High School Question Comps. Response

Running Head: Educational Outcomes 1

Comprehensive Exam Response: Adolescent Education and High School Curriculum

Vicka Bell-Robinson

Miami University

November 16, 2014

Modern (public) schooling in the United States has multiple aims for the students, communities, and public that it serves. Across these aims, (high) schools are a key site of adolescent psych-socialization, through a combination of curricular and pedagogical efforts. In this question, please provide an argument regarding the both the normative and empirical elements of adolescent (or young adult) education in the United States. In other words, construct an argument of the types of educational outcomes that schools ought to produce as well as what schooling actually produces in terms of adolescent student development regarding issues of self-efficacy, civic participation, and dissent. Utilize the relevant scholarship from existing coursework and supplemental readings to support your argument.


Societies and organizations need people who are willing and able to disagree with those

in power or take a stand against mainstream sentiment in order to grow and develop into better

systems (Sunstein, 2003; Stitzlein, 2012; Shifferin, 1999). Additionally, people’s sense of self-

efficacy is directly related to how much control they believe they have over occurrences in their

lives (Bandura, 1997). It makes sense that both the willingness of someone to express dissent and

the level of their efficacy could influence how he or she chooses to be civically engaged. As a

compulsory experience in the United States (U.S.), the schooling of children has the potential to

play a significant role in shaping the future of society. The purpose of this essay is to explore and

critique the educational outcomes produced by schools regarding adolescent student

development in the areas of self-efficacy, civic participation, and dissent.

The question surrounding the types of educational outcomes that schools ought to

produce is impacted by who is being asked, as well as, which population of students the answer

is aimed towards. Just about everyone has an opinion on the purpose of education. I have chosen

to explore the educational outcomes of schooling through the lenses of social theory via Emile

Durkheim, curriculum theory via John Dewey, and educational philosophy via Harry Brighouse.

In addition to the aforementioned scholars, I will also incorporate a variety of other authors and

theorists whose insights on the impact of schooling, both past and present, contribute to the topic

of conversation in this essay.

Movement toward the Middle

Early social theorist, Emile Durkheim viewed education as a way to create a common

moral code and solidarity. He asserted that schools had the ability to serve the function of

socializing the citizenry to the dominant points of view in society (Wexler, 2009). While


historically education was primarily designed to teach specific curricular content to students,

Durkheim and Parsons, posited that schools also implicitly communicated expectations related to

certain norms and values (Wexler, 2009). Similarly, Eisner (1994) acknowledged that there were

parts of the curriculum that were formal and obvious, like reading, writing, and math, as well as

other topics that were more implicit or “hidden” such as rituals designed to produce

competitiveness and compliant behavior. There is a benefit to having schools educate students

about the behavioral expectations of society. Some level of conformity is helpful when it comes

to order and safety. For example, knowing that, for the most part no one will shout “fire” in a

movie theater unless there is actually a fire, helps those that hear “fire” react more quickly than if

they did not share that common understanding of behavior. This type of conformity keeps people

safe. There is also, however, a disadvantage associated with implicitly teaching “common”

values and expectations via the compulsory school system. That disadvantage occurs because the

values presented are not always an accurate representation of the human experience, nor are they

always moral or just. The historical foundations of the educational system form ignored the

pluralistic nature of the U.S. The current system of education also aims and to move individuals

from the margins or fringe sections of society by ignoring the uniqueness of each persons

experiences and forcing them to assimilate to the dominant culture.

Young (1990) spoke of this kind of forced movement of assimilation as cultural

imperialism. Along with violence, exploitation, marginalization, and powerlessness, cultural

imperialism is a form of oppression enacted on minority social groups, like women, people of

color, and other underrepresented populations by members of the dominant social groups, such

as men, heterosexuals, and wealthy people. Young (1990) defined cultural imperialism as the

establishment of the experiences of the dominant group as normal and the experiences of the


non-dominant groups as “other” and not normal. In order to successfully navigate the world

designed by the dominant group, non-dominant groups have to hide their own cultural

experiences and perceptions. The separation of members of non-dominant social groups from

their cultural practices and other lived-experiences results in a loss of authenticity and translates

to a burden that members of these groups have to learn to carry with them throughout their lives.

