MacBeath, John and Moos, Lejf. (Eds.).
(2004). Democratic Learning: The Challenge to School
Effectiveness. NY: RoutledgeFarmer.
200 pp.
$37.95 (Paper) ISBN 0-415-32696-6
$124.95 (Hardcover) ISBN 0-415-32695-8
Reviewed by Aaron Cooley
Texas A&M University—Kingsville
March 26, 2005
This volume ambitiously links recent efforts at educational
reform to democracy in schools. This task is accomplished by
drawing on the international background and experiences of the
chapters’ authors. Each chapter uniquely fits within the
book’s common theme of the impact of globalization on
education and democratic learning. Overall, the theoretical
orientation of the text is aligned with critical theory,
especially the work of Jurgen Habermas. Further, the volume adds
to the ballooning body of work that critiques and questions the
goals and outcomes of neo-liberal economic policy.
The major insight of the project follows off the neo-liberal
line of attack in that it fuels an analysis of the management
ethos flooding into public education. The core contention is that
these bureaucratic trends are at odds with the present notion of
democracy. From the introduction, Moos states: “One
over-riding challenge across countries represented lies in
financial-management approaches to education, which could prove
counter-productive to the maintenance and development of
democratic citizens and democratic societies” (p.17).
Clearly, the undemocratic aspects of school could affect the
countries in question in unexpected ways.
Beyond addressing this issue, one can observe from the first
chapter that different results may be expected from these
different perspectives. John MacBeath mentions, in contrasting
schools, that: “A highly effective school may be one which
is profoundly undemocratic in the content of the learning while
ineffective schools may, at least in theory, engage children in
deep learning—teach but teach it well” (p.31). This
provides for a difficult appraisal of the content and methods
used in making education more democratic.
Kathryn Riley expands the discussion of democracy in education
to a global scope. In addressing how school reform can
accommodate democratic learning and further refine the definition
of this concept, she asserts:
While the right to good quality education is one that many
people take for granted today, along with the right to good
health and a reasonable living standard, the reality is that many
children and young people are denied that right. The notion of
the right to learn is a powerful one in the context of education.
(p.63)
Clearly, she is speaking to an unaddressed problem that
continues to haunt the world—global inequalities in
educational opportunity.
Riley continues stating her “notion of
schooling [is] as a tool for promoting global citizenship in a
period of social, political and economic transformation, but it
is also a recognition of the emancipatory nature of
schooling” (p.70). However, it is difficult to square how
one is supposed to overcome the lack of educational opportunities
to achieve this emancipatory state. There could be a link here to
the work of Paolo Freire, but this line is left unexplored. The
conclusion of this chapter mentions some praiseworthy ideas such
as “developing an approach to reform which equips our
children and young people to think, learn, reflect and work
together” (p.70). Yet, it fails to say how this will
happen; as with much talk of democracy and education, the ideals
are easier to articulate than the policies that will implement
them.
Jorunn Moller’s contribution to the volume
hits on the theme of market control over democratic interests.
Moller suggests:
Powerful interests and ideological agencies are at work to
promote the market solution for educational provision and
leadership. My point, with consequences for defining and framing
democratic leadership, is that education’s responsibilities
are primarily to the democracy of citizens, rather than to the
democracy of consumers. Those of us who are educators at
universities have a responsibility to reveal the conditions that
create social inequalities in school, including a consideration
of the ways in which external social structures are reproduced
through the administration of schooling. (p.162)
This is certainly a controversial suggestion in times that are
dominated by an active revival of neo-liberal policies. Of
course, reality is more complex than both sides of this argument
contend—as many people consider themselves both citizens
and consumers. The categories are useful, but we should resist
the temptation to lurch too far in either direction to the
exclusion of understanding that these roles are intermingled. The
debate would be more fruitful if the discussion acknowledged this
interdependent role.
Another factor that affects the prospect of
democratic learning is the changing nature of the economic
structures of the globe. Kai-ming Cheng describes the impact of
the knowledge society on educational institutions and mentions
some avenues for further study. Cheng lists many of the trends
that are being implemented around the globe. The strongest of
these trends “is towards democratization of knowledge, and
hence the democratization of the learning process” (p.186).
This should be welcomed by the educational community, as it would
likely bring many changes to educational systems that might
benefit students and society alike.
The conclusion of the volume does an excellent job
of summing up the assertions of the entire volume. Lejf Moos and
John MacBeath should be commended for their effort to bridge the
gap between the principles of democratic learning and the
administration of school accountability. Their final comment is
quite noteworthy and sums up the tenor and flesh of the
text’s thought:
All this requires a paradigm shift in notions of
accountability from economic accountability to democratic
accountability. For teachers, for school leaders and for those of
who work with them in partnership, it requires less subservience
and a greater willingness to challenge orthodoxy and false gods.
We need to reassert the democratic values that lie at the very
heart of schools education and move them into a wider public
discourse. We need to educate the public, our political masters
and, not least ourselves. (p.195)
Needless to say, perhaps, this call for a shift in ideology is
admirable, ambitious and well-intentioned even if events continue
to showcase that the change they desire is more and more
unlikely.
About The Reviewer
Aaron Cooley has a B.A. with Honors and a M.A. from the
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He has mentored,
tutored, and taught students from pre-K to graduate school.
Previously, he worked at the North Carolina General Assembly. His
commentaries, reviews, and articles have appeared in Educational
Studies (Forthcoming), Educational Theory, Essays in Education,
Journal of Popular Culture (Forthcoming), and the Teachers
College Record. Aaron is dedicated to improving the educational
and economic opportunities of all Americans through innovative
ideas in public policy.
No comments:
Post a Comment