Blackbourn, j[1]. m. postmodern eye for the education guy focus v4 n1, 2010

FOCUS ON COLLEGES, UNIVERSITIES, AND SCHOOLS
VOLUME 4, NUMBER 1, 2010
1
Postmodern Eye for the Education Guy
J.M. Blackbourn, PhD
Victory University
________________________________________________________________________
ABSTRACT
This article examines the research and practice of the field of Education from a
postmodern perspective. This article attempts to present an alternative perspective
as to the current problems in our field and stimulate discussion and consideration of
possible alternative solutions. In essence, the purpose of the article is to provide an
alternative explanation of current practices in the field of Education (particularly
Higher Education), open the debate to positions other than that of Modernism for
serious consideration, move the ongoing discourse forward, and bring the different
perspectives to an open forum.
________________________________________________________________________
I have been a stranger in a strange land (Exodus 2:2)
As educators, we have long relied on certitude as the basis of our organizational
structure, culture, and operation. We have based our entire philosophy and practice on a
set of models and universal “truths” that define the parameters of the education
profession, professional practice, and professional behavior.
However, many times the application of these models and truths fail to produce
the expected, desired outcomes (Blackbourn, Hamson, & Walker, 2002). The increased
dropout rate, poor test scores, and pervasive violence in our schools are a testament to the
ongoing failure of established practice. Even successful models often do not “measure
up” to expectations in replication attempts. The presence of a linear, reductionist mindset
(Rader, 1998) and the almost total reliance on classical western science (a model that was
never designed or capable of dealing with dynamic, complex realities) is at the root of
such failure.
In essence, the Modernist (especially the micro-objectivist, functional is
paradigm) divides the world between areas of expertise, discipline, and profession. It is a
teleological universe constructed in such a manner that purpose is implied as a given.
However, the world is a complex unit with a high degree of interconnectivity. Feedback
loops exist between these artificial divisions that the mind of man has created. The
Postmodern perspective attempts explain and understand this interaction and complexity,
within the parameters of “the world” as a construction of each individual (Shideler,

2____________________________________________________________________________________
1988). A Postmodernist understands that any observable phenomenon is not only
interrelated to a larger universe, but also interrelated to his personal world construction
and those of others, many of whom have constructed a world incommensurable (Kuhn,
1972) to the one he has created. The Modernist interprets the same phenomenon within
the narrow parameters of his specialty, assuming that the “truth” is available to all who
observe and ignoring individual world constructions and the possible incommensurability
therein. He looks outward trying to identify features and situations to generalize to the
phenomenon, while the postmodernist looks inward for global, unifying principles, fully
understanding that such principles are contextual and will and do change. This interiority
experience is not seen as a legitimate area of examination by Modernists in that it deals
with motivations, the mind, and the inner life of human beings. In essence, the
Postmodernist looks into the chaos and complexity of the change process itself,
The Modernist‟s search for the “best way” to do something or a relatively
permanent list of “best practices” is an exercise in futility and a search for a “faux golden
fleece” or “faux holy grail” (Davis, 2007). Indeed, the “best” solution, practice, or
procedure in any situation is undeniably contextual (Monahan, 1993). To understand
requires an abandonment of all preconceptions when the question “What is happening?”
is asked. Baer (2003) describes this as “mindfulness” or the ability to bring one‟s
complete attention to the current experience on a moment-to-moment basis. Only from
this perspective can one begin to understand any phenomenon and its possible
interrelationships.
The above Modernist perspective disregards two essential elements in its
consideration of any phenomenon. First, nothing in the universe remains unchanged.
There is no constant balance or durability within our experience. Every moment carries
change within it. Second, due to the infinite nature of the universe, any proof or evidence
becomes questionable because the specific data we examine is only a sampling of the
entire range of possible data. By analogy, Hugh Laurie (playing Dr. Gregory House)
asks his team the definition of the term “sample” and the adequacy of samples obtained
through the appropriate professional protocols. In the scene, Dr. House poses the
problem thusly, “You are at the beach and you scoop up a sample of water from the
ocean in a glass. No fish in the sample – mean no fish in the ocean?”
Skrtic (1991; 2004) and English (1997; 2003) support this perspective and speak
to the need for educators to consider an atheoretical approach to our field. Skirtic (1991)
further describes the process employed to develop educational structures (models),
methods (practices), and materials (tools).

