Education (4)

Education
    Education is so multifaceted that it is difficult for me to know where to begin discussing it, or how to prioritize the many factors. Relaying my own experience is easy : I had a standard classroom approach , supplemented by inordinate reading . In only the briefest and least memorable instances did I receive any individual tutoring.
    Education is commonly thought of as the job of schools . Adults cry "educate our children !" Everyone has opinions about the best way to do the job. It is of urgent importance , and all the numerous factors are much studied, debated, and new (or old) ideas continually tested or retested. Some people say "it's as simple as . . . " and then name their pet peeve or passion. My view is not of an education specialist, but of one who loves sharing what I learn, and owes much to educators. Since I don't have an educational theory neatly worked-out, nor an outline of my perceptions, my intent is to address each educational ingredient that comes to my mind. After I've said what I think about each topic, readers may have a fair comprehension of my philosophy.
     First comes sensitivity . If a person be insensitive, be it from numbing cold , exhaustion, drugs, genetic makeup, or upbringing , then the process of education is bogged down, and results come only after great efforts. Sensitivity in my integrated meaning is broad , covering literally the senses, so that deaf and blind people are less sensitive, as well as people whose senses work perfectly, but whose receptivity or thought processes are blunted for whatever reason . A person can be insensitive in one way, such as blind, and extraordinarily sensitive in another way, such as in hearing. It is also possible to be so ultra -sensitive that the result is disadvantageous. I expect no argument in asserting that a normal sensitivity is a healthy, indispensable ingredient for optimal education.
    Sensitivity can be heightened or blunted by education. It is intertwined with curiosity. An ideal education affords numerous and varied opportunities for students to touch, see, smell, listen, hear ; to spark their curiosity. When I was a child the things that pleased me were largely other than the plants which have earned me a living as an adult. For example, I collected postage stamps, played basketball, was fond of listening to music, played all manner of games, but dealt only in a neutral , uninspired fashion with plants. The one thing that was constant and of supreme importance was my love of reading. I don't recall why, but by an early age, say age 9, I was a phenomenal reader of books , a habit that persisted all the way until college.
    Reading expands one's mind immensely. It fires the imagination, demonstrates grammar , teaches vocabulary , informs, challenges, helps one relax. In some cases it forces the mind to concentrate, as to understand . It can help build a moral or ethical framework , and help oneself form an individual worldview. Even an untraveled child, sitting at home, can be transported by a book into any place or time. Fantasy and facts weave together, but the result is almost an unmitigated improvement. If a bookworm grows up to be antisocial or worse, it is not because of too much reading, but because something else was lacking in the education or caregiving.
     Hands -on learning is another factor difficult to overrate. Imagine trying to learn to draw from listening to a lecture. You must draw, draw, draw, and with time and tutoring, will improve . This is a truism, just like saying "reading is valuable ." I imagine nobody complains about children spending too much time working . If anything the contrary complaint rings loudly. What I don't begin to know is the ideal breakdown, according to age, of reading, listening to instruction, and working or hands-on time.
    What about technology in excess ? Before the age of printing and cheap paper , comparatively few people could become learned. Now, theoretically, our electronic age makes learning easier than ever. Well, technology is indisputably better. We can store and retrieve data much more efficiently . We can communicate in a flash. But still , at the basic level, we must be well grounded -- we must possess common sense , civil manners, frank discussion skills , reasoning abilities, and moral fiber. It is possible to be a technological genius , say a computer nerd, without social skills or civil conscience. I'd rather have as a neighbor an illiterate janitor with an easy- going , friendly disposition. Hence, I value what we might call character more than specialist knowledge from an antisocial person. God knows we want everyone to be a well-mannered genius. But humans are not cut out to be happy like pigs in a pen. We instead have insatiable brains, with mental appetites. So our goal is to balance the brainwork with hearts and smiles. "Facts served with sauce ."
    Where does common sense fit on? Is it teachable? To a degree, what we mean by common sense is simply learned experience. Something more exists, though. Those who we praise for common sense may be quick -witted, steady -nerved, and efficient at practical decision - making . It is likely some of those traits depend on genetic brain makeup. In any case , for purposes of an essay on education, I propose to say no more about common sense.
     Similarly , where do concentration , reflection, analysis and criticism enter? Are they best taught individually, or learned wholly as byproducts of studying mathematics, geography , history, etc? It is obvious that such skills are more valuable than any single subject which might be used as the vehicle to develop them .
    Inequality. Some students, subjected to identical classwork, learn rapidly and progress, while others fail. How can we predict success or failure , and compensate the at-risk children? Few practical options may be available to teachers. It is inevitable in universal public schooling that the extreme students, either dull or bright , will be hurt by our emphasis on the average . It is horrible to admit, but our society cannot assume that all members are capable of being well educated. We have unequal physical , mental and environmental status, and the poorer fringe will always exist . Those of us lucky enough to have a conscience, mature enough to see how things really are, must do what we can to help the less fortunate.
    Obligation to help. How can a rich person help a poor one? By giving some money ? Well, can smart , or educated people give education to those needing it? Sometimes just taking the time to discuss things with troubled people is a great favor and aid. I don't have much surplus money to give to worthy causes , yet donate my time freely. I don't pretend to be able to educate in general -- but do know enough about plant life in Seattle to be valuable teaching that. I suppose I could share my plant knowledge with a single student , or several, and it wouldn't make much difference to me. The whole role of apprenticeship and master-apprentice needs to be expanded beyond its present confines of carpentry, masonry, electricity, and the like.
    It is true all of us are genetically capable of only so much; that our upbringing and education can be the same yet we turn out differently because of our genes . Well, how should you or I raise kids ? Or if we don't want to be parents , how do we help educate children in general? Most mature adults feel a responsibility to both self-education and assisting others; the majority even tax themselves to help educate others.
    Schooling choices are varied. If money was not problematic I would send my kids to the best schools. If money is lacking (and so far, it is) I'd send them to the best public schools within reasonable proximity. Home education is an alternative idea, and I won't rule it out, but need to learn more about it first. My hunch is, even average Seattle public schools can turn out well rounded, capable students, if the students receive excellent support at home. I say this because I've met such students. Also, some private schools kids have turned out to be unsuccessful.
