Response Paper 2

Response Paper 2 In “What is Learned in School,” Dreeben’s 

I want to disagree with some of this paper’s perspectives on the structure of society that schools prepare people for. This means reinterpreting the way schools work.      Could we take Bordieu’s point that even the “democratic equality” function of schools is a private good, to critique Dreeben?     Social capital “manages to combine the prestige of innate property with the merits of acquisition”  “the social conditions of its transmission and acquisition are more disguised than economic capital”, making it an ideal medium for satisfying the double-promise of schools—of reproducing privilege while seeming to be a meritocracy of equal opportunity for social mobility.  

I want to engage with the question of literacy and democratic society. Literacy, distance, empathy. 

I want to claim that digital media changes the way society works       -> See 

I want to write about methodology: What do we mean by educational research?       -> This paper challenges the role of cognitive neuroscience (the curriculum isn’t where it’s at. So technological improvements to pedagogy are largely irrelevant)

     -> This paper also makes tons of unsubstantiated claims. 

We ‘institute’ or reify cultural capital in stable academic titles which do not need to constantly prove their value

Conversion of cultural capital is diffuse, hidden “similarly, too, the high degree of concealment of the transmission of cultural capital has the disadvantage…” Basis of hidden reproduction of status