[xmca] Re: Obama's Learn Act

[Gregory Allan Thompson <gathomps@uchicago.edu>]

So, based on the thoughts of others, here is my suggestion for
the Department of Education:

How about a media campaign titled "Think Critically". The idea
would be to have an array of historical figures that speak to
different people in different ways. Just like the "got Milk"
campaign, this campaign would always feature the words "think
critically" and each ad would have a different historical
figure with a brief paragraph describing how they were
critical. To make this work, these figures would need to be
varied and would need to speak to local values (here is a
problem of finding a narrative that speaks to everyone - the
US has such different populations). I would propose including
such disparate figures as Jesus Christ (see below), Buddha,
Mohammed, MLK, Jane Addams, John Dewey, Malcolm X, Abraham
Lincoln, etc. The idea is to pull all of these various figures
together under one umbrella of critical thinking. The little
blurb for each person would be essential because it would
define what precisely "critical thinking" is. And what would
be most important would be to have people that would appeal to
both ends of the political spectrum (my list is a little heavy
on the left, but Jesus would seem to be a nice balance). The
idea would be to interpellate all Americans into a subject
position of a critical thinker.

I think that it is somewhat of a risk for whichever party is
in charge at the time (since it invites criticism of a status
quo that often reflects the will of those in power). I would
like to think that the Obama administration could see the
value of this in the long run (and short run too).

Responding to Jay's and Andy's and Martin's suggestions, I
like the suggestions by Andy and Jay that seem 
like immanent critiques of the position of the religious right
(both were variations of: "Jesus would have supported critical
thinking"). 

It seems important to note that this requires taking
seriously the position of the other (something that seemed
like it wasn't easy in either Jay's or Andy's case, maybe even
a little painful?). Might this be an important part of how we
can help to foster critical thinking? If we were to take other
people's heartfelt beliefs seriously and not ridicule,
criticize, or humiliate others for their beliefs, we might
actually be able to get past the structures of resistance and
we might be able to finding a middle ground. This seems to be
at the heart of any notion of pluralism (and I'm not certain
that others on this listserve find a vision of pluralism
appealing since it would mean affirming positions that are
"wrong" by one's one lights (e.g., Fundamentalist
Christians)). As James noted, religious beliefs have a real
and palpable pragmatic force in people's lives. Let's not
forget that, particularly as we are in that time of year when
we celebrate one of the earliest culture wars in the Maccabean
Revolt against the Romans.

Martin, I personally found your quote to be tasty, but my
concern is that it won't have widespread appeal to the palette
of the general public (to return to that uncomfortable
high/low distinction - it is only for those of us with
"refined" palettes -- please read sarcastically).

I think there is a lot of immanent critique of the political
right that could be going on but isn't (and the right has
certainly been doing it to the left). The ideology of
individualism (which I raised concerns about in my last email)
could be one way of getting into critical thinking. Even
fundamentalist religions hold onto some variation of: "you
have to find out the truth for yourself". I think there is a
lot that can be done with this in terms of encouraging
critical thinking (or "thinking for oneself"). 

As an alternative, Durkheim's words seem useful to consider -
Durkheim writes "each religion is true after its own fashion".
Is there any activity oriented view of religious practice as
something that has a certain truth value to it? It is at the
heart of many communities, so why not allow for that and work
with it? I think this is what so many on the left seem to
miss. They (we) prefer to engage partial recognitions of those
on the right (e.g., the humiliation of a book and now
"documentary" like "what's wrong with Kansas" - and btw, I'm
writing this from Leavenworth Kansas), and they (we) forget
that there are real people out there living life with religion
as their core value. 

By approaching religion as it is lived in people's everyday
practices and taking it seriously as such, it would seem that
it would be much easier to see moments where one can launch
into immanent critique. Jesus was a cultural critic, no? (and
I think that this phrasing takes the belief more seriously
than either of the previous phrasings).

Or take Chuck Norris' essay (be nice!), isn't it sacrilege to
suggest that Mary would have sought an abortion (from this
perspective)? At the least, this would make most Catholics, if
not Protestants, think twice before repeating Norris'
defamation of Mary (note my stance of firm inhabitance of the
position here, is it uncomfortable for you to read?).

As for the other debates, I wonder if the creationist movement
gains a certain amount of rhetorical power from being
a "censored" (even "oppositional") movement. If this
opposition were gone, would it still be as big of a deal (and
the same can be said for FOXNEWS and "the liberal bias"). Do
we not trust the intelligence of average people to be able to
figure out the fallacy of creationism for themselves? Or do we
just fear the power of "brainwashing"? Do we have to have a
system of "counter-brainwashing" (we call it "truth-telling",
but the other side would say the same thing about their
position...).

As for The Graduate, this is where I get a bit more cynical
(and Mike, I watched it most recently when in Jennifer's
Global Ages class a few years back). I read the ending as
simply a return to the beginning (which actually happens
before the movie begins) - the moment when Mrs. Robinson (or
whatever her maiden name was) first ran off to marry Mr.
Robinson without their parents' permission - just a couple of
crazy kids acting as if they were engaging in some act of
rebellion. Thus, at the end, Dustin Hoffman finds himself
right in Mr. Robinson's shoes, right back at the beginning and
ready to repeat the whole business all over again. But Mike, I
appreciate the hopeful sentiment that you place on the ending
and I can see how it would work pedagogically to read the
ending as an open possibility that has the potential for
transformation. 

For whatever reason, pedagogically I tend to try to frustrate
my students by first making them realize the extent to which
they are reproducing what came before (dominated by the
social) so that they can push for more radical liberatory acts
(I should note that I haven't been impressed by my results so
maybe it's time to change the playbook). 

Okay, that's too much. Look forward to hearing others' thoughts.

-greg

p.s. sorry for the long post - it's been accumulating over a
couple of days now.