J. M. BLACKBOURN
____________________________________________________________________________________3
THEORY
ASSUMPTIONS
MODELS
PROCEDURES
TOOLS
Figure 1. Framework of educational structure and practice.
From Skrtic‟s perspective all we do, all we use, all our assumptions (and biases),
and how we interpret and react to any situation or condition is tied, through this
framework back to the specific theory we embrace. English (2003; 1997) further
suggests that theory is the key component in improvement in our field. We all draw our
models, practices, and tools from some theory, even if we are unaware of the actual
theory we use. Therefore to change models, practices, and tools, theory must first
change. Unless this situation occurs no improvement can be made and we will continue
to use variations of existing models, practices, and tools which reflect the old theory,
The current theoretical positions we employ fall far short of providing adequate
explanations of phenomenon. English (2003) also states that the assumptions, models,
practices, and tools we use have two problematic characteristics. First, the theoretical
foundations of our means of operation are grounded on the premise that truth is “out
there” waiting to be discovered rather than an internal construction we each form
individually. Second, this belief leads to a “regressive research approach” in which
research runs ahead of theory (the current condition) and theory must constantly be
patched up to remain viable. Under such a framework there is little or no ability to
anticipate or predict events (the key component of “science as Western thought describes
it) and the changes we implement are incidental rather than fundamental. Therefore, a
large gap exists between theory and practice in the field of education and those who work
in the field end up engaging in research work that is essentially “practicing the practice”

4____________________________________________________________________________________
and add little or nothing to advancing theory in the field (and thereby preventing
meaningful, fundamental change).
Given this condition, it is incumbent on educators to abandon the micro-
objectivist, functional or continue, in spite of the data to the contrary, to believe that our
current level of theory and practice will allow us to engage in accurate prediction and
control activities. Continued reliance on the Modernist position raises a multitude of
significant questions which place an observer outside of an event‟s context and nullifies
all intervening variables. If one accepts the functionalist, micro-objectivist perspective of
Modernism, any event, the observer, time, and all possible intervening variables, become
static and must essentially “ stand still” in relation to each other.
The level of awareness associated with the functionalist, micro-objectivist
perspective requires the acceptance of a sequential, word-ordered framework. This
position produces short term concepts of effectiveness and ineffectiveness, resulting in
incidental, stop-gap reactions to problems and issues. Such a perspective is the
traditional approach to leadership, administration, management, and instruction. This
conventional, linear model is a “mental trap” that has resulted in an illusion of
effectiveness (examples would include high stakes state test or Praxis II scores) and a
constant condition of poorly considered responses to crisis situations.
All problems demand solutions. However, most solutions are seldom final. Any
“final solution” means that a problem is no longer a priority or has ceased to exist. The
major issue in addressing any problem is the problem solving process itself. Effective
problem solving involves the rejection of the time honored reductionist principle of
cause and effect. It requires embracing procedures which may be more subtle or indirect,
yet which could lead to significant improvement in outcome achievement. Therefore, the
issues associated with conventional problem solving activity is due, in large part, to an
underestimation of the complexity of the problem itself and a misunderstanding of the
interrelationships that exist within any process or system.
Too often we make incidental changes and adjustments that are temporarily
effective, yet have the long term effect of making the situation worse than before (Owens,
Simmons, & Blackbourn, 2002). The assumption that a system can be unaffected by
minor modifications is an ignorance that is actually an assault on that system. This
ignorance is all too often an approach employed by those who identify themselves as
“leaders”.
Despite the apparent ineffectiveness of conventional approaches, those who
operate from the Modern, micro-objectivist perspective continue to support the status quo
in their attempt to retain power. The metadialogue or metanarrative (Foucault, 1973;
1980; 1982) is the primary means of establishing and maintaining power and control.
Words which explain and support the “power story” become the “true reality” (only
reality). Indeed, the purpose of the metaphors in the metanarrative is to convince people
that something “bad” will happen if they don‟t conform-something much worse than if
they do conform to the metanarrative. Therefore, the functionalist position embraces the
power words as “real things” and disguise the actual system with a symbolic system.
Indeed, the metanarrative supports all things within itself as “real” in opposition to the
Postmodern perspective of such things as” individually constructed social realities” with
differing individual meanings and statuses that reflect personal world constructions.

J. M. BLACKBOURN
____________________________________________________________________________________5
Further, the postmodernist understands the reflective and recursive nature of any
dialogue, that any process of deconstruction and reconstruction must necessarily apply to
themselves as well as others.
Many of these symbols are kept from and beyond the understanding of the general
population and are available only to those within the field (e.g. the profession).
Professionalism, ethical behavior, social parameters, status dynamics, and even sanity
become unquestioned truisms under the mantle of the metanarrative. Postmodernism
presents an “incredulity” with respect to the metanarrative and rejects the philosophical
foundations of the Modernist, micro-objectivist, functional approach.
To understand the “reality” hidden by the symbols, one must deconstruct
(Derrida, 1976; 1981; 1993) or question and break apart the metanarrative (in either text
or verbal form) and critically analyze each component and its relation to all others and
within its specific context. In this process one must identify those linguistic structures
which “gloss over” the inconsistencies, contradictions, and “silences” within the
metanarrative. This process forms the foundation of the ultimate goal of the Postmodern
approach, the search for authenticity and transparency. It requires several readings of the
metanarrative or its constituents in which the questions examine gaps, inconsistencies,
contradictions, and presuppositions comparing the general, visible interpretations with
possible other, hidden, deeply embedded meanings. It is the means by which the power
relationships in any metanarrative are revealed. Through such a process, one begins to
understand what is seen, heard, and read beyond the mere creation of mental images.
Personal value becomes assigned to the component parts (or the absence of component
parts) and they are transformed through an individual construction (or reconstruction)
into an integrated whole (Goodlad, 1991). Essentially, one enters the process not seeing
any pattern. This perspective appears as randomness until a pattern is perceived. Once a
pattern is discerned, a personal construction is created which persists in our
consciousness.
Deconstruction is different from Reductionism, in that Reductionism looks at
each of the different parts of a complex whole in isolation. Reductionism is, therefore,
not conducive to the study of complex structures such as Education or Schooling. These
structures are irreducibly complex and as reductionism simplifies complexity,
understanding becomes impossible.
In the field of education almost everything we hold to is embedded in the
metanarrative. Our Knowledge Base, our Standards of Professional Performance, Praxis
II scores, portfolios, essential Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions, Models of
Instructional Organization, and Accreditation Standards all stem directly from and tie
back to the overarching metanarrative. While any or all of our models, tools and
procedures could be deconstructed, a selected group of those we employ frequently is
addressed below. The symbol, deconstruction, and reality for several each of these
specific examples is provided along with an explanatory narrative, and a suggested
deconstruction/reconstruction. For the sake of brevity, the deconstruction questions
provided in the following tables are been limited and basic. A complete deconstruction
of each model, procedure, or tool would necessarily involve far more critical, complex
analysis and questioning.

