Dominating the discussion of education and educational reform in the U.S. in recent years lies a fundemental economic argument – the notion of scarcity. From this perspective, we as human beings are essentially pitted against each other, competing for basic resources and a life free of want. As such, we develop notions of the “other” being against “us”-- the other as evil, immoral, and depraved. At the core of this perspective, a pessimistic worldview becomes the dominant paradigm: Humans are weak and God is angry. From this perspective, humans need to be told what to do, what to think, and need to be held personally (and by extension, organizationally) accountable for their beliefs and actions. Within this paradigm, government is perceived to be a thief, a waste, wherein less is more beneficial (except for a strong military which is needed to protect us from the enemy, the other). In terms of public education, this moralistic and conservative paradigm is the basis for standards-based reform, voucher programs, charter schools, all of which leads to the potential of privatizing public education.
Strategic initiatives embodied by this worldview have lead to the following steps (Lakoff, 2004) that are currently dominating the educational reform debate:
1. Objective testing uncovers school failure.
2. Demonstrated failure justifies punishment of failing schools.
3. Punishment justifies reduced funding.
4. Less funding makes it harder for schools to improve.
5. A cycle of failure ensues.
6. This cycle of failure justifies privatization.
7. Privatization will lead to good schools.
The unexamined consequences of this paradigm in education include:
- Students are untrustworthy, unmotivated, undisciplined, slothful, and immoral.
- Students (and educators) cannot be trusted and must be monitored and coerced to do the right thing.
- Ability is the best way to identify and group students for learning. Isolation of able learners is essential.
- Education is reduced to a set of select examinations and select examinations becomes education.
- Presentation equals teaching.
- Knowledge is the accumulation of facts.
- Creative, caring, curious, critical citizens are not a priority.
- Public schools are a bloated, ineffective government bureaucracy that should be privatized.
The question is: What has this dominant paradigm actually done for public education except manufacture a crisis?
There is an alternate paradigm that exists which deserves more attention. It is a worldview that was initiated by such historical figures as Rousseau, Pestalozzi, Froebel, Montessori, Horace Mann, Piaget, Dewey and Freire, to name a few.
This alternate paradigm offers a position that suggests that indeed life is difficult, complex and ambiguous, yet human beings are essentially good; evil exists yet it is only a minor part of human experience.
In terms of education, the alternate paradigm acknowledges the following broad perspective:
- Human freedom and empowerment are more critical than accountability and punishment.
- Life is about relationships, not acquisition.
- School is a democratic experience.
- Caring and trust for each person is the center of any truly professional activity.
- Schools are to improve society as a whole, not providing competitive advantage to the elite.
- Curriculum is best derived from the needs and interests of the learners.
- Developmental appropriateness should supercede national assessment.
- School failure is the result of a variety of political and economic causes.
Supporters of this alternate perspective maintain that education is a process based on trust, not doubt and suspicion (Bryk & Schneider 2002). The crucial elements that will sustain school improvement is not high-stakes testing, standards, or reactionary accountability programs – “it is simple human trust… that rests on four supports: respect, competency, integrity, and personal regard for others” (George 2006).
Real education is built on meaningful relationships. We do not learn things in isolation from each other. The core components of education are based on learner-centered values, a respect for diversity and complexity, tolerance, and empowerment. The developmental needs for learners are widespread and cannot be easily or meaningfully reduced to a pencil-based exam.
Historically, the alternate perspective is responsible for ending the divine right of kings, ending political executions, and ending slavery. Without an alternate paradigm we would not have women’s suffrage, child labor laws, civil rights or an environmental movement.
Although this argument paints the current educational reform argument in broad strokes, the underlying assumptions are clearly present and readily accountable. The education of millions of human beings is at stake. The future of our world, our political, economic, and physical environment is at stake. It is my belieft that this alternate paradigm is worth fighting for.