The loss of authenticity.

Living and learning in a space where one cannot be his or her authentic self significantly

limits the amount of personal connection to the curriculum that can occur and how much content

knowledge is actually acquired by the learner (Deplit, 2006; Anderson, 2009). Recent legislation

and policy creation around schooling and education has created an inauthentic space for both

teachers and students (Anderson, 2009). More specifically, the reauthorization of the Elementary

and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) also known as No Child Left Behind (NCLB) has

narrowed the focus of what students should learn and how teachers should teach.

Though teachers have always had to make decisions about how much time to spend on

content, NCLB altered their ability to adapt the curriculum to fit their students’ needs. Previous

generations of teachers, like those in Jackson’s (1990) Life in Classrooms which described

classroom life in the 1960s, were able to respond and react to the needs of their classrooms and

adjust their approach in order to maximize student learning. The introduction of NCLB created a

sense of urgency for student mastery of some academic content over other academic content.

Stitzlein (2014) explained how new requirements for teachers in the areas of reading and math

resulted in a reduction of time focused on social studies. Historically, social studies, government,


and other civically focused content areas were where students were explicitly educated about

their roles and responsibilities as citizens.

The most disturbing part about less time being spent in civically oriented classes is that

some populations of students are more impacted by the reduced time than others. Stitzlein (2014)

noted that students enrolled in underperforming schools which typically face increased pressure

to raise scores on standardized tests are disproportionally poor and of color. The lack of

intentional transmission of knowledge about the power and promises of citizenship

disenfranchises these already marginalized students and limits their ability to “access the skills

and knowledge they need to secure their own justice and equality” (Stitzlein, 2014, p.168).

Anderson (2009) shared a similar sentiment when he articulated that “another generation will

lack societal analysis that would provide them with the tools to defend democracy and work to

ensure that our society is living out an authentic allegiance to its cherished ideals” (Anderson,

2009, p.47).

Going along to get along.

The concept of conforming to the will of the majority, fitting into the group, and desiring

to not stand out too much, is something that we are taught at an early age. We are socialized into

our gender identity at birth. When girl babies are born they get pink hats. When boy babies are

born they get blue. Additionally, a majority of us are immediately engulfed into families where

our names associate us with our groups. Once we enter school, we are separated by age groups

and taught rules about appropriate behavior. Those children, who transition from homes where

the values espoused do not match those of the school experience, face more difficulty and suffer


far more consequences than their more conforming peers. With all of the explicit and implicit

emphasis on conformity, it is not surprising that people choose not to dissent.

Choosing to dissent goes against our most basic human desires to belong, feel loved and

connected. The anticipation of consequences can be far more impactful than the actual

consequences, which is why it is important to expose students to not only the notion of dissent,

but also the rewards or consequences of dissention. While one of the most major consequences to

dissent is death, a vast majority of dissent does not result in that end. Students who are taught

about dissent, exposed to others who have dissented, and given the opportunity to articulate

dissent will have less fear about dissenting. Since one way people develop self-efficacy is

through accomplishment of a similar goal in a previous experience (Bandura, 1997; 2001), then

when students are successful in bringing forth their dissent, their self-efficacy is likely to be

increased. This increase has less to do with whether they achieved the goal of changing the status

quo and more to do with recognizing the power of their own voices and experiencing the real

results, both positive and negative, of choosing to dissent.

A Progressive Perspective

Similar to Emile Durkheim, John Dewey also held the perspective that educational

experiences could serve as a social function. Dewey (2011) actually purported that education

could serve a variety of purposes, a social function being just one of many including education as

growth and education as necessity for life. Dewey (2011) explained that people are a product of

their environment and the presence of other people in it. He viewed schools as having both the

ability and means to help individual students escape their inherited status and move into a space

where they were no longer limited. He posited that through the environment, human beings learn


how to adjust personal behavior in order to mold themselves into well-received members of

society.

