Multiculturalism in America and Europe: success vs failure?
All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence, and then success is sure. -- Mark Twain
President Sarkozy of France has declared the country’s policy of multiculturalism a failure. His judgment is supported for their respective countries by British Prime Minister David Cameron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Australia's ex-prime minister John Howard and Spanish ex-premier Jose Maria Aznar.
How has America presumably “succeeded” when, by the admission of their own leaders, so many European countries have failed? There are possibly three factors that explain it: space&time, hypocrisy and lack of taste.
Space&Time: -- Compaction vs Dispersion; Election-to-election vs Centuries. Sarkozy complains about Muslims praying outside on the street of their overcrowded mosques. But where do French Catholic children line up for holy day and First Communion processions? Or the bulls run in Pamplona (Spain)? Or crowds gather to hear the Pope?
It is no accident that the leaders who have pronounced multiculturalism a failure are elected officials who confuse their need to win the next election with the time needed to make real accommodations among different peoples.
Sarkozy dislikes unassimilated communities co-existing next to each other. In the U.S. ghettoes served communal and nurturant purposes until economic success within different groups enabled moving out to more ample housing, protected by isolation or law from bigoted ethnic restrictions.
Hypocrisy: Elite vs Democratic. Through their public schools Americans inculcate the practice of speaking out of both sides of the mouth which, at least eleven score and fifteen years ago, our patrician, forked-tongue forefathers brought forth upon this nation. (Slavery and aboriginal annihilation with freedom and justice for all.)
Everyday events bear this practice out. In the U.S., pornography and religion can both be big sales -- always a sign of Divine Providence. Distributors of “adult” entertainment in the U.S. not infrequently begin their efforts by “provoking” resistance from local church leaders. There is a symbiotic relationship between the clergy’s desire to stoke religious fervor and the pornography sales manager’s need to maximize the impact of his advertising budget.
Finally, “Lack of Taste” -- Patrician vs Plebian. Taste is socially accepted bigotry. It is supported by presumed entitlements to taking umbrage, declaring as whim demands, “I find that offensive.” (We’ve all learned from Thumper’s mother that “If you can’t say somethin’ nice, don’t say nothin’ at all.") Peoples in Europe -- but by no means exclusively there -- who choose their leaders from among their “social betters” find it easier to ape those betters by adapting their tastes, since their intellect or wealth is harder to come by. (Americans like to ape them, too. Vide fashion.)
Struggles between those who have or don’t have “taste” is what powers no small part of the US economy, e.g. “talk shows” abound while public television drama starves. Reconciling with your wife and daughter on the Jerry Springer show, after confessing that you fathered your own grandchildren, is a quick ticket to back-home, down-home celebrity.
European leaders, faced with massive immigrations stoppable only by adopting politically risky exclusion laws, made rational decisions to adopt multicultural policies. James G. March (Ambiguity and Choice, 1976) has suggested that we would be better off with less rationality; that we might be well served by a concept of "sensible foolishness". (I suspect our more classically trained European leaders would find this advice hard to take.) We become sensibly foolish, writes March, by treating goals as hypotheses, intuition as real, hypocrisy as a transition, memory as an enemy and experience as theory. We become really, really pragmatic Americans.
For references and to examine these issues further, see Productivity, Politics and Hypocrisy in American Public Education: school organization as instrument and expression
Cordially
--- EGR
What Makes a Good Teacher Supervisor?
A good supervisor realizes that in many instances student teachers perform in a certain manner because they are expected, by superiors and parents, for example, to teach that way; not, because there are good scientific grounds for their practice. For example, language teachers may be expected to use vocabulary lists for memorization and teach about verb tenses. Why? Because that is what administrators or students' parents remember from their days in school. Scientific pedagogy is not infrequently stifled by tradition.
But what is essential to being a supervisor and a good one at that? Merely the job title? I don't think anyone would be comfortable with that answer. We would not want to to leave it up to chance, nor favoritism or prejudice. On the contrary, we would expect that a person designated as a supervisor to have certain reasonable and desirable characteristics. Important among these would likely be knowledge, skills and attitudes of a certain sort. Here are some criteria of hopefully general application.
Our first criterion might be: a supervisor should be committed to improving the education of the students who are being taught by his/her supervisee. Note that "improving education" invokes values of a certain general sort, without being over specific as to exactly which ones. A usable definition of supervision should be possible without restriction to certain ideologies or philosophies.
