinking! Can you all see that J has already
split the circle from the middle? Where will you divide it next?” The student was
motivated to solve the problem independently for an internal sense of pride and
accomplishment. Students motivated in this manner are able to work hard independently,
a skill required in professional work. Unfortunately, it was obvious that Mr. W also felt
the need to use extrinsic motivation. Often he used command messages and threatened to
contact the student’s parents when students were acting out. It was particularly
interesting that Mr. W seemed to use these messages primarily with a certain few
students. These students were seldom given positive feedback at all, never mind intrinsic
motivation and they were not able to complete their work in a timely manner. Often they
would get out their paper for an assignment and then just roll around the floor or stare at
the paper. Mr. W would tell them to get moving because he was going to “move on to
math in five minutes.” At one point I went up to these students and asked them about the
writing prompt, “What do you see in the dark? Are you scared of them? Do you think
you can write all of that down?” etc. These students were immediately engaged and
ended up sitting down to work. These students need internal motivation from figures of
authority in order to achieve in any way academically. If we are preparing these students
for their future jobs, it is by forcing them into ignorance.
This differentiation in the treatment of students was closely relate to their
academic behavior. This is clearly a natural response- students who work diligently and
learn quickly make the teacher feel better about himself. Students who need extra
motivation to complete a simple assignment and try to get attention in the classroom can
be frustrating for the teacher. The differences in motivational technique related directly
to the tracking of the students. Tracking is an educational technique in which students
are grouped based on their “ability” in hopes that they will achieve more by giving more
difficult work to the highest track and extra help (or easier material) to the lowest track.
These tracks are based on an intellectual performance judgment and then separate either
on skill level (remedial, advanced, etc.) or a functionalist ranking (college-bound,
vocational, etc.) (Oakes) There are different kinds of tracking. Between-class grouping
actually separates students into different classes based on “ability. In Mr. W’s classroom,
there was evidence of In-class grouping. Mr. W identified high achieving students and
gave them a different workload, extra responsibilities, and special rewards. When
assigned a writing assignment, each student asked how many sentences he or she had to
complete- the answer varied between five and seven based on the teacher’s assessment of
the student. In addition, some students were immediately told, “oh no J, you need to
come over here right now. You need help on your sentences.” Although the extra help
was merited, students were aware of their track and position within the class. Perhaps the
strangest example of tracking was when a few advanced students were allowed to sit
outside of the vocabulary activity circle and color pictures while the rest of the students
created sentences. Mr. W asked for sentences from these students periodically, and if
they were not good enough, they had to rejoin the circle. This is no a good example of
tracking- students should never be able to less work just because they are more advanced.
It is important that students are engaged in the process of learning and are not rewarded
for academic achievement with the privilege of not being academically involved. This
sends very mixed messages. In addition, research by Jeannie Oakes and Amy Wells and
Irene Serna indicate that tracking does not improve student performance at ANY of the
levels and in fact brings down achievement. In addition, tracking promotes segregation
in schools as it is often race or ethnically based instead of on pure intellectual
performance. In an attempt to socialize students to their future roles in society, we are
teaching them prejudice and segregation. Mr. W did use a mild form of in-class grouping
to benefit the students. When a student was behind on coursework, the students who
were already finished were asked to help them out. This worked quite well and taught
the students to create their own socialization and educational experience.
Educational philosophy is essential in determining how to better educate our
students. It is difficult to change education on a large scale before there is a major
change in society, but small changes in the classroom can help to create societal change.
School is the major socializing affect children and as such must be socially responsible.
Works Cited
Oakes, Jeannie. “Keeping Track, Part 1: The Policy and Practice of Curriculum
Inequality.” Phi Delta Kappa, September 1986.
Parsons, Talcott. “The School Class As a Social System.” Harvard Educational Review
29 (Fall 1959), 297-313.
Sadovnik, Alan et al. Exploring Education. Allyn and Bacon: Boston, 2001. 2nd ed.
Wilcox, Kathleen. “Differential Socialization in the Classroom: Implications for Equal
Opportunity.” In Doing the Ethnography of Schooling. Holt, Reinhart and Winston:
1982.
Wells, Amy and Serna, Irene. “The Politics of Culture: Understanding Local Political
Resistance in Racially Mixed Schools.” Harvard Educational Review, 66:1 (Spring
1996), pp. 93-118