In the first Chapter of Democracy and Music Education, Woodford can be found quoting and referencing the ideas of James Mursell, a music education activist and author. In the discussion of Mursell's ideas, the term "Participatory democracy" comes up as a positive program for music classrooms. Mursell conceived music teachers as leaders whose job it was to help students deliberate, choose and act cooperatively. Also, the ideal music program was a "cooperating venture involving all people (student, Parents, community etc.) who needed to coordinate their pursuit of common social, musical and educational goals." My question is, isn't this idea of common goals more like "Participatory socialism" than democracy?
Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines democracy as "government by the people : ruled by the majority. A government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections." Is Mursell saying that students and parents should get together and "vote" on what is being taught? That the majority will rule over the minorities? Isn't that silencing, or hegemony? Where as Socialism is defined as "a system based on a belief that social ownership of the means of production can be achieved by voluntary and peaceful surrender of their holdings by propertied groups" In music education terms, that when administrators and curriculum standards yield to the people of society, and the community will "own" or guide decisions in pursuit of common goals.
So I ask, Are the ideas and ideals of Educational "Democracy" that we are reading about and being taught as "good teaching" really democracy or are they socialist ideas? And, do you think that Educational philosophers are only labeling it as such because of the negative connotations that socialism carries with it?
Labels: Partner questions
posted by Anonymous @ 9:12 AM
1 Comments:
Things like this are hard to define or come to definite conclusion about just by reading a chapter in a text book. I think the problem a lot of the time is that things often look a lot better on paper than they work in actuality. From the description, it does sound a lot more like socialism than it does democracy. However, it's hard to come up with a solution that can work in between the two and walk that fine line.
We ulitmately want what's best for our students. It is important that they have a voice, along with their parents, and have an input in what is going on in the classroom, but I think that there should be a very big difference between having a voice and being a deciding factor. In a socialistic world where "everyone's" voice is heard, there are going to be voices that speak just to make noise rather than actually be heard, and there are going to be voices that speak only for their personal gain and not the overall well being of their community.
In this respect I think that the reading is flawed, and I completely understand your concern. Socialism carries a stigmatism. It goes back to the idea that we eliminate or choose to ignore things that have occured in our past because they are "shameful".
A good example was brought to our attention in Ed Lab on Friday when Ms. Barrett spoke about the fact that we were never taught the last two verses to "This Land Is Your Land" because they spoke of what was wrong with our country. Rather than accept and find ways to deal with flaws in the system we often choose to ignore them because it's easier in the short term. But in the end how will this affect our future? And how will it affect our future leaders who we are now teaching to question and stay eduated through asking these questions?
Post a Comment
<< Home