>Message: 4
>Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 12:09:04 +1100
>From: Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
>Subject: Re: [xmca] Obama's Learn Act
>To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>Message-ID: <4B2D7930.8060404@mira.net>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>Jay, that "critical thinking" has a chance of being a shared 
>aim of education is supported by the fact that the bible 
>bashers now prefer to argue that Natural Selection is an 
>unproven hypothesis, and that Genesis is another equally 
>plausible hypothesis, rather than trying to claim exclusive 
>access to the truth. A lie of course, and a damn annoying 
>one at that, but still a concession to our postmodern, 
>sceptical times. Critical thinking is part of the fine 
>liberal tradition going back to Burke and Locke, about not 
>being sucked into "ideology". Isn't this something Jesus 
>would have supported? :)
>
>andy
>
>Jay Lemke wrote:
>> Tony and all,
>> 
>> Not sure if this post was meant for xmca or not, certainly
the many 
>> references will be of interest.
>> 
>> The closing quote thought included this:
>> 
>> " ... Within our civilization every
>> young man or woman is systematically encouraged to enter
more or less
>> profoundly into a debate about the moral values and
intellectual  assets
>> that determine our order of life."
>> 
>> Even in 1966, when it was published, it seems unlikely to
have been the 
>> case, though maybe it was an ideal for many people. I
certainly don't 
>> remember being "systematically encouraged" to enter that
debate. It was 
>> more like having to crash the party, start the discussion,
or fend off 
>> the disparaging attitudes of all the people who thought it
quite 
>> unnecessary to have such a debate. Even at the University
of Chicago, 
>> where in 1966 there really was an intellectual tradition of
critical 
>> thinking that systematically encouraged it among
undergraduates, I 
>> eventually realized that it was still a foregone conclusion
that at the 
>> end of the debate we would be affirming the Western
tradition, and its 
>> pinnacle, the beliefs, principles, practices and
institutions of the 
>> good old USA -- with room for some small improvements, of
course, so 
>> long as they carried out the same principles.
>> 
>> By 1968 I was wondering if those principles could ever be
enough. By 
>> 1972 I was quite sure they would not be. Today I look back
on them as 
>> hysterically naive. Or maybe just as the best of the 18th
century 
>> hopelessly overwhelmed in the 21st.
>> 
>> Still, I'd be happy if people far more conservative than I
could agree 
>> with me and my ilk that such systematic encouragement ought
to be the 
>> primary goal of education. With that settled we could get
round to 
>> arguing about how to organize the debate in ways that did
not try to 
>> conclusively pre-empt its outcomes.
>> 
>> JAY.
>> 
>> 
>> Jay Lemke
>> Professor (Adjunct, 2009-2010)
>> Educational Studies
>> University of Michigan
>> Ann Arbor, MI 48109
>> www.umich.edu/~jaylemke
>> 
>> Visiting Scholar
>> Laboratory for Comparative Human Communication
>> University of California -- San Diego
>> La Jolla, CA
>> USA 92093
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Dec 19, 2009, at 11:03 AM, Tony Whitson wrote:
>> 
>>> David,
>>>
>>> I'm enclosing some things that might be of interest. I'm
also copying to
>>> Bill since he's more familiar with these than I am (I
expect he was using
>>> these things in classes at LSU before I got there).
>>>
>>> Here are some citations (an Endnote library with these
citations is 
>>> attached
>>> in a zip file. you can probably import from that if you
use other bib
>>> software. I have also included a pdf of the SCIENCE
TEACHING ORIENTATIONS
>>> article -- see top paragraph of p. 221):
>>>
>>> Barr, Robert D., James L. Barth, and S. Samuel Shermis.
Defining the 
>>> Social
>>> Studies, Bulletin - National Council for the Social
Studies, #51. 
>>> Arlington
>>> VA: National Council for the Social Studies, 1977.
>>> ---. The Nature of the Social Studies. Palm Springs, CA: ETC 
>>> Publications,
>>> 1977.
>>>
>>> Flitner, Andreas. "Theories of Adolescence." Paedagogica
Europaea 2, 
>>> (1966):
>>> 226-32.
>>>
>>> Friedrichsen, Patricia Meis, and Thomas M. Dana.
"Substantive-Level 
>>> Theory
>>> of Highly Regarded Secondary Biology Teachers' Science
Teaching
>>> Orientations." Journal of Research in Science Teaching 42,
no. 2 (2005):
>>> 218-44.
>>>
>>> White, Charles S. "A Validation Study of the Barth-Shermis
Social Studies
>>> Preference Scale." Theory and Research in Social Education
10, no. 2 
>>> (1982):
>>> 1-20.
>>>
>>> B, B, & S identified "three traditions" in Social Studies.
White found
>>> teachers' thinking & practice did not line of consistently
with any of 
>>> the
>>> traditions, in particular (this is from memory, I haven't
read the White
>>> piece since it first came out. I thought TRSE was supposed
to be 
>>> available
>>> on the web with a rolling wall for recent volumes; but I
don't see it. 
>>> I'm
>>> sure it's in the LSU library, though. Maybe Bill knows
about Web
>>> availability.)
>>>
>>> I think you're right, descriptively; but I don't come to your 
>>> prescriptive
>>> stance. I would argue for educating for competence in the
respective 
>>> fields
>>> of praxis, which creates a standpoint for critiquing any
of the 
>>> orientations
>>> insofar as they can be shown to fall short of forming
competence in
>>> students. The only valuing that's required for this is the
valuing of
>>> competence. The fact/value dichotomy in general is of course 
>>> positivistic.
>>>
>>> Martin recently posted a quote that I see as an example of
one 
>>> approach for
>>> making the case for competence:
>>>
>>> " static societies assign to young people a definite place
within the 
>>> social
>>> order as it is: young people are given the status of
adults and inherit
>>> their forms of behaviour. This act of taking over may be
brief or 
>>> slightly
>>> longer, but the result is clear. Young people are being
fitted into the
>>> existing system of values and orders and thus become
indistinguishable 
>>> from
>>> adults. On the other hand, it is the distinguishing mark
of our highly
>>> civilized and individualized society that nothing is
simply handed on and
>>> accepted - it must be understood and affirmed. Within our
civilization 
>>> every
>>> young man or woman is systematically encouraged to enter
more or less
>>> profoundly into a debate about the moral values and
intellectual  assets
>>> that determine our order of life. The young woman or man
ought to 
>>> comprehend
>>> this form of life, affirm or deny its value, and thus work
out his [or 
>>> her]
>>> own position in the world. The psychological crisis of
adolescence is
>>> essentially the outcome of this debate."
>>>
>>> (Flitner, 1966, p. 228)
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
[mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
>>> Behalf Of David H Kirshner
>>> Sent: Friday, December 18, 2009 12:15 PM
>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>> Subject: RE: [xmca] Obama's Learn Act
>>>
>>> Michael,
>>>
>>> Finally, a moment to respond, to you, but also to the many
subsequent
>>> posts that have lamented the politically intractable
landscape of
>>> education.
>>>
>>> I'm reminded of the Math Wars (my own home turf) that has
been a scourge
>>> in the U.S. for almost 15 years now. In it, reformers,
rallying around
>>> the Curriculum & Evaluation Standards promulgated by the
National
>>> Council of Teachers of Mathematics, are pitted against
conservatives who
>>> insist on repetitive practice and lecture methods. As
expected,
>>> legislatures that have been drawn into the fray (e.g.,
California) have
>>> tended to side with conservatives. Conservatives, in this
dispute,
>>> number among their members a large and vocal cadre of
prominent
>>> mathematicians (see the 1999 open letter to the U.S.
Secretary of
>>> Education signed by 200 of them denouncing reform curricula:
>>> http://www.mathematicallycorrect.com/nation.htm).
>>>
>>> Reformers have been quick to lament the ideological tenor
of the debate.
>>> But it should be kept in mind that mathematicians are not
your usual
>>> ideologues. Rather in California (the epicenter of the
Math Wars) where
>>> NCTM's Standards were adopted in the early 1990s,
mathematicians only
>>> become involved following widespread anecdotal accounts of
dysfunctional
>>> learning environments spawned in the name of reform curricula.
>>>
>>> I condense my previous points:
>>>
>>> 1. The universe of pedagogical discourse is framed by 3
distinct
>>> metaphorical notions of learning related to acquisition of
skills,
>>> concepts, and dispositions, respectively.*
>>>
>>> 2. These distinct notions of learning also are guiding
intuitions for
>>> the major psychological schools-behavioral/cognitive,
developmental, and
>>> sociocultural, respectively.
>>>
>>> 3. The best possibility for a coherent and accessible
pedagogical theory
>>> parses "good teaching" into 3 separate genres related to
these 3
>>> intuitive notions of learning.
>>>
>>> 4. Such a parsing separates out values issues (what
sort(s) of learning
>>> should we pursue in educational settings) from efficacy
issues (how can
>>> we best support learning).
>>>
>>> 5. Current pedagogical theorizing is not oriented around
genres, but
>>> rather is integrative; the orienting goal is to identify a
single set of
>>> practices that constitutes the practices of good teaching.
>>>
>>> 5i. Good teaching framed in this integrative fashion
obscures reference
>>> back to the grounding metaphorical intuitions about
learning. As result
>>> such theorizing tends to be intellectually intractable.
>>>
>>> 5ii. Any particular version of good teaching framed in
this integrative
>>> fashion reifies certain learning goals over others. This
conflation of
>>> values issues with issues of efficacy makes pedagogical theory
>>> inherently divisive.
>>>
>>> 6. The tendency toward integrative theorizing in education
traces back
>>> to two sociological circumstances: (i) the preparadigmatic
status of
>>> psychology; and (ii) the historic subservience of education to
>>> psychology.
>>>
>>> 6i. As a preparadigmatic science the historical imperative
is to achieve
>>> paradigmatic consensus. Thus each psychological school
works outward
>>> from its primary intuitions about learning to try to
encompass the
>>> broader concerns of the field. The hegemonic agenda for
each is to
>>> present learning as a complex and multifaceted process
that eventually
>>> can become an umbrella for the whole field.
>>>
>>> 6ii. Because education is in a (subservient) partnership with
>>> psychology, educators have come to adopt the
psychologists' aspirational
>>> view of learning as unitary or integrative, thereby
denying what is
>>> plainly obvious: at this historical juncture learning is
diversely
>>> conceived within unreconciled psychological traditions.
Indeed,
>>> education plays out as a surrogate field for psychology's
competitive
>>> ambitions.
>>>
>>> In short, I think we have been less than effective in
influencing
>>> education because what we provide for education is a
discourse that is
>>> both confusing and divisive.
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>> *Michael, my point isn't that philosophical and
ontological analyses of
>>> the sort you referenced aren't important and relevant.
Rather, I see
>>> these as background influences on the psychological
framings of learning
>>> that orient education.
>>>
>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
[mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
>>> On Behalf Of Michael Glassman
>>> Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 10:02 AM
>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>> Subject: RE: [xmca] Obama's Learn Act
>>>
>>> David,
>>>
>>> I think your ideas on the three metaphors are salient in
terms of common
>>> sense, but I also think that what is wrong with the Learn