    Probably a loving, involved family atmosphere, in which such things as reading, game - playing , shared meals and other activities all go on routinely -- is more valuable than monetary wealth with a sterile family life. Sure , children can always grow up to beat the odds . But I'd rather cast my vote for public schools and the Republicans' "strong family values " over a private school upbringing that had joyless family life. Yes, the best is to have your cake and eat it, too. But although wealth just won't go around , love, sharing, reading, good manners -- are within the reach of all of us.
    Can't win 'em all, or predict. Some kids rebel no matter what. If we try our best to raise virtuous, well behaved, thoughtful offspring, and they nonetheless become sociopaths, vulgar ingrates -- then it is sad, but not something we could foresee or help. Sometimes peer pressure , or odd brain chemistry, or some trauma, warps our kids beyond reach. It's just tragic. But likewise, sometimes out of the ashes of broken families , and from squalid conditions , angelic children grow up. Against all odds, some kids grow to be excellent adults, in ways that amaze us.
    I once asked a woman who's raised about a dozen kids if she had happy returns with all. "No," she replied, "some did well, others didn't." Same with the kids I grew up with. Isn't it fairly obvious? I say do the best you are able in raising your kids, as in anything else, but don't expect miracles, nor expect that it is a simple formula like in logic. Alas , with educational matters and child-rearing, it is possible to give love, nurturing, superb tutoring or library access, and still end up with an unresponsive child. Such is life.
    As for class size, I think kids in quantity learn better, on average, than isolated children. I would like my children to have many friends , not few. This, too, I see as obvious. I'd rather have a house full of mess-making kids, than just one, lonely and uninspired. On the other hand, perhaps a student could learn enormously more from a tutor than in a classroom packed with other students. Again , there must be an ideal ratio , plus age considerations, as well as the nature of the topic being taught, to consider.
    A pet peeve of mine is how competitive athletics play an excessive role in schools. Schools cannot limit their scope to mere teaching of abstractions, such as algebra and grammar. They also need to instruct about health, including diet and exercise . Yet sports programs take too much money and time, which otherwise could be used in artistic endeavors, or to buy more computers and books or special tutors. I especially loathe collegiate athletics, which become farm teams for professional clubs. These have no valid role at institutions of higher learning.
    The whole issue of scholastic competition needs careful review. Presently, space is so limited at many universities, and demand so high, that only students with the highest grades are accepted. Let us expand our ability to enroll students, and aim to admit all qualified applicants. This exclusion of non-A students bothers me more than high tuition rates do. Students in college can work summer jobs , such as fishing off Alaska , to earn their tuition; it is not necessary for parents or taxpayers to pay their way.
    Scholarships, based on deserving factors, are okay if endowed by private giving. I like to hope that even students of poor grades yet much promise might thereby get a chance to excel, as would very poor or otherwise handicapped ones . With the grades I received in high school, I did manage to get accepted by the University of Washington in 1980. But today there is no way I would've made the cut, thanks to increased competition. Yet I am one of many who could justify poor grades; in my case they had to do with factors other than lack of intelligence or studious nature.
    Balance and timing are keys to education. Our minds work differently while engaged in various tasks, such as in chess , mathematics, paint , or writing. Each pursuit must be given ample time for the experience to be memorable, yet not eat too much time. I hear of some children who watch excessive television , or who never do any school homework, or are technical wizards yet know nothing of getting their hands dirty outside playing. Even as we must vary the curriculum for the sake of the mind, we must vary it with the ideal seasons and age levels of students.
    At what developmental stage children should be exposed to various subjects is wholly unfamiliar to me. I recall my love of art in the 3rd grade , of science in 8th grade, of comparative literature in 11th grade. Probably each student learns at an individual pace , and has personal likes and dislikes, yet overall some fair generalizations can be made about what approach usually works best for most children at various ages.
    Education for adults is so much different . Almost all of my teaching has been directed to adults. I've dealt with preschoolers, elementary and junior high school kids exclusively in my role as a plant expert showing them the joy and wonder of wild plants. Until I do more teaching children, I can't say I've developed any insights or made any guidelines , except I know all students respond to enthusiasm and like to become fascinated.
Educational systems of European and American types
Being exposed to educational systems of both European and American types, I would point out the following positive trends in higher education of the USA in comparison to European style:
1. Link between the needs of real life and higher education which manifests itself in existence of Career Service , Job Fairs, study plus work possibilities ( Co-op system). Good students get well- paid jobs after graduating;
2. Support system . Psychological and academical ( Student Service Center ). Fraternity and Sorority Organizations. International House with Center for International Education for foreign students;
3. Small number of subjects studied during the year . It helps the student have an insight in to the subject;
4. Library, computer facilities ( e-mail, Internet), literature in the bookstore are available for everyone. There is an easy access to any information.
5. Business education is on a very good level and embraces all spheres of knowledge: English ( Technical Writing: Letters, reports, presentations, resume , academic papers etc needed for real life), Speech communication (Interviews, presentations ), Psychology in Management , International issues , cultural awareness., foreign languages. In methodology -case study: theory and real life together. The students of Business College know what they want and how to achieve that, how to present themselves ( in their terms "to sell themselves"). Both content and appearance matter.
But:
The students are overloaded with information. Team work ( derived from eastern cultures ) is being introduced in performing home assignments and projects , but on the whole a student is on his own with his problems. There are no permanent groups of people visiting the same classes which contribute to networking and stronger ties between the members of the class, group, course , faculty. Individualistic approach to education as well leads to stress. According to the American statistics, 3 people out of ten suffer from depression .
The tempo of life in the USA is very intense both for students and faculty. There is no time to read fiction , poetry , enjoy art or just to relax in the company of close friends & to share the problems. Everything is planned long beforehand, deadlines are overwhelming. As a result, the average level of culture and other knowledge, which directly is not connected with the field of study, but can be beneficial in the future, is lower than in European countries. It leads to too materialistic approach in work and life ( business first, then people).
And this narrow focus in education prevents from creating new knowledge, which is pron to be born on the border of different sciences . Besides, knowledge of mathematics develops memory, arts -- creative thinking , and literature and poetry -- humanistic approach to problem solving.
