Haberman (2010) by Dee Hall

Sarah

2021-01-25 20:08:43 UTC

Pedagogy of poverty = pedagogy of social control.
More focus put on classroom management, behavior, compliance than value of education. Focus on the "receptacles to be filled" narrative.

2021-01-25 20:09:03 UTC

Very authoritative & focused on discipline

"It appeals to those who fear minorities and the poor. Bigots typically become obsessed with the need for control," (82).

2021-01-25 20:10:09 UTC

"Differences in race, culture, religion, ethnicity, and gender are issues that children and youths reconsider constantly in an effort to make sense of the world, its relationships, and their place in it. This is not “social studies.” All aspects of the curriculum should deepen students’ basic understandings of these persistent facts of life" (85).

Manuel

2021-01-25 20:10:43 UTC

the pedagogy of poverty — “not merely what teachers do and what youngsters expect but, for different reasons, what parents, the community, and the general public assume teaching to be.”

2021-01-25 20:11:24 UTC

"Education will be seriously reformed only after we move it from a matter of “importance” to a matter of “life and death,” both for society and for the individuals themselves. Graduates who lack basic skills may be unemployable and represent a personal and societal tragedy. However, graduates who possess basic skills but are partially informed, unable to think, and incapable of making moral choices are downright dangerous. Before we can make workers, we must first make people. But people are not made — they are conserved and grown" (87).

Manuel

2021-01-25 20:11:43 UTC

conferences, meetings, record-keeping, etc. are forms of policing knowledge and who has access to it. they're also ways that schools keep students "in line" by telling teachers what to do and then teachers tell parents and students what to do all the while keeping records of disciplinary actions and academic performance.

duncandanielle — 2021-01-25 20:12:02 UTC

"Students represent a wide range of
individual differences. Many
students have handicapping
conditions and lead debilitating home
lives. Therefore, ranking of some sort is
inevitable; some students will end up at
the bottom of the class while others will
finish at the top," (83). <- one of the things that explain the concept of pedagogy of poverty

2021-01-25 20:12:05 UTC

duncandanielle — 2021-01-25 20:13:12 UTC

I think I have seen this type of thinking in schools I have attended in the past. It's where the teacher almost excuses deficit thinking because the students are low SES or have other disadvantages in their home lives. This is usually an accepted practice by those who don't wish to make a change to the system we see right now, those who have low expectations for the students who are marginalized, and those who didn't do well in school themselves (because they can blame it on someone else).

Sarah

2021-01-25 20:13:39 UTC

Although teachers enter the profession with good intentions, some unfortunately become corrupted by the system, reinforce injustice, bring in/ act upon preconceived notions and perceptions of a deficit mindset.
(There is a article called "to hell with good intentions" which discusses the reality of good intentions and ultimately negative consequences)

Manuel

2021-01-25 20:14:34 UTC

appeals to teachers because it gives them a sense of control and it's a standard that they can judge themselves and other teachers with. appeals to students because it gives them the real power, curriculum and conduct is decided by what will keep them satiated and in line. neither groups will challenge the pedagogy of poverty because it would undermine and destabilize these ideas of control.

emertink — 2021-01-25 20:15:35 UTC

"Teaching is what teachers do. Learning is what students do. Therefore, students and teachers are engaged in different activities."

Manuel

2021-01-25 20:17:22 UTC

control is decided by discipline and compliance. it is held by students in this pedagogy.
“They [teachers] believe they are in control and are responding to “student needs,” when, in fact, they are more like hostages responding to the students’ overt or tacit threats of noncompliance and, ultimately, disruption.”