Loving to Learn and Learning to Love: Rediscovering Christian Education

Christianity is always concerned with what is true. Living the Christian life necessarily means aligning ourselves (and—where we can—others,) with the truth, and devoting all of our educational energy to this end. We want to understand the truth about the world around us. We want to understand the truth about our fellow man. Most of all, we want to understand the truth about God.

Christian education today is being undermined by a false dichotomy between love and learning. Rigorous intellectualism is too often accompanied by pride and elitism, and genuine, self-sacrificial love is too often accompanied by poor grammar. We must aim for the center of the mark—simplicity without slovenliness, excellence without elitism.

In 2 Timothy 1:7, Paul writes that “God has not given us the spirit of fear, but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.” This is the fundamental triumvirate of the Christian character, and it is crucially important to take the three together. This is not the time for spiritual specialization. Too often we pilfer through God's gifts, picking and choosing. The result is some Christians with power, some with love, some with sound minds, but few with all three.

As my title suggests, in this essay I intend to describe an educational philosophy that is committed to truth, excited about learning, and brimming over with Christ's love. Navigating such a course is not easy, and requires that we set aside our self-interest, look askance at shortcuts, and devote our full attention to the question before us: “How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?”¹

Cultivating a Sound Mind: Learning the Truth

Any honest and worthwhile worldview must define truth as something both knowable and worth knowing. Anything less is nihilist nonsense, because, as Socrates said, “The unexamined life is not worth living.” To exist, then, is to inquire into the way things are, and, if we are to inquire thus, it is helpful to believe that there is a way things are. One cannot think meaningfully in a metaphysical vacuum.

Christianity affirms and celebrates the meaningfulness of life, providing a solid foundation for education and rational inquiry. The truth may not always be intuitive, obvious, or witty—the important thing is that it is there. The Bible always speaks of truth as something formidable and real, not as an elusive mirage that changes shape or fades away altogether when you get near it. Truth is like a mountain: solid, indestructible, rewarder of all and respecter of none.

John 1:1 ought to be a foundational text in any Christian educational philosophy: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” It is only because of God-the-Word that reality is rational—that is, something that can be thought about and shared. As Gordon Clark asserted, "Christ is the Logos, the Wisdom of God and the rationality of the universe."² Without the logic contained in Christ, we would not even be able to think in a straight line.³ Our minds breathe logic like our lungs breathe air: it is life-giving.

Of course, there is more to life than logic, just as there is more to a pie than the pie-pan. Logic makes an excellent container for creeds, but it does not make a very good creed. As Os Guinness said, “The Christian faith is second to none in the place it gives to reason, but it is also second to none in keeping reason in its place.”⁴ The Christian faith is rational, but it is not merely rational. Rationalism fits inside Christianity the way a skeleton fits inside a soul. We need logic to support life—we need Christianity to have life to support.

Cultivating a Spirit of Power: Learning How to Learn

It is the fashion, as Clark noted, to talk of the "aims" of education.⁵ (Of course, as John Dewey astutely observed, "Education as such has no aims—only persons [...] have aims..."⁶) For Clark, the aim of Christian education is truth.⁷ No bulleted lists of vague, non-committal mush here. And yet, though this goal is entirely accurate in a broad sense, it quickly becomes a bit unwieldy. The moment we begin, we are faced with all sorts of gritty particulars that compel us to look closely to what we are doing, and to understand it precisely and in detail. This is hard work. As Alfred North Whitehead said, “There is no royal road to learning through an airy path of brilliant generalizations.”⁸ We have the right map and we know where we are trying to get to, but we still must place each step carefully to avoid turning an ankle and spoiling the whole quest.

Truth is the grand object, but education is an incremental process and happens in stages: you do not unload truth en masse on a 5-year-old. We must divide the grand object into bite-size goals and activities. If we adopt Alfred North Whitehead's excellent three-stage model, which describes the educational process in terms of romance, precision, and generalization, these bite-size aims are easy to identify.⁹ They are, firstly, to stimulate interest; secondly, to provide information; and thirdly, to acquire a working mastery of the given subject or skill. For Whitehead, the ultimate goal of education was this "acquisition of the art of the utilization of knowledge."¹⁰

The importance of knowledge lies in its use, in our active mastery of it—that is to say, it lies in wisdom. It is a convention to speak of mere knowledge, apart from wisdom, as of itself imparting a peculiar dignity to its possessor. I do not share in this reverence for knowledge as such. It all depends on who has the knowledge and what he does with it.¹¹

