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 eBD2SO914892; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 21:28:25 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 21:28:25 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <LAW2-F197wIPvlKWzqJ000102f0@hotmail.com> 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: "Eileen Eckert" <eileeneckert@hotmail.com> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-POVRACELIT:322] Re: questions about purpose X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Status: O Content-Length: 9570 Lines: 201 The issues Catherine raises are so far-reaching that I can only respond to a little bit that caught my eye and mind. She says that it is only in a relatively democratic environment that education to think and to question can take place. I agree, but I think that the breadth of the democratic environment is open to exploration. As Freire and others have found, people can create democratic learning environments in the midst of repressive societies, and these (while they require a lot of courage and risk on the part of those involved) can be one of the pillars of revolution. On the other hand, we can create little dictatorships in our classrooms--and often do. Benign dictatorships, we might say, but who holds the power? Our own society displays shifting levels of democracy. We are a realtively free country-- or have the majority of us simply internalized the rules so well that the name democracy replaces the reality and we don't know the difference? I'm thinking here of a statistic I remember from one of Jonathan Kozol's books that a young black man has a greater chance of going to prison than to college. I'm also thinking of our societal move from outrage at economic policies including cuts to social services (including mental health and substance abuse treatment) that led to an explosion of homelessness to charities trying to make up the difference to acceptance of a high level of homelessness to criminalizing loitering and panhandling. Where is the thought and questioning in this societal shift in perception? Where is the will of the people when a CEO or a baseball player can make hundreds of millions of dollars while people live and sometimes die in nearby alleys? There is a connection--in our tax structure, in our bond issues, in our acceptance of the idea that hard work (and innate talent) deserve reward without questioning the extremes of those rewards and whether they should be at the expense of another's safety or life, in our decisions to separate work and personal life or to see an "us" and a "them" and align ourselves with one side or the other (or with one side from 9-5 and the other evenings and weekends). Our students do need jobs-- we can't ignore that. But beyond our common need to earn a living, don't we all need whatever learning will help us to see clearly, ask questions, and take action together? Don't we educators need this as well? Is it not impoverishing--I hesitate to use the word spiritually, but I mean it without the religious connotations-- to accept so much human suffering because "that's the way it is" and to say, "I can't do anything about that"? It's not an easy question or process, nor is it amenable to quick fixes, but I believe that until we can start trying to see beyond the finite "problems," disciplines, and roles within which we've been trained to think, we will always be contributing to the perpetuation of anti-democratic practice even while we try to foster democracy. Sorry to rant. This discussion is helping me to think things through and though we will not resolve the question, it helps to hear all perspectives. Eileen >From: "Catherine King" <cb.king@verizon.net> >Reply-To: nifl-povracelit@nifl.gov >To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-povracelit@literacy.nifl.gov> >Subject: [NIFL-POVRACELIT:321] Re: questions about purpose >Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 16:46:01 -0500 (EST) > >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 > _____________________________________________________________________________________ Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 16 2001 - 14:47:31 EST