1. What, in your view, does the functional literacy perspective contribute to our understanding of the political economy of literacy in the United States? If these are valuable contributions, is the functional approach an adequate view of literacy on which to base educational policy? Explain.
Each level of literacy builds on the preceding one, and each one adds more layers to the richness and complexity of society - from the bare bones conventional society, to the full-orbed cultural society, to the fearless and dynamic critical society. Functional literacy tells us how many people have the knowledge and skills to operate within society at a basic level, and this information is useful, as far as it goes. This level of literacy, however, should be expected as a bare minimum, and our actual educational efforts ought to be aimed much higher.
Therefore, while educational policy should be informed by the functional literacy perspective, it should not be based on it. To be merely functional is to be inert, and to be inert is to recede, for society must develop and grow if it is to thrive and prosper.
2. E.D. Hirsch argues that his conception of cultural literacy preserves the connection between literacy and liberty found in the views of Thomas Jefferson and Martin Luther King. Do you agree? Explain.
The difference between cultural and critical literacy is not knowledge and information, it is attitude and action. The presence of a critical literacy is less dependent on specific educational content and more dependent on the nature of educational institutions and instruction, and indeed the nature of society as a whole. The need for critical literacy is another problem that betrays the inadequacies of the institutional model, which by nature is defined by compliance, not subversion. But I digress.
In the case of Jefferson or King, we can see that these men translated their profound cultural literacy into critical action. This required a particular kind of upbringing and a good deal of raw courage. Not every student will be a Jefferson or King, but what made these men great is worthy of study and emulation. We must develop educational content that informs the student, and an educational and social environment that encourages him to do something with this information.
3. To what degree do you find the critical literacy perspective consistent with John Dewey's democratic ideal, expressed in Chapter 4, of "the all-around growth of every member of society"? Explain how critical literacy theory does or does not serve this ideal.
The "all-around growth of every member of society" is not always equivalent to the all-around growth of society itself. Critical literacy is subversive, dangerous, and robustly democratic - imagine: teaching people to think for themselves! And yet, while the critical faculty is a necessary component of the complete man, it need not be overemphasized to the excess of chronic cynicism.
4. What features of contemporary U.S. ideology and political economy come to light in the critical literacy perspective that do not emerge in the other literacy perspectives? In your view, should teachers try to take these features into account in their approaches to teaching? Explain.
Critical literacy begins to expose the deterioration of the pure democratic ideal in American society; it enables you to "rethink the system." Democracy is dependent on the acceptance of personal responsibility at the individual level. This has become distasteful for most of the population, as it tends to involve a great deal of work.
As educators we can withstand the "dumbing down" of society by instilling in those we teach a vigorous work ethic, a sense of ownership regarding the well-being of others, and a respectful distrust for the status quo.
5. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the critical literacy perspective, in your view, as illustrated in Bigelow and Christensen's classroom? If you identify any practical obstacles to such a pedagogy, to what degree are they grounded in political-economic and ideological conditions in the United States? Are these conditions insurmountable - or is critical literacy theory an inadequate foundation on which to base teaching aims and educational policy in the first place? Defend your position.
Critical literacy is a valuable concept, but it is inconsistent with the institutional model. We must go one step further and reevaluate the viability of institutionalized education. The exercise conducted by Bigelow and Christensen is ironically revealing in this regard: "almost half the instances of rights violations took place in school." Does that not tell us something?
I maintain that we should not teach criticism for its own sake, but rather a broad and keen cultural awareness that leaves the door open for criticism, if and when it became necessary. As Bigelow observes, unchecked emphasis on criticism is counterproductive: "The danger of students becoming terribly cynical as they come to understand the enormity of injustice in this society and in the world is just too great." We need not accept where we are, but we must begin where we are.
6. What kinds of learning seem to be taking place in Bigelow and Christensen's classroom that might not likely take place in other classrooms? At what expense, if any, is such learning taking place? Explain and defend your view.
What Bigelow and Christensen are doing, in part, is doing away with the intimidating awe of the "right answer" and showing that all answers have some value, provided they are genuine and intelligent. They are attempting to create a human connection that validates their students and gives them the confidence and energy necessary to excel. They are bringing out the jumper cables. We do not wish to take the student all sorts of places in our own vehicle - we wish to teach him to drive.
This learning is taking place at the risk of creating an arrogant, disrespectful attitude. The satisfaction of an argument won, or a slight avenged, is remembered. Without counterweights, validation can turn to flattery and lasting damage may be done to the student and the society which must endure him.
7. Which of the perspectives on literacy presented in this chapter do you think is the most important for individual teachers and for schools in general to embrace in the United States today? Defend your view, taking into account relevant dimensions of political economy and ideology as you understand them.
I choose cultural literacy, as students today are already too convinced of their own omnipotence to be fed more critical literacy. Besides, we must have something to be critical about, and that is being lost. Students are not tackling the big questions. They are not capable of interacting with the volume and complexity of cultural and international issues. This deficiency must be set right.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
School & Society: Ch. 8 Study Questions
1. It might be argued that James B. Conant's major educational initiatives were entirely consistent with progressive-era educational reforms and that he deepened and extended those reforms. To what degree is such a conclusion warranted by the material presented in chapters 4 and 8?
Conant advocated a pragmatic and socially-oriented approach to education. In the main, this aligns with and develops the ideals of progressivism.
2. This chapter suggests a significant connection between standardized testing in schools and what might be called cold-war ideology. What connection is being suggested - and do you believe this is a valid association to make? Explain.
As educators scrambled to combat Communism, they missed one important point, namely, that Communism is both an ideology and methodology. In their haste to stem the red ideological tide, they succumbed, at least in part, to the tempting shortcuts proffered by the use of red methodology. They couldn't trust freedom to protect itself. As Van Doren puts it so well, "Democracy when it is secure will not deny its inferiority to persons. The superiority of its persons is its only strength. To say as much is to say that democracy lives dangerously..." America had become an "insecure democracy," and an insecure democracy is no longer much of a democracy at all.
3. What are Conant's ideological and political-economic justifications for the system of tracking or ability grouping? Are these justifications consistent with what John Dewey (in Chapter 4) called the "moral meaning" of democracy, namely, that all social institutions should contribute to the "all-around growth of every member of society"? Defend your view.
The problem was largely about the varying learning rates and aptitudes among students. It bears notice that this only becomes an issue in an institutional setting - in individual or home-based education, each student is maximized without being dragged along. Conant and his colleagues were attempting to unravel this problem within the institutional context, which necessitated statistical methods such as standardized testing. Conant's approach seems a reasonable compromise between the interests of classroom and individual when considered within the flawed institutional structure.
4. To what degree does your high school experience reflect the education vision Conant expressed for the "comprehensive American high school"? Did such a school serve your educational and long-term interests well? Did it serve the interests of all students, from all social and ethnic backgrounds, equally well? Explain your position on each of these issues.
Since the question assumes an institutional background, I am unqualified to comment.
5. To what degree does the educational position argued by Van Doren constitute a criticism of vocational education as recommended by Conant? Do you consider this criticism valid? Explain.
