[SSC] Discussion Document (SSC Curriculum Group)

[David Young]

Hi Richard,

Thanks for your comments and questions which are a really valuable part of
the discussion. I always look forward to hearing your perspectives on these
important issues and you always make me think and reflect.

I would like to stress again that this curriculum paper - like the "quality"
paper, John's "values" paper and the recruitment notes - is primarily a
discussion piece, rather than a concrete proposal for the direction of the
SSC. It was written partly to prompt precisely the kind of debate that we're
having here and that we had at the meeting today. It doesn't reflect a
change in "message" or a shift in position on behalf of the group. Nor is
the *decision* about curriculum being "devolved".

I share many of your concerns about prescriptive curricula and the danger of
simply reproducing existing forms of HE. The approach to be adopted by the
SSC is I think still to be decided, but it seemed from the discussion
earlier today that the group was starting to converge on a point similar to
your suggestion - ie. within a framework of non-hierarchical, democratic
cooperation, the scholars jointly decide what to teach and learn, and how,
from a range of possible content and approaches that members of the Centre
feel comfortable teaching.

I had to leave early unfortunately so didn't get to see how things turned
out but the aim is for the Curriculum working group to revise this initial
paper in light of the discussion. Personally, I'd be more than happy for you
to contribute to this if you would like to.

All the best,
David.
 On Oct 21, 2011 5:23 PM, "Richard Hall" <RHall1 at dmu.ac.uk> wrote:

> **
>
> Hi Joss,
>
> Loads of teach-ins and alternatives being discussed in NYC. It's been good
> fun.
>
> I'm not sure that I am arguing for "something wholly different to
> mainstream HE" or an opposite. In fact, it may be that we are trying to
> define some form that is against the neoliberal university as it currently
> stands, and is a recapture/re-inscription of older, historical forms of the
> University that have been lost along the way.
>
> My concern is the boundaries. If we argue for a
> student-defined/negotiated/produced space then we need to be clear about
> what that means for the curriculum. I guess I am confused about the messages
> being sent. This may be a function of my missing the last two (?) meetings.
> That in itself is an issue where we are trying to make decisions across the
> co-operative, and develop positions sometimes remotely - have I missed
> something? How do we devolve decisions about issues that are fundamental
> like the curriculum?
>
> I agree that it needs to be compelling, but I also think we have shifted
> from our original position. That's fine, but I need to readjust. In broad
> brush, am I correct then that we will be recruiting 20 students to study
> he-equivalent programmes but not in HE (in a co-op), where we define a
> curriculum that is an equivalent of traditional HE, and where certain, more
> limited elements might be negotiated by students-as-scholars?
>
> TBH I am not sure that I am discussing or suggesting perpetual
> experiment/experimentation in a laboratory. I am suggesting that we start
> from the student, within a framework of *values*, possible teaching
> approaches, content, possible assessment types etc. and where we work with
> the scholar to align what is proposed for her/him. I fear that too much
> prescription from the start means that we lose the possibility to overcome
> the limitations of traditional HE, and will ossify what we are trying to
> achieve.
>
> Hope you are well - have a good weekend.
>
> In solidarity,
>
> Richard.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ssc-bounces at lists.aktivix.org on behalf of Joss Winn
> Sent: Fri 21/10/2011 17:04
> To: ssc at lists.aktivix.org ssc at lists.aktivix.org
> Subject: Re: [SSC] Discussion Document (SSC Curriculum Group)
>
>
> On 21 Oct 2011, at 15:15, Richard Hall wrote:
> >
> >
> > 8. Does any form of prescription beyond a framework/ethos/range of topics
> offered, mean that we are just aping formal HE? How tied to formal HE
> practices do we wish to be?
> >
> >
> Hi Richard,
>
> My own position is that I'm not interested in creating something wholly
> different to mainstream HE. We know that it is a good model in some ways and
> we have always been clear about the SSC offering an "equivalent" to
> mainstream HE, so in my mind, it remains the model to which we provide an
> alternative, not an opposite. The SSC needs to be a compelling alternative
> and not necessarily something so radically different to mainstream HE that
> it is not, in practice a realistic alternative for people.
>
> Many of us work in HE and so we might be looking for something really quite
> different to what we experience day to day, but our students will, I think,
> find even the idea of doing a degree via a non-hierarchical co-operative
> model, radical enough. Divesting the SSC of many of the familiar elements of
> mainstream HE could dissolve the Centre into perpetual experiment when both
> students and teachers, particularly to begin with, need something familiar
> to hang off.
>
> To be clear, I don't want to create a pedagogical laboratory with the SSC.
> I want to create a Centre that will appeal to lots of people who are willing
> to take on board the idea of localised, co-governance of their education. If
> we create a form of "HE in a co-operative setting", that's a pretty good
> start in my mind.
>
> Joss
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> SSC mailing list
> SSC at lists.aktivix.org
> https://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/ssc
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.aktivix.org/pipermail/ssc/attachments/20111022/59e46333/attachment.htm>