Rodclarken.files.wordpress.com
Truth, Love and Justice:
A New Paradigm for Education and Its Reform
Rodney H Clarken
School of Education
Northern Michigan University
© 2012
Published by Rodney H Clarken, School of Education, Northern Michigan University, 1401 Presque Isle Ave, Marquette, MI 49855
Copyright © 2012 by Rodney H Clarken
All rights reserved.
No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means including information storage and retrieval systems, without proper citation and permission in writing from the author. The only exception is by a reviewer, who may quote short excerpts in a review.
The latest version of this book is freely available on my website at
First draft version posted on my website for review and comments: March 1, 2012.
Please send comments and suggestions to rclarken@nmu.edu
Current version: March 2, 2012
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Clarken, Rodney, 1951-
Truth, love and justice: a new paradigm for education and its reform / Rodney H Clarken
Includes bibliographic references
ISBN -------
1. Educational reform. 2.------
ISBN--------
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements 6
Preface 8
Introduction 10
How and Why I Started Writing This Book 10
What I Believe 11
Challenges of Educational Reform 12
Why and How We Differ 14
Why We See Things Differently 14
The Community Influence Verifying and Changing Our Thinking, Feeling and Acting 15
The Individual Influence 16
Change 17
Influence of Ideology 18
Reform Rhetoric 22
Philanthropists’ Perspectives 25
Materialistic Worldview as a Moral Crisis 26
A New Paradigm for Education 29
Individual, Collective, Subjective and Objective Views of Reality 29
Four-Stage Model of Development 36
What Capacities and Principles Should Guide Education and Its Reform 46
Developing Human Potential 50
Developing our Minds to Think Truth 53
Developing our Hearts to Feel Love 59
Developing our Wills to Act with Justice 64
Education as a Scientific, Artistic and Moral Endeavor 68
Human Nature 70
Applying the New Paradigm to Education and Its Reform 79
The Dynamics of Change 79
Developing Human Potential through the Mind, Heart and Will 81
Developmental Stages of Growth 83
The Allegory of Oz 85
Other Conceptualizations of the Change Process 88
Leadership and Education 89
Education and Society 91
The Purpose of Education 91
Education and the Reform of Society 92
What Teachers and Schools Can and Cannot Do 94
The Role of the Family 99
Education Reform and National Reform 101
Education Reform as Part of World Reform 104
Economics and Education Reform 105
Financing Education 109
Evaluating Popular Reform Proposals 112
The Tragedy of American School Reform 112
Teacher Education 114
Duties of the Teacher 118
Evaluation of Teachers 120
The Unique Capabilities of Students and Teachers 123
Motivation and Reform 125
How Reform Efforts Demoralize Individuals and Institutions 127
Value-Added Modeling 128
High Stakes Standardized Tests 130
Merit Pay 134
Accountability and Incentives 137
Class Size 140
International Comparisons 142
Conclusion 145
Using our Capacities to Develop Truth, Love and Justice 145
Education Reform Perspective 147
Like Soldiers Under Attack 149
Appendix A: Letter to the Governor and Legislators of Michigan 153
References 155
Acknowledgements
Many people have helped me over the years. The list is long and I will only touch on a few here. First, I dedicate this book in memory of my mother and father, Ethel M. and John R. Clarken. They gave me the gift of my life and helped set the foundation of my character. They were my first teachers. I honor and respect them. My dad died in 1988 and my mom in the midst of my writing this book: October 25, 2011.
Second, thanks are due to the caring and committed teachers I have had throughout my many years of schooling. They were dedicated and helped me find my way. I have striven to exemplify the virtues they imparted and this book honors the service and sacrifices of teachers everywhere.
Third, I thank those family, friends and community members who have assisted my becoming who I am today.
Fourth, thank you to the many colleagues in education I have worked with over the last 40 years. They have enriched, informed and inspired me.
Fifth, I thank those who have reviewed this book and helped it along in its progress, giving me suggestions for improving it and encouraging me to publish it, including Derek Anderson, Willow Harth, Christina Labij, Bill Huitt, Yan Ciupak and, especially, Frances O’Neill.
Sixth, Gerald Waite edited my work and helped craft it into what you read in its present form. In this process, he has exemplified the virtues of truth, love and justice, the principles discussed in this book.
In addition, many educators and scholars have helped shape and influence the thoughts shared in this book. Finally, I have been working on several of the ideas in this book for many years. Parts of this book have been adapted from previous work, much of it posted on my websites at www-instruct.nmu.edu/~rclarken/ and rodclarken.. You may go to these sites to see these and other things I have done, including courses, presentations and webcasts. As with these materials, I have decided to put this book online, making it more freely and readily available to all. In the spirit of truth, love and justice, I hope it will contribute to the strengthening of these values in you, and that you in turn will do the same for others.
It is also important to acknowledge the role the Bahá’í Faith has played in my thinking and my life. The Bahá'í writings have been the primary source for refining my own practice and understanding of truth, love and justice for over four decades. I have found in the Bahá’í teachings the most convincing answers for addressing the needs of our modern world.
In closing, though I have striven to produce a book that exemplifies the ideals of truth, love and justice, I have many faults and limited abilities for which I alone bear blame. I take full responsibilities for any errors, omissions and other weakness or faults you may find in this book. I am not claiming anything I have written here is completely new or original. I suspect most of what I am have to say has been said before, but I hope my effort to share what I believe to be true, loving and just will be a worthwhile contribution to our discussions. When known and appropriate, I have cited the pertinent sources. As this book was published electronically, I am able to incorporate corrections and suggestions for improving it into future revisions. Please send them to rclarken@nmu.edu. I hope future editions will reflect our collaborative effort to enrich the conversation concerning improving education.
Preface
To better understand and evaluate the basis of my beliefs and the points I make in this book, some background is in order. I grew up on a tenant farm in Iowa. I was interested in the big questions: What is the meaning of life? What is good? What is truth? How do we realize our potential? I searched high and low for answers. I had limited resources, but a deep desire to know. My local school gave me a good foundation, and the library in the nearby town of Spencer, now well known because of Dewey, The Small-Town Library Cat Who Changed the World, gave me access to other worlds. In search of answers, I would question anyone, anywhere I could.
At 17 years old, I left for the University of Southern Mississippi to seek racial understanding and justice, and at 18, I was living in an ashram in the French Quarter of New Orleans exploring Eastern religion and meditation. I left there to live on a farm, seeking answers in raising my own food and living off the land. All of these experiences helped, but did not answer my deeper questions, nor satisfy my longings for meaning in life. I went back to college, ending up attending six and obtaining five degrees. My interest in human nature and the mind led me to consider becoming a psychologist, but after an internship in a state mental hospital, I decided that working with the mentally ill was not the vocation for me. A later counseling internship in northern Minnesota and other circumstances led me to become an elementary teacher through the Wisconsin Indian Teacher Corps. I had found my calling. Teaching, helping others become the best they can be, was a profession to which I could dedicate my talents and life. My desire to serve humanity and make the world a better place found practical fulfillment in teaching.
Since then I have taught almost every grade level from first grade to the doctoral level, and I have taught in rural, urban, public, private and international schools and colleges. In higher education, I have taught and worked in a Jesuit university in Detroit, a historically black land grant university in the Virgin Islands, teacher colleges in Botswana and China and an international university in Switzerland. Since 1989, I have served as director of field experiences and as director of the Northern Michigan University School of Education, a state university on the shores of Lake Superior in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.
Along the way, I have tried to identify those principles that lead to increased learning, well-being and welfare for all. Through many challenges and opportunities for growth, I have developed a deeper understanding and appreciation of the complexities of life. I have striven to find my inner truths and voice and to inspire others to find theirs. In that process, I have had to transcend my role identities, personas, ego attachments, vain imaginings, idle fancies and self-centered desires to please and be accepted by others.
Numerous others have helped me find my voice and reconcile it with the dominating views and values of our culture. Gradually I learned to find and then apply my vision and principles to my role as an educator. In this process, I have found three guiding ideals that I believe are central and essential to progress and prosperity: truth, love and justice. I believe these three standards and powers are instrumental for effectiveness when working with and transforming individuals, communities and institutions. They are especially powerful when employed by those in leadership positions to promote the well-being of individuals and society. In this book, I am proposing that they serve as the framework by which we create a new paradigm for education. Through appreciating, encouraging and practicing these three principles, their power to transform education and society will become apparent.
These three virtues can support the development of our authentic inner moral authority and sense of self. They enable us to replace our limited conceptions and practices of truth, love and justice with evolving and higher expressions of them as we consult, reflect and act upon them. They help us develop and trust our inner core and be less dependent on and influenced by the thinking or approval of others. They call us all to become our best selves, transforming behavior and character. They elicit support, dedication and loyalty and give us a renewing fount of energy. They can serve as a universal standard through which we can begin to resolve our problems and move toward greater unity of thought, commitment and action in improving and reforming education.
Introduction
I believe that all reforms which rest simply upon the enactment of law, or the threatening of certain penalties, or upon changes in mechanical or outward arrangements, are transitory and futile.
John Dewey
How and Why I Started Writing This Book
I began writing this book on April 27, 2011. At the time, I was writing only a short response to the just released special message on education reform by the Michigan Governor to share with the teacher education faculty at my university. Though this message was just another in a series of attacks on education by politicians, this one was from my Governor and his policies would hurt my students and the teachers and schools with whom I worked. I felt he was saying things about education that were not true, and that he was recommending that we needed to do many things we were already doing, but because he said we were not, he had to step in and fix it. I also felt the Governor Snyder’s message, like so many other criticisms of education, was couched in the un fair and paternalistic language of assuming the education system is “broken,” educators were not doing their jobs and the politicians were going to “fix” it.
Though the rhetoric of “the traditional methods, mindsets and goals of Michigan’s education system can take us not further” and “As we stand at the threshold of the New Michigan” (Snyder, 2011, p. 13) may have been inspiring, the policy reforms were not. A growing list of governmental educational policy reforms being proposed to “realign our educational values” (p. 13) give the appearance of improving education, while portraying educators as unwilling or unable to improve themselves. Such statements as the education system “must be reshaped,” “is not giving our taxpayers, our teachers, or our students the return on investment we deserve,” (Snyder, 2011, p. 1) and that we must “jettison the status quo that has too often accepted mediocrity and, at times, resulted in failure for our children and state,” (p. 2) illustrate this rhetoric.
Later I shared my views with fellow deans of teacher education in Michigan. Each time I revised, expanded and shared my thoughts, the response was the same: please publish your ideas, as more people need to hear what you are saying. What was happening in Michigan was consistent with a series of education policy changes that were being vigorously pursued by other state and federal government officials. Their stated purpose has been to create the best schools, teaching, teachers and teacher education, but I do not believe these policies are best for education or our society, and I question the motivations behind them.
I agreed with the governor’s statement, “Great teaching starts with getting the best and brightest into teaching, and making sure their education equips them to succeed at inspiring students in the classroom” (Snyder, 2011, p. 9), but not with his ideas on how best to realize that. How do we get the “best and the brightest into teaching,” when our policies create low salaries, status and power for teachers? The best and brightest in America are encouraged to pursue careers that earn the most respect and money, and teaching does not afford much of either.
How do we legislate an education to equip teachers “to succeed at inspiring students in the classroom,” (Snyder, 2011, p. 9) when the laws and regulations dictate practices that destroy the spirit of both the students and the teachers? Inspiring teaching starts with wise, caring and trustworthy teachers, but also requires societal support to be successful. It is hard to inculcate these virtues. We cannot buy or easily develop them. They require years of training and cultivation, starting from an early age. We can and must constantly refine them, but if they do not exist to an adequate degree in a teacher, it will be very hard to develop them. Now teachers are being challenged to maintain them in the face of attitudes and policies that actively discourage them.
What I Believe
I have lived my life and served in my various roles in education following three guiding principles: truth, love and justice. I did not feel these proposed reform efforts were based on or abiding by these standards. I did not feel the evidence to support their claims that education was broken and that their policies would fix it existed; therefore, these reforms did not meet the standard of truth. I did not feel their efforts were motivated by a sincere concern for what is best for our children and their proper education; therefore, not in accord with love. Moreover, I did not feel their policies increased the likelihood of fairness for all people in our society; therefore failing the criterion of justice.
In this book, we will explore the perceptions, rhetoric, assumptions and claims upon which many of these educational reforms are made, propose a new paradigm for considering education and its reform, apply that paradigm to education and its problems, discuss the relationship between schools and society and evaluate some popular reform proposals. It is my belief that you will see how many reform proposals work against what their proponents claim to be supporting and that they subvert the best interests of education and society. It is my hope that educators--given their experience, expertise, dedication, loyalty, wisdom and commitment to excellence in education--will be provided with a greater voice on these matters of vital concern to the welfare of our nation and world.
Education is the foundation of human excellence, prosperity, joy and glory. Its acquisition is incumbent upon everyone. It is the cause of the progress of individuals and nations. It is a basic human right that should be extended to every person on earth. However, education must be reformed if it is to provide opportunities for all to realize their gifts and talents in service to humanity. To accomplish this needed requirement for the advancement of the best interests of the world, herculean effort will be required. The best and brightest must come together to find the ways and means to reach this noble, needed and lofty goal. However, we shall learn, schools alone did not cause the problems we are facing as a society, and, alone, they cannot fix them.
Can schools, teachers and teacher educators do better? They must. As conditions, circumstances and needs change, education needs to adjust to meet these new challenges. If time-honored and entrenched traditions, approaches and policies no longer work, they must be changed or be discarded. This is a challenge facing every person, community and institution in the world in this time of rapid and dramatic change.
In our efforts to improve education, it is my hope that we will be guided by the three principles of truth, love and justice. As I am recommending these standards for all involved in education and its reform, it is important that they frame what I say and how I say it in this book. Therefore, I will do my best to present my views in a thoughtful, courteous and fair manner. I continue to work on all these qualities and have much to learn, but I hope my attempts will create an opportunity for us all to develop further deepening our own individual and community sense of what is best so that we can work together for the betterment of all.
I am attached philosophically, psychologically and professionally to education and teaching, which influences my thinking, feelings and words. I am presenting what I believe is honest, caring and fair; however, I do not claim it as truth, love or justice. These are relative terms that we can negotiate together to achieve higher understanding. This book is my attempt at this stage in my development to manifest those qualities as best I can presently to examine more closely certain ideas and practices about improving education. As a result, though I am attempting to be accurate, kindly and fair, there will be statements I make that only approach these standards to the relative degree I am able at present.
In the spirit of honesty and fairness, it is important that the reader understand that I am presenting and defending my point of view in response to differing points of view that have been put forth elsewhere. I am presenting evidence to support my views to counterbalance the evidence presented by contradicting positions. Sometime we are using the same evidence to support opposing opinions. In short, I am telling my side of the story as I feel the other side has been the main message most people are getting. As a result, it may seem biased. It is, but it is in an effort to present a more balanced and informed picture of our challenges and possible solutions. In the end, you get to decide what you think and feel and how you will respond.
Challenges of Educational Reform
Many of the reform efforts being proposed for formal education in the United States are misaligned in both approach and content. Some among the politicians, critics and entrepreneurs suppose their experience in making policies, criticism or money equips them also to be qualified in educational reform as well. However, many of their proposals are not supported by either experience or evidence in education. Further, popular business models that seek to quantify and put a price on the intricate and interrelated activities of education are harmfully reductive and defective. Their dominant and unexamined materialistic values have been destructive in many areas of society, as we have experienced in recent and ongoing financial crises that threaten the stability of the world. Their ideological framework threatens to further jeopardize, diminish and devalue education. Societies and governments that put private gain over public welfare will suffer and decline in the end.
Education reform is an extremely complex process, which to some degree affects and is affected by every community and institution in this country. Education influences them and the individuals that compose them, and they in turn influence education. Educational systems have their own internal individual, community and institutional components, which interact in dynamic and multifaceted ways with one another. Without some understanding and control of all these internal and external factors and their interplay, educational reforms that may bring short-term benefits, result in long-term costs, as happened with the environmental health of our planet.
Education is facing many problems at present. We should try to face these challenges with a united front. Many questions need to be answered fully and frankly. What are the problems with education? How do we explain and deal with the differences of opinion about what should be done with these problems? What are the pertinent facts related to needed educational reforms? What principles should guide us in our seeking reform? What are some reasonable solutions based upon these facts and principles? How can we begin to reform education in a systematic, sustained and constructive way? How can we ensure that all education programs are held to high and appropriate standards?
Furthermore, how can we identify the best indicators and predictors of good quality teaching? What reliable and valid measures can be agreed upon to improve teaching and learning? What is the evidence that supports the assertions that both teacher education and education in general need to reform and that the recommended reforms will actually help and not harm? Throughout this book, we will explore some answers to these questions in an effort to improve education.
Why and How We Differ
“The major problems in the world are the result of the difference between the way nature works and the way people think.”
Gregory Bateson
Before we set out to reform the world, we would do well to pause and see if we should reform ourselves.
Ervin Laszlo
It isn’t what people don’t know that hurts them. It’s what they do know that just ain’t so.
Will Rogers
Why We See Things Differently
Why do our perceptions of reality differ and how do we form and change them? Our perceptions are formed by the interaction between our environments and our faculties of understanding. In other words, our individual, collective, subjective and objective experiences largely determine what we think and feel to be true or right. Because of our unique individual and environmental conditions, we tend to interpret and see the world through different lenses or worldviews. Because of our varying personalities and backgrounds, we socially, psychologically, emotionally and morally respond to and interpret different things and situations in diverse ways that heavily influence how and what we think, feel, choose and do.
In addition, we make our choices on how we see, feel and choose according to varying circumstances, motivations and inclinations. Most of these processes happen automatically and unconsciously. Brain scanning technology allows us to see that our brains have decided what is right or wrong a millisecond before we become aware of our choice. These various cognitive, affective, moral, social and motivational frameworks combine in powerful, unconscious and still little understood and studied ways to determine what we think, feel, choose and do.
Psychologist, philosophers, neuroscientist, and computer scientist are beginning to carefully and precisely identify some of the underlying mechanisms that give us this distinctively human capacity for change—the aspects of our nature that allow nurture and culture to take place (Gopnik, 2009, p. 8-9) ”
Our choices are based on many interconnected and complex factors influenced by the interaction of our natures and our environments that psychology and neuroscience is now investigating with new methodologies and technologies. As we are generally unaware of these lenses and orientations, we tend to interpret our thoughts, feelings, motivations and actions as reasonable, even common sense. However, what we think and feel is a combination of subjective, relative and selective interpretations of what is real based on paradigms, worldviews or cultural lenses that are generally invisible to us.
We primarily feel or sense our subjective reality, perceive or think about concrete reality and conceive or imagine abstract reality. We do not normally separate these processes, but experience them as a seamless whole; therefore, it takes effort and insight to distinguish among them (Hatcher, 1998). We do not have spontaneous knowledge of our capacities or an understanding of the structure of objective reality. As we increasingly understand our subjective states, we can better act consciously to increase our knowledge of our true capacities and limitations. Initially, who we are is just as much a mystery to us as any other aspect of reality.
We can learn about our environment, we can imagine different environments, and we can turn those imagined environments into reality (Gopnik, 2009, p. 7-8).
The Community Influence Verifying and Changing Our Thinking, Feeling and Acting
How do we know our ways of thinking, feeling and acting are healthy and right? How do we change them to improve our lives? Our egos, values and life styles become accustomed to limited ways of thinking, feeling and acting. It is very hard to change, even when we know it is in our best interests to do so. We can check our limited and unexamined traditions, prejudices and lives by comparing them to others. If we participate in communities that value seeking greater truth, compassion and fairness, we can learn from one another and find better solutions to our problems. However, we tend to support and participate in communities and organizations that support our views. Exposing ourselves to and participating in diverse communities can give us new ways of seeing valuing and doing things.
Our families and communities largely influence what and how we see and value things. We naturally consider these versions of reality as true, good and just, not knowing anything else, and defend them, even when they may be dysfunctional. Over time, these values and views become mindsets and traditions that can become encrusted in our cultures and lives. They can keep us from growing. It is important to be aware that we experience our world through our limited subjective lens, not as detached objective observers. Quantum theory also posits that our observations of physical reality affect what and how we see those phenomena. We need to examine phenomenon and our beliefs both independently and collectively. As we fully and frankly explore reality in order to assess it from deeper, truer and broader perspectives, we can grow.
For example, scientific communities endeavor to make accurate observations, form theories, test hypothesis, share results, review literature and verify findings using accepted scientific approaches and standards. Scientific truths are subject to some type of evidence that can be verified. The scientific community well versed in the methods, theories and content under investigation examine the findings, and if found to be valid, incorporate the new knowledge in their field. What is “true” in science changes as new knowledge is discovered. This is true whether it is a science of physical, social or spiritual matters.
How do other communities and organizations establish and change their views, values and ways? In the arts world the standard has traditionally been what is moving, beautiful or creative. Everyone is allowed their opinion, but those recognized authorities in the artistic methods, theories and content under consideration tend to be the arbiters of the quality of art. However, tastes vary and the role of art changes, along with the notion of beauty and meaning. What was uplifting may not be the same at a different time or in a different culture. Much of the renowned art of today was not or would not have been appreciated in earlier times
A societies and cultures make judgments on what is good, often looking to the religious, moral and legal authorities for guidance. We adjust moral values to the changing conditions in the community. In law, elected bodies set the laws and judges, and juries interpret and apply these laws and set consequences for not following them. If authorities and community will change laws not supported by them or lawlessness will grow.
This process of validation to confirm the intersubjective truthfulness, value or rightness of something has been instrumental in the advancement of the sciences, arts and civilization. In a democracy, individuals are given some opportunity to voice different opinions. Systems dominated by fundamentalism, ideology or totalitarianism do not allow such a dynamic process of truth seeking and community building.
The idea that truth is multifaceted, that no single approach or form can exhaust the totality of reality, suggests an open dialogue among people with diverse points of view. It tends to give democratic validity to the voice of each individual human being. Both religious fundamentalism and the myth of total reason demand the rejection of alternate points of view and, consequently, the repression of democratic norms (Saeidi, 1987, p. 20).
The Individual Influence
Our history is filled with examples of the established orders not entertaining alternative points of view, and even of repressing them. It is possible; however, for one person with a new insight to be right and all others wrong. In fact, many of the great discoveries and advances in the world have begun with one person having an original thought or creation that was generally rejected by others. Gradually larger numbers of people accepted these new ideas. This has been true in most fields.
For a classic example, in science, Galileo was initially persecuted and his ideas rejected because they contradicted the accepted beliefs of the day and the authorities. The religious authorities condemned him for suggesting that the sun, not the earth, was the center of our solar system. His condemnation is one of many cases in history of those in power without proper credentials or expertise making judgments in areas that are outside their realm of legitimate authority. Many examples also exist of those within the field rejecting new ideas because they clung to their outdated and limited conceptions and views.
This is also true in the arts and in society. Many famous and revered artists today had died without any recognition for their accomplishments, and the founders of the great religions have initially been rejected by their own people. It was only after some time had passed and the prejudices and limited views of people were overcome that they could appreciate the great new artistic creations and moral teachings that had been left them. Many a creative genius died poor and unappreciated and many the founders of world religions who were persecuted and their lives threatened or sacrificed. Their works and teachings were pronounced bad or a heresy by those in authority.
Change
Today we can see how these individuals created the work of knowledge, arts and moral order that laid the foundation for great civilizations whose influences are still felt. These new insights, innovations and creations have allowed us to imagine reality in new ways and subsequently to feel, choose and act differently. However, these changes take time, sometimes centuries, to become accepted by the generality of people. Until some influential community can see the truth in or value of the new ideas, attitudes or ways of doing things, these advancements in knowledge, art and culture will not make any noticeable change in the world. “The puzzling fact about human being is that our capacity for change, both in our own lives and through history, is the most distinctive and unchanging thing about us” (Gopnik, 2009, p. 7).
The above is true in concrete as well as abstract reality. It is as true in the sciences and arts as it is in morality and religion. It is true as well in education, which is a scientific, artistic and moral endeavor. Tradition, preconceptions, imitation, fancies, biases and prejudices shade our beliefs. They determine not only what we see, but also how we see it. Kuhn’s work on the nature of paradigms has helped us to appreciate better this idea and the nature of its process in science (1962). Using Kuhn’s description of paradigm shifts, we might apply these processes to the shifts taking place in education.
Schools are unique institutions with their own worldviews and perceptions of change. Schools are places of stability, intended to pass on the acquired knowledge and ways to the younger generation. Change in schools often means upsetting established patterns and systems for unproven and unwanted reforms or innovations. These additional requirements and stress to teachers and administrators already demanding days are generally not welcomed. The demands and complexities of educators’ daily tasks in fulfilling their missions are generally not appreciated by those outside of the profession.
We currently have competing ideas of what is good education and what is good for education. We propose different approaches to improving education. We each bring our unique points of view. We need more opportunity to explore and experiment with these ideas and approaches in the spirit of continually seeking better understanding and avenues of improvement. We must avoid a fundamentalist point of view, in which we are committed not to change.
Unfortunately, most educators are not consulted about reforms, policies and changes that are put upon them. Reforms often fail in schools because the educators responsible for implementing them do not understand or buy into them. They do not see the need for the changes and resent being told how to do their jobs. Like most people, teachers value their autonomy. They also value their security and stability—they do not like to be criticized, attacked, threatened, challenged or upset.
We are less likely to change if we have had a long-term adherence to an idea, have a strong emotional attachment to our ways of thinking and have taken a public position in support of it (Gardener, 2011). Many scientists, academics, politicians, pundits and others trying to reform education are in that position. So too are the school personnel upon whom non-educators are attempting foist their ideas. Varied points of view exist about what is wrong and right. In the absence of mutually agreed upon truths upon which to make decisions, we tend to rely on our own limited and sometimes faulty ideas, inclinations, intuition and traditions.
We tend to use whatever information and data exist to support our viewpoints and biases. When our thoughts, feelings and values are faulty, incomplete or skewed, our decisions and actions are similarly affected. Let us briefly explore some of the filters or lenses with which critics are viewing education and examine our mental models and ways we can expand them to be more open to truth, love and justice.
Influence of Ideology
Ideology is defined as a set of beliefs, values and opinions that shape how we think, act and understand our world and that form the basis of philosophical, social, economic and political systems (Encarta Dictionary). These ideological systems affect how we see reality. Once established, their subtle and overt influence induces us to conform to these views. The current educational reform efforts seem to be more driven by ideology than a sincere search for what is true, what is best for all and what is fair.
If we look at the perspectives of U.S. parents of children in K-12 schools, according to the 2010 Gallup Poll (), 35% of them are completely satisfied with the quality of education their oldest child is receiving, 45% satisfied, 12% somewhat dissatisfied and 7% completely dissatisfied. These numbers have changed very little in the last decade. On the other hand, same poll found only 43% of adults without children in school were satisfied with the quality of education, with 54% dissatisfied.
Why would 80% of parents with children in school be satisfied with the quality of education that K-12 students receive while only 43% of adults without children in school were satisfied? It might be that the parents with children have first-hand experience upon which to make their judgments, whereas the others are dependent upon the negative judgments promoted by politicians and the media. In the absence of direct personal experience, we rely on others to form our opinions.
The pundits, politicians and philanthropists’ narratives dominate the conversation about education reform. When an Arne Duncan or Bill Gates speaks, the people often listen and accept what they say as true, unwilling or unable to question cogently the veracity of their statements. The US Department of Education (DOE) and others have used questionable practices to influence the adoption and acceptance of such programs as Reading First, No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and the Common Core Curriculum. Conflicts of interests and ideological biases have been exposed (Coles, 2003)
For example, the DOE Office of Inspector General Final Inspection Report (September 2005) found that several grant recipients of the DOE, including the Hispanic Council for Reform and Education Options (CREO), the Black Alliance for Educational Options and the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ), improperly used funds to publish several newspaper columns to praise NCLB and attack its critics. The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) wrote the following concerning the DOE’s contracting to have news stories published supporting NCLB:
In the course of our review of the contract and its deliverables, we learned that the Department, through Ketchum, had contracted with the North American Precis Syndicate (NAPS) to write a newspaper article entitled “Parents want Science Classes that Make the Grade.” The article reports on a study that the Department conducted regarding parents’ views on the declining science literacy of students. According to the documents provided to us, this article, which appeared in numerous small newspapers and circulars throughout the country, failed to disclose the Department’s involvement in its writing. Our case law, including the two recent opinions enclosed, has consistently held that materials produced by or at the direction of the government that fail to identify the government as the source of the materials constitute covert propaganda (Kepplinger, 2005, p.1).
The National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ), cited above for misusing DOE funds to promote programs, has captured the media’s attention with its ideologically driven “studies” to show the deficiencies of teacher education (AACTE, 2011). A recent example is its study of teacher education in Illinois, which it is now doing on all of the teacher education programs in the United States. This “study” is being conducted by the National Council on Teacher Quality and the US News and World Report to rank teacher education programs in the United States. It is very long on ideology and very short on scientific methodology and validity, resulting in programs that conform to NCTQ’s ideological formulas being rated well and those that do not being considered as weak or failing.
Eduventures, a research and consulting agency, found “The majority of NCTQ’s standards are not evidence-based, and appear to reflect the specific viewpoint of NCTQ” (2010, p. 3). Its report concludes:
While it is important that SOEs [Schools of Education] be held accountable for preparing high quality teachers, the study that NCTQ has conducted in Illinois of teacher preparation programs is significantly flawed. The quality of outputs and employer ratings are not taken into consideration—an integral piece to consider when judging the quality of preparation program. The federal government and state and local policymakers increasingly emphasize outcomes and results in producing highly effective teachers that increase student achievement, turning away from inputs alone as indicators of teacher quality. The lack of clarity and transparency with regards to the common standards that NCTQ is using and the processes and procedures used to analyze the collected data make the methodology of the NCTQ study in Illinois problematic. While the study provides a high-level look across teacher education program models, its methodology flaws ultimately limit the validity of the study’s conclusions and make the findings somewhat unreliable. Eduventures analysts recommend that policymakers, the public, and the press should keep these limitations in mind when reviewing the results of the NCTQ study (p. 4).
Further, the American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education (AACTE) finds NCTQ’s efforts and methodologies do not meet scientific evidence or research-based standards (2011).
Unfortunately, these NCTQ results are presented as valid and convincing evidence of the problems with teacher education.
Ideological propaganda, formulas and studies are being used with increasing vigor and success across the United States to attack all levels of education. They measure and judge schools and the students on what they—the judges--value, and pronounce those who do meet their own ideological standards as wrong and deficient. Critics of education, claiming some authority, use the media to express their views. Because the media thrives on bad news, they give those attacking education a forum to influence the thoughts and attitudes of large numbers of people. Ideologically driven and funded experts, commentators and think tanks receive a disproportionate share of the media attention. In one 2007 study, advocacy-oriented think tank studies were 14 to 16 times more likely to be mentioned in Education Week, the New York Times and the Washington Post than non-advocacy academic studies (Yettick, 2011).
Many of the troubling reform proposals are influenced by these critics, most of whom pose as champions of high quality education. Educators have been disenfranchised from these discussions on the very things in which they have invested their hearts, minds and souls, and in which they are the experts. They are painted as the problem, and their contributions framed as self-serving and biased, not allowing a significant discussion among the conflicting views. Instead of using their energy to constructively investigate the truth without bias, these critics use their energy to destroy ideas they do not like while clinging ever more tenaciously to their own. They reject other points of view and refuse to discuss dispassionately their reform proposals with scholars and educators.
Those who promote ideologies and who seek to silence and discredit different views are seeking power, rather than truth. Indeed, the modern age initiated
the ‘age of ideology’; almost all of the great revolutions and change wrought in human society since the sixteenth century had a more or less explicit ideological (or ideational) motivation—vide the American and French revolutions, the rise of constitutional democracy in the West and of socialism in the East, and the rise and fall of national socialism and fascism in Europe. …such ideas have now become more effective in propelling change and commanding allegiance than pecuniary rewards and the threat of punishment—the carrot of wealth or the whip of power (Laszlo, 1989, p. 44).
The antidote to this age of ideology is truth, love and justice. Whereas ideology seeks power to dominate and control others, truth, love and justice are themselves powers that lead to greater understanding, unity and prosperity.
Science and religion are also powers that seek and reveal truth; however, when they are heavily influenced by ideology, their scientific and religious principles are compromised and they will seek to use their power to overcome whoever does not conform to their views. In fact, much of what we know today of religion could more properly be labeled ideology. Most of the social science findings also reflect the social, political and ideological leanings of the researchers who make them. Even in the hard physical sciences, ideology can trump reality, if not with the scientists, then with those who have the power to decide what and how their findings are shared. Those scientists who do not conform to the prevailing worldviews of their field will find it harder to get respect, grants, employment and publication of their work in mainstream journals.
Fundamentalism, arrogance and extremism are harmful, more so when cloaked in the name of reason, science, research or religion. Countless examples of both exist in history, including Nazism’s scientific racism and Stalin’s scientific Iron Laws of History, which were ideological systems that claimed scientific validity and led to destruction of millions of lives in the 20th century (Saeidi, 1987, p. 20). In an ideological system, the “adherent is urged to dissolve his or her identity into a limited and intolerant group consciousness, to forego independent and critical judgment, and to justify aggression, even violence, against ‘others’ as heroic” (Saeidi, p. 21). The current ideologies promoting reform can often be characterized in this way, though the aggression and violence tend to be economic, verbal and political, rather than physical.
We can take hope in that some of the most entrenched and destructive ideologies of the past century have been successfully challenged, and their grasp on human imagination and institutions largely eroded. What is more surprising is that he demise of ideologies such as Nazism and fascism often came about rather peacefully and constructively, not as the result of violent and destructive wars, revolutions or crises. Recent examples include the breakdown of communism and apartheid, symbolized by the removing of the Berlin Wall and the election of Nelson Mandela respectively. Other examples can be found in the civil rights and ecology movements.
The paradox of education is precisely this -- that as one begins to become conscious one begins to examine the society in which he is being educated. The purpose of education, finally, is to create in a person the ability to look at the world for himself, to make his own decisions, to say to himself this is black or this is white, to decide for himself whether there is a God in heaven or not. To ask questions of the universe, and then learn to live with those questions, is the way he achieves his own identity. But no society is really anxious to have that kind of person around. What societies really, ideally, want is a citizenry which will simply obey the rules of society. If a society succeeds in this, that society is about to perish. The obligation of anyone who thinks of himself as responsible is to examine society and try to change it and to fight it -- at no matter what risk. This is the only hope society has. This is the only way societies change (Baldwin, 1985, p. 326).
Reform Rhetoric
Critics often say they want the best for our children and country while making unsubstantiated claims that education and teachers are “broken” and need to be fixed. They often suggest that unions and teachers only care about themselves, not the children, and are the cause of our problems. Their rhetoric often includes statements of concern about accountability, incompetent teachers and low student performance. When these authority figures use emotional language about the dangers to our children and nation and offer simplistic solutions to the problems they have constructed, their reforms to improve education appear as the right thing to do. Such apparently benevolent approaches suggest our “nation is at risk” and children are being “left behind” because the schools and educators are not doing their job.
Richard Rothstein, former New York Times education reporter and current member of the Economic Policy Institute, puts it succinctly:
Education “reformers” have a common playbook. First, assert without evidence that regular public schools are “failing” and that large numbers of regular (unionized) public school teachers are incompetent. Provide no documentation for this claim other than that the test score gap between minority and white children remains large. Then propose so-called reforms to address the unproven problem – charter schools to escape teacher unionization and the mechanistic use of student scores on low-quality and corrupted tests to identify teachers who should be fired.
The mantra has been endlessly repeated by Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, and by “reform” leaders like former Washington and New York schools chancellors Michelle Rhee and Joel Klein. Bill Gates’ foundation gives generous grants to school systems and private education advocates who adopt the analysis. In Chicago, Mayor Rahm Emmanuel makes the argument, and in New York, Mayor Michael Bloomberg has frequently sung the same tune (2012).
These critics claim their reforms will “fix” the incompetent, unconcerned, lazy, protective and self-interested educators. We should look with a searching eye at their language and assumptions. Within the given constraints and contexts, it is my experience that teachers, education and teacher education are generally doing a good job and most are doing praiseworthy work. I believe portraying educators as deficient and public education as failed is dishonest, divisive, destructive and unfair.
Why is it that, whenever someone points out that the sky is not actually falling, they are accused of alleging that everything is “just fine,” accused of being advocates of complacency, spokespeople for the status quo? This blatant non sequitur is often trotted out to dismiss those who would stem the rising tide of fear mongering (Bracey, 2007, p. 127).
As the worldview and agenda of many outside of education, who are intent on introducing educational reforms, reflect an economic, paternalistic, materialistic and capitalistic bias, bottom lines, profits, productivity, markets and competition generally trump educational, human and moral concerns. The materialistic values many critics bring to educational reform contradict the idealistic rhetoric they use to justify their actions. The public good, especially the education and welfare of the young, which is ostensibly their concern, is praised, but their reforms sacrifice good education for material and selfish interests.
Education is largely seen as an economic concern: it is to help the individual and society compete economically (Covaleskie, 2010). As part of this view, education is blamed when the economy is poor or the United States appears not to be competing well globally (Berliner & Biddle, 1995; Bracey, 2001, 2007; Covaleskie, 2010). Though education is blamed and criticized in poor economic times, it does not receive comparable praise when the economy is doing well and when the United States’ role in the global marketplace is perceived as strong. Larry Cuban noted in a 1994 article: “For the last decade, U.S. presidents, corporate leaders, and critics blasted public schools for a globally less competitive economy, sinking productivity, and jobs lost to other nations,” and questions “Why is it now with a bustling economy, rising productivity, and shrinking unemployment, American public schools are not receiving credit for the turnaround?”
The need for education to prepare us for economic superiority and global competition are familiar refrains in both state and national reform policy statements, stating that, though we were once the wealthiest and greatest nation on earth, because of inferior education, we are losing our competitive edge and first place status. Examples of these themes can be found in most national reform proposals from Sputnik to A Nation at Risk to the current No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and Race to the Top legislation.
Contrary to any prognostications made by Secretary Arne Duncan and his corporate backers, The Race to the Top must be understood as nothing more than the abdication of the social responsibility of the state in assuring public education by stressing instead, individual freedom through privatized choice, 'free'-markets and personal responsibility in the ruthless and unequal capitalist marketplace of despair. It is being camouflaged as educational reform, when in fact it will serve to deform education and its stakeholders. Furthermore, as the neo-liberal representative of the US ruling class, the state or the government, has the role of assuring, through policies like Race to the Top, that the costs of doing business by capitalists looking to accumulate growing profits is socialized, while the profits themselves are privatized (Weil, 2010).
Let us briefly consider A Nation at Risk, released in 1983 by the National Commission on Excellence in Education, as an example. This reform document is well known and recent enough to be relevant to current policy proposals, but old enough to be examined within some historical context. The dramatic rhetoric in this policy statement is still echoed and influential in today’s thinking and reform agenda. The title itself suggests that the failure of schools and education had put our “nation at risk.”
Like today, the early eighties were a time of economic hardships and recession with similar problems caused by corruption and mismanagement in several political and financial institutions. Like today, instead of blaming bad corporate, political and financial decisions for the problems, bad schools and education were made the scapegoat for our “committing an act of unthinking, unilateral educational disarmament” (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983, p. 1). Bracey accurately predicted this in his 17th Report on the Conditions of Education in 2007
In 2007, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Center for American Progress, the National Center on Education and the Economy, the Broad Foundation, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation have set up the public schools once again. If the subprime mortgage debacle sends us spiraling into recession, educators can expect to take the hit (p. 124).
What happened after A Nation at Risk? Those unprepared children in those failed schools went on to make a mockery of that report as the United States’ economy became the most productive in the world in the next sixteen years, long before any of their proposed reforms could be imposed. Interestingly, while America was in this time of unprecedented prosperity and growth, no statement was made in praise of the schools and their contribution to building up the nation and its economy. Furthermore, the rhetoric of A Nation at Risk did not lose its power over the people. It lives on in today’s mythology of failed schools failing our nation (Covaleskie, 2011).
These educational reform documents conform so closely to our myth of education as the solution to all individual and societal problems and as the determiner of national wealth and well-being that most people do not even question it. While problems exist, the inflammatory and accusatory rhetoric appears more to cast blame than to find rational solutions. Politicians and reformers need “to moderate their rhetoric, difficult as that might be in the era of the sound bite. Simple claims for education should be replaced with a deeper understanding of what education and training can accomplish, and which goals require other social and economic policies as well” (Grubb & Lazerson, 2004, 263). Such concerns as U. S. students are not performing well in international tests, schools are not doing their jobs and education costs too much set the stage for defunding education and imposing rules and regulations on educators and schools that rob them of their dignity and power.
Philanthropists’ Perspectives
Because of the position of the wealthy and powerful in society, they can greatly affect public perceptions and opinions. Philanthropists can also exercise undue influence through their ability to finance and promote educational reform. Using their money to try to fix what is wrong with education may be a noble endeavor in their minds; however, knowledge and success in making money does not necessarily mean one will have similar knowledge or success in another field.
For example, philanthropic parties have engaged in several noble and important causes to solve relatively simple and straightforward problems, such as providing clean water or eliminating a disease. Though well funded and well thought out, even some of these seemingly straightforward problems were difficult to solve. Our decisions and beliefs are often based on anecdotal accounts, limited information and biased experience.
