Please include two aspects to your post:
1. React to the notion that Counts' speech could serve as a foundation for the CCC track? (note: you can agree or take issue with this claim)
2. Ask three questions about the Burbules and Warnick reading.
Counts’ “Dare the School Build a New Social Order?”
Counts’ speech is a clarion call for its time. It captures the mood of the early years of the Great Depression, during which revolutionary sentiment toward the established order in politics, economics, commerce, and social programs rose across Western democracies and incorporated socialistic ideals. Because education had become almost universal, at least through the primary grades, in American culture, the idea of using education to create a new social order seemed logical and inevitable. Yet Counts’ speech becomes more intense as it progresses, and it reads more as a political manifesto promoting Marxist ideals than an education reform proposal. The language Counts uses is the language of political revolution, and he, in fact, stresses this point: “We live in troublous times; we live in an age of profound change; we live in an age of revolution” (p. 31). Counts proposes a complete deconstruction of the existing order and a reconstitution of it with teachers and the education system playing significant roles in the social change he envisions: “The times are literally crying for a new vision of American destiny. The teaching profession, or at least its progressive elements, should eagerly grasp the opportunity which the fates have placed in their hands” (p. 54). As I read Counts’ writing, I couldn’t escape thoughts of the works of Aldous Huxley and George Orwell. The penultimate dialogue from chapter two of Brave New World (also published in 1932) kept coming to mind. “‘Till at last the child's mind is these suggestions, and the sum of the suggestions is the child’s mind. And not the child's mind only. The adult’s mind too–all his life long. The mind that judges and desires and decides–made up of these suggestions. But all these suggestions are our suggestions!’ The Director almost shouted in his triumph. ‘Suggestions from the State,’” Huxley wrote. Who decides what the new social order will be, and how can we trust that their decisions will serve individual as well as the community needs and desires, not the state’s? And therein lies the rub. We must sift through Counts’ speech and balance individual freedom of choice against social interests. In the CCC track, this presents us with the challenge of being actors in education for positive social change but not imposing on others our individual or collective views of what constitutes positive social change. As Uncle Ben would say in Spiderman, “With great power comes great responsibility.” Are we moral actors and capable of the task?
Burbules & Warnick, “Philosophical Inquiry”
1. Barbules and Warnick write: “Part of the purpose for exploring these hidden premises, assumptions, and prejudices is that evaluating an idea, or an entire system of thought, involves evaluating its presumptions, and its implications as well” (p. 493). How do we achieve consensus regarding the meaning of hidden premises, assumptions, and prejudices? Will we all see the same buried meanings and intentions in the same way? 2. Regarding Barbules and Warnick’s definition of a philosophy of education (p. 496-497), does the explosion of “-isms” represent a field that is passing through its troubled adolescence and is growing into its maturity, much like other social sciences fields have experienced during their evolutions? 3. Barbules and Warnick write: “Can – and should – one put into suspension certain evaluative skills and dispositions, to try to understand a text or point of view on its own terms? What are the limits of one’s abilities to set aside one’s prejudices and value systems: Is it worthwhile, or even proper, to try to give Mein Kampf a fair and sympathetic reading, for example, or to make an effort to see the world as Adolph Hitler saw it?” (p. 499). As curricularists, how do we exercise our best judgment over what to include or exclude from the curriculum without imposing our own views of what is right or good on others?
Question #3... such a great one, Pete. This makes me think of our class this past Thursday. Dr. Reich kept coming back to the idea of power. Who has the power to decide what gets taught? My initial reaction is that it should rarely be an individual endeavor, yet I look at my own work and aside from yearly student evaluations, I don't receive extensive feedback or input on whether the content I'm choosing to teach is worthwhile. So I'm a bit of a hypocrite when I say that as curricularists, we should seek out a critical community who can weigh in on our decisions and potentially strengthen our work through offering counterarguments of why our choices might not be the best or support of why our choices are beneficial.
What drew me to the CCC track was its name; the nebulous, fluid perception I absorbed from the terms and title, “Curriculum, Culture, and Change” attracted me with its variable and open-ended possibilities of interpretation. Several components of the Counts’ speech supports the progressive foundation of our track; for instance, the “rigorous scrutiny” of the concept of education as well as its assertion of leadership assuming its costs alongside benefits. The emphatic indication that any progressive movement must possess direction gestures toward structure and intention; however, in a track that specifies change as part of its title, many students may recognize that while a shift or transformation is desired, its articulation and goal may still remain unarticulated or unclear. The CCC website reflects the track as one of activism and advocacy, and states,
“The concentration distinguishes itself by preparing curriculum and instruction leaders to be change agents capable of working in school systems, higher education and advocacy organizations. It reflects an activist stance toward the education profession — one that views schooling as not only shaped by society but also as an active force for equity and meaningful societal change. It will appeal to a wide range of students: those who are seeking to become instructional leaders in school systems, those preparing to teach in the academy and all those desiring a strong foundation in educational reform.”
