Reviews for Bridging Liberalism and Multiculturalism in American Education

The average rating for Bridging Liberalism and Multiculturalism in American Education based on 2 reviews is 4 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2011-10-04 00:00:00 William Harmon A friend here on good reads suggested I read this and that is something that always makes me feel a bit uncomfortable - well, at least when I end up not agreeing with much of what is said in a book that has been recommended. What I found most interesting about this book is that it is freely distributed by the UN - it is available here - I had never really heard of Morin before, and felt quite ignorant given he is clearly well enough known to be asked by the UN to provide a book that sets out what the author believes are the key ideas that every nation ought to teach as foundational to education. This is a big call. Fortunately, it wasn't me that was asked, as thinking of just seven things might have made my head explode. And in some ways Morin stays general enough that it is difficult to argue with him - although, argue with him I will. You know, that education should discuss the nature of knowledge or that it needs to show how the individual, society and humanity sit in a kind of complex inter-relationship - these are interesting ideas that probably should receive more time in education. That this is better than what one mostly hears when the question 'what is important to be taught today?' - to which, far too often the answer is, "the three-Rs" - can't be a bad thing. My problem with this was that it takes for granted that there is something called truth that somehow stands outside of and independent from human societies/individuals. That is, that there is a kind of objective knowledge that exists and if we can somehow alert children to the kinds of cognitive errors we are all too prone to make then the world will inevitably be a much better and happier place. Now, I'm a fan of the whole movement that has become known as 'behavioural economics' but that could more properly be called hermeneutics - and so I'm really very interested in cognitive errors and I do think these ought to be taught in our schools. However, the issue here really isn't 'teach people the universal laws of logic…' or 'show people how to avoid making the sorts of mistakes they are most likely to' and then assume they will avoid these mistakes. The problem here is that knowledge simply doesn't exist outside of the heads of people. Knowledge isn't pure and objective and only to then be spoilt by how we 'all too human' individuals mix it up - knowledge is always someone's knowledge. As Foucault said, knowledge and power are intimately interwoven (so much so he uses that sort of Einstein thing with knowledge/power) - or to use a turn-of-phrase from Bourdieu, knowledge is a stake in the power games between one group of people and another group. Rather than knowledge being objective - it is deeply subjective, deeply social, impossible to remove from the interests of particular groups of people. Look, I don't mean this in an absolute sense and I don't mean this in a way that makes all knowledge 'relative' in the boring sense of 'alternative facts'. I do believe in an objective reality out there that allows us to say that more people turned up to Obama's inauguration than did to Trump's, for example. However, generally those aren't the kinds of facts we end up arguing about - although, that those are the facts we have been reduced to argue about goes some way to make my point... Let's look at something we can argue about. In the early 1980s neoliberal economics claimed that providing tax cuts to the wealthy would provide the wealth with incentive to invest. This would then see the economy grow and this growth would be unequivocally good for everyone - it would lift all boats. This is generally known by the trivial metaphor of 'trickle-down economics' - feed the rich and the crumbs that fall off their table will suddenly become huge. The argument here ought to be easily tested - has the economy grown since the 1980s and if so how much of that growth has gone to boat raising and how much has gone straight to those at the very top? By any 'objective' measure virtually all of the growth in the economy for decades has gone to the very top and the bottom have either remained stagnant or gone backwards. These are mere facts. And yet, the United States has just elected a president who plans to double down on this neoliberal experiment - an experiment that has been comprehensively shown to have failed (check Capital in the 21st Century as a case in point). How can we explain this? By some appeal to a distortion of logic due to our education system not properly teaching students? A misunderstanding of the true meaning of knowledge? Or to the fact that power trumps knowledge when knowledge seeks to move away from the interests of power? To me it is the latter. If I was going to write a book like this one, and perhaps I was wrong before, it wouldn't have endless suggestions - perhaps there would only be one thing I would want people to learn - something, of course, conspicuously absent from this book. That would be Cui Bono (In Whose Benefit?) This really should be the first question we ask of any piece of knowledge. This is the 'bullshit detector' that Neil Postman discusses. It is not infallible, but it provides a highly useful test and one that frequently shows just way we are being presented with one set of facts rather than another. I know this book is trying to provide very general ideas on what every education system in the world should teach - but it is so general as to be virtually useless. Reading this I kept asking myself, 'just how would a teacher integrate this into their lessons?' And the answer to this question was never made all that clear. I've no idea what this guy's background is - but there is a very long tradition of 'revolutionaries' coming to education and presenting their 'blank-slate' solutions. 'All previous teachers and education theorists have gotten everything wrong - I am here to provide the answer'. In an early note to the reader, the author says, "The intentional absence of a bibliography is related to the nature of this work of suggestion and reflection." He then goes on to say he has read lots and lots "beyond the dimensions of the present publication" - and that's nice - but my problem here is that by denying us access to this thought, this publication stands in that very long tradition of 'revolutionary' words that ignore and disrespect all that came before it. This is not a minor problem. Teachers are mostly female. That out patriarchal societies too often disregard their professionalism, silence their voice, ignore their experience, and think a male voice can provide the answers is something that needs to be in the forefront of our awareness, and consciously avoided. It is not something that can be left so that "Interested readers will reach their own judgements through their own selected readings." The author provides a useful Foreword in which he presents in outline his 'seven complex lessons'. This isn't really enough to understand his major points, which does involve reading this rather short text the whole way through- but is handy nonetheless, that is, if I haven't put you off this entirely. That said, the text was intended to spark discussion, after all, so I don't feel quite so bad about this review as I might otherwise.

Review # 2 was written on 2013-05-15 00:00:00 Didier Tisch Svašta je on ovdje udrobio, prilično naivno i nadobudno, unio bi u obrazovanje i odgoj stvari koje uopće ne vidim kako se mogu unijeti, mnogo toga što je napisano je zapravo u suprotnosti s drugim napisanim djelovima, a nekad mi se čini kao da autor želi stvoriti neku vrstu nove religije stvarajući ideju nadistine i zapitala bih ga kao Pilat: Što je istina? Ali on nije netko tko može odgovoriti na to pitanje za razliku od onoga kojem je Pilat uputio to pitanje. Bezveze. Bilo je ponekih svijetlih točaka, zanimljivih misli i korisnih informacija, ali i dalje nedovoljno.