Reflections on Lemert’s Introduction to Social Theory and Rose’s Public Education Under Siege.
I’d like to reflect today on Lemert’s definition of Social Theory as the practice of “telling one’s world into being,” or at least into the dominant public discourse. In relation to all three articles from Public Education Under Siege, it seems there is an important tension between a quantified telling and discursive wording of social phenomena, where in public education, quantification continues to dominate with those with decision making authority. Using Spencer’s quote (pg. 24), “One rationale for this arrangement was that American taxpayers should not reward schools with funds if those schools were not providing all kids with a quality education,” I’d like to reflect a bit on the words quality and accountability, and discuss an important connection to current educational policy and programming.
Quality education (n): standard as measured against other similar things; the degree of excellence or goodness of education. This word requires comparison to an ideal type. An ideal type, for those with power, is almost always the ideal type of dominant experience, dominant experience rarely recognizes non-dominant ways of knowing and being. In our neoliberal, capitalistic society, the ideal type either makes profits (easily quantifiable, easy to manage, focused on procedure, etc) or wields/maintains power (colonization/Western thought, positivist). This adjective begs us to ask: for and to whom this education is worthy? Data disparities answer this question; however, those doing the analysis, who believe in the ideal type, see lower scores as a lack of excellence, rather than narrowly defined excellence. Thus, quality (n): reproductive.
Accountability (n): counting, reckoning of money paid, return on investment, responsibility. **Responsibility (n): answerability. Thinking about the use of this word in terms of conversations about the measurement of teaching and learning makes me think about why our policies, mission statements, and political rhetoric insist a public discourse of counting rather than answering. Words matter.
One really important connection to these readings is the current emphasis of mental health and wellbeing and social emotional learning in Oregon’s Student Investment Account funding, policy that (I feel strongly) has huge potential to shift schools away from neoliberal, standardized approaches. Interestingly, there is no direct metric of accountability for supporting students’ mental and behavioral health, though through lines can be/are drawn to academic success, attendance, and graduation rates. Many districts, unfortunately, are moving towards use of DESSA, “a standardized, strength-based behavior rating scale completed in 5 to 8 minutes and used by educators and parents to measure the social-emotional competence for children.” Rooted in the same logic as standardized academic testing, quantification of individuals, especially through a dominant lens, may serve to reproduce an ideal student rather than create a school system that welcomes and celebrates the unique assets of every student. My team and I are committed to leading implementation and evaluation in our county that holds schools responsible for seeing all students’ excellence, rather than students accountable for conforming to school excellence.
Edu-speak 