I hope that it is all right if I expand on this a bit -- sorry if it is a
misuse of bandwidth.
In my work, I have defined the educational domain as a domain of learning
for which people can be held responsible, and in which the learning has
value -- either positive or negative. Positive value, I have called
"education", and negative value, I have called "indoctrination" (it needs
to be called something, and I think this is the best choice).
All organizations are in the domain, insofar as we can, and do, learn
things as a consequence of participating in them or with them, and since
they all could result in different learnings if they were organized
differently. I deal with the "values" aspect with reference to what is
involved in implementing and realizing a worthwhile plan of life. This
is, of course, a very big topic, and relevant learning sites go far beyond
schooling.
This relates, I think, to a number of threads which are ongoing. The
nature of much of work is, on this description, indoctrinatory. It too
"dumbs people down"; beating down their initiative, their capacity to
dream, their sense that they could get some control over their fate, and
perpetuating a kind of channelling in which what there might be to life is
simplified (relevant to the extrinsic/intrinsic motivation discussion).
This, in my terms is simply indoctrinatory, if we could have organizaed
the institution in ways which would prevent it. LO shows me that we can,
and that it can be profitable to do so.
Schools are to a large extent derivative. If anything drives schools as
they are it is the world of business and other production. Schools do
what it is widely perceived that employment requires, and if schools are
really to change, it will be because employment requires something
different from what schools produce, and because this becomes widely
recognized. It will take the recognition that business is better for
releasing the intelligence, creativity initiative and moral sense that
people could potentially display, and that these things don't need to be
feared. It will take the recognition that business would be better for
intelligent citizenship. The process will, as you say Ed, require
constant education at every point, because massive indoctrination to the
contrary will have to be overcome, and and the only way to do that is to
show and speak the alternative in every corner that it can be. I am
greatly impressed by those in schools who are trying to turn them into
learning organizations, and I think that they have the uphill battle
before it could be truly widespread in schools. But I am heartened to see
people make such an effort in so many areas, and so many sites.
Ed Brennegar wrote:
> Graham, you wrote:
>
> "In fact I view all institutions as potentially educational, which is why
> business, and other non-schooling institutions are of particular interest
> to me."
>
> I think you are correct, and that one reason so many organizations,
> businesses, institutions, etc. languish is that they don't see that they
> have to continually "educate" their customers, employees, supporters,
> public, community, et.al. about who they are and what they do. The
> business as educational institution approach requires constant attention
> to the type of critical reflection which supports them being a learning
> organization. This is one of the points that I stress with the groups
> with whom I work.
R. Graham Oliver (h) 07-856-3566
Education Studies, University of Waikato
Hamilton, New Zealand (w) 07-856-2859
E-mail: g.oliver@waikato.ac.nz
--"Graham" <goeduc@mailserv.waikato.ac.nz>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>