Toward
A Language of Action: Beyond Critique and Possibility David Gabbard, East
Carolina University
1.5 Though Hunt has yet to respond to our open letter, just one month after it appeared in The Educational Forum, the North Carolina General Assembly sent a loud and clear response to this question. The House and the Senate of the state’s General Assembly had recently passed budgetary legislation that eliminated the Performance-Based Licensure (PBL) program. Then, just two days prior to the deadline that we had established for completing this paper, our local newspaper here in Greenville (The Daily Reflector) published an article with the headline “Teacher portfolios get reprieve in the state’s final spending plan.” Not only did the General Assembly eliminate this program that could have provided a means for ensuring that the professional cultures of schools supported a model of teaching and continuous professional development grounded in research-based, national teaching standards and the underlying principles of the state’s own curriculum, it also reduced the budget of the state’s teacher mentoring program by $3,134,984.
1.8 We agree with McLaren and Giroux's recognition of the need for such a vision and an accompanying language for articulating it; in fact, implicit in critique are the criteria against which existing social systems are judged. That is to say, the language of possibility is always latent within the language of critique, but, to be truly useful, it must be drawn out and made visible. Thus, as McLaren and Giroux rightly remind us, a range of possibilities for truly democratic public spheres needs to be explicitly advanced and contested. We argue, however, that if the point of critical theory is, as Horkheimer and Freire say, understanding the world so as to change it, critical educational theorists must move beyond the outlining of possibilities into the realm of reflective action, into praxis.
The Moral Imperative for Action 2.1 Another useful way of framing the relationship between the languages of critique, possibility, and action is found in Noam Chomsky's (1996) discussion of "The Intellectual Responsibility of Writers." Chomsky asserts that it is the moral responsibility of anyone associated with intellectual work "to find out and tell the truth as best one can, about things that matter, to the right audience" (p. 55). Finding out and telling the truth clearly aligns with the language of critique. Chomsky contends that there is a moral dimension involved with determining which things matter. That is, as intellectual workers we should most concern ourselves with those things that have real consequences for real communities (which we would extend to include both human and non-human alike). This is not to deny the importance or value of addressing issues of more purely intellectual interest, but Chomsky's contentions clearly encourage us to conduct intellectual work that holds immediate significance for real living beings. This issue is crucial in making a determination of our audience. In Chomsky's view, "the audience is properly chosen if it should know the truth: for enlightenment, but primarily for action that will be of human significance, that will help relieve suffering and distress" (p. 56). It is also important, as Chomsky quite correctly points out, that we should not view those we engage merely as "an audience, but as a community of common concern in which one hopes to participate constructively. We should not be speaking to, but with" (p. 61). Herein lies the basis for establishing solidarity with those among whom critical educational theorists should seek to work in transforming schools and school cultures, the people who work in actual schools. 2.2 In our own work, the language of critique that we deploy focuses on current legislative impositions of accountability systems which equate teacher performance with student performance on high-stakes end-of-course and end-of-grade testing. This issue can easily be approached from the language of critique (Gabbard, 2000), but we have derived this focus primarily from our conversations with teachers. The negative impact that these accountability systems and high-stakes testing have on their teaching practices and the overall professional cultures of their schools matters to teachers, and the impact matters deeply when it erodes the professional culture within the schools in which the teachers work. Teachers find much to criticize in current reform efforts, but unfortunately, as Chomsky notes, speaking the truth can be personally costly, particularly in systems that lean more toward totalitarianism than democracy. Teachers clearly understand this and, consequently, feel inhibited from speaking out even against accountability structures which have led to a dramatic increase in what Wise (1979) calls "legislated learning," an attempt to teacher-proof curriculum by establishing tight links between instruction and testing. Such an approach contradicts research on effective school reform which, as Kirst notes, shows that real improvement takes place "when those responsible for each school are given more responsibility rather than less" (Sunday Express News, 1984). Darling-Hammond and Wise (1983) maintain that highly standardized prescriptions will lead to dissatisfied professionals, those who would feel, in DeCharms' (1968) terminology, more like "pawns" than "origins." 2.4 The
first theme found was that the pressure of the state testing program,
whether direct or indirect, was always present. "The first thing
they told us this year was when the testing would be done. We were
told to put those dates in our plan books and work back from there," said
one veteran teacher. Another added that she had thought about changing
schools to work at one where a friend had become principal,
2.5 Teachers also reported that, as a direct result of state mandates, their schools had instituted policies about curriculum content. "We were told, 'If it ain't on the test, don't teach it.'" One principal told his teachers not to introduce new material in the six weeks before the test; this time was to be spent on review, especially in formats used in the upcoming exam.
