Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edpolyan
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 09:00:07 -0500
              <EDPOLYAN@ASUACAD.BITNET>
From:         "Jane Clark Lindle,
              University of Kentucky" <JCLIND00@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      What's public?

Yes, John Wong, I am a UW Alum --- But you may regret advertising this
fact because of what I'll say about being one.  I loved my experiences
there because we had a rather open environment in which to prusue our
own interests.....But that leads me to my first point.

Firstly, I don't believe that Ed Schools promote or support any
ideology. For references I suggest Goodlad, Soder & Sirotnik _Moral
Dimensions of Teaching_ and Clifford and Guthrie _ Ed School_.  Both
present some stinging criticisms of the lack of ideological and moral
discussions in Ed. Schools. The latter reference suggests that Ed
Schools are so besieged economically and intellectually by other
Colleges or Divisions in the "university" that Ed Schools deny their
legitimate ties to service, schools, and social issues. Lack of ideology
is NOT the same thing as not having "gurus" for particular ideologies
among the faculty. And I think lots of faculties, besides education,
have these kinds of "Star" systems.  I'm not sure that as a student I
was ever well-read enough or self-confident enough to either understand
or challenge the "Stars" I ran across. So to the extent that I thought
simply reciting their positions might help my grades, I may have"bought"
their ideologies. If there was debate about such ideology, it was debate
with my fellow students, and not with the "primary" sources.  Thus
explained, I'm not sure I caught an ideology at ANY of my alma maters
(which besides UW-Madison, includes the University of North Carolina -
Chapel Hill).  The fact that these institutions are "public" may be a
mitgating factor --- but what is significant is that I'm not sure how.
Although both are part of the Land grant schools, and I learned about
the policy on Land Grant institutions historically, Neitherinstitution
made of the fact in the recruitment process. & Neither printed anything
on my diplomas/degrees that suggest any significant outcome for being a
gradof such institutions.

The second thing I'm curious about is why  the public/private
distinction is "ultimately not too important."  I think it is because
the distinctions are at least interesting if not related to particular
social policy. In the US, public Has meant publically funded. In
Britain, public meant "mass education". as opposed to home schooling. In
the US, it has been argued by both proponents of public and private and
home schooling that the benefits of education --- positive and
negative--- are public.  For instance, even if my child is educated at
home by private tutors, that child becomes an adult whose activities
have some impact on society depending on the adequacy of his/her
education.  Unfortunately, it is rare for any school --- public, private
or home --- to be able to predict or guarantee the outcomes of its
education to the public, muchless to parents.

Which leads to my third point of curiosity, which is the reference that
J. Wong made to "if for practical reasons, schools do what parents want
them to do." Frankly, as a student, as a teachers, as a principal, and
as a parent, I've found that schools act in their own interest as
opposed to the demands of parents. Individual appeals by parents rarely
work. Mass appeals by parents might get a particular person fired (i.e.
supt., principal, or teacher) but do not result  in much change in
whatever sparked the mass involvement.  As a "practical" rule, schools
do not do what parents want them to do other than keep the kids off the
streets --- AND that is what the problem is now.

Today, keeping the kids off the streets does not imply that kids are
SAFE at school. Chelsea has greater KNOWN risks to her safety because
she is the daughter of the US President.  My children and other children
have infinite unknown risks because we assume that if they are off the
streets in a school they are safe. And in the last year alone, we have
enough reports of fights , guns, knives, drugs, etc. at schools on the
bus and in the neighborhoods to KNOW the kids aren't safe. Why not? and
What are we going to do about it?

The answers are tied to ideologies espoused by all religions, and
companies, ---safety, honesty, respect for self and others, ..... ABC
had a special on "Common Miracles: A revolution in American Education"
this past weekend. It spoke to many of these same issues.

Jane Clark Lindle, Ph.D., University of Kentucky
jclind00@ukcc.uky.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU