MASKED THE PLAY

The zero-sum formulations associated with competition— gains in Japan meaning necessary losses in the United States—are also self-defeating. Representing the world in these terms causes us to minimize the inequities that currently exist and the imperatives to work actively toward their redress. Is hunger in Africa acceptable? Is the burden of debt carried by Brazil, Peru, Mexico, Nigeria, and Poland their just due? Is that where competitiveness leads?
To speak of economic competitiveness in relation to the world also has an impact at the micro-level of the classroom. Must our goal in the schools also be rooted in a similar competition? Is that how we should define “getting ready for the real world”? Or can cooperation be a principal objective? What are some of the ways to think about this? Shall we, for example, track or not track students? Provide challenge for some and limits for others? Perpetuate inequities or work toward their eradication? Clutter our discourse with labels that pit students against each other, by race, or class, or perceptions of intelligence? Shall we accept the message of test scores or go beyond them? How many of us have seriously challenged the various ways schools separate students? Do we speak about the inequities in the world and ignore those that exist in our schools? In this regard, the inequities tend to be large—and they are growing larger.
We have more than enough to do to create for children and young people genuine communities of learning. Framing our work in terms of competition won’t help us do particularly well the first things, the human things.

One Response to “economic competitive”

Leave a Reply