While Van Doren's position is a noble one, he is operating from higher up in the ivory tower than Conant, who is on campus, talking to teachers, watching the action on the ground. Van Doren makes few prescriptions regarding how to actually apply his ideology in practice. This blunts his criticism, if his aim is indeed to revise the institution. I would argue that Van Doren's ideal should be pursued, but independent of the educational institution, with which it is hardly compatible.
6. Although Van Doren wrote well after the progressive revolution in American schooling, it could be argued that his educational view is significantly grounded in both Aristotelian and Jeffersonian educational ideals. Evaluate that assertion, and evaluate also the degree to which Van Doren's viewpoint is responsive to your assessment of the needs of modern society.
Van Doren favors a grassroots strategy for social success. This is basically raw Jeffersonian thinking, and perhaps even more generous, considering how Jefferson advocated a "natural aristocracy." As far as the needs of modern society are concerned, Van Doren's viewpoint is timeless, although the present institutional model makes the implementation of such ideals nigh impossible.
7. In your view, which educational thinker - Van Doren or Conant - offers an educational vision that is more likely to serve the needs of all members of a diverse society such as our own: male and female, rich and poor, European-American, Hispanic-American, African-American, Asian-American, and other groups?
If you set out to "serve the needs of all members of a diverse society" you will end up failing miserably. The quest is presented on it's head. The right approach is to set out to serve the needs of the student in front of you. In this manner, the correct methods will fall into place and the result will be a superior education for society as a whole. Both Conant and Van Doren share the same goal - indeed, we all do. Only their methods differ, and I believe Van Doren's to be the sounder one.
Conant advocated a pragmatic and socially-oriented approach to education. In the main, this aligns with and develops the ideals of progressivism.
2. This chapter suggests a significant connection between standardized testing in schools and what might be called cold-war ideology. What connection is being suggested - and do you believe this is a valid association to make? Explain.
As educators scrambled to combat Communism, they missed one important point, namely, that Communism is both an ideology and methodology. In their haste to stem the red ideological tide, they succumbed, at least in part, to the tempting shortcuts proffered by the use of red methodology. They couldn't trust freedom to protect itself. As Van Doren puts it so well, "Democracy when it is secure will not deny its inferiority to persons. The superiority of its persons is its only strength. To say as much is to say that democracy lives dangerously..." America had become an "insecure democracy," and an insecure democracy is no longer much of a democracy at all.
3. What are Conant's ideological and political-economic justifications for the system of tracking or ability grouping? Are these justifications consistent with what John Dewey (in Chapter 4) called the "moral meaning" of democracy, namely, that all social institutions should contribute to the "all-around growth of every member of society"? Defend your view.
The problem was largely about the varying learning rates and aptitudes among students. It bears notice that this only becomes an issue in an institutional setting - in individual or home-based education, each student is maximized without being dragged along. Conant and his colleagues were attempting to unravel this problem within the institutional context, which necessitated statistical methods such as standardized testing. Conant's approach seems a reasonable compromise between the interests of classroom and individual when considered within the flawed institutional structure.
4. To what degree does your high school experience reflect the education vision Conant expressed for the "comprehensive American high school"? Did such a school serve your educational and long-term interests well? Did it serve the interests of all students, from all social and ethnic backgrounds, equally well? Explain your position on each of these issues.
Since the question assumes an institutional background, I am unqualified to comment.
5. To what degree does the educational position argued by Van Doren constitute a criticism of vocational education as recommended by Conant? Do you consider this criticism valid? Explain.
While Van Doren's position is a noble one, he is operating from higher up in the ivory tower than Conant, who is on campus, talking to teachers, watching the action on the ground. Van Doren makes few prescriptions regarding how to actually apply his ideology in practice. This blunts his criticism, if his aim is indeed to revise the institution. I would argue that Van Doren's ideal should be pursued, but independent of the educational institution, with which it is hardly compatible.
6. Although Van Doren wrote well after the progressive revolution in American schooling, it could be argued that his educational view is significantly grounded in both Aristotelian and Jeffersonian educational ideals. Evaluate that assertion, and evaluate also the degree to which Van Doren's viewpoint is responsive to your assessment of the needs of modern society.
Van Doren favors a grassroots strategy for social success. This is basically raw Jeffersonian thinking, and perhaps even more generous, considering how Jefferson advocated a "natural aristocracy." As far as the needs of modern society are concerned, Van Doren's viewpoint is timeless, although the present institutional model makes the implementation of such ideals nigh impossible.
7. In your view, which educational thinker - Van Doren or Conant - offers an educational vision that is more likely to serve the needs of all members of a diverse society such as our own: male and female, rich and poor, European-American, Hispanic-American, African-American, Asian-American, and other groups?
If you set out to "serve the needs of all members of a diverse society" you will end up failing miserably. The quest is presented on it's head. The right approach is to set out to serve the needs of the student in front of you. In this manner, the correct methods will fall into place and the result will be a superior education for society as a whole. Both Conant and Van Doren share the same goal - indeed, we all do. Only their methods differ, and I believe Van Doren's to be the sounder one.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
School & Society: Ch. 7 Study Questions
1. The history of the American "melting pot" idea suggests that all minority cultures share basically the same problem: how to fit into the larger dominant culture of the United States. Yet each minority group is different, with a different history and different needs. What particular issues associated with the development of a system of public education for Native Americans are different from those experienced by other American minorities? Rely on your own experience as well as the material from this chapter in developing your response.
The American Indians, as a society, were agrarian. In a raw, primitive sense, they were even beyond agrarian, surviving and thriving in the wild land. The strong European drive for "progress" was simply not a prominent part of the Indian psyche, nor did it need to be. However, because of this fundamental difference, there were significant cultural adjustments to be made: from non-materialist to materialistic, from an honor system to a contract system, from ceremony to seminary.
Adaptation and assimilation was an inevitable result of white settlement, a process that was at various times handled clumsily by both Indians and whites. Indians, as native inhabitants, deserved more respect than they received. Whites, as (mostly) peaceable newcomers, deserved less hostility. Coterminous social progress was laid on a foundation of mistrust.
2. In Chapter 4, various objectives and practices of progressive education were presented in the context of an urbanizing, industrializing, and heavily immigrant society. To what degree are progressive education aims and practices relevant to the changes in schooling developed for Native Americans in the 20th century? Explain.
Progressive education sought to understand education from the perspective of the student and also to integrate the education machine to the social one. These perspectives become even more potent when dealing with cultural minorities and racial idiosyncrasies. As Collier believed, it was crucial for educators to work hard to understand and appropriately engage Indian culture - to walk a mile in their moccasins, as it were.
Progressive education, therefore, was a mixed blessing. On the one hand, it made important strides toward properly understanding the Indian; on the other, it fueled the unrelenting drive for assimilation.
3. American Indian educational reform during the first half of the 20th century might be characterized as partly pluralist and partly assimilationist in nature. How would you describe and assess the character of the pluralism embodied in Indian schooling reform? In explaining your position, explain also the degree to which those reforms appear to you to be consistent with democratic ideals - and why.