A fourth stage that might be appended to Whitehead's model would be teaching students how to pursue knowledge for themselves, on their own initiative. It is one thing to discipline students, it is another to teach them self-discipline. We want students to absorb the truth, but we also want them to absorb the excitement of learning—to “catch it,” like a cold. The aim here is a vigorous and creative self-sufficiency—"To accustom a child to have true notions of things, and not to be satisfied till he has them."¹²

Education is not about cramming the student's mind full of what Whitehead termed “inert ideas.”¹³ Too many teachers treat knowledge like medicine, working off the faulty assumption that as long as the tonic can be forced down somehow it will produce the desired effect. This is simply not the case. Whitehead argued that “There is no mental development without interest,” and, if we look around, we can see the truth of this statement borne out in practical experience.¹⁴ Incorporating a sense of discovery and adventure lends a sort of mechanical advantage to education—an inclined plane that circumnavigates the sheer cliffs of memorization and rote.

Here the Christian educator has a distinct advantage over the relativist or nihilist. As Clark noted, somewhat playfully, “Even in the teaching of arithmetic a pessimistic education will be distinguishable from a theistic and optimistic education, at least on rainy days.”¹⁵ Make it fun. Make it surprising. Make it real. The object is not to sneak a little education in the back door when no one is looking, but rather to make learning itself a pleasant, non-threatening proposition—to help students develop a positive perspective on education so that together you can meet the world head-on.

This is not to say that students should never be challenged to do what they find dull or uninteresting, only that teachers ought to be challenged, for their part, to make learning less dull and more interesting, avoiding those disastrous shortcuts that leave students lagging behind, struggling uphill and gasping for air.¹⁶ We must never allow the pressure of learning “things” to extinguish the excitement of learning itself. It is better for a student to know relatively little about Grecian History and be motivated to learn more than for him to know a great deal and be left with a bad taste in his mouth.

Still, education must eventually be concerned with actually knowing things; and, in some cases, even memorizing things. We don't learn only so we can continue learning, but also to have learned. As G. K. Chesterton said, “The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.”¹⁷ Second Timothy 3:7 condemns those who are “always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth.” Truth is meant to be stood on, not merely studied. Spiritual wisdom always turns knowledge into action. It is significant that the wise man builds his house on a rock, but it is also significant that he does in fact build his house. As James Sire pointed out in his excellent book on Christian intellectualism, Habits of the Mind: “Truth and spirituality are of a piece: to know the truth is to do it. There is no dichotomy between the two. To be spiritual is to know/do the truth.”¹⁸

Building your house on a rock is not arrogant, it is only good spiritual sense. Similarly, holding truth dear with confidence and conviction is not presumptuous, it is our inheritance as sons of God. Our understanding of truth is certainly incomplete—“through a glass darkly”—but it is something. As Sire observed, “Because God is the all-knowing knower of all things, we—being made in his image—can be the sometimes knowing knowers of some things.”¹⁹ May God grant us the courage to know what we can, the humility to admit what we can't, and the wisdom to know the difference.²⁰

Cultivating a Spirit of Love: Learning to Serve

It is not enough to have a zeal for truth, a healthy curiosity, and a strong work ethic; a uniquely Christian educational philosophy must also emphasize a selfless concern for others. This is harder than it seems. Because education is about self-development, it tends to foster a subtle selfishness that students justify and teachers encourage.

Students are not challenged to leave their hermetically sealed Christian bubbles and to engage the wider world with transformational moral activity. The Christian life is about 'my soul,' 'my happiness,' 'my relationships,' 'my walk with God,' not about God's world, broken people made in God's image, social justice that is God's will, starving children over whom God weeps, genocide and war that destroy God's children, and God's intent to respond to all of this through the committed, wise, and sacrificial efforts of his redeemed people.²¹

Or as John Stuart Mill said,

It is worth training [students] .... to have a feeling of the miserable smallness of mere self in the face of this great universe, of the collective mass of our fellow-creatures, in the face of past history and of the indefinite future—the poorness and insignificance of human life if it is to be all spent in making things comfortable for ourselves and our kin, and raising ourselves and them a step or two on the social ladder.²²

Christian education could use to recapture this broader vision—this ideal of generosity, just as the Church could use to tenderize her calloused social conscience. Getting through to a hurting world goes far beyond knowing and believing the right things. "If I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing."²³ God is much more concerned with how well we love our neighbor than with how well we can parse Greek verbs. Without real, sacrificial service backed up by a real, sacrificial love, we may be moral, religious, and intelligent, but we will miss the target.

