Jeff Bloom's Blog

This story demonstrates problems with the way we think and act. Our thinking is linear — looking for simple causal relationships, while taking impulsive actions without considering complex interrelationships. We continue to think that we can manipulate and control our environments, only to find that we can’t. Then, we try to implement yet another way to control what has gone out of control. What we really need to do is minimize efforts to control our environments and to look at problems as situated in multiple interacting systems (cultural, social, biological, ecological, chemical, and so forth).

March 16, 2013

More on the Common Core: Who Benefits?

Who is going to benefit from the Common Core Standards?

Children are not going to benefit. In fact, they are likely to suffer from the effects of severe psychological violence. Children’s inherent creativity, curiosity, love of learning, and complex and complicated ways of thinking are going to suffer the most. Children are not going to experience what it is like to learn something in depth. They are not going to learn about issues and topics that will be critically important to them as adults. They are not going to develop emotionally and socially, because teachers will not be able to take the time to help them develop in these areas.

Teachers and the profession of teaching are not going to benefit. Competent to excellent teachers (note: the vast majority of our teachers probably fall within this range of expertise) are going to leave in droves. Those good teachers who remain are going to face the effects of psychological violence, as well. Their creativity about how to teach in ways that engage and stimulate children and their insightfulness about how to best help children grow and learn are going to be suppressed by the pressures inflicted by the Common Core Standards and by increased high-stakes testing.

Schools are not going to benefit. They will continue on a downward spiral as they trip over their own feet… caught between good intensions and mindless political forces.

Communities are not going to benefit. Students will continue to hate going to school. They will not be engaged. They will not feel connected to learning, to one another, to schools, or to their communities. In some neighborhoods, such disconnections may manifest in a variety of anti-social actions. Children’s desire to learn and find the limits of what is possible, which can serve as positive attribute within school classrooms, may manifest as criminal and other anti-social behaviors in local communities.

Society will not benefit. As with communities, many children will be disconnected from society as a whole. They will not have learned how to participate thoughtfully in a democratic society. Many others who may have been encouraged to follow their passions in the arts will find no support in schools. The heart of our culture and society will crumble. Even children who are interested in math and the sciences will be “turned off” by teaching approaches that are meaningless and irrelevant.

Corporations, much to their surprise, will not benefit. They may think they will benefit by highly controlled and dumbed down approaches to schooling, but they will only get employees who are unable to think creatively and critically and who lack any sense of inspiration.

Power-hungry politicians and business people may benefit. They will have a population that will be easy to control. The power-elite will continue to sell our citizens a bill of goods and take advantage of them. Even now, those in power have already been able to brainwash a significant proportion of society, including school leaders, teachers, researchers, and well-meaning state and local politicians. The power-elite, which in the case of the Common Core involves David Coleman, repeat the same misinformed ideas over and over again to the point where people actually begin to think these statements are true. Such approaches are brainwashing. And, as a society, we seemed to have fallen for these very dangerous ideas.

We’ve been duped. And, we’re bending over asking for more.

March 11, 2013March 17, 2013

More on the Common Core: Who Decides?

At the moment, Arizona is pursuing legislation that will require all faculty members in colleges of education to receive training in the Common Core Standards and that will require the Common Core to be included in their teacher education courses. Such a move is frightening at so many levels, I barely know where to start. This move is just another indication that Academic Freedom (i.e., a subset of freedom of speech that has been a foundation for intellectual inquiry among teachers and students) is disappearing. Next, we’ll be burning books and firing teachers for teaching critically important ideas and ways of thinking that are not in the Common Core. Does this sound familiar to anyone? Or, have the limitations of school curriculum already omitted knowledge that is not a part of the agenda running this country?

