Revisiting The Public and its Problems: A Call for Paper Proposals

The John Dewey Society invites submissions for a special panel of papers revisiting Dewey’s most comprehensive work of political theory and democratic politics, The Public and its Problems (1927). Dewey wrote the book as a response to the deeply embedded skepticism of participatory democracy and public life expressed by democratic realists of the era like Walter Lippmann, author of The Phantom Public (1925). In response to Lippmann, Dewey (1927) offered a thorough analysis of early 20th century democracy and some of his best thinking on both the challenges of, and hopes for public life in democratic societies. The book remains a key text for pragmatists but particularly for pragmatists working in education, as the challenges and threats to the ideals of democracy in education — as it relates to curriculum, pedagogy, educational policy and politics, for example — abound today as never before. Indeed, we live in an era in which at times it seems the language of public ideals, public purposes, and public education itself seems naïve and hopelessly outdated. This, then, is a productive time for educational philosophers to revisit this key text in Dewey’s opus, one of his most important statements on democratic ideals, processes, and problems. We invite educators, philosophers, and educational theorists to engage the arguments, multiple interpretations, and contemporary implications of The Public and its Problems.

Québec is in shock after a possible assassination attempt on its new Premier

It was a tumultuous and ultimately tragic election night here in Québec. After an intense campaign marked by strident rhetoric on the part of all the major party leaders, Pauline Marois, leader of the sovereigntist Parti Québecois, won a minority government. This victory, however, was overshadowed by the fact that someone may have tried to assassinate Marois during her victory speech. The photo on the right shows her being pulled off the stage by her bodyguards.

Call for Papers from the Journal of Educational Controversy

VOL. 8 NO. 1 Fall 2013

Theme: Who Defines the Public in Public Education?

Controversy Addressed:

Our journal published an article recently on the banning of the Mexican-American curriculum in Arizona’s Tucson Unified School District. The incident raises many larger questions about what knowledge is of most worth, whose perspective gains ascendency in the curriculum, and what public is represented in the public schools. Controversies have emerged not only over what should be included in specific areas like the literary canon, historical interpretations, science curriculum, etc., but also in the larger arena of ideological frameworks over what it means to be human, what it means to be an educated person, and what social values should frame a public education in a society that embeds a fundamental tension between its capitalist economic system and its democratic egalitarian ideals. Even the tension between the secular and the religious continues to defy easy answers in a society that values separation between church and state. As Warren Nord says about the typical study of economics, it assumes that “economics is a science, people are essentially self-interested utility-maximizers, the economic realm is one of competition for scarce resources, values are personal preferences and value judgments are matters of cost-benefit analysis.” (Warren A. Nord, “The Relevance of Religion to the Curriculum,” The School Administrator, January 1999.) In effect, the so-called secular study of economics makes a number of assumptions about human nature, society, and values. What is left out of this study of the economic domain of life is the theologian’s questions of social justice, stewardship, poverty and wealth, human dignity and the meaningfulness of work. To what degree do students understand or are even aware of these hidden assumptions in their study of economics and other subjects? To what degree should other perspectives be included? We invite authors to shed some light on these questions.


MANUSCRIPTS DUE: APRIL 1, 2013


PUBLICATION DATE: FALL 2013


Authors can find the journal at: http://www.wce.wwu.edu/eJournal

Apparently we still have confidence in public school teachers

This post comes from guest blogger Melissa Martens, a masters degree student at Peabody College, Vanderbilt University.

Reading through the vast blogosphere of articles relating to educational policies and opinions can be a rollercoaster ride. Someone portrayed as a mighty hero in one article is the greatest villain in another. Often, I find that “bad teachers” get the attention and “good teachers” are forgotten (their stories are much less juicy and stir up less controversy and interest). As politicians, committee members, and news outlets debate and criticize the teaching profession, they highlight failures to prescribe personal ideas of the illusive panacea.

With all this bad press and criticism, I can’t help but wonder when we stopped respecting teachers. During the year and a half that I taught in South Korea, one of the things that I found most striking about the educational system was the admiration their society had for teachers. Teachers were valued and esteemed for their hard work and dedication to students. From what I observed, parents supported them and their decisions instead of questioning or undermining them.

Could I say the same about public opinion of teachers in the United States? I questioned if my society saw teachers this way or if they viewed them as problems. The way some education reformers, politicians, and authors speak, teachers sometimes look like selfish, horned creatures that only cared about raises and tenure (and would rather eat children than teach them). However, I knew this could not be the case. Why would someone enter the teaching profession with that mindset? It’s not a glamorous, six-figure job; it’s hard work! I had to believe that people who went into teaching had the best interests of students at heart. Did anyone else agree?

