Journal Entry #2

    Over the past several weeks we have been covering cultural themes in Socio-cultural Foundations of Education.  During the first week of discussion on cultural themes, Democracy and Education was discussed.  The following week discussions consisted of Protestantism, Humanism, and the New Age Movement.  Discussions followed on Nationalism, Capitalism, Pluralism, and Globalism during the next week.  Finally, during the last week spent on cultural themes, discussions included Reductionism, Marxism, and Industrialization.

    The discussion on Democracy and Education focused on the central question: "What is democracy?"  Basic tenets of democracy were discussed such as government by the people, people as the source of power, and majority rule.  Of particular interest to me was Dewey's belief that the role of education in a democratic society is a philosophy of education that prepares one for participation in a democratic way of life.  Does this mean that in order for our schools to prepare students to participate in democracy those schools have to operate in a democratic way when dealing with students?  I believe that we must act wisely in this regard.  While it is important that students understand, and believe in, the democratic process, the level of student participation in educational decisions must not be great enough to jeopardize the quality of the education.  Therefore, I believe we may be able to model and demonstrate democracy while retaining enough control to ensure a safe and organized place for learning to occur.

    The discussion on Protestantism dealt with the effects that Protestantism and Christianity in general has had on education.  Information discussed included how Christian beliefs are often seen to be at odds with the mainstream views of education.  One of the things I found interesting was the explanation of the myth of neutrality.  According to this view there can be no reconciliation (or neutrality) between the views of the world held by Christians and non-Christians.  I believe that there may be found some common ground of agreement between these groups which may lead to greater understanding between them.  However, It appears to me that if one is to hold onto the views he/she believes, there must remain some disagreement when those views clash.

    The discussion on Humanism involved the characteristics and significance of Humanism on schools in the future.  What I found most interesting was the possibility of a distinction between Humanism and Secular Humanism.  Can one have a philosophy that emphasizes the potential or possibility of human beings, but accepts supernatural posers and be a Secular Humanists?  What I understood from the discussion is that one could be a Humanist and put great emphasis on human power while at the same time acknowledging a supernatural power.

    The discussion on the New Age Movement included the beginning of new age, characteristics and practices of the New Age Movement and the New Age Movement in regard to education.  I was surprised to hear that the New Age Movement began in the 1960's.  It is my understanding that the objective of this group is to transform the world in to a new order that will make it a happy, peaceful place for everyone to live.  I knew that people like Pat Robertson spoke out against the New Age Movement but had not thought about the New Age platform being taught to public school children.  If children are a prime target for members of the New Age Movement, I believe this violates the rights of parents and students to be exposed and believe in what they choose to value.

    The discussion of Nationalism included an explanation of it as well as its history and aspects.  There was a lively discussion of what nationalism and "national loyalty" should include.  There are those in class who believe that we must be a "global" society and that we must accept a loss of nationalism to a degree.  Others believe that we should be nationalistic in the sense of becoming completely independent from the rest of the world.  I believe that we must work with other countries but that, at the same time, it is important that we work to protect our own country and its citizens in their dealings with others.  I wonder what the class would have thought of the "World Trade Organization".

    Capitalism was discussed beginning with an overview of Capitalism followed by its characteristics.  The merits were discussed concerning the haves and the have-nots as well as motivation for workers to be productive.  Some believe that resources should be taken from the haves and given to the have-nots while others believe that a system of rewards should be based on meritocracy.  I believe the latter.  I think that what motivates people to be productive is the potential reward for those efforts.  I truly believe that anyone can succeed in a system that rewards individuals based on what they accomplish.

    Next, Cultural Pluralism was discussed including its background and the ability of teachers to "connect" with their students.  I believe that students do not necessarily need someone teaching them who is of their social or ethnic background.  However, I think it is unrealistic to expect one who knows nothing about a specific group of people to excel at teaching that group.  Finally, I believe that one who is of the same social or ethnic makeup of his/her students is not a better teacher to those students based solely on his participation in that group.

    The discussion on Globalism proved to be both lively and interactive.  It included a debate on the merits of nationalistic views including draft card burning and the destruction of the flag.  I believe that people have a right to believe the way they want.  However, there are proper ways of facilitating change in our society.  I don't think one should be allowed to burn his draft card simply because he is in disagreement with the government and I believe that there are rules that are set up for the benefit and safety of our society in general.  For example, if we all decided that we should not have to do any assignments throughout our cohort and signed a petition (unanimously) stating this, we would not be allowed to make that change.  Furthermore, we should not be allowed to make that change.  There are rules that have been established to facilitate an orderly flow in our society.  I believe those rules benefit everyone directly or indirectly.

    The discussion on Marxism dealt with what Marx called the unequal distribution of wealth and Marx's two social classes:  the haves and the have-nots.  Marx called for a social revolution that would involve the working class rising up against the elite.  Although I do not believe in equal redistribution of resources, I believe that the discrepancy between the haves and the have-nots is too great.  I think that charitable organizations help with this problem but do not solve it.  I believe that society needs to offer legitimate opportunities to the have-nots and let them make the hard decisions of whether to put out the effort necessary for most of us in becoming "haves".

    Finally, I facilitated a discussion on Scientific Reductionism.  This discussion included the definition of Scientific Reductionism as well as Fredric Taylor's use of reductionism and how reductionism is a source of conflict among groups mentioned in "School Wars."  One aspect that wasn't adequately covered was that of standardized tests.  Our organizations often used standardized tests to "reduce" students to a set of data.  I believe we have to be careful with using test and understand what we are using them for.  If possible, we should use criteria that is based on a number of tools available such as test scores, grade point average, and classes taken.

    When I first looked at the list of topics for our cultural themes assignment I did not see much controversy.  However, after participating in these discussions, I realize that each theme brings with it beliefs and views that are usually contrasted with the beliefs and views of other themes.  I guess this is what we deal with in education with regard to the "messiness of democracy".

< Back