As Indians began to assume responsibility for managing and advancing their own education, they made important changes to reverse some of the initial damage caused by the impositions of the system. What they don't appear to have questioned was whether the system was valid and useful in the first place, being an entirely European invention. By this time, (1970's) the demands of society may have made an institutional-style educational system non-negotiable, or perhaps enough time had passed to where the Indians took it for granted.
Whatever the case may be, the Indian's affirmation of their identity was entirely healthy. They stepped back from the problems and challenges, took a deep breath, and engaged the larger society as they saw fit, which is the epitome of the democratic ideal.
4. The point of view informing this chapter suggests a strong connection between U.S. reform of American Indian education and the elimination of native culture and values. If Indians could have controlled their own educational destinies on a continent won in battle by Europeans, how could they have pursued an educational policy any different from that imposed by the United States? In developing your response, consider differences in ideology between the dominant European-American culture and the various Indian cultures; political-economic constraints; and the Primary Source Readings as well as the chapter material itself.
The Indians were at a distinct disadvantage as European settlement expanded across the continent. They were not free to simply continue their way of life, seeing as the continental infrastructure had radically changed. They could not adapt their play and try out a different strategy - it was a whole new game. The development of an Indian educational system was inevitable, but were it given a bit more care and thought it might have been pursued in a more specifically Indian style.
The American Indians, as a society, were agrarian. In a raw, primitive sense, they were even beyond agrarian, surviving and thriving in the wild land. The strong European drive for "progress" was simply not a prominent part of the Indian psyche, nor did it need to be. However, because of this fundamental difference, there were significant cultural adjustments to be made: from non-materialist to materialistic, from an honor system to a contract system, from ceremony to seminary.
Adaptation and assimilation was an inevitable result of white settlement, a process that was at various times handled clumsily by both Indians and whites. Indians, as native inhabitants, deserved more respect than they received. Whites, as (mostly) peaceable newcomers, deserved less hostility. Coterminous social progress was laid on a foundation of mistrust.
2. In Chapter 4, various objectives and practices of progressive education were presented in the context of an urbanizing, industrializing, and heavily immigrant society. To what degree are progressive education aims and practices relevant to the changes in schooling developed for Native Americans in the 20th century? Explain.
Progressive education sought to understand education from the perspective of the student and also to integrate the education machine to the social one. These perspectives become even more potent when dealing with cultural minorities and racial idiosyncrasies. As Collier believed, it was crucial for educators to work hard to understand and appropriately engage Indian culture - to walk a mile in their moccasins, as it were.
Progressive education, therefore, was a mixed blessing. On the one hand, it made important strides toward properly understanding the Indian; on the other, it fueled the unrelenting drive for assimilation.
3. American Indian educational reform during the first half of the 20th century might be characterized as partly pluralist and partly assimilationist in nature. How would you describe and assess the character of the pluralism embodied in Indian schooling reform? In explaining your position, explain also the degree to which those reforms appear to you to be consistent with democratic ideals - and why.
As Indians began to assume responsibility for managing and advancing their own education, they made important changes to reverse some of the initial damage caused by the impositions of the system. What they don't appear to have questioned was whether the system was valid and useful in the first place, being an entirely European invention. By this time, (1970's) the demands of society may have made an institutional-style educational system non-negotiable, or perhaps enough time had passed to where the Indians took it for granted.
Whatever the case may be, the Indian's affirmation of their identity was entirely healthy. They stepped back from the problems and challenges, took a deep breath, and engaged the larger society as they saw fit, which is the epitome of the democratic ideal.
4. The point of view informing this chapter suggests a strong connection between U.S. reform of American Indian education and the elimination of native culture and values. If Indians could have controlled their own educational destinies on a continent won in battle by Europeans, how could they have pursued an educational policy any different from that imposed by the United States? In developing your response, consider differences in ideology between the dominant European-American culture and the various Indian cultures; political-economic constraints; and the Primary Source Readings as well as the chapter material itself.
The Indians were at a distinct disadvantage as European settlement expanded across the continent. They were not free to simply continue their way of life, seeing as the continental infrastructure had radically changed. They could not adapt their play and try out a different strategy - it was a whole new game. The development of an Indian educational system was inevitable, but were it given a bit more care and thought it might have been pursued in a more specifically Indian style.
Saturday, March 17, 2007
School & Society: Ch. 6 Study Questions
1. Some students familiar with Du Bois's criticism of Washington have defended Washington's approach as a "practical" solution that sought to accomplish what could be done for black people under the conditions of that particular place and time. Yet Du Bois believed that Washington fundamentally misinterpreted those conditions, and that given the political-economic and ideological realities of the period, the Washingtonian solution was truly impractical as a route to black advancement. Which leader had the stronger position, in your view, and why?
I tend to think that both Washington and Du Bois held pieces of the puzzle, although it seems that Du Bois's held a somewhat larger piece. Washington's continual insistence on "earning" or "deserving" one's rights - as opposed to simply demanding them - is largely wholesome. Du Bois, however, while he recognized the truth in Washington's approach, lays his finger on the larger problem: "[Washington's] doctrine has tended to make the whites, North and South, shift the burden of the Negro problem to the Negro's shoulders and stand aside as critical and rather pessimistic spectators; when in fact the burden belongs to the nation, and the hands of none of us are clean if we bend not our energies to righting these great wrongs."
Thus, I am inclined to side mainly with Du Bois, though with a generous dose of Washington mixed in.
2. Du Bois relied on Washington's autobiography in writing that "the picture of a lone black boy poring over a French grammar amid the weeds and dirt of a neglected home soon seemed to him the acme of absurdities." Why, in your view, did Washington see this image as so absurd, and why did Du Bois see Washington's view as so wrong in this instance? Which position do you believe is stronger, and why?
There is no single right answer. Washington is protesting the folly of overlooking the obvious, antecedent things, while Du Bois is extolling the virtue of education and higher thought. Both are valid perspectives. Washington could not see any practicality in the scenario, and Du Bois for his part could not see how the scenario could be anything but healthy. I say it depends. It may be entirely appropriate for a boy of uncommon genius, and it may be thoroughly inappropriate for a boy who simply disliked manual work.
3. In your Primary Source Reading, Du Bois wrote, "Honest and earnest criticism from those whose interests are most nearly touched, - criticism of writers by readers, of government by those governed, of leaders by those led, - this is the soul of democracy and the safeguard of modern society. If the best of the American Negroes receive by outer pressure a leader whom they had not recognized before, manifestly there is here a certain palpable gain. Yet there is also irreparable loss, - a loss of that peculiarly valuable education which a group receives when by search and criticism it finds and commissions its own leaders." To what degree do you find this statement consistent or inconsistent with Thomas Jefferson's views on intellectual freedom and the developmental value of democracy? Support your position.
American society in the late 19th century used some "democratic" sleight of hand to conceal their belligerency towards the Negro race. Washington bought into this deception, at least to some extent. His sights became politically clouded and began to affect his vision and ideals.