Act is that it
>>> doesn't really connect up with any of them.
>>>
>>> Near as I can tell (and perhaps somebody can set me
straight here) this
>>> idea that children should learn knowledge in preschool of
basic letters,
>>> numbers, vocabulary so they can be ready to learn
immediately (and if
>>> they are not doing this something is wrong) is a sort of
mash up of
>>> nativism (the idea that humans are programmed to recognize
certain types
>>> of information and once they are exposed to it they will
integrate it
>>> into their thinking), cognitive architectures (the idea
that you should
>>> build specific types of architectures in the brain early
which will
>>> allow children to make connections with new more complex
information
>>> later), the efficacy of direct instruction (see nativist),
and a realist
>>> perspective (that there is specific type of information in
the world
>>> that the child needs to know that will make them more
successful - once
>>> they are able to recognize and process this information
they will be
>>> able to use it to their own and society's advantage). 
Underlying these
>>> assumptions is the idea that the child is basically a
passive learner,
>>> and that once the mind recognizes important information it
will take
>>> over.  I find the arguments confusing and circular, and in
some ways
>>> dangerous (suggesting that there is a specific type of
knowledge that is
>>> valuable and should take precedence, and that this
knowledge can be used
>>> to control nature).  It is also opposite of what early
chilhood
>>> educators such as Friedrich Frobel, Maria Montessori, the
people who
>>> have been working in Piagetian, Deweyan, and Vygotskian
paradigms have
>>> been doing for over a century.  All of that work has
simply been swept
>>> aside for this new - it isn't even a paradigm.  I don't
know what it is.
>>>
>>> I don't think there is any strong logical argument that
can be made for
>>> this position.  And I think there is really no empirical
evidence that
>>> suggests this leads to better learners (unless some great
breakthrough
>>> occurred while I was asleep).  And yet over the last
couple of decades
>>> it seems to have become gospel in some very important circles
>>> (especially in the government).  The only answer I can
think of is that
>>> it fills some social and/or economic need.
>>>
>>> Michael
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of David H
Kirshner
>>> Sent: Mon 12/14/2009 2:26 AM
>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>> Subject: RE: [xmca] Obama's Learn Act
>>>
>>> Michael,
>>>
>>> I think our discourse fails to sway politicians because it
fails to
>>> connect up with our cultural commonsense about learning.
>>>
>>> Broadly speaking I see our cultural commonsense involving
3 main
>>> metaphors of learning corresponding to 3 major kinds of
learning goals
>>> informed by 3 major theoretical thrusts in psychology:
>>>
>>> METAPHOR     LEARNING GOAL    PSYCHOLOGICAL THRUST
>>> Habituation             Skills            Behaviorism/some
cognitive
>>> science
>>> Construction             Concepts         Developmental /
Piagetian
>>> Enculturation            Dispositions      Sociocultural
>>>
>>> The problems arise from the sociological imperative of
psychology to
>>> become a paradigmatic science. Rather than elaborate these
alternative
>>> notions of learning in a way that highlights their
distinct conceptual
>>> foundations, psychologists of all stripes are bent upon
extending
>>> outward from their basic intuition about learning so as to
incorporate
>>> the interests and concerns of the other camps. In this
way, eventually,
>>> one school succeeds in capturing the field and
paradigmatic psychology
>>> is achieved.
>>>
>>> In the meantime, (1) theories of learning become
intractably complex
>>> even as the intuitive underpinning of each psychological
thrust becomes
>>> increasingly opaque, and (2) values decisions about which
form(s) of
>>> learning should be pursued in education become absorbed
into theoretical
>>> discourses about learning.
>>>
>>> The legacy for education is a pedagogical discourse that is
>>> simultaneously confused and conflicted. The real
alternatives that COULD
>>> be framed for pedagogical practice toward diverse goals become
>>> homogenized within a shapeless, integrative discourse.
Sloganeering
>>> substitutes in for intellectual foundation; competing
camps attest to
>>> the strength (i.e., influence) of the psychological
schools whose
>>> theories have inspired the slogans.
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>>
>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
[mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
>>> On Behalf Of Michael Glassman
>>> Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2009 11:05 PM
>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>> Subject: RE: [xmca] Obama's Learn Act
>>>
>>> I really think that this legislation is, among other things,
>>> historically insensitive.  Do people really think, given
our society's
>>> history with assessment tests, that these tests are not
going to be
>>> geared towards middle class values?  Do people really
think that these
>>> tests are not going to be used to label and differentiate
groups?  Do
>>> people really think that these assessments are not going
to be used to
>>> in some way reinforce a deficit model for children who
don't do well on
>>> the tests?  The fact that these tests are being conducted
at such a
>>> young age makes these ideas even more painful.
>>>
>>> These senators Brown and Franken and Murray have their
hearts in the
>>> right place, but our discourse on education in the United
States has
>>> become so convoluted and narrow and so dominated by a faux
realist
>>> perspective (actually an unholy combination of realist and
idealist)
>>> that even legislators who mean well are I think making
thoughtless
>>> mistakes.  It still pains me that Ted Kennedy and George
Miller were
>>> major forces behind NCLB.  There are many reasons for this
I think, not
>>> the least of which is control of public discourse by a
relatively small
>>> group of educators - but just because you are giving money
towards
>>> education initiatives does not mean that you are helping
the cause of
>>> universal education.
>>>
>>> Michael
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of
cconnery@ithaca.edu
>>> Sent: Sun 12/13/2009 10:10 PM
>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>> Subject: RE: [xmca] Obama's Learn Act
>>>
>>> Hi Peg and others:
>>>
>>> Here is the specific language under section 9, e,1,c of
the LEARN Act:
>>>
>>> SEC. 9. SUBGRANTS TO ELIGIBLE ENTITIES IN SUPPORT OF BIRTH
THROUGH
>>> KINDERGARTEN ENTRY LITERACY.
>>>
>>> (e) LOCAL USES OF FUNDS.-
>>> (1) IN GENERAL.-An eligible entity that receives a
subgrant under this
>>> section shall use the subgrant funds consistent with the
plan proposed
>>> in subsection (c) to carry out the following activities:
>>> (C) SCREENING ASSESSMENTS AND MEASURES.-Acquiring,
providing training
>>> for, and implementing screening assessments or other
appropriate
>>> measures to determine whether children from birth through
kindergarten
>>> entry are developing appropriate early language and
literacy skills.
>>>
>>> The question is, "WHO will determine what is appropriate
and HOW will
>>> they assess it?" This goes to the heart of Vygotsky's work.
>>>
>>> Cathrene
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> xmca mailing list
>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>> <SCIENCE TEACHING ORIENTATIONS.pdf><3 
>>> traditions.zip>_______________________________________________
>>> xmca mailing list
>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> xmca mailing list
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>> 
>
>-- 
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy/ +61 3 9380 9435 
>Skype andy.blunden
>Hegel's Logic with a Foreword by Andy Blunden:
>http://www.marxists.org/admin/books/index.htm
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 5
>Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 20:32:15 -0500 (EST)
>From: Tony Whitson <twhitson@UDel.Edu>
>Subject: Re: [xmca] Obama's Learn Act
>To: ablunden@mira.net,	"eXtended Mind, Culture,   Activity"
>	<xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.60L.0912192028500.27428@copland.udel.edu>
>Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
>
>In Texas the State Bd of Ed is making no pretense of
consistency on this, 
>however. Last year for the Science standards they insisted
that students 
>be given a balanced presentation of "both sides" on
evolution, and be 
>encouraged to decide for themselves. This year they're doing
Social 
>Studies, and conservative board members are saying directly
and explicitly 
>that they don't want balanced Social Studies, but instead
social studies 
>that preaches patriotism and free enterprise.
>
>On Sun, 20 Dec 2009, Andy Blunden wrote:
>
>> Jay, that "critical thinking" has a chance of being a
shared aim of education 
>> is supported by the fact that the bible bashers now prefer
to argue that 
>> Natural Selection is an unproven hypothesis, and that
Genesis is another 
>> equally plausible hypothesis, rather than trying to claim
exclusive access to 
>> the truth. A lie of course, and a damn annoying one at
that, but still a 
>> concession to our postmodern, sceptical times. Critical
thinking is part of 
>> the fine liberal tradition going back to Burke and Locke,
about not being 
>> sucked into "ideology". Isn't this something Jesus would
have supported? :)
>>
>> andy
>>
>> Jay Lemke wrote:
>>> Tony and all,
>>> 
>>> Not sure if this post was meant for xmca or not, certainly
the many 
>>> references will be of interest.
>>> 
>>> The closing quote thought included this:
>>> 
>>> " ... Within our civilization every
>>> young man or woman is systematically encouraged to enter
more or less
>>> profoundly into a debate about the moral values and
intellectual  assets
>>> that determine our order of life."
>>> 
>>> Even in 1966, when it was published, it seems unlikely to
have been the 
>>> case, though maybe it was an ideal for many people. I
certainly don't 
>>> remember being "systematically encouraged" to enter that
debate. It was 
>>> more like having to crash the party, start the discussion,
or fend off the 
>>> disparaging attitudes of all the people who thought it
quite unnecessary 
>>> to have such a debate. Even at the University of Chicago,
where in 1966 
>>> there really was an intellectual tradition of critical
thinking that 
>>> systematically encouraged it among undergraduates, I
eventually realized 
>>> that it was still a foregone conclusion that at the end of
the debate we 
>>> would be affirming the Western tradition, and its
pinnacle, the beliefs, 
>>> principles, practices and institutions of the good old USA
-- with room 
>>> for some small improvements, of course, so long as they
carried out the 
>>> same principles.
>>> 
>>> By 1968 I was wondering if those principles could ever be
enough. By 1972 
>>> I was quite sure they would not be. Today I look back on
them as 
>>> hysterically naive. Or maybe just as the best of the 18th
century 
>>> hopelessly overwhelmed in the 21st.
>>> 
>>> Still, I'd be happy if people far more conservative than I
could agree 
>>> with me and my ilk that such systematic encouragement
ought to be the 
>>> primary goal of education. With that settled we could get
round to arguing 
>>> about how to organize the debate in ways that did not try
to conclusively 
>>> pre-empt its outcomes.
>>> 
>>> JAY.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Jay Lemke
>>> Professor (Adjunct, 2009-2010)
>>> Educational Studies
>>> University of Michigan
>>> Ann Arbor, MI 48109
>>> www.umich.edu/~jaylemke
>>> 
>>> Visiting Scholar
>>> Laboratory for Comparative Human Communication
>>> University of California -- San Diego
>>> La Jolla, CA
>>> USA 92093
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Dec 19, 2009, at 11:03 AM, Tony Whitson wrote:
>>> 
>>>> David,
>>>> 
>>>> I'm enclosing some things that might be of interest. I'm
also copying to
>>>> Bill since he's more familiar with these than I am (I
expect he was 
>>>> using
>>>> these things in classes at LSU before I got there).
>>>> 
>>>> Here are some citations (an Endnote library with these
citations is 
>>>> attached
>>>> in a zip file. you can probably import from that if you
use other bib
>>>> software. I have also included a pdf of the SCIENCE TEACHING 
>>>> ORIENTATIONS
>>>> article -- see top paragraph of p. 221):
>>>> 
>>>> Barr, Robert D., James L. Barth, and S. Samuel Shermis.
Defining the 
>>>> Social
>>>> Studies, Bulletin - National Council for the Social
Studies, #51. 
>>>> Arlington
>>>> VA: National Council for the Social Studies, 1977.
>>>> ---. The Nature of the Social Studies. Palm Springs, CA: ETC 
>>>> Publications,
>>>> 1977.
>>>> 
>>>> Flitner, Andreas. "Theories of Adolescence." Paedagogica
Europaea 2, 
>>>> (1966):
>>>> 226-32.
>>>> 
>>>> Friedrichsen, Patricia Meis, and Thomas M. Dana.
"Substantive-Level 
>>>> Theory
>>>> of Highly Regarded Secondary Biology Teachers' Science
Teaching
>>>> Orientations." Journal of Research in Science Teaching
42, no. 2 (2005):
>>>> 218-44.
>>>> 
>>>> White, Charles S. "A Validation Study of the
Barth-Shermis Social 
>>>> Studies
>>>> Preference Scale." Theory and Research in Social
Education 10, no. 2 
>>>> (1982):
>>>> 1-20.
>>>> 
>>>> B, B, & S identified "three traditions" in Social
Studies. White found
>>>> teachers' thinking & practice did not line of
consistently with any of 
>>>> the
>>>> traditions, in particular (this is from memory, I haven't
read the White
>>>> piece since it first came out. I thought TRSE was
supposed to be 
>>>> available
>>>> on the web with a rolling wall for recent volumes; but I
don't see it. 
>>>> I'm
>>>> sure it's in the LSU library, though. Maybe Bill knows
about Web
>>>> availability.)
>>>> 
>>>> I think you're right, descriptively; but I don't come to
your 
>>>> prescriptive
>>>> stance. I would argue for educating for competence in the
respective 
>>>> fields
>>>> of praxis, which creates a standpoint for critiquing any
of the 
>>>> orientations
>>>> insofar as they can be shown to fall short of forming
competence in
>>>> students. The only valuing that's required for this is
the valuing of
>>>> competence. The fact/value dichotomy in general is of course 
>>>> positivistic.
>>>> 
>>>> Martin recently posted a quote that I see as an example
of one approach 
>>>> for
>>>> making the case for competence:
>>>> 
>>>> " static societies assign to young people a definite
place within the 
>>>> social
>>>> order as it is: young people are given the status of
adults and inherit
>>>> their forms of behaviour. This act of taking over may be
brief or 
>>>> slightly
>>>> longer, but the result is clear. Young people are being
fitted into the
>>>> existing system of values and orders and thus become
indistinguishable 
>>>> from
>>>> adults. On the other hand, it is the distinguishing mark
of our highly
>>>> civilized and individualized society that nothing is
simply handed on 
>>>> and
>>>> accepted - it must be understood and affirmed. Within our
civilization 
>>>> every
>>>> young man or woman is systematically encouraged to enter
more or less
>>>> profoundly into a debate about the moral values and
intellectual  assets
>>>> that determine our order of life. The young woman or man
ought to 
>>>> comprehend
>>>> this form of life, affirm or deny its value, and thus
work out his [or 
>>>> her]
>>>> own position in the world. The psychological crisis of
adolescence is
>>>> essentially the outcome of this debate."
>>>> 
>>>> (Flitner, 1966, p. 228)
>>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
[mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] 
>>>> On
>>>> Behalf Of David H Kirshner
>>>> Sent: Friday, December 18, 2009 12:15 PM
>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>> Subject: RE: [xmca] Obama's Learn Act
>>>> 
>>>> Michael,
>>>> 
>>>> Finally, a moment to respond, to you, but also to the
many subsequent
>>>> posts that have lamented the politically intractable
landscape of
>>>> education.
>>>> 
>>>> I'm reminded of the Math Wars (my own home turf) that has
been a scourge
>>>> in the U.S. for almost 15 years now. In it, reformers,
rallying around
>>>> the Curriculum & Evaluation Standards promulgated by the
National
>>>> Council of Teachers of Mathematics, are pitted against
conservatives who
>>>> insist on repetitive practice and lecture methods. As
expected,
>>>> legislatures that have been drawn into the fray (e.g.,
California) have
>>>> tended to side with conservatives. Conservatives, in this
dispute,
>>>> number among their members a large and vocal cadre of
prominent
>>>> mathematicians (see the 1999 open letter to the U.S.
Secretary of
>>>> Education signed by 200 of them denouncing reform curricula:
>>>> http://www.mathematicallycorrect.com/nation.htm).
>>>> 
>>>> Reformers have been quick to lament the ideological tenor
of the debate.
>>>> But it should be kept in mind that mathematicians are not
your usual
>>>> ideologues. Rather in California (the epicenter of the
Math Wars) where
>>>> NCTM's Standards were adopted in the early 1990s,
mathematicians only
>>>> become involved following widespread anecdotal accounts
of dysfunctional
>>>> learning environments spawned in the name of reform
curricula.
>>>> 
>>>> I condense my previous points:
>>>> 
>>>> 1. The universe of pedagogical discourse is framed by 3
distinct
>>>> metaphorical notions of learning related to acquisition
of skills,
>>>> concepts, and dispositions, respectively.*
>>>> 
>>>> 2. These distinct notions of learning also are guiding
intuitions for
>>>> the major psychological schools-behavioral/cognitive,
developmental, and
>>>> sociocultural, respectively.
>>>> 
>>>> 3. The best possibility for a coherent and accessible
pedagogical theory
>>>> parses "good teaching" into 3 separate genres related to
these 3
>>>> intuitive notions of learning.
>>>> 
>>>> 4. Such a parsing separates out values issues (what
sort(s) of learning
>>>> should we pursue in educational settings) from efficacy
issues (how can
>>>> we best support learning).
>>>> 
>>>> 5. Current pedagogical theorizing is not oriented around
genres, but
>>>> rather is integrative; the orienting goal is to identify
a single set of
>>>> practices that constitutes the practices of good teaching.
>>>> 
>>>> 5i. Good teaching framed in this integrative fashion
obscures reference
>>>> back to the grounding metaphorical intuitions about
learning. As result
>>>> such theorizing tends to be intellectually intractable.
>>>> 
>>>> 5ii. Any particular version of good teaching framed in
this integrative
>>>> fashion reifies certain learning goals over others. This
conflation of
>>>> values issues with issues of efficacy makes pedagogical
theory
>>>> inherently divisive.
>>>> 
>>>> 6. The tendency toward integrative theorizing in
education traces back
>>>> to two sociological circumstances: (i) the
preparadigmatic status of
>>>> psychology; and (ii) the historic subservience of
education to
>>>> psychology.
>>>> 
>>>> 6i. As a preparadigmatic science the historical
imperative is to achieve
>>>> paradigmatic consensus. Thus each psychological school
works outward
>>>> from its primary intuitions about learning to try to
encompass the
>>>> broader concerns of the field. The hegemonic agenda for
each is to
>>>> present learning as a complex and multifaceted process
that eventually
>>>> can become an umbrella for the whole field.
>>>> 
>>>> 6ii. Because education is in a (subservient) partnership with
>>>> psychology, educators have come to adopt the
psychologists' aspirational
>>>> view of learning as unitary or integrative, thereby
denying what is
>>>> plainly obvious: at this historical juncture learning is
diversely
>>>> conceived within unreconciled psychological traditions.
Indeed,
>>>> education plays out as a surrogate field for psychology's
competitive
>>>> ambitions.
>>>> 
>>>> In short, I think we have been less than effective in
influencing
>>>> education because what we provide for education is a
discourse that is
>>>> both confusing and divisive.
>>>> 
>>>> David
>>>> 
>>>> *Michael, my point isn't that philosophical and
ontological analyses of
>>>> the sort you referenced aren't important and relevant.
Rather, I see
>>>> these as background influences on the psychological
framings of learning
>>>> that orient education.
>>>> 
>>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
[mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
>>>> On Behalf Of Michael Glassman
>>>> Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 10:02 AM
>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>> Subject: RE: [xmca] Obama's Learn Act
>>>> 
>>>> David,
>>>> 
>>>> I think your ideas on the three metaphors are salient in
terms of common
>>>> sense, but I also think that what is wrong with the Learn
Act is that it
>>>> doesn't really connect up with any of them.
>>>> 
>>>> Near as I can tell (and perhaps somebody can set me
straight here) this
>>>> idea that children should learn knowledge in preschool of
basic letters,
>>>> numbers, vocabulary so they can be ready to learn
immediately (and if
>>>> they are not doing this something is wrong) is a sort of
mash up of
>>>> nativism (the idea that humans are programmed to
recognize certain types
>>>> of information and once they are exposed to it they will
integrate it
>>>> into their thinking), cognitive architectures (the idea
that you should
>>>> build specific types of architectures in the brain early
which will
>>>> allow children to make connections with new more complex
information
>>>> later), the efficacy of direct instruction (see
nativist), and a realist
>>>> perspective (that there is specific type of information
in the world
>>>> that the child needs to know that will make them more
successful - once
>>>> they are able to recognize and process this information
they will be
>>>> able to use it to their own and society's advantage). 
Underlying these
>>>> assumptions is the idea that the child is basically a
passive learner,
>>>> and that once the mind recognizes important information
it will take
>>>> over.  I find the arguments confusing and circular, and
in some ways
>>>> dangerous (suggesting that there is a specific type of
knowledge that is
>>>> valuable and should take precedence, and that this
knowledge can be used
>>>> to control nature).  It is also opposite of what early
chilhood
>>>> educators such as Friedrich Frobel, Maria Montessori, the
people who
>>>> have been working in Piagetian, Deweyan, and Vygotskian
paradigms have
>>>> been doing for over a century.  All of that work has
simply been swept
>>>> aside for this new - it isn't even a paradigm.  I don't
know what it is.
>>>> 
>>>> I don't think there is any strong logical argument that
can be made for
>>>> this position.  And I think there is really no empirical
evidence that
>>>> suggests this leads to better learners (unless some great
breakthrough
>>>> occurred while I was asleep).  And yet over the last
couple of decades
>>>> it seems to have become gospel in some very important circles
>>>> (especially in the government).  The only answer I can
think of is that
>>>> it fills some social and/or economic need.
>>>> 
>>>> Michael
>>>> 
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> 
>>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of David H
Kirshner
>>>> Sent: Mon 12/14/2009 2:26 AM
>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>> Subject: RE: [xmca] Obama's Learn Act
>>>> 
>>>> Michael,
>>>> 
>>>> I think our discourse fails to sway politicians because
it fails to
>>>> connect up with our cultural commonsense about learning.
>>>> 
>>>> Broadly speaking I see our cultural commonsense involving
3 main
>>>> metaphors of learning corresponding to 3 major kinds of
learning goals
>>>> informed by 3 major theoretical thrusts in psychology:
>>>> 
>>>> METAPHOR     LEARNING GOAL    PSYCHOLOGICAL THRUST
