Movements and misunderstandings.

Being ideological in education is not undesirable. It's inevitable.

The important point is not the particular opinions - but rather the softening up, the opening up of the mind, and looking at all the opinions. If there is some sort of spread of that attitude, I think it can slow down the destruction. - David Bohm

---

Listen to the podcast segment of Ideology in Education (at 10:48) based on this blog post for the Teacher’s Education Review below 👇.

---

It has been encouraging to see the way many have engaged with the ideas in my last post for The Interruption (as below).

Where science won't work.

This was a deliberately provocative piece, aimed at interrupting the sense of authority over education that proponents of the science of learning had declared within Australian educational discourse. The post was a chance put to words some of the discomfort I had felt about the movement, and in particular the potential I believe it holds for limiting the work of teachers. It was clear from the responses I received that these concerns resonated with a number of teachers.

A subsequent interview with EducationHQ to discuss my thinking further jolted my position into the consciousness of Australian educational discourse for a brief moment, which resulted in a flurry of mixed responses. I do wish to thank those who engaged thoughtfully with my perspective, including those who have challenged my thinking and forced me to further clarify my position.

On that note, I have tried to present my position in a way that is ultimately educational. By that I mean that I aim to preserve the freedom for others to make judgment in relation to my work and acknowledge that my position is one of many that someone may decide to take. Therefore, I do not seek to force my position upon the world but invite judgement and engagement in order to move forward.

After all, decisions are what move the world forward, not evidence.

Prevailing misunderstandings.

In this post I did however wish to address what I saw as one key prevailing misunderstanding in a few of the responses to my thinking when it comes to ideology and education. That is the belief that certain perspectives in education ought to be dismissed on the basis that they are ideological.

Let me be clear. It was never my intention to dismiss the science of learning due to its ideological nature.

On the contrary, my aim was to place the science of learning on a level playing field along with other educational perspectives. Ideologies can be understood as ‘the systems of values and beliefs that form the agenda for particular groups who take action’ (Webster & Ryan, 2019, p. 5). Therefore, the science of learning as a movement has an ideological foundation just as any others might have within education. One of my concerns in relation to the science of learning specifically was the way that its advocates seem to forcibly declare their authority over teaching practice once and for all (not that all within the movement may ascribe to this). Conceptualising the movement as inherently ideological fractures its presupposed sovereignty over other ways of thinking and gives permission for critique to occur and alternatives to be given voice.

Put simply, my intention was to allow the possibility of dialogue (see Bohm & Weinberg, 2004).

A way forward.

A potential counter-argument to my thinking is that if ideological perspectives in education are levelled out, so to speak, we risk the dreaded decent into relativism.

Not necessarily.

Although we can perceive of ideologies as not being “bad” or “good”, this does not mean that all outcomes as a result of different ideologies in education are desirable. Rather, it is the way that such ideologies play out in the political actions of individuals and groups that allow space for judgment and critique.

It is here that I have some concerns about the way ideology currently plays out in the Australian education system.

The core issue relates to the way that education in Australia has become (and continues to become) increasingly controlled and homogenised by standardisation of practice (the desire for this kind of education is in itself bound within ideological perspectives, but we’ll leave that for now). Education policy mandates are driven by dominant ideologies that have the potential to impact the teacher’s agency to respond to their community’s specific educational needs. If we understand education as a space where a vast number of possible ideological perspectives exist, the outworking of dominant ideologies will always serve a certain group of the whole, leaving others behind. As a result, we might find teachers being pressured to conform to ideological practices of education that they, or their communities, may not align with or find beneficial within their context.

“Could this have contributed to our teacher crisis?”, I hear you say.

Probably. But I digress.

This is my core reason for challenging the science of learning, as it seeks to construct an all-encompassing singular perspective of what it is to be a teacher and what it means to teach. I understand the utility of the science of learning principles and believe this has value within Australian education but aim to consider this within a broader perspective that seeks to consider the needs of those who sit (or stand) before me in the classroom.

This may fall outside the realm of the science of learning, and I’m okay with that.

Till next time,

References

Bohm, D. & Weinberg, R. A. (2004). On Dialogue. St. Louis, United Kingdom, Taylor & Francis Group.

Webster, S. and Ryan, A. (2019). Understanding curriculum: The Australian Context. Cambridge University Press.