Monthly Archives: April 2016

Adult Women Returning to Education: Care of the Self?

In the late 1960s, there was a major shift and unexpected occurrence in society, adult women were increasing their presence in colleges (Jones, 2009). The doors of academia that once were closed to women were opened and the admission policies that separated the genders had ended. Women began to expand into career fields outside of traditional female fields of study and (Jones, 2009) by 1980s women were earning the most undergraduate and graduate degrees.



Why are they going back?
Economics: Once child rearing becomes less of a focus, women find themselves at the crossroads in their lives, desiring to pursue occupational goals previously placed on hold for the benefit of their families (Hardin, 2008; Sweet & Moen, 2007). The intention behind pursuing a college degree for some women is the goal of attaining a higher position in the workforce that will (hopefully) lead to financial stability.
Life-Transitions: Major life events such as divorce, death of a spouse/family member, loss of employment etc. can trigger the motivation to return to education with the hope that they can re-create an identity or return to a past identity.
Self-Investment: The possible selves framework examines the self-concept as it refers to the future where the self evolves over time based on ones’ life experiences, psychosocial context, economic and current situation (Markus & Nurius, 1986). Rossiter (2009) believed the possible selves framework could provide insight into “understanding the adult learner” in transitions from one career to another and identity transition (p12). Frazier and Hooker (2006, as cited in Rossiter, 2009) outlined four theoretic anchors that when combined with adult development provides an overview of how possible selves can be used with nontraditional students. The first is that possible selves “demonstrates the self-directed nature of development” (p. 62) that individuals chart their own course. Second, possible selves are contextual, that this self is defined and shaped by their interaction with their environment. It is also a source of motivation for the things that they do or do not do. Third, in the developmental process possible selves is a power motivation toward shaping a person’s’ course. Fourth, the personality is a personal action construct that affects self-regulation.
Questions and quote to consider
Are adult women returning back to education because of who they think they should be? And, are they creating (or re-creating) an identity based on who they want to be or who higher education thinks they should be?

“The self-directed, self-managed individual is encouraged to identify with the university and the goals of higher education policy: challenging the terms of reference is not an option.”

Does this provide them with more control over their lives?

The Nature of Relationships
Relationships for a majority of women, and most adults, returning to college play an integral role in the success of not only returning but attaining the degree. Shore and Wright (2000) mention that “to be effective, audit technologies must somehow re-fashion the way people perceive themselves in relation to their work, to one another, and to themselves. In short, they are used to transform professional, collegial, and personal identities” (pg. 62).

Family and Culture:

img_2884 get-married-make-babies


Two different women pursuing similar degrees can have different relationships with their peers particularly when there is a vast difference in age.


1st woman: Woman is in a classroom with students who are in their mid-late 20s. The younger students in the course have oriented the woman into the role of the mother–a role which she has already undertaken with her own child.

2nd woman: Woman is in a cohort with student who are in the mid-late 20s and early 30s. The woman has oriented herself into the role of the mother and the students as her daughters.

This raises the question: how do women self-fashion themselves in a classroom?
Hardin, C. J. (2008). Adult student in higher education. New Directions for Higher Education,
144(49-57). doi: 10/1002/he.325
Jones, S. (2009). Dynamic Social Norms and the Unexpected Transformation of Women’s
Higher Education, 1965-1975. Social Science History, 33(3), 247-291.
Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41(9), 954-969.
Rossiter, M. (2009). Possible Selves and career transition: Implications for serving nontraditional
students. Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 57(2), 61-71.
Sweet, S., & Moen, P. (2007). Integrating educational careers in work and family: Women’s
return to school and family life quality. Community, Work and Family, 10(2). 231-250.
doi: 10.1080/13668800701270166

On an Ethic of Care- Tasha + Alison

Friend Zone/Friends with benefits


The most intriguing aspect of gay identity for Foucault is how homosexuality can lead to new ways of relating. These new ways of relating Foucault refers to as ‘friendship.’  


“That toward which the developments of the problem of homosexuality tend is the problem of friendship.”


In Foucault’s view, gay men are confronted with the task of transforming the self (ascesis – a work to transform the self) in hopes of achieving a new way of living.  