Next steps
How can we address the current paradigm in a profound and meaningful way? I have a number of mixed feelings about how to do this. One idea that dominates my thinking is wresting control of the media. Media corporations control a majority of the content made available to the general public. How can the Internet and Internet technologies (social networks and social software) play in this arena? Who will be the agents of this alternate paradigm? Politicians? Business executives? Technocrats? Teacher Unions? Governments are reactive agencies, they respond to popular opinion and monied interests. Rarely do they act proactively. So it appears that an alternative shift will need to come from the grass roots, the bottom-up, which is from where communities of practice develop and evolve. The need to popularize an alternate perspective appears to be the only way to close the doors on the current paradigm and consign it to history.
Thoughts and comments are most welcome.
References:
Bryk, A. & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
George, P. (2006). Unpublished draft of Don't think of an elephant: Paradigms, culture wars and the middle school concept. 21 February 2006.
Lakoff, G. (2004). Don’t think of an elephant: Know your values and frame the debate. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing.
Note: The ideas discussed in this post are from a combination of thoughts and writings based on an in-class discussion, notes taken, and references from George's (2006) unpublished draft.
Keywords: critical pedagogy, educational reform, Lakoff, learning, paradigms, public education, social networks, social software, teaching
Comments
Harold, Thank you for the link and the nod to free and open learning.
Randy, Point well taken. I sometimes get caught up in the heat of my own emotions and need to step back from the canvas, so to speak. You're right, I doseem to set up an us/them debate which I espouse doing away with. I would like to think that the answer to overcoming the dominant paradigm involves a re-birthing which in some ways requires a struggle against opposing forces. I am not advocating replacing one dominant paradigm with another. I am however suggesting that we overthrow the current paradigm and replace it with one that doesn't use domination as its operating metaphor. Freire suggests that to overcome oppression, the oppressed or those engaged in the struggle for liberation, must accept “their total responsibility for the struggle.” Praxis (i.e., transformative action leads to liberation via critical dialogue, reflection, and communication. So I figured we ought to start somewhere!
-cds
We need to be fairly clear about what is meant by paradigm. When Thomas Kuhn published his The Structure of Scientific Revolutions in 1962 and 'paradigm', 'paradigm shift' and 'incommensurable paradigms' became part of our common conceptual apparatus he was taken to task by a variety of historians, sociologists and philosophers of science because about 20 different meanings of the term could be extracted from his text, some of them pretty contradictory. The historians and philosophers in particular also demonstrated that significant scientific advances rarely involved the 'revolutionary' overthrow of one paradigm by another he was suggesting (although there are instances of this - I think the overthrow of the 'fixists' by the 'continental drifters' and the new paradigm of plate techtonics took over very quickly is cited as one).
More common is the case where a new paradigm absorbs and supersedes the previous one and in so doing exposes some bits of the old one as erroneous, some of it useful approximations but a bit off-centre, and other bits still (provisionally) 'true'. My feeling is that this is the case with advances in learning theory. The general message is beware throwing the baby out with the bath water but, on the other hand, be bold and be prepared to take risks. (I think Chris initiated a discussion of risk taking elsewhere in his blog).
A sudden memory has just surfaced! I am sure Marx said somewhere that the consciousness of a problem could not emerge until the means of its solution emerged or was somehow prefigured in the culture. This could be rubbish of course! However, it is interesting that the development of Web 2.0, the read/write web, social software, etc. has promoted such an interesting, lively and valuable discussion and awareness of problems with our traditional models of learning and teaching methods.
Hi Chris,
I responded to you over at my own Elgg blog, 'cause I knew I had a long rant coming on;->
Christopher,
I wonder if you've read "The Selfish Gene"? The way I interpret it is that there has to be a balance between selfishness and altruism. If there is too much selfishness, it defeats itself and there is no one to take advantage of. If there is too much altruism, it makes it too easy for selfishness to thrive.
Christopher;
I have to applaud you for putting together a fairly long essay on how you feel about education. My own personal view of education has greatly broadened over the past couple of years, moving from a strict 'cut out the social fluff' intellectualism, to a broader social view of education and multiple intelligences / learning styles.