Du Bois is saying two things: 1) that the censuring of criticism is destructive to democracy, and 2) that it is important for any social entity aspiring to freedom and responsibility to learn to select its own leaders and recognize its own voice. Both ideas are entirely consistent with the Jeffersonian ideal. As Jefferson himself said, "Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
4. Du Bois also wrote, "When to earth and brute is added an environment of men and ideas, then the attitude of the imprisoned group may take three main forms, - a feeling of revolt and revenge; an attempt to adjust all thought and action to the will of the greater group; or, finally, a determined effort at self-realization and self-development despite environing opinion." However Du Bois might characterize Washington, how would you place Washington's vocational-education approach with respect to the three responses proposed by Du Bois? To what degree does Washington's approach fit one or more of those descriptions? Explain.
Du Bois's characterizations are plain: he dismisses the first category as crude and irrational, describes Washington as overly accommodating and lacking in pluck - the second category, and includes himself in the third category, among those who advocate "a determined effort at self-realization and self-development despite environing opinion."
This assessment stacks the deck against Washington, as was no doubt Du Bois's intention. I'm sure Washington would protest that his ideology and methods were closer to the third category and more than just a limp acquiescence to White pressure, and his protest would have some merit. So I think Du Bois is largely correct, in a simplified sense, but Washington should be given a bit more credit if we want to split hairs.
5. Du Bois identifies the following "dangerous half-truths": "The distinct impression left by Mr. Washington's propaganda is, first, that the South is justified in its present attitude toward the Negro because of the Negro's degradation; secondly, that the prime cause of the Negro's failure to rise more quickly is his wrong education in the past; and, thirdly, that his future rise depends primarily on his own efforts. Each of these propositions is a dangerous half-truth." To what degree do you agree that each of those propositions is partly true but partly false, and why would it be "dangerous" to overlook the falseness you identify in each? Defend your view.
Let us take them in order. In the first proposition, Washington states that "the South is justified in its present attitude toward the Negro because of the Negro's degradation." This is partly true, as it is mostly fact, but it is partly false, because of the Negro's degradation being due in part to the South's present attitude toward them.
Secondly, Washington deplores the lack of effectual education among the Negroes. This is true. But it is also true that Negroes were largely deprived of the necessary means to make such an education possible.
Thirdly, Washington lays the responsibility for self-advancement directly at the feet of the Negroes. This is true in the sense that it is indeed primarily their responsibility, but false in that it is not wholly their responsibility, which is what seems to be implied.
Therefore, each error follows the same theme: the Negro must indeed take responsibility for his situation, but, as Du Bois argues, that is not the whole story. To deny the mutual responsibility of the White man in this fashion is "dangerous."
I tend to think that both Washington and Du Bois held pieces of the puzzle, although it seems that Du Bois's held a somewhat larger piece. Washington's continual insistence on "earning" or "deserving" one's rights - as opposed to simply demanding them - is largely wholesome. Du Bois, however, while he recognized the truth in Washington's approach, lays his finger on the larger problem: "[Washington's] doctrine has tended to make the whites, North and South, shift the burden of the Negro problem to the Negro's shoulders and stand aside as critical and rather pessimistic spectators; when in fact the burden belongs to the nation, and the hands of none of us are clean if we bend not our energies to righting these great wrongs."
Thus, I am inclined to side mainly with Du Bois, though with a generous dose of Washington mixed in.
2. Du Bois relied on Washington's autobiography in writing that "the picture of a lone black boy poring over a French grammar amid the weeds and dirt of a neglected home soon seemed to him the acme of absurdities." Why, in your view, did Washington see this image as so absurd, and why did Du Bois see Washington's view as so wrong in this instance? Which position do you believe is stronger, and why?
There is no single right answer. Washington is protesting the folly of overlooking the obvious, antecedent things, while Du Bois is extolling the virtue of education and higher thought. Both are valid perspectives. Washington could not see any practicality in the scenario, and Du Bois for his part could not see how the scenario could be anything but healthy. I say it depends. It may be entirely appropriate for a boy of uncommon genius, and it may be thoroughly inappropriate for a boy who simply disliked manual work.
3. In your Primary Source Reading, Du Bois wrote, "Honest and earnest criticism from those whose interests are most nearly touched, - criticism of writers by readers, of government by those governed, of leaders by those led, - this is the soul of democracy and the safeguard of modern society. If the best of the American Negroes receive by outer pressure a leader whom they had not recognized before, manifestly there is here a certain palpable gain. Yet there is also irreparable loss, - a loss of that peculiarly valuable education which a group receives when by search and criticism it finds and commissions its own leaders." To what degree do you find this statement consistent or inconsistent with Thomas Jefferson's views on intellectual freedom and the developmental value of democracy? Support your position.
American society in the late 19th century used some "democratic" sleight of hand to conceal their belligerency towards the Negro race. Washington bought into this deception, at least to some extent. His sights became politically clouded and began to affect his vision and ideals.
Du Bois is saying two things: 1) that the censuring of criticism is destructive to democracy, and 2) that it is important for any social entity aspiring to freedom and responsibility to learn to select its own leaders and recognize its own voice. Both ideas are entirely consistent with the Jeffersonian ideal. As Jefferson himself said, "Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
4. Du Bois also wrote, "When to earth and brute is added an environment of men and ideas, then the attitude of the imprisoned group may take three main forms, - a feeling of revolt and revenge; an attempt to adjust all thought and action to the will of the greater group; or, finally, a determined effort at self-realization and self-development despite environing opinion." However Du Bois might characterize Washington, how would you place Washington's vocational-education approach with respect to the three responses proposed by Du Bois? To what degree does Washington's approach fit one or more of those descriptions? Explain.
Du Bois's characterizations are plain: he dismisses the first category as crude and irrational, describes Washington as overly accommodating and lacking in pluck - the second category, and includes himself in the third category, among those who advocate "a determined effort at self-realization and self-development despite environing opinion."
This assessment stacks the deck against Washington, as was no doubt Du Bois's intention. I'm sure Washington would protest that his ideology and methods were closer to the third category and more than just a limp acquiescence to White pressure, and his protest would have some merit. So I think Du Bois is largely correct, in a simplified sense, but Washington should be given a bit more credit if we want to split hairs.
5. Du Bois identifies the following "dangerous half-truths": "The distinct impression left by Mr. Washington's propaganda is, first, that the South is justified in its present attitude toward the Negro because of the Negro's degradation; secondly, that the prime cause of the Negro's failure to rise more quickly is his wrong education in the past; and, thirdly, that his future rise depends primarily on his own efforts. Each of these propositions is a dangerous half-truth." To what degree do you agree that each of those propositions is partly true but partly false, and why would it be "dangerous" to overlook the falseness you identify in each? Defend your view.
Let us take them in order. In the first proposition, Washington states that "the South is justified in its present attitude toward the Negro because of the Negro's degradation." This is partly true, as it is mostly fact, but it is partly false, because of the Negro's degradation being due in part to the South's present attitude toward them.
Secondly, Washington deplores the lack of effectual education among the Negroes. This is true. But it is also true that Negroes were largely deprived of the necessary means to make such an education possible.