Our second criterion is: A supervisor must have pedagogically relevant knowledge of subject matter. It is not enough for, say, a person designated as a supervisor of physics teachers to have gotten A's in physics courses herself; but rather she must posses two other capacities:
a. she must know how to represent that knowledge in ways that promote learning in those less experienced than she; and
b. she must know how to help the student teacher to represent his or her knowledge to the student.
Note how such words as "relevant knowledge" and "promoting learning" insinuate a values commitment without constraining it within specific ideological or philosophical framework. This enables supervision-defining skills and attitudes to be offered to a variety of persons without bias to a particular world view. Some knowledge, skills and attitudes can be trans-ideological, focussing on technique and means, rather than ultimate ends.
A good supervisor is, herself, a good teacher. She must be able to imagine herself ignorant and be willing to experiment with strategies to bring herself, as ignorant, to be knowledgeable. In addition, the supervisor must be willing to negotiate with her supervisee a characterization of the criticized lesson which communicates a fair and "teacherly" concern with improvement, based on educational, rather than personal reasons.
Our final criterion is that a supervisor should be professionally skeptical of the institution's ability to enhance educational outcomes: the school in which her supervisee works may engage in practices which undermine the learning of the pupils her supervisee teaches.
To be a professional is to be not entirely subjugated to one's employer; rather, it is to maintain certain standards in the face of possible institutional pressures to "sell out," i.e. to sacrifice educational goals to bureaucratic or political convenience.
The context of much teacher supervision undermines reasonable expectation of educational outcome. For example, supervisors are not infrequently given insufficient time to observe; or, they are assigned to "evaluate" teachers for punitive reasons, or in areas in which they, the supervisors, have little knowledge of subject or pedagogy.
It is not unreasonable to expect that organizational functions will normally interfere with educational ones. Pedagogical rhythms may be interrupted for the sake of the numerous supportive functions the school provides. However, it is the supervisor's duty to deflect, resist and subvert any interventions which debase the educational process.
For continued examination of this topic, see Do Schools Really Need Curriculum Supervisors? Confusing Role with Function.
Cordially,
--- EGR
Kids Don’t Want to Learn? Why Not Pay Them?
We don't need no education
We don't need no thought control
No dark sarcasm in the class room
Teachers leave those kids alone -- Pink Floyd
When students don't do their homework, don't pay attention, are disruptive, cut class, or play hooky, we talk about them as "not wanting to learn." We jump to the conclusion that such students don't want to learn anything at anytime in any place for any reason, when, in fact, it may be that a particular student doesn't want to learn a particular thing in a particular place at a particular time for a particular reason.
Do we even bother to recognize that students, just like we adults, have their own priorities? And if we adults think our priorities should override the kids' is it anything much more than a matter of our convenience? (Of course, we always say, "But it's for their own good!" Really?)
What adults would sit confined, having to ask permission just to relieve themselves, for five or more hours a day for no pay, even in the unlikely case they believed it would do them some longterm good?
For more on this see Dragons, Sea Monsters, and Kids Who Don't Want to Learn
Cordially,
-- EGR
Cosmetic Grammar: attaining “Class” through speech change?
In a world where you are "so-so"
Where competitors are few
Happiness is knowing
There are those worse off than you.-- Phemelistophes (BCE 8321)
In the US all citizens are, so it is taught, equal before the Law. Socially, this just won't do. Nearly everyone searches to discover someone who is of a "class" lower than his or her own. It's an esteem-builder. Our educational systems abet this process.
A rise in "Class" -- which good democrats officially deny exists -- means higher Status. In this land of Equality and Liberty (but only reluctantly, Fraternity) such ascension is almost universally welcome.
Status signals access to entitlements. High Status is the promise of a life full of perks: goods and services not needing proportionate payment in time, trouble or money. In a culture where physical necessities are generally satisfied, status anxiety is a widely stimulated market motivator: a casual review of advertising confirms this observation.
In America there are many avenues to Status. Wealth, beauty, family, these good ol' standbys are, for us red-blooded Americans, enviable but no longer necessary. Piety, knowledge and practical skill -- those historically monkish or lower class accomplishments -- are fading, too. We needn't even wait for the fickle finger of Celebrity. Status can be gotten much more easily by adjusting your speech.
But this is no news: didn't Henry Higgins teach just this to Liza Doolittle? Yes, but with one big difference. Henry insisted on Liza's conforming to "high class" standards of grammar and pronounciation.