Of course, the notion of being well-received members of society, promotes the idea that

there is one acceptable way to live and that all other ways are less desirable. What Dewey did,

that Durkheim did not do, was leave space for future generations to recognize the flaws within

the current system and make adjustments to better meet the needs of the community. His

reflections surrounding the goals of education as a means for progress are worth noting at length:

In static societies, societies which make the maintenance of established custom their

measure of value, this conception applies in the main. But not in progressive

communities. They endeavor to shape the experiences of the young so that instead of

reproducing current habits, better habits shall be formed and thus the future adult society

can be an improvement of their own (Dewey, 2011, p.46).

Dewey also addressed education as a social function by exploring ideas surrounding the

nature and meaning of the environment, the social environment, the social medium as educative,

and the school as a special environment. Dewey professed that one way a community sustains

itself is to transform its immature members into full-fledged trustees who will in turn educate

future members. Sometimes this transformation happens through direct interaction, but it is also

possible for this transformation to be acquired vicariously through the experiences of others.

Through the Lens of a Philosopher – Harry Brighouse

In his 2006 book, On Education, Harry Brighouse shared his perspective on the purpose

of education. Through his exploration, he determined that schools should be serving the function

of (1) helping students make their own value-based judgments; (2) exposing students to new


skills that will help them be economically productive;(3) encouraging students in the

development of interests which will enable them to lead flourishing lives; and (4) teaching

students to be good citizens.

Developing values.

Most students hold values that they have inherited from their families, friends, and

organizations. In order to effectively participate in dissent and to be a good dissenter, students

have to develop an ability to be autonomous from their parents. This is not to say that students

cannot have a relationship with their parents, or even share similar values and beliefs, but rather

to imply that students should have a clear understanding of their own values and why they hold

the values they hold beyond “because my parents said so.” The introduction of experiences

designed to facilitate the learning of dissent can help students examine their values and provide

opportunities to practice exercising their autonomy. Brighouse (2006) explained that students

need to develop autonomy so that they can make decisions about their lives that lead to

conditions that will be most beneficial for them. If students do not develop autonomy, they may

end up living a life that was perfect for their parents but not quite the right fit for them.

Developing self-efficacy in the area of dissent will allow students to more easily question the

practices and beliefs of others when they are counter to the students’ feelings or beliefs.

The presence of dissent also invites exposure to ideas and experiences to which students

may otherwise not be exposed. Right now, the lack of dissent, along with the encouragement of

conformity, discourages a wide range of expressed opinions. The result of a lack of diverse

expression is the presumption that the dominant perspective is the only one that exists. Brighouse

(2006) noted:


Second, whereas my example of the Amish might suggest that religious parenting is the

central threat to personal autonomy, I doubt that is the case, precisely because most

children from religious backgrounds will routinely have their home values challenged by

the public culture. Much more troubling for the vast majority of children is a public, and

particularly a popular, culture that is governed by commercial forces, that dedicate

considerable resources to undermining children’s prospective autonomy, aiming to

inculcate a lifelong and unreflective materialism in as many children as possible (Loc.

383).

Eventually students from dominant social groups enter more diverse spaces, either by going to

college or joining the workforce, and discover that not everyone has the same experiences and/or

beliefs. The discovery of human differences and the facilitation of autonomy could happen

earlier in students’ lives if schools normalize and welcome the concept of dissent.

Economic productivity.