Thirdly, Washington lays the responsibility for self-advancement directly at the feet of the Negroes. This is true in the sense that it is indeed primarily their responsibility, but false in that it is not wholly their responsibility, which is what seems to be implied.
Therefore, each error follows the same theme: the Negro must indeed take responsibility for his situation, but, as Du Bois argues, that is not the whole story. To deny the mutual responsibility of the White man in this fashion is "dangerous."
Saturday, March 10, 2007
School & Society: Ch. 5 Study Questions
1. This chapter tries to show that fifth-century Augustinian thought was one significant point of origin for the subordinate role and status of women in our national history. Do you believe that any of Augustine's views on women and men continue to influence the educational experiences of girls and women today? Specifically, how or how not? Defend your view.
The important question is not whether a given ideology is newer and more up-to-date, but rather whether it is true. "Augustinian," in this context, is nearly equivalent to "antiquated," and is used with a negative slur. Something that is old is not necessarily inadequate; this is an important distinction to maintain.
As regards the continuing influence of Augustine's views, it remains present, but is lessening. While some still cling to these ideas, many people have discounted them altogether, and most have probably not thought so far. The persistence of these views, however, is evidenced both by their longevity and by the vehement dislike and exaggeration with which society reacts to them, namely, in granting unreasonable preference to females in employment and advancement, and denying the clear facts of the situation. Discrimination has been turned on its head.
2. Clearly, the education of girls and women has progressed toward greater parity with the education of males since the time of the early republic. The progressive era was one time during which new opportunities for girls developed most markedly, but it is clear that many of these opportunities were gender-typed. On balance, did the progressive era result in greater or less educational parity for girls?
Crawling is not walking; in fact, crawling prevents you from walking. But crawling, for most people, is part of the incremental process of learning to walk. Speaking from the perspective of the social progressives, the main achievement of the era was the insertion of women and girls into the world of education and employment. Overcoming gender-typing simultaneously was too large a mouthful to swallow, for society, and even for some of the progressives themselves, such as John T. Irving.
Thus, gender-typing was the one step back for the two steps forward.
Assuming the direction is indeed forward, on which question I have my doubts.
3. The Seneca Falls Declaration of Rights and Sentiments is presented as a prominent illustration of a "radical" point of view on the role of women in society. Making clear what you mean by "radical," discuss whether any of the perspectives reflected in that document would be considered radical by most citizens today. Give examples and evidence to support your view.
I actually thought the definition of "radical" given in the text was excellent: "The idea that a political or ideological position is 'radical' stems from that word's meaning 'of or pertaining to the root.' Radical thinking seeks to get to the root of a problem, and radical solutions thus require fundamental change."
With this in mind, it must be recognized that it is not enough to be merely radical; it is important to also be right.
The Seneca Falls Declaration is over 150 years old, and during this time society has developed closely along these lines. While the Declaration was no doubt phenomenally fanatical for its time, it would seem one would be hard pressed to find much dissent from the twelve resolutions amongst the majority of America's population. Take, for instance, the issue of women in the workplace. This idea has followed the familiar but astonishing progression: prohibited - permitted - popular - preferred. Whether this unaccountable preference is merely the apex of society's pendulum swing, or a precursor to even greater extremes, remains to be seen.
4. In the Seneca Falls Declaration was purposely based on classical liberalism, which was the dominant ideology of the time, how could the document be considered radical and extreme in its views? Explain.
This is an instance in which the context of ideas becomes important. It is one thing to argue for freedom from tyranny, it is quite another to argue for freedom from tomato soup, even though the arguments employed may be nearly identical. The Seneca Falls Declaration employed the fundamental ideas of classical liberalism in a new context.
I do not believe that Classical Liberalism, in and of itself, addresses the issue of inter-gender equality. It merely affirms the right of societies and individuals to do as they please, provided they accepted responsibility for the consequences.
Even after 75 years, American society was unprepared to make the leap from Freedom-for-Society to Freedom-for-Women (or at least Freedom-for-Women as defined by the SF Declaration).
5. The article by Mary Leal Harkness was written about 70 years after the Seneca Falls Declaration, and the dominant ideology had shifted from classical liberalism to modern liberalism. To what degree is this shift evident in Harkness's article, and to what degree does it continue to show its roots more directly in classical liberalism? Defend your view with illustrations from the article.
The main distinction between classical and modern liberalism is that the former believes society is freest under little or no government, laissez-faire style, while the latter holds that a great deal of government is necessary to ensure true freedom and equality.
There is a subtle but important distinction between arguing that someone should have access to an education and arguing that the government ought to provide it. Indeed, these days, many people assume that the one implies the other. It doesn't.
Harkness shows her classical liberalism in arguing against social prejudices; she shows her modern liberalism in expecting government to be the cure.
The important question is not whether a given ideology is newer and more up-to-date, but rather whether it is true. "Augustinian," in this context, is nearly equivalent to "antiquated," and is used with a negative slur. Something that is old is not necessarily inadequate; this is an important distinction to maintain.
As regards the continuing influence of Augustine's views, it remains present, but is lessening. While some still cling to these ideas, many people have discounted them altogether, and most have probably not thought so far. The persistence of these views, however, is evidenced both by their longevity and by the vehement dislike and exaggeration with which society reacts to them, namely, in granting unreasonable preference to females in employment and advancement, and denying the clear facts of the situation. Discrimination has been turned on its head.
2. Clearly, the education of girls and women has progressed toward greater parity with the education of males since the time of the early republic. The progressive era was one time during which new opportunities for girls developed most markedly, but it is clear that many of these opportunities were gender-typed. On balance, did the progressive era result in greater or less educational parity for girls?
Crawling is not walking; in fact, crawling prevents you from walking. But crawling, for most people, is part of the incremental process of learning to walk. Speaking from the perspective of the social progressives, the main achievement of the era was the insertion of women and girls into the world of education and employment. Overcoming gender-typing simultaneously was too large a mouthful to swallow, for society, and even for some of the progressives themselves, such as John T. Irving.
Thus, gender-typing was the one step back for the two steps forward.
Assuming the direction is indeed forward, on which question I have my doubts.
3. The Seneca Falls Declaration of Rights and Sentiments is presented as a prominent illustration of a "radical" point of view on the role of women in society. Making clear what you mean by "radical," discuss whether any of the perspectives reflected in that document would be considered radical by most citizens today. Give examples and evidence to support your view.
I actually thought the definition of "radical" given in the text was excellent: "The idea that a political or ideological position is 'radical' stems from that word's meaning 'of or pertaining to the root.' Radical thinking seeks to get to the root of a problem, and radical solutions thus require fundamental change."
With this in mind, it must be recognized that it is not enough to be merely radical; it is important to also be right.
The Seneca Falls Declaration is over 150 years old, and during this time society has developed closely along these lines. While the Declaration was no doubt phenomenally fanatical for its time, it would seem one would be hard pressed to find much dissent from the twelve resolutions amongst the majority of America's population. Take, for instance, the issue of women in the workplace. This idea has followed the familiar but astonishing progression: prohibited - permitted - popular - preferred. Whether this unaccountable preference is merely the apex of society's pendulum swing, or a precursor to even greater extremes, remains to be seen.
