Sustainability Learning – Wikipedia

Affirmative Responses

Framework

2AC – Framework

Framework: the role of the ballot is to determine who did the better debating based on the desirability of the plan. That’s crucial to fairness and education.

Permutation

2AC – Permutation

Permute – Do Both. This solves without abandoning schools. Critical pedagogy within schools can reveal the system’s flaws without deinstitutionalization.

Varbelow and Griffith 12 – Sanja Varbelow, Assistant Professor in the Department of Teacher Education at Angelo State University, Former Field-Based Teaching Specialist in Learning and Innovation and Lecturer in Curriculum and Instruction at The University of Texas at Brownsville, Member of the American Educational Research Association and the Society for Professors of Education, Ph.D. in Curriculum and Instruction from Texas A&M University, M.A. in Education from Humbolt University, Bryant Griffith, Professor in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at Texas A&M University Corpus Christi, 2012 (“Deschooling Society: Re-Examining Ivan Illich’s Contributions to Critical Pedagogy for 21st Century Curriculum Theory,” Education Resources Information Center, June 6^th, Accessed Online at: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED532618.pdf, Accessed 6-2-17)

Illich (1971) insists that the only way to learn anything at all is through “incidental or informal education” (p. 22). This is a very interesting idea because most of what we learn in schools does not pertain to subject matter but to socialization and values as dictated through the hidden curriculum by the dominant class (Apple, 1990). The things we have learned, we did learn through experience and needs; therefore, I want to argue that schools should provide such opportunities as suggested by Rousseau and Dewey (Cremin, 1959). But Illich disagrees. He (Illich, 1971) calls Dewey’s progressivism, which provides real-world experiences, “the pacification of the new generation within specifically engineered enclaves which will seduce them into the dream world of their elders” (p. 66). He extends the metaphor to the idea of Free Schools as they, too, make all valuable learning dependent on institutionalized teaching. This is the commonality between Illich and the critical pedagogues based on which they count him among their proponents.

Very interesting is his comparison of learning in the village where everybody provided his services as needed and was therefore meaningful to his community. Illich (1971) says “modern man must find meaning in many structures to which he is only marginally related” (p. 22). This is truer even more today, 40 years later. Should it then not be the responsibility of school to enable students to find that meaning for themselves, I wonder?

But Illich (1971) doubts that the education system is anything other than a mechanism to “break the integrity of an entire population and make it plastic material for the teachings” (p. 50). It seems the underlying philosophy that connects both, Illich and scholars like McLaren, Kincheloe and Apple, is that all see how men “shield themselves … behind certificates acquired in school” and want to use the institution to revolt against itself by pointing out its deficiencies hoping that its members “gain in courage to talk back and thereby control and instruct the institutions they participate in” (Illich, 1971, p. 23).

While this is precisely the purpose of Critical Pedagogy, for Illich, it feels like a discrepancy in his logic. I share his apprehension of institutions in general, which, by their very nature, are structured hierarchies that leave no room for the complexities of individual freedom and are, by definition, self-justifying and manipulative. He (Illich, 1971) points out the difference between the “Biblical message and institutionalized religion” and says that “Christian freedom and faith usually gain from secularization” (p. 24) thereby making a point for deschooling society. But then he (Illich, 1971) says that “the deschooling of education depends on the leadership of those brought up in schools” because “each of us remains responsible for what has been made of him” (p. 24).

When reading Deschooling Society, I am left with the impression that Illich actually wants to deinstitutionalize society. He brings many examples of society’s regression caused by other institutions such as the one of medical care, the Army, or the system of highways and cars, all of which turn us into active members of a society focused on growth and consumption. We can add to that today’s media such as the NFL or TV with shows that “educate” us about aesthetics, epistemology and metaphysics by telling us what is considered beautiful, important, desirable, etc. I am referring to programs such as Oprah (including her book club), Hanna Montana or American Idol. And yet, the above quote seems to make an argument against this impression. However, I do not feel he had in mind what Freire said when he insisted “that it is a political imperative for critical educators to develop a strong command of their particular academic discipline” because “by doing so, they can competently teach the ‘official transcript’ of their field while simultaneously creating opportunities for students to engage critically in classroom content” (Darder et al., 2003, p. 20). When Illich calls upon the “educators brought up in school” as the leaders to deschool society, it appears that he actually refers to those who, not because of but despite of school, understand its deficiencies. If this were so, he would make an argument for the deinstitutionalization of society and against Critical Pedagogy thereby following his original logic.

