I feel that Bill 44 is a step backwards. Most of the information I have gathered so far on Bill 44 is from my professors here at the University (I really do need to investigate further.)I found this great article dated September 14, 2009 from the National Post by John Carpay and Karen Selick. It is titled God and Government. It started out with two great lines: "What could possibly go wrong with children gaining a general knowledge of the world's major religions and the differences among them?"
"Plenty, if the government requires that all children be taught that all religions, and all non-religious moral codes, have equal merit."
That got me thinking. I don't believe that just because teachers point out the differences between religions means that he/she is taking away the merit of one religion over another. It is a fact that the Catholic faith is different from Buddhism. (Although you would be amazed at the similarities between most of the major world religions....hmmm would that be a way around Bill 44..to teach the similarities of religions? But I digress)
The article then goes onto discuss that parents do not wish to have their children exposed to teachings that go against the religious teachings which contradicts what is taught within the students home. I do have to stop and pause here, to say that although I do not have any children, I get this idea. I hope that I would not be adverse to my children being exposed to ideals that do not fit my own, but when it comes to religion I think it is a whole other story. What about religions that go against some of the basic tenants that have been deemed human rights in Canada? I am still stuck on this question.
The article brings up another interesting point: some parents do not want their children forcibly exposed to religion at a young age. I am not sure how this would be detrimental? Another point is that the information that is presented is not "even-handed." That some religions are focused on more, for example within a Catholic school the Catholic faith would most likely be given more credence. This idea was backed up with the notion that most religions "include as one of its tenants, a superiority over rival systems (or else why adhere to it?) This is a rather sticky issue and I hope that teachers do not shy away from teaching religion in the future, as it is something that defines some of ones students and should not be looked at as controversial. Like rock and roll in the 50’s when it was banned, that secrecy created more issues than it was worth.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Thursday, November 26, 2009
'The Book ' Blog 31
Chapter ten continued …
Free Schools
The free school reform was born out of questions such as: Why in a democratic society, should an individual first contact with a formal institution, such as schooling be so undemocratic? Is it really necessary for schools to be so ridged and create a need for such conformity?
The ideals from the individuals behind the free school movement united themselves with a common vision: a democratic, cooperative, and unstructured education – a vision of schools that promotes rather than retards personal development. The authors have noted a discrepancy with-in this movement: there must be a rejection that schools are independent of society. This then places schools in a social and economic context. (As was mentioned before, this requires a change in the economic system.)
In and of itself a liberated education will only produce unhappy workers as there is a disconnect that exists – while ones education may be liberated, the work force to which one enters is not.
Another shortcoming of the free school movement is that it ignores its own class composition. The main supporters of free schools are comprised of a limited and privileged section of society. A true revolution and democratization of economic life requires united action of diverse social classes and groups. There must be a conflict free alliance among these groups. As well, by treating the free school movement as universally valid, it ignores the social forces which gave it its ground on which it grew.
Yet it takes more than personal discontent and job blues to create a movement capable of transforming the structure of society. The potential revolutionary impact of the free school movement will not depend on the creation of mini utopias in our schools so much as the ability to create awareness among its participants. Free schools must create not a temporary and privileged oasis of freedom, but an understanding of oppression and how to fight it in capitalist society. The free school movement must teach the tools of liberation. This depends on the development of a political self- understanding of the movement itself.
A note here must be that the free school movement in part has been created by the elite who are now being faced with the segregation of their own work lives, to create a situation that deals with the contradictions in their own lives. Due to this the movement may not be respected or accepted by repressed minorities.
** The political impact of the free school movement will largely depend on the on the objectives that will be pursued. If this movement is pushed to restore the lost privileges in the hierarchy of production, they will isolate themselves from other workers. What needs to occur is the politicization of the free school movement, an egalitarian workers democracy, and a strategy for alliance with all oppressed groups. Then and only then will the movement gain any ground.
