Posts Tagged ‘theories’

How have political events shaped education policy and the production of regulatory and quality frameworks in Australia?

December 30, 2014

How have political events shaped education policy and the production of regulatory and quality frameworks in Australia? What effects may this have on how and who you can ‘become’ as an early childhood professional?

Political events will always shape our society and culture generally. Politics is the activity of organising people and society to achieve purposeful collective outcomes. What these outcomes may be, and how they will be achieved, and who for, is defined as ideology. Politics per se should not be defined primarily by political parties and parliamentary participation; organised people, community members, trade unions, involved in extra-parliamentary activity have and can also significantly shaped early childhood policy and regulatory outcomes.

The State (the rule of law, parliaments and local government, the military and paramilitary) mediates the expressed interests of the contending parties. The State is the product of the means to achieving said social organisation which is partly defined by policy and regulations

Policy as quality and regulation while expressed through the transactions of The State machinery is shaped by the relative power of contending forces that work under and within its mandates. While the current federal government works to protect the market and the needs of corporate business and power it must, as an emperor sans culottes, must attempt to disguise prevarication and counter reforms as an ‘Education Revolution’.

Current ALP policy is a reminder that policy rhetoric and actual practice need to be interrogated if we are to make sense of the political landscape; what political and departmental representatives say they mean and what they do should never be taken at face value.

‘Productivity’, the business person’s and politician’s euphemism for ‘corporate profits’, informs the direction of ALP policy for children and education. The former deputy prime minister in addressing corporate business groups says it as it really is;

‘In today’s world’, she told a gathering of the Australian Industry Group, ‘the areas covered by my portfolios – early childhood education and childcare, schooling, training, universities, social inclusion, employment participation and workplace cooperation – are all ultimately about the same thing: productivity’. …. Further to the point ‘I’m going to be ignoring the old battles between unions and employers, public and private schools (taxpayer-funded-non-government-schools), the trades and universities and welfare and work’ … ‘Instead, I’m going to be measuring policies against the all-important criteria of how effectively they increase national productivity.’ (Dusevic 2009)

The question now is what should be done and by whom? For advocates and activists the real questions are; what are Australian governments hiding; where are the support and resources for; children who are having social, emotional or academic difficulties; school libraries and librarians; science and art rooms; maintaining and cleaning schools and care for gardens; to incorporate the creative arts, music, and dance? Why are essentially human activities regarded as distinct to literacy and numeracy, and good learning generally? These questions tell us quite a deal about what quality may mean. Is there a connection between the absences and regulation?

The view of education implied by the likes of PM Gillard is a default setting for a second-rate, standardised mass education for the mass of the people, the working class. Are Australian governments (COAG) the best advocates for school improvement? Do they assists to raise the sights and standards of teacher moral and professional learning. How does the Ministerial Council’s (MCEETYA) ‘Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians’ compare to the past two declarations?

How do we argue for, and provide a choice between an education worthy us of us all, as creative citizens, rather than a mass education suitable only for entraining teachers, students and the masses for the needs of corporations? For these choices to be made there needs to be a voice alerting our communities to other possibilities. This is the role of the early childhood teacher who regards themselves as an activist and advocate.

Dusevic, T. 2009, The Great Gillard Experiment, The Best Australian Political Writing 2009, MUP.

Where do good theories come from?

December 29, 2014

 

Best theories must assist practice but from where and how do best theories evolve? Questions, hypotheses and then theories arise from our practice. To adopt a theory or the point of view of a theorist means we have to interrogate our own ‘philosophical’ assumptions and prejudices about human nature and our relationships with each other and The World. To reach some provisional conclusions means that clarity can be achieved from such interrogations; otherwise would mean to be in danger of being hopelessly bound up in eclectic and contradictory tangles.

Education is a highly contested field. Our political, economic, and social and cultural positions and consequent biases are expressed and played out through our private lives and public institutions, and the corporations and the market place. The presumption from which I begin is this, because we act on the world and each other we change the world, and by changing the world we too are changed. Karl Marx put it something like this, Philosophers have interpreted the world in many ways; the point however is to change it. We interpret the world, by observing, researching, questioning, reconstructing and acting; that is, we are changed by what we do.

We learn by doing stated philosopher and educationalist John Dewey. Consequently he has the most enduring influence on my pedagogical outlook. As a teacher practitioner and aspiring pedagogue, Paulo Freire is another pedagogue who continues to speak to me in ways that will always refresh me. I find inspiration, challenges and affirmations from reading and thinking about their work. Both these philosophers understood education as a process indistinguishable from life itself.

I would argue that the challenge they pose for us is to think through the implications of the following question; if the institutions and systems of mass education are an integral aspect of our personal and social formation; how then do we respond personally and collectively while working within these social and cultural formations and systems in ways that enable us still to meet our most profound human needs and desires?