On the Voices of Dropouts This dynamic shows up at many different levels of discourse. Stevenson and Ellsworth show in their article "Dropouts and the Silencing of Critical Voices", the voices of dropouts, our disenfranchised youth, black and white, are silenced by the popular image of their 'deviance' which de-legitimates their critique of schooling.[Robert B. Stevenson & Jeanne Ellsworth, "Dropouts and the Silencing of Critical Voices", in Beyond Silenced Voices, pp. 259-271]. Advocates of children of color have become discouraged by white educators who appear--or pretend--to listen, but do not actually hear.[SD, p.120] In fact, they often listen closer to their own sometimes self-serving research results than to the voices of those over whom they exercise so much power--however gently they purport to do so.[SD, p.120]
In her article "The Silenced Dialogue", Lisa D. Delpit speaks up for Black educators and parents when she says that so-called 'liberal' and 'progressive' educators (who move toward indirectness in communication in their efforts to de-emphasize power, assuming that making rules and expectations explicit is to act against the liberal principles of individual freedom and autonomy, and inadvertently putting those who aren't in mind of implicit expectations at a decided disadvantage in 'the game') must allow themselves to be affected by "alternative voices" (who protest that the methods which work best for middle-class white kids are not necessarily what will work for children of color). Thus, the best intentions of liberal educators are met, to their surprise, with either vocal opposition or stony silence from people of color,"[SD, p.125] who don't have much reason to believe in the 'truth' of western knowledge, the justice of its cause, and so want to be taught in a way that simply delivers the rules of the game so they can have a fair chance at survival and well being. Karmically, our reputation for deceit precedes us, and makes cynicism strong in children of color [Ogbu, 1978a,1982], and so educational methods that focus on process and ignore skills are cheating black children out of a fundamental explanation of the rules of the game which white kids are steeped in from day one. Most people of color, it would seem, take 'truth' to have to do more with 'honesty' than with 'proof'. So, despite the research, whatever good such methods as 'dialectic process' are for kids who need to learn to downplay power in their interactions with others--most especially with those they traditionally consider themselves somehow 'superior' to--will not answer to the needs of children of color who need to learn to be constructively assertive about their rights and fair shares in the society which subsumes and dominates them, and thus, need to be taught by people who can command respect, not people such as many liberal white teachers who talk nice and feign genuine concern, all the while failing to teach black children what they need to learn. Meanwhile, white educators tend to respond to this request from Black educators for more direct instruction as if people of color have internalized their oppression, and condemn as 'fascist' the role of explicit control in education (such as that used by such methods as the Distar reading program).[SD, p.124] Black educators, on the other hand, tend to think that whites, with all their good intentions, are mistaken in their view that students are necessarily disempowered by a teacher's exhibition of power.[SD, p.128] It depends a great deal on how that power is used--to uplift the children or to hold them down.
At some point, Black educators and parents tend to stop arguing, become resigned to silence, which whites apparently take as agreement. What has actually happened, one researcher reports, is that Blacks cannot help but get angry, knowing that middle-class whites will do what they want, no matter what. Thus, they learn to shut them out, to hold their tongues, their tempers, and to pray.[SD, p.120] In this way, the voices of Black educators have been excluded from the dialogue with actively ignorant white educators about how 'our' children ought to be taught. And what is indeed ironic is that educators of color have been silenced by the very forces that aim to 'give voice' to their children.[SD, p.138-139] Those who would defend this method are behooved by our own method of dialectical process to listen and to examine their reasoning and power by hearing what the perspective of those effected brings to our understanding of reality, that is, the whole truth about it. Perhaps there is some defense for the actions of those who promote teaching by this process, and maybe there is a compromise to be reached in the combination of these methods, but it is up to those who believe in them to give voice to that reasoning, and then to listen, honestly, to the response.
Here again then, we see the need for dialogue in education, conceived of as two-way, interactive learning -- because interpersonal power struggles that develop in the classroom become struggles within the system at large, [1] and the damage which is done to the individuals is immeasurable and irreversible. Thus, ethnographic examples might ameliorate our teaching practices by reminding us of what has been forgotten, expanding our consciousness to include the dynamics of this interconnectedness between diverse perspectives.
Which brings us to Pekarsky's point that using the method of dialogue offensively and irresponsibly, without the trust that is essential to true Socratic dialogue, is more likely to chase students away from true learning than to inspire them to want to learn either what is being taught or the truth itself, and more fundamental than this, it is simply unjust. It is the biases which allow us to assume that our methods actually are 'good' for our students, that our beliefs actually are 'knowledge', and that we have nothing to learn so no reason to listen to our young (perhaps for fear of what they would tell us if we asked) these are the unexamined assumptions that Socrates would, I believe, provoke us to either defend or revise. For we exercise a grand power with the judgments implicit in our too often self-serving expectations.