We seem to be putting the Common Core on a pedestal with no memory as to how this set of standards is yet another educational fad. In a few more years, we’ll come up with another one, and another after that. But, this fad is seriously flawed to the point of actually being dangerous. On top of the inherent dangers of the Common Core Standards themselves (which will be discussed further here and in future blog entries), politicians are compounding the dangers by mandating their use at multiple levels of education. These very same politicians have failed at schooling. In Arizona, only about 16% of the legislators have a college degree. Nationwide the average is 25%. (SEE this New York Times article for further details: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/13/education/13legis.html?_r=0. Yet, these politicians continue to make decisions about education as if they are the experts. Of course, the rampant misconception across the country is the notion that we are all experts in schooling, since all but a few of us have attended school, and therefore we all know about teaching and learning. However, what legislators and the general public don’t know includes: the psychology of learning, motivation, and thinking; the dynamics and theoretical foundations of teaching and schooling; the theoretical foundations and analysis of curriculum; creating classroom communities where children are active producers of knowledge, rather than passive consumers of disconnected knowledge; the social foundations of teaching, learning, and schooling; and the wide array of teaching approaches and techniques for various subject matter areas. We have highly educated teachers who have learned the foundational knowledge and skills in these areas and who continue to learn from their own practices and the literature about teaching and learning. But, unlike places like Finland (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-places/Why-Are-Finlands-Schools-Successful.html), we don’t trust our teachers and we don’t allow them to make decisions about what children need to learn. We’ve tied their hands behind their backs. The Common Core and the onslaught of prescribed curriculums that are sure to follow are more knots.

Among most of us who actually study and critically analyze education, teaching, learning, and curriculum, there are basic questions that we always ask. In this and later blog entries, I will introduce and ponder some of these basic questions. The first question follows:

Who decides what knowledge is worth learning?

In the case of the Common Core, one person is responsible: David Coleman, a multi-millionaire from the corporate sector. He has single-handedly, with the financial help of GE Foundation’s $18,000,000 and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s $4,100,000, taken over the reigns of American education. The Common Core Standards are not the result of educators coming together to write what they consider to be important knowledge. The Common Core is the result of one man’s effort, with the help of 27 complicit individuals, mostly from the political and business sectors. The National Governors Association also was heavily involved. This organization created the Common Core and has pushed for states to adopt the standards without ever having seen them ( http://arizonafreedomalliance.ning.com/group/action-alerts-changed-frequently/forum/topics/common-core-update-action-130227-2000?xg_source=msg_mes_network).

In addition to taking over American K—12 education, Coleman has taken over the presidency of the College Board. He plans on re-aligning the SAT’s to reflect the Common Core. The whole of American education is now under the control of one person. Almost all of the state governors have bought into the Common Core. Teacher educators and college and university presidents have sold out. And, now conformity to the Common Core is being legislated.

Many of the top educational researchers have been co-opted into this massive brainwashing machine as a review committee. I’m greatly saddened to see some of the some of the researchers I’ve admired on the list of the brainwashed and co-opted. What a disappointment. Education is now officially a corporate entity.

There is no room for creativity, critical thinking, environmental literacy, social justice, and education for and about democracy. Teachers and children are about to be reduced to automatons. No thinking allowed. Just learn how to take 20 times more high-stakes tests!

For further information, look at some of these links:

Diane Ravitch’s article:
“Guinea Pigs for Common Core Standards”:

Diane Ravitch’s blog:
“David Coleman will Change the SAT to Align with Common Core”

Substance News:
“Common Hard Core? … David Coleman, architect of the ‘Common Core’ and now President of the College Board, just loves dropping tough-guy F-bombs on staid audiences”

Susan Ohanian’s commentary:
“Common Core State [sic] Standards”

Joseph Lucedo’s comment to Susan Ohanian’s blog:
Common Core instead of NCLB!

December 14, 2012December 14, 2012

More Shootings and We Still Haven’t Learned

Yet another school shooting today, and this time young children, as well as adults.

Of course, we still think everyone should have guns, even though the 2nd Amendment was not intended to allow guns in everyone’s homes, but rather for state organized militia. We should remember that those were very different times.