As I mentioned in the previous blog, I am a firm believer that change needs to be made somewhere and that children are one of the many starting points to create that change. What I think is that the authors have described what sounds dangerously like a revolution and the need to over throw capitalism. The ideas that they have put forth are very good ones, but it sounds like there is a need to radically change the mind-frames and unite large groups of individuals, who historically in the past have been divided. I am not quite sure what to make of that. It is not to say that I do not think that the free school movement does not have its merits and it would be a great way to run individual class room. What I think would be more feasible is to incorporate an element of the free school movement into today’s classroom. I think that with the way in which our government operates, particularly in Alberta, it would be easier to reform elements of the pre-existing education structure. I think that future teachers need to take advantage of the freedom they have over their own classroom and work with their administrations to make the free school movement possible.
De-Schooling
A very interesting concept that was brought up in the last part of chapter ten was the idea of de-schooling. It is a concept that was proposed by a man named Ivan Illich. He proposed that schools be eliminated altogether. He believes that values in society are geared towards goods and services and their consumption. Illich believes that society has created a vicious cycle of consumption that we have been told will satisfy us. Schools are a source of this manipulation. Illich believes preventing this manipulation is to get rid of the maniplualative institutions. (De-schooling.) The authors feel that this completely misses the point, because this manipulation of consumerism has its roots in capitalism, and not in social intuitions such as schools.
I think that schools sole purpose cannot just be to manipulate students into conforming to the consumerism cycle. There are many facets outside of the life of the economy where school plays a crucial role. It makes me wonder if Illich has spent any time with children, or had any of his own.
Free Schools
The free school reform was born out of questions such as: Why in a democratic society, should an individual first contact with a formal institution, such as schooling be so undemocratic? Is it really necessary for schools to be so ridged and create a need for such conformity?
The ideals from the individuals behind the free school movement united themselves with a common vision: a democratic, cooperative, and unstructured education – a vision of schools that promotes rather than retards personal development. The authors have noted a discrepancy with-in this movement: there must be a rejection that schools are independent of society. This then places schools in a social and economic context. (As was mentioned before, this requires a change in the economic system.)
In and of itself a liberated education will only produce unhappy workers as there is a disconnect that exists – while ones education may be liberated, the work force to which one enters is not.
Another shortcoming of the free school movement is that it ignores its own class composition. The main supporters of free schools are comprised of a limited and privileged section of society. A true revolution and democratization of economic life requires united action of diverse social classes and groups. There must be a conflict free alliance among these groups. As well, by treating the free school movement as universally valid, it ignores the social forces which gave it its ground on which it grew.
Yet it takes more than personal discontent and job blues to create a movement capable of transforming the structure of society. The potential revolutionary impact of the free school movement will not depend on the creation of mini utopias in our schools so much as the ability to create awareness among its participants. Free schools must create not a temporary and privileged oasis of freedom, but an understanding of oppression and how to fight it in capitalist society. The free school movement must teach the tools of liberation. This depends on the development of a political self- understanding of the movement itself.
A note here must be that the free school movement in part has been created by the elite who are now being faced with the segregation of their own work lives, to create a situation that deals with the contradictions in their own lives. Due to this the movement may not be respected or accepted by repressed minorities.
** The political impact of the free school movement will largely depend on the on the objectives that will be pursued. If this movement is pushed to restore the lost privileges in the hierarchy of production, they will isolate themselves from other workers. What needs to occur is the politicization of the free school movement, an egalitarian workers democracy, and a strategy for alliance with all oppressed groups. Then and only then will the movement gain any ground.
As I mentioned in the previous blog, I am a firm believer that change needs to be made somewhere and that children are one of the many starting points to create that change. What I think is that the authors have described what sounds dangerously like a revolution and the need to over throw capitalism. The ideas that they have put forth are very good ones, but it sounds like there is a need to radically change the mind-frames and unite large groups of individuals, who historically in the past have been divided. I am not quite sure what to make of that. It is not to say that I do not think that the free school movement does not have its merits and it would be a great way to run individual class room. What I think would be more feasible is to incorporate an element of the free school movement into today’s classroom. I think that with the way in which our government operates, particularly in Alberta, it would be easier to reform elements of the pre-existing education structure. I think that future teachers need to take advantage of the freedom they have over their own classroom and work with their administrations to make the free school movement possible.