>>>> Habituation             Skills           
Behaviorism/some cognitive
>>>> science
>>>> Construction             Concepts         Developmental /
Piagetian
>>>> Enculturation            Dispositions      Sociocultural
>>>> 
>>>> The problems arise from the sociological imperative of
psychology to
>>>> become a paradigmatic science. Rather than elaborate
these alternative
>>>> notions of learning in a way that highlights their
distinct conceptual
>>>> foundations, psychologists of all stripes are bent upon
extending
>>>> outward from their basic intuition about learning so as
to incorporate
>>>> the interests and concerns of the other camps. In this
way, eventually,
>>>> one school succeeds in capturing the field and
paradigmatic psychology
>>>> is achieved.
>>>> 
>>>> In the meantime, (1) theories of learning become
intractably complex
>>>> even as the intuitive underpinning of each psychological
thrust becomes
>>>> increasingly opaque, and (2) values decisions about which
form(s) of
>>>> learning should be pursued in education become absorbed
into theoretical
>>>> discourses about learning.
>>>> 
>>>> The legacy for education is a pedagogical discourse that is
>>>> simultaneously confused and conflicted. The real
alternatives that COULD
>>>> be framed for pedagogical practice toward diverse goals
become
>>>> homogenized within a shapeless, integrative discourse.
Sloganeering
>>>> substitutes in for intellectual foundation; competing
camps attest to
>>>> the strength (i.e., influence) of the psychological
schools whose
>>>> theories have inspired the slogans.
>>>> 
>>>> David
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
[mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
>>>> On Behalf Of Michael Glassman
>>>> Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2009 11:05 PM
>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>> Subject: RE: [xmca] Obama's Learn Act
>>>> 
>>>> I really think that this legislation is, among other things,
>>>> historically insensitive.  Do people really think, given
our society's
>>>> history with assessment tests, that these tests are not
going to be
>>>> geared towards middle class values?  Do people really
think that these
>>>> tests are not going to be used to label and differentiate
groups?  Do
>>>> people really think that these assessments are not going
to be used to
>>>> in some way reinforce a deficit model for children who
don't do well on
>>>> the tests?  The fact that these tests are being conducted
at such a
>>>> young age makes these ideas even more painful.
>>>> 
>>>> These senators Brown and Franken and Murray have their
hearts in the
>>>> right place, but our discourse on education in the United
States has
>>>> become so convoluted and narrow and so dominated by a
faux realist
>>>> perspective (actually an unholy combination of realist
and idealist)
>>>> that even legislators who mean well are I think making
thoughtless
>>>> mistakes.  It still pains me that Ted Kennedy and George
Miller were
>>>> major forces behind NCLB.  There are many reasons for
this I think, not
>>>> the least of which is control of public discourse by a
relatively small
>>>> group of educators - but just because you are giving
money towards
>>>> education initiatives does not mean that you are helping
the cause of
>>>> universal education.
>>>> 
>>>> Michael
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> 
>>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of
cconnery@ithaca.edu
>>>> Sent: Sun 12/13/2009 10:10 PM
>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>> Subject: RE: [xmca] Obama's Learn Act
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Peg and others:
>>>> 
>>>> Here is the specific language under section 9, e,1,c of
the LEARN Act:
>>>> 
>>>> SEC. 9. SUBGRANTS TO ELIGIBLE ENTITIES IN SUPPORT OF
BIRTH THROUGH
>>>> KINDERGARTEN ENTRY LITERACY.
>>>> 
>>>> (e) LOCAL USES OF FUNDS.-
>>>> (1) IN GENERAL.-An eligible entity that receives a
subgrant under this
>>>> section shall use the subgrant funds consistent with the
plan proposed
>>>> in subsection (c) to carry out the following activities:
>>>> (C) SCREENING ASSESSMENTS AND MEASURES.-Acquiring,
providing training
>>>> for, and implementing screening assessments or other
appropriate
>>>> measures to determine whether children from birth through
kindergarten
>>>> entry are developing appropriate early language and
literacy skills.
>>>> 
>>>> The question is, "WHO will determine what is appropriate
and HOW will
>>>> they assess it?" This goes to the heart of Vygotsky's work.
>>>> 
>>>> Cathrene
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>> <SCIENCE TEACHING ORIENTATIONS.pdf><3 
>>>>
traditions.zip>_______________________________________________
>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> xmca mailing list
>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>> 
>>
>> -- 
>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy/ +61 3 9380 9435
Skype andy.blunden
>> Hegel's Logic with a Foreword by Andy Blunden:
>> http://www.marxists.org/admin/books/index.htm
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> xmca mailing list
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>
>
>Tony Whitson
>UD School of Education
>NEWARK  DE  19716
>
>twhitson@udel.edu
>_______________________________
>
>"those who fail to reread
>  are obliged to read the same story everywhere"
>                   -- Roland Barthes, S/Z (1970)
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 6
>Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 09:26:57 -0500
>From: Cristiane Castelani Howard <castelanicristiane@gmail.com>
>Subject: [xmca] unsubscribe me from the list
>To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>Message-ID:
>	<ad3d5ec50912200626o200320cdxc2eaf6b8f01b8022@mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
>Please unsubscribe from the list xmca.
>Thank you
>
>
>-- 
>Cristiane Castelani Howard
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 7
>Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 07:06:42 -0800
>From: mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: [xmca] unsubscribe me from the list
>To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>Message-ID:
>	<30364f990912200706o111eb142sf64cd38f2e17cec9@mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
>Cristiane et al-
>
>Concerning the message below about unsubscribing:
>
>At http://communication.ucsd.edu/MCA/Mail/index.html -- the
very place where
>you signed ON to xmca, there is the following notice which
got you into this
>word flow in the first place:
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe to the XMCA Mailing List send
email to
>bjones <at> ucsd <dot> edu
>
>This procedure is used to avoid the email list from being
filled with spam.
>It works because Bruce works.
>
>Happy Holiday Season
>mike
>
>On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 6:26 AM, Cristiane Castelani Howard <
>castelanicristiane@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Please unsubscribe from the list xmca.
>> Thank you
>>
>>
>> --
>> Cristiane Castelani Howard
>> _______________________________________________
>> xmca mailing list
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 8
>Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 07:17:25 -0800
>From: mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: [xmca] Obama's Learn Act
>To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>Message-ID:
>	<30364f990912200717m7ed4c020l9005293e322dadf0@mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
>David--- Wouldn't Transmission be the first metaphor of your
three
>(the other two being construction and enculturation?).
>
>Jay, Tony, et al.  At the end of the senior seminar i teach
the students
>watch "The Graduate." Its a little dated -- why is Benjamin
so passive? But
>he and Elaine, the two young "pro" tagaonists are very
certainly not
>encouraged to enter the moral order into which they are being
inducted,
>willy nilly. A very unattractive representation of the
"California Dream" of
>consumption and infidelity. Plastics. Their reaction is
silent surface
>compliance, and
>after the fact breaking away, they know not toward what.
>
>Seems normative enough to me. Reading *The Joy Luck Club*
where the parents
>want to induct, but the kids want to be Americans, is not all
that
>different.
>
>Off to today's real life.
>mike
>
>On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Tony Whitson
<twhitson@udel.edu> wrote:
>
>> In Texas the State Bd of Ed is making no pretense of
consistency on this,
>> however. Last year for the Science standards they insisted
that students be
>> given a balanced presentation of "both sides" on evolution,
and be
>> encouraged to decide for themselves. This year they're
doing Social Studies,
>> and conservative board members are saying directly and
explicitly that they
>> don't want balanced Social Studies, but instead social
studies that preaches
>> patriotism and free enterprise.
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009, Andy Blunden wrote:
>>
>>  Jay, that "critical thinking" has a chance of being a
shared aim of
>>> education is supported by the fact that the bible bashers
now prefer to
>>> argue that Natural Selection is an unproven hypothesis,
and that Genesis is
>>> another equally plausible hypothesis, rather than trying
to claim exclusive
>>> access to the truth. A lie of course, and a damn annoying
one at that, but
>>> still a concession to our postmodern, sceptical times.
Critical thinking is
>>> part of the fine liberal tradition going back to Burke and
Locke, about not
>>> being sucked into "ideology". Isn't this something Jesus
would have
>>> supported? :)
>>>
>>> andy
>>>
>>> Jay Lemke wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tony and all,
>>>>
>>>> Not sure if this post was meant for xmca or not,
certainly the many
>>>> references will be of interest.
>>>>
>>>> The closing quote thought included this:
>>>>
>>>> " ... Within our civilization every
>>>> young man or woman is systematically encouraged to enter
more or less
>>>> profoundly into a debate about the moral values and
intellectual  assets
>>>> that determine our order of life."
>>>>
>>>> Even in 1966, when it was published, it seems unlikely to
have been the
>>>> case, though maybe it was an ideal for many people. I
certainly don't
>>>> remember being "systematically encouraged" to enter that
debate. It was more
>>>> like having to crash the party, start the discussion, or
fend off the
>>>> disparaging attitudes of all the people who thought it
quite unnecessary to
>>>> have such a debate. Even at the University of Chicago,
where in 1966 there
>>>> really was an intellectual tradition of critical thinking
that
>>>> systematically encouraged it among undergraduates, I
eventually realized
>>>> that it was still a foregone conclusion that at the end
of the debate we
>>>> would be affirming the Western tradition, and its
pinnacle, the beliefs,
>>>> principles, practices and institutions of the good old
USA -- with room for
>>>> some small improvements, of course, so long as they
carried out the same
>>>> principles.
>>>>
>>>> By 1968 I was wondering if those principles could ever be
enough. By 1972
>>>> I was quite sure they would not be. Today I look back on
them as
>>>> hysterically naive. Or maybe just as the best of the 18th
century hopelessly
>>>> overwhelmed in the 21st.
>>>>
>>>> Still, I'd be happy if people far more conservative than
I could agree
>>>> with me and my ilk that such systematic encouragement
ought to be the
>>>> primary goal of education. With that settled we could get
round to arguing
>>>> about how to organize the debate in ways that did not try
to conclusively
>>>> pre-empt its outcomes.
>>>>
>>>> JAY.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jay Lemke
>>>> Professor (Adjunct, 2009-2010)
>>>> Educational Studies
>>>> University of Michigan
>>>> Ann Arbor, MI 48109
>>>> www.umich.edu/~jaylemke <http://www.umich.edu/%7Ejaylemke>
>>>>
