Our Schools and Our Children

Categorization is always a precarious activity, especially when it comes to cases where categories involve such intensely subjective, value-laden, and perspectival concepts as success and failure. It usually reveals as much about “the categorizer” as it does about “the categorized”, for it shows the conceptual and mental framework within which those who have the power to establish and enforce those categories operate. When it comes to education or literacy the attempt to classify a student as “successful” or “marginal” or “failed” at least is based on the following assumptions:

1. The attribute in question (i.e., literacy) is a one dimensional quantifiable entity sufficiently homogenous to be measured and represented by a single number (score) on a single scale.

2. It is necessary to ensure that all individuals who (with or without their own choice) are being subjected to this process of categorization fit into this framework.

3. There must be enforcing mechanisms such that those who don’t fit within the framework be penalized (i.e., they should fail the course)

4. The same metric can be applied to measure students with diverse backgrounds and life experiences.

In reality, all of these are assumptions that are very likely not true. For example, regarding assumption (1), even many physical quantities cannot be quantified with a single number. That is why we have vector and matrix calculus…More importantly, many standards are fundamentally tied with a cost/benefit calculus of those who have the power to define and enforce them. Literacy, for instance, obviously signifies fluency in playing a certain kind of language game, i.e., the language game of the dominant culture (the culture who is powerful enough to enforce its own standards on the rest of the members of the society). In this society power and wealth are controlled by corporations, and therefore literacy means an ability to use language in a corporate setting, ultimately, the sort of ability that results in increased production and more profit. But what is the solution? I cannot talk about the macro level, the history will take its course and may be some day we have a society in which profit is not the main motive behind all activities. But on a micro level, we can try to understand diversity and respect every individual as a unique case with his or her good in mind. It is impossible to generalize and prescribe a solution that fits all, but I think reasonable people can make reasonably justified judgments in each individual case. For example, one way to do this may be by taking into account a much wider range of variables than what the official establishment calls for. In particular, the background, abilities, resources, and world views of the individuals should be taken into account. Based on these factors, a personalized plan of action can be developed. But most importantly, this development should not be uni-directional (I know what is good for him or her), rather, it must be based on a genuine dialog where the teacher tries to truly enter the world of the student and establish a two way communication channel where he or she is ready to hear and listen and learn as much as to talk or teach or direct…