[NLA] Re: Toward a "Foundational Understanding" (long)

[Eileen Eckert]

Thanks to Catherine and Tom for their responses to my question about how the 
perspectives they described would play out in real teachers' and directors' 
day-to-day work and careers.

Catherine, the example you gave of the conflict between employers' and 
worker/learners' educational interests is pretty much the kind of thing I 
was talking about. It's a fairly straightforward example (at least as you've 
described it; addressing the nuances would probably make several books). 
When teachers weigh the costs and benefits of holding true to their 
values/perspectives and decide that they cannot afford to take a stand, I 
don't know that I'd call them pioneers (to use an analogy, I think there 
were many more Puritans than came over on the Mayflower; only 120--is that 
right?--decided the benefits outweighed the risks, or "needed" to take that 
action so much that they did not count the costs. I know I'm ignoring a huge 
issue of what happened to the people who were already here when the 
pilgrim-pioneers got here--the analogy's not perfect, please just consider 
the main point!). So, though I don't know what it cost you to walk out of 
the session where the power relationship between employers' and 
worker/learners' interests was made clear, I'd think you were more of a 
pioneer than those who stayed and were silent. That's not to minimize the 
costs to them of their decision or to say they "should have" acted 
differently, just to say I'd define the pioneer as someone who takes the 
risk of acting on their convictions.

So, what is the impact of being a pioneer? An isolated example that's part 
of a much larger picture:
A few years ago, when I was the faculty/coordinator for a community college 
based ABE/GED/ESL program, the college wanted to take over our ABE/GED 
classroom and office to locate a new vocational program there. So they 
decided that the ABE/GED part of our program would move off campus. There 
were advantages and disadvantages to this, but I didn't see that we had much 
choice (and this was my first year at the college so I didn't have tenure or 
any power). One big disadvantage was that there was no free parking in the 
area we were to move to, so I encouraged the students to make their needs 
known to the administration. They did, with a petition and a request to the 
president and then deans of instruction and business to meet with them and 
hear their concerns. The meeting happened and the students got free parking. 
A couple years later, we were moved again, and one of the deans who'd met 
with the students earlier made a comment to me about not wanting to be 
petitioned by the students again. This is one incident in a larger context, 
and that same dean told my immediate supervisor that I was "disloyal" to the 
college. The president made snide comments about my activism in front of 
other faculty, staff, and administrators, my contract was changed days 
before the school year was to start, many of my actions became mistakes and 
mistakes became evidence of irredeemable flaws.

It's not a straightforward example. My encouragement and support of 
students' self-advocacy was not a clear effect of a pure "education in 
support of democracy" perspective, and I did not do everything "right" 
except this one "wrong" of supporting students ahead of the administration. 
But I would argue that the personal and political are inextricably 
intertwined, so that viewing education as crucial to democratic engagement 
means consistently supporting the empowerment of individuals and 
marginalized groups, whether in the context of petitioning the college 
administration for parking, or petitioning the city, state, or national 
government to meet other needs. And I would further argue that for those who 
want to make decisions <for> instead of <with> those they purport to serve 
or represent, democratic action at any level reverberates to the other 
levels and is therefore seen as a threat to the ability to act "for" instead 
of "with," and as a threat to the actor's sense of self, as they do not see 
acting "for" others as anti-democratic but rather as their responsibility.

To advocate for a perspective on education that places it at the center of 
democratic growth is truly revolutionary. It means that teachers and program 
directors need to align themselves with students, reflect on how their 
actions serve or distort the mission that comes from the perspective of 
education for democracy, develop professionally not only in terms of methods 
of imparting content but in terms of congruence with a democratic mission, 
organize and articulate their views, resist anti-democratic practices and 
efforts--it requires taking lots of serious risks. I'm all for it--but how? 
What's the next step? What can each of us do?

