Curriculum Windows WHATCURRICULUM THEORISTS of the 197OS CAN TEACH US ABOUT SCHOOLS and Society TODAY

,I Curriculum Windows WHATCURRICULUM THEORISTS OF THE 197OS CAN TEACH US ABOUT SCHOOLS AND SOCIEtY TODAY

Thc;tmas�It-- s. fl'oattar and Kally Waldrop Curriculum Windows: What Curriculum Theorists of the 1970s Can Teach Us About Schools and Society Today

Curriculum Windows: What Curriculum Theorists of the 1970s Can Teach Us About Schools and Society Today

Edited by Thomas S. Poetter and Kelly Waldrop

INFORMATION AGE PUBLISHING, INC. Charlotte, NC • www.infoagepub.com Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

The CIP data for this book can be found on the Library of Congress website (loc.gov).

Paperback: 978-1-62396-918-9 Hardcover: 978-1-62396-919-6 eBook: 978-1-62396-920-2

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microﬁ lming, recording or otherwise, without written permission from the publisher.

Printed in the United States of America CONTENTS

Foreword: Meaningful Curriculum Windows from the 1970s ...... ix William H. Schubert Preface ...... xxiii Kelly Waldrop Introduction: Curriculum Windows of the 1970s—Coming of Age ...... xxvii Thomas S. Poetter 1. Revealing the Hidden Through a Curriculum Window ...... 1 Yue Li Overly, N. (Ed.). (1970). The unstudied curriculum: Its impact on children. Washington DC: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, NEA. 2. Eyes Wide Shut ...... 15 Robert Hendricks Weinstein, M., & Fantini, G. (Eds.). (1970). Toward humanistic education: A curriculum of affect. New York, NY: Praeger Publishing. 3. The Second Read ...... 29 Rayshawn L. Eastman Illich, I. (1971). Deschooling society. New York, NY: Harper & Row Publishing.

v vi • CONTENTS

4. Kaleidoscope Dreams: Amalgamating Tensions ...... 43 Johnnie Jackson Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: The Continuum International Publishing Group Inc. 5. Mindlessness—It’s Not So Crystal Clear ...... 61 Ashley Nicole Warren Silberman, C. (1970). Crisis in the classroom: The remaking of American education. New York, NY: Vintage Books. 6. STEAMing STEM: Insights from Joseph Schwab and the Ideal of a “Liberal Education” ...... 75 Kurtz K. Miller Schwab, J. (1978). Science, curriculum, and liberal education (I. Westbury & N. J. Wilkof, Eds.). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. 7. In Whose Interest? ...... 93 Crystal Donnette White Macdonald, J. B., & Zaret, E. (Eds.). (1975). Schools in search of meaning: An ASCD yearbook. Washington, DC: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 8. My Lens, My Landscape ...... 109 Yvania Garcia-Pusateri Greene, M. (1978). Landscapes of learning. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. 9. Through a Glass Darkly: History-onics and Moderation in Tanner and Tanner’s (1975) Curriculum Development ...... 123 Kelly Waldrop Tanner, D., & Tanner, L. (1975). Curriculum development: Theory into practice. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing. 10. A Rainbow of Colors: My Life Experience, Currere Moments, and Curriculum Theorizing ...... 141 Tela Bayamna Pinar, W. (Ed.). (1975). Curriculum theorizing: The reconceptualists. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan. 11. Becoming a Whole Human ...... 155 Angie Meissner Berman, L. M., & Roderick, J. A. (1977). Curriculum: Teaching the what, how, and why of living. Columbus, OH: Merrill. Contents • vii

12. Curriculum Problems and Professional Conscience in a Democratic Society ...... 171 Angela Trubceac Reid, W. A. (1978). Thinking about the curriculum: The nature and treatment of curriculum problems. London, UK: Routledge. 13. Open Your Windows…Window Shopper: (Re)Conceptualizing John I. Goodlad’s Curriculum Inquiry via Gil Scott Heron and Hip-Hop ...... 189 Brian W. Collier Jr. Goodlad, J. I. (1979). Curriculum inquiry: The study of curriculum practice. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. 14. Becoming an Educational Critic: Strap on Your Backpack ...... 207 Ryan Denney Eisner, E. W. (1979). The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school programs. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc. 15. The Two Way Mirror—Hidden Power and Veiled Dominance: A Call for Action ...... 221 Amy Leonard Baldridge Apple, M. W. (1979). Ideology and curriculum. New York, NY: Routledge. 16. The Pursuit of Lifelong Learning ...... 237 Deborah Heard Overly, N. (Ed.) (1979). Lifelong learning, a human agenda. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. About the Authors ...... 255

FOREWORD Meaningful Curriculum Windows from the 1970s

William H. Schubert

I am as pleased to be invited to write the Foreword for this volume of the Cur- riculum Windows Project on the 1970s as I was when I wrote the Foreword for the volume on the 1960s (Poetter, 2013). I begin my commentary with a charac- terization of the tenor of the 1970s generally and of my own life in education in particular. I comment on the essays and the books of their focus in a rough version of chronological order. In the 1970s the United States, and the world for that matter, was reeling from the civil rights movement and from liberation in Africa, Latin America, and Asia. This, of course, included the peace movement in the U. S. and around the world that decried the burgeoning globalization and perpetuated a humanistic counter culture that opposed or evaded colonization and oppression by dominant nations and corporations. The corporate nation-state was amply criticized globally, even by U.S. Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower (1961) who warned in his Farewell Address that we should beware of the excess power emergent in the military-industrial complex. In the educational literature of the 1970s, Joel Spring (1972) captured the need for radical critique with the term corporate state.

Curriculum Windows: What Curriculum Theorists of the 1970s Can Teach Us about Schools and Society Today, pages ix–xxii. Copyright © 2015 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ix x • WILLIAM H. SCHUBERT

Meanwhile, I was reeling as well, in my professional journey. I had completed my undergraduate liberal arts education at Manchester College (a pacifi st school) in 1966, my Master’s Degree at Indiana University (IU) in Philosophy of Educa- tion in 1967, beginning my teaching career in the same year, and completed my school administrative certifi cation by the end of the 1960s. I chose to teach elementary school even though I was offered the opportunity to continue my studies in History and Philosophy of Education at IU through a new kind of full-ride grant from the National Defense Education Act (NDEA) of 1958, because I thought that I should be an experienced teacher before trying to teach teachers and others in the fi eld of education. As I taught elementary school students, my interest in philosophy and liberal arts in general coalesced into a deep intrigue with curriculum theory, which I began to study as a personal self-designed in-service education. With the help of summer forays at the University of Wisconsin, Northern Illinois University, and the University of Chicago, I continued the second half of my teaching career with a strong desire to pursue a Ph.D. in Curriculum. Obtaining a (now almost extinct) sabbatical leave for teachers, from the relatively progressive school district (Downers Grove) where I taught, I could pursue the dream of doctoral study. Further, through the extraordinary mentorship of J. Harlan Shores, author of Fundamentals of Curriculum Development (Smith, Stanley, & Shores, 1950, 1957), a teaching assistantship, and a fellowship, I completed most of the course work and the qualifying examinations at the University of Illinois at Urba- na-Champaign (UIUC) through full-time overloaded study from the summer of 1973 through the summer of 1974. After returning to repay my teaching obligation to the Downers Grove Public Schools, doing more coursework and independent study at Northwestern University and UIUC, and writing my dissertation, I taught briefl y at National College of Education in Evanston and was thrilled to begin a full-time professorial career at the University of Illinois at Chicago in 1975, where I would remain until my retirement in 2011. When Harlan Shores retired, he gave me a couple hundred of his curriculum books to help build my professional library, a gift that reminds me of how Tom Poetter began this Curriculum Windows project with a similar gift from his mentor, Norman Overly at Indiana University. I recall that during my fi rst years of becoming a curriculum scholar at UIC, George Monroe, a colleague who had studied at IU advised me to get to know Norm Overly, if I wanted to be deeply involved in the curriculum fi eld. I did, and it is indeed fi tting, then, to begin my Foreword to this volume of insightful commentaries about the contemporary relevance of key curriculum books from the 1970s with one authored by Norman Overly. Overly’s (1970) The Unstudied Curriculum is brought to our attention here through the perceptive commentary of Yue Li (Chapter 1). I remember sitting in my library carrel at the wonderful UIUC Library (over fi ve million volumes) and poring over curriculum texts. Professor Shores did not assign a text (not even his own) for purchase. Instead, each day he fi lled the chalkboard with a collage- Foreword • xi like list of books on the topic of the day. Then, I would scour the library. I recall coming across Overly’s call to study the unstudied curriculum and how my mind raced through a plethora of possible unstudied realms. Today, we call them the hidden curriculum, the taught curriculum, the experienced curriculum, the learned curriculum, the outside curriculum, the oppressive curriculum, and many more of which I have tried to capture in other articles (Schubert, 2008, 2013). That Overly provided this heuristic service was masterful. Sadly, too often many of those who furthered the concept and called for study of more dimensions of curriculum overlooked Overly’s contribution. I am glad it has re-surfaced here. Norm Overly was an early student of Paul Klohr at The Ohio State University. Klohr was an exemplary mentor who profoundly infl uenced curriculum scholars such as Timothy Leonard, William Pinar, Janet Miller, Craig Kridel, Robert Bullough, Jr., Leigh Chiarelott, and many more at Ohio State. It is fair to say that the birthplace of reconceptualization of curriculum studies derived largely from the collective of curriculum scholars at Ohio State (see Pinar, Reynolds, Slattery, & Taubman, 1995). Through the conferences that they generated beginning in 1973 (conferences that in the 1980s became known as Bergamo Conferences, due to many meetings at the Bergamo Center in Dayton, Ohio) scholars then on the periphery of the curriculum fi eld started shaping a new center. This new center moved away from exclusive preoccupation with curriculum development and design and toward educational and cultural critique that embraced new sources summarized by Klohr (1980) at the end of the decade: an organic view of nature; individuals as creators of knowledge and culture; an experiential basis of method; emphasis on preconscious experience; new literatures that brought to curriculum ideas and practices of existentialism, phenomenology, radical psychoanalysis, critical theory, Eastern thought, artistic and literary criticism, and the arts and literature; higher levels of consciousness; means and ends that include diversity and pluralism, political, and social reconceptualization; and new language forms. The notion of new language forms was well depicted by Dwayne Huebner (1966) as paradigms that dominated via technical and scientifi c languages, as well as virtually untapped political, ethical, and aesthetic languages. Scholars who Bill Pinar (1975) brought together (noted later) pointed to a new intellectual tenor in the curriculum fi eld that came into fruition in the 1970s. I discussed Klohr’s salient themes of reconceptualization as transformative for the fi eld in Curriculum: Per- spective, Paradigm, and Possibility (Schubert, 1986, pp. 176–182). These themes are embedded in the books represented in this volume, and many of these books illustrate that the reconceptualization of curriculum was diverse and contributed to profoundly by scholars from many different places, even by those who rejected the term reconceptualist. A central point of diverse criticisms launched within curriculum scholarship in the 1970s was questioning of the faith that dominated work in the curriculum fi eld prior to the 1960s and 1970s. The criticism was not primarily a questioning of the value of the democratic ideal; however, it was a questioning of commitment xii • WILLIAM H. SCHUBERT of leaders of corporate states to participatory democracy that adequately represented extant publics and not merely the increasingly globalized interests of a corporate world governance. Democracy of the quality espoused by John Dewey (1927, 1934) seemed absent from the scene. Thus, there emerged increased domination by a pervasive societal curriculum that fostered immense wealth, greed, and acquisitiveness (Dewey, 1933; Schubert, 2006, 2009a). This curriculum was developed, designed, and taught formally and informally by all dimensions of culture, not merely schools alone. Thus, curriculum scholars were moved to evade the earlier tendency to develop and implement purposes set forth in edicts of the corporate state. They deemed it necessary to analyze and critique them and to propose new directions for curriculum to represent the needs and interests of diverse publics, not merely the dominant one. Sometimes emphasis on curriculum that heretofore had remained unstudied was labeled humanistic. This was what Weinstein and Fantini (1970) called it, and I am glad to see their almost forgotten book brought to contemporary attention by Robert Hendricks (Chapter 2). The neglect of affect or emotion in an almost completely cognitive curriculum was a large part of their critique. It never fails to amaze me how simplistic complex ideas quickly become. For instance, Jerome Bruner (1960, 1966), the principal theorist of post-Sputnik curriculum reform and arguably the father of cognitive psychology, had a complex conceptualization of cognition that embraced the affective, social, physical, cultural, and more, as well as the intellectual, but self-appointed disciples streamlined the cognitive into mis- interpreted recipes. Mario Fantini continued the work begun in his book with Weinstein in many different ways that portrayed educational alternatives (e.g., Fantini, 1976) and impressed me enough that I invited him, then professor and dean of education at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, to participate in a symposium I organized at the American Educational Research Association (AERA) Annual Meeting in Boston in 1980. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, I often pulled together symposia of my favorite authors and asked them to interact at a major conference. I wanted to know what they would say to each other. In this case, Fantini joined Maxine Greene, Elliot Eisner, and Michael Apple to discuss the expanding domain of curriculum inquiry. As Rayshawn Eastman (Chapter 3) shows clearly, Ivan Illich (1970) fi ercely addressed the problem of schools perpetuating the values of the corporate state by arguing that schools as we know them so fully represent the purposes of the corporate state that they should be abolished, not merely tinkered with for revision, and he argued that publics should begin anew to create centers of study or learning exchanges that could more fully meet their needs and interests. I recall meeting Ivan Illich when I was an assistant professor at UIC, in 1976. Several of us sat with him in a conference room, and he asked each of us to each say a bit about our work. I recall his look of hopelessness for me as I proudly described how I was working with teachers in schools to imagine new possibilities and enact them. His response was doubtless due to his conviction that progressive practices could Foreword • xiii not be enacted in the nest of autocratic institutions that schools were. His point seemed to be that autocratic structures could not teach democratic living. His concerned glance gave me much to ponder, as he moved on to the next participant. I still consider seriously the need to separate education from the corporate state. In the same year as Illich’s infl uential book was published, Brazilian pedagogue Paulo Freire (1970) published in English a treatise that would powerfully infl uence education in many cultures: Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Johnnie Jack- son (Chapter 4) helps readers return to this book derived from Freire’s engagement of Brazilian peasants in learning to become literate by telling stories based on artifacts of their lives. Instead of bestowing a literacy kit from lady bountiful of the corporate state, Freire integrated many intellectual traditions (Lake & Kress, 2013) to treat learners as colleagues, despite their social status. When Freire listened to the stories of his peasant students, he marveled at their insight and encouraged them to let the world know about their perspectives on oppression. So, they learned to become more literate because they had wanted to contribute. In a way Freire illustrated what Illich called for—education that evaded the corporate state and moved to overcome oppressive, autocratic tactics by educational oppressors. Critiques of education by Illich, Freire, and many others prompted Charles Silberman to survey broadly the state of education in the U.S. His observation of what he called mindlessness indicted schooling of the late 1960s (Silberman, 1970) as Ashley Warren aptly shows in Chapter 5. It takes little extrapolation to see Silberman’s critique as applicable today with the barrage of mandates faced by teachers and school administrators who are simply expected to follow orders of today’s corporate state. As I refl ected on my teaching in suburban and rural elementary schools in Illinois and Indiana, and as I later consulted with urban schools at UIC and around the nation, I resonated with Silberman’s critique. To- day I think back on my choice to teach rather than take the NDEA fellowship to pursue a Ph.D. before gaining more teaching experience. I recall the unease I felt as Ralph Tyler told me over dinner at our house that the NDEA was created (Tyler, Schubert, & Schubert, 1986). It reminded me of renditions by several critical theorists (with whom Tyler is hardly associated) who also told me it was the offspring of Sputnik, conceived by the power elite (Mills, 1956) as the opportunity they sought to overcome the Constitutional relegation of educational policy decisions to state and local decision venues and away from federal control. Without going into elaborate historical exegesis here, the creation of the NDEA led to the birth of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, the ancestor of No Child Left Behind, Race to the Top, and much more. If schooling could be re-defi ned, Tyler explained, as a problem of defense, then the corporate state could control it. Since that time, most political presentations about school reform couch the need as a form of defense—economic competitiveness if not military intimidation. Joseph Schwab, colleague of Ralph Tyler, who was his chair at the University of Chicago, weighed in on the critique of curriculum during the same time that xiv • WILLIAM H. SCHUBERT

Silberman, Illich, and Freire offered their perspectives. Kurtz Miller (Chapter 6) appropriately chose to present Schwab’s critique of curriculum inquiry through a collection of Schwab’s (1978) essays on science, liberal education, and curriculum, edited and perceptively introduced by Ian Westbury and N. J. Wilcof. Schwab’s germinal essays that profoundly attacked extant curriculum inquiry and proposed more germane inquiry were originally published between 1969 and 1970. Thus, I include them here, instead of at the end of the decade, in the interest of chronology. In Schwab’s (1969) original article in School Review, he declared the fi eld to be moribund due to its preoccupation with theoretical inquiry. That said, it must be clarifi ed that he was not opposed to theory. He used the term theoretic in the sense that Aristotle used it to mean highly generalized knowledge. Ar- istotle’s use of practical, and thus Schwab’s use, referred to inquiry that focused on problems in particular situations, a method of inquiry derived from interaction with those situations, and an end of inquiry that brought resolution of problems in a particular time and place. A revised version of the fi rst article was published by the National Education Association (NEA) in 1970 as a monograph. In this piece he outlined his whole critique of theoretical inquiry (as misguided interpretation, imitation, and emulation of what natural scientists do) and advocated practical and eclectic inquiry. In subsequent School Review articles Schwab (1971) clarifi ed that a strong base of knowledge of many theories and much research is needed to engage productively in arts of eclectic that appropriately match theories with practical dilemmas, adroitly tailor and adapt theories to fi t situational needs, and develop a repertoire or compendium of practical ways to meet the fl ow of situational problems in educational situations. Schwab (1973) showed the immense complexity of curriculum by explicating it as a continuous interaction among four commonplaces: teachers, learners, subject matter, and milieu. Schwab was often uneasy and caustic with those who could not comprehend his theory, which was in sync with Dewey’s vision of education. Moreover, I thought that his position connected with much that was emerging in the reconceptualization and especially critical and existential realms of the curriculum fi eld in the late 1970s, and wrote a short manuscript about it. In 1979, I sent it to Edu- cational Leadership, the primary journal of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD). I reasoned that since ASCD grew out of NEA, which published Schwab’s fi rst article on the practical as a monograph, their practitioner audience would resonate positively on my elaboration of practical inquiry. My submission was rejected. So, instead of sending it to a lesser journal, as some do under such circumstances, I sent it to Educational Researcher, the fl agship journal of AERA. Lo and behold, it was not only accepted, but the editors asked me to expand it to three times the length. I did; it was published (Schubert, 1980). Shortly thereafter, I received a letter dated February 25, 1980, with the name “Joseph Schwab” in the return address. Due to his reputation for severe critique, I opened it with trepidation. I read the following line from his letter that jumped into my psyche and remains etched there, “My thanks and kudos. It is a good Foreword • xv paper and a useful one.” I quickly made several copies and kept them in different places for future inspiration! In the early to mid-1970s the ASCD was still the primary professional organization for both scholars and school leaders. ASCD is the birthplace of the honor- ary academy called Professors of Curriculum, and ASCD was also the home of a Radical Caucus of curriculum scholars. A principal fi gure in both groups was James B. Macdonald who, along with Esther Zaret, led publication of the 1975 ASCD Yearbook that called for schools to search for greater meaning and to enable students to create meaning for their own lives (Macdonald & Zaret, 1975). I am grateful to Crystal White (Chapter 7) for bringing this to the attention of readers, partly since it spurs attention back to the day when ASCD was a place where scholarly critique could be heard. While today it may still be productively whis- pered, the dominating voice of profi teers from the corporate state often drowns out dissent. I would be remiss if I did not note that two years before publication of this Yearbook, Bernice Wolfson joined Macdonald and Zaret to propose that the spirit of Illich’s deschooling might be conceptualized and infused in schooling through their authorship of a book called Reschooling Society (Macdonald, Wolf- son, & Zaret, 1973). Macdonald (1974) also brought the work of Paulo Freire to the attention of curriculum theorists. In similar vein, another scholar who inspired the reconceptualization of curriculum was Maxine Greene, whose Landscapes of Learning (Greene, 1978) was well-selected and interpreted by Yvania Garcia-Pusateri (Chapter 8). To me one of Greene’s most powerful ideas released in the essays of that volume is the need to be wide-awake. This term represents a theme that one fi nds laudably reiterated in Greene’s work in many different ways. She urges educators, and everyone for that matter, to see the strange as familiar and the familiar as strange—to be perspec- tival—to see through multiple perspectives. Earlier in the decade she did this in Teacher as Stranger (Greene, 1973), wherein one could glean that if a teacher is a stranger for students, they can see the familiar as strange and move back and forth on a continuum also seeing this stranger as familiar to their lives and concerns. In the late 1960s Greene brought diverse perspectives to alienated teachers and encouraged them to create meaning and purpose in a seemingly purposeless and meaningless world through her provision of provocative excerpts from and commentary on existentialist literature (Greene, 1967). Moreover, she raised powerful questions about how public schools could more fully serve diverse publics by attending to private vision and imagination (Greene, 1965). She called for educational meaning through public spaces wherein serious study of literary and artistic texts could occur, realizing that all human dilemmas are not solvable and that profound contradictions exist between institutionalized education and personal meaning, and sometimes they simply must be embraced rather than overcome. At the same time as all of this critique was leveled at curriculum development, students attended school on a daily basis; thus, provision had to be made for them, and it is valuable that Kelly Waldrop (Chapter 9) brings Daniel and Laurel Tan- xvi • WILLIAM H. SCHUBERT ner (1975) back to the curricular stage. The Tanners’ continuation of the tradition of synoptic curriculum texts enabled curriculum leaders, school administrators, supervisors, and teachers to learn about the legacy of the curriculum fi eld’s attempt to design educational content and experiences for successive generations. With more emphasis on the history of the fi eld than any synoptic text before it, the Tanner and Tanner (1975) text provided a view of issues and scholars’ efforts to develop curricula from the late 1800s through the 1960s. They strove to provide a theoretical viewpoint derived from the work of John Dewey, Ralph Tyler, Hilda Taba, and other progressives. It is clear that the book was deemed worthwhile since it was published in four editions (1975, 1980, 1995, 2007). A central message of the Tanners was that knowledge of history can be valuable precedent for present and future decision and action. Another message they offered is that theory needs to be translated into practice. Laurel Tanner’s long-time service to ASCD is an example, as she developed symposia over several years for the John Dewey Lecture at ASCD’s Annual Conference attended mostly by educational leaders. I was pleased to succeed Laurel in that role for fi ve years. Additionally, Laurel reached a large audience with her Classroom Discipline book (Tanner, 1978), which presented ideas that led to the Discipline with a Purpose program that was utilized by teachers in hundreds of schools across the U.S. Daniel Tanner, too, reached out to curriculum leaders and supervisors, particularly in secondary curriculum development with ideas of Dewey, Harold Rugg, Lawrence Cremin, and other progressive educators to raise their historical awareness. Additionally, with Dan Tanner, Laurel Tanner initiated a key organization of curriculum scholars which she founded at Teachers College (Columbia University) in 1977: The Society for the Study of Curriculum History (SSCH). As a young scholar I was pleased to be invited by her to be one of the founding members of SSCH and, through her encouragement, one of its early presidents in 1983. The organization still thrives and has done much to overcome the ahistorical character of curriculum theory and practice. Tela Bayamna (Chapter 10) helps readers refl ect that in the same year as the fi rst edition of Tanner and Tanner (1975), William Pinar (1975) argued that theory is not only a set of ideas or research fi ndings; rather, it is embodied ideas that are lived in the experience of teaching and learning, using the verb form theorizing rather than theory. In this 1975 volume, Pinar brought together a range of writings by scholars who offered alternatives to curriculum development that dominated the fi eld’s past, including Lawrence Cremin, Herbert Kliebard, Michael Apple, John Steven Mann, Alex Molnar, Ross Mooney, Dwayne Huebner, James B. Mac- donald, Maxine Greene, Philip Phenix, William Pilder, William Murphy, George Willis, and Francine Shuchat Shaw. Inspired and advised in the project by his mentor, Paul Klohr, Pinar (1975) argued that curriculum should be reconceptualized away from preoccupation with design of activities and content for others and should be seen as currere, a verb form of curriculum in which teachers and learners negotiate their emergent lives based on a regressive-progressive-analytic-syn- Foreword • xvii thetic method of autobiographical and cultural study. Together they continuously re-write the text of their lives as they encounter and experience situations. The character of currere and the autobiographical method are interpreted and exemplifi ed in another volume of the 1970s: Toward a Poor Curriculum by Pinar and his former student Madeleine Grumet (Pinar & Grumet, 1976). The scholars listed above are obviously not all of the same cloth. They represent many different ways of offering critiques and alternatives to the dominant and dominating practices of curriculum development and design that perpetuated the corporate state. While it should have been clear early on that such an array of scholars was not that of an ideologically unifi ed group, Pinar (2000) clarifi es in the Preface (p. xi) of a new publication of the 1975 volume with a revised title: Curriculum Studies: The Reconceptualization. The revised title lets readers know that many varieties of study, among which theorizing was a key, offered alternatives to curriculum development for the corporate state, and the use of the reconceptualization helped clarify that all of the new thinkers were not members of a card carrying group called reconceptualists. As a participant in the saga of Bergamo conferences since 1976, I attest that these gatherings (orchestrated until recently by Janet Miller and William Pinar) made a valuable difference in my life in academe. Presentations and interactions at these conferences stimulated my thinking. Ideas encountered came into my being. When I returned to UIC to teach teachers, consult, work with doctoral students, and write, the ideas were embodied in my practice. This is a union of theory and practice, or praxis that markedly differs from the image of taking hold of a brittle theory and implementing it. The transformative difference is palpable; it is about educational living, not only about a defi nition or even image. This notion of living curriculum is clearly emphasized in the work of Louise Berman and her former student Jessie Roderick (1977) brought to us today by Angie Meissner (Chapter 11). This too seldom remembered work amplifi es Ber- man’s (1968) earlier work on new curriculum priorities. Berman and Roderick (1977) insightfully declared that curriculum should directly pertain to the what, how, and why of living. The central point, as I glean it from several decades of knowing Louise Berman and Jessie Roderick, is that teachers and students will relate thoroughly to education through schooling if they realize it is about the composing of their lives, to use a powerful term from Mary Catherine Bateson (1989). I see this as a worthy and more concrete extrapolation of Dewey’s (1916) view that education should be a continuous refl ective reconstruction of experience. The work of Louise Berman is also notable for what it has generated outside the U.S. Her mentor, Alice Miel of Teachers College at Columbia University, and Maxine Dunfee of Indiana University, were instrumental in founding and cultivating the World Council of Curriculum and Instruction, which grew out of coteries of interest within ASCD in the 1960s and fl ourished in the 1970s through work of key curriculum scholars such as Louise Berman, Norman Overly, Ted Aoki, and Nelson Haggerson. They invited a number of internationally minded xviii • WILLIAM H. SCHUBERT curriculum scholars of the next generation, such as my former student William H. Watkins, to be engaged the international exchange of educational ideas and practices. Through such work, curriculum took on new meanings as the what, how, and why of living in diverse cultures. In the late 1960s educational policy became an area of serious study in departments of educational philosophy, history, and social foundations; however, curriculum was not widely treated as a scholarly policy matter for another decade. In Chapter 12, Angela Trubeac brings to the fore the pioneering work of William Reid (1978), who draws amply upon the aforementioned work of Joseph Schwab and others to exemplify thinking about the nature and treatment of curriculum problems as policy-oriented matters that necessitate complex deliberation to enhance decision-making at levels of not only policy formulation, but in its practical implementation and evaluation. This, of course, involved elaboration of Schwab’s (1971) arts of eclectic which can be drawn from Aristotle’s productive inquiry as well as from his theoretic and practical inquiry, discussed relative to the Westbury and Wilcof collection of Schwab’s essays (1978). Having studied for his Ph.D. at the University of Chicago, under Ralph Tyler, John Goodlad was also infl uenced by the work of Joseph Schwab. In the early 1970s, Goodlad, Klein, and Associates (1970) published a book that took a practical look at life in classrooms that allegedly implemented post-Sputnik curriculum reform packages, which Goodlad (1964) had incisively reviewed. The 1970 book showed that behind the classroom door many educators used the rhetoric of reform packages but still taught traditionally, modifying curriculum to suit that teaching. From the late 1950s through the 1970s, Goodlad engaged in many productive inquiry projects, which put him in an ideal place to lead a project that examined curriculum inquiry. Brian Collier (Chapter 13) reminds us of Goodlad and Associates (1979) Curriculum Inquiry, a valuable exploration of the nature of inquiry into curriculum practice. This book was one of many outgrowths of Goodlad’s experience with his innovative, elaborate, and longitudinal Study of Schooling that resulted in the widespread recognition of his best seller, A Place Called School (Goodlad, 1984). Goodlad’s production of many research projects, articles, chapters, and over thirty books is remarkable enough, and even more so when one considers that two-thirds or more of these were published while he was an outstanding Dean of Education at UCLA. Few deans can do both scholarship and leadership so well. A student of John Goodlad’s earlier life in academe at the University of Chi- cago was Elliot Eisner, whose work at Stanford throughout the 1970s and onward opened doors to acceptance of qualitative evaluation, particularly derived from his work as an artist and an art educator. He developed educational criticism and connoisseurship which he portrayed vividly in a synoptic curriculum text ably discussed here by Ryan Denney (Chapter 14): The Educational Imagination: On the Design and Evaluation of School Programs (Eisner, 1979). As well-known as a scholar of art education as he was in curriculum and evaluation, Eisner often Foreword • xix brought those two realms together as illustrated by his pioneering of arts-based educational inquiry (see Barone & Eisner, 2012). As I noted earlier, Eisner was a member of one of the panels I developed for AERA’s Annual Meeting in 1980. In 1982, as vice president of the Curriculum Division of AERA, Elliot invited me to be program chair for the 1983 Annual Meeting in Montreal. After that we met often, and his infl uence on me was much appreciated, as I indicated in a volume of portrayals of his contribution to education and the arts (Schubert, 2005). He also encouraged and helped me conceptualize with George Willis a book of autobiographical essays by over thirty curriculum scholars on the impact of the arts and literature on their images of curriculum and teaching. (Willis & Schubert, 1991) Throughout the 1970s critical theorists from England and continental Europe wrote about the impact of socio-economic class on curriculum, e.g., Michael F. D. Young (1971) and Paul Willis (1977). Among U.S. authors, the fi rst critical book-length work of that genre was Michael Apple’s (1979) Ideology and Curriculum which is interpreted for current relevance in this volume by Amy Baldridge (Chapter 15). If the central curriculum question is, as I have claimed, “What is worthwhile?” (e.g., Schubert, 1986, 2009b), it was Apple (1979) who made clear that we must elaborate the question to ask: Whose conception of worth is valued, whose is not, who benefi ts from this unjust state of affairs, and how can we overcome it? I fi rst met Michael Apple at the Milwaukee Curriculum Theory Conference (a forerunner of Bergamo Conferences) in 1976, and he was raising these questions then. George Posner and I, both young and fi lled with gumption, decided to give our own personal award of pizza and beer coupons to the presentation we liked best, and we asked Michael, only slightly older that we were, to join us for lunch after his speech. Later that year, I invited Apple to the fi rst of my AERA “bookshelf” symposia which he accepted for presentation in New York in 1977. The participants (Apple, Bill Pinar, Decker Walker, Mauritz Johnson, and Maurice Eash) discussed and debated whether priorities in curriculum scholarship were moving toward separatism or synergy. Clearly, over the past several decades we have expanded in both departments. I began the discussion of this book with reference to Tom Poetter’s mentor, Norm Overly, so it seems fi tting to conclude it with him as well. Deborah Heard helps us do this with her selection (Chapter 16) of Lifelong Learning: A Human Agenda, a volume edited for ASCD by Overly (1979). The topic bespeaks the ultimate value of education, namely, that human beings should learn to guide their own learning and cultivate their own growth. In refl ecting on the essays in this book and the books the authors chose to bring to contemporary attention, I feel as if I have grown. Thus, the book has enhanced my life-long learning by encouraging me to revisit these books in new ways. I commend Tom Poet- ter for encouraging these authors. It is so worthwhile to make doctoral study a productive scholarly endeavor that in turn offers scholarship to others through presentation and publication, which is what this volume does. I thank Tom and I thank each of the authors for the enrichment their work provides. Thanks to Amy xx • WILLIAM H. SCHUBERT

Baldridge, Tela Bayamna, Brian Collier, Ryan Denney, Rayshawn Eastman, Yva- nia Garcia-Pusateri, Deborah Heard, Robert Hendricks, Johnnie Jackson, Yue Li, Angie Meissner, Kurtz Miller, Angela Trubeac, Kelly Waldrop, Ashley Warren, and Crystal White. Moreover, I urge you as readers to reﬂ ect deeply on the essays in this book, to read and ponder the books of the 1970s represented here, and to embody central ideas from them in your own evolving perspective as educators.

