>It is that messiness and inefficiency
>that allows the island of excellence in which Miles operates to exist, and
>Miles, one of themost perceptive members of this list, suddenly cannot see
>around what he and his colleagues have to the material conditions that make
>his situation possible.
>
>
>
Carroll, this is exactly backwards. We're doing our good work despite
the messiness and inefficiency, not because of it. A school is not a
collection of autonomous individuals; it is an organization that has
emergent properties that cannot be reduced to the activities of its
constituents elements (and yes, that includes teachers!). As an
organization, a school must have rules, norms, and procedures; without a
coherent organizational system, it cannot contribute to the common
good. Organizational "messiness" means that we are squandering
resources, and that leads directly to (a) limited access for students,
(b) reduced quality of instruction and/or (c) workload increases for the
school employees. Thus the material conditions that make my work
possible is the bureaucratic organizational system; it is not any
"messiness" or "inefficiencies". (Cue Weber.)
Now, could education as a social institution be organized and systematized so that every school was simply and only a tool to perpetuate inequality? Sure. But the political problem here is not the systematization; it is the specific policy proposals (e.g., standardized testing, union busting, etc.). Dream with me: we can create a school system that contributes to the common good, but that will require us to have a coherent organizational system with shared rules, norms, and procedures. That does not require any of the "reforms" that are being advocated by Rhee and her minions. However, it does require us to recognize that a coherent organizational system isn't the problem. In fact, in terms of using public resources to contribute to the common good, it's the solution.
Miles