Personally, I was so confused and devastated by the mixed messages and 
hidden agendas, and the results, that when I could make a relatively logical 
decision, I decided I needed to throw myself into finishing my Ph.D. so that 
with those three letters after my name, chances would be better I'd have 
more options and fewer restrictions (I can almost hear the Ph.D.s chuckling 
at my naivete). When I read postings to this list advocating for the 
institution of mandates and policies that prescribe a narrow range of "best" 
practices, qualifications, and other so-called accountability measures, I 
fear that there will be no place where I will have the ability to develop 
and practice my skills within the perspective of liberatory education and 
learning. <And> when I read postings that advocate for education as a 
democratic endeavor, I fully agree but at the same time I wonder if the 
writers are fully aware that democratic action is not simply the stuff of 
flowery patriotic speeches and proclamations; it is full of risks, but I 
think it is certainly worth the attempt. By the way, Catherine, you 
convinced me you do know the risks--my respect for your ability to analyze 
and articulate continues to grow!




>From: "Catherine B. King" <cb.king at verizon.net>
>Reply-To: nla at lists.literacytent.org
>To: <nla at lists.literacytent.org>
>Subject: Re: [NLA] Re: Toward a "Foundational Understanding"
>Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 15:08:51 -0800
>
>Hello Eileen:
>
>You ask: "How do you think that framing their practice
>using the perspectives you describe would impact
>individual teachers' and program directors' day-to-day
>lives and careers? . . . acting on the perspectives you've
>described within a larger system that still acts within the
>current framework. What is/would it be like for the
>'pioneers'?"
>
>Much could be written and said about your question, and
>I don't mean to truncate the dialogue by being so brief
>and untheoretical here; however, I will relate an experience
>I had at an education seminar funded by the State of Virginia
>and attended by a host of adult education people in "regular"
>programs, in libraries, in prisons, etc., when I worked there
>as a regional liaison between the state and a set of
>basically rural program directors and where the local
>community college was the home base (probably in l994-5--
>I'd have to look at my old resumes).
>
>In this conference, one session was overtly about teachers
>and administrators trying to "deal" with business owners who
>saw themselves (some rightly) as community leaders.   The
>point was to find subversive ways to teach what we knew was
>needed, to "get around" the CEO's, in the oppressive context
>of a business owner who only wanted to have teachers
>employed by the state to  teach "skills" for them.
>
>At least this session speaker was aware that there was a
>difference and that the teachers--all of whom understood
>exactly what she was talking about--were trying to walk a fine
>but (as I saw it) untenable line, and that the effort involved
>them in a basic dishonesty about who they were and what
>they were up to.    Basically, it was showing how an authentic
>educator could "cheat" the owner by "sneaking in" what
>they recognized was real education.  Is that what you mean
>by "pioneer"?
>
>The point is that what they had always assumed--and some had
>been in education for many years--was being challenged in a
>way they hardly knew how to express or deal with.  They had
>never been challenged to think about the foundations of their
>field, and now the foundations were being uprooted, and they
>were being asked to work without a net, as it were.
>
>And, as most teachers (my own experience) do, they just
>tried to "go with the flow" because they
>
>(1) wanted to continue teaching at all costs, because
>
>(2) they all KNEW the depth and breadth of the need, and
>
>(3) they just didn't know how to address the foundational issues
>          because they don't normally think or talk about such things
>          and,
>
>(4) they had always gone on the assumption (foundation) that
>the state was working under the same assumptions they were--
>that education for "their" adults is good as a general idea in the
>heretofore unthought-out scheme of things and for many other
>good reasons, but also because of the aching need they were
>in the presence of every day.   At the conference, it was like they
>were walking around in, "Okay, what now, another hoop" kind
>of conscious order.
>
>(But the front lines are rife with meaning.  Keeping track is good,
>but it can't do everything, and it even hurts and deadens the
>process when it continually encroaches on the field of student--
>teacher relationships in either K-12 or AE.   There is what I call
>the "metaphysics of teaching"--a place that is increasingly
>being "peopled" by everyone's consciousness BUT the
>teacher's and the student's who have both become means for