6____________________________________________________________________________________
The Knowledge Base is the key component in any field, School/College,
department, or program in education. Yet, within the parameters of deconstruction, it is
essentially Dogma. Within the metanarrative, the knowledge base assumes the position
of the “one right way” to do education (English, 2003). It unequivocally and exclusively
proclaims “truth” and is beyond challenge, question, and any alternative. From this
perspective, the Knowledge Base itself is the enemy of academic freedom, free thought,
and all the foundational responsibilities of the professorate. It is consistently stands
“context free” and is the ultimate incarnation of reductionism.
SYMBOL DECONSTRUCTION REALITY*
The Knowledge Does the Knowledge Base Any “Knowledge Base”
Base is the totality encompass the scope and is essentially a collection of
unquestioned truth sequence of all the seminal of research, beliefs, values,
related to learning, research in the specific field and concepts that are
classroom management, of interest? selected to support a
school organization, specific paradigm or
academic curricula, world construction. It
administration, and Does the “Knowledge Base” is not a totality of truth,
the training of teachers allow for alternative views, but rather a subjective,
and leaders. alternative explanations, biased position statement
dissenting voices, or that is only applicable in
a variety of different limited context and serves
research approaches to the primary function of
collect and interpret data? maintaining the
exclusivity
of that position
Does the “Knowledge Base”
allow for the examination of
contextual and interrelated
factors that could impact
and/or limit its applicability?
* The reality presented in the figure is only one of an infinite number of possible
constructions.
Figure 2. Deconstruction of the symbol “Knowledge Base.”
The National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE)
emphasizes the “Knowledge Base” and rationalizes itself within the metanarrative.
Under deconstruction, English (2003), describes NCATE as, an organization which

J. M. BLACKBOURN
____________________________________________________________________________________7
engages in “police function”, in that it enforces theoretical conformity (through the
Knowledge Base and Specialized Professional Associations {SPA}). This effectively
discourages the Professorate from questioning the “truth” as NCATE sees it. Serious
scholarship, diversity of thought (the most important type of diversity) and meaningful
discourse is censored and the ability to actually improve the field is sacrificed on the altar
of accreditation. This socio-political process ensures that power and the status quo will
be maintained through standardizing of training and practice while novel, creative, and
innovative approaches prohibited.
NCATE is an organization Are the NCATE standards NCATE serves the
with the purpose of supported by empirical function of enforcing
maintaining quality and research? adherence to a set of
improving the field of non-empirical standards.
education through ensuring Has the quality of teachers It has little to do with
that training programs for and leaders shown an quality, but everything
teachers and administrators improvement in NCATE to do with bureaucracy.
meet professional standards accredited programs as There is no evidence
opposed to those who that the field of education,
graduate from non-NCATE educational practice, or
programs? the quality of teachers
and leaders is improved
by utilizing the NCATE
process.
Has the application of NCATE
Standards had the effect of
improving educational practice
and/or schooling?
constructions.
Figure 3. Deconstruction of the symbol “NCATE.”
One of the requirements of the NCATE accreditation process is the development
and evaluation of student portfolios. The portfolio supposedly serves as the validation of
the student‟s experience through documentation of that experience. In essence, the
portfolio is the symbol of the teacher training program and all it encompasses. However,
the portfolio is not the program or the student‟s experience. A deconstruction reveals it
as a simulation of that experience filled with artifacts that are associated with specific
events. Baudrillard (2000) states that in our current situation we have chosen the hyper-