I saw an interesting article on Education Week by John Wilson entitled “New Poll Shows Public Confidence in Teachers.” I hate to say that I was a bit surprised to read this headline in light of recent news, but most of all, I was encouraged. The article talks about the 44th annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll of the “Public Attitudes Toward the Public Schools” and quoted that “For the third year in a row, three out of four Americans say they have trust and confidence in the men and women who teach in the public schools.” Although they did not necessarily think that public schools nationally were doing a great job, they had more positive perceptions of their local schools and reported faith in teachers. This is a very interesting societal perception. It also mentioned that the public was split about using student test data to determine teacher effectiveness and thought that schools should be involved in the discipline of bullies, even if they are bullying others on the Internet or outside of the school day.

In the midst of education reform and political elections, it seems easy to blame teachers for the problems in education. We certainly hear powerful people criticizing them, but it gives me courage that most of the American people still have confidence in public school teachers. Do you?

Whatever happened to those Québec student protests?

It's been a while since the rest of the world heard much about the Québec student protests. After a spring filled with hundred-thousand strong marches, things have died down considerably. There are very few protests in the streets, and hardly anyone is banging on pots.

Given this relative tranquillity, one would think that the issue had been resolved. This, however, is far from being the case. The government and the students never managed to negotiate an agreement, and the legal challenges to Law 78 (which severely restricted the right to protest) are ongoing. So if the disagreements are still outstanding, why is everything so quiet?

"What Really Matters is the Quality of Teaching": Gender Balance and Primary Education

Over on the IOE London blog, Director Chis Husbands has recently contributed an account of some of the economic and historical reasons why the number of male primary teachers in some European countries is so low. He also explains why we have good reason to think that this number will improve into the future.

As a former primary school teacher, I found his analysis pretty spot on - I fell into primary school teaching after training to be a high school teacher. We were always told that high school teaching was "serious" business, while primary work is an extension of daycare. I see that this is no longer the case, of course, and in many respects my primary teaching years have comprised some of the best and most fulfilling work I have had the opportunity to engage in. I only wish I had gotten that message earlier in my teaching career.

The comment that seemed to have gotten the most attention, however, is Husband's concluding remark:

There is a recurring concern about the absence of men in primary schools, and the claimed lack of role models for boys. The evidence on the importance of gender role models in primary school is mixed. It’s important, for all sorts of reasons, that public service professions are not gendered. But in the classroom, what really matters is the quality of teaching.

Is the quality of a teacher's practice and the role modelling of gender entirety separable issues? Even if gender does in fact have little demonstrable impact on individual educational attainment, might an educational environment defined by great gender balance contribute to the educational process in other important ways?

Another great article on for-profit colleges

Check it out in The Village Voice...

Penn State? Who created the darkness?

If someone commits evil under cover of darkness, whom shall we punish? The one who commits the evil or the ones who create the darkness?

(The above is a "remembered quote" rattling around in my head. However, I can remember neither the source of the quote nor the exact wording. I apologize for my failing memory, but the point is still worth a bit of meditation.)

It occurs to me that this thought applies equally well to the Sandusky/Paterno/Penn State saga as it does to the Aurora massacre. That there were small children present for the premier of "The Dark Knight Rises" and that we put guns in the hands of a young man who is clearly mentally ill (perhaps sent over the cliff into insanity by the last iteration of the Dark Knight -- think Heath Ledger) implicates all of us in a tragedy beyond measure. We created the darkness that covered James Holmes.

But this morning as talk radio (not just sports radio) is bloated with bloviation about the NCAA sanctions, my mind is on the multiple layers of darkness with a common epicenter in Happy Valley. I have been concerned for months that the legal and institutional responses to this travesty render a clear judgment that the behavior of Sandusky, Paterno, Spanier, et al. (including Jay Paterno and Mrs. Paterno and Mrs. Sandusky) was not in any way acceptable. I have also been concerned that those responses be constructive: making the victims whole by acknowledging the complexity of their experience for which they were and are not responsible, and ensuring that this could not happen again. In other words, I have been concerned that we would lift the multiple veils of darkness.

The Freeh Commission began the process.
1) Joe Paterno was only human. He was gloriously talented and accomplished and so very sadly flawed. (He was also aging. Does anybody seriously think that his judgment was not compromised as other problems -- players in legal trouble remaining on the team, for example -- emerged in a program that had once been squeaky clean? Who is responsible for failing to level with Mr. Paterno about his own failings? His son, Jay, perhaps? The Board of Trustees, unquestionably. The PSU alumni? You bet. By the way, Graham Spanier is not responsible for this layer of darkness .... He tried to save Joe from himself.)
2) The Board of Trustees supported the deification of one man, failing to fulfill their own responsibility to the well-being of all young people.
3) The administration of the university owed their jobs to Joe. They could not or would not challenge him.
4) Major college athletics dominates decision-making in universities around the country.