When we consult with and listen to all parties involved, we come to better solutions. In more successful and sustainable ventures, adjustments are made to accommodate local and changing conditions and knowledge. Philanthropists who would be education reformers should follow a similar process. Otherwise, they will limit their chances for success in the more complex and nuanced world of education. If they are open-minded, even when they make mistakes, they will gain knowledge and experience to draw upon in their future reform efforts.
In the United States, several individuals who have acquired tremendous wealth are using some of that wealth for ostensibly philanthropic purposes to improve education. Though some of these philanthropists are well intentioned and informed, others may not be either motivated by high ideals or be knowledgeable of the cultures and complexities of education. As a result, some engage in misguided and harmful fixes for education.
The individuals, communities and institutions that are part of the business, corporate and entrepreneurial worlds are quite different from those in educational endeavors.
Schools are much more like families and religious institutions than like corporations and other professional organizations -- so much so that corporate models and assumptions rarely fit them well, especially with respect to four key facets of school life and culture: mission, operations, outcomes, and personnel (Evans, 2000).
Schools are to pass on accepted knowledge and values to prepare children to live in the society which supports the educational enterprise. Unlike other fields, like business, medicine and technology, that are constantly having to keep changing with new innovations, education is to carry on intellectual and social traditions, maintaining a level of continuity and stability. Change tends to be unsettling.
Philanthropy is a desire to improve and benefit others, to act charitably and serve the general good and to love all humanity. Teaching is a philanthropic endeavor. If teachers are not motivated by a love for and desire to benefit their students, they will be limited in their ability to help them and the greater community they serve. This spirit of philanthropy is needed in education; however, it is being eroded by the political passions and economic policies affecting educators, sometimes by philanthropists from outside.
The desire and effort to improve the world through charitable contributions and activities is a noble and high calling. I think we need more of it, not only in education, but in all sectors of society. People motivated by philanthropic motives can do tremendous good in the world. As our civilization advances, philanthropy will become the norm for all and the mark of a good citizen. I believe philanthropy currently is a common characteristic of educators and education, but not of most of the people and professions from which many of our philanthropist come.
As more of the wealthy in society give voluntarily of their talents, money and resources to benefit the greater good, the society will benefit in multiple ways. However, humility is needed for progress. Philanthropists, like politicians and pundits, who paternalistically push their solutions on others are limited in their effectiveness. We will explore some of their misguided efforts later, looking behind the rhetoric that is used to support their claims, then using research and reason to show how they are destructive.
Materialistic Worldview as a Moral Crisis
We do have educational problems that require serious attention, but the solutions will not be found in simplistic ideological fixes. These problems affect every individual, community and institution in this nation. The schools as institutions and the teachers as individuals play key roles; however, they alone cannot fix the problems. We live in a non-sustainable culture based on the values of consumerism and materialism. These cultural frameworks underlie environmental, economic, social and moral problems that result in increased insecurity, poverty, conflict and harm.
Capitalism defines human beings as primarily greedy, self-interested animals designed to maximize their own position, especially in the acquisition of material goods and status. That instinct obviously is part of our nature, but -- just as obviously -- that is not all there is to human nature; given the long evolutionary history of humans in band-level societies defined by solidarity and cooperation, we should assume the greedy instincts probably are not primary. Yet in capitalism that sociopathic instinct is rewarded and reinforced. With each generation that lives in such a system, our capacity for empathy is undermined. This is not an argument against individuality or for complete subordination to the collective, but merely recognition of one of the ugliest aspects of capitalism--the belief that we can ignore the fate of others and still make a decent world (Jensen, 2011).
Children are the most vulnerable and the most affected by these problems (Giroux, 2009). Our norms and ideologies have distorted our views of reality and our ability to see, feel and act differently. If we cannot objectively examine some of our underlying conceptions, we will not free ourselves from these ideological constraints that keep us from progressing.
After decades of being submerged in ideologies and worldviews that promote the idea that reality is material and that happiness and well-being are based upon our physical welfare, more holistic views and their roles in society have been denigrated and marginalized. The modern Western materialistic ideology also has grown to dominate the worldviews of non-Western nations to the extent that no voice is left to challenge seriously its hold on modern thinking (One Common Faith, 2005). Though material prosperity has increased exponentially, human happiness has not (Seligman, 2002). As materialistic views are failing to deliver their long promised benefits, people are again turning to moral purpose and spiritual meaning in their search for happiness, justice, peace and connection (One Common Faith, 2005).
As Martin Luther King, Jr. expressed in a speech in 1967,
I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.
The current crisis is a moral crisis. Any reform efforts that fail to address the underlying moral issues of this crisis are doomed to failure. Morals are the principles that guide behavior. These principles change from time to time and place to place. What may be appropriate or beneficial at one time or circumstance, may be destructive and harmful at another. As a result, morals are seen as something relative. Though there may be ultimate standards of right and wrong, the person or culture decides on what is good based on their moral development and contexts.
When outsiders try to impose moral standards on those who do not subscribe to them, conflict, violence and wars can ensue. Part of the problem lies in the confusion that surrounds morals and morality and how to engender them. In addressing that problem, the question of how to rise above specific religions and religiosity to find a moral foundation common to all people needs to be answered. In this time of rapid global transformation, educational reform will need to align with our new cultural, social and economic needs and priorities, but do so in a way that encourages healthy development and does not dampen the human spirit.
One answer is to look to the essential moral teachings that are found in common in the major world religions. We must separate the false, dogmatic, superstitious and divisive interpretations that have been introduced into religion from the life-giving and soul-inspiring parts that have been the wellspring of the great world civilizations. A step in that process could be a meeting of the world’s religious and secular leaders to agree upon those moral standards and teachings to which they all could subscribe.
A more holistic approach that includes moral education will increasingly become a concern of societies, parents, governments and educators searching for answers to the problems that beset them. We are now at a turning point. We can cling to the ineffective, materialistic dogmas and doctrines of the past or cast them aside for more holistic conceptualizations better suited to the requirements of this age (One Common Faith, 2005). The resulting moral disorientation that has been the fruit of our current views and practices threatens the well-being of our individual, community and institutional lives.
Let me give one example. The United States, arguably the wealthiest, most advanced and most materialistic nation in the world, has only 5 % of the world’s population but 25 % of its prison inmates, who disproportionally are filled with educationally disadvantaged people of color and the lowest socio-economic classes. Prison budgets have been increasing almost three times as fast as education funding (Banks in Darling-Hammond, 2010, p. x).
Most education today can be characterized as material education--that which relates primarily to the physical self and the physical world. This materialistic view of the human race assumes that we are no more than animals, and that the overriding goal of life is the satisfaction of our physical desires and needs. It encourages materialism, competition, elitism, division, disunity, injustices and a limited and limiting view of human reality and possibilities. This modern materialistic education has failed to lessen conflict, violence, instability, hate, prejudice, oppression, greed, hopelessness and multiple violations of personal and collective human rights to the extent needed in our global society. We need a new paradigm to help extricate us from the problems that are besetting our world.
A New Paradigm for Education
Where there is no vision, the people perish.
Proverbs 29:18
The significant problems we have cannot be solved at the same level of thinking with which we created them.
Einstein
Individual, Collective, Subjective and Objective Views of Reality
We might look to Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, written approximately 380 B.C.E., to understand better our different points of view. In this allegory, Plato helps us understand the difference between the world of appearances and the real world of forms by describing people who have lived their entire lives chained to the wall of a cave so that they are only able to see the shadows cast upon the wall they are facing. These shadows are created from silhouettes being paraded between the wall and a fire. Our ideologies and beliefs are based upon the shadows of the constructed images and fancies of our environment paraded before the flickering fire of understanding onto the wall of our limited paradigms.
Though our biased and limited conceptions are only shadows of reality, they are all we have ever known. We have been taught to accept them as real by our families and culture. In large, we blindly accept and imitate what we are taught. We might question this or that shadow, but we do so within the mindset that the shadows themselves are the model of reality. If we can free ourselves to search for the truth behind the shadows, we can discover greater truths as we emerge from our caves of ignorance and prejudice.
When we free ourselves from the chains of our ego and ethnocentric thinking, we will realize that the shadows were created by silhouettes paraded between a fire and the wall. However, these silhouettes are also just another representation of truth. A much clearer reality awaits us as we gradually free ourselves from the limitations of the caves of ignorance and vain imaginings that we do not even know we inhabit. However, this is a very difficult process and those still chained to the wall will probably not welcome the news that their view of reality is wrong.
For example, our subjective sensory experience puts us at the center of the universe and sees reality from that limited perspective. From that limited viewpoint, the earth would also be central to the cosmos and the sun appears to be moving around us. This is the view children have and we would have if we were limited to only our subjective sensory experience. This perspective can be compared to the cave dwellers limited worldviews based on the shadows they saw. Our language still reflects this thinking in such terms as the sun rising and setting.
Today we accept such earth-centric thinking as irrational, but when heliocentric ideas were first proposed, the originators were the ones considered foolish, even heretical. Many of the great revolutions or paradigm shifts in thinking have been the result of people freely themselves from limiting viewpoints and seeing things differently. Many of authors of these new ideas did not allow their theories to be published until they had died for fear of the backlash against them, much like reception the person in the cave might receive who challenges the accepted shadow dogma with a new understanding.
For example, the Copernican revolution was based largely on a shift in perspective from and earth-centered universe to a sun-centered cosmology. This simple change of viewpoint challenged the established knowledge and theories of astronomy. Copernicus’ new theory helped initiate a revolution in astronomy and science. However, Copernicus could only see so far. His thinking too was limited as we discovered later that the sun also was not the center of the universe, not even of our galaxy. As we emerge from our caves of limited knowledge, we gain new perspectives that allow us to see our previous understandings as partial. In other words, these theories are not necessarily wrong, only limited or partial in their understanding and perspective.
We are in the midst of another such revolutionary process, which some call a paradigm shift. A paradigm is a mental map of the world, a model or pattern and a relationship of ideas to one another. Paradigms help us make sense of the world and allow us to form a conceptual framework and theorize. If our paradigms consist of shadows, we will try to make sense of that shadow world and create a culture based on some shared understandings. As world problems and global crises deepen and our old paradigms no longer work, humanity will become more ready to change old ideas, values and behaviors and begin to explore new ways of thinking, feeling and doing.
Einstein was right: the problems created by the prevalent way of thinking cannot be solved by the same way of thinking. This is a crucial insight. Without renewing our culture and consciousness we will be unable to transform today’s dominant civilization and overcome the problems generated by its shortsighted mechanistic and manipulative thinking. . . . The conscious orientation of the next cultural mutation—the shift to a new civilization—depends on the evolution of our consciousness. This evolution has become a precondition of our collective survival. (Laszlo, 2006, pp. 39, 77)
Part of this new paradigm is an integral and holistic model for looking at and understanding reality (Wilber, 1995, 2000). Everything is a whole unto itself at the same time as it makes up a part of a larger whole. We have individual and collective, as well as subjective and objective, ways of viewing reality. We can have perceptions of truth, love and justice that span the range of subjective to objective reality. These views may also be held by a single individual or be collectively shared by ever-expanding communities. Our subjective sense of truth, love and justice develops over time as the result of our interactions with objective and subjective reality and with other people’s lives. If our ideas do not accord with the communities or institutions we belong to, then we have some adjustments to make in reconciling these differences.
Table 1 below, derived from work by Ken Wilber (1995, 2000), focuses on an individual person as the part and a collective consisting of a group of individuals as the whole. These collectives, a family for example, will also be part of a larger more inclusive group, such as a town, state and nation. The challenge is to have all of the groups in harmony, up to and including all humankind. Each of these communities involves some institutions, which interact with both individuals and groups. The family has the institution of marriage and a town, state and nation have governmental institutions that establish norms, laws and regulations to help administer the affairs of their communities. Each of these institutions must operate within the established customs and rules of the larger communities and institutions of which it is a part. Each subdivision becomes a part of a larger whole, which in turn is a part of an even larger order.
In this table, the subjective, interior and psychological aspects of the individual person is primarily human consciousness and the objective, exterior and biological qualities of a human constitutes the physical body, inside and out. Our minds would be subjective and our brains objective. We refer to the conscious self as “I” and to our body as “it.”
| |Subjective/Internal/Invisible |Objective/External/Visible |
| |What does it mean |What does it do |
|Individual/ Part/Singular |Consciousness/subjective self |Body/objective self |
| |Intentional |Behavioral |
| |Phenomenology |Empiricism |
| |I |It |
|Collective/ |Community worldviews, values |Institutional systems, structures |
|Whole/Plural |Cultural (intersubjective) Hermeneutics |Social (interobjective) |
| |We |Systems theory |
| | |Its |
Table 1: Individual/Collective and Subjective/Objective Perspectives
(Adapted from Wilber, 1995, 2000)
Another way of looking at these four aspects of reality is to consider the three perspectives they represent—I, we, it/s.
|Subjective |Intersubjective |Objective/interobjective |
|I |We |It/s |
|First person |Second person |Third person |
|Consciousness |Culture |Nature |
|Personal values |Collective wisdom |Technical skills |
|Self/Ego |Relationships |Ecology/Systems |
|Art |Morals |Science |
|The Beautiful |The Good | The True |
|Subjective Truthfulness |Normative Rightness |Propositional Truth |
|Buddha |Sangha |Dharma |
Table 2. The Three Major Perspectives
We have immediate, unmediated, unique and privileged access to our subjective reality. It is internal, though we can share aspects of it with others. Those internal subjective states also have external objective correlates. If we are thinking and feeling something, some physiological activity should also provide some evidence of it, even if we do not currently possess the knowledge or technology to measure it.
We can access objective reality through our five senses, providing the opportunity to verify and validate externally our perceptions; however, we are not equally equipped to interpret or understand what we sense. For example, a many people might look at a cell, brain scan, formula or phenomena, but only those trained to appreciate its meaning can explain it. We can infer or deduce the existence of other aspects of objective reality, such as gravity, mathematics and mind, which are not directly visible or observable, but whose existence we can infer or deduce through observable reality (Hatcher, 1998, p. 100-104). What we refer to as spiritual also has an objective reality.
Like material reality, spiritual reality has objective existence and is governed by lawful, cause-and-effect relationships. However, the laws governing spiritual reality, and the structure resulting from the operation of these laws, are significantly different from laws and structures of material reality, mainly because the principles of existence in the spiritual world are different from that of the material world: spiritual entities exist as undivided wholes rather that as composites; and chief among these spiritual entities is the soul or sprit of each human being (W. Hatcher in Hatcher & Hatcher, 1996, p. 118).
Just as we can objectively learn about many of the invisible physical forces of the universe by observing their effects, we can also observe objective spiritual reality, such as the soul, by its effects on mind, heart and will and its manifestations through thinking, feeling and acting. Just as understanding the laws of physical reality can help us use them to our benefit, so too can we increase our well-being by developing our objective knowledge of spiritual reality. As spiritual reality is not directly observable, we can only indirectly observe the physical effects of these objective forces (W. Hatcher in Hatcher & Hatcher, 1996, p. 121).
…just as the subjective experience of the individual scientist is objectified through participation in a community of understanding and a framework of interpretation, so individual spiritual experience can be objectified through participation in a religious community of understanding and the accompanying framework of interpretation. The important point is that the experience on which religion is based, though often qualified as “mystic” or “spiritual,” differs not essentially but only in its particular qualities from any other type of subjective experience and in particular from that on which other branches of science are based (Hatcher, 1980, preface).
We can also look at Table 1 to help us understand the relationships between individual parts and collective wholes. For example, we could look at the cells in the human body. In this example, the cells are like the individual units that make up a larger whole of the body that is composed of interrelated systems and organs. The well-being of each depends upon the other. Only when they work together, each performing its part, do they all prosper. As they all recognize and appreciate their connectedness, they can work together better for their mutual benefit. The human organism depends on an impressive diversity of cells, systems and organs working together, and can serve as a model for how individual people and groups might work together to create healthier communities.
For example, I may be likened to a cell in the stomach, which is a part of the digestive system, which interacts with all the other parts of the body to make a whole. If we wish, we can also work downward from the cell to the molecule, to the atom and to the even smaller subatomic structures. The point is that we can look at any part of a larger whole also as a whole made up on smaller parts, each operating according to certain laws that must work together for them to coexist and thrive. Some parts of the body operate in a fashion that may appear antagonistic to what other parts are doing, but within the larger system, they balance one another when they perform as they should according to the overriding laws of the body.
To apply this analogy to our social reality, we as individuals (cells) function according to our internal senses of truth, love and justice, which may or may not contribute to and enrich the communities and institutions (organs or systems) of which we are a part. These communities and institutions, in turn, have their own cultures and practices, to which I have been raised to conform. As such, we generally conform or adapt to the needs of the greater wholes of which we are a part.
We are currently in a situation where we have competing communities trying to bring about certain changes in some of the systems of the body politic. As these communities and institutions change, the individual cells must adapt, and these individuals in turn can influence the groups of which they are a part to change as well. Those who do not fit in may choose to disassociate with that community, or that group may exclude or sanction them in some way; however, we must all abide by some higher authority or anarchy and social breakdown may occur. When an individual or group does not maintain some cohesion and sense of identity with the community and institutions of which it is a part, both of them may experiences some level of dis-ease.
A healthy individual and community, like a healthy cell and body, finds ways to not only reconcile these differences, but make them the cause of mutual benefit. The beauty and power of the body is the result of unifying all of this diversity into a cooperative and smoothly functioning whole. How can we do achieve this balance of unity and diversity in our social bodies? How do I change when I subjectively believe a certain practice is better than others are, even when objective evidence suggests otherwise? How do we reconcile our subjective and objective views with other individuals and communities with differing ideas?
We can begin by realizing that our subjective worldviews or models are a combination of truth and error that we tend to see only as truth. It is therefore important to be engaged in a continuous process of re-evaluating our perceptions in an unbiased and unfettered search for truth, love and justice. Fairly and considerately sharing our understandings with others is one of the most powerful practices for developing knowledge, wisdom and unity. If our perceptions are guided by distorted theories, values, needs and desires, or are otherwise biased or faulty, our development will be limited. Checking our understanding and feelings with others to investigate possible better ways of being and doing from different vantage points is a form of peer review and external validation. Through this process, we will create a more accurate and complete subjective and intersubjective picture of reality (Hatcher, 1998, p. 38-136).
We will belong to several communities and institutions at the same time, each having a different intersubjective worldview or interobjective rules and functioning. Smaller communities in turn are parts of larger communities in which several institutions exist and operate. There can also be several communities within an institution, so the interaction and influence among all of these parties are complex and may not be easily separated and identified.
This is also true of love and justice. We must find a balance among our interior beliefs and exterior reality, as well as with the communities and institutions within which we are situated. They should all function in harmony. They affect one another. The individual influences the group and the group the individual. If these interactions are generally positive, each perspective benefits and unity of vision grows. Subjective reality affects our views of objective reality and vice versa. Everything can be seen through these four perspectives and using all four gives us a more holistic view.
Reality can be viewed from using subjective or objective lenses and through individual or collective perspectives. These are not true dichotomies and our understanding of reality must be negotiated among these perspectives. Bearing in mind those limitations, understanding these different perspectives can help us to analyze our own thinking. Table 2 offers some other terms that are associated with the pairing of individual and collective and comparing subjective and objective that may be helpful in furthering our thinking about their implications.
|Individual |Collective | |Subjective |Objective |
|Ontogenetic |Phylogenetic | |Internal |External |
|Agency |Communion | |Transcendence |Dissolution |
|Eros |Agape | |Immaterial |Material |
|Diversity |Unity | |Software |Hardware |
|Differentiation |Integration | |Mind |Brain |
|Part |Whole | |Interior |Exterior |
|Development |Evolution | |Invisible |Visible |
|Mastery |Relatedness | |Self |Body |
|Rights |Responsibilities | |Personal |Impersonal |
|Independence |Connection | |Intuition |Reason |
| | | |Values |Facts |
Table 2. Comparing Individual and Collective and Subjective and Objective terms
Like the dichotomies made in educational reform, this either/or thinking is limiting and dangerous. We think of subjective truth as relativistic and individualistic, and objective truth is more foundational or fundamental, but they vary on a spectrum. How can we reconcile these false dichotomies between the individual and the group, subjectivism and objectivism, liberalism and conservatism, relativism and absolutism, modernism and postmodernism and foundationalism and non-foundationalism? They are inadequate frameworks for understanding our evolving stage of human understanding and development (Lample, 2009, pp. 165-174).
By most modern Western expectations, fully functional adults see and treat reality as something preexistent and external to themselves made up of permanent, well-defined objects that can be analyzed, investigated, and controlled for our benefit. This view is based on a maximal separation between subject and object, thinker and thought. It epitomizes the traditional scientific frame of mind that is concerned with control, measurement, and prediction. It also represents the goal of much of Western socialization (Cook-Greuter, 2005, p. 5).
Bernstein posits that the opposition between objectivism and subjective relativism has affected every discipline and aspect of life (1983). Objectivism is the belief that we can obtain certain knowledge, whereas relativism believes there are no reliable, absolute or definite standards of truth. Bernstein proposes a way beyond these either/or approaches to one
whose features include the importance of a dialogue among a community of inquirers, practical reason born of experience, and an ability to refine human understanding through action over time. He [Bernstein] draws upon Aristotle’s description of phronesis, or practical reason, in contrast to epistme (scientific or theoretical reasoning) and techne (technical or methodological reasoning) (Lample, 2009, p. 172).
As we individually investigate reality, we interpret and act upon the world in our collective historical, social and environmental milieus. As we gain insights that shape our subjective understanding, we compare them to our community’s intersubjective views and our institutional interobjective functions and structures, so we can obtain greater certainty. Knowledge is ever evolving. Some beliefs do not conform to reality and need to be refined or discarded. Some knowledge and practices are more conducive to human and general welfare than others are. Our search for truth is never ending.
We should not fall into the traps of excessive objectivism or subjective relativism, but follow the middle way of avoiding the wholesale certainty and oppression of one and the debilitating uncertainty and nihilism of the other. We must also avoid the extremes of individualism and collectivism. When we put the pursuit of individual rights and goals over the welfare of community, we jeopardize human progress. On the other hand, if all human value resides in the collective, so that individuals get their identity primarily through their role in community, another form of dysfunction and imbalance is created. We have seen these extremes played out on the world stage in such ideologies as free-market capitalism and communism where human value is sacrificed in both excessive individualist and collectivistic competition over other individuals and power seeking within the group (Hatcher, 1998, p. 20-31). We need to develop systems where neither the individual nor the collective unnecessarily dominates over the other, where rights are balanced with responsibilities.
By consulting, discussing and working with individuals, communities and institutions, we can develop new understandings while assisting them to adjust and refine their own. By employing truth, love and justice as guiding ideals, we can overcome and guard against the excesses of any one perspective. As we can only have a limited and partial understanding of reality, we must strive daily to make it more complete. As our views will necessarily be different, there is some need to blend all of this individual diversity in a unified whole. As we compare our respective individual and collective views, we are able to refine our understanding of reality and learn from one another.
Balancing and harmonizing truth, love and justice allows us to be unified and to deepen our subjective perspectives with intersubjective views in conjunction with feedback and reflection upon our objective and interobjective actions and experiences. This process also enables us to balance theory with practice and the extremes among individual rights and freedoms with responsibility and unity towards the institutions and communities in which we live. These principles and approaches apply with all three virtues, which are the keys to resolving conflicts and maintaining harmony among the various aspects of our world. Their dynamic interaction is a catalyst for growth.
Four-Stage Model of Development
Everything evolves through various stages, with more refined stages building on less developed. The plant goes through seed, sprout, sapling, flowering and fruiting stages, each succeeding and emerging from the previous stage. Human beings and societies go through similar successive and progressive stages toward greater capacity for thinking, feeling and acting manifested in higher expressions of truth, love and justice, which are the fruits of individual and collective development.
This process of development or maturing is found throughout nature and science. Individual atoms will join to form simple molecules that combine to form cells, which in turn become parts of larger wholes. The physical world possessed all its potential attributes and perfections from the beginning, but they were only manifested over time when conditions were right. This is true of the universe and of the human being. Every individual part affects and is affected by the collective whole of which it is a part.
Human development, both individual and collective, is a gradual, predictable and necessary process. By understanding the evolutionary quality of development, we can better appreciate and evaluate past contributions to present conditions and plan for further progress, making adjustments based on an analysis of the knowledge available. We can understand our past and build on it, carrying with us those qualities that will further our advancement and leaving behind those characteristics that are no longer suited to present or future needs and conditions.
If society has not yet been able to reach the higher level of organization and performance so indispensable nowadays, this is because the evolution of its members, individually and collectively, in no way matches that which they have brought about in everything else, literally revolutionizing life over the entire planet.
In this sense, modern man is ‘unfinished’, his transition to a greater maturity retarded. One must recognize this as a cold fact. The current global crises, in which old and new problems of population, food, education, resources, energy, crowding, inflation, poverty, alienation, militarization, disorder, ecodegradation, injustice, etc., are growing and intertwining beyond recognition, is a consequence of the difficulty people have in achieving the level of understanding and sense of responsibility demanded by the mutated universe (Aurelio Peccei in Laszlo, 1989, p. 10).
In this chapter, we will look at individual and collective stages of human development using subjective and objective comparisons. We will explore how individuals and societies have evolved in their subjective and objective understandings, abilities and maturity. Understanding why we think, feel and act the way we do, and how that changes and has changed over time, can help us improve our lives and education. We will consider some scientific-rational theories of development using a simplified four-stage model to explore why and how views differ and how we might resolve those differences using a new paradigm.
These stages can be roughly divided into early childhood (birth to about five-years-old), childhood, adolescence and adulthood for the individual and early human, pre-modern, modern and global worldviews for civilization. In this model, our current stage of postmodernism is seen as a transitioning worldview leading to a more refined view I am calling global, but might more correctly be labeled as integrative, holistic, unifying or post-postmodern. By global I mean a mature worldwide perspective that takes in all viewpoints, and reconciles and unifies them while protecting their rights and honoring their diversity. Using this framework should provide a more universal, unified, holistic and integral perspective that will allow us to move beyond the postmodernism that dominates much of academia and progressive thinking today.
A part of this re-examination and reevaluation of our individual and collective pasts is to look at the attitudes and assumptions that have guided our thinking, feelings and actions historically. These are often called worldviews or paradigms. They are hard to change. We do not let go of them easily. “(W)e human beings are the cause of our problems, and that only by redesigning our thinking and acting, not the world around, can we solve them” (Laszlo, 1989, p. 25).
To manage this redesign, either we need to be presented with a model that works noticeably better than ours does, or we need to have a failure of our worldview, usually in the form of a major life-threatening or life-changing crisis, analogous to the social-emotional crises individuals go through (Erikson, 1950, 1959). Those who successfully resolve their crises are able to advance to a higher level of functioning, and those who do not continue to suffer at a less developed state. It seems challenges and crises are the normal route to growth. We do not discard something until it becomes very clear it does not and will no longer work for us, and sometimes we need overwhelming evidence.
Though we all have aspects of our thinking and being inherited from early humans and many people still believe in pre-modern ideas, modern ways are the dominant influence in our world today. The very definition of modern means relating to the present or latest period in history; however, at our current stage of rapid change and development, postmodernism is challenging the “modern” conceptions of reality and of truth, love and justice. Postmodernism is rightly calling us to search independently after truth freed of all forms of prejudice, superstition, imitation and unquestioned acceptance of the traditions, bigotry and dogmatism of our culture. It is less successful in offering a constructive model for envisioning a better world and distinguishing truth, love and justice from their opposites or less mature manifestations.
…postmodern thought can be seen not as an attempt to reject modernity, but as an interrogation of its weaknesses that opens the way for a new, more effective orientation if the consensus required for collective human endeavor can be re-established. It is an effort to provide greater respect of “the other” and an opening in the societal realm for voices that had been suppressed or marginalized. Modern thought sought methods and ideals that would provide a sure basis for prosperity and justice. Postmodern thought challenges these assumptions and approaches, but cannot provide a satisfactory alternative (Lample, 2009, p. 163).
It is one thing to deconstruct the world, and another to build a new order. We need to learn how to live together in unity while appreciating human diversity and to reconcile religion with science in service to the progress of humanity. The equal rights of all people must be upheld and the principles of social and economic justice firmly established. As we move toward greater maturity, hatred must give way to more enlightened global views to meet the needs, capacity, and circumstance of our current age.
Humans individually and collectively go through subjective and objective developmental stages that can be compared and correlated from several perspectives. Some scholars and researchers in evolutionary and developmental theory, such as Gebser (1949/1985), Neumann (1955), Piaget (1977), Habermas (1979), Asimov (1984) and Wilber (1995, 2000), have identified patterns that demonstrate many similarities between individual ontogenetic and collective phylogenic development. For humanity, these processes may have taken centuries or millennia to pass through, whereas an individual may go through an analogous stage in a matter of months or years. For centuries, individual and collective physical, mental and spiritual development have appeared to go in fits and starts, in random or unpredictable patterns, but an order and system can be discerned.
Most of the theories considered here have more elaborate and refined stages than I am presenting. Those seeking more background should refer the theorists cited for explanations that are more extensive. Many of my conceptualizations were adapted from Wilber (2000, pp. 197-217), who should be referred to for his models and elaborations. Each of my categorizations focuses on an aspect of development that is not clearly or solely individual, collective, subjective or objective; however, for the sake of analysis and comparison, I have presented them as such. Because of the preliminary nature of some of these theories and my limited understanding of them, this four-stage model is being used to make approximate comparisons that may only roughly correlate to reality, but may be useful for our further study and understanding.
Use the aspects of the model that make sense to you and ignore the rest, realizing there is much to argue about in my placement and characterization of the various stages. The stages do not fit neatly into the four-level model I am using and there is a great deal of variance in developmental progress. Most characteristics gradually develop at varying rates; therefore, they overlap the categories in which they have been placed. Bearing in mind all of these limitations, I think this framework may provide some insights and understandings in discerning how we go through predictable and related stages of growth. It may also show how our individual development parallels in many ways our collective evolution. In some cases, I have added a stage by inference to make that theory fit the model below. In many cases, we do not leave behind the earlier stages’ qualities; they are subsumed into broader categories that are more inclusive. See Tables 3-6 for a graphic comparison of individual-subjective, individual-objective, collective-subjective and collective-objective categorizations of various aspects of development.
| |Early Childhood |Childhood |Adolescence |Adulthood |
|Cognitive (Piaget) |Sensorimotor, |Concrete operational |Formal operational-emerging |Formal operational |
| |Preoperational | | | |
|Affective Domain |Receiving, Responding |Valuing |Organization |Internalizing values, |
|(Krathwohl, Bloom, Masia)| | | |Characterization |
|Self Center/ |Body-centric |Ego, Role centric |Ethno centric |World centric |
|Identity | | | | |
|Perspective |none |1st -2nd person |3rd person |4th and on person |
|(Cook-Greuter) | |Preconventional |Conventional |Post-conventional |
|Ego Development |Impulsive, |Conformist, |Individualist, Autonomous, |Unitive |
|(Cook-Greuter) |Self-defensive |Self-conscious, |Construct, Aware | |
| | |Conscientious | | |
|Self stages (Loevinger) |Symbiotic/ |Protective |Conformist/ |Individualistic/ |
| |Impulsive | |Conscientious |Autonomous/Integrated |
|Moral (Kohlberg) |Pre-moral |Preconventional |Conventional |Post-conventional |
|Moral (Gilligan) |Pre-moral |Selfish |Care |Universal Care |
|Socio-emotional (Erikson)|Trust , Autonomy |Initiative, Industry |Identity |Intimacy, Generativity, |
| | | | |Integrity |
|Needs (Maslow) |Physiological |Safety |Belongingness |Esteem, Self-actualization |
|Logical mode (Baldwin) |Prelogical |Quasi-logical |Logical |Extra-logical (hyper-logical) |
|Ego Types (Graves) |Autistic, Magical, |Egocentric |Sociocentric, Multiplistic, |Systemic (integrated) |
| |Animistic | |Relativistic, Individualistic | |
Table 3. Four-Stage Comparisons of Individual-Subjective Characteristics (Adapted from Wilber, 2000)
| |Early Childhood |Childhood |Adolescence |Adulthood |
|Ages estimates |0 to 5-7 yrs |5-7 to 10-14 |10-14 to 15-21 |15-21+ |
|Physical development |Dependence |Coordination |Puberty |Maturity |
|Psychomotor domain |Perception, set, guided|Mechanism |Complex overt response |Adaptation, origination |
|(Simpson) |response | | | |
|Psychomotor domain |Imitation, manipulation|Precision |Articulation |Naturalization |
|(Daves) | | | | |
|Psychomotor domain |Reflex and fundamental |Physical abilities |Skilled movements |Nondiscursive communication |
|(Harrow) |movements | | | |
|Brain growth (%) |Birth-3 yrs. (30-60%) |3-10 yrs (60-95%) |10-20 yrs (95-100%) |20+ (100%) |
|Myelination |Sensorimotor areas |Higher order integration |Frontal lobe |Frontal and temporal into 20’s |
|Psychomotor |Instinctual |Cognitive |Associative |Autonomic |
|Motor skills |Basic skills |Gross and fine |Developing refinement |Refined skills |
|Physical Strength |Undeveloped |Developing |Achieving full development |Developed, Declining |
Table 4. Four-Stage Comparisons of Individual-Objective Characteristics (Adapted from Wilber, 2000)
| |Early Humans |Pre-modern |Modern |Global |
|Ages: Collective (Wilber)|Paleo to Mesolithic |Neolithic to Bronze |Iron to Enlightenment |Globalization |
|Faith (Fowler) |Preverbal, Magical, |Mythic-literal |Conventional, Individual |Conjunctive faith, |
| |Projective | |reflexive |Universalizing |
|Epochs (Habermas) |Archaic, |Mythological, |Rational-reflective |World Citizenship |
| |Magical-animalistic |Mythic-rational | | |
|Cultural (Beck & Cowan) |Magical/animistic |Power/mythic |Rational/pluralistic |Integral/holistic |
|Sociocultural (Gebser) |Archaic, Magic |Mythic |Mental consciousness |Aperspectival, Arational, |
| | | | |Integral |
|Cultural |Archaic, Magic-typhonic |Mythic-membership |Rational-egoic |Integral-centauric |
|(Wilber) | | | | |
|Society |Physical |Vital |Mental |Spiritual |
|(Jacobs, Macfarlane & | | | | |
|Asokan; Posner) | | | | |
|Truth |Concrete, Prelogical |Myth, Religion |Science, Reason |Harmony of Science and Religion|
|Religions |Pre Adamic, Animism |Adamic-Christian |Christian, Islam |Bahá’í |
Table 5. Four-Stage Comparisons of Collective-Subjective Characteristics (Adapted from Wilber, 2000)
| |Early humans |Pre-modern |Modern |Global |
|Ages: Collective (Wilber)|Paleo to Mesolithic |Neolithic to Bronze |Iron to Enlightenment |Globalization |
|World |Millions |Tens of millions |Billions |Ten billion plus |
|Population | | | | |
|City population |Thousands |Tens of thousands |Hundreds of thousands |Millions |
|Percentage in urban |0% |3% |40% |60+% |
|centers | | | | |
|Economic (Wilber) |Foraging, Hunting |Horticultural, Agrarian|Advanced agrarian, Industrial |Informational |
|Social Units (Wilber) |Tribes, Organized hunts |Village, Early state |Empire, Nation-state |Planetary, global |
|Social/Political Units |Survival groups, Clans |Tribes, City states |Nations, Corporate states |World state |
|Social Unity (Shoghi |Family units |Tribal solidarity |City state, National |World |
|Effendi) | | |Sovereignty | |
|Techno-economic (Lenski) |Hunting and gathering |Horticultural, Agrarian|Industrial |Informational |
|Religious Systems |Primitive, Archaic |Historic |Early modern-modern | |
|(Bellah) | | | | |
|Social Organization (A. |Family, Clan, Band |Tribe, Territorial, |National state |Supra-national |
|Taylor) | |Theocratic empires | | |
|Scarce Resources |Power over nature, bodily |Legal security, Law and|Value |Meaning |
|(Habermas) |security |order | | |
|Key advancing |Language |Laws |Money |Internet |
|organization | | | | |
|Education |Survival |Cultural, Rules |Apprentice, Formal |Universal |
|Transportation |Foot |Animals |Machines |Space |
|Communication |Gestures, Vocal |Language, Writing |Printing |Digital |
|Trade |None |Barter |Money |Data |
|Peace with |Family, Clan |Tribe, Empire |Nation |World |
|Justice |Instincts, Survival |Power, Tribal |Reason, Rights |Universal |
Table 6. Four-Stage Comparisons of Collective-Objective Characteristics (Adapted from Wilber, 2000)
Psychologically and socially, what truth, love and justice look like goes through progressive stages individually and collectively. The mind and culture have many aspects or qualities that can be examined to determine patterns of evolutionary development analogous in both individual (ontogenetic) and collective (phylogenetic) development. At the lowest levels, humans show signs of development starting with instincts, moving to sensations and then perceptions. Mental development progresses from body-centric to egocentric, ethnocentric, and world-centric orientations. The world is currently at the stage of moving from a predominantly adolescent and ethnocentric worldview to a more adult world-centric outlook, which will eventually lead to more universal worldviews.
Historically, social developments have roughly progressed from smaller, less complex groupings to larger, more inclusive and diverse units. The levels of expanding social unity have evolved through higher and larger forms, starting with the family and followed successively by clans, tribes, feudal-states, city-states and nation-states. We are now transitioning to the last stage--world-state. Humanity has passed through social and technological developments connected with hunting and gathering, horticultural, agricultural and industrial ages, which have led to the present information and emerging globalization age. In the same way that biological genetic endowments have been passed on and future evolution has built upon them, so have the emotional, cultural, mental and other developments connected with the human mind (see Tables 3 and 4). Each higher stage allowed for greater individual and collective expression of and opportunities for development of capacities.
Consciousness grows to differentiate self from non-self and then to differentiate from and integrate with all the various non-selves it encounters. The first sense of self is identified with its body and its instincts. As conscious awareness of our body increases, we are able to begin to exercise and develop some control over it. We begin to consciously grasp things, make sounds and move. Gradually consciousness discriminates feelings and thinking as being separate from the body and begins to shift some of its identity to the mind, which enables it to begin controlling some of its body discharges and functions that previously were beyond its control and consciousness.
As we are developing a more mature body, we begin differentiating and integrating our thinking, feeling and acting in interactions with others. As we interact with the world, our worldview expands from the egocentric individual to the ethnocentric group. As we are exposed to wider and diverse groups of others—differentiating, selecting and integrating their views and ways using capacities and criteria developed at earlier stages—these forces expand our mental sense of self. Eventually we subsume and incorporate all those forces into a whole as our minds expand, until we can see all these outside cultural influences together and begin to be able to reflect and act upon them, moving from our predominantly ethnocentric thinking to a more universal view (see Tables 3-6).
There are periods in human and cultural evolution when humanity passes through such fundamental transformations that our reality shifts and new patterns of thought are required to make sense of the unfolding human drama . . . . The profound transformation we are now witnessing has been emerging on a global scale over millennia and has matured to a tipping point and rate of acceleration that has radically altered and will continue to alter our human condition in every aspect. We must therefore expand our perspective and call forth unprecedented narrative powers to name, diagnose, and articulate this shift (Gangadean, 2006b, p. 382).
Gidley has compiled an impressive list of research that identifies and enacts new stages of consciousness, signaling our moving toward a more adult, post-postmodern, planetary and integral level (2007, pp. 104-105). Many theoreticians and psychologists describe post-formal individual subjective development (Cartwright, 2001; Cook-Greuter, 2005; Gidley, 2007; Gilligan, 1982; Kegan, 1994; Kohlberg, 1990; Loevinger, 1977; Maslow, 1971). Several scholars studying collective social and cultural development identify what I am calling the emerging global stage of human development (Beck & Cowan, 1996; Combs, 2002; Cowan & Todorovic, 2005; Gangadean, 2006a; Gebser, 1970/2005; Swimme & Tucker, 2006; Wilber, 2000).
Several postmodern philosophers have also been instrumental in uncovering weaknesses in our present systems and calling for a more refined view of individual and intersubjective knowledge including Derrida, Foucault, Habermas and Lyotard. Postmodernism is helping humanity transition from modern to a post-postmodern united planetary vision.
The assumptions and intersubjective agreements that formed the basis of the social reality that became the modern world have been challenged, contributing to the process of disintegration that is tearing asunder institutions, belief systems and social relationships. New understandings, new agreements, new behaviors, and new social structures are needed. Postmodern critique is, in a way an effort to define the crisis of the old world order (Lample, 2009, p. 163-164).
We can also see this transition from adolescent to adult thinking in such scientific developments as quantum mechanics, chaos theory and other discoveries in physics and cosmology that challenge our understanding of objective reality (Combs, 2002; Laszlo, 2006; Russell, 2002; Swimme, 1999). We have also seen an evolutionary development in the areas of spirituality and religion (Abdul-Bahá, 1954, 1975; Boadella, 1998; Fowler, 1981; Wilber, 2006). Religions have evolved, building on preceding religions and introducing necessary adaptations according to the unique demands of each successive age. These religious teachings have included moral and spiritual matters, but also addressed social, cultural and physical reality as well. The unity of their essential spiritual truths and social teachings, along with their developmental applications according to the capacities of people for whom they were revealed, chronicle the civilizing influence of these religions throughout human history.
