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 Barrow reading...
2. Ask three questions about the Barrow reading...
Reading Counts, I was struck by how little seems to have changed in America in 84 years. He might not be surprised at this. Although the details of technology and specific wars or economic crisis differ, the social and economic inequalities, reactionary forces, and descriptions of the rich and powerful are still true today. Much of his speech resonates with the purpose of the CCC track--teachers as change agents, democracy, acknowledging power and privilege structures and upending them.
ReplyDeleteMy favorite Counts quote was on page 53, "We are all, I think, growing increasingly weary of the brutalities, the stupidities, the hypocrisies, and the gross inanities of contemporary life. We have a haunting feeling that we were born for better things..."
Barrow, on the other hand, did not move me much. His main point seemed to be that the classification of theories and philosophies and schools of thought is an arbitrary organization scheme and we should forget the -isms and focus on the people and policies. So my questions are:
1. What, if anything, does Moore's naturalistic fallacy have to do with educational philosophy?
2. I'm interested in discussing the idea of education as "not natural" ( I know that's a statement, not a question).
3. Are we reading more of Barrow to get at some of the concrete examples he mentions in the conclusion?
Donia - I felt the same while reading - Wow things haven't changed much. "The world is changing with great rapidity; the future is full of uncertainty." p. 26 and then after emphasizing his thoughts on how teachers should have power in the schools he sayd "This brings us to the question of the kind of imposition in which teachers should engage, if they had the power." Yes, things haven't really changed much. Heather
DeleteI could easily see how Counts' speech could serve as the foundation for the CCC track, primarily because the purpose of education he discusses are views that I share with him as well, and are the very reason I chose the CCC track and this program at VCU. I had been looking for the right program for me for some time before paying a visit to VCU and having "the talk" with Bill Muth that I believe many of us in the program have experienced. The vision of the CCC program isn't just to study curriculum, but look at the ways that we, as individuals, through our differences contribute to that formulation of curriculum and how that very curriculum can be an agent for change. That's not to say that there is something wrong per se with education as it stands, but as Counts points out, education must be progressive, adapting and changing as society itself adapts. I feel that this embodies the CCC track.
ReplyDeleteCounts does note, however, that the Progressive education of his time did not truly take into account the social welfare of the student, instead leaning toward the desire of the white, upper-middle class. I have to agree with Donia, in that education surely has not changed much in all of these years, as the focus of school, expectations of post-secondary studies, student behaviors, etc. are all based on that same white, upper-middle class mindset. The "Culture" in Curriculum, Culture and Changes, seeks to ensure that this element in taken into account as we progress toward educational change.
Counts also seems to value education as a practice, rather than a theory. This, as well, I feel lends itself very well to the CCC track ideals.
As for the Barrow chapter, he seems very frustrated with Educational Philosophy as it currently (2010, right?) stands. It is clear he feels that more important work is stunted by the need for labeling, something I think can easily extend from Philosophy and into other areas of educational study. Which brings me to my questions:
1. From what school of thought is Barrow? I don't see him classifying himself, but how to others classify him?
2. How would he feel about the way in which we are introduced to many of these -isms in teacher education programs? He speaks very generally about utilizing these, but if he would disagree with teaching this to pre-service teachers, how would he approach theory in their training, if at all?
3. Why does he group Eastern philosophy with Western religion? I know I put that in an earlier post, but it is really bothering me.
Post Script: (Some random thoughts as I read Counts...)
* (pg. 3) I find that the uneducated masses no longer see education as a solution, but rather somewhat of a poison against rational thought. Personally, coming from a low-income family/low social class, I am seen as a "traitor" (to what I am unsure) for pursuing higher education. Being told I am "book smart" but lack the "common sense" they have from their blue collar jobs seems to indicate the opposite of what Counts suggests.
* (pgs. 10-11) I've always heard that "he who wins writes the history books."
* (pg. 15) YES!! Teachers MUST take into account cultural/familial influences when dealing with individual children. What one culture may see as unacceptable another may see as normal! (Also, Jackie is making us watch a movie called "The Class". This ties in very well with Section II of this speech.)
* (pg. 23) Fallacy #8 makes me feel less guilty for homeschooling :)
*(pg. 33) This page reads like the presidential election speeches...For as much as things change oh how they stay the same.
