Saturday, August 10, 2013
Sunday, April 7, 2013
Another PAPER!!!!!
(I don't blame you, I probably wouldn't want to read it either.)
This one was about Educational Issues. It used this book:
We had to pick our top ten from this selection.
Well, here are mine.
I grew up with two educators as parents. This is why I was
absolutely positive, that although I did not know what I wanted to do with my
life, I knew that I would not be a teacher. My dad was a HS History teacher,
became department head, director of personnel, and then superintendent of a
large white, upper and middle class Long Island school district. I remember him
studying and in school for his doctorate. Mom, in contrast, was a career
kindergarten teacher in an austerity district 30 minutes away. I have always
been affected by the controversies in education, and by people who took sides.
This explains why I didn’t ‘officially’ begin teaching until forty. My own
‘philosophy’, and history with this profession, like my peers, has been a
lifetime in the making. It has been rewarding to see how many others have
devoted considerable thought and energy to this topic though out history and in
the present day. One last comment before I begin, I do appreciate these books.
I have 7 or 8 of the Taking Sides titles in my classroom. They are the basis
for debate or research for my accelerated Health students.
I will begin, aka Letterman, with #10. As with any ranking
system, I feel good about the reasons for putting my top couple and my bottom
couple, the middle ones are a bit more of a mélange. I have occasionally
inserted links since I post these on my blog which chronicles my work towards
my M. Ed.
Can Zero Tolerance
Violate a Students Rights? My initial reaction, to even the premise, is
that Zero Tolerance violates ANY person’s rights. It negates the context of any
act. This is ‘all the more’ important when considering youth. Common sense,
context, and whenever possible, knowledge of the motivation, should all be
considered. These policies trap the school leaders into applying totally
inappropriate measures because to do otherwise would mean writing a policy so
wrought with exceptions, it would no longer be Zero Tolerance. The conundrum. A
first
grader who bites a Pop-Tart into the shape of a gun, may indeed need some
guidance, I don’t know that, or they may be a gifted 7 year-old artist, but
they do NOT pose a threat to the safety of their peers or community (albeit the
Health Educator in me wishes that 7 year-old did not consider Pop-Tarts a
breakfast food, and that schools did not provide it as one, the real fear being
early onset diabetes, and poor nutrition which can affect learning).
Unfortunately, the case argued in this chapter, revolves
around a strip search for OTC pills. OTC drug use and abuse are a major concern
today. Although these were super ibuprofen and naproxen, they could definitely
be risky, and should have only well documented and regulated use within a
school. Was the strip search warranted? I don’t know, it doesn’t sound like it
BUT here is the common sense part. Could she have been held in the nurse’s office
until a parent or guardian was contacted and available to come to the school to
be a part of the decision? Might that path also lead to the same inevitable
conclusion? Because this case involves
an intimate search, he takes away from the more common uses of zero tolerance.
I have very strong feeling about Hon. Clarence Thomas, and the nature of this
case just ignite these. The notion that ‘safety’ is preserved by searching
backpacks makes me think of a line from a film I use in class called “Bang Bang You’re
Dead!”. In it, the proverbial
do-good teacher asserts “It’s not what’s in a kid’s backpack that makes him
dangerous, it’s what is in his heart”. Thomas’ notion, although it has some
bearing, is one piece of the solution, but the implication that it creates
safety, is fundamentally wrong in my opinion and impossible to implement
without devastating consequences. The question then is how do large urban
schools with clear and present danger keep their schools safe? To me, this is
overwhelming and systemic and precisely why I put this as #10, no answers.
Next up as #9, Is the
Inclusive Classroom a Working Model? This is a massive topic with so many
conflicting issues within it. As many do, I agree with the premise,
wholeheartedly. The implementation creates a lot of conflict for me. Can public
schools afford this? …is the overarching concern. Within that is: can we afford
to spend so disproportionally? Can we afford to neglect then, our gifted and
talented? Who is more worthy? Inclusion creates tremendous support and
understanding in our students but they are not tested on that. Are the people
who give their days to the small group or one-on-one responsibility, at minimum
wage or slightly above, trained and therefore successful at this task? What is
the goal? These are just a sampling of questions.