Truly universal values do exist. They lie at the core of all the major religions and our most noble cultural traditions. The values of universal brotherhood, love for one’s neighbour, and the golden rule of treating others as we ourselves would wish to be treated are just some of the ideals that are common to all cultures. They have fostered social union and amity between people for countless generations, inspired great works of art, and continue to underscore our highest aspirations. Today’s world would indeed benefit from a profound affirmation of these essential spiritual truths. The application of such values today involves rising above the religious dogmas, political ideologies and national allegiances which bitterly divide the world. It entails restating the fundamental truths that lie behind all religions, philosophies and tradition. Consideration of these values in the twentieth century leads us to recognize the oneness of the entire human species, an ideal that extends former loyalties and does not abrogate them (Laszlo, 1989, p. 104-105).
While universal values do exist among religions, the evolutionary relationships of the world religions and their progressive nature are less understood, partly because of the ethnocentric mentality of their adherents and the nature of the limited physical, mental and spiritual development of the times these religions were revealed. The paternalistic and mythological aspects of religion appropriate for less developed times, need to be replaced by scientific standards and global worldviews more suited to our time.
Scientific materialism has a tremendous prejudice toward other ways of thinking, especially those associated with the largely discredited practices of religion that are seen as superstitious and dogmatic. In fact, most of what we see called religion today, is not religion but an ideology that is being used to support some political, economic or other social philosophy, often in direct contravention of what the sacred scriptures of that religion teaches.
Because the followers of the traditional religions have failed to adjust to the changing needs and requirements of humanity, they have lost relevance and applicability in our modern and postmodern worlds. Modern scientific materialism and postmodern relativism and deconstruction have discredited premodern fundamentalism and mythological religion. What is needed is a post-postmodern global view of religion that can put all of these viewpoints in historical perspective and address them in a meaningful and convincing way.
Examples of approaches to education that recognize a more holistic and encompassing view of individual and collective development suited to our emerging planetary needs and contexts are increasing. Some notable examples included the following: Freire, 1970; Gidley, 2007; Giroux, 2005; Glazer, 1999; Houston & Sokolow, 2006; Jordan & Streets, 1972; Kessler, 2000; Krishnamurti, 1974; Marshak, 1997; Miller, J. P., 1993a, 1993b; Miller, R. 1992, 1993 2000; Miller & Nakagawa, 2002; Moffett, 1994; Montessori, 1973; Noddings, 1986, 1992; Palmer, 1983, 2007; and Purpel, 1989.
I highly recommend these authors. All these viewpoints, combined with the material and technological advances that allow such things as instant communications and access to the storehouses of the world’s knowledge, are paving the way for a new paradigm in thinking, feeling and choosing and new ways of living according to the principles of truth, love and justice. We are entering what marks “the last and highest stage in the stupendous evolution of man’s collective life on this planet. The emergence of a world community, the consciousness of world citizenship, the founding of a world civilization and culture…” (Shoghi Effendi, 1982, p. 163).
As long as our value and worldviews remain obsolete, as long as we lack positive and feasible visions of the future, and as long as our national and international postures and policies remain short-sighted and self-centered, we shall not evolve towards a just and humane world, but devolve to an impoverished planet rent by growing gaps and sundered finally by violence (Laszlo, 1989, p. 16).
What Capacities and Principles Should Guide Education and Its Reform
As we compare and contrast paradigms or lenses used to define and explore human capacities and education, how do we determine the best vision among the diversity of perspectives? “Since evidence can be adduced and interpreted to corroborate a virtually limitless array of worldviews, the human challenge is to engage that world view or set of perspectives which brings forth the most valuable, life-enhancing consequences” (Tarnas, 1991, p. 406).
When the family, school, neighborhood, community, region and nation have conflicting worldviews, problems arise: these systems are stressed and their relationships strained. Some basic agreement in thinking, values, intentions and behavior is essential if these entities are to advance. As we strive for unity using the standards of truth, love and justice, our diversity of views allows us to compare and grow so we are able to act on reality from a new, more advanced paradigm. As my friend Bill Huitt says, the systems related to education “need to be revisioned, which means to adopt a new paradigm, rather than reformed, which means to make them function better within a current paradigm” (2011).
All individual and collective development can be explained and understood as the interaction and realization of three basic systems of mind, heart and will that possess the thinking, feeling and doing powers or capacities for developing human potential. Our thinking capacity is directed toward knowing truth, our feeling toward valuing love and our doing toward choosing justice. They are influenced by our inner beliefs, stories or models as we strive for higher constructs of truth, love and justice in our interactions with our reality.
To the degree our inner subjective models accurately reflect reality and causality, we can effectively interact with our world. If our paradigms are inadequate or faulty, we will suffer (Hatcher, 2000). When our knowing, loving and willing faculties are misdirected, perverted, frustrated or harmed in any way, healthy growth and development are impeded, so that mental, emotional and motivational imbalances and disorders occur. When well developed, they manifest the virtues of truth, love and justice.
[pic]
Figure 1. Capacities related to truth, love and justice and mind, heart and will
Perceiving these three capacities and standards is not new or original. They can be found in most of the wisdom traditions, world religions and great philosophies of the past. For example, the three elements of mental, emotional and moral can be found in Aristotle’s habits for realizing human potential: 1. mental activity, such as knowledge, which leads to the highest human activity, contemplation; and 2. practical action (moral virtues conforming to the golden mean) and emotion, such as courage (Nicomachean Ethics). They are also seen in Aurobindo’s threefold path of knowledge, love and action, in Steiner’s integration of thinking/head (knowledge), feelings/heart (love), and the will/hands (action), as well as Plato’s ideals of Truth, Beauty and Good (Gidley, 2007, p. 111).
See Table 7 for more correlation of these three guiding principles in various aspects of our language and life that may be helpful in thinking about and applying them.
|Guiding Principles |Truth |Love |Justice |
|Human capacities |Think |Feel |Choose (to act) |
|Human purpose |Knowing – truth |Valuing - love |Choosing - justice |
|To obtain, Obligation |Investigate |Care |Create |
|Collective tool for |Consultation |Compassion |Construction |
|Traps or false replacements of |Ideology |Romanticism |Legalism |
|Human state from acquiring |Authenticity |Altruism |Autonomy |
|Greek Ideals (Plato) |Truth |Beauty |Good |
|Collective outcome of |Understanding |Unity |Peace |
|Associated body part |Head or Brain |Heart |Hand or Gut |
|Individual types |Thinkers |Feelers |Doers |
|Paths to Salvation |Do you believe |Do you love, have in your heart |Do you obey, submit to God’s will |
|Psychological domains |Cognitive |Affective |Conative |
|Capability of |Mind |Heart |Will |
|Humanism |Reason |Compassion |Courage |
|Philosophy |Logic |Aesthetics |Ethics |
|Roads to spirit |Way of knowledge |Way of feeling |Way of action |
|Domains and validity claims |Science |Arts |Morals |
|(Habermas) | | | |
|Life Force (K. Wilber) |Agency |Eros |Communion |
|Seeks (K. Wilber) |Preservation |Transcendence |Adaptation |
|Main task of |Differentiate |Integrate |Transcend |
|Faculties (Kant’s Critiques of) |Pure Reason |Aesthetic Judgment |Practical Reason |
|Yogas (Aurobindo) |Knowledge |Love |Action |
|Pedagogy (R. Steiner) |Thinking/head |Feeling/heart |Willing/hands |
|Rotary Four-Way Test |Is it the TRUTH? |Will it build GOODWILL and BETTER |Is it FAIR to all concerned? Will | |
| | |FRIENDSHIPS? |it be BENEFICIAL to all concerned? | |
Table 7. Some aspects of and correlates to truth, love and justice.
[pic]
Figure ?. The Three-Way Test.
Developing Human Potential
Regarding cognition, affection and conation as the basic elements of the human ability is supported by other philosophers such as Kant, Leibnitz, Wundt and May (Johnston, 1994), and generally accepted among psychologists, except for behaviorists and scientific materialists who disregard what cannot be seen and measured. These constructs are expressions of our knowing, loving and willing potentials.
The distinction between cognition, conation, and affectation, is convenient and historically well-founded in psychology though it should be regarded as a matter of emphasis rather than the partition. All human behavior, especially including school learning and achievement, involves some mixture of all three aspects (Snow & Jackson, 1993, p. 1).
They also are found in modern psychology and other social sciences. However, as they are conceptualized and used here, they serve as a new model of human development and education.
Development is the process of potentiality becoming actuality, like acorns waiting to be realized in oak trees. What a plant can become is encoded in the seed; however, it requires proper conditions to realize its potentialities. At human conception, unique genetic potentialities are endowed upon each individual, determined by the DNA of the mother and father. Educators, whether as parents, family, peers or schoolteachers, can assist others to unfold these capacities in life. All of us have different innate, inherited and environmental possibilities for manifesting our potentialities of mind, heart and will. Whatever our inborn capacities and character, unless they are trained and developed, they will not develop to their fullest capacities.
These cognitive, affective and conative faculties are the dynamic focal points for effective interactions between our environments and us, and are key aspects of learning. Individual, community and institutional well-being and welfare depend upon these faculties being properly nurtured, developed and harmonized in each of these agents of change.
As young people grow in competence, they are able to take increasing responsibility for their own process of development and becoming, using their unfolding capacities to realize even more of their potentialities. Those who have not developed the necessary skills to succeed are more likely to do poorly, to fail and be expelled, suspended or to drop out of school. The loss to those individuals and society is incalculable.
Knowing, loving and willing relate to a tripartite model of human behavior that involves the cognitive, affective, and conative constructs and domains respectively. This conceptualization of human behavior is based in philosophy and religion and is increasingly being supported by science. A framework for effective education depends upon and is conditioned upon a proper balance and realization of these three human domains. Cognition is related to knowing, thinking, intellect and epistemology; affection to loving, valuing, emotion and aesthetics and conation to willing, striving, volition and ethics.
Goleman’s (1995) definition of emotional intelligence includes all the above domains “to refer to a feeling and its distinctive thoughts, psychological and biological states, and range of propensities to act” (p. 289). These cognitive, affective and conative aspects influence and are influenced by one another.
Education involves each of these domains. We use knowledge, feeling and will power together to develop. Knowledge can modify our feelings, skills or will to act, but if our feelings and will are not also transformed, little actual alteration in our behavior will occur. Even when knowing right and wrong is clear, the valuing, willpower and moral commitment may not be sufficient to translate that knowledge into action. Current reform proposals of education often fail to address the affective and conative domains adequately. We need to balance, nurture and exercise to develop fully all our faculties for healthy development.
The highest and guiding principle for our knowing or cognitive capacities is truth, for our loving or affective abilities is love and for our willing or conative potential is justice. When we judge the value of any educational reform, we should use the standards of truth, justice and love. Is it based on truth: ascertained and agreed upon facts? Is the reform fair? Is it motivated by altruism, care for others and compassion to all? These questions are not easy to answer, and it is not likely that everyone will agree upon the same answer, but decisions should be made based on as full and as frank of a consideration of them as is practical. All three principles should be weighed in making a decision. When used together they result in wisdom, prosperity and unity.
True education involves authentic, valid knowledge, altruistic, sincere love, and autonomous, virtuous will. Each requires power: the ability, skill, or capacity to do something. Imbuing our actions, feelings and thoughts with truth, love and justice is the greatest power we can have. As we build unity in the diversity of expressions of truth, love and justice, our communities and institutions, as well as the individuals within them, will flourish. Combining truth, love and justice can be one of the most powerful methods of informing and transforming our educational systems.
[pic]
The development of truth, love and justice is needed to help create a healthier individual and society. Individuals and society suffer from the lack of balance in the denial of these aspects of their reality. Smart, eloquent and attractive people who only pretend to honor the principles of truth, love and justice, have been the cause of much harm. The world is in dire need of leaders at all levels of society who possess the values, beliefs and will necessary to guide their communities and institutions in these difficult times. These principles help develop well-balanced and healthy individuals, communities and institutions. These values work regardless of the context and challenges.
The power of our thought is actualized in pursuing and practicing the principle and ideal of truth, as is our feelings in developing love and our will in abiding by and pursuing justice. Our growing consciousness or awareness of these potentialities and principles allows us to develop further our practice of them. The practice of truth leads to greater authenticity, love to altruism and will to autonomy. The three guiding principles of truth, love and justice are correlated to the tripartite theory of cognition, affection and conation to enable us to accomplish the greatest good for the greatest number (Clarken, 2006).
Together, this trio serves as a framework for analyzing and evaluating our education so that we might create a more effective approach. They moderate one another and need to be used together. There is no such thing as too much truth, love or justice; however, if truth is not balanced with loving kindness and fair-mindedness, it is possible that it can be harmful. The same is true with love and justice. They must be used in harmony with one another and their skillful and artistic use refined in our daily interactions. In many ways, they are like the three primary colors that can be combined in different proportions to create all other colors, like the many virtues that can be derived from combining truth, love and justice in different ways to create our unique and beautiful canvases with our lives.
The mind, heart and will each need to be trained and their capacity gradually increased. These capacities can be referred to as intelligences, a term that is being used to describe more than cognitive knowledge and skill. As such, mind, heart and will are associated with the cognitive, emotional and moral intelligences. Cognitive intelligence is associated with the mind, emotional intelligence with the heart and moral intelligence with the will.
Developing our Minds to Think Truth
Developing the mind in unfettered search for knowledge and independent investigation of truth is essential for human development and realizing potential. As we develop our unique perceptions of reality constructed from our experiences and limited knowledge, we must continually revaluate and renegotiate our understandings of truth with the other people, organizations and communities with whom we interact. Divorced from the guiding principle of the search for truth, as well as emotional principle of love and the moral standard of justice, the mind can be dangerous to both the individual and society.
The skill of knowing is a process of understanding of reality as it really is, rather than as how we imagine it to be. Those who understand reality are able to interact with it more fully, happily, effectively, honestly and successfully. Those who do not know the fundamental laws and principles of life are bound to suffer because of their ignorance. Knowledge is as a ladder that allows one to ascend to higher comprehension of life.
The faculties of the mind are related to the capacities to think, rationalize, remember, and comprehend along with other cognitive functions that help us to know and distinguish truth from falsehood. Accurate thinking requires a disposition towards truth and is related to what is generally referred to as intelligence, defined as
A very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings—"catching on," "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do. (Gottfredson, 1997, p 13).
The minds guiding principle and actualizing virtue should be truth. Truth is defined as conformity to fact or actuality, a statement proven to be or accepted as true, sincerity, integrity and fidelity to an original or standard. Truth is defined as conformity to fact or actuality, a statement proven to be or accepted as true. It is related to sincerity, integrity and fidelity to an original or standard. Truth is that which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence (American Heritage Dictionary). The basic goal of the mind and object of truth is to know and understand ourselves. Truthfulness is considered the foundation of all virtues (Abdul- Bahá cited in Shoghi Effendi, 1990, p. 26). Knowing our strengths and weaknesses and developing our potentialities are fundamental tasks for each individual.
We learn through our and others’ experiences to develop an understanding of life. Being able to think critically, constructively and creatively to comprehend reality and solve the problems of life are an important capabilities. We should use scientific methods to help validate what our senses, reason, traditions and intuition tell us. Each of these ways of knowing can help “to initiate positive and productive interaction with the environment” (Hatcher, 1998, p. 38), but used together, they provide a surer foundation upon which to ascertain more certainty.
Science and reason provide powerful tools for exploring physical reality whereas religion and philosophy can be useful for exploring non-material reality. If we balance and use these tools wisely, recognizing their strengths and limitations, we can avoid the fanaticism, absolutism and fundamentalism to which they are susceptible. A scientific approach to investigating the claims and interpretations of religion and a moral and spiritual approach to our science will be essential for each to be constructive.
Thinking and knowing relate to cognition, which is defined as “an intellectual process by which knowledge is gained from perception or ideas" (Webster's Dictionary). The area of cognition is one of the most studied in psychology and education. The taxonomy of the cognitive domain (Bloom, Englehart, Furst, Hill, & Krathwohl, 1956) divides knowledge into ascending levels of complexity that can be related to education. These levels, ordered from lowest to highest, are recall, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation.
Recall means to remember or recognize, comprehension involves understanding, and application requires the ability to make use of knowledge in practical situations. Analysis requires the ability to break down knowledge in to its component parts, synthesis is the bringing together of parts of information to gain new understanding, and evaluation is the ability to judge the value of the relevant facts and issues. Creativity has been added as a level that transcends the others. All levels can be applied to four kinds of knowledge: factual, conceptual, procedural and metacognitive (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001).
An example of the taxonomy of the cognitive domain applied to moral capabilities follows:
1. Know right from wrong.
2. Understand why and how people behave morally.
3. Apply moral principles in action.
4. Analyze personal and societal moral values.
5. Synthesize the various principles that apply to moral problems.
6. Evaluate moral solutions to real problems.
7. Create multiple and innovative solutions to moral issues.
The basic ways of knowing or determining truth are:
1. Senses and experience
2. Reason, logic and empiricism
3. Tradition, religion and tested wisdom
4. Inspiration and intuition (Abdul-Bahá, 1987, pp. 297-300).
Each of these ways is limited and fallible. Let us briefly explore each to see why they cannot be always relied upon, though we do so all of the time. Our senses perceive illusions and mirages as true, tell us the world is flat and that the sun revolves around the earth. Further, we perceive selectively, often based on what we are looking for, and we remember our perceptions in a very unreliable manner. A good example that has been extensively studied is eyewitnesses’ accuracy.
Indeed, there is no area in which social science research has done more to illuminate a legal issue. More than 2,000 studies on the topic have been published in professional journals in the past 30 years.
What they collectively show is that it is perilous to base a conviction on a witness’s identification of a stranger. Memory is not a videotape. It is fragile at best, worse under stress and subject to distortion and contamination.
The unreliability of eyewitness identification is matched by its power (Liptak, 2011).
The same can be said of our experiences, which are both limited and biased, heavily influenced by our environments, especially our cultures and our memories. They are highly subjective and unreliable. Our experiencing self is different from our remembering self (Kahneman, 2011).
The limitations of reason, logic, empiricism and rationality have been extensively exposed by postmodern analysis. The limitations of human reason are further exposed by modern psychologists (Kahneman, 2011).
It is curious that the position of extremist rationalism, as represented by the myth of total reason, leads to the same repressive and antihumanist political consequences as are encouraged by the irrationalism of fundamentalist religion….extreme rationalists must resort to emotional generalizations in the guise of reason. The results are empty propositions, simplistic generalizations, and ideological fantasies dressed in the mantle of rationality. The myth of total reason, in other words, destroys reason and replaces it with substitute gratification and irrationalism (Saeidi, 1987, pp. 20-21).
Scientific and logical conclusions are often based on statements or theories that are abstract and not verifiable. For example, it may be logically true that if all A is a B and if C is an A, then C is a B, but statements that use this logic may not be true and are often misused by those who would reform education. A simple case would be the charges that teachers are not doing a good job, you are a teacher; therefore, you are not doing a good job. The logic is correct, but if the statements upon which they are based are not true, the conclusions are also not true. In addition,
Although the statement “if I believe something to be right, then he whose opinions differ from mine must be wrong” passes the tests of formal logic and although it is applicable in countless situations, its usefulness vanishes once the object of discussion becomes relatively complex. It is not that “A” and “not A” can both be true, but that the vastness of truth does not allow most matters of belief, if there is any depth to them at all, to be reduced to such comparisons. The only options this simplistic posture finally leaves open are either religious and ideological fanaticism or the brand of relativism that does away with faith, embraces scepticism, and idolizes doubt (Arbab, 2000, p. 151)
When reformers say that they want the best education for our children, this reform will improve our children’s education; and that therefore, they must create policies to see this reform is enacted, we should question each statement for its veracity. Another flawed logic used by some is in the assertion that schools are not doing a good job: this reform is not in our schools; therefore, this reform will make our schools better.
It is clear that scholars, scientists and philosophers often disagree on what is true and their current understandings are always being replaced or modified by newer findings that are more accurate. Basic questions about the workings of our universe and environment remain contested. However, science does offer methods for verifying truth that allow us greater reliability than other approaches, and should be used whenever possible. It is mostly at the margins that scientists differ; however, they agree on most established theories and findings.
Our truths based upon traditions and religions vary. Their veracity has been seriously challenged and undermined by both science and postmodern philosophy. What was accepted for truth by previous generations may later be seen as false and prejudiced. On what standard do we privilege one tradition or religion over another? As our understanding of religion is also based upon our limited reason and tradition, and we have shown the limitations of these, their interpretations of the “truth” of their holy scriptures must necessarily also be limited. Saeidi states, “The historicity of reason is built on the idea that both the objective reality of the divine Word and the subjective reality of the human mind are constantly changing and developing” (1987, p. 10).
Finally, though inspiration and intuition may be convincing to the person who receives them, they will also vary from person to person and time to time. We have all had experiences in which intuitions did not prove to be true, and we may have had instances in which individual intuitions differed. It seems we are seeing that played out in many of the education reform agendas being put forward, as people are responding as much to what they feel is true as anything else.
The more of the above approaches we can use, combining both scientific and moral values to validate our claims of truth, the more we can rely on them. These limited ways of knowing can become checks on one another. For example, science is a powerful tool for validating the first two ways of determining truth, senses and reason, and religion the last two, tradition and inspiration. These two broad categories of truth claims could be balanced in our search for truth. Each by themselves is powerful, but liable to misuse and abuse, as we have seen. Together they serve as counter-balances to one another to help us in “(1) developing our inner resources to respond appropriately to unexpected events or to actions by the environment on us, and (2) learning how to initiate positive and productive interaction with the environment” (Hatcher, 1998, p. 38).
Using reliable and trustworthy sources and methods of science and religion together offers a more balanced approach to and standard of truth. However, it is a challenge, especially in the realm of religion, where so much superstition, dogma and fanaticism has crept in over the centuries of interpretation and perversion. A scientific approach to investigating the claims and interpretations of religion will be essential for determining the authenticity of the truth of statements made. W. Hatcher claims that “religion, like science, is most correctly viewed as a knowledge-generating enterprise, rather than a belief-affirming or rule-making enterprise” (Hatcher & Hatcher, 1996, p. 122).
In our model of truth, love and justice, true science is the best, most reliable source of truth, and religion of love and justice. Science is best equipped for exploring and explaining objective material reality, whereas religion gives unique insights and inspiration into subjective spiritual reality. Science is an effective way of checking the subjective interpretations of beliefs and interpretations of scripture. Religion is essential for providing moral import, guidance and meaning to scientific findings. A scientific thinking process helps us better determine truth from error, more accurately investigate material and spiritual reality and lessen distortions or inadequacies of knowledge, whereas religion guides us in the loving and equitable use of that knowledge.
Part of the problem is that we compare new vital science with old corrupted religion. Religion, like science, evolves, and old theories are replaced by more complete and accurate new understandings. For example, if we compared the current science of medicine with the old science of medicine, we would consider the old practices primitive, based on ignorance and superstition. We must look to the latest expressions and understandings of sacred scripture for a more complete, accurate and up-to-date description and explanation of life and reality and use that as we seek to reconcile science and religion.
Therefore, while we need religion we need to look to the authenticated and reliable texts of the original teachings, not their corrupted forms, for our sources. Look at the teachings of all religions for common themes and insights (Clarken, 2010), and explore how their essential truths unfold overtime along with their social teachings and moral applications which are suited for the time and people in which they were revealed. A broad range of recent verified scientific findings are more reliable and advanced than a single study or earlier ones.
Though neither spiritual nor physical reality has changed, our capacities to understand and interact with them have. As science advances, so does religion. Religions are revealed according to the capacities of the people to whom they were given. As the people advance and conditions change, so must the spiritual and social guidance. The essential spiritual teachings are reinstated according to the growing understanding of the people, and the mutable laws and ordinances are adjusted to meet the requirements of the time. As with science, the most recent religion should incorporate all of previous knowledge plus the latest insights and applications.
At different times, religion, reason and science have all been used as authoritative sources of truth. Our history and experience have shown these were not reliable by themselves, as we discussed earlier. The pre-modern era was dominated more by religion, the modern by reason and science and the postmodern period by relativism. The post-postmodern period will find a healthy balance and harmony among these approaches.
In our search, though we cannot know the essence or reality of anything, through science and reason, we have powerful tools for exploring physical reality. Similarly, in religion and philosophy, we also have powerful tools for exploring non-material reality. If we balance and use those tools wisely, recognizing their strengths and limitations, we can avoid the fanaticism, absolutism and fundamentalism to which both science and religion are susceptible, leading to reductionist materialism and superstitious dogmatism respectively.
Within each of these domains, earlier views have been transcended by understandings that are more expansive. For example, in physics, Greek views worked well enough, but Newtonian insights proved more adequate. They both remained accurate and useful in certain contexts; however, the later relativity and then quantum theories each extended our insights and understanding further. Like the various religions, each valid and essential in its own right and context, were followed by religions which brought advanced theories of living and reality that expanded upon the earlier ideas and practices in ways that increased human well-being and understanding. It is not that one is truer than another is; it is that their truths unfold according to our understanding and are better suited to certain domains and circumstances.
the discovery of the true meaning of a text or a work of art is never finished; it is in fact an infinite process. Not only are fresh sources of error constantly excluded, so that the true meaning has filtered out of it all kinds of things that obscure it, but there emerge continually new sources of understanding which reveal unsuspected elements of meaning (Gadamer in Lample, 2009, p. 182).
Using the above knowledge sources allows us to expand systematically our frameworks for determining truth. Developing reasoning and powers for unfettered search for knowledge and independent investigation of truth are essential to thinking for oneself and true learning. Our perception of truth is heavily influenced by the individuals, institutions and communities with whom we interact. Because we each develop a unique perception of reality that we construct from our experiences (cause and effect relations), we must continually renegotiate our understanding of truth.
Truth seems to be the principle upon which we can most closely and most probably come to some agreement, as our society has certain standards of truth that are commonly accepted. We also have a language of truth seeking and speaking. We drastically need an unbiased and independent investigation of the truth surrounding education. Our cognitive search for truth should be freed from our prejudices, superstitions, traditions and politics. The principles that might makes right and that those in power determine the rules need to give way to objective, scientific and verifiable fact-finding guided by principles of morality, justice, unity and the compassionate consideration for the rights of all people.
Developing our Hearts to Feel Love
There are several definitions for heart, generally referring to its physical and emotional character. Here we are talking about the heart defined as “3. basis of emotional life, 4. character, 5. compassion, 6. affection, 7. spirit” (Encarta Dictionary). Definition 3 describes the heart as “the source and center of emotional life, where the deepest and sincerest feelings are located and a person is most vulnerable to pain” (Encarta Dictionary). The capacities of the mind are generally associated with the physical brain, as those of the emotional and spiritual heart may be associated with the physical heart; however, they are different.
We traditionally have seen the heart as an important part of our natures, and many everyday expressions, such as to give or take heart, demonstrate its role in our lives. Modern science is providing evidence to support that the physical heart is connected to our emotional and metaphysical heart. We have come to learn that the organ of the heart does more than pump blood. It communicates neurologically, biochemically, electromagnetically and hydrostatically with the rest of the body. HeartMath is one such research-based approach to use scientific data to identify and develop the capacities of the heart and describe how they are regulated by love (Childre & Martin, 1999).
Those interested in developing human capacities should first purify their own hearts with love so that the mind and heart, reason and emotion and thinking and feeling can work together effectively. The heart manifests an affective state of consciousness, distinguished from cognitive and volitional states. The heart is influenced by the mind and will, and it influences them. Emotional health, morality and spirituality affect the ability to attach effectively to others, regulate emotion and moods, cognitively process and act responsibly (Stillwell, 2002).
Love is the vital and potent releaser of the heart’s potential. Loving relates to affect, “a feeling or emotion as distinguished from cognition, thought, or action” (Webster's Dictionary). Emotion is defined as “an intense feeling; a complex and usually strong subjective response, as love or fear” (Webster's Dictionary). However, love is more complex and deeper than feelings of emotional warmth.
As a principle, love can be defined as an active force of attraction, and, as such, can be considered the most elemental force in the universe holding together and harmonizing all matter and spirit. In practice, it involves acceptance and concern. Acceptance without concern is tolerance and concern without acceptance is criticism or conditional love (Hatcher, 2000). It is considered a vital and basic aspect in all of the world’s religions. Love gives us energy and directs our actions. On the highest level, love is the attraction to good, beauty and truth.
Love has the potential and power to overcome the repulsive forces of conflict and hate. It causes us to be altruistic: acting for others’ good and giving priority to legitimate needs of others over our own needs. We engender love when we encourage beauty, happiness and the best in others’ and our own lives. Love is an attractive and constructive force that operates according to measurable laws and principles. In the physical realm, we can measure these abstract forces, such as gravity and electromagnetism. In the social and spiritual realms, love is less easily subjected to empirical investigation, though great progress can be seen in the last decades.
For truth, we discussed how science and religion both contributed in its realization. For love, religion has been and continues to be the primary defining and directing force. We will use Christianity as our example here to understand better love and the role religion has played and can play in its development. Jesus Christ clearly identified love as the essential law of life, religion and wellbeing.
Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets (King James Bible, Matthew 22:37-40).
Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets (King James Bible, Matthew 7:12).
Jesus enlarged and deepened the accepted understanding and practice of love to include loving our enemies and turning the other cheek. As St. Paul elaborates, Jesus saw love as patient, kind, bearing, believing, hopeful and enduring; not envious, boastful, irritable, resentful, self-insistent or rejoicing in wrongdoing (1 Corinthians 13:1-13). This love makes all things possible.
With such lofty sentiments and clear instructions supported by powerful examples, narratives and parables, why is not this one teaching of love, which can be found at the core of all of the world’s religions, more prevalent in our world? Why are these teachings on love, which serve as a great antidote to the selfishness, narcissism and entitlement we find growing today, not the central guiding principle of our lives, as well as our schools?
Several reasons for this failure go beyond the scope of our present theme, but one I think is pertinent to our discussion here: the corruption of religion. This is an important theme, because I am encouraging us to look to religion as a vital source for guidance in understanding truth, love and justice. In doing that we have to discern true religion from that which calls itself religion, but which has ignored or perverted the central principles of its scriptures. Likewise, we have to distinguish true science from pseudo-science. Both religion and science can be and have been corrupted and misused by ideology and self-interest.
Let us again use Christianity as our example. The true religion of Christianity is focused on love as evidenced by the words and life of its founder Christ; however, most of what we see practiced today in the name of Christianity is focused on doctrines introduced into it centuries after Christ, many of which contravened the teachings given by its founder. In some ways, church leaders have focused on these dogmas and their faulty interpretations of Christ’s teachings to the extent that Christianity today is more associated with ideologies and doctrines than with love. Christians have killed and fought with fellow Christians more than they have with non-Christians. The introduced rituals, dogmas and doctrines, which are not even mentioned in the New Testament, have caused division, dissension and enmity, not love (Hatcher, 1998, p. 8-11). Similar corruptions have occurred in most other world religions.
Love is vital to any successful educational endeavor. Any reform effort that is not motivated and guided by the principle of love will be limited or harmful in its effect. The greatest teachers are inspired by love. Love is a potent force for learning. It is a needed ingredient in life. It is the foundation of healthy relationships and societies. It is the generator of unity. We sorely need it in our schools and in all our affairs. However, we do not talk about love in such public affairs, nor do we acknowledge its role in our institutions and policies. Further, it is not an easily measurable or definable construct.
All the processes of change, imagination, and learning ultimately depend on love. Human caregivers love their babies in a particularly intense and significant way. That love is one of the engines of human change. Parental love isn’t just a primitive and primordial instinct, continuous with the nurturing behavior of other animals (though certainly there are such continuities). Instead, our extended life as parents also plays a deep role in the emergence of the most sophisticated and characteristically human capacities (Gopnik, 2009, p. 15).
Sternberg’s theory suggests that love it has three elements. The first, intimacy, encompasses feelings of closeness and bondedness; the second, passion, reflects physical drives, and the third, decision, relates to commitment. The kind and amount of love depend on the values and interactions of all three components (Clarken, 1986). Teilhard de Chardin suggested that since humanity had developed its brain, we now need a heart for “the ultimate wholeness of its powers of unification” (1959/2004, p. 172). The Greeks considered the courage of the heart a necessary essence of soul (Boadella, 1998, p. 9; Gidley, 2007, p. 113).
Loving is a force of attraction and in the physical realm manifests as the glue and energy that holding all of creation together. In human interactions, it is a force for healthy individual and collective development. In loving relationships with physical, mental and spiritual entities, our affective capacities expand to transcend ever higher and larger levels of competence.
Augustine says the "order of love" (ordo amoris) is the "brief and true definition of virtue." According to this order, the human person must love everything in creation according to its proper relationship to God, which means loving God above all creatures and not inordinately loving any creature as the human person's ultimate end (Cahall, 2005, p. 117).
The emotions of happiness, sadness, anger, fear and disgust can also be viewed as different expressions of our loving capacity. For example, happiness can be described as an emotion that results when an object or entity that is loved is near or treated in a way that brings pleasure or satisfaction. Sadness can result when what we love is removed or hurt. Anger may occur when the object we love is unjustly mistreated or threatened, and fear when the loved thing is being threatened without our ability to do something about it. Finally, disgust can be triggered when what we love is somehow violated or threatened in revolting ways (Diessner, 2002).
We are attracted to various physical, mental or spiritual realities and can respond to them through our different natures and capacities. Understanding these as affective forces can help us to regulate and direct their influence in ways that are more beneficial to others and ourselves. For example, the influence of emotions in learning is a vital aspect of the application of the principle of love in education. If teachers love and care about their students, and students and parents respect and honor their schools and teachers, education will flourish. That attitude will help to create a love for learning and be a vital force in the acquisition and expansion of knowledge.
The affective domain (Krathwohl, Bloom, and Masia, 1964) has five hierarchical levels with several sublevels. The lowest is receiving, which merely requires the person to be aware, accept the input, and control attention. Next is responding, displaying new behavior from experience; then valuing, being involved or committed; organization, changing the value system to accommodate new values; and finally, characterization by value, behaving consistently with the new value. The affective domain centers on attraction to values and various manifestations of love.
Using the affective domain to develop moral capabilities might include the following:
1. showing awareness of moral principle or situation
2. reacting to a moral encounter
3. developing a commitment to moral beliefs or actions
4. operating within a system of values that relate to and accommodate other values
5. showing a consistent pattern and framework of new moral standards or values
Feelings are engendered by affection in relationships requiring love, harmony and unity that lead to moral behavior. Affective development should lead to happiness of the individual and others. One must overcome lower attachments, desires or passions and cultivate higher loves and attractions that lead to interconnectedness, service, reciprocity, caring and cooperation.
Though emotions are receiving greater acceptance as being important for development, they have been less explored in scientific literature or treated in policy than knowing and cognition.
A growing body of scientific evidence demonstrates that emotional development begins early in life and is closely connected with the emergence of cognitive, language, and social skills. Early emotional development lays the foundation for later academic performance, mental health, and the capacity to form successful relationships. Despite this knowledge, most policies related to early childhood focus exclusively on cognitive development as it relates to school readiness, neglecting the importance of such capacities as the ability to regulate one's own emotions and behavior and to manage successful interactions with other people. As a result, many of our nation's policies, such as those that regulate child care provider training, availability of early childhood mental health services, and early identification and treatment of behavioral disorders, overlook emotional development as a focus of evaluation and intervention (National Scientific Council on the Developing Child, 2004, abstract).
Mayer and Salovey define emotional intelligence as "the ability to perceive emotion, integrate emotion to facilitate thought, understand emotions and to regulate emotions to promote personal growth" (1997). Goleman’s definition, “a feeling and its distinctive thoughts, psychological and biological states, and range of propensities to act” (1995, p. 289), includes four main competencies of self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, and relationship management (1998). Mayer, Roberts & Barsade state that emotional intelligence “concerns the ability to carry out accurate reasoning about emotions and the ability to use emotions and emotional knowledge to enhance thought” (2008, p. 511).
Emotional development “has been tied to cognitive functioning (Isen, 2008; Lazarus, 1999), conative development (Buckley, & Saarni, 2009; Saarni, 1997), social development (Goleman, 2006), moral development (Hoffman, 2000), spiritual development (Guela, 2004), and self-views (Hamacheck, 2000)” (Huitt, 2010). The National Scientific Council on the Developing Child states,
the core features of emotional development include the ability to identify and understand one’s own feelings, to accurately read and comprehend emotional states in others, to manage strong emotions and their expression in a constructive manner, to regulate one’s own behavior, to develop empathy for others, and to establish and sustain relationships (2004, p. 1).
Any effort not motivated and guided by healthy emotions and the principle of love will be limited or harmful in its effect. Emotional intelligence and development are the foundation of healthy development in individuals, institutions and societies. They are the foundation of unity, motivation and learning, which can overcome conflict and hate through self-sacrificing and selfless actions for others’ good.
What are some tools that help develop the heart? Traditionally used were prayer, meditation and living according to sacred scripture. Serving others, overlooking their faults and giving priority to the legitimate needs of others over our own needs them are also encouraged. HeartMath recommends consciously disengaging from mental and emotional reactions while focusing on the area around your heart and positive emotions such as love, locking in to the hearts power and cutting through distorted feelings. These tools have been shown to improve physical, mental and emotional health (Childre & Martin, 1999).
Developing our Wills to Act with Justice
Of the mind, heart and will, the will has been the least understood and studied. Will has both direction and magnitude. It is referred to as volition in relation to cognition and motivation, and determination and desire in relation to affection. Volition is defined as “the power or faculty of choosing”. Psychologist use the term conation, “the aspect of mental processes or behavior directed toward action or change and including impulse, desire, volition, and striving” (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition). Conation refers to our capacity to act and the concept of power. Conative capacity is defined as "the enduring disposition to strive" (Brophy, 1987, p.40). People strong in conation are enterprising, energetic, determined, decisive, persistent, patient and organized (Giles, 1999).
As we associate our cognitive capacities with our brains and our emotional faculties with our hearts, our will is often related to our guts, resulting in expressions such as “intestinal fortitude” and “gut reactions.” Gershon discovered that the digestive tract has more nerve cells than the spinal cord and acts as an independent second brain (1999). It also produces more than 90% of the body’s serotonin and about 50% of its dopamine, both important neurotransmitters that affect mental and emotional states.
Will influences what we will do and purposively strives to accomplish it. It requires training and control of our impulses and desires. We show the results of our choices through our lives, deeds and actions. We should all strive daily for excellence and promote learning and service as we encourage others to reach their highest levels of potentiality and take responsibility for their development.
To develop willpower, individuals should be encouraged in making plans and decisions, setting and achieving goals and in developing commitment, perseverance and self-regulation. By thinking, deciding, doing for ourselves, carrying on in the face of difficulties and seeing challenges as opportunities for growth we develop discipline, conscience, confidence, trust and faith.
The guiding principle of will is justice. Our willpower must be used in the interest and promotion of justice. Justice is defined as fairness or reasonableness, especially in the way people are treated or decisions are made (Encarta Dictionary) and as the quality of justness, righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness (). Exercising will requires the capacity to strive, initiate and sustain action to develop our powers for justice and good. The principle of justice encourages us to strive for love and truth, seeking to eliminate prejudices and inequity from our environments and our selves. Justice requires courage and generates greater intentionality. Through its application, we develop autonomy, the capacity to make independent moral decisions and act on them, and positively transform our inner lives and those around us, creating a cycle and culture of safety and well-being.
The distinction between legalism and justice is important to consider, as legalism is often substituted for authentic justice and morality. Legalism is defined as “strict adherence to a literal interpretation to a law, rule, or religious moral code” (Encarta Dictionary). In short, limited legalism is often substituted for the hard and purifying process related to the more powerful concept of justice. For example, though we may abide by a moral code or a law, we may do so with malicious intent or without integrity. If justice is not combined with a pure, loving motive and based on honesty and trustworthiness, it can become mere form without substance. Justice has its subjective and objective as well as individual and collective aspects that all need to be considered for a balanced perspective.
Plato's dramatic dialogue on justice, The Republic, one of the most influential works of all time, concludes that justice is preferable to injustice and that a just life is better than the unjust life (Allen, 2006). In this dialogue, Socrates says justice causes and perfects the three other cardinal virtues of temperance, wisdom and courage. John Rawls, in his seminal work on political philosophy and ethics entitled A Theory of Justice, stated,
Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought. A theory however elegant and economical must be rejected or revised if it is untrue; likewise laws and institutions no matter how efficient and well-arranged must be reformed or abolished if they are unjust. Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override (1971, p. 1).
Whereas truth should guide us in understanding our world, love should be the central principle in our relationships with one another and justice should by upheld by social institutions for the maintenance of progress, order and unity in a society. While emotions provide affect for our actions, will commits, directs and energizes our behavior. Will or volition is that part of us that decides what we will do and then purposively strives to accomplish it. It requires training of our impulses, desires, volition and perseverance.
We show the results of our choices through our lives, deeds and actions. We should be encouraged to reach our highest levels of potentiality and to self-assess our progress on a daily basis. Clear and measurable goals are useful to bring ourselves to account. We should all strive for excellence and promote learning and service in ways that we can evaluate on a daily basis. Developing human potential is the process of using will to choose to develop our knowing and loving capacities, and then, to translate them into positive action.
Some elements of this domain include making a decision, setting goals, making plans to achieve goals, commitment, perseverance and evaluation of effort. Some subcategories include the developing of will power by thinking, deciding, doing for ourselves, carrying on in the face of difficulties and seeing challenges as opportunities for growth. Discipline, conscience, confidence, trust, faith and love are other areas that will influence one's volition and motivation.
There are several taxonomies for the conative domain. Atman’s taxonomy has five stages--perception, focus, engagement, involvement and transcendence. His twelve steps or sub-stages are cyclical: 1. recognize need, problem, challenge or opportunity, 2. set goal, 3. brainstorm alternatives, 4. assess risks, 5. select strategy, 6. get your act in gear (visualize), 7. organize, 8. make it happen, 9. push on, 10. wrap it up, 11. ooo & ah! (evaluate), 12. creating purpose and long range direction (Atman, 1982). These stages and steps can be further categorized as aspects of planning, acting and reflecting.
Using Atman’s five stages, we can describe how conative capabilities might apply to moral endeavors.
1. Have a moral purpose and direction that can be applied to experience
2. Set moral goals
3. Decide what is right and how to accomplish it
4. Take initiative to do good
5. Commit wholly to moral behavior, seeing through to completion, transcending obstacles and limitations.
Assagioli (1973) has posited six stages of willing that correlate closely with Atman’s: 1. purpose (evaluation, motivation and intention), 2. deliberation, 3. choice/decision, 4. affirmation, 5. planning/programming and 6. direction of the execution. Snow and Jackson’s (1993) provisional taxonomy contains six categories of conative constructs: 1. achievement motivation, 2. self-regulation, 3. interests and styles of learning, 4. self-related and 5. other-related.
Among the constructs in this category are: several kinds of achievement motivational distinctions, including need for achievement and fear of failure, but also various beliefs about one’s own abilities and their development, feelings of self-esteem and self-efficacy, and attitudes about particular subject-matter learning; volitional aspects pertaining to persistence, academic work ethic, will to learn, mental effort investment, and mindfulness in learning; intentional constructs reflecting control or regulation of actions leading toward chosen goals, attitudes toward the future, and self-awareness about proximal and distal goals and consequences; and many kinds of learning styles and strategies hypothesized to influence cognitive processes and outcomes of instruction. Many other more traditional personality or style constructs, such as intellectual flexibility, conscientiousness, extroversion, or reflection-impulsivity, could also be added to the list. And many of these constructs and measures may prove extremely useful in understanding student commitment to learning on the one hand, or disaffection from it on the other. Most may also be relevant to problems of aggression and other maladaptations to school life (Snow & Jackson, 1993, p. 1-2).
Exercising will requires the capacity to initiate and sustain action to develop our powers for justice and good. The principle of justice encourages us to do our best to eliminate prejudices and hatred. Justice requires courage and generates greater intentionality and autonomy: the capacity to make independent moral decisions and act on them. Acting with justice positively affects our environments and ourselves creating a cycle and culture of safety and well-being.
Power is closely connected to will and justice. Power is exercised individually, collectively, subjectively and objectively. The importance of power being guided by truth, love and justice is apparent, and many of the problems in the world can be diagnosed as some imbalance or failure to apply these three powers among individuals, communities and institutions. Dialogue and agreement using all three principles are vital to regulate and apply power in practice and to maintain unity.
Will is also related to moral intelligence, “the mental capacity to determine how universal human principles should be applied to our personal values, goals, and actions” (Lennick & Kiel, 2005, p. 7), is a combination of integrity, responsibility, forgiveness and compassion. Integrity includes four competencies: 1) acting consistently with principles, values, and beliefs, 2) telling the truth, 3) standing up for what is right, and 4) keeping promises. Responsibility’s three competencies are 1) taking personal responsibility, 2) admitting mistakes and failures, and 3) embracing responsibility for serving others. Forgiveness involves 1) letting go of one’s own mistakes and 2) letting go of others’ mistakes. Compassion is defined as actively caring about others. These are also similar to Borba’s (2001) conscience and fairness, self-control and respect, empathy and kindness and tolerance; the Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development Panel on Moral Education (1988) definition of a moral person; Damon’s (1988) description of morality and other conception of moral intelligence.
Kohlberg’s theory of moral development is the most established and tested. Kohlberg worked from Piaget’s cognitive-developmental approach (1976), which emphasizes the application of thinking skills to develop higher moral reasoning, based on stages of cognitive-moral development. Morality seems to develop in stages from pre-conventional, to conventional to post-conventional. As we mature, we will respond in predictable and higher levels to ethical dilemmas.
Education as a Scientific, Artistic and Moral Endeavor
Education is a vehicle for developing the knowing, loving and willing faculties of our minds, hearts and wills and of realizing and expressing the ideals of truth, love and justice. We need to understand education’s role and functioning from these various vantage points if we are to improve it. As a corollary to these faculties and principles, education can be seen as a science, an art and a moral activity. Regarding education through only one of these lenses will result in a limited and skewed understanding. Though science and scientific principles are foundational to understanding, improving and reforming education, so are values, morals, and a host of other philosophical, artistic, ethical and spiritual concerns.
If we use the principles of truth, love and justice, then science, art and morals become vehicles for expressing and exploring these cognitive, affective and conative qualities. Science is an important tool for understanding the material world. Scientific thinking is a powerful tool in our search for truth and a sign of a well-trained and mature mind. Art is the creation of beautiful things by humans. It is a manifestation of the creative forces emanating from our hearts seeking to express love and beauty. Morals involve right and wrong according to the standard of justice. Through exercising our wills, we develop our conscience and live our lives according to what is right and good.
Dewey’s concept of education was as the highest expression of science and art conceivable in human experience. He not only saw education as both a science and an art, but as a moral endeavor as well (1897, 1916, 1933, 1938). Some people think that schools and teachers should not teach morals, but there is no way they can avoid doing so. Understanding, appreciating and abiding by principles of right and wrong are necessary for any classroom, school or society to function. The teaching of civics and civility, which used to be a more central focus of schools, is part of education’s moral function, as is the promotion of truth, love and justice in the society.
Education cannot be reduced to facts, understood solely through science or explained merely in simple cause and effect relationships. Education is much more than dispensing and learning information. Science depends on the creativity, originality, inventiveness, imagination and artistic application of knowledge in solving problems. Science not guided by morality and ethical practices can be horribly destructive, as we have witnessed in our lives.
Education also cannot be reduced solely to artistry and an expression of love. Love can be based on unwholesome or unhealthy attachments and prejudices and therefore be harmful and destructive. Artistic creativity can either uplift or degrade and needs both morals and science to be properly channeled for the advancement of civilization, rather than its demise.
Education solely as a moral endeavor also has its problems, as we have seen from past practices that actually promoted falsehoods, hate and injustice and perverted students’ knowing, loving and willing faculties. Such an education can quickly degenerate into ideology, superstition, oppression and fanaticism. Morals need to be applied with love in light of truth if they are to bring about justice and good. The foundation of the moral function of education can be found in the principles of truth, love and justice.
These elements must be combined in scientific, artistic and moral ways to create effective education. It requires science, art and morals to understand and give meaning to knowledge, innovatively engage students to learn it and develop responsible and meaningful relationships with others. Education is a science, art and moral endeavor for the development of thinking, feeling and willing, leading to
the formation of habits of judgment and the development of character, the elevation of standards, the facilitation of understanding, the development of taste and discrimination, the stimulation of curiosity and wondering, the fostering of style and a sense of beauty, the growth of a thirst for new ideas and vision of the yet unknown (Scheffler, 1976, p. 206).
Education and reform efforts should be judged by how well they meet the highest standards of science, art and morals and promote the principles of truth, love and justice. To paraphrase and simplify the above definition of education, we could say it is the forming of habits, development, elevation, facilitation, stimulation, fostering and vision of truth, love and justice. Even more simply, it is the formation of the habits of being truthful, loving and just. Education deserves the highest care any society can give it in terms of its science, arts and morals, and society will prosper to the extent these tools are applied in the service of education.
[pic]
Figure 3. Mind, heart and will; thinking, feeling and doing; science, arts and morals; and truth, love and justice.
Human Nature
Humans, individually and collectively, have three basic natures that are important to consider in developing human resources and potential—our physical, social-psychological and spiritual natures. Each nature is addressed by both science and religion.
|Nature |Physical |Social-psychological |Spiritual |
|Kingdom |Animal |Human |Divine |
|Food |Nutrition |Think, feel, choose |Virtues (truth, love, justice) |
|Language |Pre Verbal |Verbal |Post Verbal |
|Logic |Pre Logical |Logical |Trans Logical |
|Reason |Pre Rational |Rational |Post Rational |
|Identity |Pre Personal |Personal |Transpersonal |
|Consciousness |Sub-Consciousness |Self- Consciousness |Super-Consciousness |
|Sphere |Biosphere |Noosphere |Theosphere |
|Self Center |Bio centric |Ego, Ethno centric |Theo centric |
Table ?: Correlates of Physical, Social-Psychological and Spiritual Natures
The so-called hard or narrow sciences explore physical data that can be experienced via the senses. The softer or broader sciences study social and psychological realities through empirical observations. The spiritual sciences, which have been practiced for millennia, investigate the more abstract reality of the spirit via practices and evidence derived from accepted paradigms. All three science share three common features to ground their truth claims—1) they are based upon a paradigm (injunction), 2) they require some empirical evidence (experience) and 3) they can be confirmed (validation) (Wilber, 2000). In other words, using certain methods we can have direct experiences that can produce evidence that can be verified by a qualified peer group.
In religion, we are given laws and teachings related to our physical, social-psychological and spiritual natures. Rather than having to find these “truths” through a long and slow scientific process, they are revealed to us through inspired sources. However, these “truths” can be and should be verified scientifically as much as is possible. The teachings regarding physical, social-psychological and spiritual matters have been the cause of the progress of humanity, and it has only been gradually, often after centuries, that the wisdom behind these injunctions have be validated by science. Religion can tell us what is good long before our science can verify it with empirical evidence. As what is true, loving and just evolves along with new developments in our physical, social-psychological and spiritual realities, so too must religious teachings.
Of these three natures, the most obvious and accepted by all is our physical nature. To be human means to have a human body. Our bodies place us in the animal kingdom; therefore, part of our nature is common to other animals with whom we are genetically very similar. We have physical needs that must be met to an adequate degree if we are to be able to develop our distinctive abilities to think, feel and choose that make us unique from animals.
The psychological qualities to know, love and choose are faculties of our minds, hearts and wills. I believe these three capabilities have an immaterial or spiritual nature that some call the soul. The soul is defined as “the complex of human attributes that manifests as consciousness, thought, feeling, and will, regarded as distinct from the physical body” (Encarta Dictionary). In other words, the rational soul is what causes our minds, hearts and wills to manifest in our physical bodies, resulting in the psychological qualities of conscious thought, feeling and will. Attending to all three natures and all three faculties is important in developing potential.
Our thoughts, feelings and actions can be directed by either our bodies or our souls. Whichever nature predominates determines the character and condition of the individual and group. In our physical natures we see the animal characteristics of survival of the fittest and competition for resources as driving forces, and in our spiritual natures we see altruistic and transcendent motives directing our behavior. Current theories of human resource development tend to emphasize the physical, material and animal aspects of human nature and neglect the spiritual, immaterial and transcendental parts of our nature. We prosper when our spiritual nature influences how we think, feel and choose. It can direct our minds, hearts and wills in healthy ways. If our animal nature prevails, then we actually become more destructive than any animal, with our increased powers of thought, feeling and action being driven by our baser desires and impulses.
Human development can be explained and understood as the interaction and realization of these natures operating through the three basic faculties of mind, heart and will that possess the thinking, feeling and acting powers or capacities for developing human potential.
To address the problems facing us effectively, we must find answers to the most basic questions of life: who are we, what is our purpose and how should we be? We need to take more time to consider these questions seriously, which will require us to transcend our cultural lenses and ideological frameworks. In many ways, we remain prisoners of our own limited thinking, trapped in our separate caves arguing over the shadows of our imagined reality. Education can help us break free from those bounds, but only to the extent that it too has freed itself from its own narrow and restricted practices and worldviews.
When we refer to human nature, we generally are referring to our ways of thinking, feeling and acting that distinguish us from animals. Though we have a body with its animal nature and traits, humans have also been endowed with greatly increased psychological capacities to think, feel and choose how we will behave. These capacities make us human. Where these capacities come from and what their characteristics are have been among the oldest and most important questions in human thought. Philosophy and religion have explored these questions to better understand the meaning of human life and guide human behavior. The arts and literature have also given expression to what it means to be human. More recently, the sciences have been studying humans and human nature to gain more knowledge about who we are and the character of our thinking, feeling and being.
It might be best if we start at the beginning, as we currently understand it, the so-called Big Bang. If we follow the evolutionary pattern of the universe, first there were the basic elements which led in succession to minerals, plants, animals and lastly humans, in that order. Each depends upon the one before it and includes the elements and capacities of the earlier forms, but adds a new element.
Human life begins as a one-celled fertilized egg, which contains all the genetic material to develop to maturity through a natural and universal growth and development process. In nine months, the physical development of the fetus goes through the evolutionary stages our species experienced over millions of years, starting as a single-celled creature and evolving through the phylogenic stages until we manifest the qualities of a modern human.
[pic]
At the earliest embryonic stages, we have no self-conscious identity: we are inside of, connected to and dependent on our mother. After birth, we gradually gain control over our bodies. Our body’s capacity to think, feel and act are initially dominated by impulses and instincts. We gradually develop a sense of differentiation from and integration with our environment.
Materialists believe that our bodies define or encompass our human nature. Because we share this nature in common with other animals, it is believed that humans are essentially animals and can be understood from that perspective. Modern science, based on finding objective and measurable cause-effect relationships, is well suited to explore our physical and animal natures. Therefore, to understand human behavior and answer the question who we are, scientists examine our physical, chemical and biological natures.
As our bodies are the physical parts of our natures, they are subject to the laws of the universe and can be best understood and studied using scientific and empirical methods. For example, using scientific methods and rationale, biologists classify humans in the Hominidae family in the order of primates. Chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans are species that share this family with us Homo sapiens. According to the latest understanding from science, we share more than 98% of our genetic material with our nearest animal relative, the chimpanzee.
[pic]
The social sciences study social or psychological factors to try to gain some understanding of human nature and behavior. As scientists, they cannot make definitive statements about causes that are not measurable or falsifiable. They can explore subjective reality through objective phenomena, but cannot determine metaphysical connections and relationships. Psychologists, biologists, and other scientists continue to learn more about the inherited and acquired aspects of human nature, currently leaning strongly toward genetic predispositions to explain much of who we are. Evolutionary psychology attempts to describe human behavior as a product of evolutionary influences. Quantum theory is opening the door to deeper and much more expansive ways of seeing the universe and human life.
Philosophy, art and literature have also striven to understand and describe human nature. The materialists among them would say that humans are essentially physical creatures bound by natural laws. Others, like Plato, suggest that what appears to us as reality is but a reflection of higher forms and existence. He illustrates this in the allegory of the cave described earlier. Other views have spanned the spectrum from natural to spiritual explanations, and combinations thereof. The arts and literature have often tried to express the transcendent in human nature.
Religion identifies our spiritual nature, the development of our souls for an existence after this one, as the purpose of life and the most essential aspect of our natures. Soul is defined as “the complex of human attributes that manifests as consciousness, thought, feeling, and will, regarded as distinct from the physical body” (Encarta Dictionary). Stated succinctly, we are to consciously develop our thoughts, feelings and will in accordance with God and to know, love and obey God. The various prophets and founders of religion have revealed the path for developing our bodies, minds and souls in this world. Religion and spirituality have been marginalized in academic circles; however, they are indispensable in formulating a holistic view of reality and a practical solution to the problems that face humankind. I am hopeful my consideration of the role of religion and spirituality here will help to overcome the significant bias it faces.
As we looked at cognitive, social-emotional and moral intelligence above, we can briefly look at the literature on spiritual intelligence here. Spiritual intelligence addresses meaning, motivation, vision and value (Emmons, 2000; Zohar, 2000; Zohar & Marshall, 2001). It is “the application of spiritual abilities and resources to practical contexts” (Nasel, 2004, p. 4, cited in cited in King & DeCicco, 2009, p. 69) involving existential questioning and the awareness of divine presence. Covey states that "Spiritual intelligence is the central and most fundamental of all the intelligences, because it becomes the source of guidance for the other[s] (2004, p.53). Zohar & Marshall identify twelve qualities or principles of spiritual intelligence: self-awareness, spontaneity, being vision and value led, holism, compassion, celebration of diversity, field independence, humility, tendency to ask why, ability to reframe, positive use of adversity and sense of vocation.
Emmon’s original core spiritual abilities and capacities are for transcendent awareness, heightened spiritual states of consciousness, sanctifying daily experiences, spiritual problem-solving and virtuous behavior (2000). King and DeCicco define spiritual intelligence “as a set of mental capacities which contribute to the awareness, integration, and adaptive application of the nonmaterial and transcendent aspects of one’s existence, leading to such outcomes as deep existential reflection, enhancement of meaning, recognition of a transcendent self, and mastery of spiritual states” (p. 69). They propose a four-factor model with the components of critical existential thinking, personal meaning production, transcendental awareness and conscious state expansion.
From the various viewpoints above, we may ascribe our ability to think, feel and act to biological and evolutionary causes. It is true that these capacities depend upon biological systems that have evolved to function in the physical world. If certain parts of the brain are injured the capacities associated with it are also impaired. It is also arguable, that these capacities are so unique as to distinguish humans from other animals, just as their heightened sensory faculties differentiate animals from plants. In that sense, we have a nature that transcends that of animals. We can also argue, as have the religions throughout history, that these capacities are spiritual gifts from our creator, and to know, love and act in accordance with that infinite and unknowable source is the purpose of life. Scientists are beginning to explore this spiritual aspect of reality, but much more need to be done.
Whichever view you subscribe to--whether we are just an evolved animal, a distinct kingdom of humans with unique capacities, spiritual beings created in the image of our creator, or a combination of all three--is not vital. If you are not comfortable with all these possibilities or wish to avoid any consideration of metaphysical explanations, you may. Whatever your viewpoint, it remains that the human capacity to think, feel and act is the foundation of who we are and should guide education and its reform. Recognizing, understanding and working with the fullest reality of human nature will facilitate finding the solutions we seek and need.
Education then can also be construed as the process of developing our human nature to monitor and control our animal nature. Education should help free us from the bonds of our lower drives and passions. Our minds, hearts and will, which are the seat of our thinking, feeling and acting capacities and the wellsprings of truth, love and justice, need to be developed. Only as we recognize and cultivate these virtues are we able to overcome our lower selfish natures and free ourselves from the debilitating ideologies that constrain our thinking and our world.
| |Body |Mind |Soul |
|Symbol |Hand |Head |Heart |
| | | | |
|Reality/ Spirit |Objective |Subjective | |
|World |Physical |Psychological |Spiritual |
|Kingdom/ |Animal |Human |Divine |
|Realm | | | |
|Logic |Pre Logical |Logical |Trans Logical (inspiration) |
| |(magic) |(reason) | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|Language |Pre Verbal- Body, Cries |Verbal-Words |Post Verbal-Deeds |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|Self Center |Bio centric |Ego to World centric |Theo centric |
|Reason |Pre Rational |Rational |Post Rational |
| |(drives) |(empirical) |(certitude) |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| |1st, person, |2-3rd person, conventional |4th and on, |
|Perspective |pre- conventional | |post- conventional |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|Source |Nature |Science |Religion |
|Identity |Pre Personal |Personal |Transpersonal |
| |(physical, emotional) |(ego, ethnic) |(universal, transcendental) |
|Consciousness |Sub-Conscious |Self- Conscious |Super-Conscious |
|Sphere |Biosphere |Noosphere |Theosphere |
|Food |Nutrition |Knowledge |Virtues |
[pic]
In fact, without a proper education, human beings will use their human faculties to harm in ways animals are unable. If our thinking, feeling and acting are not guided by the principles of truth, love and justice, we can bring untold harm on others and ourselves. These principles bring out the best of human nature. The thinking, feeling and acting of our minds, hearts and wills can be viewed from a physical, psychological and spiritual perspective. These faculties operate via physical means and can be identified with our bodies. They manifest in human interactions and can be understood abstractly as natural human faculties and behaviors, and they allow us to look beyond our objective reality to deeper moral and spiritual forms and realities.
[pic]
Applying the New Paradigm to Education and Its Reform
Not everything that a man knoweth can be disclosed, nor can everything that he can disclose be regarded as timely, nor can every timely utterance be considered as suited to the capacity of those who hear it.
Islamic Hadith
The school is the institution through which societies can be formed, reformed and reconstructed.
John Dewey
The Dynamics of Change
Nothing remains static; we are either advancing or regressing. A disposition to strive for the betterment of others and ourselves is essential to healthy development, but must be combined with an understanding of what leads to improvement and an attraction to that goal. To grow is to move toward more expansive and inclusive visions of truth, love and justice. To regress is to move toward a more self-centered and limited expression of truth, love and justice.
As we grow and develop, we are better able to deal effectively with our world. Those who stay centered on selfish love, self-centered knowledge and self-indulgent desires will not be free or happy. They will lead unsatisfying and unfulfilling lives.
The inner limits which currently constrain the growth and development of all mankind include limits associated with the way each of us thinks and behaves in both private and public contexts. Our values, beliefs and actions add up to vast economic, cultural and political trends which determine the pathways mankind selects towards the future (Laszlo, 1989, p. 31).
Individuals have different predispositions or strengths that may tend to favor one capacity or principle over the others. If they favor thinking, they may need to align their feelings and choices with their new knowledge or insights. Some might begin the change process by feeling differently, which may require an adjustment in their understanding and choices. Others may start the change process by beginning with some decisions or goals that leads to modifications in thinking and feeling.
Development of any of these human capacities will result in a need to develop the others to maintain equilibrium. Reaching homeostasis, where all the capacities are congruent, balanced and stable, is desired; however, life circumstances will challenge us to keep growing while maintaining a healthy balance, from which we can further develop our capacities by continuing toward higher goals and ideals.
For example, some injustice or wrong may cause hurt (love) and push someone to decide (will) how (know) to best respond. This external event results in internal disequilibrium or upset, causing the person to try to find some resolution by adjusting understanding, affect or determination to respond more productively, thus achieving greater authenticity, altruism and autonomy. It involves effort, courage and faith to develop a greater realization of potentialities.
Interactions between the self and reality are the cause of growth and development, and can lead to true happiness and autonomy. We can exert some control over our responses to the challenges life offers us, but we have little control over the challenges. Every effect has a cause and every cause an effect. To respond effectively requires effort and an internal locus of control. Energy is needed to create a change. As we actualize our potential, we experience cognitive, affective and conative benefits that lead to a cycle of growth.
Truth, love and justice are the catalysts for improving our knowing, loving and willing capacities and reflect the highest ideals of our minds, hearts and wills respectively. As we learn more about these principles and practices, we can apply them to improving our schools. Teachers need to know what these principles are and be able to use them effectively, artistically and conscientiously to help our young people become the most they can.
[pic]
Figure . Mind, heart and will correlates.
We need to support schools and teachers as they strive to understand and exemplify these qualities. Teachers, parents, schools and communities who care about their students and are committed to their proper development will do the best for their students within whatever constraints exist.
We yearn for truth, justice and love, and we should do what we can to exemplify these virtues and have them characterize our communities. As we do we will see trust, respect, equity, unity and collaboration grow. Unity and collaboration are discouraged in our current reform atmosphere, which puts a premium on individual achievement and competition. Trust, initiative and respect are eroded when external measures of accountability and testing primarily are used to control and manage teachers and schools.
Developing Human Potential through the Mind, Heart and Will
We have enormous potential, much of it unrealized and unknown. Our physical, psychological and spiritual capacities continue to develop and unfold as we extend our frontiers of technical, intellectual and moral accomplishments and challenges. How can we help to stimulate that growth in our world and ourselves? First, we need to understand what constitutes human nature and potential, and then how to develop them.
We develop our individual and collective thinking, feeling and choosing potentials through our minds, hearts and wills. We often waste tremendous energy, as well as social, political and economic resources, following beliefs and practices that are not only ineffective, but also counterproductive. We should attempt to help others develop their capacities so they can effectively contribute to their own and others’ welfare and prosperity. We need to become more systematic and thoughtful in our approaches to help others achieve their potential and promote the welfare of the world more effectively.
Developing human potential is the process of using will to choose to use our knowing and loving capacity into positive action. We can do this by starting at any of these three points and combining it with the others. For example, we may start with action: we may be doing something and feel it is not as effective as it could be. As we reflect on why we feel this way and how we might improve, we think about what might work better. In these processes it always helpful to consult with others, especially those involved in the activity, as well as those who might have more knowledge and experience.
The change process must involve all three capacities to be systematic, sustainable and effective. In this process, all participants should be considered as collaborators in establishing clarity of vision, purpose and roles that evolve as needed according to new learning and changed circumstances. Positive power results from combining these three components.
Our thinking, feeling and choosing can be exercised individually, collectively, subjectively and objectively. All three capacities and al four aspects or perspectives should be considered. The importance being guided by truth, love and justice should not be underestimated. Many of the problems in the world can be diagnosed as some imbalance or failure to apply these three human potentialities among individuals, communities and institutions. Dialogue and agreement using all three principles to regulate and apply our lives and to maintain unity is vital.
Whereas truth should guide us in understanding our world, love should be the dominant principle in our relationships with one another and justice should be the primary standard of institutions for the maintenance of progress, order and unity in a society. Emotions provide affect for our actions and will commits, directs and energizes our behavior. Our cognitive, emotional and volitional capabilities are greatly affected by our social environments, especially in our early years. Though aspects of each of these faculties are influenced by inherited qualities from genetic endowments, they are shaped and developed through the interactions of our thoughts, feelings and actions with the environment.
|As we increasingly learn to reason and develop clear and healthy values by exercising decision-making capacities through loving, fair and |
|respectful engagement with others, we develop our potential for service and happiness. Healthy role models and values inspire and help us |
|become more responsible and service oriented (Damon, 1988). By fostering moral awareness and an emotional vocabulary, enhancing sensitivity |
|to the feelings of others and developing empathy for other points of view, we can create a context for growth using virtues to strengthen |
|conscience, guide behavior and foster moral discipline. By establishing a zero tolerance for meanness, prejudice, gossip, fault finding and |
|backbiting and modeling and prioritizing self-control, courtesy, respect and self-motivation, we can help others control their thinking, |
|feeling and choosing before they act (Borba, 2002). |
As we create social and cultural contexts to support the development of intellectually, emotionally and morally mature persons through critical thinking, altruistic feelings and moral decision-making and conduct, we affect the climate and policies around us. Until human resource development
focuses on the cultivation of character and the development of a moral sense of identity and moral imperative, until it begins to purposefully emphasize models of authentic moral authority and to foster moral responsibility and agency, until it makes central the cultivation of expanding levels of empathy, progressively embracing the human race and until it is willing to entertain an explicit spiritual conversation about truth and meaning in life, it cannot really fulfill its responsibility to human potential (Mustakavoa-Possardt, 2004, p. 266).
Developmental Stages of Growth
In development, the earliest years are the most important, beginning with prenatal development. Good nutrition and health form the foundation of later development. Later, training and forming the character and capacities of mind, heart and will are added. Education in intellectual, emotional and spiritual endeavors to prepare for the advancing demands of life follows, with special attention to each person’s abilities, talents and inclinations. Eventually we need to take on the responsibility of our own development, and, as we mature help those around us do the same.
Knowing, loving and willing; cognition, affection and conation; and truth, love and justice go through hierarchical stages of development. Our thinking, feeling and choosing depend on the stage of development we have achieved. A good education helps move us from one stage to the next in developing our minds, hearts and wills.
Neural circuits for dealing with stress are particularly malleable (or “plastic”) during the fetal and early childhood periods. Early experiences shape how readily they are activated and how well they can be contained and turned off. Toxic stress during this early period can affect developing brain circuits and hormonal systems in a way that leads to poorly controlled stress-response systems that will be overly-active and slow to shut down when faced with threats throughout the lifespan (National Scientific Council on the Developing Child, 2009, p. 2).
The stages of moral development have been well studied and are strongly supported by cross-cultural studies (Wilber, 2000). They can be viewed according to the paradigm of truth, love and justice. For example, Kohlberg (1981) tends to describe moral development in terms of justice, while Gilligan (1982) uses care, which relates closely to love. Care is also used as a core virtue in education by Noddings in relation to its application in teaching (1986). Others talk about moral development in terms related to all three principles (Hatcher, 2000). As we deepen and broaden our cognitive, affective and conative capacities for truth, love and justice, we develop intellectually, socially and morally.
In our earliest years, our development and identity are centered in our physical bodies and needs. In other words, we all are driven or guided by our bodily instincts, desires or needs. Our bodies tell us what to think, feel and do, which can be described as autistic or animistic, focused on our survival and safety needs (Maslow, 1971). As we grow from infancy into childhood, we develop ego and role identities, while in adolescence, ethnocentric and belongingness orientations expand along with our senses of truth, love and justice. Many people do not move to higher perspectives (Miller and Cook-Greuter, 1994; Loevinger, 1977). As we develop awareness that others see, feel and behave differently, our own ability to understand, to care and do the right thing increases.
In defending our limited senses of truth, love and justice, we may misuse our minds, hearts and wills for rationalizing, justifying, deceiving, fear, anger, jealousy or aggression. Life is a series of crises and victories that result in social and emotional development (Erikson, 1950, 1959). Pain and suffering are a part of the process of growth as we negotiate our individual/inner worlds with the collective/outer world through a process of differentiation and integration (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990, 2004).
At the societal level, integration (or order, congruence) without differentiation leads to deadening conformity, just as differentiation without integration leads to chaos. At the individual level, complexity is manifested in two forms: the intrapersonal, and the interpersonal. In terms of the first of these two forms, a complex person is one who has fully developed his or her potentialities in terms of thoughts, feelings, and motives (thus is differentiated), while at the same time being able to align these potentialities at the service of personal goals (and is thus internally integrated) (Csikszentmihalyi, 2004, p. 342).
The development of the basic human capacities is a series of differentiation, integration and generalization of our cognitive, affective and conative abilities. Each needs to be developed and balanced with the others in holistic and healthy development, which education can facilitate. An increase in ability allows us to give up our faulty, limited views and releases energies for further growth.
The Allegory of Oz
The story The Wizard of Oz provides an archetype for helping us find the brains, heart and courage we need to be successful teachers and learners. As I look back on my life and my forty years in education, I find my story, and the stories of many of the teachers, teacher educators, teacher candidates and educational leaders I have worked with can be told or understood as our own journeys to Oz and or travels back home. Each of the characters--Dorothy, the scarecrow, the tin man, the lion and the Wizard--represents aspects of our selves that need to be developed in order for us to become truly whole as individuals and teachers.
This search for a brain (knowing and truth), a heart (loving and love) and courage (willing and justice) is a journey down the yellow brick road to becoming a teacher. As we develop these capacities we can share them more effectively with others and help others develop them in themselves. Until teachers find their authentic voices, they will be of limited success in the business of educating. We do not actually give our students brains, heart and courage; rather we teach, encourage and provide opportunities to help them to realize and develop these capacities in themselves.
As teachers become more truthful, loving and courageous, they develop personally and professionally. Like Dorothy, who helped her friends find and develop their unique strengths, dedicated educators can help their students seek for and develop the qualities needed to flourish. To know truth, the goal of the tin man’s search, to give and receive love, the scarecrow’s ultimate aim, and to have the will to do the right thing, the lion’s desire, are all aspects needed to find the true home of our authentic, altruistic and autonomous selves. As knowledge, feelings and volition are used in service to develop our brains, hearts and courage further, they enable us to make healthier choices that contribute to the greatest good for the greatest number.
Through the trials and tests along life’s path to realizing our potential and destiny, we overcome our immature, limited identities based on external, superficial or physical conceptions of who we are. One of the great challenges on the journey is not to become a slave or captive to these external forces (witches, flying monkeys, wizards, etc.). Once we have fallen under the spell of our imagined limitations, it takes great heart and courage to free ourselves from being dominated and controlled by them. Our development is dependent on finding and using our brains, hearts and courage in search of our true selves.
At the beginning of our individual journeys as small children, we are often guided by magical or mythical thinking, feeling and wishing with limited awareness of causality. Without a sufficiently developed brain, heart and courage, we are dependent on others for our welfare. Gradually, we learn that some actions result in positive consequences and others produce negative repercussions. As we learn to properly direct and control our responses to the circumstances of life, we further our progress on the yellow brick road of development. With experience comes increased understanding and autonomy.
As we overcome the challenges of life and become more adept, we develop our thinking (brain), feeling (heart) and acting (courage) faculties. When we do not adequately use these capacities, or when we use them irresponsibly, we bring suffering on others and ourselves, as the tin man, scarecrow, lion and Dorothy did. In our efforts to attain our goals, we each encounter problems facing our metaphorical witches, wizards, flying monkeys, bad apple trees, fields of poppies, wizards and other obstacles and hurdles along our journey.
Like Dorothy and her colleagues, we need fortitude, vision, hope and persistence to overcome our limitations. As we work through faulty or distorted theories, values, needs and desires, our views become more aligned with reality. We are better able to access, control and adjust our inner worlds of personal and subjective states.
As we make good choices, develop more capacity and gain a more accurate knowledge of how the world works, we draw closer to the home of our true selves. Each challenge we successfully overcome further motivates us and increases our courage to advance down the path of life. As we learn to meet our needs in a legitimate, responsible, moral and honest manner, we develop greater self-mastery, autonomy and happiness. When we do not, we fall into diversions, dependencies and addictions to escape the suffering we experience and become prey to impulses and desires we find difficult to resist, which can rob us of the freedom, happiness, brain, heart and courage we seek.
Progressing down the road of life, we learn to delay gratification, control our impulses and strive to gain a victory over our own selves. We learn to correct our views of reality and ourselves, understand the problems we cause others and ourselves, take responsibility for our actions and fulfill our needs in a healthy manner. Our brains, hearts and courage--like our stories, inner values, intelligences and frameworks--evolve as we grow through different experiences and stages of life. New beliefs and behaviors unfold to better understand and facilitate both individual and collective development.
When we help others develop a truer picture of their real selves, including strengths and weaknesses, and have helped them develop their brains, hearts and courage, a new reservoir of energy is freed up, which results in an increase of these capabilities. As we interact with others, the workings of our brains, hearts and courage become visible to others. Therefore, we affect not only our selves, but also our environment, which can begin a cycle of growth that affects both others and ourselves. This feedback cycle can create new motivation and lead to better ways to think, feel and act.
The story of the Wizard of Oz can help us explain and understand the vital characteristics and capabilities of a teacher: knowledge, caring and willpower. The scarecrow, the tin man and the lion metaphorically represent the process of human development as an outcome of developing our knowing, loving and willing faculties. Dorothy found her way home to her true self by helping her traveling companions find their own true selves. In one sense, the teachers are in the role of Dorothy as they reach out to those along their path to help them fulfill their dreams and ambitions. As we help others find truth, love and justice, we ourselves are helped along our own journey.
In another sense, all of the characters are different aspects of our outer and inner lives. The interplay between the brain/mind, emotions/heart and courage/will in becoming a mature person and developing our potential, to get home, is a complex, unfolding and ongoing story.
Teachers need strength to overcome the resistance, self-doubt and deficiencies of the characters that inhabit the inner and outer stories of their lives. Dorothy is at her bravest and best when fighting for others. It is by doing good that we are able to overcome the evil that exists in our world and in our lives. When Dorothy puts out the fire on the scarecrow by throwing a bucket of water on him, she inadvertently destroys the wicked witch.
Like Dorothy, teachers face evil, trickery and adversity all around them. The teacher’s brain, heart and courage help students to find their own. As teachers help students to find their own gifts, talents and selves, they also find their own. We find self-actualization by transcending ourselves through helping others. This is the virtuous cycle of self-realization. On our journey to the gleaming Emerald City of Oz, which we think holds all our answers, happiness and peace, we discover that much of what we were told was real is but an illusion, and that which is authentically true, beautiful and good is only to be found inside.
Like Dorothy, by developing greater authenticity (brain), altruism (heart) and autonomy (courage) through overcoming the challenges of life, we can progress along the road to the home of the true self and appreciate the beauty and nobility that is within each of us. As Dorothy developed her capacities and principles in helping others, she was able to transcend limitations and challenges before her and find her own way home.
By believing in the capabilities of others, she was able to make up her own mind and find her own truth, love and justice. We can use these three fundamental capacities in human development and three foundational principles in life to help others realize their own potential and help others. Through an ongoing dialogue within ourselves and those parts of ourselves represented by Toto, the tin man, scarecrow, lion, witches, wizard and others that we encounter in ourselves and others, we will come to appreciate the truth that there is no place like home.
The Wizard of Oz might represent those reformers and media that pretend to have the answers and hide behind the curtains of half-truths while offering displays of power along with fake diplomas in place of true knowledge, clocks for hearts rather than authentic care and love and worthless medals for courage while they violate basic human rights. The Wizard was only manipulating the teacher (Dorothy) and her students (the scarecrow, tin man and lion) to get what he wanted, with little or no regard for them. It was all a show to placate the people and to retain or get more power.
Other Conceptualizations of the Change Process
Other metaphors and models might be useful in understanding the dynamic interaction of these capacities and principles. For example, we can use the physical world to understand better the workings of our knowing, loving and willing capacities and the principles of truth, love and justice. Like the human body, these faculties and aptitudes develop as they take in, assimilate and utilize food. Simply stated, the food for knowledge is truth, for feelings is love and for will is justice. Many mistakes and errors will be made in the process of refining ourselves, but these unwise acts or decisions can be helpful if we use them to correct and improve our understanding and judgment. As we gradually improving our thinking, feeling and choosing, we expand and consolidate our capacities.
These three faculties and standards may also be compared to the three blades on a rotor of a windmill, wind turbine or helicopter. As the blades of knowledge, love and will seek greater truth, love and justice, they develop greater strength and ability to create more power. External pressures or forces cause the blades of our thoughts, feelings or decisions to rotate transforming wind energy to mechanical and electrical energy. These blades can be adjusted to control the amount of energy created and need to be in balance.
These three human attributes can also be considered via mathematical formulations, such as knowing times loving times willing equals potential value (K x L x W = PV) or truth plus love plus justice equals advancement (T + L + J = A). Each capacity can have a positive, negative or zero value. In addition or multiplication, an increased quantity in any skill positively relates to a corollary increase in positive results. If we use multiplication, positive values result when you put two positives together, loving truth or justice, or when two negatives are put together, such as hating lies or injustice. Negative values result when you put a positive with a negative, such as loving lies or injustice, or in hating truth or justice. Zero values for each of the capacities might be described as ignorance, apathy and indecision (Clarken, 2003).
To accomplish anything, the knowledge, love and will to achieve it are needed. When all three capacities work positively in harmony, the individual and society develop and advance. When any of the three are missing or faulty, problems result. For example, acting without love or knowledge or with misguided love or knowledge is generally ineffective or harmful. Those who do not know how to love or act, and who love falsehood and injustice, will bring trouble to themselves and society.
Leadership and Education
Just as each human being is a complex whole made up of many diverse parts that need to work together as to be healthy, so are communities and institutions. They each build the necessary relationships by developing their cognitive, affective and conative faculties, as they develop their minds, hearts, wills and skills. As truth, love and justice are manifested in the individual, community and institution, they will develop the knowledge, attitudes, values, habits and desire to make their worlds more healthy and whole.
Appreciation and understanding of the essential oneness of humankind, of unity in diversity and of reciprocity will reinforce our efforts to improve education and ourselves. Honoring and applying these three concepts will be essential in any reform process. They serve as powerful organizing ideas for curricula and expressions of deep truth, love and justice. Simply recognizing the oneness and wholeness of the human race would go far to remedying much of the world’s educational, social and economic problems. Further, establishing unity in diversity and realizing its central place in all life is a prerequisite to advancing love and justice. Finally, reciprocity, a basic law of the universe, which has been reflected in moral teachings such as the Golden Rule, is greatly needed as an antidote to the divisiveness and greed that is increasingly characterizing our world.
Most people acknowledge the importance and influence of leadership on individuals, institutions and communities. Effective leadership is influential in assisting these entities to thrive and achieve their goals. Ineffective leadership hampers individual and collective growth and development and is a contributing factor in teachers leaving teaching (Hirsch & Emerick, 2007; Ingersoll, 2003; Marvel et al, 2007). Leadership is, however, contextual: it has to be suited to the conditions and developmental levels of the individuals, communities and institutions affected. As individuals, communities and institutions go through changes and various stages of development, they require different approaches to realize their potentialities.
Like other aspects of culture, leadership needs to evolve along with the communities and institutions within which it functions. Many leadership approaches, which were well suited to an earlier stage of development or a different setting, have yet to be discarded in our changed circumstances. There is a growing disillusionment with the dysfunctional approaches to leadership at all levels in society. As the world continues its onward rush to becoming increasingly united and facing the challenges thrust upon it, it will find it needs new values and leadership styles if it is to succeed (Cowan & Todorovic, 2004; Jacobs, Macfarlane, & Asokan, 1997). We need leaders who champion truth, love and justice.
In some of the bestsellers in the leadership literature, such as The 48 Laws of Power (Greene, 2000) and Leadership Secrets of Attila the Hun (Roberts, 1990), the given wisdom is that one must master the arts of deception, scheming and other vices to be an effective and successful leader. Though these leadership principles may appear to be effective in a competitive environment in which survival of the fittest is the guiding principle, they are actually destructive. A system based on openness, cooperation and collaboration and a more enlightened view of human nature is needed today.