*** I'm gonna stop these before this gets more annoying LOL
Kim:
ReplyDelete(Counts Post)
It is worth noting that George Counts’ “Dare the School Build a New Social Order?” is at least in part a product of his time. At the time of his speech’s publication, Counts lived in a pre-WWII era. The Great Depression had hit and many were suffering in its wake. As they suffered, people looked to those who espoused revolution and made promises for a new beginning. People such as Adolf Hitler would soon rise to power on a wave of popular support for their revolutionary rhetoric in response to the economic crisis. In 1932, the world had not yet experienced the widespread, horrifying consequences of ideological indoctrination like Nazism and Fascism, but they were about to. Counts’ rhetoric may be meant to jarr Americans into action at a time when the American education system sorely needed reform, but to me his views seem somewhat extreme in their dismissal of progressive teaching practices and their call for the cultural conditioning of our nation’s youth. However, despite these extreme aspects of Counts’ speech, his vision for a new social order is admirable.
Like Counts, the foundation of the CCC track calls for reform and social justice. Both advocate for equity within our educational system and the establishments that our education system is embedded within. On page 41 Counts lists a whole series of societal changes that he would like to see emerge in the new social order. I expect most CCC track student would agree with part, if not all, of Counts’ vision of a new social order - an equitable society with democratic ideals that relies on cooperation as opposed to competition.
In order to achieve this utopian vision, Counts tasks teachers with being the leaders in the transformation of the education system. Though it seems obvious, teachers voices have often been overlooked when it comes to school reform. I agree with Counts that America should turn to its teachers for answers and treat them as the professionals they are. They are individuals who have dedicated their lives to the study of teaching and learning, not convenient scapegoats for all of the public school system’s ills as they have so often been used.
Even though it is easy to get swept up in Counts’ revolutionary rhetoric, it is also easy to see the faults in his overall philosophy of social change. Counts is so vague in his attacks on his contemporary education system that his suggestions become equal parts inspiring and dangerous. For example, in calling for education to face politics and social issues head on, Counts’ preferred education system has the wonderful potential to rise to Jane Addams’ vision of service learning or to sink to Eric Hirsch’s elitist core knowledge model supporting ideas like colonialism and a history filled with stories of rich, white males.
Furthermore, Counts criticizes the open-minded individual, willing to take in new information with the changing times and adjust their outlooks and philosophies accordingly. He, instead, hopes for a rigidity of will that clings to an ideology as it is challenged by new experiences. As a social studies teacher, I hoped my students would learn the skills necessary for life-long learning and critical reflection so that they can deftly navigate the changing times and adopt new ideas that meet their critical approval as they receive new information.
Having said all of this, I realize with no small amount of irony how close I am to resembling Counts’ description of the juggler who balances the pros against the cons of every issue and never commits him or herself to anything. I guess I can only hope that all the facts do come in so I can eventually make a proper judgement.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteKim:
ReplyDelete(Barrow Post)
Three Barrow Questions:
1. In his conclusion Barrow mentions again the idea that perhaps a better way to learn the philosophies of education would be to “focus on examining educational concepts, programmes, policies, and practices themselves.” It seems to me this would solve many of his issues with the difficulty in classifying and labeling philosophies of education. Is there a good resource that does analyze philosophies of education in this manner? And, relatedly, why does Barrow not arrange his book in this manner?
2. One of my favorite passages from the reading was “Ideas seldom if ever emerge simply from abstract thought alone but are partly the product of circumstance. Danger lies both in ignoring that fact and equally in assuming that ideas are nothing more than the product of the times in which they are born.” How does one know when they have been too dismissive of a theory due to the context of its inception and, conversely, how does one know when they have overlooked too much of the circumstance surrounding a philosophical idea in favor of supporting the idea on its own?
3. In the end, Barrow struggles to relate several schools of thought to questions of knowledge and education. Is it necessary to apply schools of thought beyond their original intent? If a school of thought is generated to answer the question “What is real?”, can we justify forcing it to answer other questions with tangential relationships to its original intent at best?