REFERENCES Apple, M. W. (1979). Ideology and curriculum. New York, NY: Routledge. Barone, T. E., & Eisner, E. W. (2012). Arts-based research. Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Bateson, M. C. (1989). Composing a life. New York, NY: Penguin (Plume). Berman, L. M. (1968). New priorities in the curriculum. Columbus, OH: Merrill. Berman, L., & Roderick, J. (1977). Curriculum: Teaching the what, how, and why of living. Columbus, OH: Merrill. Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. New York, NY: W. W. Norton. Dewey, J. (1927). The public and its problems. New York, NY: Henry Holt. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York, NY: Macmillan. Dewey, J. (1933, April 23). Dewey outlines utopian schools. New York Times, p 7. Also in Boydston, J. A. (Ed.), (1989). The later works (1925–1953) of John Dewey: Vol. 9 (pp. 136–140). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Dewey, J. (1934). A common faith. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Eisner, E. W. (1979). The educational imagination. New York: Macmillan. Eisenhower, D. D. (1961). Presidential farewell address, January 17, many sources. Fantini, M. (1976). Alternative education: A sourcebook for parents, teachers, students, and administrators. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum. Goodlad, J. I. (1964). School curriculum reform. New York, NY: Fund for the Advance- ment of Education. Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school. Hightstown, NJ: McGraw-Hill. Goodlad, J. I., & Associates. (1979). Curriculum inquiry. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Goodlad, J. I., Klein, M. F., & Associates. (1970). Behind the classroom door. Worthington, OH: Charles A. Jones Publishing Company. Greene, M. (1965). The public school and the private vision. New York, NY: Random House. Greene, M. (1967). Existential encounters for teachers. New York, NY: Random House. Greene, M. (1973) Teacher as stranger. New York, NY: Wadsworth. Greene, M. (1978). Landscapes of learning. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Huebner, D. (1966). Curricular language and classroom meanings. In J. B. Macdonald and R. Leeper (Eds.), Language and meaning (pp. 8–26). Washington D. C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Illich, I. (1970). Deschooling society. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Klohr. P. R. (1980). The curriculum ﬁ eld—Gritty and ragged? Curriculum Perspectives, 1(1), 1–7. Foreword • xxi

Lake, R. L., & Kress, T. (Eds.). (2013). Paulo Freire’s intellectual roots: Toward historicity in praxis. New York, NY: Continuum Books. Macdonald, J. B. (1974). A transcendental developmental ideology of education. In W. F. Pinar (Ed.), Heightened consciousness, cultural revolution, and curriculum theory (pp. 85–116). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan. Macdonald, J. B., & Zaret, E. (Eds.). (1975). Schools in search of meaning. Washington, DC: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Macdonald, J. B., Wolfson, B., & Zaret, E. (1973). Reschooling society. Washington, DC: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Mills, C. W. (1956). The power elite. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Overly, N. (Ed.). (1970). The unstudied curriculum: Its impact on children. Washington, DC: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Overly, N. (Ed.). (1979). Lifelong learning: A human agenda. Washington, DC: Associa- tion for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Pinar, W. F. (Ed.). (1975). Curriculum theorizing: The reconceptualists. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan. Pinar, W. (2000). Curriculum studies: The reconceptualization (Curriculum theorizing: The reconceptualists). Troy, NY: Educator’s International Press. Pinar, W. F., & Grumet, M. R. (1976). Toward a poor curriculum. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/ Hunt. Pinar, W. F., Reynolds, W. M., Slattery, P., & Taubman, P. M. (1995). Understanding curriculum. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Poetter, T. S. (Ed.). (2013). Curriculum windows: What curriculum theorists of the 1960s can teach us about schools and society today. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Pub- lishing. Reid, W. A. (1978). Thinking about the curriculum: The nature and treatment of curriculum problems. London. UK: Routledge. Schubert, W. H. (1980). Recalibrating educational research: Toward a focus on practice. Educational Researcher, 9(1), 17–24, 31. Schubert, W. H. (1986). Curriculum: Perspective, paradigm, and possibility. New York, NY: Macmillan. Schubert, W. H. (2005). Sensibility and imagination: Curriculum contributions of Elliot W. Eisner. In B. Urmacher & J. Matthews (Eds.), The intricate palette: Educational contributions of Elliot W. Eisner (pp. 17–32). Columbus, OH: Prentice Hall. Schubert, W. H. (2006). Focus on the BIG CURRICULUM. Journal of Curriculum and Pedagogy, 3(1), 100–103. Schubert, W. H. (2008). Curriculum inquiry. In F. M. Connelly, M. F. He, & J. A. Phillion (Eds.), Handbook of curriculum and instruction (pp. 399–419). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Schubert, W. H. (2009a). Love, justice, and education: John Dewey and the utopians. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Schubert, W. H. (2009b). What is worthwhile: From knowing and needing to being and sharing? Journal of Curriculum and Pedagogy, 6(1), 21–39. Schubert, W. H. (2013). Multiple curricula in higher education. In J. DeVitis (Ed.), The college curriculum: A reader (pp. 91–108). NY: Peter Lang. Schwab, J. J. (1969). The practical: A language for curriculum. School Review 78, 1–23. xxii • WILLIAM H. SCHUBERT

Schwab, J. J. (1970). The practical: A language for curriculum. Washington, DC: National Education Association. Schwab, J. J. (1971). The practical: Arts of eclectic, School Review, 79, 493–542. Schwab, J. J. (1973). The practical 3: Translation into curriculum, School Review, 81, 501–522. Schwab, J. (1978). Science, curriculum, and liberal education (I. Westbury & N. J. Wilkof, Eds.). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Silberman, C. E. (1970). Crisis in the classroom. New York, NY: Random House. Smith, B. O., Stanley, W. O., & Shores, J. H. (1950). Fundamentals of curriculum development. Yonkers-on-the-Hudson, NY: World Book. Smith, B. O., Stanley, W. O., & Shores, J. H. (1957). Fundamentals of curriculum development. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace, and World. Spring, J. (1972). Education and the rise of the corporate state. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Tanner, D., & Tanner, L. N. (1975/1980/1995/2007). Curriculum development. New York, NY: Macmillan. Tanner, L. (1978). Classroom discipline for effective teaching and learning. New York, NY: Harcourt. Tyler, R. W., Schubert, W. H., & Schubert, A. L. (1986). A dialogue with Ralph W. Tyler. Journal of Thought, 21(1), 91–118. Weinstein, G., & Fantini, M. (1970). Toward humanistic education: A curriculum of affect. New York, NY: Praeger. Willis, G. H., & Schubert, W. H. (Eds.). (1991). Reﬂ ections from the heart of educational inquiry: Understanding curriculum and teaching through the arts. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Willis, P. (1977). Learning to labour. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath. Young, M. F. D. (Ed.). (1971). Knowledge and control: New directions for the sociology of education. London: Collier-Macmillan. PREFACE

Kelly Waldrop

Comedic story tellers will often, after telling a long tale, say, “I told you that story to tell you this one.” That notion perfectly captures the essence of Curriculum Windows. It is the idea of stories concatenating forward and backward in time, endlessly referencing each other and making the way for new stories to be told. The authors of the classic curriculum works we have studied had to tell their stories so that we could tell you ours, and our stories are at once tales about those works, our understanding of and relationship to them, as well as the stories of ourselves as students, writers, and curriculum scholars. Our work here is partial and incomplete in the sense that the essays extend the books they reference. They also are incomplete in the same sense that we, the authors, and our currere (Pinar, 2012) journeys may be seen as unﬁ nished. We were all graduate students in Miami University’s masters and doctoral programs in Education at the time of writing, and we acknowledge that we bring to these works earnest, yet limited, understandings of the curriculum ﬁ eld. The work that we have done is also partial due to the necessary contributions that are brought to any work by its readers. In the years in which Tom Poetter, our mentor and professor, has used the pedagogical tool of writing for publication in his doctoral seminars, he has noticed something intriguing. He notes that the student papers he considers excellent are often not the ones to which other students will be drawn. Further, it seems that what a seasoned scholar would view as a poorly constructed

Curriculum Windows: What Curriculum Theorists of the 1970s Can Teach Us about Schools and Society Today, pages xxiii–xxv. Copyright © 2015 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. xxiii xxiv • KELLY WALDROP and supported paper can sometimes connect with students in a deeper and more inspiring way (T. S. Poetter, personal communication, July 29, 2014). So it is that we acknowledge our incompleteness while anticipating that, nonetheless, there will be readers who will connect with each and every chapter we have written. This brings us to the story of how we gained our most illustrious reader, Dr. Bill Schubert. In class one day, Tom commented that it would be fun to put together a panel to discuss the Curriculum Windows project at a conference. He added that it would be great if we could get someone in the curriculum fi eld to be a respondent. “You know,” he said, “someone like Bill Schubert.” Never afraid of a challenge, I said, “I can do that.” A few days later, I was pinching myself in education-geek glee to make sure I wasn’t dreaming, because I was actually talking on the phone with Bill Schubert, who agreed to be on the panel and has offered us his expertise and support from that time to this. Dr. Schubert, Tom, and I were joined by a group of authors from the 1960s volume at the Journal of Curriculum Theorizing Conference at Bergamo in Dayton, Ohio, in 2012, and a group of authors from this volume at the American Association for Teaching and Curricu- lum Conference in Chicago, Illinois, in 2013. Both sessions were well-received, and we hope to do more public sharing of our work in the future. We obviously owe Dr. Schubert a great debt of gratitude for his contributions to the Curriculum Windows project by providing us with his time and his immense knowledge and experience. He has again, as he did for the previous book, provided us with an excellent foreword that lends a depth to our work that could not have been reached without him. On behalf of Tom and all of the Curriculum Windows authors, many thanks, Bill. In addition to all of those contributions he knowingly made, Dr. Schubert unwittingly helped us with one additional task. As we were editing the various chapters, we were also engaged in trying to fi gure out how we should order them. I had made some notes on which chapters might be good in the starting and ending positions, but beyond that I was at a loss. That was when Tom sent me Dr. Schubert’s foreword to read. Bill dealt with each of the works this book will cover in chronological order and noted that it seemed fi tting, since the result meant beginning and ending with works edited by Norman Overly, who as Tom notes in his Introduction was a key player in getting the Curriculum Windows project rolling. So, you will fi nd that the chapters have been put in chronological order according to the publishing date of the curriculum book around which each is centered. The book is nestled between the works of Norm Overly, highlighting his contributions to us and to the curriculum fi eld. Tom, the Curriculum Windows authors, and I also wish to thank fellow author Angela Trubceac for the artistic vision that would become the cover artwork for this volume. We are grateful to the Department of Educational Leadership at Miami University for facilitating the project and supporting us as we mature as curriculum scholars. Finally, all of the Curriculum Windows authors join me in thanking Tom Poetter who has tirelessly guided us through this project. When I Preface • xxv volunteered to help him with some of the editing, I had no idea how much work goes into creating a book like this one after the chapters have been drafted. I have a new-found respect and gratitude for the tremendous effort Tom has put into the Curriculum Windows project. We hope that our story will inspire others to take up Tom’s (Poetter, 2010) cause of providing graduate students with the experience of writing for publication. We also hope that our book will open windows to many new stories that now may be told.

REFERENCES Pinar, W. (2012). What is curriculum theory? New York, NY: Peter Lang. Poetter, T. (2010). Taking the leap, mentoring doctoral students as scholars: A great and fruitful morass. Teaching & Learning: The Journal of Natural Inquiry and Reﬂ ective Practice, 24(1) 22–29.

INTRODUCTION Curriculum Windows of the 1970s— Coming of Age

Thomas S. Poetter

BIRTH: THE BEGINNINGS OF AN IDEA, A PROJECT, AND A COURSE In the ﬁ rst volume of this four volume set entitled Curriculum Windows: What Curriculum Theorists of the 1960s Can Teach Us About Schools and Society To- day (2013), I tell the story of how the Curriculum Windows project came into being, and I’ll give a shortened version here to get you started as you begin this text on curriculum books of the 1970s. Upcoming for publication in 2015 and 2016 will be volumes on the 1980s and 1990s. I “inherited” more than 100 curriculum books from my major professor at Indiana University in the 1990s, Norman V. Overly, several years after his retirement. I received the books in 2005. I put the word “inherited” in quotation marks above because Norm is still living and going strong. In fact, he won the Lifetime Achievement Award from Division B of AERA, Curriculum Studies, in 2014, based on his rich contributions to research in the curriculum ﬁ eld throughout his career, and especially through two very prominent books, The Unstudied Cur- riculum (1970) and Lifelong Learning: A Human Agenda (1979), treatments of which bookend this volume. What Norm wanted was for all of the books to be put

Curriculum Windows: What Curriculum Theorists of the 1970s Can Teach Us about Schools and Society Today, pages xxvii–xxxviii. Copyright © 2015 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. xxvii xxviii • THOMAS S. POETTER to good use; I didn’t know exactly how I would do that at fi rst, but I decided to store them on a prominent bookcase in my offi ce at Miami University and make them available to students. Students could take them and use them as they willed. As a result of using Schubert, Schubert, Thomas, and Carroll’s (2002) book Curriculum Books in a seminar, I began to see how so many of the books in Norm’s collection could be sorted by decade, which I began to do. At that moment, a window to the past opened up to me. I immediately thought of the idea of teaching a seminar on curriculum books by decade. Through several wonderful twists of fate in my department, I got the opportunity to teach a core seminar in our curriculum studies in our doctoral program in Leadership, Culture, and Cur- riculum (LCC), the fi rst one taking place in the Spring of 2012. In the course, besides studying prominent curriculum books of a particular decade as well as current ideas, theories, and practices in the fi eld of curriculum studies, I would challenge students to study one book in particular from the decade at hand and write a book length chapter (about 20 pages, double spaced) for the end of course assignment to be included in a book on the subject. That fi rst seminar led to the fi rst volume on the 1960s published in 2013. The volume you are reading now on curriculum windows deals with books of the 1970s; it comes from the seminar taught in the Spring of 2013. I have already taught and collected chapters from students for a book on the 1980s as a result of the seminar taught in the Spring of 2014. The book on the 1980s will appear in 2015. At this moment, I am planning the fi nal seminar on the subject of the 1990s to take place in the Spring of 2015. The fourth and fi nal book of the series, on curriculum books of the 1990s, will appear in 2016. From the beginning, I wondered:

How might a review of key books from the curriculum fi eld from a given decade illuminate new possibilities forward for us today? How might the theories, practices, and ideas wrapped up in curriculum texts of that decade still resonate with us, allow us to see backward in time and forward in time, all at the same time? How could these fi gurative windows of insight, thought, ideas, fantasy, and fancy make us think differently about curriculum, teaching, learning, students, education, leadership, and schools? How could they challenge us? How could they help us see more clearly, even perhaps put us on a path to correct the mistakes and missteps of intervening decades, and today? And, how could I engage doctoral students in curriculum at Mi- ami in a journey like this with me, opening windows to tomorrow by looking back today? How could I get students of curriculum, perhaps on their fi rst formal scholarly journey, to express themselves and new ideas in ways that could be consumed by peers and colleagues in the curriculum fi eld? (Poetter, 2013, p. xxvii)

FIRST STEPS: HOW THIS WORKS In the ﬁ rst part of the course on the 1970s, students studied several book length works on curriculum theory and history including Schubert, Schubert, Thomas and Carroll’s (2002) Curriculum Books: The First Hundred Years, Bill Pinar’s Introduction • xxix

(2012) What Is Curriculum Theory? and Pinar, Reynolds, Slattery, and Taub- man’s (2002) Understanding Curriculum. Students also read drafts of the students’ chapters from the previous year’s class on the 1960s, which would soon be in publication, as well as sampled works from previous publishing projects in courses I taught (Poetter, 2010; Poetter, Wegwert, & Haerr, 2006, Poetter, Bird, & Goodney, 2004). And they began to study the book they would write a chapter about from the 1970s. Throughout the ﬁ rst part of the course, about nine weeks, a scribe took notes at each seminar, shared them week-by-week, and we encouraged each other to come up with a “window” metaphor through which to frame each book and author. In the last part of the course, about six weeks in length, I encouraged students to think of the chapter writing as a qualitative enterprise, which would involve not only their developing sense of what the book they were studying was about, but more intimately, how the book opened them up personally to new possibilities for seeing their lives and the world. I asked them to connect with the book deeply, by ﬁ nding a hook in their own lives that would pull them and the reader through a window of insight and experience.

What I wanted in the end, especially, were chapters that were voiced, meaning that the reader of each chapter could sense both the historical importance of the work but also get a sense of the personal stakes at hand through the chapter author’s interests, hopes, experiences, and ideas. I wanted students to write themselves into the book, not out of it. I wanted them to see themselves as conduits for ideas and images and possibilities, that is as ‘openings,’ like windows, through which we might see more clearly ahead—or at least somehow differently—the educational possibilities of yesterday, today, and tomorrow” (Poetter, 2013, p. xxix).

During the last part of the course, students had individual meetings with me, and they met in small groups to share drafts and engage in peer editing. I didn’t engage in this process for the fi rst book and regretted it immediately. These extra group sessions helped students on this project view the experience more like a collective, group process and less like an ominous, individual project hanging over their heads with a fi nite timeline. What I do try to make clear to each class that takes this challenge from me is that the project won’t be fi nished at the end of the course. In each case, the publication process takes at least a year, so that students have the experience of seeing a published piece through several editing processes. And the learning doesn’t stop at the end of the course, which transforms the doctoral seminar into something with a life of its own that keeps on giving.

GROWING UP: ENGAGING THE “WINDOW” METAPHOR

(Note: This section on the “’Window’ Metaphor” is adopted, nearly word for word, from the introduction to the ﬁ rst volume in the series, Curriculum Windows: What Curriculum Theorists of the 1960s Can Teach Us About Schools And Society Today, xxx • THOMAS S. POETTER

2013, pp. xxx-xxxiii. I do not use quotation marks to cite the section since it is several pages long. It ends with the next heading “Coming of Age in the 1970s.” The section serves as strong conceptual grounding for the notion of window and helped create a window to the project for the new class on the 1970s.)

The word “window,” early 13th century, comes from the Old Norse “vindauga,” or literally “wind eye.” It replaced the Old English words “eagpyrl,” literally “eye- hole” and “eagduru,” literally “eye-door.” Originally an unglazed hole in a roof, most Germanic languages adopted the Latin “fenestra” to describe the glass version and later in English used “fenester” as a parallel word until the late 16th century. (Harper, 2012)

It’s important to recognize that the metaphor of “window” is familiar to us and seems almost natural in terms of its serviceability as a metaphor. Meaning, we have experiences in our own lives of gazing out or into windows (or passing through them), whether they be in homes or cars or elsewhere. Sometimes these are typically present and pleasant memories and actions, tied often to the gift of free time or the opportunity to refl ect, dream, ponder, and wonder. Krysmanski (2005) reminds us that metaphor—a fi gure of speech—grows out of our experiences with objects in the world and explains the unknown through the known. So “windows” had to be there before they could be used as metaphors. And literal windows are omnipresent, in our dwellings, works of architecture, the cinema, technology, as well as fi guratively through literature, poetry, philosophy, religion, and the technology interfaces of present day computers. For me, for instance, the literal and fi gurative notions of “windows” resonate in a very positive way and have had a soothing, almost therapeutic impact on me, and represent, in almost every beat of my heart over 50 years, clarity, beauty, and hope. I remember as a child sitting on the radiator benches just under a picture window in our family’s living room facing a busy street. The benches were decorative, with lattice on the sides to let out the heat, but the wooden tops never got too hot to sit on, even in the dead of the frigid northern Ohio winters. I spent considerable time sitting on those benches, that window seat, warming myself, and looking out of the window while taking a break from family action, or from study, or when thinking about next steps for the day or trying to get a grip on life, or dealing with loss, or just taking time to think. Busy and beautiful, the scene outdoors changed with the seasons, with rain- storms and snow, and sunshine, and familiar faces and characters walking up and down the street. I watched from the inside as my father walked home from church across the street, at which he was the pastor, at about 5pm each night. I waited for him many days. I can recall walking or riding my bike home from school or a ballgame now and then, and seeing my sister waving and smiling out to me, beck- oning from inside. So the window worked both ways, calming and inspiring from the inside, and welcoming from the outside. And, I realized, I wasn’t the only one who loved that window seat and its life altering powers of view. Introduction • xxxi

I also recall the windows of our very large 1972 Chevy Impala as I looked out of them on long western vacation road trips with my family. Squeezed between my brother and sister in the back seat for thousands of car miles before video games and movies in the car helped the current generation of children pass the time, I soldiered on by taking in the landscape through the side windows. Perhaps that’s why I dragged my own sons and wife out West in the car several years ago, in an attempt to show them the beauty of the great western outdoors I appreciated so much as a child myself. I remember saying during patches of boredom for them as the miles rolled by in the car, even beyond the reach of the technology in use, “Just look out the window. There’s something new to see every mile.” And on and on it goes, with the stained glass windows of my home church, especially the rose window behind the chancel (my father preached every Sunday of my youth in a large, impressive protestant sanctuary), majestic, beautiful, and luminous, playing an important role as I listened (or not) and meditated as a youth while surrounded by caring and loving adults and other children. Even broken windows of my youth turned out to yield life lessons, and grace, such as the time when I struck a baseball (a terrifi c line drive as I recall) through the large drive-up bay window of my neighbor friend’s insurance business and ran for my life. Of course, since we lived merely steps away and all of us were friends, it didn’t take long for his dad to fi nd me and ask me how I intended to pay for it (my fi rst early experience with the application of insurance, how apropos). He also said, “Tom- my, it would have been much easier for me if you had just come in for your ball.” It’s the last time I ever ran from a broken window, both literally and fi guratively. But the metaphor of window, grounded perhaps in the crucible of “real” life experiences outside the sheltered, inviting windows of my own childhood in the 1960s and 1970s, isn’t always perceived or framed by others, necessarily, in such bucolic ways. In fact, while my experiences enrich me as a person, and make it possible for me to see, imagine, create, and interpret my reality and new realities, sometimes simultaneously, in ways that I think are not oppressive, they may simultaneously cloud my ability to see tragedy, suffering, and pain for others, though I’ve had my share of such and saw it all unfold on TV and in real life as a child—assassinations, wars, the dead, family deaths, disease, dysfunction, griev- ing, mental illness, violence, prejudice, racism, extreme social unrest. What couldn’t I see or what did I repress as I gazed out of those windows of my youth? What is it that I see now, or wish I had seen, or think I might have seen with different lenses, born of age, of experience, of context? And how do these images of memory reconstruct myself, my memory, and my current reality? How do I position myself as a child of privilege, who could look out of windows onto a street without fear of being shot at, or who had time to do so without the responsibilities of earning wages for the family or taking care of family members, soaking up the goods of free time and refl ection when so many others my age as children and today as children rarely had or have a free moment to wonder? How enriched xxxii • THOMAS S. POETTER have I become at the expense of others as I soaked up the cultural capital afforded simply through the opportunity of looking? These are philosophical questions about experience, the kind that might be asked refl ectively given time, and the confl ation of context, culture, politics, economics, and experience, and the understanding of privilege as they all bear down on our current concepts of reality as we study the curriculum fi eld and practice it, too. Ultimately, as a result of this deeper “seeing,” of course, it’s possible that the window, psychologically, can act as a metaphor representing, alternately, the reality or feeling of being enclosed, shuttered, sheltered, hidden, in hiding, even imprisoned, whether there are bars across the panes or not (Crenshaw & Green, 2009). Krysmanski (2005), a contemporary German sociologist, explores the history of the windows metaphor in a short work entitled, “Windows: A History of Metaphor,” in which he sketches the development of the window metaphor through architecture, fi ne art, theater/cinema, literature, philosophy, religion, culture, science, and technology. Of particular note in his work are several concepts that may help as you read and interpret the chapters that follow. First is his recognition that the window as metaphor allows humans to use their powers of cognition, perception, intuition, and understanding to connect the seemingly mundane of everyday life with the literal and fi gurative essence of “light”; this interaction takes us out of our seemingly fi nite world and helps us connect or not with the infi nite, the unknown. Second is the connection between a) the literal rise of the window in use in dwellings as a passage for light before the nearly universal access to glass and b) the subsequent development of early “windows” as “screens.” In the dark ages, glass was only available to the extremely wealthy, who could install the windows in frames of dwellings and look out over feudal landscapes at their “holdings.” Before the mass production and affordability of glass, which came much later into the early 20th century, “screens” over windows were held in place by “frames,” and oftentimes painted and decorated, becoming works of art themselves even as they performed the function of blocking the elements that the window, as an opening, could not keep out (Krysmanski, 2005). Over time, screens became paintings, works of art in and of themselves, and paintings, for instance, served themselves as metaphorical windows, or screens, representing one reality for a reality in another dimension, simultaneously. Related is the architectural wonder of glass as art, in the case of stained glass windows, for instance, that became part of churches and other institutional structures across continents. Stained glass doesn’t so much let light enter or escape as it does refl ect or absorb it, making the glass itself more luminous as opposed to lighting another venue. One’s eye is drawn to the glass of the window, and its beauty and/or the story it tells, and not to the inside or outside of the dwelling place (Krysmanski, 2005). Stained glass windows don’t so much admit or shield light, in so much instead as they absorb and transform it. All of this connects with a third point, which is that modern day windows—as they take shape and are framed in so many venues, even as complete walls of buildings, as mirrors in interrogation rooms, or as screens where multiple reali- Introduction • xxxiii ties meet through digital technology—continue to act as powerful inspiration for metaphor, and representations of human possibility, growth, progress, and even enslavement, while also opening up the potential for post-modern use and interpretation, that is in the sense that positionality, identity, and perhaps even culture and ideology are subject to new frontiers given the transcending energy of emerging interfaces, or screens, or windows, if you will (Krysmanski, 2005). What might our journey to locate ourselves within the complex worlds, interactions, and experiences of curriculum reveal to us as we seek, explore, open our eyes, shine the light, blaze new trails, recognize windows of opportunity? What might the process of looking back through time at past windows of meaning reveal to us as we deal with today and dream/act for tomorrow? How might the windows we open or develop serve the curriculum fi eld in ways that lie beyond the “screens” that Tyler imagined, for instance, the ones that would serve to fi lter the value of objectives objectively for the classroom? (Tyler, 1970) And how might we acknowledge them, in truth instead, as subjective, value-laden, human, and experiential meanings/questions derived from normative interests at hand and our own lives, as opposed to some arbitrary, meaningless and indefi nable truth that lies outside of us (Kliebard, 1992)?

COMING OF AGE IN THE 1970S, AND TODAY I myself came of age in the 1970s. I chronicle much of how I feel about these years in my new memoir 50 Christmases (2014, Sourced Media Books). In that work, I attempt to story my life through the lens of Christmastide in an attempt to confront the joy, pain, loss, and reconciliation present in my life. In a sense I use “Christmas” as my window for looking back, and forward, at my life and times, a sort of “currere” journey, if you will (Pinar, 2012). In the 1970s, I lost my father to heart disease, went to high school, missed the Vietnam draft by several years, helped take care of my sister Anne—born with Down’s Syndrome, fell in love for the fi rst time, and fi gured out who I was as a person, at least in terms of my relationship with family members and the wider community and society that I would confront later as a college student, worker, and citizen. I had the most formative experiences of my life in the 1970s. In these times— as I refl ect on my years of coming of age, especially when dealing with issues my own sons confront as children born in the mid-1990s as they come of age in this new century—I wonder when would have been a better time to grow up, the 1970s or 2000s? Of course, every situation and context are different (which is one of the fi rst rules of curriculum work!), but when people say that things are “much worse” for children today, I’m not so sure. We lived at the nexus of different parenting paradigms in the 1970s and 2000s. Middle class parents in the 1970s led their own lives; they didn’t often live vicariously through their children like they often do today. So, by the age of four, I was left mostly to my own devices in the neighborhood as long as I made it home by dinner at 5:30pm. And that translated later into high school, when I had a curfew but my mother never asked me where xxxiv • THOMAS S. POETTER

I was going or worried about it much. I just did what I wanted to do it when I wanted to, for the most part. Now, these conditions may have made me more independent and able to make good decisions on my own. Maybe, maybe not. I made my share of mistakes and paid dearly for them along the way as I came of age. For others in my time, the freedom translated into even bigger mistakes, some of them life ending or at least life altering in a mostly negative way, involving sex, drugs, and alcohol, all readily apparent and easy to get by the 1970s. But today, everything is available to children from the youngest of ages, all the time through the internet and the social conditions in which we live and breathe today, from school to the street corner. So while there was no golden age of growing up, for parents today we know that the dangers lurking for our children pose immediate threats. How do we deal with that, knowing what we know about our own pasts and what things and situations are readily available to children to an ever great degree? What is the curriculum of action in our time? How do we live? Well, for the most part, I’m afraid that fear causes us to smother our children. So, too, the leftover legacy that many feel by being “abandoned” by their own parents, often left to fend for themselves by design or because life situations dictate a sense of distance and alienation between generations. This translates to the next generation, and we feel alienated and alone when we don’t have to. How can we reconcile this distance without smothering our children, allowing them to become independent, well-adjusted human beings? I think it is one of the most important questions and debates of our time. How we come of age, under what conditions, and with whom makes a great difference in each one of our lives. These are questions we must attend to as part of our life curriculum. These are questions I am attending to now as an aging parent. I was also coming of age as a student and as a thinker at home, in the community, and at school during the 1970s. I had some great school experiences, because of tremendously talented teachers and public school opportunities created as a sign of the times, no doubt. My second grade teacher, Mrs. Sherry McEvoy, encouraged me to write a play on Lincoln’s assassination, then helped me direct the entire school grades K–6 in a public rendition of it. In second grade! These things happened all the time our school. By sixth grade, Mr. Burton Andrews had us taking/developing photographs and making movies as part of our curriculum, studying our own artistic talents and our relationship with the world outside the four walls of the classroom. These progressive, humanistic teachers shaped me greatly in a small elementary school K–6 with only about 25 students in each grade. Hatched in me in those days as a student in that school with those teachers and peers were commitments to student thought, student creativity, and student action. Instead of the teacher doing everything involved in the learning cycle, students do the work and produce the results as evidence of their learning and new knowledge generated in the world. I thought everyone went to school this way; now I realize that so few ever have. I feel lucky to some degree, and like the rest of the world Introduction • xxxv has been cheated for the most part. How can we create places where students and their imaginations, their drives, their interests, their hopes, dreams, and fears get surfaced and dealt with productively and in ways that will make them not only better students but better human beings? And how can we do this realizing that there is no golden age, meaning that in the 1970s, even in the best of places where quality schooling took place, we still punished most children physically in schools, discriminated against those thought to be less able, and fl at out denied some children access because of their race or social class? I had no idea while my life was unfolding in the 1970s that the most important intellectual progenitors of the literature I would study about education, for me, came to life—in terms of their academic voices and wide impact—in that decade, particularly Bill Pinar and Eliot Eisner, and of course the voice of my own mentor Norm Overly. By the early 1970s, Pinar (1975) became one of the main voices for reconceptualizing curriculum studies. His work revolutionized the fi eld, opened it up, made it possible for students and researchers in education, particularly in curriculum studies, to do legitimate research work qualitatively, and to bring multiple theoretical frameworks to bear on the work at hand beyond the stifl ing process/ product norms of the day. He brought so many voices to the table, and stirred up deeper and helpful controversies and debates, the kind that make our fi eld vibrant and alive today, not only in terms of transforming research agendas and the literature, but also transforming the way we do business, act, share, and study in conferences and professional journals. And Eliot Eisner had begun working with doctoral students at Stanford on an approach he called “educational criticism,” which led to the powerful chapters of doctoral student research that completed his most famous and still widely resonating book The Educational Imagination (2001). When I fi rst read Eisner’s book for Norm’s curriculum class at Indiana University in the summer of 1990, it occurred to me at that point that doctoral students could do the kind of substantive work that Eisner’s students did in that book. And it became clearer to me that pursuing that kind of work at the doctoral level, with students as their professor, might be the kind of thing I would like to spend the balance of my professional career on. That has come to fruition, and has made such a huge and profound difference in my life. Evidence of the impact of Eisner’s work lives and resides forever within these pages and within the lives of the authors. Of course, Norm Overly had a huge impact on me, much closer at hand than the literature. As I have said before, Norm lived the fi eld. He brought his brand of progressive humanism to life in his courses and seminars at Indiana University, engaging us as doctoral students in the work of the fi eld but also in the work of constructing ourselves, our lives, our commitments, our interests, our understandings. The edited volume for ASCD that appeared in 1979 Lifelong Learning: A Human Agenda, which is treated here by Deb Heard, had a tremendous impact on me the fi rst time I read it in that same introductory course with Norm in 1990. I felt the book speak to me, the characters come alive, and the curriculum fi eld get xxxvi • THOMAS S. POETTER transformed right in front of my eyes. What Norm’s students always came away saying and thinking was, “So, all of this is curriculum.” Yes, all of it, even beyond the boundaries of schooling and other forms of formal education. Our lives are curricular, the world is curricular—everything is curricular. What is left to decide is how we will read the world, how open we will be to it, how understanding we will become. I continue on this path of understanding with my own students, as they teach me more than I could ever teach them. I learned all of that from Norm Overly, and more about myself and my life than I could ever tell in one place.

THE CONTEXT OF THE 1970S Early on in this project, I realized that a huge mistake would be for the authors of the chapters here to spend much time, if any, trying to contextualize their studies in the historical events of the 1970s. That would take too much space, unless it was absolutely necessary for the development of their “window,” their chapter. After all, much of “context making” work has already been done by Schubert, especially with his co-authors in Curriculum Books: The First Hundred Years (2002). Also, while most of the students in the course grew up in the United States, not all of them did, and most of them were not over 35 when they took the course. So most of the historical frames of reference that students in the course had, in terms of life experience, took place in their lives only since the 1980s. So instead of re-reading a short retrospective in each chapter, I take a few lines here to note several important aspects of the decade that had an impact on our course, and direct the reader to more in-depth treatments of the decade of the 1970s in other places. It has to be said, like I did in the fi rst volume on the 1960s, though it’s rather a cliché now, that the decade of the 1970s was marked by social, cultural, political, educational, and economic change (Poetter, 2013, p. xxxix). Of course, America’s involvement in Vietnam, at least in terms of waging war on the ground, which ended in 1975 with the Fall of Saigon, had a tremendous impact on every aspect of life here at home and abroad. Nixon’s fall from power as a result of the Water- gate scandal led to a loss of faith in government by many and opened the doors to Washington newcomers like Jimmy Carter in 1976. Economic crises, such as the oil crisis, caused long lines at the gas pump and foregrounded the U.S. economy’s reliance on foreign oil. By the late 1970s, the pre-eminent position of U.S. industry and manufacturing had already begun to fade with outside competition and changing economic conditions all across the developing world, leading to lean conditions on the ground in American cities as good paying jobs began to grow less plentiful. The country, dragged down by the ominous specter of hostages held in Iran at the end of the decade for 444 days into 1980, opened the doors to a conservative political and economic restoration through Ronald Reagan’s administration. In education, Back to Basics movements and canned curriculum programs such as SRA and others hit the school shelves and became part of the standard fare consumed by public education students across the nation. All of this change Introduction • xxxvii happened as the conservative cycle bumped up against teachers’ movements, begun in the 1960s, to create and maintain open classrooms and free schools. Almost all of those renewal efforts failed in the 1970s. Busing orders kept the issue of race and education alive in the nation’s cities and suburbs, and the controversy and violence over integration simmered just beneath the surface of American life, setting the stage for court actions and the fading use of the approach by the turn of the century. Private, mostly parochial, schools grew in number and attendance, especially in the South but all over the country, too, as whites fl ed integrated public schools. And many voted with their feet for the public schools they would populate, moving further from the urban core to the suburbs, and to newer, bigger, whiter school districts. The impact of the 1960s and the social consciousness of students and young people seemed to fade in the 1970s, with the generation of baby boomers coming of age being labeled the “Me” generation. The presence of a ramped up drug and sexual culture came to life in movies and music and reality, as the counter- cultural movements of the 1960s became almost mainstream in the 1970s, and foregrounded the narcissistic nature of many aspects of society and experience for youth in the decade. Television became even more ubiquitous in the 1970s, and the media venue not only made it possible for most of the world to tune in to the Moon landing in 1969, but also to the many moon landings of the early 1970s, seen by almost every public school child in that decade at school. Comedies like Norman Lear’s All in the Family challenged social mores and we watched as the world unfolded before us at the televised Watergate hearings and the taking of American hostages in Iran. Media and technology stood at the brink of a massive explosion, with the computer age taking hold through mainframes developed by IBM and others, and with the development of the next wave of entrepreneurs and inventors, like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, both of them and others transforming the world of technology coming of age on the cusp of vast changes in how we think, work, and act in the world and in the economy of the late 20th century and into the 21st. And the curriculum fi eld, as you may already know as a student of the subject, began to change drastically in the 1970s with the rise of the reconceptualist movement. New journals, new conferences, and new faces dotted the landscape of change in curriculum studies. This book refl ects the dynamic nature of the fi eld during the decade. The authors examine the themes, ideas, possibilities, and hopes as they are embedded in the lives and work of many prominent curriculum theorists of the decade. This work also refl ects that while the fi eld changed, much of it stayed the same, with the continuing dominant paradigm of “development” not supplanting “understanding” all together (Pinar et al., 2002). Since I grew up the 1970s, and loved most aspects of my family, community, and cultural lives, it’s hard to embark on the rest of the journey through this volume with a dampened view of the 1970s as a lost decade. I found myself in this decade, and fi nd it to still be fi lled with exuberance, hope, innovation, and life. xxxviii • THOMAS S. POETTER

After all, for almost everyone reading this volume, the re-birth of the curriculum ﬁ eld in the decade made this project possible; the books that were written and studied had an impact on school and society, all the way to the very notion of conducting a seminar like ours in the 21st century, dedicated to looking back, reclaiming, and making new strong ideas from vibrant periods in the life of our shared work together. Sounds like a tribute to the 70s to me!

REFERENCES Crenshaw, D., & Green, E. (2009). The symbolism of windows and doors in play therapy. Play Therapy, retrieved from www.a4pt.org. Eisner, E. (2001, 3rd edition, also 1st edition in 1979 and 2nd edition in 1994). The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school programs. New York: Prentice Hall. Harper, D. (2012). Window. In Online etymology dictionary. Retrieved from http://www. etymonline.com/index.php Kliebard, H. (1992). The Tyler rationale. Forging the American curriculum: Essays in curriculum theory and history (pp. 153–167). New York: Routledge. Krysmanski, H. J. (2005). Windows: History of a metaphor. Retrieved from http://www. uni-muenster.de/EuropeanPopularScience/win-sample/win-intro.htm Overly, N. (Ed.). (1970). The unstudied curriculum: Its impact on children. Washington, DC: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, NEA. Overly, N. (Ed.) (1979). Lifelong learning: A human agenda. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Pinar, W. F. (Ed.). (1975). Curriculum theorizing: The reconceptualists. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan. Pinar, W. (2012). What is curriculum theory? NY: Peter Lang. Pinar, W., Reynolds, W., Slattery, P., & Taubman, P. (2002). Understanding curriculum: An introduction to the study of historical and contemporary curriculum discourses. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Poetter, T. (2010). Taking the leap, mentoring doctoral students as scholars: A great and fruitful morass. Teaching & Learning: The Journal of Natural Inquiry & Reﬂ ective Practice, 24(1), 22–29. Poetter, T. (Ed.). (2013). Curriculum windows: What curriculum theorists of the 1960s can teach us about schools and society today. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publish- ing, Inc. Poetter, T. (2014). 50 Christmases: Stories of hope, love, and reconciliation in Christmas- tide. San Clemente, CA: Sourced Media Books. Poetter, T., Bird, J., & Goodney, T. (Eds.). (2004). Critical perspectives on the curriculum of teacher education. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Poetter, T., Wegwert, J., & Haerr, C. (Eds.). (2006). No Child Left Behind and the illusion of reform: Critical essays by educators. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Schubert, W., Schubert, A., Thomas, T., & Carroll, W. (2002). Curriculum books: The ﬁ rst hundred years (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Tyler, R. (1970). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. CHAPTER 1

REVEALING THE HIDDEN THROUGH A CURRICULUM WINDOW

Yue Li

Overly, N. (Ed.). (1970). The unstudied curriculum: Its impact on children. Wash- ington DC: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, NEA.