Truth without love is like faith without works—dead. Rationalism turns sour and dangerous when it ceases to love, and leads to all sorts of ugly spiritual doubts and dark psychological labyrinths. It is love that gives force and meaning to truth, in the same way that wisdom directs knowledge or the fletching on an arrow helps it to fly true. When Madame Khokhlakov questioned Father Zosima in Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov concerning the proof of spiritual things, the elder answered:

"One cannot prove anything here, but it is possible to be convinced."

"How? By what?"

"By the experience of active love. Try to love your neighbors actively and tirelessly. The more you succeed in loving, the more you'll be convinced of the existence of God and the immortality of your soul."²⁴

I must here answer those who complain that all this talk of love is superfluous or somehow compromises the splendid aerodynamics of raw truth. I myself am quite sympathetic to this complaint: all too often love is presented as something spineless and mushy—a weak excuse for cowards and bystanders. When I speak of learning to love I do not have in mind an emotional, impulsive, “easy” love, or a love that is “soft” or somehow anti-intellectual. Love—in the 1 Corinthians 13 sense—“rejoices with the truth.”²⁵ As Ernest Dimnet said, “Love, whether it be the attraction of Truth, or pure, simple, elemental love, always opens up the intellect and gives it the freedom of genius.”²⁶ Love, then, is not a frivolous nuisance in our quest for truth—it is absolutely essential. Omitting love from learning is like removing the steering wheel from a car in order to save weight.

Anyone who devotes themselves to an intellectual life must recognize the danger of elitism. Here again, a solidly rooted love will help us maintain a healthy humility in our work and a generous respect for those who read fewer books. When Clark argues in Appendix B that “The power we exert under God is reasonably calculated to vary directly with our mental ability,” I am compelled to respectfully disagree.²⁷ A smarter person makes a better intellectual, but it does not follow that he necessarily makes a better Christian. There is no Biblical basis for this “hierarchy of intelligence”; if anything, the Bible would turn such a hierarchy on its head.²⁸ The important thing is not whether you are given two talents or ten, but what you do with what you are given. As Clark himself says in Chapter 6, “What is required is that each should use faithfully what he has received.”²⁹ Your usefulness to God is not dependent on your I.Q. any more than it is dependent on your eye color. That is the wonderful thing about God's Kingdom; as Caedmon's Call sings,

The truth is a river

where the strong can swim in deep

and the weak and the broken

can walk across so easily³⁰

Are we teaching students to compare themselves with others, or to simply and honestly do the best they can? Are we avoiding the distractions of peer pressure and the tyranny of group-think? Are we affirming the value of every individual and maintaining an atmosphere of freedom and possibility? Are we known by our love, or only by our literacy?

Seeking First the Kingdom

Most of us go about the business of our lives and just sprinkle some spirituality on the top like Parmesan cheese. This is not the way the gospel was intended to work. The Kingdom of God is supposed to be the driving force in our lives, and everything else is supposed to spring out of that passion. As Jesus admonished us on the mount, “Seek first the Kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you.”³¹ Or, as C. S. Lewis said, “Aim at heaven and you will get earth 'thrown in': aim at earth and you will get neither.”³²

Christian education is about seeking the Kingdom. There is work to be done. Let us set our minds to the task of building, develop an active interest in the world around us, embrace the scandal of the cross, and ask God to continually conform us to the image of His Son, “so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ.”³³

That, my friends, is our calling. Let us press on toward the mark, and as the day lengthens and each horizon beckons beyond to the next, may our education equip us to run well.

1Psalm 137:4

2Gordon H. Clark, A Christian Philosophy of Education, (The Trinity Foundation, 2000), 58

3Colossians 2:2-3, Acts 17:28

4Os Guinness, God In The Dark, (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1996), 167

5Clark, 14

6John Dewey, Democracy and Education, as quoted in Steven M. Cahn, Classic and Contemporary Readings in the Philosophy of Education, (McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 1997), 306

7Clark, 95

8Alfred North Whitehead, The Aims of Education and Other Essays, as quoted in Cahn, 265