4. In the Seneca Falls Declaration was purposely based on classical liberalism, which was the dominant ideology of the time, how could the document be considered radical and extreme in its views? Explain.
This is an instance in which the context of ideas becomes important. It is one thing to argue for freedom from tyranny, it is quite another to argue for freedom from tomato soup, even though the arguments employed may be nearly identical. The Seneca Falls Declaration employed the fundamental ideas of classical liberalism in a new context.
I do not believe that Classical Liberalism, in and of itself, addresses the issue of inter-gender equality. It merely affirms the right of societies and individuals to do as they please, provided they accepted responsibility for the consequences.
Even after 75 years, American society was unprepared to make the leap from Freedom-for-Society to Freedom-for-Women (or at least Freedom-for-Women as defined by the SF Declaration).
5. The article by Mary Leal Harkness was written about 70 years after the Seneca Falls Declaration, and the dominant ideology had shifted from classical liberalism to modern liberalism. To what degree is this shift evident in Harkness's article, and to what degree does it continue to show its roots more directly in classical liberalism? Defend your view with illustrations from the article.
The main distinction between classical and modern liberalism is that the former believes society is freest under little or no government, laissez-faire style, while the latter holds that a great deal of government is necessary to ensure true freedom and equality.
There is a subtle but important distinction between arguing that someone should have access to an education and arguing that the government ought to provide it. Indeed, these days, many people assume that the one implies the other. It doesn't.
Harkness shows her classical liberalism in arguing against social prejudices; she shows her modern liberalism in expecting government to be the cure.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
School & Society: Ch. 4 Study Questions
1. A central difference between the "social-efficiency" progressives and such "developmental-democracy" progressives as John Dewey was the way in which they conceived the notion of progressive education. Discuss that difference, and evaluate the degree to which one or the other concept, in your view, was a better response to the needs of American society in the decades following the turn of the century.
Social-efficiency progressives believed the society should define the children; developmental-democracy progressives believed the children should define society. Granted, there was enormous pressure at this point in history to staff the factories and develop America's industrial economy, but I have to agree with the text that the social-efficiency philosophy was a wholesale betrayal of the foundational ideals of the nation.
It seems the very notion of "responding to the needs of society" may be flawed, for it places us decidedly on the defensive: reacting to rather than defining the situation. Education should be rugged, stalwart, and vigorous, standing firm in the cause of knowledge and liberty, instead of catering to the selfish whims of a materialistic society.
2. It seems that both the developmental-democracy and the social-efficiency approaches to progressive education abandoned the classical curriculum of the 19th century, in which the same academic subjects had been taught to all students, regardless of their economic or ethnic backgrounds. What argument might be made in favor of keeping that traditional approach, and how would you evaluate that argument. Take into account the major social changes occurring at the turn of the century.
In many ways, what fueled the vigorous ingenuity, integrity, and courage of early America was not 19th century curriculum, but no curriculum. But what is in question here is not the content, but rather the commonality.
I suppose the answer depends on where the subject differentiation originates. If it comes from the natural diversity of interests and aptitudes among students, it seems natural - even healthy. If, on the other hand, the differentiation is imposed from the top, by "experts," the stakes are just too high and the potential for mismanagement and abuse too great.
Clearly, it was more "efficient" for the needs of an industrially-dominated society to categorize students by social class and aptitude. However, this approach obstructs the enormous potential of human intelligence and originality, and transforms society into a rigged, mechanistic system.
3. In what respects did various strands of the "new psychology" emerging in the progressive era provide support for innovations in schooling, including differential curricula and extracurricular activities? Do you think these innovations were adequately justified by these new interpretations in psychology? Defend your position.
The value of "learning by doing" is accurate educational psychology. It does not follow that this "doing" must take place at an institution. As the progressives worked to develop their new objectives, the institution was already being taken for granted. Because of this, discoveries that should have reduced the influence of the institution served rather to expand it into new territory.
The period produced largely legitimate discoveries but failed to apply them correctly.
4. Charles Eliot and other social-efficiency liberals believed that they were serving the interests of democracy with their vision of progressive education. Explain their point of view according to their conception of democracy. Next, evaluate their educational and political points of view by using your definition of the education requirements of democracy.
Eliot and the social liberals were constructing a docile, domesticated democracy. In doing so, they crossed the subtle line between a truly natural aristocracy and a "stacked" aristocracy. Power corrupts, and there is always a strong temptation to weight the dice.
The whole business about "protecting" and "safeguarding" democratic stability is rubbish. It is the nature of democracy to be dangerous and volatile - it is the lion that escaped the zoo. Ever since 1776, the American people have been quietly exchanging their liberty for security. One day we will discover that it was a bad trade.
5. This chapter appears to be heavily biased against vocational education in favor of a more "academic" education for all young people. What justification does the chapter provide for its criticism of vocational education, and do you think this justification is adequate, given the historical circumstances of the progressive era? Defend your position.
Vocational education is necessary - this is incontestable. The question is where and how it occurs. Traditionally, vocational training took place in the home, or under some sort of apprenticeship arrangement. Brave, creative types such as Ben Franklin or Robert Fulton figured stuff out on their own. But it couldn't last.
Incrementally, teaching came to be regarded as a specialized skill best left to professionals. This artificial monopoly on the art created an environment that continually misapplied breakthroughs in educational psychology, because it was operating in a counterfeit context. So when the obvious need for vocational training came along, the institution immediately assumed responsibility instead of stepping aside and making space for the training to occur more effectively somewhere else.
The learning environment must be consistent with the subject at hand; i.e., woodcraft in the woodshop, law in the courtroom, French in France. Vocational teaching requires a vocational environment - not an institutional or recreational one.
Social-efficiency progressives believed the society should define the children; developmental-democracy progressives believed the children should define society. Granted, there was enormous pressure at this point in history to staff the factories and develop America's industrial economy, but I have to agree with the text that the social-efficiency philosophy was a wholesale betrayal of the foundational ideals of the nation.
It seems the very notion of "responding to the needs of society" may be flawed, for it places us decidedly on the defensive: reacting to rather than defining the situation. Education should be rugged, stalwart, and vigorous, standing firm in the cause of knowledge and liberty, instead of catering to the selfish whims of a materialistic society.
2. It seems that both the developmental-democracy and the social-efficiency approaches to progressive education abandoned the classical curriculum of the 19th century, in which the same academic subjects had been taught to all students, regardless of their economic or ethnic backgrounds. What argument might be made in favor of keeping that traditional approach, and how would you evaluate that argument. Take into account the major social changes occurring at the turn of the century.
In many ways, what fueled the vigorous ingenuity, integrity, and courage of early America was not 19th century curriculum, but no curriculum. But what is in question here is not the content, but rather the commonality.
I suppose the answer depends on where the subject differentiation originates. If it comes from the natural diversity of interests and aptitudes among students, it seems natural - even healthy. If, on the other hand, the differentiation is imposed from the top, by "experts," the stakes are just too high and the potential for mismanagement and abuse too great.