Mara Sapon-Shevin
argues school climate. I whole-heartedly agree. I recall my own experience of
taking the l-o-n-g way to the bathroom in elementary school, in order to go by
the SPED room where there were autistic, CP, MR, deaf, etc children all jammed
in together and it looked like a circus show, totally unmanageable. I mean no
disrespect with the picture; this is how we were conditioned to think. We were
not allowed to talk about these ‘poor children’ in the classroom, the mystique
bred fear, and imaginative stories. Her strategies to create a positive
inclusive classroom seem complete, and should be the standard, handed to every
new teacher hired. However, with competing goals for education, are they
realistic? Again, a climate of
acceptance, courage, support, and honesty, although we want them to be
magically instilled in our children, we as a culture do not currently seem to
place them high on the public school’s mission. School Climate Leadership and
Facilitation was my previous M.Ed path at NEC. I left that because it lacked
support, and I came back to PSU continuing a Tech Integration focus.
I do love that Wade Carpenter chose to relate inclusion with
desegregation. I think through his impassioned argument is the thread that
having these mass ‘fixes’ doesn’t work, the notion of imposed equality is
fodder for oxymoron status. His plea resonates
with me, the school cannot ‘fix’ everything no matter how hard we try, and that
effort may actually get in the way of teaching and learning. As a Health
Educator, my class is often felt that it is
aplace where all kids can attend, like PE, or Art. I think this stems
from a persistent lack of understanding the difference between Health Ed and
PE, but in this case it works for my classroom. Since Health is NOT tested
currently, we are able to foster the classroom environment and it aligns beautifully with our holistic
health curriculum.
Number 8 is very interesting to me, it is only as low as 8
because I haven’t yet had a great deal of time to delve into it. I see it as
very topical, especially as we go through our Health Care Reform process, and
conversation. Is Privatization the Hope
of the Future? Maybe? My initial concerns are that business may not
understand education, that market fluctuations might then make education
fluctuations, but I believe there is a lot that the education systems can learn
and adapt for better management and to be more transparent.
Chris Whittle assertion that public schools lack imagination
and creativity to move forward seems right on. Public schools have evolved less
than any other institution I can think of, despite the huge resource of thinking
and research on the subject. This article is seven years old, his new ‘truths’
are more mainstream conversation as we explore the 21st Century
Learning Skills and realize that teachers no longer hold the content, it is
easily accessible elsewhere.
Henry Levin focuses too much on the Edison Schools, he has
to because there is little else out there to use as a a guideline. Just because
one effort is perhaps flawed, doesn’t mean we can not improve on it. He also
brings up the very real notion that we are not talking about education exclusively,
we are talking about politics, unions, economics, and even immigration. Therein
lies the block. I do not believe that radical transformation is necessarily the
way to go but even an attempt to make measureable movement becomes so
entrenched and stagnating. Some feel this is key in such an important
institution but in one so tragically behind, can we afford it? Can we afford it
in respect to all of those factors mentioned? And add in global
competitiveness? To me, it is more like clearly like the energy debate in that
realize that we can no longer rely on oil as the primary source, but many other
sources come with severe consequences. We must re-align our thinking from the
one-source fits all to multi-sources depending on geographic location (i.e. wind
in the flats of the Midwest), transitional sources, and continued efforts to
slow the pace of need. In education, we may need to include this model as a
part of the solution, in places where it is applicable.
Annnnnd now, heeere’s number 7 !!!! Are Undocumented Immigrants Entitled to Public Education? What is
that saying “Shall the sins against the father be laid upon the child?” I know
there is the biblical reference from Exodus but I am thinking more of the
Shakespeare quote: The sins of the
father are to be laid upon the children.
The Merchant of Venice
(3.5.1). Personal reflection, makes that a very frightening premise. Justice Brennan’s
argument comes down to, ‘does it serve the greater good’ to deny education to
these children? He argues it does not, and therefore they deserve an equal
education to other, legal, children of the U.S. I think that his ultimate
conclusion is evident in his rephrasing of the question. He does not refer to
them as ‘undocumented immigrants’; he replaces that with ‘undocumented
children’. The shift is evident and follows in his argument.
I don’t believe that the dissenting argument offers much relative to this
case. Justice Burger and the others, agree. They argue ‘no’ on the basis of the
constitution and whether the court should be required to ‘fix’ a social issue,
that may be caused by a lack of effectiveness of another part of the
government. In each of the sections, he begins with an acknowledgment of the
opposing premise, and agreement but then tweezes out the constitutionality as
against. In fact, he brings up the sturdiest arguments to me such as, is
education a right or privilege (sounds like the healthcare debate?), and
creating a ‘suspect class’ of ‘innocent’ children serves no purpose.
