Maybe I have drank the kool-aid, but I can't stop thinking about Baudrillard. Denis, I have to say that initially I had some strong thoughts on why you would have selected Baudrillard as a potential philosopher to connect with questions around curriculum. The only reason I chose Baudrillard was because of the date for the presentation listed in the syllabus and no other. At first glance, the reading selection seemed ridiculous and non-sensical. I believed I would have nothing intelligent to say about Baudrillard because I could not understand a damn thing he said.
So how did I go from a place of being in an intellectual Baudrillard barren wasteland, to, in this my final blog... Baudrillard rocked my world and I don't care who knows it.
Well, is it not a trip to really have your paradigm stretched, shifted and toyed with?
As a person who has been in school now for the past four years (Masters backing on the Post Bac), at times I feel "all learned out". In reading another scholar, another stance, a different way of looking at an idea, another pedagogy, there is often familiarity there. A sense of "I heard this in some way, shape or form before".
But Baudrillard...ah Baudrillard.
Things are not as they appear and I am so glad Morphius, I mean Denis, has laid Baudrillard and other thinkers like McLuhan down in front of us to trip us up a bit.
Without realizing it, bigger picture, out of the education realm thinkers, can help us make sense of the world we are so entrenched in. We are more systematized and caught up in the world of schooling than we know. Outsiders to education helps us to understand that it is not just in education where "ways of knowing and being" exist. Baudrillard, McLuhan and even my old pal Maxine challenge us to be in a state of "wide-awakeness" and be aware of what is potentially at play and at stake.
Ideas like simulacra may seem abstract and "way out there", but the relevance to the work we are doing with children and the curricular choices we make are rooted in the here and now.
Case in point. In reading report cards this past weekend, I was thinking about Baudrillard. What does it mean when we report to parents on what is important in our classrooms? Based on teacher comments, is the "curriculum" really about completing assignments, handing in homework, making corrections, being quiet in class, separate subjects, neatness and organization, understanding concepts and skills etc. ? Are we assessing kids on how well they "do school"? If this is what we value, is any of this "work" real? Is this the true curriculum of school if this is what we report on? Is the reality that we have created of what is "real school" is based on a non reality?
The point is that my thinking has been expanded. I could not have seen curriculum or education in those term before. I like that. I am grateful for that.
As I have said before, it is a priviledge to have the luxury of thinking, reading, blogging, and discussing along side of all of you, with the help of our new friend Denis. Thank-you for the provocation and "the trip"; to think deeply about what is so integrally important to all of us, the education of our children.
lb
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Chaotic Thoughts on Baudrillard- Vegas and Processed Cheese
As I am preparing for our group presentation, I have been making notes in a random and "happenstance" kind of way. I thought these inner rambling might help in thinking about what you are reading for our presentation on Wednesday.
To understand a bit of this article you have to come at it from the belief that if you open yourself to the chaos, you can find some order and make sense of some things.
The copier and the copied are take fake so much that all “truth is lost”
There is no reality anymore-replacement of symbols, images, signs- take on a life of their own. What is real anymore?
Hollywood imitates life? Life imitates Hollywood? The medium is in the message, the message is in the medium.
To simulate: Replicate, reproduce, copy, imitate, suggest, create, conjure up, fake
Modern society has replaced all reality and meaning with signs and symbols and the human experience is a simulation of reality rather than reality itself? Eg-Facebook and friendship
Where do we have simulations in curriculum where the real is not real?
Example: Instead of exploring with a real microscope and real slide samples, the teacher has the student read a textbook explanation of how to use a microscope and examine slides. To examine the parts of the microscope, the teacher gives a worksheet with a picture of the microscope labeled for the students to complete while the real microscopes sit unused on the counter at the back of the room. What is real about this experience? Have the students lost a sense of what is real about microscopes in this simulation? Do the medium change? “We have to do the “boring” stuff first before we can get to the fun stuff.”
Simulacra- signs of culture and media that create the perceived reality. –blog reference to sex and pornography and the Paris Hilton phenomenon
Simulacrum- is that which never hides the truth- it is the truth that conceals that there is none(truth). The simulacrum is true. In other words- What is truth? There is no truth.
