This essay focuses on the most basic systemic problem of publicly sponsored education, a quagmire that i define as the pampering of paradox, or the illusion (maya) of doing something. The conceptual nature of this madness is addressed through my own personal experiences within the public educational system and is discussed with reference to specific circumstances and environments. This method however does not preclude the appropriateness of generalizations as all publicly, and most privately, funded school systems suffer from the dictates of control by those in power.
The other day at the elementary school where i teach Seventh and Eighth Grade, there was a discussion by the faculty concerning the applicability of the “control theory of quality schools “ as espoused by Glasser. The essential question, which dominated the discourse, was whether to practice what one preached, especially with regard to coercion, or to allow the real world to influence the classroom environment? By real world, the staff seemed to accept that somewhere out there exists another space and time which, and i quote:
forces people to work in jobs and perform tasks that they hate and despise because they must do this to live regardless of the quality of their lives....and...
-
we are simply running out of time, we can’t seem to catch up with all the things we have to do. Life has become too stressful and complex...and...
-
we simply must be able to control the children especially those who tell us that they don’t have to do this or that and that they can’t be made to do this or that and that they won’t do this or that...
The problem then, for them, was whether to focus on non-coercive pedagogical relationships within the classroom framework or to allow, or really insist, that real world behaviors dictate the course and curriculum. By this i suppose they mean that certain teachers have agendas which are predicated on the belief that society is best served by teaching children to act like little adults rather than to become the best humans they can be.
Remember back to where we discussed the long and useful history of the Fallen Star Myth among the Great Plains Indians. This powerful and dramatic lesson in the need to continually crush traditional forms is the true and real nature of public education. If we deeply believe in the sanctity of GAIA and the wondrous ability of the DNA to self-educate the species, we must also recognize the need to provide each successive generation with a clean slate of opportunities and possibilities.
I think an important question is “Do we as human beings want a better quality of life for ourselves and our children?” If the answer is “YES!” then the fundamental role of all education whether it be publicly or privately supported is to subvert the dominant paradigm. In no other way can a better world be created.
It is vital that we reduce pollution, plant trees, recycle, and so forth, and yet the most critical change that must take place is a transformation in our very relationship with the Earth. The Earth does not need to change in order to survive--she will survive with or without us. If we are to continue, it is our values that need to change.
At the same time, we should re-examine, from an ethical perspective, what kind of world we have inherited, what we are responsible for, and what we will pass on to coming generations.
The dominant paradigm is predicated on the paradox that can be stated, “A better quality of life is available to me if i just had more money!” Subsequently, all educational curricula dictated at every level of ‘government’ has been designed to conform future citizens to this impossible goal. All pedagogical instruction and training reinforces this ideal. And all deliverance of revenues to schools is predicated on the neo-conservation of the concept.
In what ways are these blanket generalizations verified by the evidence? The following listing of observations and factual accounting can help illuminate the premise:
- The controlling impetus for evaluation, accounting, and auditing of educational activities has been the dictated curriculum.
- All education which is controlled or dictated by government must conform to the power of the controlling capital interests.
- All efforts made to reform schools are based on the application of curriculum standards as evaluated by normative testing.
- All funding is predicated on the application of curricula which is formulated only as testable criteria.
- Teachers are conditioned to not question themselves, nor to question, change, or drop mandated curriculums.
- Societies, as represented by the governments that they created, fail to provide acknowledgment of the educational environments.
- It is in the best interest of the corporate capitalists to: reject competition which would devalue the power of holdings, to consolidate capital, and to inhibit education of the public.
- It is necessary to create and empower the illusion that education actually does anything other than maintain the status quo of consensual reality.
- All educational systems must necessarily repress and prohibit subversive thought and chaotic random elements.
Before we examine the evidence for curriculum abuse by the system to control the population we should first get an overview of how the curriculum process works.
I begin by quoting from the preface to the HISTORY-SOCIAL SCIENCE FRAMEWORKS for the State of California to show the intent of the State in mandating curriculum for its citizens.
The planning for this document, which was shaped over a two-year period, began with a meeting of the Blue Ribbon Advisory Committee for History Scope and Sequence. This group discussed current research in history-social science; student interest and achievement in the subject; and the current state of curriculum and instruction, textbooks, testing, and teacher training...These recommendations were shared with the History-Social Science Curriculum Framework and Criteria Committee, whose task was to develop a new framework...The Framework Committee determined the basic nature of this framework when it made fundamental decisions about the following issues: the central importance of history; the curricular goals and learning strands; the enriched courses of the early grade; the required number of years for instruction in world and United States history; the thoughtful sequencing of chronological periods of emphasis; the inclusion of different cultural traditions in each year’s course; the integration of history and geography and humanities and social sciences; and the correlation of history-social science with other disciplines.
My, oh my. What an ambitious and presumptuous undertaking? The preface was signed by four State Department of Education bureaucrats with such illustrious titles as Deputy Superintendent of Curriculum and Instructional Leadership Branch and the Manager of the History-Social Science and Visual and Perfoming Arts Unit. The History-Social Science Curriculum Framework and Criteria Committee, in whose name this document was published was comprised of twenty members only five of whom were indeed school teachers. The remainder, six administrators in public education; six professors from universities, mostly California based; and three representatives of think tanks, met a total of twelve times to decide what all of California school children will learn about history-social sciences.