One of the most important points Illich (1971) makes is that it is the “transfer of responsibility from self to institution” that guarantees social regression (p. 39). Here he seems to agree with Hegel who says that the ultimate goal of education is the freedom of the individual which includes his in/dependence on institutions. By freedom I believe Hegel means the ability to make the conscious decision to be part of or to distance oneself from an institution. However, in order to make that decision, one has to have undergone the contradictions and conflicts during which one discovers oneself. It is these contradictions and conflicts that are one’s impetus and which will be integrated to reach a higher level. Based on that, Hegel would think the purpose of school is to discover oneself (Hegel, 1841).

The goal then should not be to deinstitutionalize society thereby removing all conflicts arising through the demagoguery of schools, but to enable learners to see the institution for what it is. If they understand it as a manipulative mechanism whose goal it is to create compliant citizen who do not raise questions regarding ethics, epistemology, or metaphysics but instead further the influence of the dominant class by advancing its economic strength, learners should be empowered to devise strategies to change that.

However, this cannot be done by deschooling society but only through applied Critical Pedagogy which affords learners to understand what it means to be a critical agent.

1AR – Permutation

Permutation do the affirmative while endorsing sustainability learning and critical pedagogy – that is sufficient to combat dominant value systems within schools without destroying them – that’s Varbelow and Griffith.

Plan and alt aren’t mutually exclusive — combo best.

Voke 9 — Heather Voke, Senior Scholar in the Center for New Designs in Learning and Scholarship and Visiting Assistant Professor in Philosophy at Georgetown University, former Academic Director of Teacher Education Programs in the School of Continuing Studies at Georgetown University, former Visiting Researcher at the Kennedy Institute of Ethics at Georgetown University, former Education Policy Analyst for the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 2009 (“A Critique of Ivan Illych’s Deschooling Society,” The Class Blog for PHIL 330 (Foundations of Education) at Georgetown University, January 15^th, Available Online at https://blogs.commons.georgetown.edu/voke-foundsofeducation/2009/01/15/a-critique-of-ivan-illychs-deschooling-society/, Accessed 06-28-2017)

In Ivan Illych’s article Deschooling Society he asserts that, “all over the world school has had an anti-educational effect on society” and as such should be abolished altogether and replaced by “educational webs which heighten the opportunity for each on to transform each moment of his living into one of learning, sharing, and caring.” His radical position not only makes some fundamentally flawed assumptions about human nature, but also overlooks alternative approaches to educating children that are much more realistic than completely restructuring long-established educational institutions.

On the one hand, many of Illych’s criticism’s of the public school system are valid. I agree that government spending has often catered disproportionately to relatively richer children, and obbligatory public schooling has in turn polarized society to an extent. Likewise, I believe richer children have had the added advantage of increased exposure to so-called casual learning. I’ll also agree that modern american society is highly-institutionalized, which allows many of the poor to rely on the system while the more affluent can be assured job promotion because our system often allocates rules based on years of instructional teaching (which the rich tend to have more of) rather than actual learning.

The fundamental mistake in Illych’s proposed solution of employing “edu-credit cards” and online intellectual match-making to facilitate the learning process is the presumption of innate intellectual curiosity that it relies on for the creation of a well-learned (if not “well-educated”) society. In his writing on the phenomenology of school, the author himself states that educational resources are allocated to “those citizens who have outgrown the extraordinary learning capacity of the first four years and have not yet arrived at the height of their self-motivated learning will.” Thus in the absence of self-motivation for learning, Illych’s forms of creative exploratory learning cannot be effective. Even specialized skill centers will be insufficient substitutes for schools if adolescents prefer to play video games rather than acquire a set of skills that will allow them to be contributing members of society. Additionally, it is often the case that people discover interests in areas that they might not have found attractive on their own. Without the variety offered by most public schools, a kid interested in public school might never have dreamed of becoming an astrophysicist or even taking a physics course.

The author also presumes that traditional teaching methods and the creative exploratory learning that he proposes are mutually exclusive. In fact, independent study programs are often done in conjunction with, but not in complete substitution for typical teacher-led instruction within the public school system. Aside from such programs, the casual learning that Illych asserts is more available to the middle-class where children are exposed to conversation and books in the home, can and does occur alongside traditional schooling regardless of socio-economic background. Even if a family cannot afford to vacation across the globe, education is recognized internationally as a fundamental tool necessary for success and concerned parents, especially in metropolitan US cities, can usually find extra-curricular programs to keep children out of the streets. Mentoring programs such as the Big Brothers program and 100 Black Men for example, can give poorer children access to the type of learning outside of the classroom that they might not get at home. Thus, a combination of traditional schooling and casual learning would be a more effective proposition before an individual reaches adulthood, at which point Illych’s intellectual matching, which already exists through sites like meetup.com, could help promote life-long learning. Increased participation in mentoring programs and skills classes outside of the school setting at no cost to the government is needed, not the omission of schools altogether. Since such programs are organized by the communities themselves, they also resolve Illych’s objection that an equal public school system is “economically absurd.”

Illych’s proposal that altering the First Amendment to make obligatory schooling illegal would protect the citizens from participating in a “ritual obligation” by force is truly absurd. This is one of Illych’s many ideas, including his paralleling of the public school system and the Spanish Inquisition that seems to criticize the status quo just for the sake of being counter-culture. He states “the modern state has assumed the duty of enforcing the judgment of its educator through well-meant truant officers and job requirements, much as did the Spanish kingdoms that enforced the judgments of their theologians through the conquistadores and inquisition. The fact that this so-called ritual obligation is preferred for most of humanity puts it into a category altogether different than the Inquisition. Schools have existed since the time of Ancient Greece and will continue to exist not because citizens have been brain-washed and indoctrinated to think schools are necessary by governments, but because parents across the world realize that they are often not equipped to teach their own children the skills that will make them competitive in the job market. Neither are the children qualified to teach themselves, and in fact need government support to facilitate the learning process. The methods of teaching Illych suggests are good supplemental resources but ultimately the deep-seated resistance to deschooling society is merited.

Reform within schools can radically alter education — creates liberated and politically aware citizens.

Gintis 72 – Herbert Gintis, Visiting professor in the Economics Department of Central European University, Former Professor Emertius in Economics at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, Ph.D. in Economics from Harvard University, B.A. in Mathematics from the University of Pennsylvania, 1972 (“Towards a Political Economy of Education: A Radical Critique of Ivan Illich 's Deschooling Society,” Harvard Educational Review, February, Available Online at: http://hepgjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.17763/haer.42.1.h2m4644728146775, Accessed 6-22-17)

I have already argued that de-schooling will inevitably lead to a situation of social chaos, but probably not to a serious mass movement toward constructive social change. In this case the correspondence principle simply fails to hold, producing at best a temporary (in case the ruling elites can find an alternative mode of worker socialization) or ultimately fatal (in case they cannot) breakdown in the social fabric. But only if we posit some essential pre-social human nature on which individuals draw when normal paths of individual development are abolished, might this lead in itself to liberating alternatives.

But the argument over the sufficiency of de-schooling is nearly irrelevant. For schools are so important to the reproduction of capitalist society that they are unlikely to crumble under any but the most massive political onslaughts. "Each of us," says Illich, "is personally responsible for his or her own de-schooling, and only we have the power to do it." This is not true. Schooling is legally obligatory, and is the major means of access to welfare-relevant activity contexts. The political consciousness behind a frontal attack on institutionalized education would necessarily spill over to attacks on other major institutions. "Th e risks of a revolt against school," says Illich, . . . are unforeseeable, but they are not as horrible as those of a revolution starting in any other major institution. School is not yet organized for self-protection as effectively as a nation-state, or even a large corporation. Liberation from the grip of schools could be bloodless. (DS, p. 49) This is no more than whistling in the dark.

