Running head:  EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES

 

 

 

 

Platform Plank I:  Philosophy of the Curriculum:  Intentional Mode

Theme II:  The Goal and Purpose of Education

Jeffrey B. Romanczuk

Sevier County School System

 

 

 

 

Summary

            Formal schooling, especially tax payer supplied public education is supposed to mirror society, instill its values, and reflect them.  In a macro sense this is true, but as K-12 education is played out, it always comes down to one teacher doing what works best for one student.  Although we should have a curriculum framework, it should be a guide, not a Bible.  School leaders have to serve the students, not the content.

What is the goal of education?

            Education is supposed to mirror society, instill its values, and reflect them. The Marxist view of class distinctions and segregation was endemic in American schooling from the 1930s when school 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 or 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, or match the make up of its proximate community.

 

Why should our society value education?

            Again assuming that education is supposed to mirror society, instill its values, and reflect them, 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, consciously, or purposely). 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.

What does education have to do with social justice?

            Using social foundations as a framework for questioning my “taken for granteds” (Tozer, 1993, p. 14) helps me somewhat in separating what is consensus from what is my own meaning making. [Yes, it amazes even me that I have any use for social reconstruction.]  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 happenings. 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.

 

            One reason it matters—especially in recent years—is social justice. 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.

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.

 

            Even so, affirmative action is just as bad in its way as discrimination against minorities 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 does not exist at a personal level. Hermeneutics—described by Foster as “the science of interpreting and understanding others” (p. 24)—has to, though. This and 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.

Is there a difference between the purpose of education and the purpose of schools?

            Education in the British colonies in the 1600s and early 1700s started as perennialist (Curriculum class notes, Feburay 10, 2004).  By the early 1900s, compulsory education was only minimally experiential, its main point being to instill a “common set of values and beliefs” (Prettyman, 1998, p. 330).  Never mind that except for Character Education as a recent add-on, most of what is in the curriculum framework addresses common values and beliefs only intermittently in that it gives a framework for developing thought processes. More likely, this hidden, values development curriculum is tied more to why compulsory education was born (that is, to keep children out of the clogged labor force as American society shifted from an agrarian to urban majority). Prettyman mentions the job competition, but she also mentions the concomitant mix of cultures (especially in the cities) as something American children needed to learn about and experience. But in the early 1900s more established Americans were less willing to see the bright side of immigrant growth in urban areas, flatly stating cities were “never good places for raising children” (Wirt, as cited in Hamer, 1998, p. 363).  By the 1950s and 60s, according to the Schools Days video series, the separate schooling that had being going on for the past century was finally ruled unequal.  Then the tough business of forcing integration set in.

 

            Since I first developed it during my internship in 1982, my philosophy of education has evolved surprisingly little. I noticed that each student learns in her or his own way. This makes it the purpose of education to individualize the material so the learner “gets it.”  The related challenge becomes keeping the delivery fresh enough that those who “got it” three iterations ago gain even more insight from this varied reinforcement. This individualization is codified in special education, which makes this field a good fit for my philosophy and helps make me a great fit in special education. In other words, individual training is both the purpose of schools and the purpose of education for special education.

 

In educational administration, remembering that I am indirectly supporting students by directly supporting teachers is key.  I'm a leader in what I can do for teachers, not in what they can do to make my job smoother.  Giving each teacher the support she or he wants and knowing when and what help to give to those who need it but don't ask, is the kind of leadership I am always trying to provide.

 

What is the difference between the purpose of education and the way it is currently carried out?

            Without being unduly theological, I strongly believe the leader of all is the servant of each. This is especially true in public service. We lead only by the willingness of those led and the grace of God. It is common sense and the golden rule carried to adulthood. Supervisors need to give their employees what the workers need when they need it. Teaching does not have to be as autonomous as it usually becomes. When teachers do not feel supported by their administrators or have no idea what administrators do all day, they begin to believe that their supervisors are out of touch with what it is really like in the classroom these days. Supervisors have to be skilled and tireless two-way communicators. To do this well, leaders need to be open and visible to those served. When communication breaks down or is filtered through layers of personality and pride, cooperation ends and productivity suffers.

 

            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 to formal K-12 schooling and for all populations of teachers and students is where I need to be.

What does education have to do with culture?

            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 Episcopals), 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.