In the morning of January 23, 2013, roughly about a month after the Newtown tragedy, my coworker Chris Cox, a former curriculum coordinator, shared with me a short article from The Miami Student (which happens to be the oldest university newspaper in the United States, established 1826). In this article titled, “School Security and ‘the Hidden Curriculum’,” Richard Erlich (2013) asked the public to consider what increasing school security implicitly teaches students. He questioned, “What values does it teach kids if we restrict their freedom greatly for marginal increases in safety? What does it teach if we make school campuses more like prisons or armed camps so that some adults are free to buy whatever semi-automatic riﬂ es and riﬂ e magazines they want?” While reading this article, I encountered another article about the schools in Montpelier, Ohio (“Montpelier school board,” 2013). One week after the New- town tragedy happened, the school board of this rural school district with high

Curriculum Windows: What Curriculum Theorists of the 1970s Can Teach Us about Schools and Society Today, pages 1–14. Copyright © 2015 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. 1 2 • YUE LI student poverty and small student population has voted unanimously to allow four custodian staff members to carry handguns at work. Even though the K–12 schools across the country generally tightened their security policies after the tragedy in Connecticut, Montpelier Exempt Village School District was the fi rst one in the nation to rely on armed janitors, instead of armed police offi cers or security guards, as part of the school security plan. The logic behind this was that, in a lockdown situation, custodians neither have to take care of students in a particular classroom, like the teachers usually do, nor have to make evacuation instructions as the administrators do. Plus, they are on site and possess keys to access the locked-down classrooms. What backed up their credential was a two-day training class instructed by the Tactical Defense Institute of West Union, Ohio. What message will such school environment communicate to students? It hints that something violent could happen at any time. The intended outcome of tightened school security policies is to ensure students and parents that schools are committed to protecting their students. However, will these new security policies positively affect students’ understanding of school safety issues and their views of the purpose of schooling? Will school security policies serve a positive role in students’ moral education? Even though the increasing of school security might not be discussed explicitly as part of the formal curriculum in the classrooms, students can still pick up these social environmental changes through not only what they see an encounter daily, but also what they observe about changes of teachers’ perceptions, classroom management styles, and school climates. I am especially interested in looking at what schooling experiences will become after these policies and practices have been institutionalized. Once the policies become existing facts, school norms, and a part of students’ daily lives, will anyone, including the schools, teachers, and parents, be able to realize what armed-up schools teach, or not teach, our youth? Erlich’s questions and my own questions resonated in me when I stepped into my fi rst curriculum class meeting with Dr. Tom Poetter. Outside of the formally- taught, content-related curriculum, would this course help me fi nd answers to these questions about the implicit, untaught curriculum?

NORMAN V. OVERLY AND THE UNSTUDIED CURRICULUM Within the ﬁ rst class meeting, I realized the idea of hidden curriculum has been studied extensively since the 1970s. The hidden curriculum was ﬁ rst raised by Philip W. Jackson in his groundbreaking book Life in Classrooms in 1968. Jack- son (1968) studied elementary school teachers and students and developed the concepts of “crowds, praise, and power” (p. 10) depicting what students must cope with in schools and “delay, denial, interruption, and social distraction” (p. 17) as the covert school life features that students have to learn. Jackson connected the hidden curriculum to students’ success in schools. Jackson’s research on the hidden curriculum brought this concept to other educational researchers’ attention in the 1970s. As the Associate Secretary and Revealing the Hidden Through a Curriculum Window • 3

Liaison Staff Member of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Devel- opment (ASCD), Norman V. Overly gathered a collection of six papers presented at the Third Annual Conference sponsored by the Elementary Education Council of the ASCD—all focusing on different aspects of hidden curriculum—and edited it into a short book, entitled The Unstudied Curriculum: Its Impact on Children (1970). As Overly (1970) explained in the preface, this booklet “(serves) to awaken some readers to the multifaceted splendor of the learning process and the complexity of the teaching task” (p. vi). In order to understand how schools can better serve our children, it is important to notice the “relationship between the hidden, unstudied, informal, unexpected, subsidiary, or concomitant learnings and the planned, structured, studied, or formal programs of the educational establishment” (Overly, 1970, p. vii). Philip W. Jackson, Edgar Z. Friedenberg, Barbara Biber and Patricia Minuchin, Robert Rosenthal, Robert Dreeben, and Lawrence Kohlberg were the authors of these papers. Besides focusing on the parts and pieces of the daily grind between teachers and students in classrooms (similar to the type of study done in Life in Classrooms), the Unstudied Curriculum also included studies about the hidden curriculum embedded in broader school settings, as well as in the even broader social environments surrounding the schools. In the next part of this section, I will provide a short summary of the chapters as they appear in Overly’s (1970) book.

JACKSON: “THE CONSEQUENCES OF SCHOOLING” Jackson (Overly, 1970, Chapter 1) set the tone of this book in the fi rst paper by defi ning two types of consequences of schooling. Unlike the primary consequences, which refer to memories directly connected to day-to-day classroom experiences and events, the secondary consequences are less clearly linked to any certain events or happenings. According to Jackson, the secondary consequences are the most important outcomes of schooling. Secondary consequences take on three aspects: students’ academic competency changes without specifying any particular task points; intellectual changes or mental growth occur without connecting to a specifi c curriculum; and attitude changes regarding self-image and concepts of the world. Students learn their social roles through living within a group of same-age peers for an extensive period of time and through coping with judgments and power relationships among their peers, as well as with teachers. Essentially, they are the concepts of “crowds, praise, and power” studied in Life in Classrooms (Jackson, 1968, p. 10). The secondary consequences can hardly ever be controlled by the school, teachers, or the formal curriculum, and are fundamentally uncertain. Jackson elaborated on the characteristics of the third aspect, the attitude aspect, also called the “evaluative orientation,” of the secondary consequences: justifi cation, changeableness, and duration. He suggested that school experience could be divided into two components: preparatory and consummatory. Even though the 4 • YUE LI preparatory component, i.e., academic preparation, is viewed as the offi cial goal of schooling, the consummatory component includes the informal consequences of what students take from schooling both in the short term and in the long term. When children grow up and look back on their school experiences, instead of the particular achievements they made, it was what schools do or not do to them non-academically that defi nes the quality of their childhood lives and self-values as adults. Sometimes students know how they feel about the school experience but cannot justify why they feel that way (justifi cation); their study interests could have changed many times during the years in schools instead of following a set of fi xed learning goals and objectives (changeableness); and the consequences of their school experiences can be both short-term and long-term (duration). The relationship between short term effects and long term effects is not fully studied and teachers have to balance their practices between the future-directed educational outcomes and the immediate consequences of their instruction.

FRIEDENBERG: “CURRICULUM AS EDUCATIONAL PROCESS: THE MIDDLE CLASS AGAINST ITSELF” In the second paper, Friedenberg (Overly, 1970, Chapter 2) used hidden curriculum to clarify schooling’s function as socializing the young into the lowest class in a society, so they can be placed under adult supervision. He deﬁ nes this socialization process as the “systematic extinction of alternatives” (p. 19). Even though the effect is ambiguous, Friedenberg agreed that schooling contributes to students’ future economic opportunity to a certain extent. However, he described schooling as a mechanism of class reproduction through claiming freedom as a privilege and through alienating middle-class children by imposing social norms on them. The middle-class and working-class structure is reinforced through schooling. Even though he did mention the school life of working-class and African Amer- ican students, Friedenberg focused his criticism on the after-effect of schooling for middle-class students, mainly those living in suburbs. The class hierarchy in his work is more about the conﬂ icts within the White middle-class and between the youth and their projected future adulthood lives.

BIBER AND MINUCHIN: “THE IMPACT OF SCHOOL PHILOSOPHY AND PRACTICES ON CHILD DEVELOPMENT” Biber and Minuchin (Overly, 1970, Chapter 3) studied the impacts of different educational philosophies on child psychological development in the third paper. In their study, the philosophies in “traditional” schools are identiﬁ ed as focusing on students’ academic achievement levels using standardized methods. Teachers in these schools are viewed as the authority role in judging students, while students are evaluated based on established standards. On the other hand, the philosophies in “modern” schools are perceived as centering on the complexity and dynamics of children’s intellectual and social development. The teacher-student relationship Revealing the Hidden Through a Curriculum Window • 5 then becomes more complicated. The teacher’s authority role becomes more ﬂ exible, intimate, tolerant, and more guidance than judgment. A student’s individual interests and needs are valued more than academic achievement. Biber and Minuchin reported differences found in terms of “education for competence,” “quality and patterns of interaction among people,” and “view of individuality” between “modern” and “traditional” schools. Students in the “modern” schools, according to this study, showed more rational and objective attitude, focused less on control or discipline, were less threatened by adults’ authority, and showed more critical thinking in moral judgment development. In terms of self-image development, students from “modern” schools showed more concrete views about their self-identity and portrayed their future social positions based on their current personal interests and needs, while students from “traditional” schools developed a more impersonal and general self-image and portrayed their future based more on expectations received from the outside world.

ROSENTHAL: “TEACHER EXPECTATION AND PUPIL LEARNING” Next, Rosenthal (Overly, 1970, Chapter 4) presented the impact of teachers’ expectation on student performance—the “Pygmalion effect.” In his study, Rosen- thal linked the higher expectations from teachers to better performance and more autonomy of students. In reverse, those students who were not expected to be able to perform intellectually by their teachers showed more undesired behaviors during the study. Rosenthal’s work implied that it is not the students who cannot learn; it is, instead, the teachers’ responsibility to raise the expectations of their students and to support their students in being successful in school.

DREEBEN: “SCHOOLING AND AUTHORITY: COMMENT ON THE UNSTUDIED CURRICULUM” Dreeben (Overly, 1970, Chapter 5) discussed the impact of power and authority on children’s school lives in his paper. He explained that teachers present their authority roles in classrooms in various forms. One of the forms is to establish the initial legitimate image of schooling when children ﬁ rst transition from the intimate, private family environment to the impersonal, public school environment, as well as when they advance from elementary school level to secondary school level later on. Authority also takes the form of reward and punishment. Dreeben asserted that teachers need to exercise authority within the social context of the classroom in a fair and consistent way. The relationship between authority and democracy does not have to be confrontational. Dreeben argued that those authority-related events, which students learned from their families and from different levels of schooling, are the typical aspects of authorities they will experience as adults in the society of the future. He further argued that students learn from school structures and from teachers’ power and 6 • YUE LI authority about ways to act impersonally, to distinguish persons from social positions, and to act according to the principle of authority based on expertise. This allows them to determine when to apply the personal, impersonal, and expert principles of authority appropriately (p. 98 and p. 102). Dreeben also recognized that the students are placed in a subordinate position in the authority relationship in school, with few opportunities and experiences for being on the other side of this relationship.

KOHLBERG: “THE MORAL ATMOSPHERE OF THE SCHOOL” Kohlberg (Overly, 1970, Chapter 6) concluded this edited book by raising the public’s attention to the linkage between hidden curriculum and moral education. He started by suggesting that the concept of hidden curriculum indicates that a big portion of students’ experience in school is not formally taught, yet educative. Therefore, it is a viable topic to consider and explore. He summarized the fi rst fi ve papers into common themes. The fi rst common feature of schooling is that, no matter how the school setting varies, students in general are placed with the same group of similar-age, with peers of similar experience. As both Jackson and Dreeben stressed, learning through being a member of such a group means learning to face the authority and power relationship, which will likely be the type of relationship children will face in the future adulthood. Kohlberg then drew on the works of Durkheim and Friedenberg and indicated that schools serve as the transition between family and their future adult life for children and are projections of the political society. It has to be in the public arena, such as in schools, where students learn the social moral rules. They cannot fully learn these rules from their families, which are considered a private arena. Based on Durkheim’s functional sociologist point of view, Kohlberg circled back to Jackson’s notion of crowds, praise, and power as the three critical conditions for children’s moral development. Kohlberg further argued that, unlike Dreeben’s value-neutral view or Frieden- berg’s negative view about the hidden curriculum, the hidden curriculum represents the moral values of the larger society. The hidden curriculum can be used as a path to freedom. “[T]he development of moral character is in large part a sequential progressive growth of basic principles of moral reasoning and their application to action” (p. 115). He claimed that educators, such as teachers and administrators, assume an important role of transforming hidden curriculum in schools into a framework of moral maturity for social justice at large.

THE PRESENT ISSUE AND THE WINDOWS OPEN TOWARDS CHANGE The mass shooting tragedy in Newtown opened two different types of windows of public awareness in the United States. One is a public-attention-attracting, very visibly large window that opens to the debates around policy changes on the gun Revealing the Hidden Through a Curriculum Window • 7 control laws at the federal level. It has been more than a year since the Newtown tragedy happened, yet the debates on Capitol Hill have been heated-up, cooled- off, and then heated-up again for several waves among President Obama, Vice President Biden, the Senate, the Congress, the National Rifl e Association (NRA), many gun control advocates, and many more key players including victims’ families. Each round of the debates is reported thoroughly by massive news media coverage through TV, radio, newspapers, and online media. Even though most of the decision making process of potential policy changes resides with Congress, the general public can still look through this big and clear window to access and share the information and join the debates. On the other hand, there is a much less fl ashy, less publically debated, and less noticeable window guarding the educational system. Behind this almost opaque window hides a layered curtain, the “hidden curriculum” (Hiebert, 2012). Only when someone pulls the curtain back do the school policy changes in responding to the school shooting tragedies emerge. In addition, I would like to think this window is not as completely opaque, because the public, especially those who live in the community, can still see some of these policy changes, even though what they can see might not be clear, sometimes might not even be the whole picture, and might not be able to be seen easily. After a series of massive school shootings, such as the Columbine High School massacre, the Virginia Tech massacre, and the most recent Sandy Hook Elemen- tary School shooting in Newtown, CT, school districts across the country in general tightened their school security policies by revising current security policies, creating new policies, providing training for teachers, school staff, and students to handle a lockdown situation, installing surveillance systems or other security facilities, connecting with local law enforcement, hiring school resource offi cers, and hiring armed guards and custodians. For example, the school district of the mid-west small town where I reside is the only district in my county that does not have a school resource offi cer. Instead of focusing on students’ academic performance, the superintendent had a detailed presentation about school security issues at the school board meeting in the spring of 2013, discussing how to respond to the situation “when” the real lockdown happens, instead of “if” it happens. The policy change follows along with the school climate change. This kind of climate change, however, usually starts at the school administrator level and passes to teachers and students in a top-down fashion. Unlike the lengthy, controversial national level debates about gun control bills, educational policies about school security at the local level have been changing rapidly, without massive debates. Elementary schools in Greater Boston had new security policies in place for the fall of 2013 by adding new surveillance cameras, more locked doors, and panic buttons, among other security measures (Kocian, 2013). An elementary school in the suburb of Fort Lauderdale added an armed school resource offi cer who is permanently stationed on campus in fall 2013, despite the fact that this middle-class community has a declining crime rate (More 8 • YUE LI armed security, 2013). The Region 10 School District in Connecticut upgraded its “already very robust infrastructure” by adding “satellite offi ces for Troop L of the state police at Lake Garda and Harwinton Consolidated elementary schools” (Hartman, 2013). The high schools in the Stamford school district, Connecticut, have police offi cers stationed on campus, and the middle schools there have security and police do regular checks (Lambeck & Varnon, 2013). These are just a few of the many examples to be found. According to an analysis done by Education Week, as of October 2, 2013, over 400 state bills related to school safety were fi led after the deadly K–12 school shooting in Sandy Hook. These bills proposed to address issues including school emergency planning, placing police in schools, arming school employees, building safety improvements, easing gun restrictions in schools, gun control, and school climate and student supports including mental health services or counsel- ing (School safety legislation, 2013). Even though it is hard to count how many local level policies regarding school security have been changed in school districts, a survey of 600 school districts indicated that almost 90% had made changes to their security facilities or policies since the Sandy Hook tragedy (Linskey, 2013). Even though the window of these policy changes is small and less transparent, it is still an important passage for the public to access information and to create a dialogue, that is, to ask the question raised by Erlich and others one more time: What do these security changes in schools do to our children? We are hearing from media almost on a daily basis about the proponents’ and the opponents’ ideas about the gun control bills and proposals at the federal level. Issues surface regarding citizen rights to arm themselves, ending gun violence, the types of guns and magazines that can or cannot be sold, stopping gun traffi cking, what violent TV games do to children, and tightening background checks, etc.. These are just some of the hottest topics. Compared to these heated debates and the relative stag- nation in terms of action on them, educational policies on school security have been pushed through in a nearly unanimous, convergent way without a thorough investigation of the possible outcomes, what might be gained and lost. The small window is still shut, hard to see through, and covered by the curtain of the hidden curriculum. In his book The Educational Imagination, Eisner (2002) talked about two types of curricula that all schools teach: the explicit and the implicit curricula (p. 91). The explicit curriculum is largely related to the formal, content-based curriculum, while the implicit curriculum is the hidden one imbedded in every aspect of school life, yet not taught in the classroom offi cially. The hidden curriculum, including the school security settings, resides in this implicit category. Through the hidden curriculum lenses developed by Jackson, Dreeben, Friedenberg, and other scholars in the 1970s, we can examine the intended and unintended outcomes of schooling in a guarded and armed-up environment. As Pinar (2012) mentioned in What is Curriculum Theory? “the most crucial curriculum question is, ‘what knowledge is of the most worth?’” (p. xv). For the Revealing the Hidden Through a Curriculum Window • 9 hidden curriculum, this question becomes bi-fold: What are we teaching, or not teaching, and what are the consequences? Let’s imagine what school life would be with the “best” security protections: every student or staff has to go through a security check and a metal detector (somewhere in New York City you even have to do a drug test) to enter the school; security guards and staff (with varying amounts of training on guns, from as little as 2 days of training) walk around on campus with concealed weapons; no one can get in and out the schools without permission; and everybody has to follow a certain set of security rules including how to react to a lockdown situation. If you were sitting in a classroom in such a school, would you feel more secure? The current scene of schools is virtually the same as what Friedenberg described more than 40 years ago:

Between classes at Milgrim High, no student may walk down the corridor without a form signed by a teacher, telling where he is coming from, where he is going, and the time to the minute at which the pass is valid. There is no physical freedom whatever in Milgrim, there is no time or place in which a student may simply go about his business. Privacy is strictly forbidden. Toilets are locked. There are more different washrooms than there must have been in the Confederate Navy. (Overly, 1970, p. 106)

This kind of school norm/hidden curriculum implies that, instead of mirroring a free and democratic society, schooling is leading the future citizens toward a military-style society, in which students have to follow top-down hierarchical orders, strict rules, and cannot trust the environment in which they are living to be safe and secure. A military-oriented ideology already has a prominent position in this country, considering that gun rights are constitutional under the Second Amendment while the right to education is not protected explicitly by the Con- stitution and is under the control of state governments under the guidance of the Tenth Amendment (Urchick, 2007). Additionally, the 2013 Federal Budget is 23% for the military but only 3% for education (FY14 federal budget, 2013). So, the educational system is a projection of the large social system. With the political focus on military, defense, and gun rights in general, it is not surprising that the structures of school authority are set in a top-down, hierarchical way. Referring back to Jackson, Dreeben, and Friedenberg’s works, the themes of power and authority have been surfaced over and over again. The school administrators have the legitimate authority to create a guarded and armed school environment, while teachers are placed at a subordinate position and have to teach in such an environment no matter what. This kind of authority can translate the message to the classroom level that the real power and authority of the school is not exercised between teacher and students, but between school guards and students. Messages that students take from their schools are not about freedom and democracy. Rather, they are about obedience and coercion. 10 • YUE LI

An armed school further reminds me of a prison, which gives credence to the notion of a school-to-prison pipeline. With all the armed guards walking around, people cannot stop wondering whether a school is led by a principal or by a war- den. This pipeline was once a covert way to treat students as if they were prisoners or future prisoners through zero tolerance policies, through discipline and punishment, and through suspensions and expulsions (Foucault, 1995). However, now this implicit issue is becoming more and more explicit. The hidden curriculum has become a visible school norm. By adding more layers of school security, the school-to-prison pipeline has been reinforced. The military-like and jail-like schooling experience also associates itself with social class. Ten years after the Unstudied Curriculum was published, Jean Anyon (1980) published her works about the relationship between social class and hidden curriculum. Anyon (1980) observed fi ve elementary schools, which she classifi ed into four categories based on the social class of the majority of students in each school. These schools included two working class schools where most of the parents are blue-collar workers; one middle-class school where parents were a mix of skilled workers, middle-class white-collar workers, and middle-managers; one affl uent, professional school where parents were upper middle class professionals; and one executive, elite school where parents were top executives and represented the top 1% of high income families in the United States. Anyon (1980) argued that the school serves as a reproduction machine that prepares students for future career choices based on the social classes from which they originated. Through this study, Anyon observed that the working class schools mainly used the teaching methods identifi ed as “traditional” by Biber and Minuchin (Overly, 1970, Chapter 3), that is, teaching with mechanical procedures and promoting very minimal decision making practices. On the other hand, the executive elite school focused on developing students’ intellectual products and problem solving, which follows the philosophy of “modern” schools in Biber and Minuchin’s work (Overly, 1970, Chapter 3). Even though Anyon (1980) did not mention the locations and security policies of these different type of schools, one can imagine based on the parents’ occupa- tion and income that the working class schools were probably located in less safe neighborhoods in either urban or rural areas, while the executive elite school is more likely in a safer suburban neighborhood. School security situations in these schools as hidden curricula probably echo the formal curricula of academic teaching and learning. As different formal school curricula emphasize different cognitive skills explicitly, the hidden curricula of school structure, philosophy, policy, physical and cultural layouts, and many other facets are implicitly related to social reproduction. What students learn from their daily school lives, besides the subject matter content, largely defi nes their social skills, future career choices, self-identity building, and worldview. Students from blue-collar families are set to be educated to be future blue-collar workers, not only based on what content knowledge they learn and how they learn it, but also based on how the knowledge Revealing the Hidden Through a Curriculum Window • 11 is taught, what the teachers’ expectations are, and what policies and philosophies the school imposes. As I discussed before, the window that one can see through about the school security policy changes is small, almost opaque, and covered by the curtain of hidden curriculum. In addition, it is also overshadowed by other windows leading to the more heated debate about Common Core Standards and other topics focusing on student academic achievements in schools. The national emphasis on education is never about the hidden curriculum. It is always about the formal, explicit curriculum, which is easier to see and is perceived by the general public as the cause of all of the country’s educational problems. As long as school reforms are revising the formal curriculum or even creating a new one, and aligning the assessment (most likely on high-stakes standardized tests) with it, it is assumed that all of the problems will be solved. However, this type of reform idealism also creates problems in the hidden curriculum realm. As Henry Giroux (1978) summarized 35 years ago:

In order for reform-minded educators to develop productive educational programs, they are going to have to substitute the traditional properties of the hidden curriculum for those more suited to a non-alienating classroom experience. Rigid time schedules, unnecessary delays and denials, tracking and social sorting, hierarchical relations of dominance and subordination, the correspondence between evaluation and the arbitrary exercise of teaching power, and the fragmented, isolated, and competitive interpersonal dynamics of the educational experience—all of these are structural properties of the hidden curriculum of the traditional classroom—and will have to be eliminated if meaningful education is to become a reality. (p. 149)

Giroux’s (1978) notion opens up more space for us to discuss the impacts of hidden curriculum. Dreeben also pointed out that “… since schools operate according to achievement standards which inherently produce winners and losers, the consistent loser will ﬁ nd little incentive to accept the school’s message” (Overly, 1970, p. 103). Eisner (2002) argued that hidden curriculum in traditional, hierarchical schools fosters compliant and competitive behaviors. This type of behavior is not necessarily all bad. However, a “modern,” democratic school environment should also promote collaboration and communication. We need contemporary public education to foster critical thinking, creativity, the ability to get involved in authentic dialogue, and other types of democratic practices, which will help to build a socially just society and strong, capable, and free individual citizens.

FUTURE QUESTIONS In order to answer Erlich’s questions from the beginning of this chapter, studies need to be conducted looking at the impact of increased school security, especially practices placing armed guards and staff in schools, and looking at students’ views, values, and attitudes towards schooling and their future of being a 12 • YUE LI democratic citizen. In recent research, Jason Nance (2013) suggested that student race and poverty level are the two strongest predictors of whether school offi cials decide to use strict security measures, even after controlling for the amount of school crime, school disorder cases, school offi cial’s perception about neighborhood crime issues, schools’ geographic region and urbanicity, school sizes, and schools’ academic performance. This discrepancy in security measure usage perpetuates racial and class inequalities by disempowering students who are already in disadvantaged positions, forcing them to be submissive under offi cial authorities, and distorting their views about authoritative roles (Nance, 2013). Nance noted that the use of strict security measures does not help build trust between students and educators. He also cited Matthew Mayer and Peter Leone’s (1999) work to further argue that the prison-style school security measures may cause more disorder, crime, and violent behaviors. Unfortunately, not many such studies have been done yet. This is partially due to the ongoing nature of the debates and changes, and also due to the “hidden” nature of these questions, which means the public and researchers have not turned their focus on it yet. However, despite the fact that the studies in The Unstud- ied Curriculum were conducted more than 40 years ago and despite the fact that some works were conducted in a sexist (Waldrop, 2013), racist, and less socially critical way, Jackson, Friedenberg, Biber and Minuchin, Rosenthal, Dreeben, and Kohlberg together provided a multi-faceted framework guiding today’s educators to explore the power and authority structure in schools in relation to the hidden curriculum. Using the framework of hidden curriculum to explore the impacts of school security policy change is only one example of utilizing Overly’s (1970) book, The Unstudied Curriculum. Hidden curricula exist in every aspect of students’ school lives and even extend to the other side of the school wall. Recognizing the existence of the curtain of hidden curriculum and the small window of educational policy changes behind it might not be hard. However, it is the “then… so what?” that all educators and the society in general need to face. Figuring out the next steps cannot be done by any individuals without creating dialogues and discussions, collaborations, and critiques. Teachers, school administrators, and educational scholars need to be involved as a team to pull the curtain off as hard as we can and open up the window as wide as we can. One of the critiques about the hidden curriculum is from the dialectic perspective, saying that once you reveal it, it cannot be called “hidden” any more. I would argue that this is exactly what educators need to do. Rather than living in it unconsciously, it is our responsibility to make these hidden features explicit, to reveal them to the public, to raise the public awareness, to demystify them, to create public discussions and debates, and to fi nd ways to diminish the undesired aspects of it and utilize the positive aspects of it. As Kohlberg urged at the end of The Unstudied Curriculum, it is necessary “to make the hidden curriculum an Revealing the Hidden Through a Curriculum Window • 13 atmosphere of justice, and to make the hidden curriculum explicit in intellectual and verbal discussions of justice and morality” (Overly, 1970, p. 122).

REFERENCES Anyon, J. (1980). Social class and the hidden curriculum of work. Journal of Education, 162(1), 67–92. Eisner, E. W. (2002). The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school programs. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Erlich, R. D. (2013, January 15). School security and “the hidden curriculum”. The Miami Student. Retrieved from http://issuu.com/miamistudent/docs/01.15.13 Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline and punish: Birth of a prison. (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Random House, Inc. FY14 federal budget spending estimates. (2013). Retrieved from http://www.usgovern- mentspending.com/federal_budget_detail_fy14bs12013n Giroux, H. A. (1978). Developing educational programs: Overcoming the hidden curriculum. The Clearing House, 52(4), 148–151. Hartman, K. (2013, August 27). School security remains a priority since Newtown shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary. The Register Citizen. Retrieved from http://www. registercitizen.com/general-news/20130827/school-security-remains-a-priority- since-newtown-shooting-at-sandy-hook-elementary Hiebert, M. (2012, May 04). Pulling back the curtains of the hidden curriculum. [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://www.aroundsquare.com/around/2012/5/4/pulling- back-the-curtains-of-the-hidden-curriculum.html Jackson, P. (1968). Life in classrooms. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Kocian, L. (2013, August 18). In wake of Newtown tragedy, local schools beef up security. The Boston Globe. Retrieved from http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/region- als/west/2013/08/17/with-new-school-year-new-focus-security/zXweoZHgBN- Mv8mpC0qphHJ/story.html Lambeck, L. C., & Varnon, R. (2013, August 31). Beyond Newtown, schools take security measures. Stamford Advocate. Retrieved from http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/ local/article/Beyond-Newtown-schools-take-security-measures-4778497.php Linskey, A. (2013, November 14). Newtown massacre fueling $5 billion U.S. school safety spending. Bloomberg Businessweek. Retrieved from http://www.businessweek. com/news/2013-11-14/schools-in-u-dot-s-dot-boost-security-spending-after-newtown-massacre Mayer, M. J., & Leone, P. E. (1999). A structural analysis of school violence and disruption: Implications for creating safer schools. Education and Treatment of Children. 22(3), 333–356. Montpelier school board approves carrying of handguns by custodial staff. (2013, Janu- ary 10). The Toledo Blade. Retrieved from http://www.toledoblade.com/Educa- tion/2013/01/10/Montpelier-school-board-approves-carrying-of-handguns-by-custodial-staff.html More armed security at schools after Newtown tragedy. (2013, August 24). Fox News. Retrieved from http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/08/24/more-armed-security-at- schools-after-newtown-tragedy/ 14 • YUE LI

Nance, J. P. (2013). School security considerations after Newtown. Stanford Law Review, 65(Online 103). Retrieved from http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/school- security-considerations-after-newtown Overly, N. (Ed.). (1970). The unstudied curriculum: Its impact on children. Washington DC: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, NEA. Pinar, W. F. (2012). What is curriculum theory? (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. School safety legislation since Newtown. (2013, October 2). Education Week. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/section/multimedia/school-safety-bills-since-newtown.html Urchick, K. (2007). U.S. education law: Is the right to education in the U.S. in compliance. Retrieved from http://www.law.msu.edu/king/2007/Urchick.pdf Waldrop, K. (2013). Hide and seek with Phillip Jackson: The hidden curriculum in Life in Classrooms. In T. S. Poetter (Ed.), Curriculum windows: What curriculum theorists of the 1960s can teach us about schools and society today. (pp. 265–283). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc. CHAPTER 2

EYES WIDE SHUT

Robert Hendricks

Weinstein, M., & Fantini, G. (Eds.). (1970). Toward humanistic education: A curriculum of affect. New York, NY: Praeger Publishing.

INTRODUCTION In April of 2007, I was hypnotized. Not in a ﬁ gurative way, but a psychologist literally hypnotized me. It wasn’t like the extreme depictions seen and heard on television, but instead created a true level of consciousness that you can attain with the help of a professional. Before hypnosis begins, the facilitator warns you that it only works if you play along. You can un-hypnotize yourself at any point— it is completely up to you. The very ﬁ rst direction that I received was to close my eyes. I was then coached to go into a near-sleep state of the mind. This was done by listening to soothing music and a gentle voice giving me instructions to relax. Before long, the hypnosis began. I remember the hypnotist saying that I was sitting in my chair for ages and was stuck to it then requested that I get up. No matter how hard I tried or the amount of effort I put in, I couldn’t move. She told me to put my arm out and said that I was holding a billiard ball. Nothing happened. She then changed her mind and said it was a bowling ball. Needless to say, my arm became very heavy! So heavy that my arm slowly dropped and rested on the desk for support. It was an amazing experience that I still cannot fully understand, but of all things, several years later, I wonder how that was even possible. I think back to

Curriculum Windows: What Curriculum Theorists of the 1970s Can Teach Us about Schools and Society Today, pages 15–27. Copyright © 2015 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. 15 16 • ROBERT HENDRICKS the very ﬁ rst direction that she gave. “Close your eyes.” Had my eyes been open, would my surroundings have interrupted my deep thought? Would the people, objects, and colors have tainted what I was thinking and feeling? I’ve come to realize that when we close our eyes, we simultaneously open our minds…we become vulnerable and thus open to our imaginations. Our most vivid dreams occur over- night and our best ideas come unbroken by the barriers of reality. The window of our minds (imagination) is in constant competition with the windows of our eyes (reality). This holds true in any situation, including in education. When we freeze the reality around us, we can take a completely different approach to education. If we rid ourselves of the realisms of politics and regulations, we can use a more utopic approach to educate our youth. Keeping our eyes “wide shut” is the same as keeping our minds wide open. We are susceptible in this state to new philosophies, and we can recreate utopia. If something goes wrong, we don’t have to just deal with it; we can erase it. Think about yourself in your sleep. If your dream isn’t going so well, you can wake up and start over. That is the beauty of our minds. When the windows of our eyes stop letting in the realities of society, we can move forward in our progression as a people. Instead we are in such a constant battle with the past and the present that we cannot create an idealistic future for ourselves. Gerald Weinstein and Mario Fantini (1970), however, wrote the book Toward Humanistic Education: A Curriculum of Affect with their eyes closed and their minds open. They took a step out of real life and took a stroll into their imagination of paradise…well, at least in education. The good thing about their paradise is that it’s not as unattainable as some people’s dreams may be. They simply believe that if we treat students more like people and less like products, then not only will our education system improve, but society as a whole will get better, and I, for one, completely agree. The Weinstein-Fantini model is designed without the pressures of testing, impressing politicians, or even under the rule of a principal or superintendent. This book explains how education could be if each teacher took a genuine interest in each student as a human being ﬁ rst.

BOOK SUMMARY “Increasingly, educators are realizing that how one goes about teaching is very closely related to what one tries to teach [and that] no teaching procedure can be effective if the content is of little interest to the class” (p. 17). This simple statement is the preface of why the Ford Foundation and the Fund for the Ad- vancement of Education, who fi nancially supported the research done in the book, focused on doing projects that concentrated on minority and low-income students. Because of the structure of the content that is taught in schools, it lends itself more closely to those of a higher socioeconomic status and those who are familiar with America’s White culture. Weinstein and Fantini analyzed their projects using direct dialogue from students and teachers and concluded that “children appeared to be most appreciative of the innovative program and many of their comments Eyes Wide Shut • 17 exemplifi ed the kind of outcome the educators sought” (p. 193). This was done under three umbrella notions that were expanded upon in the book: relevance, learning and behavior, and student concerns. Relevance: This category covers a majority of the issues that persist in education as well as many of the solutions. The term “relevance” can pertain to a link between the lessons and the student. Does the content actually mean something personally for the student? If not, then no matter the approach, it probably won’t be very effective. In order to properly assess this, the teacher has to determine if there is an interest in the subject matter, if the material is outside the learner’s knowledge or past experience, and if the teaching style aligns with the student’s learning style. Disconnects in any of these areas will immediately lessen the opportunity for success by the student. Learning and Behavior: The actual process of learning is proving to have an effect on behavior and the success that a student has in the classroom. To cater to all students, educators should be more versatile in their teaching styles so that all students have the opportunity to thrive in the classroom. There are many ways to vary teaching. There may be different lecture styles like having informal discussions or perhaps abandon the lecture occasionally as a whole and teach by simulation. Keeping the classroom exciting and new will keep children engaged. Of course, in order to know what methods are most effective, teachers must fi rst know their students. Student Concern: The concerns of the students inside and outside of the classroom are vital for student learning. First and foremost come the students’ feelings. Weinstein and Fantini (1970) outlined an example of how feelings can be ignored and thus can tremendously affect the learning process.

The learner’s feelings about his experiences may serve to involve him more deeply in content. For instance, a unit on the city policeman may appear to be relevant because it falls within the experience of urban pupils. But if the learner has a fear of policemen, the selection of such a subject may actually inhibit his learning unless his fears are identiﬁ ed and addressed at the outset. The reasons for tension between police and community residents must be dealt with, beginning perhaps with inci- dents in the pupils’ experience and proceeding more deeply into the role assigned to the police and the work and concerns of the individual policemen. In short, contact must be made with the subject matter on the human level. (p. 21)

This scenario is a classic example of how outside factors must be accounted for in the classroom. Simply talking to and even playing games with students to ﬁ nd out more about their personal lives can do this. One game that was explained that teachers could adopt in the classroom was entitled “COMPLAIN, GRIPE, AND MOAN.” In this game, the students are given three coupons each with the word “Home,” “School,” or “Block” written on it. They would go to the booth with the matching word, turn it in and complain, gripe, or moan about it. Through 18 • ROBERT HENDRICKS this exercise, the teacher is able to see what the children like and dislike about the different areas of their lives. These three topics—relevance, learning and behavior, and student concern— are subcategories of a larger issue that had emerged in the country decades ago. In the midst of a controversial war and immediately following the Civil Rights era, everyone was looking at each other as individuals for the ﬁ rst time in our nation’s history. Although every citizen didn’t buy into the hype, enough people did to create a time of social progressivism that consumed the minds of civilians in areas beyond education. Understanding the entire gamut of the typical mind of the 1970s American can better frame why the humanistic approach to education was even explored.