“They must invent from A to Z, a relationship that is still formless, which is friendship: that is to say the sum of all the means through which they can give each other pleasure.” (Friendship, 136)

Foucault argues that gay men should work to “escape the two readymade formulas of the purely sexual hookup and the lovers’ fusion of identities.” The only way homosexuality is accepted is on the ground of pure sex or true love – this way homosexuality is coherent within society’s already established fields. It’s comprehensible to view homosexuality as a hook-up because it aligns with the idea of crazy young men having ‘unbridled’ and uncontrollable lust and “cancels all that can be troubling in affection, tenderness, friendship, loyalty, camaraderie, companionship, things that our rather sanitized society can’t allow a place for without fearing the formation of new alliances and the tying together of unforeseen lines of force.” (Friendship, 136)


A new ‘friendship’ has developed through the sexual revolution – the new non-romantic (w/o intention of marriage) heterosexual friendship. Men and women can be friends now without romantic implications. (Also to think about there being a time when men and women were prohibited from having a friendship.. as if friendship was too intense or personal?) In addition, friendships of people who happen to be having sex – ‘friends with benefits.’  New ways of relating act as strategies to avoid relationships that confine us into roles with an understanding of expectations – girlfriend, boyfriend, husband, wife, etc. Though, it still seems as though society is urging us in the direction of established romantic relationships – with tons of literature on “how to be the perfect girlfriend/boyfriend/wife/husband/etc”- there have been psychological studies with published results on why men and women really can’t be friends. And there is the widely regarded warning to young boys to avoid the ‘friend zone.’


Love vs. friendship?

Judith Butler, Foucault, + The Opt Out Movement

When I consider Judith Butler’s (2004) question, “What makes for a livable world?” and then her point that

It becomes a question of ethics, I think, not only when we ask the personal question, what makes my own life bearable, but when we ask, from a position of power, and from the point of view of distributive justice, what makes, or ought to make, the lives of others bearable? Somewhere in the answer, we find ourselves not only committed to a certain view of what life is, and what it should be, but also of what constitutes the human, the distinctively human life, and what does not. (p. 17)

It is from a place of humanness that I hope to do education differently— from my position of power as an educator, I want to interrogate: what can my actions do to make the lives of my students more bearable? Moreover, how can I create a (classroom) space that enables children to claim their own doings and reclaim the ways in which their doings have been undone? At the moment, I think that what I can do surrounds problematizing curriculum— for me, this is a kind of undoing (Butler, 2004).

In a similar vein, Foucault says

There is a whole network of relationships of power, which can operate between individuals, in the bosom of the family, in an educational relationship, in the political body, etc. . . When an individual or social group manages to block a field of relations of power, to render them impassive and invariable and to prevent all reversibility of movement- by means of instruments which can be economic as well as political or military- we are facing what can be called a state of domination. It is certain that in such a state the practice of liberty does not exist or exists only unilaterally or is extremely confined and limited.


(Bernie Sanders’ signature on a Scantron that reads “opt out.”)


“Liberation opens up new relationships of power, which have to be controlled by practices of liberty” (p. 4).

Enter in: the Opt Out movement ( a practice of liberty).

Butler (2004) explains that “the experience of a normative restriction becoming undone can undo a prior conception of who one is only to inaugurate a relatively newer one that has a greater livability as its aim” (p. 1). When considering curriculum, it can be helpful to have conceptions of models, but also to know that one does not have to choose from a set of already established curricular models/options— instead, one can make their own, make what they can imagine, what feels right, and has a greater livability for themselves and their students. Through the lens of curriculum theorists William Pinar, Lynn Beudert and Marissa McClure (2015), curriculum theory is a means for educators to think about ideas, purposes of, and actions within curriculum/experiences by paying “systematic attention to the question of what we should teach” (Kliebard, 1977, p. 260) in addition to how and where curricula are implemented (p. 24). What if one reconceptualized and theorized a curriculum by struggling “to resist curricular absolutes by engaging in discourses that are contingent upon the ideas, opinions, and lived expertise of those individuals who comprise a community?” (Cherryhomes; cited by Garaoin, 1999, p. 141).


Is this even realistic? And, what would it take to bring this systemic reconceptualization to fruition?

