"In essence, developmentalism leads to schools in which attendance is
compulsory but study is not. Students are expected to make an effort only
if they feel interested and enthused. "
I don't think this judgment is correct. Compulsory attendance is not
consistent with developmentalism. It was rather a consequence of other
disciplinary mechanisms which precisely dev. tried to question. It is a
remnant of other institutions (laboral, political) and serves other
interests (economic, i.e. parents' need to leave children somewhere
in order to go to work, educational
institutions' need of control of students and teachers' use of time,
salaries dependent on time investement etc.).
Compulsory attendance to school will end as soon as compulsory attendance to
jobs will end, when complexity and quality of performance will
substitute presence in offices and simulacra of work. We are a step from it.
(I'm still promenading through Jay's
virtual non compulsory educational space and, rather than optimistic
utopia, I see it as the legacy we must construct for the future generations).
I would even shift the focus on studying to learning. We can study much,
but do we necessarily learn? Studying does not garantee performance
either. I refer to the second phrase quoted above. :"Students are expected to
make an effort only if they feel interested and enthused." A slight
correction: students can make an effort in studying, but only if they
feel intersted and enthused they may be able to learn. How
can we garantee learning is, I think, the main problem. Developmentalism
may have been too advanced for its time (it was, if the author's claim that
it has been hegemonic for 400 years is true -I doubt it-). In the
perspective of contemporary technical means for education, developmentalism
does give grounds and direction for constructing new patterns for education.
We are just beginning.
Katya