>>>> Visiting Scholar
>>>> Laboratory for Comparative Human Communication
>>>> University of California -- San Diego
>>>> La Jolla, CA
>>>> USA 92093
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Dec 19, 2009, at 11:03 AM, Tony Whitson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  David,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm enclosing some things that might be of interest. I'm
also copying to
>>>>> Bill since he's more familiar with these than I am (I
expect he was
>>>>> using
>>>>> these things in classes at LSU before I got there).
>>>>>
>>>>> Here are some citations (an Endnote library with these
citations is
>>>>> attached
>>>>> in a zip file. you can probably import from that if you
use other bib
>>>>> software. I have also included a pdf of the SCIENCE TEACHING
>>>>> ORIENTATIONS
>>>>> article -- see top paragraph of p. 221):
>>>>>
>>>>> Barr, Robert D., James L. Barth, and S. Samuel Shermis.
Defining the
>>>>> Social
>>>>> Studies, Bulletin - National Council for the Social
Studies, #51.
>>>>> Arlington
>>>>> VA: National Council for the Social Studies, 1977.
>>>>> ---. The Nature of the Social Studies. Palm Springs, CA: ETC
>>>>> Publications,
>>>>> 1977.
>>>>>
>>>>> Flitner, Andreas. "Theories of Adolescence." Paedagogica
Europaea 2,
>>>>> (1966):
>>>>> 226-32.
>>>>>
>>>>> Friedrichsen, Patricia Meis, and Thomas M. Dana.
"Substantive-Level
>>>>> Theory
>>>>> of Highly Regarded Secondary Biology Teachers' Science
Teaching
>>>>> Orientations." Journal of Research in Science Teaching
42, no. 2 (2005):
>>>>> 218-44.
>>>>>
>>>>> White, Charles S. "A Validation Study of the
Barth-Shermis Social
>>>>> Studies
>>>>> Preference Scale." Theory and Research in Social
Education 10, no. 2
>>>>> (1982):
>>>>> 1-20.
>>>>>
>>>>> B, B, & S identified "three traditions" in Social
Studies. White found
>>>>> teachers' thinking & practice did not line of
consistently with any of
>>>>> the
>>>>> traditions, in particular (this is from memory, I
haven't read the White
>>>>> piece since it first came out. I thought TRSE was
supposed to be
>>>>> available
>>>>> on the web with a rolling wall for recent volumes; but I
don't see it.
>>>>> I'm
>>>>> sure it's in the LSU library, though. Maybe Bill knows
about Web
>>>>> availability.)
>>>>>
>>>>> I think you're right, descriptively; but I don't come to
your
>>>>> prescriptive
>>>>> stance. I would argue for educating for competence in
the respective
>>>>> fields
>>>>> of praxis, which creates a standpoint for critiquing any
of the
>>>>> orientations
>>>>> insofar as they can be shown to fall short of forming
competence in
>>>>> students. The only valuing that's required for this is
the valuing of
>>>>> competence. The fact/value dichotomy in general is of course
>>>>> positivistic.
>>>>>
>>>>> Martin recently posted a quote that I see as an example
of one approach
>>>>> for
>>>>> making the case for competence:
>>>>>
>>>>> " static societies assign to young people a definite
place within the
>>>>> social
>>>>> order as it is: young people are given the status of
adults and inherit
>>>>> their forms of behaviour. This act of taking over may be
brief or
>>>>> slightly
>>>>> longer, but the result is clear. Young people are being
fitted into the
>>>>> existing system of values and orders and thus become
indistinguishable
>>>>> from
>>>>> adults. On the other hand, it is the distinguishing mark
of our highly
>>>>> civilized and individualized society that nothing is
simply handed on
>>>>> and
>>>>> accepted - it must be understood and affirmed. Within
our civilization
>>>>> every
>>>>> young man or woman is systematically encouraged to enter
more or less
>>>>> profoundly into a debate about the moral values and
intellectual  assets
>>>>> that determine our order of life. The young woman or man
ought to
>>>>> comprehend
>>>>> this form of life, affirm or deny its value, and thus
work out his [or
>>>>> her]
>>>>> own position in the world. The psychological crisis of
adolescence is
>>>>> essentially the outcome of this debate."
>>>>>
>>>>> (Flitner, 1966, p. 228)
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
[mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
>>>>> On
>>>>> Behalf Of David H Kirshner
>>>>> Sent: Friday, December 18, 2009 12:15 PM
>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>> Subject: RE: [xmca] Obama's Learn Act
>>>>>
>>>>> Michael,
>>>>>
>>>>> Finally, a moment to respond, to you, but also to the
many subsequent
>>>>> posts that have lamented the politically intractable
landscape of
>>>>> education.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm reminded of the Math Wars (my own home turf) that
has been a scourge
>>>>> in the U.S. for almost 15 years now. In it, reformers,
rallying around
>>>>> the Curriculum & Evaluation Standards promulgated by the
National
>>>>> Council of Teachers of Mathematics, are pitted against
conservatives who
>>>>> insist on repetitive practice and lecture methods. As
expected,
>>>>> legislatures that have been drawn into the fray (e.g.,
California) have
>>>>> tended to side with conservatives. Conservatives, in
this dispute,
>>>>> number among their members a large and vocal cadre of
prominent
>>>>> mathematicians (see the 1999 open letter to the U.S.
Secretary of
>>>>> Education signed by 200 of them denouncing reform curricula:
>>>>> http://www.mathematicallycorrect.com/nation.htm).
>>>>>
>>>>> Reformers have been quick to lament the ideological
tenor of the debate.
>>>>> But it should be kept in mind that mathematicians are
not your usual
>>>>> ideologues. Rather in California (the epicenter of the
Math Wars) where
>>>>> NCTM's Standards were adopted in the early 1990s,
mathematicians only
>>>>> become involved following widespread anecdotal accounts
of dysfunctional
>>>>> learning environments spawned in the name of reform
curricula.
>>>>>
>>>>> I condense my previous points:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. The universe of pedagogical discourse is framed by 3
distinct
>>>>> metaphorical notions of learning related to acquisition
of skills,
>>>>> concepts, and dispositions, respectively.*
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. These distinct notions of learning also are guiding
intuitions for
>>>>> the major psychological schools-behavioral/cognitive,
developmental, and
>>>>> sociocultural, respectively.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. The best possibility for a coherent and accessible
pedagogical theory
>>>>> parses "good teaching" into 3 separate genres related to
these 3
>>>>> intuitive notions of learning.
>>>>>
>>>>> 4. Such a parsing separates out values issues (what
sort(s) of learning
>>>>> should we pursue in educational settings) from efficacy
issues (how can
>>>>> we best support learning).
>>>>>
>>>>> 5. Current pedagogical theorizing is not oriented around
genres, but
>>>>> rather is integrative; the orienting goal is to identify
a single set of
>>>>> practices that constitutes the practices of good teaching.
>>>>>
>>>>> 5i. Good teaching framed in this integrative fashion
obscures reference
>>>>> back to the grounding metaphorical intuitions about
learning. As result
>>>>> such theorizing tends to be intellectually intractable.
>>>>>
>>>>> 5ii. Any particular version of good teaching framed in
this integrative
>>>>> fashion reifies certain learning goals over others. This
conflation of
>>>>> values issues with issues of efficacy makes pedagogical
theory
>>>>> inherently divisive.
>>>>>
>>>>> 6. The tendency toward integrative theorizing in
education traces back
>>>>> to two sociological circumstances: (i) the
preparadigmatic status of
>>>>> psychology; and (ii) the historic subservience of
education to
>>>>> psychology.
>>>>>
>>>>> 6i. As a preparadigmatic science the historical
imperative is to achieve
>>>>> paradigmatic consensus. Thus each psychological school
works outward
>>>>> from its primary intuitions about learning to try to
encompass the
>>>>> broader concerns of the field. The hegemonic agenda for
each is to
>>>>> present learning as a complex and multifaceted process
that eventually
>>>>> can become an umbrella for the whole field.
>>>>>
>>>>> 6ii. Because education is in a (subservient) partnership
with
>>>>> psychology, educators have come to adopt the
psychologists' aspirational
>>>>> view of learning as unitary or integrative, thereby
denying what is
>>>>> plainly obvious: at this historical juncture learning is
diversely
>>>>> conceived within unreconciled psychological traditions.
Indeed,
>>>>> education plays out as a surrogate field for
psychology's competitive
>>>>> ambitions.
>>>>>
>>>>> In short, I think we have been less than effective in
influencing
>>>>> education because what we provide for education is a
discourse that is
>>>>> both confusing and divisive.
>>>>>
>>>>> David
>>>>>
>>>>> *Michael, my point isn't that philosophical and
ontological analyses of
>>>>> the sort you referenced aren't important and relevant.
Rather, I see
>>>>> these as background influences on the psychological
framings of learning
>>>>> that orient education.
>>>>>
>>>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
[mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
>>>>> On Behalf Of Michael Glassman
>>>>> Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 10:02 AM
>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>> Subject: RE: [xmca] Obama's Learn Act
>>>>>
>>>>> David,
>>>>>
>>>>> I think your ideas on the three metaphors are salient in
terms of common
>>>>> sense, but I also think that what is wrong with the
Learn Act is that it
>>>>> doesn't really connect up with any of them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Near as I can tell (and perhaps somebody can set me
straight here) this
>>>>> idea that children should learn knowledge in preschool
of basic letters,
>>>>> numbers, vocabulary so they can be ready to learn
immediately (and if
>>>>> they are not doing this something is wrong) is a sort of
mash up of
>>>>> nativism (the idea that humans are programmed to
recognize certain types
>>>>> of information and once they are exposed to it they will
integrate it
>>>>> into their thinking), cognitive architectures (the idea
that you should
>>>>> build specific types of architectures in the brain early
which will
>>>>> allow children to make connections with new more complex
information
>>>>> later), the efficacy of direct instruction (see
nativist), and a realist
>>>>> perspective (that there is specific type of information
in the world
>>>>> that the child needs to know that will make them more
successful - once
>>>>> they are able to recognize and process this information
they will be
>>>>> able to use it to their own and society's advantage). 
Underlying these
>>>>> assumptions is the idea that the child is basically a
passive learner,
>>>>> and that once the mind recognizes important information
it will take
>>>>> over.  I find the arguments confusing and circular, and
in some ways
>>>>> dangerous (suggesting that there is a specific type of
knowledge that is
>>>>> valuable and should take precedence, and that this
knowledge can be used
>>>>> to control nature).  It is also opposite of what early
chilhood
>>>>> educators such as Friedrich Frobel, Maria Montessori,
the people who
>>>>> have been working in Piagetian, Deweyan, and Vygotskian
paradigms have
>>>>> been doing for over a century.  All of that work has
simply been swept
>>>>> aside for this new - it isn't even a paradigm.  I don't
know what it is.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think there is any strong logical argument that
can be made for
>>>>> this position.  And I think there is really no empirical
evidence that
>>>>> suggests this leads to better learners (unless some
great breakthrough
>>>>> occurred while I was asleep).  And yet over the last
couple of decades
>>>>> it seems to have become gospel in some very important
circles
>>>>> (especially in the government).  The only answer I can
think of is that
>>>>> it fills some social and/or economic need.
