In response to Kearney’s post,

I cannot speak for other educators who have participated in this discussion—but for myself, I would be very pleased if my students could participate in the kind of discussion we are currently having on this listserv.  Kearney, it is clear that you disagree with many of the posts and you have expressed this disagreement in an intelligent, logical, well-though-out—dare I say, critical fashion.  This is the type of analytical/critical/logical debate I am hoping my students will feel comfortable participating in—even if they disagree with my ideological standpoint.  Too often, individuals from ALL educational, socio-economic, and political backgrounds choose to react to what they don’t like or don’t understand or choose to simply accept what sounds right or feels good without question.  In my view, analytical/critical thinking helps us all to understand each other better and helps society as a whole to continue to improve.  (And I don’t intend that to mean that something is inherently wrong with society, just that there is always room for improvement.)

Thanks for the healthy debate!

Jill M. Blair
Associate Dean of Adult Education
Heartland Community College
1500 W. Raab Road
Normal, IL 61761
309/268-8171

www.heartland.edu/adultEd

From: professionaldevelopment-bounces at nifl.gov [mailto:professionaldevelopment-bounces at nifl.gov] On Behalf Of Kearney Lykins
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 8:50 AM
To: The Adult Literacy Professional Development Discussion List
Subject: [PD 4100] On the meaning of politics and why teaching is political




Literacy practitioners:

Can we all just get this out in the open once and for all and acknowledge that terms (as they are most commonly used in this listserve) such as critical thinking, critical analysis, social change, social progress, social justice, and The Change Agent, are all ideologically based vehicles that assume that there is something inherently wrong with society as it exists in general (and with America's in particular) and that the remedy is an inherenly left-leaning, if not outright socialist or communist one.

I am tired of reading posts that dance around this issue, as if no one knows the names of the steps.
Literacy teachers should teach people to read, write, and speak. Learners should not have to be subjected to implicit or explicit political agendas from teachers who think they know better than others. In Steve's latest post (PD 4087) he very cogently unmasks the condescending nature of teaching "critical thinking," that there is an assumption that learners don't already think critically, or that they don't do it as well as the teacher. Or that students are in more dire need of "emancipatory change" than teachers are.  I find it interesting that the Friere followers are so quick to abandon his leaderless classroom when it comes to critical thinking and pressing "social justice" issues.

It is my understanding that the methods for teaching people literacy skills went relatively unchanged over several millennia, and that these methods actually worked long before anyone heard of "praxis." I believe Marx, Lenin, and Darwin learned to read in this quaint, disparaged way.

I now await the barrage of comments from educators who will insist that rote memorization drills and vocabulary lists have oppressed me, and that I am but an oblivious political pawn.


In good spirits,

Kearney



Kearney_Lykins at yahoo.com




________________________________
The information contained in this communication is confidential. This communication is the property of Heartland Community College and is intended only for use by the recipient identified. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete the original communication. Any distribution or copying of this message without the College’s prior consent is prohibited.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.nifl.gov/pipermail/professionaldevelopment/attachments/20091030/6992d2c4/attachment.html