.png)
Author Information
Obama and education
Fellow-blogger Christopher Emdin has raised some interesting and compelling issues in relation to Obama and education. The comments have generated additional layers onto which the platform of a decent (and just) society can be properly situated. I have a few thoughts about Obama’s education plan, acknowledging that not much has been implemented, let alone fully conceptualized, to-date.
My concern is that we may be headed in the same direction as Bush II, Clinton, Bush I, Reagan and others. This is not to say that Obama is not a more attractive and enticing figure than the others, nor that he is not committed to change. Rather, the concern here is neoliberalism, and the octopus-like tentacles grappling and suffocating the progressive movement’s desire for bone fide change.
To be a little more specific, I question the following pronouncements, policy-directions, hints at change, etc. that have emanated from Obama and Education Secretary in relation to education:
1) Why spend so much energy, resources and focus on charter schools when the problem is the public education system? Charter schools drain resources, divide communities and undermine the function of a cogent, coherent, meaningful public education system. Having said this in a bold ideological way, one can understand quite easily why parents who have seen public school fail would want some alternative. I have friends, such as Tom Wilson and Christine Sleeter, who are involved in innovative and progressive charter schools. I fear that theirs are in the minority, and I am certainly not arguing against Freirian-based charter schools but would rather see a Freirian-based public education system. The charter schools that I am aware of are plagued with infinite problems: teacher qualifications, curriculum, parochialism, pseudo-segregation, funding, supposed “accountability”, standards, resources, etc.. Why are we continuing the attack on public schools? Often, those who leave public schools go to charter schools, are dissatisfied, then loop back to public schools.
2) Merit pay for teachers is problematic at many levels. Richer, White, suburban areas have higher standards and educational outcomes owing to the structure of the system, cultural capital, Whiteness, historical and systemic factors, and the way accountability is defined. Should they be rewarded, and inner-city schools punished? Are we certain that some of the most low-performing schools do not have some of the best teachers? Merit pay will lead to a further disenfranchisement of the education profession. Why can we not just simply recognize that teachers are underpaid, pay them more in line with the importance of their contribution to society, and then look at other incentives related to academic, curriculum, and school culture innovation, rewarding communities, rather than individual teachers.
3) The language on the Education Department’s website is still locked into a neoliberal framework: “accountability” for everything except democracy, citizenship and social justice; “world-class standards” that obfuscate the reality that most schools are destined to produce, or, as Bourdieu would put it, re-produce unskilled labor; etc..
4) The amount being allocated to education, the supposed motor of society, is a pittance compared to the Iraq/Afghanistan/rest of the world war budget. Moreover, the bulk of the money being allocated at present is not for new, innovative programs and resources but, rather, to keep teachers employed, given the economic meltdown that has devastated state budgets. More money and priority is required for education, and education needs to become a national issue.
Obama has not addressed the following five issues, which I believe are key to re-establishing some sense of Deweyian philosophy of education in the US:
a. Is there any reason why the military should be able to enter high schools and recruit students for the army? Obama should put a stop to this immediately as a signal of support for and solidarity with poor and marginalized groups. We know which schools and which kids are targeted, and this runs counter to the notion of a world-class education system. (In passing, Arnie Duncan is known for creating charter schools/academies in Chicago that decreased the dropout rate by… increasing the number of kids joining the army, which raises a lot of questions about hope for those without cultural capital.)
b. No Child Left Behind needs to be scrapped. Why must we work with an unworkable conceptual framework. The
problems with it are too numerous and too enveloping to elaborate on here. Everyone has their own stories, their own anecdotes, and their own quandaries with it. A lot of research has been undertaken demonstrating how NCLB undermines accountability with its supposed “accountability” measures.
c. Stop making local communities pay for local education. This is wrong, and it serves to re-inscribe disadvantage in poorer neighborhoods, and uplifts those with cultural capital to ingratiate themselves in schools where the conditions are better, the wages are higher, and the standards (along with a lot of other important institutional culture stuff) are met. Put an end to this differentiated funding, and end charter schools, vouchers, and, this may be impossible, private schools. Do not fund those who are working against the interests of the public education system, which is turning out to be those who cannot afford to leave it.
d. Put an end to standards that leave no room to reflect, engage, interrogate and experience life. It is extremely discouraging to hear teachers say that they do not have the time to consider democracy and social justice. What?
e. Let’s inject a little Freirian compassion into education. Learn languages, debate controversial subjects, restructure assessment, discipline and democracy (Kohlberg’s moral development model; see also the excellent work of Georg Lind), re-engage parents and citizens, introduce courses on media literacy, take to heart the notion that the US is not only great (a common refrain) but it also has some warts, and make peace and an end to racism, sexism and poverty some of the aims of education. It would appear that the present model is locked into a mindset that education is about getting a job, and there is little interrogation into why the US is always involved in so much military stuff (war, arms production, conflict, imagery, etc.).