>>>>>
>>>>> Michael
>>>>>
>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of David H
Kirshner
>>>>> Sent: Mon 12/14/2009 2:26 AM
>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>> Subject: RE: [xmca] Obama's Learn Act
>>>>>
>>>>> Michael,
>>>>>
>>>>> I think our discourse fails to sway politicians because
it fails to
>>>>> connect up with our cultural commonsense about learning.
>>>>>
>>>>> Broadly speaking I see our cultural commonsense
involving 3 main
>>>>> metaphors of learning corresponding to 3 major kinds of
learning goals
>>>>> informed by 3 major theoretical thrusts in psychology:
>>>>>
>>>>> METAPHOR     LEARNING GOAL    PSYCHOLOGICAL THRUST
>>>>> Habituation             Skills           
Behaviorism/some cognitive
>>>>> science
>>>>> Construction             Concepts         Developmental
/ Piagetian
>>>>> Enculturation            Dispositions      Sociocultural
>>>>>
>>>>> The problems arise from the sociological imperative of
psychology to
>>>>> become a paradigmatic science. Rather than elaborate
these alternative
>>>>> notions of learning in a way that highlights their
distinct conceptual
>>>>> foundations, psychologists of all stripes are bent upon
extending
>>>>> outward from their basic intuition about learning so as
to incorporate
>>>>> the interests and concerns of the other camps. In this
way, eventually,
>>>>> one school succeeds in capturing the field and
paradigmatic psychology
>>>>> is achieved.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the meantime, (1) theories of learning become
intractably complex
>>>>> even as the intuitive underpinning of each psychological
thrust becomes
>>>>> increasingly opaque, and (2) values decisions about
which form(s) of
>>>>> learning should be pursued in education become absorbed
into theoretical
>>>>> discourses about learning.
>>>>>
>>>>> The legacy for education is a pedagogical discourse that is
>>>>> simultaneously confused and conflicted. The real
alternatives that COULD
>>>>> be framed for pedagogical practice toward diverse goals
become
>>>>> homogenized within a shapeless, integrative discourse.
Sloganeering
>>>>> substitutes in for intellectual foundation; competing
camps attest to
>>>>> the strength (i.e., influence) of the psychological
schools whose
>>>>> theories have inspired the slogans.
>>>>>
>>>>> David
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
[mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
>>>>> On Behalf Of Michael Glassman
>>>>> Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2009 11:05 PM
>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>> Subject: RE: [xmca] Obama's Learn Act
>>>>>
>>>>> I really think that this legislation is, among other things,
>>>>> historically insensitive.  Do people really think, given
our society's
>>>>> history with assessment tests, that these tests are not
going to be
>>>>> geared towards middle class values?  Do people really
think that these
>>>>> tests are not going to be used to label and
differentiate groups?  Do
>>>>> people really think that these assessments are not going
to be used to
>>>>> in some way reinforce a deficit model for children who
don't do well on
>>>>> the tests?  The fact that these tests are being
conducted at such a
>>>>> young age makes these ideas even more painful.
>>>>>
>>>>> These senators Brown and Franken and Murray have their
hearts in the
>>>>> right place, but our discourse on education in the
United States has
>>>>> become so convoluted and narrow and so dominated by a
faux realist
>>>>> perspective (actually an unholy combination of realist
and idealist)
>>>>> that even legislators who mean well are I think making
thoughtless
>>>>> mistakes.  It still pains me that Ted Kennedy and George
Miller were
>>>>> major forces behind NCLB.  There are many reasons for
this I think, not
>>>>> the least of which is control of public discourse by a
relatively small
>>>>> group of educators - but just because you are giving
money towards
>>>>> education initiatives does not mean that you are helping
the cause of
>>>>> universal education.
>>>>>
>>>>> Michael
>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of
cconnery@ithaca.edu
>>>>> Sent: Sun 12/13/2009 10:10 PM
>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>> Subject: RE: [xmca] Obama's Learn Act
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Peg and others:
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is the specific language under section 9, e,1,c of
the LEARN Act:
>>>>>
>>>>> SEC. 9. SUBGRANTS TO ELIGIBLE ENTITIES IN SUPPORT OF
BIRTH THROUGH
>>>>> KINDERGARTEN ENTRY LITERACY.
>>>>>
>>>>> (e) LOCAL USES OF FUNDS.-
>>>>> (1) IN GENERAL.-An eligible entity that receives a
subgrant under this
>>>>> section shall use the subgrant funds consistent with the
plan proposed
>>>>> in subsection (c) to carry out the following activities:
>>>>> (C) SCREENING ASSESSMENTS AND MEASURES.-Acquiring,
providing training
>>>>> for, and implementing screening assessments or other
appropriate
>>>>> measures to determine whether children from birth
through kindergarten
>>>>> entry are developing appropriate early language and
literacy skills.
>>>>>
>>>>> The question is, "WHO will determine what is appropriate
and HOW will
>>>>> they assess it?" This goes to the heart of Vygotsky's work.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cathrene
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>> <SCIENCE TEACHING ORIENTATIONS.pdf><3
>>>>>
traditions.zip>_______________________________________________
>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>
>>>>
>>> --
>>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy/
<http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>+61 3 9380 9435 Skype andy.blunden
>>> Hegel's Logic with a Foreword by Andy Blunden:
>>> http://www.marxists.org/admin/books/index.htm
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> xmca mailing list
>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>
>>>
>> Tony Whitson
>> UD School of Education
>> NEWARK  DE  19716
>>
>> twhitson@udel.edu
>> _______________________________
>>
>> "those who fail to reread
>>  are obliged to read the same story everywhere"
>>                  -- Roland Barthes, S/Z (1970)
>> _______________________________________________
>> xmca mailing list
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 9
>Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 07:44:56 -0800
>From: Larry Purss <lpurss@shaw.ca>
>Subject: Re: [xmca] Fwd: FW: Alliance for Childhood Update
>To: lchcmike@gmail.com
>Cc: "Activity eXtended Mind, Culture," <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>Message-ID: <cf60dccc14adf.4b2dd5f8@shaw.ca>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
>
>Mike
>Thanks for the reference to the article on primal
socialbility.  I'll see if my Vancouver School website
database has access to that journal.  I appreciate all the
leads offered on this topic. 
> 
>Mike I absolutely agree the topic of moral certitude and how
it ruthlessly obliterates competing narratives as a result of
particular social historical circumstances that have people
searching for certainty is  political and calls for political
action.  I also agree  it is absolutely daunting to know how
to proceed and is exhausting and demoralizing in the face of
reactionary juggernauts. 
> 
>A writer who I've enjoyed reading over the years is Robert
Nisbet a sociologist who enjoys history.  He wrote a book
called the "Quest for Community" and many others on the
foundations of the emergence of sociology as a discipline. 
His central thesis is that modernity has collapsed
"intermediate communities" and that the dominance of 
Cartesian individualism and the emergence of the State are
aspects of a single process of the loss of intermediate forms
of allegiance.  It seems the narrative that each individual in
modernity has to become reflective and develop critical
reflective functions and make their own choices of allegiance
may put too much faith on active will and individualistic
agency.  It seems to me that narratives of moral certitude are
supported by vibrant passionate forms of intermediate
community (ie churches, gun clubs, membership in elite golf
clubs, etc. which supports them in building an enduring
allegiance to their particular version of moral certitude. 
>  Their are also as strident voices of moral certitude on the
left.
>The question this is leading to is, How do people who have an
individual allegiance to positions of moral fallibility create
and inhabit intermediate communities? (in the spirit of the
American pragmatists) 
> I do not have an answer to this question, but  I believe
intermediate communities wher others recognize  you as a
person and not your role is a central part of the puzzle
> 
>Larry
> 
>----- Original Message -----
>From: mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>
>Date: Saturday, December 19, 2009 11:27 am
>Subject: Re: [xmca] Fwd: FW: Alliance for Childhood Update
>To: Larry Purss <lpurss@shaw.ca>
>Cc: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>
>> There are probably a number of interesting pairings of terms 
>> that line up
>> with Anna's dichotomy, Larry.
>> 
>> It seems impossible to overlook the political-economic 
>> environment combined
>> with new and rapid means of communication/ dissemination in 
>> shaping the
>> hateful circumstances of the current historical moment. It
makes moral
>> certitude really attractive and it seems to be coming from
a lot of
>> different directions:
>> 
>> In these circumstances Obama's fallibilism appears to be
increasingly
>> challenged by competing moral certitudes: the demonstrators in 
>> Copenhagen,the health care scare mongers on one side and
the one-
>> right-way public
>> health option proponents on the other, the "leave Afghanastan 
>> now" folks and
>> the "stuff it to them" "patriots" ....
>> 
>> Quite locally, under terrific pressures to bend to 
>> commercialization of U of
>> Cal, the daily business/teaching atmosphere makes one feel
like 
>> the simplest
>> of ordinary transaction requires wading through a sea of mud. 
>> Everyone is
>> relieved the place is closed down and faculty who have been 
>> furloughed are
>> supposed to "take" their furlough time now, while no students 
>> are around --
>> but of course,
>> not to engage in the only work that has a ghost of a chance of 
>> getting them
>> a raise in rank or pay/
>> 
>> A very decent, very cosmopolitan academic leader yesterday
said 
>> at the end
>> of the day, facing multiple crises, "I just wish they would 
>> leave us alone."
>> 
>> While the rich do get richer and the poor get starved of the 
>> very chance of
>> living. And all with great moral certainty.
>> 
>> Meantime, having cleaned out my home office to make room for 
>> "kids" I have a
>> huge box of unread "must read" papers, a long list of 
>> recommendations to
>> write, etc. Everyone on this discussion group has a similar
set 
>> of issues to
>> face. Getting clear analyses and useful discussions of our 
>> predicament as it
>> relates to our professional jobs here on XMCA is a gift (with 
>> delete key
>> ever ready!)
>> 
>> We live, it seems, in interesting times.
>> mike
>> 
>> PS-- On the academic side, do you know a paper by Costall and 
>> Leuder, Infant
>> Behavior and Development, 30 (2007), 289-295?
>> Seems quite relevant to the discussion about primal
sociality of human
>> mind/emotion/etc? Worth a look.
>> On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Larry Purss 
>> <lpurss@shaw.ca> wrote:
>> 
>> > Mike
>> > I'm getting a new appreciation of the term "cultural wars". 
>> Chuck Norris'
>> > moral certitude is hard to counteract with a position of
moral 
>> "fallibility"> as an ideal.
>> >
>> > a comment on narratives to challenge the dominant narrative.
>> > the language and narrative that seems to be acceptable when 
>> introducing> relational and social learning to my school 
>> community is Anna Sfard's
>> > dichotomy of AQUISITIONAL and PARTICIPATORY models of 
>> learning.  The moral