Precession of simulacra- the way simulacra have come to precede the real.
Three types of simulacra:
1st order- image is a clear placemarker for the real item
2nd order-mass produced copies-“water down” the original- associated with industrial revolution –e.g. photocopying images from the original.
3rd order- Simulacrum (signs of culture and media that created perceived reality) come before the “original” and reality breaks down. There is only simulacrum.
E.g. – The only experience a child has with art is through reproductions in a book, on a computer, or poster reproductions, but has never been to a gallery to look at real paintings or created real paintings. The student has never listened to a real person play a real piano and has only listened to recordings.
A student has only played hockey on the computer, and never put on skates and stepped out on the ice.
The student learns about Africa through films, tv commercials, books, and has never met someone from Africa and will never visit the continent and countries within.
The fire drill and “Code Yellow” drills.
The student has only read about microscopes but never held one in their hands and played around with one.
Where does this blurred view of reality come from?- Television, film, print, internet
Goods that are needed vs. goods for which a need is created by commercial images
Exchange value- money rather than usefulness
Multicapiticalism-???
Urbanization-seperation of humans from the natural world.
Language and ideology-to obscure reality rather than reveal it
The analogy of the map- map as representation. The map being made before the real geographic territory
Hyperreality- present age- real objects have been taken over from the signs of their existence.
Ideas from Sandoz:
A work of art as a reflection of something “fundamentally” real.
Simulation becomes confused with the source.
The image of the simulation has been extended theoretically.
This sense of loss of what the previous meaning held.
Difference between simulation and simulacrum:
Simulation- to mimic, intent to deceive, imitate behaviour-process
Simulacra-a form or appearance of a thing, a mere image, almost hollow or phony, on the surface level- the condition produced
Sandoz talks about Plato and I thought about Vegas and the images, status, buldings created to be representations of the real. If a tourist goes to “Venice” in Vegas first and the European Venice second, in their construct, which is the real Venice?
In simulacra- not only are we deceived, but our original sense of real is altered- What tastes like cheese? Kraft dinner powder- or a block of “real” cheese. A child growing up on KD, Kraft slices and Cheeze Whiz-tastes a block of French aged cheddar and says-This doesn’t even taste like cheese! The simulacra proceeds and the original reality is altered and replaced.
What if God could be simulated? What do we worship, consider our higher power, are slaves to, would do anything for? Money, power, greed...
This idea Sandoz talks about with regards to Baudrillard ideas about work- work for its own sake, being of little real use, work is used to conceal that work-real or production-real has disappeared. Take a farmer- is their work real- planting, growing, harvesting food- to sell- to feed- we need food don’t we? –What does this mean for the work of schools- what is real useful work for children- Are they working at tasks for the sake of working- to hide the fact that the usefulness has gone out of school? What does this mean for curriculum? What is real work-productive work? What is original work?
The idea of hierarchy being broken down in simulacra coming from Dekeuze. The original being precieved as “best” and the process of recreating, reimaging, appropriating being seen as natural and helpful and new. It is a evolutional sense of reality. Not seen as negative, like, oh damn, we can never get back that orginal state of … but that the simulacra is natural and can be seen in positive terms. Sandoz talks about this idea of a privileged point of view that sits along side the idea of who’s original reality gets the favorable nod.
To understand a bit of this article you have to come at it from the belief that if you open yourself to the chaos, you can find some order and make sense of some things.
The copier and the copied are take fake so much that all “truth is lost”
There is no reality anymore-replacement of symbols, images, signs- take on a life of their own. What is real anymore?
Hollywood imitates life? Life imitates Hollywood? The medium is in the message, the message is in the medium.
To simulate: Replicate, reproduce, copy, imitate, suggest, create, conjure up, fake
Modern society has replaced all reality and meaning with signs and symbols and the human experience is a simulation of reality rather than reality itself? Eg-Facebook and friendship
Where do we have simulations in curriculum where the real is not real?