As I’ve mentioned previously, I believe that it is helpful and necessary for the left and progressives to push Obama, to question how his moderate approach will achieve social justice, and to support him when he makes positive gestures. It is not too late to make some important gestures and changes in education.
Your comments are welcome.
Peace!
- Paul R Carr's blog
- Login or register to post comments
-
Printer-friendly version- Send to friend
- Topic Tags:
Comments
The CRITICAL imperative. . .
Paul. . .if I had taken the time I could not have said this as well as you. . .but these are exactly the concerns I had in mind when I posted re: Christopher's post. . .outstanding points and key concerns. . .
My only quibble is with the terms "left" and "progressive". . .these are failed terms and encompass ideologies that are within the problem (I would call Obama both "left" and "progressive," and that is part of the problem). . .
What we need is a CRITICAL response. . .but one with weight. . .many voices raised in critical response to failed ideologies of mechanistic and reductionistic thinking that sees the world as if there are no humans or worse yet sees the world as if the highest calling of a human is to be INhuman. . .paul thomas
Pentagon and War
Thanks for offering these critiques.
A different administration and a different sort of world could of course balloon the monies given to the education system towards nefarious ends, but I am with fronting the fact that during a time of financial crisis there is endless money for some things, but not education -- no, that must be cut and privatized...
Where is the money going? Of course, the banks and other corporate entities receiving bail outs because they (unlike our schools and other educational institutions) cannot be allowed to die, is one timely answer.
But I would focus elsewhere still. To my mind, as criticalists, our project must at present be a one-point plan that is all about attacking (as you say) the unbelievable sums in the United States given to the DOD and its war-making. Whether or not the educational system can be made beneficient and just for all is for me a secondary question that can only be taken up once the space occupied by the military system is meaningfully decolonized.
We can call Obama "left" or "progressive," though to my mind it is not about him but rather his administration (which I see per its record to date as "center" and "moderate") in the context of a complex bureaucracy comprised by a number of relatively autonomous and corrupt D.C. bureaus and agencies (which I see currently as "economically rightist" and "politically conservative" on the whole). During his election run, it was said that his team created "Obama" as the perfect brand. Now that he is elected, we should refuse to allow "Obama" to denote an individual leader and instead emphasize its overt signification of the many challenges imposed by a totally administered society.
At the end of the day, though, a singular focus on the president is to me useful post-9/11 for one major reason -- his status as commander-in-chief. In this respect, I am left to conclude that Obama is a war president. The wars being waged right now still constitute war crimes, but the even more crucial issue for me is that it is impossible to deflate the DOD budget to something even akin to EU standards (hardly sane or humane) during a time of war. Without this kind of budgetary deflation of the war apparatus, I cannot see how it is possible to imagine for one moment a just and excellent system of education in the country, much less a society predicated upon peace, beauty, or the love of life.
That Obama is not commonly paraded as a war president involved in war crimes, that the DOD budget is not now seriously challenged by the left and progressives as a united front target of the most urgent kind, and that these become the ideas of a handful of criticalists who attempt to negate the brutality of the world in thought as a seed for future hope, I find extremely painful.
I am not interested in the false generosity of this administration's strategic achievements. I welcome whatever positive energies it may help to bring about, of course. We cannot have enough it! But that is the problem -- we are moving every day further into the total midnight of our existence and the political machine has become the de facto standard for what it is presently possible to imagine into being.
Let me be clear: this war (including that which feeds it) is like a spiritual ulcer that is ripping the history of freedom apart. There is blood all over the tracks.
I don't require a perfectly happy world, but I'd at least appreciate one in which people actualized the humanity to scream and puke and cry a lot more about what's taking place on their biographical watch. This may not be a sufficient condition for a liberatory educational praxis today, but every bone in my body tells me that it is now more than ever a necessary one.
RK
Hi everyone! Thank you
Hi everyone!
Thank you very much for this discussion. I enjoy reading everyone’s contribution. I think Paul you provide a very well snapshot of American education’s problems and issues. I especially appreciated your references to education’s role in re-producing the social structure. Your post also made me re-think about how militarization has been instilled into American society and American education.
I am, however, troubling to understand what P. Thomas meant by claiming the terms “left” and “progressive” as failed terms. What is a critical response?
Thanks.