2.6
Teachers also noted that the operational definition of the "basics" had
changed; there was less essay work done, and required writing often took
the formats tested on state exams. "I think we're hurting the kids,
honestly. I mean our scores are better but I just don't think they have
the well-rounded skills they'll need." Other teachers noted the
pressure they felt to keep on track with the prescribed curriculum.
2.7
Teachers were concerned about the ethics of the extent of time spent on
preparing students to do well on the exam. "I mean, coaching is
fine, but all the time we spend on it--is that right? All the practice?"
Teachers reported instances of students being placed in different special
education categories so they would not be required to take state exams.
One noted:
2.8 Teachers
talked about feeling "defeated," "powerless," and "unsure if they were
doing the right things" to help students succeed. The feelings varied
in intensity but not in kind between the two environments.
2.9
Teachers also reported steps that principals took to help them cope better
with testing requirements. Principals at all the schools attempted
to attend to morale issues, but teachers noted that these efforts were
primarily internal to the school and that principals were seen as doing
little to speak out against problems with the accountability program itself.
Principals, as a whole, were seen as part of the control mechanism, rather
than as professional mentors or spokespersons for better education.
2.10
Principals at both types of schools were seen as offering instrumental
advice, but in different ways. At low-achieving schools, the principals'
advice was seen as focusing on approaches that led to "de-skilling" the
teachers' work. "It is very much a cookbook kind of approach--do
this, do that, get those skills ingrained so kids will score better.
It doesn't seem to have much to do with what kids need." At higher-scoring
schools, on the other hand, principals tended to reinforce teacher attempts
at enrichment and relief from the focus on testing, but only if scores
remained high. Implicit at both kinds of sites, teachers thought, was
principals' acceptance of the neo-conservative approach.
2.11 When probed for their own views on the purposes of public education, teachers gave two kinds of responses. Most of them reflected the extent to which "economization" has penetrated their consciousness. They gave few statements indicating a belief that education should strengthen individuals to defend themselves from the state or to define and pursue their own non-economic interests (see Freire, 1970; Kozol, 1975). "Isn't that what school is about anyway--to get these kids to fit into society, to get a job so they won't be on welfare or doing crime to support themselves?" Added another, "I tell the kids that they have to do well in school so they'll have better job options in the future." These teachers had no trouble seeing themselves as agents of the state; their concerns with the mandated testing program had more to do with technical problems in test construction and the dissemination of results, not with the overall legitimacy of the aims of the accountability movement. "We're just starting the process, and it's a big change, so we have to expect a few bugs in the system." The function of the schools most often mentioned was the creation of "productive" citizens. 2.12
On the other hand, there was a vocal minority within each group which
clearly saw their role as one of resistance, with or without support from
the administration.
2.13
Teachers at the "successful" schools noted that creating space for "real
teaching" usually involved some deception, that they couldn't acknowledge
openly their own ideas about high stakes testing and its impact of their
professional lives. Occasionally, though, real anger surfaced.
One teacher noted that the emphasis on testing had "narrowed the experience
path and created a 'whorehouse' effect in the classroom." Another
added:
2.14 Though several teachers mentioned the influence of the state legislature in the accountability movement in a general way, this last teacher was the only one of those interviewed who placed the conflict explicitly in a larger political context. Most limited their attention to the felt impact of testing on their own classrooms and addressed the issue as one of professional autonomy. "I don't think it's hostile," said one; "it's just mindless and you have to work around it." 2.15 These conversations with teachers indicated that the battle to control the ideology of school reform is being dominated by forces that lead to standardization of curriculum and instruction and to holding teachers accountable for students' mastery of basic skills. From the teachers' perspective this has negatively affected their sense of professionalism by decreasing autonomy and reducing options for children, but they do not see ways in which they can fight the trends. If it is important to foster more humanistic and spiritual aims for public education, it will be crucial to develop pockets of resistance within the system itself. This will be difficult and sometimes even dangerous work since, as Cohen (1971, p. 41) noted, "To expect that a state will allow its schools to serve aims other than those of the national policy is to expect that a state will not act like a state." 