The second way that Harry Brighouse (2006) suggested that schools prepare students is

through teaching skills that help them be economically productive. Children will become adults

that need to be able to afford the minimal accommodations in life. Brighouse was clear that the

economic needs of the community should not dictate the motivation of the educational system,

but rather the economic needs of the children are important to consider when looking at the

purpose of schooling. He argued that we do not educate some children to be doctors and others to

be teachers, simply because the economy needs teachers and doctors. Instead, we educate all

children to participate in a variety of skills so that they have self-efficacy, freedom, and

flexibility when it is time to pursue an occupation.


Learning to effectively and appropriately dissent can impact a student’s ability to be

economically productive. Craig (2014) separated dissent into two distinct categories: loyal

dissent and disloyal dissent. Loyal dissenters are motivated to communicate a different

perspective or new idea because of their commitment to the organization or the task at hand.

Disloyal dissenters are unproductive, like to complain, and may just be aiming to create

difficulty for the leader and/or the organization. Teaching students the difference between loyal

and disloyal dissent will set them up to be more helpful than harmful in work environments.

Additionally, learning how to dissent will provide students with a self-efficacy that will enable

them not just to join workplace organizations, but also to articulate new ideas that will help those

workplace organizations accomplish their goals. People who are able to help their organizations

progress are more likely to be economically rewarded than those who do not. Being

economically productive, in addition to meeting their basic financial needs, also gives students

access to more leisure time, which will allow them to explore opportunities that can, according to

Brighouse (2006) lead to a more flourishing life.

Flourishing life.

People who flourish are healthy, happy, and productive individuals. More specifically,

Brighouse (2006) used Richard Layard (2005) to articulate that “financial situation, family

relationships, work, community and friends, health, personal freedom, and personal values”

(Brighouse, 2006, Loc. 685) all contribute to the presence of a flourishing life. Brighouse went

on to posit that being able to identify with other people and places is an important role in the

development of a flourishing life. Identifying with other people can provide an incentive to

dissent against policies and practices that do not directly impact the dissenter. Craig (2014) noted

that loyal dissenters do not choose to dissent only when they are directly impacted, but also when


they feel a sense of obligation to others. Loyal dissenters also believe that actions can influence a

more just and/or better experience for all (Sunstein, 2003; Stitzlein, 2014; Craig, 2014).

Producing good citizens.

Producing good citizens is the final outcome of schooling for which Brighouse (2006)

argued. He stated that good citizens commit less crime, are more polite, and think more

reflectively and critically about their political involvement. He went on to explain that in a totally

just environment, good citizens would not need to be concerned with their own needs, but would

enter each decision with impartiality. Since, however, no environment is completely just, good

citizens must be able to advocate for their needs and the needs of others, who may not be able to

advocate for themselves. Brighouse (2006) also asserted that good citizens are obligated to work

toward the elimination of injustice, especially when those impacted by it cannot seek it for

themselves. In other words, good citizens eagerly and willingly participate in dissent against

powerful leaders and the status quo when they perceive either or both to be unjust.

The student experience with dissent and conformity.

During adolescence, peer support or lack thereof, has a tremendous impact on how a

student feels about his or her abilities and experiences (Kiran & Esen, 2012). While the

expectations of behavior and status quo are formed by school leaders, they are frequently

reinforced by the student body. In many cases the influence of the student body on student

behavior is more powerful than the words and actions of school leaders. Acts of bullying and

intimidation persist because of the lack of experience students have dissenting against their peers

and the status quo. Increasing students’ self-efficacy around dissent can be academically,

personally, and socially beneficial. Kiran-Esen (2012) found a significant negative correlation


between the amount of peer pressure a student was experiencing and his or her level of academic

self-efficacy. This means that the more pressure a student got from his or her peers, the lower his

or her self-efficacy for performing well-academically. The skills that students can learn about

dissent during high school will provide an early example of how they can be active participants

in a citizenry striving to create a better and more just world.