>> > implications implicit in this way of contrasting the two 
>> discourses seems to
>> > resonate and be accepted.  It also is a language in which 
>> the centrality of
>> > play as participatory learning is in the foreground.
>> >
>> > Larry
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>
>> > Date: Saturday, December 19, 2009 9:35 am
>> > Subject: [xmca] Fwd: FW: Alliance for Childhood Update
>> > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture,Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>> >
>> > > For those focused on early childhood ed and especially
those who
>> > > think that
>> > > play is important in that process, the following should be 
>> of great
>> > > interest.
>> > > I believe the "anti-play"/"pro-play" debate to fit right in
>> > > there with the
>> > > math wars, reading wars, etc. to which the very interesting
>> > > recent posts
>> > > have addressed themselves.
>> > > mike
>> > > *From: *Alliance for Childhood
<info@allianceforchildhood.org>
>> > > *Date: *Fri, 18 Dec 2009 06:04:45 -0500
>> > > *To: *Alliance for Childhood
<info@allianceforchildhood.org>
>> > > *Subject: *Alliance for Childhood Update
>> > >
>> > > Alliance for Childhood
>> > > *P.O. Box 444, College Park, MD 20741
>> > > Tel/Fax 301-779-1033
>> > > www.allianceforchildhood.org 
>> <http://www.allianceforchildhood.org/>> > *
>> > > *Update—December 2009
>> > > *
>> > > Dear Friends,
>> > >
>> > > You may have received a version of this letter by
regular mail.
>> > > (If you
>> > > didn’t and would like to get these updates on paper,
e-mail us
>> > > your address.
>> > > Note: we never sell our mailing lists.) Please share
this e-mail
>> > > with others
>> > > who will be interested in our work and might want to
support it.
>> > >
>> > > I am writing to you today with a feeling of urgency and
even 
>> alarm.> >
>> > > On November 21 the *Washington Post *reported that the
nation’s
>> > > increasedfocus on publicly funded preschool is sparking a
>> > > “debate” about the value of
>> > > play for three- and four-year-olds. Here at the
Alliance, we
>> > > know that this
>> > > is not a matter of debate. Play in early childhood
education is
>> > > essential—and it is seriously endangered.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > But here’s what the *Post*’s Emma Brown wrote (for the
entire
>> > > article see
>> > > www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
>> > > dyn/content/article/2009/11/20/AR2009112002391.html<
>> > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
>> dyn/content/article/2009/11/20/AR2009112002391.html> >
>> > > ):
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Play advocates … worry that politicians eager for tangible
>> > > returns on
>> > > taxpayers’ investment in early education, and school
officials
>> > > eager for
>> > > better test scores, will push for more direct
instruction, an
>> > > efficient way
>> > > to get short-term gains in literacy and math….
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > The choice between measurably improving math and
language skills
>> > > and making
>> > > time for play is particularly an issue in jurisdictions
that
>> > > offer half-day
>> > > preschool, said Barbara Bowman, who has advised [Education
>> > > Secretary] Duncan
>> > > on early education issues….
>> > >
>> > > “Ending the achievement gap is one of the high
priorities, and
>> > > that means
>> > > giving low-income kids the same skills and knowledge that 
>> middle-
>> > > class kids
>> > > have,” Bowman said. “In a short school day, sometimes
direct
>> > > instruction is
>> > > a better device.”
>> > >
>> > > We respectfully disagree. Indeed, we can scarcely
believe that
>> > > the value of
>> > > preschool play versus “direct instruction” of literacy
and math
>> > > facts is
>> > > still being debated by top government officials. Decades of
>> > > research show
>> > > that children in play-rich preschools and kindergartens
excel
>> > > over those in
>> > > didactic programs in academic achievement, creativity, and
>> > > developing a
>> > > sense of personal and social responsibility.
>> > >
>> > > But the myth that direct instruction is the best way to 
>> close the
>> > > “achievement gap” dies hard in American politics and
culture,
>> > > despite the
>> > > absence of long-term research supporting such claims.
We are now
>> > > on the
>> > > brink of seeing the epidemic of didactic instruction in
>> > > kindergarten spread
>> > > to thousands of public preschool programs—simply because
>> > > uninformed parents
>> > > and policymakers think this will help children catch up
or speed
>> > > ahead into
>> > > a global economy—an economy that needs creative
thinkers far
>> > > more than it
>> > > needs rote learners. Too many have bought into the
“drill and
>> > > kill” model of
>> > > early education, abetted by a multi-billion-dollar testing 
>> industry.> >
>> > > There’s a second reason I am deeply concerned.
>> > >
>> > > The economic disaster of the last year has also
affected the 
>> Alliance.> > Several foundations that have helped fund our
work 
>> needed to
>> > > reduce their
>> > > support. As a result, the Alliance’s income dropped by 20
>> > > percent last year,
>> > > and we were forced to cut back our operations accordingly.
>> > >
>> > > This financial challenge comes at a critical moment for
us. The
>> > > Alliance’swork has never been more prominent—or more
urgently
>> > > needed. The publicity
>> > > surrounding our report *Crisis in the Kindergarten* (a
Google
>> > > search on that
>> > > phrase currently produces 149,000 web pages) has led to our
>> > > being able to
>> > > meet with high-level officials in the White House,
Congress, 
>> and the
>> > > Departments of Education and Health and Human Services this
>> > > fall. We are
>> > > making the case for more developmentally appropriate
policies
>> > > and practices
>> > > in preschool and kindergarten programs and have received
>> > > thoughtful and
>> > > encouraging responses.
>> > >
>> > > But we know that is only part of the picture. This
month we are
>> > > meeting with
>> > > officials of the organizations that are developing “core
>> > > competencies” for
>> > > kindergarten through grade 12. These are envisioned as
national
>> > > standards,and states will need to align their standards
to them
>> > > to be eligible for new
>> > > infusions of federal funds. This effort could have
far-reaching
>> > > disastrousconsequences, depending on what those
competencies or
>> > > standards call for.
>> > >
>> > > When the draft version of the new national K–12
competencies is
>> > > released,there will be an opportunity for public
comment. We
>> > > will alert you and all
>> > > our other friends on what the draft says, how we think it 
>> can be
>> > > improved,and how you can make your voice heard.
>> > >
>> > > The Alliance for Childhood is now widely regarded as
one of the
>> > > nation’sleaders in advocating for child-centered and
>> > > developmentally appropriate
>> > > early education. We must not back down at this critical
time.
>> > >
>> > > With the Elementary and Secondary Education (No Child Left
>> > > Behind) Act
>> > > coming up for reauthorization in 2010, we plan to work
>> > > intensively for
>> > > developmentally appropriate guidelines and practices.
We have
>> > > prepared two
>> > > new policy briefs with recommendations for action that
can be
>> > > found on our
>> > > home page (www.allianceforchildhood.org <
>> > > http://www.allianceforchildhood.org/> ). More are being
developed.
>> > >
>> > > Despite the obvious obstacles, we remain hopeful that the
>> > > situation in
>> > > kindergartens and preschools can be changed in ways that 
>> will support
>> > > healthy child development. After all, when we began
advocating
>> > > for play five
>> > > years ago, the situation also looked impossible. But we
have
>> > > seen wonderful
>> > > changes in recent years. Here are a few recent examples:
>> > >
>> > > The Alliance has been invited to partner with Alaska
Geographic,
>> > > NationalGeographic, the National Wildlife Federation,
and the
>> > > U.S. Forest Service to
>> > > provide opportunities for play in newly designated
“children’s
>> > > forests.” The
>> > > first such project is in Alaska, but we hope this will 
>> become a
>> > > nationalprogram.
>> > >
>> > > Teachers who want to create play-based classrooms need help
>> > > through courses,
>> > > study groups, mentoring, and more. We have begun working 
>> with early
>> > > childhood professionals to develop pilot programs to meet
>> > > teachers’ needs.
>> > >
>> > > We are working with other play advocates across the
country to
>> > > develop the
>> > > U.S. Play Coalition, focused on research, advocacy, and
public
>> > > communications about play.
>> > >
>> > > Recent polls indicate that parents want a return of play to
>> > > childhood but
>> > > seek some adult supervision for children’s play. To
meet this
>> > > need we are
>> > > intensifying our efforts to develop the profession of
playwork
>> > > in this
>> > > country and are seeing growing interest in it.
>> > >
>> > > The same polls show strong parental concern about the 
>> erosion of
>> > > childhood.We recognized this problem when we founded the
>> > > Alliance ten years ago. The
>> > > need to reclaim childhood is even greater today. During our
>> > > second decade we
>> > > are renewing our commitment to a healthy childhood for all 
>> children.> >
>> > > As a first step we have republished the poem “Childhood,”
>> > > composed at the
>> > > founding meeting of the Alliance, as an attractive
poster. The
>> > > poem ends
>> > > this way:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Children need moments for reflection and space for
curiosity,
>> > > protective boundaries and freedom to create,
>> > > and time to play, to work, to rest.
>> > >
>> > > Children need to be introduced to a life of principles,
>> > > and given the freedom to discover their own.
>> > >
>> > > The spirit of childhood calls for protection and nurture.
>> > > It is an essential part of every human being
>> > > *and needs to be kept alive*.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > To accomplish all of this work we need your support. In
this
>> > > time of
>> > > financial hardship and retrenchment, we are fortunate to 
>> have generous
>> > > friends who continue to support us, including a donor
who has
>> > > pledged a
>> > > $10,000 matching gift for our end-of-year fundraising
campaign.
>> > >
>> > > Please give as generously as you can. All donors will 
>> receive a
>> > > copy of our
>> > > new poster and those who give $100 or more will also
receive a
>> > > copy of
>> > > *Reclaiming
>> > > Childhood: Letting Children Be Children in Our Achievement-
>> Oriented> > Society*by developmental psychologist and Alliance 
>> board member
>> > > William Crain.
>> > > * *We know you will enjoy it.
>> > > *
>> > > *With thanks and warmest regards,
>> > >
>> > > Joan Almon
>> > > Executive Director
>> > >
>> > > P.S.:  Don’t forget that it’s easy to contribute to the
>> > > Alliance with your
>> > > credit card at our secure web site: 
>> www.allianceforchildhood.org <
>> > > http://www.allianceforchildhood.org/> . All donations are 
>> tax-
>> > > exempt to the
>> > > extent allowable under I.R.S. rules.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > ------ End of Forwarded Message
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > xmca mailing list
>> > > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> > > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>> > >
>> >
>> 
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>xmca mailing list
>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>
>End of xmca Digest, Vol 55, Issue 20
>************************************
---------------------------------------
Greg Thompson
Ph.D. Candidate
The Department of Comparative Human Development
The University of Chicago

_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca