A reader Catherine Blanche King explained in a comment why it is a mistake that schools will improve if they compete with one another, as shoe stores and automobile franchises do. She reminds me of something that Governor Mario Cuomo said many years ago, and I am sorry I can’t remember the words exactly and can’t find the source. He said that if you are a parent and you have several children, you don’t pick favorites but you give the most love and attention to the child who needs it most. I think he was referring then to children with disabilities.
She writes:
Just a reflection to consider on the difference between (1) running a business and (2) running an educational establishment and the principles that underpin both.
In the first case, businesses are commonly run under the principles of capitalism–as at least assumed to be competitive, and as employed presently in most cases. Competition in business and even in, for instance, the Olympic Games, tends to render the best in each instance, category, or business field which gets the prize or the customer base, whichever. What is “the best” (the principles of intelligence and excellence) in each situation, field, or category is an open question. But it’s the underpinning idea of “branding” –whether you are actually the best or not and according to a wealth of criteria for that title.
In the second case, however, running an educational establishment is more like running a family; that is, those who are NOT the best, are the ones who need the most and, under this principle, are the ones who are helped to become better. It’s (what we can call) the principle of generation that comes first and that underpins the other two principles when they are working well.
In concrete terms, the principle of generation is evident in our own families where we may harbor our favorites, but if one child is not as good as another in math, say, then that child is the one who gets the help so that they can become better. If they are not good at soccer, then we try baseball or whatever they want or need. If you put them in competition with others, however, without adequate preparation and direction, they are already set to be “losers.”
It’s under this principle of generation, however, that we love and care for our children regardless, cradle to grave. And as they move from family to formal educational institution, it’s under this principle that we are constantly PREPARING them–ALL of them in a democratic culture–to work as well as they can when they are ready to enter the world where the other two principles (intelligence and excellence) take the reigns in their lives. (Again, what we concretely mean by those terms is analogous and specific.)
Neither of the three principles ever goes away, however, but remain in tension with one another. It’s just which is emphasized and which recedes in each situation. In families, we play games where someone wins or loses, but no one questions where they live or whether they are included. In schools, particularly in a democracy, and beginning in the early grades, competition again has its legitimate place, but again (as most teachers experience) not when it intrudes on legitimate forms that flow from the principle of generation, e.g., caring and inclusion, educational preparation for all where it is needed–that is, we do not eliminate those who fail or who are not at the top in achievements. Rather, resources are applied in accordance with need and where there is less achievement; and regardless of who they are or what group they belong to. Again, inclusion is a given. Here, applying competitive business principles alone is a gross distortion of the body politic of a democratic culture.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Competition is what you do with “others.” Collaboration is what you do with those in your “in group.” So are our children all in our in group or do we want them broken out into competing groups that win and lose?
Steve Ruis and all. If this is of interest to you, below are the three principles put in relation with each other and, again, in relation to (as defined example) family and work situations.
Lots more to this of course; but I think it helps to understand the broad outlines of the basic principles, especially with education; precisely because education in a democratic culture lives in the cross-hairs, so to speak, of how these principles actually work themselves out. In education, we BEGIN with generation as primary and with the other two as subordinate; while working towards Intelligence and Excellence as primary, and where generation becomes subordinate. We live on a teeter-totter, so to speak, where the basic principles of living are concerned.
WARNING: At the level of principle, analysis remains pretty clear; but when you get to analyzing real people and institutions in concrete situations (as most are prone to do), precisely because the principles are real and concrete, they are still-relatively easy to recognize; but still are tightly woven and difficult (impossible) to differentiate. (Maintaining a high regard for the real-concrete by theoreticians is imperative.)
The question, then, for specific situations is not based in “either/or” but rather: How are the principles related to on another in this situation, and, by comparison with our understanding of them, how BEST are they related?
Concretely, the danger of making a business out of schools is the tendency (and reality in too many cases) to deny and abandon the principle of generation AS PRIMARY when it is appropriate to do so, and at the service of the principle of intelligence and excellence–but the latter as (a) wrongly primary and so wrongly without its proper recognition-of and relationship to elements that are intrinsic to the generational principle in all human beings. Here is the tensional structure:
These are abstract, but still-operative principles. However, in concrete situations, we live in tension between these principles. Two concrete examples are these:
In families GENERATION (POG) is primary, and where PIE is operative but subordinate. Thus, while we want our children to do the best they can (PIE) in competitive situations, their lives, and our care, support, and love for them is not diminished in any way (POG). In fact, often it is increased. Concretely, you don’t throw your children out because they cannot perform some function or other, nor do we check CraigsList to find another kid who can do “better.”.
Whereas in WORK/PROFESSIONS of some kind (highly variable situations, of course), PIE is commonly primary. The work has to be don well (PIE). If you get sick and cannot work, they might send you cards and give you “sick leave,” but basically, you cannot work (work is primarily under the PIE); and so if you cannot return after some time, they look to replace you–and no one questions it.
Again, K-12 education finds itself smack in the center of the conflict because, in most cases, it properly starts with GENERATION as primary, and “ends” with PIE as primary. Life is filled with all sorts of combinations of these principles; but they are always there and can be teased out AS ABSTRACT, but also as concretely formative of that situation and, often, of its seemingly untenable conflicts. As another example, children with disabilities often need to remain mostly under the POG for all of their lives. The term “dis-able” is about PIE.
I thought I’d say the above for clarity before responding to any other notes that come in.
As I thought, the chart got screwed up in translation to the blog. Here iit hopefully is in a better form:
For family, generation (POG) is PRIMARY, and (PIE) intelligence/excellence are subordinate.
.
For work/profession: Intelligence/Excellence (PIE) are primary and (POG) generation is subordinate.
Well stated Catherine!!
But I am confused by your usage of “principle of generation” here. I understand what you are getting at, and I agree completely with what you are saying but perhaps there is a better term than “generation”. Please explain how you chose that word, it might help me understand better.
Principle of. . .
Empathic justice?
Empathic sensibility?
Compassionate empathy?
Compassionate justice?
or. . . ?
Duane: Generation is a technical term used here for its GENERAL meaning and for theorizing. As theoretical, It takes on a different and more concise meaning than in with its common usage. (This difference and refinement of meaning occurs with most theoretical terms in most if not all fields).
But as so-generalized, the other terms you use above can be understood as emerging from–not the term–but from the principle itself as operative (regardless of what we name it and, to remain precise in theoretical usage here, as called: generation).
With theoretical developments and contexts, however, it’s common practice (part of empirical method) to keep the term and its referred-to meaning together so that, for instance, and IN THAT CONTEXT, all theorists understand exactly what is meant by that term, e.g., E=MC2, or Freud’s “ego,” as distinct from common usage of those terms. (Imagine if medical doctors used whatever term came to mind, rather than understanding what everyone else in the field means by “cell.”)
But your words above are clearly emergent from that same principle, again, regardless of what we call it. They are, however, less general examples; and that generality is extremely useful for understanding and for beginning any analysis of concrete situations. Think of Einstein’s general theory, and then how difficult it was to prove it in the concrete situation of how the planets actually work with the movement of light.
I think I understand the POG/PIE difference. They can belong to two or more different realms or they can both be part of a singular realm in differing “portions” and priorities. Quantum categories of definitions it seems to me-appearances and non appearances of Schrödinger’s cat as it were. Or at times paradoxical and not paradoxical depending upon which one is “dominant”.
Don’t know if that is exactly it or not (POG/PIE difference?). Who first used the term generation in this manner? What original writings do you suggest that discuss the term? (I did a search of “principle of generation” and came up with nothing close to the usage here.)
Yes, I’m hung up on the term and it seems to me that a better name, perhaps “principle of generalization” is a more accurate phrase.
Or is “principle of generation” equal to “where someone is coming from” or their onto-epistemological foundational concepts, of which “principal of intelligence or excellence” is just one of many POGs?
Duane writes at DS, and I respond at CK:
DS: I think I understand the POG/PIE difference. They can belong to two or more different realms or they can both be part of a singular realm in differing “portions” and priorities.
CK: The latter, yes. Writ-small in all human beings, and writ-large in defined cultures, e.g., nations.
DS: Quantum categories of definitions it seems to me-appearances and non appearances of Schrödinger’s cat as it were. Or at times paradoxical and not paradoxical depending upon which one is “dominant.”
CK: In single human beings and in cultures the principles “show up” as a dynamic (always moving) balancing situation–which means out-of-balance is always potential.
DS: Don’t know if that is exactly it or not (POG/PIE difference?). (CK: Yes, but more.) DS: Who first used the term generation in this manner? What original writings do you suggest that discuss the term? (I did a search of “principle of generation” and came up with nothing close to the usage here.)
CK: Not “out there” yet that I know of as published, except for in deep context of other work and lecture material. I’ll link to my own work below which has a bibliography to other works from which this set of terms refers.
DS: Yes, I’m hung up on the term and it seems to me that a better name, perhaps “principle of generalization” is a more accurate phrase.
CK: No–it IS a generalized, but as a principle it speaks to WHO you are rather than WHAT you are and do. It’s Duane as Duane with YOUR history and as a part of a **particular* family or group, as distinct from Duane as what Duane does or claims as your profession, or other forms of identity. You can become a teacher, but you cannot choose your mother and father, nor they another son who would be a son in the same way you are. When you grieve when someone dies, you grieve THAT who-person, not only A person. The generational principle refers to that WHO difference.
DS: Or is “principle of generation” equal to “where someone is coming from” or their onto-epistemological foundational concepts, of which “principal of intelligence or excellence” is just one of many POGs?:
CK: See above. As a principle, generation refers to a governing order as distinct from other governing orders. Your child, for example, belongs to you in a way that all other children do not belong to you (POG) and ditto for everyone else. Concomitantly, WHAT he/she does or identifies with as activity is governed by the PIE principle. Again, in concrete existence, the principles are woven together and cannot be otherwise.
At the level of principle, however, in education, it’s pretty easy to see the “tipping” towards a deadening of the dynamism and the imbalance that come with the obfuscation of POG, in today’s movements towards privatization.
Link is to a paper I gave in 2013. The bibliography is circa page 61 between the text and the appendixes–The lectures that this set of principles came from (as theoretical expressions) were by Emil Piscitelli–see the bibliography–who was my teacher, and who was a student of Bernard Lonergan who also is in the bibliography. Duane: Not exactly blog material–but I thought the broad outlines of the distinction might help.
https://skydrive.live.com/view.aspx?Bsrc=SkyMail&Bpub=SDX.SkyDrive&resid=BD9AD3E0B916D49F!128&cid=bd9ad3e0b916d49f&app=Word&authkey=!AEfzaYJH3ae3cgo
Thanks for the explanation/clarification as the “Duane family” explanation really helped.
And again thanks for taking the time to explain, I’m sure I’m not the only one who wasn’t sure what you meant. Definitely will check out your references.
I find the discussion very much “blog material”. This is the kind of discussion I’ve grown to know and appreciate here at the “site to discuss education for all”. (In contrast to all the other discussions that at times seem rather “far from” education discussions.)
Just purchased Piscitelli’s “Philosophy: A Passion for Wisdom”. Again thanks for the link/source!
You’re welcome, Duane.
The federal government is supposed to address issues of equity in education. That is one reason they passed IDEA, to provide equitable service and access to students with conditions that policymakers often choose to ignore. Today some charters are established to provide special education services as well services for conduct disorder students. Some may claim this separate school is designed to be “innovative.” Perhaps some of these schools are innovative, butt may also be to avoid the level of accountability required in a public school setting. The federal government also addressed issues of equity by providing poor students with funds for extra service in math, reading and ESL. In the new ESSA, rather than helping school districts directly serve needy students the funds will most likely go to a few students for a free market experiment. It is a perversion of the true intention of the funding, and thousands of students and school districts will be harmed by this folly. However, that is the goal of our policymakers to undermine and defund public schools so they collapse. With students that require additional attention, sometimes equal is not fair. Some students require more attention and resources, and that is simply the reality.
But how can we tell if these “innovative” charters meant to provide special education and conduct/behavior disorder students specialized, appropriate education, are actually doing so, if they are not accountable to the public?
Back when I was teaching special education, on occasion (too rare, as far as I was concerned, but at least it happened), we got audited, not financially, but an educational audit to make sure the students were receiving appropriate IEPs and that the services and education mandated by their IEPs were being received. Does that even happen any more? And if it does, do they also audit the special education charter schools, as well? They’re supposed to be “public schools,” after all, and should be subject to the transparency that public schools are subject to.
{{Sigh}}
I worked in ESL, and we were also audited by the state at least four or five times during my career. My students did not have IEPs, but we did have specific regulations with which we had to comply. As state budgets have lost funding, they have lost the staff to ensure that schools comply. By law charters should have to abide by IDEA. As far as enforcing IDEA in charters, I have no idea if they monitor them. Since there are often very few students in charters that are classified or ELL, some students may be falling through the cracks
We got audited only about 9-10 times total during my career in special education. But then, when I started teaching, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (later changed to the IDEA) was brand new, and in fact, I started teaching a year or two before it was passed and implemented (yes, I’m old). At the beginning, there were more frequent audits (relatively speaking), maybe because it was so new. But as time went by, there were fewer and fewer educational audits, and then they pretty much disappeared. I suspect, as you said, it was/is because states lost more and more funding.
What do they expect will happen to the students who “fall through the cracks”? I know that my students were able to achieve to the level of either eventually getting simple jobs, working in sheltered workshops, or at least being able to have some communication and self-care skills.
What will happen to students as profoundly involved as my students were? I loved these kids, and I worry about kids like them. They are not going to be able, for the most part, to pass any state mandated tests, or even to have “regular” jobs.
If we keep privatizing students like yours and mine will be left in impoverished public schools with few resources. That is is why education should not be a business. In the marketplace students are competing for openings in schools. Our students cannot compete, and they will be left behind. That is the nature of the market. It is neither ethical or moral. It is all about $$$.
Retired teacher, this is exactly what I am worried about.
I have younger friends still teaching in special education, and their resources are being cut all the time. Fewer speech therapists, fewer (if any) trained adaptive PE teachers, fewer trained aides in their classrooms, and a big emphasis by their administrations on getting these kids “ready” for the state-mandated tests. These are children, many of whom not only cannot read, but cannot speak, so what are the teachers being required to do? Why, “teaching” these students to “punch” a big button on the computer in “response” to questions. Oy! Well, that’s meaningful, isn’t it?
It takes up classroom time that should be spent on self-care skills, mobility skills, communication skills……….I despair.
Retired teacher– but it IS all about $$$. A devptlly disabled kid who gets publically-funded services like OT, speech therapy et al will be able to partially support himself w/a min-wage job & depend far less on SSI et al welfare through life, ditto autistic. An LD or Asperger’s kid will earn far more in a higher-pd job than w/o IEP/ services ending up w/ little or no post-secondary ed & low-pd job. A disruptive kid from poverty, w/ intensive services in school, is more likely to avoid the crim just sys which costs the public a great deal. These arguments could be made more frequently & cogently to taxpayers.
Yes, bethree5, you are correct about those students.
But many of my profoundly disabled students, those who were non-verbal, non-toliet-trained, paraplegic or quadriplegic,dependant upon breathing tubes, etc., were never going to be able to even have a part-time minimum wage job.
Yet we could make a difference in their lives, teach them some (albeit sometimes minimal) self-care skills, keep their muscles functioning, maybe teach them some communication skills, and just make their lives better and more comfortable than they would otherwise have been.
Don’t these children also deserve the best help that they can get, even if they can never get a minimum-wage job, or even a job in a sheltered workshop?
These are students who will always be dependent upon a whole lot of help from society, and I’m not willing to throw them aside. I think that our country should be compassionate enough to help them, as well, never mind if they will ever be able to pay taxes.