In secondary education the teacher , as it appears , is without rights in front of too confident and spoilt children (who may lead the life of adult).
Foreign languages are taught only at high school. As a result, there is lack of cultural awareness, knowledge of other countries and their history and geography. Children are open to new and unknown. Then they will appreciate what they have and improve what needs improving by comparing different styles of life.
Educational establishments in the USA could use and benefit more from hiring international students at the university and schools to acquire the best trends in educational system of different countries, and encourage international students to issue newsletters with their ideas valuable for developing education further , using the best from different systems. It could be the project of the century !
Exchange programs with international scholars and students, especially those in education, can be very beneficial for both parties. WE are here and are ready to participate in educational projects designed to lead the USA in the first countries in the world. European educational system with its broad coverage of humanities, collective work, discipline, obligatory level of knowledge for an educated person can contribute to the American system of education.
This new system of education can be a model for other countries to follow . It would be easier to live and understand each other in this shrinking world, in this global community.
What Is Education For?
Six myths about the foundations of modern education,
and six new principles to replace them
by David Orr
One of the articles in The Learning Revolution (IC#27)
Winter 1991, Page 52
Copyright (c)1991, 1996 by Context Institute
We are accustomed to thinking of learning as good in and of itself. But as environmental educator David Orr reminds us, our education up till now has in some ways created a monster. This essay is adapted from his commencement address to the graduating class of 1990 at Arkansas College. It prompted many in our office to wonder why such speeches are made at the end, rather than the beginning , of the collegiate experience.
David Orr is the founder of the Meadowcreek Project, an environmental education center in Fox, AR, and is currently on the faculty of Oberlin College in Ohio. Reprinted from Ocean Arks International's excellent quarterly tabloid Annals of Earth, Vol. VIII, No. 2, 1990. Subscriptions $10/year from 10 Shanks Pond Road, Falmouth, MA 02540.
If today is a typical day on planet Earth, we will lose 116 square miles of rainforest , or about an acre a second. We will lose another 72 square miles to encroaching deserts, as a result of human mismanagement and overpopulation. We will lose 40 to 100 species , and no one knows whether the number is 40 or 100. Today the human population will increase by 250,000. And today we will add 2,700 tons of chlorofluorocarbons to the atmosphere and 15 million tons of carbon . Tonight the Earth will be a little hotter, its waters more acidic, and the fabric of life more threadbare.
The truth is that many things on which your future health and prosperity depend are in dire jeopardy: climate stability, the resilience and productivity of natural systems, the beauty of the natural world, and biological diversity .
It is worth noting that this is not the work of ignorant people. It is, rather, largely the result of work by people with BAs, BSs, LLBs, MBAs, and PhDs. Elie Wiesel made a similar point to the Global Forum in Moscow last winter when he said that the designers and perpetrators of the Holocaust were the heirs of Kant and Goethe . In most respects the Germans were the best educated people on Earth, but their education did not serve as an adequate barrier to barbarity. What was wrong with their education? In Wiesel's words : "It emphasized theories instead of values, concepts rather than human beings, abstraction rather than consciousness , answers instead of questions , ideology and efficiency rather than conscience."
The same could be said of the way our education has prepared us to think about the natural world. It is a matter of no small consequence that the only people who have lived sustainably on the planet for any length of time could not read, or, like the Amish , do not make a fetish of reading. My point is simply that education is no guarantee of decency, prudence, or wisdom . More of the same kind of education will only compound our problems. This is not an argument for ignorance, but rather a statement that the worth of education must now be measured against the standards of decency and human survival - the issues now looming so large before us in the decade of the 1990s and beyond. It is not education that will save us, but education of a certain kind.
SANE MEANS , MAD ENDS
What went wrong with contemporary culture and with education? There is some insight in literature: Christopher Marlowe's Faust , who trades his soul for knowledge and power ; Mary Shelley 's Dr. Frankenstein, who refuses to take responsibility for his creation ; Herman Melville 's Captain Ahab, who says "All my means are sane, my motive and object mad." In these characters we encounter the essence of the modern drive to dominate nature.
Historically, Francis Bacon 's proposed union between knowledge and power foreshadows the contemporary alliance between government, business, and knowledge that has wrought so much mischief. Galileo's separation of the intellect foreshadows the dominance of the analytical mind over that part given to creativity, humor, and wholeness. And in Descartes ' epistemology, one finds the roots of the radical separation of self and object. Together these three laid the foundations for modern education, foundations now enshrined in myths we have come to accept without question. Let me suggest six.
First, there is the myth that ignorance is a solvable problem. Ignorance is not a solvable problem, but rather an inescapable part of the human condition. The advance of knowledge always carries with it the advance of some form of ignorance. In 1930, after Thomas Midgely Jr. discovered CFCs, what had previously been a piece of trivial ignorance became a critical , life-threatening gap in the human understanding of the biosphere. No one thought to ask "what does this substance do to what?" until the early 1970s, and by 1990 CFCs had created a general thinning of the ozone layer worldwide . With the discovery of CFCs knowledge increased; but like the circumference of an expanding circle , ignorance grew as well.
A second myth is that with enough knowledge and technology we can manage planet Earth.. "Managing the planet" has a nice a ring to it. It appeals to our fascination with digital readouts, computers, buttons and dials. But the complexity of Earth and its life systems can never be safely managed . The ecology of the top inch of topsoil is still largely unknown, as is its relationship to the larger systems of the biosphere.
What might be managed is us: human desires, economies , politics, and communities. But our attention is caught by those things that avoid the hard choices implied by politics, morality , ethics, and common sense. It makes far better sense to reshape ourselves to fit a finite planet than to attempt to reshape the planet to fit our infinite wants.
A third myth is that knowledge is increasing and by implication human goodness. There is an information explosion going on, by which I mean a rapid increase of data, words, and paper. But this explosion should not be taken for an increase in knowledge and wisdom, which cannot so easily by measured. What can be said truthfully is that some knowledge is increasing while other kinds of knowledge are being lost . David Ehrenfeld has pointed out that biology departments no longer hire faculty in such areas as systematics, taxonomy, or ornithology. In other words, important knowledge is being lost because of the recent overemphasis on molecular biology and genetic engineering, which are more lucrative, but not more important, areas of inquiry. We still lack the the science of land health that Aldo Leopold called for half a century ago.