SOCIAL PROGRESSIVISM IN AMERICA Before the authors’ analysis can truly be put into perspective, it is important to note the economy during the time of the projects that were discussed and more importantly, the economy during the time when the book was written. The 1970s was a time of social change. Women and African-Americans pushed toward equal rights. Politics and war were being questioned. Earth Day emerged as the fi rst true concern for the environment. By the late 1960s, the “Hippie” culture was in full effect. This was a time when everybody mattered and everything was supposed to be fi xed. No one let anything just happen as they had in the past. Anti-war protests, youth suffrage, feminism, and environmentalism became common talking points for the citizens of America and other social movements in later decades stemmed from the roots of activist experiences in the 60s and 70s. The sense of social equality even overfl owed into television with the homosexual suggestions in the sitcom Three’s Company and the popularity of the Black sitcom Good Times, among others. Women even landed some “masculine” roles in shows such as Charlie’s Angels. The overall aura of the time was represented in the rising philosophies of education. For example, why are low-income and minority students titled “disadvantaged?” That term “implies that the schools are adequately serving the white middle class” (p. 14) when that is not necessarily the case either. All around, generally accepted ideas came into question and were subject to scrutiny. Having an understanding of the landscape of the time period puts Weinstein and Fantini’s research into perspective. They were simply following the trend of being socially progressive. The interesting revelation here though is that Edu- cation seemed to fall behind and make less progress than women, and African Americans, and homosexuals. Perhaps it is easier for groups of people to make progress than for a structural behemoth such as Education to do so. What if we said we need change for students as opposed to saying it is for Education? Would that ignite more passion for change? The idea of shifting the Education equality movement to a student equality movement follows the successful template outlined in the 60s and 70s, but is it too late? Eyes Wide Shut • 19

Though we still feel the effects of the social progressive era, the ofﬁ cial time period has passed. Now we must ask, “Is the authors’ analysis outdated?” This is a rather simplistic question. Instead we should ask, “Could these same ideals be applied today?” and the answer is yes. We should revisit the mind of a 1960s American and do what we can to improve the lives of students. If we close our eyes like we did during the Civil Rights era and imagine what a perfect life for a student looks like, we can start to make strides in that direction. The next obstacle we have to face with this theory is the fact that when each of us closes our eyes, we see different pictures of perfection. Because of that, we must ﬁ nd a common ground. Before moving forward, it is imperative that we agree on the pillars that build the foundation for a quality approach to education.

MAC PRINCIPLES Humanism can be defi ned in slightly different ways to different people. It could involve teaching basic academic skills, teaching basic human concerns, or in this case it could be the act of teaching in a humane way that helps students to believe in themselves due to a specifi c approach to education. No matter how many different characterizations of humanism there are, they all operate on what I call the MAC principles. The acronym MAC stands for morality, autonomy, and civility. All three of these terms suggest a more gentle view of how proper education can be attained, but we cannot successfully reach them without the windows of our minds being open. Morality: Morality is seemingly the no-brainer of the group, but all too often, teachers do not fi nd themselves acting morally. To be moral is simply to know what is right and to carry out the actions that support it. All things that are immoral are not illegal, and all things illegal are not immoral. The same holds true for things that are traditional, standard, or expected. Our morals do not always align with the rules, regulations, and lifestyles that surround us. It is in these situations where teachers fi nd themselves in a position that they have to choose to act on behalf of their job and well-being or follow one of the major principles of humanism, which would mean to act solely on behalf of the student and his or her best opportunities for development or growth, despite the situation. With our eyes wide open, we have to face the reality that money is necessary for survival. Because of that, teachers defy their intuition and go against their ethics to keep their jobs and to please their superiors. I witnessed an example of this while I was shadowing a fi fth grade teacher during my undergraduate teacher preparation program. The second quarter was ending on Friday when the teacher received an email from the district’s central offi ce telling her that she needed to administer three more Math quizzes to meet the quota for the grading period. She told me that the students simply were not prepared to be assessed because they were still struggling with a topic that they were supposed to have mastered in the previous week. She knew that if she were to give the quizzes that the overall scores would not be pretty. At that moment, 20 • ROBERT HENDRICKS she had to make a decision. She could either move forward with her eyes open, knowing the consequences of not following the rules or close her eyes and do what’s right. Fortunately, she decided to not test the students and took her punishment. Although she did that, she said to me, “If this happens to you, give the tests. I can do this because I’ve been teaching for 35 years, and I’m retiring next year. If you want to keep your job, just do what they say.” I went from jubilation to despair in a matter of seconds. It was absurd to me that teachers had to make such imbalanced decisions to educate their students and maybe even to keep their jobs. I was excited, however, to know that at least some people out there are willing to go against the grain and be moral in their work (despite the advice she gave me). Autonomy: If teachers and schools approach teaching in a humane manner— one that incorporates the whole child and integrates all parts of the student’s life— then students would think nothing more of education but as being part of everyday life. As we grow up, we don’t think much about dressing ourselves or even checking our emails. These are not innate human actions, but with time, they have been ingrained in us as “normal.” If we do the same with school, then students will think of learning as “normal” and take it upon themselves to do it. Only at that point will education become less force-feeding and more autonomous by the students. It is not only important that they want to learn for the sake of learning, but also because when one has a personal investment in something, he/she tends to be more devoted to it. Said differently, when a students opts to learn a specifi c topic, the outcomes are often more fruitful. One goal of humanistic education is to get the students excited about learning. Not to be cliché, but if a child truly is the initiator of his or her learning, then the scope of what that child can learn stretches far and wide. Think about a project or task that you actually wanted to do. Maybe you really wanted to clean the garage or learn more about the upcoming presidential election. Whatever you sought out to do on your own will probably receive more attention and retention than something that you were forced to do, like perhaps paying your taxes. The same holds true for children. When they really want to do something, it gets done. It is our job as educators to help them want to learn. Civility: Theoretically, we are taught civics from birth, and it is reiterated when we begin grade school. Civility in terms of humanistic education digs beyond the surface of treating people with respect and being polite to those that you encounter. When we inject civility in the education conversation, we are discussing being open and understanding of people. It is acknowledging the fact that all people come with their own individual personalities, stories, and backgrounds. It is ap- preciating what everyone has to bring to the table. The traditional form of education requires all students to be the same. Everyone must go to the same classes and learn the same topics in the same manner. If you happen to be the student who learns differently than how the subject is being taught, then you just get the short end of the stick. You may even earn a label that makes you think that you aren’t as intelligent as your classmates. Eyes Wide Shut • 21

Again, when our eyes are closed, we can make better sense of this. Imagine a six-year old headed to the fi rst grade. She comes from a large family that is always lively and playful. She is used to extensive human interaction and is seemingly never alone. She’s been conditioned to function well in a space that has a lot of movement and an equal amount of noise. When she gets to school, however, she is instructed to sit down. She can only speak when her hand is raised. She is forced to sit through a dreadful lecture by her teacher then silently regurgitate the information onto her worksheet. Before long, she becomes talkative and uneasy. She doesn’t fi nish her work because she cannot focus. By the middle of the year, her teacher has recommended her to be tested for ADHD. She is diagnosed and from then on takes medicine and special classes to be more like her classmates. This little girl in this anecdote is not far from a daily example that we see across the country. We need to practice civility. We need to understand the point- of-view of the student before we readily label them. As trained educators, we should have the professional skills to be able to understand why different students act differently, then call an audible in the classroom to bring out the best in each child. Civility goes beyond a person’s background. It is recognizing their beliefs and diversity. It is caring for one’s identity and in terms of school, incorporating these traits in how you educate the student. Of the MAC principles, civility is the one that could truly make or break a student. If the fi rst grader in the above example were put into leadership roles in the classroom or if the teacher used her enthusiasm to the advantage of the class, think about how different that student would have turned out. Educators need to close their eyes and become more civil. That is the main key to the progress of educating our youth.

HEAD, HEART, AND HANDS In addition to educating all aspects of a child’s life, we must also educate all aspects of that child’s being. Every person is multifaceted, and becoming fl uent in these various components of life will make the individual a more well-rounded contributor to our society. In one of his public talks entitled Soil, Soul and So- ciety—Holistic Education: Learning with Your Whole Being, Dr. Satish Kumar (2012) mentioned what should be the three H’s of education: head, heart, and hands. In an attempt to be consistent across the education fi eld, I tied each “H” to a literacy type, and they became what I call academic literacy, emotional/social literacy, and physical literacy, respectively. Head (Academic Literacy): Academic literacy is where almost all of our focus has been in education. Ironically, we are still failing miserably. The development of our students academically means to educate them on subjects such as Math, Science, Social Studies, Reading, etc. In other words, educate the child in the traditional school subjects. Right now, we have selected some disciplines over others, which limits our students’ creativity and overall breadth of their potential. Furthermore, those subjects that we have honed in on are tested so regularly that any possibility for enjoyment of the subject is exhausted. The current mistake of 22 • ROBERT HENDRICKS over-testing is making the subjects of Math, Science, and Reading less appealing to students, which in turn leads to low effort and ultimately low test scores. At this point, we need to reevaluate how we are measuring our students and what we are measuring them in. Taking a less intense approach to academic education is the fi rst step in this process. Heart (Emotional/Social Literacy): Much like using one’s brain, being able to control one’s emotions is also important, even in school. Having emotional/social literacy is far more than a benefi t; it is a necessity. Throughout a person’s life, he or she will have to learn to cope with emotions and socialize in various ways despite them. American schools do not typically allow students to explore their emotions at all. For example, if a student is having a bad day, she can’t express that in school—there’s simply not enough time. If another child is excited about today’s science lesson and cannot seem to stay seated, he will be reprimanded. Part of exploring emotions is learning to control them, but is punishment always the answer? Sometimes we should formally educate students on what to do in certain situations and allow them the opportunity to grow from there. Being able to socialize in school is even less accepted than being able to display emotion. Humans are social beings and learn and develop best through collaborative efforts and collective learning. In school, however, we expect our children to learn individually for the bulk of the time. Group work is often perceived as a reward for positive behavior and is taken away when the class becomes unruly. Even on summative assessments, collaboration should be allowed. How often do adults in their careers fi gure out their job on their own? They, too, have some sort of background knowledge on the subject matter and theoretically have all of the tools to solve any issues that may arise. Children are no different. Being able to work in groups often not only prepares them for the future, but also gives them time to practice their limited socialization skills. Being fl uent in emotional/social literacy is necessary as our society becomes increasingly communication-based and intertwined across the globe. Hands (Physical Literacy): Most people place a divide in two types of career fi elds: academic labor and skilled labor. Considering the fact that both are important to any person, every child should develop both in school. Physical education was placed in schools to serve this purpose but is often looked down upon as lesser than its academic counterparts. As we went through the economic crisis of 2008 (and are still feeling its effects today), schools took major budget cuts and many of them included physical education and sports activities. Not only is physical education the beginning of a healthy lifestyle, but it also improves self- confi dence, reduces stress, improves self-discipline, and increases students’ love for school. Even if all of the above results were not true, we are hindering a population of individuals who will enter the skilled labor force. It is no argument that some people will enter a career that revolves around a particular skill. The fact that we are making them wait to learn skilled labor practices until trade school pushes Eyes Wide Shut • 23 them back in their knowledge of the given fi eld and also suggests that those jobs are less valuable than academic-based jobs.

MY EXPERIENCES All people come with experiences, stories, preferences, strong points, and areas of improvement. This does not change for any ethnic, gender, or age group, or any other classifi cation of the human race. For some reason or another, however, the American education system does not acknowledge these differences, but instead encourages a “cookie cutter” approach to educating students. The phenomenon of standards and standardized tests further exacerbates the issue of uniformity, which does not promote the humanistic approach. Even within a classroom, the instructor must be able and willing to discern between students and their differences. I know from experience that the inability to do so can divert the student’s attention away from the topic. I began my educational career in inner-city Detroit where I was born. Early in elementary school, I moved to a low-income school in Cincinnati. It wasn’t until the seventh grade where I went to a school that wasn’t over 95% African- American and a similar percentage of students on free and reduced lunch. During middle school and high school, I still was surrounded by over 50% of the same population. Upon graduation, I decided to attend a predominantly White institution (PWI) for college. When I got there, over 90% of the students were White, and a large majority came from upper-middle and high-class families. The school and the faculty were very accustomed to this population and operated as such. The smallest things even stuck out to me. I noticed that I could go into a dining hall or on-campus store and the cash registers would be in the back of the store! This may not seem like much of a big deal, but the fi rst thing that I thought of was the amount of money they must be losing on theft. These differences were actually rewarding to know that people could be trusted. It was the bigger things that bothered me though, like the assumption that every student is wealthy and has experienced the White culture. An example of this came during a class where we were learning about “urban education.” The teacher wanted us to really know what it was like to be those students, so she used words like “them” or “us” to create a difference between lifestyles. She even suggested that we attend one of “their” churches to get a sense of the community. It was hard to not be offended in the assumption that I fi t the stereotype of my peers in the classroom. My natural reaction was to not complete the assignment. In retrospect, I can look back at that situation as a representation of what happens in classrooms across America every day. The teacher frames the material or suggests a topic that the students cannot relate to. Although that scenario doesn’t seem very extreme, years of feeling like the “Other” can really begin to take a toll on any person of any age. Coming from experiences like this, I have tried to make a conscious effort to not make assumptions about my students and their experiences. When I was in 24 • ROBERT HENDRICKS my undergraduate teacher education program, I was assigned to teach an eighth grade English class. The teacher wanted the students to work from their vocabulary books and complete the exercises (defi nitions, fi ll in the blanks, matching, etc.). I could remember only three or four years ago being on the other side of that desk going through those painstaking activities. Knowing how much I disliked it, I decided to switch it up. I told them not to do the vocabulary books, but instead to write a story using the words. Some students jumped right on it while other students still dragged. I walked up to a student who was drawing as he did almost every day in class (or at least doodling). When I asked why he wasn’t writing the paper, he gave me a scolding look. I told him that instead of writing the paper, to draw pictures that depicted what the words mean. His face lit up, and he worked feverishly for the next 25 minutes to get through all of the words. I went to another child who was deep into reading a book that couldn’t be less than 400 pages. We had a back and forth dialogue as to why she should be writing her story, and fi nally she admitted, “I’m on house arrest. I want to save it until I go home for the weekend so I won’t be bored.” I froze. In my attempt to maintain my composure, I made her promise two things; that she would stay focused on her book for the entire period and bring back the story on Monday. She agreed, and I walked away. The next couple of girls were inseparable! They made lousy attempts at writing, but spent most of the time whispering and giggling. I walked over and asked what was so funny. They burst out laughing, and instead of answering my question, they asked if they could write the story together. They explained that they wanted to write about a bear that was trying to catch a fi sh to eat. After about fi ve seconds, I agreed with two conditions. First, they had to turn in their own paper, and second, the stories could not be the same. I suggested that they work together and that one would write the story from the bear’s perspective and the other from the fi sh’s perspective. Simultaneously they yelled, “REALLY?!” None of the students in the class, including the student who wrote the rap or the student who just spent the whole day the day before visiting his father in jail, had been used to personalized and humanistic instruction. Of all of the mini-projects that I received, the individualized ones tended to be the best. Knowing I would only be in that classroom for two weeks, it was fairly easy for me to walk in with my eyes shut and my mind open. I approached each student as a person with a unique life and interests. By making the content relevant or at least interesting, they would be far more engaged in the work. I shifted the focus from the ends (getting the students to be able to defi ne a set of words) to the means (the process of learning the defi nitions of words). If the teacher remains cognizant as to why he or she is teaching and what that material is, then he or she will realize that the means can be twisted, turned, and altered and the ends can remain the same. This approach can be emulated in other areas of academia to encourage the students to get a true interest in the subject matter. Weinstein and Fantini (1970) describe a game called “Chairs” where a student would volunteer to set up a chair Eyes Wide Shut • 25 and talk and act like a character of the book that the class is reading. When he/ she reaches a point where there is a “subself” of the character, a new chair would be set up and the student will have a dialogue with him/herself. This conversation can be between two “selves” of the character or more. This is an interesting way for the students to create a deeper understanding of the content. Although it’s not exactly what I did, it allows the student to apply his or her own thoughts into the material.

SQUINTING If having my eyes wide-open means shaping our education system based on the world as it is today, and if closing my eyes means that my imagination has full control over the way I could shape education, then I would suggest creating an education system with my eyes squinted. This approach will allow me to incorporate my thoughts with the realities of the day. This simple formula may very well be the answer (or one of the answers) to our failing system. The ﬁ rst issue that I would address is the wide breadth that the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) covers. It is widespread over a large, diverse country, which makes it nearly impossible to satisfy the personal and academic needs of every student. While the DOE does serve a great purpose by governing and funding public institutions, it may not be as necessary to actually implement and develop curriculum. Instead, this duty should return to its original owner: the states. Our state governments are fully, and perhaps even more, capable of governing education. Not only will each state be able to tailor education and schooling to the needs and desires of their students, but they also will be charged with managing a much smaller area as opposed to the DOE. The implementation of the Common Core State Standards is a step in the right direction. The feds can introduce a general outline of curriculum then the states can adopt it and tailor it more to ﬁ t the needs of their students. After education is in the hands of the states, each state needs to be aggressive in taking control while still adhering to the advice and guidance of the federal education department. A more extensive example besides the Common Core is as follows. The DOE can implement a restructuring program that starts in grades K–3. This new system puts all students on block scheduling to increase the number of minutes of learning time in the schools (as opposed to transition time and other “wasteful” moments in the day). Then the states will all adopt a new curriculum for these grades that focuses on rapport and relationships with the teacher, student, families, and community. This new four-tier model will be present in every school in every state and will grow due to the work of the state Department of Education. How each state plans on expanding this new relationship lies in the hands of that state. This means that Ohio, for example, would identify key partners that they can build relationships with. For a state that is majority rural in area, but municipal in population, Ohio will have to be one of the more strategic states in terms of coaching participants about how and with whom they should build these partnerships. 26 • ROBERT HENDRICKS

The state will also be charged with incorporating home life into the schools. This means families and at home situations will be intentionally addressed at school. This will be done differently in different states and in some cases in different cities within the same state. This is something that the state can properly address. In larger states, they may opt to give this duty to the district, but again, that is up to the state to decide. By incorporating the community and home life, the school naturally will incorporate the student. This new model educates the student holistically as opposed to a strictly academic model. In time, being with the children as people instead of as students, school will become a part of their daily lives in a more positive manner. Most students today view school as a dreadful obligation and not something that they should be excited about. School is partitioned away from the rest of their lives in which they are most invested. Their likes, dislikes, successes, and struggles are typically not refl ected or even addressed in school unless it is academic in nature and stems from the school. If Billy performs well at the local community fair, couldn’t the schools give him praise? If Sandra’s parents just gave birth to a son, couldn’t the class celebrate her having a new baby brother? When we leave things like this out of schools, we leave part of the student out of school. After the fi rst year of this new model, it will follow the current third graders up through high school graduation. That means in only ten years, the entire school system will have this model and all students in it will have gone through a K–12 education that cares for them on a personal level. While revamping the K–12 system will have a drastic affect on how students feel and perceive school, there has to be a reformation process for teacher preparation programs and current teachers, too. Higher education is where the U.S. DOE can put most of its focus. They can mandate (or encourage) colleges and universities to alter the way they educate pre-service teachers by making their curricula more relationship-based and by learning the new 4-tier model. When these new teachers graduate from undergrad, however, they will not be certifi ed to be a teacher in any school in the United States. They will only be eligible to receive teacher certifi cation after obtaining at least a Master’s degree. This extra education and training will not only add pres- tige to the profession, but will allow them to critically think about education and its purpose on a deeper level that often is not explored in undergraduate programs. Meanwhile, we still will have teachers in the workforce who have not been to graduate school and who did not receive training on the new model. To address this problem, the states will be responsible for the training of all of their teachers on this model. The best way to accomplish this would be if the DOE trains the states and the states train the teachers. Following the mass general training, individual school districts may offer additional training to prepare their teachers for the specifi cs of their cities and towns. Due to the fact that this model may be radically different from what they’ve practiced, a one-time session is not enough to suffi ciently prepare the teachers for this model. Though expensive on the front end, I would suggest every teacher take a paid semester out of school to take Eyes Wide Shut • 27 classes, sessions, and other trainings on the model, fi nancially subsidized by the government. This is a great expense and can be viewed as quite ambitious, but drastic reform efforts are necessary to put our students in the race to be among the best and the brightest in our increasingly global economy. By the end of the implementation of the 4-tier model, along with the changed college curricula and the extensive training, the America school system will have an entirely new face. By adopting this new model, we will no longer have to have our eyes wide shut to experience a fair and quality school system. In fact, we wouldn’t even have to squint. With these suggestions, we can trust our schools, the students will like our schools, and the citizens will be fully invested in our schools, all the while leaving our eyes wide open.

REFERENCE Kumar, S. (2012, August 13). Soil, soul and society—Holistic education: Learning with your whole being. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWo1k4jrbgk Weinstein, M., & Fantini, G. (Eds.). (1970). Toward humanistic education: A curriculum of affect. New York: Praeger Publishing.

CHAPTER 3

THE SECOND READ

Rayshawn L. Eastman

Illich, I. (1971). Deschooling society. New York, NY: Harper & Row Publishing.

INTRODUCTION On a cold and dark January evening, peering out of the classroom windows of McGuffey Hall at Miami University, I sat nervously chewing on my pen cap listening to my professor discuss the class requirements. As Dr. Poetter explained his expectation that each member of the class produce a book chapter, I tried to hide my fear and excitement from the other 14 people in the room. Excited to experience the publication process for the fi rst time, I could not help but be afraid of my work being criticized because I lacked confi dence as a writer. Therefore, the fi rst day of class I did not say a word. In fact, silence would mark the arc of my experience in class over the next nine weeks as we went through a crash course on curriculum theory. My desire to remain silent in class would only intensify as we moved into the writing process. Given 1970s theorist Ivan Illich’s book Deschooling Society as the emphasis of my chapter, I initially thought to distance myself from Illich because I was uncomfortable with some of his ideas. Therefore, I found myself in a position where I not only lacked confi dence in my writing ability, but also I did not have a connection with my assigned text. In this chapter, I would like to offer you a window into the process I experienced as a developing scholar. I will articulate the manner in which I came to form

Curriculum Windows: What Curriculum Theorists of the 1970s Can Teach Us about Schools and Society Today, pages 29–42. Copyright © 2015 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. 29 30 • RAYSHAWN L. EASTMAN a connection with the work of Ivan Illich. I will give a view into how I became inspired by my daughter’s experience in kindergarten to use Illich’s ideas to write about the need to have a community-focused education for our children. It is my hope that this work encourages someone to think critically about the American school system, truly analyze why we are still facing the same problems in education that we faced 40 years ago, and really consider some of the solutions offered in this chapter. Before we take the journey into my thoughts, it is important that I offer you a summary of the book Deschooling Society.

ABOUT DESCHOOLING SOCIETY Ivan Illich, an Austrian Roman Catholic priest and philosopher, criticizes modern schooling of the 1970s. He argues that schooling institutionalizes education and for true education to happen we must remove institutionalization from education by deschooling society. He not only gives his critique of schools, but he also suggests ideas of how a deschooled society would look. Illich (1971) offers us a window into his thoughts of a deschooled society:

New educational institutions would break apart this pyramid. Their purpose must be to facilitate access for the learner: to allow him to look into the windows of the control room or the parliament, if he cannot get in by the door. Moreover, such new institutions should be channels to which the learner would have access without cre- dentials or pedigree—public spaces in which peers and elders outside the immediate horizon would become available. (p. 109)

This work has a very libertarian feel as Illich makes points about school funding and the need for the free market to control the values of teachers based on demand for their skills. He also suggests that the focus on teacher training limits the ability for true education to take place. For example, the teacher certifi cation requirements hamper the ability for well-qualifi ed people to teach students although they may be an expert in a given subject matter. Instead of a schooled society with certifi ed teachers, Illich offers up the idea of a society where the whole community takes part in the learning process of students. In this community, students become self-motivated learners and the talents, skills, and knowledge of the teacher will be used based on the demand for those things. Making a clear distinction between education and schooling, Illich defi ned schooling as “... the age-specifi c, teaching-related process requiring full-time attendance at an obligatory curriculum” (p. 38). Illich makes a comprehensive argument for students to be educated, and not schooled. Illich’s text offers extremely futurist and forward thinking thoughts about schooling and education. Illich’s ideas were way ahead of its 1971 copyright date. Making the argument for a societal move to a learning society, Illich suggests the use of four networks within learning webs. One of the networks Illich (1971) calls the peer-matching network. The Second Read • 31

The operation of a peer-matching network would be simple. The user would identify himself by name and address and describe the activity for which he sought a peer. A computer would send him back the names and addresses of all those who had inserted the same description. It is amazing that such a simple utility has never been used on a broad scale for publicly valued activity. (p. 134)

This exchange of information suggested by Illich in chapter six of Deschooling Society is very similar to the search engines we use today to obtain information. One can say Illich was ahead of his time with ideas the world wasn’t quite ready for. From very early in the text Illich makes the argument against using schooling as the means to educate students. In the introduction of the book, Illich (1971) offer readers a glimpse into what he believes are the ﬂ aws in the way we educate children and gives his opinions, based on the ﬂ aws, for why society should be deschooled.

Universal education through schooling is not feasible. It would be no more feasible if it were attempted by means of alternative institutions built on the style of present schools. Neither new attitudes of teachers toward their pupils nor the proliferation of educational hardware or software (in classroom or bedroom), nor ﬁ nally the attempt to expand the pedagogue’s responsibility until it engulfs his pupils’ lifetimes will deliver universal education. The current search for new educational funnels must be reversed into the search for their institutional inverse: educational webs which heighten the opportunity for each one to transform each moment of his living into one of learning, sharing, and caring. We hope to contribute concepts needed by those who conduct such counterfoil research on education—and also to those who seek alternatives to other established service industries. (p. viii)

This explanation of why universal education through schooling is not feasible summarizes Illich’s thoughts throughout Deschooling Society. But it was not until my second read that I realized the point that Illich was trying to make. Education should not be about set moments of one’s life that are designated for learning. Neither should it be a prescribed formula set by people who have never met the students being impacted. Nor should it be a cookie-cutter curriculum, which is designed to deliver one size ﬁ ts all experiences. These qualities describe schooling. However, education happens anywhere at any time and is community centered. It transforms lives, and people become self-motivated learners because they are able to learn things that ﬁ t their lives at that moment in time, for real and important reasons through experience. Education is an experience that should be lived and not just survived because of the restraints placed on students by schools.

MY FIRST READ During my fi rst read of Deschooling Society, the notion of deschooling society seemed to be nothing but a radical idea. I could not image being a part of a society 32 • RAYSHAWN L. EASTMAN where schools did not exist in the manner they currently do. I know there are some very serious issues with the school system in America. People question the legitimacy of the system and wonder if it truly educates our students. There has been a consistent reexamination of schooling and its value for many years. Everyone has an opinion and a solution from home schooling to charter schools, with private and public schools in-between. I had not heard of the idea of creating a society free of schools until I read Illich’s work. My viewpoint on this work would only get stronger as I read more of Illich’s ideas. Throughout the text, there were times Illich would make strong points that resonated with me in regards to the issues with schools and how to fi x them. However, these moments would be short lived because they would be followed by ideas that made me uncomfortable. For example, Illich (1971) makes the argument against the need for teacher certifi cation when he wrote, “Certifi cation constitutes a form of market manipulation and is plausible only to a schooled mind” (p. 22). This thought follows the idea that the teacher certifi cation process prevents people with the ability to teach from doing it, basically making it needlessly diffi cult for some people to obtain the requirements to become a teacher. It is just hard for me to think of a system where teachers are not required to have some form of training. I must have a “schooled mind” because I don’t view teacher certifi cation as market manipulation but as a necessary commitment that ensures teachers are equipped with the tools to educate students. I see the profession of teaching just as any other profession that requires specialized training. I would not go to a doctor who isn’t properly trained, so why would I expect students to go to a teacher who is not properly trained? This uncomfortable feeling with ideas from the text became my point of focus. In my mind, I could not get past the fact that I felt uneasy. This feeling along with my fear of having others read my writing impeded my ability to generate ideas of my own from the text. This blockage would last most of the semester. Even through my required meetings with Dr. Poetter to discuss my ideas for my chapter, I had nothing but criticisms of Illich’s text. Being uncomfortable in my skin as a developing scholar and situated in fears of being seen as unscholarly, I would meet with Dr. Poetter with a made-up vision of my chapter, a vision that did not conceptualize my true thoughts about the text, in fact the vision was developed to hide my thoughts. Therefore, I told Tom I wanted to create a utopia, an Ivan Illich utopia. Dr. Poetter had spent most of the semester talking about windows; in fact, it is in the title of this book, Curriculum Windows. So, I offered him a hook in our meetings that matched all those windows he kept talking about. I told him to imagine a couple sitting in their house looking out of a picture window (a large stationary window that lets in the maximum amount of light in and offers a view of all of the outdoors) watching a utopian society based off of the ideas from De- schooling Society. This would be a futurist society with no schools but education happening throughout the community. Even though Dr. Poetter never dismissed The Second Read • 33 my idea, I do not think he ever bought what I was selling. I shopped this idea to him and my classmates. Most of my classmates replied to my idea with “that’s interesting” as their responses, except Angie. Not buying my idea as something I was passionate about, she asked me my thoughts about the book. Nervously, with a lump in my throat I took the risk and told her my thoughts. Angie then suggested I change my approach to the text and focus on the things I agreed with. This prompted me to do a second read.

MY SECOND READ Considering Angie’s advice, I approached my second read of Deschooling Society with openness to the ideas and thoughts of Illich. So, I removed all of my “Post It” notes from the book with the goal of taking new notes with a fresh perspective. I started the second read asking myself about the difference between schooling and education. My answer to this question was aided by a Democracy and Educa- tion course I took with Dr. Kathleen Knight Abowitz and Dr. Kate Rousmaniere. In this course, we studied Dewey, who offered an idea of education that resonated with me. “Education is thus a fostering, a nurturing, a cultivating, process” (Dewey, 1916/2008, p. 10). For me, education is a process of skill cultivation and insight. It’s the fostering of higher order thinking and the development of skills to analyze, evaluate, and think critically. Being more open to the ideas of Illich, I begin to think critically about the difference between schooling and education. So, I asked myself, “Do schools stimulate the acquisition and fostering of new skills?” For the answer to this question, I defer to the ideas Illich (1970), who suggested that schools promote students based on requirements and those requirements are just opinions formed by others. After my second read, I became more open to the ideas of Illich, even though I don’t see the need to completely abolish the current schooling system. I believe there is some value in the current system we have in place. In fact, school for me allowed me access to a world I did not know existed. Growing up in the inner city of Cincinnati, I learned many life lessons that taught me how to successfully navigate life. However, it was in school that I learned the language of a cultural class that I did not belong to. I am the ﬁ rst to admit my language lessons were learned after I transferred to a suburban school. Nevertheless, it was a combination of school and my community that led me to my current life position. It was both of these things together that gave me apparent skills for life. Education and schooling are two different things. However, I do believe there is a need for both in our society. Feeling more comfortable with the text, I still needed to develop a connection with it and a strategy to develop a chapter.

THE MOMENT OF INSPIRATION Sitting in the library on campus with another class member browsing on Facebook I came across my wife’s status update in my newsfeed. It read: “My teacher made 34 • RAYSHAWN L. EASTMAN us be quiet, and I had so many words to say, and I had to hold the words in. So, I was quiet all day and held the words in just for you, all of the words all day. Trin- ity says to me in one breath.” At that moment, I knew I had my connection to De- schooling Society, through my 5-year-old daughter Trinity, who is in kindergarten. Through her thought I will offer my process of making meaning of Illich’s work while using his work to making an argument for community focused schools. My daughter was going through the process of becoming schooled. The free- spirited, lighthearted, and talkative little girl I have come to know is becoming a product of schooling. She is being forced to confi rm to the expectations of schools, which are different from her home norms. Trinity spent the fi rst part of her life in an environment where she was encouraged to express herself and become an independent thinker. Now, those values are being challenged by a school that gives students bad behavior cards for talking in the hallway. According to Boggs (2012), “… schools fragment learning into subject areas while implementing measures of control—measures that repress the natural desires of children to learn and constrict naturally active young people within a confi ned assembly- line environment” (p. 141). Trinity consistently expresses her frustration with school because she cannot be herself because her forms of expression are often dismissed. On the surface, controlling the behaviors of students in a school setting is seen as establishing order. However, when one thinks critically about behavior control one can see how it could hinder learning. For example, if a student is accustomed to free expression of ideas in the home, and this same expression is not valued in school, the student’s desire to be present in school is decreased, thus, hindering the student’s ability to learn, at least at school. Illich (1971) makes the argument that schools are set up for those whose “… every step in learning fi ts previously approved measures of social control” (p. 17). What happens to the student whose steps do not fi t the approved measures of behaviors and/or of learning processes? Those students are labeled and tracked as different from the norm. Therefore, school personnel force students and their parents to conform to the roles schools want them to play. Later I will discuss in detail how this plays out in Trinity’s school code. There is a need for communities to focus on the education of students. We have to pay closer attention to the effects schools are having on our young. Our minds and thoughts have been programmed to accept service in place of value (Illich, 1971). We accept school as a service and it has replaced value, which is education. There has to be a universal investment in the education process of students, an investment that creates education that is rooted in the community for the advancement of the community.

WHAT DOES SCHOOLING DO TO STUDENTS? Schooling forces a measure of conformity by students. In order to have success in the system, students must conform to the rituals of school and act them out correctly. According to Quantz and Magolda (1997), “When someone attempts to perform The Second Read • 35 a ritual act but violates some important aspect of the form, others are likely to doubt the legitimacy of the performance” (p. 227). Again let us consider my daughter Trinity and her desire for expression. She was told not to talk in school even though she was full of words. She was not allowed to use them because it would violate the rituals of school. If she violated those rituals, she would be viewed as deviant. In her school, it is very easy for a student to be classiﬁ ed as differing from the norms. This is because the system is set up for students to violate rituals if they do not conform to school norms like the school code, which students recite daily saying: “I will take care of myself. I will take care of others. I will take care of my school.” On the surface, this code ritual seems to be harmless. However, through examination it is another example of students being schooled out of their personalities and being forced to conform. This school code has a longer statement, which outlines students’ behaviors for every aspect of their day, mostly limiting students’ ability to express themselves by requiring them to be silent. The idea of constricting the ability of students to be individuals hampers their development and destroys their creativity. It makes them look to others for their standard of personal growth. According to Illich (1971), once this happens students “… no longer have to be put in their place, but put themselves into their assigned slots, squeeze themselves into the niche which they have been taught to seek, and, in the very process, put their fellows into place, too, until everybody and everything ﬁ ts” (p. 58). In fact, Carter G. Woodson (1933/1993) makes this same argument when he discusses mis-education:

When you control a man’s thinking you do not have to worry about his actions. You did not have to tell him not to stand here or go yonder. He will ﬁ nd his ‘proper place’ and will stay in it. You did not need to send him to the back door. He will go without being told. In, fact if there is no back door, he will cut one for his special beneﬁ t. (p. xiii)

Schooling without education creates students willing to conform to norms without critical evaluation. It produces individuals who lack the ability to perform higher order thinking and analyses. However, when students are educated they are able to make rational decisions about their willingness to conform based on values and who they are as individuals. Students come to the development of this ability through education that is normally found in community experience and not in schooling.

OLD HABITS ARE HARD TO BREAK “Work, leisure, politics, city living, and even family life depend on schools for the habits and knowledge they presuppose, instead of becoming themselves the means of education” (Illich, 1971, p. 11). As a society, we have become dependent on schools to educate our students. It is commonplace for a student’s parent or guardian to place expectations on schools to provide his/her student with the skills necessary to execute the requirements of life. We have willingly surrendered our responsibility to educate. This has created school systems that “… confuse 36 • RAYSHAWN L. EASTMAN teaching with learning, grade advancement with education, a diploma with competence, and ﬂ uency with the ability to say something new” (Illich, 1971, p. 1). Because we have given our investment in student education over to school, we challenge schools’ ability to truly educate but we are afraid to take the power away. This fear of challenge is to be expected since it is a social norm for students to attend school. There are even penalties for parents who don’t send students to school. So, truly old habits are hard to break. This is why we must balance school with community investment.

