The Civil War on Pedagogy and the High-Stake Casualities

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 signed into law by President George W. Bush is currently being revered by some politicians who believe that the only approach to educating the youth of a nation is through a curriculum with scientific merit, while some educators are assailing it, claiming that politicians have no qualifications for making such decisions. Those who suggest reform are being systematically silenced, as legislators attempt to perpetuate a status-quo that has not had time to produce any data that can prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that this act has actually improved the quality of education in the public school system. Yet, still within the midst of a growing conflict, multitudes of parents and students are struggling and vying for their voice to be heard, amidst confusion and chaos surrounding testing scores that are not living up to everyone’s expectations of proficiency in reading, writing, and math. Teachers are pointing fingers at politicians, politicians are pointing fingers are teachers, and administrators are caught in a catch-twenty two, trying to satisfy educators, legislators, students, and parents. There is a civil war being fought in the field of pedagogy with high risks at stake, between competing discourses and whichever discourse rises up out of this conflict victoriously will have the power to decide what is, and what is not a “legitimate” education for the youth of this nation.

Stuart Hall in “Representation: Cultural Representation and Signifying Practices” defines “discourse” as a relationship between knowledge and power, noting that “in a culture, meaning often depends on larger units of analysis – narratives, statements, groups of images, whole discourses which operate across a variety of texts, areas of knowledge about a subject which have acquired widespread authority” (Hall, 42). A concrete example of discourse that is easily grasped for western readers would be the image of the cross in Christianity. In the discourse of that religion, the image of the cross has the symbolic meaning of Christ’s sacrifice and suffering. However, the meaning or truth of such an object is relative only to the Christian discourse in which it exists. This is where the relationship between power and knowledge is formed – as Hall states “Discourse is about the production of knowledge through language. But ... since all social practices entail meaning, and meanings shape and influence what we do – our conduct – all practices have a discursive aspect” (Hall, 44). Thus, whoever then holds the power to manipulate the discursive narratives of pedagogy holds the power to control how teachers act, and most cruelly, how they think.

Therefore, it can be established that there is a discourse of pedagogy, with multiple discourses that break off as fragments beneath the field of pedagogy itself. Clearly, such discourses are in disagreement when headlines in the Providence Journal read “Tempers may flare as worse-performing schools are named.” A civil war is either already being enacted, or it is not far off in the horizon, and the casualties of such a war would span the whole scope of our society: the students who feel that they are being neglected, teachers who feel as if though they are silenced, and legislators for whom the parents have lost faith in. But can such a war really be avoided? Are not the institutions of public education intimately entwined to the local and federal governments that fund them? And if they are, at what point do politicians hand power over to the teachers who practice pedagogy daily, and therefore should be far more qualified to make educational decisions themselves.

Ira Shor in “Empowering Education: Critical Teaching for Social Change” claims that not only is “No curriculum neutral” but that also “Education can socialize students into critical thought or into dependence on authority” (Shor, 12-13). Material on the curriculum is bias towards the discourse that authorizes it. In addition to the curriculum, the methods in which the material is delivered is biased towards the discourse of the instructors own methods and beliefs. Liberal and conservative dispositions permeate their way into education and students can either feel empowered or disempowered by the process. Take for example a student from a well to-do, prominent family with strong conservative values and beliefs. Would they feel alienated in a class instructed by a liberal teacher or professor? Such alienation would be felt not only by the student, but by the parents as well, who would feel that their child is receiving a “poor education.” Eventually, the political round robin of words turns into actions between the competing sides and numerical data becomes truth. Everyone acknowledges a proficiency problem, but no one is willing to admit fault not only because the stakes are so high, but because in their minds, they have committed no crime.

In a recently published article in the Providence Journal, “Tempers may flare as worst-performing schools are named,” Julia Steiny acknowledges that “all schools have some truly terrific teachers who are getting caught in the crossfire.” Such is the price of a civil war. In the case of Central Falls High, when the superintendent decided to fire the entire staff, it was like the gunshot heard around the nation. More gunshots are likely to be heard when up to “5,000 blowups” may occur when secretary of education’s Arne Ducan asks each state to identify their worst of the worst: either the worst five schools in their state, or the worst five percent, whichever number is higher. No one is denying that something has to be done – statistics are showing that there are a large, significant number of students in high schools around the country that are not proficient in basic reading, writing, and math skills. However, the manner in which action is being taken is publicly aggressive, when statements such as “Teachers are ruining kid’s lives” are making it into newspaper articles. This only promotes finger pointing which deepens the stem of the conflict.

When those who participate in the process of education are at war, everyone suffers. No war, bloodless or not, can be justified when it can be avoided. One can hope, that in time, politicians, teachers, administrators, and parents could put their differences aside to achieve a common goal: so that every student sitting in an American classroom will have an equal opportunity to succeed in the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. Though it is, after all, a lofty aspiration of unity, it is a goal that educators should strive to achieve. As competing discourses in pedagogy continue to war, what example is being set for the students in the crossfire? Constructive conflict can be civil; it does not have to be a war. Such civil disagreement can bolster our nation, inspire our youth to thinking critically, and encourage their opinions rather than marginalize them. Knowledge and power are not in contained closed vacuums; they shift ceaseless with the tide of the currents, constantly changing hands and setting new trends. Educators and students alike need to be aware to this so that they can acquire as much power as they can, not to misuse it, but so that they may handle it delicately in a world where the risks and stakes are getting higher each and every day.