Please include two aspects to your post:
1. React to the notion that Counts' speech could serve as a foundation for the CCC track? (note: you can agree or take issue with this claim)
2. Ask three questions about the Rorty readings...
Counts “This would seem to suggest that our schools, instead of directing the course of change, are themselves driven by the very forces that are transforming the rest of the social order.” While educators, particularly progressive educators of today, have the ultimate goal to teach to change the world, Counts dismisses this goal as not a plausible one. He believes that schools change with the social order itself. He believes the education system is devoid of possibility to change, as no discussions take place to change society itself. He argues that schools cannot be child-centered, as they need to focus on changes at the macro level. I believe that the CCC track does look to work for change beyond the school building, but our focus still needs to be on the school. I don’t believe that Counts completely has it right, as the school is the institution that educates the next generation. Of the societal institutions, I would argue that it is the most important in order to promote social change. To ignore this would make change more difficult. He does maintain that an education much include a thorough understanding of the world. I would agree that a complex and worldly curriculum enlightens and allows students to make deeper claims. He speaks to tradition, as long as the tradition is “relevant to the times” (as an aside, who has the power or the right to decide this?), but those that are not relevant should not be taught. While I believe that Counts is progressive for his time and brings valuable points, I don’t think that his speech can be a foundation for the track. Suggesting teachers take power in order to conquest their students goes against everything that the track believes (at least as I see it), as we try to emancipate our students. Sure, teachers can positively influence our students, but I believe that it is up to the students to create their own values. It is our job as educators to guide them, but not to conquer them.
Rorty 1. Rorty spends time in his introduction giving what he believes, but also counters it with what his opposing philosophers believe. Furthermore, he discusses in later chapters how different groups of people would respond to the same situation. This always a bit of a headache-inducing question, but what is the truth? Rorty and the pragmatists say, at least as I understand it, that there is no such thing a “truth.” While a loaded question, I think back to Counts, who suggests that teachers need to teach students the “truths” of the world. As I say in my statement above, who decides this? Is this even plausible? 2. In the third chapter, Rorty begins the chapter with stating that the English-speaking philosophical world and the non-English-speaking philosophical world do not engage. The philosophical world seems to be a microcosm of English and non-English speaking worlds. While he proposes a few duos that he would be interested in seeing being debated, I think about how much better the world would be if we would collaborate more with other countries. Why is there such a divide? What can be done about it? 3. In the last line of chapter 3, Rorty states, “The willingness to see philosophy as an aid to creating ourselves rather than knowing ourselves is another [shift for creating a better future].” How can teachers use philosophy to create better schools? I’m sure this is an objective for the entire course, but it’s interesting to ponder.
Counts’ whole piece struck me as incredibly relevant to today’s educational system (I had to double check that it was actually published in 1932) and made me think of the “Broader, Bolder Approach to Education” which recognizes the impact of social and economic disadvantage on students and on schools and believes that true educational reform cannot be separated from social and economic issues. If we agree with this, which I do, then it follows that teachers have an obligation to address these critical issues in their classrooms. Perhaps I am misreading and/or oversimplifying Counts, but I think his true focus isn’t on the “indoctrination” of students, but on teachers needing to take the lead in recognizing and working to address the pervasive societal issues (such as poverty and inequality) which have a profoundly negative impact on our ability to provide true educational equity. Does part of this leadership role involve pulling into the curriculum issues of social justice and democracy? I think it does. It is our job as educators not to teach our students what to think but rather how to think…and this entails exposing them to the democratic ideals on which this nation was founded. “Education as a force for social regeneration must march hand in hand with the living and creative forces of social order” (Counts, p. 31). Unfortunately, it is also the case now, as Counts stated that is was then, that “…our schools, instead of directing the course of change, are themselves driven by the very forces that are transforming the rest of the social order” (Counts, p. 3). Could/should one of the foci of the CCC track be to recognize and address these issues? In my opinion, it should be.