Virginia here:
ReplyDeleteThe Counts article was an interesting read in several ways. He wrote this post-The Great Depression when America had already lost a lot and felt like it did not have much else to lose. His critiques of the Progressive Education movement and descriptions of educational fallacies provide a great foundation for his argument that changes to American education are imperative and there is no better time to act then right now when the country is already in such distress. His argument for a much-needed change in the educational system seems to agree with the CCC track’s mission of creating future leaders who will be catalyst for change. Counts goes on to describe how this change in education needs to serve the masses and not just the privileged, which is similar to the CCC track’s goal to graduate scholars who will advocate for social justice in the American school system.
Counts also discusses the issue of power a lot towards the end of his speech. I think this perhaps might be the most difficult barrier in creating this change and also perhaps the reason why little has changed in American education since he wrote this. He says, “Ruling classes never surrender their privileges voluntarily.” Battles over power typically lead to war, as history would tell us. Counts asks teachers to stand up and take any opportunity to lead this change. This struggle between teachers and those with the power (i.e. administrators and politicians) is such a difficult battle to overcome. Many teachers are afraid to speak up for fear of losing their jobs or thinking their voice will not be heard. I think rather it should be scholars (like us!) to bridge this gap between school and society, which both faculty of the CCC track and Counts would be very supportive of indeed.
After reading the Barrow article, I am wondering
1. Barrow seems to fly through the various schools of thought with brief or no definitions and examples. As someone who has not studied these ideas in quite a while, is there a complete list of these with examples? Have they changed over the years and has the American education system ever favored one over the others?
2. Barrow spends a lot of time critiquing and warning educators of the differences between –isms/schools of thought and philosophical analysis, but he does little to suggest how to better approach these ideas. He does suggest focusing on concepts, policies, and practices at the end, but is that possible without learning some theories? What would that look like?
3. What would other philosophers say about the schools of thought? Would they be in agreement with Barrow or view their position in educational philosophy differently?
Counts piece, be it slightly verbose, could be seen as having the same tenets as our CCC track. He certainly has a passion for social justice and advocacy (of teachers, especially). His list of contradictions on p. 33 – 35 illustrates how he views his current society and although I feel like he is trying to be inspiring, I am not sure those “powerful classes”, “institutions” and “ruling classes” would agree with him. I understand he might not be writing to those in power but instead educators who should acquire more power than they currently have. I like his idea that education needs a purpose, a direction and that he discusses the extent of the influence a school should have in development of a child. But he even says, “this bring us to the question of the kind of imposition in which teachers should engage, if they had the power.” In the CCC core classes I have certainly thought about social justice issues and advocacy in a different way but I have also learned about the massive power “ruling classes” and “institutions” have on our education system. Since the goal of CCC is to allow students to ponder these issues and not necessary solve them Counts piece could serve as a foundation for CCC.
ReplyDeletePS Favorite quote from Count: “Until school and society are bound together by common purposes the program of education will lack both meaning and vitality.” P. 17
Questions on Barrow piece:
1. Isn’t studying individuals rather than schools of thought disregarding where they got their ideas in the first place? I guess the question is similar to the chicken or the egg conundrum – which came first the school of thought or the individual who agreed with it?
2. His take on Postmodernism made me shake my head in agreement. Ever since 702 I have wondered about this “school of thought”. My question is how would those who subscribe to Postmodernism feel about him saying “believing everything is just a matter of subjective opinion would, if taken seriously, have major educational consequences?”
3. He doesn’t seem to agree with teaching schools of thought because they are messy and potentially have overlap, but isn’t that what philosophy is? I have never viewed the philosophy of anything as black and white.
_Heather
It’s Jodi… For the Barrow article, my 3 questions are:
ReplyDelete1- Rousseau has a Naturalist school of thought which discerns that truth and goodness are a part of growing up in a natural environment. What is a natural environment? Is it how/where I grew up and if so, is my idea of Naturalist the same as someone who grew up homeless or in poverty? (on p. 27 this point is revisited and says “…it may be difficult to define…”)
2- P. 24 mentions philosophers who attempt to link truth to “what is useful or what yields results.” What is useful to one may not be useful to another…who says which results are “right”? (Or is that the point?)
3- On pg. 30 it states, “Every educational philosopher ideally needs to focus on key educational concepts, with as little prior commitment to any particular school of thought as possible.” So, when should the school of thought come in? Should we focus on the key concepts and write and then realize our school of thought?
