Re: Sub-group Analysis

["Peter Majoy" <pwmjoy@earthlink.net>]

This is a gem because it possesses great wisdom. Why? It recognizes the
traditional test of educational value, the Socratic injunction to "Know
thyself." Inscribed at the sun god Apollo's Oracle of Delphi temple and
popularly (and rightly so) ascribed to Socrates, it was accompanied by
another two words, "Thou art." One Jungian interpretation connects "Know
thyself" with the assertion of the "Thou art" of others and eventually the
recognition of the "Thou art" of what some might call god, the essence of
the universe, the mystery of existence, or some transcendent awareness. All
this is nicely explained at
http://astrology.about.com/library/weekly/aa100102a.htm . Of course, what
one might call "raw knowledge" is necessary, but equally important is how
one comes to knowledge, whether or not it is valued, sensed as purposeful,
and understood as connected to being human. There is a drama around all
knowledge acquisition, and those "standardistos" who seem not to understand
this are projecting an epistemological illusion as if in Buber's lexicon
teaching was an "I-It" experience, i.e., teachers and students are isolated
egos facing each other's robotness and from that place of "objectivity"
simply, as you put it, experiencing "knowledge transference". Standardized
testing is one of the acts or scenes in this narrow drama. If someone had
explained to me that this was what education was all about, I would not have
become a teacher, a profession I love. Those who teach from the Socratic
perspective and embrace Buber's "I-Thou" understand what I like to think of
as the vocation of teaching and know the great challenge to resist the
objectification and the reification of teaching and learning which is the
fundamental threat presented by NCLB and this cyclic return to thoughtless
oversimplification represented by the "I-It" crowd. Sometimes, I think that
the "kmowledge transference" clan is filled with fear which they project
onto the process of education because it makes things so much easier to talk
about. Such clean numbers, such polished data, such nothing-butness, such
pseudo objectivity, such efficiency, such bureaucratic compartmentalization,
such assembly line utility, such utter simplicity. Anyway, thank you for
your posting.
-----Original Message-----
From: kristina.pelletier@maine.edu <kristina.pelletier@maine.edu>
To: arn-l@interversity.org <arn-l@interversity.org>; Peter Majoy
<pwmjoy@earthlink.net>
Cc: arn-l@interversity.org <arn-l@interversity.org>
Date: Sunday, February 01, 2004 12:47 AM
Subject: Re: [arn-l] Sub-group Analysis


>What is the primary purpose of public education? Is it merely to fill up a
>bunch
>of mindless vessels with knowledge? If so, then YES standards-based
education
>makes sense. But, how do individuals and society benefit from a knowledge
>transference approach to education? Yes it will get a person into college,
but
>will they have a job when they graduate (more and more companies are
exporting
>jobs oversee for cheap labor- when are we going to hold corporations
>accountable? Heaven forbid if we hold our societies sacred-corporate-cows
>accountable for anything they choose to do).
>It seems many "knowledgable" people have caused tremendous harm to
themselves,
>others, and society. There are many smart people who are poor parents,
>citizens,
>adults, and workers. There are many educated adults who are unable to
>critically
>dialogue with others without resorting to childish retorts, absurd
judgements,
>and closed-minded anger. There are many imature intellectuals in our
culture.
>Knowledge separated from other aspects of thinking is impoverished and
objective
>facts devoid of moral inquiry is dangerous.
>
>What type of future will an objective-knowledge transference approach to
>education create for ourselves, others, and society?  Isn't life more much
more
>then testable knowledge? I believe at the heart of the debate is the
question of
>purpose. We need to consider the future we wish to have, and from that
>articulate a central purpose for public education, and from this discuss
issues
>concerning schools, teaching and learning. But, above all, it needs to be a
>purpose that the will allow young people to transcend and grow beyond the
>ignorance of adults and the pre-judical view of the world reinfoced in our
>society.
>
>------------------------------------------------
>Direct list questions to listmom@interversity.net