There are signs that a change is underway from the predominantly materialistic interpretations of reality to one that is more aligned with the principles of truth, love and justice (Collins, 2001; Collins & Porras, 1994; Covey, 1989, 1992, 2004; Lee, 1997). Houston and Sokolow (2006) identify eight principles of effective educational leadership: intention, gratitude, openness, attention, unique life lessons, trust, unique talents and holistic perspective.
Education and Society
When a quality education is denied to children at birth because of their parents’ skin color or income, it is not only bad social policy, it is immoral.
Arthur Levine
The richest nation on Earth has never allocated enough resources to build sufficient schools, to compensate adequately its teachers, and to surround them with the prestige our work justifies.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
The Purpose of Education
Education is a fundamental human right that should be extended to all people. Its capacity to improve the conditions of individuals and societies is unlimited. Education should allow each individual to develop his or her potentialities and to be of service to humanity. Our inherent faculties to ascertain truth, manifest love and serve others should be developed so that the communities and organizations to which we belong benefit. To the extent that our minds, hearts and wills allow, we should be enabled to construct meaningful and productive lives that lead to the general advancement of our individual and collective lives. Education should help us develop self-control and self-mastery of our thinking, feeling and choosing capacities.
As we are all different, with different needs and capacities, education will need to address effectively and efficiently this diversity, while maintaining integrity and unity. We might look to the human body, the most complex organism we know of in the universe, for insights and models on how to do this. The human body starts out as stem cells encoded with DNA that gives us our unique physical identities. Comparing the individuals in a society to these cells, we all have a distinctive potential that is waiting to be realized.
What they develop into depends on their genetic potentialities and the environmental conditions that affect them. A stem cell has the flexibility to become any of the many diverse cells in the body needs to function properly. The level of interdependence and diversity found in the human body needs to characterize all the parties and activities of education. The individual cells and organs must work in harmony with the other parts in the body, or every part and the body as a whole suffers. The principle of truth recognizes and honors the multiple realties emerging out of a common genetic framework. The principle of love unifies, harmonizes and holds them all together. The principle of justice is regulates interactions and affairs so that unified processes can proceed in the midst of diverse bodies is given their due rights while they fulfills their responsibilities.
Education begins at conception and ends at death. It is a process of developing capacities of body, mind and spirit. Of these three, the spirit has been most neglected in education, which has contributed to a sense of meaninglessness and moral decline. The ultimate purpose in life is to know, love and abide by the will of that divine impulse that is the source of all being. The universal and divine educators of humanity--the founders of the world religions--have sought to guide us in the path of progress and well-being. We have failed to follow their guidance and have perverted their messages into superstitious, bigoted, hate-filled and oppressive ideologies. Going back to the essence of their teachings would go far to remedying the problems that beset individuals and groups alike.
Education is an evolutionary process, both individually and collective, as we make adaptations to our environments and develop progressive coping skills. Education that prepares individuals for rigid and dysfunctional societies will become obsolescent. Education that does not promote truth, love and justice, will not contribute to the advancement of the individual or the civilization. Ignorant, uncaring and apathetic individuals and groups will be a drag on society. Those who are filled with lies, hate and injustice will be destructive. Education of the whole person—mind, heart and will—to meet the changes and chances of life will lead to the ability to unify humanity and establish justice and peace.
Education and the Reform of Society
Education can be formal (institutional schooling), informal (community and family life), and non-formal (individual learning) (Belle, 1982). Learning is life-long. It can happen anywhere, in any way and at any time. It happens in and is affected by interconnecting systems. There is a human ecology to learning and education.
Schools are institutions of a society and culture. If they are out of step with families, neighborhoods, and communities it produces dissonance. If schools are truly to be reformed, then the families, neighborhoods, and communities must simultaneously change in the same direction. Otherwise, the sociocultural values and intentions slow down and even destroy any progress made within the schools. Even if the schools are successful, the students are alienated from their families and friends because their values and intentions are different, which is emotionally stressful (Huitt, 2011).
According to Rothstein, addressing the achievement gap requires no less than a significant transformation of social and labor policy along with extensive school reform.
Such an analysis provides little room for easy answers and leaves few institutions off the hook. A few inspiring, dedicated teachers will not do the trick. Nor will higher expectations, in isolation, yield big payoffs for those left behind. In fact, school reform itself must be supplemented by a comprehensive compensatory program in the early years of school, along with after-school, summer, and pre-kindergarten programs. Holding schools accountable may be part of the answer, but what schools can do, even when they are at their best, will solve just part of the problem. (Mishel, in Rothstein, 2004, preface)
Ravitch makes a similar claim.
Reformers imagine that it is easy to create a successful school, but it is not. They imagine that the lessons of a successful school are obvious and can be easily transferred to other schools, just as one might take an industrial process or a new piece of machinery and install it in a new plant without error. But a school is successful for many reasons, including the personalities of its leader and teachers; the social interactions among them; the culture of the school; the students and their families; the way the school implements policies and programs dictated by the district, the state and the federal government; the quality of the school’s curriculum and instruction; the resources of the school and the community; and many other factors. When a school is successful, it is hard to know which factor was most important or if it was a combination of factors (2011).
Schools, teachers and teacher education can and should improve, but they should not bear the blame for the economic, social, moral and political problems we are currently facing. The wrong-headed fixes being put upon education by external reformers will do little to help and much to harm the educational process. Our educational system is part of and influenced by the society’s economic, social, moral and political systems. These systems are not working as they should, individually or collectively.
These systems are like the various systems or organs of the body. The health and welfare of one affect the others. Even if education is made perfect, the problems of the society and its institutions will not be solved, partly because these evils are endemic in the body of “the competitive life of a capitalistic state” (Covaleskie, 2010, 84). As these systems are reformed, transformed and healed to work harmoniously together, rather than to compete with one another, education will also get better and play an increasing role in positively influencing the other aspects of the connected body of society and life.
Reformers are focusing on education, schools and teachers, avoiding the more pressing and frightening reality that our overall system needs to be transformed--that we as a society are sick and need to change our ways of living if we are to get better. Our social-economic-political-moral orders are diseased, and a healthy dose of truth, love and justice would go far toward remedying it. We are not doing the job we need to have a prosperous, secure and healthy nation and world and to live up to the ideals framed in our founding documents or set forth by the founders of our religions. As Rothstein observes: “the achievement gap can be substantially narrowed only when school improvement is combined with social and economic reform” (2004, October, p. 2).
Class backgrounds influence relative achievement everywhere. The inability of schools to overcome the disadvantage of less-literate homes is not a peculiar American failure but a universal reality. The number of books in students' homes, for example, consistently predicts their test scores in almost every country (Rothstein, 2004, October, p. 3).
The kinds of changes called for to address our current problems are significant. It is interesting that the people most closely related to the economic and social problems we are facing continue to prosper financially while others, notably teachers and schools, are blamed and punished. The current order of things with its injustices and prejudices is defective. It will need to be replaced with one based on the sounder principles of truth, justice and love.
An example of the lack of care and injustice in our society infecting schooling and education has been the unfair screening, sorting and selecting of individuals for life opportunities and advancement. The system is rigged in favor of the powerful and successful to maintain their advantages in society, the economy and marketplace.
Schools and educators are just part of that system, and, as much as I have believed and wanted to believe that education could save the world, I now realize the world is a much bigger and more complex place than I thought it to be as a young man. I continue to do my part in seeing that my work and efforts as an educator contribute in whatever measure possible to the betterment of humankind, yet realize that there are much stronger currents, which I am powerless to alter and that I am being swept along with the rest of humanity. My writing this book is but one of my many attempts to do what I think I can to make things better.
What Teachers and Schools Can and Cannot Do
Some movies and books tell the stories of teachers who overcame huge obstacles to help their students succeed despite the tremendous odds against them. These stories of teachers and their students are inspiring. I have been privileged to meet and know such teachers; however, most of their stories remain unknown outside those directly affected by them, and even many of those did not recognize the greatness they encountered. I celebrate these teachers and their selfless service to their communities, schools and students. I hope that you know at least one yourself.
Countless stories tell of teachers transforming students’ lives through tremendous dedication, effort and talent. These are exceptional individuals, who like great athletes or artists inspire us with their accomplishments. However, for every star in these fields, thousands of others aspire to these high levels of performance, but do not attain it to the point that they are recognized by others. Yet all will have moments of accomplishment and greatness in their lives that keep them at their endeavors.
Most teachers experience such moments when a student or a class becomes excited about learning. These moments bring hope, joy and satisfaction to teachers as their students realize more of their potential. It is one of the big rewards of teaching: serving in the awakening and unfolding of another’s possibilities. These accomplishments often come after days and weeks of struggling and striving. The more significant and enduring the endeavor, the more time and effort generally required in realizing the full results. Often the fruits of a good teacher’s labor do not become apparent until many years later.
Being considered great depends on many qualities and circumstances, as well as our perceptions. Many teachers and their students are living heroic lives all around us, struggling against all sorts of injustices and wrongs, yet we do not see or appreciate it. They are not given the appreciation or support they deserve. Teachers who are working in the worst schools and with the neediest students are deserving of praise and assistance, but receive criticism and cutbacks instead. Working in such challenging circumstances trying to overcome poverty, hopelessness and despair takes tremendous fortitude and dedication, and is not something most people can sustain over a lifetime career.
A good teacher can be instrumental in helping young people succeed in school, but other things can override that influence. The 1966 report, Equality of Educational Opportunity (Coleman, et al.) attributed much of the difference in school achievement to non-school factors, such as the family’s socio-economic status. This study found that the “differences among schools in average were not nearly as great as expected, and the impact of school resources on student achievement was modest compared to the impact of students’ family backgrounds” (Gamoran & Long, 2006, p. 3). The National Research Council’s Institute of Medicine reported,
The inextricable transaction between biology and experience also contributes to a better understanding of developmental disorders and the effect of early intervention. Hereditary vulnerabilities establish probabilistic, not deterministic, developmental pathways that evolve in concert with the experiential stressors, or buffers, in the family, the neighborhood, and the school. That is why early experiences of abuse, neglect, poverty, and family violence are of such concern. They are likely to enlist the genetic vulnerabilities of some children into a downward spiral of progressive dysfunction. By contrast, when children grow up in more supportive contexts, the hereditary vulnerabilities that some children experience may never be manifested in problematic behavior. Understanding the co-action of nature and nurture contributes to early prevention (Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000).
They measured variance in student achievement that could be attributed to such factors as school facilities, curriculum, teacher qualities, teacher attitudes and student body characteristics and found all only accounted for about 8% of the variance among ninth graders’ verbal achievement score, with only 1% of that being teacher qualities (Coleman, et al., 1966).
The production function methodology and findings of the Coleman report have been contested and further research conducted to try to understand better the effects of teachers and schools. Because of the complexity and interrelationship of contributing factors, several different approaches have been used to try to identify these factors and the degree to which they lead to achievement. One method compared learning during school to learning during summer vacations and found students from disadvantaged backgrounds lost ground over the summer, suggesting schools performed some equalizing function (Heyns, 1978; Entwisle, Alexander, & Olson, 1997; Downey, von Hippel, & Broh, 2004).
Another approach, the school fixed effects model, finds differences among schools but it is less clear on which attributes account for the variation. Hanushek, Kain, and Rivkin, who use this approach, found “lower bound estimates suggest that differences in teacher quality explain at least 7.5 percent of the total variation in measured student achievement, and probably much more” (1998, p. 32).
Other researchers estimate that 60-80 percent of achievement can be attributed to student and family background. Schooling factors are considered to make up about half the remaining variance, with about half that being attributable to the teacher. The remaining half is unknown or unexplained. Nye, Konstantopoulos and Hedges found a range from 7 to 21% in student achievement gains attributed to teachers in the 17 studies they analyzed (2004, p. 240). In short, most of the achievement differences are attributable to factors outside of schools and classrooms. Further, “it seems clear that assertions about the magnitude of teacher effects on student achievement depend to a considerable extent on the methods used to estimate these effects and on how the findings are interpreted” (Rowan, Correnti, & Miller, 2002, p. 9).
Current U.S. policy initiatives to improve the U.S. education system, including No Child
Left Behind, test-based evaluation of teachers and the promotion of competition, are misguided because they either deny or set to the side a basic body of evidence documenting that students from disadvantaged households on average perform less well in school than those from more advantaged families. Because these policy initiatives do not directly address the educational challenges experienced by disadvantaged students, they have contributed little -- and are not likely to contribute much in the future -- to raising overall student achievement or to reducing achievement and educational attainment gaps between advantaged and disadvantaged students. Moreover, such policies have the potential to do serious harm. Addressing the educational challenges faced by children from disadvantaged families will require a broader and bolder approach to education policy than the recent efforts to reform schools (Ladd, 2011).
All of these studies have limitations, which are beyond the scope of our exploration here, but clearly the limited variance among schools and teachers, difficulty in obtaining clear data and connections and the varying analytic approaches make it hard to find significant differences or draw strong conclusions. Another, that we will explore later, is that student achievement is usually measured by standardized tests and represented by a number, which offers a very limited indicator of student learning.
But most reviewers of this literature agree that it is difficult to interpret the relation of school or teacher characteristics and achievement, even after controlling for student background, because they may be confounded with the influences of unobserved individual, family, school, and neighborhood factors. (Nye, Konstantopoulos, & Hedges, p. 238)
If you want to improve the learning in schools, the best and surest way to do so is to get better students, not better teachers. Good teachers can encourage the development of the students’ faculties and capacities, but the students must be able and willing to act in response. Talented, intelligent, committed and motivated students are the most important variable in learning. Though good teachers are extremely valuable, they can only do so much. If you have both a good teacher and good students, the learning will be greatly increased.
We cannot overcome the effects of poverty and deprivation and other differences among students that are highly related to achievement through improved teachers and schools alone, yet we are currently being called do just that by the federal government in the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) (2002). All subgroups of students are to be rated as proficient on standardized tests by 2014. The reality of all schools failing in this charge becomes more apparent with each passing year. This failure could have been predicted from the start, and many believe it was set up to portray schools failing so they can be privatized. In addition, the resources and support that might improve the chances of success are being withdrawn from teachers and schools.
Gifted and dedicated individuals have and will continue to arise out of deplorable conditions to overcome the odds. We need to support and should celebrate such accomplishments, recognizing the courage, will, determination and talent it takes to rise to this level; however, it is not reasonable to expect such heroic endeavors all the time from all schools and teachers. We should not punish those who, for whatever reasons, are not able to surmount the impediments and obstacles that keep them from such laudable accomplishments.
Schools and teachers have to accept the physical, intellectual, social, moral, emotional and psychological conditions of each student who shows up at their door. Unlike private schools, public schools cannot turn away the students they are given to educate. They can and should help each individual to realize his or her fullest potential. Nevertheless, in developing their students’ physical capacities, schools and teachers are largely limited to providing proper nutrition, physical training and environments for that development.
If a society wants to optimize development and improve educational outcomes, the greatest benefit with the least cost is to ensure healthy growth in the womb and the years before school. No amount of intervention or education in school can compensate for failure to develop properly in the womb and before school (Kolb & Whishaw, 1990; Illig, 1998). Our best efforts with the latest science and technologies are unable to fix some of these problems.
[A]n ecobiodevelopmental (EBD) framework for understanding the promotion of health and prevention of disease across the life span that builds on advances in neuroscience, molecular biology, genomics, and the social sciences. Together, these diverse fields provide a remarkably convergent perspective on the inextricable interactions among the personal experiences (e.g., family and social relationships), environmental influences (e.g., exposures to toxic chemicals and inappropriate electronic media), and genetic predispositions that affect learning, behavior, and health across the life span. Applying this EBD framework to the challenges posed by significant childhood adversity reveals the powerful role that toxic stress can play in disrupting the architecture of the developing brain, thereby influencing behavioral, educational, economic, and health outcomes decades and generations later (Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health, Committee on Early Childhood, Adoption, and Dependent Care, and Section on Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 2012, p. e225).
To expect schools and teachers to overcome these limitations alone and to hold them to impossible expectations in the eye of the public is disingenuous. Further, to underfund and denigrate them in the process is immoral.
Students’ minds, hearts and wills, like their bodies, are largely formed in their early years before school. To overcome limitations in any of these areas is not entirely possible, even with the best of intentions and interventions. When schools and teachers, with their limited time and resources, are expected to remedy their students’ individual needs and problems, we can expect failure. It is unrealistic. When it comes to working with the bodies, minds, hearts and wills of their students, schools are limited.
Schools should not be expected to solve problems they did not create, and which they are not given the power, tools or resources to correct. For example, concerning teen pregnancy and promiscuity, schools have been blamed for creating or not solving these problems through mandated sex education. Schools are blamed when crime increases, when minorities and the poor do not perform as well as non-minorities and the wealthy and when civic responsibility is waning.
Many reforms are currently pursued and many wrongs and injustices in our society blamed on education without any clear evidence to support them. When reformers hold schools and teachers responsible for these social problems, they are setting them up for failure. When schools are not supported and given the resources to accomplish their duty, it is those who failed to provide the needed help who should be held accountable.
However, schools and teachers do have a moral duty and responsibility to help all students learn and do their best. If schools or teachers are found in dereliction of that duty, they need to be held accountable. If satisfactory progress is not evident, the schools need to be reconfigured for success and teachers fired. The difficulty is finding reliable and valid measures and standards upon which to base such decisions.
Unlike some other endeavors, the education of human beings involves complexities beyond the reach of current science to accurately determine and measure. It involves at a minimum the hearts, minds and wills of an uncountable number of individuals set in multifaceted communities and institutions that all are connected and affect one another. You cannot expect to reform one without the other. Solutions that may work in one area may not translate well into diverse educational settings.
Most importantly, research reveals that gains in student achievement are influenced by much more than any individual teacher. Others factors include:
• School factors such as class sizes, curriculum materials, instructional time, availability of specialists and tutors, and resources for learning (books, computers, science labs, and more);
• Home and community supports or challenges;
• Individual student needs and abilities, health, and attendance;
• Peer culture and achievement;
• Prior teachers and schooling, as well as other current teachers;
• Differential summer learning loss, which especially affects low-income children; and
• The specific tests used, which emphasize some kinds of learning and not others and which rarely measure achievement that is well above or below grade level (Darling-Hammond, Amrein-Beardsley, Haertel, & Rothstein, 2012, p. 8).
So why is it that policy makers either ignore or deny the overwhelming evidence that school achievement is highly related to family background? Ladd and Fiske (2011) offer the following reasons:
1) they honestly believe schools can offset the negative effects of a bad background,
2) they want to avoid giving the impression of low expectations for discriminated classes,
3) they believe some schools have beat the odds and been successful and
4) they are setting the schools up for failure to discredit them so they can change and privatize them.
The Role of the Family
The family is the basic social and economic unit of society. It is within the family that children receive their first training and education. The health and well-being of the family is reflected in its children, including how well those children function in school. The family is also the key subunit in any community and nation. However, the family is in transition and these changes are having an impact on education and society. The dysfunctions of the family are introduced into the schools and the community. As the physical, social, intellectual, emotional and moral supports of the family break down, children carry these scars and deficiencies with them to school.
The growing scientific knowledge base that links childhood toxic stress with disruptions of the developing nervous, cardiovascular, immune, and metabolic systems, and the evidence that these disruptions can lead to lifelong impairments in learning, behavior, and both physical and mental health…(Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health, Committee on Early Childhood, Adoption, and Dependent Care, and Section on Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 2012, p. e228).
Family engagement is regarded as one of the best strategies for improving student outcomes, and getting parental support is one of the biggest challenges reported by teachers (Johnson, Yarrow, Rochkind, & Ott, 2009).The family in the United States is going through some major changes that are affecting education. The family is a crucible for this change process. As with other aspects in change, there is a dynamic interaction among the individuals, communities and institutions. It is in the family that an individual identity is formed. It is the foundational community and institution of society and civilization. The family influences every individual, community and institution with which it interacts, and is, in turn, influenced by them.
Protecting young children from adversity is a promising, science-based strategy to address many of the most persistent and costly problems facing contemporary society, including limited educational achievement, diminished economic productivity, criminality, and disparities in health (Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health, Committee on Early Childhood, Adoption, and Dependent Care, and Section on Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 2012, p. e228).
The educational institutions and the individuals and communities that participate in them are also major influences in society. Schools, teachers and families need to work together to help students be successful. More specifically, good parent-teacher relations are positively related to high student achievement, healthy social development and college enrollment (Jeynes, 2005; Caspe, Lopez Chu, Weiss, 2011). Teachers and schools must learn how to collaborate more closely with families if they are to be effective in providing the support needed to improve student success (Goe, Bell, & Little, 2008). It is the obligation of every family to educate its children; however, many families do not take this obligation seriously enough.
The need for creative, new strategies to confront these morbidities [developmental, behavioral, educational, and family difficulties] in a more effective way is essential to improve the physical and mental health of children, as well as the social and economic well-being of the nation (Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health, Committee on Early Childhood, Adoption, and Dependent Care, and Section on Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 2012, p. e225)
One of the major changes affecting all of society, but perhaps felt most within the family, is the emerging equalization of rights and opportunities between men and women. Human history has largely been his-story, generally ignoring the role of women. This great injustice is being addressed today. As we work through this transition stage of women assuming their rightful place as equals in the affairs of society, we will necessarily experience many painful but needed adjustments. As we find our way, mistakes will be made in adapting to new attitudes and patterns of behavior. As we lessen the domination of men over women and experiment with new forms of equality that are more suited to the conditions and requirements of this age, we will evolve new knowledge, skills and attitudes.
As women seek their equality with men, one of the strategies is to imitate the ways of men—to be more man-like. Like men, they may use aggression and domination to seek power. However, this is a dysfunctional pattern in men and its being taken up by women only leads to more conflict and dysfunction. We find men and women more in power struggles, as men are reluctant to give up their position of privilege and women are no longer willing to be content with inequity. This changing dynamic has been played out in families.
In addition, we are living in a time when the rights of the individual are considered supreme, which creates a host of other problems for families and schools. One is the breakdown of marriage and family life. Divorce is common and its effects on the children still little understood; however, the evidence is clear that it has an adverse affect. Respect for parents and teachers has significantly eroded. The moral and character training that is foundational for being a successful student and person is not happening within the family to the extent it did in the past. The negative influence of the culture and media on the young is also felt in the schools. We live in an age of narcissists.
All of this affects care giving and child development negatively..
Those who experience the benefits of secure relationships have a more controlled stress hormone reaction when they are upset or frightened. This means that they are able to explore the world, meet challenges, and be frightened at times without sustaining the adverse neurological impacts of chronically elevated levels of hormones such as cortisol that increase reactivity of selected brain systems to stress and threat (National Scientific Council on the Developing Child, 2009, p. 3)
Education Reform and National Reform
The common belief that education allows all people an equal opportunity to realize their potential and that society will reward them equitably on their merits is not true. This falsehood is the foundation of our accepting many unjust and unloving policies and practices. Yet we hold onto the myth that if people try hard they have an equal chance of being successful. This is not true in education, nor is it true in most domains of our society. For example, though we are all supposedly equal before the law, it is apparent and accepted that those with higher status and money have a better chance of getting better treatment and being cleared of any wrongdoing.
Status and money also privilege those who make the laws and policies that affect society and education. Teachers, because of their relatively low socio-economic status, are not generally invited to those policy-making bodies, nor are they consulted about policies related to their area of expertise and professional commitment. As a result, an unfair cycle continues with those in power continuing to make policies that maintain their advantage, while keeping those with less power in their place. It is based on self-interest that frames truth, justice and love in limited ways that appear to serve the greatest good for the greatest number, but do not.
Education happens on many levels and is subject to the influence of many forces. In the United States, education is a state function; however, the states are all subject to federal laws, policies and practices. There are certain problems that are reflected in our education and schools that come from these greater communities in which they are embedded. Let us look at some problems in our society that then become problems in our schools. Schools are being asked to solve these problems, which are beyond their capacity to accomplish with the resources and within the constraints under which they operate. We must address these problems holistically. Expecting and holding education accountable to right such wrongs is unrealistic, and it sets schools and teachers up for failure when it is clear from the outset they are neither the cause nor the cure.
Racism, for example, has been a part of many societies and cultures throughout history. Some of the most atrocious actions of humanity have been justified by racial prejudice and discrimination. Nazism is an example of an ideology based on racism supported by a national infrastructure that brought untold harm to a large segment of humanity. Racism in America has its own unpleasant and unsavory history. We are still reaping the harvest of these past wrongs. Much has been done to address these injustices; however, the scars of racial prejudice are still visible in our nation’s people and culture. However, we are beginning to be more truthful about our stained past and the sciences are uncovering the racial falsehoods and the effects of discrimination.
There is a gap between the educational performance of most minority groups, with all but Asian-Americans scoring below white or European-Americans on the average. The ethnic group for which social indices seem worst are the Native Americans. It is a praiseworthy goal for national educational policies to eliminate or narrow this gap, but it is not a realistic goal to expect schools to accomplish this equalizing of educational attainment in the face of unequal opportunities for these same groups in general society outside of school. It is hypocritical to hold the schools to such a standard, when the policies supporting racism and unequal conditions outside of school work against it.
The same can be said for socio-economic differences, which are also reflected in racial differences. Classism is also endemic throughout the world and those from lower classes have less opportunity and on the average do less well in schools. The discrimination based on class in the United States seems to be taking a different tack than that of race, as the differences between the wealthy and the poor are increasing rather than decreasing. As schools are saddled with ever more mandates and responsibilities and given less support, their ability to address the inequities between classes lessens rather than improves. Students from lower socio-economic classes generally need more support to be successful in schools. Expecting schools to narrow the gap in achievement for these students with fewer resources, larger classes and less individualized attention goes against what we know about education.
Schools have made notable progress with education of females, though equity outside of classroom achievements is still a distant goal. Sexism is a worldwide problem, and the United States can claim to be among the leaders in addressing this problem, especially in educating its young. However, sexism can be seen in another aspect of education: in the realm of teaching itself. The majority of teachers are women, and teaching is perceived as a female profession. As a result, it receives less status and pay. As other professions that have higher status and pay, such as medicine and law, have become open to women in recent times, many of the women who would have gone into teaching, as once one of the few job options open to them, choose professions, such as medicine and law, with more prestige and opportunity. However, teaching and education, which continue to be dominated by women, are still treated as second-class professions.
The question of morality in schools is a controversial one. Different countries have chosen to deal with these issues in different ways. I do not want to debate the merits of these approaches here, but as U. S. schools are often blamed for the moral problems of society, we need to discuss it. Schools did not cause these problems alone, they cannot solve these problems alone and they are not given the proper power or tools to do their proper part in addressing them. Their moral responsibilities to their students and society are realities, which I believe most educators take seriously. However, when the greater society has lost its moral compass and the leaders are seen as corrupt, it is difficult to overcome these influences.
More seriously affecting problems in schools and education, greater than any of the significant societal problems above is the general breakdown of the social and moral order, including the loosing of ties of the family and marriage, the corruption of morals at all levels of society and the consequent failure of young people to develop healthy values. The sense of responsibility, shame and moral uprightness has eroded. We have become apathetic. We seek to be entertained rather than educated. We do not respect the people and qualities that are calling us to our higher selves.
Materialism, and its expression in the United States as unbridled consumerism, is a part of this moral breakdown. It is a difficult subject to discuss, because like racism and sexism a generation ago, it is not perceived as a problem, but as the way things are and work. This materialistic ideology permeates all aspects of our lives. It contributes to and it intimately connects to racism, classism, sexism and other corruptions in our nation. When individuals are reduced to consumers and education as a means to making more money, we have lost our way and our future well-being is in serious jeopardy. When human beings and human values are sacrificed for the market and economic advantage of others, civilization is in trouble.
This materialistic ideology contravenes the very principles of truth, love and justice. Like the prevailing “isms” of the twentieth century that have now been discredited, such as fascism, communism and Nazism, materialism and its current expression in unfettered free-market capitalism and consumption are based on falsehoods. Materialism and its systems violate the principle of love by sacrificing the welfare of human beings to causes such as money, power and the party. Finally, justice has not been served in any of these ideologies, as the world’s wealth and advantages are unfairly distributed to the haves while the mass of humanity are left wanting for the necessities of life.
Like the individual states in the United States of America, this country is a state among the other nation states in the world. The United States of America has and will continue to play an important role in the reform and transformation of the world. We need to begin to see ourselves more as citizens of the world. We have important responsibilities to play on the world stage in helping usher in an age of justice, unity, peace and prosperity.
Our sense of nationalism must be tempered if we wish to serve our own best interests. As each state can have its form of state loyalty, we can also be loyal to our nation while recognizing further the value of loyalty to a grander scheme of world interconnectedness and cooperation that can assure the welfare of and regulate the affairs of all its member states. Failure to accomplish this next stage in expanding unity will negatively influence all aspects of life, including education. Therefore, let us now briefly explore the reform of education in the context of world reform and transformation.
Education Reform as Part of World Reform
We are in a time of rapid transition from old ways and patterns to new conditions and challenges. Humankind has the capacity to harness the many powers on earth, but fails to wield that awesome power in a responsible and moral way. Former wisdom is not capable of addressing the problems and conditions we face. We must rise to these new challenges or potentially perish. Although our problems far exceed those that can be solved by schools, education can and must play a part.
As we have dramatically expanded our boundaries of knowledge and our understanding of the universe, we have greater capacity for good and evil. The range of human possibility and imagination is multiplying geometrically. As never before in history, we can destroy life or cause it to flourish. It does not seem that the outcome of these billions of years of evolution of the universe should be that we destroy our habitat and our very basis of life.
The world is changing at an ever-accelerating pace. The social institutions have not kept pace with the needs, exigencies and requirements of this changing world. Old systems, ideas and attitudes must give way to new. This change can happen with gradual, incremental adjustments to new patterns and ways of doing things, but history has often shown that the reconciling of the way things were with the new ways is like the meeting of two plates of earth, one moving in such a way as to crash up against the other. This fault line builds stress, which can be released by minor adjustments or quakes, but when the pressure increases, a dramatic shift happens, causing destruction through a great quaking.
One such shift we are facing is the transition to a new world order from the current system of independent sovereign nations. The evidence mounts and the tensions will continue to rise as the current order cannot meet the needs or protect the interest of what has become a global community. However, world leaders cling to a defective and out-dated system that brings us closer to collapse as we fail to address the worldwide economic, environmental, political and social problems that can only be solved through some form of world structure. Rather than establish global legislative, executive and judicial institutions and systems that can effectively regulate world affairs to create order and prosperity, it appears we will have to experience a severe enough breakdown, some worldwide catastrophe that violently shakes us to our senses, before we act in the best interests of humanity. Education did not cause these problems, and it cannot solve them.
We have only to look to the benefits that resulted when the independent colonies formed the federal system of the United States of America, to get a glimpse of the benefits that would come to the world if it created a similar system for the independent states in the world. In fact, the needs, conditions and the opportunities today make such a union of world states more necessary, attainable and likely than the formation of the original thirteen colonies of the United States. The nations of the world are more closely connected and interconnected to one another than the colonies were two hundred years ago.
However, we should not and cannot reasonably expect those leaders who are products, defenders and beneficiaries of the present political structures to lead us toward a solution that would compromise their positions and power. Ironically, they have the most to lose if they do not work toward increasing world collaboration, and it is the most powerful nations who will suffer the most in failing to create a world system of governance that would protect the interests of all. Such world cooperation and collaboration would herald a new age of prosperity. The enormous resources and energy that go into military, economic and other defense could be used for the betterment and benefit of humanity.
World War I impelled the leaders to form the League of Nations and World War II the United Nations, each steps in the right direction, but not enough. Without these wars, even these steps very likely would not have been taken. Will it take yet another worldwide conflagration or breakdown of order to cause the world’s leaders to take the next step in adjusting the political machinery to serve the needs of an ever more quickly evolving world? Will it take a world-shaking earthquake to realize that our current structures are defective? Modern institutions were not built to withstand the dramatic and revolutionary needs of this new age. If they do not adjust rapidly and substantially, they will be replaced by new structures and institutions designed to withstand the problems that humanity faces at this climacteric in human history.
What does all of this have to do with education reform in my school? It is just another example, this time on a world scale, of the reforms needed in the world for nations and states to be able to function properly. When these adjustments have been made, the problems of schools will likewise become more solvable in due order. Both must try to improve and help one another to make the necessary adjustments to be successful in this new world order.
Economics and Education Reform
It is true that education is intimately connected to the economy and the economy to education. It is understood and generally accepted that more education means more earning capacity. Data comparing different levels of education achievement with lifetime earnings and several quality of life factors strongly support this connection. Furthermore, research generally supports the notion that communities and nations that are more educated generally do better than less educated ones. We expect that improved education will have beneficial effects for individuals, communities and institutions. Reform of an individual, community and institution will influence their respective environments, just as changing environments will affect them. However, how these mutual reactions will affect future events is hard to predict, and whether a reform will have its desired effect will take time and some study to determine.
What is economically just when it comes to education? Most would agree that an education is one of the most foundational rights. The United States government agreed upon this principle concerning the right to education in the beginning, however inequitably it was applied. It assigned this responsibility to the individual states. Defunding public education, both K-12 and higher, means those who most need it and are least able to access or afford it are left out. This is unjust. Teachers are responsible to provide the highest service to their students and society, and their students and society should support them in this process. The rights of each must be preserved and upheld. Justice should be the ruling principle in both schools and society, not profit.
We are living in a country and world that increasingly subscribes to neoliberal values that are having a negative impact on education (Weiner, 2011). Neoliberalism is a confusing term, as most people associate liberal with a more equitable distribution of wealth and a greater role of government in addressing the needs of society. Therefore, neoliberals would be new liberals; however, they are just the opposite: they are neoconservative politically. Neoliberalism got started in the United States with the economic policies of President Reagan with his decisions to liberalize the economic system through deregulation. This is also when income inequality began to accelerate in the U.S. with supply-side and trickle-down economics. Peter Gowan argues that this was the beginning of neoliberal policies throughout the world, as other countries were forced to liberalize their financial regulations and banking systems to compete with the United States, the dominant economy and sole superpower in the world (1999).
Neoliberalism, a market-driven approach to economic and social policy, promotes the transfer of the economy from the public to the private sector. Neoliberals believe that their approach will create a more efficient government and improve the economy. They believe that private enterprise will run things more efficiently and that the private sector should be allowed to maximize profits, have open markets and be free of governmental control or regulations. The neoliberal agenda imagines that corporations and businesses, left alone, will self-regulate and do what is in the best interests of the community and individuals with whom they interact.
Neoliberals believe individual competition, profit, greed and privatization are good. Tax breaks and financial incentives are given to the very wealthy individuals and corporations while funding for education and other services for the public good is being cut. The poor and disenfranchised throughout the world are being exploited by greed and neoliberal powers and philosophies. These models are not sustainable, and as the gap between the poor and the wealthy increases, the stability and welfare of the world decreases.
As education is primarily an activity supported, controlled and sponsored by government, educational reform decisions and influence are felt very directly. Politicians control the funding and laws regulating education, including the curriculum. This trend seems to be growing rather than diminishing.
If the United States was to reduce its income inequality to something like the average of the four most equal of the rich countries (Japan, Norway, Sweden, and Finland) the proportion of the population feeling they could trust others would rise by 75 per cent—presumably with matching improvements in the quality of community life; rates of mental illness and obesity might similarly each be cut by almost two-thirds, teenage birth rates could be more than halved, prison populations might be reduced by 75 per cent, and people could live longer while working the equivalent of two months less per year (Wilkinson and Pickett, cited in Marsh, 2011, p. 62-63).
Though Wilson and Pickett’s findings have been challenged, their thesis is intriguing. Most education reforms are centered on the economic implications or repercussions of education, either directly or indirectly. As discussed elsewhere, when the economy is bad, education is attacked. Reformers are interested in getting more for their money from education and holding educators accountable for the funds spent on education. This latest round of reforms also seems to be fueled by economic concerns. Some feel these claims are disingenuous. “All too often, those who promote education as a solution to entrenched economic (or racial) inequalities do so, whether consciously or not, as a way to absolve themselves of the policies that create those inequalities in the first place” (Marsh, 2011, p. 116).
The serious economic problems in society are being blamed on bad teachers and schools, when the reality is something quite different.
Children who grow up in families facing economic hardship commonly exhibit elevated cortisol levels. …The realization that stresses experienced by parents and other caregivers can affect a child’s developing brain architecture and chemistry in a way that makes some children more susceptible to stress-related disorders later in life is startling news to most people (National Scientific Council on the Developing Child, 2009, pp.4- 5).
Not only do teachers face blame for not doing enough, but they also face funding cuts as they struggle to meet the growing needs of their students. The budgetary cuts to education, from states trying to deal with their own growing budget deficits, severely threaten the well-being of schools. Part of that attack to limit schools’ power, both politically and financially, is intended to curtail the collective bargaining rights of teachers. Let us look in detail at the current economic situation in the United States and its implications for education.
The Center on Education Policy reported in 2011 that about 70% of all school districts had funding cuts last year and about 84% expect cuts this year. About 85% of schools with funding reductions last year cut teachers and staff, and 66% of them postponed or stopped reform initiatives. Because of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, better known as stimulus funding, many layoffs and cuts were prevented in 2010, but only about 30% will have any ARRA funds left for 2011-2012. The jobs and programs these funds saved will be lost in the face of state budget shortfalls that have led to decisions throughout the country to cut back on education funding.
According to a study by Emmanuel Saez (2009), the wealthiest 1% earn more than 20 % of all the money currently generated in this country, and the last time the gap was so wide was in 1928 just before the stock market crash and the Great Depression. Almost all but this 1% of Americans have experienced a net loss in their worth in recent years. Ervin Laszlo also recognizes the unsustainably and instability of the inequities in wealth distribution, which is growing worse daily.
The richest 20 per cent earn 90 times the income of the poorest 20 per cent, consume 11 times as much energy, eat 11 times as much meat, have 49 times the number of telephones, and own 145 times the number of cars. The net worth of 500 billionaires equals the net worth of half the world population (2006, p. 16).
In short, the income gap between the wealthy and the poor is at an all-time high and increasing. Among other things, “there have been studies showing that growing levels of income inequality are associated with increases in crime, profound strains on households, lower savings rates, poorer health outcomes, [and] diminished levels of trust in people and institutions” (Raskin, 2011).
As Stephen Kotkin noted in commenting on Goldin and Katz’s book The Race Between Education and Technology, “During the first 70 years of the 20th century, inequality declined and Americans prospered together. Over the last 30 years, by contrast, the United States developed the most unequal distribution of income and wages of any high-income country” (2008). Goldin and Katz credit education with helping the United States become the world’s richest nation (2008). Though the U.S. education system “created an egalitarian system that put the elite systems of Europe to shame” (p. 129) during the first part of the 20th century, it has lost that distinction in the last forty years.
The key features or “virtues” they identified in their research that were instrumental in U.S. education development were public funding, public provision and separation of church and state. These writers also credit the decentralized system and an open structure that allowed girls to receive an education and the willingness to forgive mistakes and past failures. These basic egalitarian and democratic principles grew out of the ethic of the nation, which resulted in the United States having a school enrollment rate and educational attainments better than any other nation by the 1850’s. This progressive educational system of expanding educational opportunity continued to lead the world until the 1980’s.
Worsening economic conditions make education harder, as can be witnessed in schools that serve low-income students. Poverty is a great barrier to educational attainment. As the ranks of the poor grow and as the middle class loses its buying power, these problems can be expected to grow along with other social evils. Reformers have castigated educators for their failure to remove or significantly lessen the disparities in academic achievement between the lower and high economic classes. When educators appeared to excuse their inability to eliminate this gap based upon the resources needed to bring disadvantaged students up to the performance levels of more advantaged students, critics derided their excuses. However, when these same reformers have tried to educate low-income students on a large scale, they have also failed to make significant progress, for the same reasons given earlier by the dedicated educators whom they had opposed (Tough, 2011).
This pattern of reformers blaming the educators is being played out again. Reforms are proposed, but when they fail to bring the promised results, educators are blamed and excuses made. Critics do not offer clearly better or more viable alternatives. Charter schools might be offered as an example. Like other schools that reformers have touted as having made a difference, charter schools on the average perform less well than comparable publics, though they have the advantage of selecting their students. Mathematica Policy Research gave the following key finding on the impacts of charter schools in its final report to the U.S. Department of Education.
On average, charter middle schools that hold lotteries are neither more nor less successful than traditional public schools in improving student achievement, behavior, and school progress. . Participating schools had no significant impacts on math or reading test scores either a year or two years after students applied, other measures of academic progress (such as attendance or grade promotion), or student conduct within or outside of school. Being admitted to a study charter school did significantly and consistently improve both students’ and parents’ satisfaction with school (2010, p. xvii)
According to ,
Charter schools get overwhelmingly positive press and make a lot of claims about their success. But actually, numerous studies confirm that their achievement is indistinguishable from that of traditional public schools. Some are very successful, some are troubled and struggling, and the rest are somewhere in between just like traditional public schools (Chen, 2009, p. 1).
Financing Education
A foundation principle of economics is benefit-cost analysis. This principle is also foundational in education financing. When considering whether the benefits warrant the costs in education, both the long term and secondary benefits of education must be considered. This is an enormously complex process in education.