Diane Ravitch on Opting Out:

Want to end the obsession with standardized testing? Opt your children out of the state tests. Ignore the threats from state and federal officials. The tests today have taken over too much of the school year. Teachers should prepare and give tests that cover what they taught.

What if all students opted out of testing? That’s democracy in action. The elected officials who mandate these tests would take notice. They might even discover that no high-performing nation in the world tests every child every year.

The tests today are pointless and meaningless.

The tests are meaningless because the results are returned months after the test, when the student has a different teacher. The tests are meaningless because the scores provide no information about what the students learned and didn’t learn. The teacher is not allowed to find out what students got wrong.

Officials claim that the tests help students and teachers and inform instruction. Balderdash. The tests rank and rate students. Worse, the developers of the Common Core tests selected a passing mark so high that the majority of children are expected to fail. The passing mark is a subjective judgment. What exactly is the value of telling children they are failures when they are in third grade?

Schools have cut back on the arts, civics, science, history, and physical education because they are not on the test.

The tests are given online because it is supposed to be cheaper. But many states and districts have had technological breakdowns, and the testing period starts all over again. Students who take pencil and paper tests get higher scores than similar children who take online tests. It may be cumbersome to scroll up and down or sideways, wasting time.

In some states and districts, children with disabilities are expected to take exactly the same tests as children their age, regardless of the nature of their disability. Florida became famous for trying to force a test on a dying child. He cheated the state by dying before they could test him.

When students write essays online, most will be graded by computer. The computer understands sentence length, grammar, and syntax. But the computer does not understand MEANING. A ridiculous essay that is complete gibberish can get a high score.

The testing regime is destroying education.It is driven by politicians who think that tests make students smarter and by educrats who fear to think an independent thought.

There are two ways to stop this madness. One would be to require legislators and policymakers in the states and federal government to take the tests they mandate and publish their scores. This would prove the value of the tests. Why shouldn’t they all be able to pass the 8th grade math test?

Since this is unlikely to happen, the best way to restore common sense to American education is to stop taking the tests. Parents should discuss the issues of testing with their children. Explain to them that the tests can’t measure what matters most:   Kindness, integrity, honesty, responsibility, humor, creativity, wisdom, thoughtfulness.

The best and only way to send a message to the politicians is to let your children refuse the tests. Do you really care how their scores compare to those of students in other states? If you want to know how they are doing, ask the teachers who see them every day.

Gary Stern, veteran education writer in the Lower Hudson Valley, has an insightful well-informed understanding of the New York opt out movement. He knows why it started and why it continues: parents want real changes, not promises of change.

In contrast, Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post ridicules the parents as crybabies who refuse to accept that their children are not so smart after all (shades of Arne Duncan!).

Stern writes that the State Education Department imposed the new standards and tests without adequate preparation. The result was distrust and opt out.

“The state should have anticipated this year’s high opt-out rates (in some places, even higher than last year when 20 percent of kids statewide sat out exams). We had Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who once passed himself off as the state’s “lobbyist for the students,” bashing the tests and calling them largely meaningless. We saw the election of a new Board of Regents Chancellor, Betty Rosa, who said she would opt out her own kids if they were still of school age. Plus, there has been so much upheaval during the past year or two — reviews of and revisions to education policies that few understood — that only wonks and activist-types could possibly keep up.

The flipflopping, the unknowns and the promises of future change made the whole thing reek of politics. The continued mess further frustrated those parents keenly watching the process, and likely overwhelmed many others. Why not opt out until things settle down in a year or two?

“Here’s what we need to see before we can anticipate an opt-in movement:

*New York standards. Revisions to the Common Core are underway, and must reflect what the state’s educators want. Rosa, the Board of Regents and Elia will have to explain and sell the changes they endorse, likely to be a difficult task.

*Clear goals. It’s not enough to chant that students must be “college and career ready.” It’s time to explain where our benchmarks come from.

*Better state tests. Elia has promised to cut the ELA and math assessments from three days to two, and to involve New York educators in the development of questions. The tests need to reflect what kids are learning, not the other way around.

