NLA Discussion: The Powers that Be

[cbking2]

To the Group:

Sue Barton's reflective comments included the paragraph:


"Lastly David does mention EFF and sees a part of the human function omitted
from the EFF framework.  My contention is that the spiritual, creative side
of an individual is incorporated into all three of the roles of an adult in
this society.  Therefore when adult ed address these three roles, the
teacher uses methods that call the student's attention to a better
understandiing of himself as well as increasing his knowledge base towards
functioning within this society."

EFF IS definitely a step forward; however, Ms. Barton's note shows clearly
where EFF does not go far enough, and where its role map falls short.  My
question is this:  Where is the "ROLE" of a "better self understanding," and
aren't these all developments of who we are, and who we choose to be,"
rather than merely "roles?"

Ms. Barton says that the "spiritual, creative side of an individual is
incorporated into all three of the roles of an adult in this society."  This
is true, but so could it be said that someone's economy or education is
always a part of the others, including the creative process if IT were a
"role."

There is nothing wrong with this.  Rather it speaks to the rightly
understood distinctions and separations in the culture, while at the same
time recognizing the integrity of the individual who is ALL of these things,
and out of which the distinctions emerge.

Also, if the creative, spiritual self is an important part of our existence
and development and is really a core part of what happens in someone's
lifelong education process, why would it NOT be mentioned in a theoretical
piece supposedly depicting the representation of the core structural needs
of an individual in society?  Are we afraid to say in a secular culture, and
in a very broad sense, that all people ask the questions of whether our
lives are ultimately creative and worthwhile, or that we all seek some kind
of deeper meaning to life in general?  Do we think recognizing the fullness
of the human quest as a part of education is the same thing as
prosetlyzation?

Mis Barton says teachers speak to these areas of human existence even though
they are not explicitly a part of the plan; but isn't this putting
creativity, the centerpiece of education, in a covert stance?

If this quest is NOT a part of a structured piece that claims to flow from
an understanding of what education is fully about, aren't we giving the
impression that the "powers that be" do not REALLY think this is an
important part of the student's educational development?  And why are we
implying that students are somehow going outside of accepted community and
cultural norms to develop in these areas?  Perhaps we are touching on WHY
education seems so drained of meaning in this secular culture, not only to
adults but to children as well?

Again, to recognize the full gamut of someone's questions is not the same
thing as the patriarchic government spouting religious doctrines, or telling
people we MUST do anything, any more than the map says we MUST become a
worker.  It's not even a fine line to walk.  It just says we already do
this, like being a family member and a member of the community, and that
education speaks to a personal self-driven development centered around
"self-understanding."

Actually, the difference between "dead-end" jobs and a "profession" is
exactly this developed creativity where someone looks forward to doing their
chosen work. So "worker" may well be a "role," but creativity, more
directly, lies behind the role as intrinsic to what it means to be a person.

So we MUST ask, "What are we doing by NOT recognizing, in our stated
premises in a document of education, this creative and spiritual quest?"

In criticizing EFF, however, I am not complimenting or endorsing what stands
now as an inadequate expression of government power.  We can do much better.