Terminology
Great post, Richard, and thank you. . .Ilhan, I am very concerned about the use of "left" and "progressive" in the same way I have been concerned about the co-opting the term "scientific" during the National Reading Panel to politicize the teaching of reading (in order to fuel the corporate need to produce phonics-based materials and test-prep materials and state-adopted textbooks). . .
Many who are labeled "progressive" and those tagged as "liberal" are used as whipping posts for traditionalists and conservatives so everyone's eyes and ears are diverted from a critical perspective. . .a critical voice uncovers the assumptions about corporatizing everything thus dehumanizing everything. . .a critical voice reminds us that cultural "norms" are powerful as the default "right" when in fact they are simply the momentum of history (and possibly immoral, and usually dehumanizing). . .
Many "progressives" are trapped in bureacracy like bugs in amber. . .thus no more "progressive" than a traditionalist. . .In educational debates, NEITHER the traditionalist nor the progressive will say that we need SOCIAL REFORM before school reform. . .because of the weight of bureacracy. . .and politics. . .but a critical voice will say just that. . .
If we consider the clamour about supreme court justices. . .the Right vilifies a choice form the Left as "activist" while simulatneously calling for "strict construtionist" justices who will be ACTIVISTS by overturning Roe v. Wade. . .and that puppet show detracts us from the real debate about the folly of calling for and honoring "objectivty". . .and the value and even rigor inherent in subjective expertise, in ethical subjectivism based on scholarship and evidence of a wide and deep nature. . .to me the CRITICAL voice is one that raises our discussion to the assumptions about objectivity. . .instead of labeling people as "left" or "right," as "traditional" or "progressive". . .I hope this helps clarify. . .although I concede that I may be wrong ultimately in this line of reasoning. . .although I feel comfortable with it today. . .paul thomas
. . .and
I should have added. . .if we as critical voices join the progressive camp. . .we can fall victim to criticizing ONLY the "other side". . .I feel compelled, in fact, to hold the left to an even higher standard than the right because I feel more kinship with the "left" and "progressive" views. . .
I expected the silliness that was educational policy under W. Bush. . .I think something different is possible with a progressive administration in place. . .but I see little difference. . .other than tone. . .pt
Critiquing ourselves and Obama
Greetings,
First, thanks to P. Thomas, Richard and Ilhan for your stimulating critiques and thoughts on my original posting. You raise concerns, and, significantly, amplify our discussion, extending it as well as nuancing the content.
I would like to say something about the "left" and "progressives". I, too, am concerned about labels, and feel that they have been used to suffocate debate (i.e., being called a "socialist" means that you will never have any support). The center in the US is pretty far to the right so saying that Obama is on the left or is a progressive is not saying much. My concern is that Obama not be left to the mainstream media, Congress, hegemonic military forces and Wall Street, who are no where near the center.
One thing I learned in the Cuban solidarity movement is that the Cubans never speak of the ideological underpinning of their values as a precursor to being against the US blockade or as a litmus-test to who can support their revolution. Some people who support Cuba do it for the culture, others for the ideals, others for the indignation against the US, others for what Cuba has brought to the world in terms of healtcare, humanity, and social justice, etc..
So, the Obama thing is interesting not so much because of who he is, although that is unique, but for the agenda he hope to accomplish. Moreover, what really matters is what he does, and my original posting has enumerated some concerns.
As for the military, I agree with Richard that this is no small, insignificant matter: it is the core of American society. If we do not deal with the harm caused by the military, the issue of charter schools (or NCLB) seems almost pointless.
I would like to end that I am very much aware of the sensitivity in relation to such discussions that attempt to critique neoliberal hegemony. Some might say that we shoudl not say anything because Obama is better, or that he will change the juggernault of the US political class. However, a continuation of present policies does not seem to be advantageous for the vast majority of people, here and abroad.
Thanks for your comments.
Peace!
Paul
Failed terms
Paul thanks for clarifying and sorry for responding late.
I have a different perspective related to your comment on staying away from “what potentially we could be called” concerns. I do not really think that it is effective you choose a “nameless” position. Dominant discourse will label you no matter what. As soon as we demand a “SOCIAL REFORM before school reform”, we will be labeled anyway. I also believe that if those terms are failing terms perhaps because we have not defended nor defined them appropriately with both in theory and practice. So perhaps we are the failed one not the terms. Many people could be trapped and there will always be people trapped in bureaucracy or in the labyrinth of dominant ideology. This does not necessarily mean that we need to abandon our terms, and concepts that historically constructed and contains struggles and resistance.
