Concluding Thoughts

I believe we must not pursue these theories seeking a singular solution. Our nation is far too varied to prescribe any one of these theories as a universal solution. The fact is, "back to basics" is needed somewhere in our country while students elsewhere long for a more progressive, active process of learning to which they can contribute. Some schools need to have longer school days and some need to refine down to something of higher quality. Yet, I believe there is a component of education that, when distributed to any area of our country, would create positive outcomes. That component of education is the pervasiveness of transformative teachers. Even with that said, a teacher acting alone cannot change an entire system plagued by structural inequality. With that in mind, I want to finalize this blog by suggesting another theory of education--one which has been proposed to deal with the worst schools in our country. It's important that this blog not be the end of a conversation but instead, the beginning of one. As I mentioned in the introduction, this creation of a marketplace of ideas about education can only lead to a more sound, proven system in the future. It's important that we, as a society, continue to engage in these dialogues and think about our education system.

So check out Harvard University's Mark Warren and his theory about educational reform in our nation's worst districts. A good place to start is with his article, Communities and Schools: A New View of Urban Education Reform (2005).

Critical Pedagogy: My Take

When Henry Giroux stood in front of a crowd in College Station, Texas, and proclaimed that school was "the antithesis to life," I wholeheartedly agreed with his statement. Often times in my childhood I struggled to see the application of schooling as relevant to my life. And I know why this still happens in school to this very day. Even in my collegiate experience, I've noticed that the "why" is quickly bypassed most often in the name of "what" and occasionally in the name of "how." To me, this pressing concern with "why" that arises in Critical Pedagogy is one of the most valuable ideas the theory contributes to education. In 15 years of public education, a teacher has never posed the question, "What is the purpose of public education?" And only a select few teachers have ever even bothered to explain why they chose to be educators at all.

To me, it seems that this should be standard first day material. When I went to China, I didn't pull out a course syllabus on the first day and talk about major instructional goals of my four week time span there. I explained why I was there--my motivation, what it meant for us to share and learn from each other, and how my English instruction could benefit them in a world of globalization. Because of my constraints with language barriers, this was done subtilely and slowly, but it was done first because this sort of discussion puts our experience together in a real life prospective.

Thus far we have looked at clashing Humanist and Progressive Theories that seek to discredit each other to a certain extent. Then, Social Efficiency Theory provided us with bold problems and a much too bold, impractical solution. Where does Critical Pedagogy fit in to the the scheme of these other theories? It pulls from both Humanist and Progressive influence because Critical theorists state that education must be meaningful and relevant before it can be critical. We already established that, in order for information to be either meaningful or relevant, a basic knowledge must exist (Kohn "no one argues that kids should be taught about nothing...") Critical Pedagogy also has potential to tackle some of the harsh realities presented by the Social Effiency Theory without resorting to democratic socialism. Critical Theory actually arose from Paulo Freire, who wrote about "pedagogy of the oppressed." It was designed to have the oppressed think critically about their place in society. Critical Pedagogy may very well indeed be the only way a substantial amount of change (more than just the usual exceptions) can occur to the domination/oppression structure of education as described by Bowles, Gintis, and Ogbu.

So Critical Pedagogy is the answer, right? I wish, but I still retain some questions and doubts.

Who bears the responsibility for disempowerment of teachers? To a certain extent, haven't teachers allowed themselves to be turned into rudimentary knowledge transmission machines? Where is their pride and indignation? Where are the groups of truly intellectual teachers mobilizing and gather to promote social change?

Unfortunately, I believe teachers have been controlled in this way because our system doesn't have enough of the type of transformative intellectuals describe by Giroux and Aronowitz. So the big question becomes, how do we bring teachers to this level? Aronowitz and Giroux mentioned reasons why we should view teachers as intellectuals, but I would argue that we don’t just need to view teachers as intellectuals, we need to find teachers that are intellectuals. Viewing me as an NBA All-Star won’t make me one. We shouldn't bring so much false hope to such a promising theory by neglecting the very tough intermediary decisions to be made about the practicality of finding transformative intellectuals to teach our nations students. We need to know exactly how to find, cultivate, and promote these people to the status of a true transformative intellectual.

Critical Pedagogy

-Major proponents include Stanley Aronowitz, Henry Giroux, and Peter McLaren

In broad terms, Critical Pedagogy is a movement premised on the idea that teachers have the ability to shape reform. What Stanley Aronowitz and Henry Giroux emphasize again and again in their article, Teaching and the Role of the Transformative Intellectual, is that teachers are no longer even looked to as being agents of change within the education system by the general public. Additionally, according to the two authors, the public is also failing to see that the current dominant thrusts in school reform are in contrast with the traditional role of organizing public education in order to ensure the maintenance and defense of the values and principles needed to maintain a democratic society.