However, I really have to take issue with your gross oversimplification of a number of large issues. I understand that this is just a blog entry, but you really link together way too many concepts in your arguments. As such, it's potential to convince, persuade, and bring people together is rather low.
Your linking of scarcity into some sort of 'god is angry thing,' which then turns into a pessimistic standards-based educational agenda trying to end public education, is a very strong claim. If you are going to say this, then provide real argumentation supporting it. As it is, this is just another appeal furthering the convictions of those already agreeing with you. As your basic premise is a call to relationships, diversity, and tolerance, I find this rather ironic.
Lastly, your claims as to the "alternate perspective" are grossly inflated. Slavery was almost exclusively ended through the efforts of Christians, whose view of people was incompatible with such an institution. Look up William Wilberforce to read about a true moral crusader. If you want to talk about the divine right of kings being ended, look at the religious people providing the moral foundation to say that all men & women are equal in worth. If you look at the moral character of the “primary” paradigm, you will generally find people who care about the world, and have done much to improve it.
In any case, your “primary” and “alternate” paradigm are a gross oversimplification and ‘us v. them’ way to look at the world. As you started your essay calling against this world-view, I find it highly ironic that you end up perpetuating it.
I don't usually respond to things like this, as they usually turn into flame wars, which are a total a waste of time. However, I saw that there was already a number of responses, and figured that I'd type a short (already too long) response. In addition, I’ve become part of this community, and would to encourage people posting to be less divisive in their characterizations. You and I probably agree on most policy issues around schools, I just hate to see us divided thru ill-considered oversimplifications.
Nathan
Nathan,
Thank you for taking the time to respond to the post. I wrestle with the level of depth and complexity I invest in a blog post. I am encouraged by the feedback I get but my directing professors wish I would spend my time writing more"academic" papers. This post is a simplification of a larger piece I am working on. I believe I have amassed enough evidence to support my claims which is only suggested here. Luckily, I am not really interested in convincing anybody of anything. This is just me sticking some ideas on a page in my own right.
Irony is a funny thing I passed along the way to the forum. Rather than trying to convince you that through such rhetorical devices truthiness can unfold, I am happy you felt so compelled to respond. As such, I did not focus enough on the Freirian concept of oppression and the means of addressing such regimes. In this sense I have created a situation that you and others have found problematic. The good news is, this can be fixed.
I appreciate your need to police posts when they fail to meet your standards, but I would be careful. Christianity is responsible for a great deal of barbarism, fear and hate when you look at it carefully. In the future I will avoid moralistic arguments due to their nature of becoming reducable to absurdity which you have so noted. But that argument works both ways.
Your response is helpful. I have learned not to stick it out there unless you are willing to spend time defending it. The longer version of this paper would never be read online, but it does explicate my admitted simplifications which I am saving for another venue.
Truth be told, I like stirring things up and I think I've done that. I not interested in starting a "flame war" but I will offer you this olive branch: I won't ask you to agree, as long as you don't ask me to be less divisive. I ask that you offer constructive criticism and avoid rhetoric that could be considered a personal attack, i.e., my simplifications are anything but ill-considered.
I also ask that you write a version of this debate and frame it as you see fit. History is filled with this type of scholarship that has led to great insight. Don't mock, just rock!
-cds
My goodness!! How badly did I miss what is at stake in this discussion in my 'scholarly' reflection on the nature of paradigms!
When I was undertaking my teacher training in the early 1980s I did part of my supervised teaching practice in a Further Education College (UK post 16 vocational education in the main). I found myself teaching social studies to 16 year olds on a 'Youth Opportunities Programme' sponsored by the government for kids that were deemed to be virtually unemployable. The scheme was designed to teach manual skills, for the building trades, or office skills for junior clerking before launching them into the labour market. This programme also served to keep unemployment figures down. My job, despite its 'social studies' title, was to help the kids read and fill in job applications and rehearse and coach them for interviews. The point of this story is that when I started the job I was asked to read a dictat from the funding agency saying that the focus of my work will be helping the students address their shortcomings in getting a job and on no account should I engage them in a discussion or critique of the socio-historical economic and structural context within which they are experiencing their difficulties (I paraphrase the document somewhat). This was a bit of a shock as one of the most pressing problems most of them had was a negative self-image based upon a long history of educational failure and being told it was their fault. I had assumed that some basic knowledge of the context would help them understand their position in a less self-destructive manner and begin the process of re-evaluating themselves in a more positive light and start to take control of their own lives (in a small way, no doubt). It was made quite clear that ignoring this directive would lead to dismissal and the possible withdrawing of the funding from the institution. Ok. What do we do? Discuss.