Clearly, it was more "efficient" for the needs of an industrially-dominated society to categorize students by social class and aptitude. However, this approach obstructs the enormous potential of human intelligence and originality, and transforms society into a rigged, mechanistic system.
3. In what respects did various strands of the "new psychology" emerging in the progressive era provide support for innovations in schooling, including differential curricula and extracurricular activities? Do you think these innovations were adequately justified by these new interpretations in psychology? Defend your position.
The value of "learning by doing" is accurate educational psychology. It does not follow that this "doing" must take place at an institution. As the progressives worked to develop their new objectives, the institution was already being taken for granted. Because of this, discoveries that should have reduced the influence of the institution served rather to expand it into new territory.
The period produced largely legitimate discoveries but failed to apply them correctly.
4. Charles Eliot and other social-efficiency liberals believed that they were serving the interests of democracy with their vision of progressive education. Explain their point of view according to their conception of democracy. Next, evaluate their educational and political points of view by using your definition of the education requirements of democracy.
Eliot and the social liberals were constructing a docile, domesticated democracy. In doing so, they crossed the subtle line between a truly natural aristocracy and a "stacked" aristocracy. Power corrupts, and there is always a strong temptation to weight the dice.
The whole business about "protecting" and "safeguarding" democratic stability is rubbish. It is the nature of democracy to be dangerous and volatile - it is the lion that escaped the zoo. Ever since 1776, the American people have been quietly exchanging their liberty for security. One day we will discover that it was a bad trade.
5. This chapter appears to be heavily biased against vocational education in favor of a more "academic" education for all young people. What justification does the chapter provide for its criticism of vocational education, and do you think this justification is adequate, given the historical circumstances of the progressive era? Defend your position.
Vocational education is necessary - this is incontestable. The question is where and how it occurs. Traditionally, vocational training took place in the home, or under some sort of apprenticeship arrangement. Brave, creative types such as Ben Franklin or Robert Fulton figured stuff out on their own. But it couldn't last.
Incrementally, teaching came to be regarded as a specialized skill best left to professionals. This artificial monopoly on the art created an environment that continually misapplied breakthroughs in educational psychology, because it was operating in a counterfeit context. So when the obvious need for vocational training came along, the institution immediately assumed responsibility instead of stepping aside and making space for the training to occur more effectively somewhere else.
The learning environment must be consistent with the subject at hand; i.e., woodcraft in the woodshop, law in the courtroom, French in France. Vocational teaching requires a vocational environment - not an institutional or recreational one.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
School & Society: Ch. 3 Study Questions
1. It might be argued that Horace Mann's thinking about schooling and society is perfectly consistent with Jefferson's view, but that the differing political-economic contexts of late 18th-century Virginia and early 19th-century Massachusetts required different applications of Jeffersonian ideals. Assess that point of view, providing support from the text.
Jefferson's realm was broader in every sense. Education was but one spoke of his intellect. Mann, however, was more or less a devoted student of the subject. Thus they differed in their perspective and analysis, not only due to their separation in time and geography, but also their approach to the subject.
The text observes that Mann was not entirely original, and that his ideas, in the main, merely reflected the common sentiment of his time. The noble poise of Jefferson was receding from the public memory, and the society was already being slowly drawn, by tantalizing mirages, into federalism. The Government, as an institution, was beginning to be regarded as the champion of the public good. Some of this is healthy. The error arises when "champion" begins to mean "creator" rather than merely "protector."
The main difference between Mann and Jefferson was along this line: not education per se, but rather the province and promises of Government. It seems evident that Jefferson has a better grasp on the matter; Mann, riding the wave of federalism, brought the Government into his pet project, which happened to be education. What he did may have been the best that could have been done under the circumstances, given the temperament of the people; that may never be known.
I would have liked to see the society build more patiently on Jefferson's model, following the Brownsonian design for locally structured schooling. It seems this would have brought us more diversity, more passion, and would have been less a system and more a soul.
2. Were Orestes Brownson's ideas more consistent with Jefferson's view on the relations between education and republican forms of government than Horace Mann's? Defend your position.
Brownson united an expanding societal grasp on the psychology of education with the high ideals of the Jeffersonian Republic. He argued for localism, responsibility, and education for morals - not money. In contrast to Mann's blatant departure from Jefferson's Governmental ideals, Brownson maintained a grassroots view of the matter.
As the text notes: Part of Brownson's critique is grounded in a view of the educated person similar to Aristotle's notion of 'the cultivation of human excellence for its own sake,' an ideal that Brownson believes Mann is abandoning in favor of education for instrumental social ends." Brownson: "We think more of education as a means of fitting us for a livelihood than for anything else. The tendency has long been to sink the man in what are merely his accidents, to qualify him for a profession or pursuit, rather than to be a man..."
All three (Jefferson, Mann, and Brownson) were heavily influenced by Enlightenment thought - indeed, the world was. Mann took his enthusiasm in an socio-economic direction, while Jefferson and Brownson took a harder line and kept the bar high, not denying socio-economics, but making it a by-product of the educational process rather than a goal.
3. Given the then-current view that religious instruction was an essential part of the formation of character, how satisfactory was Mann's common-school solution to the religious diversity of urban Massachusetts? Defend your view.
Mann's attempt was undoubtedly heroic. I am inclined, however, to agree with Brownson: "The board [assures] us Christianity shall be insisted on so far, and only so far, as it is common to all sects. This if it means anything, means nothing at all. All who attempt to proceed on teh principle here laid down will find their Christianity ending in nothingness. Much may be taught in general, but nothing in particular. No sect will be satisfied; all sects will be dissatisfied. For it is not enough that my children are not educated in a belief contrary to my own; I would have them educated to believe what I hold to be important truth; and I always hold that to be important truth, wherein I differ from others..."
Each man's individual perception of Mann's measures may have differed. Clearly, it was not sufficient for Brownson. It is frankly astonishing to me that public education got on at all, considering the fervent religious convictions of the time. In our day, people believe less, think less, and, generally, care less; so a more or less secular educational institution makes more sense.
From the Christian perspective, this a foundational part of the rationale for parent-education.
4. On the one hand, Mann's promotion of women into the teaching force might be regarded as a positive advance for women into the public sphere. On the other, it might be argued that Mann was reinforcing the subservience of women by limiting them to public-sphere nurturing roles in public institutions controlled by governing boards comprised entirely of men. In your view, was the feminization of teaching a positive advance for women, or more negative in its import?
That Mann was "reinforcing the subservience of women by limiting them to public-sphere nurturing roles in public institutions controlled by governing boards comprised entirely of men" would have never entered in the minds of the populace. Such an estimation is only available to us in hindsight: it seems any significant insertion of women into the public would have been viewed unequivocally as "a positive advance for women into the public sphere."
The nurturing propensity of women seems a reasonable observation, in and of itself. Unfortunately for Mann, the feminization of teaching does not follow.
On the whole, in my view, the feminization of teaching was good for feminism and bad for women. Woman are designed with plentiful and particular gifts, but they are not designed to employ these gifts in the public sphere. Granted, the current state of the American educational system and workforce does little to substantiate this claim. It takes time for the milk to sour.