Example: Instead of exploring with a real microscope and real slide samples, the teacher has the student read a textbook explanation of how to use a microscope and examine slides. To examine the parts of the microscope, the teacher gives a worksheet with a picture of the microscope labeled for the students to complete while the real microscopes sit unused on the counter at the back of the room. What is real about this experience? Have the students lost a sense of what is real about microscopes in this simulation? Do the medium change? “We have to do the “boring” stuff first before we can get to the fun stuff.”
Simulacra- signs of culture and media that create the perceived reality. –blog reference to sex and pornography and the Paris Hilton phenomenon
Simulacrum- is that which never hides the truth- it is the truth that conceals that there is none(truth). The simulacrum is true. In other words- What is truth? There is no truth.
Precession of simulacra- the way simulacra have come to precede the real.
Three types of simulacra:
1st order- image is a clear placemarker for the real item
2nd order-mass produced copies-“water down” the original- associated with industrial revolution –e.g. photocopying images from the original.
3rd order- Simulacrum (signs of culture and media that created perceived reality) come before the “original” and reality breaks down. There is only simulacrum.
E.g. – The only experience a child has with art is through reproductions in a book, on a computer, or poster reproductions, but has never been to a gallery to look at real paintings or created real paintings. The student has never listened to a real person play a real piano and has only listened to recordings.
A student has only played hockey on the computer, and never put on skates and stepped out on the ice.
The student learns about Africa through films, tv commercials, books, and has never met someone from Africa and will never visit the continent and countries within.
The fire drill and “Code Yellow” drills.
The student has only read about microscopes but never held one in their hands and played around with one.
Where does this blurred view of reality come from?- Television, film, print, internet
Goods that are needed vs. goods for which a need is created by commercial images
Exchange value- money rather than usefulness
Multicapiticalism-???
Urbanization-seperation of humans from the natural world.
Language and ideology-to obscure reality rather than reveal it
The analogy of the map- map as representation. The map being made before the real geographic territory
Hyperreality- present age- real objects have been taken over from the signs of their existence.
Ideas from Sandoz:
A work of art as a reflection of something “fundamentally” real.
Simulation becomes confused with the source.
The image of the simulation has been extended theoretically.
This sense of loss of what the previous meaning held.
Difference between simulation and simulacrum:
Simulation- to mimic, intent to deceive, imitate behaviour-process
Simulacra-a form or appearance of a thing, a mere image, almost hollow or phony, on the surface level- the condition produced
Sandoz talks about Plato and I thought about Vegas and the images, status, buldings created to be representations of the real. If a tourist goes to “Venice” in Vegas first and the European Venice second, in their construct, which is the real Venice?
In simulacra- not only are we deceived, but our original sense of real is altered- What tastes like cheese? Kraft dinner powder- or a block of “real” cheese. A child growing up on KD, Kraft slices and Cheeze Whiz-tastes a block of French aged cheddar and says-This doesn’t even taste like cheese! The simulacra proceeds and the original reality is altered and replaced.
What if God could be simulated? What do we worship, consider our higher power, are slaves to, would do anything for? Money, power, greed...
This idea Sandoz talks about with regards to Baudrillard ideas about work- work for its own sake, being of little real use, work is used to conceal that work-real or production-real has disappeared. Take a farmer- is their work real- planting, growing, harvesting food- to sell- to feed- we need food don’t we? –What does this mean for the work of schools- what is real useful work for children- Are they working at tasks for the sake of working- to hide the fact that the usefulness has gone out of school? What does this mean for curriculum? What is real work-productive work? What is original work?
The idea of hierarchy being broken down in simulacra coming from Dekeuze. The original being precieved as “best” and the process of recreating, reimaging, appropriating being seen as natural and helpful and new. It is a evolutional sense of reality. Not seen as negative, like, oh damn, we can never get back that orginal state of … but that the simulacra is natural and can be seen in positive terms. Sandoz talks about this idea of a privileged point of view that sits along side the idea of who’s original reality gets the favorable nod.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Further Thoughts on Biesta
Biesta talked about beginnings and asked the question how newcomers come into presence? How do students become somebody? How do others take up our beginnings? If we see the education of children as taking up their beginnings, what do we really need to know and understand about the children and their families in our care? Gert asked if we take someones beginnings by force. When we share information, know intimate details of a child's family history, for better or worse, the judgments that we can put upon a child's life might be seen as taking their beginnings by force. If we truly respect the plurality that Biesta suggests, it would be a different idea to allow children to appear as they really are.