8____________________________________________________________________________________
real, simulations, media, and artifacts over the real. Therefore, if a portfolio contains a
ticket stub, a written narrative, and a lesson plan (artifacts) based on a class trip to a
museum (actual experience) the ticket stub, narrative, and lesson plan are taken for the
reality and the actual experience becomes minimalized, reduced to the self-referential
signs of its existence. In essence, by evaluating a portfolio one falls prey to the ancient
Zen admonition of “Pointing one‟s finger at the Moon, and mistaking that finger for the
Moon”.
The portfolio serves as a Are the student’s experiences In actuality, the student
means by which a student’s accurately reflected and portfolio is merely a
experiences, education and understood within the portfolio, simulation of those
training can be documented. which presents them in a context events associated with
The portfolio is rational free manner? a student’s coursework
and effective means of field experiences via a
objectively evaluating the collection of artifacts.
quality and potential of the Do the course narratives presented Only self-referential
student as a teacher in the student’s portfolio accurately items are contained
reflect the experience of the courses? within. All evaluation
Does a collection of classroom is inherently subjective.
experiences constitute a course?
Do a collection of courses make
up a program?
Can artifacts be used as a basis
for determining the quality of
one’s experiences?
Do the rubrics used to evaluate
student portfolios yield objective
data concerning the quality of the
student’s educational experience?
constructions.
Figure 4. Deconstruction of the symbol “Portfolio.”
Another concept within the parameters of the NCATE accreditation process is
that of “Dispositions”. Dispositions can be defined as being “divided between traits,
attitudes, interests, and styles and are paradigmatically expressed by a type of behavior
that has a high frequency occurrence within a life-history. Traits, attitudes, interests, and
styles are grouped together as dispositions because specific persons will be disposed to
display these specific characteristics in ordinary circumstances, unless something

J. M. BLACKBOURN
____________________________________________________________________________________9
prevents them from doing so“ (Ossorio, 1985; Schielder, 1988) or as “The values,
commitments, and professional ethics that influence behaviors towards students, families,
colleagues, and communities and affect student learning, motivation, and development as
well as the educator‟s own professional growth. Dispositions are guided by beliefs and
attitudes related to values such as caring, fairness, honesty, responsibility, and social
justice. For example, they might include a belief that all students can learn, a vision of
high and challenging standards, or a commitment to a safe and supportive learning
environment” (NCATE, 2002). While it is reasonable to assume that effective teachers
and leaders have individual dispositions which underpin their effectiveness, it is not
reasonable to assume that all persons who are successful in the field of education or who
should be allowed to teach have identical dispositions (or can be “shaped up” to acquire
them). Damon (2005) outlines two major factors related to dispositions and their use in
the training and licensure of teachers.
First, he states that dispositions are “deep seated components of our personality
with roots going back to our personal origins”. In essence, those affective elements that
contribute to teacher effectiveness are established long before our entry in teacher
education programs and have little to do with matriculation through those programs.
Second, Damon (2005) states that the concept of dispositions is an “empty vessel” which
can be filled with any agenda one desires. From the perspective of this deconstruction,
dispositions become “tools of power” legitimized by “words of power”. Dispositions
allow those in authority to dictate to the teacher candidate that which is acceptable and
appropriate for them to think, resulting in “professionals” who can “cite the party line”
and “defend the metanarrative”, but who cannot think critically or creatively to solve
classroom problems.

10____________________________________________________________________________________
Dispositions are a set Is there indeed a definitive set Dispositions are concepts
of professionally related of “professional dispositions” which are subjectively
behaviors and attitudes which are essential to effective constructed and defined
which all educators must teaching? by each person on an
possess in order to be individual basis. There
effective. Dispositions can Can dispositions be measured in is no evidence that there
be assessed in a valid and an objective, valid, and reliable is a definitive set of
reliable manner to manner? appropriate dispositions
differentiate between those for any profession. There is
teacher candidates who Can one differentiate between the abundant evidence that
possess the necessary potential success of preservice we lack the means to
qualities to be successful teachers in the limited parameters assess dispositions in a
teachers and those who available in most undergraduate valid and/or reliable
do not. teacher training programs? manner. Therefore,
lacking a valid and
reliable means of
assessing dispositions,
we cannot differentiate
between those candidates
who have potential
and those who do not.
constructions.
Figure 5. Deconstruction of the symbol “Dispositions.”
The Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium Standards are
an additional aspect of the accreditation processes that warrants deconstruction. While
these Standards are designed to provide a definitive list of those behaviors and skills that
a teacher must possess to be “adequately trained”, they are actually are a set of
unassailable, non-empirical “truisms”. Such Standards tend to be drawn from our past
observation and experience with teachers, as our mentors, our colleagues, and/or our
students. The empirical validation of their presence in the Behavioral Repertoire of
“effective teachers” is absent. Given Modernism‟s perspective on data and the scientific
method the Standards are problematic. .
English (1999), refers to their implementation within the structure of teacher and
leader training as the imposition of a pedagogical religion on the professorate in the field
of Education (e.g. the standards are non-empirical, the professorate must accept them on
faith, and they are enforced by the authority of NCATE). Given this perspective, perhaps
Schools and Colleges of Education should be closed or restructured and replaced by
academic units rooted in its own Theology.