I believe that Counts’ speech hits on many areas that are covered in the CCC track! It seems to begin on page 9 by encompassing a large part of the idea at the bottom of the page including race, ethnicity, change and socio-economic status and “every social issue.” His ten points cover many areas of change and improvement that need to be addressed within education and social justice for children which could be our long-winded motto. I love the quote on p. 28 that states, “…teachers, if they could increase sufficiently their stock of courage, intelligence, and vision, might become a social force of some magnitude.” Many of us are previous educators in K-12 and have returned to obtain a doctorate in search of more information on how we can make a change for the better. Counts discusses movements for change in social welfare and desegregation in our educational institutions which is still happening today.
I was surprised at how closely related so many topics from over 80 years ago still apply today. I found myself wanting to cheer in some areas of the speech and wish some of this could be brought to the attention of the Board of Education!
Michael Schad Here:
ReplyDeleteI will present my questions first:
1. Have “isms” been high-jacked by society?
A. I propose this question because I was struck, during my reading, how many times I may throw an “ism” around. I feel as if I specifically throw around idealism without a conscious thought about what I am saying. It seems society uses different words to fulfill their desire of concretely describing without actually know the history, or implications of a word.
2. What happens when a person merely stays in one kind of thought process?
A. We have been reading about behaviorism in another education class, and I was struck by John Watson’s resolve to eliminate the analysis of the consciousness, and just look at behavior. This led to me thinking about the single-mindedness one needs in order to present, and quantify a singular idea over others which is what it seems Watson accomplished. He is forever tied to behaviorism, but was he really so willing to leave behind years of traditional psychological training to delve into stimulus and response idealism (I just used an ism, see question one if you don’t get the joke).
3. Why are humans so willing to take complex ideas and whittle them down to simplicities?
A. Barrow’s article made me realize my need to be able to fit difficult things into simple classifications. Maybe, it is just how we are built. Humans love to deconstruct and simplify that is why we invented science and math – to explain natural things. But, when we do that it seems like it takes away the power of a thought.
Michael Schad Here AGAIN:
ReplyDeleteWell, the Counts article was sobering; it was also a good reminder of what it looks like to be in the field of education in the past hundred years. There were a lot of connections that stood out to me and made me thing of CCC at VCU. The big theme I related to was social justice, or just plain old justice. The two question which popped into my mind from The Republic: What is just? And why should we be just? Which kind of made me feel hopeless and paralyzed, because even Plato and Socrates didn’t exactly come up a great answer.
Counts points to the fact people in Academia shouldn’t be paralyzed because as Counts states, “For any complex social problem worthy of the name there are probably tens and even scores, if not hundreds, of “solutions”, depending upon the premises from which one works” (Counts, p. 21). I guess that is why the CCC track was created, so that instead of being too academic we can actually use our intellect to make real world changes in education. Hopefully, by the end of my time at VCU I will also be able to say what is justice and why we should be just.
My favorite line from the reading was, “They have called it Education with a capital E, whereas in fact it has been American education with a capital A and a small e” (Counts, p.18). Counts calls in to question the educational system in America with a simple statement which places focus on the fact Americans care more about the “America” word than the education word.
As Counts talks about the elitism in education, even though the article was written in the 30’s it felt like the current climate in education and in our country. There is a desperate need for equality in our systems and it just doesn’t seem like we have that, or may ever have that. Education lacks a centrality, and a lot of that has to do with how schools are funded and where they are located, but as Counts quotes Dewey, “the schools like the nation are in need of a central purpose which will create new enthusiasm and devotion, and which will unify and guide all intellectual plans” (Counts, p.21)
Counts seems to have a good bead on what is wrong with education, and I just want to know why he didn’t fix it? It isn’t that hard. Right?
Two other quotes I thought were relevant:
“It is rather between two forms of collectivism: the one essentially democratic, the other feudal in spirit; the one devoted to the interests of the people, the other to the interests of a privileged class” (Counts, p. 49).
“If we are content to remain where all is safe and quiet and serene, we shall dedicate ourselves, as teachers have commonly done I the past, to a role of futility, if not of positive social reaction” (Counts, p.54)
Jorli-
ReplyDelete“We have a haunting feeling that we were born for better things and the nation itself is falling far short of its powers” (p. 53).