>some other end.  It's killing teaching.  At some point, we MUST
>work to leave that metaphhisical space open--to trust
>these folks on this, regardless of the few who abuse this trust.)
>
>(5)  None of these folks were rich--they needed to work and keep
>making the $15 an hour they were making in the classroom--though
>there is plenty of repeating evidence that money was hardly the
>issue.   I  mean--$15 an hour?
>
>Another session in this Virginia conference was a bit different.
>That is, the speaker answered my question about corporate
>teaching, where the Virginia teachers were actually going
>out on the corporate sites to do education sessions with their
>students with CEO supervision.  The question was, again,
>about teaching things at these sites that don't directly
>address "sponsor-specified learning," but rather the broader
>issues that network deeply into this learning, but that are not
>specific to it--like literacy?   Here's the drift of what she said:
>
>"Those teachers can leave their bleeding hearts at the door of
>the corporation.  Things are different now."  If that's not a direct
>quote, it's close to it.
>
>I got up and left the room of about 20 people, all of whom
>remained silent on the issue in the other sessions, but at breaks
>I was whispered to by several teachers, and one teacher
>referred to one of the presentations--a professionally done
>  "aren't the workers happy" video made by one of the
>corporations working in a "corporate-education partnership"
>--"slick."
>
>I don't know what happened after I left the meeting.  But my
>guess is, no one asked further similar questions.
>
>But you ask:  "What is/would it be like for the 'pioneers'?"
>
>I suppose you could refer to these teachers as pioneers.
>But let's put this "education-to-democracy" thing in the context
>of other political systems, that is, ones that not democratic.
>The recent case of the Taliban is a case in point, or Hitler's
>children, or the Cambodian KR, etc.
>
>The "surrounding" contextural point is that, though most teachers
>are rightly involved with the teaching of this or that specific subject,
>skill, etc., we rarely have occasion to drag out our foundations--
>the political and philosophical context in which all this teaching
>sits.   Basically, we take it all for granted--until it is changed and
>we feel our feet falling through the cracks, as it were.
>
>That political and philosophical context ALREADY informs any
>American classroom--at least at this point.  The foundations inform
>the classroom like the Titanic informed its deckchairs, or like a
>football field informs the game, or like the track informs the
>train, or like any good theory about bridge-building informs a bridge
>that hangs there in all its formative beauty.  In teaching, it is
>specifically being able to help develop other human beings in a
>way that is first and foremost dialogal--and not necessarily
>prescribed in a regimental way--to engage in an open dialogue,
>to speak about anything and, more importantly, to raise
>questions, and to encourage the raising of them, about
>anything in the context of teaching, WITHOUT worrying about being
>severely punished, killed, or in our case, engaging in dishonesty
>and perhaps being fired.
>
>This is getting too long; however, to recall the note that Daphne
>Greenberg send on OERI Updates, she says:
>
>"Definitions Related to Research
>
>"Title I includes several new definitions related to research. Both the
>terms 'applied research' and 'basic research' are defined.  Applied 
>research
>means research 'to gain knowledge or understanding necessary for 
>determining
>the means by which a recognized and specific need may be met and that is
>specifically directed to the advancement of practice in the field of
>education.'   In contrast, basic research is defined as research 'to gain
>fundamental knowledge or understanding of phenomena and observable facts,
>without specific application toward processes or products and for the
>advancement of knowledge in the field of education.'  The Institute is
>authorized to conduct both applied and basic research."
>
>The political foundations of your own study are determined
>in terms of the political vision that drives your study, i.e.,
>is the political vision one of
>
>(1) the questions and research done in dialogue where the
>participants include every group involved and where we-they are
>open to where that dialogue takes us about what determines
>"need" and what "advancement" means (democratic); or is the
>research circumscribed and are the questions prescribed by,
>for instance and in this case, a narrow view of "research" based,
>namely, on some neo-social form of logical positivism, further
>politically ordered around capitalism cum plutocratic ideology
>covertly and by de facto inference aimed at keeping the poor
>among us ignorant--except to work and off welfare.
>
