Running head:  GROUNDED IN SOCIAL FOUNDATIONS OF EDUCATION

 

 

How Perspectives Grounded in Social Foundations of Education Inform My Research 

Jeffrey B. Romanczuk

Sevier County School System

 

 

            What happens to a dream deferred?

            Does it dry up

            Like a raisin in the sun?

            Or fester like a sore—

            And then run?

            Does it stink like rotten meat?

            Or crust and sugar over—

            like a syrupy sweet?

            Maybe it just sags

            like a heavy load.   

                        Or does it explode?

                           - Langston Hughes

 

Introduction

This summary explores social foundations’ impact as I initiate my educational administration research. I start with exploration of the social, cultural, and political foundations to clarify as I move forward with defining the conceptual categories needed to ground my research. The impact of social foundations on my research methodology follows, then exploration of my guiding assumptions. The paper concludes with several other areas of discussion important to keep in mind and the impact of social foundations of education on them.  

 

Conceptual Categories Based on Social Foundations of Education

Tozer’s (1993) claim that teacher education becomes an occasion for building new meanings that “influence the sense teachers make of subsequent experience” (p. 16) is true for me as I continue the struggle to make sense of the social, cultural, and political foundations on which my education theory and practice is based. Because education was important to my parents, its worth was always obvious to me. The effort I put into it was (and is) worthwhile because of the tacit understanding I was raised on:  that education leads to success in life. So the vignette Jordan opened her talk with shocked me. It did not surprise me that a child would not see education as the means to achieving his dream, but that he would not have a vision for his adult life at all was shocking. Jordan craftily tied the boy’s comments to Langston Hughes’ “A Dream Deferred” poem (itself based on Martin Luther King, Jr.’s classic “I Have a Dream” speech) to relay to her audience that was is left undreamed explodes worse than the dream deferred. How does a teacher motivate a student to learn when that student has no vision for his future, let alone the part formal schooling plays in it?

During our second class session (August 29) we talked of meaning making by consensus, not personal common sense because the latter is individually derived based on personal history. Using the social foundations as a framework for questioning my “taken-for-granteds” (Tozer, 1993, p. 16) helps me somewhat in separating what is consensus from what is Jeff’s meaning making. Giroux (1997) noted that part of the cultural studies boom of the 1990s was due to it being a useful umbrella term, but not if there is a disconnect between colleges of education and the K-12 front line. Books’ (1994) uses Rubenstein’s term “social triage” to explain that whole groups of people are being sidelined as “surplus” because policy makers and analysts are missing opportunities to interpret in novel ways the “large events” that underlie any given set of society’s seemingly unconnected sequences of happening. Books’ hope is that social foundations of education will underlie society’s ideas and practices. She admits, though, that the field needs better goals and a broader focus than just the classroom. Even before that happens, it needs to build consensus around a definition, as way of presenting itself to other education areas and to society. Before it can be taken seriously, or taken at all, social foundations needs to be clear about what it is, is not, and why it matters. Giroux’s article (1983) clarifies that the evolution in social foundations Torres and Mitchell (1998) describe during the 1990s resulted from the reproduction and resistance theories developed in the 1970s. Giroux also adds that these theories were inadequate for the “critical science of schooling” and offers a new theory of resistance to explain how power and resistance can become central to the struggle for justice in schools and in society.

Giroux (1983) points out that schools purposely patterned themselves after “structural-functionalist versions of Marxism” (p. 259) in stressing that history is made without the common man’s awareness, rather than the less political notion that all people make history. This reproduction theory solidified the political nature of schooling, but fell short in its promise of providing the “comprehensive critical science of schooling” it set out to become (Giroux, 1983, p. 259).

The Marxist view of class distinctions and segregation was endemic in American schooling however, from the time it became compulsory. Since the mix of classes was not something that could be litigated away, the courts approached both problems by ruling on the legality of segregated schools. The journey from legal segregation to forced integration in the 1950s and 1960s is a study in how the law can help when a bad practice is embraced and a good practice must be coerced (Siddle Walker, 1993). Of course, most of Siddle Walker’s article points out how we lost the good with the bad, or how Caswell County did at least. The same is happening with the federally mandated inclusion of special education students into the general curriculum. It is the right move, but this kind integrated schooling requires more planning and work than segregated regular education and special education. If every child is special, none of them are. If the school is a blend of all socioeconomic communities and the students represent the full range of abilities, it is tough for the school to convey its own sense of community.

If there were a sociological theory that blends the conflict, critical, interpretive, and functional theories, this is where I would be because I cannot make myself limit myself to the goals and ways of analyzing of any one of the four (as described by DeMarrais and LeCompte, 1995). I like the proactive reflection inherent in interpretive theory, conflict theory’s acknowledgment of the ever-present friction, critical theory’s attempts to get to the root of this friction, and functional theory’s drive to create a working balance. Similarly, I think I am a progressive existentialist, but know I teach like perennialist. That is, I pay lip service to the notions of getting students ready for life and trying to make them moral thinkers, but I tend to teach from my own limited notion of what is the foundational core of knowledge necessary for building on.