 

            Torres and Mitchell (1998) quote Durkheim’s early definition of the sociology of education as how the older generations transmit their culture to the new. This is not the ruling elite imposing their view, but the public policy resulting from multiple powers interacting (Torres & Mitchell, 1998). This Bowles and Gintis idea is quoted in this article and Giroux’s (1983), with Giroux focusing on the “hidden curriculum” (the one “internalized” by the students) and ethnographic research supporting the hypothesis that power matters. This is part of the economic-reproduction model that supposes a hierarchy of values, norms, and skills for the workforce and social classes. While the idea that deviation in learning may have more to do with poverty or other economic problems than with intelligence varying by class (Giroux, 1983), Althusser’s theory (as related by Giroux) is ready to see motives more insidious; the ruling class’s domination is secured in schools both materially and ideologically. That is, different skills, attitudes, and values are dispensed to students of differing classes, races, genders. While I agree that the distribution of materials in schools is uneven, coming as it usually does from the local tax base, I find it interesting that schools are also criticized for doing the opposite of what Althusser claims, that is trying to give the same skills and values to distinctly different groups of students. Maybe Giroux’s article is directed at the Japanese or German dichotomy of schooling, or maybe I am kidding myself that the U.S. is any different. America has probably globalized the economic reproduction model already, with cheap foreign labor to serve as our minimally schooled working class culture. But cultural amelioration is a political and societal goal primarily, 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.

Is education an ideal or a reality?

            Torres and Mitchell (1998) note that the ideal public education system would produce a well-trained labor force and a “politically competent” citizenry. Giroux (1983) sees school’s purpose as less noble and positive; they are to reproduce the dominant ideology and the social divisions necessary to sustain it. Far from the ideal that each child is challenged to the best of her ability, Giroux (1983) quotes Willis as bluntly stating that schools prepare students for unequal futures. This aligns with the structural functionalist’s view that history is made behind the backs of society at large (Giroux, 1983). Structural functionalists view schools no differently from factories or prisons and see no hope of changing or even challenging the repression therein.

 

            Radical educators blame society for schools’ failures, not the students (Giroux, 1983). I see two problems with this line of thinking. This is only partially supported in the uneven distribution of school failure. Also, it is hard to point to a general failure when the required outcomes of schooling match the range of outcomes of realistically expected.

What theories of education do I agree with, disagree with, why?

            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 & 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.

 

            My belief in and use of the four educational philosophies works this way:  perennial, some essential (as it was described in the Curriculum January 29, 2004 notes as perennialism with an improved structure), less progressive (though I like its belief that the learner is responsible for his learning), and minimal social reconstruction (though UT’s Ed Admin puts this philosophy first).  Also from the progressive standpoint, I like Dewey’s idea of educating the whole child (School Days video series):  his notion that school life grows out of home life, that education “is a process of living and not and a preparation for future living” (Dewey, 1897, p. 7).  However, I am very opposed to the idea with which Dewey begins (p. 3) his Creed:  that education stems from social consciousness.  I can reconcile this somewhat in believing he meant small “e” education in the general sense rather than formal education.

What principles guide my work?

            Now for the in use vs. espoused aspect:  Two years ago I would have said trusting my common sense to do the right thing student by student, regardless of what is considered school rules or legal guided my work. But during our second Social Foundations session (August 29, 2002) we talked of meaning making by consensus, not personal common sense because the latter is individually derived based on personal history. Possibly, but if you can justify your actions as helpful and the consequences are not harmful, common sense will help explain the educational benefit a lot easier than common laws will.

 

            Siddle Walker’s (1993) Principal Dillard and Donato’s (2000) Superintendent Jarmillo supply the answer to what is the most important trait of a school leader:  clear communication. Before reading these two sources, the need for clear communication in a leader would have been one of my “taken for granteds” (Tozer, 1993, p. 14) 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—is what Greenleaf explains for me. 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. Early in my studies and my school supervision work, I have to admit I am looking at the pay range difference between administrators and teachers and thinking most school supervisors are even less of a bargain that most teachers are. This is only an emotional hunch based on my limited experience, not a dispassionate finding based on exhaustive research.

 

            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 countywide 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.

Why is the teaching profession relevant in today’s society?

            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 instinctively, not formally on paper. (Another emotional hunch I would never want to investigate is how many teachers’ Educator Information Records and Self-Analysis Worksheets actually get read by anybody.)  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. This on-the-fly analysis can work for most teachers. 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 of 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. In fact, in only my second year of special education administration, my biggest daily frustration is getting out “the word.”

 

            Giroux (1983) notes that radical educators blame society for schools failure, but students (and their parents) 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. For me, though, all learning is active, so when a student is uninterested he or she needs to assume the teacher has some reason for delivering “boring” content that they as a student are not yet aware of . Rarely the teacher does not. Most develop a logical succession of lessons for the year that is based on the curriculum framework, builds on what the student should have learned last year, and moves toward what content will be taught next year. It does not have to be delivered in boring ways, but neither are teachers obliged to be performers. When someone is already overextended, the last thing she wants to do is stretch.  This is why social reconstruction works as a philosophy, but falls short as a school role.

 

 

References

 

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

 

Dewey, J. (1897).  My pedagogic creed.  Washington, DC:  The Progressive Education Association.

 

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.

 

Hamer, L. (1998). Caging wild birds: making “real boys” into “real men” at the Interlaken school, 1907-1918. Educational Studies, 29(4), Winter, 358-375.

 

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

 

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.

 

Prettyman, S. S. (1998). Discourses on adolescence, gender, and schooling. Educational Studies, 29(4), Winter, 329-340.

 

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.