When Biesta provided this unique metaphor of visiting difference, it could be viewed that we, as educators, may be tourists. We are carrying around a great deal of our own "stuff"....moral judgement, our ideas of good and bad, right or wrong...and cannot truly "visit" difference and make judgements respecting the plurality of others. Biesta framed democratic education in terms of a community that has nothing in common.
In other words, what makes the democratic educational relationship different is that we have no choice in whom we engage with. Students, families, teachers and other staff members...we have come together with a calling to work together to educate children. We may get to choose to be in relationship with family and friends, but democracy is different. We have a responsibility to engage in an educative relationship, to understand and "visit" difference.
When Biesta suggested that this educational relationship be based on trust, responsibility and transcendental violence, the language of violence or being violated , at first glance, seems extreme. However, to wrestle with tension, to stand together in difference and risk having ideas bump up against each other, it is these interruptions that matter most. Biesta challenged us to take that pluralism, that difference, more seriously, if we are truly striving for a democratic education that leads to a more human future.
To help with this Biesta reminded us to look at difference through political terms, rather than moral judgements. (i.e. good vs. bad, right vs. wrong). Seeing the tensions, enjoying and accepting the difference of others. These political terms are different than moral ones. So how do we live out those educational relationships with others and support visiting?
I want to believe that as complicated as this all sounds, in my mind, it comes down to openness and respect and basing my judgements accordingly. It is one thing for responsibility for oneself, but quite another for responsibility without choice and to embrace and enjoy the tension of "otherness". I welcome your thoughts and feedback.
When Biesta provided this unique metaphor of visiting difference, it could be viewed that we, as educators, may be tourists. We are carrying around a great deal of our own "stuff"....moral judgement, our ideas of good and bad, right or wrong...and cannot truly "visit" difference and make judgements respecting the plurality of others. Biesta framed democratic education in terms of a community that has nothing in common.
In other words, what makes the democratic educational relationship different is that we have no choice in whom we engage with. Students, families, teachers and other staff members...we have come together with a calling to work together to educate children. We may get to choose to be in relationship with family and friends, but democracy is different. We have a responsibility to engage in an educative relationship, to understand and "visit" difference.
When Biesta suggested that this educational relationship be based on trust, responsibility and transcendental violence, the language of violence or being violated , at first glance, seems extreme. However, to wrestle with tension, to stand together in difference and risk having ideas bump up against each other, it is these interruptions that matter most. Biesta challenged us to take that pluralism, that difference, more seriously, if we are truly striving for a democratic education that leads to a more human future.
To help with this Biesta reminded us to look at difference through political terms, rather than moral judgements. (i.e. good vs. bad, right vs. wrong). Seeing the tensions, enjoying and accepting the difference of others. These political terms are different than moral ones. So how do we live out those educational relationships with others and support visiting?
I want to believe that as complicated as this all sounds, in my mind, it comes down to openness and respect and basing my judgements accordingly. It is one thing for responsibility for oneself, but quite another for responsibility without choice and to embrace and enjoy the tension of "otherness". I welcome your thoughts and feedback.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
The Aftermath of Beista
As Fran shared in her blog, we were away last week on the educational leadership retreat with Gert Beista. I do not need to summarize the conference because Fran did that so well. I would like the opportunity to throw some of his ideas out there and react to them publically.
The question of "what is a good education?" is a difficult one. In an time when we are looking for measureable outcomes in an age of "learnification" and the direction of education is often determined by measure, how do we measure what we value? I appreciated Gert's language about that. He stated that answering the question of what is a good education is difficult, contentious, fundamentally irresolvable but critical for democratic societies.