  

How Social Foundations Impacts Methodology

Cultural amelioration is a political, societal goal, but only a school one incidentally in how schools can help society along by concentrating on what they do best and need to do—create students who can read, write, analyze, and think. Theory, practice, and law have to be mutually supporting and understanding of each other. So what is the role of the school administrator from society’s perspective?  Siddle Walker’s (1993) Principal Dillard and Donato’s (2000) Superintendent Jarmillo supply the answer;  the most important trait of a school leader is clear communication. Before reading these two sources, the need for clear communication in a leader would have been one of my “taken for granteds” and I would have made a case for Greenleaf’s (1991) notion of “servant as leader” as the top trait needed by school leaders. Of course, my interpretation of Greenleaf is even more biblical than he admits to being, the opposite idea in fact, the leader as servant. While there are some examples of leaders who acknowledge they are the servant of all, too often the self-serving moves that are rewarded on the way to the top continue for those at the top. I am trying to never forget that if I am succeeding, it is more by God’s grace than my own skill and it is because I am supposed to do more for the teachers and students, not ask or expect them to do more to make my job easier.

Although the previous paragraph feels off the methodology topic, the need for clear communication and the importance of my role as servant leader will figure heavily in my dissertation research. The important role of family in schooling, especially for special education, will also factor in. Since Sevier County is just starting its Special Education Parent Advisory Committee (SpEd PAC) and I am the parent of two children with autism as well as a special education teacher and administrator, my dissertation work will cover the first couple years of setting this SpEd PAC in motion. I intend to interview the parents who get involved in the group during the first year then again after the second year. The social foundations linkages in what they expect the SpEd PAC to be and how satisfied they are with what it becomes are becoming obvious from my initial literature review. Parental involvement in schooling is a plus much more often than it is a negative. Good parent/school system communication is always a plus.

 

Social Foundations and My Guiding Assumptions

My two favorite class nights were the Jordan talk (especially the dream unhad bit mentioned already) and the one during which when a teacher’s contract ends was a chorus we kept circling back to. Teachers think of themselves as professionals and want others to think of them this way, but unionization and pushing for their own benefits over the needs of the students works against the professional concept. What time a teacher arrives or leaves should be a non-issue. The amount of preclass and postclass work at home and on weekends is what separates the professional from the minimalist teacher and no one tracks or even acknowledges this work time.

Despite the call for teachers to reflect on their methods (and adjust accordingly) that is built into Tennessee’s teacher evaluation system, most teacher reflection is done by instinct, on the fly, not formally on paper. Teachers tend not to consciously consider what they are doing wrong or right; rather they subconsciously work off of whether or not the students are “getting it” and adjust accordingly. Administrators, on the other hand, can and should be reflective professionals, though many come into the job as technicians/practitioners. The broader the impact of the job, the more worthwhile it is to keep looking at processes with fresh eyes. Since nearly all administrators come to it after years of teaching, the job is more one of making the familiar new than learning to work with what is unfamiliar. Is administrative reflection worthwhile if teachers do not reflect?  Yes, because the administrator has the bulk of the responsibility for good parent/teacher/school/school system communication. If fact, in only my second year of special education administration, my biggest daily frustration is getting out “the word.”

Greene says the philosophy of education is worked out in small transformations from a common standpoint (1995). What I took notice of first is how this parallels with special education student progress in personal growth, formal education (and possibly even growth in the general curriculum) occurring incrementally. How it aligns with an administrator’s growing into a personal philosophy of education is where I am now. How it applies formal K-12 schooling-wide and for all populations of teachers and students is where I need to be.

Giroux (1983) notes that radical educators blame society for schools failure, but student should share the blame for dismissing the school’s presentation without trying to engage it. Here the perennialist in me surfaces again to say that it is the student’s fault if a subject leaves them cold. Granted teachers should always try to actively involve the student. Even hooks (1999) observes that empowerment cannot happen if we refuse to be vulnerable while encouraging our students to take risks because education has to be a place for self-actualization, knowing for living deeply and fully. All learning is active, so when a student is uninterested he or she needs to assume the teacher has some reason they are not yet aware of for delivering boring content. It does not have to be delivered in boring ways, but when someone is already overextended, the last thing she wants to do is stretch.