J. M. BLACKBOURN
____________________________________________________________________________________11
The INTASC Standards Do the Standards actually The INTASC Standards
are a set of behaviors which reflect a definitive set of are , at their core,
encompass the critical skills and behaviors essential components of an
professional abilities of to effectiveness as a teacher? Pedgological Catechism
teachers. They have been or an expository
developed and implemented statement of NCATE
in order to ensure that all Is there empirical evidence to doctrine. As with any
graduates from preservice support the imposition of the theology, those who
teacher training programs of an overarching set of Standards question or oppose the
possess the necessary skills for teachers? Standards are branded
to be successful professionals. as “heretics” and
excommunicated from
Is there a means by which teacher the field.
educators may modify the
established Standards to meet
particular student/stakeholder needs
or philosophical orientation of the
faculty?
* The reality presented in the figure is only one of an infinite number of possible cons
Figure 6. Deconstruction of the symbol “INTASC Standards.”
The scores obtained by teacher candidates on the Praxis II examination are a
further measure of quality from the NCATE perspective. This exam attempts to measure
teacher quality through student understanding of professional knowledge and skills as
defined within Standards of the discipline. If the current professional perspective is that
knowledge and skills (along with dispositions) comprise a “teacher” then it is little
wonder that schooling and student performance fail to improve. Yet this is how “quality
teacher” is currently defined. What is important to consider in all cases is the fact that
anything described is dependent on the measurement models, procedures, and tools
employed. Deconstructing Praxis II scores leads to the understanding that though they
are used as the basis for state teacher certification they simply comprise a sampling of the
possible total universe of critical knowledge and skills for teachers, allow for no
measurement of test performance over time, and deal with written (rather than
performance responses to problems). Further, within and among these limited samplings,
randomness and chaos effect measurement outcomes.
We, in essence wind up with the educational version of Hiesenberg‟s Uncertainty
Principle (Whitaker, 1996) in which we can know only one thing about teacher candidate
quality at a time and while we are concentrating on that one feature, the others are in

12____________________________________________________________________________________
motion and changing. As stated earlier, the modern view requires that the measurement
event, the teacher candidate, the observer, time, and all possible intervening variables,
become static and must essentially “ stand still” in relation to each other. This is the
ultimate problem with measuring ability or quality via Praxis II scores.
A final concern about the unquestioned reliance on Praxis II scores involves the
nature of our perceptions related to the students who must obtain a specific criterion score
on the instrument. Davis (2006) warns that the inherent bureaucratic mindset associated
with test scores causes educators to view students, not as individuals, but as “objects of
measurement” and that “any type of performance based assessment is distortive”, in that
quantifiable output alone are their focus. These assessments rest on the erroneous
assumption that numerical/ordinal measures are the only acceptable or reliable means of
assessing anything.. Essentially, concern over “what our Praxis II scores look like” has
superseded the concern as to whether our graduates can function effectively in the
classroom (Harvey, 2009). Again, theory and assumptions directly impact practice and
“as a person thinks, so they are” (The Living Bible, 1971).

J. M. BLACKBOURN
____________________________________________________________________________________13
Praxis II scores are an Is there a direct and/or Praxis II scores are a symbol
objective means of positive correlation related to “accountability” and
assessing the Skills and between Praxis II scores a relic of Taylor’s Scientific
Knowledge associated and teacher effectiveness? Management Model. They are
with effective teaching a “means” to an “end”, yet are
in preservice teacher Is there a direct and/or taken to be an “end” in and of
education candidates positive correlation themselves (e.g. “What are our
and via association of between Praxis II scores Praxis II scores like”). No data
each cohort groups and the professional exists that indicates Praxis II
scores with a preset longevity of teachers? scores are related to teacher
criterion (80% pass quality, effectiveness, or
rate) the quality and Is there a direct and/or longevity.
effectiveness of the positive correlation
teacher education between scores on the
program itself. Principles of Learning
and Teaching section of
the Praxis II and the
observable classroom
performance of teachers?
To what degree does performance
on a traditional “paper and pencil”
test, relate to professional practice
as a teacher?
Is there direct evidence that the results
of Praxis II examinations have been used
fundamentally change programmatic,
philosophical, or instructional practices
in a preservice teacher education program?
constructions.
Figure 7. Deconstruction of the symbol “Praxis II Scores.”
Additionally, many educational organizations develop and implement “exemplary
program models” as a means of addressing critical issues with a “high quality” solution.
Such models include Teach for America, The Mississippi Teacher Corps, and the
Mississippi Principal Corps. These models often are limited in terms of the number of
participants allowed, a highly competitive selection process, and involve a
program/curriculum which is innovative or offers the participants advanced training that

