I'm not terribly sure about this, but the way I read El' Konin (B.D.)
right now he seems to be stressing that the ideal form is an event,
not a cultural object. I sort of see him saying that it is an
activity, that what occurs is the realization that there is a
juxtaposition between reality and what would be the perfect form
of that reality. That is why content is not really that important,
I think. He also seems to be saying that the ideal form is
most important during adolescence, linking it to D.B. El'Konin's
model of crises of childhood that impels us to become members
of the social system. At the same time I also found that
Gordon's message linked up with the whole idea of the ideal form.
I have actually been thinking about it since Angel's post.
Before I started graduate school, or was even thinking about
getting a Ph.D. I spent two years as an English/Social Studies
teacher in inner city and inner-city type classrooms in New York
City. There were no books, there were holes in the windows,
more than half the bathrooms in the schools did not work. They
were dangerous places, for both students and teachers. I
remember being a teacher there, and I remember the other teachers
there. We were emotionally drained, cynical, harsh. A great
deal of emphasis was put on keeping discipline in the classroom.
There was one particular war that I did not understand. Almost
every New York city high school had a rule against wearing hats
in class. Students were determined to be able to wear hats
in class. I spent an inordinate amount of time attempting
to get hats off, because if I didn't I would be chastised.
Did learning go on in those classrooms in terms of the larger
activity systems Gordon refers to. I'm sure it did...very much
along the lines of drawing boundaries in activity that I believe
both the El'Konin's talk about. Thinking about it, the wholehat
thing, like so many other things, was a reinforcing of ritual.
On the other hand, did any education go on in those classrooms.
Did anything that went on in those classrooms cause the children
to understand projective planning, give them a chance at understanding
their own activities, their own rituals. The answer is an unqualified
no for my classroom, and I'm pretty certain that goes for almost
every classroom in the building. The teachers were weary, drifting
in despair and/or anger. The lower SES children do not get an
education because we never give them a chance. I really disagree,
I don't think, at least from my experiences, that it has so much to
do with the differences in cultures. I think lower SES classrooms
are the result of who society offers as teachers, and the way
in which the society treats those teachers.
As far as whether certain cultures find discipline more appropriate
for education, I never found that in my parent conferences. More
often I found that the parents who cared were really worried for their
children, worried for their survival. They would have gone along
with anything that they thought would help. Part of our ritual
belief system is that discipline and punishment can stem trouble
(look at the way we build jails to deal with social problems - the
parents came by this idea honestly). So they would say to me,
You do whatever you have to do to make sure Johnny does well.
Like I said, this is all anecdotal.
Michael Glassman
University of Houston