IT STARTS EARLY: THE ARGUMENT FOR COMMUNITY EDUCATION Have you ever been told a joke and didn’t get the punch line the fi rst time you heard it? Then, you heard the same joke a second time and understood why it was funny. I often tell people that the education process is like hearing jokes. Some students will hear information and understand it the fi rst time, and other students will need to hear the information again before they are able to make meaning of it. However, the current structure of our school system does not allow information to be told a second time before judgments are made about a student. According to Spring (2007), “…teacher expectations can play an important role in determining the educational achievement of the child” (p. 59). If a teacher believes a student is capable of learning and believes in a student, then the teacher is more likely to invest time and effort to make sure the student understands the information. However, if a teacher’s expectations are low and the student needs to hear information again, because of the teacher’s low expectations the student is not given the chance to achieve because there isn’t time and effort to invest in the student. In the state of Ohio, due to education laws, schools are being forced to link student performance to teacher pay. This is accompanied by a third grade-reading guarantee. If students are not able to meet certain reading standards, their teacher forgoes a raise and the student will be retained in their current grade until they are able to meet the standards. I can see this having an adverse effect on students. This will result in a type of school that is “ … based on the profoundly antidemo- cratic belief that only experts are capable of creating knowledge, which teachers then deliver in the form of information and students give back on tests” (Boggs, 2012, p.142) . Students who are in need of information articulated to them more than once will get lost in the shuffl e. I envision students will be tracked and the curriculum will continue to be used to assign social rank (Illich, 1971), a social rank that will continue to disadvantage the poor because they do not have the economic resources that can lead to success in school. It will also result in the desire to skill/drill students who do not meet the standard. This type of learning does not get students to use higher order thinking. In fact, it only obstructs the learner’s development process. This is why there has to be investment in education by the community, that is in order to ensure our students are getting the chance to hear information the second time without judgment and lowered expectations. The Second Read • 37

IT COMES DOWN TO MONEY: THE ARGUMENT FOR COMMUNITY EDUCATION Around the time that Ivan Illich authored Deschooling Society, there was a study conducted by the International Educational Assessment, which surveyed education in 20 nations. Schubert, Schubert, Thomas, and Carroll (2002) noted that this resulted in the conclusion that “The best indicator of what students will learn in school is strongly inﬂ uenced by home environment” (p. 195). From this study, one can assume that students who have support in their home environments will learn in school at a faster rate than those who do not have support in the home environment. Illich (1971) magniﬁ ed this point when he offered insight into schooling for poor students and middle class students:

It should be obvious that even with schools of equal quality a poor child can seldom catch up with a rich one. Even if they attend equal schools and begin at the same age, poor children lack most of the educational opportunities which are casually available to the middle-class child. These advantages range from conversation and books in the home to vacation travel and a different sense of oneself, and apply, for the child who enjoys them, both in and out of school. So, the poorer student will generally fall behind so long as he depends on school for advancement or learning. The poor need funds to enable them to learn, not to get certiﬁ ed for the treatment of their alleged disproportionate deﬁ ciencies. (p. 9)

If we are to take the arguments of Illich and Schubert et al. (2002) as truth, we must think critically about our notions that schooling is meant to give everyone an equal chance no matter their personal life history (Illich, 1971). Even if schools are society’s great equalizer, we cannot dismiss the reality of economic disparities. As a middle class parent, I can afford to buy my daughter books and give her learning experiences. In fact, because of my positionality in society, I have the best resource of all, which is time. I have the time to spend with my daughter to ensure she is learning and developing. Therefore, it is not a surprise that entering kindergarten she was ahead of some of her peers. When you are situated in the middle class you can provide opportunities to your student that people situated in a lower class cannot.

CREATING A NEW RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCHOOL AND EDUCATION: THE ARGUMENT FOR COMMUNITY EDUCATION This is the very reason why there needs to be community focused education for our students. We need an investment in the learning process of students that ex- tends beyond the walls of school and home. It takes a village to educate our students. If we are ever going to get society to the point where people are capable of being independent organizers of their own lives, rather than depending on schooling for treatment and management, it is going to take the community to teach students this lesson. As long as we continue to depend on schooling for education our 38 • RAYSHAWN L. EASTMAN students will become “… dependent on more treatment, and … increasingly in- capable of organizing their own lives around their own experience and resources within their own communities” (Illich, 1971, p. 5). The solution “is not the use of public resources for some new device which ‘makes’ people learn; rather it is the creation of a new style of educational relationship between man and his environment” (Illich, 1971, p. 104). This relationship is community focused schooling. Community focused schooling does not completely abolish the current schooling system. It positions education in the student experience using the community to enhance the schooling experience. As Illich (1971), wrote “… learning is the human activity which least needs manipulation by others. Most learning is not the result of instruction. It is rather the result of unhampered participation in a meaningful setting. Most people learn best by being ‘with it’ yet school makes them identify their personal, cognitive growth with elaborate planning and manipulation” (p. 56). When the community is the focus of education, it allows for the student to be engulfed in the learning process. It’s education where students learning is situated in the experience of the students and the material learned becomes relevant to the students because it’s within them. It’s their community, something they care about. There is another plus to community-focused education: not only does the student now care about learning because lessons are connected to his or her experience, the community is also invested in the learning of the student. With this taking place, the student is able to fl ourish because the experience connects with his or her own life (Brighouse, 2006, p. 16). “Identifi cation with a particular place and the people in it is an important component of human fl ourishing” (Brighouse, 2006, p. 102). When education is focused around community, it allows students to identify with something, which enables fl ourishing. Brighouse (2006) argued, “education should aim at enabling people to lead fl ourishing lives” (p. 15). Having the ability to be an independent thinker plays an important role in human fl ourishing (p. 15). This is why it is important that a community creates spaces where students can be independent because schools don’t typically allow it to happen. Community focused education not only allows students to fl ourish, but it also values learning outside of the classroom. A major misconception is that learning is only the result of teaching that occurs in schools. In fact, most of our life lessons are taught outside of the classroom (Illich, 1971). Knowledge attainment occurs in everyday life. Let’s consider the concepts of Baxter Magolda (1992). Although she is making the argument for college student development, I believe the ideas of development she conceptualizes are appropriate for the development and learning of all students. In fact, in a community focused school students can achieve this level of educational skill because of the support of the community. Earlier I mentioned education as being a process of skill cultivation and insight. It fosters higher order thinking and the development of skills to analyze, to evaluate, and to think critically. Baxter Magolda (1992) conceptualizes this as four ways of knowing: 1) absolute knowing; 2) transitional knowing; 3) in- The Second Read • 39 dependent knowing, and 4) contextual knowing. Each of these ways of knowing identifi es how a student views learning and knowledge and lies on a continuous progression from being an absolute knower to a contextual knower. When communities focus on educating students in the context of the community, they are able to move along this progression with support. The fi rst way of knowing is absolute knowing. Here students do not question authority. Students will take people at their word because they view them as the holders of knowledge. Baxter Magolda (1992) described absolute knowers as people who “view knowledge as certain. They believe that absolute answers exist in all areas of knowledge. Uncertainty is a factor only because students do not have access at the time to absolute knowledge” (p. 37). The next way of knowing is transitional knowing. Here students begin to question the authorities’ pool of knowledge. They now look at those who have knowledge not as the absolute knowers; instead they begin to question perspectives and recognize some knowledge as uncertain. The third way of knowing is independent knowing. Students in this way of knowing begin to develop their own perspectives and start to see knowledge as uncertain. Baxter Magolda (1992) explained that in this stage students no longer see teachers as “…the only source of knowledge; instead, students begin to see themselves as equals and hold their own opinions as valid” (p. 47). The fi nal way of knowing is contextual knowing. Here students exchange and compare their perspectives with others. Students make judgments based on evidence. In this way of knowing, there are many truths, but students identify which truth works for them. Baxter Magolda (1992) described this way of knowing as being the place where, “The nature of knowledge remains uncertain in contextual knowing, but the ‘everything goes’ perspective is replaced with the belief that some knowledge claims are better than others in a particular context. Judgments of what to believe are possible, although not absolute, based on reviewing the evidence” (p. 56). When education and schooling have a relationship with each other, the space for the exchange and comparison of perspectives is given. We all know that students learn in environments in which they are comfortable. Focusing education in the community allows students to have a level of comfort, which I believe leads to the development of students being contextual knowers because they are in an environment where they feel comfortable to question. In the ways schools are typically currently constructed, there is not any room for students to progress out of the stage of absolute knowing. This is due to the student-teacher power relationship. Teachers hold all the power in school, and the student does not hold any power. Teachers are positioned in schools as the people who hold the knowledge, and students are the empty vessels that teachers pour knowledge into. According to Freire (1968/2000), “The more students work at storing the deposits entrusted to them, the less they develop the critical consciousness which would result from their intervention in the world as transformer of the world” (p. 54). This is why 40 • RAYSHAWN L. EASTMAN there is a need for teacher-student relationships to be changed. As long as this relationship exists between teachers and students, true learning will never take place. Once the teacher-student relationship is remedied, school will no long operate as the “…secret to everything in life; that the quality of life depends on knowing that secret; that secrets can be known only in orderly succession; and that only teachers can properly reveal these secrets” (Illich, 1971, p. 109). The realization that community members can offer insight on life will take place, with community members offering their insight on how to successfully navigate life. In fact, my grandmother would always offer me great pearls of wisdom, and she only had an 8th grade education. The lessons she taught my friends and me I still apply to my life today. This is what a community focused education does; it puts values on experience even if the sharers are not credentialed. However, schooling can offer the ability to communicate with people from a different social community that your community could not offer. There is learning and development that occurs through this cross communication.

A NEW STUDENT EXPERIENCE: COMMUNITY EDUCATION Now, close your eyes and let’s go back to the earlier ideas of creating a utopian society, except this time it is not completely made up of the ideas of Ivan Il- lich. Some of his concepts are present, but it’s not a society that is completely deschooled. Instead, we have an education system focused on engaging the community and positioning all of its subject lessons within the community. There is a team of students working on math projects that use algebra and geometry to design a new community building, alongside the community’s urban planner. There is another team of students working with the community’s historian and museum director to create the next exhibit. This is community-focused education. It is people in the community investing in the knowledge development of students. Il- lich (1971) offers some structural ideas that would be present in this utopia. There will be a reference service to educational objects, skill exchange, peer-matching, and reference services to educators-at-Large. All of these are detailed as follows:

1. Reference Services to Educational Objects—which facilitate access to things or processes used for formal learning. Some of these things can be reserved for this purpose, stored in libraries, rental agencies, laboratories, and showrooms like museums and theaters; others can be in daily use in factories, airports, or on farms, but made available to students as apprentices or during off-hours. 2. Skill Exchange—which permit persons to list their skills, the conditions under which they are willing to serve as models for others who want to learn these skills, and the addresses at which they can be reached. 3. Peer-Matching—a communications network which permits persons to describe the learning activity in which they wish to engage, in the hope of ﬁ nding a partner for the inquiry. The Second Read • 41

4. Reference Services to Educators-at-Large—who can be listed in a directory giving the addresses and self-descriptions of professionals, paraprofessionals, and free-lancers, along with conditions of access to their services. Such educators, as we will see, could be chosen by polling or by consulting their former clients. (p. 113)

In this community, there will be an intimate connection between intellectual development and practical activity. Students and teachers will be rooted in the community and engage in real problem solving that creates a sustainable community economy, equality, a community in which each citizen is responsible for each other (Boggs, 2012). There will also be modeling of behaviors, actions, values, and skills by the adults in the community. Adults will show students how to live in a society without yielding, giving up, or letting go of their dreams (Pinar, 2012). The community will provide the student with “… peers who challenge him to argue, to compete, to cooperate, and to understand; and if the child is lucky, he is exposed to confrontation or criticism by an experienced elder who really cares” (Illich, 1971, p. 109). In the classroom, critical teaching will take place. Students would study the world around them and examine who they are, where they stand on current issues, and discover how the community has shaped them (Kincheloe, 2008). The teacher student power relationship issues would be solved. As Freire (1968/2000) wrote, “Education must begin with the solution of the teacher-student contradiction, by reconciling the poles of the contradiction so that both are simultaneously teachers and students” (p. 53). Therefore, the teacher will be both student and teacher and the student will be both teacher and student. There will be a co-construction of knowledge taking place. Students and teachers will enter into a partnership of learners where they both have equal inﬂ uence on the lesson of the day and how the lesson is presented. Last but not least, a community-focused education will highlight the characteristics of a good education system. Illich (1971) outlines this when he wrote

A good education system should have three purposes: it should provide all who want to learn with access to available resources at any time in their lives; empower all who want to share what they know to ﬁ nd those who want to learn it from them; and, ﬁ nally, furnish all who want to present an issue to the public with the opportunity to make their challenges known. (p. 108)

REFERENCES Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1992). Knowing and reasoning in college: Gender-related patterns in students’ intellectual development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Boggs, G. L. (2012). The next American revolution: Sustainable activism for the twenty- ﬁ rst century. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. Brighouse, H. (2006). On education. New York, NY: Routledge. 42 • RAYSHAWN L. EASTMAN

Dewey, J. (1916/2008). Democracy and education. Radford, VA: Wilder Publications, LLC. Freire, P. (1968/2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. Kincheloe, J. L. (2008). Knowledge and critical pedagogy: An introduction. New York, NY: Springer. Illich, I. (1971). Deschooling society. New York, NY: Harper & Row Publishing. Pinar, W. F. (2012). What is curriculum theory. (2nd ed.) New York, NY: Routledge. Quantz, R. A., & Magolda, P. M. (1997). Nonrational classroom performance: Ritual as an aspect of action. The Urban Review, 29, 221–238. Schubert, W. H., Schubert, A. L., Thomas, T. P., & Carroll, W.M. (2002). Curriculum books: The ﬁ rst hundred years. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Spring, J. H. (2007). American education. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Woodson, C.G. (1933/1993). Mis-education of the Negro. San Diego, CA: The Book Tree. CHAPTER 4

KALEIDOSCOPE DREAMS Amalgamating Tensions

Johnnie Jackson

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: The Continuum Inter- national Publishing Group Inc.

I ﬁ nd staples of my diet in hors d’oeurvres on kaleidoscopic menus of chance and my axe leases an apartment from tenements of pain. —Sterling Plumpp

A kaleidoscope in part is a mirror-like design that integrates colorful, realized and unrealized patterns until the operator forcefully spins the cylinder of images. Envisioning one person spinning a kaleidoscope allows for the possibilities of excitement and dullness, richness and blandness, and understanding and misunder- standing. Aesthetically pleasing as many may ﬁ nd, kaleidoscopes emphasize the relationship between hues that can be weak or strong, orderly or boisterous, and dejected or buoyed. In this chapter, I want to propose the kaleidoscopic dialectical that persists between historically marginalized groups and the dominant cultures. Now imagine around that kaleidoscope are the hues of black, brown, red, and yellow folks. Centered around Whiteness, the kaleidoscope helps anesthetize the colors on the margins. Imagine that the center of the kaleidoscope is the basic Eu- rocentric curriculum. The opportunity for people of color to feel alive in this curriculum and aware of who they are seems to happen, but what must those people

Curriculum Windows: What Curriculum Theorists of the 1970s Can Teach Us about Schools and Society Today, pages 43–59. Copyright © 2015 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. 43 44 • JOHNNIE JACKSON of color negotiate? After acknowledging the opportunities, the person spinning the curriculum kaleidoscope observes that some decades lend themselves to obvious tension between the colored people on the margins and other decades do not. As I reimagine the window of education in the 1970s, Paulo Freire’s (1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed is the kaleidoscope of struggle that I peer through to build a bridge to 2013. Between the ebb and fl ow of struggle for educational legitimacy, which I imagine as a kaleidoscopic window of tension, I believe Paulo Freire’s (1970) description of the relationship between the oppressor and the oppressed best symbolizes the dialectical relationship. The Afro Brazilian Movimen- to Negro Unifi cado was a perfect example of how the oppressed black population used a new language of aesthetics to disrupt the oppressive state and come to conscientização or consciousness as Freire argues in Pedagogy of the Oppressed. In fact, I can say without a doubt that the Pedagogy of Oppressed changed my life. Like the North Star that guided many of my ancestors to Canada on the Underground Railroad, Freire’s work acts as a guiding constellation. A beacon, a specter, or a fl ame in a fi re pit—as I term one section of this chapter—Freire’s thoughts invigorate my own and cause me to refl ect on myself as a student and a teacher. I had never heard of Paulo Freire until 2012. I came to my doctoral program, not out of feeling oppressed by the onslaught of standardization in public education, but out of love for education. Perhaps more than any other fi eld, I thought that education was where paradigm shifts can happen for those termed by Frantz Fanon (1968) as the “wretched of the earth.” Freire’s conceptions of liberatory pedagogy hugged me as I found solace in his radical love. In my fi rst semester at Miami, I found Freire in my Introduction to Doctoral Studies course. While I arrived at Freire’s ideas later in my life as an educator, I had already faced, as an English language instructor in South Korea, some of the problems Freire critiqued. Nestled into an education university in Jinju, South Korea, weekly I grappled with which mode of communication was most effective to teach English. Should I enact an English only policy that the South Korean administrators felt best built language acquisition? Should I use a bilingual classroom that dissolved the English-Korean dichotomy and student-teacher relationship? I wrestled with both of these questions as I taught. In refl ection, I wish I had read Freire while teaching English at that particular university. No doubt, as Pinar (2012) elaborated, “school is the place where the ‘excesses’ of democracy are contained, this through controlling the curriculum” (p. 7). My main undertaking in this chapter is to explore Freire’s (1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed alongside movements that acted as a catalyst for social and political change. Looking to draw a correlation between dialogue and dialectic, two terms Freire (1970) speaks explicitly about in the Pedagogy of the Oppressed, I have used examples from my time as an ESL instructor in South Korea and from my time working on a third grade literacy program aimed at African American boys. Upon refl ection of both of these positions, the actors involved faced political, social, cultural, and educa- Kaleidoscope Dreams • 45 tional implications that are in some ways similar to and in some ways different from the 1970s. In other words, mirroring the 1970s, U.S. education today is by no means neutral in its now almost thoroughly mechanistic approach. Rather, as Baszile (2009) fi nds, the U.S. school curriculum is “inescapably political in that it works to empower some groups (i.e., through positive representations of whiteness) while disempowering others (i.e., through negative representations of otherness)” (p. 10). Freire’s (1970) concept of conscientização, or consciousness raising, works as an assault against hegemonic curricular practices and mais ou menos (more or less) provides agency for the students of color or, as I have framed, the hues that col- lide against the margins of the kaleidoscope. By problem posing, as Freire notes, emancipation from oppression can be realized. However, Freire also argues from the outset that true education must recognize dialogue and location in power as important and then take revolutionary actions to disseminate both. Giroux (1992) maintained that reading Freire’s work “means making problematic the politics of location situated in the privilege and power of the West and how the ideological weight of such a position constructs one’s specifi c reading of Freire’s work” (p. 3). Put another way, Giroux challenges “border crossers” that use Freire’s notion of praxis (action and refl ection) to abstain from the cultural, theoretical, and ideological boundaries. Freire’s work as a “border intellectual” came to defi ne him as he traveled throughout the world to understand Brazil better. Giroux (1992) remarked, “Freire’s work represents a textual borderland where poetry slips into politics, and solidarity becomes a song for the present begun in the past while waiting to be heard” (p. 18). This essay will explore the tenets of Freire’s (1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed that lie in the book’s chapters 2 and 3. In later sections of this work, I project ways in which the Black movements in the U.S. and Brazil can be used as case studies for Freirean thought. Praxis, banking education, and conscientização are the key terms that will be used throughout this chapter to better understand Freire. To begin, I situate readers to the political situation of Brazil during the time of Paulo Freire’s rise as an educational philosopher.

FREIRE: FLAME IN A FIRE PIT

Flamin’ Freire fi gured to fi x the oppressed we must fi xate on the foundation of oppression.

The mark of a great writer is the ability to transcend generations of readers. Increasingly, the work of Paulo Freire became a ﬂ ame in a ﬁ re-pit for writers such as Henry Giroux, Michael Dantley, Denise Taliferro Baszile, and bell hooks. Gi- roux (1992) remarked that Freire’s work “has become the standard reference for engaging in what is often referred to as either teaching critical thinking, dialogue, or literacy” (p. 1). A Brazilian educational philosopher and educator, Paulo Freire 46 • JOHNNIE JACKSON

ﬁ rst published Pedagogy of the Oppressed in 1968, then republished it in English in 1970. Not since John Dewey has any philosopher been more widely received for their opinions on education. A Google Scholar search for the name “Paulo Freire” produces hundreds of pages of articles, links, and cited sources, demonstrating the impact Freire has had on the world. In 1921, Paulo Freire was born in the northeast coast city of Recife, Brazil. Freire’s middle-class childhood would frame his life work as he spent most of his days “playing pick up football with poorer kids” (Zavada, n.d.). These experiences, along with his religious and middle class values would help shape his educational viewpoint and his concern for the impoverished. By 1943, Freire had enrolled in the University of Recife’s Law School. Al- though Freire never actually practiced law, his scholarly writings were informed by his legal epistemological disposition. In terms of leadership and revolutionary thought, Freire (1970) explained:

In the ﬁ rst case, the revolutionary leaders follow a line of adaptation to the people’s demands. In the second case, by disrespecting the aspirations of the people, they fall into cultural invasion. The solution lies in synthesis: the leaders must on the one hand identify with the people’s demand for higher salaries, while on the other they must pose the meaning of that very demand as a problem. By doing this, the leaders pose as a problem a real, concrete, historical situation of which the salary demands is one dimension. (p. 185)

Indeed, Freire was part of everything that he met. When he met law, at the same time he was introduced to the study of phenomenology, philosophy, and psychology of language. His introduction to these subjects inspired Freire to teach Portuguese in secondary schools where he would eventually meet him wife, fellow teacher Elza Maia Costa de Oliveira. By 1946, Freire was Director of the Department of Education and Culture of the Social Service in the State of Per- nambuco. Coincidentally, Freire’s childhood experiences of befriending impoverished children sparked his interest in developing a language for liberation. Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed website states “working primarily among the illiterate poor, Freire began to embrace a non-orthodox form of what could be considered liberation theology. In Brazil at that time, literacy was a requirement for voting in presidential elections” (Zavada, n.d.). Between the years of 1961–1964, Freire was the director of the Department of Cultural Extension of Recife University. In 1962, he jumped on the opportunity to apply his liberation theory resulting in great success, as “300 sugarcane workers were taught to read and write in just 45 days” (Zavada, n.d.) Responding to the literacy success, the Brazil government approved thousands of cultural literacy circles around the country. In 1964, a military coup halted the effort. Seen as a traitor, Freire was relegated to prison for 70 days. After his release, he was exiled to Bolivia; only by working in Chile for a Christian organization under the United Nations was he able to enact his praxis. Not long after his Kaleidoscope Dreams • 47 stint at the Christian Democratic Agrarian Reform Movement and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Freire published his ﬁ rst book, Education as the Practice of Freedom in 1967, and by 1968, he published his most famous text, Pedagogy of the Oppressed in Portuguese. Although the Brazilian coup derailed the success of Freire in Brazil, if it were not for this event, countries that Freire left his mark on such as Bolivia, Chile, the U.S., Switzerland, Mozambique, and Angola may not have been exposed to Freire’s liberation theory. Duberman (1995) noted that a political prisoner inspired by the international activist Paul Robeson wrote, “They knocked the leaves from his limbs, the bark from his tree, but his roots were so deep that they are a part of me” (p. 549). The golpe de estado or coup d’etat propelled Paulo Freire to venture into other places with his liberation theory. Though his leaves were knocked off and the bark stripped from his tree at times, Freire’s border-crossing, international roots helped enrich his scholarship of liberation. Giroux (1992) remarked, “Freire’s work cannot be separated from either its history or its author, but it also cannot be reduced to the speciﬁ city of intentions or historical location” (p. 13). Freire was not held captive by any location due to his “homeless” scholar disposition. Giroux (1992) goes on to add “maybe power and forcefulness of Freire’s works are to be found here in the tension, poetry, and politics that make it a project for border-crossers, those who read history as a way of reclaiming power and identity by rewriting the space and practice of cultural and political resistance” (p. 24). I side with Giroux, both as a young border-crossing scholar and on his critique of Freire. I believe Freire’s amalgamation of poetic justice, political history, and relational tension of the oppressor and oppressed make for a thorough case study, not just a teacher-training manual.

Pedagogy of the Oppressed Thesis Freire’s magnum opus Pedagogy of the Oppressed seeks to understand the relationship between the oppressor and the oppressed. The main tool of the oppressor, dehumanization, does not allow for the oppressed to be seen or acknowledged as fully human. Many times, as Freire (1970) cites, this dehumanization happens to take place when the oppressors opportunistically take an ahistorical disposition. For example, in the American school curriculum, social studies and history are sites for contestation. African American history in the American school curriculum is taught from the perspective that African Americans went through slavery, then mostly white abolitionists along with a hand full of Black people such as Fredrick Douglas, Harriet Tubman, and other African American martyrs were the ones that helped liberate African Americans. Inferiority is perpetuated by curriculum practices that privilege Whiteness as the American dominant culture, leaving little room for the contributions of African Americans. It has been noted by scholars such as Kenneth Clark that Black inferiority has taken on various forms in American history as it was pathologized in slavery, then perpetuated during Jim Crow and peonage before the passage of Brown vs. 48 • JOHNNIE JACKSON

Board of Education (Katznelson, 2006). One could probably assume that, because we live in a time and space where we have the fi rst African American president, these tropes around Black inferiority have faded. Could it be possible that we live in a post-racial society where Blacks are seen as equally educationally fi t as White and Asian students? Or, put differently, can we be optimistic enough that our institutions of education, government, business, and criminal justice see Blacks as intellectually and morally fi t today? Discouragingly, by school tracking, the school to prison pipeline, and push-out rates, African American students, particularly males, are still easily seen as disposable objects to the criminal justice system. One only has to look at the stop and frisk policy in New York to fi nd that many of the African American and Latinos stopped were not apprehended for actual crimes. Taking a critical view, Freire saw in Brazil, Chile, and other places throughout the world that in order to humanize oppressed peoples there was and is still a need for the oppressors themselves to be humanized. Kenneth Clark, African American psychologist, noted in his landmark study in Harlem that as the invisible walls to “dark ghettos” are constructed “social, political, educational, and—above all—economic colonies are formed” (Katznelson, 2006, p. 9). My question as I read Freire was, “How do the oppressed become liberated once they have been pathologized as inferior, deemed unfi t to learn, and receive false ‘gifts’ of liberty?” Freire warns us that the oppressor cannot liberate the oppressed alone, and likewise, the oppressed cannot liberate themselves completely. True generosity from the oppressor would allow for the praxis, action, and refl ection of the oppressed to be expressed through dialogue (Freire, 1970). Thus, the solution of the confl ict inherent in the oppressor versus the oppressed relationship is true recognition without false generosity. In many ways, this act of true liberation, which Freire (1970) refers to as the oppressed having the opportunity to express praxis (action and refl ection), provides both the oppressor and the oppressed with the potential to have “co-intentional education” (p. 56). To explain this point, Freire (1970) offers, “Teachers and students (leadership and people), co-intent on reality, are both Subjects, not only in the task of unveiling that reality, and thereby coming to know it critically, but in the task of re-creating that knowledge” (p. 56). In sum, Freire’s (1970) thesis is that the problem with the oppressed is political. By political, the author means the harnessing of power within a system or structure to a few players. Again, I turn to Pinar (2012) where, like Freire, he expresses the urgency for dialogue. In particular, currere, similar to Freire’s praxis, reconceptualizes the curriculum as a politically charged manuscript. True liberation from being oppressed should have both the oppressor and the oppressed participating in the co-intentional curriculum, ultimately expressed in a dialogue that is truly dialectical. Participating in a dialectic experience over curriculum practices brings about revolution, innovation, and dialogue. I return to the kaleidoscope I offered at the beginning of this chapter. Through theorizing about the oppressed, Freire allows those marginalized to become more centered without Kaleidoscope Dreams • 49 taking on the oppressors’ state, and this, in part, is the same dialectic opportunity the kaleidoscope presents. To read and understand Freire, one must also visit the Hegelian dialectic between slave and master. Whether it be slave and master or oppressor and oppressed, the dialectic Hegel put forth in the 18th century is synonymous with the dialectic put forth by Freire in the Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Although Freire expresses more concern over the revolution that needs to take place in order for the oppressed to be liberated, I question what happens if the revolution doesn’t come to fruition. Does it become a dream deferred as Langston Hughes poetically suggests, or does it become a site for dialogue? In many instances, Freire and scholars out of the Critical Pedagogy school of thought believe in putting forth dialogue through problem posing educative practices. I can say, without a trace of hyperbole, taking on a problem-posing philosophy of education is one that needs to be steeped in respect, trust, love, and understanding; and if any of these pillars is not in place the learner and teacher resort back to a passive, banking-education mode of learning. To better defi ne the contours of how Freire lays out the notion of banking education, the next section uses a small epigraph from my time teaching in South Korea.

“BANKING” EDUCATION Pinar, Reynolds, Slattery, and Taubman (2004) in Understanding Curriculum posit, “Just as economic, political, and ecological phenomena increasingly ignore national boundaries, so do educational issues” (p. 792). Over my years of teaching English as a Foreign Language (EFL) in South Korea, I witnessed the transition from grammatical based English education, stressing vocabulary and grammar, to communicative competence English education, emphasizing ﬂ uency in English. The epigraph below depicts an alternative coffee-shop-conversational-English course offered at the South Korean university where I taught for two years.

Eun byeol, Pyeong-hwa, Ji-Heon and their teacher met at Rotti-bun cafe each Tues- day after class. Rain, snow, or sunshine they had two hours to talk about the world in English. Actually it was an hour in English, a half an hour in Konglish (mixed Korean and English), then a half an hour in Korean. Ji-Heon wanted to be the next Secretary of Education for South Korea. Eun Byeol wanted to be a teacher of Math and Science. Pyeong-hwa, whose name meant ‘Peace’ in Korean, wanted to avoid going to the Army for two years, which would mean missing out on dates with Eun Byeol. How did these students come to love speaking English while many of the rest of the students loathed speaking English? That was the teacher’s question to them in their ﬁ rst class. All three answered in a similar fashion. ‘We didn’t like English in elementary through middle school, but then in high school and college, teachers let us speak and have a voice in the conversation.”

The epigraph reminds us of the essential nature dialogue plays in becoming human in the education process. Being able to speak their way into existence was the 50 • JOHNNIE JACKSON revelation that all three of my former students stated as their reason for starting to enjoy their second language of English. Scholars such as hooks, Giroux, and McLaren lobby for creating a language in order to disrupt disciplinary boundaries, decenter authority, and remarry agency, power, and struggle (hooks, 1994). Just as Pinar (2012), the classroom and the curriculum are sites of democratic, racist, misogynist, and political tension. In our coffee shop conversations, my students came to life discussing the relationship of North and South Korea, the history of Jinju in the battle between South Korea and Japan, the preparedness of Asia for Global warming, and the U.S. naming Barack Obama the fi rst African American president. All of these topics were selected by Eun Byeol or Ji heon, two of the top sophomore students at Chinju National University of Education, and the space we created together gave them a platform to learn new vocabulary through topics of their own interest. Frankly, these students chose topics that caused a tension which existed in a kaleidoscope. Put differently, on topics such as the relationship between North and South Korea, the dialogue had political, historical, and social implications for both my Korean students and me. I, being the foreigner, thought it was my duty not to make my students feel obligated to talk about the sensitive history between the two countries on the Korean peninsula. As a matter of fact, it was expressed in my contract that I, as the foreign instructor, would not engage in conversation about North and South Korean political debates. This type of cross cultural communication and struggle provided a dialectic fl uidity, one we see in kaleidoscopes as fl uids move toward the center, then retract as other colors swerve their way into position. The multifaceted, dynamic nature of language can be likened to a kaleidoscope, in which the struggle for legitimacy is combined with the learner’s and the teacher’s political, educational, racial, economic, and developmental backgrounds, but as learning happens, different patterns and confi gurations are presented causing shifts. Freire argued against a linear approach to education, which he termed “banking education” and which is popular today with neoliberal poli- cymakers. In the U.S. and South Korea the onslaught of neoliberal educational policies reducing education to rote learning and standardized testing has led to a backwash effect on teachers and the curriculum. In Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Freire (1970) recognizes that the dichotomous relationship between the teacher and student leads many times to his concept of “banking education” where consciousness raising is expunged and in place rote learning is used. Rote, mechanistic learning of English in South Korea rendered many of my Korean students voiceless. Consequently, English language learning in South Korea can be liberating or stifl ing. In my fi rst semester teaching, I fell victim to being what Freire terms a depositor of knowledge, merely encouraging my students to undertake rote, mechanical ways of learning. Freire realized that this contradiction of teacher-student is where education must start. By projecting students as ignorant and the teacher as knowledgeable, Freire (1970) notes the “characteristic of ideology of oppression, negates education and knowledge as Kaleidoscope Dreams • 51 processes of inquiry” (p. 58). We, as teachers and as students, when subscribing to the notion of banking education in which the student is only able to be fi lled by the knowledgeable teacher, fail to realize that we position the student as empty, therefore relegating the student to be a slave to the mind of the teacher. Freire (1970) re-imagines a socially just curriculum as not dichotomous where “the teacher teaches and the students are taught; the teacher knows everything and the students know nothing,” (p. 59). Rather the student/teacher dynamic co- alesces into a humanistic pedagogy. True education lies in bringing about the consciousness of the student and the teacher. In the banking concept of education, knowledge is a good bestowed by those who consider themselves knowledgeable. Instead, if one is truly committed to education and the liberation of the oppressed or voiceless, one needs to adopt “problem-posing” education, not banking education. During the 1970s, and even arguably today, reconceptualizing education to dissolve the dualism between teacher and student is highly contested. Nowhere has that dualism been more evident than on the topic of standardized testing. As a society we often believe that if the teacher is of quality then the student will score favorably on the test. It soon became clear, however, that neoliberals would attach education to testing, curriculum to standards, and teacher reputation to student test scores. Such was the case in the passage of No Child Left Behind. Darling- Hammond (2010) noted:

The goals of No Child Left Behind are the right ones; however, we have seen that the law’s design and implementation have narrowed the curriculum, caused schools to abandon some successful programs, and created incentives for keeping and pushing low-achievers out of schools. In addition, its complex rules for showing “adequate yearly progress”—which require schools to meet more than 30 separate testing targets annually—have labeled many successful and improving schools as failing, while preventing adequate attention to the truly failing schools on which states should focus. (p. 306)

The onslaught of testing has been successful in silencing many students, but especially students of color. Darling-Hammond (2010) found that nowhere was the push-out rate for Black and Latino/a students more insidious than in Texas under then Governor George W. Bush. I believe Freire would argue that educational legislation such as No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top, with an emphasis on testing and “banking education” methods, only perpetuates oppression by pushing out students who cannot perform well on tests. Scholars have found that the test measures no skills that bring about the development of democratic citizens or identity, but rather drop students that schools deem unteachable, place pressure on teachers and students to cheat (we see this in the 2013 Atlanta teachers test cheating scandal and new analysis of the Washington D.C. public cheating scandal under school reformer, Michelle Rhee), and narrow the curriculum (Darling-Hammond, 2010; Kozol, 2005; Ravitch, 2010). Often deemed “unable 52 • JOHNNIE JACKSON to learn,” children at the intersection of being Black and impoverished have been time and time again pushed out of school. In these terms, Freire would argue that it is not up to the oppressor to liberate the oppressed. Thus, schools as a functional system are doing their job in sorting students based on how well they maneuver through the curriculum. Since we know that education systems are doing exactly what they were originally intended to do, which is to maintain the status quo, how do we fi nd a curriculum window that provides enough translucency for all groups to be included? I believe Freire attempts to address my question with his notion of problem-posing education. A part of his notion of praxis, Freire affi rms that becoming, known by him and other scholars as being unfi nished, is a human taking action in the world by posing problems. Furthermore, as a human takes action in the world, he or she cannot remain stagnant and inactive. Instead, liberation leads the actor/actress to being in sync with one’s world.

TRUE PRAXIS - READING THE WORLD

A Black boy in third grade has been having a difﬁ cult time reading the book Percival Perkins: The Particular and Picky Eater. After class his teacher, a White female, asks him whether he is enjoying the reading and he notes, “I ain’t got nuthin’ in common wid Percival, but I have an uncle named Percy.” She responds in an attempt to appease him, “Hmm, just because you don’t have anything in common with him, doesn’t mean you shouldn’t read about Percival’s life. Percival and you are the same age, and I see you at lunch eating some of same snacks he does.” The little Black boy smiles. Then, the he conjures up the courage to ask, “How many books have we read about Black boys like me?” In a quick instance the teacher says, “Why does that matter?” Then with a glare in his eye the little black boy says, “You’re right. I don’t matter.”