But, the issue of gun control is somewhat secondary to what has been a recurring pattern in our schools. Fundamentally, our whole notion of dealing with children in and out of schools is really heartless, much in the same way Boehner and his colleagues want to treat our elder citizens. Kids and the elderly are just numbers and pawns in a game of money and politics.

If we really want to help children, we don’t need to “raise standards,” use more high stakes tests, implement “zero tolerance” (just another form of heartlessness), or set up a “Common Core” curriculum. None of these efforts really have anything to do with the welfare of children. If we really cared about our children, we would help teachers formulate approaches to develop relationships. Children need to learn how to appreciate one another, to value differences, to develop empathy, and negotiate solutions to particular problems. When I was in the classroom, the personal and social problems that arose always trumped whatever agenda I had for the day or the week. We’d drop everything and work on ways to communicate and appreciate one another. It’s all about developing deeply meaningful and empathic communities in schools. When kids feel appreciated, they don’t act out with violence. But, of course, adults don’t do a very good job of modeling relationships and community. Look at our congress and the way they treat each other and the way they propagate fear and hatred of other cultures.

What the people who develop educational policy don’t realize is that when children begin to feel good about themselves and each other, they learn more than we could ever imagine. But, maybe that’s the issue. Maybe the policy-makers don’t want our children to feel good about themselves and don’t want them to learn more than some meaningless content.

December 8, 2012March 8, 2013

The “Common Core” of Ignorance

For decades, but actually for centuries, educational scholars have been pushing for ways of teaching that engage children and contribute to their growth and development as thoughtful participants in society. However, corporate and political forces always seem to win out in the battles between thoughtful and thoughtless schooling.

Thoughtless schooling has been empowered from the positivist and mechanist thrusts developed and propagated by Descartes and Newton. Although positivism and mechanism may have removed a veil of ignorance and introduced revolutionary ways of thinking and of relating to the world, they have had their negative effects over the last few centuries. In a way, these Cartesian ways of thinking have led to the development of their own veil of ignorance. (By “ignorance” I mean “being in a state of ignoring” rather than a sense of stupidity. In fact, ignorance may be quite smart, as we actively avoid seeing “something,” that is usually something we don’t want to see or take into account. Ignorance usually involves being stuck in a set of assumptions.)

Just as the pre-Cartesian peoples of the West were guided by superstitions and myths of various kinds, we post-Cartesianists have our own set of superstitions and myths that guide our thinking, actions, and decision-making. We think that everything can be reduced to a number and that numbers are truth. We think that all people are equal (or the same…), rather than as different. From this view we think that all children can conform to the same ways of learning and thinking. We believe that there is a linear and sequential pattern of cause and effect and that thinking and learning should occur in linear and sequential ways. We also continue to see learning as something static. We think of learning as the acquisition of a body of unchanging knowledge.

At the same time, researchers and scholars have been suggesting very different approaches to understanding the world and to thinking and learning. Such alternatives are closely aligned to more recent understandings of the complexity sciences, as well as the psychology of social constructivism and distributed learning. From such perspectives, learning is not viewed as linear and sequential or as static. Instead, learning is viewed as recursive (looping around in complex interconnections) and ever-changing. Learning is seen as a social process, where ideas are shared, negotiated, and argued. Even though each individual may put his or her own “spin” on particular ideas, the ideas have been a product of the social dynamic.

Now, we have returned to yet another veil of ignorance under the guise of the Common Core standards. All students are supposed to learn the same material from a list of concepts. Science learning in the early grades, where children’s curiosity is at its peak, is relegated to reading about science rather than exploring, testing, and playing with “stuff” and ideas. We’re yet again returning to a system of schooling that kills children – kills their inquisitiveness—curiosity, playfulness, creativity, and deeper intelligence. They are pounded into a state of ignorance by an adult world steeped in ignorance. The designers of the Common Core, bless their hearts, are so deeply embedded in our cultural state of ignorance, they actually think they are doing some good for the children.