T h e only presently viable political strategy in education—and the precise negation of Illich's recommendations—is what Rudi Deutchke terms "the long march through the institutions," involving localized struggles for what Andre Gorz calls "non-reformist reforms," i.e., reforms which effectively strengthen the power of teachers vis-a-vis administrators, and of students vis-a-vis teachers. Still, although schools neither can nor should be eliminated, the social relations of education can be altered through genuine struggle. Moreover, the experience of both struggle and control prepares the student for a future of political activity in factory and office. 93 In other words, the correct immediate political goal is the nurturing of individuals both liberated (i.e., demanding control over their lives and outlets for their creative activities and relationships) and politically aware of the true nature of their misalignment with the larger society. There may indeed be a bloodless solution to the problem of revolution, but certainly none more simple than this.

Blewitt Concludes Aff

The aff alternative author concludes for the perm – he recognizes the need to work within the state. The perm is an example of dialectical transcendence.

Blewitt 10

(John Blewitt, Senior Lecturer in Sustainability and Communication at Aston Business School, Former Senior Lecturer in Education at the University of Huddersfield, Former Professor a the University of Exeter, Distinguished Schumacher Fellow, Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, Fellow of the Higher Education Academy, Ph.D. from the University of Wales, MEd from Huddersfield University, 2010, “Deschooling Society? A Lifelong Learning Network for Sustainable Communities, Urban Regeneration and Environmental Technologies,” November 12th, Sustainability, Volume 2, Issue 11, pg. 3465-3478, Available Online at: http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/2/11/3465/htm, Accessed 7-5-17, twm)

5. Conclusions

At the time of writing the Consortium is still in its early stages of development. The lead institution, Aston University, through its Lifelong Learning Centre, has taken a radical and progressive lead role in this reinvention of extra mural university learning for sustainability. Whether the development succeeds or not will depend on a number of factors but it is clear that sustainability is becoming an increasingly prominent part of the educational and other practices of higher education institutions and other sectors of society. It has to. The Consortium and perhaps university sustainability education in general is perhaps yet another contradiction of capitalism or at the very least a parallax view [38] requiring a form of dialectical transcendence. Certainly accreditation is something Illich would be very wary of but without it development funding could not have been secured or support of other bodies enlisted. The funding, and accreditation, signifies a particular moment or political conjuncture whereby the State’s specific political autonomy from dominant economic interests allowed a certain compromise or configuration of simultaneously radical and conservative educational possibilities to form [39]. There is also value is accrediting learning opportunities for designating learning as credit worthy is, on the part of the university, a public commitment to quality although as Illich ([12], p. 19) rightly argues, “neither learning nor justice is promoted by schooling because educators insist on packaging instruction with certification”. The Consortium is above all a product of seeking to work in a radical manner within a conservative system where the tensions resulting from it offer possibilities of both success and failure. Success will lead to a reconfiguration of university led extra mural lifelong learning and failure could displace the political potential of sustainability as a means for deinstitutionalising higher education practice and for deschooling society. The last word remains with those of the inspiring Brazilian thinker Roberto Unger ([40], p.5) who in his 2006 Ralph Miliband Lecture argued that the idea of universal empowerment must be developed in to,

(…) a form of education, both original education and life long education, focus[ing] on the nurturing of a core of generic conceptual and practical capabilities. A form of education that is collective and intensive rather than encyclopaedic, that is analytical and problematic rather than informational, that is cooperative rather than authoritarian and individualist, and that is dialectical in spirit (...).

The aff alternative author concludes for the perm – he recognizes the need to use traditional classes with self-organized learning.

