chicagodads

Back to incoming Ed. Sec. Arne Duncan and CPS (finally), one thing I wanted to mention is this notion of reform and how vague it is, especially when it comes to both politics (certainly in Chicago and Illinois) and education.

In the very late 19th Century until early 20th, there were two warring factions calling themselves ‘Progressive Educators’. These polarized factions still continue, although the language has shifted a bit. Most people who advocate for ‘reform’ in US education want a “Back to Basics” approach. This amounts to putting the emphasis on what is deemed the fundamentals: Reading, Writing, Maths, Sciences (especially the applied sciences). Let us refer to them as fundamentals re-formers (or fr1)Some in the camp would argue that the arts are also very important and need to be emphasized, but most would argue that the arts (and by that, usually the “Fine Arts”) are at best secondary in importance. The other main camp argues that a much more fundamental change is needed in the ways we teach children itself. That what we teach children is often not as important as how we are teaching children. (Today’s caveat: I believe that how we teach children determines largely what they learn.) Many in that camp believe that the way that the educational system is set-up is to the continuing advantage of wealthy white children (sons and daughters of industry, they are taught to be creative, to think bold, to be independent) and to the detriment especially of poor black and brown children (who are almost detained in their schools as if they were in a holding cell). Poor white children don’t fare much better (rote work, mindlessly ordered around by authority figures).

In other words, according to many of the latter group of reformists (let’s call them fundamentally reformed - or fr2), the ways in which we teach are modeled on the old factory models of production and also - truth be told - on the basis of prisons. It has served well through much of the current (and quickly deteriorating) economic system because service just requires that you know what someone needs/desires and how to get her that service quickly. Of course, now we’ve found ourselves in a bind in the US and the only way out apparently would be through both sheer will-power and collective creativity, not much of which the majority of our schools have in ample supply. In other words, as the great educational philosopher John Dewey would say, we trained up generations of people to serve in one capacity while the world has passed them by in several others (okay, I don’t know if he would have said those words per se. But that was definitely his idea).

Now, it’s not just a case now of the rich getting richer while the poor are getting poorer. We are all getting shafted by this in-equilibrium*.

So, when people say that they are about ‘reforming’ education, it’s not really saying anything except that they feel that the current state of education is wrong and that they would like to see it ‘re-formed’ to their idea of where it should go. And though I always believe in dialogue, I also believe that there is a point where you have to say, “No, that direction is wrong and will lead us and our children to ruin.” Arne Duncan does not seem to see that.

* Did I just say Shaft? Da*n right I did.

h/t to Peter Chattaway via Facebook

Trackback URI | Comments RSS