Children desperately need to experience deep, meaningful, and relevant learning. But, all of schooling is based on shallow, meaningless, irrelevant, and fragmented “learning,” all of which seems to be reduced to “memorization.” It really doesn’t much matter what children learn as long as they can learn something in great depth. Once they experience learning of this sort, where they not only learn a set of interconnected concepts, but learn how to evaluate that knowledge and how that knowledge works and relates to a variety of contexts (e.g., how the concept of energy relates to ecological, social, political, and economic contexts). This level of learning is what Gregory Bateson referred to as Learning III (Bateson, 1972/2000). Learning at this level of complexity is what children need to experience and practice. In fact, this type of learning is what is going to be necessary for our children’s survival in a very uncertain future.

In addition, the idea that children need to continue to learn a broad spectrum of ideas is silly. We have such easy access to information that it makes more sense to have children experience real in-depth learning, so they know what this kind of learning “feels like” and then learn how to find and evaluate knowledge claims in relevant contexts.

We’ve also lost all sense of children as being “producers” of knowledge rather than just “consumers” of knowledge (Marshall, 1992). They need to be engaged in constructing and evaluating their own knowledge claims. They do this informally in their everyday lives, but we fail to take advantage of this pattern of learning to help them hone these skills.

At present, we are facing the dire ecological consequences of our previous states of Cartesian ignorance. We are not only in a state of “peak” oil, but also in a state of peak everything… water, soil, and resources of all kinds. Our children are going to be confronted with collapse on many fronts, yet we continue to teach them material that is irrelevant to their futures. We continue to emphasize approaches and knowledge that don’t provide them with the knowledge and skills to survive or thrive in the future.

For whatever reasons, but probably those that come from the pressures of corporate greed and its consequent ideas of economic growth, global competition, mass conformity, and keeping the populace in a state of shared ignorance, we continue to push a variation of the a same approach to education that has gotten nowhere. The approaches that seem to have always taken over are deeply embedded in what Bateson would call Level 0 or proto—learning, otherwise known as rote learning. As long as we try to quantify learning, which is not quantifiable (there is no “quantity” of learning), along with high stakes tests and corporatized curriculum, our children will not learn at the levels of which they are so capable.

So, what are we to do?

NOTE:

For those of you interested in a more in-depth analysis of the problems with the Common Core, download the following paper: Common Core State Standards: An Example of Data-less Decision Making by Christopher H. Tienken (2011), in the Journal of Scholarship and Practice

References

Bateson, G. (1972/2000). Steps to an ecology of mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Marshall, H. H. (1992). Seeing, redefining, and supporting student learning. In H. H. Marshall (Ed.), Redefining student learning: Roots of educational change (pp. 1—32). Ablex

October 3, 2012October 3, 2012

Greenpeace… Book Review

Greenpeace: How a Group of Ecologists, Journalists, and Visionaries Changed the World by Rex Weyler (2004, Rodale Press, 612 pp)

I just finished reading Rex Weyler’s Greenpeace…, which I purchased shortly after meeting Rex at a conference in July. His talk, which is posted on YouTube and on the Ecomind site, haunted me. Although I knew much of what he talked about, the actual confrontation with his data rattled my tendency for complacency.

His book, Greenpeace…, has had a similar effect and provides a thorough background to his more recent thinking and actions.

In the book, he delves into the political background starting in the late 1930’s, and also addresses the beginning of environmental/ecological awareness in the 1950. The whole book reads like an historical novel with captivating dialogue, intrigue, and humor. He brings to light some of the insidious patterns of power, control, and greed that have steadily led to the increased destruction of our local and global environments, including the increased extinction of many species of life.

Greenpeace started with protests of extensive nuclear tests. Their first trip on Greenpeace I, a contracted boat with its captain, John Cormack, headed to Amchitka Island in the Aleutians, where the United States was testing nuclear bombs deep under the surface of the Earth. Of course, the tests occurred along a very active tectonic plate boundary and literally exploded the heads off of wildlife on and around the island. Although they didn’t manage to stop the test they were focused on, their fundamental strategy of using the media to put pressure on governments and corporations was successful eventually, but only after many attempts and a ramming and beatings by the French navy. But, they maintained their core values of not doing harm to anyone and of not damaging property.