Teaching Dissent

When it comes to teaching dissent in schools, Stitzlein (2014) recognized that the

incorporation in the curriculum has to be done in a time and space where the students are

developmentally ready. Stitzlein (2014) also believed that while every student has the capacity to

participate in dissent, high school students are generally more mature than their younger counter-

parts and thus should be able to handle the challenges and stress that comes along with

participating in dissention. Teaching students how to dissent and helping them develop self-

efficacy in this area should not occur by applying a one-size-fits-all approach. Teachers should

utilize students’ lived experiences to develop strategies designed to enhance student learning.

Helping students develop self-efficacy.

Teachers should help students develop self-efficacy for the influence and power of their

own voices in spaces of dissent. Bandura (1997; 2001) explained that there are four ways that

individuals come to have self-efficacy over their lives and environment; mastery, verbal

persuasion, vicarious experiences, and psychological affect. Teachers can help students by

exposing them to experiences that develop their skills in dissenting (mastery); introducing them

to people who have successfully dissented in the past (vicarious experience); and providing


verbal encouragement to students before or after participation in effective dissenting behavior

(verbal persuasion).

The final source of self-efficacy is through one’s own psychological and affective states.

That is to say that this source of self-efficacy is from within the person demonstrating it. The

development of this type of self-efficacy is most difficult for teachers to directly impact there is

not a clear way to pinpoint the reason why some people have high self-efficacy, while others do

not. Furthermore, it is possible for people with high levels of self-efficacy to fail to notice the

lack of self-efficacy in another person. Teachers have to be especially in tune with their own

efficacy and recognize the lack of self-efficacy amongst their students.

The level of self-efficacy the teacher holds in the area of civic engagement and dissenting

practices may blind him or her to the lack of efficacy of their students. There is a common belief

that if a student has a question about the material being covered, the student will ask for

clarification. This belief is swimming in beliefs about the efficacy of the student. When teaching

students about participation in dissenting practices, teachers should not make assumptions

regarding what their students know and how they will seek clarification of what they do not

understand. Some students will have the self-efficacy to ask for clarification, while others do not

have the self-efficacy to even believe that by asking a question, their understanding of the

material and concepts will be increased. Teachers may find that they need to provide more

direction and support in order to make sure their students gain knowledge and develop self-

efficacy necessary to partake in loyal dissent.

Explicit instruction.


Delpit (2006) explained that it is not enough for teachers to hint or suggest to students the

correct behavior needed for success, but that teachers may need to be explicit in their

communication and direction to students. Explicit instruction is especially necessary in situations

where students may not share the same cultural understandings as the teacher. Students should be

taught the historical role that dissent and dissenters played in the development of the United

States. Learning about historical role models can assist students in developing belief in their

ability to produce desired results. Hirsch (1987) and Delpit (2006) argued that without explicit

instruction, students who are unfamiliar with the cultural norms that exist in the classroom and

throughout most of middle-class America will not be able to effectively navigate the various

spaces they need in order to be successful. Teachers should make sure that students, especially

those whose lives are situated outside of the middle-class norm, obtain the cultural understanding

in order to effectively participate in civil discourse.

Proceed with caution.

Teachers have to be extremely careful about what types of learning experiences they

choose to model for the purposes of developing self-efficacy, not only in within the area of

dissent, but in all areas. If a student is only exposed to certain kind of experiences, then he or

she may not be able to envision other opportunities. Marx as cited in Wexler (2009) shared the

position that schools were intentionally designed to serve as a way to reproduce the system

already in place, which according to Marx, benefited certain members of society, while

intentionally disadvantaging others. Similarly, Anderson (2009) urged educators and educational

leaders to recognize the innate flaws that exist in the current system. He noted, “public schools

not only could not ameliorate social inequalities, but that in fact, they may contribute to them

through practices such as tracking, that helped to reproduce an inequitable social order ”


(Anderson, 2009, p. 24). When teachers only expose students to concepts that they are used to

being exposed to, they only allow those student to go where they have already been and to only

do what they have already seen. When students are not allowed or encouraged to develop their

capacity to dissent through their own lived experiences or through examples from others, they

may not be able to do it as adults, which “naturally” results in the reproduction of the current

system, regardless of whether it is just or not.