9Whitehead, as quoted in Cahn, 268-273

10Ibid., 264

11Ibid., 269

12John Locke, Some Thoughts Concerning Education, as quoted in Cahn, 157

13Whitehead, as quoted in Cahn, 262

14 Ibid., 268

15Clark, 45

16As John Locke observed, “It is much easier to command than to teach.” (Locke, as quoted in Cahn, 152)

17G. K. Chesterton, The Autobiography of G. K. Chesterton, (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2006), 217

18James Sire, Habits of the Mind, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 10-11

19Ibid., 61

202 Timothy 2:15, Psalm 131:1-2

21David P. Gushee, “Attract Them by Your Way of Life: The Professor's Task in the Christian University,” in David S. Dockery & David P. Gushee, ed., The Future of Christian Higher Education, (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1999), 151

22John Stuart Mill, Inaugural Address at Saint Andrews, as quoted in Cahn, 257

231 Corinthians 13:2, ESV

24Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov, (New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux; 1990), 56

251 Corinthians 13:6, ESV

26Ernest Dimnet, The Art of Thinking, as quoted in Sire, 89

27Clark, 147

28 1 Corinthians 1:26-29, Ecclesiastes 9:11

29Clark, 96

30Caedmon's Call, Back Home, “Beautiful Mystery”

31Matthew 6:33, ESV

32C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, (HarperSanFrancisco, 2001), 134

33Ephesians 4:14-15, ESV

Higher Education & The Book of Love

What does it mean to be human?

I cannot help but suspect that at one time in the history of thinking that people believed that it meant that we were spiritual and that we could make choices and were capable of aspiring to higher ideals... like maybe loyalty or maybe faith... or maybe even love.

But now we told by people who think they know, that we vary from amoeba only in the complexity of our makeup and not in what we essentially are. They would have us think, as Dysart said, that we are forever bound up in certain genetic reins - that we are merely products of the way things are and not free - not free to be the people who make them that way.

They would have us see ourselves as products so that we could believe that we were something to be made - something to be used and then something to be disposed of. Used in their wars - used for their gains and then set aside when we get in their way. Well, who are they? They are the few who sit at the top of the heap - dung heap though it is - and who say it is better to reign in Hell than to serve in Heaven. Well, I do not know that we can have a Heaven here on earth, but I am sure we need not have a Hell either.

What does it mean to be human?

I cannot help but believe that it means we are spiritual - that we are responsible and that we are free - that we are responsible to be free.

When I was back in high school
They said boy try and make some sense
Grow up and be a consumer
And not a dissident
Don't worry about the system
Just watch out for yourself
It sounded just like the wisdom
That comes straight out of Hell
They said shut up don't make no ripples
Shut up don't raise no stink
I heard so much of their dribble
It's a wonder I can think

Don't give me that
I want the truth
Don't say for fact
What is only point of view
Don't give me that
I've had enough
We best get back to what was written
In the Book of love

When I went to college
They said boy get this straight
You're just a tailless monkey
Your a hairless ape
We're on a scary evolutionary stairway
Who knows where
Trust in higher education
To get us all there
There ain't no values no morals
No rights and no wrongs
Never knowing where we're going
Well it's hard to go wrong

When I came to my senses
At the foot of the cross
I saw the wisdom that comes
From the fear of God
How it is pure it loves Peace
It's full of mercy and good fruit
It had the power to free me
The power of the truth
Like a setting of silver
On an apple of gold
Is a word aptly spoken
Is the truth clearly told

Now give me that
Cause that's the truth
It's bigger than fact
It's broader than your point of of view
Now give me that
Can't get enough
When we get back to what was written
In the Book of Love

-Rich Mullins

School & Society: Ch. 15 Study Questions

1. In this chapter Davis and McCaul are cited as saying that the solutions to successfully educating low-income and minority youth are not beyond our professional expertise but beyond our social and political commitment. Given your knowledge, derived from this text and elsewhere, of how to educate economically disadvantaged youth, do you believe that Davis and McCaul are correct in their assessment? Explain.

Education has no doubt become a whipping boy for society's ills. In this Davis and McCaul are correct: the problem is much deeper and more diversified. However, Davis and McCaul are yet convinced of the viability of redeeming the system as such: no one seems willing to consider the impossibility of the institution.

So I would agree that the issue is wider than education, but maintain that education still has issues, which won't be resolved satisfactorily within an institutional context. This is something of a stalemate for a society that is used to government handling the responsibilities of life.

2. This chapter argues, roughly, that teachers cannot be expected to change the political and economic structure of society, but they can be expected to change the life chances of their students. Do you fully agree with this view? Defend your position with evidence from the text and from your own experience.

