GOING AHEAD OR VIGOROUSLY GOING BACK

To date, this blog has posted a series of entries that have been aimed at providing information that would be useful for anyone, short of being an expert, who is willing to work toward curricular change at a school or, perhaps, a school district.  In that effort, the blog has presented short accounts of the various curricular philosophies, approaches, and psychological views that are prominent in the field of curricular work.

That material began with the posting entitled, “A Functional Philosophy of Education.”  That entry was posted on February 16, 2016 (access can be obtained by using the archival feature found to the right on this page).  I wish to continue with that general theme by next looking at the sociological perspectives scholars have put forward in regard to curriculum and the different views curricular workers have proffered.

With this posting, I want to share some general concerns that these workers bring to their efforts so as to provide context for what will follow.  The first sociological concern is the function of the educational institution in our society.  All societies have institutions – established ways of dealing with built-in challenges.  All societies have to deal with the personal needs for security and safety, with emotional needs of individuals, with threats from the outside world, with health issues, with production and distribution of things and services, with power and leadership, and with dealing with the unknown (such as why we are here and who or what is ultimately responsible for us being here). 

And more associated with education, every society has to deal with ignorance; we are not born with the knowledge or beliefs we need in order to survive or to live in comfort and in a self-fulfilling manner.  For all of these, every society develops institutions, the accepted and established ways for handling these challenges.  The universal categories of institutions are family, religion, economy, governance and, to meet ignorance, education. 

While every society has its values and mores, processes, and structures – defined by that society’s culture – the overall needs or functions just listed are shared by all of them.  The health of a society can be gauged by how healthy and well-defined its institutions are.  For example, many are concerned with the health of the US society today given the nature of the presidential campaigns during this election cycle.

Education, as an institution, reflects whatever comprises the other institutions.  For some, the overall function education plays is to transmit, to a younger generation, the values and mores, the accumulated knowledge and beliefs, and even the biases and proclivities that characterize the culture of the society.  This is a very conservative view of what education should be about doing.  On the other hand, there are those who see education as an institution that should function as an instrument of change, as a vanguard of transformation.  This is a radical view.  And of course, there are those who see education being both, selectively preserving what is perceived as good and wholesome and helping to change what is seen as not so good.

Speaking of this presidential election cycle, we have had candidates who are portrayed as protectors of the status quo; it would be odd if a candidate actually depicted him/herself as such an agent.  Somehow, to say one is for what is, one is seen as promoting the problems of the day and not the assets of what makes the society or nation admirable. 

At the same time, we had and have candidates who claim they are revolutionary in instituting a movement.  Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are/were so described by their respective campaigns.  One promised a more egalitarian future and the other a revival of a more glorious past.  Since many citizens voiced their approval through voting for these two candidates, one can surmise the educational system has not been too successful in transmitting very well the cultural elements that now exist.  After all, these voters want drastic change.

Or it can be more of a reactive posture to what is currently going on.  Often, such views for change are shared among those who are not faring so well under the current economic conditions.

There are two groups of people who are almost guaranteed to vote on election day:  ideologues and angry people.  Satisfied people are more likely to stay home.  Of course, staying home will very likely help lead them to becoming a future angry person.  But all of this is what the educational institution either addresses successfully or doesn’t.  Given some of the opinions being currently expressed, one fears the latter to be the case.

There are those education workers who are generally satisfied with the social conditions of the day and they tend to be those who, at least in the moment, can be considered “transmitters” of the cultural elements and the culture in general.  There are those not so happy with the status quo and they tend to lean toward the radical end of the continuum. 

These latter workers tend to be those who have been upset with the inequalities within society.  These folks hold reconstructionist philosophical beliefs and work toward “reforming” the educational establishment by introducing curricular changes that inform and encourage students to work toward furthering social justice.  But perhaps this election will usher in a newer view of curriculum as an instrument to reestablish a culture that once existed – let us say, a reestablishment of the culture that existed in the 1950s with all its beliefs and prejudices.

Are there signs of this retrograde?  I believe some of the decisions of certain state educational officials, as in Texas, seem to be so inclined.  How can education assist in retracing cultural steps?  One way is to mandate that history, for example, emphasize certain aspects that glorify the prior mindset – perhaps glorify Confederate images and calls for states’ rights, as those earlier views defined states’ rights.  That history can downplay or even ignore other events and figures that ushered in the contemporary biases that now exist – the stories of the anti-Vietnam War movement, for example. 

Listen to the rhetoric of Trump: “You see, in the good old days, law enforcement acted a lot quicker than this … A lot quicker. In the good old days, they’d rip him out of that seat so fast.”  It is this and other messages – “Make America Great Again” – that smack of this “let’s get back to the way it was” view.  What is it about this earlier time that seems so appealing to so many?

Central to this role of education is how learning is viewed.  This blog reviewed various psychological approaches to this study of curriculum.  One basic distinction is whether learning is seen as merely presenting the external world and the student absorbing that presentation or of a student constructing in his/her mind what that world is and should be. 

The latter view can better explain why there is such a difference between what appears to be believed by the average Trump rally participant and a person who attends a Clinton rally.  And in that difference, one might ask, what was the curriculum each of these rally goers experienced that makes each have such a differing view of what is important:  improving on what is or going back to the ‘50s?

The upcoming postings will look at the different elements of this sociological nature of curriculum.  One can, I believe, already tell from this posting that there is a strong political flavor to this concern over sociological factors affecting education, generally, and curriculum, more specifically.