The U.S. egalitarian model provided free public schools for everyone starting with elementary education and later expanding to secondary. By the mid-twentieth century, public support for post-secondary education had become widespread. The United States investment in public supported education seems to have provided many benefits. Other societies that have invested in learning for their citizens have had also had encouraging results, finding more education being positively related to improved economic and physical wellbeing.
At a time when schools and teachers need greater community and state support, they are being made the villains in our current economic problems and punished by having resources, respect and rights withheld. Alleged bloated school budgets and excessive teachers pay, job security and benefits are being blamed for bad state budgets. These accusations do not accord with the facts. Teachers do not enter into the profession for the pay or benefits. They have been portrayed as only interested in themselves, which is hard to defend in light of the sacrifices they make for their students and communities.
Though schools must be run according to sound financial and business practices, they are not banks or businesses and their purpose in not to make a profit. They are social institutions, like families and social service agencies, designed for the welfare of children and the public good. Like parents, social workers and ministers, teachers are to serve their clients to the best of their ability. Teachers’ measures of success are how they have helped develop young minds and characters, not in profits made or widgets produced.
Many ways of financing education have been tried. In the United States, financing has been largely from public funds collected through taxation and other governmental revenue. It was largely because elementary and then secondary education were publicly funded that the U.S. was able to get so many of its citizens educated and lead all nations educationally.
Some mixture of public and private financing is also common, where education is paid in whole or part by the person, families or some other non-governmental entity. Those paying for their or their children’s education tend to take a greater interest in their financial investment and expect the benefits of learning and advancement to be forthcoming. For those with the means and the disposition to educate their children or themselves, well and good, but many do not. It is important for the welfare of the entire community that all its citizens be educated and equipped to be contributing members of society. For this reason, public financing of education is necessary and has lead to the advancement of those who have it.
Public universities mostly run on a mixed model of public and private financing that seems to have worked fairly well. Part of their funding comes from money raised by government and the balance from tuition paid by the student. To make access more equitable, financial aid, often funded by the government as well, has been given to those qualified students less able to pay the tuition rates. As funding from governmental sources is reduced for education, universities have raised the tuition the students must pay, thereby shifting the costs from the state to the students. Though this makes it more difficult for students without financial means to pay for post-secondary education, universities can still provide their educational services and some tuition money can be distributed to help the more needy students. Because of this change, the debt that college students accrue has increased substantially over the last few years.
A variation of this model might be feasible for K-12 public education. Allow elementary and secondary schools to charge some tuition and fees, but assure that all students regardless of ability to pay are given an opportunity to receive a good education. This approach, sometimes referred to as “pay to play,” is being used for some school athletic programs. We already have a system of private schools and universities that are privately funded. They do have scholarship systems to allow talented but financially unable students to attend.
However, if we move from our present system of free education for all citizens, then we must balance the principles of truth, justice and love in developing a new financing model. One of the things that has made the United States great has been its dedication to democracy and egalitarianism. It has provided care and opportunity for the disenfranchised, poor and needy. One of the reasons the cost of schools has almost doubled over the last four decades (Rothstein, 2011), is the expanding efforts to provide an education to all children, many of whom require significant resources to educate.
The costs of educating the children with special needs, children largely excluded from public schools in the past, requires more funding. By encouraging our humanitarian and philanthropic natures, we can further help our fellow man. A graduated income tax performs a similar function and may be more efficient and equitable for providing a quality education and other services for all. In the end, we must ask ourselves what are our priorities and what are the consequences of the choices we make. As Dr. M. L. King said in 1967, a “ nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.”
Evaluating Popular Reform Proposals
“The influence of social class characteristics is probably so powerful that schools cannot overcome it, no matter how well trained are their teachers and no matter how well designed are their instructional programs and climates” (Rothstein in Marsh 2011, p. 211).
The Tragedy of American School Reform
Let us look at the Michigan Department of Education’s (MDE) Office of Professional Preparation Services (OPPS) proposed administrative rules changes to the teacher and administrator certification code as an example of what is happening throughout the United States. Michigan, like several other states, is in the midst of some of the most dramatic and damaging changes in educational policy that has occurred in memory and seem to be a growing trend. The proposed rules allow easy ways to obtain an interim teaching certificate without quality assurances, lower educational requirements for continuing licensure and have low standards and expectations for alternative route preparation and certification for teachers, principals and central office administrators.
This recent policy reform process is a continuation of a conservative attack on education that started gaining prominence in the 1970’s, partly as a backlash to liberal changes introduced into schools in the 1960’s (Evans, 2011). More recently, of U.S. Department of Education has been promoting this agenda. The most recent and dramatic example was their Race to the Top (RTTT) fund of 4.35 billion dollars in competitive grants to states that that best meet their reform agenda and requirements. Many states passed laws and changed their policies in attempts to be more competitive to receive funding, and most of these laws remain on the books even though these states were not selected.
Among them were laws allowing for alternative routes to teacher and administrator certification, which the Michigan legislators passed in 2010 in an attempt to receive part of this substantial funding. With the election of a new governor and state legislators who have continued to aggressively and effectively move ahead their education reform agenda, change is accelerating with little or no input or discussion from educators. I understand the rationale of the legislators passing these laws and policies to obtain millions of federal dollars for their state, but I do not think these laws and the suggested changes serve the best interests of the state or the stated intentions of the governor and legislators. As Michigan was not selected to receive the RTTT funding, the need for these laws to compete for that money no longer exists.
On April 27, 2011, Michigan Governor Snyder delivered a special message on education reform. In it, he stated, “Michigan’s future is absolutely dependent on making our education system a success for our students, our teachers, our parents and our economy” (p. 1). I believe that is true, however, I think it is equally true that Michigan’s future is also dependent on making our political, economic, social and moral systems a success. All of these systems greatly influence education, while education influences them. Fixing education alone will not solve our problems, but it can go far in creating the foundation for improving all of the other systems. For example, the decisions currently being made by the politicians will harm the ability of teachers and schools to perform their functions in our society, as will worsening economic, social and moral conditions in our state.
I also believe in the Governor’s statements: “Change does not have to create adversaries; it can create partners committed to a better future. The vast majority of Michigan educators and teachers are hard-working and committed to a prosperous future for their students” (p. 2). Those hard-working and committed educators want to collaborate with state government to help create a better future and the best education system in the world, but most feel they are being treated as adversaries, not as partners. See Appendix A for the letter I sent to the governor asking to work with him to improve education.
We educators take our responsibilities very seriously and want the best for our students and communities. If there are educators or schools who do not and who are not fulfilling their duties in a responsible manner, we should work together to either improve them or, if needed, to replace them. There are ineffective teachers and schools that need to be dealt with honestly, responsibly and justly, but to castigate all teachers and schools and jettison the system without sound or justifiable cause is not a wise or judicious use of governmental powers. The educational policy reforms are not based on the best we know about education.
The proposed administrative rules suggest that anyone who knows a subject should be allowed to be a teacher and any manager or leader with three years experience should be allowed to be a school administrator. One of the great things about our country is the opportunity for people to become what they aspire to be. For example, state laws allow most adult citizens in the state to be governor or a state legislator. However, not just anyone gets to be governor, a legislator or whatever he or she wants to be in Michigan. In fact, of all the people who want to be governor, only one person in the state is allowed to be governor, and that person goes through a fairly extensive vetting process to determine their eligibility and worthiness to serve in that office. So though we all should have an opportunity to be and do what we want, that does not mean everyone could or would do a good job at it.
The same is true of teachers. Many people aspire to be teachers, but only those who meet the standards set by the state are allowed to run for office to teach. At my university, about half of those who wanted to become teachers were allowed to enter and complete the program. Of those certified in Michigan, less than half will be selected by Michigan schools to actually be teachers, and of those, only about half of them will still be teachers after five years. Not all candidates who wish to be teachers are selected, nor are all selected hired to the job, and, of those who are, not all are successful when they finally assume the full responsibilities of their positions.
In the perception on many in our society, teaching is for mediocre students and teacher education programs admit and retain students with low academic ability. Though critics often note that the SAT scores of high school students who say they want to become teachers are lower than the average of other college-bound students, they do not say how many of those students actually get into teaching or graduate as teachers. We have file drawers filled with students who wanted to become teachers, but did not meet our academic standards.
At my institution and others I know about, teacher education students actually graduate with grade point averages that are higher than of students not preparing to become teachers. I am not talking here about overall grade point averages of students, as some claim education students have inflated grade points because of the courses they take. If we compare only teacher candidates’ grade point averages in the subjects for which they are being certified to teach with those students who are majoring in the subject, but are not in teacher education, the teacher education students get higher grades. For example, teacher education students in mathematics and science get higher grades than straight majors do in the same content courses. In addition, education students majoring in these subjects are required to take and pass a required test to demonstrate mastery of their content, whereas the straight majors are not.
Almost all states require that students pass standardized tests in basic skills before they can enter into a teacher education program as well as pass a test in their special subject matter to be certified to teach that subject. The states set the standards needed in the basic skills to enter into teacher education and in the content knowledge to be certified as a teacher. If evidence suggests these standards are deficient, then the states can raise them. Likewise, medical and law students are required to achieve a certain score to be admitted into their professional programs. What other professions have these requirements?
This raises several questions. Do we need more people running for the office of teacher for our local schools? Should we open the doors so that anyone can be eligible to be teacher? How do we then decide who can best educate and serve the needs of our children? Do we need alternate routes to allow more candidates to become teachers when we are already producing more than enough? What qualities will the reforms bring that will improve our schools and students? How do we know that? What is broken in our current system that requires the reforms suggested? In short, is it true, is it loving and is it just?
Teacher Education
Strong programs recruit, select, and prepare teachers who have or learn the skills and knowledge they need to be hired into teaching positions, be retained in them, and lead their students to strong learning gains,” the administration wrote in its proposal. “Weak programs set minimal standards for entry and graduation. They produce inadequately trained teachers whose students do not make sufficient academic progress.” From
Teacher education has become the object of criticism from several sectors. The U.S. Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, has recently made public statements on the mediocrity of teacher education. Like many of the attacks on education in general, these criticisms seem ill informed and disingenuous. Like many other statements, they are also subjective and, I believe, ideologically driven. They are not amenable to proof being neither provable nor falsifiable. They are given as statements of fact, and those who disagree with them are accused of bias, self-interest or some other wrong.
One of the attacks on teacher education has come in the form of states approving alternative routes to teacher certification that do not require the completion of accredited teacher education programs and the high standards and strong clinical experiences they require. As mentioned, these processes was greatly accelerated and strengthen in the United States Department of Education (USDOE) Race to the Top (RTTT) fund competition that strongly encourage states to expand alternate teacher and school administrator certification, along with a host of other destructive policies.
Kate Walsh, the president the National Council of Teacher Quality (NCTQ), praised the U.S. Secretary of Education’s inclusion of alternative certification plans in RTTT, but felt that it should not explicitly require a clinical or student teaching experience. Interestingly, one year later, her organization launched a review of student teaching programs across the United States. This NCTQ’s study, like all of its others, was flawed on several fronts, one being they use “self-derived standards and methodologies to make simplistic assumptions about a complex, dynamic and evolving component of education preparation” (American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education, 2011, July 21, p. 1).
Its conclusions are also suspect. The NCTQ report on student teaching listed Vanderbilt University’s student teaching program as “weak”, whereas U.S. News and World Report, its partner in a current study to rank all teacher education programs in the nation, ranks it as its number one “Best Education School.” Among the 10 programs identified by NCTQ as models, one of them is identified as “at-risk” by its state department of education.
The National Center for Alternative Certification (Feistritzer, 2010) reports the number of new alternative-route-prepared public school teachers hired has risen to about one out of three nationally. In 1997-98, 6,028 teachers were certified through alternative routes. By 2007-08, that number had increased tenfold to 62,000. All but two of the states have some type of alternative route to become a certified teacher (Feistritzer, 2010).
Alternative routes to teacher certification vary in quality. Many are offered through universities and some have higher standards and expectations than traditional programs. I became a teacher through an alternative non-traditional route: the Wisconsin Indian Teacher Corps, an intensive two-year program that included university coursework in summers and during two full school years of internship in schools serving Indian children. I felt it was excellent preparation to be a teacher and exceeded expectations and requirements of most traditional education programs. However, most alternative routes to certification require less of and give less to their teacher candidates.
Let us look more closely at what is happening in one state, Michigan. Michigan Governor Snyder urged “the State Superintendent and Department of Education to quickly allow teachers to enter the profession through alternative certification. They then would be held to the same rigorous performance standards and student proficiency requirements as any other teacher” (2011, p. 11). In other words, as the subsequent proposed changes in the state’s certification codes suggests, those who become teachers through alternative certification will not be held to the same rigorous performance standards of teacher candidates before they enter the classroom or school administrator’s office, but will be expected to meet them when placed there. How do they expect they will do that without prior preparation? Who will be responsible to monitor and determine that? What makes us think that if they are not held to the same rigorous standards before being allowed to be a teacher or administrator, that they will do so when given those responsibilities?
There currently exists an Alternative/Experimental Teacher Preparation Approaches where approved Michigan teacher preparation institutions may request waivers of some requirements for trying out research-based new approaches to prepare teachers. Several teacher preparation institutions (TPIs) in Michigan have state-approved alternative approaches for candidates seeking teacher certification. These programs, along with the other routes to teacher certification, supply the needed quality and quantity of teachers in the state. In fact, these routes combined provide for more twice the amount of teachers than can be employed in the state. As a result, these well-prepared and respected new teachers from Michigan colleges and universities are heavily recruited by other states. Why would Michigan or out-of-state schools hire teachers from alternative programs that are not required them to meet the same standards other programs are held to by the state when a surplus of those well-prepared teachers exist?
Alternate routes to certification that do not meet high standards allow a double standard in who is certified. The alternative programs are not held to the same standard as teacher preparation institutions in Michigan. Though Michigan Governor Snyder called for “more in-classroom clinical experience for all teacher candidates” (p. 10) in his April 27, 2011 reform message, the rules for alternative routes to certification greatly reduces it. Though he says we need “rigorous performance-centered assessment of teaching” (p. 10), the proposed code his administration is pushing does not include such standards for alternative routes to teaching. He also says that no one should be allowed “to practice on our young people without demonstrating sufficient proficiency with the highly skilled work needed for teaching” (p. 10) while the proposed change allows just that.
The political leaders of many states continue to proclaim we need better prepared teachers, but we are taking away one of the most proven and established methods of professional development by not requiring that teacher complete a planned program of teacher education through university programs. Interestingly, not only do our leaders call for higher education and many institutions and states actually require a master’s degree to teach, in Finland, which has the highest regarded education program in the world, all teachers must have a master’s degree to be eligible to teach. Why would we go backwards in our expectation of teachers by both lowering the requirements to become a teacher and to obtain a professional certificate? Based on the lesson from countries like Finland, instead of reducing the number of credits and expectations required for entry into teaching, continuing service and professional development, we should be requiring more.
In Michigan, they are also changing the rules on who can be a school administrator to requiring only three years of leadership experience in a setting other than a school without any formal training in education. This does not provide the knowledge or background needed to be a successful school administrator. They could have managed a fast food restaurant, construction site, their own business or lead a neighborhood block party. The outcome of successful school leadership is an effective learning environment that results in “effective people,” not hot, timely burgers, or success in the business world. Why have such low standards and regulations for alternative routes while we are striving for higher standards in education? We are preparing the future of Michigan. There is too much at stake to lower the educational requirements of school leaders.
I appreciate that the Governor wants to allow quick entry into teaching and administration for those who do not want to or necessarily need to go through standard programs. The alternative routes allowed in Michigan’s certification code do not provide for the same rigorous standards that other candidates who wish to become teachers or administrators must meet. Alternatives should exist and do exist. If more needs to be done, then work within the established and proven structures to do it.
Increased clinical experience is being called for in reform proposals. I question on what these reformers are basing their recommendations. Currently traditionally prepared students generally have extensive field experiences. The rhetoric behind these proposals seemed to be aimed at criticizing teacher education as irrelevant or unnecessary. Popular programs with policy makers are alternative routes to teaching that require very limited education coursework or clinical experience in education programs. They put their teacher candidates with only subject content knowledge in classrooms after intensive two to six week orientations. The trend is to allow any alternative that claims to be better or cheaper to certify teachers. Teach For America (TFA) is the most well known, prestigious and popular of these programs.
I believe it is true that teachers learn from experience, but that experience needs to be directed for professional skills and attitudes to be properly developed and derived from a sound knowledge base. Before we accept the complaints about teacher education programs being of low quality, low standards, too theoretical, or too removed from the day-to-day realities of the classroom, let us examine what a current teacher education program requires of its candidates to be recommended for certification. What are the duties of the teacher and how can teacher education programs develop and assess those duties to determine that their teacher candidates know how and are able to be effective in a classroom?
Finally, surveys consistently show that teachers generally feel the teacher education program they graduated from did a good to excellent job preparing them to be a teacher. They believe from their personal experience that their educational institutions and teachers, elementary, secondary and post-secondary, are doing and have done a good job. Like any profession, whether medicine, law or some other trade, you may never feel truly prepared for your first year on-the- job, but you have been given a enough experience and a foundation upon which to build.
Duties of the Teacher
The evaluation of those hoping to become teachers is the primary responsibility of teacher education programs and certifying agencies. These programs are to identify capable candidates and help them develop the qualities needed to be successful teachers. Throughout the process of becoming a teacher, they assess these students’ skills, knowledge and attitudes. Those that do not meet the standards are not allowed to continue in the program.
Educational and field experiences to develop and demonstrate competency help determine the students’ ability to carry out the responsibilities of a teacher. These experiences offer multiple sources of data for evaluation to determine if the necessary competencies are present to an adequate degree. If not, then remediation or removal is prescribed. The minimal competencies expected at each stage in the teacher education program are met before a candidate can advance to the next level.
Scriven identified five categories of the duties of the teacher: 1) knowledge base, 2) instructional competence, 3) assessment competence, 4) professionalism and 5) other services to the school and community (1994). He considered these duties "the only legitimate basis for teacher evaluation" (1993, p. 4). They can serve as a reasonable rubric for evaluating teacher candidates and teachers (Clarken, 1993a, 1993b). All of these duties can be measured, and standards can be set.
Other models of teacher evaluation, which have been discussed elsewhere in this book, place too much emphasis on factors beyond the control of teachers and use faulty premises and methodology. Scriven, Wheeler, and Haertel found many problems with accepted approaches to teacher evaluation that were "multiple and serious" (1993, p. 7). These included that they are based upon a limited view of the teachers' tasks, limited and atypical observations, too much weight on the way of teaching, too little on the content and effect of teaching and the faulty use of indicators based upon statistical conclusions.
Some of the duties suggested as necessary before a teacher should be approved for certification are briefly described below (Clarken, 1993a; Scriven, 1994). The list of duties can be adapted, as I have done below, but this approach and agreeing upon duties are recommended as an alternative to what I feel are less satisfactory models.
All teachers have a duty to possess and demonstrate a satisfactory level of general and content specific knowledge. To be a teacher requires general intelligence and an appreciation of its value for students and society. In addition, they should understand the subject matter they are to teach and be able to demonstrate an ability to teach it effectively to a broad range of students. Standards of knowledge attainment should be required before students are allowed to enter into teacher education programs, and they should maintain and achieve higher standards as the progress through the different stages of preparation and teaching.
Teachers have a duty to be able to manage student behavior and learning effectively. To do so, they need effective communication and pedagogical skills to deal with classroom behavior. They must handle varying ability levels, activities, assignments, contingencies, emergencies and time competently. They should possess the ability to use appropriate instructional techniques, technology and materials to develop students’ attitudes, skills and understanding according to their individual capacity.
Teachers should know and use appropriate reliable and valid ways of determining the merit of a student's learning and be able to report their assessments fairly, honestly and helpfully. They also need to be able to do the same with their own work and instructional methods and materials so they can make needed improvements.
One of the most important duties of a teacher is to serve as a moral exemplar. The list of attitudes, virtues and attributes that a teacher should model are numerous, including open mindedness, tolerance, courtesy, honesty, trustworthiness, reliability, intelligence, uprightness and fairness. Developing these qualities is a life-long endeavor and should be included as part of ongoing teacher evaluation and professional development. If teachers do not exhibit these important qualities to an acceptable degree, they should not be allowed in the classroom.
Teachers also do many other tasks that are part of running a school and being part of a school and greater community. They need to know and follow necessary regulations, policies and procedures, and to work with and get along with others. If they cannot adequately perform any of these duties listed above or below, they should not be allowed to teach.
• Understand subject matter deeply and flexibly;
• Connect what is to be learned to students’ prior knowledge and experience;
• Create effective scaffolds and supports for learning;
• Use instructional strategies that help students draw connections, apply what they’re learning, practice new skills, and monitor their own learning;
• Assess student learning continuously and adapt teaching to student needs;
• Provide clear standards, constant feedback, and opportunities for revising work; and
• Develop and effectively manage a collaborative classroom in which all students have membership (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005, cited in Darling-Hammond, Amrein-Beardsley, Haertel, & Rothstein, 2012, p. 13).
Evaluation of Teachers
If officials were serious about getting the best and brightest into teaching, they would not allow such limited and superficial tests of knowledge to serve as the standard for determining excellence. They would seriously consider the above aspects of effective teaching which are supported by research and been incorporated into professional standards for teaching (Darling-Hammond, Amrein-Beardsley, Haertel, & Rothstein, 2012, p. 13). Far more is needed than basic skills and subject matter knowledge to be a successful and inspiring teacher; however, they do not test for these essential qualities.
A school's "product" is never clear cut. America's current frenzy over accountability and "high-stakes" testing rests, at heart, on a simplistic, misapplied factory model of education: raw resources enter; workers make inputs; outputs emerge; faulty outputs must indicate faulty inputs. But a school's "value added" is extremely hard to measure. For one thing, our best-performing schools, public and private, usually serve wealthier students; our worst-performing schools, poorer students. For another, a complex array of external factors, from divorce and poverty to the Internet and TV, affects the motivation and performance of all students (Evans, 2000).
My concern here is in trying to legislate excellence and professional standards and assuming standardized tests are the best, or even a valid, reliable, good or reasonable assessments of teacher quality. I would suggest they are minimal measures that only get at a very limited and superficial slice of what is expected of a good teacher. General and content knowledge are necessary, but not sufficient, and the state places too much emphasis on them and not enough on professional dispositions, knowledge, skills and practices. Most teacher education programs have extensive field experiences, practica and clinical practice involving performance-centered assessments to ascertain that their students have the skills and attitudes needed to be a good teacher.
Teacher education programs are pursuing their missions with integrity and providing their teacher candidates with needed skills and in-classroom experience to be successful. If they are not, they should be put on notice and closed if they do not meet the vital and challenging standards of the profession. Teacher education programs need to maintain or raise professional standards in teacher education so that only the best and brightest of students are certified; however, I have seen how the policies being advocated by government are discouraging the best and brightest from going into teaching. The position, livelihood and calling of teaching are being diminished.
What does it mean to be the best as a teacher? There are many qualities, including the ones mentioned earlier. For example, student teachers at my university are assessed on 78 professional standards for which they must demonstrate proficiency while teaching students in the grade level and subject area for which they are seeking certification. Throughout their teacher preparation program, they are guided and nurtured to master these skills and demonstrate proficiency in these standards. They do a self-assessment, are assessed by a master teacher and by a university supervisor independently. (See .)
These assessments meet several professional standards for evaluation and for teaching. First they align with the evaluation standards and principles set by the professional associations for personnel evaluation. Second, they are based on the real duties required and expected of a classroom teacher as identified by experts in evaluation. Thirdly, they include the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) vision of what is expected of accomplished teachers that subsequently translated into standards for beginning teachers by the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC) and adopted by over 40 states for initial teacher licensing (Darling-Hammond, Amrein-Beardsley, Haertel, & Rothstein, 2012, p. 13).
For example, the Michigan Department of Education requires all teacher preparation institutions to use the state approved criteria for assessment of entry-level pedagogical skills for each student teacher, which are based on INTASC standards. My university incorporated the State Board of Education Entry Level Standards for Michigan Teachers, later replaced by the Professional Standards for Michigan Teachers (PSMT), into their evaluation of field experiences and student teachers.
Teachers and education can be and should be evaluated. How do we honestly, fairly and helpfully evaluate teachers? First, we might start with determining that they can and do perform the necessary duties of their office to an acceptable degree. Evaluation of teachers is a normative and relative activity. The quality of a teacher depends on the circle of comparison and options. How does this teacher compare with other teachers in this grade, school, district and region? Are there more qualified teachers who could do the job better?
The first criterion for entry into teaching is to have a genuine calling to serve humanity by educating others. Teacher candidates must demonstrate that commitment and meet the high standards called for in such a noble endeavor. Those standards include being the best and brightest, which to me means they need to possess the best qualities and character and be the brightest in mental abilities and teaching skills. In my career as a teacher educator, I have striven to see that only those students with proven character, intelligence and the ability to inspire students in the classroom are certified to teach. I am increasingly concerned that the new teachers I have helped prepare will not be given the support needed to enable them to be successful in their classrooms. I feel they and we, as their teachers, are being set up for failure.
A performance evaluation system needs to be credible to the parties affected by the decisions. As education is not simply a process of sorting and selecting, the promoting or firing of teachers should not be either. Like students, teachers should be given a chance to improve, to remediate and demonstrate competence. However, if they do not meet the minimal expectations within a reasonable timeline, they should not be allowed to teach until they can. Teacher education programs have the first line of responsibility to see that only those candidates with the potential to be good teachers are allowed to enroll and remain in programs to become certified as teachers. Then administrators, fellow educators, community members and students should be given a voice in the selection and retention of teachers.
Sometimes the problem in not that the teachers cannot perform adequately, it is that they choose not to do so. For whatever the reason, many skilled and capable people fail to live up to their potential or to perform their duties adequately. In these cases, they should be helped to do the right thing, but cannot be made to. If they chose not to, then they should not be teaching. We should be doing all we can to assist teachers to be the best they can.
Teachers who are given credible evidence that they are not performing effectively will generally remediate or leave on their own. If they do not, they can be counseled out, and if they still do not improve or decide themselves to leave, then they should be dismissed. People often have difficulty seeing their own shortcomings and weaknesses and may not be willing or able to make the changes needed.
I believe these decisions can best be made in a consultative framework, where the parties informed and involved are consulted about what is the best plan of action, including the teacher. This process might be an effective way for professional, community and institutional development and improvement, as the teacher is central to them all.
A high quality evaluation system will evaluate all factors related to education. Research sponsored by the American Educational Research Association and National Academy of Education found the following to “both to predict teacher effectiveness and to help improve teachers' practice.”
• performance assessments for licensure and advanced certification that are based on professional teaching standards, such as National Board Certification and beginning teacher performance assessments in states like California and Connecticut; and
• on-the-job evaluation tools that include structured observations, classroom artifacts, analysis of student learning, and frequent feedback based on professional standards.
In addition to the use of well-grounded instruments, research has found benefits of systems that recognize teacher collaboration, which supports greater student learning.
Finally, systems are found to be more effective when they ensure that evaluators are well-trained, evaluation and feedback are frequent, mentoring and coaching are available, and processes such as peer assistance and review systems are in place to support due process and timely decision making by an appropriate body (Darling-Hammond, Amrein-Beardsley, Haertel, & Rothstein, 2011)
A good evaluation system will identify what the problems are, where they reside, who is responsible for fixing them, what are their causes and solutions and how they might be best addressed. For example, the problem might be the teacher, the student, the family, the school, the principal, the community, the curriculum, the materials, some other factor or some varying combination of all these factors. Teaching can be conceived of as a set of interactions among teacher, student and material (Cohen, Ruadenbush, & Ball, 2003; Grubb 2008). Properly identifying and defining the problem is an important first step. If students are failing, it is not necessarily the teacher’s fault, and therefore, blaming the teachers or improving them will not fix the problem.
The Unique Capabilities of Students and Teachers
Although human beings are more alike than different, each person is unique with diverse capabilities and personalities. For example, students all have varying physical capacities and characteristics. We do not expect or require everyone to attain a certain height or reach certain physical performance standards to progress in school or graduate. We do not judge the teachers, even the physical education teachers, on how tall their students are or how well they can run, jump or climb. Likewise, students all differ mentally, emotionally, socially and psychologically. Just as we cannot expect students to achieve uniformly in physical matters, we cannot and should not expect them to do so intellectually and in educational matters. We do what we can to optimize the opportunity that individuals achieve their full potential in all these areas.
If students do not reach a standardized height or athletic performance requirement, we do not punish them, their parents or their teachers. We understand that people vary in their capacity to become tall and to perform physical tasks. However, we seem to have problems accepting that students also vary in intellectual capacity. No matter how much we train, feed and care for children in school, they will not vary significantly from their genetically endowed potential height. We can improve their physical performance, but that is also largely influenced by inherited potential. No matter how much we teach and care for students, their highest accomplishments will be limited or affected by their inherited capacities and the extent to which these were nourished and developed before birth and school by their parents and society.
Though we all have similar needs and wants, we express them differently. Our motivations vary from context to context and from person to person. If we are all given the same objective and the same reward for achieving it, our motivations and approaches will differ. Some objectives will be easy for some, hard for others and impossible for yet others. These objectives may be attractive to some and repulsive to others. These differential effects can be seen in a classroom. “Because of the relational complexity of learning and of the differing positions and dispositions of learners, there is no approach that can ever guarantee universal learning success” (James & Biesta, 2007, p. 37).
Education tends to be rewarding for those who can succeed in and value it. It is punishing for those who fail at it and see little or no value in it. Those who do not benefit from education, tend to leave it as soon as they can. When we set standards that are perceived as too hard to accomplish and do not offer the remediation and support needed to achieve it, we create a climate of hopelessness. Further, when we sent goals that students have no interest in and see no value in, we create an environment not conducive to learning.
The students’ innate, inherited and acquired capacities are the most important variable in the classroom. Their hearts, minds and wills are each unique and their capacities in each area differs. These faculties and capacities are developed through a number of influences and factors, most significantly in interactions with others. The collective attitudes, thoughts, policies and values of their parents, teachers, administrators, school board, community and government affect the shaping and actualizing of their potentialities, but do not determine them.
Because of all of this uniqueness and diversity of teachers, students and contexts, it is hard to predict learning outcomes, which are affected by all of these variables. We need to create learning environments that can serve the needs of all these diverse teachers and students, but will vary in our success, often based on factors unknown to us or beyond our control. We have not yet found a way to account for all of these differences to determine fairly the value or quality of a teacher or student’s efforts or performance.
In the end, we must each assess our own abilities and efforts and be responsible to do better. Reform policies attempt to indirectly affect teacher and students actions, but ultimately, it is for the teacher and the student to take whatever direct action they can. The politicians can affect the principals who can affect the teachers who can affect the students, but if the students fail to respond, who is responsible?
Let me offer an analogy. We all have a conception of beauty and we all generally aspire to be beautiful accordingly. First, our conception of beauty will vary, but there will be generally agreed upon standards in a given society. If you naturally approximate those standards, you will be considered beautiful whatever you do. If you do not, you will have to work to make yourself more attractive according to society’s standards. You might do that by changing aspects of yourself. Through whatever means are available to you, such as with make up or plastic surgery, you will attempt to make whatever is uniquely you conform more closely to what is considered the standard of beauty.
In some ways, this is a distortion of who you really are or what you really look like. However, if the stakes are high, you will do what you can to succeed in this endeavor. The higher the stakes, the more likely you are to do whatever it takes, even if the costs exceed the supposed benefits. For some people, no matter what they do, they will still not be able to meet the standard. These people will likely become despondent, drop out or rebel. We have a similar situation in education. We set standards of education and judged people on them regardless of their potential, native abilities, interests and talents.
If we could see the beauty in all and assist them to realize and unfold more of their innate gifts, we would have a more beautiful and richer world. When we take outer beauty and test scores at face value as indicators of inner beauty and wisdom, we make a big mistake. When a society places value on and rewards superficial measures yet fails to value and reward the more substantial and vital inner qualities they are meant to represent, they are a society in decline. We have deemphasized real beauty and learning for shabby imitations.
None of this suggests teachers do not make a difference.
It is important to recognize that failure to find that some set of measured teacher characteristics are related to student achievement does not mean that all teachers have the same effectiveness in promoting achievement. It is possible that the wrong characteristics were measured (characteristics that were convenient, but unrelated to achievement) but other (as yet unmeasured) characteristics would be related to achievement. Even if researchers attempted to measure the right teacher characteristics, it is possible that the measurement is so poor that the relation was attenuated to the point of being negligible. (Nye, Konstantopoulos, & Hedges, p. 238)
Motivation and Reform
Many of the reform efforts are attempts to use incentives and external motivations, to get students and teachers to do what the reformers want, namely to perform better on tests. It is a counterproductive approach. Let me explain why. Firstly, teachers “differ from those who select corporate careers. Education attracts people with both a strong service ethic and a desire for job security, not entrepreneurs with a thirst for risk and competition” (Evans, 2000).
Secondly, their “occupation permits them maximal freedom and minimal supervision” and they “cherish their freedom and tend to see themselves -- and to behave -- as artisans in their separate studios, practicing their craft as they see fit” (Evans, 2000).
External incentives tend to dampen internal motivation (Deci, 1971; Deci, Koestner, and Ryan, 1999; Fehr and Falk, 2002; Kohn, 1999). Critics of teachers are operating under Theory X, that most workers are lazy and irresponsible, rather than Theory Y that assumes teachers are self-motivated and responsible. This is a false assumption.
As a part of the Theory X approach
The test-and-punish approach to school reform has already made it more difficult for schools labeled as failing to attract and retain well-qualified educators — thus, ironically, reducing the quality of education for students still further. Rather than increasing the incentives and supports for teaching in high-need schools, recent federal policy has encouraged states to lower standards for prospective teachers, despite evidence that doing so increases teacher attrition and reduces student achievement. Blaming teachers for the ills of high-need schools lets policy-makers off the hook and keeps the more fundamental problems of severe poverty, a tattered safety net and inequitable funding under the rug (Darling-Hammond, 2012).
In recent times, researchers in psychology have shown, through a number of experiments and meta analyses, that people externally rewarded for doing something that they are internally motivated to do already, will be less likely to perform it in the future. It seems that we have a need or desire for self-determination and autonomy, which can be negatively affected by other’s manipulation, including rewards (Deci & Ryan, 1985).
In other words, we have free will with which we chose to do what we want, regardless of external pressures. We do not like to do things that go against our will, but also like the feeling of exercising our wills. We like our freedom and do not like to be controlled. However, if we do not want to do something, some external reward may motivate us to do so or change our mind to make us want to do it.
If we are already motivated to do something and someone then rewards that behavior we tend to respond according to how we perceive the intent of that action. If we see it as controlling us, limiting our autonomy or demeaning our inherent worth or dignity, it is actually demotivating.
When external rewards are given, they can also be perceived as a sign of immaturity, irresponsibility or incompetence on the part of the recipient: that you would not do what you are supposed to do unless someone rewards you for doing it. Even children and adolescents respond negatively when they perceive they are being manipulated in this way.
Another negative effect of external rewards and punishments on teachers and students results when comparisons are made. When high performers are rewarded more than lower performers, disunity and discouragement enter the ranks. Those who are well rewarded are made to feel superior to the others and those who do less well are made to feel discouraged and inferior. These feelings can be complicated and exacerbated, even when the rewards are perceived as controlling, unfair or beyond the abilities of the recipients to do anything about. Such feelings destroy student and staff morale and unity, both necessary for good learning to occur.
People tend to be internally motivated by challenge and accomplishment (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Seligman, 2011). However, if the task if too easy or difficult, it is not motivating. Teachers and students need to be encouraged to set challenging and clear goals to promote optimal growth and happiness. People tend to choose relatively easy tasks when external rewards are given, but tasks that are more challenging in the absence of external rewards (Shapira, 1976).
Seligman has identified five factors that cause people to flourish: positive emotion, relationship, accomplishment, engagement and meaning (2011). These five qualities can be fully experienced in teaching and learning but are all negatively impacted by external motivations. For instance, the sense of accomplishment, completing our own goals and following our own values, is lost when we are made to feel we are being driven by someone else’s goals and values.
The key to fostering motivation is to encourage internal and autonomous motivation and use external motivation with wisdom. Tests can be motivating when they are used to provide relevant information or feedback, but are demotivating when they are controlling or too difficult. In brief, the more controlling the external motivation, the less internal motivation and long-term learning occurs. As a result, both teachers and students do less well when external pressure or motivation is applied (e.g., National Research Council, 2011).
How Reform Efforts Demoralize Individuals and Institutions
Educators and educational institutions are being demoralized. Not only has their morale been eroded, but their morals are also being corrupted. Medical doctors, lawyers, bankers and the institutions they work in have also been demoralized. These professionals and their professions have all been traditionally guided by high ideals of service to the common good, but more and more they are being corrupted by self-interest, greed and bad practices. They are selling their souls for fame and fortune.
An outstanding practitioner in any of these fields might gain fame and fortune, but that was not their purpose. It came as a by-product. When pursuing wealth replaces pursuing health, justice or financial welfare, then the profession loses its integrity and society suffers. We are experiencing this breakdown today. Not only have immoral actions demoralized these professions; they are threatening to do the same to education and other institutions in our society.
What we have seen happening to these professions is in danger of happening to teaching. Teaching and educational institutions have been largely protected from this danger because the opportunity for individual or institutional gain has been limited and external pressures have not been strong enough to corrupt and move them from their mission.
A “good” doctor, lawyer or banker would not do anything unethical or against the standards of their profession. They would put the best interests of their clients, community and profession above personal interests. If practitioners violated these principles, they were looked down upon by others in the profession and institutional means were often available to correct or remedy such violations.
When teachers sacrifice the best interests of their students and communities for such short term and shortsighted aims as high stakes standardized test scores or merit pay or praise from external sources, we begin losing the soul of education. When teachers put self-interest, money, power or fame above providing good learning opportunities for their students and when our institutions support or promote these destructive practices, we are in trouble. Many reform proposals aimed at improving education are instead demoralizing it and are moving our society toward increased trouble.
Value-Added Modeling
Value-added modeling (VAM) is touted as a way to evaluate schools and teachers scientifically and fairly. Value-added models appear to address some concerns with comparing difference among students growth. However, there are serious methodological problems with the reliability and validity of these measures (Amrein-Beardsley, 2008). John Ewing, president of Math for America, recently wrote of his concern about the mathematics of value-added modeling being used as a rhetorical weapon to convince others of the objectivity and value of its findings (2011).
Using VAMs for individual teacher evaluation is based on the belief that measured achievement gains for a specific teacher’s students reflect that teacher’s “effectiveness.” This attribution, however, assumes that student learning is measured well by a given test, is influenced by the teacher alone, and is independent from the growth of classmates and other aspects of the classroom context. None of these assumptions is well supported by current evidence (Darling-Hammond, Amrein-Beardsley, Haertel, & Rothstein, 2012, p. 8)
VAM sounds deceptively scientific, simple and straightforward: compare the results of different treatments to see which is most effective or adds the most value to the variable in question. Even when the variable of study is a drug treatment, something that is clearly controllable and measurable, many factors can affect the results, such as the commonly recognized and experienced placebo effect in which those who were part of the experiment got better even when they did not receive any treatment.
When it comes to student learning, the variables and treatments are so numerous, nuanced, intricate, interconnected, complicated and uncontrollable that it should be obvious that basing conclusions on them is unreasonable. Some problems include the contamination, corruption and limitations of the data. For example, some classrooms will have a 100% turnover of students in one academic year. Even in classrooms with less, the various issues that arise with the coming and going of students are significant.
The other variables such as class size, learning resources, school conditions, personal safety, home conditions and social environments can make a big difference in student learning. For example, students in a small class, with adequate resources in a high achieving school, whose needs are meet and who are cared for by families, communities and peers with high expectations will likely do better than those who do not have these things, even if they had the same teacher. Is the teacher to be blamed or credited?
What about those teachers whose tests scores say they are not doing a good job, when our experience and common sense tells us they are? The harm done to individual teachers is evident, but what about schools, programs and teaching methodologies that get unfairly rated low based on poorly designed studies. We are currently making policy decisions based on these limited and misapplied approaches, such as VAM, that will influence education for years to come.
Leading educational researchers in the United States collaborated on a paper for the Economic Policy Institute Research in Washington D.C. entitled Problems with the Use of Student Test Scores to Evaluate Teachers field (Baker, Barton, Darling-Hammond, Haertel, Ladd, Linn, Ravitch, Rothstein, Shavelson, & Shepard, 2010). In that paper, they reported on research studies using VAM. In several studies, VAM found teachers’ effectiveness ratings of one year varied dramatically the following year. For example, one study where teachers were ranked in the top 20% of effectiveness the first year, less than a third remained in that group the second year and a third moved to the bottom 40%. Another study found only 4-16% predication rate for teacher effectiveness ratings from one year to the next. We would not expect the effectiveness of a teacher to vary so much from year to year, which strongly suggests the tests are not measuring teacher effectiveness (Baker, et al., 2010).
