Dear everybody-
I'm worry that Federal government is a business of defining what science is
in general and what science is in educational research in specific. ERIC has
become the first (??) victim of such interference. Michael Castle, the
Republican congressman from Delaware (there is only one congress person from
this tiny state), defined "scientific research" in education as following
the rigid medical model (i.e., pre- and post-test with control groups). He
plays the clue role now in defining Bush's policies in area of education and
research. I wonder if this Republican revolution is the second wave of
Lysenko-type of management of Science by the State. In my view, the State
has to be separated from discussions of what is scientific - the question
that has to be left to the fields of science practices themselves - as part
of separation of power.
What do you think?
Eugene
PS Lysenko was an academician (not a congressman although) appointed by
Stalin to define "the scientific" biology and agriculture resulted in
physical persecutions of Soviet scholars who studied genetics that was
defamed as "bourgeois pseudo-science". The US style of Lyseknoanism is to
cut federal funding to so-called "unscientific research" and suppress public
access to publications of research the current government does not like.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: N*** [mailto:vygotsky who-is-at nateweb.info]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 1:31 PM
> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> Subject: Re: Democracy, Federal Government, and Education
>
> Bill,
>
> I think that one has to read it very liberally is the
> key. It is not straight forward like the federal role
> in commerce and capital. In fact, I believe many New
> Deal programs and the 1960's increasing role in
> education was argued on such premises. It was not the
> federal goverments "authentic" role in these domains,
> but rather their analogy to the federal goverments
> role in regulating commerce and capital.
>
> I think Jesse Jackson Jr.'s approach to "rewriting"
> the consitution is right on. Note your quote on
> "general welfare" in contrast to "specific" welfare.
> Specific welfare's such as the right to healthcare,
> housing, jobs, education etc.
>
> There of course is the age old liberatarian argument
> of the relationship between the federal goverments
> role in education and Dewey's thoughts on democracy. I
> think this tension is felt all over the country with
> implementing the LACBA (Leave All Children Behind Act)
> and local values about education.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- Bill Barowy <wbarowy@attbi.com> wrote:
> > [This posting apparently did not go through
> > yesterday, hence my earlier test.
> > Could not be sure until the archives proved so this
> > morning. Here's a second
> > try.]
> >
> >
> > Concerning the role of the Federal Government in
> > Education, and whether it
> > should be considered "interfering" or "doing it's
> > job", I think a little
> > historical analysis might help. (CHAT to the
> > beckoning?) In its preamble,
> > the US Constitution establishes the object to
> > "promote the general Welfare,
> > and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves
> > and our Posterity". If we
> > interpret this statement inclusively and liberally ,
> > the US gov role in
> > education appears secured, "our Posterity" arguably
> > encompassing our
> > children.
> >
> > Dewey in "Democracy and Education" does argue so:
> >
> > "Upon the educational side, we note first that the
> > realization of a form of
> > social life in which interests are mutually
> > interpenetrating, and where
> > progress, or readjustment, is an important
> > consideration, makes a democratic
> > community more interested than other communities
> > have cause to be in
> > deliberate and systematic education. The devotion
> > of democracy to education
> > is a familiar fact. ... A democracy is more than a
> > form of government; it is
> > primarily a mode of associated living, of conjoint
> > communicated experience.
> > The extension in space of the number of individuals
> > who participate in an
> > interest so that each has to refer his own action to
> > that of others, and to
> > consider the action of others to give point and
> > direction to his own, is
> > equivalent to the breaking down of those barriers of
> > class, race, and
> > national territory which kept men from perceiving
> > the full import of their
> > activity. ... A society which is mobile, which is
> > full of channels for the
> > distribution of a change occurring anywhere, must
> > see to it that its members
> > are educated to personal initiative and
> > adaptability" (p. 87-88)
> >
> > There is more to read before, after, and in between
> > what's quoted , which I
> > find fascinating in its considerations of education
> > and democracy.
> > Personally, within any given duration I might not
> > agree with the means and
> > ways with which the Federal Government invests
> > itself in education, but in
> > understanding democracy at a fundamental level I
> > *cannot* hold this
> > investment itself to be invalid.
> >
> > Oh yeah, on a similar note -- we will have some
> > opportunity soon to review a
> > second draft constitution for CHSIG, which has gone
> > through a first draft and
> > commentary by some SIG officers past and present.
> > It'll appear some time in
> > the next week or so on a web site and perhaps also
> > in email for discussion by
> > the membership. Stay tuned. I'm open to
> > suggestions for this process.
> >
> > --
> > -----------------
> > bb
> >
>
>
> =====
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 01 2004 - 01:00:10 PST