“To speak a true word is to transform the world” (Freire, 1970, p. 68). One thing I wanted to present in the above epigraph is the tension that persists as millions of Black children are taught by predominantly White teachers in American school systems. Currently, African American male students are outpaced on standardized test in math, science, and reading by all other racial/ethnic groups. At the same time, a recent study found that of the nation’s approximately fi ve million teachers, only 2% are African American male educators (Department of Educa- tion, n.d.). While the narrative above is fi ctional, it has realistic elements and implications to be noted for African American males. One important factor scholars have linked with the lower academic achievement rate of African American male students is the lack of African American male educators (Lewis, 2006). The notion of praxis provides historically disadvantaged groups such as Black children the agency to fi rst act, then refl ect. To better interpret, I turn to Freire’s equation offered in Chapter 3 of Pedagogy of the Oppressed (Figure 4.1). Kaleidoscope Dreams • 53

FIGURE 4.1. Freire’s Notion of Praxis

In order for those who are oppressed to come into a true world, as Freire notes, action begins by verbalizing their existence. Then, reﬂ ecting by actively charac- terizing their state leads to the notion of praxis. Indeed, turning to praxis provides agency to those who are oppressed, and as Freire (1970) ﬁ nds “human existence cannot be silent, nor can it be nourished by false words, but only by true words, with which men (women) transform the world. To exist, humanly, is to name the world, to change it” (p. 76). By privileging some characters in the curriculum over other characters, we choose to provide agency for some, all the while silencing the voices of others. Such is the case for the little Black boy from the narrative. His keen sense that his voice was not being heard gave him the motivation to act. The dialogue between the White teacher and Black student was one of me- diation that Freire critiques. Namely, “dialogue is the encounter between men, mediated by the world, in order to name the world” (p. 76). By dialogue, an act constituted by verbally naming one’s world, one can become unsilenced. Freire understood praxis not to be the domain of action for a few elite in society, but for every member of society. Dialogue to Freire (1970) was the medium by which praxis is enacted, he understood that:

since dialogue is the encounter in which the united reﬂ ection and action of the dialoguers are addressed to the world which is to be transformed and humanized, this 54 • JOHNNIE JACKSON

dialogue cannot be reduced to the act of one person’s ‘depositing’ ideas in another, nor can it become a simple exchange of ideas to be ‘consumed’ by discussants. (p. 77)

How do we as educators provide the space for students who have been marginalized directly or indirectly, consciously or unconsciously, and overtly or covertly to have a true dialogue that includes love, humility, and authenticity? Truly, relationship building, which I understand to be the foundation of Freire’s notion of humility amongst dialoguers, is the key to praxis. In my work on literacy in the U.S. and South Korea, I fi nd the content of the relationship to be more important than the educational material. Authentic dialogue needs true critical understanding. During the spring semester of 2013, I undertook a project in an urban high school to motivate seniors to think about the future that lay ahead of them. Our agenda was to use hip-hop as a conduit to raise their consciousness about their education. Yet we found that our agenda as educators, while theoretically sound, was not aligned with the students’ agenda to just complete their high school degrees. In a cultural circle at the urban high school, one of the instructors posed the question, “What are your dreams, aspirations, or goals once you graduate?” One student raised her hand and asked, “What is the point of having dreams if we can’t attain them?” On the basis of this social experience, the students were anesthetized to their dreams, goals, and aspirations. Approaching true humanist education, Freire (1970) explains “for the truly humanist educator and the authentic revolutionary, the object of action is the reality to be transformed by them together with other men—not other men themselves” (p. 83). By bringing in our own agenda the students in this urban school may have seen us as new actors sent to save, liberate, indoctrinate, even “bank” them, but even more they may have seen us as actors coming to win them over. In order to dissolve the notion of teacher-student, Freire states that we need revolutionary teachers. Freire (1970) goes further, as he argues “the revolutionary’s role is to liberate and be liberated, with the people—not to win them over” (Freire, 1970). Rather, it should be our concern as true liberatory educators to believe in true liberation education, not necessarily saving students from themselves, but waking them up from a curriculum where they are being anesthetized and marginalized. Freire (1970) further notes that true liberatory education allows for “men to come to feel like masters of their thinking by discussing the thinking and views of the world explicitly or implicitly manifest in their own suggestions and those of their comrades” (p. 118). Amplifying the experiences of the oppressed is one way to fi ght alongside them in the battle. This point of the educator and the student collaborating brings about in many ways the notion of conscientização. For Freire (1970) the contrast between animals and humans was the best example of conscientização, as he found “animals live out their lives on an atemporal, fl at, uniform ‘prop’; men exist in a world which they are constantly re-creating and transforming” (p. 88). This Kaleidoscope Dreams • 55 very notion of animals and men (human) provides us with the understanding that the animal is to living what the human is to existing. In this sense, living “implies only surviving; exist(ing) implies a deeper involvement in the process of ‘becoming’” (Freire, 1970, p. 88).

ANALYSIS OF FREIRE Freire spent much of his time on the actions of liberation and transformation, but in my opinion, Pedagogy of the Oppressed lacked substance and left gaps to understanding how to transcend oppressing the oppressed. Even more, Freire’s repetition, while it reinforces his importance of turning the ‘banking’ education concept on its head, attaches him to known radicals such as Marx and Lenin. The most recent example, Tom Horne, Attorney General in Arizona, dubbed anyone reading Freire as a leftist-Marxist who may be anti-American. Horne’s perspective was heard, and in those regards used to pass legislation against ethnic studies programs. Freire’s (1985) The Politics of Education: Culture, Power, and Lib- eration ﬁ lls in many of the gaps that are not understood in Pedagogy of the Op- pressed. Growing up in a small rural town in central Ohio, I was furthest away from radical Marxist thought until I entered a teaching position after graduating with my MBA. This position took me to South Korea, a generally conservative, homogenous culture, but situated there I found a small undercurrent of Marxist thinkers and socialist sympathizers. As I do not consider myself a Marxist by upbringing or by scholarship, I do not delve into radical thoughts that attempt to reimagine oppressed folks as humans outside of a capital driven society. I believe in ways that hip hop, like Freire’s dialectic of the oppressor and the oppressed, is a platform for radical thought. One hip hop group, Wu Tang Clan, wrote “Cash rules everything around me, C.R.E.A.M. Get the money, dolla, dolla bill y’all,” and with this, gave voice to economic, political, social, and educational situation of black youth in America. This epistemological stance tells the world, the African American world and voice, that capital and currency guide impossibility and possibility (Wu Tang Clan, 1993). In the Politics of Education: Culture, Power, and Liberation, Freire (1985) attempts to interrogate the elitist perspective of social movements by stating,

People said that movements would have no political signiﬁ cance because they did not identify social classes, only individuals within these classes. I thought that there was something ingenuous and dogmatic in criticizing these movements as inopera- tive, mere distractions, or “escapisms.” (p. 193)

These same grassroots movements during the 1960s, then spilling over into the 1970s led to revolutionary measures being enacted. For example many people know about the Black Power movement in the U.S. during the 1960s and 1970s. By appropriating the resistance of American Black people, the Afro Brazilian 56 • JOHNNIE JACKSON leaders for social change stirred a movement of Black consciousness of their own. Covin (2006) suggests art forms, such as ballads from Marvin Gaye, were used to put rhythm behind a movement in Brazil for Afro Brazilians.

BLACK POWER AND MOVIMENTO NEGRO UNIFICADO MOVEMENTS On the last page of Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Freire (1970) leaves us in sus- pense stating that the oppressed

as long as they are crushed and oppressed, internalizing the image of the oppressor—construct by themselves the theory of their liberating action. Only in the encounter of the people with the revolutionary leaders—in their communion, in their praxis—can this theory be built. (p. 186)

I want to believe Freire would view the American Black Power Movement and the Afro-Brazilian Movimento Negro Unifi cado as exemplars for his notion of praxis. In both instances, Blacks in Brazil and the U.S. used music, art, and literature to mobilize. Blacks in the U.S. had had enough of the White supremacist persecu- tion in American institutions, while Blacks in Brazil faced a dictatorship and the lingering implications of slavery and racism. Covin (2006) maintains “the consideration of the role of dance groups is complicated by the presence of one entirely Brazilian dance form, originated by Afro- Brazilians from Angolan origins, a dance form that had been illegal for much of the country’s history because it is also a martial art” (p. 54). The Movimento Negro Unifi cado, or Unifi ed Black Movement, which laid the foundation for the late 1970s Brazilian aesthetics political movement used traces of the 1970s Black Power movement to mount a resistance against the white dominant elite in Brazil. Freire (1970) notes that cultural synthesis “is always a systematic and deliberate form of action which operates upon social structure, either with the objective of preserving that structure or of transforming it” (p. 180). Lélia Gonzalez, co- founder of the MNU helped change the landscape of Black activism in Brazil. Along with the racism, she also launched an attack against sexism. Forms such as dance, music, and art were used to wage war against White supremacy and infi l- trate traditionally Brazilian institutions that had little space for Black Brazilians. A new resistance to the old “Pedagogy of the Oppressed” arose in 1979. The new black cariocas were inspired and understood in the words of Marvin Gaye’s song “What’s Going On” not as just a song but an anthem for the oppressed. Marching to the tunes of U.S. Black pop culture icons Shaft and Marvin Gaye, Afro-Brazilians saw themselves mirrored in popular U.S. fi lms, but not in predominantly White Brazilians institutions. Both in the Afro-Brazilian movement Movimento Negro Unifi cado (MNU) and the American Black Power Movement, language, particularly symbols in music, were used as resistance measures that accentuated the voice of the Black people who were oppressed. In music, African Kaleidoscope Dreams • 57

American artist Marvin Gaye’s tune “What’s Going On” questioned the state of humanity globally. Similarly, Afro-Brazilian artist Tim Maia used his music to usher in a movement called Black Rio. Maia is noted to have “triggered a shift in Brazilian pop culture that extended far beyond music, notably the emergence of a movement that came to be called Black Rio” (Rohter, 2012). Even more, these transformative ways of resistance were not circumscribed to a town, city, state, or region, but permeated the Black culture in both Brazil and the U.S. Starting as a movement in the U.S. in 1968, the Black Power movement at San Francisco State College was marked by a key event with “the arrival of Jimmy Garrett, a Black Panther and SNCC member” (Rojas, 2007, p. 49). Garrett helped mobilize the black student union, then a small reliable channel of communication, to organize strikes against White supremacy. Rojas (2007) visits this transition of Black Power, a movement started by Black students at San Francisco State Col- lege, to the institutionalized Black Studies. The book’s overarching theme elabo- rates on how a movement rooted in radical political thought became in the words of St Clair Drake “depoliticalized and deradicalized” (Rojas, 2007, p. 1). This is important. This same movement which had lingering implications to the larger Black diaspora suddenly became decontextualized to the subjects it was meant for. Black Power, essentially challenged the bureaucracy of the academy, but the Black students, professors, and teacher activists could not fully understand the depth the academy would go to in order to co-opt the movement. Important to Paulo Freire was that men encountered the world through naming and mediating the world. Black Power movements in both Brazil and the U.S. provided those historically marginalized groups the platform to name their world. In fact, by African Americans naming the systemic structure of racism in the U.S., then organizing ways to act against racism, including fashion, art, music, and poetry, this symbolization sparked Afro-Brazilians to rise up against White supremacy. Rohter (2012) reported that the popularity of Tim Maia’s music brought out fans who were fanatical about Afro-American fashions and attitudes. Rohter goes on to note, fans of those bands also adopted Afro-American fashions and attitudes, which alarmed the all-White dictatorship then in power, fearful of the importation of notions of Black Power into a country that had the largest Black population outside Africa (Rohter, 2012).

CONCLUSION Re-imagining the curriculum of the 1970s as a kaleidoscope of tension allows for us to see which color is centered and which colors are left on the margins. Precon- ceived notions of racial inferiority have been a marker of our past transgressions and have not stopped, as it has been perpetuated in our schools. Kunjufu (2011) cites “there’s nothing wrong with those 6.7 million children in high achieving, regular, charter, Afrocentric, single gender schools, Black children will thrive above and beyond expectations”(p. 110). Although, I am not advocating single gender schools, Kunjufu, along with other scholars, notes African American stu- 58 • JOHNNIE JACKSON dents do thrive when placed in a setting with the proper ﬁ nancial, spiritual, and educational resources. Furthermore, these same students, when placed in front of a teacher who sees them as intelligible, as an asset to the learning environment, and ﬁ t to learn, exceed their American, Korean, Brazilian, and Chinese counterparts on the academic treadmill. Carter G. Woodson (1933), famed African American historian wraps readers minds around the notion that if you control a person’s mind you don’t have to worry about leading them; as he puts it:

When you control a man’s thinking you do not have to worry about his actions. You do not have to tell him not to stand here or go yonder. He will ﬁ nd his ‘proper place’ and will stay in it. You do not need to send him to the back door. He will go without being told. In fact, if there is no back door, he will cut one for his special beneﬁ t. His education makes it necessary. (p. 21)

Ultimately, by using Freire, this chapter has synthesized his thoughts on the tensions that lie in education and a society that attempts to reach the pinnacle of democratic practices. I have attempted to speak across context using Freire’s notion of praxis in education and social movements. One can only imagine and dream of how Freire’s kaleidoscopic image of freedom would look if the marginalized, most downtrodden individuals were able to be liberated from the clutches of sexism, racism, agism, ablism, homophobia, xenophobia, and classism. By using this liberation theology we might be able to unbind our souls from status and save our world!

REFERENCES Baszile, D. T. (2009). Deal with it we must: Education, social justice, and the curriculum of hip-hop culture. Equity & Excellence in Education, 42(1), 6–19. Covin, D. (2006). The Unifi ed Black Movement in Brazil, 1978–2002. Jefferson, NC: Mc- Farland & Company, Inc. Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The fl at world and education. New York, NY: Teachers College Pr. Department of Education (n.d.). U.S. Secretary of Education Duncan and fi lm producer Spike Lee to call on Morehouse students to pursue teaching careers. Retrieved on 1.22.2013 from: http://www.ed.gov/news/media-advisories/us-secretary-education-duncan-and -fi lm-producer-spike-lee-call-morehouse-stude Duberman, M. (1989). Paul Robeson: A biography. New York, NY: The New Press. Fanon, F. (1968). The wretched of the earth (C. Farrington, Trans.). New York, NY: The New Press. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: The Continuum International Publishing Group Inc. Freire P. (1985). The politics of education: Culture, power, and liberation. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey. Giroux, H. A. (1992). Paulo Freire and the politics of postcolonialism. Journal of Ad- vanced Composition, 12(1), 15–26. hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to trangress. New York, NY: Routledge. Kaleidoscope Dreams • 59

Katznelson, I. (2006). When afﬁ rmative action was white: An untold history of racial inequality in twentieth-century America. New York, NY: W.W. Norton. Kozol, J. (2005). The shame of the nation: The restoration of apartheid schooling in Amer- ica. New York, NY: Three Rivers Press. Kunjufu, J. (2011). Understanding Black male learning styles. Sauk Village, IL: African American Images. Lewis, C. W. (2006). African American male teachers in public schools: An examination of three urban school districts. Teachers College Record, 108, 224–245. Pinar, W. F. (2012). What is curriculum theory? (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Pinar, W. F., Reynolds, W. M., Slattery, P., & Taubman, P. M. (2004). Understanding curriculum. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc. Ravitch, D. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education. New York, NY: Basic Books. Rojas, F. (2007). From black power to black studies. Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press. Rohter L. (2012, October 19). He’s back baby: The man who put the funk in Rio. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com Woodson, C. G. (1933). The mis-education of the Negro. Washington D. C.: The Associ- ated Publishers, Inc. Wu Tang Clan (1993). C.R.E.A.M. On Enter the Wu Tang: 36 Chambers. [CD]. New York: Loud Records. Zavada, K. (n.d.). About Paulo Freire. Retrieved April 29, 2013, from http://www.pedago- gyoftheoppressed.com/author/

CHAPTER 5

MINDLESSNESS—IT’S NOT SO CRYSTAL CLEAR

Ashley Nicole Warren

Silberman, C. (1970). Crisis in the classroom: The remaking of American education. New York, NY: Vintage Books.

Silence is the absence of active thought … a denial which becomes the stagnant breeding ground of our psychosis. In the picture of life, colors are continuously moving—some are raw, some are the ﬁ nest and subtlest of hues presenting a Kalei- doscope that is missing something for every person who does not allow the contribution of their own individual piece to the puzzle. (Transpersonal Lifestreams, 2011)

Charles Silberman’s (1970) Crisis in the Classroom argues that our dimension- less existence of being stems from the “mindlessness” (p. 11) of the American education system. This mindlessness, the absence of serious thought about educational purpose, generates a large amount of energy to push forward the existing machine called school. What teacher wants to risk losing her job to a robot programmed with the appropriate state standards and politically developed script? Using Silberman’s historical perspective on education in the 70s and Posner’s (1992) approach of “reﬂ ective eclecticism,” I will argue how education’s state of mindlessness has crept its way into the present day, forecasting a dreary, stagnant and opaque future.

Curriculum Windows: What Curriculum Theorists of the 1970s Can Teach Us about Schools and Society Today, pages 61–73. Copyright © 2015 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. 61 62 • ASHLEY NICOLE WARREN

Silberman’s (1970) theme of mindlessness in education led him to believe that “not everything being done [in education] is necessarily wrong; it is simply that everything being done just needs to be questioned [italics added]” (p. 4), which leads me, as a high school science teacher and curriculum inquirer, to my metaphor for this paper and for interpreting Silberman. According to several general chemistry textbooks, old glass windowpanes became thicker at the bottom than around the top because despite its solid-like appearance, glass actually behaves as a fl uid. Scientists developed this explanation by using a very basic understanding of liquids: liquid atoms are able to freely fl ow past each other due to a lack of intermolecular attractions holding them together. Given a specifi c amount of time for gravity to do her work, glass will ultimately fl ow from the top of the window to the bottom, accumulating in a larger piece of glass at the bottom. For years, scientists have examined stained glass samples from medieval cathedrals and found this to be true. Since medieval times, scientists have been focusing on ways to make different types of glass that can withstand the force of gravity. Who wants a window that is defective over time? In theory, just as gravity pulls glass downwards, so do politicians bring down education with their non-educational, power agendas. If we think of glass as a liquid, there are fewer attractive forces holding all of the pieces together than other states of solid matter. Education operates in the same way. Differentiation, standardized testing, back-to-basics movements, formative instructional practices, and subject-based standards are all particles of the liquid with very little relation, or attractive forces, and will, if given time, settle out as a pool at the bottom of the window. And what do we have left then? We have shattered pieces of a system run by too many stakeholders who do not question the future of the education that they are attempting to achieve. Mindlessness, certainly, at its best! As a science educator, I have waited for the moment when a resurgence of scientifi c understanding would be prioritized by our nation. With ever increasing problems of climate change, health pandemics, water shortages, etc., it is befud- dling how we, as citizens, have allowed the problems to trickle down until, fi nally, we are fl ooded by catastrophe. I have always thought of myself as a responsive teacher, not one that fosters mindlessness. I don’t necessarily follow the teacher mold that the United States is promoting. Silberman believed, although he paints a dreary picture in his book, that there was hope in the educational system. If, as a country, we can begin to question who is making certain educational reform policies and why, then maybe our mindless state of education will begin to change, and the window that we are looking through can be seen equally transparent from top to bottom. Silberman writes, the test of a society, as of any institution, is not whether it is improving…but whether it is adequate to the needs of the present and foreseeable future. Our educating institutions fail that test…and they fall short of what they could be…what follows, then, is one man’s attempt to say what education should be. (1970, p. 29) Mindlessness—It’s Not So Crystal Clear • 63

Who will attempt to say what education should be? Silberman certainly tried, but did anyone really listen? Could an examination of our past, present, and future illustrate what needs to be changed for a more mindful state of education? And, most important, at the end of my examination, will you be compelled to seek change?

BEFORE THE FORCES OF NATURE The year 1957 was a true turning point in science education. Whether it was for the best or worst, I am still pondering. On October 4, 1957, the Soviet Union launched Sputnik 1, the fi rst artifi cial satellite. The Sputnik crisis launched many fears for the American education system. Even though Sputnik itself was harmless, a back-to-basics educational movement was considered a necessity by the government. More American students learning more of the same was key if we were to beat other countries that were obviously more advanced. “Sputnik made it clear to the American public that it was in the national interest to change education, in particular, the curriculum in mathematics and science” (Bybee, 1997). Within a year, the United States Congress passed the National Defense Education Act, which pumped billions of dollars into the American education system, and especially into curriculum reform efforts in the sciences. The government’s new interest in education caused worry. Education, before Sputnik, was primarily run by state and local policies (WhyFiles, n.d.). Is the government getting involved for the right reasons? “Sputnik did not initiate the debate in the United States about the quality of schooling, but it did fuel the movement for curriculum reform” (WhyFiles, n.d.). Why do we need a movement in curriculum reform without a restructuring of schools? Shouldn’t we be asking why our schools aren’t promoting the creative thought and ingenuity that we are assuming? Should the glass be made in a different way? If so, how do we make it better? Or do we just make it more effective? (two very different questions). Finally, as citizens and as professional teachers, do we just stand by and let it “settle”? The post-Sputnik reform may have led to a small victory in the sciences, but it was certainly short-lived. During the 60s and 70s, the government attempted to “teacher-proof” the curriculum by focusing on a single factor: teacher training. “The idea was that if you had an activity, a fi lmstrip, and a textbook, that was suffi cient, and even if the teacher was afraid of science, they could do a good job” (WhyFiles, n.d.). Similar to the ways in which science has evolved to make “better” glass, politicians believed training teachers would make “better” educators. Almost all glass, today, is made through the same manufacturing process: the fl oat process. The fl oat process allows glass to be produced in a “uniform thick- ness with perfectly smooth surfaces” (Glass for Europe, n.d.). The new way of creating glass minimizes the risk of the glass fl owing towards the bottom because the glass is so thin that it is diffi cult to see with the naked eye. Maybe the new way of training teachers will brainwash American citizens into believing that education can really improve. In actuality, just like how we make glass thinner, isn’t teacher training just thinning the autonomy of creative teachers that could 64 • ASHLEY NICOLE WARREN enhance and promote meaningful life-long learning for students? It doesn’t matter how thin we make the glass. Over time, gravity will always hold enough force to pull the window down. So why, then, did we think that a mindless decision, such as shallow, ineffi cient changes like teacher training or back-to-basics reform would make our schools more effective? Silberman (1970) would explore how these decisions, in particular, led to a “crisis in the classroom.” From the beginning, Silberman accuses those close to education, teachers and administrators, of encouraging mindlessness. How can students practice mindfulness when a majority of teachers don’t “ask why they are doing what they are doing…or think seriously or deeply about the purpose or consequences of education” (1970, p. 11). This state of mind, or lack thereof, has thus trickled into our society, becoming the number one issue in education: an inability to think about or question purpose. How could curriculum reform collapse, causing the failure of schools in the 70s? Why are we making windows that over time must be replaced? The Progressive education movement didn’t seem to be working (in my opinion because we didn’t give it much of a chance), and critics against this reform placed an attack on the “intellectual fl abbiness” it brought about (Silberman, 1970, p. 170). The reformers of the 1950s and 1960s made a decision to focus on subject matter, “the great compositions” (p. 169) instead of student-centered learning, but this approach, too, was fl awed. The past causes the present, thus defi ning our future. As educators, our failure to study educational history made us ignore factors that shaped a need for change in education in the fi rst place. Only through the past can we grasp how we have changed. Silberman (1970) believed that the reformers of the 50s and 60s repeated one fundamental error of the progressive movement: they perpetuated the false dichotomy that the schools must be either child-centered or subject-centered… all their emphasis was placed on subject matter…and for the most part ignored the needs of individual children. (p. 180) From studying the past, educational reforms have always been reacting, much like a chemical reaction creates new properties without disruption of the nuclei. The problem with reacting, however, is that the elements are still the same. I may have rearranged their placement and bonds, but if I don’t disrupt the nucleus, then we haven’t truly created something new: a reform. “Without changing the ways in which schools operate and teachers teach, changing the curriculum alone does not have much effect” (Silberman, 1970, p. 181). The most fatal error, according to Silberman (1970) and Pinar (2012), was the failure of the curriculum reformers to ask: What is education for? What kind of human beings and what kind of society do want? What knowledge is of most worth? Silberman (1970) did not defi ne all of the American education system as a failure; there were many successes. One of the major successes was the goal to “reach for the moon.” In 1969, this became a reality when United States astro- nauts walked on the moon. Mindlessness—It’s Not So Crystal Clear • 65

If man can reach the moon, if he can walk in outer space, if he can harness the power of the cosmos, people began to ask and their leaders to suggest, why could he not also abolish poverty and injustice, eradicate slums, eliminate crime…educate everyone. (Silberman, 1970, p. 20) The initial questions were short-lived, and our conversation of raising expectations in education led to a “sense of disappointment” (Silberman, 1970, p. 20). If Silberman wants us to question everything being done, as a society, how can we blame those making the policies if we give up on our own inquiries? Society is just as responsible. Mindlessness, according to Silberman (1970) can be corrected once we begin educating “for a creative, humane, and sensitive life,” ideas that were founded in Dewey’s philosophy of a “learning society” (p. 114). Even though most people would ﬁ nd Silberman’s view of education a depressing one, he was convinced that the classroom could become a place for learning, a place where students could experience real-world scenarios that would motivate better citizenry. Ah, to dream the dream where students actually partake in an educational system that has meaning to their lives. Forty years after the fact, I wonder if Silberman (1970) would still hold out hope for education. After holding out years of hope myself, I don’t believe he would be so convinced that mindlessness could be eliminated to form a more productive, thoughtful, and humane society. Instead, I imagine in our current climate of education, mindlessness has reached its peak.

THE CURRENT STATE OF GLASS At present, the American education system appears to be as muddled as it was 40 years ago. Our society relies increasingly on media sources for education, while schooling has become, it seems, solely for testing purposes. The internet, television, and radio have been powerful tools that can increase the amount of knowledge we are exposed to. However, as a society, our reliance on believing the ﬁ rst words we read, I believe, is contributing to our mindless state as a people, without consideration of the parties controlling what we hear or see. In the tragedy of science education deprivation, politicians have played an active role. For example, a group of politicians recently refused to participate in an event called ScienceDebate2008. For the debate, scientists created a group of questions for presidential candidates, and they were hopeful that the debate would prompt intelligent decision-making and wiser voting. The presidential candidates held a much different perspective. “If someone made a mistake, the thinking went, they would open themselves up to potentially fatal ridicule” (Mooney & Kirshen- baum, 2009, p. 56). The politicians’ fear of being seen as scientiﬁ cally illiterate, meant that the rest of America would not be informed of critical science issues. By not discussing the issues of our natural world and the consequences of our actions to the world, the thinning of science education has almost led to its shat- tering point. 66 • ASHLEY NICOLE WARREN

Politicians are not the only fearful party when it comes to talking about science. “Just one minute out of every three hundred on cable news is devoted to science and technology” (Mooney & Kirshenbaum, 2009, p. 69). The lack of attention the media gives to science signifi es to America how we are prioritizing science last. Most of the foundational science knowledge Americans receive is through the educational system. Enacted in December 2001, No Child Left Be- hind required states to regularly measure student achievement in mathematics and reading (Kern, 2011). Since the conversation of what knowledge is of most worth left out science, teachers and students have increasingly left the discipline of science in the dark, reiterating Silberman’s (1970) problem of not questioning the purpose and priorities of education. Yet, we wonder why America isn’t scientifi cally minded. The National Science Foundation found that nearly 40% of Americans use television as their primary source of science content after leaving school (Mooney & Kirshenbaum, 2009). When media outlets report confl icting scientifi c stories, we begin to feel an unwelcomed cognitive dissonance with new knowledge or content, and misconceptions begin to emerge. There are largely unexamined assumptions not only about what constitutes news but about where and how to look for it…Newsweek boasts that it separates fact from opinion…but truth is not a coin, nor does every controversial question have two sides… in any case, objectivity—the avoidance of judgments—is impossible. (Silberman, 1970, p. 38–39) I can see the mentality of students now: if the media doesn’t view science as reliable or students believe the media’s “facts” are valuable, then it makes sense why we don’t focus on science content in the classroom or work to create a scientifi - cally literate culture. What good is science if there is no clear answer? Are we currently in a curriculum reform that is pushing science away, thus eliminating altogether questioning, the very essence of scientifi c thinking? Silberman (1970) describes a Schrödinger’s cat analogy in that education functions on two levels simultaneously: “short run reform [italics added], where one works within the existing system, and a longer-run concern with the transformation of the system” (p. 4). The dynamics between these two levels exemplify the current problem of education, as well as how our society functions as an educated people. We often want to fi nd a short-term fi x for real-world problems. Note the usage of the Silberman’s term “reform.” We want things to change quickly for results. We do not, on the other hand, look at the larger picture, the long run, which is why I enjoy Silberman’s use of the term “concern.” Since we want change now, we can just think of the consequences of our actions as concerns for a later date; the glass is now trickling down at a faster gravitational rate, fulfi lling the needs of the stakeholders. What about the needs of the students? Let’s heat things up and see how the glass will change now. The global warming debate in the United States exemplifi es our mindless state. Climate change, otherwise known as global warming, is drastically changing our Mindlessness—It’s Not So Crystal Clear • 67 economy, our health, and our communities across the entire globe. While scientists are aggressively urging us to change our ways, citizens in the United States continue to do nothing. In a 2011 Gallup survey, researchers found that only 51% of Americans see global warming as a slight threat. Slight? Forty-three percent of Americans claimed that global warming is just an exaggerated issue and that we should not be concerned with the consequences of climate change (Nark, 2011). Well, what exactly is climate change? What evidence are scientists presenting? What do the media and skeptics encourage? What do students think about climate change, and what are they learning about it in school? How does the debate on climate change mirror our current trend of standardized testing in education? Sil- berman would want us to investigate. Earth’s climate has changed throughout history. Our world goes through various cycles of warming and cooling because of the small variations in Earth’s orbit. Similarly, education has changed throughout history in response to national or world events. So if we are entering into another warming trend, maybe this is just Mother Nature running her course? Is Race to the Top just another piece of the curriculum reform cycle that will eventually pass by? A survey given to my 140 chemistry students would indicate that this is the case. Several comments were made after the survey that I was baffl ed by. “Mrs. Warren, how can global warming be true if it is snowing in April?” “Hasn’t the United States experienced droughts every year? Why is it that this year it must mean global warming is happening?” “I thought global warming was just made up by Al Gore.” It would take at least two class periods of discussion about global warming for my students to revisit their potential misconceptions, and at the very least, be exposed to scientifi c data about climate change. The evidence supporting climate change as being caused by humans is too overwhelming to overlook. Carbon dioxide and other global warming pollutants are accumulating in our atmosphere at a shocking rate. These greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide, block heat from escaping our atmosphere leading to warmer, dryer conditions. In the past 150 years we have recorded an increase of atmo- spheric carbon dioxide levels from 280 ppm to 379 ppm; an increase we have never seen in recorded history (NASA, n.d.). This time frame, corresponding with the industrial revolution of our modern civilization, illustrates the human effect on our climate. The NASA fi gure (Figure 5.1) elucidates the drastic shift in atmo- spheric carbon dioxide levels. What is almost maddeningly humorous is that while science standards are harping on science based skills such as graph and chart reading, students and American citizens still don’t fi nd climate change to be a credible burden even after being exposed to the graph below. Interestingly, Mooney and Kirshenbaum (2009), addressed how ocean acidifi cation is rarely, if ever, talked about in the news. 68 • ASHLEY NICOLE WARREN

FIGURE 5.1. (NASA, n.d.)

Ocean acidiﬁ cation is intimately connected to our changing climate…we’re just not hearing about it in the news enough because the media has all but ignored the problem. So we must make the case that more scientists ought to…educate the public as to why it matters and implement effective policy to mitigate the impact of excess

CO2 in our oceans. (2009, p. 187) Even though the evidence is tremendous, the only thing citizens and students seem to be asking is: So what? Skeptics of the global warming pandemic argue that “the placement of some weather stations in urban areas take inaccurate measurements … the data are being corrupted by the urban heat island: an effect produced by cities’ transportation, large amounts of heat-absorbing asphalt, and high carbon dioxide amounts coming from highly populated areas” (Clark, 2007). A second argument of skeptics is that the models used to predict future trends of global warming are unreliable. Since we model many global trends using technology, we can only theorize what can happen based on technological advances of today. What if these man-made software programs are incorrect? A study conducted by The Environmental Leader found several explanations for the doubt Americans have over climate change. To begin with, Americans fi nd climate change to be overly complex. Americans will “either trust that the science is valid or they won’t” (Nark, 2011). Concepts like ocean acidifi cation and the production of greenhouse gases are diffi cult to understand, and our lack of current science instruction certainly isn’t helping the need for comprehension. A second reason for doubt is simply the experiences Americans have in their local communities. Our perceptions of catastrophic events are not thought about on a global scale. Americans tend to believe that if it isn’t affecting me, then why should I care? Intriguingly, if we experience a hotter summer than normal in our com- Mindlessness—It’s Not So Crystal Clear • 69 munity, then we fi nd more interest or curiosity about global warming. However, if snowfall accumulation or colder temperatures are brought about, then global warming is nonexistent. Can we not wonder why hotter summers and colder winters are happening in the same year? Could they be related? I guess it would be too much to know that the melting of the polar ice caps is causing our cold winters (Nark, 2011). Finally, Nark (2011) describes how Americans just don’t like being told what to do. The government has informed us to recycle more, reduce our carbon footprint, and to utilize less energy. What am I getting out of it in return? The product is not a tangible item that Americans can see, thus making it diffi cult for Americans to shift their attitudes. So what can be done to open the minds and eyes of our future generations? Let’s abolish science standards! The Common Core Standards Initiative, coordinated by the National Gover- nors Association Center and the Council of Chief State School Offi cers, was an effort “to establish the use of national standards for each state” (Kern, 2011, p. 89). English language arts and mathematics standards must be consistent among all states participating. Why must science always be left out? Is it the politicians who are afraid of being ridiculed because of blurting a possible scientifi c misconception? Is it that we don’t train educators properly to understand science content and skills, thus inhibiting their teaching ability in the classroom? While, I would love the answers to these questions, the overwhelming concern I have is the re- moval of science in the classroom. The Common Core Standards are continuing to lead us in the path that history has exemplifi ed for science education, where science is not seen as really necessary. According to Kern (2011), the national curriculum movement with the Common Core Standards stemmed from “the desire for American students to compete in a global marketplace and to help the United States to continue its place as a foremost world leader” (2011, p. 90). I challenge that, without an emphasis also placed on science education, we will return to the very place in history that we tried so poorly to resolve: Sputnik.