While Counts’ stance on Progressive Education encompasses community and social welfare, his statement of that it “cannot place its trust in a child-centered school” threw me for a loop. If the young generations are not part of the central dialogue of reform, how can conversations involving curriculum, culture, and change take place? Furthermore, the reach of teachers for “power and conquest” without “false modesty” does not reflect the all faces of advocacy and activism; nor do teachers who reject these notions convey a “confession of incompetence.” Counts’ speech reflected some of the mission of CCC towards growth, but derailed in some of its hard and militant turns of educator position and goals.
Three questions I have about the Burbules and Warnick reading: What are the arguments in philosophical inquiry for and against choice models in education in various settings and populations? (p. 495) Regarding perceptions of education as a teleological endeavor, how does that shift and clash between generations amidst the growth and development of societies? (p. 496) The educational ideas and slogans that emerge, fall out of favor and reemerge as Burbules and Warwick describe on page 500 - how do educators best use resources and models to respond to changes in society and our students (from day to day and year to year) without detriment to our learners?
First, I must acknowledge that it was a bit depressing to realize that Counts’ speech is approaching its centennial birthday. It seems like a battle cry of sorts for American educators that aside from the focus on the industrial revolution (although some word argue this is still underway), could have been penned just weeks ago. Counts’ (1932) vision of democracy- “a sentiment with respect to the moral equality of men” offers an invitation to reenvision the purpose of education (p.41). His ideas are rooted in a desire for education to be the “unfailing remedy for every ill”, yet he acknowledges that such a realization would require a revolution of sorts to the way we carry our educating a citizens in America (Counts, 1932, p. 3). All this to say, his speech could certainly be a part of the CCC’s foundation. His particular belief that “teachers should deliberately reach for power” seems particularly fitting (Counts, 1932, p. 28). Most of us have classroom experience, and I see this program as a desire to obtain power that can lead to change in classrooms nationwide.
1. In thinking of the secondary school setting, how could it benefit each content area to have the support of a philosopher working at a local university?
2. Based on this article’s ideas, is it fair to expect all educators to carry out some philosophical methods in their work? If so, what would this look like for the practitioner?
3. Why do you believe method #7 (“speculating about alternative systems or practices of education”) is often met with some resistance, even among educators themselves (Burbules and Warnick, 2006, p. 497)?
1. React to the notion that Counts' speech could serve as a foundation for the CCC track? (note: you can agree or take issue with this claim)
Counts argues that public schools should be agents of change for society. The idea that schools and teachers should help shape society and build a new social order promotes social welfare through education. Applying this idea to the CCC track implies that the students will be trusted to write educational theories and shape educational programs in their fields. This frame of thought that gives agency to students expects them to bridge the gap between school and society and paly some part in the fashioning of the common purposes which bind the two together.
The CCC track, and education in general, contains a large amount if imposition through the selection of curriculum, methods of teaching and course requirements. I can see how the program’s imposition shapes class discussion and students’ interests. Assuming that all students are imposed upon in some fashion during their years in the program, the hope is that they deliberately reach for power and make the most of it in shaping education to fulfill the sentiment of progressive education. Counts argues that if progressive education is be genuinely progressive, it must emancipate itself from the influence of social class and establish an organic relation with the community. By the same taken, if the CCC track’s goal is to instill the sentiment of changes in the students, it must help them to rethink the role they play in schools and education.
2. Ask three questions about the Burbules and Warnick reading.
1. To what extent do the 10 methods explained in the article demystify the “moves” that comprise much of the work done in philosophy of education considering that the articles does not list many concrete examples to explain each method? How does theory influence methods?
2. Is there a place for intellectual originality in the 10 methods presented in the article?
3. Burbules and Warnick argue that the people on the front line of education need more than anything a sense of value and purpose of what they are doing, do methods of philosophical inquiry facilitate this process?