Teachers may well change the political and economic structure of society; it would be better to say they are not responsible for changing it. Similarly, they may be expected to improve the life chances of their students, without idealizing these chances. Some responsibility, of course, must in the end lie with society as a whole and with the student as an individual. Teachers are not gods.

At present, it seems the best teachers can do is be as human as possible in an inhuman institution, and to press for all the freedoms they can get. They can work to maintain a vital connection with the world and with their students, and pursue the contrapositive of Meier's chilling concept of "passion-impairment."

For teachers to be successful in their responsibility, they must have the requisite authority. Administrators must trust to the power of freedom to motivate, rather than the grim grip of control to squeeze out grotesque globs of "results."

3. Deborah Meier writes early in her article that "we expect would-be teachers to overcome such [habitual] views and then act on the basis of their new wisdom." What in this text or in your college education has potential for developing in you new skills, understanding, or dispositions to act in ways other than what the habits of schooling have taught you about being a teacher? If you can identify such an influence, explain what difference it might make to how you teach, and why. If you cannot identify anything, explain whether you think the habits of a schooling you have learned are adequate to the challenges of teaching today and why.

Teachers must be learners. Not in the past tense, but emphatically in the present. We are losing our grip on the power of example and are "turning leaders into celebrities" instead of participants.

Anyone who aspires to teach must cultivate a contagious enthusiasm for learning in general and their specific subject in particular. The engagement with the subject should be so total that there is no time to directly scrutinize the learning methods involved. These methods will snap into place on their own easily enough.

I quote from William Zinsser, a phenomenal educator in his own right: "There was no mistaking the men and women I wanted to have along on the ride. They all had the rare gift of enthusiasm. Again and again I was struck by the exuberance that these [teachers] brought to what they were [teaching]. Whatever the [teacher] and whatever the subject ... the common thread is a sense of high enjoyment, zest, and wonder. Perhaps, both in learning to [teach] and [teaching] to learn, they are the only ingredients that really matter."

4. Meier claims that "teachers must lead the way toward their own liberation." What does she mean by this, and is this a realistic aspiration for educational change in this country? Explain your answer.

Meier is simply saying that teachers must step up to the plate and accept their responsibility. In return, they should be granted greater autonomy, and begin to figure a decisive part in teaching curriculum, teaching methodology, and the teaching environment. This is a realistic aspriation for educational change insofar as it decentralizes the workings of the institution and dismantles ineffective bureaucratic control.

5. Meier describes "four freedoms" that are characteristic of her schools. Since it is not perfectly clear what these four freedoms are, try to identify them. Second, assume for the purposes of this question that each of these freedoms is not equally important. Given that assumption, which of them is most important for educational success, and which is least important? Explain.

The four freedoms are namely 1) Freedom to reinvent the model, 2) Freedom of participation, for both teachers and students, 3) Freedom to select a sympathetic staff, and 4) Freedom to organize and restructure curriculum content and teaching methods at will.

I hold the second freedom to be the most fundamental, as it will tend to force the others. Though all of the others are valuable, and I part with each only reluctantly, I would feel that #4 is the least important, because it is easier to get sympathetic teachers to "work around" deficient curriculum and teaching methods than it is to get unsympathetic teachers to use the proper methods and curriculum correctly.

6. Soon after describing the four freedoms, Meier identifies five qualities she looks for in prospective teachers. Which among these qualities is your greatest strength, and which is your greatest weakness? Assuming that Meier is correct in naming these as important qualities for the teacher, what might you do to strengthen the relative weakness you have identified?

I believe I am reasonably strong on points 1, 3, 4, and 5, and especially 4, to the exclusion of point 2, which is my main weakness. I am working to remedy this by engaging more with other people and developing the deliberate habit of listening, working off the fundamental premise that every person has intrinsic value that is all too often grossly underestimated.

7. In the last one-third of the article, Meier identifies five principles underlying the success of Central Park East Schools. Putting aside the first one (that people learn best when they feel physically and psychically safe,) which of the remaining four seems to you to be most necessary for successful schooling? What concrete steps could you take to implement this principle in your own teaching?

I think the fifth principle is the most valuable, as it emphasizes a strong sense of community, which can overcome great odds. This can be encouraged with collaborative assignments, the free exchange of ideas within the classroom, indeed, anything to provide more human contact, with the ensuing larger-than-life sense of possibility.