These two theses are intertwined because it is the teachers that must help create a society of critical thinkers, and critical thinking is the precondition for creating a society based on democratic principles. Thus, there is a crisis in critical thinking because autonomy is being stripped from they very individuals who should be held responsible for creating a community of critical thinkers.

Aronowitz and Giroux suggest teachers are being disempowered in numerous ways. Deciding what counts as knowledge, what is worth teaching, how one judges instruction, and how one views the role of school and society, are all quite separate from the collective influence of teachers. Furthermore, prepackaged curricula and standardized classroom instruction methods undermine the teacher as any sort of transformative intellectual. Teachers are being de-skilled and proletarianized because of a fundamental shift from viewing teaching as contributing to the maintenance of a democratic society to the wedding of education and the practices of a business society. After this marriage of education and business, business principles like efficiency, hierarchy, and control leave teachers looking more like servants obedient to the commands of people far removed from the classroom. As the nature of the teacher changes (some may say regresses), the idea of the teacher as a transformative intellectual disappears. And according to the authors, there are three reasons a teacher should be viewed as a transformative intellectual:

1. The concept of intellectual provides the theoretical groundwork for interrogating the specific ideological and economic conditions under which intellectuals as a social group need to work in order to function as critical, thinking, creative human beings.

2. By viewing teachers as intellectuals we can begin to rethink and reformulate those historical traditions and conditions that have prevented schools and teachers from assuming their full potential as active, reflective scholars and practitioners.

3. The define teacher work against the imperative to develop knowledge and skills that provide students with tools they will need to be leaders rather than simply managers or skilled servants.

Critical Pedagogy is a very complex movement because it addresses so many areas of education. For instance, Critical Theorists believe in the importance of theory and would argue that it’s crucial to be able to step back and as questions such as, “How does knowledge make us better citizens?” Giroux believes that you should never engage in a practice for which you are not reflective of that practice.

Additionally, theorists such as Peter McLaren apply Critical Pedagogy to theory, construction of knowledge, forms of knowledge, class, culture, levels of culture, hegemony, ideology, discourse of power relationships, the hidden curriculum, and social reproduction. Of particular interest in McLaren’s readings is the introduction of the idea of hegemony coupled with ideology. His thoughts about these concepts certainly tie back into the ideas of dominance and restricted social mobility proposed by Bowles, Gintis, and Ogbu. McLaren says that hegemony, “is a struggle in which the powerful win the consent of those who are oppressed, with the oppressed unknowingly participating in their own oppression,” and insists that hegemony could not exist without support from ideology. Ideology refers to the production of sense and meaning of how the world works which we accept as obvious and true. Ideology is a catalyst that ensures hegemony will occur.

While Critical Theory can be applied to nearly every issue in education, it’s important to realize that the core of Critical Theory is about establishing the teacher as a transformative individual who can serve as a agent of change within the education system.

Social Efficiency Theory: My Take

When reading Bowles and Gintis, I was reminded of a quote I once heard about privilege. It reads, “People of privilege often think they have hit a triple, however they shouldn’t fool themselves, they were born on third.”

For many successful people the notion that success and wealth aren’t entirely due to merit is hard to swallow. It’s so appealing for us to believe in “The Just World Theory,” which states that people get what they deserve and deserve what they get. Yet, I agree with Bowles and Gintis, our world isn’t just. Neither are our education systems. Yet, I’m not sure to what extent I agree with Bowles and Gintis because some aspects of their opinions are a bit cryptic. I wish I knew if they thought schools served as a repressive force because of the intentions of modern day people or if the schools exist as a repressive force because of structural inequalities created in the past.

I believe that, in most cases, schools don’t serve the dominant, powerful, and the wealthy because of malicious motivation. There are simply structural inequalities present in our current educational system as a result of malicious intentions of the past. For example, during the 1930’s the Federal Housing Administration developed the modern mortgage. In many urban areas, one of which was New Orleans, housing markets were color-coded (or “red-lined”) on the basis of the race in the residents. Ultimately, because of racist thinking, the federal government not only became directly involved in preserving racially homogeneous neighborhoods, but also depreciating the value of the assets of the black community. Eventually this led to a congregation of African Americans in the urban region of New Orleans. Because property values had been depreciated, the property tax used to build the school systems also depreciated and the school systems suffered as a result.

I don’t believe the majority of modern society wishes to maintain the school system as a repressive force. There are passionate people all over this nation seeking to find affective ways to rebuild school systems that are the result of historical indignities. We just haven’t quite figured out how to affectively alter the states of schools in poor regions of our country. Yet we are trying (some, including myself, would argue not fervently enough). Think of the desegregation bussing efforts and programs like Teach for America. Though at some level, I do believe the privileged distance themselves from the harsh realities of our poorest performing schools. Understandably, the wealthy and powerful will always want their children to attend the best school possible and to a certain extent, this perpetuates the cycle of social class dominance. But again, this isn’t done with malicious intent. Parents of the rich, just like parents of the poor, want to see their children succeed.