It is not just knowledge in certain areas that we're losing, but vernacular knowledge as well, by which I mean the knowledge that people have of their places. In the words of Barry Lopez :
"[I am] forced to the realization that something strange, if not dangerous , is afoot. Year by year the number of people with firsthand experience in the land dwindles. Rural populations continue to shift to the cities.... In the wake of this loss of personal and local knowledge, the knowledge from which a real geography is derived, the knowledge on which a country must ultimately stand, has come something hard to define but I think sinister and unsettling."
In the confusion of data with knowledge is a deeper mistake that learning will make us better people. But learning, as Loren Eiseley once said, is endless and "In itself it will never make us ethical [people]." Ultimately, it may be the knowledge of the good that is most threatened by all of our other advances. All things considered, it is possible that we are becoming more ignorant of the things we must know to live well and sustainably on the Earth.
A fourth myth of higher education is that we can adequately restore that which we have dismantled. In the modern curriculum we have fragmented the world into bits and pieces called disciplines and subdisciplines. As a result, after 12 or 16 or 20 years of education, most students graduate without any broad integrated sense of the unity of things. The consequences for their personhood and for the planet are large. For example, we routinely produce economists who lack the most rudimentary knowledge of ecology. This explains why our national accounting systems do not subtract the costs of biotic impoverishment, soil erosion, poisons in the air or water, and resource depletion from gross national product. We add the price of the sale of a bushel of wheat to GNP while forgetting to subtract the three bushels of topsoil lost in its production . As a result of incomplete education, we've fooled ourselves into thinking that we are much richer than we are.
Fifth, there is a myth that the purpose of education is that of giving you the means for upward mobility and success. Thomas Merton once identified this as the "mass production of people literally unfit for anything except to take part in an elaborate and completely artificial charade." When asked to write about his own success, Merton responded by saying that "if it so happened that I had once written a best seller, this was a pure accident, due to inattention and naiveté, and I would take very good care never to do the same again." His advice to students was to "be anything you like, be madmen, drunks , and bastards of every shape and form, but at all costs avoid one thing: success."
The plain fact is that the planet does not need more "successful" people. But it does desperately need more peacemakers, healers, restorers, storytellers, and lovers of every shape and form. It needs people who live well in their places. It needs people of moral courage willing to join the fight to make the world habitable and humane. And these needs have little to do with success as our culture has defined it.
Finally , there is a myth that our culture represents the pinnacle of human achievement : we alone are modern, technological, and developed. This, of course, represents cultural arrogance of the worst sort, and a gross misreading of history and anthropology . Recently this view has taken the form that we won the cold war and that the triumph of capitalism over communism is complete . Communism failed because it produced too little at too high a cost. But capitalism has also failed because it produces too much, shares too little, also at too high a cost to our children and grandchildren. Communism failed as an ascetic morality. Capitalism failed because it destroys morality altogether. This is not the happy world that any number of feckless advertisers and politicians describe. We have built a world of sybaritic wealth for a few and Calcuttan poverty for a growing underclass. At its worst it is a world of crack on the streets, insensate violence , anomie, and the most desperate kind of poverty. The fact is that we live in a disintegrating culture. In the words of Ron Miller , editor of Holistic Review:
"Our culture does not nourish that which is best or noblest in the human spirit . It does not cultivate vision , imagination, or aesthetic or spiritual sensitivity. It does not encourage gentleness, generosity, caring, or compassion . Increasingly in the late 20th Century, the economic -technocratic-statist worldview has become a monstrous destroyer of what is loving and life-affirming in the human soul."
WHAT EDUCATION MUST BE FOR
Measured against the agenda of human survival, how might we rethink education? Let me suggest six principles.
First, all education is environmental education. By what is included or excluded we teach students that they are part of or apart from the natural world. To teach economics , for example, without reference to the laws of thermodynamics or those of ecology is to teach a fundamentally important ecological lesson: that physics and ecology have nothing to do with the economy . That just happens to be dead wrong. The same is true throughout all of the curriculum.
A second principle comes from the Greek concept of paideia . The goal of education is not mastery of subject matter, but of one's person. Subject matter is simply the tool . Much as one would use a hammer and chisel to carve a block of marble, one uses ideas and knowledge to forge one's own personhood. For the most part we labor under a confusion of ends and means, thinking that the goal of education is to stuff all kinds of facts, techniques, methods, and information into the student's mind, regardless of how and with what effect it will be used. The Greeks knew better.
Third, I would like to propose that knowledge carries with it the responsibility to see that it is well used in the world. The results of a great deal of contemporary research bear resemblance to those foreshadowed by Mary Shelley: monsters of technology and its byproducts for which no one takes responsibility or is even expected to take responsibility. Whose responsibility is Love Canal? Chernobyl? Ozone depletion? The Valdez oil spill ? Each of these tragedies were possible because of knowledge created for which no one was ultimately responsible. This may finally come to be seen for what I think it is: a problem of scale . Knowledge of how to do vast and risky things has far outrun our ability to use it responsibly. Some of it cannot be used responsibly, which is to say safely and to consistently good purposes.
Fourth, we cannot say that we know something until we understand the effects of this knowledge on real people and their communities. I grew up near Youngstown , Ohio, which was largely destroyed by corporate decisions to "disinvest" in the economy of the region . In this case MBAs, educated in the tools of leveraged buyouts, tax breaks, and capital mobility have done what no invading army could do: they destroyed an American city with total impunity on behalf of something called the " bottom line." But the bottom line for society includes other costs, those of unemployment, crime , higher divorce rates, alcoholism , child abuse, lost savings, and wrecked lives . In this instance what was taught in the business schools and economics departments did not include the value of good communities or the human costs of a narrow destructive economic rationality that valued efficiency and economic abstractions above people and community.
My fifth principle follows and is drawn from William Blake. It has to do with the importance of "minute particulars" and the power of examples over words. Students hear about global responsibility while being educated in institutions that often invest their financial weight in the most irresponsible things. The lessons being taught are those of hypocrisy and ultimately despair. Students learn, without anyone ever saying it, that they are helpless to overcome the frightening gap between ideals and reality . What is desperately needed are faculty and administrators who provide role models of integrity, care, thoughtfulness, and institutions that are capable of embodying ideals wholly and completely in all of their operations.