 

Other Discussions and Social Foundations

Coming back to what sticks with me most, the part of Jordan’s October 3 talk in which she related her conversation with a nine-year old boy who did not have a dream vision, or any vision, of himself as an adult:  when she put this in the perspective of Langston Hughes’ poem “A Dream Deferred,” the depth of the boy’s hopelessness became clear for me. Having an unrealistic dream is bad. Having a realistic one can be sad. But having none at all is the most unfortunate situation there could be. For teachers who do not have a background in common with their students, an awareness of how the formal content is being filtered by the students is necessary. Also needed is an awareness of when the contract really ends. Hegemony (as described by Althusser, as cited in Giroux, 1983) of schooling cannot be a conscious decision and even has to be guarded against as an unintended consequence. Affirmative action is just as bad in its way as discrimination against white males is, despite the power imbalance that had been standard and affirmative action’s attempt to jump start the leveling of this playing field. Certainly, whites do not need protecting, but whiteness should not be thought of as inherently “bad” either (Kincheloe & Steinberg, 2000, p. 4). Similarly, McLaren (1998) is going too far in calling for contesting the status quo of hegemony and implementing a pedagogy of discontent and outrage. Although the “geography of cultural desire” (McLaren, p. 297) sounds appealing it is not worth blowing us apart to bring us together.  

I find it hard to imagine myself as part of the “ruling class” (Foster, 1986, p. 99), but then—like social foundations itself—hegemony doesn’t exist at a personal level. Hermeneutics—described by Foster as “the science of interpreting and understanding others,” p. 24)—has to, though. This and what I have already said about Greenleaf’s servant leader work (1991) do more to lay the social foundation I am building my education administration work upon. What I enjoy most about special education is that—despite the public emphasis of public education—it always comes down to one teacher doing what works best for one student. There are federal and state guidelines for addressing inclusion in the least restrictive environment and provision of a free and appropriate public education for all, but these terms are defined case by case, student by student.

It is hard for me to separate Social Foundations of Education from my Philosophy of Education, or think of either more broadly, outside of the “school” context. But as I conclude, here is a try. Cultures that are going to last through several generations realize their inherent obligation to pass on their skills to the next generation. But they have always passed on their history, beliefs, and values, too (even if this is only by example and not done explicitly). I am moving toward cultural anthropology and away from cultural foundations, but both concern how cultures evolve and society endures. Both have a need for political power shaping, but fortunately, both have a moral, ethical component too.

Swinging this general framework back to education in general, Books (1994) based her “social triage” on Counts’ belief in the teacher as social critic. Not only can teachers not be neutral as they examine their times, they are obliged to interpret them. As difficult as it is to synthesize history in the making, what helps formal education endure even in the most unlikely situations, is a common belief in its lasting value. Even at the Mother Mary Mission (where white Catholics taught black African Methodist Episcopal), Jordan (1996) admits there was more cultural match than mismatch, based on this common belief. Students quickly catch on that if it is valued by your parents and teachers, it had better be important to you.

 

 

References

Books, S. (1994). Social foundations in an age of triage. Educational Foundations, Fall, 27-41.

Donato, R. (2000). “No one here to put us down:” Hispano education in a southern colorado community, 1920-1963. Reconstructing the Common Good in Education, 68-81. Palo Alto, CA:  Stanford University Press.

DeMarrais, K. B. & LeCompte, M. D. (1995). The way schools work:  A sociological analysis of education. White Plains, NY:  Longman.

Foster, W. (1986). Paradigms and promises:  New approaches to educational administration. Amherst, NY:  Prometheus Books.

Giroux, H. (1983). Theories of reproduction and resistance in the new sociology of education:  A critical analysis. Harvard Educational Review, 53:3, August, 257-293.

Giroux, H. (1997). Is there a place for cultural studies in colleges of education?  Education and Cultural Studies, 231-247. New York, NY:  Routledge Press.

Greene, M. (1995). What counts as philosophy of education?  Critical Conversations in Philosophy of Education, 3-23. New York, NY:  Routledge Press.

Greenleaf, R. (1991). The servant as leader. Indianapolis, IN:  Greenleaf Center.

hooks, b. (1999). Excerpts from Teaching to Transgress. Women’s Philosophies of Education, 179-191. NJ:  Merrill.

Irvine, J. J. (1996). Segregation and academic excellence:  African american catholic schools in the south. Growing Up African American in Catholic Schools, 87-94. New York, NY:  Teachers College.

Kincheloe, J. & Steinberg, S. (2000?). Addressing the crisis of whiteness. Sociology of Education, 23-34.

McLaren, P. (1998). Education as a political issue (II). Critical Social Issues in American Education, 2nd Ed, 289-298. Mahwah, NJ:  Lawrence Erlbaum.

Phillips, D. C. (1995). Counting down to the millennium. Critical Conversations in Philosophy of Education, 34-42. New York, NY:  Routledge Press.

Sadker, M. P. & Sadker, D. M. (2003). Teachers, schools, and society, 6th ed. New York, NY:  McGraw-Hill.

Siddle Walker, E. V. (1993). Caswell county training school, 1933-1969:  Relationships between community and school. Harvard Educational Review, 63:2, Summer, 161-182.

Torres, C. A. & Mitchell, T., eds. (1998). Introduction. Sociology of Education:  Emerging Perspectives, 1-18. Albany, NY:  State University of New York Press.

Tozer, S. (1993). Toward a new consensus among social foundations educators:  Draft position paper of the american educational studies association committee on academic standards and accreditation. Educational Foundations, Fall, 5-21.