by Motavenda Melchizedek
What is noticeably clear as we turn our attention to the state of education in America today is the vast untapped wisdom as yet unapplied to better the existing conditions.
Educators, students, policy makers, politicians, parents and ordinary citizens have much to offer when it comes to insights into how to improve educational systems but there seems to be a lack of venues and bridges to facilitate and ground new visions. Visionaries from our past saw the potency in educational design. Rousseau (1762) spoke to the creative vulnerability those who facilitate such tasks face, “Viewed as an art, the success of education is almost impossible since the essential conditions of success are beyond our control. Our efforts may bring us within sight of the goal, but fortune must favor us if we are to reach it” (p.6). We should not underestimate the inherent power here. We must not turn the destiny of education over to some “other” ambiguous something “out there” somewhere. Creativity can be frightening, but it is within this very movement into the unknown that ecstasy is found.
Some obstacles exist simply because they are not being acknowledged as such, and so possible options for change in the future are not being nourished. Forces that drive the choice to support the existing paradigms rather than transforming these structures into more authentically empowering places of learning must be considered.
As Isenburg (2007) points out, “If parents are dissatisfied with the public schools for academic, religious, or other reasons, they must choose between home-schooling and private schooling. Private school has tuition costs; home-schooling has opportunity costs of time” (p. 389). Why can’t their concerns be the fuel that brings about healthier manifestations of the structures already in place?
I have been a student. I have touched the exquisiteness of education and I have experienced the dark side of misused power. I recently had a teacher in college who was so abusive to her students that even her colleagues stood paralyzed at the sight of it. I was shocked to see how many people conspire to hold a space for her to continue devastating her young students, all the while knowing exacting what she was doing and how horribly wrong it is. I was stunned to discover how fearful these adults are to speak to such issues. They can only whisper of it and listen to the harmed ones from a disconnected place, while turning a blind eye to the whole situation in the name of self-preservation. They feel their hands bound. In their hearts they know it is so wrong but they “know better” than to see to it that it is addressed and taken care of. States such as this arise from a lack of safe venues to address things of this nature.
Teachers need to have a place to go to where they can share their concerns and intervene on behalf of students who are in vulnerable positions without feeling like they are risking their own safety. Students need to feel heard and to be given adequate and meaningful venues to evaluate and express transgressions such as these. Why any institution would be uninterested in knowing that abuse is occurring is something I have to stretch my mind to comprehend. Shoop (2000) points out, “Teacher abuse of students has serious consequences for principals, teachers, and students and must be discussed openly with all members of the school community” (p.24).
Violence in schools is comprised of more than knifings, fights and shootings, and most educators agree that violence includes subtle things such as name-calling, fear of ridicule, teasing, offensive touching, racial, ethnic, cultural, or sexual slurs and bullying (Hernandez & Seem, 2004).
Teachers have profound and priceless insights into the workings of the structures they inhabit. They need to feel welcomed to share their perceptions and concerns. When I conducted a recent interview on educational philosophy with a professor whose clarity was breathtaking, I was deeply saddened and disturbed when he turned to me at the end of the interview and awkwardly requested that I be careful about sharing what he had disclosed to me. He then told me he had been fired from his last job for having given a similar interview and sharing these very views. I was humbled by his courage to sit with me and be so deeply open with his wisdom. He is so committed to education. It is his life’s work. And, I am confused at the sight of his predicament. His philosophy of education is rich and runs deep and he has great insights into the structure he is teaching inside of. Yet, he has no place, no forum there whatsoever to express these things and contribute to co-creating something better. What is driving such climates of intolerance and damnation?
Is personal and professional success in public educational arenas defined by our capacity to exist mute inside of systems we are opposed to and maintain the status quo? Or is personal success defined by existing empowered with our voice intact? Both educators and students need to feel safe and free to communicate about the structures they exist inside of. When a professor is given tenure even though she is known to be devastating and abusive to her students what is that telling us? Who is talking and who is listening? When educators fear speaking out on issues that concern them, there will be problems resulting. When an educator fears retaliation, such as the loss of a job if they shine the light and seek resolutions for real and problematic issues they are struggling with, how can such institutions hope to achieve their highest potential?