De-Schooling
A very interesting concept that was brought up in the last part of chapter ten was the idea of de-schooling. It is a concept that was proposed by a man named Ivan Illich. He proposed that schools be eliminated altogether. He believes that values in society are geared towards goods and services and their consumption. Illich believes that society has created a vicious cycle of consumption that we have been told will satisfy us. Schools are a source of this manipulation. Illich believes preventing this manipulation is to get rid of the maniplualative institutions. (De-schooling.) The authors feel that this completely misses the point, because this manipulation of consumerism has its roots in capitalism, and not in social intuitions such as schools.
I think that schools sole purpose cannot just be to manipulate students into conforming to the consumerism cycle. There are many facets outside of the life of the economy where school plays a crucial role. It makes me wonder if Illich has spent any time with children, or had any of his own.
'The Book ' Blog 30
Chapter ten continued ...
The authors go onto say that the egalitarian school reform must be political. Its aim must be to undermine the capacity of the system to perpetuate inequality. This entails three objectives:
1. Educational reforms must make it clear that equality is not a question of sub cultural values, biological or just an economic issue. It is a political issue and equality in society can only be solved through political struggle.
2. The existing myths that inequality appears to be beneficial or unavoidable must be dispelled.
3. There must be unification within diverse groups and there must be an attempt to combat the segmentation of workers of different social circumstance.
What the authors are saying here does make sense, but in today’s political climate, particularly in Alberta, I think that to essentially change the government will not happen in my life time or my children’s life time. The way that education is looked as in Alberta seems to some what mirror part of what the authors have been proposing in this book. That education is a tool that is used to prepare our children for the work force, and the values that the workforce is typically comprised of – in Alberta is based on our bread and butter. By this I mean big business and oil.
The rest of this section looks at open enrollment in higher education in regards to the three objectives stated above.
1. The authors feel that open enrollment could meet the first objective. If youth of minority and blue collar workers could attend higher education, thus gaining the educational credentials that were used by the individuals as a legitimization of the hierarchy of labour, the reasoning behind organizing this division of labour along class and race lines would be drastically undermined. The continued exploitation of labour and social oppression of minorities would be then seen as rooted in the political power of elites rather than a cultural or biological issue, or a skill deficiency on the part of the workers themselves. Yet it is interesting to note that along with more open admissions comes a stronger internal tracking system, which symbolizes the new education stratification.
2. Open enrollment has laid to rest the idea that only a select few can benefit from higher education, yet some of these minorities have been faced with a hostile faculty.
3. Finally, the authors state that open enrollment can play a significant role in unifying workers. Higher education breaks down can break down artificial cultural distinctions among working people. This does come with a cautionary tale: the political arena must be on board with the funding necessary to facilitate this change in the school system.
The authors go onto say that the egalitarian school reform must be political. Its aim must be to undermine the capacity of the system to perpetuate inequality. This entails three objectives:
1. Educational reforms must make it clear that equality is not a question of sub cultural values, biological or just an economic issue. It is a political issue and equality in society can only be solved through political struggle.
2. The existing myths that inequality appears to be beneficial or unavoidable must be dispelled.
3. There must be unification within diverse groups and there must be an attempt to combat the segmentation of workers of different social circumstance.
What the authors are saying here does make sense, but in today’s political climate, particularly in Alberta, I think that to essentially change the government will not happen in my life time or my children’s life time. The way that education is looked as in Alberta seems to some what mirror part of what the authors have been proposing in this book. That education is a tool that is used to prepare our children for the work force, and the values that the workforce is typically comprised of – in Alberta is based on our bread and butter. By this I mean big business and oil.
The rest of this section looks at open enrollment in higher education in regards to the three objectives stated above.