And by the way, democratic socialism is not a relevant modern day answer.

Social Efficiency Theory

-Major proponents include Herbert Gintis, Samuel Bowles, and John Ogbu

While both the Humanist Theory and Progressivism focus on the needs of our education system and the appropriate responses required by those needs, the Social Efficiency Theory is more of a social criticism of the effect of education on certain populations. Social Efficiency Theory doesn’t focus on learning philosophies but provides answers to the question, “What are the real results of our education system?” Social Efficiency Theory is also distinctive because its creators and proponents are economists (Bowles and Gintis) and an anthropologist (Ogbu) as opposed to educators.

Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis provide a different argument and aspect of Social Efficiency Theory than does John Ogbu. Thus, each will be presented separately.

Bowles and Gintis, in their book Schooling in Capitalist America, argue the correspondence principle. They explain how the internal organization of schools corresponds to the internal organization of the capitalist workforce in its structures, norms and values. Later, in their article, Contradiction and Reproduction in Educational Theory, Bowles and Gintis proceed to discuss what they would define as an adequate education system. They state the following three goals:

1. Education should be egalitarian. It should act as a force to overcome the inequalities which arise in society.

2. Education should be developmental. It should allow students to grow cognitively, physically, emotionally, and critically.

3. Education should be the “social continuity of life.” It should promote the integration of students as fully functioning members of society.

Unfortunately, Bowles and Gintis found our education to be anything but what is mentioned above. Instead, they attribute schools in America as being a reproductive force for dominant ideology. Through the Social Efficiency Model, schools are not viewed as an egalitarian force or a great equalizer, but are viewed as a repressive force. Bowles and Gintis noted several distasteful aspects of our system:

-Schools serve the capitalist order in modern society

-Schools reproduce values necessary in a repressive capitalistic society

-Schools repress, coerce, and guide students to a certain niche of the labor force

-Schools allow the dominant class to maintain the current class structure

Furthermore, Bowles and Gintis reject the idea that a meritocracy exists within our nation. They propose that meritocracy instead serves as a sort of mask for the dominant, powerful, and wealthy. They say that these demographics of people have a false notion that they are where they are because of merit, yet are really only dominant, powerful, and wealthy because of social class.

An aside: To read about a current issue regarding meritocracy, please click on the link, "Meritocracy: Asians on Berkeley's Campus."

And finally, Bowles and Gintis debunk the premise of educational reform. They say the notion that schools can create equality of opportunity is false.

Ultimately, Bowles and Gintis call for democratic socialism as the only way to obtain egalitarian education, for they believe that educational reform requires economic transformation.

John Ogbu researched the relationship between socialization and upward mobility for minorities in the United States. He identified three different types of minorities (autonomous, immigrant, and caste) but focused mostly on caste-like minorities. Ogbu maintains that it is the variations in opportunity structure that control how children will perceive and attain their adult roles in society. In studying the motives of caste-like minorities, Ogbu found that the motives for acquiring formal education were quite different between majority and minority groups, and thus, the two groups don’t really participate in the same education system even when they attend the same schools. Much like Bowles and Gintis, Ogbu states that an individual’s education may allow that person to raise his or her social status, but the romanticization of this idea of education as a tool of upward mobility under any conditions is a false notion. Ogbu believes it is the nature of opportunity for future adult roles and what a student is socialized to believe about their place in life that will limit their upward mobility. Additionally, Ogbu states the presence of a job ceiling that limits the ability of caste-like minority groups to compete freely for any jobs on the market.

Progressivism: My Take

Progressivism sounds really, really good. It’s appealing to the core of a caring soul. Yet, support of Progressivism has fluctuated throughout history, and this is because there are many questions that are hard to answer about how Progressivism really manifests itself in the classroom. Kohn mentioned that when things get tough and we get scared, we feel a level of comfort reverting to “drill n’ kill.” This is exactly what happened with the launch of Sputnik in 1957.

But what is it about Progressivism that raises doubt? Kohn acknowledges that traditionalists view progressive ideas as abstractions. But I don’t believe Progressivism is too abstract. After all, Kohn emphasizes that, “no one argues that kids should be taught to think about nothing, that facts ought to be omitted so that only higher intellectual processes can be used.”