*Useable or formative test data. We need test results that can be used to improve instruction, not merely to conclude whether students hit targets. Elia has pledged to release all future test questions and to produce results earlier, so teachers can address kids’ academic needs quickly.

*A review of testing and graduation requirements for special-education students. Many parents and educators believe that students with disabilities have fared worst of all during the reform era.

*A complete rewrite of the state’s loathed teacher- and principal-evaluation system. Elia agrees that it was designed to punish teachers. She has vowed to involve educators in rewriting it. But Elia and Rosa may have to take on Cuomo, who changed his tune on other education matters, but seems committed to the failed evaluation model he championed.

“The opt-out movement was created and energized by ordinary, well-meaning parents. It wasn’t the teachers’ unions, who jumped on the bandwagon late. And please don’t accept the stereotype of clueless, selfish suburban parents who refuse to accept their kids’ low test scores or worry their special snowflakes’ psyches would be damaged by rigor. Or that suburbanites don’t care about holding under-achieving urban schools accountable. It’s an offensive, cartoonish narrative that sells parents way short.

“Parents build strong connections with their local schools. When the teachers they know and the principals they trust were becoming demoralized by state directives, moms and dads started paying attention. Many didn’t like what they saw.

“New York’s “reform” agenda was dropped out of the sky by state officials, eager for the federal dollars attached, who were so convinced that they were right that they didn’t bother to prepare parents for what was coming….

“Former state Education Commissioner John King dismissed parents’ concerns, and former Regents Chancellor Merryl Tisch could not seem to grasp them….

“The state will need to sell its changes — new standards, new tests and (please!) a new evaluation system. But it can’t expect parents to buy only promises of change. Some will need to see it before they send their kids into testing rooms again.”

→ Transcript of what Hillary Clinton told the Newsday editorial board:

An ethic of play and liberation in public early childhood education

“Q: You say that liberty must be practiced ethically? MF: Yes, for what is morality, if not the practice of liberty, the deliberate practice of liberty?” (p. 4).

School’s Out:

Rasmussen (2006) invokes Foucault’s notion that identity politics and identities can be used for the affirmation of rights, but may be deployed for more sinister ends.  In “refusing existing lifestyles” (Jagose & Halberstam, 1999),  Jagose and Halberstam show value in “proliferating sexual and gender identities as a strategy to disrupt regulatory hetero-normative practices and “reimagine[s] the complex set of relations between sexuality, gender, race, and class” (Rasmussen, 2006).

Early in Rasmussen’s work, she explores the victim narrative of LGBTQI* individuals in schools and identifies the discourses of protection that are written about in teacher education matierals that emphasize alienation and isolation. She also discusses the heralded coming-out discourses that focus on heroic tales and celebratory narratives, that fail to represent the inadequacies of terms and the lived experiences of people outside of that narrow window of identity that that discourse seems to priviledge.

Binaries are a simplistic form of categorization and understanding for much more complex and complicated subjects. Rasmussen identified the existence of the in-out dichotomy as a “powerful narrativization of sexual and gender identity” and further states that “sexual and gender binaries… are the linchpins of heteronormativity.”

Heteronormalization and heteronormativity are concepts that reveal the expectations, demands, and constraints that are produced when heterosexuality is seen as normative within a society. This can show it itself through beliefs such as the so-called natural binary of the existence of men and women, and privileges the sexual relationships of one man and one woman being normal and natural, which is the “counternarrative of conservative religion.”


February 28, 2016: The Charlotte City Council  voted on a non-discrimination ordinance. The non-discrimination ordinance aims to amend the city code, adding marital status, familial status, sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression to the list of protected characteristics in commercial non-discrimination, public accommodations, and passenger vehicles-for-hire ordinances. The council voted in favor of the ordinance by a 7-4 vote. Governor Pat McCrory reached out to council and has said that any ordinance that would allow a male anatomy to enter a women’s restroom or locker room would likely prompt immediate state legislative action.

The North Carolina “Bathroom Bill”



Foucault (1982) outlines “three moves of objectification that ‘transform human beings into subjects: (1) dividing practices, (2) scientific classification, and processes of subjectivization'” (Rasmussen, p. 75) to categorize, distribute, and manipulate.


SIERS040316 tmpLTzB9y