As I read Counts’ piece I am struck by how almost 85 years later, much of what Counts is discussing is still evidenced today. Outside of his proposed educational reforms Counts touches on the American economy and how lopsided it was back in the 1930s. While the entire country was in the middle of the Great Depression, the upper class was not affected as deeply as those with a lower socioeconomic status (SES), with many of those in the upper class keeping their job and income while those with a lower SES scraped by, often times struggling to put food on the table. The result was a great deal of tension between the haves and have nots. A tension that is still being felt today.
Counts is pushing for an education system where there is a direction and purpose to the education system rather than purposeless movement or reaction to the changes in society. He calls on teachers to work towards this change. Challenging teachers and the education system to shake off the “grip of conservative forces” and to “stop perpetuating ideas and institutions suited to an age that is gone” (p. 5). Stating that the education system follows the ideas of the ruling class and the ruling class does not want to lose their status, so the policies and ideas put into place are those that would best serve the ruling class. Again an issue that is still relevant today. Simply look at the testing culture that has been created where upper middle class schools achieve accreditation with no problems, but schools with lower SES population struggle to get out of warning status.
CCC pushes students to look critically at current and former educational policies and determine how those policies affect the entire population. In order to make change and see change, we will have to shake off the grip of the policies put into place by the ruling class and begin seeing the world through the lenses of those without the freedom obtained by having a secure economic foundation. Like Counts does, we are encouraged to consider the culture which a person was born into and the impact that culture has upon both the individual and group. CCC students are encouraged to feel an “obligation to protect and further the interests of the people” with the implication being that the people referred to is not the ruling class.
Both CCC and Counts views the education system as a way to impact change in the greater world. That through the actions and lessons in the classroom, school building, and system as a whole, a change will happen at a societal level. Neither group is ignorant of what is demanded of a change leader. Counts discusses several time the “costs of leadership.”
I enjoy the juxtaposition Counts points out between how American is viewed and what he (and we) are facing now. He states that “America has been the synonymous through the world with democracy and symbolic to the oppressed classes… of hope and opportunity” (p. 39), however the oppressed classes in our very own country does not necessarily feel that hope or opportunity. My boyfriend was listening to a rap song today where the rapper was singing about working six jobs, so that he could have a chance at making some money that would make heads turn. I personally know people who work three jobs, just to make ends meat. Where is their freedom and ability to be part of the cultural advancement?
The question I cannot answer for Counts is his question asking “if America has lost the devotion to democracy or our revolutionary temper” (p. 39). The simple existence of programs like the CCC track make me believe that we still have a revolutionary temper here in America, however taking the ideas and theories of those in the CCC track, or even in the Black Lives Matter movement, and inspiring an uprising and change in society as a whole seems far fetched.
Jorli-
DeleteBarrow identifies the school of thought discussed in his chapter as western philosophies. What educational theories dominate the eastern philosophies, or even the educational theory conversation in the lower hemisphere?
Barrow makes the point that many of these theories are philosophies that came to be outside of education. Someone (or someones) then applied the theory to education. Psychology theories/ perspective were created as a whole inside of psychology (ie behaviorism, humanism, psychodynamic). How come educational theories are borrowed and fit to education rather than created within education?
Barrow talks about “isms” not needing to be completely polarizing, in fact on page 28 he says that people from different philosophies can have the same viewpoints on education, supporting his claim that the “isms” are messy. When I studied the “isms” this was not the impression I got. How can they be better taught to students so that the fuzziness of their borders are understood and they can be identified in real life?
Carolyn~
ReplyDeleteThis passage in Counts on “the weakness of Progressive Education” caught my eye: “…it is but reflecting the viewpoint of the members of the liberal-minded upper middle class who send their children to the Progressive schools—persons who are fairly well-off… who pride themselves on their open-mindedness and tolerance… but who, in spite of their good qualities, have no convictions for which they would sacrifice over-much, would find it hard to live without their customary material comforts, who are rather insensitive to the accepted forms of social injustice, are content to play the role of interested spectator… That they can be trusted to write our educational theories and shape our educational programs is highly improbable” (pp. 7-8). Perhaps Counts would call into question the SOE website’s claim that the CCC track “distinguishes itself by preparing curriculum and instruction leaders to be change agents.”