Number 6: Can Failing Schools Be Turned Around? This one is so
tough because it begs the question, that if they can’t, what’s the point? But
that is not really the argument. Some people may still be critical of criteria
used to determine ‘failing schools’ but I can’t imagine that anyone doesn’t
believes that they exist. Often it is the symptom of a social paradox. If a
school in a poverty stricken area is ‘failing’, instead of focusing on the
school, could the efforts be divided between the school’s improvements and the
reduction of poverty? I am reminded of
bell hooks, and her reminiscence of her southern black school filled with
virtue and determination to provide for the students because they knew that
education was deliver the kids from the cycle of poverty. Then she went on into
a desegregated environment, lacking in all that and disengaging.
The key elements used in ‘turning around’ schools, as proposed by Karin
Chenowith, are not revolutionary. Until a school is labeled failing, and
possible closure, financial punishment, until then, maybe we just don’t make
the effort as a community. She uses the term ‘galvanized’. The entire teaching,
learning, and greater community have to agree on the mission. If that occurs,
what could really prevent it from achieving a great deal of success?
Andy Smarick takes a more skeptical outlook and even implies that finding
the way to effectively turn around failing schools is akin to finding the cure
for cancer. I agree but in a way he did not intend. Although the cure for
cancer seems illusive, we have found ways to prevent, and at least greatly
reduce the impact, of certain cancers. The HPV vaccine prevents the leading
indicator for cervical cancer, a very deadly form of cancer. Can we also, refer
back to numero 7 as a reference, as a society, work on the causative factors?
If we continually look for the magic fix, we may be setting ourselves up. Maybe
some schools need to close and charters may be an option. These, along side of
the efforts of some communities to ‘galvanize’ for improvement, and maybe some
‘private sector managed’ schools, will yield an answer. But, this kind of
quilting of systems leads to the next issue on my list. Also, an interesting
blog from the DOE addressing various techniques: http://www.ed.gov/blog/topic/turnaround-schools/
Also, an NPR series on it: http://www.wbhm.org/News/2012/MSTurn
Gently moving into the top 5, Should Curriculum Be Standardized for
All? In relation to the previous topic, it seems almost like a requirement
so why do I want to scream NO at the top of my lungs? I am also internally
disappointed to hear one of Plato’s themes, distorted 9to me) to argue for YES.
In my interpretation of his theory, that there are ‘certain subject matters
that have universal qualities’, he is advocating for root learning that can
lead to anywhere since he felt that an educated person could go in any
direction they chose. I guess this could be seen as we all get the same
education and then branch out but, I don’t think he was arguing precise
curriculum, more general topics and depth.
The Paidela Curriculum offered by Mortimer Adler for Rediscovering the
Essence of Education seems so similar to Bloom, or a multitude of literacy
models, except tht it stays very limited. In Health Education we use the Health
Literacy pyramid. At the base is Core Concepts, which corresponds to his Column
One, but then we move on to Accessing Information, and Analyzing Influences, which
does not appear in his Column Two or Three. Instead his Column One seems to
represent acquiring knowledge through delivery, or introduction. His Column Two
is practice, or perhaps mastery, and his Column Three is application. This is
all good but it is all fairly basic, without the self-management, synthesizing,
creating new product, and solving problems with this understanding. And, I find
it horribly wrong to say that ‘nothing like this exists in education’. I
believe it does, it is called elementary school, the formation of the
foundation of learning but he completely ignores differentiated learning, and
learning styles. I think that any teacher sees, on a daily basis, that students
today have a variety or portholes in which they can learn. I can’t help but
think of an young student I had with Asperger’s Syndrome. He fixated on ships,
much teaching/learning had to be done through this ships. He was clearly
bright, later in HS was inducted to the National Honor Society, and is now
attending Maine Maritime Academy and doing very well. The path would have been
very different had we required him to follow the Columns instead of hi mind.
We can ignore the differentiation in our students any more than in our
teachers. Strengths should be nurtured and given due in the classroom. I am at
a bit of a loss to comment fully on John Holt. On the one hand, yes, I agree that
students should be active participants in their learning, and have some say in
it also. On the other hand, I am not sure I am ready for complete freedom he advocates;
I think there is an expansive middle ground worth exploring. I also disagree
with his premise of the ‘control’, and ‘harm’ teachers do.
Moving on to position number 4; Is No Child Left Behind a Flawed
Policy? Of course it is, if for no
other reason than it stills leaves unfunded mandates in place and we are still
trying to define the terms it is based on such as ‘adequate yearly progress’.
That alone doesn’t make it bad policy. It is the latest attempt at federal
school reform. I personally think that is backwards approach. Imposed school
reform, like anything else has a tough battle that takes energy away from the
intent.
