PrESS Network Meeting October 6, 2004 Bellarmine University
This reflection/recap on our last gathering is, again, an evolving document for which I invite feedback/additions/other perspectives.
12 members of the Network were present, many, again, worn-out from a long day and a long first six weeks in the schools.
Informal conversations quickly converged into a whole group discussion on the issue of the impending strike. There tended to be some mixed feeling on the strike, not necessarily in terms of issues of occupational justice, but rather the issue of leaving our community of children in the classroom. We also did, though, problematize the issue of occupational justice, sifting through the various public perceptions of teaching, teachers, and education; thinking about how much (and, in some cases, how well) teachers are paid; considering our level of education and the professional status that would be awarded in other professions; and empathizing that health care costs are going up for everyone. Since I still find good benefits (health and retirement) to be part of the implicit social contract with teachers—our negotiation in accepting lower wages given society’s patriarchal control over the profession—I fear an outcome that does not strongly challenge the governor on this issue. Teachers will never recover these benefits if they lose them now. (I’ve included a link here to a recent piece from Rich Gibson of the Rouge Forum: http://www.pipeline.com/~rougeforum/justicedemands.html, regarding teaching and justice. You might find Rich to be a little radical for your taste, but I think he is a pretty engaging guy and have published in his Rouge Forum Newsletter. At the very least, he provides some food for thought.)
We moved from here into a discussion of one of what Freire would term this historical moment’s “generative themes:” governmental spending. This is clear from the presidential debates. One party favors more social spending (in terms of health, education, and welfare) and the other favors more corporate spending (military, corporate tax incentives, and large tax cuts for the wealthy). Our decision in this election (both at the presidential level and at the congressional and local level) will very much be about spending and about how we will support the (to varying degrees) democratic institutions of education, health, and social welfare.
We also dipped into, then, one of my favorite issues: purposes of education. It is pretty clear that the purpose today is an economic one, focused on getting a job. Since we can’t all have big corporate jobs, a system has been created to stratify the workforce. Tracking and de facto segregation of schools (through magnet programs and the like) are pretty clear indicators that economics is the agenda. We also talked about NCLB and critical thinking and wondered to what extent critical thinking still takes place in school (and if it is even valued). What would happen if we educated students to think critically?
Finally, and interestingly, our conversation circled back to the original impetus of the group, suggested by Alex and Jason: maybe we should start our own school. Or, at the very least, we thought about how we could get a critical mass of progressive educators into one school in order to help transform it. We reflected on the possibility of a charter school, but seemed to have general agreement that the best scenario is to do this in the public arena. We also threw in the idea of a full-service school, to which I have included a link (http://www.saee.bc.ca/art2000_2_2.html) that talks to what these schools are up to. To carry forward, it was suggested that we begin discussing the profile of the progressive educator and, in the spirit of full service schools, other community actors (social workers, counselors, etc.). What is the philosophy and pedagogy of the progressive educator? What are the qualities of teachers and other cultural workers with whom you’d like to be engaged in the struggle? Your feedback is strongly encouraged on this strand before we meet again.
Nothing was discussed regarding obtaining non-profit status, but it is something we should continue to look into.
Our next meeting is Sunday October 24. The time and place are yet to be determined, but I will get back to you shortly. We’ve decided to read the first part of Chapter 4 through Freire’s section on anti-dialogical action. We should continue to read Freire, particularly this section of the text, in light of the upcoming election and the tactics of the oppressor to divide and conquer. (And, this tactic is bipartisan.)
We’ll conclude Freire at the 11/10 meeting and then I suggest we use our last two meetings of the semester, 12/1 and 12/12, to begin mapping out an action plan for the PrESS Network.
Adam Renner, Ph.D
12 members of the Network were present, many, again, worn-out from a long day and a long first six weeks in the schools.
Informal conversations quickly converged into a whole group discussion on the issue of the impending strike. There tended to be some mixed feeling on the strike, not necessarily in terms of issues of occupational justice, but rather the issue of leaving our community of children in the classroom. We also did, though, problematize the issue of occupational justice, sifting through the various public perceptions of teaching, teachers, and education; thinking about how much (and, in some cases, how well) teachers are paid; considering our level of education and the professional status that would be awarded in other professions; and empathizing that health care costs are going up for everyone. Since I still find good benefits (health and retirement) to be part of the implicit social contract with teachers—our negotiation in accepting lower wages given society’s patriarchal control over the profession—I fear an outcome that does not strongly challenge the governor on this issue. Teachers will never recover these benefits if they lose them now. (I’ve included a link here to a recent piece from Rich Gibson of the Rouge Forum: http://www.pipeline.com/~rougeforum/justicedemands.html, regarding teaching and justice. You might find Rich to be a little radical for your taste, but I think he is a pretty engaging guy and have published in his Rouge Forum Newsletter. At the very least, he provides some food for thought.)
We moved from here into a discussion of one of what Freire would term this historical moment’s “generative themes:” governmental spending. This is clear from the presidential debates. One party favors more social spending (in terms of health, education, and welfare) and the other favors more corporate spending (military, corporate tax incentives, and large tax cuts for the wealthy). Our decision in this election (both at the presidential level and at the congressional and local level) will very much be about spending and about how we will support the (to varying degrees) democratic institutions of education, health, and social welfare.
We also dipped into, then, one of my favorite issues: purposes of education. It is pretty clear that the purpose today is an economic one, focused on getting a job. Since we can’t all have big corporate jobs, a system has been created to stratify the workforce. Tracking and de facto segregation of schools (through magnet programs and the like) are pretty clear indicators that economics is the agenda. We also talked about NCLB and critical thinking and wondered to what extent critical thinking still takes place in school (and if it is even valued). What would happen if we educated students to think critically?
Finally, and interestingly, our conversation circled back to the original impetus of the group, suggested by Alex and Jason: maybe we should start our own school. Or, at the very least, we thought about how we could get a critical mass of progressive educators into one school in order to help transform it. We reflected on the possibility of a charter school, but seemed to have general agreement that the best scenario is to do this in the public arena. We also threw in the idea of a full-service school, to which I have included a link (http://www.saee.bc.ca/art2000_2_2.html) that talks to what these schools are up to. To carry forward, it was suggested that we begin discussing the profile of the progressive educator and, in the spirit of full service schools, other community actors (social workers, counselors, etc.). What is the philosophy and pedagogy of the progressive educator? What are the qualities of teachers and other cultural workers with whom you’d like to be engaged in the struggle? Your feedback is strongly encouraged on this strand before we meet again.
Nothing was discussed regarding obtaining non-profit status, but it is something we should continue to look into.
Our next meeting is Sunday October 24. The time and place are yet to be determined, but I will get back to you shortly. We’ve decided to read the first part of Chapter 4 through Freire’s section on anti-dialogical action. We should continue to read Freire, particularly this section of the text, in light of the upcoming election and the tactics of the oppressor to divide and conquer. (And, this tactic is bipartisan.)
We’ll conclude Freire at the 11/10 meeting and then I suggest we use our last two meetings of the semester, 12/1 and 12/12, to begin mapping out an action plan for the PrESS Network.
Adam Renner, Ph.D
posted by Jon at 10:13 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home