I have been thinking lately about the disconnect between scholarship and policy/practice in education, and wonder whether, as Counts puts it, if “persons who are fairly well-off” and “content to play the role of interested spectator” (like well-intentioned, smart academics and doctoral students) are likely to ever have much impact on real progressive change education. How is it that VCU, with it large, well-funded SOE and community engagement mission statements, sits right in the middle of such a problematic school landscape, not only Richmond Public Schools but also large swaths of the surrounding districts?
Counts says it’s the teachers who will be the real agents of change and progress in education (and in the economic organization of society as a whole). There are “teacher as reflective practitioner” banners in Oliver Hall, and MERC trains a handful of local school personnel to conduct teacher action research, but the SOE does not seem be preparing enough teachers to alleviate the current shortage, and the cohort of 30 3rd-year pre-service secondary teachers I worked with in a GA last year was virtually all white, hardly a reflection of the local public schools VCU might recruit teachers from or supply teachers to.
The Wikipedia entry on George Counts says that in its time, Dare the School Build a New Social Order? was criticized not only by conservatives but also by other progressives, including W.E.B. DuBois, who argued that teachers would not be capable of realizing Counts’ vision of a new social order because of structural barriers to progress. Could this offer a clue as to why, as Donia and others point out, so little seems to have changed in 84 years?
Three questions about the Barrow reading:
1.) How does Marxism overlap (or not) with critical theory? What does Barrow mean by “to adopt Marxism is to cease thinking critically” (p.34)?
2.) Realism: Behaviorism as Idealism: _______? Which schools of thought in philosophy of education influence or align with which instructional theories many of us are learning about in Dr. McDonnough’s class?
3.) It is difficult to classify and apply the philosophies/ideologies/schools of thought, and D.C. Phillips’ statement that “there is no simple one-to-one correspondence between a person’s… philosophical commitments and his or her everyday beliefs and actions” (p. 28) so why bother with all this?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteApologies for the multiple deletions...
ReplyDelete1. 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).
As someone that is outside the CCC track, this question (and this course) provides me with an invaluable opportunity to learn more about the program.
According to its mission statement, CCC enables graduates to become “change agents for curriculum and instruction leadership positions in school systems.” This, to me, corresponds to Count’s proclamation that “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.” His identification of the teacher as a representative of the “common and abiding interests of the people,” his recognition of the power that teachers have, through curriculum and procedures, to “become social force of some magnitude,” and the responsibility he gives to teachers to “protect and further” the interests of the people seems emblematic of my growing understanding of CCC.
Count calls for the “imposition” of a distinct [moral] vision of America proclaiming that “neutrality… is practically tantamount to giving support to the forces of conservatism.” I would be interested in hearing how other members of the group responded to that piece.
2. Ask three questions about the Barrow reading…
1. In suggesting that we “eschew” emphasis on the history of philosophy and philosophers and focus more on the policies and programs themselves, is Barrow suggesting that a scholastic understanding of education should defer to the practice of the profession itself? How does this relate to your understanding of the educational profession and your relationship with your dual role as scholar and practitioner?
2. In his conclusion, Barrow notes that his analysis rests upon the assumption that, regardless of the veracity of our opinion, we must believe that there is a Truth of things that is to be distinguished from that which is not Truth (something that seems to be reflected in Counts’ speech). How comfortable do people feel about this assertion? He furthers this assertion with the comment: “if one embraces an extreme form of subjectivity, under whatever name, that maintains that there are not truths and that understanding cannot be distinguished from viewpoint, however acquired. If one sincerely held such a view, then one might be expected to lose interest in the very idea of education.” This might be a conversation ender, but I wonder what people think of this.
3. Aside from his dismissal of Post Modernism and Eastern philosophy, Barrow does not appear to have a problem with the content of the schools of thought he is discussing. His problems appear to arise from the incongruent and imprecise manner in which these isms have been categorized in the past. As a content person, I did not, initially, gravitate to this argument. However, I wonder if this is an aspect of theory that I undervalue. What is the purpose of a theory if it cannot be universally categorized and defined? This is particularly important in light of multidisciplinary teamwork.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteKiara Lee: I think the Counts piece resonates well with what the CCC track intends to be. In general, he argues for a revolutionary (but intentional) approach toward the current education system. I really sympathized with his view on middle class liberals that swear up and down that they're as progressive as they come (and may very well be). The very fact that they (and their children) often run and populate "progressive schools" presents an inherent lack of progression. Schools are microcosms of the status quo and for real change, this is supposed to be disrupted. But who wants to disrupt that and put their own selves and their own children at-risk? Not very many folk.