As they moved on to trying to stop the slaughtering of whales, they encountered the same resistance, but managed to put incredible pressure on countries to stop whaling. Interspersed with the open ocean adventures, are stories of Dr. Paul Spong’s and other scientists’ investigations of whales and their extensive intelligence and sensitivity. When Spong first started investigating whales he was dangling his feet in the water in the Vancouver Aquarium’s Orca tank. When the Orca swam up and brushed his foot with her teeth, Spong reacted reflexively by pulling his legs out of the water. After a number of times doing this, he forced himself not to react. When the Orca saw that he didn’t react, she swam out into middle of the tank and started making lots of sounds. It was at this point that Dr. Spong realized he had just been trained by the Orca and the roles had been reversed.

Rex Weyler also introduces a great deal of fundamental ecological concepts, to which we all should pay very close attention. The nature of the carbon cycle, energy, and toxicity, as well as all of the complex interactions among life forms (including humans) and the environment should be fundamental to the way we view our life and actions on Earth.

As Greenpeace expanded to protecting seals from being skinned alive, while decimating their populations (as with the whales), to dealing many other environmental and socio-political issues, the internal politics of Greenpeace became another potentially damaging dimension to their very future. However, the wisdom of a few key players helped Greenpeace to thrive as an international organization.

What I find troubling now is that it is very difficult to use the media to bring issues to light. We do have the capability to use the Internet for disseminating information, but the broad impact of the media is no longer a possibility. While the major TV networks and newspapers covered the actions of Greenpeace in the 1970’s, these same networks and newspapers are now owned by the corporations that are behind many of the current, destructive practices. From the ignorance, irresponsible, and dangerous practices of FOX news to the poor journalism of most of NPR, we’re placed in a fog of ignorance.

For those of us who lived during the beginning decade of Greenpeace in the 1970’s, the book introduces many familiar key figures on both sides of the issues. Some of the key players included then president Nixon and Jerry Brown (past and present governor of California), as well as Allen Ginsburg, Lawrence Ferlingetti, Chögyam Trungpa, and the 16th Karmapa, who provided support and wisdom. Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism and the I Ching also served as guides for their actions.

Reading Greenpeace…. was a joy (even when the stories were at their most disturbing). I found it hard to put down, even though each chapter is broken down into one to three page sections making it easy to read in small bits. I highly recommend this book as both an engaging read and an important source of information about our past and current situations. For me, the book has been a call to action, as well. We shouldn’t sit back, while the destruction of our global environment threatens the survival of the human species.

More by Rex Weyler:

http://rexweyler.com/
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/about/deep-green/

Greenpeace at:

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/ with links to Greenpeace International

October 3, 2012October 3, 2012

Controlled Burns – May Be Much Worse for our Health Than We Think

Controlled burns have always bothered me conceptually, but the recent burns that have blanketed the city have been affecting my immediate health (and I’m in reasonably good health otherwise). So, I started poking around on the internet about the health effects of wood smoke. Of course, what you find immediately is not a discussion of the actual effects, but discussions of what you should do, like don’t breathe the smoke, stay indoors, etc. These sites are government or medical industry sites. The government, of course, is responsible for the controlled burns, so they don’t really want people to know too much. The medical industry (I’m using “industry” rather than “profession’) is closely connected to the government, so they don’t want to “burn” any bridges either. What you do find if you dig a little deeper, is that we really don’t know the full extent of the effects of smoke. However, the research does suggest that the smoke particles are a health risk, such as contributing to lung cancer and other cardiopulmonary diseases. In addition, the smoke contains carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and a number of toxic chemicals. We know that both carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide (in large amounts) are dangerous and can lead to death. The troubling part that no one talks about is the toxic substances in the smoke. We don’t know what effects will be, but they may not show up for years.