As seems often the case, the federal government stepped in with policy
after feeling that states, and local authorities had not done the job,
therefore the feds had to. This tactic seems to invoke two previously mentioned
controversies, Zero Tolerance, in this case for failing schools, and Turn
Around, of those failing schools. As with any sweeping measure, some parts are
good, others not so much. Transparency, for instance, I think is good, in
context. It is simply a snapshot of the moment. Snapshots over time, give a
picture. Snapshots over time with accompanying narrative, give context and
meaning. Setting goals, requiring
accountability, and implementing intervention are all excellent, and should be
in place in education. It’s how it is done. Are the goals realistic, are the
tools in place for success, and is there built in periodic reflection, that all
too often forgotten step that can help guide,
is our intent is being met or maybe we need to look again.
Dianne Piche argues for NCLB. She sees agreement between the two sides on
almost all of the intent. She disagrees with the premise that states should
have control because she points to this as being an issue about the poor and
minorities and states have a questionable history of being able to create
equality. So, on this point, I am in agreement. The federal government has had
to step in, eventually, to create equality after states battle it out without
success. Whether it was gender, racial, or now sexuality based….the states will
begin the battle but eventually it must once again come to the federal bench to
parenthesize what equality means…..”all
men are created equal (including women, racial minorities, and one day sexual
minorities….etc)
Now we are into the Top Three!! Is Constructivism the Best Philosophy of
Education?
This seems a bit of a rehashing of the Kant
v. Locke perspectives. Experiences provide the context, I am not sure I can
even imagine an argument for this. Since watching some quantum physics, such as
What the Bleep Do We Know?
and this much shorter, simplistic,
version of parallel
universes, I doubt that anything is absolute knowledge. Why would we expect
that anyone could learn identically as we teach? or that any two students could
store the same information the same way? Everything is relative to our own
experience. Anyone who has spent anytime in a classroom knows this. You say a
direction, not even content, in as obvious a way possible, and three hands go
up to ask what the direction was. Yes, one was simply not listening, another
might ask just for attention, and one might have been distracted. Then the rest
that go off to carry out the direction, are all over the place, each certain
they heard and understood the direction. Alas, I do agree that Social Readiness
is the true barrier.
Jamin Carson, although this article is only 7
years old, seems to still believe that we have any control over how our
students receive content. He has not integrated this into his argument. In a
time when the teacher was the all-knowing delivery of content, perhaps there
was more possibility for the objectivism theory. His example of Romeo and
Juliet is dismissed before he delves into that students reasoning for his
seemingly mistaken understanding. Find where he took a turn and suggest another
view? In any case, pure constructivism is not really the goal as I see it, it
is what I like to call, ‘a leaning’. When we ‘lean in’ towards something, we
open the door to it and by doing so, we open our mind to it.
Getting closer! Number 2: This is where I get
a little crazy in conversations. Video games are ruining our kids, parents
shouldn’t allow them! Instead of fighting against what is, can we find a way to
incorporate it, find a benefit in education? Of course we can. Futile ranting
that doesn’t allow for incorporation, that makes me crazy. So the next title: Do Computers Negatively Affect Student
Growth?, to say the least, enticed me. We can not and do not, go backwards.
The world changes, each generation has a different perspective, different
tools. Perhaps that change is getting so fast we are struggling to keep up now.
This is breeding a lot of insecurity, and this is easy to see with technology.
The notion that the teacher has to turn to the students to solve a technical
glitch, that we are not the experts, they are. Why is this bad? So many more
students are engaged in learning because they have a way in now. So I have a
problem with the premise, in that I feel it implies that we are able to measure
today’s growth when we are yesterday’s product. Lowell Monke uses the example of the Oregon Trail
simulation, remember this article was written nearly a decade ago so it was
relevant. His argument is that the simulation can teach the value of resources,
and the strategic use of them but cannot instill the determination and courage
it took for those pioneers to make that journey. Duh! Of Course it can’t, it’s
a simulation, on a computer. Again, the premise sets up the argument in an
all-or-nothing fashion. The computer is
a tool for learning, for teaching, and for everything else. It is not a
complete replacement for the teacher. However, in terms of making the
allocation of resources, and it’s effect more ‘real’ to a 4th
grader, I believe it surpasses the teacher. Then he says that the skills a
student needs to enter the job market “can easily be learned in one year of
instruction in high school”. Really? Taught by whom? One of us quasi-dinosaurs?
Our students need to be embedded in the ever-changing computer and media tools.
Changing with the applications of technology is the skill they most need to be
adept in.
I do whole-heartedly agree about the
ecological impact. I remember that computers were going to cut down on paper
use but instead they have exponentially increased it. There is immense techno
trash as devices change and become obsolete so quickly. There are the work
forces that build these, and their conditions. These are all very real
ecological impacts that need attention, now. However they do not really apply
to the ‘student growth’ argument, more of a side bar, a very, very important
side bar for our world, just not limited to educational growth.