ReplyDeleteAs I was reading Counts I couldn't help but think about the public vs. private school debate my friends often have. The fact that so many educators preach about equity and social change while their kids attend private and charter schools is a problem for some. I feel like Counts would take issue with someone who called his or herself a "change agent" who enrolled their own kids in private schools.
At the core of the CCC track is social change. Like with everything else, there's a continuum of social change. I see Counts as the far left of this continuum. The same goes for the CCC track. Those who want to flip the system on its head (or a segment of it, at the very least) would have an inclination toward Counts. Since CCC is what it is, this piece should be required of all students in the track in the very beginning of coursework. It wouldn't force or indoctrinate students to seek radical change, but rather, it would serve as an example of a model they could possibly follow.
Questions for Barrow:
1. Does the suggestion of approaching philosophy of education strictly by studying the philosophers themselves pose its own loopholes? Does this take the focus off of the "schools of thought" and turn it onto the old white men philosophers, possibly making the study of philosophy itself a hegemonic act?
2. Although teaching the schools of thought through other authors/ texts affects interpretation, can this be a good thing? Nell Noddings says that philosophy of education brings forth further analysis of theories and concepts that have already been established, so wouldn't dissecting these schools of thought furthermore and from other vantage points simply be another element of philosophy?
3. Barrow says that post-modernism has no set meaning. He also says "to believe sincerely that everything is just a matter of subjective opinion would, if taken seriously, have major educational consequences, for it would undermine the basic assumption shared by virtually all other schools of thought: namely, that we wish to pass on valued and well-founded knowledge." If post-modernism is too subjective, then what or how should be taught about it to spread this school of thought?
It's Melissa.
ReplyDeleteCounts’ speech is aligned with the principles of the CCC track by asking teachers to be agents of social change through self-reflection and awareness of their impositions and limitations in a system that has powerful social and political forces, bias, and prejudice. This should empower teachers to have meaningful conversations with students and seek to challenge them to contribute to social justice. He also calls for democratic yet revolutionary discussions to share in a collective vision, one that is in the interest of all people. There is also an emphasis for collaboration because we have been shaped by different experiences, cultures, and traditions yet share in the development and growth of one body.
My three questions about the Barrow reading are:
1. How would pragmatism, which makes a person socially efficient, respond to the concept of “capitalization of people”? This is the idea of maximizing the potential of people so they can contribute to society. There is formula to calculate this and the US scores very low due to its incarceration rates and treated of undocumented people to name a few marginalized groups.
2. There is a tendency to broaden the ideas behind each school of thought and views from educationalists. The reading also states that the “isms’ and educational theories overlap but without a logical connection. Aside from the distorted view of Educational Idealism in textbooks, how have these influences impacted our education system and society?
3. As an educator, how do you approach and understand the underpinnings of Idealism, which doesn’t have an educational theory, while understanding Plato’s educational theory and Educational Idealism? How do these constructs overlap and differ?
Overall, I think that Counts’ speech has several ideas which align with the principles of the CCC track, but I also recognize that his speech was delivered in 1932, arguably a time very different than today. The educational landscape looked vastly different than it does today, and though there are surface similarities, there are a few subtle differences, the largest being that the attack on public education is extremely strong and pervasive. Counts’ statements regarding what the Progressive Movement should look like and what it could achieve would be very different today. Our counterattack requires far more complicated strategy due to the many trouble spots in education of which those of us in the CCC track partly represent. Nonetheless, if we as educators, specifically those of us in the CCC track could build upon the foundation of Counts’ speech, we would be headed in the right direction. I found Counts’ idea that a true progressive movement must have forward direction, rather than just motion (p.6). He states that “like a baby shaking a rattle, we seem to be utterly content with action provided it be sufficiently vigorous and noisy” (p.6) and I feel that the CCC track intends for its students to make change towards something.