His notions of the language of learning and the learnification of education served as reminder that we are not here to create a system to serve the needs of the individual child. Learning can be viewed as a process term without addressing content and purpose. His distinction to learning as an individual process and education as being in relationship is new. We use this language of learning all the time and I would agree with Gert that we talk less about the education of the child and more about the child as a learner. Why is that bad, you might ask? It is in this notion of individualism and viewing learning as almost "commodity" that Beista wrestles with.
Gert's view of the purposes of education were shared through a particular framework:
Qualification ( knowledge, skills, dispositions)- knowledges that are available to function in society- academic to vocational- it qualifies people- to get a job- to lead a particular life with particular skills
Socialization ( becoming a part of existing social, cultural, political, historical, religious “orders”)- ie Western culture, modern culture
Subjectification- or individualization- independence from orders- individual human beings are the opposite of socialization- being autonomous- uniqueness and responsibility- What does it mean to be human? To think independently, to think critically, to be autonomous.
So to condense, what are the purposes of all this work we do?To qualify people, to socialize and to allow one to become an individual.
Fran also suggested that Beista challenged us to consider good education as a composite question and examine the synergies, the tensions and possible conflicts in those overlapping purposes. We explored our own ideas, beliefs, values and practices in relations to the question of good education and used the venn diagram of intersecting circles to see where certain practices fit.
Beista explained that his book "Beyond Learning: A Democratic Education for a Human Future" is about the subjectification of the individual.
Gert referenced Kant’s work with regards to humans as rational and autonomous. Education is at the center of this humanness. "What does it mean to be human?" is the guiding question for modern education. What does it mean to be reflective, critical and autonomous?
The question of humanism- can we say with certainty what we are as human beings? Kant talks about the holy trinity- rationality, autonomy, and education. What about those who do not fit those categories? A view of the child that is not yet rational. What is a “real” human being? Who do we include and exclude? Therefore we need to overcome humanism. It is impossible to define our own humanness. The end of man, the death of the subject.
Please stay tuned for part 2 of the Aftermath of Beista
The question of "what is a good education?" is a difficult one. In an time when we are looking for measureable outcomes in an age of "learnification" and the direction of education is often determined by measure, how do we measure what we value? I appreciated Gert's language about that. He stated that answering the question of what is a good education is difficult, contentious, fundamentally irresolvable but critical for democratic societies.
His notions of the language of learning and the learnification of education served as reminder that we are not here to create a system to serve the needs of the individual child. Learning can be viewed as a process term without addressing content and purpose. His distinction to learning as an individual process and education as being in relationship is new. We use this language of learning all the time and I would agree with Gert that we talk less about the education of the child and more about the child as a learner. Why is that bad, you might ask? It is in this notion of individualism and viewing learning as almost "commodity" that Beista wrestles with.
Gert's view of the purposes of education were shared through a particular framework:
Qualification ( knowledge, skills, dispositions)- knowledges that are available to function in society- academic to vocational- it qualifies people- to get a job- to lead a particular life with particular skills
Socialization ( becoming a part of existing social, cultural, political, historical, religious “orders”)- ie Western culture, modern culture
Subjectification- or individualization- independence from orders- individual human beings are the opposite of socialization- being autonomous- uniqueness and responsibility- What does it mean to be human? To think independently, to think critically, to be autonomous.
So to condense, what are the purposes of all this work we do?To qualify people, to socialize and to allow one to become an individual.
Fran also suggested that Beista challenged us to consider good education as a composite question and examine the synergies, the tensions and possible conflicts in those overlapping purposes. We explored our own ideas, beliefs, values and practices in relations to the question of good education and used the venn diagram of intersecting circles to see where certain practices fit.
Beista explained that his book "Beyond Learning: A Democratic Education for a Human Future" is about the subjectification of the individual.
Gert referenced Kant’s work with regards to humans as rational and autonomous. Education is at the center of this humanness. "What does it mean to be human?" is the guiding question for modern education. What does it mean to be reflective, critical and autonomous?
The question of humanism- can we say with certainty what we are as human beings? Kant talks about the holy trinity- rationality, autonomy, and education. What about those who do not fit those categories? A view of the child that is not yet rational. What is a “real” human being? Who do we include and exclude? Therefore we need to overcome humanism. It is impossible to define our own humanness. The end of man, the death of the subject.
