Stanley Comment
Greetings,
As I was reading an article by William Stanley, I was struck with the memories of a conversation that occurred in TE 407. Stanley, in his article, outlines the historical significance and the major differences between what Stanley believes to be the three major schools of though that exist in the school system today, one that stems from George Counts, one from John Dewey, and the final one, stemming from, most recently, George Posner. Stanley does a fine job of outlining each school of thought as “critical pedagogy”, “critical thinking”, and “maintaining the status quo”, respectively.
After reading this, I re-affirmed my belief that critical thinking is my something that I would really like to strive for, not only in myself, but also instilling in the students I will have. I believe this because I do believe that there are flaws in our current society, racism, reverse racism, sexism, and many more ‘isms’ are present in society and are defended every day by those who believe that they are somehow better than their peers in ways that cannot be changed or even challenged.
The reason why I disagree with critical pedagogy is because I do not feel that it would be morally right to encourage change in my students. If they do not see anything wrong with the system they exist in, and have thought critically about it, should I really try to sway or force them into seeing that something is a problem? I say that I am not that morally pure or even morally sure that I can say that I must be heard in my moral convictions. On the other side of the spectrum, if they find much more that they would like to change that I cannot see why or would want to change, again, could I say that I should be heeded more than their own critical thinking.
Finally, one of the flaws that was pointed out to me by my instructor: What happens if I educate my student very well in the art of critical thinking, and the student then turns that into an instrument of even, to commit genocide, subjugate third world countries and the like? Well, first, I would say that I did my job well, if that is my only goal. Then I would say where are the other critical thinkers (including myself) who should have risen up and challenged him on critically thought out, moral, ethical, or ecological bounds? I would argue that committing genocide, or subjugating third world countries would be morally wrong, because if we were given liberty and freedom by our government, and they were not, and we imposed our will on them for our own good, then one must think of the treatment of those peoples and understand that this cannot be done. I could also argue that destroying the ecosystem will also not help humanity in the long run, because destroying the world slowly is not any morally acceptable (to me) than committing genocide immediately.
In general, I suppose that my argument resides on moral grounds almost completely, but this is a part of who I am and my outlook on life, and in that vein, I cannot separate my logical side from my moral side, but I can restrain myself (at least partially) from forcing my morality on my students, as I know that my moral side might not be completely moral and I may have flaws and faults that may cause unforeseen problems in the future.
Work sited:
Stanley, William B. “Social studies and the social order: transmission or transformation.” Research & Practice. v69 i5. p282. Sept 2005.