This is why a better understanding of cultures other than our own is critical, especially for those who (rightly or wrongly) presume to 'teach' the young of other, too often disrespected, traditions. As Time magazine recently reported that “The bitter truth is that American schools have become a reflection of the nation itself: divided by race, class and aspiration -- and all too often animated by no higher calling than the selfish preservation of the status quo.," [Time Magazine; Sept.16, 1991]. (As evidenced by Wolcott's study of elementary school principles, despite the way that we hype the role of principle, the actual function that he serves is to "thoroughly and systematically" reduce variation among students. Instead, principles have their greatest impact "not as agents of change but rather as advocates of constraint," despite this being neither an immediate nor a conscious concern of any of the principles themselves.[2]
In the words of Alice Walker, "Ignorance, arrogance, and racism have bloomed as Superior Knowledge in all too many universities."[In Search of Our Mother's Gardens, 1994; p.36] And this, theorists from Socrates to Mill and Meiklejohn have argued, is the direct consequent of our methods of teaching without interactive, that is, dialectic, dialogue.
More to the point, ethnographic evidence suggests that we have much to remember about (4) the inevitability of learning. Human children, like all primates, are "genetically designed to learn, to learn easily, and to learn well,"[3](Bloom, 1964) even when simply left to their own devices.(Turnhill, 1978) And yet our schools assume the opposite.[4]
It seems wise then to take Plato's advice and avoid the kind of compulsion that actually discourages learning. More contemporary researchers, Deci and Ryan, have proved his insight correct, warning that we must recognize and do something about the dangers of our methods of education because such extrinsic administration and rewards as we have traditionally employed can actually dampen and even kill the intrinsic incentive to learn.(p.*) As Plato worried, we might take this conditioned reflex to represent 'human nature', not recognizing that our very assumptions about 'human nature' are producing this effect, and that different assumptions might bring about other, more desirable, effects.
And to those who see this as a recipe for slacking, A.S. Neill says *
(*put Summerhill)
So we must ask ourselves – what kind of education could improve on our traditional methods? Could we offer self-managing, self-regulating, self-actualizing students schools they would choose and be happy to participate in?
(*put Sugata Mitra)
[1] (Spindler 1987, 169)
[2] (Spindler 1987, 272)
[3] (Spindler 1987, 101)
[4] (Spindler 1987, 112)
In her article "The Silenced Dialogue", Lisa D. Delpit speaks up for Black educators and parents when she says that so-called 'liberal' and 'progressive' educators (who move toward indirectness in communication in their efforts to de-emphasize power, assuming that making rules and expectations explicit is to act against the liberal principles of individual freedom and autonomy, and inadvertently putting those who aren't in mind of implicit expectations at a decided disadvantage in 'the game') must allow themselves to be affected by "alternative voices" (who protest that the methods which work best for middle-class white kids are not necessarily what will work for children of color). Thus, the best intentions of liberal educators are met, to their surprise, with either vocal opposition or stony silence from people of color,"[SD, p.125] who don't have much reason to believe in the 'truth' of western knowledge, the justice of its cause, and so want to be taught in a way that simply delivers the rules of the game so they can have a fair chance at survival and well being. Karmically, our reputation for deceit precedes us, and makes cynicism strong in children of color [Ogbu, 1978a,1982], and so educational methods that focus on process and ignore skills are cheating black children out of a fundamental explanation of the rules of the game which white kids are steeped in from day one. Most people of color, it would seem, take 'truth' to have to do more with 'honesty' than with 'proof'. So, despite the research, whatever good such methods as 'dialectic process' are for kids who need to learn to downplay power in their interactions with others--most especially with those they traditionally consider themselves somehow 'superior' to--will not answer to the needs of children of color who need to learn to be constructively assertive about their rights and fair shares in the society which subsumes and dominates them, and thus, need to be taught by people who can command respect, not people such as many liberal white teachers who talk nice and feign genuine concern, all the while failing to teach black children what they need to learn. Meanwhile, white educators tend to respond to this request from Black educators for more direct instruction as if people of color have internalized their oppression, and condemn as 'fascist' the role of explicit control in education (such as that used by such methods as the Distar reading program).[SD, p.124] Black educators, on the other hand, tend to think that whites, with all their good intentions, are mistaken in their view that students are necessarily disempowered by a teacher's exhibition of power.[SD, p.128] It depends a great deal on how that power is used--to uplift the children or to hold them down.