Finally, I would like to propose that the way learning occurs is as important as the content of particular courses. Process is important for learning. Courses taught as lecture courses tend to induce passivity. Indoor classes create the illusion that learning only occurs inside four walls isolated from what students call without apparent irony the "real world." Dissecting frogs in biology classes teaches lessons about nature that no one would verbally profess . Campus architecture is crystallized pedagogy that often reinforces passivity, monologue, domination, and artificiality. My point is simply that students are being taught in various and subtle ways beyond the content of courses.
AN ASSIGNMENT FOR THE CAMPUS
If education is to be measured against the standard of sustainability, what can be done? I would like to make four propsals. First, I would like to propose that you engage in a campus- wide dialogue about the way you conduct your business as educators. Does four years here make your graduates better planetary citizens or does it make them, in Wendell Berry 's words, "itinerant professional vandals"? Does this college contribute to the development of a sustainable regional economy or, in the name of efficiency, to the processes of destruction?
My second suggestion is to examine resource flows on this campus: food, energy, water, materials, and waste . Faculty and students should together study the wells , mines, farms, feedlots, and forests that supply the campus as well as the dumps where you send your waste. Collectively, begin a process of finding ways to shift the buying power of this institution to support better alternatives that do less environmental damage, lower carbon dioxide emissions , reduce use of toxic substances, promote energy efficiency and the use of solar energy, help to build a sustainable regional economy, cut long- term costs, and provide an example to other institutions. The results of these studies should be woven into the curriculum as interdisplinary courses, seminars, lectures, and research. No student should graduate without understanding how to analyze resource flows and without the opportunity to participate in the creation of real solutions to real problems.
Third, reexamaine how your endowment works. Is it invested according to the Valdez principles? Is it invested in companies doing responsible things that the world needs? Can some part of it be invested locally to help leverage energy efficiency and the evolution of a sustainable economy throughout the region?
Finally, I propose that you set a goal of ecological literacy for all of your students. No student should graduate from this or any other educational institution without a basic comprehension of:
the laws of thermodynamics
the basic principles of ecology
carrying capacity
energetics
least-cost, end-use analysis
how to live well in a place
limits of technology
appropriate scale
sustainable agriculture and forestry
steady-state economics
environmental ethics
Do graduates of this college, in Aldo Leopold's words, know that "they are only cogs in an ecological mechanism such that, if they will work with that mechanism, their mental wealth and material wealth can expand indefinitely (and) if they refuse to work with it, it will ultimately grind them to dust ." Leopold asked: "If education does not teach us these things, then what is education for?"
When one gives serious consideration to the process for restructuring education on the basis of the new paradigm of inclusiveness, the question that arises is, how? It is important in answering this question that the process used be consistent with the ends of inclusion and compassion one is seeking to achieve. We are all acquainted by experience with processes that are dehumanizing in an endeavor to accomplish goals of humanization.
In order to effect change , the focus must not be just on individual change, but also on institutional change. Change will never come about if the unit of change on which one focuses is the individual rather than on the institution as an organization. What is being sought is not a mere cosmetic change but a change of basic orientation. Stephen Covey brings this out in a clear manner in The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, when he states :
If we want to make relatively minor changes in our lives [and institutions], we can focus on our attitudes and behaviors [our prejudices and discriminations]. But if we want to make significant, quantum change, we need to work on our basic paradigms.
To try to change our attitudes and behaviors does very little good in the long run if we fail to examine the basic paradigms from which these attitudes and behaviors flow (p. 31).
This is not possible without a complete change of orientation. Human service organizations like churches and schools often tend to have an orientation toward the past, toward a "we-have-always-done-it-this-way" type of approach. This is a past-orientation. To confront the future with a past-orientation is much like driving using only the rearview mirror-the focus is on where one has been and not on where one is going. An occasional rearview focus is essential so that one may know what is coming up from behind . But for the most part the focus must be on what lies ahead . Is the educational system headed into the 21st century with a rearview focus, oriented toward the past? Or is it¹s focus oriented toward the future, toward change?
The Need for Vision:
This calls for a need of vision, because as a wise man reminded us long ago, "without vision a people perish" (Proverbs 29:18). But what is vision? Vision is the bifocal ability to see what lies ahead (farsightedness), as well as the various impediments in the present (nearsightedness), and how to avoid them in order to arrive at the future. Seldom are both types of vision found in the same individual. Yet that is precisely what organizations need, a leadership and a staff that are bifocal. More often than not, much of the conflict that arises within systems comes when the farsighted and the nearsighted are not able to see the other's perspective. Yet both are needed for the one helps to put the other into perspective. But most people err on the side of nearsightedness because of their concentration on their daily , individual tasks. Therefore the need for a futures-orientation entails a new paradigm, a new way of seeing.
The first action in the direction of effecting change is a need for perspective-grasping a vision, a sense of direction, a new paradigm of where education is headed. This entails having an understanding of where society is headed, how the world of work is changing , and the demographic shifts in the neighborhoods. Here is where the school needs vision, values and mission statements.
In order for a school to operate effectively in a rapidly changing society, it needs to process Vision, Values and Mission Statements. What is the difference? A Vision Statement answers the "Where?" question. It addresses where an organization is headed-its direction, perspective and paradigms in view of the changes taking place in our nation and in the world today. A Values Statement addresses the "What? question. It is concerned with what the school is becoming-the effective end/goal behaviors it needs to model in the present. A Mission Statement, on the other hand, answers the "Why?" question. It addresses the reason(s) why an organization exists in view of the direction taken and the needs of its target population. At every step of the process certain key questions have to be answered:
THE FOUR CRUCIAL QUESTIONS
The Where Question: addresses Vision: "Where are we headed?
The What Question: addresses Values: "What are we becoming?"
The Why Question: addresses Mission: "Why do we exist?"
The How Question: addresses Goals: "How do we get there?"