Frederick Hess realizes that technology is a
tool, not a cure. I am replacing the word technology instead of computers in
this section because the use of computers just further points out the pace that
has evolved. How many students use a computer, as we imagine and name them, in
class? Netbooks, Chrome books, tablets, readers, etc and far more common.
Let
the trumpets blare …we are at number 1: Is the “21st Century Skills” Movement Viable? I have not
been as excited as a teacher as I am about this movement, so let’s say, I am
biased, and very hopeful that the YES wins out on this one.
This is the educational philosophical battle
I feel most embedded in. My school is deep into NEASC preparation. We are
researching, writing, adopting, and preparing to implement. It is all wrapped
around these 21st Century Learning Skills, moving our students from
the dogma of passive learner to the active role of thinking! To begin, we have
to move the board (I really was tempted on the topic of School Boards being
obsolete), the administration, and the staff…and that’s just the work inside
the building! Public education has always had the component of educating
students to become productive members of society. Although Plato believed that
the core educational focuses would prepare for any later endeavor, our world
has become far more specialized. We prepare for what the future requires of
them, to the best of our ability. So, we ask employers what they need and what
they project to need and we revise to meet those needs. As mentioned in the
previous contender, #9, the pace of change is difficult to keep up with. I
believe this means that occasionally we have to leap. This is our leap.
Every school has those teachers, the veterans, who sit back and
wait. They have seen it all before, heard it all before, and now they look at
everything as a fad, a passing initiative and they may feel smug in that
knowledge and that they know they don’t have to buy in or change a thing, and
it will go away. We had one teacher in our school, who was also a veteran but
who somehow kept her mind and practice open to change. Her name was Barb Rennie.
My 21 year-old was lucky enough to have her for both 2nd and 3rd
grade. She retired years ago, and sadly, she is still the picture that comes to
mind, a rarity. She had taught every level, most subjects, and still gave new
ideas a try, a listen, and then she took from them what worked best, she
evolved. Is this the reason education has been so resistant to change, to
evolve, because there are too few Barb Rennie’s and too many who ‘have been there,
done that’ and have become resistant to change?
The argument that these skills have existed
forever is true, of course they have, but not as the product of our education.
Repositioning these skills, mobilizing around what is needed for our students, and
therefore making it a priority instead of a hopeful by-product.
The NEASC process we went through, the
Mission Statement was hauled out for all to see. It was carved into a new sign
above the entrance. We all got laminated copies of the ‘key terms’ within it,
all in an attempt to show the visiting committee that we were all aware of, and
following it, that students could recite it. Those signs are still up. This
time, the Core Values and Beliefs Indicator explicitly states that the adopted
mission statement will be used as a basis for policy, decision-making, and
budgeting. This was big because
typically these were not related in any way. I fought to get on the Core Values
committee. We have school-wide rubrics based on 21st Century Skills,
and they are embedded in out Mission Statement. I have asked School Board
members NOT to adopt these unless we are all agreeing to the process, that
these are our common goals, and our policies, decision-making and budgeting
will flow from them. I was never so scared in my job as that day. We were
discussing scheduling with our board members in favor of a 45 minute, 8 period
day and our staff members desperately trying to preserve block learning. In the
end, we can and will teach in a 30 min, 45 min, 50 min, 60 min, or 90 minute
time frame. We can do it if our role is to deliver content. If we are buying in
to the past years work we have done on 21st Century Skills, we need
time, this decision must align with our Mission Statement. Still, a work in
process. But just one reason why this was number 1 for me.
The Journey is Almost Over....Into the
Those Nitty Gritty Courses
...and that means papers!
This one started out as NOT my favorite. I even referred to it as a 'stupid assignment', regressing into my 12 year-old's view of the world ;)
Can't you just tell that he knows EVERYTHING ?
Find your Top 10 Philosophers, and their theories of Education. It seems I've lost the ability to read, and regurgitate...I just have to insinuate myself, my classroom, my content into everything!!
How did we get here? After all, I
spend a significant part of my day, my life, embedded in education. I am a public school teacher, an institution
with a long and significant history in our culture, and in the history of
civilization. I am a student, always. I am a student of my students, I am a
student of my own evolution, and I am a student in pursuit of my master’s in
education. A goal so close I can taste it. So, it does seem relevant to reflect
on the historical significance of how educational theory has developed. This is
the task, and a daunting one since I know well, that this is an area outside of
my strengths.
