Discourse and Ideology within the Pragmatic Realities of Education
Connections between Educational Theory and Practice
The two weeks of field experience has lent me insight into some of the pragmatic realities that are played out in the current school system, one that has evolved since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. However, there is still the notion that the Education System is merely a factory that takes in students and churns out workers. Within Marxist theory, Louis Althusser expanded on this notion, calling it the “reproduction of the conditions of production” during the 1960s (2010, pg. 1344). He claimed education as the dominant ideological apparatus, and that is it meant to reproduce capitalist exploitation of individuals and provides them “with the ideology which suits the role [they have] to fulfil in class society” (2010, pg. 1347). He likened ideologies to a music score, and education has been a note that people have habituated themselves to (2010, pg. 1346). In truth, I wholeheartedly agree with his notion that education has power in our society; I argue that there have been, and are, movements in which teachers, parents, and students themselves become wary of the hegemony that the education system can produce, specifically issues that relate to social justice, class struggles and other discourses that have only recently began to be openly discussed. Hegemony, the dominant ideology, that Althusser names as Education is true, but only to an extent. Althusser did not take into account that within the Education system, there are a great deal of discourses and ideologies in of itself, and the reasoning for this could be attributed to his time period. In fact, he noted that the School is presented as a “neutral environment purged of ideology” (2010, pg. 1347). I will be highlighting moments during my field experience that represented the power of discourse and ideology in positive ways, specifically how these experiences relate to what Marzano and Pickering call students’ possible-selves (2011). Education is not meant to impose certain views or ways in which one interacts with the world, rather it is meant to be an authentic experience for student learning and growth by presenting various discourses, teachings and ideologies in order for them to reach their possible-self. This will be shown through the power dynamics between teacher-and-student, multimodal learning and accountability. This is what I, and many others, believe to be education, that is fostering student’s capabilities and ensuring that they envision and reach their best possible-self.
If one were to follow Althusser’s idea of schooling, teachers would be a part of shaping students into future workers who would be mere gears in the machine that is capitalist society. I have no dispute against this claim: teachers are indeed “powerful shaping agents,” and it would be foolish to deny the power that teachers have within the education system (Davis, Sumara & Luce-Kapler, pg. 147, 2015). The power dynamics between teacher and student cannot be set aside; these dynamics have the ability to shift power through a positive balanced relationship among teachers and students that can be built through mutual respect and understanding, self-assessment and placing students at the centre of learning. Teachers and educators are making a stand to redistribute this power to their students through the relationships they forge and the modes in which they assess student learning. It is of utmost importance for students to have positive and strong relationships with their teachers as it can dictate how they perform as individuals whether that be social skills, mental health or academics (Truby, 2014). Teachers can build trust and understanding between their students and themselves by being and teaching as their authentic selves as they humanize themselves through their identity and integrity (Palmer, 1997). These connections can be supported through school climate and culture, x jr. school focused on equal opportunity, strong community and providing a safe space for students (Fernandez, 2017). I see this embodied through the actions of teachers, staff and students. A little more than 80% of the student body is considered ELL in varying stages. Peers also help each other with language and cultural barriers. I witnessed students help their peers and friends translate and clarify questions together. By interacting with other cultures and norms, students are able to gain a sense of empathy and understanding to those who are different from their own set of beliefs. It is also very interesting to see students trying to teach their teachers words from their own language. To me, it speaks volumes about community building and trust as students involve their teachers in their cultural pods within the school. One specific example would be a group of Filipino students “blessing” one of their teachers, a custom in which Filipino youth show respect to their elders by taking their hand and putting it on their forehead (Fernandez, 2017). In participating with student’s cultural norms, especially in a diverse ethnographic student body, teachers are affirming students sense of self and self-esteem (Kennedy, 2005). If teachers were only pressed to teach their students to be good workers as Althusser claims, then schools would not be implementing or encouraging strong and trustworthy relationships between teacher and students. Rather than being an authoritative figure that bids and commands, teachers are redistributing that power to include the ways in which students relate to them and the discourses that shape their world.
Teachers have power in assessing their students, but when teachers share that power through self-assessment, students are given the chance to reflect on themselves and their own learning. IRIS as an online goal setter gave students the autonomy and self-reflection to know what they needed help on and what they should be working on to better themselves, but also gives teachers the chance to differentiate and cater to their needs. A grade five student told me that she liked IRIS because she could feel good about accomplishing past goals and work towards another goal she set up for herself (Fernandez, 2017). In this case, teachers are shaping their students to be able to self-reflect but also think critically about how they can not only better themselves academically, but to also take into account their state of being. Rather than a teacher telling a student what they are weak on, which can lower self-esteem, students are given agency by assessing themselves and addressing their own needs. Interestingly, this ideology of self-assessment seems similar to Althusser’s theory that students are given ideology (in this case self-assessment) that best fits a future that has been envisioned for them, that is fitting themselves as workers in a class society. Instead, students are exposed to various ideologies in schools from peers, teachers, lessons and much more, thus promoting a higher understanding of what they, the student, relates to and envisions “who they might become in the future” (Marzano & Pickering, 2011, p. 16). The hegemony that Althusser claims still remains, however underneath it teachers and students alike are sharing the power of discourse and shaping what education looks like today.