The key dynamic here is vision, for "without vision a people perish" (Proverbs 29:18). Vision is the most essential dynamic an organization needs to have, for from it proceed its values, mission and goals. These three elements without vision will find themselves being formulated in a social vacuum, divorced from social reality. An organization, such as a school, can have a good internal climate: clear goals, well shaped programs, and skilled teachers and staff who relate and communicate well, and still cease to function properly if it has not taken into account its external climate, the ways in which it is being influenced by the larger society of which it is a part, and the other environmentally impacting systems within it.
This is the role of vision. If a school is not aware nor has an understanding of the social forces impacting change, such as the political climate, economic conditions, demographic changes, and the social environment, it can quickly become a historical and social anachronism. The following graphic lays out the process for effecting change.
Once these four questions are answered than appropriate training, giving people the right knowledge and skills to implement programs can be undertaken.
The process for developing a Vision Statement and Values Statement differs from the one used for a Mission Statement. Developing the Vision Statement is the responsibility of the Administrator /Principal, with the assistance of the School Board. On the other hand, the Values Statement and Mission Statement are developed by the entire school staff with a number of representative students working together in small groups. The importance of the three is that the first is where the principal gives the school a sense of the direction the school needs to go in view of changes in the society. With this vision in mind, the school faculty, staff and students, under the leadership of the principal, go on to develop a Statement of Values that helps all-faculty, administrative staff, and students-model behaviors reflective of inclusiveness and a Statement of Mission that depicts the school's purpose for existence, both of which they can take ownership.
Why does a school need all three statements, addressing vision, values and mission? Lewis Coser gives the rationale for this. Coser declares: "The greater the structural or cultural diversity of those who unite in a coalition, the more their interests other than in the immediate purpose are likely to be divergent if not antagonistic." The value of this statement will be seen immediately by anyone who has been involved in a multicultural environment. Groups differ in their interests. When the differences are due cultural/racial diversity, the greater will be the potential for antagonism within the group. A homogeneous group, in terms of race and class, is a potentially less conflictual group than a heterogeneous one.
Coser tells us where the solution is be found. "Such a coalition, if it is not to fall apart, must attempt to keep close to the purposes for which it was formed ." The only way to keep a culturally diverse group from focusing exclusively on its differences, is by enabling it "to keep close to the purposes for which it was formed." If there is any group that must know up front why it exists, it is a racially/ethnically diverse group. Without this purpose for existence clear in everyone's mind, differences will creep in which will divide and deviate the group. Thus, the need for a clear Mission Statement, based on a singular Vision and inclusive Values.
It is virtually impossible to maintain , over an extended period of time a multicultural institution, without a precise Statement of Mission based on a clear vision and a set of operational inclusive Values. A school without Vision, Values and Mission Statements is like a ship without a rudder, with no destination port in mind, tossed here and there by the social forces in our changing society. A multicultural school will find itself in potentially more turbulent waters due to its ethnic makeup, and the influence which a socially divided society will have on the members within. This is the reason for a different set of operational values, which continually place before the school the question: "What are we becoming?" Without a Vision Statement, a Values Statement and a Mission Statement-the first gives the school direction, the second gives it character, the third keeps it on course-the possibility of shipwreck and self-destruction is an ever-present reality. Thus, the Vision, Values and Mission Statements need to regarded as dynamic working documents and not museum pieces merely to be displayed. This has much to do with paradigms.
Paradigms:
The word paradigm comes from the Greek paradeigma, para = "to place along side"; deigma = "to show." It means to show by placing along side, as in an Example, Pattern or Model. Thus a paradigm is a mental construct, or conceptual model, influenced by our socialization, which defines and delimits the way we perceive reality and is the basis of our worldview. It is a particular way of seeing. For education this particular way of seeing has been one oriented toward the past. To change toward a futures-orientation requires a paradigm shift.
A paradigm shift is a movement away from old explanations and structures that no longer explain reality, resulting in a redefinition of taken for granted boundaries due to the emergence of a new model or paradigm, which returns everyone back to zero . The concept of paradigms and paradigm shifts is nothing new. It is the old problem of new wine and old wineskins that Jesus spoke about in Luke 5:37,38 when He said. "No one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the new wine will burst the skins and will be spilled, and the skins will be destroyed. But new wine must be put into fresh wineskins." As long as one is dealing with the old wine, then the old wineskins will do. But the moment one shifts to new wine, the fermenting creative process will create an expansionism that will burst the old wineskins already stretched to their limit. For this reason, "new wine must be put into fresh wineskins." Mikhail Gorbachev learned he could not place the new wine of democracy into the old wineskins structures of communism. The result was spillage, as in the failed coup and August Revolution of 1991 which brought about the demise of the Soviet Union. South Africa is also drinking the new wine of multiculturalism and diversity, thus the need for new wineskins to accommodate change.
Where does change come from? Change comes from the outsiders, the young, those new to a reality (age is not a factor), as well as from those who are at the periphery, the marginal ; all of whom have little investment in the prevailing paradigm, and thus have nothing to lose. Those most open to change are those who are not benefiting from the way things are presently structured. Those most resistant to change are those who are benefiting from the present system, and who therefore stand to lose if things were to change.
Crisis or Foresight Management?
The choice before us is either to be proactive or reactive. A reactive person is one who is overwhelmed and threatened by the challenge of diversity and change, and reacts with a defensive posture . The proactive person, on the other hand, anticipates change by putting into play behaviors which turn problems into challenges. Let me propose a new model of management, "Foresight Management," for bringing about change (see graphic).
We all go through experiences in life. The word "experience" is a good term since it is value neutral, as opposed to the word "problem" that is negative , or "challenge" that is positive. As Aldous Huxley once declared, "Experience is not what happens to a man; it is what a man does with what happens to him." In Chinese , for example, the word for "crisis" Wei-Ji is composed of two picture -characters, the one meaning " danger " and the other meaning "opportunity." How one responds to life¹s experiences or crises makes a big difference in the final outcome, for the same experience can be seen either as a problem or as a challenge (see graphic). Whether one views the experience as a problem or a challenge, is to a large extent determined by the action one takes towards the experience, whether a reactive (negative) posture based on Crisis Management or a proactive (positive) process, based Foresight Management.