At some point, Black educators and parents tend to stop arguing, become resigned to silence, which whites apparently take as agreement. What has actually happened, one researcher reports, is that Blacks cannot help but get angry, knowing that middle-class whites will do what they want, no matter what. Thus, they learn to shut them out, to hold their tongues, their tempers, and to pray.[SD, p.120] In this way, the voices of Black educators have been excluded from the dialogue with actively ignorant white educators about how 'our' children ought to be taught. And what is indeed ironic is that educators of color have been silenced by the very forces that aim to 'give voice' to their children.[SD, p.138-139] Those who would defend this method are behooved by our own method of dialectical process to listen and to examine their reasoning and power by hearing what the perspective of those effected brings to our understanding of reality, that is, the whole truth about it. Perhaps there is some defense for the actions of those who promote teaching by this process, and maybe there is a compromise to be reached in the combination of these methods, but it is up to those who believe in them to give voice to that reasoning, and then to listen, honestly, to the response.
Here again then, we see the need for dialogue in education, conceived of as two-way, interactive learning -- because interpersonal power struggles that develop in the classroom become struggles within the system at large, [1] and the damage which is done to the individuals is immeasurable and irreversible. Thus, ethnographic examples might ameliorate our teaching practices by reminding us of what has been forgotten, expanding our consciousness to include the dynamics of this interconnectedness between diverse perspectives.
Which brings us to Pekarsky's point that using the method of dialogue offensively and irresponsibly, without the trust that is essential to true Socratic dialogue, is more likely to chase students away from true learning than to inspire them to want to learn either what is being taught or the truth itself, and more fundamental than this, it is simply unjust. It is the biases which allow us to assume that our methods actually are 'good' for our students, that our beliefs actually are 'knowledge', and that we have nothing to learn so no reason to listen to our young (perhaps for fear of what they would tell us if we asked) these are the unexamined assumptions that Socrates would, I believe, provoke us to either defend or revise. For we exercise a grand power with the judgments implicit in our too often self-serving expectations.
This is why a better understanding of cultures other than our own is critical, especially for those who (rightly or wrongly) presume to 'teach' the young of other, too often disrespected, traditions. As Time magazine recently reported that “The bitter truth is that American schools have become a reflection of the nation itself: divided by race, class and aspiration -- and all too often animated by no higher calling than the selfish preservation of the status quo.," [Time Magazine; Sept.16, 1991]. (As evidenced by Wolcott's study of elementary school principles, despite the way that we hype the role of principle, the actual function that he serves is to "thoroughly and systematically" reduce variation among students. Instead, principles have their greatest impact "not as agents of change but rather as advocates of constraint," despite this being neither an immediate nor a conscious concern of any of the principles themselves.[2]
In the words of Alice Walker, "Ignorance, arrogance, and racism have bloomed as Superior Knowledge in all too many universities."[In Search of Our Mother's Gardens, 1994; p.36] And this, theorists from Socrates to Mill and Meiklejohn have argued, is the direct consequent of our methods of teaching without interactive, that is, dialectic, dialogue.
More to the point, ethnographic evidence suggests that we have much to remember about (4) the inevitability of learning. Human children, like all primates, are "genetically designed to learn, to learn easily, and to learn well,"[3](Bloom, 1964) even when simply left to their own devices.(Turnhill, 1978) And yet our schools assume the opposite.[4]
It seems wise then to take Plato's advice and avoid the kind of compulsion that actually discourages learning. More contemporary researchers, Deci and Ryan, have proved his insight correct, warning that we must recognize and do something about the dangers of our methods of education because such extrinsic administration and rewards as we have traditionally employed can actually dampen and even kill the intrinsic incentive to learn.(p.*) As Plato worried, we might take this conditioned reflex to represent 'human nature', not recognizing that our very assumptions about 'human nature' are producing this effect, and that different assumptions might bring about other, more desirable, effects.
And to those who see this as a recipe for slacking, A.S. Neill says *
(*put Summerhill)
So we must ask ourselves – what kind of education could improve on our traditional methods? Could we offer self-managing, self-regulating, self-actualizing students schools they would choose and be happy to participate in?
(*put Sugata Mitra)
[1] (Spindler 1987, 169)
[2] (Spindler 1987, 272)
[3] (Spindler 1987, 101)
[4] (Spindler 1987, 112)