What I see undermining Progressivism is disbelief in students. Progressivism appears so flaky because it is entirely dependent on students to care about their own education. Why wouldn’t this cause concern? Even if our students are not failing (as Kohn suggests), they are certainly apathetic. Would students, under the current cultural mindset, take initiative to learn if given more liberty in schools? Or would it be the case that students would exploit this liberty? It seems apparent that we have a fear students would take a mile if given an inch. And I must admit, I hold this fear myself. Again, teaching in China taught me so many applicable lessons. Consider this: We entered the Chinese classrooms looking to introduce a progressive form of education to students that had never experienced anything other than extreme “drill n’ kill.” It should also be noted that Chinese students are certainly more willing to submit to authority than most American students, and they have a profound respect for educators. Yet each and every teacher saw problems arise within their classroom as soon as the second week. Students began to exploit their freedom. And given a chance to actively participate in the design of their curriculum, only a few students participated, while the others alienated themselves. Even if assignments were fun and interactive, there was often very little participation. I think this was more than a reflection of my ability as a teacher. It was experienced universally, and in my mind, speaks volumes about the psychology of children in an education system. This experience forced me to weigh the appealing aspects of Progressivism against some harsh practicalities.

But isn’t this all just a rebound effect of students entrapped in traditional models of teaching? It could be. But that doesn’t give us the liberty to discredit current context and culture. We must be able to have an answer to the question, “Is it naïve to allow students more liberty in their personal learning and expect results?”

I will attempt to answer all of this rhetoric. To a certain extent, Progressivism may need to be age dependent. Progressive techniques may just be futile for certain age groups. I mention this because I personally didn’t experience true Progressive education until I was a freshman in college as part of the Presidents Leadership Class. I thrived under these conditions at age 18 but have doubts about my desire to do such a thing at age 14 or 15. More research in Child Psychology may lend some answers to this question.

Ultimately, there is hesitance toward Progressivism not simply because it is a bit abstract, but because there appears to be very few methods of student control. One reason to revert back to “drill n’ kill” in times of hardship or employ traditional methods from the very beginning is that it allows teachers to demand discipline and work ethic. The fear is that if the classroom isn’t authoritative and teacher centered, no learning will take place. To this, I again offer the solution of having good teachers. It would be a challenge, but it seems that teachers could demand discipline and work ethic by other means than the nature of the curriculum. This would likely arise from a culture of immense respect developed toward the teachers because of actions by the teacher—actions that demonstrate the passion of the teacher and the teacher’s concern and effort to really get to know each student individually. I believe in the ability of students to reciprocate things like kindness, respect, and curiosity—even in wake of a mass exodus from traditional control. It's the role of the teacher to establish this environment.

Progressivism

-Major proponents include Alfie Kohn

If the Humanistic Theory were to be described in casual conversation as “back to basics,” Progressivism might be described as “learn by doing.” It’s important to note that there are various ways to look at the Progressive Theory of education. It can be analyzed as an exclusive movement or can be analyzed in reference to the aforementioned Humanist Theory. I will present the theory in both ways by discussing the foundations of Progressivism and then discussing the major points of departure from Humanist Theory.

Inarguably, the seminal figure of Progressivism is John Dewey. The following quote by Dewey provides insight into the goals of Progressivism. Dewey said, “What avail is it to win prescribed amounts of information about geography and history, to win ability to read and write, if in the process the individual loses his own soul, loses his appreciation of things worth while, of the values to which these things are relative; if he loses desire to apply what he has learned and, above all, loses the ability to extract meaning from his future experiences as they occur?

Dewey held four principles that were fundamental to the development of Progressive education:

1. Education is actual living and not merely getting ready for eventual living.

2. Education is the process of growing

3. Education is the constant organization and reorganization of previous experience.

4. Education is a social process, and to promote and further this process the school must be democratic.

Modern Progressive Theorists influenced by Dewey are at odds with Humanists. For example, Alfie Kohn in his book, The Schools Our Children Deserve, writes that traditional teaching and tougher standards are the two most dominant forces in the current educational system. And he points out several points of departure from traditional ways of thinking. These include:

-Viewing learning not as the deliverance or transmission of knowledge from teacher to student but as an active process fostered in a communal setting under the premise of experience.

-Moving from a teacher centered classroom to a student centered one where students’ questions and thoughts help shape the curriculum

-The capacity to find and use information is more important than the information itself. The primary purpose of learning is not to get the right answer

As Dewey’s initial quote describes, the goal of Progressivism is to no longer allow schooling to be something that is done to students. For when schooling is viewed as a transmission of knowledge and students are exempt from any sort of democratic process to determine the form of their education, students lose interest in true learning. Students must play an active role in the democratic process of determining what and how they learn so that that they are motivated to do so.

An aside: In his book, Kohn has included a section titled, Poor Teaching for Poor Kids which discusses the dangers of traditional education in poor urban schools. He mentions that when things get tough, there has been a tendency to revert back to traditional methods and teach lower level curriculum in the name of standards. This idea is mentioned in the article found on the left-hand side of the blog titled, Grades Rise, Reading Skills Do Not.