1. The authors feel that open enrollment could meet the first objective. If youth of minority and blue collar workers could attend higher education, thus gaining the educational credentials that were used by the individuals as a legitimization of the hierarchy of labour, the reasoning behind organizing this division of labour along class and race lines would be drastically undermined. The continued exploitation of labour and social oppression of minorities would be then seen as rooted in the political power of elites rather than a cultural or biological issue, or a skill deficiency on the part of the workers themselves. Yet it is interesting to note that along with more open admissions comes a stronger internal tracking system, which symbolizes the new education stratification.
2. Open enrollment has laid to rest the idea that only a select few can benefit from higher education, yet some of these minorities have been faced with a hostile faculty.
3. Finally, the authors state that open enrollment can play a significant role in unifying workers. Higher education breaks down can break down artificial cultural distinctions among working people. This does come with a cautionary tale: the political arena must be on board with the funding necessary to facilitate this change in the school system.
'The Book ' Blog 29
Chapter Ten
Educational Alternatives
What needs to be understood before looking into the first of the three sections of this chapter is that the social problems to which these (educational) reforms are addressed have their roots not in the school system but in the functioning of economic system. The authors have been stating this throughout the book. What school reformers need to look at is the role that education plays in reproducing the economic order. The movements that need to take place are in all spheres of life and not just within the classroom.
Equal Education
The proposals for more equal education can be grouped under three headings:
1. Open enrollment: This would reduce the years of schooling obtained by individuals.
2. Programs that seek to equalize the way in which resources are divided.
3. Custom-tailored programs for children with special needs.
The authors note that the most important objective of these programs is to reduce inequality of educational opportunity – education can be obtained regardless of ones socio-economic background.
The errors that the authors picked up on is that school should not be looked at as an independent entity outside of society, but that schooling is very much part of the production and reproduction of class structure. The primary relationship between schooling and inequality cannot be discovered in a model that assumes that schools are the cause of inequality.
I find it interesting to note that the authors state that schooling can and does play a role in creating a more equal society – but that the reduction of economic inequality is ultimately a political - not an economic question.
I agree with the authors. I think that the way in which the capitalist society is run and the decisions that are made that effect education, come from a primarily political arena. I know that I need to do more research in this area, but to me it makes sense that one needs to tackle the system from which laws are passed and to change the mind frames of those who administer those laws – such as superintendents, administration, principals ect. Again I agree with the authors when this emphasis of change is brought up due to the fact that the economics of the Western hemisphere cannot fundamentally change itself. It is the people behind the economic sphere that makes these changes. It is nice to see that the authors finally admit to the fact that schooling can and does play a role in making the world a better place. Although they do not seem to put much stock in the power that I believe schooling has. I may sound naïve, but really you do have to start some where. I know this sounds far reaching and I was not sure if I was going to put this into the blog but I truly deep down in my heart feel that as teacher we are teaching and shaping the future. I think what we tend to forget is that the future is made up of individuals who create the events that occur, and not the other way around.
Educational Alternatives
What needs to be understood before looking into the first of the three sections of this chapter is that the social problems to which these (educational) reforms are addressed have their roots not in the school system but in the functioning of economic system. The authors have been stating this throughout the book. What school reformers need to look at is the role that education plays in reproducing the economic order. The movements that need to take place are in all spheres of life and not just within the classroom.
Equal Education
The proposals for more equal education can be grouped under three headings:
1. Open enrollment: This would reduce the years of schooling obtained by individuals.
2. Programs that seek to equalize the way in which resources are divided.
3. Custom-tailored programs for children with special needs.
The authors note that the most important objective of these programs is to reduce inequality of educational opportunity – education can be obtained regardless of ones socio-economic background.
The errors that the authors picked up on is that school should not be looked at as an independent entity outside of society, but that schooling is very much part of the production and reproduction of class structure. The primary relationship between schooling and inequality cannot be discovered in a model that assumes that schools are the cause of inequality.
I find it interesting to note that the authors state that schooling can and does play a role in creating a more equal society – but that the reduction of economic inequality is ultimately a political - not an economic question.