1.I’m pretty sure that I understood only about 5% of what Rorty was saying…if that. I think his overall message was that there really isn’t a truth to be found or discovered and that what really matters is whether-or-not our ideas lead us to a better, more democratic society. So my first question is, am I even on the right track?? 2.Rorty says (I think) that there are no moral absolutes, but choices are between alternative goods rather than between good and evil (p. xxviii). However, when Rorty says that “what matters for pragmatists is devising ways of diminishing human suffering and increasing human equality, increasing the ability of all human children to start life with an equal chance of happiness” (p. xxix), isn’t he implying a moral absolute? And how does this jibe with his statement (p. 27) that “If there is anything distinctive about pragmatism it is that it substitutes the notion of a better human future for the notions of ‘reality,’ ‘reason,’ and ‘nature?’” 3.“To say that one should replace knowledge by hope is to say much the same thing: that one should stop worrying about whether what one believes is well grounded and start worrying about whether one has been imaginative enough to think up interesting alternatives to one’s present beliefs” (p. 34). What are our present beliefs in education? Are we imaginative enough to think up interesting alternatives?
Wow. This was a powerful piece. As I began reading Counts I was prepared to make my usual defense that education cannot be asked to serve as the pancea for all of society’s ills, especially during this historical time of systematically underfunding public education. I recalled Berliner and Glass’ question that gets to the root of how much responsibility individual teachers have in lifting students out of poverty: “What comes first? A society with low rates of poverty so that schools can be effective, or an effective school system so that society will have a low rate of poverty” (Berliner & Glass, 2014, p. 231). But as I continued to read I was inspired by the argument Counts makes that rings even more true in our era of corporate oligarchy. I see how Dare the School Build a New Social Order could serve as a foundation for the CCC track.
He recognizes the role of curriculum in building a new social order: “This process of building a good society is to a very large degree an educational process” (p. 15), focusing on “the nature and extent of the influence which the school should exercise over the development of the child” (p. 10). He recognizes the importance culture plays in education. “Any defensible educational program must be adjusted to a particular time and place, and the degree and nature of the imposition must vary with the social situation” (p. 18).
However, he won me over with his argument for change. Counts’ admonishment of Progressive Educators for their elitist lifestyles resonated with me. I’ve often thought that the reason why teachers (myself included) are unable to bring about the change they/we want to see is that despite our empathy for impoverished students, and the problems poverty presents in realizing the liberating powers of education, the majority of us are products of and are able to live enough above the poverty level that we don't identify with the struggles of the working class. He makes a convincing argument of the role that educators could play in bringing about change. (Although Freire would take issue with Count and note that true liberation must come from the masses themselves.) Nonetheless Count challenges educators that if we are serious about change we need to ask ourselves what we are willing to sacrifice.
I can get pretty fired up sometimes over these passionate issues, but I entered this program because I want to learn and then teach about the intersection of curriculum, culture and change. It’s my hope to heed Count’s advice that “[T]he genuinely free man is not the person who spends the day contemplating his own navel, but rather the one who loses himself in a great cause or glorious adventure” (p. 23).
Questions from Rorty Readings: 1. Rorty writes that he is going to describe in more detail “how human inquiry looks from a pragmatist view and how it looks once one stops describing it as an attempt to correspond to the intrinsic nature of reality, and starts describing it as an attempt to serve transitory purposes and solve transitory problems” (p. XXII). I’m not sure I follow the description he provides. Therefore my question is: what does it look like? 2. I want to know what the class thinks about Rorty’s statement that “there is no point in asking whether a belief represents reality, either mental reality or physical reality, accurately” (p. XXIV). 3. Sometimes I think I get where Rorty is coming from, such as when he writes “there is no deep split between theory and practice, because on a pragmatist view all so-called ‘theory’ which is not wordplay is always already practice” (p. xxv). However, when he writes that pragmatists think that the question to ask about their beliefs is not whether they are about reality or merely about appearance, but simply whether they are the best habits of action for gratifying our desires” (p. xxiv), it makes me question this perspective. In essence is the pragmatists’ actual “truth” one that is realized when a group’s desires (or needs) are met?
As I read the Counts’ chapters I kept thinking to myself, the more things change the more they stay the same. Like Meg, I felt that so much of what he said is applicable today. I think if the following excerpt of his writing was presented to a lay person, they would probably think it was from a recent op-ed. (pp. 32-33 beginning with “Consider the present condition of the nation” and ending with “automatic machinery increasingly displaces men and threatens society with a growing contingent of the permanently unemployed”). I wonder is the striking parallels can be attributed to his writing during the Great Depression and our reading this on the heels of the Great Recession. What would we have thought reading this in the mid to late 90s?