2.16 Because teachers are very sensitive to the expectations held for them by their immediate supervisors, key to the success of any resistance will be the actions of school principals. If we were to employ only the language of critique, we might note that this suggests that both in their university training programs, and in later field support efforts, principals should be encouraged to examine state requirements within a broad context that includes deep and sustained reflection on the purposes of public education. We might also note how a failure to support principals in this endeavor will force teachers back into the solitary craftsman model that has hindered meaningful reform in countless schools across the nation. 2.17 On the other hand, it seems to us that a language of action must address the issue of transforming the entirety of a school's culture, not allowing ourselves to rest comfortably with a mere understanding of the pathologies that detract from teachers' abilities to work collectively with parents, students, and administrative staff in pursuing grander visions of what their school might become. In this regard, it is crucial that we consider the distinction that Chomsky (1996) makes between visions and goals. Visions, he says, refer to "the conception of a future society that animates what we actually do, a society in which a decent human being might want to live" (p. 70). In applying this definition to schools, we could state that an educational vision relates to a conception of a future educational environment that animates what teachers, students, and principals do, an educational environment in which a decent human being might want to teach or learn. Furthermore, Chomsky says that goals refer to "the choices and tasks that are within reach, that we will pursue one way or another guided by a vision that may be distant and hazy" (p. 70). In other words, teachers may not be able to completely align their practices with their visions overnight. This returns us to Chomsky's moral imperative that intellectuals must prioritize their work around those issues of greatest and most immediate concern for those with whom they speak and work. In this case, the issue of greatest and most immediate concern for the teachers interviewed by Perreault is the matter of accountability systems and the high-stakes testing upon which they are based. Our most immediate goal, then, becomes the elimination of these illegitimate systems of coercion. 2.18 While teachers may fear speaking out against those accountability systems, those of us who work in the privileged space of academia enjoy considerably more freedom to bring such matters under public scrutiny. At present, Chomsky describes his own short-term goals as efforts toward defending and even strengthening "elements of state authority which, though illegitimate in fundamental ways, are critically necessary right now to impede the dedicated efforts to 'roll back' the progress that has been achieved in extending democracy and human rights" (p. 73). This is a crucial point in understanding a language of action. 2.19 Using the language of critique, we might view state-mandated compulsory schooling as fundamentally illegitimate in the sense that the state should not be trusted to play a role in shaping the beliefs, values, and behaviors of its citizens. This distrust, of course, refers us back to what McLaren and Giroux earlier described as the success of critical educational theory – developing a description of how schools reproduce capitalist social relations and the dominant ideologies of ruling groups. However, we must also recognize that public schools have become one of the two most important sources from which individuals receive information about the world in which they live. The other institution is the mainstream media, elements within multinational conglomerate corporations that are owned and operated by private wealth. Because they are private institutions, the public has no clear means by which to shape the purposes and interests that the media serve. 2.20 Our schools, conversely, are public, which means that we have mechanisms by which to shape them in directions that extend the scope of our democracy and address fundamental human rights. For example, activists within the Civil Rights Movement were able to exert enough pressure on state institutions to bring about some significant degree of desegregation. Other populist groups, particularly since the 1960s, have led educators to begin questioning the content and purposes of school curricula. The multicultural education movement, as a case in point, grew out of people's concerns for how schools treated issues related to the experiences of minority groups and women. The relative success of these popular movements testifies to the extent to which ours is a free and open society. Private wealth and power, of course, perceive this freedom and openness as a threat to their interests and, therefore, use their influence over the state apparatus to keep popular forces at bay (sometimes more successfully than others). In fact, as Gabbard (1999) has described in previous works, the educational "crisis" that led state governments to establish the accountability systems which we are criticizing here provides us with a perfect example of how the media have operated in concert with private wealth and power to "roll back" these populist-based movements within education. In turn, the accountability systems that so distress teachers today can be viewed as techniques for labor management that prevent, or at least inhibit, teachers from engaging in forms of pedagogy that focus students' attention on issues and information other than the forms of knowledge measured by standardized tests. Foucault (1988) would describe this kind of teacher behavior as a policing function ultimately aimed at increasing the economic wealth of the state. 2.21 It
is within this context that we define our own short-term goals, insofar
as those goals relate to strengthening schools as state institutions.