How Ohio Senator Rob Portman responded to my letter urging him to reject Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education. I included reasons.
Dear Laura,
Thank you for taking the time to contact me to express your views on President-elect Trump’s decision to nominate Betsy DeVos for Secretary of the United States Department of Education. I appreciate you taking the time to contact me.
As you may know, President-elect Trump nominated Betsy DeVos on November 23, 2016. When the vote to confirm Betsy DeVos comes to the floor of the United States Senate, I will keep your views in mind.
President-elect Trump is in the process of nominating his entire cabinet and I will judge each nominee on their merits, as I always have.
In the 21st Century economy, a high quality education is critical to the social and economic well-being of our nation. I believe that the most important role in educating tomorrow’s workforce is played by parents, teachers, mentors, and community leaders at the state and local level. At a time when young people are leaving our state, we must work collaboratively in our communities to give students the tools necessary to compete in high demand fields in Ohio.
The purpose of education is Ohio, is give students the tools necessary to compete in high demand fields in Ohio.
This is boilerplate of course. There is no list of high demand fields in Ohio.
The schools in Ohio exist to provide workforce training for Ohio.
The worst part is that the boilerplate from Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown was not than much different.
“The purpose of education…is to give students the tools necessary to compete in high demand fields…” Critical thinking and ability to participate knowledgeably in a democracy, gone, gone, gone.
Yuh, that jumps right out, doesn’t it? Ask them to put their [our] $ where their mouth is: is Ohio teeming w/ public tech post-secondary training centers?
Here is what the Ohio constitution has to say about public education:
Ohio
Article VI – Education
§ 01 Funds for religious and educational purposes
The principal of all funds, arising from the sale, or other disposition of lands, or other property, granted or entrusted to this State for educational and religious purposes, shall be used or disposed of in such manner as the General Assembly shall prescribe by law.
(Amended, effective July 1, 1968.)
§ 02 Schools funds
The General Assembly shall make such provisions, by taxation, or otherwise, as, with the income arising from the school trust fund, will secure a thorough and efficient system of common schools throughout the state; but no religious or other sect, or sects, shall ever have any exclusive right to, or control of, any part of the school funds of this state.
I got the same letter. When I wrote Brown to oppose King, he just kind of rubbed salt in the wound. Brown noted that he was not in DC for King’s confirmation vote but would have voted for King were he there.
Hello Laura: Portman’s response includes (unless I quote incorrectly): “I believe that the most important role in educating tomorrow’s workforce is played by parents, teachers, mentors, and community leaders at the state and local level.” Then, “The purpose of education in Ohio, is (to) give students the tools necessary to compete in high demand fields in Ohio.”
No mention of fostering and educating for citizenship, just “workforce;” though there is a mention of “social.” The way it’s written, however, it’s easy to “mistake” that Ohio “parents, teachers, mentors, and community leaders” are all at the service of creating a workforce. Talk about sins of omission?
Suggested follow ups:
Why Science Should Not Function Like Politics
Why Engineering Should Not Function Like Religion
Why Computer Programming Should Not Function Like the Arts
Rage: Exactly!
^^This!^^
As special educator Richard LaVoie said, “Fairness doesn’t mean everyone gets the same thing. It means everyone gets what they need.”
I told this to my ECE classes and even my Kindergarten students understood this.
Yes, exactly. Fairness is a comprehensive term–like education. To be fully realized in concrete situations, both must include implied (at least) references to all three principles. As you say, even with kindergarteners who know nothing of principles, the principles resonate all the same.
That is: Gardeners
Reblogged this on Politicians Are Poody Heads and commented:
Education is not and should not be about capitalistic competition. Schools are not “pizza shops,” as Ohio Governor John Kasich said awhile back.
In a functioning democracy, schools need to serve all students according to their needs.
But then, I often wonder how functional our “democracy” is. It seems more and more as if schools are seen as an extension of business, where competition rules, and where those children who cannot “compete” are thrown by the wayside, because they reflect badly on a school district’s test scores, or because they are too difficult and cost too much for charter schools to deal with.
