Return-Path: <nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id eBCLkR912418; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 16:46:27 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 16:46:27 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <000d01c06485$9b86bae0$dda31c3f@cbking> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "Catherine King" <cb.king@verizon.net> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-POVRACELIT:321] Re: questions about purpose X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 5825 Lines: 132 In reply to Kathleen Bombach, who says: "Tension arises when anyone takes seriously the notion that education in school ought to have something to do with thinking and questioning. I think the question that has been posed is what do *we* think the purpose of education is . . ." . . . and cites a presumed "competing view" between "national identity, . . . one language, and support for the political system . . . supporting democracy and citizenship" on the one hand, and on the other, the idea that "education is preparation for work," etc. No offense is intended towards Kathleen, but I think the way the argument is portrayed here does not define the problem. First, an "education for democracy" is itself an education towards generating thinkers who think for themselves--meaning being capable of raising questions and involving oneself in reasonable and civil discussions about things that concern us all. "Democracy" is not an ideology in this regard, but rather the "idea" is that the power of politics is turned around onto the "demos, " or the people. In other words, in order for thinkers to develop, and in order for people to raise questions freely as Kathleen rightly suggests, ***we need a political base that both inspires and protects this process***. In this regard, education is the "other side of the coin" of the democratic process. Without education of the polity, democracy will die (because ignorant or careless people are the first ones in danger of losing their freedom); and without democracy, education dies, because, in another kind of "ideology," the idea is that the demos cannot speak the truth--argue our case, no due process, no evidentiary relationships,etc. etc. Education in this regard has always been generally understood as a liberal (liberating?) studies/arts education. this includes history, the arts, ethics, philosophy, and the sciences, etc. Though social and political development is always an underlying part of all classroom activities, the liberal arts take these issues up reflectively and directly. Without them, we are left with technology and the natural sciences--and little else. Technology and the natural sciences--without education of the person in the larger sense--is dangerous spectre to raise. When have we seen required ethics classes in high schools? Second, and about education as "getting a job," this is not an unimportant issue. It is not, in other words, all bad, or to be set off as an "either/or" situation in education or funding, as Kathleen's note seems to imply. The problem with this notion is rather that getting "work skills" and "getting employed" seems to be drifting towards being the **only** motivation for funding, and this constitutes a direct hit on: (1) the foundations of the democracy (because the gatekeepers delegating the funds don't know their obligation to the democracy we all live in) and (2) to a general education itself as "freeing" the individual to develop in a psychological/social/ethical/political sense, and to enable them to participate fully in a free and civil culture. Are we just developing people for the workforce--making education a tool of the corporation? Or are we involved as educators in a developmental process of the whole community including ourselves and what goes into corporate internal development? Rather that supporting long-term efforts at continuing education, it seems we need "proof" in the form of "getting jobs," given to us through endless statistical research funding, to "justify" funding education programs, rather than starting at the baseline of obligation to taxpayers and citizen development--generated from our/their own needs and desires. And our arguments as adult education advocates often accept this wrong underlying assumption, and therefore are often about defensiveness and begging rather than educating funders to their own responsibilities towards the polity that we are with everyday in the classroom. We also fund immigrant civics lessons, but leave our own people ignorant about the land we live in and the importance of the Constitution to our freedoms. Kathleen is right, however, to ask about thinking and raising questions and developing minds. But it is only in a relatively democratic environment that this can happen, and that teachers can be free to teach the knowledge we are developing as we go through our continuously-rising questions. Democracy is also better for corporations, though it seems many people who run them fail to understand why. Best to all, Catherine King ---- Original Message ----- From: <KathleenBombach@aol.com> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov> Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2000 8:05 AM Subject: [NIFL-POVRACELIT:319] Re: questions about purpose > We have several competing notions about public schooling and education. One > is that education is important because it provides a basis for a national > identity and legitimacy, one language, and support of the political system > (often voiced as 'supports democracy and citizenship'). The competing view is > that education is the preparation for work and must teach the rules of work. > Both goals result in emphasis on respect for rules and processes, and for > those in positions of authority. > In all this, learning about other things like history, literature, > mathematics, etc., become secondary. Thinking and questioning threaten the > underlying reasons (above) that we have made education or schooling > universal, mandatory, and free. Tension arises when anyone takes seriously > the notion that education in school ought to have something to do with > thinking and questioning. > I think the question that has been posed is what do *we* think the purpose of > education is. > Kathleen Bombach
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 16 2001 - 14:47:31 EST