Sunday, October 01, 2006
conference reflection
Returned from Ohio this afternoon. The conference went well--panels were well received, everyone there was friendly. It was inspiring at times because people were talking about "real" issues, real problems with the educational system, that need to be addressed for many people's lives to be improved. However, I also found it disheartening, just because I'm afraid that none of us are actually going to do anything, despite the inspiration we may have momentarily felt at the conference. I'm not sure how helpful it is to have 30 philosophers of education sitting in a room discussing problems that, for the most part, we already know about. We know that social justice isn't realized in the classroom, we know about radical inequalities in funding that can be traced to class and race differences, we know that a strict focus on standards isn't going to do a lot for the students as human beings. We know these things, but there are plenty of people (the public, for instance) who don't, really. I think that conferences like this one need to be starting points for regular organized effort towards social change, as opposed to isolated events that momentarily inspire an anger or despair with the current system. In other words, change does not happen when philosophers of education talk about problems, if this is as far as it goes. Perhaps we do bring these problems back into our classrooms, where we get to teach teachers in the one educational foundations course they have to take; and perhaps they make some impact on individual students, but I think more likely they alert students to problems, but then the students come to believe they can't do anything about it (the problems are so systemic), so they sort of give up, especially when the rest of the teacher education curriculum doesn't allow them to sustain engagement with these issues. Change happens, I think, when philosophers work with historians work with sociologists work with anthropologists work with policy makers work with politicians work with teachers work with administrators work with students work with charismatic leaders...it takes a sizable number from different walks of life getting together to make a change, especially if you want that change to occur on a large scale. But even for change to occur on a small scale (a district level, for instance), you'd still need a concerned diverse group. Conferences can be great places for these kinds of movements to start, but I am afraid that many conferences turn out to be just about networking, which, while it may be important for career development, should not be their sole purpose, if we take issues of social injustice seriously.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Either you misunderstood me, or I didn't say it clearly enough.
Of course I don't think social change can occur without intellectual growth. This is why I think that conferences are important, as a starting point, and as a point for a community to revisit important issues, to check in, to inspire, to learn from one another. But intellectual growth is worthless (I think) without social change, and I do not see these conferences as working towards social change as well as they could, because I don't see "us" going out and connecting to other groups or organizing meetings outside of a yearly conference. And if we don't do this, then I am afraid that the conferences DO just become a site for "career development" and "shoulder-patting" and "intellectual growth" (though I do wonder how much intellectual growth happens at these conferences).
So I do think conferences can be wonderful things, and I've seen flashes of that, but I don't think that they often are.
And as for envisioning a homogenous community, I'm not exactly sure where you got that idea (though I do think conferences can be clique-ish and are far better experiences for the in crowd).
So what do you like about conferences, exactly?
Post a Comment