"The work will have to be done from the ground up, and it will have to be done by us."
--Kevin Baker
"You've got to have allies. The thought of the Committees of Correspondence in the American Revolution is never far from my mind. People have got to stay in touch somehow. They have to meet and talk. But that's a network, not a community."
--Wendell Berry, July 2008, The Sun
I should note that this is very much a preliminary effort. I haven't put together a blog or website before, so my efforts are crude. More importantly, my thoughts are half-formed because they have been developed in almost complete isolation. Starting a measured, respectful, challenging conversation is the whole point.
The Current Problem
The current debates on education seem to me to miss the point. My thinking doesn't fit easily into either camp, and I have little confidence that either of our political parties will develop policies that would put our schools on the right course. I'm sure I'm not alone.
On one hand we have the progressives, who rightly oppose education “reform” efforts, but who also advocate the progressive "student-centered" approach that I and many others find ineffective. The progressives have done a good job of identifying many of the current "reform" efforts as being backed by corporate money in service of highly questionable ends. However, they then defend the progressive methods that have helped to create the crisis in the first place.
On the other hand we have the conservative “reformers” who generally advocate a more traditional "teacher-centered" approach to teaching, but often in service of ends which violate my values: environmental destruction, an economy based on unlimited growth and unlimited wealth accumulation, union-busting, and politicized content. Their position, it seems to me, essentially accepts that America is and should be an oligarchy. I don't accept that. It is discouraging to look for an alternative to progressive orthodoxy only to find forums and discussion groups filled with people spouting off about their gun collections, ridiculing the notion of climate change, and smearing unions.
This is the conundrum. Many progressives realize that an education reform movement imposed by a handful of billionaires is an affront to any reasonable notion of democracy. However, the conservatives can rightly reply that ineffective schools, schools that fail to adequately teach students to read and write, are also a fundamental threat to our democracy. It seems to me the solution is for us to find a way to build effective schools independent of corporate influence. These days, corporate influence is so prevalent in every aspect of our government that it seems that such schools might need to be independent of government funding and influence as well.
By setting things up this way, I don't mean to say that there are only two positions. The situation is complex, and is made more complicated by the presence on both sides of centrists who largely agree on the desirability of a highly stratified society run by a degreed elite. In many aspects this matter isn't an either/or proposition. For example, some aspects of progressive education are valuable, as responsible critics such as E.D. Hirsch and Diane Ravitch have long maintained. In addition, there is no room for romantic visions of the past. It isn't a matter of returning to some bygone era where schools were perfect. However, I think an even-handed look at the past will present us with many invaluable ideas. While we need to create categories for discussion, such categories need not limit our thoughts. On the contrary, the existence of other possibilities is the basis for hope.
This is the conundrum. Many progressives realize that an education reform movement imposed by a handful of billionaires is an affront to any reasonable notion of democracy. However, the conservatives can rightly reply that ineffective schools, schools that fail to adequately teach students to read and write, are also a fundamental threat to our democracy. It seems to me the solution is for us to find a way to build effective schools independent of corporate influence. These days, corporate influence is so prevalent in every aspect of our government that it seems that such schools might need to be independent of government funding and influence as well.
By setting things up this way, I don't mean to say that there are only two positions. The situation is complex, and is made more complicated by the presence on both sides of centrists who largely agree on the desirability of a highly stratified society run by a degreed elite. In many aspects this matter isn't an either/or proposition. For example, some aspects of progressive education are valuable, as responsible critics such as E.D. Hirsch and Diane Ravitch have long maintained. In addition, there is no room for romantic visions of the past. It isn't a matter of returning to some bygone era where schools were perfect. However, I think an even-handed look at the past will present us with many invaluable ideas. While we need to create categories for discussion, such categories need not limit our thoughts. On the contrary, the existence of other possibilities is the basis for hope.
I'd like to be part of building a school or a school system that remembers that the purpose of public education in America is to prepare students for democratic citizenship (as opposed to job training), is independent of corporate money and influence, and follows the basic model of a liberal arts education. I invite anyone who shares this general goal to send his or her thoughts.
Some useful perspectives on the schism between progressive and traditional education are found in the following books:
The Schools We Need by E.D. Hirsch
Left Back by Diane Ravitch
The Academic Achievement Challenge by Jeanne Chall
A recent article that does a great job of making the case for the value of more traditional, teacher-guided instruction compared to the student-centered, constructivist approach, appeared in the Spring 2012 of the American Federation of Teachers' American Educator. It is a careful, nuanced study that points out situations where elements of the constructivist approach are useful. American Educator does a fine job of challenging progressive education orthodoxy and provides a strong refutation of the current attacks on teachers' unions as being hide-bound and obstructionist.
http://www.aft.org/newspubs/periodicals/ae/
The View from the Ground
I work in a school where I don't feel good about the way we practice education. Our classes have vestiges of the traditional purpose of education--we teach English and history--but our express purpose is to prepare students for the world of work. We talk about a respectful environment geared toward learning, but we aren't able to provide it. I don't think it is unrealistic or utopian to believe that education doesn't have to be like this. Social critics such as Christopher Lasch and Wendell Berry, and many others, have been saying for many years that the American education system primarily serves the consumer economy. I agree and I don't think this can go on. We need to find a new direction.
Some useful perspectives on the schism between progressive and traditional education are found in the following books:
The Schools We Need by E.D. Hirsch
Left Back by Diane Ravitch
The Academic Achievement Challenge by Jeanne Chall
A recent article that does a great job of making the case for the value of more traditional, teacher-guided instruction compared to the student-centered, constructivist approach, appeared in the Spring 2012 of the American Federation of Teachers' American Educator. It is a careful, nuanced study that points out situations where elements of the constructivist approach are useful. American Educator does a fine job of challenging progressive education orthodoxy and provides a strong refutation of the current attacks on teachers' unions as being hide-bound and obstructionist.
http://www.aft.org/newspubs/periodicals/ae/
The View from the Ground
I work in a school where I don't feel good about the way we practice education. Our classes have vestiges of the traditional purpose of education--we teach English and history--but our express purpose is to prepare students for the world of work. We talk about a respectful environment geared toward learning, but we aren't able to provide it. I don't think it is unrealistic or utopian to believe that education doesn't have to be like this. Social critics such as Christopher Lasch and Wendell Berry, and many others, have been saying for many years that the American education system primarily serves the consumer economy. I agree and I don't think this can go on. We need to find a new direction.
Influences and a disclaimer
Bias declared: I lean to the left. However, with regards to the left, generally speaking, the pedagogical practices often associated with them disturb me. Ever since I attended a Teacher Education Program, I have found myself alienated from the mainstream of progressive thought. And so I consider myself a left-leaning independent. In any event, teaching methods don't need to align with politics. The best thinkers and writers are often those who transcend left and right.
My opinions on education come from my experience as a working teacher, and my reading of the work of writers such as Jeanne Chall, Bernard Knox, Christopher Lasch, Wendell Berry, E.D. Hirsch, Diane Ravitch, and Diane Senechal. Of course, by no means should my writing on this site be seen as a reflection of the views of these authors. I have had only the most cursory communication with a few of them. None of the people listed here, or any others mentioned on this site, have endorsed my positions.
No comments:
Post a Comment