I agree with the authors. I think that the way in which the capitalist society is run and the decisions that are made that effect education, come from a primarily political arena. I know that I need to do more research in this area, but to me it makes sense that one needs to tackle the system from which laws are passed and to change the mind frames of those who administer those laws – such as superintendents, administration, principals ect. Again I agree with the authors when this emphasis of change is brought up due to the fact that the economics of the Western hemisphere cannot fundamentally change itself. It is the people behind the economic sphere that makes these changes. It is nice to see that the authors finally admit to the fact that schooling can and does play a role in making the world a better place. Although they do not seem to put much stock in the power that I believe schooling has. I may sound naïve, but really you do have to start some where. I know this sounds far reaching and I was not sure if I was going to put this into the blog but I truly deep down in my heart feel that as teacher we are teaching and shaping the future. I think what we tend to forget is that the future is made up of individuals who create the events that occur, and not the other way around.
'The Book ' Blog 28
chapter nine continued ..
The authors have described the process of educational change without identifying how exactly economic interests translate into educational programs.
The key inherent conflict in the capitalist system, is the conflict between the capitalist accumulation and the reproduction of capitalist order (class conflict). Educational reform has been used by the capitalist to mediate and reflect class conflict.
The process of educational reform is as follows:
1. Internal dynamics : Economic - constantly changing and adapting. Economics is not a static system. Education - is less dynamic and more stable.
2. This creates a mis-match of internal dynamics. Economic goals - extend wage - labour system. Alters the organization of work and the class structure. Educational goals tries to stabilize these aspects.
3. The accommodation of educational systems to new economic conditions.
a. Pluralist accommodations (interests of all stakeholders): the tendency of educators in periods of economic change to alter values conforming to new economic changes. Parents want education that is focused on obtaining a job. This is to secure a successful future for their children. When there is a financial crisis, like the one that occurred in the 1970's and like what we are experiencing today, education reforms tend to tighten up and focus more on getting jobs and not on the well rounded educational experience.
Note: All of these processes that lead to educational reform appear to be democratically controlled (This is key to the legitimization of the U.S. capitalist order.) Yet the authors claim that it is actually still being led by a changing structure of production.
b. There is concrete political struggle along the lines of class interest. This means when there is social uprising, a struggle among major social groups, the capitalist class through its extensive control over educational funding has been able to control the 'model' that will control this class conflict that is occurring. This control over information and educational values, exercised by the capitalist class in large measure through its foundations (controlling resources.) has played a crucial role in directing the process of educational accommodation to economic change.
Educational change has historically played the role, not of a compliment to economic reform, but as a substitute for it.
The authors have described the process of educational change without identifying how exactly economic interests translate into educational programs.
The key inherent conflict in the capitalist system, is the conflict between the capitalist accumulation and the reproduction of capitalist order (class conflict). Educational reform has been used by the capitalist to mediate and reflect class conflict.
The process of educational reform is as follows:
1. Internal dynamics : Economic - constantly changing and adapting. Economics is not a static system. Education - is less dynamic and more stable.
2. This creates a mis-match of internal dynamics. Economic goals - extend wage - labour system. Alters the organization of work and the class structure. Educational goals tries to stabilize these aspects.
3. The accommodation of educational systems to new economic conditions.
a. Pluralist accommodations (interests of all stakeholders): the tendency of educators in periods of economic change to alter values conforming to new economic changes. Parents want education that is focused on obtaining a job. This is to secure a successful future for their children. When there is a financial crisis, like the one that occurred in the 1970's and like what we are experiencing today, education reforms tend to tighten up and focus more on getting jobs and not on the well rounded educational experience.
Note: All of these processes that lead to educational reform appear to be democratically controlled (This is key to the legitimization of the U.S. capitalist order.) Yet the authors claim that it is actually still being led by a changing structure of production.
b. There is concrete political struggle along the lines of class interest. This means when there is social uprising, a struggle among major social groups, the capitalist class through its extensive control over educational funding has been able to control the 'model' that will control this class conflict that is occurring. This control over information and educational values, exercised by the capitalist class in large measure through its foundations (controlling resources.) has played a crucial role in directing the process of educational accommodation to economic change.