Catherine King


> -----Original Message-----
> From: nla-approval at world.std.com [mailto:nla-approval at world.std.com]On
> Behalf Of Sue Barton
> Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 1999 8:07 AM
> To: nla at world.std.com
> Subject: NLA Discussion: The Powers that Be
>
>
>
> Dear Group
>
> I think that the "powers that be" are any one of many individuals who make
> decisions concerning activities that we as educators might be involved in
> ...whether they be local, state or national.
>
> David Hayes alluded to human empowerment as the reason why we
> educate and I
> think that is so true..EFF (Equipped for the Future Initiative)
> is one such
> philosophical methodology to do just that.  The student is
> empowered through
> access, voice, independent action, and building bridges to the
> future.  One
> of the roles that our students have as a citizen but one which is
> underused,
> in my opinion, is the role of citizen..and students should very definately
> be shown how this role works.  They need to find out for
> themselves how they
> want to participate in it , but we as adult educators should
> teach them what
> their options are.
>
> It is funny that David should also mention EFF's worker role in his
> discussion.  The second EFF role is the worker role.  Adult
> education should
> be equally concerned about this role but not at the exclusion of the other
> two roles (citizen and family).
>
> Lastly David does mention EFF and sees a part of the human
> function omitted
> from the EFF framework.  My contention is that the spiritual,
> creative side
> of an individual is incorporated into all three of the roles of
> an adult in
> this society.  Therefore when adult ed address these three roles, the
> teacher uses methods that call the student's attention to a better
> understandiing of himself as well as increasing his knowledge base towards
> functioning within this society.
>
> We must ask ourselves, why are adults needing our assistance?  I see it as
> that they have a skill need or some other need that will help
> them to better
> their life.
>
> Sue Barton
> New River Community College
> -----Original Message-----
> From: PDRNRI at aol.com <PDRNRI at aol.com>
> To: nla at world.std.com <nla at world.std.com>
> Date: Sunday, November 14, 1999 6:52 PM
> Subject: NLA Discussion: The Powers that Be
>
>
> >
> >Let me begin this post by saying that as a relative newcomer to
> the field,
> >especially to administrative work and policy issues, this
> listserv has done
> a
> >wonderful job of educating me to the issues, needs, and
> directions in adult
> >ed policy-making.  I'm looking forward especially to the
> exchange with Ron
> >Pugsley, and have particularly enjoyed reading and reflecting upon
> Catherine
> >King's series of posts concerning facilitation of participation in the
> >democratic process.  I think as the time for this sharing of
> questions and
> >views with Mr. Pugsley approaches, it is especially important to be
> thinking
> >in this context.
> >
> >I'd like to comment briefly on a couple of recent posts by Sally Gabb,
> >address the issue of providing a historical context for our struggle for
> >adequate support for an adult education which serves to strengthen the
> >democratic process, add an anecdote from my own class' experience, and
> close
> >with some questions I'd like help with.
> >
> >Sally pointed out in her post last week that class size was an issue of
> >resource distribution.  She asked if, in our opinions, the
> "powers that be"
> >were ready for the people we serve to become full participants in the
> >"democratic" (her quotes) process.  I submitted that it was my opinion
> >that they are not, no more than they have ever been.   I've often
> >wondered if my perspective is too naive, too cynical, perhaps less
> >informed than it should be.   Maybe some of you could  help me in
> >reflecting further.
> >
> >I should start by making certain my interpretation of the term
> "powers that
> >be" is understood.  It's a vague term, obviously.  I welcome the input of
> >anyone who wants to develop or refute this definition.  I define "powers
> that
> >be" not as government or government officials, but as the small
> minority of
> >Americans in whose hands a great percentage of our overall wealth lies -
> >those who exert, through their contributions, hefty tax submissions, and
> >other persuasive powers, a tremendous deal of influence over policy
> >development at the federal level.
> >
> >I submit that the rights struggles Sally mentions (emancipation from
> slavery,
> >women's suffrage, civil rights), as well as others (unionization) won by
> the
> >people and (equal rights, draft resistance, etc.)  not won by the people,
> >have come often at the end of decades of struggle and considerable
> bloodshed
> >- in large part because of the resistance to such infringements on the
> status
> >quo by the "powers that be".
> >
> >Yes, it is certainly true that such struggles might not have
> been waged had
> >it not been for the flexibility of the Constitution (in
> particular the Bill
> >of Rights, which as I remember was vigorously resisted by many framers of
> the
> >original document) which specifically protects the right to petition the
> >government).  I would argue, however that it is also reasonable to think
> that
> >such drawn out, painful, violent struggles would not have been
> necessary in
> a
> >truly inclusive democratic republic in which recognition of the
> dignity and
> >worth of all humans was  an operative concept, not a noble pursuit.
> >
> >I think it's critical that we frame our struggle for adequate funding and
> >public support of adult education as a pursuit of human empowerment (not
> >merely workforce enhancement) in this historical context.  The original
> >framers of the Constitution brilliantly created a document which
> allows for
> >amendment.  Much can be found, however, in the original text and context
> >which suggests that their view of a democratic republic was not as
> inclusive
> >as it might have been.  Untaxed Native Americans were not counted as
> people,
> >slaves were counted as three-fourths of a person, the voting public was
> >limited to white, property-owning men, neither the Senate nor the
> Presidency
> >were to be chosen by popular vote, and so on.  Much was written in to
> secure
> >the powers of property owners (as a means, I would assume, of courting
> their
> >support of the document).
> >
> >>From that time forward, with few notable exceptions, the struggle for
> >democratic recognition on the part of the economically
> disenfranchised has
> >met with active resistance or  inaction from the "powers that be" and the
> >political establishment.   When emancipation threatened the economic
> >stability of southern plantations, blood was shed.  When native nations
> stood
> >in the way of the seizure of land and raw materials for agriculture and