School & Society: Ch. 14 Study Questions

1. In one of the primary readings for this chapter, Walter Karp writes, "What the public schools practice with remorseless proficiency . . . is the prevention of citizenship and the stifling of self-government." How adequately does he support this claim in the article? Give examples of evidence and arguments he marshals to support his view, and identify from your own knowledge any evidence and arguments he omits which might strengthen or weaken his case.

I'm more and more impressed by how thoroughly homeschooling answers the conundrums of public education. Schools cannot teach self-government, even if they wanted to, because of their structural composition. After all, they are teaching children, and children require direction and a firm hand. This control, while necessary, is fundamentally incapable of creating a sense of self-government. This can only be done naturally and efficiently in the intimate context of home.

To substantiate his claim, Karp cites several operational habits the institution has fallen into or adopted that are demonstrably hostile to critical thinking. Some of these include dogmatic content and testing, large classroom size, and "tracking."

2. Karp says that schools provide a system of unfairness, inequality, and privilege not by accident but by intent. Relying on your knowledge of current and past school reform as well as on Karp's arguments, to what extent do you agree with him? Defend your view.

I'm not as sure that it's deliberate intent as much as it is the inevitable demands of the institutional model. I'm sure many believe in the ideals espoused by Jefferson, Karp, Gatto, et al, but they are simply not feasible to implement within the institutional structure.

3. Karp attacks the first wave of school reform reports as "merely sanctioning the prevailing corruption, which consists precisely in the reduction of citizens to credulous workers." To what degree do you see the second wave of reform - which emphasizes restructuring of curriculum, decision making, and teacher education - achieving different outcomes? Use evidence and arguments from this chapter to defend you view.

Hodgkinson's illustration of the leaky house applies well here: "[We could compare] the school reform movement to a house in which the owners try to stop deterioration by fixing the wiring, the floors, the windows, and everything except the cause of the deterioration - namely, a leaky roof." While I do not know what Hodgkinson considers to be the leaky roof, I would maintain that it is the institutional model, which is deteriorating in turn because of the prevailing social atmosphere of apathy and irresponsibility.

4. Today's college students, for the most part, attended the nation's schools during the contemporary school reform movement. To what degree has your education been influence by such school reform? Explain.

My education was influenced only insofar as trends in curriculum and changing social norms were catalyzed by the contemporary school reform movement. I had not opportunity to directly experience and evaluate the effect of these reforms at the classroom level.

School & Society: Ch. 13 Study Questions

1. While there is a clear contrast between cultural deficit theory and cultural difference theory, cultural subordination theory is presented as flowing conceptually from cultural difference theory. What are the conceptual connections between these latter two theories, in your view, and what difference might these connections make to the classroom teacher?

Mere differences, in and of themselves, may not place one particular culture in a position of dominance. This occurs only when differences are accompanied by wide population discrepancy. The majority will tend to "dominate," simply because it is the majority, not necessarily because it is superior. The situation is free of ethical snarls until you reach the question of how this domination is to be handled.

Difference theory recognizes and makes allowances for cultural variety. Subordination theory seeks to understand why this variety tends to place certain cultural groups at a disadvantage. Teachers can use subordination theory to guard against a creeping, unconscious discrimination that difference theory does not entirely address.

2. Enid Lee says there is "no neutral ground" regarding taking multicultural education seriously. What does she mean by this, and do you agree? Explain.

Lee is saying that, since this issue affects every aspect of schooling, teachers will be treating it in a particular way, whether this treatment is deliberate or not. You can ignore the question in principle, but not in practice. While I'm sure I don't agree with all of Lee's prescription, I do see the logic in this portion of her analysis.

3. Lee writes, "What we are talking about here is pretty radical; multicultural education is about challenging the status quo and the basis of power. You need administrative support to do that." This seems like a contradiction: can teachers really expect administrators, who hold the greatest power in the school building, and in the school district, to support a challenge to the basis of their power? How might Lee be interpreted so that her argument is valid? How might she be interpreted so that her position is faulty? Explain.

Administrators may be persuaded to adjust their policies, but not necessarily to relinquish their power. Like most people, they are convinced of the correctness of their opinions, and will work to maintain their authority in order to most effectively propagate their views.

If by using the word "power" Lee is referring to some force other than the administration, the statement holds up. However, what she may be referring to specifically is unclear, and in the context of revolution, the statement does seem rather contradictory.