Mike, I interpreted Counts’ comments on a child centered education differently. The way I read it, he wasn’t suggesting that schools cease to be child centered, but that they need to go beyond teaching to the developmental interests of the child. If it were up to my six year old, he’d spend first grade learning about Star Wars, wild animals and Skylanders! The curriculum needs to consist of central ideas to be shared and explored with all children and the strategies for doing so need to be developmentally appropriate. I agree with you that Counts’ use of the terms “traditions” and “relevant” is very subjective. Counts acknowledges that “the whole of creation cannot be brought into the school” (p.19) but he doesn’t elaborate on how to (or who should) decide what to include and what to leave out.
I think some of Counts ideas could serve as a foundation for the CCC track. On pp 28 & 29 he speaks about teachers taking power and becoming the decision makers about schools and the curriculum. On p. 29 he says “representing as they do, not the interests or any special class, but rather the common and abiding interests of the people. teachers are under heavy social obligation to protect and further those interests.” So many decisions about education are influenced by politicians and others who are on the outside looking in. Those of us who have been in the trenches see how certain policies and practices are doing a disservice to so many children. The CCC track consists of educators who feel an obligation to step up and make systemic changes in education to protect the interests of students.
1) While I know that nothing is absolute, is it really accurate to say there are no universal truths? Are there not common instincts and behaviors among people and societies (and some species) that transcend geography, race, religion and SES?
2) Does anyone else detect an atheist sentiment in Rorty’s writing or am I reading too much into some of his statements? (I’ll elaborate on specific quotes in class.)
3) One of my takeaways from the reading is that pragmatists such as Rorty felt that Platonists’ philosophical thinking was impractical and of no practical use. I got a sense for what pragmatists were and were not but I couldn’t wrap my head around how their philosophy would have any more of an impact on society or education than the Platonists. I felt like Rorty’s writing went in circles. My question for the class is if they feel that Rorty’s espousing of the many aspects of pragmatist thinking was of any practical use?
Reading Counts’ arguments in “Dare the School Build a New Social Order?”, I had reactions similar to Meg and Teri. This piece is still extremely relevant today and I think gets at the crux of the tensions between progressive and conservative forces in modern education. On page 17, Counts writes “Until school and society are bound together by common purposes, the program of education will lack both meaning and vitality.” In a society where socioeconomic gaps are widening, the educational culture of punitive standardized testing is at odds with any goals to close the gaps. I especially like Counts’ argument that “teachers should deliberately reach for power and then make the most of their conquest….to the extent that they are permitted to fashion the curriculum and the procedures of the school they will definitely and positively influence the social attitudes, ideals, and behavior of the coming generation” (p. 28 – 29). With this argument in mind, I think this could serve as a foundational document for the CCC track. We are here, through whatever means, to effect positive social change through education, and that, in essence, is Counts’ vision for education. I interpreted Counts call for teachers to harness their power for social change differently than Mike did. I feel that Counts is calling for a teacher-led (or at least education-led) approach that would empower students to act on their own behalf to create a more positive version of the future. I agree that control and teacher / institutional bias are going to be parts of this effort, and that has the potential for abuse, but the powers that influence educational policies and curriculum currently are certainly not unbiased; nor are their efforts geared toward positive social change. In my opinion, Counts’ vision of a teacher-powered educational agenda is much more preferable, and likely to be much more liberating for students, than the agendas put forth by policy makers and funders who in general are imposing conservative curricular and testing practices that will only perpetuate current cycles of poverty.
