I liked how the text was prefaced by stressing the context in which Gramsci was writing this, "They are written in response to the educational philosophy taken up by Mussolini's Minister of Education." I think the dark history that is important when reading this text is interesting when considering the similarities in educational system from then-Italy and now-US. I still find lots of schools (I'm thinking mostly of universities) very vocational or professionally driven. I have experience working in admissions in undergrad and my first job out of college and looking back, I can remember very clearly talking to parents and students (mostly parents though) but how our schools gets students career ready. No one was ever that interested in pedagogical practices besides the "small classroom size." Is it worth reflecting that what was valued educationally under Mussolini's Minister of Education seems to be valuable to our education now? If so, how do we reconcile this?
Also on Gramsci's "The Organization of Education and Culture" (I feel like I'm cheating when both questions are on one reading). Geography stood out to me in two different points in the text. 1) The development of an industrial base both in the cities and in the countryside meant a growing need for the new type of urban intellectual. Side by side with the classical school there developed the technical school" (46). And 2) "Thus city children, by the very fact of living in a city, have already absorbed by the age of six a quantity of notions and attitudes which make their school careers easier, more profitable, and more rapid." I want to talk a little more about what is being said here to make sure one I'm not reading it wrong, but I came to understand the second quote as children in rural areas being in a deficit because of their surroundings. Is this a fair reading? In what ways is this true and in what ways does this not hold up? I grew up in a small town so I love defending the country life!
Emoji Collage:👷🌽🌾📚📐📝🏢🏫🙋🐄
Comments
Post a Comment