4. Several different views of multicultural education were presented in the chapter: not just the five taken from Grant and Sleeter, but also James Bank's view and the authors' implicit position as well. Are any of these viewpoints consistent with Enid Lee's concept of anti-racist education? Are any inconsistent? Explain how closely her perspective is reflected in selected perspectives from this chapter.

Enid Lee tacitly extends her concept of anti-racist education to include liberal education. ("I encourage people to look for the voice of people who are frequently silenced, people we haven't heard from: people of color, women, poor people, working-class people, people with disabilities, and gays and lesbians.") This is a substantial departure from a true anti-racist agenda.

The various viewpoints were defined clearly enough to usefully delineate between them.

5. In what regard might it be said that bilingual education is a form of multicultural education? To what degree is bilingual education consistent or inconsistent with Enid Lee's conception of anti-racist education? Explain your position on both questions.

Language figures a prominent part in any culture. To practice bilingual education is to practice multicultural education, although in a basic sense. To naturally expand bilingual education to include content drawn from the culture of the language being studied reinforces the multicultural nature of the instruction.

To the extent that bilingual education is based on an affirmation of student's inherent cultural identity, it seems to align with Lee's position. Bilingual education with the goal of assimilation or subordination, however, is incongruent with Lee's opinions.

6. If you do not speak Spanish and therefore cannot offer bilingual instruction, how can you best support the learning of children whose first language is Spanish and who are limited in their English proficiency? How does this relate to the approach you will use with speakers of English as a second language from other language backgrounds, such as those of Asia or Eastern Europe? Finally, is any aspect of your approach relevant to supporting student learning for speakers of black English vernacular? Explain your position on all three issues.

1) Learn Spanish.

2) You can't learn every language, but you can show sensitivity and understanding toward students with an alternate first language besides English. Activities that draw out and develop their core strengths should be pursued, while those that communicate a sense of inferiority should be avoided.

3) Students who use black English vernacular should be treated as speakers of a distinct dialect, but should be informed about how their diction - for better or worse - is perceived by the larger society. For education to paint a rosy, unrealistic picture in the name of non-discrimination is hardly useful.

School & Society: Ch. 12 Study Questions

1. As you consider the prospects of academic success for Wind-Wolf in the reading for this chapter, how do you assess his potential as a learner in American schools? What characteristics in Wind-Wolf, in the school, and in the interaction between the student and the school need to be addressed to answer this question thoroughly? Finally, how can teachers best respond to Wind-Wolf to make his academic success as well as his cultural self-respect more likely? Support your position.

Every aspect of this situation is colored by the problem of compulsion. The institution need be under no obligation to provide a custom-fit education for each child, provided the child is under no obligation to be in attendance. As a result of requiring attendance, the institution is working overtime merely to avoid destroying cultural minority students, let alone make them into successes.

Indian culture places less value on academic success than the dominant culture. The two interests are therefore incompatible. Assimilation is denied in name but carried out in practicality.

2. We often think of "motivation" as a highly individualistic character trait. Individuals within any racial or ethnic group may be highly motivated to achieve or apparently lacking in motivation altogether. Yet some authors argue that ethnicity is important in shaping motivation to learn and other attitudes toward schooling. Evaluate this argument.

Different ethnicities should not be stereotyped as more or less motivated. I agree that motivation is very much an individual quality. However, there may be cultural passwords that unlock barriers and help develop motivation in students from varying racial backgrounds. In this respect the argument may have some merit.

3. This chapter focuses on gender as well as on race, ethnicity, and social class in considering the issue of educational and social equity as it concerns different groups of students. To what degree do you find that considering all these different variables in one treatment obscures important differences among them, and to what degree does it illuminate similarities that are profitably considered together? Defend your view.

1) The ideology of equity presented in this chapter parallels the ethnic divide with the gender divide. This is a mistake. There is a fundamental disparity between the sexes in regard to physical, emotional, and mental composition. Denying the distinction is disastrous. Society has taken up arms because they confuse diversity with inferiority.

2) It is useful to analyze these issues in company, as Education must develop a comprehensive answer to them. And all of these issues together deplore the weakness of a centralized institution in engaging the diverse needs of a multi-faceted society.

School & Society: Ch. 11 Study Questions

1. This chapter contrasts the aims of vocational and liberal education. To what degree are these aims significantly different, and to what degree are they similar? Explain and defend your point of view.