Questions about Rorty 1. In the Introduction, Rorty writes “To attribute beliefs and desires to non-users of language (such as dogs, infants, and thermostats) is, for us pragmatists, to speak metaphorically.” As a language acquisition person, I’m fascinated by this. There have been several cases of older children who have been isolated from society and language and therefore do not develop language…ever. However, because they don’t possess the tools for communicating beliefs and desires, how can it be assumed that they don’t have them? Or is that the point at all? Is it just a metaphorical game to try to get at what they might be? I could not get my head around this in any logical way. 2. Rorty cites Dewey in Chapter 2, writing that he wanted to “shift attention from the eternal to the future, and to do so by making philosophy an instrument of change rather than of conservation” (p. 29). I feel like this jives with Counts arguments about the purpose of education very well. My question is not really about the idea but rather about how it can be implemented in schools, especially when educational institutions devote so much energy to passing information down from one generation to the next. How is a balance between a respect for accumulated knowledge and an emphasis on the future achieved? 3. And I think I need more help with antiessentialism. Does nothing really have intrinsic value? I’ve tried to think of things I can describe without doing so in relativist terms, and I come up blank, but for some reason I want to believe this can happen. Along those lines, Rorty writes that “language provides our only cognitive access to objects” (p. 55), so can nothing exist without its being described by language? Kind of a “if a tree falls in the forest” question.
1.) The first section of Counts, where he talks about children, does not work for CCC because it cannot apply to adult or other non-child learnsers. What he writes from about page 18 or so on, where he talks about democracy, freedom, capitalism, technology, and the responsibilities of teachers, could very well become a foundation for CCC. I would hesitate to follow that route, though. Counts was writing very much from his contemporary experiences and observations at the time. If we used his work as a model for our track, then we might leave out important considerations which he does not address because of the differences between our times. We coukd use Count as a template, with the goal of bringing it up to date.
2.) What are the implications of examining the purposes for your beliefs? (Pg. Xxiv)
How would our society change if we pursued the idea that "the quest for certainty be replaced by the demand for imagination"? (Pg. 34)
Imagine that animals began to demonstrate consciousness and communicate with us using our language. What effect would this development have on society, philosophy, and science? (Pg. 66-69)
Counts After reading Counts, I feel that this piece is very relevant to today’s educational arena. I am, on the one hand, empowered by Counts ideals that progressive education must “establish an organic relationship with the community, develop a realistic and comprehensive theory of welfare, fashion a compelling and challenging vision of human destiny, and become less frightened than it is today…” (p. 9), yet on the other hand, I am slightly disheartened that after 75+ years, we are still having these same debates about educational reform. To me, this continued debate is the reason for the CCC track - To move past the debate and take action towards the use of education for social change. I feel that we sometimes get too caught up in the debate, with our own biases and rhetorical interpretations, and in turn, fail to take action. Counts notion that “teachers should deliberately reach for power and then make the most of their conquest….to the extent that they are permitted to fashion the curriculum and the procedures of the school they will definitely and positively influence the social attitudes, ideals, and behavior of the coming generation” (p. 28 – 29) aligns nicely with the purpose of CCC. He states that, “instead of shunning power, the profession should rather seek power and then strive to use that power fully and wisely and in the interests of the great masses of the people”, (p. 29-30). In my opinion, several of the main issues facing education today are the widening gaps created by social forces (achievement gaps, culture gaps, etc) and therefore, it is imperative that teachers understand the forces at hand, understand their relationship to these forces, and work within their power to bring about change through the tools at hand – education! As a teacher, it is impossible to separate the social from the “educational”. One directly influences the other in a cyclical pattern and if we are to see change in the pedagogy, we must focus on combining the two efforts. As Counts states, “the choice should not be limited to these two extremes. Indeed today, neither extreme is possible” (p.11). It is not about indoctrination vs. complete freedom, but rather a combination of the two, having to work within the conservative political and economic realms of education while maintaining a progressive vision (and taking action towards) educational reform and social change.
Rorty 1. In ch. 2, Rorty discusses the pragmatic view as one that replaces the “appearance-reality distinctions” with descriptions of the world and ourselves that are more useful and less useful to create a better future…..Like the article states, I also have to ask “useful for what”? What constitutes a “better” future? Who decides what is better or more or less useful for the future?
2. In ch. 1, Rorty states, “we cannot regard truth as a goal of inquiry”. Inquiry is instead based on achieving an end and the means to that end…but isn’t the “end” a form of “truth”? At least truth according to someone or some thing?
3. Several times Rorty discusses the search for what is good (meeting the needs of the inquirer)… so is “good” only defined in terms of the individual? What if my “good” is not your “good”?
