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.
Monday, October 27, 2008
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