Zorba: . . . the absence of the language of well-being, community, citizenship, the common good, the human spirit, the public sphere has been replaced by the language of capitalism, e.g., workers, entrepreneurs, products, competition, etc.
And of course it’s not only the language. The reality of what is missing is the key. But that tends to follow the language. The loss of such terms in the common language is an indication of where the reality is going. If children and others don’t even have the language, they will need to pay close attention to their own resonance and then break through their inherited arena of discussion to find that other reality that the missing terms embodied. Some do and will, some don’t and won’t.
Catherine, the “language of capitalism” should have very little or (preferably) nothing to do with education.
Sadly, however, this is what we seem to be left with.
I feel so sorry for our children, for our families, for our society, for our democracy. 😥
Zorba: In my view, such foundational issues (like the loss of definitive language and, subsequently, the reality that they point to) should be a part of teacher education curricula. Only then can teachers work such issues into their own curricula for K-12 students. And so it goes?
Catherine, I wonder if teacher education programs even address such things.
Plus, when I was getting my graduate degree in education, we had courses in the history of education, and the philosophy of education. They were both extremely helpful, but I don’t know if they even teach those now?
Zorba: Yes–we had history in our DOE masters program, but no philosophy or philosophy of education. That’s REALLY odd (my background is philosophy) because philosophy is essentially about the foundations of knowledge. ALL of us inherit a strange mix of ideas about cognition, epistemology, ethics, spirituality, religion, and metaphysics from our cultural “air.” And so ALL teachers bring that un-reflective and undifferentiated mix into the classroom. It cannot help but be present at the background of their thought and, thus, in their comportment about any subject they teach. If so (and it IS so), why would a department of education NOT teach a philosophy of education course, even if it’s just to become reflective about their own intellectual inheritance, not to mention a history of the thought that informs their own and others’ culture.
My own thought about it, and at least one pervasive causal factor, is that administrators who choose teachers as well as curricula, and who have little or no humanities, e.g., arts, literature, history, philosophy, religion, can easily think: “What good are those? I didn’t have these kinds of courses, and look at me,” (indeed).”I have a good job. What good are they anyway?” They inherit the culture (such as it is, and the one they are not thinking about) which is turning into a capitalist-only thought factory, and so the courses and the students suffer in reductionist fashion.
Presently, it’s a case of Frankenstein (business-only administrators) meets Dracula (blood-sucking oligarchs).
Catherine, when I was an undergraduate, majoring in psychology, we were required to take courses in literature, history, science, philosophy, math.
And as I said, when I was in graduate school in education, we had to take both history and philosophy of education.
All of these courses were very helpful, and gave me the opportunity and knowledge to think more deeply about, not just education, but politics, and the world in general, as well.
But maybe that’s why many schools have stopped requiring such classes. Maybe they do not want the students to “think more deeply” about such things.
And maybe I’m being unkind, but schools need to go back to a much broader education, not just colleges, but public schools, as well.
I’ve worked both full time and part time at seven colleges from the 90s through now and, in every teacher ed program where I’ve taught, students have been required to develop and write their own philosophy of education.
Homelesseducator: For myself, I’m glad to hear it. My guess is it’s a pot-luck thing at this stage. I don’t know of anyone or institution who keeps records of such migrations of curricula. But I haven’t looked.
We had to do this, as well, in my graduate level Philosophy of Education course. It was a big part of our final grade.
Nor should health care (my standard quip to colleagues is: “At the core of free market ideas is the idea of supply and demand. I see a lot of supply of disease and disability, I have yet to see any demand.”), prisons, utilities, transportation infrastructure, or public lands/waters.
GregB, I totally agree with you. These are all things that should be paid for by taxpayer dollars. They should not be left up to “competition” and what will make the businesses the most money. These are services that should be provided as part of a democracy.
Unfortunately, we seem to be moving farther and farther away from a democracy that cares about its citizens, and more and more toward a plutocracy, government by the wealthy.