Counts
ReplyDelete“This would seem to suggest that our schools, instead of directing the course of change, are themselves driven by the very forces that are transforming the rest of the social order.” While educators, particularly progressive educators of today, have the ultimate goal to teach to change the world, Counts dismisses this goal as not a plausible one. He believes that schools change with the social order itself. He believes the education system is devoid of possibility to change, as no discussions take place to change society itself. He argues that schools cannot be child-centered, as they need to focus on changes at the macro level. I believe that the CCC track does look to work for change beyond the school building, but our focus still needs to be on the school. I don’t believe that Counts completely has it right, as the school is the institution that educates the next generation. Of the societal institutions, I would argue that it is the most important in order to promote social change. To ignore this would make change more difficult. He does maintain that an education much include a thorough understanding of the world. I would agree that a complex and worldly curriculum enlightens and allows students to make deeper claims. He speaks to tradition, as long as the tradition is “relevant to the times” (as an aside, who has the power or the right to decide this?), but those that are not relevant should not be taught. While I believe that Counts is progressive for his time and brings valuable points, I don’t think that his speech can be a foundation for the track. Suggesting teachers take power in order to conquest their students goes against everything that the track believes (at least as I see it), as we try to emancipate our students. Sure, teachers can positively influence our students, but I believe that it is up to the students to create their own values. It is our job as educators to guide them, but not to conquer them.
Rorty
1. Rorty spends time in his introduction giving what he believes, but also counters it with what his opposing philosophers believe. Furthermore, he discusses in later chapters how different groups of people would respond to the same situation. This always a bit of a headache-inducing question, but what is the truth? Rorty and the pragmatists say, at least as I understand it, that there is no such thing a “truth.” While a loaded question, I think back to Counts, who suggests that teachers need to teach students the “truths” of the world. As I say in my statement above, who decides this? Is this even plausible?
2. In the third chapter, Rorty begins the chapter with stating that the English-speaking philosophical world and the non-English-speaking philosophical world do not engage. The philosophical world seems to be a microcosm of English and non-English speaking worlds. While he proposes a few duos that he would be interested in seeing being debated, I think about how much better the world would be if we would collaborate more with other countries. Why is there such a divide? What can be done about it?
3. In the last line of chapter 3, Rorty states, “The willingness to see philosophy as an aid to creating ourselves rather than knowing ourselves is another [shift for creating a better future].” How can teachers use philosophy to create better schools? I’m sure this is an objective for the entire course, but it’s interesting to ponder.
Meg (Thoughts on Counts):
ReplyDeleteCounts’ whole piece struck me as incredibly relevant to today’s educational system (I had to double check that it was actually published in 1932) and made me think of the “Broader, Bolder Approach to Education” which recognizes the impact of social and economic disadvantage on students and on schools and believes that true educational reform cannot be separated from social and economic issues. If we agree with this, which I do, then it follows that teachers have an obligation to address these critical issues in their classrooms. Perhaps I am misreading and/or oversimplifying Counts, but I think his true focus isn’t on the “indoctrination” of students, but on teachers needing to take the lead in recognizing and working to address the pervasive societal issues (such as poverty and inequality) which have a profoundly negative impact on our ability to provide true educational equity. Does part of this leadership role involve pulling into the curriculum issues of social justice and democracy? I think it does. It is our job as educators not to teach our students what to think but rather how to think…and this entails exposing them to the democratic ideals on which this nation was founded. “Education as a force for social regeneration must march hand in hand with the living and creative forces of social order” (Counts, p. 31). Unfortunately, it is also the case now, as Counts stated that is was then, that “…our schools, instead of directing the course of change, are themselves driven by the very forces that are transforming the rest of the social order” (Counts, p. 3). Could/should one of the foci of the CCC track be to recognize and address these issues? In my opinion, it should be.
Rorty...
ReplyDelete1.I’m pretty sure that I understood only about 5% of what Rorty was saying…if that. I think his overall message was that there really isn’t a truth to be found or discovered and that what really matters is whether-or-not our ideas lead us to a better, more democratic society. So my first question is, am I even on the right track??