Posted by Jacqueline With the analysis any historic document it is important to understand the climate in which it was written. The speeches of Counts in, ‘Dare the School Build a New Social Order, occurred at a very tumultuous time in U.S. history. In the 1920s the U.S. experienced a wave of extreme conservatism with the banning of scientific books and the Scopes trial. Beginning in the late 1920s into the 1930s, the U.S. suffered from the grip of The Great Depression. Many disapproved of Hoover’s unwillingness to help starving U.S. citizens while offering federal aid to feed the cattle of farmers. Disillusioned with the government, and with assumed awareness of the Bolshevik revolution and formation of the USSR, many took note of the rise of communism in the burgeoning nation. Riding this wave of discontent, FDR was elected, in 1932, based on his belief that government should help its people. During this time there was great opposition to FDR’s New Deal from the conservative Republicans of the north and the conservative Democrats of the south. With an understanding of the climate in which Count’s speech was made, it makes clear for me the context of his demand that schools stand for something, that they make clear their intent to help those they claim to serve. There are specific quotes that can be applied to VCU’s CCC program (didn't have the space to post them). Though I do not take a position whether Count’s speech could serve as the foundation for the program, I do offer some questions and thoughts as I seek to clarify VCU’s alignment with Count’s speech. As I read the Program Goal for the CCC track on VCU’s website, and I contemplate its call for “advocacy and social justice”, and its promise to prepare “instructional leaders to advocate for change across a wide range of institutions, systems and contexts,” I am challenged to find representation of this in the classes I attended in my first year which consisted of full time course work. Some courses used texts and were taught in such manner that they could have been transported back in time to any of the decades in the last century without the class participants ever sensing anything amiss. This may be a slight, but only a slight exaggeration. Based on this experience, I question whether VCU is ready to build our society (the Richmond Metropolitan region) or simply offer courses that may or may not contemplate the issues facing society? Future teachers hoping to pursue careers in needy urban settings have expressed a lack of preparedness to enter such challenging environments as they approach the end of their program at VCU. Is VCU truly preparing teachers to be “change agents” across any context, even the most challenging ones? As I look at research being conducted by VCU in the areas of school discipline and culturally diverse school settings, I wonder if this is fueled by what other urban education centers are doing versus VCU’s commitment to bring about change. Are they just making a grab for the available research dollars? When funding dries up, will the drive to be the leader in urban education remain? And are these studies actually getting to the core of the issues? I question whether VCU is willing “to suffer calumny, to surrender security, to risk both reputation and fortune” for the sake of the unadulterated truth in research or content in simply placating the school districts served by MERC? I would be interested to see if, in the wake of a conservative political regime, whether the nature of research would change or become more conservative than it currently appears.
Posted by Jacqueline Questions from Burbules and Warwick 1. Why do the authors feel the need “to foreground philosophy as an area of inquiry?” Hasn’t philosophy always been concerned with inquiry? 2. On page 497: “This points up an interesting characteristic of philosophy of education as a field: When it is in critical mode, multiple contrasting perspectives need not engage each other directly—even when the target of criticism is the same. In its more prescriptive mode, these contrasting perspectives become troublesome because they pull the attention and energies of policymakers and practitioners in different directions.” How is anything supposed to be accomplished if the intellectuals aren’t willing to wrestle with ideas to achieve consensus or at least a workable plan? 3. On page 498: “Advice about what to do on Monday morning is not what people should expect from philosophers”; So, what earthly good are they? :-)
On the Counts article: While I agree with the general spirit of this message for education, I do find quite a few faults with it. One thing he asserts very early on is that we often take the view, especially in the field of education that “education is the one unfailing remedy for all”. I think many of us do that because we believe so wholeheartedly in the power of education. But I don’t think that education can solve all the problems in America, and I think that when we, as educators, promote that it can we set ourselves up for failure. He also says the “some selection must be made of teachers, curricula, and methods of teaching. And in the making of the selection the dice must always be weighted in favor of this or that.” I agree with this as well. We must pick some kind of stance, or “theory” or “perspective” whether we are honest about that or not.
He also talks about how teachers tend to be meek and not stand up for themselves and their beliefs, and I agree with that. He says, “teachers, if they could increase sufficiently their stock of courage, intelligence and vision might become a social force of some magnitude.” While I question the intelligence part of this statement I do generally agree. I agree with what he later says, that teachers need to “seek power and then strive to use that power fully and wisely…” because if we don’t have a part in making the decisions then the decisions will be made by people who don’t care or don’t know as much about education.
So while I can go along with the spirit of what he is saying, I do think he gets a little too radical. He reminds me of the Giroux’s, and McLaren’s who advocate for a complete overthrow of our capitalistic society. While I believe that capitalism has become one of the problems of our society, I don’t think it is “the” problem because many other countries around the world that are not capitalistic in nature have similar problems with unequal divisions of wealth, class, race, and power. I’m not ready to throw the baby out with the bath water. At least not yet.
