Wednesday evening, Philosophy of Education discussion.
The dominant power in a society ultimately wields the arms of education in both its delivery and curriculum which it provides. Institutional power structures have been seen throughout the historical context, stretching from the churches influence through to modern day neo-liberal structures. In all cases the institutional power has been gained and lost, but a recurrent theme is the significant rigidity and structure which these institutions force upon education. The significant structure and enforced frame work results in high levels of transmission which are doctoral and encourage the absence of alternative or belief based thoughts of an individual.
If these power structures have continually existed and based on the historical context will continue todo so, how can we ensure that our education is more morally conscious and one which engages a learner and their own belief system to rationalise what they are being taught. The author discusses opportunities of conversational engagement with the curriculum topic to judge, infer and determine what is thought. However, the neoliberal system values set types of educational knowledge and therefore ultimately success is delivered to those who most readily dispel their own beliefs to adhere to those transmitted by the system. To solve this problem of the institution only valuing set forms of knowledge and learning, teachers should be responsible for the appropriate, morale delivery of information. A practitioner should be professionalised and empowered to engage student belief systems in determining whether set delivered information is of value to them.
Professionalising teachers is important, engagement in the moral discussion of knowledge with students is important, but having a defined curriculum means that teachers must engage in the transmission of knowledge. Professional teachers, who are trusted and engage learners deeply in educational knowledge is demeaned by over accountability of one defined successful form of formal education (yes engage in these conversations, but they are fundamentally meaningless). A defined curriculum, means that transmission of formal knowledge engagement can superficially include morale discussion, but ultimately success is only accomplished when their is direct transmission. Consequently, all aspects of formal education only involve direct transmission, morale engagement by a practitioner can only remain superficial (optional) if success is in the current system is to be support.
So the questions are, who defines the curriculum? Who defines success? Why are people beliefs, values and morale approaches ultimately disengaged with when trying to deepen the importance of educational engagement. Does this mean teaching out side of the doctrine is a waste of time because ultimately it will have a net negative effective on the outcomes for students?