Blewitt 10

(John Blewitt, Senior Lecturer in Sustainability and Communication at Aston Business School, Former Senior Lecturer in Education at the University of Huddersfield, Former Professor a the University of Exeter, Distinguished Schumacher Fellow, Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, Fellow of the Higher Education Academy, Ph.D. from the University of Wales, MEd from Huddersfield University, 2010, “Deschooling Society? A Lifelong Learning Network for Sustainable Communities, Urban Regeneration and Environmental Technologies,” November 12th, Sustainability, Volume 2, Issue 11, pg. 3465-3478, Available Online at: http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/2/11/3465/htm, Accessed 7-5-17, twm)

The Lifelong Learning Network for Sustainable Communities, Urban Regeneration and Environmental Technologies led by Aston University in Birmingham (UK) is attempting to re-imagine and create this new approach to learning for sustainability and extra mural university education. The Network offers both vertical and lateral progression within the existing structures and frameworks of formally accredited learning without denying opportunities for significant informal and non formal learning in a wide array of spaces and lifeworlds that recognises learning as an element of what it means to be human. A sustainable learning environment needs to draw on all the resources, cultures and histories existing in the city-region including those diasporic communities that have become significant in promoting development in poor countries. Participation in global-local networks enable quick access to and transfers of human and financial resources, neighbourhood focussed community development through mentoring, capacity building through language learning, and eco and social entrepreneurship often harnessing a religious faith to fashioning a practice of sustainable wellbeing. These communities, by their nature, lend a global and development perspective to this an otherwise urban and locally based initiative sustainability learning. Interestingly, this initiative also gains some official legitimacy from the UK Government’s 2009 white paper, The Learning Revolution, which rearticulated various ideas and approaches to lifelong learning through its emphasis on informal learning, co-operation, cultural space and the need to create of webs of learning opportunity outside and maybe tangental to mainstream formal education and training. Indeed, the White Paper endorsed the social value of “open space” as a means of empowering groups and individuals ([26], p. 7),

We want a broad choice of learning options to be available, including traditional classes, activities in museums, libraries and other settings, as well as opportunities to learn online. Self-organised learning is an important part of the mix. Many people are already doing this. We want to empower more people to organise themselves to learn, with opportunities designed by communities for communities. But we know that starting a group can be difficult: it can be particularly hard to find low cost space locally, and people need more expertise and tips on how to build a successful learning group.

They Say: “Childhood Link”

Illich’s “Childhood” arguments are non-sensiscal.

Nassif 75 – Ricardo Nassif, Professor of Philosophy and Sciences of the National University of La Plata, (“The Theory of de-schooling between paradox and utopian,” Prospects: Quarterly Review of Education, Volume 5, Issue 3, Available Online at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0001/000155/015553eo.pdf, pgs. 329-340, Accessed 6-24-17)

But the rejections do not end there. Illich jumps to one of his main rejections: that of the biological, intellectual and social maturity achieved by a gradual process which takes place in fixed stages. Illich affirms loftily that 'the discovery of "childhood" ' was 'by the bourgeoisie'; that 'only some churches continued to respect for some time the dignity and maturity of the young'; that 'if there were no age specific and obligatory learning institution, "childhood" would go out of production', and that in line with the proposition that rejects school, considers that it 'could also end the present discrimination against infants, adults and the old in favor of children throughout their adolescence and youth', avoiding the 'segregating' that gets human beings 'to submit to the authority of a schoolteacher'.1 Th e argument—which, indeed, dispenses with the conclusions of scientific research—begins with the fallacy of assigning a negative character to immaturity when it is in fact extremely positive, since it represents the possibility of development. Rousseau, with his brilliant intuition, grasped this clearly when postulating the principle of the substantive nature of ages. Illich obviously does not think along these lines but sets out to defend, in his own way, the right of children to be respected in all their dignity. But the fact that not all human beings have the actual possibility of experiencing childhood does not imply its non-existence, but their enclosure in a certain economic and social situation which, particularly in the large urban areas, ages man prematurely (this happens in the case of all those who have to bear the brunt of work at an early age). The aim should therefore be to transform social structures so as to ensure a full life for man at each stage of his development, another of the objectives in the real struggle against alienation.