Questions about Burbules: 1. I agree with the need to infuse a bit more philosophy into the profession, and a lot of that can start in teacher preparation programs, but does he have any ideas for HOW we would insert it to already practicing educators? 2. If, as the author asserts, it would “put shackles on philosophical thought” to expect philosophers to give “advice about what to do on Monday morning”, then how can one really meld the two schools, philosopher and practitioner? 3. Philosophy of education, just as in any field, has wide-ranging schools of thoughts within itself. How can ed. philosophers better explore these varying thoughts and get them to practitioners in understandable language and concept? (back to the idea of the separation between research and practitioner, and related to the first question).
1) React to the notion that Counts’ speech could serve as a foundation for the CCC track.
I was repeatedly surprised at how relevant Counts’ words, at times, were relevant to our current leadership and US society. As well, I do believe that some of what Counts’ said relates to the CCC track. When Counts’ speaks of “Progressive Education….to be genuinely progressive, it must emancipate itself from the influence of class, face squarely and courageously every social issue, come to grips with life in all of its stark reality, establish an organic relation with the community…” (p. 9), I think of concepts such as Bourdieu’s cultural, economic, and social and capitals; Bernstein’s pedagogic device; Critical Theory; and Critical Race Theory—and how the ultimate goal, in my mind, is to have a more equitable education system. When Counts says “that the teachers should deliberately reach for power and then make the most of their conquest”, I immediately think of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy (CRP), Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy (CSP), and The Dream-Keepers, by Ladson-Billings. The CCC track embraces all of these concepts and pedagogies, so indeed, I see a connection.
However, Counts’ also states that “an education that does not strive to promote the fullest and most thorough understanding of the world is not worthy of the name” (p. 12) and how “our democratic tradition must of necessity evolve and gradually assume an essentially collectivistic pattern” (p. 46). In my opinion, the CCC track does not focus on this worldly knowledge. Likewise, though many minority cultures that reside in the US are collective by nature, the education system is very individualistic. Discussion of creating a more collective education is limited to discussion of cultures within the US that have more of a collective nature, embracing the CRP/CSP for these students learning.
What I see in Counts’ speech is a part of what the CCC track embraces. However, perhaps due to the limits within a PhD program, Counts’ speech travels paths in different directions that the CCC track does not (and sometimes perhaps does not want to) explore.
2) Ask three questions about the Burbules and Warnick reading. A. p. 489, Burbules and Warnick state, “Many in the field of education today neglect (even disparage) crucial reflection about educational aims and their ground in deeper, often unexamined assumptions about knowledge and value.” Though some educators see the reflection imperative; others, who are oftentimes in leadership positions, do not. How do we, as educators, get back to this reflection influencing decisions, especially when those in positions of power often are not in agreement and find themselves more interested in ‘test scores and other measurements of accountability’?
B. On page 493, Burbules and Warnick speak of “why we define education in terms of opportunities” and question what it means to have an opportunity. Instead, I would ask how we can help more students who are at a disadvantage have more opportunities? How can teachers, with so many tasks already on their plates, be inspired to take the extra time to help these students find and pursue opportunities?
C. On page 497, Burbules and Warnick ask “which minority groups, and their educational disadvantages, deserve priority of consideration in the allocation of scarce resources”. Why do we have to choose? Should not all minority groups and those with educational disadvantages receive the resources that they need? Why not pose the question of how to obtain the resources to serve all minority students?
There are parts of Counts’ speech that resonate with the heart of the CCC track. For instance on pg. 44, Counts’ states that there needs to be equity in education, and things should not serve just the few. I think this thought is something that the CCC track can most certainly get behind. This sentiment has been a major driving force behind many of the conversations in class, as well as the conversations in schools. However, there passages that left me scratching my head. When writing about the changing world and the need to teach students how to adapt, Counts’ states, “Under such a conception of life and society, education can only bow down before the gods of chance and reflect the drift of the social order.” This is very extreme, and I have to say I disagree with this. Teaching students to think critically and collaborate no matter the content area will give them the opportunity to build more than just content knowledge skills.
1. If the people on the “front lines” of education do not want to use research, how can we bridge this gap?
2. If educational philosophers are the people exploring the hidden assumptions does this only bring to light what these individuals see as the hidden assumptions?
3. I understand, and agree with, the claims that philosophers need to balance their contemplation and action. However, how can philosophers have a practical duty of action, if they are not concerned with “What to do Monday morning?”
Counts’ “Dare the School Build a New Social Order?”