TO FLOW OR NOT TO FLOW? Fifty years from now… “But Mrs. Warren, I swear that I have seen glass fl ow from the top of a win- dowpane to the bottom! I’ve seen it!!” said Niki. “You may have thought you’ve seen this phenomenon, but I’m sorry to tell you that you are mistaken. Our National Standards state that the atoms in glass are held together by very tight chemical attractions. The intermolecular attractions between the bonds are so strong that it is as if glass acts like one complete molecule. Since the bonds are so strong, room temperature energy would not be enough to break the intermolecular attractions allowing the glass to fl ow. If glass does not exhibit the property of fl uidity, then it cannot be classifi ed as a liquid,” explained Mrs. Warren. 70 • ASHLEY NICOLE WARREN

“Well, why, then, is it that when I went to Europe over the summer the tour guides pointed out how the stained glass windows in the cathedrals were all thicker at the bottom? It must be gravity!” exclaimed Elliot. “A group of scientists once believed that similar to liquids, glass atoms do not have a particularly arranged order. Since their atoms aren’t neatly arranged like a solid, we believed that glass acted as a liquid, one that could be poured or splashed and was at least characteristic of a fl uid. Recently, what glass is categorized as is under question. There is much scientifi c evidence out there to prove that glass is not a liquid. Medieval cathedral windows were thicker at the bottom than the top only because of the way they were constructed in the fi rst place. While we may have thought gravity played a role, the majority of scientists now believe otherwise. Examining Egyptian cord vessels and Roman bowls has also shown that glass does not fl ow to the bottom of a container or sheet over time. I know that it is diffi cult to comprehend, but your Chemistry Exam in April will include how glass acting like a fl uid is a myth. While you may have more questions about this, we really must move on because we are running short of time.” “Could this group of scientists be wrong? I mean, the climate change scientists thought our carbon footprint would be way worse than what it is today and they are wrong! What if these scientists are wrong too? Why should I even learn this stuff if it’s just going to be wrong later anyway?” questioned Niki. “I have told you from the beginning that science is an ever-changing fi eld. What we think is correct one day may not be so the next because of new evidence. Now, we must move on to amorphous solids before the bell rings, so if you have any more questions you are just going to have to wait.” “Yes, Mrs. Warren,” states the classroom. So what’s the solution? Where is our future heading…not just in science education, but education in general? Maybe my science classes will not be discussing the myth of glass fl uidity in 50 years from now, but I certainly believe my students’ sense of curiosity and imagination will be squelched by mind-numbing objectives, rather than thought-provoking, content-based discovery. When we eliminate the possibilities of critical and creative thinking, we will not only limit the number of new innovations in our fi eld, but we will limit the natural tendency of science, which is to question and experience the world around us. Silberman (1970) argued that curriculum reformers during his time always fell within a region of the educational dichotomy: subject-centered or student-centered. Even in 2063, I believe that we will continue to argue one over the other instead of encouraging thoughtful, mindful practices where students can nurture their strengths, as well as have the freedom to take risks in the classroom. Silberman’s (1970) idea of the future for education is similar to one that I hold. He describes two educational commandments: “Do not teach too many subjects, and what you teach, teach it thoroughly” (p. 327). Education should give power to students in inspiring a deeper understanding of content and knowledge. The true end product of schooling should be educating what Silberman (1970) would Mindlessness—It’s Not So Crystal Clear • 71 describe as “the whole person” (p. 335) “Education is the confrontation with oneself…that is ourselves trying to make sense of things, trying to fi nd signifi cance in what would else be chaos…learning is a transformation of the whole person” (Silberman, 1970, p. 335). How do we get “whole” students? We must fi rst change the way in which we are forced to teach. The Common Core Standards Initiative is making it diffi cult for teachers to promote the freedom of exploration in their classrooms. Instead, students are supposed merely to learn what the teacher wants them to learn, when they want them to learn it, with “no nonsense, please” (Sil- berman, 1970, p. 336). The future still looks dreary for education because those making the decisions are still interested in “what they want to produce, not what we want [students] to become” (Silberman, 1970, p. 336). Teachers can change this state of manufacturing mindless children by incorporating both the liberal and technical views of teacher education. If we want to promote mindfulness, I believe we need to introduce the idea of responsive teaching. Levin, Hammer, Elby, and Coffey (2013) defi ne responsive teaching as “genuine- ly attending and responding to the substance of student thinking” (p. 4). This type of teaching is what teachers do “regardless of the curriculum” (Levin et al., 2013, p. 4). Through responsive teaching, the teacher becomes an active listener, and the student begins to build a dynamic voice of curiosity and discovery. For example, in my classroom, I don’t want students to just tell me that glass acts like a fl uid. I want them to explain why it exhibits the properties of fl uidity. The most important benefi t of utilizing responsive teaching is that students become more aware of the natural world around them. They begin to question why phenomena happen and what solutions we can take as a global entity if these phenomena are detrimental. Finally, our mindful behavior that we have been so desperately craving is here. To cultivate responsive students, it is important for teachers to understand what students are thinking and why students are thinking it. Educators should take this a step further, however, by also insisting that students be metacognitive about their thinking as well.

A MYTH OR A REALITY Is the main failure of the American education system cultivating mindlessness? Are we really teaching our students to not care about their thinking? If we want a renewal of society, then where is education placed in the ranks of our priorities as a nation? It is not only the fault of educators and those making the decisions in education, but also the rest of society. If we don’t question everything being done, then, according to Silberman (1970), we have failed. By examining our past and present, we can discover and open up a forum for questioning, leading to a sense of transparency, hopefulness, and answers. Crisis in the Classroom was written in 1970, and 43 years later, there has been very little change in the realm of teaching and learning. Christopher Lehmann- Haupt (1970) wrote the following quote in the New York Times after the publication of Silberman’s book: 72 • ASHLEY NICOLE WARREN

Mr. Silberman has sailed up the shallow creek of American education, surveyed the landscape and pronounced it joyless, mindless, and barren. The natives, he says, are pinched and crabbed, and stand before their children mumbling empty incantations; the children stare back silently, hollow-eyed and pick their scabs” (p. 45). With the Common Core Initiative now “advancing” our so-called “schooling,” as a teacher, all I view today are tired, bored children with very little passion for learning. Even my students who seem excited about a scientiﬁ c career will make comments about how they aren’t interested in science. How does this make sense? If the present hasn’t changed much from the lessons of history, then where is our future headed?

As we have seen, schools can facilitate the education of teachers as well as of children. When the emphasis is shifted from teaching to learning—when schools become “centers for inquiry” … teachers become learners along with their students … and when schools become warm and humane, teachers grow as human beings as well as teachers. The lesson is clear … what is needed … is improvement of education, not simply by turning out teachers who can do better the things that are now necessary to do, but rather by changing the conception of what constitutes education. (Silberman, 1970, p. 522)

We need a catalyst in our education reaction to make a change. Responsive teaching and mindful practices could be this catalyst, giving us the power to shift our focus in education from teaching to learning. The change needs to be moving from the ends, or the product, to focusing on the means, or the process. How can my students make educated decisions in the future about climate change if they aren’t inquiring about the evidence that scientists and the events the media are presenting? From the beginning of my middle school science education, I have learned that glass fl ows like a liquid, which explains why medieval cathedral windows are thicker at the bottom than at the top. I thought that much like gravity pulls atoms towards the center of the Earth, so do the agendas of stakeholders pull down the true purpose of education. However, in light of new research, my own metaphor has fl aws. If mindless has set in, I wouldn’t really care what happens to my metaphor. I certainly wouldn’t question it. However, I believe there is great promise in understanding that all metaphors break down over time because information and content is constantly changing; the way in which we learn is constantly changing. Thus, fostering mindfulness is imperative for future generations. Why would I want to be a part of an educational system that is stagnant? If glass is one molecule, where is the individuality, the creativity, the autonomy? I don’t want to mold “my glass” into one shape to produce the same piece over and over, and I believe this is what the Common Core Initiative has set out for our future. Silberman (1970) urged America to simply question everything being done in education. So, I pose to you, which do you believe: glass is a fl uid, or not? Climate change is happening, or it isn’t? Education is in need of a change, or it works perfectly at Mindlessness—It’s Not So Crystal Clear • 73 this present time? Only when we overcome mindlessness will we fi nd the answers that we are looking for.

REFERENCES Bybee, R. (1997). Refl ecting on Sputnik: Linking the past, present, and future of educational reform. National Academy of Sciences. Retrieved from http://www.nas.edu/ sputnik/bybee4.htm. Clark, J. (2007, November 8). Are climate skeptics right? Retrieved from http://science. howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/climate-skeptic1.htm. Glass for Europe. (n.d.). The fl oat process. Retrieved from http://www.glassforeurope.com/ en/industry/fl oat-process.php. Lehmann-Haupt, C. (1970, October 8). The book that may break the knowledge bank. The New York Times, p. 45. Levin D., Hammer, D., Elby, A., & Coffey, J. (2013). Becoming a responsive science teacher: Focusing on student thinking in secondary science. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press. NASA. (n.d.). Climate change: How do we know? Retrieved from http://climate.nasa.gov/ evidence/ Kern, D. (2011). Elections, comets and Common Core Standards. New England Reading Association Journal, 46(2), 89–92. Mooney, C., & Kirshenbaum, S. (2009). Unscientifi c America: How scientifi c illiteracy threatens our future. New York, NY: Basic Books. Nark, M. (2011, June 6). Why Americans don’t buy global warming (Part I of II).” The Envi- ronmental Leader. Retrieved from http://www.environmentalleader.com/2011/06/06 /why-americans-don%E2%80%99t-buy-global-warming-part-i-of-ii/ Pinar, W. F. (2012). What is curriculum theory? (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Posner, G. J. (1992). Analyzing the curriculum. New York, NY: McGraw Hill. Silberman, C. (1970). Crisis in the classroom: The remaking of American education. New York, NY: Vintage Books. Transpersonal Lifestreams. (2011, March 21). Mindlessness: the sounds of silence of the mind. Retrieved from http://www.transpersonal.com.au/mind/mindlessness.htm. WhyFiles. (n.d.). Sputnik’s legacy: The U.S. response to Sputnik. Retrieved from http:// whyfi les.org/047sputnik/main2.html.

CHAPTER 6

STEAMING STEM Insights from Joseph Schwab and the Ideal of a “Liberal Education”

Kurtz K. Miller

Schwab, J. (1978). Science, curriculum, and liberal education (I. Westbury & N. J. Wilkof, Eds.). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

INTRODUCTION In this chapter, my goals are to use the writings of Joseph Schwab and the curricular window of the Dayton Regional STEM School (DRSS) in Dayton, Ohio, within the context of the region as a commercial and military hub, to critique the Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) education “reform” movement. Schwab’s insights about “practical” versus the “theoretical” curricula will provide a focused lens in which to view STEM education. Last but not least, after reading Schwab and understanding his support for the arts, humanities, and a liberal education, we can reappraise and hopefully reconsider the central themes of the STEM education movement. The central argument of this chapter is that STEM should be renamed Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Technol- ogy (STEAM), especially in light of the argument that the arts and humanities are

Curriculum Windows: What Curriculum Theorists of the 1970s Can Teach Us about Schools and Society Today, pages 75–92. Copyright © 2015 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. 75 76 • KURTZ K. MILLER a central aspect of being, knowing, and living as a productive member of a Demo- cratic society (Connelly, 2012; Piro, 2010; Platz, 2008; Robelen, 2011; Rydeen, 2013). Further, the entire STEM advocacy movement should be fl ipped to lend special attention and importance to the arts, humanities, and a liberal education. To begin, a few key terms must be defi ned. Although STEM is a hotly debated term with few agreeing on an exact defi nition, for purposes of simplicity, it will be identifi ed in this chapter as a “multidisciplinary construct addressing timely and critical issues” (Crippen & Archambault, 2012, p. 158). The key word in this defi nition is “multidisciplinary,” because STEM could involve the integration of science, technology, engineering, and/or mathematics, the arts and humanities along with STEM, or other social science disciplines with STEM. A STEM School is “a specialized school” (National Research Council, 2011, p. 9) identifi ed by local administrators or a state, which may fi t the mold of four basic types: “elite or selective STEM-focused schools,” “inclusive STEM-focused schools,” “STEM-focused career and technical education schools, and “STEM programs in comprehensive schools,” whose curricula may concentrate on STEM disciplines (National Research Council, 2011, pp. 7–8). In reality, STEM schools may or may not truly teach integrated STEM curricula. It is highly dependent on the school and what curricula the administrators and teachers deliver. Finally, the subject of neoliberalism will be introduced throughout this book chapter and is defi ned as a “set of economic and social policies and processes that work to expand the free market and eliminate government expansion of social programs [such as public schools]” (Rogers, Mosley, & Folkes, 2009, p. 127). Neoliberal infl uences upon public education are dangerous because they undermine democratic ideals, and they place immense faith the idea that the “invisible hand” of “market transactions” will garner “the most effi cient and just mechanism for structuring economies, [education systems], societies, and cultures” (Cassell & Nelson, 2013, p. 245). Joseph Schwab is a name known by every curriculum theorist, mainly as the result of the fact that he told the scholarly community in 1969 that curriculum theorizing was “moribund”—dead and lifeless (p. 1). As Schwab reasoned, the curriculum community had morphed into an effort that was too highly theoretical and, thus, without practical use to the teachers in the fi eld. Schwab’s (1969) “The Practical: A Language of Curriculum” and (1973) “The Practical 3: Translation into Curriculum” are two of his most widely read essays, because they helped to frame his overall views of how the fi eld of curriculum must help to educate those close to the classroom—administrators, teachers, and students. Schwab’s practical mentality demonstrated that he was concerned with curricular issues within the PK–12 classroom. Through the curriculum window of the DRSS and with help from Joseph Schwab, I hope to address some of the biggest curricular questions currently plaguing educators throughout many parts of the United States: What is STEM? Why is STEM important? and What should STEM look like? Through the back- STEAMing STEM • 77 drop and tapestry of the city of Dayton, Ohio, a signifi cant aerospace research, innovation, manufacturing, military, airpower, and patent global hub, I will critique the foundational roots of the STEM education movement, and I will provide insights and suggestions about how to proceed with STEM education, especially by STEAMing it, that is by adding a signifi cant arts component. Schwab’s (1978) book, Science, Curriculum, and Liberal Education, is unique because it contains a total of 12 essays written by Schwab on topics ranging from curriculum, educational psychology, educational testing, general education, science education, the philosophy of science, and problems involving teaching the natural sciences. The twelve essays span a total of 24 years. The fi rst one, “The Nature of Scientifi c Knowledge as Related to Liberal Education,” was written and subsequently published in the Journal of General Education in 1949. The most recent essay is “The Practical 3: Translation into Curriculum,” written and published in School Review in 1973. Due to the fact that Schwab’s essays span multiple decades and such a wide range of topics, it seems likely that curriculum experts would not read the entire edited book cover to cover. Why did I choose to study Schwab and to read the entire edited volume? First of all, he was a scholar who was thoroughly accepted (and respected) by both the education and scientifi c communities. In fact, Schwab’s undergraduate degrees from the University of Chicago were in English literature and physics. Many people would say that Schwab earned a strange combination of undergraduate degrees, maybe except for those who have attended a liberal arts college or have received a liberal education. Due to his unique training and connections with multiple communities, Schwab never had to metaphorically cross the “widest street in the world,” a historical term used to describe the often vast chasm between colleges of Arts and Sciences and schools of Education in universities. Second, when I fi rst heard the title of Schwab’s book, I realized that I could potentially learn how to negotiate the boundaries between education and science by reading his works. Currently, I view myself as a growing scholar / practitioner who has developed an identity crisis, because I have formal academic training in education, educational leadership, geology, and physics education. Where do I fi t in the academy? Am I an educator, a science educator, or a scientist? Do I fi t in an education or science department? What if I am accepted by one community but rejected by another? Do the questions I just posed even matter if I have a thorough liberal education? After asking all of these questions about my academic identity, can the acronym “STEM,” or some derivation of it, help to bring new meaning to my intellectual life and what I am pursuing academically? Currently, there are at least a dozen major aspects of education that are changing in America, and arguably one of the biggest “paradigm shifts” underway is that of STEM. STEM is a monstrous undertaking involving advocacy, curriculum, economics, and ideology, all wrapped up into an impressive package. In fact, STEM is so important to many groups that no two factions, including the 50 state education agencies, agree upon what exactly it is or how to address it (Miller, 78 • KURTZ K. MILLER

2013). Will STEM end up becoming what Schwab (1978) called another one of the “ephemeral bandwagons” (p. 321)—a continuous cycle of school “reforms” which ends in failure? Can Schwab help us to understand what STEM is, how to highlight its most salient points, and maybe even how to save it? In this chapter, I will employ the curricular window of the DRSS, with insights from Schwab to reframe a course for 21st Century STEM education for all Americans. The curricular window will permit us to visualize STEM curricula as being intimately connected to a central theme relating to the arts, humanities, and social sciences.

REVIEW OF SCHWAB Due to enormity of the number of discussed topics in the 12 essays found in Schwab’s (1978) book, I took the liberty of identifying the recurring themes throughout the entire work, particularly those that helped to frame STEM education. Although Westbury and Wilkof, (Schwab’s editors) provided a concise background and introduction to the book, I focused my attention upon Schwab’s actual essays (and words) when identifying his central ideas and themes, focusing on the themes that most closely address the proposed inquiries about the STEM movement. During the Space Race and the Cold War, the United States’ public school system became a scapegoat as the result of public and private frustration about the fact that the military and space program lagged behind the Soviet efforts (Pinar, 2012; W. Pinar, personal communication, 2013). The National Defense Education Act (NDEA) of 1958 pumped millions of dollars into the public education system in the hopes of bolstering more highly qualifi ed scientists for the benefi t of the United States in the Space Race (Pinar, Reynolds, Slattery, & Taubman, 2008). Since the mid-2000s, business leaders, economists, politicians, and others have pressured the public education system because the United States appears to be losing its competitive advantage in global business, economics, and trade (Pinar, 2012; W. Pinar, personal communication, 2013). Neoliberals, those who value market exchange as “an ethic in itself” and who also wish to see institutions such as educational institutions and the government help to maximize market transactions, have banded together across the country to “reform” public school systems, to align them to the rule of neoliberalism (B. Boyd, personal communication, 2012). In response to neoliberal reforms, curriculum scholars and educators have become concerned that “STEM is big but the [neoliberal] roots are bad” (W. Schubert, personal communication, 2013). In many ways, the neoliberal infl u- ences upon our education system are undermining collective decision making, democratic deliberation, and public accountability (Tomlinson & Lipsitz, 2013). While reading through my review of Schwab’s (1978) book, I have tried to think about how Schwab would reframe and renegotiate the current neoliberal ideals and infl uences within the STEM education movement. If Schwab were alive today, would he support the STEM movement? Would he describe it as a “practical” STEAMing STEM • 79 or “theoretical” curricular framework? Would Schwab agree with the neoliberal ends of STEM education—to maximize market transactions—or would he critique and refocus the central tenets of the STEM movement? I will address and critique what I think Schwab would say about the STEM movement later in the chapter. The STEM acronym was fi rst coined in the early to mid-2000s, but there were earlier versions of it in the 1990s which did not include all four of the current disciplines. Obviously, the STEM acronym was not around when Joseph Schwab described the differences between the “practical” and the “theoretical” curriculum in his 1970 essay “The Practical: A Language for Curriculum.” However, with this being said, his scholarly work concerning practical curricula provides a bedrock of support for the modern, integrative STEM “reform” movement. Ac- cording to Schwab, “practical” curricula should address the “identifi ed frictions and failures in the machine and to inadequacies evidenced in felt shortcomings of its products” (p. 314). In other words, “practical” curricula should help students to answer the following questions: Why do we have to learn this information? Why is this important to my life? Integrative STEAM curricula will address the two aforementioned questions, especially if they are well grounded in the fi ne arts and humanities—giving the curricula a sense of importance to individuals and society as a whole (Connelly, 2012; Piro, 2010; Platz, 2008; Robelen, 2011; Rydeen, 2013). Schwab also seriously questioned how the arts and sciences could intersect one another by asking, “How will the mode of instruction in science (e.g. as verifi ed truths) and in literature (as ‘deep insights’ or artistic constructions or matters of opinion) affect the effects of each?” (p. 317). In essence, Schwab questioned the very fabric of traditional curricula—asking and probing about how various disciplines could be integrated together. His response was not encouraging because he observed that “university courses ..., which address such [integration and] problems with a modicum of intellectual content are as scarce as hen’s teeth” (pp. 317–318). Hopefully, Schwab’s work with “practical” curricula will empower scholars and practitioners to seriously consider the many benefi ts to writing and sustaining high-quality STEAM curricula. Like many other curriculum theorists, Schwab asked one of the biggest educational questions of all time: What disciplines or knowledge is of the most worth? Schwab also inquired if some of the disciplines or fi elds of the natural and social sciences are more fundamental and central than others. Thankfully, Schwab not only posed these two questions, but he also attempted to answer them. He explained the hierarchy of mathematical and scientifi c disciplines in a manner that showed some disciplines as being more fundamental than others. He cited Auguste Comte’s hierarchy of the “positive” sciences as being one of the sources for his assessment, which can be found in Figure 6.1 from his text and which is copied below (Schwab, 1978, p. 244). Note that mathematics, a discipline with a very small number of sub-disciplines, is located at the base of the chart. Thus, it 80 • KURTZ K. MILLER

Social Sciences Biology Chemistry Physics Mathematics

FIGURE 6.1. Schwab’s hierarchy of disciplines (Schwab, 1978, p. 244). is dominant in shaping the structure and function of the disciplines higher on the chart. On the other hand, the social sciences, including anthropology, psychology, sociology, and others, have dozens of sub-disciplines, and they rely upon the principles of mathematics, physics, chemistry, and biology to make sense of disciplinary knowledge. In no way did Schwab argue that some disciplines are inferior to others, but he did note that the disciplinary knowledge at the base helps to inform the areas of study on the top of the diagram. As one works from the bottom to the top, Schwab (1978) argues, “each new level of organization brings forth new behaviors (new phenomena), a new science is required to study it” (p. 253). So, in a sense, Schwab has assisted curriculum theorists and natural and social scientists to understand the structure of the disciplines, which is an important and necessary fi rst step in developing powerful and practical curricula. Understanding the structure of disciplines informs curriculum planners and specialists about how to appropriately plan curricula that respect and maintain disciplinary boundaries while also demonstrating how the disciplines are intimately connected and integrated. Schwab, trained as a scientist, no doubt believed in the immense importance of teaching the natural sciences in colleges and universities. In fact, in portions of his edited book, he focused considerable attention on the three-year program in the natural sciences at the University of Chicago, and he also lamented the poor quality of general science education at the university level. In spite of the fact that Schwab was highly interested in general science education, he also argued for the centrality of the arts, history, and the social sciences to a high-quality liberal education. For instance, he suggested that the curricula in a university science program should “[take] cognizance of work which is going on serially or simultaneously upon related matters in the course in history, in the course in interrelations of the fi elds of knowledge, and in the programs of the humanities and social sciences” (p. 43). Also, Schwab outlined the University of Chicago three-year science program as “[including] an unusual variety of subject matters and an unusual emphasis on the interrelations among the variety of specifi c and concrete matters of fact and theory” (p. 46). His description of the natural sciences program in the essay, “The Three-Year Program in the Natural Sciences,” bears strong resemblances between the Univer- STEAMing STEM • 81 sity of Chicago’s general science curricula and more recent, integrated STEM curricula which have surfaced across many parts of the United States. Although the general education courses at the University of Chicago were traditionally placed into the humanities, social sciences, or natural sciences “silos”—disciplinary boxes that experts claim as their academic territory—the boundaries of these broad areas were connected by offering what Schwab termed “integrative courses” (p. 54). Thankfully, Schwab’s liberal education at the University of Chicago prepared him to appreciate the sciences and also to defend and acknowledge the importance of the arts, humanities, liberal studies, and the social sciences in higher education. Schwab was a strong proponent of a solid liberal arts education and the teaching of the arts and humanities and of integrating democratic education and ideals into a liberal education. Schwab was greatly infl uenced by the work of John Dewey, the most famous advocate for espousing democratic ideals in education. Schwab was a serious student of John Dewey’s work, and this became evident as I read about Schwab’s view of democratic ideals spread across multiple chapters in his edited book. In one chapter titled, “The ‘Impossible’ Role of the Teacher in Progressive Education,” Schwab (1978) expounded upon the importance of democratic ideals. He argued that quality education should be based upon changing society within a dynamic world. Schwab also recognized that every student is unique and that it is unfair to impose a standardized curriculum upon every student. Therefore, in order to meet all students’ specialized needs in the “concert [of] others,” the education system “must, therefore, develop each child into an effective, co-operative member of a group, competent and happy in his social life” (p. 181). He also argued that becoming a progressive teacher is not an easy task because the teacher must, fi rst and foremost, be a learner and a teacher, but he or she must also “aim to carry all of his [or her] students” as far as possible into new intellectual spaces (p. 183). To aim for anything less than “as far as possible,” in Schwab’s view, was “to fail to test the possibility of a democratic society, to ca- pitulate to the notion of Mass and Class—the latter managerial and manipulative; the former, managed servants, unaware” (p. 183). In another essay titled “Testing and Curriculum,” Schwab (1978) again illustrated the importance he placed upon democratic ideals in higher education by explaining the fact that the University of Chicago considered “humanity” and “citizenship” to be highly intellectual endeavors. He questioned in earnest whether traditional standardized tests would be valid if they did not measure such things as whether students had advanced “in the professions of humanity and citizenship” (p. 277). Finally, in yet another essay, “The Practical: A Language for Curricu- lum,” he argued that one of the many objectives of curriculum was “the goal of world-wide democracy,” or “participative democracy” (p. 305). Schwab had an immense passion for teaching and modeling democratic ideals within the framework of a liberal education. In fact, Schwab was criticized by some of his contemporary scholars for “radical” teaching—engaging his students in democratic-like, discussion-based learning (W. Pinar, personal commu- 82 • KURTZ K. MILLER nication, 2013). In summary, some of the long-term ramifi cations of Schwab’s scholarly works include a better understanding of the structure of the disciplines; an expanded appreciation of the arts, humanities, liberal studies and the social sciences; and a sensible practice of integrating democratic education into integrated curricula. Although many scholars do not attribute or connect Schwab’s ideas with those of the “Reconceptualists,” curricular theorists who “engaged in phenomenological, existential, psychoanalytic, historical, and/or Marxist discourses” starting in the 1970s, both shared some common beliefs and intellectual roots (Schubert, Schubert, Thomas, & Carroll, 2012, p. 197). In the next section, I will attempt to draw together commonly-shared themes from Schwab and the “Recon- ceptualists” of the 1970s.

SCHWAB AND THE 1970S During the 1970s, a monumental paradigm shift, Reconceptualism, evolved from considering the initial questioning of curriculum theory and what was wrong with the fi eld to creating a much more open, dynamic, and all-encompassing area of study. Curriculum theorists began to view the fi eld as a broader intellectual undertaking, which considered and incorporated such diverse views of curriculum as historical, political, racial, gendered, phenomenological, poststructuralist, post- modern, autobiographical/biographical, aesthetic, theological, and international texts (Pinar et al., 2008). Marxism, feminist theory, African-American liberation theory, and many other critical areas of study arose out of the movement. Cur- riculum scholars moved away from curriculum development to pursuing more scholarly research and study through a diverse array of lenses. Curriculum theory in the 1970s became much more pluralistic and diverse, accepting a variety of infl uences and viewpoints. Thankfully, the paradigm shift of “Reconceptualism” had immense implications for curriculum practitioners and scholars; most of the outcomes helped to grow and improve both the “practical” and the “theoretic” work within the fi eld (W. Schubert, personal communication, 2013). Schwab’s questioning of the status of the curriculum fi eld served as a well-needed jolt to curriculum workers. In a sense, Schwab was one of the curricular theorists who “kicked the hornets’ nest” at the beginning of the 1970s. As previously discussed, he was the one in 1970 who stated that the curriculum fi eld was “moribund,” which shook up the education community. According to Schwab, “theoretical constructions are, in the main, ill-fi tted and inappropriate to problems of actual teaching and learning” (p. 287). So, Schwab was the one who shook up the curriculum fi eld—then other scholars began to follow his lead by discussing how curriculum should change. At the University of Chicago, Schwab was a controversial professor because he engaged in “discussion-based learning,” which at the time was considered too liberal (W. Pinar, personal communication, 2013). Although Schwab was the one who helped to initiate the “paradigm shift,” he did not lead nor continue to fully “reconceptualize” the fi eld into how we understand it today. But, Schwab clearly STEAMing STEM • 83 articulated the fact that curriculum, like history, can be viewed by different means, including but not limited to the lenses of the “the economy, religions, languages, legal codes, literature, and technological inventions. Still others focus on national, class, and cultural combats, others on modes of political order” (p. 361). Curricu- lum theorists such as Eisner, Goodlad, Green, Schubert, Pinar, and many others were some of the curriculum scholars who helped to remodel new insights and perspectives of curriculum throughout the 1970s, especially by expanding curriculum theory to include new insights and ways of understanding the fi eld (Pinar et al., 2008).

AN ANALYSIS OF SCHWAB Workers in multiple fi elds have written numerous scholarly articles with the intent of defi ning exactly how Schwab’s works have infl uenced the study of curriculum between the 1940s and 1970s, with even recent articles that demonstrate his enduring impact on education (Eisner, 1984; Kitchen & Park, 2011; Null, 2003; Reid, 2001). Schwab’s scholarly contributions have made such a lasting impact on educational thought that workers continue to debate, detail, and write about its long-term ramifi cations. In spite of all of the literature describing Schwab’s contributions to curriculum, I argue that his greatest contributions to education pertain to his wholehearted support of the public education system, his ideas about the importance of democracy in education, and fi nally his involvement in framing the debate about the “practical” versus the “theoretic” curriculum. After reading Schwab, I had the feeling that he deeply cared about public education. I argue that Schwab was a strong proponent of public education, and he was also a strong advocate for doing what was right and in the best interest of all students. In fact, Schwab revealed his care for students by stating that, “the curriculum is not to conform to material; the material is to be used in the service of the student” (p. 377). Schwab was leery of scholarly curricular work and its applications to the classroom setting because he believed that it could distort students’ education. In fact, Schwab questioned whether curricula, as prescribed by scholars, could potentially cause subjects and disciplines to act as means to an end, much like how neoliberalism is now treating the education of public school students as a means to generate market transactions. In Schwab’s words, “How can we use science (or literature, or history, or moral dilemmas) to achieve x, y, or z where the x, y, or z originate the deliberation and the scholarly materials are dragged in by the heels?” (p. 377). Schwab’s focus upon his University of Chi- cago students (and public school students), along with his strong desire to engage students in discussion-based learning, were powerful lessons in democratic education for future generations of educators, both scholars and practitioners alike. A second major insight I would like to reemphasize about Schwab was his interest in teaching democratic ideals within the public education system. Schwab (1978) realized that the complexity of societal problems was increasing at an alarming rate, potentially limiting the ability of the public to understand the full 84 • KURTZ K. MILLER details and “scope” of the problems (pp. 146–147). Schwab was bothered by the fact that elite decision-makers could solve problems without full public disclosure. He also warned readers against what he termed “consensus engineering” (p. 146), which were methods of manipulating people to make decisions without the full disclosure of the “complexity of problems” (p. 146). Schwab’s answer to the problems of disclosure and problem-solving was the democratic process, which he argued not only was an integral part of the public issues arena, but also the public education system. To Schwab, democratic ideals were an important part of life in America, whether it was in the classroom, the economic system, the political process, or the workplace. A fi nal area is Schwab’s interest in the “practical” curricula. Schwab envisioned and described the steps needed to develop practical curricula for all public school students. Schwab considered the ideal end result of theoretic/social science inquiry and paradigm primarily to be focused on attaining a universal method of producing “publishable knowledge,” while Schwab’s view of the “practical” curricula, was more aligned to “improving curricular practice[s] in [public] schools” (Schubert et al., 2012, p. 196). Again, it is obvious that Schwab had much concern for curriculum and instruction in public schools, hence his focus upon a paradigm that better lent itself to guiding best practices in the PK–12 classroom. In summary, Schwab believed that teachers should take an active role in the building of curricula since they were closest to the students, and he also was a strong proponent of “practical” versus “theoretical” curricula. Schwab’s scholarly works, including the 12 essays in his the edited book Sci- ence, Curriculum, and a Liberal Education, have resulted in long-term impacts on how scholars and practitioners view PK–12 and higher education curricular studies. There are at least several dozen major ideas and themes (or more) connected to Schwab’s scholarly essays. The most salient three themes just mentioned involve Schwab’s deep sense of care for public education in the United States, his interest in teaching democratic ideals, and his acknowledgement of the importance of addressing the “practical” side of curricular issues versus viewing problems through the theoretic or social science paradigm. All three of these themes, when realigned and refocused into the 21st Century, can help to resolve some of the major questions plaguing the STEM education “reform” movement. After developing the curricular window of the Dayton Regional STEM School (DRSS), I will draw some conclusions and connections between Schwab’s scholarly work, the curricula at the DRSS, and the STEM education “reform” movement, which will help to guide and reframe the future of STEM education for all Americans.

