I was thinking today about the power of curriculum and it’s ability to control the Discourse of Education (capitalized as per James Gee), which both shapes and reflects our perceptions. It puts an almost hypnotic spell over everyone who comes in contact with it, and seems to not even be there itself, which is its insidious taken-for-granted cold-blooded snakiness.

The beauty of the edu-blog connections is that we can talk around and outside of the government and media wall that is propped up by school curricula.

Yes, local and situated interventions are the ones that we can emulate. It’s subversion in the open. It isn’t what we do that makes a difference, as much as why we do what we do, because the spirit we bring to the work is what kids understand first and last.

What if we look at the interface of system (top down, non dynamic, controlling) and culture / environment (bottom up, local, built by teachers)?

Despite talk of decentralisation Government will not give up on curriculum control or “duty of care” provisions

Good teachers will not give up on genuine interventions / building real learning environments in support of their students

It breaks down where these two forces meet. There are 2 cultures. (more than two, I’m sure but two for purposes of discussion at least)

I wrote about this some year ago, invitation to immersion

I like the irony of us discussing situatedness and localness, you in Alaska, me in South Australia

There is, as you point out, a case - or several cases - for interventions. But those that are imposed without invitation or consultation, from people outside (the system?), have messed things up so bad now that we are stumbling over all the fixes.

I don’t believe that there ever was a “system” operating, but that now we have something resembling one due to years of interference and attempts to congeal professional practice around a shared set of assumptions. Curriculum, for example, has served to standardize our profession and set us apart from ordinary people. It gives us a way of talking and thinking about what we do that is alien to non-practioners. Laws and policies regulate educational practice into what appears to be a coordinated institution, but it operates inconsistently, which, to me, indicates a chaotic environment that defies organization, not a system that is out of order. Brad Hoge’s original post talked about this idea. I suppose, according to his analysis, we could call it a system, but I’m using the word, culture. Environment works also.

In any case, looking for causes and attempting to apply a final fix to make things run smoothly in all cases is useless because of the dynamic nature of the work. In my experience it is the moment-to-moment insights, the discussions and interventions, the ideas noted as worthwhile, and those that are rejected, among my colleagues that are significant and worthy of emulation.

I’ve been taken to task before by administration-minded people who see the value in what they do, and think I’m not sufficiently appreciative of their role. I don’t mean to say that we don’t need them, but only that their leadership is best applied in service of the needs identified by practitioners who have a more detailed view. Coordination of resources and people is useful in any large-scale undertaking, and compromise is a given. Regimentation, however, stifles creativity and discourages innovation, both of which have value in human endeavors. I don’t want to take anything away from well-meaning dedicated people. A culture of inquiry and critique would be far more valuable that one of conformity and compliance.

Thanks, Bill. You’ve given me something else to think about today.

“We don’t need to be concerned with causes whatsoever. They are a distraction from the real work of healing and nurturing that teachers are called to.”

Are you saying that in rejecting crappy political interventions into meaningful class / local interactions, that we should in principle reject all such interventions? I think I disagree.

eg. Fraser Mustard (Ontario, Canada) suggested that we massively increase funding for pre-schoolers, esp. those from disadvantaged homes, as the best long term intervention

eg. in my state (South Australia) the politicians put up the school leaving age, to solve their youth unemployment problem, whilst providing very little in more resources for teachers to cope with this this situation

eg. a lot of young students have just stopped coming to class

The fact that many individual teachers make heroic efforts to make a difference doesn’t mean that School (capital S) is not a system. It is a system in which great teachers can often find a niche and make a difference. But still as a whole it does certain things that can be categorised,
eg. at certain times there is lesson change with or without bells
eg. students are supervised at all times, no privacy
eg. there are rules about surfing the internet for pornography

Maybe I am misunderstanding something here?