Teachers need the space to express their concerns and share their insights openly without fear of retaliation. Students need the same. These are fundamental and foremost for health and high educational exchanges. Then, it is only natural for the wellspring of insights and deep wisdom to be tapped and to pour forth for all to enjoy, drink from and embrace. There is so much power that is sat upon with great frustration because the room is not there and this is a tragedy and a waste and totally unhealthy for everyone involved. Climates of intolerance are ripe for abuse and perfect for endless stagnation and psychic and spiritual disease.
With the move toward a consumer-driven paradigm for public university systems, new problems arise. If teachers are penalized for alienating students when they hold them to the minimal standards, how can they feel equipped with the tools they need to fulfill their own potential to educate? Apathy is born in such environments. The move to avail all citizens of affordable higher education and to make it truly accessible to everyone is a great thing. But, to expect teachers to deny or ignore problems that arise as they do their work under these conditions is to expect them to teach with their hands bound behind their backs.
I propose the contemplation of nurturing, safe forums for dialogue. If teachers need to remain anonymous in order to protect themselves as they share their perspectives on problematic issues they struggle with, and their desires and visions for better systems, that should be respected and accommodated. But, with the goal of addressing the issues of safety and creating better forums rather than condemning people for not feeling free to be open about their opinions. It is the job of the administration to build bridges that are safe and functional for both teachers and students to express the details their experiences.
I imagine it would be hard to find a teacher who does not carry with them a philosophy of education. Those who are teaching and carrying out the day-to-day work of educating deserve the utmost respect when it comes to input. Just as Socrates faced the dismal choice of hemlock or silence, some who participate in education today fear expressing their real views to anyone other than to their spouses or intimate friends who are sworn to secrecy.
The belief that sterility and intolerance of institutional self-examination is virtuous is flawed and misguided. Even in the corporate world, there is a growing realization that success is not independent of the needs and feelings of the workers. There is a limit to what can be achieved in a climate of intolerance and disrespect. Presuming there is no need or room for dialogue is foolish. To think that the systems in place are incapable of handling change is stifling and deadening. Cutting off communication between teachers and administrators and policymakers cannot lead to good results.
Educators are brimming over with ideas on how to improve the existing systems, but their voices sound strained with frustration. They seem too often to express their frustrations into the empty air of indifference. They know what is working and what is not working and embody a great wealth and resource of wisdom. The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) act is an arena where this is clearly seen. The federal government lays down what is considered to be inappropriate and burdensome requirements on educators and students. Teachers seem to feel completely cut off from any say or opportunity to impact this situation in a positive way. Administrators need to have a voice listened to by those above them in the hierarchy. Kim, Sunderman & Orfield (2006) note, “As we review the NCLB experience and prepare for revisions of the law and its policies, it is very important that principals play a role in explaining to communities, the media, and policymakers some of the contradictions and oversimplifications in the existing law and what would be needed in order to be able to make real progress toward NCLB's worthy goals” (p.28).
Where is the reason in our existing systems? Bridges need to extend from the top down and to reach from the bottom upward. Those on the frontlines carry the wisdom that policymakers must value and heed. And, students are the ones who ultimately know how the education they receive can be more successfully transmitted and how it impacts their lives.
There is something so exhilarating about the creative possibilities for education. Who does not feel inspired at the thought of Pythagoras (80-500 B.C.E) founding his philosophical school in Croton, the ‘semicircle’, where the inner-circle of student philosophers and mathematicians lived monastically and strictly in order learn in devotion? There are phenomenal possibilities for students and teachers if we open our minds to creating what it the right match between the two.
National standards increasing the role of federal government as a partner in goal setting is something worthy of exploration, but without teacher and student input, how can we expect much success? As Jones(2007) states, “The parents of poor urban students do not possess the political or economic capital to generate outrage at, or sometimes even awareness of, the dilapidated buildings and-dead-end curriculum that their children are subjected to every day” (p.599). We must begin with acknowledging where we are.