> >industry therein, blood was shed.  When industrial-age workers -
> men, women
> >and children - struggled to secure their safety in factories, where death
> and
> >debilitating injury went unregulated and generally unpunished, blood was
> >shed.  When African Americans rose to assert their rights as
> equal citizens
> >desiring equal economic opportunity, blood was shed.
> >
> >I would argue that this republic has long supported the interests of its
> most
> >economically advantaged citizens over the disadvantaged.   Yes, much
> progress
> >toward a just society has been made.  Yes, the most fundamental rights of
> the
> >greater part of our citizenry has been secured as the power of
> the vote has
> >been more widely granted. But none of these rights have come without
> >struggle.  None have come simply by virtue of the fact that they were
> >just, or that they favored equality over oppression and exploitation.
> >
> >The struggle for which we as educators all work, the struggle
> for an open,
> >more democratic process in which all people engage as enlightened
> >participants, must continue in the face of the resistance of
> these "powers
> >that be" whose aim appears to be (and to have been) the maintenance of a
> >status quo which fosters the economic growth for a prosperous few at the
> >expense of the health and well being of an increasingly economically
> unstable
> >many.   Most recently, in my own experience, I have watched the economic
> >stability of the workers I serve and countless others like them erode at
> the
> >hands of new initiatives in business which serve to weaken the
> labor market
> >at its lowest wage levels.
> >
> >In our dislocated worker program here in RI, people whose factories have
> been
> >bought and closed down by companies interested in securing tax write-offs
> at
> >the expense of the emotional and economic well being of tens and hundreds
> of
> >workers struggle to improve language and literacy skills in an effort to
> >market themselves.  They study alongside those whose jobs have been
> stripped
> >by companies who seek to increase profit by contracting work to other
> nations
> >where labor is cheaper and more readily exploited.   Too often,
> a return to
> >the workforce for my students means an agreement with a temporary
> employment
> >agency - no security, no benefits.  Usually, a return to work means a
> similar
> >type of position as previously held, with reduced pay, with reduced
> benefits
> >and plenty of overtime.   Those who successfully go on to
> training programs
> >often meet the same fate, as the jobs they train for do not exist in
> >sufficient numbers to support large influxes of inexperienced workers.
> >
> >Recently, one of our classes (an English GED class for advanced ESOL
> >learners) raised an angry voice against the emerging temporary worker
> market
> >in Rhode Island.  When I mentioned the existence of the United Workers'
> >Committee, an organization run through Progreso Latino here in
> RI which has
> >been working on pushing regulation at the legislative level,
> they impressed
> >me with their forceful response - yes, they were very interested in being
> >visited by a committee member, and yes, they would be quite ready to call
> >and write their legislators in support of the committee's initiatives.
> Are
> >the "powers that be" - those profiting at both ends of this
> rapidly growing
> >business in which full-time, long term human labor is actually rented -
> ready
> >for this?  Moreover, are they ready for the checks and
> regulations against
> >contracting work to overseas slave camps at the expense of our
> own working
> >class which are bound to follow any successful effort to empower those
> >workers as citizens?
> >
> >Catherine King was right, by the way - if  I remember correctly, she long
> ago
> >posted something along the lines of saying that we must struggle at all
> times
> >against indoctrination of our students to our own
> socio-political concepts,
> >even as we judge those concepts to represent the noble pursuit of
> democracy.
> >The power to analyze and participate democratically must come
> from within.
> >When I'm teaching, I struggle against this all the time!  When students
> >assert that they have no voice, when they admit that they are
> afraid to try
> >to vote because they feel uninformed and lacking in the reading skills
> >necessary to inform themselves, when they articulate the belief
> that their
> >voice is powerless against the moneyed interests who dominate politics, I
> >struggle with this.  I don't think it counts as serving my own agenda to
> >suggest that we as a class or as a program can work to develop our own
> >political voice, or that we have a civic responsibility to do so, but I'm
> not
> >sure.  Perhaps someone would care to comment on this.
> >
> >Last, I grow increasingly concerned with what I hear from the field (not
> >necessarily on this listserv, but when I'm engaged in my own work around
> >standards/accountability, etc. here in RI) around the growing
> trend toward
> >identifying adult education more and more exclusively with workforce
> development
> >.  i agree with many who've posted here that education should aim to do
> >much, much more than develop one's potential as a worker.  Yet, more and
> >more, it seems the discussion is being framed in these terms and
> >practitioners don't seem to be rushing in to fight against this narrowing
> >trend.   several of you have posted that there are certainly examples of
> >enlightened business people who understand and buy into the idea that
> >education's applications go beyond the workplace, which would suggest,
> >obviously, that many more are out there who see this or might be made to
> see
> >it.  Naturally, I accept the business perspective that for them
> to buy into
> >education they must be able to see returns on their investment.  As
> >Merrifield suggests, we  can work within a mutual accountability
> system, in
> >which all of our needs and goals are recognized and respected.  But why
> does
> >it seem that government policy insists that practice set the Workforce
> goals
> >and standards as a higher priority, with more clearly defined
> standards for
> >accountability and much more rigidly defined requirements?  Why does it
> seem
> >to me that these interests get placed far above all others?  Even the
> >well-meaning EFF, with its aim of getting learner input into the
> development
> >of standards, drew its original questions from an external source and
> defines
> >(as far as I've seen, feel free to correct me) the learner
> solely in terms
> of
> >social roles with clear economic implications (where is the
> >"learner-as-artist/writer/philosopher/spiritual entity?).
> >
> >This post is getting unmanagably long and less focused, so I'll end it
> here...
> >
> >David Hayes
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>