ReplyDeleteCounts’ speech is a clarion call for its time. It captures the mood of the early years of the Great Depression, during which revolutionary sentiment toward the established order in politics, economics, commerce, and social programs rose across Western democracies and incorporated socialistic ideals. Because education had become almost universal, at least through the primary grades, in American culture, the idea of using education to create a new social order seemed logical and inevitable. Yet Counts’ speech becomes more intense as it progresses, and it reads more as a political manifesto promoting Marxist ideals than an education reform proposal. The language Counts uses is the language of political revolution, and he, in fact, stresses this point: “We live in troublous times; we live in an age of profound change; we live in an age of revolution” (p. 31). Counts proposes a complete deconstruction of the existing order and a reconstitution of it with teachers and the education system playing significant roles in the social change he envisions: “The times are literally crying for a new vision of American destiny. The teaching profession, or at least its progressive elements, should eagerly grasp the opportunity which the fates have placed in their hands” (p. 54).
As I read Counts’ writing, I couldn’t escape thoughts of the works of Aldous Huxley and George Orwell. The penultimate dialogue from chapter two of Brave New World (also published in 1932) kept coming to mind. “‘Till at last the child's mind is these suggestions, and the sum of the suggestions is the child’s mind. And not the child's mind only. The adult’s mind too–all his life long. The mind that judges and desires and decides–made up of these suggestions. But all these suggestions are our suggestions!’ The Director almost shouted in his triumph. ‘Suggestions from the State,’” Huxley wrote. Who decides what the new social order will be, and how can we trust that their decisions will serve individual as well as the community needs and desires, not the state’s? And therein lies the rub. We must sift through Counts’ speech and balance individual freedom of choice against social interests. In the CCC track, this presents us with the challenge of being actors in education for positive social change but not imposing on others our individual or collective views of what constitutes positive social change. As Uncle Ben would say in Spiderman, “With great power comes great responsibility.” Are we moral actors and capable of the task?
Burbules & Warnick, “Philosophical Inquiry”
1. Barbules and Warnick write: “Part of the purpose for exploring these hidden premises, assumptions, and prejudices is that evaluating an idea, or an entire system of thought, involves evaluating its presumptions, and its implications as well” (p. 493). How do we achieve consensus regarding the meaning of hidden premises, assumptions, and prejudices? Will we all see the same buried meanings and intentions in the same way?
2. Regarding Barbules and Warnick’s definition of a philosophy of education (p. 496-497), does the explosion of “-isms” represent a field that is passing through its troubled adolescence and is growing into its maturity, much like other social sciences fields have experienced during their evolutions?
3. Barbules and Warnick write: “Can – and should – one put into suspension certain evaluative skills and dispositions, to try to understand a text or point of view on its own terms? What are the limits of one’s abilities to set aside one’s prejudices and value systems: Is it worthwhile, or even proper, to try to give Mein Kampf a fair and sympathetic reading, for example, or to make an effort to see the world as Adolph Hitler saw it?” (p. 499). As curricularists, how do we exercise our best judgment over what to include or exclude from the curriculum without imposing our own views of what is right or good on others?
Question #3... such a great one, Pete. This makes me think of our class this past Thursday. Dr. Reich kept coming back to the idea of power. Who has the power to decide what gets taught? My initial reaction is that it should rarely be an individual endeavor, yet I look at my own work and aside from yearly student evaluations, I don't receive extensive feedback or input on whether the content I'm choosing to teach is worthwhile. So I'm a bit of a hypocrite when I say that as curricularists, we should seek out a critical community who can weigh in on our decisions and potentially strengthen our work through offering counterarguments of why our choices might not be the best or support of why our choices are beneficial.
DeleteWhat drew me to the CCC track was its name; the nebulous, fluid perception I absorbed from the terms and title, “Curriculum, Culture, and Change” attracted me with its variable and open-ended possibilities of interpretation. Several components of the Counts’ speech supports the progressive foundation of our track; for instance, the “rigorous scrutiny” of the concept of education as well as its assertion of leadership assuming its costs alongside benefits. The emphatic indication that any progressive movement must possess direction gestures toward structure and intention; however, in a track that specifies change as part of its title, many students may recognize that while a shift or transformation is desired, its articulation and goal may still remain unarticulated or unclear. The CCC website reflects the track as one of activism and advocacy, and states,
ReplyDelete“The concentration distinguishes itself by preparing curriculum and instruction leaders to be change agents capable of working in school systems, higher education and advocacy organizations. It reflects an activist stance toward the education profession — one that views schooling as not only shaped by society but also as an active force for equity and meaningful societal change. It will appeal to a wide range of students: those who are seeking to become instructional leaders in school systems, those preparing to teach in the academy and all those desiring a strong foundation in educational reform.”