Educational change has historically played the role, not of a compliment to economic reform, but as a substitute for it.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
'The Book' - Blog 27
Chapter Nine
Capital Accumulation, Class Conflict and Educational Change
Capital Accumulation, Class Conflict and Educational Change
The authors, as they have stated through out the book, claim that the changes in the structure of education are historically associated with the changes in the social organization of production. The causal importance of economic structure as a major determinant of educational structure.
The question that the authors pose is "What forces govern the process of educational change?"
How exactly does education change? The authors look into four historical theories.
1. R. Butts described the development of U.S. education as a search for freedom. The issue of control of schools was settled in favour of democracy. The governemnt was seen as a way of control that is fair due to the fact that it is the only institution which serves everyone equally and is controlled by everyone. This is referred to as the democratic imperative interpretation. The only role for conflict was the pace of change not the direction.
2. Other writers have stressed the role of conflict and have viewed the present system as the triumph of the little people over the powerful. Ellwood Cubberly stated that the battle for tax supported, publicly controlled and non-sectarian common schools was a huge battle that was won. Frank Carleton stressed the role of labour in the struggle: almost every working man took up the cause. This is called the popular demand for education.
3. The next view could be called the technological interpretation. The growth and structure of the U.S. education system has been represented by an accommodation to the labour training needs generated by the growth and structure of the economy.
The authors feel that the democratic imperative and technological viewpoints are flawed because they are based on false premises. The authors argue that education as a vehicle for freedom has never occurred. The popular demand interpretation failed due to the fact that the educational demands of groups of individuals such as farmers and workers were not met. Expansion of public education was supported by employers and other powerful people as well as organized labour. This prompts the question did working people get what they wanted from education? Workers spoke out for universal education and local control. What they received was quite a different story. Was the education they asked for one that was stratified and divided among classless?
A fourth viewpoint is called the revisionist viewpoint. The expansion of mass education was sparked by demographic changes associated with the industrialization and urbanization of economic and social activity. In this viewpoint, which I alluded to in previous blogs, was actually a form of social control of an increasingly diverse cultural and poverty stricken urban population. Katz, who was one of the most predominate revolutionists, thought that the ideals of capitalism were actually imposed on the workers and not won over by them.
The authors then move onto their view of the process of educational change. They claim it to be an extension of the analysis of chapter three -of the capitalist economy. The role of education that was outlined in chapter 4 and 5 in legitimizing the class structure and in fostering forms of consciousness consistent with its reproduction.
There is a key contradiction that exists between the accumulation of capital and reproduction of the capitalist relations of production.
I think what the authors are trying to get at from a practical standpoint is that the capitalist, to maintain their power, in the expanding capitalist system, they need to have a reserve of higher skilled workers than ever before. This is necessary to fill positions higher up in the job hierarchy. As one gets higher up in the hierarchy, it is harder to appease this group of individuals, due to the fact the there are no longer enough jobs to give to these highly educated workers.
From a more general standpoint, when individuals become more knowledgeable, they are more aware of the inequalities that inherently exist within the capitalist structure. It becomes increasingly difficult to have capable, educated and skilled workers that will 'swallow' the way in which the hierarchical division of labour is set up.
The expansion of mass education has been a central element in resolving - at least temporarily the contradictions between accumulation and reproduction.
Three turning points in U.S. history that have been covered in the book, all correspond to periods of struggle around the expansion of capitalist production relations.
1. The era of the common school reform (chapter 6) This was the rise of the factory system - the creation and expansion of the permanent wage - labour force.
2. The progressive education movement (chapter 7) This grew out of class conflicts associated with the joint rise of organized labour and corporate capaital.
3. The recent period according to the authors 1960's to the mid 1970's(chapter 8) was due to the integration of three major groups into the wage labour system: displaced southern blacks, women and small business individuals.
The question that the authors pose is "What forces govern the process of educational change?"
How exactly does education change? The authors look into four historical theories.
1. R. Butts described the development of U.S. education as a search for freedom. The issue of control of schools was settled in favour of democracy. The governemnt was seen as a way of control that is fair due to the fact that it is the only institution which serves everyone equally and is controlled by everyone. This is referred to as the democratic imperative interpretation. The only role for conflict was the pace of change not the direction.