When it comes to using these tests and value-added models for teacher accountability, it is safe to say, “The research base is currently insufficient to support the use of VAM for high stakes decisions” (McCaffrey, Koretz, Lockwood & Hamilton, 2003, xx). Not only are there serious problems with the methodology of VAM, there are significant concerns about the high stakes test used to determine effectiveness. Though scholars acknowledged that VAM approaches are fairer and stronger than previous ones, they stated,
Nonetheless, there is broad agreement among statisticians, psychometricians, and economists that student test scores alone are not sufficiently reliable and valid indicators of teacher effectiveness to be used in high-stakes personnel decisions, even when the most sophisticated statistical applications such as value-added modeling are employed. (Baker, et al., 2010, p. 2)
The National Academy of Sciences National Research Council Board on Testing and Assessment stated “VAM estimates of teacher effectiveness should not be used to make operational decisions because such estimates are far too unstable to be considered fair or reliable” (cited in Baker, et al., 2010, p. 2). This finding has also been supported by the American Educational Research Association and National Academy of Education policy report “that found that teacher effectiveness ratings differ substantially from class to class and from year to year, as well as from one statistical model to the next” (Darling-Hammond, Amrein-Beardsley, Haertel, Rothstein, 2012, p. 9).
Hill, Kapitula and Umland (2011) did an intensive study to determine the reliability of VAM. There case studies of middle school mathematics teachers found that some of the poorest teachers in their study according to expert observations, ended up in the category of highest value added based on state student math evaluations. They did find that “value-added scores could potentially play a role in improving this system if used wisely” (p. 32); however, they did “conclude that value-added scores, at least in this district and using these not-uncommon models, are not sufficient to identify problematic and excellent teachers accurately” (p. 32).
Their evidence “suggests that value-added scores alone are not sufficient to identify teachers for reward, remediation, or removal” (p.33). The “high value-added teachers did not necessarily have strong instructions” (p. 33) and teachers needing remediation would not be accurately identified. They found teachers with accelerated students had high value-added scores and those with more special education had lower, regardless of observed teacher skill.
A background paper for policy makers (2011) sponsored by the respected American Educational Research Association and National Academy of Education, summarizes well the problems with VAM that have been supported by research.
1. Value-Added Models of Teacher Effectiveness Are Highly Unstable. Teachers’ ratings differ substantially from class to class and from year to year, as well as from one test to the next.
2. Teachers’ Value-Added Ratings Are Significantly Affected by Differences in the Students Who Are Assigned to Them. Even when models try to control for prior achievement and student demographic variables, teachers are advantaged or disadvantaged based on the students they teach. In particular, teachers with large numbers of new English learners and others with special needs have been found to show lower gains than the same teachers when they are teaching other students.
3. Value-Added Ratings Cannot Disentangle the Many Influences on Student Progress. Many other home, school, and student factors influence student learning gains, and these matter more than the individual teacher in explaining changes in scores (Darling-Hammond, Amrein-Beardsley, Haertel, Rothstein, 2011).
I conclusion, I would suggest VAM fails all three tests of being true, loving or just: it does not give a true measure of teacher effectiveness and it is not loving or just to any party.
High Stakes Standardized Tests
Of all the reforms put upon education, high-stakes testing has perhaps been the most destructive. It violates all three principles of truth, love and justice. It purports to give an honest appraisal of what students have learned and how well teachers have taught, but that is not true. It destroys the morale of students and teachers who are judged by these misleading indicators of success. It discourages the love of learning and camaraderie needed to make education effective and it is not a fair measure of learning or teaching. In addition, critics claim teachers are opposed to testing because they do not want to be accountable. Teachers are held accountable every class and every day by their students, community, administrators, peers and selves.
High-stakes standardized test fail the truth, love and justice test. They do not adequately account for individual and cultural differences and give money to private corporate test makers and scorers rather than to the schools. They can hurt children and families not able to cope or perform well, advantage those who can afford special preparation, provide minimal feedback, encourage extrinsic motivation, penalize creativity, do not help students or teachers do better and cause them to hate learning and school (Brady, 2011).
Teachers can and should help students do well on tests, but the nurturing of their students’ characters is the foundation of all other accomplishment. A standardized test may get at some measure of intelligence, but it does not measure the more important and foundational qualities of character that are so needed in students and society today. As determined by a consortium of scholars who have studied this topic: “Any sound evaluation will necessarily involve a balancing of many factors that provide a more accurate view of what teachers in fact do in the classroom and how that contributes to student learning” (Baker, et al., 2010, p. 2).
Most people value the teachers who most positively changed or influenced their lives: teachers who cared; who encouraged them to become the most they could; and who opened their minds, illumined their hearts and quickened their wills. Teachers who treat students as noble and dignified beings and awaken them to new possibilities, who helped them create a new mind, heart and will are what we need. The fruits of teaching are playing a part in realizing and uncovering these hidden potentialities and giving the students the tools, vision and volition to carry on with that process. The results of this kind of good teaching are not measured to any significant degree by standardized tests.
Evaluating education and teachers fairly, clearly and honestly is a complex, difficult, expensive and time-consuming endeavor. Until now, we have mostly sought relatively inexpensive, easy and politically expedient solutions such as standardized testing. As a result, “we test students in the United States more than any other nation, in the mistaken belief that testing produces greater learning” whereas top performing nations such as Finland and Korea only formally test students once, and that is to inform college admissions (Darling-Hammond, 2011). Critics want to use these tests and all the accumulating data that is falsely touted as objective and scientific to evaluate all aspects of education, teaching and teacher education. It sounds good, but it is not true, caring or just. A comprehensive report by the National Research Council (1999) cited a “strong need for better evidence on the intended benefits and unintended negative consequences of using high-stakes tests to make decisions about individuals” (p. 8).
Some suggest that such proposals for increased standardized high stakes tests have as part of their agenda the degrading and eventual dismantling public education. First, they create the impression that schools are failing by raising the bar on these tests until most students do not pass, and then using this as evidence to show how our schools are not doing their job. They further connect the school’s failure to get students to perform at the prescribed reading or mathematics level as the basis of our problems in society. It can become a Catch-22. They blame schools and teachers for failing to meet artificial and arbitrary standards, and, if students do well on the tests, then the tests are too easy. The cut scores and pass rates are political, not educational tools.
Some reformers are suggesting using standardized test scores of the students for as much 50% of the teacher’s performance evaluation. Leading education researchers consider this practice unwise based on the evidence (Baker, et al., 2010, p. 2). Student standardized test scores are unstable, unreliable, unsound, error-prone and illogical for use in evaluating teachers or teacher education programs (Darling-Hammond, 2011, Ewing, 2011). Also, when high stakes tests are used to reward or punish, the process becomes vulnerable to misuses and abuses such as teaching to the tests, teaching test-taking strategies, neglecting what is not tested and cheating. The result will be that test scores will raise while real learning decreases.
These problems of corrupting and cheating around high stakes testing are more likely to grow if what is referred to as Campbell’s Law is true. Campbell wrote in 1976 that “The more any quantitative social indicator is used for social decision-making, the more subject it will be to corruption pressures and the more apt it will be to distort and corrupt the social processes it is intended to measure” (p. 49). In this case, test scores, the quantitative social indicator, are being used for social decision-making concerning students, teachers, schools and teacher education programs which results in corrupting pressure to raise the indicator scores which distorts and corrupts the educational processes and practices it was intended to measure. Nichols and Berliner’s book, Collateral Damage: How High-Stakes Testing Corrupts America’s Schools (2008), documents the many ways standardized testing have distorted the integrity of education.
One corruption is that students and teachers are encouraged to “game” the system, by doing whatever they can to show academic gains regardless of any actual learning related to the content. The most common form of gaming is to teach test-taking tricks, such as how to select the best answers, how to make educated guesses and how to answer according to the scoring rubric. In such high stakes situations, it is in the best interests of the schools and teachers to encourage their students to engage in permissible activities that do not necessarily increase real learning, but helps boost scores. As a result, test scores tend to rise every year for the first three to four years and then level off (Linn, 2000) as teachers learn what questions are asked, and then adjust their instruction to meet the expectations of the test. However, when a new test is introduced, scores drop, as the students have not been prepped for the new questions. Further research suggests this is the result of teaching to the test as there are not comparable gains on other similar achievement tests, such at the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) for which the students were not being prepared (Center on Education Policy, 2008).
Other problems that have resulted from standardized testing include the narrowing of the curriculum as teachers are first encouraged, and then mandated to teach to the test to meet imposed quotas or benchmarks. As these tests are normally made up of machine scored multiple-choice questions in reading and mathematics, only the lower level factual knowledge and limited skills in these two subjects are tested. The other subjects and aspects of school, such as career, technical, life skills and arts education are neglected, along with critical thinking and the higher-level knowledge that is not easily tested.
These tests do not begin to measure the far more important and significant learning that goes on in schools related to dispositions, attitudes, social skills, moral development and higher order thinking. These qualities are more likely than high test scores to lead to success. Beyond limited language and math skills, they also do not address the significant issues of life. As John Dewey, a leading American philosopher said in 1897, “Examinations are of use only so far as they test the child's fitness for social life and reveal the place in which he can be of most service and where he can receive the most help.” Why are we not developing measures and standards for these important issues? Why are we not measuring and addressing host of factors outside the control of schools and teachers that affect academic achievement?
High-stakes standardized tests push schools and teacher to engage in questionable practices. Several examples of states inflating their test scores have been exposed over the last two decades. In addition, other states have set very low cut scores to give the impression that the students in their state are doing well, when in fact they are not. What lessons are we teaching our young when our politicians, policy makers, superintendents, principals and teachers are pushed to such dishonest practices.
We might learn some lessons from the corporate, political and financial institutions and structures that place high premiums on short-term goals and reported profits to meet stockholder or constituent expectations. Enron is one example that might be illustrative of the damage of focusing on arbitrary standards and appearances without regard to moral principles. Through creative accounting and reporting, they were able to give the impression of being one of the world’s most profitable, effective and successful companies for several years, while they were just the opposite. They were able to report high earnings that were not real—they were not based on facts, but on appearances and manipulation of data. They spent their energy and money on creating the illusion of success rather than actually producing real accomplishments. We must remember that test scores do not equate to student learning or achievement (Ewing, 2011).
Tests, we must remember, are developed, pushed and sold by testing companies with no vested interest in student achievement. They are marketed to bureaucrats and politicians looking for an easy fix to a complex problem, and serve little or no purpose beyond teaching our students to become experts in bubble- in testing methodology. They perpetuate the myth of the effectiveness of top-down bureaucratic leadership that doesn’t work for business and has never worked for education either. We continue to forget the reform in education must be led by teachers and educators from the local level up and not the other way around (Arnold, 2012).
More recently, the financial institutions nearly caused the collapse of the world economic order through similar dishonest, corrupt and self-serving practices. Many corporate and political leaders have been corrupted by power, profits and self-interest. Leaders from some of these institutions have called for reform of education, primarily by using approaches, worldviews and motivations that have failed them and the society they are to serve. One of those ideas is merit pay, which we will discuss next, but before we do, let's close this chapter with the sentiments of the late U.S. Senator Paul Wellstone, who spoke eloquently for education and against high-stakes tests.
Education is, among other things, a process of shaping the moral imagination, character, skills, and intellect of our children, of inviting them into the great conversation of our moral, cultural, and intellectual life, and of giving them the resources to prepare to fully participate in the life of the nation and of the world. But today in education there is a threat afoot: the threat of high-stakes testing being grossly abused in the name of greater accountability, and almost always to the serious detriment of our children….It is a harsh agenda that hold children responsible for our own failure to invest in their future and in their achievement…..high-stakes testing marks a major retreat from fairness, from accuracy, from quality and from equity (cited in Nichols and Berliner, 2008, p. 171-172).
Merit Pay
Pay-for-performance can work for people whose primary motivations are monetary. It may also work for those who do not need to work together in cooperation and collaboration to achieve a long-term goal whose sole aim is to benefit others, as teaching does.
Educators do not respond to the same incentives as businesspeople and school heads have much less clout than their corporate counterparts to foster improvement. Most teachers want higher salaries but react badly to offers of money for performance. Merit pay, so routine in the corporate world, has a miserable track record in education. It almost never improves outcomes and almost always damages morale, sowing dissension and distrust, for three excellent reasons, among others: (1) teachers are driven to help their own students, not to outperform other teachers, which violates the ethic of service and the norms of collegiality; (2) as artisans engaged in idiosyncratic work with students whose performance can vary due to factors beyond school control, teachers often feel that there is no rational, fair basis for comparison; and (3) in schools where all faculty feel underpaid, offering a special sum to a few sparks intense resentment (Evans, 2000).
For teachers who need to be motivated by higher ideals of truth, service and justice to be truly effective, such materialistic and base selfish motives are counter-productive. It is understandable why and how these material incentives appeal to those making them, and why they assume that everyone else is similarly motivated; however, introducing such inducements into teaching will undermine the moral integrity and efficacy of teachers, attracting self-seekers and promoters and encouraging corruption, the quickest and easiest way to profit in this arrangement.
Pay teachers a respectable wage and accord them the respect, honor and status they deserve. This will attract the best and brightest in our society to become teachers and keep them in classrooms. If they are the best, they will do their best and will not need to be manipulated or cajoled by extra pay to do their jobs. Be fair. If their jobs are more demanding, then they should be paid according to the standards of justice. If they do not do their jobs adequately, they should also be treated with justice. Find ways to fairly evaluate and compensate their work, but realize teaching is an extraordinary complex and challenging job. To imagine that superficial measures of quality, such as isolated standardized tests, that are subject to many conflated and conflicting variables and influences can fairly or accurately measure teacher success is not supported by common sense or science. If it is determined that teachers are not doing a satisfactory job, they should be fired, as our students and society should expect and deserve the very best in their teachers.
In our public schools, it is in the public’s interest and society’s duty and responsibility to pay teachers an honest, respectable and living wage. It is right, wise and just to do so. Those countries, such as Finland and Singapore, in which students score the highest on international tests pay and respect teachers highly. When we do not operate with the principles of compassion, wisdom and justice, we have problems. When individuals, communities and institutions do not support education, we can expect problems. These problems will reverberate throughout the nation for years to come as individuals lose faith, communities fall apart, institutions fail, societies breakdown and civilizations collapse.
If teachers will do a better job because they are going to be paid better, they are not living up to the high standards and calling of teaching. Good teachers should do their best regardless of what they are paid. Not only is this true, most teachers spend a fair amount of their limited salaries and free time on improving their teaching, curriculum materials and classroom supplies to help their students. Teachers do not get rich, and those who wish to become wealthy leave teaching. If they did, they should get out of teaching and go into business for themselves or work in systems whose main goal is to make money and reward those that contribute to that process. Any trade, craft or profession should do its work with excellence and in the spirit of service regardless of pay.
Schools and teachers are expected to do the right, wise and just thing for their students. If we do not do the right, wise and just thing for our schools and teachers, we limit their ability to accomplish this with their students. By creating conditions where schools and teachers are encouraged or forced to focus on survival, pay or their own self-interest, we work against the purposes for which they exist. According to a comprehensive review of the research, “There is also little or no evidence for the claim that teachers will be more motivated to improve student learning if teachers are evaluated or monetarily rewarded for student test score gains” (Baker, et al., 2010, p. 1).
What are some reasons studies might not find a difference for merit pay or that we might not trust their findings? It might be that teachers are already doing their best; therefore, giving them additional financial incentives to do better produced no increase in achievement. It may be that the teachers felt forced, controlled or required to use methods different from what they chose or felt best. It may be that the incentives are not appropriate: large or attractive enough to change behavior. It may have been that the targets to receive the reward were too high or unreasonable, therefore limiting motivation to try to reach them. It may have been that the teachers either did not understand or buy into the program. It may have been because of some bias in who is selected to get bonuses or differences between the experimental group and comparison groups. As has happened in other settings, the gains may have been illusory, rather than measures of real achievement.
All but the first of the above reasons were controlled for in a three-year randomized experiment by the National Center on Performance Incentives (NCPI) that found that incentive pay did not lead to improved performance (Moran, 2010; Springer, Ballou, Hamilton, Lockwood, McCaffrey, Pepper, & Stecher, 2010). It was left to teachers to decide what, if anything, they did to improve their students’ scores. The incentives, $5,000, 10,000 or 15,000 depending upon the gains in scores, were considered significant and attractive enough by the teachers involved. The incentive thresholds were considered attainable and reasonable, requiring students to answer only 2 to 3 more questions correctly on the 55-item exam to qualify for the minimum bonus of $5,000. The teachers understood and bought into the program. Bias was limited by randomizing selection of the teachers in the study and other factors controlled for between treatment and control groups in the experiment. Gaming the tests and cheating were controlled to avoid false results. Teachers in the group with the potential to receive the bonus pay did little to change what they were doing and varied little from the control group in teaching practices and beliefs.
Though this study did not find performance incentives made a significant difference on middle school mathematics test scores overall, they did find a positive effect in grade 5 achievement. A possible reason is that these teachers were more likely to teach their students in multiple subjects; therefore, they could spend more time on mathematics, the subject tested, or that they knew their students better.
A later study by RAND (Marsh, Springer, McCaffrey, Yuan, Epstein, Koppich, Kalra, DiMartino & Peng, 2011) tested the effects of performance bonuses in a random sample of New City high-needs public schools. This 2007-2010 study was to improve student performance using school based financial incentives rather than the teacher incentives used in the NCPI study. They did not find the bonuses, about $3,000 per teacher/staff member and about $56 million for the total program, improved test scores. Schools were allowed to determine how they would distribute their bonuses. Most schools chose to distribute them equally, but some schools used performance measures to differentiate the amount of award each person received. There was no difference in achievement between these schools.
This study further challenges the assumptions of policy makers that teachers will teach better and students learn more if they are rewarded more. Unlike the National Center on Performance Incentives, the RAND investigators suggested that the conditions needed to motivate the teachers might not have been sufficient to make a difference in performance. These conditions are considered important pay-for-performance programs based on expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964; Marsh, et al. 2011). For example, in this study more than a third of the staff members were lacking in an understanding and awareness of how the incentive program worked and how it might affect them. Though most of the teachers wanted to win bonuses, almost half felt they were not large enough to motivate extra effort. Buy in was limited; only 57% of the staff members had to agree to participate for a school to be included in the experiment, and most felt the criteria relied too heavily on test scores. Some also felt the targets for bonuses were too high and the timeline not effective.
As discussed elsewhere, the reason pay-for-performance for teachers has not been shown to be effective may be that teacher motivation is not the problem, and therefore to incentivize it is not the solution. Teachers are already motivated to do their best, and greater financial rewards will not result in greater output. It may be that more money is the wrong incentive, even counterproductive, as it works against other motivations or adds more stress. It also may be that improved teacher motivation alone is not enough to make a difference in student achievement. Maybe other factors are more important and override the influence of merit pay.
Marsh and fellow researchers concluded
The results of this evaluation add to a growing body of research from the United States that finds no effects on student achievement of narrow pay-for-performance policies that focus only on financial incentives without other features, such as targeted professional development or revised teacher evaluations (Marsh, et al. 2011, p. 264).
They recommended that for pay-for-performance policies to work, they should create conditions that foster strong motivation, identify the factors that affect motivation, address the politics of school-level implementation and pilot test and evaluate before full implementation.
When we tie incentives such a merit pay to accountability measures, such as high stakes test, we have further problems. When we try to manipulate teachers with external rewards or punishments such as merit pay or testing, we undermine their internal motivation and their sense of public service and professional integrity. We also neglect the fact that the “teachers’ work is so idiosyncratic and unpredictable and requires so much improvisation (Evans, 2000).
Accountability and Incentives
Test-based accountability has been the most enduring education policy in the last fifty years (Elmore, 2004) and continues to dominate the political policy agenda (Feuer, 2008). It is attractive in that it promises an objective, accurate, easy and economical way to measure and assigns a quantitative value to the learning of students and effectiveness of teachers and schools. It is also part of a larger movement for accountability in society, especially by government and public agencies.
English education policies rely on more choice, tougher competition, intensified standardised testing and stronger school accountability. These are the key elements of the policies that were dominant in the United States, New Zealand, Japan and parts of Canada and Australia a decade or so ago. … Significantly, Finland has not employed any of the market-based educational reform ideas in the ways that they have been incorporated into the education policies of many other nations, including the United States and England (Salhberg, 2011).
Ideally, each individual, profession and institution should be self-accountable to high standards and strive continually to improve. In practice, we generally do need some external force or agency to establish, encourage and maintain acceptable standards, much as we need a police force and justice system to make individuals accountable for obeying the laws and a government to regulate the affairs of a state.
In principle, both accountability and incentives are effective and constructive tools in efforts for reform. Life itself is a series of tests for which we are held accountable and rewarded or punished based on our responses. We learn simple lessons, such as fire burns and how to get along in society, through trial and error. We make adjustments or reforms based on the informal or formal feedback we receive. However, when approaches used to determine accountability and apply incentives are faulty, decisions based on them can be destructive. For examples, if laws are unfair or are not applied fairly, the progress and order of society will deteriorate. In addition, if we are held accountable for things that are beyond our control, then it is patently unfair.
When what gets measured is not an accurate indication of the quality or outcome sought, pressure is exerted to focus on the indicator rather than the substance. In education, the important qualitative aspects of teaching are not easily quantified; neither are the other important aspects of learning. When the quality of learning and teaching gets reduced to a number, and when we further imagine that that number is an objective and accurate measure of education, we are deluded and have missed the most essential and important aspects of learning. However, there is a strong pressure to measure learning and to quantify objectively what each student and teacher is producing. We therefore seek to quantify using objective measurable standards, such as standardized tests. In the same way when we were determining the value of a person, we used some objective measures, such as race, gender, income, class, religion, nationality, weight or height, as an indicator of their value.
The recent book, Incentives and Test-Based Accountability in Education (2011), from a committee of the prestigious National Research Council of the National Academies, provides a synthesis of relevant research on the results of test-based accountability systems tied to incentives to improve student, teacher and administrator performance. This is the first time research on this topic from economics, psychology, other social sciences and education has been reviewed by a panel of leading scholars in several fields to prepare an informed statement to help guide policy makers and represents the culmination of a project originated by the National Academies Board on Testing and Assessment in 2002.
Their findings regarding the basic research on incentives found some interesting results. For instance, incentive systems may increase measured performance, but not the desired outcome. They also affect people in ways that are not predicted, created unexpected costs and have negative overall consequences. In complex organizations like schools, incentives will affect people differently depending on their position, performance and personality. Incentives can have an opposite effect, especially if receiving them is perceived as impossible, unlikely, not based on merit, not moral or not related to reality. They can also erode commitment to institutional goals and create disunity.
This is the situation we seem to find ourselves in at present and which reforms seem to be promoting and exacerbating. Teachers and schools are rewarded for accomplishing goals that are not reasonable while they have the support and resources they need taken from them, further undermining their possibilities of success. These and other problems have been discussed in other sections, especially in high stake testing, merit pay and demoralization.
Test-based incentives have additional problems in that tests generally do not provide either a rich or a reliable measure of a school or teacher’s mission. Not only do these tests not measure the most important things about education, they fail to fairly and fully assess the content they purport to measure in many significant and damaging ways. Those receiving the incentives will narrow their efforts to focus only on those parts of the subject or content that is covered on the tests. Therefore, we end up with the contradictory results of students’ test scores increasing while their real learning decreases.
Not only does it result in unequal treatment of the content, it can result in unequal treatment of students as well. For example, when schools or teachers are incentivized to increase the number or percentage of students who meet a performance standard such as proficient, there is a push to put most of the attention on those students near the cut score. Those students who will clearly pass or fail are not taught, as they will not affect the percentage pass rate. Only those students near the cut scores are given attention to assure that they can be added to or kept in the pass column. In addition, there can be competition among the teachers for those students who will boost their pass rates.
In addition, though focus on incentives and tests may bring short term results, long-term benefits may be sacrificed. For instance, the morale of students and educators may be negatively impacted. Later learning may also be negatively affected as the joy, meaning and sense of achievement and growth is lost. As learning is reduced to trivial, superficial or narrow activities, the desire to learn now and in the future is sacrificed.
Numerous examples of incentive systems producing unintended or contradictory results abound. Some examples are given in the section on the demoralization of the professions and institutions. For instance, when sales or business people are rewarded for earnings, it encourages unethical practices and self-interest over the interest of the customer or the company. In health care, when cure rates and the number of procedures performed are rewarded, health professionals are discouraged for taking higher risk patients and encouraged to perform more procedures, regardless of the best interests of their client.
These distortions and corruptions are already found in education related to high stakes tests, even though incentives are still relatively small. Examples of teaching to the test, gaming the system, cheating and manipulating results are prevalent, though at present very few salaries, benefits or jobs are affected. Recent cases in Atlanta and New York have been reported in the news. One way to limit these problems is to look at other indicators of performance that are not tied directly to the incentive measure. We should expect some increase in the indicators such as the high stakes tests being used to determine quality, however; is there a similar increase in other comparable performance measures that are not tied to high stakes.
The committee of the National Research Council found from a review of studies of test-based incentive programs that they have not had the desired effect of raising the United State achievement levels internationally and that high school exit exams have decreased graduation rates without increasing achievement. This analysis included the test that is part of NCLB. Their recommendations for policy and research states, “The modest and variable benefits shown by test-based incentive programs to date suggest that such programs should be used with caution and that substantial further research is required to understand how they can be used successfully” (2011, p. S-4).
Class Size
Another reform suggestion to save money and make education more efficient is to increase class size. A May 11, 2011 report, Class Size: What Research Says and What It Means for State Policy (Whitehurt & Chingos) gives us an example of how think tanks frame information and interpret data and findings in ways that serve their purposes rather than the public good or truth. As discussed earlier, these think tank reports get a lot of attention from the media and policy makers. This Brookings Institute report posits that schools can save money without compromising student learning through increasing the number of students in a class.
This report begins with a good section entitled “A Context for Linking Research to Policy”.
Advocates for legislation on any of these topics are likely to appeal to research evidence as support for their position. That is appropriate and desirable as long as: a) the evidence is of high quality, b) it is relevant to the legislative action under consideration, c) conflicting evidence isn’t ignored, and d) alternative courses of legislative action are similarly evaluated and compared.
These are good points that can be used to evaluate any evidence used to support any reform proposal for education. The above points a and b relate to the standard of truth and c and d to It is instructive to use these four standards from their report on class size, which help inform policy decisions based on research evidence, to see how well they applied these principles to their own work. This same approach is used in many statements intended to influence policy on educational reform: give standards and ideals by which they say they are guided, but violate them in practice. Such a claim or pretense to high principles that are not followed is either disingenuous or hypocritical.
High quality evidence, their first evaluative standard, is generally considered empirical studies with sound methodologies that lead to conclusions that would be consider highly reliable and valid. The facts need to establish some confirmation of a causal relationship between or among variables. According to their report, randomized and natural experiments or studies using sophisticated mathematical modeling are the highest quality evidence.
For the evidence that exists on class size, almost all studies are of the effects of class size reduction, not increases in class size. They did include the studies that met their “high-quality evidence” criteria. The study they identify as the most credible, the Student Teacher Achievement Ratio (STAR), found increases in math and reading scores of 0.2 standard deviations in class size reductions averaging from 22 to 15. Another high quality review of the class size literature published in the Journal of Economic Perspectives with the subtitle, “How Research Design is Taking the Con out of Econometrics” (Angrist & Pischke, 2010) found a 0.2 to 0.3 standard deviation increase when class size was reduced by 10 students. Other research that met the high quality standard also found similar results or were not conclusive.
However, they also included other evidence that did not meet their own standards of high quality and gave more credence to these studies, which generally showed mixed or no results, to support their conclusion that class size is not an important variable. In this case, they violated both principles a) quality evidence and c) conflicting evidence. They include much of the high quality evidence that conflicts with their views, but then they proceeded to discredit or downplay it, focusing instead on unreliable and weak studies “that improperly represents what we do know” (Schanzenbach, 2011, p. 5).
Standards b and d were not honored in that their policy recommendations were not relevant and that alternative courses of action were not similarly evaluated and compared. They misrepresented the information given. An example that seems to not only violate these two principles, but the others as well, is Whitehurt and Chingos’ suggestion that a 1-student increase in class size would result in more than $12 billion in savings.
They are making some unreasonable assumptions when they used the reverse case of changing the current ratio of teachers from 15.3 to 14.3. According to their example, using the current data of 3.2 million teachers and 49.3 students would require 226,000 additional teachers at an average salary of $55,000, which would cost an extra $12.4 billion a year; therefore, increasing the ratio by one should save this much a year. They further suggest by doing this the schools could let go the least effective teacher therefore lessening the possible negative impacts of increased class size.
This logic is flawed in several ways. One is the practical implications of reducing real teachers in real schools. This has been experienced when class maximums are imposed, such as happened in several cases of class size reduction. When you cap a class size and it goes over by one, you have to hire another teacher, which changes the ratio dramatically, as it cuts the class with the maximum plus one in half. Increasing class sizes by one also does not mean you will be able to fire a teacher. To go to a 16.3 student to one teacher ration from a 15.3 students to one teacher ratio includes more than simple math. Classroom numbers are not uniformly equal and easily divisible. More than classroom teachers are involved in the ratio and increasing by one student does not equate to getting rid of one teacher. For example, if you increase class size from 25 to 26, how do you get rid of teacher? You cannot fire or hire a fraction of a teacher in these cases.
In addition, Whitehurt and Chingos’ suggest that by eliminating the least effective teachers, they could limit the negative effect of the class size increase; however, how the least effective teachers would be identified and fired was not discussed. These problems further limit their findings. Schanzenbach’s (2011) review of this report found several problems with their interpretation of the research and conclusions. She concludes that it “is of limited use in policy debates”, “provides a misleading characterization of the prior research” and “the authors fail to make their case” (p. 6).
International Comparisons
As the world shrinks and becomes much more interconnected, it is only natural that nations would compare their educational programs and successes with one another. Learning from others is and excellent way to discover new ways of improving. If someone else has created an effective approach, others can learn from it. The most talked about comparisons of educational attainment come in the form of international assessments. One thing that is not talked about is how much these tests predict future success for both the individual and the society. The predictability, reliability and validity of these international assessments, like standardized test used to measure student and teacher growth, are much more limited than the public supposes, yet we take them as accurate and trustworthy indicators of learning, and by extension, progress and success.
Putting those major concerns aside for the present, let’s look at how the United States compares to other nations, to see what we might learn. Scores on international tests for the U.S. are in the average range for all nations that participate. The scores for the United State were up slightly in the latest results from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA); however, what made the news was how poorly U.S. students performed compared to other nations. The common perception conveyed in the media is that the United States was once the world’s leader in these international comparisons and has now fallen behind. This is not true. The first international assessment in 1964 ranked the U.S. as second to last out of 12 nations. There has been a slight but general trend of improvement in U.S. scores on these tests since 1964 (Loveless, 2011, p. 9).
The result of the latest PISA ranked Shanghai-China, Hong Kong-China, Finland, Singapore and South Korea as the top scorers. Among the nations in the original 12 tested in 1964, Finland was ranked fourth, but in 2009, it was ranked first among them. It has become regarded as a model the United States should look to for improving our education system. Many of Finland’s policies and approaches are contrary to what is being proposed as reforms in the U.S. For example, Finland distributes educational resources much more equitably, pays higher teachers’ salaries, gives teachers greater authority and autonomy and has no high-stakes standardized tests (Darling-Hammond, 2010).
Sahlberg gives some other differences.
A typical feature of teaching and learning in Finland is high confidence in teachers and principals as respected professionals. Another involves encouraging teachers and students to try new ideas and approaches rather than teaching them to master fixed attainment targets. This makes school a creative and inspiring place for students and teachers. These policies are a result of three decades of systematic, mostly intentional development that has created a culture of diversity, trust and respect within Finnish society in general, and within its education system in particular. The result is a cocktail of good ideas from other countries and smart practices from the tradition of teaching and learning in Finland.
The secret of education in Finland is that it brings together government policy, professional involvement and public engagement around an inspiring social and educational vision of equity, prosperity and creativity in a world of greater inclusiveness, security and humanity (2011).
America should thoughtfully consider some of these alternative approaches, especially when they are making policies that are contrary to them.
Some of these uniquely American solutions -- charter schools, private school vouchers, entrepreneurial innovations, grade-by-grade testing, diminished teachers' unions, and basing teachers' pay on how their students do on standardized tests -- may be appealing on their surface. To many in the financial community, these market-inspired reform ideas are very appealing.
Yet, these proposed solutions are nowhere to be found in the arsenal of strategies used by the top-performing nations. And almost everything these countries are doing to redesign their education systems, we're not doing. (Tucker, 2011)
Let’s take a closer look at we are doing and what they are doing that is different. These are broad generalizations and need to be explored more closely. The first relates to accountability and respect. It seems the more autonomy, professional responsibility and respect teachers are given, the better the results. The trend in the U.S. is in the opposite direction. As trust breaks down the push for external controls, incentives and accountability increases. High stakes testing, standardization and market management becomes more important. We are de professionalizing education and turning schools into businesses. We have discussed these issues at length earlier and in general we seem to be moving away from what works in other countries. The one exception seems to be class size. Many of the high performing nations have larger classes, but the strong cultures of learning and respect for teachers make this feasible.
However, we could look at international comparisons by seeing how different U.S. schools populations compare. What if we compare American students according to rates of poverty, which has been shown to be highly related to differences in student achievement? Using the 2009 Programme for International Student Achievement (PISA) tests in reading, U.S. schools with fewer than 10 percent of students in poverty ranked first among all nations, while those serving more than 75 percent of students in poverty ranked about fiftieth (Darling-Hammond, 2012).
If we break out the U.S. scores by percentage of schools’ students in poverty, how would they be ranked in international comparisons using the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) and Trends in International Math and Science Study (TIMMS)?
In the PIRLs, U.S. students in schools with less than 10% poverty rate, which constituted 13% of all U.S. students scored the highest, those in the 10%-25% range were ranked second and those with 25%-50% poverty ranked only behind Sweden, Netherlands and England. In the TIMMS fourth-grade science rankings these same groups were ranked first, second and fourth respectively (Bracey, 2007, p. 133).
Breaking the data down by poverty rate results in wealthier students in the United States outperforming all other nations. The strong relationship between poverty and test scores seen in the PIRLS data are replicated in the Scholastic Achievement Test (SAT), in the Trends in International Math and Science Study (TIMSS), and in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) (Bracey, 2009, p. 4). So maybe we should be looking to our own high scoring schools in the U.S. to see what they are doing that we can learn from.
It is the high poverty schools in the U.S. that need to improve, not the wealthy ones, but the reforms being put upon these poor schools are the opposite of what is working in the high scoring nations and what is used in the most elite and high-scoring schools in the United States (Evans, 2000). No respectable independent private school in the United States, which charges tens of thousands of dollars in tuition, uses the U.S. reform policies being legislated on the schools serving low-income families. If they did, they would go out of business. What might we learn from them?
Though U.S. average scores are middling internationally, the rankings of many of our schools are the best in the world. How do we explain that? Another way of looking at the international assessment data is the real numbers of students who score well.
A publication from OECD itself observes that if one examines the number of highest-scoring students in science, the United States has 25% of all high-scoring students in the world (at least in “the world” as defined by the 58 nations taking part in the assessment—the 30 OECD nations and 28 “partner” countries). Among nations with high average scores, Japan accounted for 13% of the highest scorers, Korea 5%, Taipei 3%, Finland 1%, and Hong Kong 1% (Bracey, 2009, pp. 2-3).
With a larger population, the United States would be expected to have a larger percentage, but looking at the highest scorers gives a different impression than looking at the national average scores, which include all students. What we have not discussed, but is an important question, is who and what are being assessed. How should we interpret the results of these assessments? Many questions and concerns can be raised. One final question—though the United States had consistently scored low to middling since 1964, why is it that these scores only become a concern in times of economic turmoil and how do we account for the times of prosperity with the same scores?
Conclusion
“Human history is a race between education and catastrophe.”
H.G. Wells
In closing, I believe education is a tremendous force and has the potential of enabling individuals and societies to flourish. However, formal education and those that work in the field of education can only do so much. Other environmental factors also greatly affect the educational process. For instance, schools and teachers cannot reform the political, cultural and economic institutions and structures in the society that control and criticize them and their students. As we are experiencing, those very institutions are in positions of power to pressure reform in education. In addition, education does not happen just in the schools and at the hands of schoolteachers. It happens primarily in the home at the hands of parents and the influences of their environment, with economics, politics, media and culture playing a large role.
Then to demonize the schools and teachers when they are set up to fail is wrong. Schools reflect the values of the society of which they are a part, and they deal with the students and problems of that society. We live in a society that is doing little to encourage the proper physical, mental, emotional, moral and spiritual development of its young. If we really wish to turn things around, that is where we need to focus our attention. We also live in a society that fails to engender or encourage many of its individual citizens to aspire to wholesome lives. Teachers are very limited in being able to turn these things around on their own.
We want and need teachers that are more effective; however, if we are serious about solving society’s problems, we will need parents, families, communities and governments that are more effective as well. Teachers alone cannot solve the neglect, abuse, poverty, deprivation, hunger, inequities, injustices and sickness from which their students suffer. Our current understanding of human needs suggests that until these more basic needs are met to an adequate degree, learning will be hampered.
Using our Capacities to Develop Truth, Love and Justice
When our thinking capacity is directed toward knowing ultimate truth, our feeling toward valuing altruistic love and our doing toward choosing justice, we flourish. As we build unity in the diversity of expressions of truth, love and justice, through grass-roots efforts and the involvement of all parties, we increase our capacity to inform and transform our communities and institutions. Using and encouraging the assets of all parties is the key to effective human resource development and actualizing human potential.
Thinking, feeling and willing are directly related to the cognitive, affective and conative domains that must be properly nurtured, developed and harmonized for individual, community and institutional health and well-being. These cognitive, affective and conative faculties are the dynamic focal points for effective interactions with our environments, and are key aspects of learning and development actualized in pursuing the spiritual principles of truth, love and justice. Our growing consciousness or awareness of these potentialities and principles allows us to develop our practice of realizing life-enriching authentic, valid knowledge, altruistic, sincere love and autonomous, virtuous will. To be effective, human resource development must practice and be based upon truth and authenticity, love and altruism and justice and autonomy.
Developing human resources is an intellectual, emotional and moral endeavor. Mind, heart and will, as well as truth, love and just have subjective and objective, as well as individual and collective aspects that all need to be considered for a holistic understanding. Utilizing our minds, hearts and wills in pursuit of truth, love and justice, is a powerful contributor to human resource development. These capacities enable and encourage individuals to be capable, conscious and conscientious developers of themselves and their communities. If we fail to address the mind, heart and will and to develop each faculty fully, we will not develop the goals, values and actions essential to making a whole, healthy and balanced person, organization and society. Their development leads to a healthy self-knowledge, self-esteem and self-reliance that can counteract the egotism, narcissism and selfishness that is endemic in modern society.
This is a complex, difficult and lifelong process involving the emotional abilities to perceive, use, understand and manage emotions (Mayer and Salovey, 1997), and of self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, and relationship management (Goleman, 1998). The moral intelligence capacities of integrity, responsibility, forgiveness and compassion (Lennick and Kiel, 2005) and empathy, conscience, self-control, respect, kindness, tolerance and fairness (Borba, 2001), along with the spiritual qualities of critical existential thinking, personal meaning production, transcendental awareness and conscious state expansion (King & DeCicco, 2009), are important for development. As we attend to these so that human potential and motivation are released, happiness, honor, well-being and security will grow. We currently suffer from a lack and imbalance of these qualities.
Our minds, hearts and wills are challenged by our aggressive and alluring materialistic, consumer-driven and narcissistic culture that has corrupted these faculties and their powers. As we consecrate ourselves in service to the greater good utilizing the creative powers of our natures through the application of truth, love and justice, we develop our human resource and release our potential. It requires the exercise of our minds, hearts and wills, and develops integrity, prosperity and healthy authenticity, altruism and autonomy. As we strive for excellence in the humble spirit of service, physical, psychological and spiritual well-being will follow for the individual, and the communities and institutions of which they are a part.
The basic challenge and goal is to know, love and serve ourselves and need while we do the same for others. Learning about our strengths and weaknesses so we can deal with them effectively is a fundamental charge to all individuals. Learning from our experiences and those of others past and present helps us develop a framework for life.
Developing our potential will require us to transcend our limiting perceptions and attachments by focusing on higher purposes and capabilities. Our lives are a series of successes and failures in this regard. Every day we are tested. Every day we can manage our affairs and responsibilities based on moral and ethical principles that can transform our world. In our daily affairs, we can take initiative in sustainable, creative and disciplined ways that enables those we work with and for to persevere and overcome the many obstacles that are placed in our paths. We can turn each obstacle into an opportunity.
One obstacle we face is realizing that our truth is currently largely seen though an unconscious lens. In modern societies that lens sees reality as material and what is true is objective, based upon natural and measurable laws. Our culture tends to seek explanations of reality with little regard for things immaterial. By truthfully and fairly looking at options with due consideration for all, we can expand our consciousnesss, conversations and understandings.
Education Reform Perspective
The United States has led the world in educational attainment since the mid-nineteenth century, first with universal compulsory elementary education, then with secondary education and finally with the finest university system in the world. Somewhere in the later part of the twentieth century, it began to lose its distinction as a world leader in education. It can no longer claim to be an undisputed leader in any of these levels of education, largely because other nations have continued to advance in the indicators of educational attainment while the U.S. has not.
High school graduation rates continued to rise until the 1970s when they plateaued at about 75%, while other nations on average continued to increase and many pass the United States. It can be argued that U.S. students do not need more education than they currently receive. Most students receive an adequate education to get a job, earn a livelihood and live productively in society. More of the same education will not necessarily make them better equipped for life. However, as education attainment has slowed, economic inequality has soared (Goldin & Katz, 2008).
