Aside from the impossible vocabulary used in this article and the trouble I had trying to interpret what the author, John Foster, was trying to get at, I'm pretty sure I disagree with his argument as well. In the beginning of the article Foster sets the stage for arguing against a capitalistic approach to education. He argues that the capitalist educational system doesn't help you gain knowledge nor skills of any use but rather trains students to conform to the behaviors that lead to success in a capitalistic society.
Further on down in the article Foster explains how the education system was designed to feed into a capitalist society, and he goes on to explain this doesn't necessarily breed the most educated children. This I do agree with, I believe that students are taught how to survive in our economy rather than "educated". However, I don't think this is ineffective because simply educating students by teaching them somewhat empty knowledge would not necessarily benefit the economy. Foster continues to argue that the school system was designed on factory lines by business men, but what is the problem with that? What is the point of not educating students to function (or perform optimally) in a capitalist economy when that is what we live. Shouldn't that be the objective?
In the section "Economic Stagnation and Attacks on Public Schools," Foster argues that privatizing schools is bad because it is capitalistic, when in contrast the privatization of schools promotes competition and raises expectations for public schools to perform to standards set by the state. This was the approach of the "No child left behind" act. Foster goes on to explain that large corporations have a lot of influence on the no child left behind act and wraps up his argument saying that large corporations are responsible for implementing a capitalistic approach to education. I agree that the large corporations, such as the Dell foundation, do benefit financially from the programs the implement in public schools, however, I do not believe that is their main focus.
Foster begins to form his main argument towards the end of the article where he states that the problem with standardized testing is that it is not testing the students as much as it is the teachers' conformance to meeting the expectations set by the corporations. He says that these corporations are getting a say in what is put on these standardized test that are supposed to guide a teacher’s teaching when that is not the way it should be. He argues that the standards that are set by these large corporations that manufacture standardized tests are only meant to advantage the corporate world and not the teacher profession at all.
Although at the beginning of this article I thought he would be taking a different stance on the issue, he did make a valid point towards the end. I do think that standardized testing has flaws, that is certain, but I also think they can provide a semi-accurate way to place where a student is in comparison to other students. This being said I do agree with Foster’s argument that corporations should not be allowed to determine what is taught, and they certainly should not be able to evaluate the effectiveness of a teacher based on students test scores. I think business and capital should be taught in schools, but I don’t necessarily think it should dominate what is being taught. Teaching should be left up to the teachers, parents, and administrators.
Foster, John Bell “Education and the Crisis of Capital.” The Monthly Review (2011)
No comments:
Post a Comment