As Aristotle saw clearly so long ago, “Seeing then that the state is made up of households, before speaking of the state we must speak of the management of the household.” With the state of the “family” today, we need to honor each other wherever we can.
I recently saw a profound example of education where orphaned orangutans were being taught the skills they would normally learn from their mothers by humans who have taken them in because their mothers were killed. There is clear vision of what these little guys need and the “forest schools” are designed to prepare them to move back into the forest and survive there. There needs are basic, acknowledged, delineated, understood and met. Watching them reach out for nurturing and grow skills like nest-building, is so moving. I couldn’t help but wonder who decides what our children learn? And, what are they being prepared for? Is there a destiny in the vision?
“Few education reforms inspire as much debate as do proposals to provide low-income families with vouchers that would allow them to send their children to private schools” (Howell, Peterson & West 2007). What I find most compelling about vouchers is that they have the capacity to empower the voices of everyone involved. Other new models are immerging. For instance, "Universal Design for Learning," is a philosophy advocated lessons and classroom materials created with flexibility so that different learning styles can be accommodated. There is a coalition working to see this come to fruition which wants states to be required to develop plans to implement universal design. They have managed to get this included in the draft bill for reauthorizing the No Child Left Behind Act (Samuels, 2007).
Schools going “green” is another exciting seed-point of creativity in educational environments. “As learning environments, schools can demonstrate the importance of efficiency and conservation” (Kennedy, 2007).
We have seen throughout history that inside of oppressive systems new strength is born. Consciousness can never really be destroyed. It can be forced underground, but the truth can never be eliminated. Oppressive overtones like those of Medieval Europe linger still in the air. And, just as the intolerance of the dark ages led to the need for secrecy in order to preserve disallowed knowledge, if you are born to live beyond the parameters of the existing culture and you carry forbidden insights, you can’t help but become more deeply aligned with your own truth with the passage of time. I meet so many public educators who feel gagged and silenced now, but who are deeply clear about what they see and know about the state of the schools today. They know how to make things better. The latent power to transform the existing educational systems into much healthier places is much more than we realize. It seems as though a great vision is being held fractured in little pieces by the multitudes and will begin coalesce into brand new educational philosophies, appropriate to the conditions of our time, in the years ahead.
John Dewey said, “It is the very nature of life to strive to continue in being. Since this continuance can be secured only by constant renewals, life is a self-renewing process”. As we sit still on the precipice of global annihilation, I hear a crack forming in the shell that has separated us from our collective awareness of our potential to exist as much more powerful creative forces. There are visionaries all around us. This is the perfect time to step up to the plate with more intentionality as we design the future together. As the great poet Bob Dylan wrote, “the times, they are a changin’”.
WORKS CITED
Aristotle (350 B.C.E.). Politics. Translated by Benjamin Jowett 1994. Retrieved December 2, 2007, from the World Wide Web: http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle.
Bucher, K. T.& Manning, M. L. (2005). Creating safe schools. The Clearing House 79(1).
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and Education. The Macmillan Company: New York.
Dylan, B. (1964). The times they are a changin’. Columbia Records: New York.
Hernandez, J. E. & Seem, S. R. (2004). A safe school environment: A systematic approach and the school counselor. Professional School Counseling 7(4), 256-62.
Isenberg, E. J. (2007). What have we learned about home-schooling? Peabody Journal of Education, 82(2).
Kim, J. S., Orfield, G. & Sunderman, G. L. (2006). The principals denied by NCLB are central to visionary school reform. The Education Digest, 72(2).
Howell, W. G., West, M. R. & Peterson, P. E. (2007). What Americans think about their schools. Education Next 7(4).
Jones, A. C. (2007). Where Have All the Strong Poets Gone? Phi Delta Kappan, 88(8).
Kennedy, M. (2007). Outlook 2007: What’s ahead for education and business in 2007 and beyond. American School & University, 79(5).
Rousseau, J. J. (1762). Émile (1911 edn.), London: Dent.
Samuels, C. A. (2007). 'Universal Design' concept pushed for education. Education Week 27(10).
Shoop, R. J. (2000). The principal’s dilemma. Principal Leadership (Middle School Ed.) 1(1).