I wish I could see it as simply as you. The fact is that, in many
ways, American schools are failing, and the working class and
minorities are bearing the brunt of those failures. Many of the
changes that are proposed (a retreat from whole language, a focus on
standards, school vouchers) have stronger support from the working
class than they do from the upper middle-class suburbanites (who are
rather content with their decent suburban schools). Herbert Gintis,
who together with Samuel Bowles wrote the seminal 1976 book,
_Schooling in Capitalist America_, now supports enhanced school
choice and possibly even privatization as a way of dealing with these
problems (http://olam.ed.asu.edu/epaa/v2n6.html). African-Americans
in large numbers support school vouchers. And attacks on whole
language have been led by prominent African-American educators (e.g.,
Lisa Delpit).
Is this all a matter of false consciousness, with the working class
completely fooled as to what is really going on in the schools?
Mark Warschauer
At 8:26 AM +0200 10/1/00, Peter Farruggio wrote:
>Paul is right, and this question plays out on many more levels in
>schools than just the social reproduction of class roles among high
>school kids. Consider the current high stakes testing mania
>sweeping across the US. This is part of a general all-out attack on
>democratic public education and the rise in expectations among the
>US working class since the expansion of higher ed for the baby
>boomers in the 1960s. The push for more and tougher tests and
>"standards," the insistence to test non-English speakers with
>English tests, the high school exit exams and grade retentions for
>low scores, are all part of a campaign by the top levels of the
>ruling elite to make the proles feel like failures in school,
>unworthy to attend college. Why do this just now? Because the
>current corporate policy is not a reinvigoration of the US
>industrial base, but rather the old imperialist strategy of seeking
>cheap labor (like maquiladoras), which brings with it a calculation
>that the more modest amounts of skilled and intellectual labor can
>be brought on-board through a brain drain (thus the demands by
>"cutting edge" software entrepreneurs, the darlings of Wall St, for
>relaxed visa policies for intellectual labor from poorer countries -
>they favor this cheaper policy over the demand to increase public
>spending [taxes!!!] on US public education, where millions of young
>geniuses go undeveloped today in decrepit schools) Through their
>right wing think tanks, publicity spin doctors, and bought
>Republocrats, these ruling circles push the ideology that public ed
>is failing and can only be fixed by privatization (vouchers) A part
>of this program has been the orchestrated and well-funded attacks on
>"whole language," and "fuzzy math" and any other pedagogies that
>encourage thinking and questioning. This is good enough for the
>children of the bourgeoisie, but dangerous for the masses.
>
>Within this political/economic context, as I visit urban, public
>school classrooms every week, what I see more and more is "back to
>basics" teaching that has the kids working on low level linear
>tasks, and seeing books as nothing more than "work" rather than as
>places for interesting info and even enjoyment and entertainment.
>
>How can one who is concerned with teaching and learning not be
>interested in looking at the societal context? Schools of Ed can
>train their students in the best and most culturally relevant
>pedagogy (as many are still doing, including myself); but what good
>is it if these teachers find themselves in schools where they are
>ordered to "just use the basals" and "just teach to the test"????
>
>As does the society around us, we who want to change the world must
>operate on many levels at the same time.
>
>Pete Farruggio
>
>
>
>
>At 08:44 AM 9/29/00, you wrote:
>>Bill posted:.
>>
>>"In coming to this discussion, Andy and I, for example, are interested in
>>different forms of activity. He, as an opponent of bourgeois society may
>>have sweeping reforms in mind, and I, I am keeping my vision focussed around
>>learning and teaching. So he and I, just by example again, are interested
>>in different aspects of Leont'ev. It seems we must be careful in insisting
>>the discussion must focus on X, when it is X, like the egg in making an
>>omellette, that may be something that some of us can take as a given."
>>
>>I question whether keeping ones vision focused on "learning and teaching"
>>without taking into consideration (a) the historical separation of physical
>>and mental labor; (b) the relationship of teaching and learning (the
>>education industry) to the other branches of production in the social
>>division of labor can lead to a complete understanding of the phenomena, its
>>forms of appearance. Of course one might be able to determine better
>>techniques for doing whatever it is that is done in the classrooms through
>>such a focus but my own research has shown over and over again that
>>educational "problems" have less to do with pedagogy than with the entire
>>social context of education and the specific relationship of "schools" to
>>the rest of the students' lives.
>>
>>I have been trying to hatch an egg that popped out with Dot's discussion of
>>internalization v appropriation: specifically her comment that
>>internalization also includes the internalization of "unconscious" elements.
>>A prime educational example is found in Eckhert's "Jocks and Burnouts".
>>Following in the tradition of Willis' "Learning to Labour", Eckert
>>demonstrates that one of the most important components of high school
>>students' education is the internalization of positions within a social
>>division of labor characteristic of the society as a whole. All of this
>>functions much to the side of what goes down in "Civics".
>>
>>As to being able to make an omelette without knowing its history, or being
>>aware of the social division of labor that brings eggs to your refrigerator,
>>sure. You can also drive a car without knowing how to build one, wear shoes
>>without knowing how to make them, or tie a knot without understanding the
>>principles of counteracting forces. . And if the social division of labor
>>that produces cars were to be disrupted (no more oil, for example) then you
>>would simply stop driving, just as you would eat no omelettes without the
>>social divsion of labor that provides you with eggs.--hopefully this issue
>>will be more of a focus when we look at the transition from actions to
>>operations later in the reading, extending this from the level of individual
>>to that of social consciousness.
>>
>>Paul H. Dillon
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 01 2000 - 01:01:07 PST