[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [xmca] Response to Rose, Gutierrez, Grubb and Goldrick-Rab


This is very interesting, thanks.

The way I see it: you show how the 'normal' institutional-vocational programme culturally reproduces the disempowered worker (teaching disconnected skills/ leaving out the critical parts/skills/processes) and give some clues as to how to go about challenging this by providing an educational object.

But it is interesting particularly you stress how the norm involves teaching atomised skills which can only be useful when 'put back together' in the workplace (under the purview and conrol of the employer). This can be said of pretty much the whole school/academic curriculum,too: it is 'as if' these 'dangerous skills' have to be alienated in order for them to be kept safe, i.e. kept from doing useful (eg critical) work. And so, similar implications for challenging this would involve 'putting the skills back together' in tackling an object of some use: this can sometimes be seen in radical curricula.

You make other good points but this one struck me as being worth pulling out.


From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Helena Worthen [helena.worthen@berkeley.edu]
Sent: 07 June 2012 22:40
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [xmca] Response to Rose, Gutierrez, Grubb and Goldrick-Rab

Hello --

This is the response that I wrote to the MCA article that included Mike Rose's AERA talk on problems with vocational education plus responses from Norton Grubb, Kris Gutierrez, and Sara Goldrick-Rab.  It will be in the current issue, so I hear.  It sags a bit in the middle but basically it gets the point across. I would be interested in reactions.

Thanks  -- Helena__________________________________________
xmca mailing list