[NLA] Thursday Notes, 3/14/02

[Catherine King]

Gloria:

Your post to Harry reflects some basic differences
in education and business/corporations, on the one
hand, and how both understand their relationship to
a democratic government on the other.  

Basically, for business, workers and their education
are a means for business.  Whereas, for adult 
education, students and their education are, first 
and foremost, an end.  That is, education is not for
someone else, or some business concern, but 
basically for them.  Even though education may
help our students with their work skills, these skills
are not only for business, but are also for our
students themselves--they are the legitimate end
of education, as it were, to improve our quality
of life as such.    

But for many businesses, adults are merely there 
to serve another end, and this is not all bad, of 
course.

Certainly there is nothing to preclude business/
corporate heads from identifying worker-development
as a kind of profit, and there are some movements
going on that are trying to broaden the meaning of
profit in business as we speak.  But unfortunately
many still see workers like horses, or worse, 
machines--all of which find their only worth in 
serving the bottom line of corporate development
regardless of other costs.  

As Harry and others point out, there is a basic 
conflict here that we in education need to keep in 
mind--we need to remember who we are and what 
we are about, and how that differs, and is even in
conflict with, some who are quite involved with
education.  

And if the teachers in my education classes are any 
indication, many educators really have no clue about 
these basic conflicts and, therefore, seem to be 
unaware when the fox walks right into chicken house
with a pretty checkbook and a napkin around its neck?    

But though I see much in your note about the relationship
of education to business and how educators shouldn't
raise such questions but be more amenable to business
concerns (of course this is not a kind of prostitution even
though it might look that way to some), you don't mention
how government relates to either.  

But the relationship of powerful business concerns to
government policy makers is THE issue, not just in
education, but across the board at present.   Harry has
suggested that corporate concerns are a large political
force behind the swing towards charter schools, where 
those who make and market computers/software are 
able to develop their lucrative markets in a way they 
haven't found possible in the public-school arena.     

In your note you seem to assume the dialogue is only
between business and education.  But where are our
government policy makers, and who among them are
only influenced by business without a critical inspection
of either motivations or real outcomes?  And who 
among them have either individual adults in mind as 
a "fourth branch of government," or the good of a 
mature democracy where education of adults in a
complex world is a value all by itself, regardless
of business concerns? 

Harry and you quote "Embracing e-learning in our 
states . . . to improve competitiveness" by our 
National Governor's Association.  Are our governors, 
as state officials, working only for the bottom line? 
It also says: "unprecedented growth and 
opportunity for all Americans."   

Do they mean what we might mean by that? And 
where does educating the adult as someone not 
necessarily working at a corporate site fit in here? 
 Or does it anymore?  And if not, what happened 
to educating the polity to safeguard democratic 
practices in a complex world?  Do we just hope
that rides in subterraneously on overt business
motivations?

And about crossing lines between business and
education.  Which business heads, especially inter-
national corporate powers, understand themselves 
as part of a  democratic political entity beholding to
"the people;" and which see the corporation as a 
part of that larger fabric "of, for and by the people"?  
Have they enamoured us all with their glitz and
communicative power?

Certainly there are authentic business-education
partnerships.    But they are only authentic when both
educators and business people understand themselves
as involved in common concerns under a common 
democratic-republican political arena and do nothing
to decay and destroy those common concerns.   

And this is the failure of many educators who, of all 
people, should be excruciatingly aware of the political
dimension of all teaching, and how that may come into
conflict in all our relationships with business concerns.
  
I don't see the conflict ultimately as between "business
and education."  It's really between people in powerful
positions who often have no regard for those who have 
no power, and who fail to see their complicity in their
own crises in the long run if not the short.  Ultimately it 
is quite a personal matter of moral-political self-
definition and vision, and understanding or not.

But when a lack of political consciousness on the part of
powerful people is endorsed by educators through a 
lack of political understanding, something incredibly 
important is lost in the world.