In
the beginning….or at least the classical period of philosophy there were the
big three. We have all heard of Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle. Early Greece
forms the picture for me of what early culture and civilization embodied, and
therefore I felt compelled to delve in to it. Throughout this research, I am
amazed at the paradox of how both everything has changed, and yet, so much
remains the same. Classical education focused on the full development of the
individual as a whole person. The end result being that a fully realized person
is capable of contributing to the society or culture in any of multiple
directions. I believe this truth to still be true, with the stated caveat that
we each have our own potentials in certain areas, therefore the goal is to live
up to, or educate up to that level. In
this setting, a Trivium was followed as the path a child follows in education
beginning with a grammar phase, then a logic/dialectic stage, and then as they
near adulthood, the rhetoric stage. Socrates the educator, challenged his
pupils to then rise through the “levels of reality to the highest, truest
knowledge of what is”.
I
was struck by the first time I saw Socrates dialogues described as rambling. I
had thought him so revered, and knowledgeable. As I read on, it was made clear
by several authors, that they were describing his technique, which then seemed
very familiar to me. First he would look at an idea from as many points of view
as possible, as we do as teachers, to find that one key to engagement for each
of our students. As embedded as we are in 21st Century Learning, I
couldn’t help but see this as a version of, the teacher as facilitator. This
transition we are in now, maybe it is getting back to basics really. We guide
our students to their own realization, because our realizations are useless to
them. In the cave analogy, Socrates uses some reverse psychology, and some
acceptance of where Glaucon is in his own development, to guide him, indirectly
towards his own discoveries. Another current thought that lies in Socrates
dialogues is that once an individual becomes educated, they must put this
enlightenment to work, to give back, to raise the level of the cave, the city,
the society. His educational philosophy in the Republic is more difficult for
me to understand. Socrates, as all
science I believe, struggled with nature and education, or as is commonly
stated, nature and nurture, believing the education can lead to a rise in
nature.
Since
I enjoy seeing the big picture. I chose next to learn about a completely
different and just as intriguing perspective, Confucius. His life ended as
Socrates life began yet I imagine their lives and culture as so much more diverse.
It appears that they both have similar reputations in their cultures, as being
founding teachers. Where Socrates believed all people had the capacity for
education, Confucius was radical in his culture for offering equal education
for all. At the time, education was reserved for the noble families. My reading
still refers to all, as all men. His premises appeal to me, and as a teacher,
are necessary, that everyone is good at heart (nature), and capable of acting
on it, knowing it. One of his later
followers contended that evil and ignorance comes from the failure to
development these given abilities. Where Socrates pressed for the development
of knowledge through dialogue and stories, Confucius’s view was that real
knowledge was self-knowledge. Ultimately they were quite similar in their goal
for individuals to reach their personal potential and that this was the
preparation needed for life. Several authors mentioned that Confucius believed
that those who did not want to learn could not be taught. Hmmm…seems so basic,
yet contrary to our belief of an education for all, hence the continuing saga
of how do we reach each individual? The Greek were verbose, with lengthy
dialogues and writings, giving students the opportunity to swim in it and find
what resonated for them. In contrast, Confucius gave some pearls that had to be
tumbled and looked at through many angles to detect how to unlock its higher
meaning. I think Yoda is a contemporary of this type of teaching.
Medieval
philosophy is fascinating in it’s entanglement with religion. This is also the
reason I struggle with it. There is also the unfortunate name, medieval, or
‘in-between time’. That makes it sound less significant. However, in terms of
education, there is the formation of a more recognizable system, in more
recognizable cultures, for us. Western Europe developed monastic schools, which
led to the monasteries that we are familiar with. The Greek-like tradition of
following the teachings of an individual master continued. Then there were the
Cathedral schools and Universities. The Cathedral schools being larger and
associated with a particular church or bishop and, like the Monastic schools,
were centers of religious training. A dominant Cathedral school that attracted
a wide variety of students could become a University. The university as we know it, it is a collection
of colleges, each specializing in it’s own subject. This is where we begin to
see these, originally as the arts, law, medicine, and theology. This is when
philosophy and religion joined. Any philosophy that threatened religion was not
readily taught, such as Aristotle’s metaphysics.
Two
philosophers of this time, who did align with Aristotle, were Thomas Aquinas,
and John Duns Scotus. They both believed that knowledge has two forms, sensory
and intellect, and that abstraction is how the intellect translates sensory
information into understanding. They
both used philosophy to develop their theorems of proof of the existence of God
and believed that metaphysics was a real theoretical science, which put them at
odds with the Pope. (It is difficult to NOT put this in context of the papal
decisions going on today.) Aristotle believed that all concepts come from
creatures, and to that, Scotus would reply, “where will that analogous concept
come from?”. This sort of repartee seems to be the nature of their
relationship.