ReplyDeleteCounts believes that “one of the most important elements of any culture is a tradition of achievement along a particular line-a tradition which the group imposes upon the young and through which the powers of the young are focused, disciplined, and developed” (p.14). As I was reading this I couldn’t help but wonder what tradition of achievement (p.14) have we established for future generations? What have we placed at the top of our list of priorities, and emphasized to the point that it has become the sign of success? Personally, I believe that at the school level, the emphasis on standardized test scores and college attendance is our tradition of achievement, and I worry that this is leading our community into trouble and putting its members at odds with one another. Especially when we consider parts of the community where these achievements are not as commonplace. I think that as part of the CCC track, we have an obligation to impact what this tradition of achievement looks like. I acknowledge the irony in the fact that we are in a doctoral program, the highest level of education, but as Counts states, “society requires great numbers of persons who, while capable of gathering and digesting facts, are at the same time able to think in terms of life, make decisions, and act. From such persons will come our real social leaders” (pp.21-22). I believe that we are those persons to whom Counts is referring. His statements that “the teaching profession, or at least its progressive elements, should eagerly grasp the opportunity which the fates have placed in their hands” (p. 54) and that “if they could increase sufficiently their stock of courage, intelligence, and vision, might become a social force of some magnitude” (p. 28) are so powerful a summation of what the CCC track can be.
-Brionna
My questions from the Barrow reading are as follows:
Delete1. Barrow states that “Every educational philosopher ideally needs to focus on key educational concepts, with as little prior commitment to any particular school of thought as possible” (p30). My question is how realistic is this? Don’t we all approach educational concepts with some degree of subjectivity due to our own personal and educational experiences?
2. Barrow posits that “educational arguments about such important questions as to whether, why and in what way science or the arts should be studied are not affected by one’s position as an Idealist, Realist, etc.” (p.31). Is this true in today’s educational setting? Do we think that policy makers consider themselves in terms of an -ism?
3. Is the purpose of -isms to have a framework within which to operate, and must you without exception, subscribe to your -isms belief? It seems that this is what Barrow is cautioning his readers against. However, at the same time he also seems to be arguing that philosophers overlapped on interests and pedagogy, thus the mistake of categorizing them by -ism. So my question is which is correct?
Anna here:
ReplyDeleteIn part, Counts views about the purpose and value of education, as a tool for social change and democracy could correspond well with the basic description of the CCC track. For example, Counts advocates for a style of education which not only recognizes but also takes a position about social problems, such as poverty. Counts describes an educational system which is open to sharing the values, and beliefs that drive the system, as well as openly discusses exactly what the system wants students to become or to learn through the process. Counts also describes the importance of developing critical thinking and the ability to not just think through difficult social problems, but also in emphasizing the moral imperative to act on those problems. He advocates for an educational system that produces democratic citizens who will not look the other way when they are confronted with social inequalities. So, his ideas regarding an education system which embraces understanding and action about social problems, appears to be foundational to some aspects of the CCC track.
However, it seems that perhaps Counts views on the dangers of a “child centered” education or an education which supports “children’s rights” may not be as compatible with the CCC track? It seems that Counts equates “children’s rights” with complete autonomy and suggests that a child centered education is not acceptable, because it does not offer children any direction (moral or otherwise) in terms of what message about the world the school is attempting to impart. Counts suggests that instead teachers should actively, purposefully, directly and publicly influence children’s beliefs and ideas about the world in order to bring about change and create critical and active citizens. While it does seem that the CCC track may focus on being aware of positionality of the teacher (and system) and being transparent about the goals that they have for their students, it does not seem that a student centered education is incompatible with the CCC track or with Counts goals for the education system. The CCC track seems to recognize that education is not value-free or politically neutral. In addition, I think that the CCC track values and embraces the student voice and perspective in shaping our education systems, so I don’t know if that particular position of Counts is compatible.
Questions about the Barrow reading:
1. Barrow suggests that we study individual philosophers and do away with organizing philosophical ideas in terms of “schools of thought”. What might be the consequences of putting this vision into place?
2. How is a “school of thought” as discussed by Barrow different from a paradigm or worldview?
3. Barrow suggests that it may be beneficial to “eschew an emphasis on either history of philosophy or particular individuals, and to focus on examining educational concepts, programmes, policies and practices themselves with a view to aiming at some clear concepts and coherent arguments.” (Barrow, 2010, p. 34) Do you think it is possible to fully explore particular educational concepts, etc. without an emphasis on critically examining the underlying assumptions/principles (philosophies) which underpin them?