OVERALL
CRITICAL CURRICULAR VIEW
(May
13, 2011)
I
have in recent postings addressed the question: What is the
political views of the critical theory construct? For context, this
question is the second of a series of questions I am using to
organize the my presentation of this perspective. Critical theory
has limited influence on what's actually taught in schools. I have,
in this blog, covered the current prominent construct, the natural
rights construct, which guides what is taught in our civics
classrooms. Critical pedagogy, on the other hand, is the main
challenge to the natural rights construct and is mostly advanced by
academics in our nation's colleges of education. Not all academics
subscribe to this antithesis, but reviewing the scholarly journals in
these fields, one can readily find the work of these critical
scholars. I would now like to shift gears and answer a second
question: What are the curricular views of critical theory?
OPPRESSIVE
DISCOURSES
(May
16, 2011)
In
my last series of postings, I have been reviewing the most meaningful
challenge to the governing perspective dominating our efforts in the
field of civics education. The challenge originates from certain
professional educational circles. The dominant perspective, for
those of you who are new to this blog, is the natural rights
construct. It relies on the philosophic tradition of liberalism as
espoused by many political thinkers, none more eloquently than John
Locke. It is a tradition bolstering the rights of the individual and
can be most succinctly summarized as the belief in the right to do
what one wishes as long as doing so does not harm others.
COMBATING
THE ISOLATED INDIVIDUAL
(May
20, 2011)
Part
of my review of the natural rights construct was a description of how
those who favor that construct seem to have a bias for science and
the application of science to the study of human behavior. I judged
the almost total reliance on science, scientism, by those of the
natural rights persuasion, to be overstating its value. There are
concerns and questions that do not lend themselves, in part or in
totality, to that form of study. For example, what should public
policy be concerning the correct balance between security and
liberty? While scientific studies can provide certain insights that
might be helpful in answering this question, they cannot directly
answer it. The philosopher David Hume warned us about jumping from
an empirical or factual premise to a value and/or opinion based
conclusion. Goodness, according to Hume, depends on sentiment –
emotions. What we favor in terms of security and liberty is
ultimately an emotional determination. Yet, science has nothing to
say about emotions as a legitimate input in the formulation of
policy. But of more recent vintage (Hume wrote in the 1700s), David
Brooks writes:
One could go on: We've tried
feebly to reduce widening inequality. We've tried to boost economic
mobility. We've tried to stem the tide of children raised in
single-parent homes. We've tried to reduce the polarization that
marks our politics. We've tried to ameliorate the boom-and-bust
cycle of our economies. In recent decades, the world has tried to
export capitalism to Russia, plant democracy in the Middle East, and
boost development in Africa. And the results of these efforts are
mostly disappointing. … [These efforts rely] on an overly
simplistic view of human nature. Many of these policies were based
on the shallow social-science model of human nature. (Brooks,
D. (2011). The social
animal: The hidden sources of love, character, and achievement.
New
York, NY: Random House. Citation pp. xiv-xv.)
So, while I, among a chorus of
similar criticism by notable scholars, attempted to point out the
shortcomings of this exclusive reliance on science, critical
theorists go further in their criticism.
TEACHING
AIM OF CRITICAL PEDAGOGY
(May
23, 2011)
In
my review of critical theory and pedagogy, I have conveyed the fact
that this train of thought has many branches. Therefore, there is
difficulty in presenting a singular account of what advocates of
critical thought promote in terms of educational curriculum and
instruction. For the purposes of presenting how critical thinkers
view ideal educational practice, I will present the views of one of
this approach’s most respected advocates.
ACTIVE
INTER-RELATIONAL CURRICULUM
(May
27, 2011)
In
the last posting, I related the basic ideas of Paulo Freire's
approach to education. He believed that the basic goal of education
is to liberate students out of the mental construct that is shared by
the exploited members of society. In his perspective, he saw social
and economic arrangements established by the elites to serve their
exploiting interests, and that by so imposing these repressive views
on the “have nots,”the “haves” can not only establish
exploiting relations between themselves and the exploited, but also
maintain them with minimal costs. Education that liberates must
address these constructed views in such a way that ends the
oppression not only for the oppressed, but also for the oppressors.
In both cases, the aim is to eliminate what is dehumanizing the
people involved.
