This week’s
readings consider an educational system that embraces the cultural backgrounds
of African-American students, recall the strength of the arts and humanities, reminds
us of the value of dialogue within a community, and is steeped in the ideals of
democratic and transformative education. In A
Simple, Revolutionary Idea (2017), Goss recognized the school system she taught
in was “…designed to ensure their compliance. I no longer wanted to be a
teacher who perpetuated this psychic violence against my students.” As a
result, she sought to create a curriculum based on the concept of communal
education that mirrored the African-American cultural background of her
students, and herself. Such a curriculum would be founded on a dialogue that
mirrors the values and expectations of the school community, shaped and
reinforced by increased parental involvement in school governance, curriculum,
and assessments. Communal education offers
the potential to increase cultural understanding and appreciation within
institutions, foster more positive teaching and learning relationships, and offer
more effective consequences for students who have made poor behavioral choices.
Goss’s goal to establish a more communal method of education for
African-American students is could and should be applied to all students. Goss’s
communal education curriculum is an elegant synthesis of the best of Dewey’s
democratic educational goals and Friere’s transformative educational ideals, two
concepts that echo throughout this week’s readings. [1][2]
In Imagining futures: the public school and
possibility, Greene (2000) argues an arts-inclusive education is vital to
the health of a society, particularly as we navigate a period of demographic,
economic, and political shifts. This approach also relies on Dewey’s concept of
democracy through community building, “Through the building of a community the ground
may be laid for an articulate public empowered and encouraged to speak for
itself, perhaps in many voices, within classrooms…people look forward to seeing,
across spaces where there can be dialogue and exchanges of all kinds in which persons can speak in their own
idioms, avoiding the formulaic, the artificial and the ‘sound-bite’” (Emphasis
my own). Greene’s usage of heteroglossia includes
a nod to Dewey and Bakhtin, and her diverse usage of poetry provides excellent
examples of the value of multiplicity. It also neatly foreshadows her concerns
of media’s hegemonic global dissemination of neo-liberal propaganda, which she
considers a factor in the decline of critical inquiry and reflection in
education, and its negative affect on education and economy.
Grace Boggs also
touches on the effects of neo-liberalism in Education:
The Great Obsession (1970). Structural racism in education has left black students
deeply disadvantaged, unable to achieve economic prosperity. This is the unfortunate
result of the traditional “sifting-mechanism” of education and the newer “mass
custodial” role of schools that neo-liberal capitalism depends on to succeed. Revolting
against this institutional apathy, the black community organized in agreement around
the idea that “the function of education must be redefined to make it responsible
and accountable to the community,” calling for a more culturally conscious education
black students could relate to and participate in. Boggs’ prescient question, “Do
we really want our children to end up…ambitious only for their own financial
advancement and security, apathetic except when confronted by blacks moving
into their neighborhoods or competing for their jobs, afraid of not only blacks
but of their own children and indeed of any fundamental social change…acquiescing
in the decisions of the Mayor Daleys, the Judge Hoffmans, the Spiro Agnews, and
eventually the George Wallaces?” Boggs understands that many who work within
and adjacent to the current educational structure hold a vested interest in maintenance
rather than democratic transformation. And
like Goss and Greene, she recognizes the importance of dialogue and community
involvement with curriculum.
I am glad you wrote about the individualist cultural of our society here! The self-centered nature of the "American way of life" might just be one of the reasons that, as Courtney wondered, we get "stuck" when trying to implement a more meaningful and community focused curriculum. Boggs mentioned in her article about those who benefit from this type of educational system, and I wonder how much of the resistance to change stems from the powerful few who perpetuate the individualist drive for personal success at any cost. I think involving the community in authentic ways can be difficult for this reason, has anyone else ever felt as though their students where being used as a tax write off? I think our nation as a whole is waiting for a revolution to a move away from a focus on individual success and a reintegrating of the importance of communal living. Maybe we will start the revolution in our schools.
ReplyDeleteResistance to change, you could say that again! While teaching in a public school district for over ten years, I witnessed many educators and administrators who were opposed to change and grew to become extremely "set in their ways". It is a sad state of affairs when one tries desperately to be progressive and transformative in their classes only to be told "that's not going to work, we must follow this curriculum, or stick to that textbook" and we essentially end up teaching to the test (standardized or not). Much of what I have noticed is that tradition usually surpasses what is best for the students, and it becomes a "good-enough" process. Regardless of how much we want to help our students get out into their communities, bring 28 diverse interests and life-experiences into each class, and teach to their passions, we are told we must get them from point A to point B by a certain deadline. It truly is a struggle. Let's start this revolution!
ReplyDelete