14____________________________________________________________________________________
is beyond the scope of the normal program. Such programs often are a good deal more
expensive to develop and maintain than traditional programs, drawing needed resources
from those programs that serve the majority of students. Deconstruction of such
programs leads one to the consideration of several questions.
First, one must question the ethics of requiring a majority of students to pay for a
“less than exemplary” program, while providing tuition support to a small number of
students to receive an exemplary program. Second, one must question the efficacy of
such programs. The Mississippi Principal Corps, at this writing, allows only 10
participants a year and the Mississippi Teacher Corps retains less than 25% of each
cohort groups as K-12 teachers in the state after the completion of their required 3 year
commitment. A Cost- benefit analysis of both programs would likely reveal a negative
return on investment. A final ethical issue would be the consideration of not providing
the best program to all students, but only to a select few.
As the Mississippi Principal Corps, the Mississippi Teacher Corps, and Teach for
America serve only as “symbols” of the commitment to quality education, rather than
actual solutions, the above questions become moot. It is this symbol that leaders point to,
invoke the metanarrative, an thereby allow the status quo and their hold on power to
continue through the creation of a new generation of bureaucratically inclined
practitioners who will “fit into” the existing symbolic system.
Elite programs offering Do the programmatic differences Elitist programs such as
exemplary training actually result in a qualitative the Mississippi Principal
methods, such as the difference between graduates of Corps are symbols that
Mississippi Principal of exemplary and traditional support the metanarrative
Corps, provide a means programs? and have little positive
of preparing outstanding impact on the actual
professionals for the public practice of education in
schools. The training the Are such program in applied settings. In
participants receive cost-beneficial? addition, they are not
set them apart as cost beneficial and are
professionals of the ethically questionable.
“highest quality”. Is it ethical to provide a exemplary Such programs are
training program to a small political in nature and
group of select participants and primarily a public
a second tier training program to relations tool for
the majority of students? those Institutions
who implement them.
Being political, by definition, they are
lacking in quality.
* The reality presented in the figure is only one of an infinite number of possible constructions.
Figure 8. Deconstruction of the symbol “Exemplary Program Models.”

J. M. BLACKBOURN
____________________________________________________________________________________15
Finally, one must consider the actual practices which compose the content of
programs, curricula, and coursework in teacher preparation programs. In essence,
Foucault‟s (1973) concern related to the rationale held by (in this case) educators that
their professional practices are functional and rational and that these practices represent
an adequate and just response to the problem of school failure must be considered.
One such practice is the content area of “inclusion” as a model, procedure, and
tool in special education. Inclusion, while a legitimate alternative (and undeniably the
ultimate goal of the special education process) is simply one potential model of service
delivery within a “continuum of alternative placements” (IDEA, 2004). However, the
current metanarrative in the field of special education has elevated inclusion to a status
commensurate with the term “Least Restrictive Environment”. However, the “Least
Restrictive Environment” has and always will be an individually and contextually defined
concept, as illustrated by the above mentioned “continuum of alternative placements” to
meet the LRE needs of the wide diversity inherent in those persons with disabilities. In
essence, inclusion in the general education classroom has become the only acceptable
placement because it is less restrictive than the other alternatives on the legally required
continuum. Such a perspective essentially denies the very component that makes special
education “special”, the ability to individualize, placements, programs, goals, objectives,
and instruction to each specific student‟s needs. However, many individuals
(Shanker,1995; Warnock, 2005; Cleg, Murphy, Almack, and Harvey, 2008) question the
“one size fits all” approach to inclusion and its tendency to ignore such factors.
Indeed, the mantra “Inclusion works” (Lowery, 2007) has become one of the
primary “truisms” embedded in the special education metanarritive. Under deconstruction
the statement itself is a tautology which begs the question, “what does one mean by the
term, „works‟”. The term itself therefore becomes qualitative in nature and “works”
must be “qualified” contextually (e.g. “works” becomes equivalent to “quality” for
specific individuals, based on their specific circumstances and outcomes).
If “works” means that all students with disabilities will perform at the same
academic levels as their non-disabled peers, then it is unlikely that inclusion “works”. If
the term means that persons with disabilities will develop more positive self-concepts in
inclusion experience more positive social interactions with their non-disabled peers, then
the meaning is a possibility. If the term means that the parents of students with
disabilities will be more satisfied and pleased with the placement of their children and be
less negatively disposed toward the school district and district personnel, then it is highly
likely that inclusion “works”.
In essence, inclusion is best validated by the concepts of individual accreditation
and degradation (Ossorio,1985). If one is accredited by a group then one “has a place” in
that community, shares the social practices of that community, and increases the range of
possible behaviors in which they can engage. If degradation is the process, then the
opposite outcomes are created. In essence, persons become what they are treated as
being (Wolfensberger, 1972; Ossorio, 1985). In this context, inclusion as a practice of
schooling is justified.
But the issue has never nor will ever be whether inclusion is a functional and
acceptable educational practice. Within certain contexts and within the parameters of
“individualization”, it is.