While Counts’ stance on Progressive Education encompasses community and social welfare, his statement of that it “cannot place its trust in a child-centered school” threw me for a loop. If the young generations are not part of the central dialogue of reform, how can conversations involving curriculum, culture, and change take place? Furthermore, the reach of teachers for “power and conquest” without “false modesty” does not reflect the all faces of advocacy and activism; nor do teachers who reject these notions convey a “confession of incompetence.” Counts’ speech reflected some of the mission of CCC towards growth, but derailed in some of its hard and militant turns of educator position and goals.
Three questions I have about the Burbules and Warnick reading:
What are the arguments in philosophical inquiry for and against choice models in education in various settings and populations? (p. 495)
Regarding perceptions of education as a teleological endeavor, how does that shift and clash between generations amidst the growth and development of societies? (p. 496)
The educational ideas and slogans that emerge, fall out of favor and reemerge as Burbules and Warwick describe on page 500 - how do educators best use resources and models to respond to changes in society and our students (from day to day and year to year) without detriment to our learners?
First, I must acknowledge that it was a bit depressing to realize that Counts’ speech is approaching its centennial birthday. It seems like a battle cry of sorts for American educators that aside from the focus on the industrial revolution (although some word argue this is still underway), could have been penned just weeks ago. Counts’ (1932) vision of democracy- “a sentiment with respect to the moral equality of men” offers an invitation to reenvision the purpose of education (p.41). His ideas are rooted in a desire for education to be the “unfailing remedy for every ill”, yet he acknowledges that such a realization would require a revolution of sorts to the way we carry our educating a citizens in America (Counts, 1932, p. 3). All this to say, his speech could certainly be a part of the CCC’s foundation. His particular belief that “teachers should deliberately reach for power” seems particularly fitting (Counts, 1932, p. 28). Most of us have classroom experience, and I see this program as a desire to obtain power that can lead to change in classrooms nationwide.
ReplyDelete1. In thinking of the secondary school setting, how could it benefit each content area to have the support of a philosopher working at a local university?
2. Based on this article’s ideas, is it fair to expect all educators to carry out some philosophical methods in their work? If so, what would this look like for the practitioner?
3. Why do you believe method #7 (“speculating about alternative systems or practices of education”) is often met with some resistance, even among educators themselves (Burbules and Warnick, 2006, p. 497)?
1. React to the notion that Counts' speech could serve as a foundation for the CCC track? (note: you can agree or take issue with this claim)
ReplyDeleteCounts argues that public schools should be agents of change for society. The idea that schools and teachers should help shape society and build a new social order promotes social welfare through education. Applying this idea to the CCC track implies that the students will be trusted to write educational theories and shape educational programs in their fields. This frame of thought that gives agency to students expects them to bridge the gap between school and society and paly some part in the fashioning of the common purposes which bind the two together.
The CCC track, and education in general, contains a large amount if imposition through the selection of curriculum, methods of teaching and course requirements. I can see how the program’s imposition shapes class discussion and students’ interests. Assuming that all students are imposed upon in some fashion during their years in the program, the hope is that they deliberately reach for power and make the most of it in shaping education to fulfill the sentiment of progressive education. Counts argues that if progressive education is be genuinely progressive, it must emancipate itself from the influence of social class and establish an organic relation with the community. By the same taken, if the CCC track’s goal is to instill the sentiment of changes in the students, it must help them to rethink the role they play in schools and education.
2. Ask three questions about the Burbules and Warnick reading.
1. To what extent do the 10 methods explained in the article demystify the “moves” that comprise much of the work done in philosophy of education considering that the articles does not list many concrete examples to explain each method? How does theory influence methods?
2. Is there a place for intellectual originality in the 10 methods presented in the article?
3. Burbules and Warnick argue that the people on the front line of education need more than anything a sense of value and purpose of what they are doing, do methods of philosophical inquiry facilitate this process?