Strengthening them, in this case, means protecting them from the undue
influence of private wealth and power, striving toward the empowerment
of teachers, principals, and parents to create school cultures in which
real communities of people can participate in deciding what purposes schools
should serve and how those purposes can best be pursued. Again,
teachers may not feel comfortable doing so, but those of us involved in
the education of teachers and other school professionals can and must
speak out. As Chomsky notes,
2.22
At the same time as we agree with Chomsky's appeal to our sense of morality,
however, we recognize that we cannot speak in the language of action without
first acknowledging that the course taken will vary from individual to
individual. And this is how it should be if we proceed from a basis
of human dignity. To illustrate this point, we will talk briefly
about two potential approaches, one of micro-politics and another at the
macro-political level. Micro-Politics and the Language of Action 3.1 At the micro-political level, we should focus on the level of the individual school and participate with the principal and teachers in efforts to create and establish emancipatory practices. We cannot do this without a thorough understanding of the particular culture of the school in which we are working, for although schools look very much alike from a distance, they, like people, exhibit a robust individuality as we come to a fuller understanding of them. Ignoring these differences in the interest of creating general principles, which is the work of scholarship--and the language of critique--also can create suspicion and even hostility within individual sites at which we might otherwise profitably work. 3.2 Consequently, it is important that we understand how to work effectively in schools. For example, our basic stance must be that we are to work with people in the schools as partners in the struggles which have engaged their attentions, not on issues which might seem more important to us. We cannot overlook the phenomenological realities they perceive because, after all, realties are socially constructed (Berger & Luckmann, 1966). It is only after we have demonstrated our commitment and established a level of trust that deeper issues can be engaged. For this reason, the way in which we gain entry to a school is important. 3.3 We have established numerous working relationships with public schools--evaluating programs; engaging in school-wide and district-wide renewal and reform initiatives. These seem to us useful ways to initiate discussions about the purposes of public schools. We have also used action research projects, either initiated in graduate university courses or (even better, we think) developed by the school itself, as a point of entry. Each of these strategies holds the advantage of involving the principal in a direct participatory way, and involvement of the principal has often been noted as a key factor in school improvement (Hord & Hall, 1987; Rutherford, 1985). Properly done, action research is empowering for its participants, offering opportunity for reflection and developing a growing sense of themselves as practical intellectuals. The fact that most action research projects have a limited focus is not really a disadvantage since this leads to a realization that, although schools need a common focus, they need not be monolithic. And this realization, when acted upon, creates spaces that are based on an ethic of caring, to ripples of resistance that can lead to larger and more substantive changes. It is through a series of small changes that the ultimate objective is achieved--transformation of the culture in which individual teachers and learners interact. 3.4
That said, it is also important that as critical educators we ground our
work in what is known about organizational change. Among the key
concepts of change theory are the need to focus upon the concerns of individuals
dealing with change and the understanding that change is a process rather
than event. It is also crucial to realize that implementation of
any significant change--such the modifications of attitudes and beliefs--often
takes years. Thus, necessary attributes of change leaders includes
patience and persistence; schools and communities grow through a stream
of wise decisions rather than through pronouncements, no matter how well
intentioned (Fullan, 1991). If we, as critical educators, are serious
about improving schools at the micro-political level, we must commit ourselves
to intensive and sustained work in particular sites. Final Thoughts
References Arendt, H. (1973). Ideology and Terror: A Novel Form of Government. In The Origins of Totalitarianism, New York: Harcourt. Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Garden City, NY, Doubleday. Chomsky, N. (1996). Powers and prospects: Reflections on human nature and the social order. Boston: South End Press. Cohen, Y. A. (1971). The shaping of men's minds: Adaptations to the imperatives of culture. In M. L. Wax, S. Diamond, & F. O. Gearing (Eds.), Anthropological perspectives on culture (pp. 33 42). New York: Basic Books. Darling-Hammond, L., & Wise, A. E. (1983). Teaching standards or standardized learning? Educational Leadership, 41(2), 66-69. DeCharms, R. (1968).
Personal causation: The internal affective determinants of behavior.
New York: Academic Press. Foucault, M. (1988). Governmentality. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon, & P. Miller (Eds.) The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality, (pp. 87-104). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Fullan, M. G. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum. Gabbard, D. A., & L’Esperance, M., (2002). Revisiting Reform in North Carolina: An Open Letter to former Governor James B. Hunt, Jr. The Educational Forum. Gabbard, D. A. (2000a). Knowledge and power in the global economy: Politics and the rhetoric of school reform. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Gabbard, D. A. (2000b). "Accountability" in D. A. Gabbard (Ed.), Knowledge and power in the global economy: Politics and the rhetoric of school reform, (pp. 53-61). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership. New York: Paulist Press. Hord, S. M., & Hall, G. E. (1987). Three images: What principals do in curriculum implementation. Curriculum Inquiry 17(1): 55-89 Hunt, J. B. Jr. (2001). First in America: An education governor challenges North Carolina. Raleigh, NC: First in America Foundation. Kozol, J. (1975). The night is dark and I am far from home. New York: Touchstone Books. McLaren, P., & Giroux, H. A. (1997). Writing from the margins: Geographies of identity, pedagogy, and power. In P. McLaren (Ed.), Revolutionary multiculturalism: Pedagogies of dissent for the new millennium, (pp. 16-41). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (2002). What all teachers should know and be able to do. Chicago: Author. Available online: http://www.nbpts.org/pdf/coreprops.pdf Palmer, P. J. (1990, January/February). Good teaching: A matter of living the mystery. Change, 11-16. Rutherford, W. L. (1985). School principals as effective leaders. Phi Delta Kappan, 19(1): 31-34. Interview with Michael Kirst (1984, December 16). Sunday Express News (San Antonio). Wise, A. E. (1988). Legislated learning revisited. Phi Delta Kappan, 69(5), 329-332. |