Education has, can and will continue to reform. Educational institutions and culture have to adapt to changing conditions. However, these reforms should be systematic and based on sound facts and principles. Assertions that something is broken and must be fixed should be supported by sound evidence and reasoned arguments. We need to have extensive investigation and consultation on these matters. We need to employ the best our science and society has to offer to identify, define and solve these problems. We must continually strive for excellence in all we do, seeking to advance the best interests of all humankind.
Demagogic pronouncements that appeal to our lower natures and prejudices are harmful to the public welfare. Manipulating people for political, ideological or selfish interests is destructive. In the past, hucksters were allowed to sell various “remedies” that not only did not help, but also were actually harmful. As a result, we created systems to protect the public from unscrupulous practices and to assure that the products we use are safe and do what they are supposed to do.
We need similar protection from the modern snake oil that is being sold to fix what ails schools. These new and innovative ideas should be successfully field and pilot tested to see if they work before we force them into policy and practice. The initial findings related to many of the reform proposals do not suggest they are working. We currently have any number of people parading as educational experts, promising quick, easy and inexpensive solutions, but they have not diagnosed the problems accurately, nor have their prescriptions worked. In fact, they are making the patient worse and with each new injection of yet another “cure”, the health of education languishes.
Education and teachers matter, especially with high needs students. The future well-being of the person, community and state depend on the quality of education. They deserve our best efforts and intentions. Given proper support, they can make a big difference.
Teachers are different and may be successful in one setting but not another. Some are more effective with younger children, in rural settings or challenging students. They are not interchangeable. Each community and school will create a different context that may facilitate or hinder a teacher’s success.
The method used by science to investigate reality relies on the scientific method, which generally includes some experimentation that is subject to external validation and verification. The value of any thought or discovery must be examined by qualified experts to make some determination of its worth and validity. Theories, thoughts, methods and results are shared with others for their review. This happens among educators and those who study education. However, the experts in education who are qualified to make such assessments, are not given the resources to do the level of scientific inquiry needed to make clearer determinations about what works. In addition, simplistic and measurable solutions are more likely to find positive results, when their influence may be limited or even negative in the long term.
Development involves the body, mind and spirit and how they are manifested in action through cognition, affection, conation and physical action. Though one may have the knowledge, desire and will to act, one must ultimately put those capacities into action.
If we are to create thoughtful, caring and just schools and classrooms and help develop the full range of our students’ capacities, we ourselves must possess the knowledge, desire, skills, fortitude and moral competence to do so. Education should foster love, nobility, high ideals, morality, service, responsibility, kindness and respect for others. Teachers are to be models of education, exemplifying the virtues they seek to inspire in their students. These include the cognitive skills related to honesty, open mindedness, understanding and truth; the affective dispositions of love, caring, humility and kindness; and the conative capacities for tolerance, justice, courage and trustworthiness. This education will contribute to the transformation of our quickly shrinking and flattening world to one where peace, happiness and prosperity are available to the generality of humankind.
Such a holistic framework is an antidote the narrow materialistic worldview that is in ascendancy today. If educational systems are to contribute to the solutions, rather than contribute to the problems our society faces, then curricula of truth, love and justice should constitute its foundation and framework. The materialistic frameworks have failed to counter the growth of hatred, prejudice, greed and oppression that lead to a breakdown of institutions and social systems. A more holistic paradigm and framework will help shape the culture and beliefs of people so they can develop their potentialities to contribute to the well-being of society. It can create and nurture learning, just and harmonious communities within its institutions.
These three guiding principles are based in the ethical, philosophical and religious ideals of the true, the beautiful and the good relate to the cognitive, affective and conative domains in psychology and education. These values are often at odds with modern-day conceptions of leadership, such as competition, power and aggressiveness.
Schools with capable, committed and caring students and communities are more likely to be successful. They will also attract good teachers and help them become better. Good teachers can help transform students and communities, but, depending on the circumstances, it can be a very daunting task, especially when they are expected to do it on their own. Yet this seems to be what many proponents of educational reform are expecting of teachers and schools to do. To take students who have not been given a foundation upon which to learn effectively and who live in communities that do not support the mission of the school is an enormous challenge. Policy makers are holding teachers and schools accountable for something they did not create and have little ability to change. Further, to create this expectation and withdraw both moral and financial support to the schools and teachers to achieve this goal is irresponsible.
Like Soldiers Under Attack
Educators are beginning to feel like soldiers under attack, and we are not prepared for the attack we are receiving, as it is coming from the very government we have pledged ourselves to serve. While we are dedicating our efforts to our mission to educate all children, our support systems are being cut off and the standards and training needed to be successful in our mission are being curtailed.
As teacher educators, we are on the front lines of seeing that teachers are well prepared to fulfill their duties to the state and its citizens. We are also under attack. We have been doing our jobs with integrity and to the best of our ability, preparing teachers to be effective in the schools and classrooms of this state, but now find the leaders of that state undermining our efforts, and therefore limiting the effectiveness of our candidate in the field and endangering future lives and our mission.
Teaching, like military service, is a mission-focused team effort. Though we may have heroes and moments of heroic activity, the success of our missions depends on the collaboration and competence of all members of our school or unit. Currently the teachers and leaders of schools have some assurance that the teachers and administrators in their schools have been well prepared for their jobs. They have all gone through the same rigorous selections process and training to be where they are. They can and will do what they have been well trained to do in the mission of educating our state’s young people. If they do not measure up in battle, they are made able to do so or are reassigned. If they cannot rely of the other personnel in their unit, the teachers and administrators in their school, their effectiveness is greatly limited.
If they cannot trust the government, whom they are serving, to keep their best interests at heart, their morale and effectiveness will be harmed. We as teacher educators, who have prepared these teachers and administrators for the classrooms and schools, feel a special duty and responsibility to make sure that those we have prepared to serve their state and nation are given the support they need to be effective, otherwise, we have done a disservice to them. Without the support needed, we can see that our mission of quality education for all will fail. We have not given our talents and lives to fail, and cannot sit idly by while others dismantle the years of building we have done.
There is more to military service, teaching and leading than meets the untrained and inexperienced eye. I implore critics to listen to those educators who have the training and experience before they make decisions that will have a negative impact on our state’s welfare for years to come. As one education reform governor stated, “We also have to send a clear message in every school and community that we honor teachers and value great teaching. We need our best and brightest, in teaching, in Michigan. We should provide the highest-quality training that can ensure that every child is taught by a skilled professional who can help that child succeed (Snyder, 2011, p. 9). The proposed changes do not honor teachers, value teaching or assure the best and brightest will get high quality training.
Our kids do matter. They deserve the best teachers and administrators we can give them. Many of the reforms proposed will erode that possibility as they realign our education standards downwards. We must do our best not to let that happen.
Appendix A: Letter to the Governor and Legislators of Michigan
2011
Letter to the Governor and Legislators of Michigan
I am writing this letter as a representative of the Michigan Association of Colleges of Teacher Education (MACTE) board of trustees. MACTE represents almost all of the 34 teacher education programs in Michigan. I wish to offer my services, and the services of other educators in Michigan, to assist you in solving the problems facing education in Michigan. Among our ranks are some of the most experienced and respected scholars in education and the most highly regarded teacher education programs in the country. Although my colleagues and I represent different institutions and diverse perspectives, we believe that many of the current educational reform proposals will harm education in this state. We would like the opportunity to share our understandings, concerns and research with you.
Michigan has a rich history in education of which it can be proud. It can be better, and together we can make reforms that will help us realize a brighter future for our citizens, schools and state. However, if we do not work together upholding the standards of truth, care and justice, we will see a continued erosion of our state’s well being. No individual, community or institution on its own can bring about the change needed. It is only as we work together for the welfare of all that we will see the positive growth for which we all long.
I am speaking on behalf of Michigan’s teacher educators who believe teaching is a noble profession and have dedicated their lives to this high calling. Like most other teachers I know, I chose to become a teacher because I wanted to give back to my community and to help young people become the best they could. I was motivated by a love of learning and a desire to serve humanity to the best of my ability. I have been privileged to teach at almost every level in several settings around the world and the United States over the last 40 years. In Michigan, I have held leadership positions in teacher education at public and private universities in urban and rural settings over 27 years.
As teacher educators, my colleagues and I have hundreds of years of teaching and teacher education experience. We are proud of our graduates and believe they are among the best prepared in the world. We are troubled that many of the reform policies for education and teacher education undermine the excellence and standards we have achieved.
We believe many of the perceptions and assumptions upon which these educational reform policies are made are faulty. We believe these reform proposals work against what their proponents claim to be supporting and that they subvert the best interests of our children. For instance, you call for increased knowledge, professional development, technology and clinical experiences for teachers while approving alternative certification routes and eliminating continuing education requirements for teachers, which work against these purposes.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this request. We look forward to collaborating with you in our combined efforts to serve the best interests of the children of Michigan. We helped build a world-class education system in Michigan. Let us work together in solving these problems.
Sincerely,
Rodney H Clarken
References
‘Abdu’l-Bahá. (1978). Selections from the writing of Abdul-Bahá. Haifa, Israel: Bahá’í World Center.
‘Abdu’l-Bahá. (1982). Some answered questions. 5th ed. Compiled and translated by Laura Clifford Barney. Wilmette, IL: Bahá’í Publishing Trust.
‘Abdu’l-Bahá. (1983). The secret of divine civilization. 3rd ed. Wilmette, IL: Bahá’í Publishing Trust.
Allen, R.E. (2006). Plato: The republic. New Haven: Yale University Press.
American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education. (2011). AACTE members respond to NCTQ “research” efforts. Retrieved from
American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education. (2011). Background on NCTQ and the U.S. News and World Report evaluation of teacher preparation programs. Retrieved from
American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education. (2011, July 21). NCTQ student teaching report missed the mark. Retrieved from
Amrein-Beardsley, A. (2008). Methodological concerns about the education value-added assessment system, Educational Researcher 37, 65–75. Retrieved from
Anderson, L., & Krathwohl, D. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives: Complete edition. New York: Longman.
Arbab, F. (2000). Promoting a discourse on science, religion, and development. In S. Harper (Ed.) The lab, the temple, and the market : Reflections at the intersection of science , religion, and development (pp. 149-238). Ottawa: International Development Research Centre.
Arnold, J. (February 2, 2012). How Race to the Top is like ‘Queen for a Day. The Washington Post, February 2, 2012. Retrieved from
Asimov, I. (1984). New guide to science. New York: Basic Books.
Assagioli, R. (1973). The act of will. New York: Penguin.
Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development Panel on Moral Education. (1988). Moral education in the life of the school. Educational Leadership, 45(8), 4-8.
Atman, (1982). Adult education: Foundations of practice. New York: Harper & Row.
Aurobindo, S. (1909). Yoga and human evolution. In Essays in philosophy and yoga: Shorter works -1910-1950, 16. Retrieved from
Baker, E. L., Barton, P. E., Darling-Hammond, L., Haertel, E., Ladd, H. F., Linn, R. L., Ravitch, D., Rothstein, R., Shavelson, R. J., and Shepard, L. A. (2010). Problems with the use of student test scores to evaluate teachers. Economic Policy Institute Briefing Paper #278, August 29, 2010, Washington, DC. Retrieved from .
Baldwin, J. (1985). The Price of the Ticket, Collected Non-Fiction 1948-1985, New York: Saint Martins.
Bartlett, R., & Collins, S. (2011). Nicomachean ethics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Beck, D., & Cowan, C. (1996). Spiral dynamics: Mastering values, leadership and change. Malden, MA: Blackwell Business.
Bellah, R. (1970). Beyond belief. New York: Harper & Row.
Belle, T. (1982). Formal, nonformal, and informal education: A holistic perspective on lifelong learning. International Review of Education, 28(2), 159-175.
Berliner, D. C., & Biddle, B. (1995). The manufactured crisis: Myths, fraud, and the attack on America’s schools. New York: Perseus Books.
Bernstein, R. (1983). Beyond objectivism and relativism: Science, hermeneutics, and praxis. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Bloom, B., Englehart, M., Furst, E., Hill, W., & Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Cognitive domain. New York: Longmans Green.
Boadella, D. (1998). Essence and ground: Towards the understanding of spirituality in psychotherapy. International Journal of Psychotherapy, 3(1), 29-52
Borba, M. (2001). Building moral intelligence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bracey, G. (2001). The war against America’s public schools: Privatizing schools, commercializing education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Allyn & Bacon
Bracey, G. (2007, October). The first time 'everything changed': The 17th Bracey report on the condition of public education. Phi Delta Kappan, 89(02), 119-136.
Bracey, G. (2009). The Bracey Report on the Condition of Public Education. Boulder and Tempe:
Brady, M. (2011, November 1). The complete list of problems with high-stakes standardized tests. Washington Post, November 1, 2011. Retrieved from
Brophy, J. (1987). Synthesis of research on strategies for motivating students to learn. Educational Leadership. October.
Buckley, M., & Saarni, C. (2009). Emotion regulation: Implications for positive youth development. In R. Gilman, E, Huebner, & M. Furlong (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology in the schools (pp. 107-118). New York: Routledge.
Campbell, D. T. (1976). Assessing the impact of planned social change. Dartmouth College, Occasional Paper Series, #8, Retrieved from
Cartwright, K. B. (2001). Cognitive developmental theory and spiritual development. Journal of Adult Development 8(4), 213-220
Caspe, M., Lopez, M. E., Chu, A., & Weiss, H. (2011, May). Teaching the teachers: Preparing educators to engage families for student achievement. Issue Brief. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project and Alexandria, VA: National PTA.
Center on Education Policy. (2008). Has Student Achievement Increased Since 2002? State Test Score Trends Through 2006-07. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.
Center on Education Policy. (2011). Strained schools face bleak future: Districts foresee budget cuts, teacher layoffs, and a slowing of education reform efforts. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.
Chen, G. (2009). Charter schools vs. traditional public schools: Which one is under-performing? Public School Review, July 10, 2009. Retrieved from
Childre, D. L. & Martin, H. (1999).The HeartMath solution. New York: HarperCollins.
Clarken, R. (1993). Evaluation of student teaching based upon Scriven's Duties of the Teacher. TEACH, 5(1), 14-16.
Clarken, R. (1993, April). Clinical and field-based experiences to prepare teachers for holistic practice. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 360 300).
Clarken, R. (2006, July). Moral education in the time of global transformation. Paper presented at the Oxford Round Table, London, England. Retrieved from
Clarken, R. (2010, March 26) Socratic knowledge, Christian love, Confucian virtue and Buddhist emptiness: Guiding principles for education. Paper presented at the 2010 Michigan Academy of Science, Arts & Letters Conference, Grand Rapids, MI. Retrieved from
Cohen, D. K., Raudenbush, S., & Ball, D. L. (2003). Resources, instruction and research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25, 119–142
Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J., McPartland, F., Mood, A. M., Weinfeld, F. D., et al. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office
Coles, G. (2003). Reading the naked truth: Literacy, legislation and lies. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Collins, J. & Porras, J. (1994). Built to last: Successful habits of visionary companies.
New York: Harper Business.
Collins, J. (2001). Good to great. New York: Harper Collins.
Combs, A. (2002). The radiance of being: Understanding the grand integral vision: Living the integral life. St. Paul, MN: Paragon House
Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health, Committee on Early Childhood, Adoption, and Dependent Care, and Section on Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics. (January 2012). Early childhood adversity, toxic stress, and the role of the pediatrician: Translating developmental science into lifelong health pediatrics. Pediatrics, 129(1), e224-e231.
Cook-Greuter, S. R. (2000). Mature ego development: A gateway to ego transcendence. Journal of Adult Development, 7(4), 227-240.
Cook-Greuter, S. R. (2002). A detailed description of the development of nine action logics in the leadership development framework. Retrieved from
Cook-Greuter, S. R. (2005). Ego development: Nine levels of increasing embrace. Retrieved from .
Covaleskie, J. (2010). Educational attainment and economic inequality: What schools cannot do. Journal of Thought, Spring-Summer, 83-96. Retrieved from .
Covey, S. (1989). 7 habits of highly effective people. New York: Free Press
Covey, S. (1992). Principle centered leadership. New York: Fireside.
Covey, S. (2004). The 8th habit. Free Press
Covey, S. (2004). The 8th habit: From effectiveness to greatness. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Cowan, C. & Todorovic, N. (2008). Dr. Clare W. Graves’s emergent, cyclical levels of existence theory applied. Retrieved February 2, 2008 from Graves/colors.htm.
Cowan, C., C., & Todorovic, N. (2005). Dr. Clare W. Graves explores human nature: The never ending quest: A treatise on an emergent cyclical conception of adult behavioral systems and their development. Santa Barbara: ECLET Publishing
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The Psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper Collins.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2004). Stalking the new world order. New Literary History. 35(2) 339-348.
Cuban, L. (1994, June). The great school cam. Education Week, 15 June 1994. Retrieved from
Damon, W. (1988). The moral child. New York: Free Press.
Darling-Hammond, L. & Bransford, J. (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education: How America’s commitment to equity will determine our future. New York: Teachers College Press.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2011, May 30,). A dangerous obsession. New York Times. Retrieved from
Darling-Hammond, L. (2012, January). Darling-Hammond: Why is Congress redlining our schools. Washington Post. Retrieved from
Darling-Hammond, L., Amrein-Beardsley, A., Haertel, E., Rothstein, J. (September 14, 2011). Getting teacher education right: A background paper for policy makers. American Educational Research Association and National Academy of Education. Retrieved from
Darling-Hammond, L., Amrein-Beardsley, A., Haertel, E., Rothstein, J. (March, 2012). Evaluating teacher evaluation. Phi Delta Kappan, 93 (6). Retrieved from
Deci, E.L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18, 105-115.
Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (1985). Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. New York: Plenum.
Deci, E.L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R.M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 12(6), 627-668.
Dewey, J. (1897) My pedagogic creed. School Journal 54, 77-80. Retrieved from
Dewey, J. (1916/1966). Democracy and education. New York: Free Press.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. 2nd ed. Boston: D.C. Heath.
Dewey, J. (1938/1997). Experience and education. New York: Collier Books.
Diamond, J. (2005). Collapse. New York: Viking.
Diessner, R. (2002). Differentiating physical, social and spiritual emotions. Unpublished manuscript. Lewis-Clark State College.
Downey, D. B., von Hippel, P. T., & Broh, B. (2004). Are schools the great equalizer? Cognitive inequality during the summer months and the school year. American Sociological Review, 69(5), 613–635
Easterbrook, G. (2004). The progress paradox. New York: Random.
Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. Retrieved from
Eduventures. (2010, September). Review & critique of NCTQ & Advance Illinois Study on Illinois teacher preparation programs. Boston: Eduventures. Retrieved from
Elmore, R.F. (2004). The problem of stakes in performance-based accountability systems. In S.H. Fuhrman and R.F. Elmore (eds.), Redesigning Accountability Systems for Education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Emmons, R.A. (2000). Is spirituality an intelligence? Motivation, cognition, and the psychology of ultimate concern. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 10, 3-26.
Entwisle, D. R., Alexander, K. L., & Olson, L. S. (1997). Children, schools, and inequality. Baltimore MD: Westview.
Erikson, E. (1950). Childhood and society. New York: Norton.
Erikson, E. (1959). Identity and the life cycle. New York: International Univ. Press.
Evans, R. (2011). The tragedy of American school reform. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Evans, R. (2000, Spring). Why a school doesn’t run—or change—like a business. Independent School Magazine, 59 (3). Retrieved from
Ewing, J. (2011). Mathematical intimidation: Driven by the data. Notices of the American Mathematics Society, 58 (5), 667-673. Retrieved from
Fehr, E., & Falk, A. (2002). Psychological foundations of incentives. European Economic Review, 46, 687-724.
Feistritzer, E. (2010). Alternative teacher certification: A state-by-state analysis. Washington, DC: National Center for Alternative Certification.
Feuer, M.J. (2008). Future directions for educational accountability: Notes for a political economy of measurement. In K.E. Ryan and L.A. Shepard (eds.), The Future of Test-Based Educational Accountability. New York: Routledge.
Fowler, J. (1981). Stages of faith: The psychology of human development and the quest for meaning. San Francisco: Harper & Row.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder.
Friedman, T. (2005). The world is flat. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Gallup. (2010). Education. Retrieved from
Gamoran, A., & Long, D. (2006). Equality of Education Opportunity: A 40-year retrospective. WCER Working Paper No. 2006-9. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education Research. Retrieved from
Gangadean, A. (2006a). A planetary crisis of consciousness: From ego-based cultures to a sustainable global world. Kosmos: An Integral Approach to Global Awakening V, 37-39.
Gangadean, A. (2006b). Spiritual transformation as the awakening of global consciousness: A dimensional shift in the technology of mind. Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science, 41 (2), 381-392.
Gebser, J. (1947/1985). The ever-present origin. Athens: Ohio Univ. Press.
Gebser, J. (1970/2005). The invisible origin: Evolution as a supplementary process (T. Röttgers, Trans.) Retrieved from
Gershon, M. (1999). The second brain. New York: HarperCollins.
Geula, K. (2004). Emotional intelligence and spiritual development. Paper presented at the Forum for Integrated Education and Educational Reform sponsored by the Council for Global Integrative Education, Santa Cruz, CA, October 28-30. Retrieved from
Gidley, J. (2007). The evolution of consciousness as a planetary imperative: An integration of integral views. Integral Review: A Transdisciplinary and Transcultural Journal for New Thought, Research and Praxis, 5, 4-226.
Giles, I. (1999). An examination of persistence and dropout in the online computer-conferenced classroom [Electronic version]. Dissertation retrieved from
Gilligan, G. (1982) In a different voice. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.
Giroux, H. A. (2005). Schooling and the struggle for public life: Democracy's promise and education's challenge. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers
Giroux, H.A. (2009). Youth in a suspect society: democracy or disposability? Democracy or disposability? New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Giroux, H.A. (2011). Education and the crisis of public values: Challenging the assault on teachers, students, and public education. New York: Peter Lang.
Glazer, S. (Ed.). (1999). The heart of learning: Spirituality in education. New York: Penguin /Putnam.
Goe, L., Bell, C., & Little, O. (2008). Approaches to evaluating teacher effectiveness: A research synthesis. Washington DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality.
Goldin, C. & Katz, L. (2008). The race between education and technology. Boston: Harvard University Press.
Goleman D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. NY: Bantam.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
Goleman, D. (2006). Social intelligence: The revolutionary new science of human relations. New York: Bantam Books.
Goodlad, J. (1990). Teachers for the nation's schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Goodlad, J., Soder, R., & Sirotnik, K. (ed.). (1990). The moral dimensions of teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gopnik, A. (2009). The philosophical baby: What children’s minds tell us about truth, love and the meaning of life. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Gottfredson, L.S. (1997). Foreword to "intelligence and social policy". Intelligence 24 (1): 1–12.
Gowan, P. (1999). The global gamble: Washington's Faustian bid for world dominance. London: Verso.
Greene, R. (2000). The 48 laws of power. New York: Penguin.
Grubb, W. N. (2008). Multiple resources, multiple outcomes: Testing the ‘‘improved’’ school finance with NELS88. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 104–144.
Grubb, W.N., & Lazerson, M. (2004). The education gospel: The economic power of schooling. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Habermas, J. (1979). Communications and the evolution of society. Trans. F. McCarthy. Boston: Beacon.
Hamacheck, D. (2000). Dynamics of self-understanding and self-knowledge: Acquisition, advantages, and relation to emotional intelligence. Journal of Humanistic Counseling, Education & Development, 38(4), 230-243.
Hanushek, E., Kain, J. & Rivkin, S (1998). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Working Paper 6691, Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from .
Hatcher, J., & Hatcher, W. (1996). The law of love enshrined. Oxford: George Ronald.
Hatcher, W. (1998). Love, power and justice. Wilmette, IL: Bahá'í Publishing Trust.
Heyns, B. (1978). Summer learning and the effects of schooling. New York: Academic Press
Hill, H., Kapitula, L., & Umland, K. (2011). A validity argument approach to evaluating teacher value added scores. American Educational Research Journal, 48(3), 794-831. Retrieved from
Hirsch, E., & Emerick, S. (2007). Teacher working conditions are student learning conditions: A report on the 2006 North Carolina Teacher Working Conditions Survey. Center for Teaching Quality. Retrieved January 23, 2008 from
Hoffman, M. (2000). Empathy and moral development: The implications for caring and justice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
House, P (2000, October). Teacher education via the yellow brick road. Mathematics Education Dialogues.
Houston, P. & Sokolow, S. (2006). The spiritual dimension of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Huitt, W. (2010). A holistic view of education and schooling: Guiding students to develop capacities, acquire virtues, and provide service. Paper presented at the 12th Annual International Conference sponsored by the Athens Institute for Education and Research (ATINER), May 24-27, Athens, Greece. Retrieved May 9, 2011 from
Huitt, W. (2011, October 20). Personal email communication to author.
Illig, D. C. (1998). Birth to kindergarten: The importance of the early years. Sacramento, CA: California Research Bureau. Retrieved from
Ingersoll, R. (2003). Is there really a teacher shortage? Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy and The Consortium for Policy Research in Education. Retrieved from
Isen, A. (2008). Some ways in which positive affect influences decision making and problem solving. In M. Lewis & J. Haviland-Jones, Handbook of emotions (3rd ed.) (pp. 548-573). New York: Guilford Press.
Jacobs, G., Macfarlane, R. & Asokan, N. (1997, November 15). Comprehensive theory of social development. International Center for Peace and Development, Napa, CA. Retrieved from development_theory/comprehensive_theory_of_social_development.htm
Jacobs, J. (2005). Dark age ahead. Toronto: Vintage Canada.
James, D. & Biesta, G. (2007). Improving learning cultures in further education. Abingdon: Routledge.
Jensen, R. (July 11, 2001). The power—and—limits of social movements. Energy Bulletin, July 11, 2001. Retrieved from
Jeynes, W. H. (2005). Parental involvement and student achievement: A meta-analysis (Family Involvement Research Digest). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project. Retrieved from .
Johnson, J., Yarrow, A., Rochkind, J., & Ott, A. (2009). Teaching for a living: How teachers see the profession today. Naperville, IL & Washington, DC: Learning Point Associates & Public Agenda.
Johnston, C. (1994). Identifying a student’s learning connection. Paper presented at The Twentieth Convening of the British Educational Research Association, St. Anne's College, Oxford University.
Jordan, D. & Streets, D. (1972). The Anisa model. World Order, Spring, 21-30.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.
Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Kepplinger, G. (2005, September 30). B-306349, Department of Education—No Child Left Behind newspaper article. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Accountability Office. Retrieved from .
Kessler, R. (2000). The soul of education: Helping students find connection, compassion and character at school. Alexandria, VA.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
King, D. B., & DeCicco, T. L. (2009). A viable model and self-report measure of spiritual intelligence. International Journal of Transpersonal Studies, 28, pp. 68-85.
King, M. L., (April 4, 1967). Beyond Vietnam: A time to break silence. Speech delivered on, at Riverside Church in New York City. Retrieved from
Kohlberg, L. (1976). Moral stages and moralization: the cognitive-developmental approach. In T. Lickona (Ed.) Moral development and behavior: Theory, research, and social issues. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Kohlberg, L. (1981). Essays on moral development. Vol. 1, San Francisco: Harper.
Kohlberg, L (1983). The psychology of moral development. New York: Harper and Row.
Kohn, A. (1999). Punished by rewards. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Kolb, B. & Whishaw, I. Q. (1990). Fundamentals of human neuropsychology, 3rd edition. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company,
Kotkin, S. (2011, October 4) Minding the inequality gap. New York Times, Retrieved from
Krathwohl, D., Bloom, B., & Masia, B. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Affective domain. New York: McKay.
Krishnamurti, J. (1953). Education and the significance of life. New York, NY: Harper & Brothers Publisher.
Krishnamurti, J. (1974). On education. Pondicherry, India: All India Press.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962).The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 1st. ed., Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, (3rd ed. 1996).
Ladd, H., (November 4, 2011). Education and poverty: Confronting the evidence. Duke Sanford School of Public Policy Working Paper Series, SAN11-01. Forthcoming in Journal of Policy Analysis and Management)Retrieved from
Ladd, H. & Fiske, E. (December 11, 2011). Class Matters. Why won’t we admit it? New York Times, December 11, 2011. Retrieved from
Lample, P. (2009). Revelation and social reality. West Palm Beach, FL.: Palabra.
Laszlo, E. (1989). The inner limits of mankind. London: Oneworld.
Laszlo, E. (2006). The chaos point: The world at the crossroads. Charlottesville, VA: Hampton Roads Publishing.
Lazarus, R. (1999). The cognition-emotion debate: A bit of history. In T. Dalgleish & M. Power (Eds.), Handbook of cognition and emotion (pp. 3-20). New York: Wiley.
Lee, B. (1997). The power principle. New York: Fireside.
Lennick. D., & Kiel, F. (2005). Moral intelligence: Enhancing business performance & leadership success. New Jersey: Wharton School Publishing.
Lenski, G. (1970). Human societies. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lickona, T. (1983). Raising good children. New York: Bantam.
Linn, R.L. (2000). Assessment and accountability. Educational Researcher, 29(2), 4-16.
Liptak, A. (2011, August 22). 34 years later, Supreme Court will revisit eyewitness IDs. New York Times, August 22, 2011. Retrieved from
Loevinger, J. (1977). Ego development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Loveless, t. (2011, February). The 2010 Brown Center Report on American education: How well are american students learning? 2 (5). Washington: The Brookings Institution. Retrieved from
Lyotard, J.-F. (2004). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press
Marsh, J. (2011). Class dismissed: Why we cannot teach or learn our way of inequality. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Marsh, J. A., Springer, M. G., McCaffrey, D. F., Yuan, K., Epstein, S., Koppich, J., Kalra, N., DiMartino C. & Peng, A. (2011) A big apple for educators: New York City's experiment with schoolwide performance bonuses: Final evaluation report. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Retrieved from
Marshak, D. (1997). The common vision: Parenting and educating for wholeness. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing.
Marvel, J., Lyter, D.M., Peltola, P., Strizek, G.A., &Morton, B.A. (January 2007). Teacher attrition and mobility: Results from the 2004-05 teacher follow-up survey. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved January 14, 2008 from
Maslow, A. (1971). The further reaches of human nature. New York: Viking.
Maslow, A. (1975). Some Educational Implications of the Humanistic Psychologies. In T. B. Roberts (Ed.), Four psychologies applied to education: Freudian, behavioral, humanistic, transpersonal. Cambridge, Mass.: Schenkman Publishing Co.
Mathematica, (2010) The evaluation of charter school impacts: Final report. U.S. Department of Education, NCEE 2010-4029. Retrieved from
Mayer J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997).What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey and D. Sluyter, (Eds.) Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational implications (pp. 3–31). New York: Basic Books.
Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1993). The intelligence of emotional intelligence. Intelligence, 17, 433-442.
Mayer, J., Roberts, R., & Barsade, S.G. (2008). Human abilities: Emotional intelligence. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 507-536.
McCaffrey, D. F., Koretz, D., Lockwood, J. R., & Hamilton, L. S. (2003). Evaluating value-added models for teacher accountability. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Retrieved from
Metcalf, S. and Smith-Shank, S (2001). The yellow brick road of art education. Art Education, 54(5), p 45.
Miller, J. P. (1993a). The holistic curriculum. Toronto: OISE Press.
Miller, J. P. (1993b). The holistic teacher. Toronto: OISE Press.
Miller, J., & Nakagawa, Y. (Eds). (2002). Nurturing our wholeness: Perspectives on spirituality in education. Brandon, VT: Foundation for Educational Renewal.
Miller, J., & Nakagawa, Y. (Eds). (2002). Nurturing our wholeness: Perspectives on spirituality in education. Brandon, VT: Foundation for Educational Renewal.
Miller, M., & Cook-Greuter, S. (Eds.). (1994). Transcendence and mature thought in adulthood. New York: Rowan and Littlefield.
Miller, M., & Cook-Greuter, S. (Eds.). (1994). Transcendence and mature thought in adulthood. --: Rowan and Littlefield.
Miller, R. (1992). What are schools for? Holistic education in American culture (2nd ed.). Brandon, VT: Holistic Education Press.
Miller, R. (1992). What are schools for? Holistic education in American culture (Second ed.). Brandon, VT: Holistic Education Press.
Miller, R. (2000). Caring for new life: Essays on holistic education. Volume One of the Foundations of Holistic Education Series. Brandon, VT: Foundation for Educational Renewal.
Miller, R. (Ed.). (1993). The renewal of meaning in education: Responses to the cultural and ecological crisis of our times. Brandon, VT: Holistic Education Press.
Moffett, J. (1994). The universal schoolhouse: Spiritual awakening through education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Moffett, J. (1994). The universal schoolhouse: Spiritual awakening through education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Montessori, M. (1973). The absorbent mind. Madras: Kalakshetra Publications.
Moran, M. (2010, September 21). Teacher performance pay alone does not raise student test scores. Retrieved from
Mustakavoa-Possardt, E. (2004). Education for critical moral consciousness. Journal of Moral Education, 33(3), 245-269.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk. Washington DC: The Commission on Excellence in Education, U.S. Government Printing. Retrieved from
National Research Council. (1999). High stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion, and graduation. Committee on Appropriate Test Use, J.P. Heubert and R.M. Hauser, eds. Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2011). Incentives and test-based accountability in education. Committee on Incentives and Test-Based Accountability in Public Education, Michael Hout and Stuart W. Elliott, Editors. Board on Testing and Assessment, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Prepublication copy retrieved from
National Scientific Council on the Developing Child (2004). Children's Emotional Development Is Built into the Architecture of Their Brains: Working Paper No. 2. Retrieved from developingchild.harvard.edu
National Scientific Council on the Developing Child (2009). Excessive stress disrupts the architecture of the developing brain: Working paper #3. Retrieved from
Neumann. E. (1954). The origins and history of consciousness. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press.
Nichols, S. & Berliner, D. (2008). Collateral damage: How high-stakes testing corrupts America’s schools. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.
Nicolescu, B. (n. d.). The transdisciplinary evolution of learning. Retrieved from
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
Noddings, N. (1986). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education. Berkley: University of California Press.
Noddings, N. (1986). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education. Berkley: University of California Press.
Noddings, N. (1992). The challenge to care in schools: An alternative approach to education. New York: Columbia University Teachers College Press.
Nye, B., Konstantopoulos, S & Hedges, L. (2004). How large are teacher effects? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 26(3), pp. 237-257.
One common faith. (2005). Haifa, Israel: Bahá’í World Centre.
Palmer, P. (1983). To know as we are known: Education as a spiritual journey. San Francisco: Harper San Francisco.
Palmer, P. (1998). The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscape of a teacher’s life. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Palmer, P. J. (1983). To know as we are known: Education as a spiritual journey. San Francisco: Harper San Francisco.
Palmer, P. J. (1983). To know as we are known: Education as a spiritual journey. San Francisco: Harper San Francisco.
Palmer, P. J. (1998). The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscape of a teacher’s life. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Piaget, J. (1977). The essential Piaget. Eds. H. Gruber and J. Voneche. New York: Basic Books.
Plato. (380 BCE ). The republic. Translated by Benjamin Jowett. Retrieved from .
Purpel, D. E. (1989). The moral and spiritual crisis in education: A curriculum for justice and compassion in education. New York: Bergin & Garvey.
Purpel, D. E. (1989). The moral and spiritual crisis in education: A curriculum for justice and compassion in education. New York: Bergin & Garvey.
Raskin, S. B., (2011). As income gap balloons, is it holding back growth? National Public Radio All Things Considered transcript, July 10, 2011. Retrieved from
Ravitch, D. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education. New York: Basic Books.
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard. Retrieved from
Roberts, W. (1990). Leadership secrets of Attila the Hun. New York: Warner Books.
Rothstein, R. (2004). Class and schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
Rothstein, R. (2004, October). Class and classrooms: Even the best schools can’t close the race achievement gap. The American School Board Journal, October, 2004. Retrieved from .
Rothstein, R. (2011, March 8). Fact-challenged policy. Economic Policy Institute, Policy Memorandum #182. Retrieved from
Rothstein, R. (2012, January 23). ‘Reformers’ playbook on failing schools fails fact check. Economic Policy Institute. Retrieved from
Rowan, B., Correnti, R., & Miller, R. (2002). What large-scale, survey research tells us about teacher effects of student achievement. Consortium for Policy Research in Education, RR-051. Retrieved from .
Russell, P. (2002). From science to God: A physicist's journey into the mystery of consciousness. Novato, CA: New world Library.
Saarni, C. (1997). Emotional competence and self-regulation in childhood. In P. Salovey & D. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational implications (pp. 35-66). New York: Basic Books.
Saeidi, N. (1987). Faith, reason and society in Bahá’í perspective. World Order, 21(3&4), 9-22.
Saez, E. (2009, August 5). Striking it rich. Retrieved from
Sahlberg, P. (2011, September 24). On the road to nowhere. Retrieved from .
Schanzenbach, D.W. (2011). Review of "Class Size: What Research Says and What It Means for State Policy." Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. Retrieved from
Scheffler, I. (1976). Basic mathematical skills: Some philosophical and practical remarks. Teachers College Record, 78(Dec.), 205-212.
Scriven, M. (1994) Duties of the teacher. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education 8, 151-184.
Scriven, M., Wheeler, P. & Haertel, G. (1993). News and views. Evaluation Perspectives, 3(1), 7.
Seligman, M. (2002). Authentic Happiness. New York: Free Press.
Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Flourish. New York: Free Press.
Seligman, M.E.P. (2002). Authentic happiness. New York: Free Press.
Seligman, M.E.P. (2011). Flourish. New York: Free Press.
Shapira, Z. (1976). Expectancy determinants of intrinsically motivated behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34 (65), 1235-1244.
Shoghi Effendi. (1982). World order of Baha’u’llah. Wilmette, IL: Bahá’í Publishing Trust.
Shoghi Effendi. (1990). Advent of divine justice. Wilmette, IL: Bahá’í Publishing Trust.
Shonkoff, J., & Phillips, D.A. (Eds.) (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development. Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press.
Simpson, E. (1972). The classification of educational objectives: Psychomotor domain. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Snow, R. & Jackson, D. (1993). Assessment of conative constructs for educational research and evaluation: A catalogue. CSE Technical Report 354. Los Angeles: CRESST.
Snyder, R. (2011, April 27). A special message from Governor Rick Snyder: Education reform. Retrieved from
Springer, M.G., Ballou, D., Hamilton, L., Le, V., Lockwood, J.R., McCaffrey, D., Pepper, M., and Stecher, B. (2010). Teacher pay for performance: Experimental evidence from the Project on Incentives in Teaching. Nashville, TN: National Center on Performance Incentives at Vanderbilt University.
Sternberg, R. (1986, April) .A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93(2), 119-135.
Swimme, B. (1999). The hidden heart of the cosmos: Humanity and the new story. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis books.
Swimme, B., & Tucker, M. E. (2006). The evolutionary context of an emerging planetary civilization, Kosmos: An Integral Approach to Global Awakening, V, 7-8.
Tom, A. (1984). Teaching as a moral craft. New York: Longman.
Tough, P. (2011). No, seriously: No excuses. New York Times, July 7, 2011. Retrieved from ?
Tucker, M. (2011, December). Why innovation can’t fix America’s classrooms. Atlantic. Retrieved from
U.S. Department of Education Office of Inspector General. (September 2005). Review of Department Contracts and Grants for Public Relations Services for FY 2002-2004: Final Inspection Report, Control Number I13-F0012. Washington DC: Author. Retrieved from .
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and Motivation. New York: Wiley.
Wade, N. (2007, March 20). Scientist finds the beginnings of morality in primate behavior [Electronic version]. The New York Times. Retrieved March 20. 2007, from
Weil, D (2010, January 6). Arne Duncan’s history lesson to the American Federation of Teachers (AFT): Elevating the teaching profession? Part 4. Dissident Voice, January 6, 2010. Retreived from ’s-history-lesson-to-the-american-federation-of-teachers-aft-elevating-the-teaching-profession-part-4/#identifier_9_13478
Weiner. L. (2011). Neoliberalism global reconstruction of schooling, teachers’ work, and teacher education. In Tozer, S., Gallegos, B., Henry, A., Greiner, M., & Price, P. Handbook of Research in the Social Foundations of Education. New York: Routledge.
Whitehurt, G.J. & Chingos, M.M. (May 2011). Class size: What research says and what it means for state policy. Brown Center on Education Policy at Brookings.
Wilber, K. (1995). Sex, ecology, spirituality. Boston: Shambhala.
Wilber, K. (2000). Integral psychology. Boston: Shambhala.
Wilber, K. (2006). Integral spirituality: A startling new role for religion in the modern and postmodern world. Boston: Integral Books.
Wright, R. (2004). A short history of progress. Toronto: Alanis.
Yettick, H. (2011). Media, think tanks, and educational research. Academe, 97 (3), 17-20.
Zohar, D. (2000). SQ: Connecting with our spiritual intelligence. London: Bloomsbury.
Zohar, D., & Marshall, I. (2001). Spiritual intelligence: The ultimate intelligence. London: Bloomsbury.
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
Related searches
- wordpress passing data between pages
- wordpress business templates
- wordpress rss feed not working
- wordpress jquery is not defined
- create wordpress blog
- wordpress roles editor
- wordpress full rss feed
- wordpress rss feed settings
- wordpress rss feed plugin
- wordpress display rss feed
- wordpress rss feed link
- wordpress rss feed to post