As
a Health Educator, I am caught by some of the topics of Thomas Aquinas. Parents
as primary educators seems an eternal concept. However, he goes further. In the Suma Contra Gentiles, a book that seems
to ‘sell’ Christianity to non-believers, he discusses sexual and marital ethics
such as “why simple fornication is a sin to divine law, and why marriage is
natural”. (Again, current events, DOMA etc..are hard to keep out, especially
since his contemporary Scotus, and SCOTUS). He further delineates the roles
each parent is better suited for. He recognized the ‘family’ and ‘state’ as two
different societies, and that the state should not interfere with the functions
of the family. I believe that my entire curriculum would be considered
‘family’, yet here we are, 2013, and it is ‘state’. That aside, Aquinas seems
to adhere, after determining that a man, and not just God, can be a teacher, to
the idea of the teacher as a leader – leading the student to learn. What is
worth learning? Science, mathematics, natural philosophy, and metaphysics.
Logic will be the method of learning.
As
a bridge from Medieval to Enlightenment periods, Descartes was hailed the
“Father of Modern Philosophy”. He did
not believe that all knowledge came from the senses, as Aristotelians did, and
he also refined his metaphysical beliefs by making clear distinctions between the
body and mind. His quest for absolutes, something not subject to doubt, begins
with “I exist”. He manages to extend this to God. Eventually getting to “Je
pense donc je suis”, translated to the famous, “I think therefore I am”. His
metaphor of philosophy, describes the important subjects of education. The
roots are metaphysics, the braches fall into three major categories, medicine,
mechanics and morals.
The
Enlightenment again resonates with 21st Century Learning objectives.
As this is the ‘age of reason’, critical thinking and civic engagement are
mentioned. This time period is very influential in the establishment of our own
society and educational practice. My heart sides with Rousseau, the romantic,
and his ideal of a peaceable kingdom of ‘noble savages’. My independent streak
follows Voltaire, the writer’s name, who embraced freedom of religion. So this
is the Enlightenment that the Medieval time was holding place for. It does seem
to be a round about route back to Plato’s The
Republic.
Kant
moves us to consider space and time. He agrees that most knowledge is gained
from experience, the senses, what we see, hear, and touch in our surroundings
but, we also have innate knowledge. He called these a ‘priori’ which is Latin
for ‘from the beginning’. When it came to education, obedience was his
doctrine. Apparently, some see this as the obvious reaction to the disobedience
of the original sin. I feel we are trying to dig out of a very Kant inspired
school structure where, routine, structure, and obedience. What about
motivation? As to the child’s
proper motivation: “One often hears is said that we should put everything
before children in such a way that they shall do it from inclination. In some
cases, it is true, this is all very well, but there is much besides which we
must place before them as duty. For in the paying of rates and taxes, in the
work of the office, and in many other cases, we must be led, not by
inclination, but by duty. "Even though a child should not be able to see
the reason of a duty, it is nevertheless better that certain things should be
prescribed to him in this way …” I feel that I hear
this today. His counterpart Locke saw it his way, from his Some
Thoughts concerning Education (1692):“I
am very apt to think, that great severity of punishment does but very little
good; nay, great harm in education: And I believe it will be found, that, ceteris paribus, those children who
have been most chastised, seldom make the best men.” And finally a quote
from Kant that really speaks to the dissatisfaction of education today where so
many kids truly ‘hate’ school: “Children should sometimes be released from the
narrow constraint of school, otherwise their natural joyousness will soon be
quenched”. This sounds contrary to good education to me, so I wonder why it
stuck? I see a kind of detachment from thinking of children as humans, more
like pods in need of development.
Bridging
the gap between Enlightenment and Modern philosophy is the Post-Enlightenment.
We are in the Age of Idealism. Enter
Dewey, well known for his “Democracy and Education”. He believed that education
was intrinsic to the “social continuity of life” and further stated that
education was a necessity because the nature of life is to die, implying that
education ensured continuity. There is so much in his work that resonates
today. Conservative views of education as the standards, taught conventionally
versus, inquiry based education, as well as the more liberal or broad view of
subject matters versus the distinct vocational skills.