16____________________________________________________________________________________
The issue is the use of “inclusion works” in a context free state as a tautology that
supports the metanarrative. However, as a tautology, the simple term “inclusion works”
and its lack a meaningful definition, is unfalsifiable and therefore has no place in
professional discourse as a concept that is empirically based or rooted in a “scientific”
theory (Popper, 1959; 1962). The statement, as a symbol, masquerades as reality,
offering little useful information for the field or those who work in the field. In essence,
the conclusion is equivalent to the premise and the “truth propositions” within the
statement are guaranteed, unquestionable, indisputable, because it is defined self-
referentially.
Inclusion is a rational, Does inclusion ensure that Inclusion is a
functional procedure persons with disabilities procedure which
which is an effective means will actually receive adequate perpetuates the
of serving students benefit which has a meaningful process of “hiding
the disabilities in the public impact on their academic and failures of public
schools. It is a practice social functioning? education” inherent
that brings those persons in Special Education
with disabilities into Does inclusion ensure that practice. However
educational settings which persons with disabilities in this instance
offer them appropriate will achieve adequate life students are “hidden
training and social justice. outcomes socially, civically, in plain sight” rather
and vocationally? isolated in segregated
classrooms. Inclusion
Do inclusion practices lead is a social rather than
to social justice for persons pedagogical practice.
with disabilities across the It does not “level the
lifespan? playing field” for
persons with
disabilities and tends
to perpetuate the
academic
. achievement gap
between persons with
disabilities and their
peers without
disabilities
* The reality presented in the figure is only one of an infinite number of possible constructions.
Figure 9. Deconstruction of the symbol “Inclusion.”

J. M. BLACKBOURN
____________________________________________________________________________________17
The deconstruction of each of these symbols reflects the view that discourse and
practice in Education (as with all other fields) is primarily reflective of power. However,
the Postmodern perspective is a tool of liberation for the field of education that places all
the people concerned at the center of theory and practice. Such liberation allows persons
to develop and act from goodness and strength (Carkhuff, 1975). The prediction and
control perspective of the bureaucracy and its “regime of truth” (Foucault, 1980) are the
first causalities of this liberation. While Postmodernism fails to independently offer
alternative solutions, it provides a means by which one may strip away the symbols of
Modernism and begin to perceive the contradictions and inconsistencies hidden therein.
The Postmodern approach is a necessary perspective in the ongoing discourse in
the field of Education. Education is a social science and is therefore only tangentially a
“science”. It is both science and art and requires consideration from both perspectives.
Foucault (1973) viewed the social sciences as highly reductionist in nature breaking
down “the entire domain about what can be known about man” into three linguistic dyads
(e.g. function and norm; conflict and rule; signification and system). The field of
Education utilizes each of these dyads in its discourse and metanarrative and further
draws its theoretical and philosophical bases from other disciplines, particularly business,
medicine and psychology. In essence, it has no theoretical or philosophical base of its
own, but rather has selected specific aspects of these fields as foundational, essentially
building a “secondary and derived character”. (Foucault, 1973; Skirtic, 1991; English,
2003).
Finally, and of the most critical importance, the field of Education continually
engages in examination of itself. This self-examination is the primary factor in the field‟s
inability to become more precise, effective, and applicable. Within this self-examination,
however, the different components are used as the references to explain each other.
There is no examination of the field from “outside the tent” (Donmoyer, 1999) and
therefore no real change or improvement, only a reincarnation of what already exists,
usually in terms of “enlarging the tent”. Each new incarnation, therefore, encompasses
only incidental rather than fundamental change. Given the current state of the field, this is
no longer acceptable as a procedural activity.
It is not time for a new set of Standards, new processes or procedures for training
teachers and leaders, new instructional methods, or a new centering of the field of
education, but rather a completely new way in all that we think and do. Essentially, we
must return to a pre-empirical state, similar to the state Newton found himself in as he
began to develop an applied science (the Calculus) to explain his new theory and its
associated laws. This only will happen through an open discourse about who and what we
currently are, how we “know” what we “know”, what we can potentially become, and
how to get there.
The establishment of quality schooling, quality teacher training, and quality
education cannot be achieved through bureaucratic means (Davis, Baez, and Freeman,
2006). A return to Education as a dynamic which involves a “drawing out” from
students, rather a bureaucratic inculcation of the student via current pedagogy and policy
is the foundation of such quality (Davis, 2005). To do so there must be a collapse of
those boundaries that encompass the field. Modernism, with its conformity to
definitional and foundational metanarratives, cannot take us there. Postmodernism‟s