Please stay tuned for part 2 of the Aftermath of Beista
Sunday, October 5, 2008
SAYS WHO?!?!
Look out Cyber-World.
I am seriously fired up today and I would like to thank Kincheloe and Wigglesworth for provoking me into a state of "Yikes!"
When Chris made reference to Adbusters and the idea that we should be learning to subtract and promote living with less, feeling less entitled, I really thought about the view of education and critical pedagogy that Kincheloe was referring to. Kincheloe's article, in my humble opinion, is shouting at the top of its lungs "SAYS WHO?!?!" I was inwardly cheering and feeling validated by what I was reading.
Example-A teacher and I this week were talking about the recycling program and ideas for a whole group assembly. As I started to sing the praises of the recycling of paper, she reminded that the issue isn't about recycling. That should be our last option. She challenged that we should just use a lot less paper, period. And the massive amount of paper in the recycling should be reused for something else. This "piggish" use of paper in the school has become normalized to me, and I needed reminding that living with less should be moved to the forefront.
Another discussion around fundraising in school for the "extras". Even with a $40.00 increase per pupil and we still need more money for what we believe our students need. A TV in every classroom, dances four times a year, camping trips, ski trips, band trips, fun mountain... and the list goes on.
How popular is it to suggest that we be critical of this consumeristic stance? What if we, as educators, took a stance where our students and even ourselves as teachers, could do with less? When Kincheloe talks about the political nature of education, how would it be viewed by our union, our board of trustees and "the system" if we suggested that we would actually be more responsible by promoting values of moderation? Can you imagine at the negotiations table... "Actually, this year, you do not need to put any more money into the ______ budget because, right now, we actually have more than enough!"
How often do we hear that our kids "deserve the best"? The message we send them is perhaps one of entitlement and excessiveness. Maybe even where students shouldn't have to wait for certain things or certain experiences. How much should be available and seen as part of what we value in an educational experience at school?
How can we even begin to talk about social justice in public education in a time where deluxe educational experiences are offered in school - i.e.trips to Europe, ski trips, etc. and considered the norm, and yet so unobtainable and impossible for others to afford? For example, should we be setting a standard that it is part of the high school educative experience to travel abroad when considering the fiscal and environmental costs?
Kincheloe challenges educators to consider "correcting the ways particular students get hurt in the everyday life of schools".
Educators, for the most part, are not out to do their students harm. However, without a critical, questioning stance, how can we spot the injustices and errors in judgement based on the norms of dominant power? Kincheloe demands a rethinking of the "ways that power operates to create purposes for schooling that are not necessarily in the best interests of the children that attend them". Who gets to decide? -as Howard questions? If we don't, who will?
When Eric was really wishing for the emergence of strong leadership, I wonder if this critical pedagogy fits with that view? I welcome your thoughts and strong objections to these views and others.
lb
I am seriously fired up today and I would like to thank Kincheloe and Wigglesworth for provoking me into a state of "Yikes!"
When Chris made reference to Adbusters and the idea that we should be learning to subtract and promote living with less, feeling less entitled, I really thought about the view of education and critical pedagogy that Kincheloe was referring to. Kincheloe's article, in my humble opinion, is shouting at the top of its lungs "SAYS WHO?!?!" I was inwardly cheering and feeling validated by what I was reading.
Example-A teacher and I this week were talking about the recycling program and ideas for a whole group assembly. As I started to sing the praises of the recycling of paper, she reminded that the issue isn't about recycling. That should be our last option. She challenged that we should just use a lot less paper, period. And the massive amount of paper in the recycling should be reused for something else. This "piggish" use of paper in the school has become normalized to me, and I needed reminding that living with less should be moved to the forefront.
Another discussion around fundraising in school for the "extras". Even with a $40.00 increase per pupil and we still need more money for what we believe our students need. A TV in every classroom, dances four times a year, camping trips, ski trips, band trips, fun mountain... and the list goes on.