>(2)  is education understood as ongoing and for everyone in the
>communities that make up this country and culture regardless of
>income; or is it understood as only for those who can afford it,
>or who have already reached an increasingly receding mark of
>achievement.   What, in fact, will be "recognized and specified"
>and deemed "specifically directed to the advancement or practice
>in  the field of education."   Or better, **what will cease to exist** as
>"recognized and specified," etc.
>
>Understanding and stating one's political foundations is closer to
>what is above called "Basic" rather than "Applied" research.  My
>guess is it's stated somewhere in other parts of the literature?
>Whatever it is, and if it is accepted, the question then becomes
>are we doing it, i.e., in the broader aspects of our Constitution
>where civil rights and the femininist movements could point to
>it and say:  "Is that, in fact, what's going on here?"
>
>But what throws me is the reference to "phenomena and observable
>facts," because one's social, philosophical or political foundations
>cannot be set on a table or put in a pocket like pencils or chalk.
>Perhaps they mean by "observable" "intelligently understood."
>
>In that case, BASIC is where you will find political foundations,
>though, as the true story above infers, one can hardly "apply" the
>act of raising questions and being open to dialogue with a
>student when one is worried about being killed by the local tyrant
>or, in our case, being chastised or fired for being a teacher when
>what one is supposed to do is train workers and follow the
>directions of a business owner.
>
>Such atmosphere probably can't be called "brainwashing" but
>it's not such a remote family member as we might have come to
>think.
>
>Briefly :0) the above reference to your OERI research speaks to
>the same foundations that the teachers were dealing with in my
>Virginia conference back in '95.  Also, this is an e-mail, and the
>above is not theoretical, though everything I speak of has
>theoretical roots.   If the teachers I speak of are pioneers, they are
>pioneers of the empirical spirit and do not derive their "subversion"
>from philosophical or political theory.  They come from having lived
>in a democracy, and taken it for granted, since birth and before,
>and were half-consciously trying to fit that foundation of
>democracy and education into a new foundation of plutocracy
>and capitalism and "education."
>
>I hope this helps and is not too long for some to take on as an
>e-mail.
>
>Regards,
>
>Catherine King
>Adjunct Instructor
>Department of Education
>National University
>San Diego, CA
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Eileen Eckert <eileeneckert at hotmail.com>
>To: <nla at lists.literacytent.org>
>Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 6:07 AM
>Subject: [NLA] Re: Toward a "Foundational Understanding"
>
>
> > Catherine, Tom, and others:
> > Thanks for taking the time to address the issue of articulating a
>framework
> > for understanding adult education and literacy. Another question: How do
>you
> > think that framing their practice using the perspectives you describe
>would
> > impact individual teachers' and program directors' day-to-day lives and
> > careers?
> >
> > This is not a rhetorical question. I'm asking you (and others) to think
> > about the current practices within the AELS, the kind of activity that 
>is
> > supported and not supported, and what it is/would be like to be a 
>teacher
>or
> > director acting on the perspectives you've described within a larger
>system
> > that still acts within the current framework. What is/would it be like 
>for
> > the "pioneers"?
> >
> > I want to address this question myself, but I'd like to hear your 
>thoughts
> > before answering my own questions.
> > Thanks,
> > Eileen
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Get a speedy connection with MSN Broadband. Join now!
> > http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/freeactivation.asp
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > NLA mailing list: NLA at lists.literacytent.org
> > http://lists.literacytent.org/mailman/listinfo/nla
> > LiteracyTent: web hosting, news, community and goodies for literacy
> > http://literacytent.org
>
>_______________________________________________
>NLA mailing list: NLA at lists.literacytent.org
>http://lists.literacytent.org/mailman/listinfo/nla
>LiteracyTent: web hosting, news, community and goodies for literacy
>http://literacytent.org


_________________________________________________________________
Get a speedy connection with MSN Broadband.  Join now! 
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/freeactivation.asp

_______________________________________________
NLA mailing list: NLA at lists.literacytent.org
http://lists.literacytent.org/mailman/listinfo/nla
LiteracyTent: web hosting, news, community and goodies for literacy
http://literacytent.org