Schools remain as purveyors of discourses and ideologies that take root in its recipients, which are its students. Multimodal teaching is an ideology, but counteracts Althusser’s claims of education as a process to create workers and reproduce capitalist society as well as schools being purged of ideology. Schools are not cookie-cutters; they do not attempt to fit students into one mold as it is understood that everyone learns differently and at their own pace. The introduction of specialized programs such as Fresh Start and Literacy Period further this notion, that schools are indeed attempting to put students at the centre rather than treating them as something to be processed (Fernandez, 2017). Teachers themselves must learn to maneuver their own way through these ideologies, and that it is oftentimes necessary to change or adapt one’s own perceptions based on experiences as Kennedy notes the negotiation between lines of thinking and their practice when they conflict (2005, pg. 37). The variations also impact teaching and learning as there are diverse needs within schools, it highlights the struggles of teachers as they attempt to transform modern schooling and maneuver curriculum to better benefit student needs and interests while maintaining engagement. During my field experience, there were many teachers who noted that teaching almost forces you to be flexible and rolling with the punches. One specific teacher had explained that his initial perceptions of teaching was cut and dry, but as a science teacher in x jr. high, he had to adapt to make science exciting for students otherwise he would lose their interests quickly. Ironically the school had banned fidget spinners, yet as he was teaching a lesson on valence electrons, he asked some students to bring them out. He compared atomic structures to fidget spinners to showcase how electrons have to be balanced around the nucleus. In this case, the teacher had to negotiate the various ideologies that the school implemented and his own ideologies on how kids would learn and connect science to their relevant interests. Another example would be my observations during an eighth grade Health period. The teacher modeled PSAs by airing examples through video and audio. Students were then given a project to create their own PSAs in groups through iPads and Chrome-books by acting, making sock puppets and animating. I saw not only engagement amongst students but the ability to critically think about what makes a good PSA and using it to voice their own concerns (Fernandez, 2017). The other critical point to this example was the teacher’s use of play within the project as students created their PSAs, they filled in missing information by interacting with a rich contextual background and engaging in discourse amongst themselves (Marzano & Pickering, 2011). By participating in the discourses that students deem relevant such as drugs, gang-related activity and even contemporary issues such as cyber-bullying, students, especially marginalized ones, are given the chance to speak their mind and voice their thoughts.
The relationship between rules and discipline in schools can perpetuate the notion of not questioning authority thus sowing a society where individuals do not question the hegemony. Althusser noted this as the reproduction of submission where individuals are subjected to a ruling hegemony (2010). Education has been utilized this way as well, in that societal norms make a difference in how discipline is approached. Physical punishment against students would have been acceptable at one point, whereas today it is a crime. While physical discipline in schools is no longer practiced, the ways punishment is used in schools can influence student growth and their understanding of the world. Instead of punishing students through standard means such as writing lines, detention, or the taking away of recess, students should be shown and taught accountability in order to foster self-regulation. Naturally, the amount of accountability should differ based on age and stage of students, however it is my belief that students can learn from their mistakes no matter the age. I’ve found that in x elementary, teachers use their school motif as way to hold students accountable for their actions. For instance, a student who wasn’t sharing within her group was told by the teacher to show a sense of belonging, a tenet of the school motif (Fernandez, 2017). Teachers can use a sense of empathy and accountability, even at a young age, to help students learn to self-regulate rather than punish or scold a student in front of the class which might result in negative perceptions from their peers. A problematic aspect of school rules is the inconsistency teachers can have in their reactions to student behavior that is inappropriate or disruptive, some may laugh it off while others may discipline (Truby, 2014). The staff meeting at x jr. high addressed this specific issue as students complained that some teachers were disciplining them when in other classes it was alright. The division between external rules with consequences and self-regulation is representative of the clashing ideologies on which these discourses come from. In fact, this troublesome aspect relates to the first and second arguments where teachers are meant to be authentic and genuine to themselves however in this case, they must strike a balance between who they are and what the school policy is.
Althusser’s writings imply that students are not at the center of education as they are the mere products of the system, however my field experiences have shown me otherwise. The Education system does indeed act as a powerful ideological apparatus, yet teachers, educators and students continually undermine the hegemony that Althusser claims. If education continued based on Althusserian terms, students wouldn’t be able to attain their possible-selves, instead left to be groomed into workers. Schools today are not meant to reproduce the conditions of production but rather provide an authentic venue for becoming one’s possible-self through their set of strengths, interests and needs. It differs from the 1960s when Althusser wrote about education as note in a music score. It is no longer silent, people are paying attention to how students are educated not only through academia, but social justice and varying ideologies that differ from one hegemony (Althusser, 2010). The various ideologies that exist make it important to teach students this reality, to accept differences between others as it is simply part of human nature. The pragmatic realities of teaching and learning have shown itself to be more than a factory inserting knowledge and hegemony into a passive receptor, rather invoking students to be active agents in their learning as they engage and interact with the world around them.
​
References
Althusser, L. (2010,). Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses. In V.B. Leitch (Ed.), The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism (pp. 1335-1361). New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. (Original work published in 1969)
Davis, B., Sumara, D., & Luce-Kapler, R. (2015). Knowledge and Learning in Democratic Citizenship Education. Engaging Minds: Cultures of Education and Practices of Teaching, 3rd edition (pp. 131-148). New York, NY: Routledge
Kennedy, M.M. (2005). How teachers think about their practices. In M.M. Kennedy Inside teaching: How classroom life undermines reform (pp. 31-62). Available in full text from the University of Calgary library.
Marzano, R.J. & Pickering, D.J. (2011). Chapter one: Research and Theory. In R.J. Marzano & D.J. Pickering The highly engaged classroom (pp. 3-20). Bloomington, IN: Marzano Research Laboratory. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/lib/ucalgary-ebooks/reader.action?ppg=17&docID=3404837&tm=1500047915656
Palmer, P.J. (1997). The heart of a teacher identity and integrity in teaching. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 29(6), 14-21. DOI: 10.1080/00091389709602343. Available from http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/10.1080/00091389709602343
Truby, D. (2014). 8 ways to build positive school culture now. We Are Teachers. Available at http://www.weareteachers.com/blogs/post/2014/08/07/8-ways-to-build-positive-school-culture-now
​
​