Posted by Jacqueline
ReplyDeleteWith the analysis any historic document it is important to understand the climate in which it was written. The speeches of Counts in, ‘Dare the School Build a New Social Order, occurred at a very tumultuous time in U.S. history. In the 1920s the U.S. experienced a wave of extreme conservatism with the banning of scientific books and the Scopes trial. Beginning in the late 1920s into the 1930s, the U.S. suffered from the grip of The Great Depression. Many disapproved of Hoover’s unwillingness to help starving U.S. citizens while offering federal aid to feed the cattle of farmers. Disillusioned with the government, and with assumed awareness of the Bolshevik revolution and formation of the USSR, many took note of the rise of communism in the burgeoning nation. Riding this wave of discontent, FDR was elected, in 1932, based on his belief that government should help its people. During this time there was great opposition to FDR’s New Deal from the conservative Republicans of the north and the conservative Democrats of the south.
With an understanding of the climate in which Count’s speech was made, it makes clear for me the context of his demand that schools stand for something, that they make clear their intent to help those they claim to serve. There are specific quotes that can be applied to VCU’s CCC program (didn't have the space to post them). Though I do not take a position whether Count’s speech could serve as the foundation for the program, I do offer some questions and thoughts as I seek to clarify VCU’s alignment with Count’s speech.
As I read the Program Goal for the CCC track on VCU’s website, and I contemplate its call for “advocacy and social justice”, and its promise to prepare “instructional leaders to advocate for change across a wide range of institutions, systems and contexts,” I am challenged to find representation of this in the classes I attended in my first year which consisted of full time course work. Some courses used texts and were taught in such manner that they could have been transported back in time to any of the decades in the last century without the class participants ever sensing anything amiss. This may be a slight, but only a slight exaggeration. Based on this experience, I question whether VCU is ready to build our society (the Richmond Metropolitan region) or simply offer courses that may or may not contemplate the issues facing society? Future teachers hoping to pursue careers in needy urban settings have expressed a lack of preparedness to enter such challenging environments as they approach the end of their program at VCU. Is VCU truly preparing teachers to be “change agents” across any context, even the most challenging ones?
As I look at research being conducted by VCU in the areas of school discipline and culturally diverse school settings, I wonder if this is fueled by what other urban education centers are doing versus VCU’s commitment to bring about change. Are they just making a grab for the available research dollars? When funding dries up, will the drive to be the leader in urban education remain? And are these studies actually getting to the core of the issues? I question whether VCU is willing “to suffer calumny, to surrender security, to risk both reputation and fortune” for the sake of the unadulterated truth in research or content in simply placating the school districts served by MERC? I would be interested to see if, in the wake of a conservative political regime, whether the nature of research would change or become more conservative than it currently appears.
Posted by Jacqueline
ReplyDeleteQuestions from Burbules and Warwick
1. Why do the authors feel the need “to foreground philosophy as an area of inquiry?” Hasn’t philosophy always been concerned with inquiry?
2. On page 497: “This points up an interesting characteristic of philosophy of education as a field: When it is in critical mode, multiple contrasting perspectives need not engage each other directly—even when the target of criticism is the same. In its more prescriptive mode, these contrasting perspectives become troublesome because they pull the attention and energies of policymakers and practitioners in different directions.”
How is anything supposed to be accomplished if the intellectuals aren’t willing to wrestle with ideas to achieve consensus or at least a workable plan?
3. On page 498: “Advice about what to do on Monday morning is not what people should expect from philosophers”;
So, what earthly good are they? :-)
On the Counts article: While I agree with the general spirit of this message for education, I do find quite a few faults with it. One thing he asserts very early on is that we often take the view, especially in the field of education that “education is the one unfailing remedy for all”. I think many of us do that because we believe so wholeheartedly in the power of education. But I don’t think that education can solve all the problems in America, and I think that when we, as educators, promote that it can we set ourselves up for failure. He also says the “some selection must be made of teachers, curricula, and methods of teaching. And in the making of the selection the dice must always be weighted in favor of this or that.” I agree with this as well. We must pick some kind of stance, or “theory” or “perspective” whether we are honest about that or not.
ReplyDeleteHe also talks about how teachers tend to be meek and not stand up for themselves and their beliefs, and I agree with that. He says, “teachers, if they could increase sufficiently their stock of courage, intelligence and vision might become a social force of some magnitude.” While I question the intelligence part of this statement I do generally agree. I agree with what he later says, that teachers need to “seek power and then strive to use that power fully and wisely…” because if we don’t have a part in making the decisions then the decisions will be made by people who don’t care or don’t know as much about education.
So while I can go along with the spirit of what he is saying, I do think he gets a little too radical. He reminds me of the Giroux’s, and McLaren’s who advocate for a complete overthrow of our capitalistic society. While I believe that capitalism has become one of the problems of our society, I don’t think it is “the” problem because many other countries around the world that are not capitalistic in nature have similar problems with unequal divisions of wealth, class, race, and power. I’m not ready to throw the baby out with the bath water. At least not yet.