2. Other writers have stressed the role of conflict and have viewed the present system as the triumph of the little people over the powerful. Ellwood Cubberly stated that the battle for tax supported, publicly controlled and non-sectarian common schools was a huge battle that was won. Frank Carleton stressed the role of labour in the struggle: almost every working man took up the cause. This is called the popular demand for education.
3. The next view could be called the technological interpretation. The growth and structure of the U.S. education system has been represented by an accommodation to the labour training needs generated by the growth and structure of the economy.
The authors feel that the democratic imperative and technological viewpoints are flawed because they are based on false premises. The authors argue that education as a vehicle for freedom has never occurred. The popular demand interpretation failed due to the fact that the educational demands of groups of individuals such as farmers and workers were not met. Expansion of public education was supported by employers and other powerful people as well as organized labour. This prompts the question did working people get what they wanted from education? Workers spoke out for universal education and local control. What they received was quite a different story. Was the education they asked for one that was stratified and divided among classless?
A fourth viewpoint is called the revisionist viewpoint. The expansion of mass education was sparked by demographic changes associated with the industrialization and urbanization of economic and social activity. In this viewpoint, which I alluded to in previous blogs, was actually a form of social control of an increasingly diverse cultural and poverty stricken urban population. Katz, who was one of the most predominate revolutionists, thought that the ideals of capitalism were actually imposed on the workers and not won over by them.
The authors then move onto their view of the process of educational change. They claim it to be an extension of the analysis of chapter three -of the capitalist economy. The role of education that was outlined in chapter 4 and 5 in legitimizing the class structure and in fostering forms of consciousness consistent with its reproduction.
There is a key contradiction that exists between the accumulation of capital and reproduction of the capitalist relations of production.
I think what the authors are trying to get at from a practical standpoint is that the capitalist, to maintain their power, in the expanding capitalist system, they need to have a reserve of higher skilled workers than ever before. This is necessary to fill positions higher up in the job hierarchy. As one gets higher up in the hierarchy, it is harder to appease this group of individuals, due to the fact the there are no longer enough jobs to give to these highly educated workers.
From a more general standpoint, when individuals become more knowledgeable, they are more aware of the inequalities that inherently exist within the capitalist structure. It becomes increasingly difficult to have capable, educated and skilled workers that will 'swallow' the way in which the hierarchical division of labour is set up.
The expansion of mass education has been a central element in resolving - at least temporarily the contradictions between accumulation and reproduction.
Three turning points in U.S. history that have been covered in the book, all correspond to periods of struggle around the expansion of capitalist production relations.
1. The era of the common school reform (chapter 6) This was the rise of the factory system - the creation and expansion of the permanent wage - labour force.
2. The progressive education movement (chapter 7) This grew out of class conflicts associated with the joint rise of organized labour and corporate capaital.
3. The recent period according to the authors 1960's to the mid 1970's(chapter 8) was due to the integration of three major groups into the wage labour system: displaced southern blacks, women and small business individuals.
'The Book' - Blog 26
Chapter eight continued...
The second half of the chapter deals with how students have reacted to this change in higher education. The authors feel that the origins of the student movements are not necessarily from with-in the university/colleges themselves but from the contradictions that are occurring with-in society.
Students feel that higher education has lost its luster and can no longer keep its promise of jobs that match their level of education. Students that graduate from higher education, see their professions as a way to make money AND to fulfill themselves personally. Due to the restructuring that has been occurring in the types of jobs that are offered and the way jobs are structured themselves is a rude awaking for university graduates.
It is interesting to note that the authors also discuss the fact that students are becoming increasing discouraged with the waste and irrationality that characterizes the way the capitalist society is run. There is the knowledge that by and large the services and products that are being produced are unless and actually feed the consumerism that makes capitalism possible. There is no longer a personal attachment to what is being produced in most jobs that are available. The student movements have been excelled by the obvious conflicts between the imperatives for profit and the requirements of human welfare and progress.