Not only public media spokespersons, but college faculty -- even those profess to despise the notion of social class-- use patterns of speech that mimic "upper class" grammar while they violate it. This overcorrection is not done so much deliberately to defy standard grammatical norms as, perhaps, to stave off feelings of a threat to one's superior status.
"Me and Jim seen a hawk," says Bill to Grandma. Grandma, a retired schoolteacher, will almost invariably correct, "You mean, 'Jim and I saw a hawk." If Bill grows up to speak like most status striving Americans he will -- as an adult -- be heard to say things like:
"Mom visited Jim and I," or
"That message was meant for Jim and I,"
as though the word "me" were to be expunged from the language, a blatant sign of "lower class" membership.
I have heard such variations come of the mouths of even insistently grammatically fastidious college professors, for example,
"I found Jim and I's books in the lab," and
"Between Jim and I there is no disagreeement."
The issue, here, is not "good grammar." It is not even one of consistency. Almost all real-world performance is muddled somewhat from standard. The interesting question is: why do people, who would vehemently protest knowing language conventions de-correct themselves in practice?
I suspect that it is the American game of one-upmanship that plays a role in this.
For more examples, contrasts and discussion see The Case for Case.
Cordially.
EGR
Productivity vs Politics in Public Schools
Too many cooks spoil the broth -- Proverb
Do political, rather than educational concerns determine schooling decisions? For example, a major concern in our public schools is the placement of special education students in regular classrooms. This is generally seen as involving "politics," i.e. favoritism. Although school people follow presumably equitable legal procedures, the reality is that parents often threaten boards of education with costly lawsuits to get unusual treatment for their kids, even though a decision in their favor cannot be considered as setting a precedent.
In the School District of Philadelphia, about 1975, a board member was shocked to find out no one could tell him what non-real estate property the school district owned. Consequently, the command was issued that students (about 200,000) were to be sent home for a week while teachers applied numbered labels to desks, chairs, blackboards, TV's, lab equipment of all kinds -- even boxes of paper clips. Inventory lists were to be created and submitted at the end of the week.
And so it was done. There were no control mechanisms in place. There was no double-checking. In fact, there was no provision made for collating the information collected. When standard-test-time rolled around soon after, a local newspaper reporter -- unofficial "friend" of the school board -- came up with the by now all too familiar explanation for low test scores: poor teaching.
Is there some way of reducing educationally irrelevant influence to a minimum? "Too many cooks spoil the broth." Maybe so. But isn't the argument really about who is competent to be head chef? And, more importantly, whether that matters?
To examine these and similar issues further, see Productivity, Politics and Hypocrisy in American Public Education
Cordially,
-- EGR
The “Ideal” Citizen: an avoidable possibility?
It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of non-violence to cover our impotence. -- Mohandas K. Gandhi
Adults, parents, teachers and counseling personnel all over this great country of ours have gotten into the habit of preaching to their children or underage charges that “Violence is never the answer.” Every kid, when confronted with such easy pacifism, immediately recognizes two things:
1. What they are being told is false; and,
2. Their mentors are either not serious, or out of touch with reality, or liars.
All kids have to do is listen to the radio, watch TV, or pay attention to their elders’ behavior to see more than ample proof that violence, on some occasions, is, unavoidably, the answer. Their easy preachment against violence, a dollar-store pacifism, is just one more depressing example of a major rule of everyday adult practice: “Do as I say, not as I do.”
Another preachment kids encounter regularly is that if someone hits them and they hit back, they (the original victims) have “lowered themselves to the level” of their bullies. What’s this “level” nonsense? Why is physical violence lower, more reprehensible, than the psychological torture inflicted by sharp tongues spreading malevolent gossip? Do psychological torturers imagine themselves morally superior because they refrain from touching their victims? They aren’t; and, no kid who can fog a mirror thinks they are.
It’s hard to be a parent, or teacher, or counselor. You don’t want to encourage random unconstrained physical battle. Not because it’s morally inferior -- look at the many sports which are both violent and educative because contact is controlled by rules -- but because it runs risks of outcomes that outweigh any benefits to be gained in the combat. Also, kids are prone to sudden seizures of anger, which, if restrained and reflected on, can be controlled to their benefit. (See Permissible School Violence)
On the other hand, who imagines that any kid with half a brain can’t recognize hypocrisy? And what does this hypocrisy teach?
a. People in authority don’t really want to get involved in having to exercise -- and make public -- their weak capacity for rational or fair judgment;
b. Talk is cheap. Fast tongue exercises authority as it dodges challenge;
c. Adults (superiors, leaders, gentry) are, all too frequently, inferior examples of wisdom, who don’t want to get involved with kids (inferiors, followers, servants) beyond what is absolutely necessary.