5. To what degree do you believe that the current status of the teaching profession is traceable to such common-school origins as the feminization of teaching, the social role of schooling, and the development of normal schools? Defend your view.
These were all factors that shaped and lent decisive direction to the teaching profession. On the one hand, I don't see them particularly more influential than many other ideas before or since. On the other, they came along at a formative time in the society's development, and found an open, pliable audience. Which makes them, in a way, the only discernible end to the traceable trail.
6. If Mann's common-school successes came at the expense of such democratic ideals as local self-governance and cultural pluralism, to what degree were these compromises justified in your view? Defend your position.
Mann's "successes" were subjective at best. He relied heavily on the inertia of the post-revolution Republic; critically speaking, he may have even slowed it down. The delayed repercussions of his actions have been disastrous.
The country has continued to make these compromises, in bulk. In my view, they are deadly; despite their sugary coating. They are dead-ends that masquerade as shortcuts. They deny the high ideals of liberty and responsibility, and should be roundly repudiated by the truly free and forward society.
Inoculating young minds with standardized, sterilized thinking drags the mat right out from under one's pious democratic ideal. Consider: if independent, industrious minds conceived of and created the Republic, it ought to go without saying that independent, industrious minds are capable of maintaining it. Perhaps, with a bit of luck, they might even improve upon it.
Fear is the enemy of freedom.
Jefferson's realm was broader in every sense. Education was but one spoke of his intellect. Mann, however, was more or less a devoted student of the subject. Thus they differed in their perspective and analysis, not only due to their separation in time and geography, but also their approach to the subject.
The text observes that Mann was not entirely original, and that his ideas, in the main, merely reflected the common sentiment of his time. The noble poise of Jefferson was receding from the public memory, and the society was already being slowly drawn, by tantalizing mirages, into federalism. The Government, as an institution, was beginning to be regarded as the champion of the public good. Some of this is healthy. The error arises when "champion" begins to mean "creator" rather than merely "protector."
The main difference between Mann and Jefferson was along this line: not education per se, but rather the province and promises of Government. It seems evident that Jefferson has a better grasp on the matter; Mann, riding the wave of federalism, brought the Government into his pet project, which happened to be education. What he did may have been the best that could have been done under the circumstances, given the temperament of the people; that may never be known.
I would have liked to see the society build more patiently on Jefferson's model, following the Brownsonian design for locally structured schooling. It seems this would have brought us more diversity, more passion, and would have been less a system and more a soul.
2. Were Orestes Brownson's ideas more consistent with Jefferson's view on the relations between education and republican forms of government than Horace Mann's? Defend your position.
Brownson united an expanding societal grasp on the psychology of education with the high ideals of the Jeffersonian Republic. He argued for localism, responsibility, and education for morals - not money. In contrast to Mann's blatant departure from Jefferson's Governmental ideals, Brownson maintained a grassroots view of the matter.
As the text notes: Part of Brownson's critique is grounded in a view of the educated person similar to Aristotle's notion of 'the cultivation of human excellence for its own sake,' an ideal that Brownson believes Mann is abandoning in favor of education for instrumental social ends." Brownson: "We think more of education as a means of fitting us for a livelihood than for anything else. The tendency has long been to sink the man in what are merely his accidents, to qualify him for a profession or pursuit, rather than to be a man..."
All three (Jefferson, Mann, and Brownson) were heavily influenced by Enlightenment thought - indeed, the world was. Mann took his enthusiasm in an socio-economic direction, while Jefferson and Brownson took a harder line and kept the bar high, not denying socio-economics, but making it a by-product of the educational process rather than a goal.
3. Given the then-current view that religious instruction was an essential part of the formation of character, how satisfactory was Mann's common-school solution to the religious diversity of urban Massachusetts? Defend your view.
Mann's attempt was undoubtedly heroic. I am inclined, however, to agree with Brownson: "The board [assures] us Christianity shall be insisted on so far, and only so far, as it is common to all sects. This if it means anything, means nothing at all. All who attempt to proceed on teh principle here laid down will find their Christianity ending in nothingness. Much may be taught in general, but nothing in particular. No sect will be satisfied; all sects will be dissatisfied. For it is not enough that my children are not educated in a belief contrary to my own; I would have them educated to believe what I hold to be important truth; and I always hold that to be important truth, wherein I differ from others..."
Each man's individual perception of Mann's measures may have differed. Clearly, it was not sufficient for Brownson. It is frankly astonishing to me that public education got on at all, considering the fervent religious convictions of the time. In our day, people believe less, think less, and, generally, care less; so a more or less secular educational institution makes more sense.
From the Christian perspective, this a foundational part of the rationale for parent-education.
4. On the one hand, Mann's promotion of women into the teaching force might be regarded as a positive advance for women into the public sphere. On the other, it might be argued that Mann was reinforcing the subservience of women by limiting them to public-sphere nurturing roles in public institutions controlled by governing boards comprised entirely of men. In your view, was the feminization of teaching a positive advance for women, or more negative in its import?
That Mann was "reinforcing the subservience of women by limiting them to public-sphere nurturing roles in public institutions controlled by governing boards comprised entirely of men" would have never entered in the minds of the populace. Such an estimation is only available to us in hindsight: it seems any significant insertion of women into the public would have been viewed unequivocally as "a positive advance for women into the public sphere."
The nurturing propensity of women seems a reasonable observation, in and of itself. Unfortunately for Mann, the feminization of teaching does not follow.
On the whole, in my view, the feminization of teaching was good for feminism and bad for women. Woman are designed with plentiful and particular gifts, but they are not designed to employ these gifts in the public sphere. Granted, the current state of the American educational system and workforce does little to substantiate this claim. It takes time for the milk to sour.
5. To what degree do you believe that the current status of the teaching profession is traceable to such common-school origins as the feminization of teaching, the social role of schooling, and the development of normal schools? Defend your view.
These were all factors that shaped and lent decisive direction to the teaching profession. On the one hand, I don't see them particularly more influential than many other ideas before or since. On the other, they came along at a formative time in the society's development, and found an open, pliable audience. Which makes them, in a way, the only discernible end to the traceable trail.
6. If Mann's common-school successes came at the expense of such democratic ideals as local self-governance and cultural pluralism, to what degree were these compromises justified in your view? Defend your position.
Mann's "successes" were subjective at best. He relied heavily on the inertia of the post-revolution Republic; critically speaking, he may have even slowed it down. The delayed repercussions of his actions have been disastrous.
The country has continued to make these compromises, in bulk. In my view, they are deadly; despite their sugary coating. They are dead-ends that masquerade as shortcuts. They deny the high ideals of liberty and responsibility, and should be roundly repudiated by the truly free and forward society.
Inoculating young minds with standardized, sterilized thinking drags the mat right out from under one's pious democratic ideal. Consider: if independent, industrious minds conceived of and created the Republic, it ought to go without saying that independent, industrious minds are capable of maintaining it. Perhaps, with a bit of luck, they might even improve upon it.
Fear is the enemy of freedom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