Emma
Willard was American; she was born in Connecticut, as the 16th of 17
children! She was fortunate that her father was unconventional and thought
females were just as worthy of an education as males were. She was a reformer
to me, going on to establish the first secondary school for females despite
being denied financial means by the state of NY. The school endures today. Her
selling arguments would be cringe worthy today but were a smart tactic to appeal
to the male audience. She gave multiple reasons for educating females such as,
“If, then, women were properly fitted by
instruction, they would likely teach children better than the other sex: they
could afford to do it cheaper: and those men who would otherwise be engaged in
this employment might be at liberty to add to the wealth of the nation”. Thank
you Emma Willard for getting female education started in the U.S.
Montessori,
the higher alternative to the slower change that is the public schools. I am
ashamed to say that I do not know much about this, and I am intrigued that at
least two of our class members have been trained in this. Without exception,
the information I find about Montessori education all state that; “it must be
observed to be understood”. Dr. Maria
Montessori stated in The Absolute Mind that “To aid life, leaving it free,
however, to unfold itself, that is the basic task of the educator”. Again, the
teacher in the role of facilitator. I am so glad that so many have realized
this and so…embarrassed…that so many people, who are teachers believe that they
are the fountains of knowledge, imparting it to their students. Often I found
words or analogies to nature in this research…tending as if a garden,
cultivating learning, sowing the seeds, capacity to grow. This methodology
seems to build on the sensory route for learning discussed earlier. Gaining
knowledge through the senses and then developing an understanding of that
knowledge, as the means of educating the child. This has been a common thread.
Henry
David Thoreau has always held allure. Who has not wanted to go out into the
woods to experience living with oneself? I surely have a hundred times. I spent
many summer days at Walden Pond when my oldest was just an infant. We would walk
along and I would try to imagine what it must have looked like back then, and
how the peace and serenity may have influenced Thoreau’s pacifist nature. I
knew he left teaching because he wouldn’t use corporal punishment. Education
was still in that time of obedience and routine, children were less what? Less
human? Less valuable? They were a work in progress. Thoreau taught through
conversation. This circles us back to Socrates and the dialogue. The Socratic
Seminar has been revived lately. I find it is a great way to get students to
question and push each other. Character education and a sense of connectedness
are integral in his philosophy. “Thoreau reminds us that we need to have
respect for our selves (conscience), others (society), and nature
(stewardship).”
Contemporary
philosophy has many branches, too many to cover here. There were a couple of
people I wanted to learn more about and I will end with a brief discussion of
them. Because I have never had the opportunity to take time to study the female
philosophers, I feel I have always just been presented with the usual, male,
suspects.
I
was alive but somehow missed the Malcolm X years. Maybe it was that I was
growing up in eastern Long Island, in a
high school with one black student. His story is impressive, Nebraska to
Harlem, to the streets, to jail. Then there was the self-recognition that he
was nearly illiterate and the devotion to improve. The politics being what they
were, an angry black man, who was well read, self-taught in jail, and dedicated
to teaching young students that white America had brainwashed them, well, that
was definitely a threat to the status quo.
I am unclear, though I read quite a bit, of his educational philosophy
other than he thought that education was essential, to raising black people up
from discrimination. Turning from his anger to bell hooks seems a necessity.
What
better motivation than hope? I believe teaching does require hope, and faith in
learning. Her early education, as she describes it sounds heavenly. All black
schools, taught by black women who were determined to help a generation use
education for betterment, to ignite them with knowledge. Then her descriptions
of the post-busing ‘all white’ school sound so opposite, obedience, no fire, no
threats were tolerated. Thank goodness she was already engaged with learning
and determined to teach and write. “It is imperative that we maintain hope even
when the harshness of reality may suggest the opposite” is a quote from one of
her mentor’s Paulo Friere. You can hear how that sentiment would resonate with
her. She advocated holistic education, and reflection on the part of students
as well as teachers, to care for themselves as practitioners.
Teachers, philosophers, and thinkers have shaped
education for thousands of years. It is continuing to evolve today. It can be
rewarding and disheartening. It is valuable to see the perseverance of
knowledge as an expression of our innate potential. Although many ideas are
constant which could feel like a lack of progress, it seems quite the opposite,
for these ideas to stand the test of time, through all these ages, makes it more
valuable. Our audience changes but we are always trying to get them hooked on
self-discovery, critical thinking, exploring ideas, with no end in sight.
References:
hooks,
bell (1994) Teaching to Transgress. Education os the practice of freedom.
London: Pluto Press.
Burke,
B. (2004) ‘bellhooks on education’, the encyclopedia of informal education.
Philosophy
of Education by Hsueh-Li Cheng
Sun,
Qi (2008) Confucian Educational Philosophy and it’s Implications for Lifelong
Learning and Lifelong Education.Philadelphia: Routledge
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/education-philosophy/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)