2.Rorty says (I think) that there are no moral absolutes, but choices are between alternative goods rather than between good and evil (p. xxviii). However, when Rorty says that “what matters for pragmatists is devising ways of diminishing human suffering and increasing human equality, increasing the ability of all human children to start life with an equal chance of happiness” (p. xxix), isn’t he implying a moral absolute? And how does this jibe with his statement (p. 27) that “If there is anything distinctive about pragmatism it is that it substitutes the notion of a better human future for the notions of ‘reality,’ ‘reason,’ and ‘nature?’”
3.“To say that one should replace knowledge by hope is to say much the same thing: that one should stop worrying about whether what one believes is well grounded and start worrying about whether one has been imaginative enough to think up interesting alternatives to one’s present beliefs” (p. 34). What are our present beliefs in education? Are we imaginative enough to think up interesting alternatives?
Wow. This was a powerful piece. As I began reading Counts I was prepared to make my usual defense that education cannot be asked to serve as the pancea for all of society’s ills, especially during this historical time of systematically underfunding public education. I recalled Berliner and Glass’ question that gets to the root of how much responsibility individual teachers have in lifting students out of poverty: “What comes first? A society with low rates of poverty so that schools can be effective, or an effective school system so that society will have a low rate of poverty” (Berliner & Glass, 2014, p. 231). But as I continued to read I was inspired by the argument Counts makes that rings even more true in our era of corporate oligarchy. I see how Dare the School Build a New Social Order could serve as a foundation for the CCC track.
ReplyDeleteHe recognizes the role of curriculum in building a new social order: “This process of building a good society is to a very large degree an educational process” (p. 15), focusing on “the nature and extent of the influence which the school should exercise over the development of the child” (p. 10). He recognizes the importance culture plays in education. “Any defensible educational program must be adjusted to a particular time and place, and the degree and nature of the imposition must vary with the social situation” (p. 18).
However, he won me over with his argument for change. Counts’ admonishment of
Progressive Educators for their elitist lifestyles resonated with me. I’ve often thought that the reason why teachers (myself included) are unable to bring about the change they/we want to see is that despite our empathy for impoverished students, and the problems poverty presents in realizing the liberating powers of education, the majority of us are products of and are able to live enough above the poverty level that we don't identify with the struggles of the working class. He makes a convincing argument of the role that educators could play in bringing about change. (Although Freire would take issue with Count and note that true liberation must come from the masses themselves.) Nonetheless Count challenges educators that if we are serious about change we need to ask ourselves what we are willing to sacrifice.
I can get pretty fired up sometimes over these passionate issues, but I entered this program because I want to learn and then teach about the intersection of curriculum, culture and change. It’s my hope to heed Count’s advice that “[T]he genuinely free man is not the person who spends the day contemplating his own navel, but rather the one who loses himself in a great cause or glorious adventure” (p. 23).
Questions from Rorty Readings:
1. Rorty writes that he is going to describe in more detail “how human inquiry looks from a pragmatist view and how it looks once one stops describing it as an attempt to correspond to the intrinsic nature of reality, and starts describing it as an attempt to serve transitory purposes and solve transitory problems” (p. XXII). I’m not sure I follow the description he provides. Therefore my question is: what does it look like?
2. I want to know what the class thinks about Rorty’s statement that “there is no point in asking whether a belief represents reality, either mental reality or physical reality, accurately” (p. XXIV).
3. Sometimes I think I get where Rorty is coming from, such as when he writes “there is no deep split between theory and practice, because on a pragmatist view all so-called ‘theory’ which is not wordplay is always already practice” (p. xxv). However, when he writes that pragmatists think that the question to ask about their beliefs is not whether they are about reality or merely about appearance, but simply whether they are the best habits of action for gratifying our desires” (p. xxiv), it makes me question this perspective. In essence is the pragmatists’ actual “truth” one that is realized when a group’s desires (or needs) are met?
Teri Johnson - Reaction to Counts
ReplyDeleteAs I read the Counts’ chapters I kept thinking to myself, the more things change the more they stay the same. Like Meg, I felt that so much of what he said is applicable today. I think if the following excerpt of his writing was presented to a lay person, they would probably think it was from a recent op-ed. (pp. 32-33 beginning with “Consider the present condition of the nation” and ending with “automatic machinery increasingly displaces men and threatens society with a growing contingent of the permanently unemployed”). I wonder is the striking parallels can be attributed to his writing during the Great Depression and our reading this on the heels of the Great Recession. What would we have thought reading this in the mid to late 90s?