Crisis Management in this context is a style of management that takes a reactive posture towards unexpected change, by using short term interventions in order to return operations to normal-the way they were before the crisis. Thus if the experience is perceived to be a problem, then the approach that is automatically taken is that of Problem Solving, in which the principal question is: "Who owns the problem?" Such an approach leads to the process of finding whom to blame. Why? Because the goal in this approach is to solve the problem as quickly as possible in order to get back to normal operation . This is because the orientation is to the past, to a "we-have-always-done-it-this way" mindset. Such an approach is not open to that which is new, but is steeped in tradition and its preservation, whether corporate or domestic . But the result of such a past-oriented, blaming process is that it creates division , for people often want to distance themselves from the one who has been identified as the problem. It also creates division in spirit and a climate of distrust. Am I next? Who¹s watching ? Who can I trust ? Will I be found out? By immediately looking for blame because of the desire to quickly get back to business as usual, the result may be an overlooking of the possibility that the problem may reside elsewhere, such as in the system, the structure or corporate culture. In which case, nothing is resolved, except cosmetic changes. In time the same problem or a similar one will reemerge, only to be temporarily suppressed. In the end, one is left with a lose-lose situation. The result of such reactive posture is institutional crisis and systemic bog-down, because the focus is on immediacy instead of long-term change.
The opposite methodology is to view our experiences as challenges, based on Foresight Management as the style of leadership. Foresight Management is a proactive style of management that anticipates change by critically analyzing trends, on the assumption that nothing is constant, by putting into operation processes that turn potential problems into challenging opportunities. The focus is thus on a Change-Anticipating approach. There are reasons why things don¹t always work out the way we desire. Some are easily grasped, others may elude us. Nevertheless, the concern of the proactive process is not, "Who is to blame?", but, "What can we learn?" With learning comes change, whether minor or major. One of the learnings is that things cannot continue as they are. This approach builds on the maxim of Max DePree, "We cannot become what we need to be by remaining what we are." Thus the approach is a change-anticipating one; what needs to be different? Such an approach immediately forces one to realize that this is not the concern of anyone person exclusively. Therefore, the process that emerges is one of ownership by everyone who is affected by this experience or situation.
Focusing on ownership instead of blame, enables people to bring to the process several qualities :
Commitment-this is my concern also;
Community-since it is everyone¹s concern, we are all in this together;
Creativity-because it affects me, let me give it my best effort;
Cooperation-since we are all involved it can only be resolved through group effort;
Compassion-in taking the role of the other, I act in order to bring change that may relieve pain.
What is the difference between sympathy, empathy and compassion? These three concepts tend to be confused in the minds of many as similar or even the same, but they are not. They are vastly different and elicit from the respondent three different types of behavior . These three behaviors can best be illustrated with the following graphics.
1. In Sympathy there is sorrow for the other in need. But with sorrow there is also a sense of distance, separation from the other, an "I'm not like you" type of response. Even though there is an emotional response, the " bridge of identification" with the other has not been crossed.
2. In Empathy there is not only sorrow, but also an identification with the other in need. Here the person crosses the "bridge of identification" and enters into the emotional sphere of the other and identifies with the pain. The other senses and knows that identification has taken place.
3. In Compassion there is not only sorrow and identification with the other in need, but also an involvement in action to meet the need.
Here the response does not stop at identification, but goes one step further to take the necessary steps of action to alleviate suffering. The two-way arrow symbolizes that the action takes into consideration the wishes and, if possible, the involvement of the other in a reciprocal process to bring about change. Much of what passes for compassion is often an imposition from the outside, without regard for what might be best for the other nor for their input.
There is nothing wrong with sympathy, per se, however . There are many times when the only action a person can take is limited at a sympathetic response. There are other times when one can go further and express empathy. And there will be times when the opportunity will be there to express compassion. The problem comes when one has the ability to demonstrate compassion, but for reasons of one¹s own choosing, decides to limit the action only to sympathy or at best empathy.
The Goal of this process is Change!-things cannot continue as they presently are. This is because the orientation of the process is toward the future, toward a concern with how improvement can be made. The end result of this proactive process is unity-everyone working together for the common good in a win-win manner where everyone benefits.
This model not only provides a method for conflict resolution, but also reflects different philosophical approaches towards leadership, as well as a new style of management. The first is patriarchal, focused on the individual, independence and power; the other tends to be egalitarian, concerned with the group, interconnectedness and team- building . In essence both represent two methods for dealing with change, one static, the other dynamic. This model also exposes two different styles of leadership: the old style of Problem Solver -Crisis Management-a reactive posture which dominated management in the 1960's, 70s and 80s, versus the new style of leadership for the 21st century, that of Change Anticipator-Foresight Management-a proactive process. The model is simple, yet useful, whether one is dealing with domestic/family difficulties or corporate/institutional concerns.
The choice between reactive and proactive responses can best be illustrated by hurricane Andrew . On August 24 and 25, 1992, hurricane Andrew struck a most devastating blow to the southern portions of the states of Florida and Louisiana . Two important lessons on how to deal with change can be learned from hurricane Andrew. The first is: Failure to anticipate impending change with a proactive process, will result in great loss, due to a come-from-behind reactive response. All the meteorological reports from the National Hurricane Center in Dade County , Florida said the same thing-Andrew is rushing towards land at a speed of 180 mph. But none of the appropriate persons and agencies quickly mobilized into action. President Bush continued campaigning and at first did little. Four days later FEMA was still trying to get organized, the National Guard had not moved into action, and the American Red Cross was struggling with the immensity of the damage. All were paralyzed by the failure to act proactively, resulting in a lot of finger pointing. But there is a second lesson from Andrew: Be careful how you build, for the storm will show what sort of work has been done. The vast devastation was in large measure due to the faulty housing construction of the building boom during the 1980s. Yet some houses experienced minimal damage, primarily those built by Habitat for Humanity, the agency with whom former president Jimmy Carter is affiliated. How we build during periods of great change, determines what lasts and what doesn't. Interestingly, the Great Mississippi Flood of 1993 found FEMA prepared.
The point of this illustration is that in the years ahead we are going to be experiencing a whirlwind of changes. From a distance they will all look like problems, and the temptation will be to unfurl the "danger" flag and take a reactive, defensive posture. However, such an approach will leave one hurried, hassled and harassed because the changes are happening so quick one will not have the time nor the energy to solve all the problems, many of which are self-perpetuating. The better approach is a proactive process which views the changes as challenges, thereby turning potential problems into "opportunities" for growth and change. Thus, a negative is turned into a positive, where everyone wins.