How popular is it to suggest that we be critical of this consumeristic stance? What if we, as educators, took a stance where our students and even ourselves as teachers, could do with less? When Kincheloe talks about the political nature of education, how would it be viewed by our union, our board of trustees and "the system" if we suggested that we would actually be more responsible by promoting values of moderation? Can you imagine at the negotiations table... "Actually, this year, you do not need to put any more money into the ______ budget because, right now, we actually have more than enough!"
How often do we hear that our kids "deserve the best"? The message we send them is perhaps one of entitlement and excessiveness. Maybe even where students shouldn't have to wait for certain things or certain experiences. How much should be available and seen as part of what we value in an educational experience at school?
How can we even begin to talk about social justice in public education in a time where deluxe educational experiences are offered in school - i.e.trips to Europe, ski trips, etc. and considered the norm, and yet so unobtainable and impossible for others to afford? For example, should we be setting a standard that it is part of the high school educative experience to travel abroad when considering the fiscal and environmental costs?
Kincheloe challenges educators to consider "correcting the ways particular students get hurt in the everyday life of schools".
Educators, for the most part, are not out to do their students harm. However, without a critical, questioning stance, how can we spot the injustices and errors in judgement based on the norms of dominant power? Kincheloe demands a rethinking of the "ways that power operates to create purposes for schooling that are not necessarily in the best interests of the children that attend them". Who gets to decide? -as Howard questions? If we don't, who will?
When Eric was really wishing for the emergence of strong leadership, I wonder if this critical pedagogy fits with that view? I welcome your thoughts and strong objections to these views and others.
lb
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Questions raised from McLuhan
As I have read several of the posted blogs, Crystal and Mary-Lynn's wonderings about what technology is stripping away from our humanity resonated with me.
McLuhan suggests that "When everyone is involved with everybody, how is one to establish identity? I have been thinking about this statement and the implications for my work. I receive, on average, over 30 emails a day. If I don't respond and keep on top of it, the email pile grows exponentially everyday like dirty laundry. People are expecting immediate turn around time on queries. It makes one look incompetent if you answer some one's email five days from the time they send it.
I feel like I am becoming more and more chained to my computer. Rather than someone coming to my office to talk to me in my new school, or me venturing out of my office to talk "in real" with someone, we are both using the technology, and isolating ourselves from human contact in the process.
So how then, do I establish my identity with teachers when so much of the communication is no longer face to face and coming through the medium of email. How is my identity as an educator communicated? How much of my "humanness" is relayed through this technology? I may be involved with everyone and everyone is involved with me, but what are the implications for really "knowing" each other? And how will "identity" be re-imaged and redefined by the use of present and future technology?
All I can say is that I have to force myself to break the chain, leave the chair, and walk up to someone and talk "in real". I am actually frightened of who I will become as a principal in the next 15 years as the technology becomes more prevalent and pervasive.
McLuhan also challenged that "nothing is inevitable so long as we are willing to pay attention". To me, paying attention is the act of questioning and reflecting. Let's continue to consider the impact of certain technologies possibly aiding in a decent down into the maelstrom. I am looking forward to talking to all of you about these thoughts and others "in real".
McLuhan suggests that "When everyone is involved with everybody, how is one to establish identity? I have been thinking about this statement and the implications for my work. I receive, on average, over 30 emails a day. If I don't respond and keep on top of it, the email pile grows exponentially everyday like dirty laundry. People are expecting immediate turn around time on queries. It makes one look incompetent if you answer some one's email five days from the time they send it.
I feel like I am becoming more and more chained to my computer. Rather than someone coming to my office to talk to me in my new school, or me venturing out of my office to talk "in real" with someone, we are both using the technology, and isolating ourselves from human contact in the process.
So how then, do I establish my identity with teachers when so much of the communication is no longer face to face and coming through the medium of email. How is my identity as an educator communicated? How much of my "humanness" is relayed through this technology? I may be involved with everyone and everyone is involved with me, but what are the implications for really "knowing" each other? And how will "identity" be re-imaged and redefined by the use of present and future technology?