Mike, I interpreted Counts’ comments on a child centered education differently. The way I read it, he wasn’t suggesting that schools cease to be child centered, but that they need to go beyond teaching to the developmental interests of the child. If it were up to my six year old, he’d spend first grade learning about Star Wars, wild animals and Skylanders! The curriculum needs to consist of central ideas to be shared and explored with all children and the strategies for doing so need to be developmentally appropriate. I agree with you that Counts’ use of the terms “traditions” and “relevant” is very subjective. Counts acknowledges that “the whole of creation cannot be brought into the school” (p.19) but he doesn’t elaborate on how to (or who should) decide what to include and what to leave out.
I think some of Counts ideas could serve as a foundation for the CCC track. On pp 28 & 29 he speaks about teachers taking power and becoming the decision makers about schools and the curriculum. On p. 29 he says “representing as they do, not the interests or any special class, but rather the common and abiding interests of the people. teachers are under heavy social obligation to protect and further those interests.” So many decisions about education are influenced by politicians and others who are on the outside looking in. Those of us who have been in the trenches see how certain policies and practices are doing a disservice to so many children. The CCC track consists of educators who feel an obligation to step up and make systemic changes in education to protect the interests of students.
Rorty Questions
ReplyDelete1) While I know that nothing is absolute, is it really accurate to say there are no universal truths? Are there not common instincts and behaviors among people and societies (and some species) that transcend geography, race, religion and SES?
2) Does anyone else detect an atheist sentiment in Rorty’s writing or am I reading too much into some of his statements? (I’ll elaborate on specific quotes in class.)
3) One of my takeaways from the reading is that pragmatists such as Rorty felt that Platonists’ philosophical thinking was impractical and of no practical use. I got a sense for what pragmatists were and were not but I couldn’t wrap my head around how their philosophy would have any more of an impact on society or education than the Platonists. I felt like Rorty’s writing went in circles. My question for the class is if they feel that Rorty’s espousing of the many aspects of pragmatist thinking was of any practical use?
Reading Counts’ arguments in “Dare the School Build a New Social Order?”, I had reactions similar to Meg and Teri. This piece is still extremely relevant today and I think gets at the crux of the tensions between progressive and conservative forces in modern education. On page 17, Counts writes “Until school and society are bound together by common purposes, the program of education will lack both meaning and vitality.” In a society where socioeconomic gaps are widening, the educational culture of punitive standardized testing is at odds with any goals to close the gaps.
ReplyDeleteI especially like Counts’ argument that “teachers should deliberately reach for power and then make the most of their conquest….to the extent that they are permitted to fashion the curriculum and the procedures of the school they will definitely and positively influence the social attitudes, ideals, and behavior of the coming generation” (p. 28 – 29). With this argument in mind, I think this could serve as a foundational document for the CCC track. We are here, through whatever means, to effect positive social change through education, and that, in essence, is Counts’ vision for education.
I interpreted Counts call for teachers to harness their power for social change differently than Mike did. I feel that Counts is calling for a teacher-led (or at least education-led) approach that would empower students to act on their own behalf to create a more positive version of the future. I agree that control and teacher / institutional bias are going to be parts of this effort, and that has the potential for abuse, but the powers that influence educational policies and curriculum currently are certainly not unbiased; nor are their efforts geared toward positive social change. In my opinion, Counts’ vision of a teacher-powered educational agenda is much more preferable, and likely to be much more liberating for students, than the agendas put forth by policy makers and funders who in general are imposing conservative curricular and testing practices that will only perpetuate current cycles of poverty.
Questions about Rorty
ReplyDelete1. In the Introduction, Rorty writes “To attribute beliefs and desires to non-users of language (such as dogs, infants, and thermostats) is, for us pragmatists, to speak metaphorically.” As a language acquisition person, I’m fascinated by this. There have been several cases of older children who have been isolated from society and language and therefore do not develop language…ever. However, because they don’t possess the tools for communicating beliefs and desires, how can it be assumed that they don’t have them? Or is that the point at all? Is it just a metaphorical game to try to get at what they might be? I could not get my head around this in any logical way.
