[NLA] building policy vision

[Art LaChance]

Catherine/Eileen,

How do you suspect that the political machine might reintroduce the "need" for
education back into the subset of our society, millions strong, who currently
are unable to generate the will to get there.  OR, is this a product of
capitalism that dictates a separation between educated entrepreneurship and
uneducated labor that will continue to refine itself.

Art


Art LaChance
Gilmer Learning Center
Ellijay, GA



"Catherine B. King" wrote:

> Hello Eileen:
>
> Your three themes, and the related learning theories you refer
> to, are all directly congruous with western democracies.  They
> all imply an ongoing openness to understanding and to
> creative orders, openness to knowing anything we want to
> know, and an openness to discernment of the good however
> we may develop and define it.  Education in every culture
> "sits" in a context of a specified political order (one kind of
> "bigger picture").
>
> Whereas education in more "top-down" political orders seek
> control and to develop not openness, but passivity and closure
> around either a political and/or religious ideology--resulting
> in the kind of "receivers" you speak of in your note.  In these
> cultures, the theories you speak of do not speak of "how things
> are and should be," but rather are seditious and incongruent
> with the political-religious order.  A view of them in this light
> should also begin to answer the question "why they hate us so
> much" at least in part.
>
> But the definition of Education is determined by the political
> order we live in.  We tend to forget that in western democracies.
>
> Of course, for some human spirits in any culture, no amount of
> fear and ignorance will make puppets and receivers out of us.
> But putting up with a few hidden poets is not the same thing as
> developing an open, vibrant, messy, loud and irreverent
> democracy where everyone has something to say and the
> problem is not silence, but one of developing self-reflection,
> good listeners, and an identity with community concerns over
> individual self-aggrandizement.
>
> The point of recognizing the "deep" connection of what we mean
> by education (and various learning theories) with democracy is to
> try to move adult education away from the whole idea of "welfare"
> (defined as giveaway or merely connected with work) and into its
> <<essential>> relationship to a civilized and civilizing democracy
> based not on following the leader, but on transparency and
> dialogue where we are all developed to be capable of discernment,
> and of being both leaders and followers--at the right time and place.
>
> If our policy makers (and our teachers) (1) have any vision of the
> long term at all and (2) understood this deeper connection of
> education to our political ground, it would be the last thing they would
> cut from funding--unless they are covertly involved with
> anti-democratic orders.
>
> But everything else falls under this bigger picture of the relationship
> of education and what it means to the political order.
>
> I have enjoyed this thread, Eileen.
>
> Regards,
>
> Catherine King
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Eileen Eckert <eileeneckert at hotmail.com>
> To: <nla at lists.literacytent.org>
> Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 7:38 AM
> Subject: [NLA] building policy vision
>
> > Last week, I asked, "When you advocate for literacy policy, or make policy
> > decisions yourself, is there a big picture? Are there some unifying themes
> > or underlying principles that make specific policies complement each
> other?
> > What are they, and how do they work?"
> >
> > A few people wrote about how to develop a policy vision for the field, or
> > about the content of their individual vision. I hope we can pursue this
> > further, focusing on the principles or themes involved in each
> individual's
> > picture of what policy as a whole should do, and how it should work.
> >
> > To that end, I'm going to try to articulate my own "big picture" and the
> > themes involved.
> >
> > Theme 1: Learners, teachers, classes, and programs are "complex systems"
> > whose integrity should be respected and whose learning should be nurtured.
> > Policies that recognize the uniqueness and support the further growth and
> > development of such self-organized complex systems will be more effective
> > than policies that prescribe specific actions.
> >
> > (A note about complex systems: Syvantek & Brown (2000) explain that
> complex
> > systems are "those systems whose behaviors cannot be explained by breaking
> > down the system into its component parts" (p. 69). Davis & Sumara (2001)
> > differentiate between complicated and complex. "Complicated objects or
> > events are mechanical...In the case of a complicated object, a detailed
> > knowledge of its components is all that is needed to predict what it will
> > do...A complex system does not comprise simple discrete parts. Rather, it
> is
> > itself a collective of dynamic and similarly complex systems...Unlike
> > complicated objects, which are the sum of their parts, complex systems
> > transcend their components" (p. 88).)
> >
> > Theme 2: People are self-determining learners and actors (from Deci &
> > colleagues' Self-Determination Theory). Policy that respects autonomy and
> > self-determination and builds on it as a strength will be more effective
> in
> > promoting learning than policy that mandates specific actions or
> processes,
> > even in the name of disseminating "best practices". Policy that dictates
> or
> > mandates specific actions takes control from the people who are
> responsible
> > for implementing the action, negating the strength of autonomy and setting
> > up a power struggle between the actor (learner, teacher, etc) and the
> > policy-dictator.
> >
> > Theme 3: People learn by reflecting, alone and with others, on their
> > experience (from Kolb's Experiential Learning Theory). Policy that directs
> > resources and support to learners, teachers, and programs, and that allows
> > and encourages them to learn from each other in ways that make sense to
> > them, will be more effective than policy that attempts to distill and
> > disseminate the results of learning done by others. I think this is
> related
> > to Women's Ways of Knowing as well, in that "silent" or "received" knowers
> > will have a hard time constructing meaning from their own experience, and
> > policy that promulgates a culture of received knowing will be
> disempowering,
> > emphasizing acceptance of knowledge from external sources.
> >
> > It is useful to me to attempt to articulate my own "mental model" of
> policy
> > and practice, surfacing assumptions and connecting them to theory and to
> > policy. Most of my reflections haven't made it to this message. I'm
> > interested in hearing what themes and principles others use to decide what
> > policies (and what kinds of policies) to support.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Eileen
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
> > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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