But there are more layers of darkness that have to be exposed:

5) Penn State fans pass their season tickets down from generation to generation constructing and legitimizing a cult that is impenetrable. This is why the university could announce a hike in football ticket prices this week in advance of the NCAA's announced sanctions.
6) The legislature in Pennsylvania (and legislatures throughout the country) have been cutting state aid to public and publicly-supported higher education for decades. Penn State, a land grant institution, has had subsidies cut to the bone. At the same time, there is significant political pressure to keep tuition affordable. In that fiscal stranglehold, the Board of Trustees understandably supports the care and feeding of the "golden calf" that at Penn State really did subsidize the academic side of the ledger. (So when Governor Tom Corbett gets up and says that no taxpayer money will go into paying the $60 million dollar fine the NCAA has levied, he is either terribly stupid or wildly hypocritical -- and frankly, the evidence suggests both. If it's football ticket money that pays for this, then there will be less football money to subsidize academics ... and tuition will rise and/or program quality be cut. The citizens of Pennsylvania will pay.)
7) As a community, writ large and writ local, we have failed to understand the meaning of responsibility. A Penn State employee told me that "insurance" would pay for law suit settlements, etc. Anybody who ever claimed insurance compensation knows that this is nonsense. A claim (whether to an insurance trust or a self-insurance fund) has to be recouped and replenished. There is no free ride. But the point of responsibility is not retrospective punishment -- as emotionally satisfying as that may seem in the moment. The point of responsibility is prospective. Who are we going forward? What does "We are Penn State!" mean? What will it mean tomorrow and tomorrow?

For the most part, the University has been remarkably good about taking responsibility for its role in creating the darkness that gave Jerry Sandusky cover and that allowed Paterno et al. to keep the lights off. But others are not. I just heard Franco Harris on the radio (Franco Harris whom I have always admired as an athlete) saying that this hasn't played out yet and the Freeh report is just one source of evidence. Oh, please, Franco ...

The NCAA has come up with a ridiculous set of sanctions that will allow all the other NCAA Division I schools where all sorts of "evil" (sexual harassment, rape, academic corner-cutting, misuse of young athletes) are being covered up under cover of a related darkness. And I suspect they have done so in order to label Penn State as the source of the evil and to cloak themselves in a cover of "light."

They didn't have to take away fourteen years worth of victories ... just two victories would have cleared the way for Grambling's Eddie Robinson. (Or do they truly have a gallows sense of humor, establishing Mike McQueary as the last successful Penn State quarterback??)

I am more concerned about what the NCAA did not do. Yes, they have punished Penn State severely, making it likely that education will cost more. But in the process of punishing just Penn State, they have made it seem that only they are the transgressors ... when it is we who have created the darkness.

[Postscript: If I were the Queen, I would have required that a statement be read at the start of every NCAA event (and printed on all tickets) at every school for a period of three years minimum saying something like: "We in the NCAA are committed to the prevention of child sexual abuse and every other kind of human abuse and harassment (physical, sexual, emotional, psychological) and we pledge to bring such abuse and harassment to light. What happened at Penn State and Syracuse and -- we acknowledge -- in other forms in other NCAA institutions, will not happen again." And then I would leave the financial and juridical consequences of all this to the courts.]

[Post- postscript: Would somebody please tell Jay Paterno to stop whining?]

John Dewey and His Continued Relevance

I have a new book out this month and after having the manuscript out of my hands with the publisher for a while now, I sat down to flip through it. The book is about how to develop good citizenship skills in school children, especially the ability to speak out in political dissent, given recent shifts in American democratic practice following open protests in our streets promoted most notably by the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street. When looking back at the book, I was reminded at the outset of chapter 1 of a debate I had with myself about John Dewey and his relevance today.

Like many other authors, I decided to start the book with a quote. I had an array of suitable lines at the ready, most by political leaders. Yet I found myself coming back again and again to a quote by Dewey. Despite being from 1922, I was surprised at its continued pertinence to life in US schools and society. Ringing in the back of my mind were words spoken partially in jest and partially in sincerity by a dear member of my doctoral committee when I decided to write my dissertation on Dewey several years ago: “get over Dewey.” While herself enamored with many of Dewey’s ideas, I had wondered if perhaps she was right; maybe it was time to move on to someone new or different. Yet I just can’t seem to do it. I continue to find such rich insight in Dewey, such careful assessment of context that, though many things have changed in our contemporary age, still serves as a model for how to analyze educational contexts today and still rings true in many cases. So, like many others, Dewey opens my book and I’m sure that many others in the future will use his words as well.

And for those who are wondering what those words might be:

“What will happen if teachers become sufficiently courageous and emancipated to insist that education means the creation of a discriminating mind, a mind that prefers not to dupe itself or to be the dupe of others? Clearly they will have to cultivate the habit of suspended judgment, of scepticism, of desire for evidence, of appeal to observation rather than sentiment, discussion rather than bias, inquiry rather than conventional idealizations. When this happens schools will be the dangerous outposts of a humane civilization. But they will also begin to be supremely interesting places. For it will then have come about that education and politics are one and the same thing because politics will have to be in fact what it now pretends to be, the intelligent management of social affairs.” Education as Politics, 1922, p. 141

Democratic Culture and the Culture of Fear

I have just published a new op/ed style essay, Democratic Culture and the Culture of Fear, on the recent protests in Québec. It's part of the second volume of a special rush issue of the Journal of Mobile Media. It's available here, along with many other interesting articles on the same theme.