Notes from A Journal Article on "Shared Authority"

Early on in the semester, I read a journal article for my multicultural/ diversity education class that presented information about the educational practices at several high SES school districts and several low SES school districts. The research was alarming. The author found that high SES children could very possibly be educated differently than low SES children and that these educational practices could in turn be perpetuating social class in this country.

The citation for this journal article is as follows:

Anyon, J. (1980). Social class and the hidden curriculum of work. Journal of Education, 162(1), 67-91.

It was determined in this article that low SES students were taught to primarily follow explicit instructions and that little value was given to their individual and unique input. This correlates with their suspected future careers as laborers and those that follow the lead and directions of others. High SES students, however, were taught with more emphasis on higher order thinking, and their opinions and experiences were more often integrated into the curriculum. This correlates with the belief that these students will become those professional individuals who oversee others and who make rules and instructions rather than work within their confines.

The journal article on shared authority:

Parsons, E. (2003). A teacher's use of the environment to facilitate the social development of children. Journal of Research on Childhood Education, 18 (1).

Notes on implementing the concept of shared authority in the classroom:

• The teacher created three areas: one that was all her own (her desk, files, technology, etc.), one that was shared (students' seats), and one that was the students' area (reading area/ quiet area/ a place for cooperative learning). She found that students respected her space as she did theirs and that students took great pride in their area (kept it cleaned and organized).
• At the beginning of the year, the teacher asked the students to discuss classroom rules. She made a list to display in the classroom. Students were allowed to amend the rules as the school year progressed. She found that students were very thoughtful in their creation of classroom rules.
• The teacher allowed students some decision making power (words on spelling lists; whether to complete one activity or another). She retained the ultimate veto power.
• Students were given roles and jobs to fill. She found that maturity played a part in such responsibilities. For example, the hall monitor position was often used as power over other students and certain students would give unwarranted penalties. The teacher rectified this by putting a second hall monitor in place. A student would only receive a penalty if she or he was cited by both hall monitors.
• The teacher and students would have frequent meetings for the class to discuss that which was and was not working in the classroom. Both the teacher and the students took responsibility for successes and failures and sought ways to continue to succeed or improve on that which was lacking. Students were able to amend rules at this time.