djc asks
>How does change happen? I mean we can let out a good scream, but what good
>does that do? If we think the current system is messed up, what do we do?
>My
>impression is that folks creating and "inspecting" these standards believe
>in what they are doing. Schools should help people learn things. It ought
>to
>be possible to specify what those things are and measure whether they have
>been learned. Is the problem that we haven't done a good job of specifying
>those learnings or measuring their attainment? Then we need to fix that.
>If
>the problem is that our whole conception of schooling is wrong, then we
>need
>to show compelling examples of where we got it right.
really, idiosyncratic examples of where alternative schools "got it right"
don't influence the larger system.
we're dealing with a massive cultural consciousness,
not just an architecture or curriculum.
education today represents an economy of conscience and a history of
consciousness, a military agenda, a political literacy and investment:
"change" is - mostly - intolerable, because it requires a loss of what
has been, and what has been has served so much in terms of government and
bureaucracy (power/white men, etc, all those intolerables)
- not to mention the
"walked-five-miles-a-day-to-school-in-the-snow-barefoot" myth.
individual teachers might do radical teaching,
but that doesn't change the system. change likely takes place in lieu of
the system.
> Most folks, myself
>included, are going to keep doing things the way they always have unless
>they can be shown compelling examples of something better. So if WE (XMCA)
>ruled the world, what would those examples look like? And how would we
>know
>they were better?
>
>djc
my first thought is: if you are going to keep doing what you have always
been doing, unless you can be offered some sort of "compelling example" of
something better, .. then
how do you learn to keep teaching? how do you learn to learn about your
students?
how do you learn if you know already what is required to change your mind?
have i missed your meaning?
on the structural scale,
everyone has a fantasy of the the ultimate bureaucracy, the utopian
education - an open-ended melange of personally-constructed curricula that
meets the diverse needs of the diverse histories, economies, cultures, and
so on, of people, but really. urban and rural schools have different
needs.
Pakistan and Argentina have different needs from Hong Kong and Oise
(Idaho).
Culture is the most dominant structure of any education - understanding
how this is distributed is the task of both bureaucracy and anarchy -
de/centralization, and the risks that go with that - how does any ruling
organization ensure an education that will be fair, if not with standards
and rules?
who decides what is fair? fair for whom? and if fairness is relative
how do people participate in a world governed by capitalist values?
it's a conundrum that engages religion, gender, politics, history, and
all.
the idea that "one" system might meet all needs is the myth of
functionalism - the truth is, we _don't_ know how to bring about change,
because everyone desires and values different kinds of change.
et voila: diversity .
interdisciplinary study.
diversify yourself, diversify your perspectives.
the answers lie in more complicated questions.
the only response i have ever heard to your question is, understandably
intolerable: every student teacher should be required to spend (at least)
one year in therapy (WHY do you want to be a teacher?)
that would, to me, be a start towards the kinds of change you indicate -
it requires an unpredictable cultural shift...
diane
"I want you to put the crayon back in my brain."
Homer Simpson
diane celia hodges
university of british columbia, centre for the study of curriculum and
instruction
vancouver, bc
mailing address: 46 broadview avenue, montreal, qc, H9R 3Z2
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 01 2001 - 01:02:02 PDT