A PEDAGOGY FOR TEACHERS AND OTHER EDUCATIONAL DECISION MAKERS
Published date | 01 February 1980 |
DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/eb009825 |
Date | 01 February 1980 |
Pages | 185-201 |
Author | GRAHAM PATTERSON |
Subject Matter | Education |
THE JOURNAL
OF
EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION
VOLUME XVIII, NUMBER
2
OCTOBER,
1980
A PEDAGOGY
FOR
TEACHERS
AND
OTHER
EDUCATIONAL DECISION MAKERS
GRAHAM PATTERSON
Teachers
and
educational decision makers often take
a
problem solving approach
to dif-
ficulties that arise in their professional sphere. The solutions are often effective in the short
term, but the situation
is
inevitably changed by implementing the solution and the dynamics
of the situation demand further action. Paulo Freire advocates
a
problem posing approach
based
on
dialogue which
is
quite different
to a
problem solving approach that assumes
the
decision maker
has all the
necessary knowledge
and
wisdom. There
is
rather interesting
and unexpected support
for
Freire's problem posing approach
in
Pirsig's didactic novel,
Zen
and the Art
of Motorcycle Maintenance. These
two
writers, Freire and Pirsig, have
a
similar message
for
teachers
and
administrators even though their styles
and
contexts
are
"worlds" apart.
INTRODUCTION
Paulo Freire
in
Cultural Action for
Freedom
has
written
of the
education
of oppressed people
of
the third world, especially
in
Latin America.1 To say
that similar educational oppression is the norm
in
many Australian schools,
colleges
and
universities
is
to
question
the
very foundations
of
equality and
opportunity that Australian education is so proud
of.
True,
the
oppression
may not
be as
blatant, but the consequences of the actions
of
teachers,
prin-
cipals
and
educators operating with good intentions
are
equally
devastating. There
is
only token difference between
the
student
in
Peru2
who
is
compulsorily removed from school before gaining
a
useful education
and
the
Australian secondary student who is still attending
but
is virtually
static in terms
of
viable
educational gain. Similarly the adult student who
is
learning English as
a
second language
in
courses without specific education
or vocational goals is only completing
an
exercise that leads
to
higher order
frustration.
The link between peasant villagers
in
Latin America
and
students
who
are disadvantaged
by our
educational system
is to
be found
in the
decision
making process
itself. In
order
to
illustrate that link
it is
necessary
to
con-
sider current educational practice
and an
alternative model that
I as a
teacher
am
currently using.
The
model
has a
close parallel
in
Pirsig's
analysis
of the
inconsistencies
in
Western behaviour,
as
expressed
so
com-
pletely
in
his book
Zen
and the
Art
of Motorcycle Maintenance.3
GRAHAM PATTERSON
is
Lecturer
in
Education
at the
Armidale College
of
Advanced
Education.
Mr.
Patterson
has
taught
in
Papua
New
Guinea
and in the
Institute
of
Modern
Languages, University
of New
South Wales.
In
1975-76
he was
Adviser
on
Migrant
Education
in the
N.S.W. Department
of
Education.
186 Patterson
In the first instance this paper considers an alternative to deficit model
programming and secondly it develops a pedagogy for educational decision
makers.
The alternative to deficit model programming is based on two actual
examples:
1 ) teaching nine year olds to play tennis, and
2 ) essay writing for tertiary students.
In both cases learning
is
considered in terms of the authentic attempt rather
than the usual evaluation of performance.
The pedagogy for educational decision makers is a parallel situation in
which the educators take the role of learners.
Whether we are teaching six year olds to read, nine year olds to play
tennis, teenagers to learn English as a second language or graduate students
to become more proficient in their profession, there
is
incredible pressure to
judge the learners on their individual performance at tasks we as teachers
set them. Failure to perform at the expected level is readily interpreted as
failure on the part of the learner. Such learners are an inconvenience and
an embarrassment for they disrupt our neat programs designed for progres-
sion of the group as a homogeneous learning unit.
One solution to this dilemma is to provide a "catch-up" program that
will bring these "deficient" learners back into line. Such "catch-up" pro-
grams are patronising; prone to low teacher expectations and consequent
low achievement; seldom achieve their aim and in some instances are "a
(not so) subtle form of racism".4
Furthermore the number of learners who should be considered as defi-
cient is completely arbitrary: if you set the task low enough then no-one in
the group is deficient; however if you set it high, all but an elite few should
be considered as deficient.
In practice, we as teachers slough off the extreme cases if we can, and
try to cajole the rest of the flagging learners into greater effort with all
kinds of time-honoured threats and promises. In order to preserve the stan-
dard of the teaching program and maintain a facade of group homogeneity
teachers have built up a whole armoury of
strategies
and rationalizations. It
becomes a "fine masquerade". There is a simple description for this mas-
querade: Deficit model thinking on the part of teachers.
Teachers who take the stance that a group of their learners cannot be
effectively included in the class until they have "caught up" create a divi-
sion within that class. It is a division between those learners the teacher
wants to teach and those the teacher ought to give particular attention to.
It is a line of thinking that considers the past performance of the out-group
students as inadequate instead of accepting that even at lower levels of
operation a student's effort can be both a genuine and a useful contribu-
tion.
If a teacher considers any student as deficient because of level of perfor-
mance then that teacher has a dilemma which may be represented as:
To continue reading
Request your trial