Questions about Burbules:
ReplyDelete1. I agree with the need to infuse a bit more philosophy into the profession, and a lot of that can start in teacher preparation programs, but does he have any ideas for HOW we would insert it to already practicing educators?
2. If, as the author asserts, it would “put shackles on philosophical thought” to expect philosophers to give “advice about what to do on Monday morning”, then how can one really meld the two schools, philosopher and practitioner?
3. Philosophy of education, just as in any field, has wide-ranging schools of thoughts within itself. How can ed. philosophers better explore these varying thoughts and get them to practitioners in understandable language and concept? (back to the idea of the separation between research and practitioner, and related to the first question).
Susan D. Dudley
ReplyDelete1) React to the notion that Counts’ speech could serve as a foundation for the CCC track.
I was repeatedly surprised at how relevant Counts’ words, at times, were relevant to our current leadership and US society. As well, I do believe that some of what Counts’ said relates to the CCC track. When Counts’ speaks of “Progressive Education….to be genuinely progressive, it must emancipate itself from the influence of class, face squarely and courageously every social issue, come to grips with life in all of its stark reality, establish an organic relation with the community…” (p. 9), I think of concepts such as Bourdieu’s cultural, economic, and social and capitals; Bernstein’s pedagogic device; Critical Theory; and Critical Race Theory—and how the ultimate goal, in my mind, is to have a more equitable education system. When Counts says “that the teachers should deliberately reach for power and then make the most of their conquest”, I immediately think of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy (CRP), Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy (CSP), and The Dream-Keepers, by Ladson-Billings. The CCC track embraces all of these concepts and pedagogies, so indeed, I see a connection.
However, Counts’ also states that “an education that does not strive to promote the fullest and most thorough understanding of the world is not worthy of the name” (p. 12) and how “our democratic tradition must of necessity evolve and gradually assume an essentially collectivistic pattern” (p. 46). In my opinion, the CCC track does not focus on this worldly knowledge. Likewise, though many minority cultures that reside in the US are collective by nature, the education system is very individualistic. Discussion of creating a more collective education is limited to discussion of cultures within the US that have more of a collective nature, embracing the CRP/CSP for these students learning.
What I see in Counts’ speech is a part of what the CCC track embraces. However, perhaps due to the limits within a PhD program, Counts’ speech travels paths in different directions that the CCC track does not (and sometimes perhaps does not want to) explore.
2) Ask three questions about the Burbules and Warnick reading.
A. p. 489, Burbules and Warnick state, “Many in the field of education today neglect (even disparage) crucial reflection about educational aims and their ground in deeper, often unexamined assumptions about knowledge and value.” Though some educators see the reflection imperative; others, who are oftentimes in leadership positions, do not. How do we, as educators, get back to this reflection influencing decisions, especially when those in positions of power often are not in agreement and find themselves more interested in ‘test scores and other measurements of accountability’?
B. On page 493, Burbules and Warnick speak of “why we define education in terms of opportunities” and question what it means to have an opportunity. Instead, I would ask how we can help more students who are at a disadvantage have more opportunities? How can teachers, with so many tasks already on their plates, be inspired to take the extra time to help these students find and pursue opportunities?
C. On page 497, Burbules and Warnick ask “which minority groups, and their educational disadvantages, deserve priority of consideration in the allocation of scarce resources”. Why do we have to choose? Should not all minority groups and those with educational disadvantages receive the resources that they need? Why not pose the question of how to obtain the resources to serve all minority students?
There are parts of Counts’ speech that resonate with the heart of the CCC track. For instance on pg. 44, Counts’ states that there needs to be equity in education, and things should not serve just the few. I think this thought is something that the CCC track can most certainly get behind. This sentiment has been a major driving force behind many of the conversations in class, as well as the conversations in schools. However, there passages that left me scratching my head. When writing about the changing world and the need to teach students how to adapt, Counts’ states, “Under such a conception of life and society, education can only bow down before the gods of chance and reflect the drift of the social order.” This is very extreme, and I have to say I disagree with this. Teaching students to think critically and collaborate no matter the content area will give them the opportunity to build more than just content knowledge skills.
ReplyDelete1. If the people on the “front lines” of education do not want to use research, how can we bridge this gap?
2. If educational philosophers are the people exploring the hidden assumptions does this only bring to light what these individuals see as the hidden assumptions?
3. I understand, and agree with, the claims that philosophers need to balance their contemplation and action. However, how can philosophers have a practical duty of action, if they are not concerned with “What to do Monday morning?”