2. Rorty cites Dewey in Chapter 2, writing that he wanted to “shift attention from the eternal to the future, and to do so by making philosophy an instrument of change rather than of conservation” (p. 29). I feel like this jives with Counts arguments about the purpose of education very well. My question is not really about the idea but rather about how it can be implemented in schools, especially when educational institutions devote so much energy to passing information down from one generation to the next. How is a balance between a respect for accumulated knowledge and an emphasis on the future achieved?
3. And I think I need more help with antiessentialism. Does nothing really have intrinsic value? I’ve tried to think of things I can describe without doing so in relativist terms, and I come up blank, but for some reason I want to believe this can happen. Along those lines, Rorty writes that “language provides our only cognitive access to objects” (p. 55), so can nothing exist without its being described by language? Kind of a “if a tree falls in the forest” question.
1.) The first section of Counts, where he talks about children, does not work for CCC because it cannot apply to adult or other non-child learnsers. What he writes from about page 18 or so on, where he talks about democracy, freedom, capitalism, technology, and the responsibilities of teachers, could very well become a foundation for CCC. I would hesitate to follow that route, though. Counts was writing very much from his contemporary experiences and observations at the time. If we used his work as a model for our track, then we might leave out important considerations which he does not address because of the differences between our times. We coukd use Count as a template, with the goal of bringing it up to date.
ReplyDelete2.) What are the implications of examining the purposes for your beliefs? (Pg. Xxiv)
How would our society change if we pursued the idea that "the quest for certainty be replaced by the demand for imagination"? (Pg. 34)
Imagine that animals began to demonstrate consciousness and communicate with us using our language. What effect would this development have on society, philosophy, and science? (Pg. 66-69)
Ginger
Please excuse the typos; I typed this on my iPad. I'll be more careful next time!
DeleteG.
Counts
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Counts, I feel that this piece is very relevant to today’s educational arena. I am, on the one hand, empowered by Counts ideals that progressive education must “establish an organic relationship with the community, develop a realistic and comprehensive theory of welfare, fashion a compelling and challenging vision of human destiny, and become less frightened than it is today…” (p. 9), yet on the other hand, I am slightly disheartened that after 75+ years, we are still having these same debates about educational reform. To me, this continued debate is the reason for the CCC track - To move past the debate and take action towards the use of education for social change. I feel that we sometimes get too caught up in the debate, with our own biases and rhetorical interpretations, and in turn, fail to take action. Counts notion that “teachers should deliberately reach for power and then make the most of their conquest….to the extent that they are permitted to fashion the curriculum and the procedures of the school they will definitely and positively influence the social attitudes, ideals, and behavior of the coming generation” (p. 28 – 29) aligns nicely with the purpose of CCC. He states that, “instead of shunning power, the profession should rather seek power and then strive to use that power fully and wisely and in the interests of the great masses of the people”, (p. 29-30). In my opinion, several of the main issues facing education today are the widening gaps created by social forces (achievement gaps, culture gaps, etc) and therefore, it is imperative that teachers understand the forces at hand, understand their relationship to these forces, and work within their power to bring about change through the tools at hand – education! As a teacher, it is impossible to separate the social from the “educational”. One directly influences the other in a cyclical pattern and if we are to see change in the pedagogy, we must focus on combining the two efforts. As Counts states, “the choice should not be limited to these two extremes. Indeed today, neither extreme is possible” (p.11). It is not about indoctrination vs. complete freedom, but rather a combination of the two, having to work within the conservative political and economic realms of education while maintaining a progressive vision (and taking action towards) educational reform and social change.
Rorty
1. In ch. 2, Rorty discusses the pragmatic view as one that replaces the “appearance-reality distinctions” with descriptions of the world and ourselves that are more useful and less useful to create a better future…..Like the article states, I also have to ask “useful for what”? What constitutes a “better” future? Who decides what is better or more or less useful for the future?
2. In ch. 1, Rorty states, “we cannot regard truth as a goal of inquiry”. Inquiry is instead based on achieving an end and the means to that end…but isn’t the “end” a form of “truth”? At least truth according to someone or some thing?
3. Several times Rorty discusses the search for what is good (meeting the needs of the inquirer)… so is “good” only defined in terms of the individual? What if my “good” is not your “good”?