Regards,

Catherine King 

----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Gloria Gillette 
  To: nla at lists.literacytent.org 
  Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 3:41 PM
  Subject: Re: [NLA] Thursday Notes, 3/14/02


  Harry,
  The American Society of Training and Development (ASTD) and the National Governors Associations are not exactly unknowns, nor do these words offend me in any way:
  (.. to make e-learning the cornerstone of a national effort to develop a skilled workforce for America's digital economy . . . .By embracing e-learning in our states, our communities and our organizations, ( What does this mean? ) we can improve our competitiveness and point the way to a new era of unprecedented growth and opportunity for all Americans).
   
  What the ASTD does not do, is say that education is the exclusive domain of "educators" and that what the field of training and education (by the way, that's us) has failed to do is adequately express or convince the business world of the importance of education. It is the inability of "educators" to collaborate and cross the divide into the realm of business (such as Catherine's post ) that stymies much of of our work. 

  Read ASTD's white paper "Profit from Learning: Do Firm's Investments in Education and Training Pay Off?"
  In it they say:
  "Although it is now commonly understood that the acquisition of knowledge is central to the competitive advantage of individuals and organizations in today's economy, the question of how much to invest in workforce education and training has long confounded business executives and managers alike.The problem:firms have never had good information...."

  As an adullt educator what does that tell you?

  It tells me that we are not very good at communicating, at crossing the divide,
  at making our point. Diatribes on how we are marginalized and whoa is us, and us against them only diminish our work and our importance. 
  If we've failed to let the business world understand and know our importance, if we've failed to learn their vocabulary and to communicate, who's bad is it? 
  Gloria Gillette


    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Harry Forster 
    To: nla at lists.literacytent.org 
    Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 9:09 AM
    Subject: Re: [NLA] Thursday Notes, 3/14/02


    Gloria Gillette wrote:

      Catherine,
      I have tried to keep an open mind through your postings, but  honestly when you say things such as:
             In some situations and to some folks,
           educating adults is counter-productive to their
           financial, and so their political, concerns
              This situation affects AE programs in the USA when
           policy makers are influenced by those among us who
           consider educated or socially-politically aware adults
           as a dangerous threat to their corporate-business
           concerns.

      Do you really think "corporate-business concerns" sit around and conspire against literacy? 
      I'm quite democratic in my concern for good writing. Even the most pedantic diatribe can lack critical thinking skills.
      Gloria Gillette
    I am not sure that "against" is the correct term but there are some realities that I think are necessary for policy planners to understand.   I have some personal experiences that are difficult to comprehend.  They make Catherine look benign.  Below is part of an email that I sent to Catherine.  It comes from a report sent in a Thursday Notes:  "Using Electronic Assessment to Measure Student Performance"


    "The Commission on Technology and Adult Learning, (Who is this group?  What do they do? How are you related to them?) sponsored by the American Society for Training and Development and the National Governors Association, has expressed a similar sentiment. "The commission . . . encourages governors, CEOs and other leaders ( Why does it not explicitly indicate educators or adult educators?  It is ommissions of this type that raise questions in my mind.   I see this often.) to make e-learning the cornerstone of a national effort to develop a skilled workforce for America's digital economy . . . .By embracing e-learning in our states, our communities and our organizations, ( What does this mean? ) we can improve our competitiveness and point the way to a new era of unprecedented growth and opportunity for all Americans.  (Do you think that this is the panacea that they say it is?)"  
    [ page 2]

    I believe that this does not show an active aggression "against"  education,  but there is an exclusion of education policy makers, for a matter that is in the education field.   Idealism is a good property, however, idealism must recognize that the greater forces are not paying attention to your ideals.  They are concerned with  politics (governors), business (CEOs), and other leaders (what ever that means).  Here is a "Commission on Technology and Adult Learning"  and it can not even find a term for AE planners unless it is the very bland "other leaders".  I tell you that you will get the  respect indicated above until your ideals can be a market for technology.  Believe me this repulses me as much as it does you.  This is one of the reason that I can not give you a title for my position.  Ask Catherine.  

    Harry Forster








-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.literacytent.org/pipermail/nla-nifl-archive/attachments/20020322/7b90e4fb/attachment.htm