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
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Great follow-up summary.
Kant lived in the latter half of the 1700s or 18th century. On the one hand, Biesta is a philosopher, so one might him expect to "choose a philosopher" for his underlying foundation. On the other hand, it is intriguing that we go back to the 18th century to look for a key to 21st century learning.
Too often we think of 21st century ideas as beginning in 2000. Or 2001. Technology-types are particularly likely to believe that educational technology began with the internet ... around 1993. Many others today consider educational technology to mean computers. This is where McLuhan comes in with his definition of media (and technology) as merely extensions ... whether they are computer based extensions is irrelevant.
History is also why I began this course with the documentary "Growing up Canadian", so that we could think of where we are in terms of where we have been.
Philosophers (like Biesta) are good at reminding us that what we do did not start yesterday.
Which leads me to one more thought ... If we have been thinking about this for so long (I leave it for you to determine what "this" refers to) ... from Plato to Kant to Bruner and Habermas ... how come we haven't got it right yet?
Post a Comment