I've been mulling over the "back to basics" discussion convinced
that something was lacking from the understanding of the
phenomena. Here is my stab at the problem.
Jay's makes a good about "back to basics" being a backlash
against the complexity of modern life. But I think that needs
developing. At some level people want progress. They want
better gas mileage, more TV channels, Earth friendly cleaners,
etc. What they *DON'T* want is degrading in what could called
"values." They don't want divorce, crime, drugs, teen-age
pregnancy. They don't want other more subtle things as well:
under the counter overtime (without pay), longer commutes, less
efficient government, complicated legal and regulatory
environments (example: health insurance.)
One of the big themes in the "back to basics" movement (and the
move to the right) is accountability. I think this is the most
mis-understood term in the whole debate. Given the rational
engine of the modern world, accountability has been objectified
like virtually everything else, but that isn't what people want.
In a community of practice, accountability isn't an issue, it is
part of the ground upon which the practice is understood. When
divers go down it is understood that you can depend on your
buddies. When you can't, a major crisis develops.
The place where alternative schools like the one Eugene Matusov
as been studying and the "back to basics" movement can meet is
by going "over the head" of both the politicians and the
bureaucrats. Parents want the schools to be accountable for the
welfare of their children - *NOT* in the cold, objectified,
bureaucratic sense it has come to mean - but in the human sense
that parents hold a babysitter accountable. Many of the issues
that are batted back and forth in educational reform debates
*dissolve* for a small local setting like Eugene's alternative
school. Often the issues didn't refer to anything real in the
classroom, when it does, local solutions implemented by the
people there often resolved the problem before it became a
problem.
Angel called me a pessimist and in these areas I must certainly
am. To put it bluntly, I don't think anyone has solid and
unbiased idea of why we teach, what we teach, when we teach it.
So many organizations have so much influence on what gets taught
that it is amazing that anything coherent happens in classrooms.
The fact that anything is coherent is a real credit to the
victims of curriculum (teachers) and the victims of education
itself (kids.)
As much as it runs against the grain of many so called
"progressives," the notion of "school choice" does offer one
critically important value: it cracks the bureaucratic grip on
accountability and attempts to shift the "raison d'etre" of
schools from "nobody in particular" to the local community where
the school exists.
Unfortunately we need to recognized that we the educational
research community are part of the problem in today's schools.
We have our fingers in the curriculum formation and maintenance
process, and we flight hard to make sure our pet theories are
presented and employed in education today (even if students are
"exposed" to an orthogonal learning model in the next period.)
Unfortunately "good answers" are very hard to come by. Even
xlchc has grown up to become a very complicated place. With
complexity comes power, but at a price. . . . . .
Edouard
. - - - . . . - - - . . . - - - . . . - - - . . . - - - .
: Edouard Lagache :
: lagache who-is-at violet.berkeley.edu :
:..................................................................:
: O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law: :
: Murphy was an optimist. :
: :
: The Murphy Philosophy: :
: Smile . . . tomorrow will be worse. :
. - - - . . . - - - . . . - - - . . . - - - . . . - - - .