Well, we found ways of bringing in some elements of critique and took some risks, but I was only there for 8 weeks. Others' jobs, mortgages and pensions depended on it. And I am afraid to say that several of the staff did not see any problem with this anyway.
Thanks for a thoughtful response -- something usually missing from online discussions these days.
I disagree with the word 'police' used -- that seems to imply a certain level of authority/power/censorship. Rather, as a fellow member, I am trying to use social present to encourage fellow citizens to communicate in non-divisive manner.
Again, this is totally your own blog, and your own forum to say pretty much whatever you please. Please don't think that by responding I am trying to silence your viewpoint. In any case, the most posts in a particular blog, the more people will visit and read the discussion. I’m simply trying to provide the “other” viewpoint.
You are right in that 2000 years, we've seen a lot of violence and terror from people claiming to be Christians. Unfortunately, we've plain old seen a lot of violence and terror from people in general, and separating those adopting a 'christian' standpoint for personal gain from those who truly believe is difficult to accomplish.
It's good to know that your post is part of a larger work. I guess that I assumed (lol, from a lot of personal experience, even among those who should know better) less of a background of personal study that you obviously have.
We obviously aren't going to convince each other to change viewpoints during this conversation, but I consider any frank, honest, and respectful conversation a win in its own right. I've found that I personally change deeply held beliefs over a long period of time, and as a result, think that a chink here, a chink there, and pretty soon we'll be agreeing...
Best wishes in your larger work -- keeping those advisors happy is never easy!
Nathan
Christopher,
I like your list,
...the alternate paradigm acknowledges the following broad perspective:
I am putting it in my blog to keep it "in front of me" since this fits so well with many of the ideas I have been pondering recently. Your analysis of the manufactured crisis is brilliant- this is a great discussion starter!
Thanks, Dave.
Tom,
Fascinating assignment.
The greatest enemy of innovative thinking? Hmmm... If we assume that attaining knowledge is an iterative process that involves interacting with others as well as the accumulation of thoughts and experiences you've acquired over your lifetime, it might appear that the "enemy" of innovative thinking is how one chooses to view the world. A Freudian might blame his or her parents, of course.... I feel that innovative thinking comes from being open and willing to learn new things. If you aren't willing to take risks and investigate other possibilities, then you yourself are the greatest enemy of innovation.
Similarly, perhaps a way to avoid paradigm paralysis is to find out what other people are doing, thinking, saying, etc. Dewey spoke about reflection as a means for considering alternatives, as a means for taking action based on careful consideration of a number of possibilities. I think the trick is in the number of possibilities you are willing to consider. Ultimately, I think it's important to learn to empathize with others, to step back and consider alternative points of view. Perhaps this might be a way to avoid paralysis.
Your last question is a bit tricky. I guess it depends on how you frame the "old paradigms." All paradigms have their pluses and minuses. I think it's important to investigate the older paradigms with a "beginner's mind." That is, try to look at the context that formed the older paradigm. Each new paradigm is essentially an outgrowth or re-visioning of the previous paradigm. So it might be best not to neutralize the older paradigm but instead understand it for what it is/was.
All instructional programs, curricula, students, classes come with a set of biases. The question becomes, are those biases critical or emancipatory or are they limiting or repressive? Neutralizing the older paradigms might be more difficult than one might think. Perhaps it might be better to explore the older paradigms and see how they're built, who built them, and what consequences resulted from those paradigms before new ones are constructed.
Enjoyed thinking about these questions. Hope my answers were helpful.
-cs