These issues should be of extreme personal concern for everyone. However, from a larger view, the burning of forest wood is environmentally unsound at this point in time where we’re already putting way too much carbon into the atmosphere. The issue here is that our biosphere stores carbon in several places, like deep inside the Earth (what we call fossil fuels), in the atmosphere, in living things, etc. Each of the storage sites have different time scales for the storage of carbon. The deep Earth storage sites are for very long-term periods of time, which we’ve managed to change very quickly to short-term stores. These deep stores are released naturally into the atmosphere naturally during various volcanic or tectonic activities. On the other hand, soil and atmospheric stores are shorter term. However, the natural process of decay from dead trees is a relatively slow process that adds carbon to soils for use in various life processes with some carbon released slowly into the atmosphere. When we burn these trees, we skip most of the soil storage and put most of the carbon (along with toxic substances) into the atmosphere very quickly. As we all know, the atmospheric carbon content is much higher than it should be, and is leading to global warming and all of its effects.

Of course, forest fires in the southwest have been a part of the natural functioning of the ecosystems. However, that was before humankind started saturating the atmosphere with carbon. We screwed up that process and now we’re stuck with trying to prevent fires. What we need to think about are alternatives to controlled burns. We could use the dead wood for mulch, compost, and various other products, especially for local use so that carbon emissions can be minimized.

We need to stop controlled burns for our own and our children’s health and for the health of our home planet.

July 2, 2011

Thoughts on Adopting Curriculum from Other Countries

The trouble with adopting a curriculum from another country (or even from any different setting in this country or state, etc.) is that the contexts of what is relevant, meaningful, etc. change. However, it all depends on what assumptions we’re basing our ideas of education. If we see education as merely taking in fragmented pieces of knowledge and spitting it back out again, then that could be implemented anywhere. At the other end of the spectrum, if we see education as a personal and social process of developing understandings of highly interconnected and complex “knowledges” that are, in turn, connected to the betterment of society and to personal growth as human beings with a wide range of potentialities, then there is no way we can use one set curriculum across contexts of any kind. The other aspect to this is that the role and view of the teacher varies. At one end of the spectrum (same end at the first end in the last statement), the teacher is viewed as a technician who can mindlessly implement a scripted or other highly structured curriculum document. At the other end of the continuum, teaching is viewed as a personal process of engaging with diverse students in a process of producing knowledge and taking social action. If we view the teacher as a technician, we really could hire anyone off the streets (we’re doing this with “Teach for America” already). In fact, most ideas of online classes take the positions that are first mentioned on these two ends of the continuums.

July 2, 2011

The Common Core Standards – Keeping Our Kids Dumb

It may be a knee-jerk reaction on my part, but I’m suspicious of political efforts in education. Fundamentally, I don’t think the real intent and motivation is to help children. The quote from the Standards web site brings up a number of questions and thoughts.

The Common Core State Standards provide a consistent, clear understanding of what students are expected to learn, so teachers and parents know what they need to do to help them. The standards are designed to be robust and relevant to the real world, reflecting the knowledge and skills that our young people need for success in college and careers. With American students fully prepared for the future, our communities will be best positioned to compete successfully in the global economy.

From: http://www.corestandards.org/

Why do we want all students to learn the same things?
Do children who are homeless need to learn the same things as others?
Do children living in big cities need to learn the same things as others?
How can the same content be relevant and meaningful to all students?
Why is content (information) the most important thing to learn?
Shouldn’t we be teaching children how to find and evaluate information, rather than having them learn this content?
Shouldn’t we be valuing children’s diverse styles, interests, individual personalities, contexts, etc?
Why is certain knowledge (and there’s a lot) not addressed in the core standards?
Who decides (I couldn’t find the list of people involved in developing the standards, but the “voices of support” are politicians and business people with one exception) what content to include?
What is their agenda?
Who is going to benefit from demanding one set of standards for all children?
What are their philosophical orientations?
What is the depth and extent of their experience and knowledge of child development, child psychology, learning and cognition, teaching, curriculum theory, cultural epistemology, and so forth?
How can anyone think that they know what is “good” for all children (seems like an error of hubris to me)?
While stating a desire to help children succeed in “college and careers,”
- how do they know what each child needs to succeed (whatever that means)?
- why is education about “success”; what does “success” mean?
- why is education about careers and what careers are valued? Is waste disposal (garbage collector) a valued career
- why should all children go to college?
What would happen if all kids were “successful” at the school game? What would this look like? Who would benefit?

