Responses to responses can be rather confusing to follow. I'll
try to keep things straight as I react to those matters for which Robert
Bacal "takes me to task."
[MARION] The purpose of education is to expand our understanding of
reality.
[ROBERT] That is YOUR purpose, and is certainly not shared by a majority,
or large number of teachers, parents or students. I make this point
because unless we understand the complexities of the educational system,
with it's seemingly endless stream of stakeholders, interest groups, etc,
we are lost. There are literally hundreds of statements of the type you
espouse...none agreed upon by any significant segment of the stakeholders.
[MARION] Well, of course, they're not going to SAY that understanding
reality is their purpose. They're going to say that schooling is about
biology," or "making the past come alive," or "solving mathematical
equations." But wouldn't they also quickly say, if gently prodded, that
these were means to the end of expanding our understanding of reality, of
experience, of the human situation, of "what's going on here?" Surely
they wouldn't say that they DIDN'T want to put their students in closer
touch with reality.
[MARION] EVERY SOCIETY HAS A MODEL OF REALITY--A BODY OF KNOWLEDGE AND A
WAY OF ORGANIZING THAT KNOWLEDGE. IF THIS KNOWLEDGE AND ITS ORGANIZING
SCHEME ARE MADE EXPLICIT AND FORMALIZED, IT WILL CONSTITUTE EACH SOCIETY'S
OPTIMUM DESIGN FOR GENERAL STUDY.
[ROBERT] If one assumes that a SOCIETY is homogeneous and holds a SINGLE
body of knowledge as important, then this makes sense. However, what seems
to be missing is an understanding that this is clearly not the case. Each
PERSON in the society has a model of reality--society as a whole does not
hold a single unitary one. Even if it did, one could not define it.
[MARION] Are you sure you're not confusing political entities--nation
states--with societies? Of course no two people have identical models of
reality in their heads. But if there's no such thing as homogeneous
social entities, how explain, say, that, desiring rain, one group agrees
to pray, another to dance, another to seed clouds, and another does
nothing, merely shrugs and says, "Whatever will be, will be"? (My nursing
students sometimes point out that older patients from a sub-society here
in Florida are sometimes less diligent in their level of adherence to
doctors' orders, that some even say, when scolded about their negligence
in taking their prescriptions,"That stuff won't make any difference. I
just take it to humor my kids," (who are, of course, in the process of
moving into the dominant Anglo culture with its belief that everything
that happens is a consequence either of human intent or of the operation
of chemical and physical forces rather than pre-ordained by God.)
Of course, to assume that every member of every society
will share the dominant views of their native society would be to
stereotype. But to deny that those who grow up together, speak the same
language, hear the same stories and myths, follow the same schedules, read
the same textbooks, hear the same commercials, move to the same music,
etc. won't share certain fundamental assumptions about matters such as
nature, time, the supernatural, authority, ownership, self, the good
life--seems to me to undercut the whole basis of science--at least as it
applies to human behavior.
[MARION] We're in crisis. We need (excuse the overworked phrase) a
paradigm shift, need to understand that biology, chemistry, math,
sociology, history and all the other comfortably familiar fields of study
are not only mere means to an end, but poor ones at that--ignoring vast
and important areas of knowledge, failing to show the systemic nature of
reality, placing students in passive roles, making it difficult or
impossible to trace the kinds of relationships by means of which knowledge
expands . . . (I could go on and on, and have elsewhere).
[ROBERT] I think it would be interesting to hear your views on how change
can be enacted, and what it would look like from, the student's point of
view.
[MARION] Well, I'm no expert on the subject of institutional change, but
given the nature of human institutions in general, and the conservatism of
the education establishment in particular, I think it's probably a waste
of time trying to change the perspectives (or the staffing, budgets,
committee representation, professional organizations, etc.) within
academia. I think it might be worthwhile experimenting with just
bypassing all of that as much as possible by creating general education
departments in secondary schools and universities. Such departments
would, of course, have to be staffed by people who'd moved beyond the
notion that a bit of this and a bit of that specialized study add up to an
acceptable general education.
[MARION]We have a lousy curriculum. It's always been a lousy curriculum.
[ROBERT]I would wonder how you have come to that conclusion. I certainly
don't know how I would come to that conclusion, or it's opposite.
[MARION] For starters, how explain that little kids come to school
excited, curious, dynamic, and long before formal schooling is over must
be kept in place by mandatory attendence laws, extrinsic motivators such
as grades, and cultural myths about paths to success? (For a slightly
longer take on the subject, I've a 10-item "Curriculum Survey" on my
homepage that I've given to a great many faculties. Print it out, make
copies, and give it to any school faculty of your choice. If they, by
their own rating, give themselves a grade better than "D", tell me the
name of the school. I'll certainly want to visit it.)
[ROBERT] This is WHAT has changed...our society has moved to a level of
diversity that makes a school system impotent, because there is NO
consensus on anything educational...and since there is no shared reality,
systems arepushed and pulled, as you have indicated.
[MARION] It's pretty hard to respond to such a sweeping generalization.
You see chaos in diversity. I see in it enormous opportunity for the
stuff of which order is made. The key to our different views seems to be
that statement that "there is no shared reality." The world of external
reality I perceive seems to look so different from yours I'm at a loss for
words to respond.
You mentioned, I think, your background in cognitive theory and
psychology. Perhaps this focus explains your apparent rejection of the
existence of patterns that underlie the social sciences and the
humanities.
[MARION] . . . and the idea has yet to "register" with the educational
establishment.
[ROBERT] I think you might consider that it is wrong...it assumes a
reality that doesn't exist in society. And that is why it isn't
embraced...some people will agree, some will disagree, some will not care,
and each category will have different reasons for their stands.
[MARION]I'm happy to say that, thanks in large part to e-mail, I think the
picture may be changing. I've gotten extremely gratifying responses from
many LOers with whose names and postings I've become familiar. And my '89
SUNY Press book that made hardly a ripple years ago, recently got an award
from the educational consultant firm of SKA for "a significant
contribution to reconceptualizing the curriculum for teachers and students
throughout the world."
[MARION] I'd like to convince them (you?) of the possibility that a little
judicious moving and shaking of the educational establishment--or at least
your local representatives of it--have the potential for increasing by
several orders of magnitude the quality of the images of and assumptions
about reality your kids will carry with them through life. --
[ROBERT]It isn't at all clear what you are suggesting...it's all very
vague sounding to me, personally. But, for every person that moves to
encourage education to do what you ask (whatever that might be), there
will be stakeholders, with both good and bad reasons, who will recoil at
it.
[MARION] It was ever thus.
Marion
<mbrady@digital.net>
http://ddi.digital.net/~mbrady
--Marion Brady <mbrady@digital.net>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>