Teachers can help the development of efficacy by providing regular feedback on

dissenting experiences in a quick and detailed manner. If students are not getting regular

feedback, then there is no way for them to really know how they are doing. For a student with

high self-efficacy, he or she is likely to assume that his or her efforts will result in a positive

outcome, like they have in the past. For students with low self-efficacy, they may assume that

they are not doing well because they do not have a history of successfully grasping new

concepts. For both types of student, a lack of detailed feedback can be detrimental to the learning

process resulting in lack of knowledge acquisition and lower morale. Zimmerman & Bandura

(1992) found that students who think that they their efforts will lead to a solid academic

performance are more likely to perform well than their peers with lower academic self-efficacy.

In terms of dissent, students who believe they are ill-equipped may not articulate their

displeasure. Likewise, students who believe they are equipped, but in fact are not, may engage in

unproductive or disloyal dissent and suffer negative personal or social consequences.

Conclusion

In looking at the educational outcomes of schooling through the lenses of Emile

Durkheim, John Dewey, and Harry Brighouse, I explored and critiqued the educational outcomes

produced by schools regarding adolescent student development in the areas of self-efficacy, civic


participation, and dissent. Upon a thorough review, I contend that there is enormous societal

benefit gained in helping students understand the importance of dissent. By not only having an

understanding of dissent, but also through practicing the skill of dissent, students will develop

self-efficacy and thus be more confident, effective and appropriate dissenters in the future.

The compulsory nature of public schooling makes schools an ideal location to enact

change and promote a better society. One way in which society is changed is through the efforts

of people who participate in deliberative discussion and loyal dissent. Although the concept of

creating a better society is still very subjective, a better society is one in which all members are

encouraged and supported in their desire to lead flourishing lives (Brighouse, 2006). Even with

everyone seeking flourishing lives, the multifaceted and pluralistic nature of our society

regularly results in moral and ethical conflicts. In some cases, the resolution of these conflicts

results in an underrepresented, though morally superior, perspective being overlooked or

purposely ignored. Acts of loyal and ethical dissent are necessary in order to continue the pursuit

of liberty and justice and should be encouraged (Sunstein, 2003; Stitizlein; 2014; Shifferin,

1999). Ensuring that students are well-versed in the purpose of dissent and have high levels of

self-efficacy regarding their ability to dissent sustains our democracy and provides a firm

foundation for a progressive and productive future.


References

Anderson, G.L (2009). Advocacy leadership: Toward a post-reform agenda in education. New

York. Routledge.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman

Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective. Annual Review of

Psychology, 521-26.

Brighouse, H. (2006). On Education: Thinking in action. New York, New York. Routledge.

Craig, M. T. B. (2014). Leveraging the power of loyal dissent in the US Army. Military Review.

Delpit, L. D. (2006). Other people's children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York:

New Press.

Dewey, J. (2011). Education and Democracy. Simon and Brown.

Eisner, E.W (1994). The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school

programs (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hirsch, E.D. (1987). Cultural Literacy: What Every American Should Know. Boston, MA:

Houghton Mifflin.

Jackson, P. W. (1990). Life in classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.

Kiran-Esen, B. (2012). Analyzing peer pressure and self-efficacy expectations among

adolescents. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 40(8), 1301–1309.

Shiffrin, S. H. (1999). Dissent, injustice, and the meanings of America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton

University Press.


Stitzlein, S. M. (2014). Teaching for dissent: Citizenship education and political activism.

Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.

Sunstein, C. R. (2003). Why societies need dissent. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wexler, P. (2009). Social theory in education. New York: Peter Lang.

Young, M.I. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton, NJ. Princeton

University Press.

Zimmerman, B. J., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Self-motivation for academic

attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting. American Educational

Research Journal, 29(3), 663–676.

High School Question Comps. Response

Documents

Transcript of High School Question Comps. Response