The key to understanding this effort is found in the last sentence. The entire political motivation is about money, about economic competitiveness, or about economic domination. The whole approach is based in a global corporate agenda. I couldn’t find any reference to social justice, ecology, or the environment. These ideas are not of concern to the corporate agenda. In fact, they are a threat to this agenda.

The approach is mechanistic (as if children were little non-human robots) and positivistic. We’re in the middle of a revolution as the worldviews of positivism and mechanism, having created life-threatening and culturally disconnecting problems, are being challenged by more holistic and complex worldviews. We’re witnessing the kicking and screaming of positivists and mechanists as their materialistic and narrow views of power and control are being undermined. It’s the middle of a revolution. Our consumerism is eating back on itself. Within the context of economic growth, consumerism, and materialism, we’re destroying families, cultures, and the environment upon which we depend for our very survival.

June 11, 2011June 11, 2011

Corporate Schooling, Not Public Schooling

I was listening to NPR earlier this week (but I usually have trouble listening for very long, since they really should be NCR or National Corporate Radio, but that’s another story). One of the (non-)advertisements was about the Broad Foundation and their program of recruiting corporate CEO’s to become school superintendents. I was flabbergasted. How much more blatant can it be that the real agenda for schooling is corporate? Yes, this is just what we need… more people “in charge” of schooling who have never set foot in a classroom (other than being a student).

So, what is the corporate (and political… I think they’re the same) agenda for schooling? Corporations want employees at the massive lower levels of labor who will not question the authority of those above them. They want employees who will follow instructions and “policies” without questioning or thinking about the assumptions that underlie these instructions and policies. For instance, how many times have you tried to work out a problem with an employee (even at the supervisor level) of a corporation only to have them keep repeating the policy without listening to your problem? Usually this happens to me on the phone, but it happened last week at Costco. I tried returning a TV a friend of my son’s gave him. However, since we’re not “members,” it is against “policy” to return an item. Does this make any sense? How could anyone buy a gift for someone else? Of course, the supervisor looked at me like he had no idea what I was talking about and just repeated the “policy” over and over again. The same sort of “policy” routine was just encountered at my doctor’s office when the staff people said it was against their “policy” to accept a patient (my son) with secondary insurance (I’m sure my doctor has no idea this policy even exists). Of course, when I mentioned that “policies” only serve to kill an organization (like a physician’s practice), they looked at me like I was talking in some foreign language. “Policies” prevent any kind of adaption, personal relationships, and flexibility of any kind. But, this kind of reaction by employees is just what corporations want. They don’t want employees who can think at deeper levels, who can actually relate to customers.

Corporations also want employees who will (unquestioningly) conform to certain (arbitrary) standards. This conformity can be in dress and appearance (which used to be the characteristic of IBM, gray suits, no facial hair, short hair, etc.), behavior, thinking, talk, and so forth. Individuality is not a value in such contexts.

In schools today, blind obedience, not questioning authority, and conformity are usually the standard practice, along with reams of policies. And, no where (with the exception of some individual teachers and principals) are concerns for the individual child to be found. No Child Left Behind is a prime example of a super-“policy” that has no concern for children. NCLB is concerned with political capital and with keeping teachers so busy with teaching-to-the-test that they can never teach children how to think, teach them in ways that develop deep and meaningful understandings, teach them in ways that help them develop their full capabilities and unique passions, and teach them in ways that allow them to develop into decent and creative human beings.

Posts

Problems with Reclaimed Water (… and Our Ways of Thinking and Acting)