This is Foresight Management, and what managing diversity is all about. It addresses the question of how do people respond to the need for change? This is a question raised by Thomas S. Kuhn in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Writing primarily to the scientific community, Kuhn asks: "How do scientists [and I would add preachers, professors, politicians or people in general] proceed when aware only that something has gone fundamentally wrong at a level with which their training has not equipped them to deal?" Kuhn suggests there are four responses to the stage of crisis:
An immediate change to the new paradigm.
A "wait-and-see" attitude .
A seeing of "new discoveries" upon examining anomalies.
A refusal to accept change-the new.
Thus the type of response one takes depends on how much one has invested in the old paradigm (Kuhn, p. 86ff).
The Structure Must Change:
If schools are to undergo a paradigm shift toward equity, then the prevailing structures must be broken up, to be replaced by more egalitarian, inclusive ones. Our present exclusive structures, with a majority of ethnically diverse student body , but a homogeneous administration, faculty, and staff do not reflect the needs of a changing society nor the multicultural world economic market for which school are seeking to prepare students. Let me make it very clear: As long as our present semi-exclusive academic structures continue to persist, there will always be racial/ethnic conflict in our schools at all levels from K-to graduate. But, is this the way for education to go into the 21st century? Absolutely not! A new age demands new methods-a new paradigm. Thus the need for structural change.
There are three methods of implementing change that schools can take, each one more inclusive than the next.
The introduction of diversity modules into an existing structure. [Normative-old paradigm left intact ]
The addition of diversity as a total dimension of existing structures and processes. [Reformative-the old paradigm with new attitudes]
The reconceptualisation of the total culture/structure of an organization according to the modus operandi of diversity. [Transformative-the new paradigm of inclusion]
THREE METHODS OF IMPLEMENTING CHANGE
These three methods are not procedural, meaning that you do the first, then the second and finally the third. They are either or methods. One simply decides which one to implement, and goes with it. The first method is one where diversity is accommodated within the present structure. No effort is made to change the structure since it is regarded as "normative," the " traditional " way things have always been done. The only difference now is that one makes concessions to "accommodate" dissenting and disgruntled groups, by introducing diversity modules. It tends to be paternalistic, and gives people a sense of, "Hey, be happy with what you got." The inclusion of students of color in schools and courses that are inclusive is an example of the first method. The approach here is to put new wrapping paper on the box. But its the same old box with a new covering. The old paradigm of exclusion is left in tact, since the concern is with maintaining as normative the traditional way of doing things, though the door of opportunity has been made available.
The second method is slightly better but not by much. It looks at the overall structure and recommends making diversity an integral part of the total dimension of what presently exists. In this sense it is reformative, in that it is an improvement that on the surface looks good, since it appears that diversity is now part and parcel of the whole structure. The current concern with diversity and with women issues is an example of the second method. Here, the approach to remove the lid of the box and change the contents within the box, along with a new wrapping, but to leave the box itself unchanged. Thus the basic structure of the organization has not essentially changed, it is still the same old paradigm-the same old box with new wrappings and new contents. It has merely been added to, it has been reformed, with a new attitude about diversity and inclusiveness. The vast majority of the efforts of organizations to work with diversity today fit here. Both of these methods merely place new wine in old wineskins. The fact that spillage results should not surprise anyone, but because of a short-sighted vision and a wrong set of values it usually does.
The third method is an effort to step back take a good look at where society is headed (vision statement) and then look at the organization and ask, "What values does our behavior reflect?" (values statement), "Where do we fit in all of this?" (mission statement). For schools it means looking at change seriously in terms of its demands. It means looking at the box, cracked and warped because of the contents, and asking oneself: "How can we completely redesign this thing to be consistent with the challenges faced?" "If we were to start fresh from the ground up to reconstruct schools today for the 21st century, in what way would our they be different from what they presently are, in order to meet the new demands of change?" With this information in hand, the third method necessitates examining the total structure, curriculum and culture of education, and then transform them in harmony with the new paradigm of inclusion. It means creating a structural and cultural paradigm shift, which will give rise to a new way of doing administration and instruction consistent with the times and needs of a changing society. Yet as Paulo Freire so forcefully reminds us in all his writings, "the transformation of education cannot take place before the transformation of society."
What the times demand is thus the third approach. Anything short of this is merely a reworking of the old paradigm of exclusion. What education needs is a restructuring according to the Principle of Inclusiveness-new wineskins to handle the new wine of diversity. In the end this may only be possible through technology. Michael Crichton, in Disclosure, brings out this possibility, when he suggests that, technological firms today are " selling " what both religion and revolution have promised but have not been able to deliver - freedom !-freedom from the body, freedom from race, gender , country and nationality . Religion has been a force that, while proclaiming the oneness of the human creation, has been the most pervasive factor in society in creating and maintaining exclusion. Revolutions have been no better, proclaiming the need for change, but often ending up as the biggest opponents of change. Technology will move education "from print to digital displays to virtual environments." Thus, computer technology may very well be the means by which to bring about a restructuring of society, with a level playing field for all.
Conclusion :
Change is upon us; this is a given. Our present academic structures, from K-graduate, modeled on the basis of the needs of an industrial society, are not longer functional nor adaptable to the needs of the 21st century. Merely seeking to reform them will not do. Radical surgery is needed, not just band-aid efforts. Corporations are already making it clear that school simply have to change. This is why so many of them are investing in schools to help with the process.
What is needed is an academic leadership that is proactive, that operates on the basis of Foresight Management, anticipating rather merely responding. Such a focus will turn what may appear to many to be a potentially dangerous situation, and turn it into a challenging opportunity. What is at issue here is not just sensitivity to other cultures and racial/ethnic groups that are marginal to the dominant culture, but an entire paradigm shift -a different mindset-which gives rise to a whole new way of seeing the world, as inclusive; and brings a change in institutional and societal structures, so as to create an environment (local, national and global) which is inclusive of all groups, is safe for differences and where everyone benefits. May we have the courage to proceed . . . with caution.