All I can say is that I have to force myself to break the chain, leave the chair, and walk up to someone and talk "in real". I am actually frightened of who I will become as a principal in the next 15 years as the technology becomes more prevalent and pervasive.
McLuhan also challenged that "nothing is inevitable so long as we are willing to pay attention". To me, paying attention is the act of questioning and reflecting. Let's continue to consider the impact of certain technologies possibly aiding in a decent down into the maelstrom. I am looking forward to talking to all of you about these thoughts and others "in real".
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Buffy, the DVD and my definition
Good Morning fellow bloggers,
I wanted to put some of my thinking out there about Buffy. When she talked about the "it" in every child that shines through him or her, she questioned how that fits with standards, outcomes, targeted goals in school systems. I wonder how this language of learning we use in curriculum allows for every child to have a good appearance in the world and honour their "it".
Buffy challenged us to consider multiple perspectives and the many ways of knowing. Yet who really gets to decide around matters of education? Does the day to day life in schools with children truly reflect and respect difference?
When watching "Growing Up Canadian" I was struck by how "young" our education system really is in Canada. I heard Tim Tyson speak this week and he talked about how our school system is largely based on the industrial model, creating workers for an industrial job market, and that overall, schools have not changed. Looking at the video, it is smug of us to say how far we have come. When considering certain practices in education, are we all that radically different as a system then we were 50 years ago?
One critism: In this retrospective, the consideration of residential schools in the video was grossly understated, in my opinion. When we look at the history of school in Canada, residential schools are viewed as one of Canada's most shamed actions. It relates directly to the question about what we will be sorry for in the next 50 years. How can we see where we are going if we are not looking honestly at the past? I understand that this video had a "feel good-walk down memory lane" sense to it. I think that is why I enjoyed it so much. But I think this video provides a platform for critical questioning of past, present and future.
So I going to throw this out there and suggest that we might be apologizing for a few things.
How about not giving greater importance to our social responsibilities to our fellow man?
Not emphasising the climate crisis?
How about not helping children to be open to and embrace difference?
Perpetutating and valuing our insatiable appetites as comsumers?
Technology's influence and the way the world will change?
...I could go on.
Yikes! What is in my coffee this morning?
My definition of curriculum is somehow rooted in the above questions. What is an educated person for the future? What do we need to know about as human beings to contribute and grow as a society?
That's all for today.
Lorelei
I wanted to put some of my thinking out there about Buffy. When she talked about the "it" in every child that shines through him or her, she questioned how that fits with standards, outcomes, targeted goals in school systems. I wonder how this language of learning we use in curriculum allows for every child to have a good appearance in the world and honour their "it".
Buffy challenged us to consider multiple perspectives and the many ways of knowing. Yet who really gets to decide around matters of education? Does the day to day life in schools with children truly reflect and respect difference?
When watching "Growing Up Canadian" I was struck by how "young" our education system really is in Canada. I heard Tim Tyson speak this week and he talked about how our school system is largely based on the industrial model, creating workers for an industrial job market, and that overall, schools have not changed. Looking at the video, it is smug of us to say how far we have come. When considering certain practices in education, are we all that radically different as a system then we were 50 years ago?
One critism: In this retrospective, the consideration of residential schools in the video was grossly understated, in my opinion. When we look at the history of school in Canada, residential schools are viewed as one of Canada's most shamed actions. It relates directly to the question about what we will be sorry for in the next 50 years. How can we see where we are going if we are not looking honestly at the past? I understand that this video had a "feel good-walk down memory lane" sense to it. I think that is why I enjoyed it so much. But I think this video provides a platform for critical questioning of past, present and future.
So I going to throw this out there and suggest that we might be apologizing for a few things.
How about not giving greater importance to our social responsibilities to our fellow man?
Not emphasising the climate crisis?
How about not helping children to be open to and embrace difference?
Perpetutating and valuing our insatiable appetites as comsumers?
Technology's influence and the way the world will change?
...I could go on.
Yikes! What is in my coffee this morning?
My definition of curriculum is somehow rooted in the above questions. What is an educated person for the future? What do we need to know about as human beings to contribute and grow as a society?
That's all for today.
Lorelei
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
