False consciousness abounds in the working class. Hegemonic control is a
far more effectvie way to prevent revolution than naked police state
repression. Sure the urban schools are failing, as part of a conscious
design by the elite, manipulated through deliberate underfunding. I work
in these schools every day. The false consciousness centers on the
question of what to do about this. Disempowered people grasp at whatever
straws are dangled before them by the ruling class propagandists, voila the
vouchers. Frequently, poor African American communities express
overwhelming support for capital punishment and are opposed to a woman's
right to choose an abortion. Are these opinions in their own class
interests, or more false consciousness?
Bowles and Gintis have swung far to the right, along with much of the US
intelligentsia during the Reagan Revolution. Does this negate the
correctness of their positions in 1976?
Delpit actually favors progressive pedagogy . You are referring to one
article she wrote in 1986 for Harvard Ed Rvw ("Teaching Other People's
Children..."), which created a strawman argument about "whole language"
teachers who REFUSED to teach skills and grammatical conventions,
regardless of the children's needs. I say strawman argument because in my
years working inside poor urban schools I have never seen a teacher who
used holistic, integrated pedagogy fail to include the teaching of skills
that the children needed. To me her examples were few and far-fetched and
not typical of veteran inner city teachers who used any sort of whole
language approach. I agree with Patrick Shannon that her article reflected
a "neo-conservative flinch" among some middle class African American
educators, a bending to the heavy right wing propaganda that was relentless
during the 1980s. The bulk of Delpit's writing on pedagogy, which I use
with my teacher ed classes, is progressive, multicultural, holistic etc
Pete Farruggio
At 11:41 PM 9/30/00, you wrote:
>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 - 01:01:08 PST