Around the time the book was written the green movement as we know it today had begun. It was not as full blown as it is now but I think that there were pockets of individuals who saw the waste and the destruction of the environment long before they were given a voice. Students were realizing that they were paying into a system that really did not give anything in return but a paycheck, that was meager compared to what corporations were making off of them. It is interesting that some students today still feel that same way. Although what does not make sense to me is the lack of involvement of students today, myself included. Back in the 1970's university campuses shut down due to lack of attendance in regards to the Vietnam war and the invasion of Cambodia. This would never happen today. It seems as though each discipline only works and discusses and gets together with other individuals in the same discipline. There are so many things going on today that could unite the campus such as the U of L, but there is no spark. I wonder why this has occurred?
The authors make a very interesting connection at the end of the chapter: Students values of independence, initiative and individuality reflect the unrealized dreams of their parents. I wonder if this is still happening today and what happened when most parents sent their children to university for four years and found out that there were no jobs to fulfill these dreams on both the part of parents and their children.
This consciousness that has been occurring, the authors predict, that workers in all occupational levels, as well as students will increasingly trace their frustrations to a common set of obstacles barring their pursuit of rewarding and a better life. The corporate capitalist economy, with its bias towards hierarchy, waste and alienation in production and an education system that reproduces the legitimacy behind the hierarchical division of labour may then be seen as the source of the problem. This is interesting due to the fact that Micheal Moore just released his movie Capitalism- - A love story that tackles the issue mentioned above.
The authors think that from the empty promises of higher education there will be political solutions that will arise. There will be a demand for the development of a liberating education and the efficient and humane social technology of production.
The second half of the chapter deals with how students have reacted to this change in higher education. The authors feel that the origins of the student movements are not necessarily from with-in the university/colleges themselves but from the contradictions that are occurring with-in society.
Students feel that higher education has lost its luster and can no longer keep its promise of jobs that match their level of education. Students that graduate from higher education, see their professions as a way to make money AND to fulfill themselves personally. Due to the restructuring that has been occurring in the types of jobs that are offered and the way jobs are structured themselves is a rude awaking for university graduates.
It is interesting to note that the authors also discuss the fact that students are becoming increasing discouraged with the waste and irrationality that characterizes the way the capitalist society is run. There is the knowledge that by and large the services and products that are being produced are unless and actually feed the consumerism that makes capitalism possible. There is no longer a personal attachment to what is being produced in most jobs that are available. The student movements have been excelled by the obvious conflicts between the imperatives for profit and the requirements of human welfare and progress.
Around the time the book was written the green movement as we know it today had begun. It was not as full blown as it is now but I think that there were pockets of individuals who saw the waste and the destruction of the environment long before they were given a voice. Students were realizing that they were paying into a system that really did not give anything in return but a paycheck, that was meager compared to what corporations were making off of them. It is interesting that some students today still feel that same way. Although what does not make sense to me is the lack of involvement of students today, myself included. Back in the 1970's university campuses shut down due to lack of attendance in regards to the Vietnam war and the invasion of Cambodia. This would never happen today. It seems as though each discipline only works and discusses and gets together with other individuals in the same discipline. There are so many things going on today that could unite the campus such as the U of L, but there is no spark. I wonder why this has occurred?
The authors make a very interesting connection at the end of the chapter: Students values of independence, initiative and individuality reflect the unrealized dreams of their parents. I wonder if this is still happening today and what happened when most parents sent their children to university for four years and found out that there were no jobs to fulfill these dreams on both the part of parents and their children.
This consciousness that has been occurring, the authors predict, that workers in all occupational levels, as well as students will increasingly trace their frustrations to a common set of obstacles barring their pursuit of rewarding and a better life. The corporate capitalist economy, with its bias towards hierarchy, waste and alienation in production and an education system that reproduces the legitimacy behind the hierarchical division of labour may then be seen as the source of the problem. This is interesting due to the fact that Micheal Moore just released his movie Capitalism- - A love story that tackles the issue mentioned above.
The authors think that from the empty promises of higher education there will be political solutions that will arise. There will be a demand for the development of a liberating education and the efficient and humane social technology of production.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