Docility is valued -- is preached to be a sign of “superior class” -- because a docile person offers little resistence to a superior’s importunity, is long suffering, and, in continuing traditions of hypocrisy, undermines himself or herself morally so as to erode any ethical basis for resistence to exploitation. (But see also, The Ideal Citizen: tactful, but with second thoughts)
Pacifism, which starts out with the highest, the noblest, hopes of transforming human societies to tolerance and love, when glibly practiced in the contexts of our power-ridden institutions, becomes the means by which courage and forthrightness are fed to tyranny.
For references and to examine these issues further, see Doing Violence to "Violence"
Cordially
--- EGR
Religion and the Public Schools: is Science the Answer?
Say nothing of my religion. It is known to God and myself alone. Its evidence before the world is to be sought in my life: if it has been honest and dutiful to society the religion which has regulated it cannot be a bad one. -- Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 1826)
In the public schools, we are told, religion may be taught about, but not just merely taught. That is, religion may be treated in its intellectual aspects only, its other dimensions can be mentioned only if they are presented as “intellectual” content, for example, cultural studies. What is to be avoided is indoctrination, or inculcation of specific religious beliefs or dogmas.
But it is far from clear in many educators' minds what this permits or forbids. A teacher asks her third graders to stand in front of the room and tell the class their favorite stories. A boy stands up and begins to tell a tale out of the Bible. The teacher refuses to let him continue. This is, on the face of it, suspiciously cautious. Is it prejudice against religion?
To examine these issues further, see Religion, Intelligent Design and the Public Schools: serving God to Mammon?
Cordially
EGR
School Administration: why theory is often beside the point
Theory helps us to bear our ignorance of facts. -- George Santayana
Books on educational administration are typically chock full of graphs, charts and equations. These lend the impression that good administration requires theoretical knowledge of the most abstruse sort. This is misleading. It devalues less formalized knowledge about human relationships and leadership important to running a school or school district.
Generations of authors have persisted in representing administration as a quasi-mathematical branch of social engineering. Such hyperbole ultimately works against practicing administrators in two ways:
a. it opens the door to unnecessary, costly and often counter-productive technical consultation, and
b. it undercuts legitimate attempts to define a body of knowledge which might support educational administration as a profession.
To continue this discussion see Traditions of Ideology in Administrative Theory
-- EGR
Using Philosophy to Improve Practice
Keep me away from the wisdom which does not cry, the philosophy which does not laugh and the greatness which does not bow before children. -- Khalil Gibran
Practitioners in many areas of endeavor confront philosophical issues on a daily basis, often not recognizing them as such, but seeing them primarily as "problems." Practitioners tend to deal with these issues unreflectively, overlooking alternative ways to handle them.
The main concern in the article linked to below is to open up inquiry into these daily issues, which are often seen as "problems."
One impediment to clear thinking about the relationship of philosophy to practice is failure to recognize that "philosophy" is an ambiguous term.
In the article linked to below, "philosophy" will be disambiguated into three categories: "wisdoms," "ideologies," and "critical philosophy." Confusing these three types generates endless practical mischief.
Examples will be chosen from vision and mission statements in education, although the process presented could be applied in any field practiced in institutional contexts. The focus will be on using critical philosophy to specify criteria that support educational judgment and decision. A second concern will be to identify hidden options obscured by vague, or ambiguous formulations of goals.
For fuller explanation and examples of application, see PHILOSOPHY AND EDUCATION: What's The Connection?.
Cordially,
-- EGR
Charter School Scandal? Again? You Can Bet On It..
“Criminals are opportunists. If you've got a booming market, they're going to get away with more fraud.” --William Matthews
The market is booming. Despite bitter experience, hopes are high. It's not unreasonable to expect more of what has happened in previous years. This is especially true in education where so-called "educational entrepreneurs" are treated as some sort of miracle workers. Recall that The Philadelphia Inquirer of May 3, 2010 reported that subpoenas had been served on 13 of the 63 charter schools in the Philadelphia School District in preparation for intensive investigation into their use of public funds.
Although we at NewFoundations have reluctantly come to support some kind of charter school development, since public school systems tend to have political problems of long standing (See The Evils of Public Education), several of the contributors to this website have cautioned, strenuously, against treating charter schools as a panacea for what ails American public education.
To examine these issues further, see Deregulation and Charter School Swindles
Cordially
EGR
