Education and Control

[From Richard Thurman (960321.0830)]

Bruce Gregory [960320.1000 EST]

I think that one major problem is that
students think they have (or can adopt) the same goals as their
teachers. In fact, both students and teachers are often unaware of
their goals. Working to make goals explicit gives both a chance to
see if there are goals they can adopt and realize even with the
constraints imposed by outside control efforts.

Yes, that seems right. In public education there are all sorts of
constraints imposed by many (well meaning?) factions. In addition,
educators and students alike have unarticulated goals and wants. I want
students to be inquisitive (without being disruptive). Students want to
learn (without looking or feeling dumb). I want to be a productive member
of a professional community. Students want to be with friends. ETC....
ETC.... ETC....

It does seem reasonable that articulating goals and desires will help each
member of the educational community (students, parents, teachers) to 'go
up a level' and find common ground.

However, I don't think that quite addresses the problem I was having. I
was objecting to the idea that it is somehow wrong/evil/underhanded that
curriculum planners extract student's internal goals "like infected
teeth," throw them away, and insert in their place goals prescribed by
mean and nasty (but politically correct) outsiders. Perhaps this is not
what Phil Runkel meant.

I was basically balking at the idea that we could have public education
without the potential for conflicting goals. In fact, I don't know how we
can carry out any social act without causing potential conflict. It seems
that any controlled act will interfere with, and may be in opposition to
another controlling entity.

How do we overcome this problem? Your suggestion that we articulate
educational goals so that everyone can find what is mutual is a good
start. That way, as you say, we can adopt and realize mutual goals
despite "the constraints imposed by outside control efforts."

However, there will come a time when you as a 'science education
curriculum designer' are going to impose your own ideas about what science
education should be. In fact, it seem you are about to. You stated that
there is already two much emphasis on "what" students should know but
almost no discussion of "why" students should know these things. You have
also stated that students often simply memorize and promptly forget large
masses of information "accepted as revealed scientific truth." It seems
to me that you have in mind a curriculum design that will be quite
different than the usual lecture/read/memorize one. Won't your 'doing'
curriculum come in conflict with those who advocate a 'knowing'
curriculum. Won't your goals extract the goals of students and teachers
(who may be 'knowers' and not 'doers') like so many bad teeth?

I'm not saying that your science education ideas are incorrect. In fact I
tend to agree with them. I'm just saying that this kind of basic conflict
is part and parcel with public education - actually - with life. We
cannot get around it. Only appreciate it for what it is -- the
consequence of control.

Rich