For example, one striking phenomenon about the American society is that most people do not know what certain political terms mean. For example one of the most searched terms in 2008 was “socialism”. Americans also do not have a concept like “class” in their mind. ( Is “class” one of the failed terms as well?) Most Americans do not have any cognitive schema about class. Therefore, they do not have a concept of class struggle (Macedo gives this example somewhere). As a result of this, people are unable to comprehend what oppression means, what hegemony means and how these political constructions and their apparatuses impact people’s daily lives. In short, I believe that terms are crucial to define and take a position against injustice. If critical educators do not clarify and defend their philosophical, political, and historical roots and the related terms their presence and their voice will more likely be blended and fade away in the noise of dominant discourse. We will be pushed to the margin.
Cheers,
Ilhan
I agree
Ilhan. . .great points all. . .and I actually agree. . .I was not really arguing for no terms, but for "critical" instead of "progressive" or "left." On a related note. . .I have been marginalized and misrepresented OFTEN for calling for social change before school reform. . .so you are quite on target there. . .paul thomas
Greetings Paul, Ilhan et
Greetings Paul, Ilhan et al.,
This is an enriching and timely discussion. The points being made about terminology, articulation of an agenda, and action are all very important.
I do agree that "critical" work does not necessarily overlap with, or coincide, with the work undertaken by traditional left, progressive and activist groups. I think we're all talking about meaningful, critical social change, and that is where my original message on the Obama education agenda started.
The unveiling, so to speak, of one's ideology is worth debating. On the one hand, it can deter people from working together because they do not understand the significance of well-entrenched words (you've mentioned a few earlier, including class, hegemony, socialism, etc.); the quickest why to diffuse and extinguish official, formal policy is speak of power, Whiteness, hegemony, class, etc., as I have witnessed during my time in government (I've written about this, and it can be accessed from my website, if interested).
On the other hand, to not seek to influence an agenda, and to passively accept the formal levers of power can lead to cooptation, and a further marginalization of the marginalized.
This is where Freire's work becomes so pivotal, the conscientization that can effectively and affectively alter the individual and collective power balance.
When speaking of Cuba, my point was that there are many ways to support Cuba, that there are many forms of socialism, that there are many entry-points to seek social justice, etc., and that, sometimes, the process of naming can deter from the work at hand. One would wonder why people so supportive of Cuba could fight internally about a host of things, including who is more supportive than the other. Similar analogies could be made with the anti-racism movement.
In sum, it is important to have values, conceptual frameworks, epistemological grounding and theoretical understanding, and it is equally important to measure the value of being labelled one thing or another, knowing that the label may well serve to marginalize one in her/his work.
Being labelled a critical pedagogue is one thing, an anarchist, a marxist or socialist another. Doing critical, radical, transformative work does not carry the same baggage as being labelled by an ideological affiliation.
Anyway, these thoughts are thrown out there to engage in debate; I personnally am not offended by ideology but can appreciate how it can be unhelpful to wear a label as opposed to advancing an agenda. There is an important nuance in there somewhere.
All the best,
Paul
Wrestling. . .
paul. . .another excellent contribution to this consideration. . .and it is here i want to say that this is the conversation we must be having in CLASSROOOMS. . .at many levels. . .too often these nuanced considerations are reserved for graduate students (even doctoral students only). . .and that is exactly what happened to me. . .a Southern boy who "found" Freire and the critical world in his mid-30s after teaching (fumbling) in a high school English class for nearly 15 years. . .by what we speak and by what we dare not speak people are marginalized. . .so i have added this to my email tag: “There is no such thing as the voiceless, there are only the silenced and the deliberately misheard”—Arundhati Roy. . .and when i write i echo the words of bill ayers (as radical educator) and adrienne rich (as radical poet) who warn us of that which is never spoken. . .the words we choose matter. . .and when we tell our students that we love them (and we do tell them and we do love them) it is necessary that our passions have actions regardless of what others label us. . .regardless of those lost behind their ideologies instead of wrestling with their ideologies. . .always wrestling. . .paul thomas
Paul - thanks for your
Paul - thanks for your initial post and to the respondents for many pertinent comments. I couldn't agree more about the need to jettison NCLB and to demilitarize our federal budget. It is incredible that we are bankrolling some 700 military bases around the world. It is time to reign in the American empire, which has directly led to the rise of anti-American sentiment and served as a recruiting tool for terrorists. The military should focus on defense and not imperialism, which would free up funding for education as well as health care for millions of Americans who have no insurance. NCLB has been tried and has failed utterly - no more evidence of this is necessary, and more charter schools will hardly provide the education we need for the challenges facing our society of poverty, climate change, etc.