PROBLEM-POSING
(May
30, 2011)
Recent
postings of this blog have presented an overall view of critical
pedagogy. I have made the claim that critical pedagogy has emerged
as the main challenge to the prevailing construct that guides what is
taught in American civics classrooms. I am presenting this challenge
because a meaningful understanding of civics in our country should
include a view of education espoused on our college campuses,
specifically where, for the most part, the nation's teacher training
programs take place.
REVIEW
OF FREIRE'S MAIN IDEAS
(June
3, 2011)
I
have dedicated a series of postings to share with you some key
curricular ideas of Paulo Freire's – the fundamental elements of
his educational approach. I used his work to represent the kinds of
curricular and instructional strategies a critical pedagogue would
put into effect. This is not an extended review, but a basic
presentation of his ideas. Hopefully, the postings give you a sense
of the proscriptions critical theorists have advanced.
UNIFYING
IDEAS AMONG CRITICAL PEDAGOGUES
(June
6, 2011)
This
blog has just reviewed the educational ideas of one of the leading
critical pedagogues, the late Paulo Freire. I shared these ideas to
give you a sense of the types of instructional strategies that
critical educators might institute. Admittedly, Freire mostly wrote
from the perspective of an educator in a developing country, although
that country, Brazil, has of late become highly advanced and is on
the threshold of having a fully developed economy. I would now like
to comment on the more fundamental curricular foundations of that
perspective and give you a glimpse, in the next posting, of some of
the divisions that exist among the advocates of the construct.
According
to William Schubert,
all critical educators agree on certain principles. As has been
noted, these include a call for praxis, more or less as Freire
explains it, and working for the transformation of society as opposed
to merely striving for marginal changes. Praxis strives for
emancipation and empowerment of the people. It emboldens the
oppressed to question the structures of the prevailing power
arrangements in a given society. And it holds to a value system that
promotes equality of results – they prefer the term social justice
– as its trump value. Through praxis, knowledge is constructively
formed (as opposed to merely being dispensed or discovered) with
meaning being derived from a historical, political, and social
context in which it is practiced (particular conditions for a given
place and time as opposed to universal conditions). Knowledge stems
from deconstructing existing claims, usually drummed up by the
oppressor class, and reconstructing them in light of appropriate
context as viewed by the oppressed. They believe that through
praxis, knowledge is created or constructed.
CRITICAL
PEDAGOGY, 1.0
(June
10, 2011)
As
I pointed out in the last posting, critical pedagogy has evolved into
two schools of thought: reconstructionism and reconceptionalism.
This posting will review the main ideas of reconstructionism and the
next posting will do the same for reconceptionalism.
Reconstructionism,
some would claim, was founded by John Dewey and was most popular
during the 1930s (not coincidentally, I believe, during the
Depression years). It is based on the idea that education should
basically rely on experience, and that experience should be
reconstructed or reorganized so that it adds meaning and direction
for one's current purposes as well as for subsequent experiences.
Illustrating this notion was the work of Paulo Freire which has been
reviewed in this blog. In practical terms, this association to with
Dewey's ideas and Depression era conditions meant different things to
different reconstructionists. Some pushed for teachers to take an
active advocacy role for social reform. These reforms would be aimed
at addressing those conditions that held the working class in
oppressed conditions. That could include low wages, unsafe working
conditions, long oppressive working hours, child labor, and the like.
Some pushed for teachers to participate in organizing for socialist
and communist labor movements. Yet others pushed for teachers to
teach students what they claimed were the follies of capitalism. Of
course, some encouraged teachers to pursue all of these roles. By
and large, it was a group that believed rapid socialistic oriented
changes could be instituted and promoted in our schools without
violence.
CRITICAL
PEDAGOGY, 2.0
(June
13, 2011)
The
last postings of this blog have reviewed critical pedagogy. I began
that review with a look at its moral stand, followed that with a view
of its political and governmental beliefs, and now am in the midst of
relating its curricular contributions. I have pointed out that in
terms of its curricular perspective, critical pedagogy divided itself
into two schools of thought: reconstructionism and
reconceptionalism. The last posting, “Critical Pedagogy, 1.0,”
presented the main ideas of reconstructionism. That school has a
more collectivist orientation. This posting presents the main ideas
of reconceptionalism with a relatively more individualistic
perspective.
No comments:
Post a Comment