The aims of vocational education are narrow, practical, and defined; the aims of liberal education are broad and full of possibility. Vocational education aims to prepare the individual towards a particular end; liberal education aims to prepare the individual for life in general, and to give him the ability and confidence to choose this end for himself. It is not that they are aiming at separate targets but rather that liberal education is aiming at a larger one. Liberal education casts a wide net, knowing that the vocational question will be answered somewhere within this larger circle.

2. This chapter appears to take the position that (a) all students are capable of benefiting from an academic, as opposed to a vocational education, and (b) an academic curriculum is the most appropriate one for all students. To what degree does the chapter adequately support this position, and to what degree to you agree with it? Justify your position.

The text's pursuit of objectivity is somewhat admirable, but it hinders the author's ability to defend a specific, subjective position. Therefore, I think the material presented in this chapter would be inadequate for anyone who was inclined to disagree with the position. A stronger case could be made.

I agree with these points with a few reservations. I would hold that all students may be capable of benefiting from an academic education, by which clarification I wish to imply that this should not be determined by educational establishment, but rather by the students themselves. As to the second point, I agree that an academic curriculum is fundamentally appropriate for all, but it need not be the only curriculum used. Other curriculum, especially curriculum that is more kinetic, should not be ostracized.

3. It was remarked early in the chapter, in response to the purposes of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Act Amendments of 1990, that "critics will continue to observe that educational goals framed in terms of the needs of the workplace, instead of in terms of the full intellectual development of students, are not educational goals at all, but are instead economic goals in which students are but means to ends that do not serve their interests well." To what degree do you find that the historical record supports this criticism? Support your view.

This is noble rhetoric, to be sure, but it must be evaluated in light of the economic problems presented by publicly subsidized education. No economy has the luxury of placing all of it's children in ivory-tower schools devoted ad nauseum to the "full intellectual development of students." This is simply impractical. It is only reasonable for a society that has taken upon itself the financial burden and responsibility for education to be interested in what it is getting for its money and effort. This is another instance showing that the privatization of education would be a wise move.

The critics raise a valid point, but it is not one that the present educational institution - caught in the whirlpool of socialism - can answer.

4. Evaluate John Duffy's argument in favor of mixed-ability group instruction at the secondary level, and explain the degree to which his argument is relevant to critics' concern about vocational education.

There is substantial and legitimate value in learning in a peer context, but this structure has been pursued to unhealthy excess. Learning properly takes place in a community context, which includes, but is not limited to, peer groups. To make education a strictly peer activity is a mistake.

The critics seem to oppose the very idea of a "track." Duffy argues that a "track" may be useful, provided it is voluntarily chosen by, not imposed on, the student.

5. Duffy focuses not on the contrast between vocational education and liberal education, but instead on the idea of a "critical pedagogy." What does he mean by that term, and how similar or dissimilar is it to the aims and methods of liberal and vocational education? Support your view.

By "critical pedagogy," Duffy means an educational method that respects the student, expects the student to excel, emphasizes dialogue, and seeks to stimulate the student's native innate to learn. This approach can be used in different settings: liberal education, vocational education, or even, (as Duffy seems to advocate,) liberal vocational education.

6. Critics have argued that liberal education is an outmoded ideal because it is grounded in an educational approach that is historically racist, elitist, and gender-biased. To what degree does Duffy's approach appear to be consistent with liberal education ideals and yet responsive to these criticisms? Defend your positions.

This seems to be an attempt to brand liberal ideology as guilty by association. If we accept this logic, it seems we must also discard the Constitution, which was conceived amidst the same historical climate of "bias." Great truths articulated by great thinkers and borne out through the annals of history should not be discarded because they step on our sociologically sensitive toes. They can be adapted to modern social sensibilities with little effort, at least less effort that is expended in reinventing the wheel.

7. Grubb identifies seven important purposes to be served by the new integration of vocational and liberal education. To what degree are these an improvement on the traditional goals of vocational programs, and to what degree is it likely that these goals will be successfully achieved in the new integration? Support your assessment.

These purposes are an improvement over traditional goals of vocational programs in that they shift the end responsibility for the student's proper placement and subsequent success from the establishment to the student. Instead of the institution accepting responsibility for directing students, it instead accepts responsibility for equipping students to direct themselves. Both intellectual and vocational programs are made available to all, and imposed on none.

The success or failure of this integration depends on how effectively teachers can reshape their educational ideology to fit Duffy's "critical pedagogy." To achieve these goals will require more effort from all.