18____________________________________________________________________________________
penchant toward dissent, impermanence, diversity, plurality, and its case by case
dissolution of subject and object is one alternative which has that potential.
References
Baer, R. (2003). Mindfulness and behavior analysis: An application of the writings of
D.M. Baer. In K.S. Budd & T.R. Stokes (Eds.), A small matter of proof: The
legacy of Donald M. Baer (pp. 211-224). Reno, NV: Context Press.
Blackbourn, J.M., Hamson, N., & Walker, J. (2002). What‟s love got to do with it. In
J.T. Owens & J.C. Simmons (Eds.), Creating quality reform: Programs,
communities, and governance (pp.31-39). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Baudrillard, J. (2000). The vital illusion. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Carkhuff, R.R. (1975). Propositions in search of a person. In Berenson, B.B. (Ed.),
Belly to belly, back to back: The militant humanism of Robert R. Carkhuff (pp.
36-40). Amherst, MA: Human Resource Development Press.
Cleg, J., Murphy, E., Almack, K., & Harvey, A. (2008). Tensions around inclusion:
Reframing the moral dimension. Journal of Applied Research in Developmental
Disabilities, 21, 81-94.
Damon, W. (2005). Personality test: The dispositional dispute in teacher
preparation today and what to do about it. Educational Excellence, 2(3), 1-6.
Davis, D.R. (2005). A quality education? (Unpublished Manuscript). Georgia State
University, Atlanta, GA.
Davis, D.R., Baez, B., & Freeman, E. (2006). School bureaucracy and the unmet
promise of school improvement and social justice: The problem of leadership.
Paper presented at the 90th
Annual Meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Davis, D.R. (2007). The cult of easy answers: Reform policies and professional
educational practice. Paper presented at the 91st
Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Derrida, J. (1976). Of grammatology. G. Spivak (trans.). Baltimore, MD: Johns
Hopkins.
Derrida, J. (1981). Positions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Derrida, J. (1993). Aporias. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Donmoyer, R. (1999). The continuing quest for a knowledge base: 1976-1998. In J.
Murphy & K. Louis (Eds.), Handbook of research in educational administration
(2nd
ed.) (pp.25-34). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
English, F.W. (2003). The postmodern challenge to the theory and practice of
educational administration. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
English, F.W. (1999). Psst! What does one call a set of non-empirical beliefs required to
be accepted on faith and enforced by authority? [Answer: A religion, aka the
ISLLC Standards]. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 3(2), 159-
167.
English, F.W. (1997). The cupboard is bare: The postmodern critique of educational
administration. The Journal of School Leadership, 7(1), 4-26.

J. M. BLACKBOURN
____________________________________________________________________________________19
Foucault, M. (1973). The order of things: An archeology of the human sciences. New
York, NY: Random House.
Foucault, M. (1980). Power knowledge. New York, NY: Pantheon.
Foucault, M. (1982). The subject and power. In H. Dreyfus & C. Rabinow (Eds.),
Michel Foucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics. Brighton, UK:
Harvester Press.
Goodlad, J.I. (1991). We have met the enemy…. Action in Teacher Education, 13(1),
4-6.
Harvey, B. (2009, March). Personal Communication.
Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Lowery, D. (2007, October). Personal Communication.
Monohan, W.G. (1993). Contextualism: A meta-theoretical premise. National Forum of
Educational Administration and Supervision, 9(3), 87-100.
National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (2002). Professional
standards for the accreditation of schools, colleges, and departments of
education. Washington, DC: Author.
Ossorio, P.G. (1985). An overview of descriptive psychology. In K.J. Gergen & K.E.
Davis (Eds.), The social construction of the person (pp.147-171). New York,
NY: Springer-Verlag.
Owens, J. T., Simmons, J. C., & Blackbourn, J. M. (2002). Lonely highways and the
blue horizon: The quest for quality educational reform. In J. T. Owens & J. C.
Simmons (Eds.), Creating quality reform: Programs, communities, and
governance (pp.68-73). Boston, MA: Pearson..
Popper, K.R.. (1962). The myth of inductive hypothesis generation. In R.D. Tweeny,
M.E. Doherty, & C.R. Mannat (Eds.), On scientific thinking (pp. 72-76). New
York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Popper, K.R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Rader, D.R. (2007). Learning redefined: Changing the images that guide the process.
Bailey Switch, KY: Author.
Shanker, A. (1995). Full inclusion is neither free or appropriate. Educational
Leadership, 6, 18-21.
Shideler, M.M. (1988). Persons, behavior, and the world: The descriptive psychology
approach. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Skrtic, T.M. (2004). Critical disability studies. In D. J. Gallagher, L. Heshusius, R.P.
Iano, & T.M. Skrtic (Eds.), Challenging orthodoxy in special education:
Dissenting voices (pp. 353-362). Denver, CO: Love.
Skrtic, T.M. (1991). Behind special education: A critical analysis of professional
culture and school organization. Denver, CO: Love.
The Living Bible (1971). Proverbs. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House.
The Living Bible (1971). Exodus. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House.
United States Congress (2004). The individuals with disabilities education act.
Washington, DC: Author.
Warnock, M. (2005). Special education needs: A new look. London, England:
Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain.

20____________________________________________________________________________________
Wolfensberger, W. (1972). Normalization: The principle of normalization in human
services. Toronto, Canada: National Institute on Mental Retardation.

Blackbourn, j[1]. m. postmodern eye for the education guy focus v4 n1, 2010

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Similar to Blackbourn, j[1]. m. postmodern eye for the education guy focus v4 n1, 2010

Similar to Blackbourn, j[1]. m. postmodern eye for the education guy focus v4 n1, 2010 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Blackbourn, j[1]. m. postmodern eye for the education guy focus v4 n1, 2010