A CURRICULUM WINDOW The curricular window which will be described shortly is the DRSS, one of Ohio’s 11 public charter STEM schools. The DRSS is uniquely situated in the aerospace research, innovation, manufacturing, military airpower, and patent capital of Day- ton, Ohio—one of Ohio’s largest cities. The city of Dayton is a powerful neolib- STEAMing STEM • 85 eral symbol of power because there are numerous manufacturing jobs and tens of thousands of federal and military jobs in the region. Although the DRSS has partnered with many private businesses, consulting fi rms, and the United States Air Force, the school is not completely imbued with the ethics of neoliberal market transactions. In fact, the founders of the DRSS, former Wright State Univer- sity Dean of Education, Gregory Bernhardt, Associate Professor of Mathematics Education and Founding DRSS Principal, Brian Boyd, and the DRSS Governing Board, explicitly and purposely built the school to refl ect a fl avor of a “liberal education” with purposeful democratic ideals. Before introducing and describing the DRSS in detail, it is critical to frame the economic, ideological, and political tapestry of the Miami Valley—the multi-county region the DRSS calls home. The Miami Valley of Ohio is centered around the Dayton metropolitan area, which has a population of approximately 840,000 residents, the fourth largest metropolitan center in the State of Ohio. Dayton is an American symbol of aerospace research, innovation, manufacturing, military airpower, and patents. The Wright Brother’s Bicycle shops were located on West Third Street just outside of Downtown Dayton. Some of the shops are still standing today as a testament to the communities’ contributions to aviation innovation. The Wrights conducted nearly all of their scientifi c research concerning wings, lift, and materials in Day- ton. They also used the fi elds of Huffman Prairie, near present day Fairborn, to perform aerial test fl ights using gliders and, eventually, airplanes. Dayton and the Miami Valley has earned the National Park Service’s designation as a “National Aviation Heritage Area,” and the whole State of Ohio is often referred to as the “Birthplace of Aviation.” Beyond Dayton’s aviation roots with the Wright Brothers, the United States Air Force and dozens of contracting companies continue to perform billions of dollars of aerospace research in the region every year. Wright-Patterson Air Force Base (WPAFB), one of the largest and most important military bases in the country, is home to directorates such as the Aerospace Systems Directorate, the Air Vehicles Directorate, Human Effectiveness Directorate, the Materials and Manu- facturing Directorate, the National Air and Space Intelligence Center, the Propul- sion Directorate, Sensors Directorate, the Air Force Research Laboratory, and the Air Force Institute of Technology. In summary, Dayton and the Miami Valley are important STEM centers for the entire country and the world. Situated along the “Crossroads of America” at the intersection of Interstate 70 and Interstate 75, Dayton is also a dream come true for neoliberal thinkers. In recent years, WPAFB has continued to attain new government civilian and military workers from all across the country as a result of the decisions made by the Base Realignment and Closure program. While bases and installations are closing across the country, WPAFB offi cials continue to boast about a strong federal workforce. Government civilian and military work has been readily available at and around WPAFB even during the economic recession of 2008. Although government contract and military work is strong at WPAFB, many school systems 86 • KURTZ K. MILLER in the Miami Valley are struggling to balance budgets. The State of Ohio has tightened its fi scal belt, and the net result is that school districts are laying off teachers, increasing class sizes, and losing teachers through attrition. Taxpayers across the Miami Valley have voted down numerous school levies which, in return, forced superintendents and treasurers to make tough decisions about the availability of school transportation, fees for sports, teacher pay increases, or promotions. Un- like many cities in the “Rust Belt,” the manufacturing sector in Dayton is doing fi ne. Local universities, including Wright State University and the University of Dayton, have become hubs of innovation, places where institutions of higher education, the government, and private industry collaborate on projects. The overall economic theme in Dayton and the Miami Valley of Ohio appears to be neoliberalism, the “invisible hand” of the market helping to guide the future success of the region, including the future of a large segment of underserved inner city youth who attend public schools or private charter schools. Ohio is unique in the fact that state law, namely the Ohio Revised Code (ORC), governed the formation of public STEM schools (ORC 3326, 2009). It should be no surprise, beyond state support for STEM schools in Ohio, that the Bill and Me- linda Gates Foundation donated $12 million in 2007 to jumpstart the Ohio STEM Learning Network and to initiate Ohio’s STEM schools, an obvious testimony that big businesses are big into STEM. One of Ohio’s STEM schools, DRSS, is located in the heart of the Miami Valley within the corporation limits of Kettering, named after Charles Kettering, the inventor of the electric start engine. Although the DRSS has many corporate, industry, manufacturing, and military partnerships and sponsors, the curriculum and instruction at the school is strongly committed to integrated, project-based learning infused with democratic ideals. Much of the curricula at the DRSS is centered around team-work, the type of work where every person has value and a voice. The DRSS students are also given many choices and voices regarding how to solve problems, and the students are also able to freely choose what types of after-school activities they wish to have available. Parents of DRSS students are also given a valued voice in the education of their children because they are empowered to participate in “town hall meetings,” which are regularly sponsored by the school administration (B. Boyd, personal communication, 2011). Further, teachers are given the academic freedom and the option to work with one another on integrated units, consisting of everything from Chinese to physical education. By all accounts, the DRSS is a unique school that boasts a STEM curricula rooted in the arts, democratic ideals, humanities, and social sciences. The DRSS is not a typical public school by any stretch of the imagination. It is a public school run like a charter school. Very few teachers use traditional textbooks at the DRSS. In fact, it is not uncommon to walk through the school building and observe dozens of students using laptop computers to work on homework, graph data, build Power Points or Prezis, or using online platforms to engage in STEM learning. Teachers at the DRSS are not bashful about using technology to STEAMing STEM • 87 teach or to connect students to integrative learning. Walking through the DRSS building, one does not sense that the school staff is closed off to visitors or administrators. The layout of the building is inviting to the public. The classrooms closest to the entrance are constructed of glass walls and all other classrooms have lowered, cubicle-like walls. The noise from one classroom spills into the hallways and adjacent classrooms as a result, symbolizing the sense of openness among its school-wide professional learning community. Every time I have visited the DRSS I have felt a sense of welcome, openness, and respect for diversity. By no means have I ever felt like the school is like a corporation or a neoliberal training ground for the ethics of market transactions. To me, it is amazing that the DRSS, situated in the aerospace, innovation, manufacturing, military airpower, and patent hub of Dayton, Ohio, remains a progressive educational institution which espouses the arts, democratic ideals, the humanities, and liberal education. The infl uence of the National Network for Educational Renewal (NNER) and Former Wright State University Dean of Education Gregory Bernhardt’s affi liation with the organization likely served as a catalyst to foster the democratic ideals and values built into the core mission of the DRSS (T. Poetter, personal communication, 2013). The NNER, which was founded in 1986 and based upon the extensive research of John Goodlad and associates, is a non-profi t organization that “leads by example as it strives to improve simultaneously the quality of education for thoughtful participation in a democracy and the quality of the preparation of educators” (National Network for Educational Renewal, 2013). The organization ac- complishes its work through partnerships between institutions of higher learning, PK–12 schools, and community organizations. The NNER’s four point mission statement reveals the scholarly and practical work it pursues:

• Provide knowledge for all children—“equity access to knowledge,” • Educate youth for participation in a social and political democracy - “en- culturation,” • Provide a thoughtful and sensitive education—“nurturing pedagogy,” and • Improve learning conditions in institutions of higher education, PK–12 schools, and the community - “stewardship.” (Lucero, 2011)

The infl uences of John Goodlad, the NNER, and Former Wright State Univer- sity Dean of Education Gregory Bernhardt upon the DRSS have all helped to generate a democratic, transformative learning environment for students in the Miami Valley. The Miami Valley is a better place because of the DRSS and the ideals that it champions, especially considering the massive neoliberal infl uences that exist along the “Crossroads of America.” The “curricular window” of the DRSS reveals the importance of incorporating the arts, democratic ideals, the humanities, and a liberal education into the STEM “reform” movement. The DRSS is an excellent example of a school that has successfully “STEAMed STEM.” There are no curricular boundaries at the DRSS. The teachers are encour- 88 • KURTZ K. MILLER aged to collaborate freely with other teachers to build integrative, project-based units. For instance, a science teacher at the DRSS teamed up with an art teacher during a biology unit on cells and cellular processes to discover avenues to bridge connections between academic standards and the fi ne arts. The end result was the fact that students built translucent, colored glass models of the parts of the cells. The students not only learned about the functions and parts of cells, but they also gained information about the physical characteristics and properties of glass and light. The history and social studies teachers at the DRSS regularly teach traditional subjects by utilizing the lenses of critical theory and social justice theory. Through these critical lenses, students are empowered to see themselves as social actors who are capable of advocating and making changes to the fabric of society. For instance, students have the capability to use critical race theory to understand how power structures are imbued in the fabric of society to perpetuate inequalities and injustices. As a result of these learning experiences, students are better able to make democratic, informed decisions in our global, information-saturated society. Also, students at the DRSS may also have a much greater understanding of the interrelationships between STEM, the arts, humanities, and social sciences than students who are studying at traditional, comprehensive schools or Ohio’s other STEM schools. In summary, Dayton and the Miami Valley of Ohio are exceptionally important hubs of aerospace research, innovation, manufacturing, military airpower, and patents. The economies of these areas of Ohio thrive upon the infl ux of federal and military funds, and the local economies are also highly dependent upon public-private and private-private fi nancial transactions. Although the DRSS and its sister STEM schools in the State of Ohio were founded with “big business” money and perhaps ultimately intended to serve neoliberal purposes, the DRSS has escaped the anticipated “ends” of the STEM “reform” movement. The founding members of the DRSS, by shining a spotlight on the importance of the arts, democratic ideals, the humanities, and a liberal education, in essence, saved “STEM” from becoming a means to an end—indoctrinating and training students to participate in a high-stakes system of public-private market transactions. That is, the founders of the DRSS, knowingly or unknowingly, STEAMed STEM to include and value the arts, democratic ideals, the humanities, and a liberal education, and in doing so reframed and renegotiated the disciplinary boundaries of STEM. Again, the central argument of this chapter is that the STEM movement should be renamed STEAM to account for the importance of the arts and humanities in any curricula (Davis, 2008; Heller, 2007).

CONCLUSIONS The writings of Joseph Schwab and the curricular window of the DRSS in the Miami Valley of Ohio are both important sources of information that help to inform scholars and practitioners about where the STEM “reform” movement STEAMing STEM • 89 has succeeded and where it has failed. First, on the constructive side, the STEM movement has brought national attention to the importance of the STEM disciplines, including STEM’s infl uence upon the commercial, economic, and political well-being of our country. The STEM movement has also introduced dangerous, hidden agendas into the PK–12 public school system and into institutions of higher education, including the neoliberal “ethics” of market transactions. The lessons learned through Schwab’s “practical” versus “theoretical” curricula, his notion that the arts, democratic ideals, the humanities, and a liberal education are a central tenet of any high-quality education, and the progressive example of the DRSS are all supporting arguments that STEAMing STEM will help to save the “reform” from going awry by following its initial direction and harming students, schools, and society. Second, if Schwab could see our modern STEM movement with all of its economic, ideological, and political allies, what would he say about whether such curricula were “practical” or “theoretical”? I believe he would argue that the movement was both “practical” and “theoretical.” There is such a wide array of agencies, organizations, and people working on STEM curricula that there are examples of both (Miller, 2013). For instance, STEM curricula ingrained with democratic values and participatory involvement, like much of what occurs at the DRSS, Schwab would argue is “practical” and worthwhile. On the other hand, Schwab would likely argue that nationally-developed STEM curricula, especially those which are planned by corporate executives and curricular writers, were “theoretical” because they do not acknowledge or “consider [that] subject matter is unique to situations and [do not consider] the need to see an interdependence of causal factors that are not generalizable” (Schubert et al., 2012, p. 196). Third, if Joseph Schwab were alive today, what would he say about the STEM “reform” movement? I argue that Schwab would be thrilled about the fact that more Americans are lending attention to the importance of the STEM disciplines. However, I also agree that Schwab would be discomforted by the fact that many of his colleagues in the arts, humanities, liberal studies fi elds, and in the social sciences have felt alienated by the STEM “reform” movement (Breiner, Harkness, Johnson, & Koehler, 2012; W. Pinar, personal communication, 2013). As a result of this uneasiness, in my view, Schwab would want the STEM “reform” movement to refocus its energies upon reframing the centrality of the arts, humanities, liberal studies, and social sciences to build and develop purposeful, successful STEM curricula. Also, I think that Schwab would consider fl ipping his “hierarchy of disciplines” to refl ect an expanded need to demonstrate the importance of the arts and humanities (see Figure 6.2). STEM curricula, without the infl uences and roots of the arts and humanities, risks being inundated by the dangerous, hidden agendas and “ethics” of neoliberalism. Finally, the DRSS serves as a powerful curricular window into the healthy functioning and structure of STEM curricula and STEM schools that are STEAMed! STEM schools do not have to knowingly align themselves with the agendas and 90 • KURTZ K. MILLER

Mathematics Engineering Technology Science Social Sciences Arts and Humanities

FIGURE 6.2. Schwab’s “ﬂ ipped” hierarchy of disciplines (modiﬁ ed after Schwab, 1978, p. 244).

“ethics” of neoliberalism. In fact, administrators, students, and teachers at STEM schools have the freedom and power of local control of curricula to construct learning environments and opportunities that foster democratic ideals and participatory work (Miller, 2013). The DRSS, even though it is located in a national hub of aerospace research, innovation, manufacturing, military airpower, and patents, has strong, democratic, foundational roots. The DRSS should provide the hundreds of STEM schools across the country with an example of what “practical” STEM curricula look like and how such curricula can integrate the arts, humanities, and social sciences to provide all students with a liberal education. Furthermore, Schwab’s insights on the integrative university curricula can help to inform scholars and practitioners about the recent STEM “reform” movement. Personally, Schwab’s insights about curricula integration have given me a new sense of identity, especially since I have diverse academic backgrounds in education, educational leadership, geology, and physics education. Based upon the “STEAM” paradigm, I do not have to be quite as concerned about my academic identity, because STEM education is an all-encompassing way to understand and view the world. It doesn’t matter so much whether one has a degree in art history or physics, as long as one is able to conceptualize the interconnectedness of all of the arts, humanities, social sciences, and STEM disciplines, while having respect for each individual fi eld. Will everyone agree with the arguments I have made about STEAMing STEM? Of course not! There are many infl uential people who will be ready to start a fi ght about potentially introducing an extra letter “A” into the STEM acronym. There are numerous roadblocks that lie ahead for advocates of the “STEAM” acronym, including but not limited to the notion that arts can’t produce “wealth,” the idea that creativity is hard to measure, and the fact that big businesses do not want to lose control of STEM—especially if it is “STEAMed.” Last but not least, curriculum experts, practitioners, and scholars, no doubt, will not all agree upon what powerful STEAM curricula look like (Connelly, 2012; Piro, 2010; Platz, 2008; Robelen, 2011; Rydeen, 2013). All in all, the scholarly works of Joseph Schwab and the curricular window of the DRSS have provided powerful examples about the importance of “STEAMing STEM,” so STEAMing STEM • 91 that all Americans can benefi t from a democratic, integrative, and participatory STEAM curricula for the 21st Century. The DRSS is in a prime position to shine light on the path forward for STEM schools across the country to more fully integrate the arts and humanities into current and future STEM curricula aimed at providing all Americans with an equitable and just education.

REFERENCES Breiner, J. M., Harkness, S. S., Johnson, C. C., & Koehler, C. M. (2012). What is STEM? A discussion about conceptions of STEM in education and partnerships. School Science and Mathematics, 112, 3–11. Cassell, J., & Nelson, T. (2013). Exposing the effects of the “invisible hand” of the neoliberal agenda on institutionalized education and the process of sociocultural reproduction. Interchange, 43, 245–264. doi:10.1007/s10780-013-9174-2 Connelly, G. (2012). Art puts the STEAM in STEM. Principal, 92(2), 48. Crippin, K. J., & Archambault, L. (2012). Scaffolded inquiry-based instruction with technology: A signature pedagogy for STEM education. Computers in Schools. 29, 157–173. Davis, J. H. (2008). Why our schools need the arts. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Eisner, E. (1984). No easy answers: Joseph Schwab’s contributions to curriculum. Cur- riculum Inquiry, 14, 201–210. Heller, D. A. (2007). Curriculum on the edge of survival: How schools fail to prepare students for membership in a democracy. New York, NY: Rowman & Littleﬁ eld Education. Kitchen, J., & Park, D. C. (2011). Teachers as fountainheads of curriculum making: Chal- lenges and possibilities. Brock Education Journal, 20(2), 1–3. Lucero, R. S. (2011). A tutorial for NNER newcomers! Welcome to the NNER. Education in a Democracy: A Journal of the NNER, 3, 35–45. Miller, K. (2013). Producing a high-tech workforce: The national STEM landscape. School Business Affairs, 79, 31–36. National Network for Educational Renewal (NNER) mission statement. (2007, February 16). Retrieved July 20, 2013, from http://www.nnerpartnerships.org/about-us/mission- statement/ National Research Council. (2011). Successful STEM education: A workshop summary. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. Null, J. W. (2003). Education and knowledge, not “standards and accountability”: A critique of reform rhetoric through the ideas of Dewey, Bagley, and Schwab. Educa- tional Studies, 34, 397–423. Ohio Revised Code. (2009, October 6). Chapter 3326: Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics schools. Retrieved from http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3326 Pinar, W.F. (2012). What is curriculum theory? New York, NY: Routledge. Pinar, W. F., Reynolds, W. M., Slattery, P., & Taubman, P. M. (2008). Understanding curriculum. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing. Piro, J. (2010). Going From STEM to STEAM. Education Week, 29, 28–29. Platz, J. (2008, January). How do you turn STEM into STEAM? Add the arts! Triad, 19- 24. 92 • KURTZ K. MILLER

Reid, W. (2001). Rethinking Schwab: Curriculum theorizing as a visionary activity. Jour- nal of Curriculum and Supervision, 17, 29–41. Robelen, E. (2011, December 2). STEAM: Experts make case for adding arts to STEM, Education Week. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/12/01/13 steam_ep.h31.html?tkn=LSMFbCvV b76+2MDXzITwKB0MOZRk+GjLturu&cmp =clp -sb-ascd Rogers, R., Mosley, M., & Frolkes, A. (2009). Stand up to neoliberalism through critical literacy education. Language Arts, 87, 127–138. Rydeen, J. E. (2013). STEM or STEAM. American School & University, 86(2), 36. Schubert, W. H., Schubert, A. L., Thomas, T. P., & Carroll, W. M. (2012). Curriculum books: The ﬁ rst hundred years. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing. Schwab, J. (1969). The practical: A language for curriculum. The School Review, 78, 1–23. Schwab, J. (1973). The practical 3: translation into curriculum. The School Review, 81, 501–522. Schwab, J. (1978). Science, curriculum, and liberal education (I. Westbury, & N. J. Wilkof, Eds.). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Tomlinson, B., & Lipsitz, G. (2013). Insubordinate spaces for intemperate times: Counter- ing the pedagogies of neoliberalism. Review of Education, Pedagogy, & Cultural Studies, 35, 3–26. CHAPTER 7

IN WHOSE INTEREST?

Crystal Donnette White

Macdonald, J. B., & Zaret, E. (Eds.). (1975). Schools in search of meaning: An ASCD yearbook. Washington, DC: Association for Supervision and Curriculum De- velopment.

Let us think of education as the means of developing our greatest abilities, because in each of us there is a private hope and dream which, fulﬁ lled, can be translated into beneﬁ t for everyone and greater strength for our nation. —John F. Kennedy

It was the summer of 1992, and I was 11 years old. I was pretty excited on this particular day because my family and I were going to an amusement park in the suburbs of Chicago. This amusement park was my favorite because there were fun rides, and it was cost effective. I knew that it was cost effective because I sensed that my Mother tried her best to give us what she had, but her efforts always seemed to leave her exhausted. Somehow in my mind I had connected children, money, and exhaustion all together. So, it was the day; my two younger brothers were excited as well. Our family friend was attending because he had a car, and without his car this trip would not have been possible. Fast forward to today; I still have fond memories of that place because it holds a great deal of

Curriculum Windows: What Curriculum Theorists of the 1970s Can Teach Us about Schools and Society Today, pages 93–107. Copyright © 2015 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. 93 94 • CRYSTAL DONNETTE WHITE symbolism for me. I am now a Mother of two small children. Their eyes light up when there is a family trip approaching. While there is exhaustion related to kids and money, it isn’t the same. It isn’t as much. Each morning my children get up for school, and they are eager to learn. One of our children goes to a great school that we pay for, while our other child is in a public school. Their experiences are very different, yet it is hard to make a tangible comparison because they are two years apart, and they are a boy and a girl. They also have different teachers, etc. We know that something is different yet we cannot put our fi ngers on it in a resolvable way. Nonetheless, we have the opportunity to choose where our children go to school. This idea of choice leads me back to that small amusement park in the suburbs of Chicago. There was a bigger, better, and more expensive amusement park in the Chicagoland area, yet we never went there with my mother. It cost too much. I felt I was missing something, but I knew I should be satisfi ed with the family trip, and I was for a while. One of my favorite things at the amusement park was the fun house mirror. My brothers and I used to dance, wiggle, and move up and down to adjust how our bodies would look. Sometimes I had a huge head or a smaller torso. Then, I would move, and all of a sudden I would have shorter legs and wider hips. I remember the giggles and the fun like it was yesterday. We were innocent kids who were laughing and enjoying this altered state of us. While we knew that it was not us, it was fun to pretend and make fun of each other and ourselves in the mirror. The point, if it isn’t clear yet, is that we had fun. As I have gotten older, I have thought about that idea of perception in relation to fun, innocence, and excitement. I connect that with the joy my children have for attending school. Then, I step back as their parent and realize that I am watching them marvel at school similarly to the way my brothers and I enjoyed the funhouse mirror. There are things that are happening to them that they cannot see because they are lost in the innocence of what school should be. I fi nd it fascinating that I have the ability to see school through their eyes—the funhouse mirror—and through my adult lens—the regular mirror. Is it perception vs. reality, or is it is hopes and dreams vs. lived experience? It is almost debilitating to process these questions. I connect it with the moment that I realized that we were going to the less expensive and exciting amusement park. I was given the opportunity to read Schools in Search of Meaning written in 1975 by the Yearbook Committee of the Association for Supervision and Cur- riculum and edited by James B. Macdonald and Ester Zarat. The committee spent three years in conversation prior to the publication of this book. Macdonald and Zarat (1975) write that the Committee concluded that the “real meaning of schools is their depoliticization as an institution … we must help expose the fact that some people use schools, books, and ideas to control others; and that life is being aware of controlling and being controlled, of the oppressed and the oppressors” (p. 4). And, the oppression happens because of socioeconomic status. More money often equals better schooling, thus, yielding winners. Reardon (2013) in “No Rich Child Left Behind” writes that, “high-income families are increasingly focusing their In Whose Interest? • 95 resources—their money, time, and knowledge of what it takes to be successful in school—on their children’s cognitive development and educational success” (p. SR1). Reardon (2013) adds, “we blame failing schools and the behavior of the poor for trends that are really the result of deepening income inequality and the behavior of the rich” (p. 4). That is the reality of the current structure. We are being controlled, as is our ability to examine, via the mirror, what is controlling us. As I began to process this concept, the editors also noted that we spend too much time pointing fi ngers and placing blame. “Pogo is right in claiming we have met the enemy, and they is [sic] us” (p. 9). The book includes a Foreword followed by six chapters, one by each member of the Committee. What I appreciate about the book in its entirety is the focus on practicality. Each author gets you stirred up and at the least will leave you with a question to ask yourself. They collectively strive for movement toward better schooling. The editors write,

We were six friends with much in common who explored what was important to us and tried to resolve our new found divergences. We did not totally achieve one voice to express our collective consciousness, but we did experience excitement and growth in the search. (p. 5)

When I completed the text I knew that there were multiple questions to be asked. I was also certain that there was a genuineness and sincerity among the collection of works, which I greatly appreciated. As a parent with hopes and dreams for my children, it was nice to hear from individuals with a bird’s eye view of curriculum and the need to properly and equitably prepare all children for adulthood. The fi rst line reads, “Reading this book is an unsettling experience, much like having to look at one’s self in a mirror while under the glare of a spotlight” (p. vii). Great, I thought. It is like going to the beauty care section in the mall and seeing all the dirt on your face in those special black-light mirrors. All of a sudden you feel the need to scrub your face clean because apparently you have been doing it wrong your entire life. This creates some tension between what you thought you had been doing versus this new realization. At least that is how I felt with all of the fuzzy little germs that were illuminated on my face. My second thought was, “Oh no, what does this mean and what can I do?” This unsurprisingly is what the individual authors want the reader to ask anyway. As I read through the pages, in addition to those insidious black-light mirrors, the concept of a funhouse mirror would not go away. There were several references in the text to the terms “mirror,” “imagery,” “refl ection,” or “glare.” Each chapter of the book is an examination of the perceptions and realities of education. This examination created the ideas of a distorted or warped view and then the realistic view. The authors expose expectations, hopes, and assumptions often times through personal stories, requiring vulnerability. By realizing this I was able to work through the chapters and distinguish perception from reality. I then began the process of summarizing the chapters and pulling out the overarching 96 • CRYSTAL DONNETTE WHITE funhouse and regular mirror themes. I would like to add that, while disheartening at times, neither the distorted nor the real refl ections are necessarily bad; which is why we need both. Through fact, personal refl ection, and narrative, each author takes us on a journey to fi nd meaning. I will walk you through each chapter here and provide a summary and share my personal refl ections and how I applied the mirror ideology.

DWAYNE HUEBNER—“THE CONTRADICTION BETWEEN THE RECREATIVE AND THE ESTABLISHED” I must admit that I had to read this chapter three times to truly grasp the concepts. At fi rst I thought it was the story of a disappointed teacher who realized that he was unable to fully meet the needs of his students because schools are too structured by government regulations. I then thought the chapter was a slow build up to a tirade on freedom of speech for teachers and young people in the classroom. The last thought I had was that it was a guy who was attempting to say that young people are being oppressed by the interests of older people, adults, who want to maintain the status quo. I fi nally realized that this chapter was about all of the above tied to four main concerns: helping students reach their full potential, describing the tension and collision between young and old, understanding domination, and recognizing the distribution of power. Initially, Huebner’s piece, while interesting, mostly frightened me. I thought, “Wait a second I put my trust in schools and in teachers, and this teacher is being open about his fears as to whether or not he is expected to serve as an educator or a functionary.” By the third read, I was able to see that his concern and questions were just as valid as my own. Huebner signed on to be an educator, but he learned that there are additional requirements that create a confl ict. The functionary component involved maintaining order, rules, and the school as an institution. There is also an academically based educator component, which is the ability to proclaim the “possibilities of young people,” while focusing on the production of knowledge (p. 30). Then, there is the school based educator who is focused on the possibility of the individual student. Each of these is complex and can be muddy. My interpretation is that the academic-based educator and the school-based educator are the difference between a Faculty member at research based institution and a Faculty member at a teaching institution. There is a tension for both roles, for the school based educator it is between “the young and the institutional necessities and regularities” and for the academic based educator it is the “articulation, interpretation, and explanation of the functionings of the human world” (p. 32). “At one time many of us chose to be educators” (p. 27). Huebner’s dream of helping students reach their potential through his role as an educator created confl ict. He shares that “he presumed that the quality of his education had something to do with the discrepancy between what he seemed to be and what he felt were his possibilities” (p. 27). Huebner’s use of the word possibility drew me in not only as a learner, but also as a parent. I thought of several adjectives for the term In Whose Interest? • 97 such as: potential, thinkable, prospective, probable, and I saw the faces of my children. There are very few moments when I look at my children and I do not feel or think of the above words related to their future. I have found that the future that I have created in my mind relates to not only what school they attend, but receiving schooling in general. Since becoming a parent, I have come to believe that I have a responsibility to help my children realize their potential, but I admittedly still expect most of the learning to take place within the school setting. It is my hope that school can be a place where my children, all children, can have access to the many possibilities available to them in this country. I also am not naïve to the fact that location, race, gender, socioeconomic status, and personal interest will undoubtedly have an impact. While I was certain of this before Huebner raised several questions and comments related to possibility, I became more convinced of this as I read on. “If children are removed from the community in which they dwell and placed into the memories, intentions, and life styles of other communities, then they may also be pulled away from their own possibilities and into those of others” (p. 37). This comment made me think about our daughter who is attending a predominantly white elementary school. She told my husband and me that she wanted to attend a school with more brown people. While we did not purposefully place her in a school with fewer brown people, we were conscious of the fact that there may be some cultural costs associated with being one of the few in a school. While I do not want to assert that my child will not thrive in either community, I am questioning whether or not we are limiting her possibilities to fully develop by not being in a more visibly diverse school. This also creates a question of the possibility of interacting with different people, cultures, and ideas. Huebner writes, “Why should the diverse traditions associated with the Orient or Africa be available to those within those traditions or to those who can afford the luxury of travel or who have the skills or scholarship” (p. 37). The connection between my daughter and this statement is that there is a possibility for her to attend a more diverse school; however, her possibility is not one shared by her peers or any child without the freedom to move or be moved as she wills. So, the question becomes, “How do we create a school system that serves each individual and makes possible the impossible for each student?” We look at the hopes of the teachers, parents, and the young people. Huebner argues that young people should have a constitutional right to participate and have a voice in the classroom space.

ESTER ZARET—“WOMEN/SCHOOLING/SOCIETY” In 2013, what expectations do we have for girls versus boys? Do we still expect girls to be tidy and boys to play rough? When my daughter looks into the regular mirror she sees a young girl who is beautiful and fun. She has hopes and dreams and plays with dolls. She wants to be a teacher or a doctor. My son is rough and likes to kick things, sometimes people. He plays with trucks, and we are certain 98 • CRYSTAL DONNETTE WHITE he will be an engineer. We cannot think of a single thing that we did at home to re- inforce the gender roles that they played into. As I read Zarat’s chapter, I thought about my role as a parent and the work it takes to build children up to believe that they can take on any task. Then, I became a little discouraged, because I cannot protect them from societal expectations. I also have no clue what I can do to help them in regards to the political implications associated with gender and sexuality in our country. Zarat shares that, while women have progressed, there are still traces of the notion that women are inferior to men. Where this takes place most often, she argues, is in the classroom space. This exploration of gender politics was quite stirring because of her ability to share factual information, the power of her story, and her ending with a plea to the reader. Zarat’s chapter was moving because she utilizes her own story of being a woman as a tool to inspire the readers, particularly female readers, to challenge the status quo. “Schools are a set of meanings, but only those meanings that preserve the status quo, perpetuating the ‘realities’ of the social order as perceived, structured, and defended by the dominant group” (p. 38). Society socializes males to be the dominant group. Her shared reﬂ ections challenged me to look in my ﬁ gurative regular mirror and see what opportunities I may have been denied because of my gender identity. I also thought about my daughter and the amount of pink in her closet. When we compare the mirrors, my daughter should be able to wear pink and still be as competent and prepared as her male counterparts for whatever role she want to play. She loves math, and my hope is that she will never be deterred from that love. So, if we compare the funhouse and regular mirror imagery, things appear that they have progressed because of feminism and the positions that women hold. Yet, in reality, women are still challenged by the wage gap, and our country has yet to see a female president. Zarat argues for equality and a restructuring of the schools.

[W]e want our schooling restructured to help us uncover the myths, disclose the realities, and create the conditions in which girls and boys, women and men can engage in cooperative reﬂ ection and action for transforming the objective conditions of the society we live in. (p. 41)

Zarat challenges women, and especially female educators, in this chapter with her call to action, asking them what role they are playing in maintaining the status quo. “Each woman educator must also consider a moral issue: If schooling is manipulative and oppressive, am I as a woman and an educator a complicitor in that domination” (p. 45). As a Mother, I look into my mirror and remind myself to be an advocate for my daughter. She should have an experience that challenges and motivates her to be the best human being possible. My role is to teach my daughter about her femininity and to help her make meaning of her experience as a woman in America. Zarat asks female educators to model this for the students In Whose Interest? • 99 in the classroom, to examine the textbooks and the institutional structure, and to share that “schools belong to the people” (p. 47).

WILLIAM BURTON—“SCHOOLS AND SEX (A TRAGEDY IN TWO PARTS)” Is school about controlling the bodies of children? “Boys and girls must not hold hands, walk arm in arm, or otherwise make displays of affection in public. The school is a place for learning, not a place for love affairs” (p. 52). Burton’s chapter was rather alarming because of the language included. The author wrote the text in a layout similar to a screen play or a poem. As I read each page, I thought back to my childhood and the lectures and presentations that my peers and I received about sex education. The messages were at times mixed, a little scary, and more often than not seemed to generate more questions than our teachers wanted to answer. The text in this section is interesting because everything listed has the potential to shock and offend not only teachers and parents, but also young adults. The term “homo-sex” (p. 60), the references to masturbation, and the idea of teacher and student romantic relationships are not new by any means; in fact, they are still issues that often come up in schools and then in the media. The title fi ts this perfectly because it allows a window to see how sex, sexuality, and coming of age were discussed and viewed during the 1970s. What is the most intriguing is the fact that the ideas presented were clearly the subject of a debate and a sign of changing times. “What in hell is this society coming to? Welfare for illegitimate kids and unmarried mothers. Contraceptives and abortion on demand. Sex education fi lms in the schools. Women’s liberation” (p. 67). In totality, I would be overwhelmed to receive these messages at once. As I read, I envisioned a small child staring at a mirror surrounded by talking heads while yelling and whispering encouraging and belittling statements surrounding sexuality and sex. The entire section would be confusing and upsetting for a child who would be attempting to understand sex as a topic and an act but then also as it relates to the changes she is experiencing as an adolescent. The funhouse mirror lens could work for adults and children because the thoughts shared in the chapter suggest a distorted fantasy, darkness, and a forbidden or unrealistic view. The reality of this chapter is that sex is a real thing that can be pleasurable or dangerous depending on the context and outcome. The obvious point is that children could have sex, and this could result in pregnancy or disease or romantic relationship outside of the parent timeline, creating confl ict at home. For adults, there is the real issue of their children’s lives being forever changed emotionally, physically, and fi nancially. Digging deeper, this chapter is a critique of schools and the way boys and girls were expected to behave. “Boys must have their hair cut so that it does not overlap their collars or their eyebrows. Students should wear garments appropriate for their sex” (p. 51). The attention to clothing and hairstyle and the mention of “homo-sex” throughout the text lead me to believe that this was a time period 100 • CRYSTAL DONNETTE WHITE of believing that dressing and acting within societal gender norms would lead children to a healthy and heterosexual lifestyle. Once students dressed the part, then it seemed that it was about keeping boys and girls separated. It appears that the assumption is that boys and girls together equaled sex and babies. There was no other reason to be together as illustrated in the following example. “The principal today announced his reasons for not allowing sexually desegregated student smoking areas. He said, ‘When I have observed students smoking together in other schools, there seems to be a lot of mutual wall-leaning which leads directly to mutual leg-rubbing’” (p. 52). There is obvious mistrust of both genders. Children also are presented as tempters to teachers and vice versa. I was em- barrassed to read this about children. School should be a safe place for children to learn and engage in legal and supervised activities. I also know that unfortunately this is my funhouse lens. We know that the overall vision of school as a safe place has been shattered by the school shootings plaguing our country. Schools are also places where students and teachers have engaged in inappropriate sexual acts. While this is not the majority experience, we must be aware of the things that could take place in a school. As a parent I must look at both mirrors. I am confi dent that my children’s schools have completed background checks on the teachers and that they have security measures in places for all guests. That does not mean that schools are indestructible fortresses, but it gives me a little more peace of mind. This chapter leads me to the question: What are the expectations that I should have of teachers in regards to safety? And, a larger question: How are my son and daughter being treated in regard to gender roles in their schools? I can remember being split into two lines as a child: one for girls and one for boys. As a college student, I remember Resident Assistant (RA) friends of mine making pink door decorations for the girls and blue door decorations for the boys. As a parent, my daughter wears dresses while she climbs trees; does that make her stand out as different or not heterosexual? How many of the views present in this chapter are still present in society? Gender today is not a nice and neat binary. Gender cuts across many spectrums and our colleges are working to accommodate students who identify as transgender. Where would we place the children who are unsure or questioning their gender identity? What about children who are questioning their sexuality? It appears that there was no acceptable space to talk about any of this during the 1970s because sex was actively repressed and controlled as far as humanly possible in institutions. Control, not education, was operative. Anything or anyone outside of the norm was bad. How constricting or harmful were the sexual and sexual orientation expectations reinforced in the school setting? JAMES B. MACDONALD—THE QUALITY OF EVERYDAY LIFE IN SCHOOL In my own life, I create meaning through the people I surround myself with, attending school, going to work, and through the media. For children and those who teach children, school is a huge part of life, but according to Macdonald in this chapter, it is not the sole player when it comes to making meaning of life. Macdonald argues In Whose Interest? • 101 that there are three key players in how people create meaning: technical production, bureaucracy, and consumer consciousness. He states that, “we live in a modern society which is fundamentally characterized by technology and bureaucracy with an economically consumer-oriented ethic” (p. 79). While school is not the sole player, it plays a huge role in helping us shape what we will become. Macdonald uses this chapter to argue for cultural reform in the school system for several reasons explained by an examination of those three key players. Keeping in mind that the three inform each other, essentially, technology is about effi ciency, bureaucracy is about order, and consumer consciousness is about questioning the point of school. The chapter opens with an observation of a class split into three sections: boring, routine, and busywork. Macdonald shares the question that should be asked about the classroom structure, “Who really makes the decisions, and in whose interest are these boring, routine, and busywork decisions made?” (p. 78). Macdonald begins with a description of the interactions between teachers and students in the educational system through the concept of technological production. Teachers appear to be pawns in a system where there is an overall pool of educational knowledge, universal perhaps. The teachers, seen as in- terchangeable due to having the ability to draw from this pool of knowledge created by some all-knowing source, pass the knowledge along to the children. Students are seen as vessels and the teachers are the funnels. This implies that, no matter what school a child attends, each child should be receiving an equitable education. This is great except for the fact that the teachers and the students are simply playing along with the system. There is no space for everyday experiences or real life. Where is the space for creativity and imagination? The funhouse mirror does not exist in this scenario. Or do the two mirrors still exist? Macdonald suggests that teachers and students live split lives, “as a private and unique person and as a public functionary” (p. 80). When I saw the word bureaucracy I immediately thought of red tape and rule following. Macdonald confi rms my thought when he shares the example of pre- service teachers and “their overriding concern” of “How to teach” (technical) and “What to teach” (bureaucracy) (p. 81). He goes on to share that order and rule following is the “overriding element of bureaucracy which leads to categorizing students based on ability” (p. 82). As Macdonald described the third concept, consumer consciousness, the ‘funhouse’ mirror came to mind. “What is lost is the consciousness of everyday life in its active, creative and productive vitality” (p. 83). We ask students to sit in class each day, and we deny them the connection between schooling and the real world. So the question then becomes, “What is the point of school?” Students are unable to apply what they are learning to their world, and teachers are simply passing along information. What is happening in school may be the ultimate question. Macdonald closes the chapter by discussing the contradictions in work, power, and language. There is a detachment between schooling and personal life not only for students, but also teachers. Another component of this chapter is the reward system in place in schools. Students look for certain outcomes and levels 102 • CRYSTAL DONNETTE WHITE to achieve. The point of the chapter is to understand that school and personal life cannot be understood independently of each other.

JOHN S. MANN—“ON CONTRADICTION IN SCHOOLS” Mann discusses knowledge and class struggle in this portion of the text. There were several points, while reading, where I scared my children because of my loud clapping or laughter in agreement. This chapter really hit home in a different way because it is the reality check or the regular mirror that is needed to truly address what is happening not only in schools, but in American society. In the introduction, the editors write that everything is connected to social class, and the people with the money go the furthest in society. This chapter argues that control is based on gender, ﬁ nancial resources, race, and conformity to societal expectations. While I spent much of my time applauding and agreeing, I was also sad- dened during certain points. Mann shares a personal story, “In the Southwest, for example, where I have been teaching for three years, schools have traditionally practiced corporal and psychological punishment of children who spoke Spanish in school or who overly expressed the Mexican national culture” (p. 103). This punishment sends the message that being Mexican is wrong. It creates a situation where being different means being Other. What message does this send not only to the punished child, but also to the other students? I remember being in history class as a middle school student. I became enraged because I never read more than a paragraph about Black people. Mann uses a quote that described my mindset as a 13 year old.

In U.S. history, while the more liberal approaches express some moral concern for the victims of chattel slavery, wage slavery, and land appropriations, these are shown as unfortunate by-products rather than as intrinsic components of the system of ‘free enterprise.’ The system itself is ‘democracy’ and ‘freedom,’ so how could it entail slavery, robbery, and genocide?” (p. 101)

I thought: “How can I say the Pledge of Alliance every morning when people like me were slaves?” It was a difﬁ cult pill to swallow. My personal example and the example provided by the author creates the reality of some of our students feeling as though they are valued less than others and openly disrespected for who they are. Whose history is being shared and represented accurately in the classroom space? Mann says it is the ruling class. “Ruling class interest is expressed in schools in three forms; control of ideology, control of knowledge, and control of training for the work force” (p. 97). This ideology began with the founding of America. The story as recounted in school is one of triumph and collaboration. The true story of how Native Americans were dominated is available in full detail but is not readily available to school aged children. This past Thanksgiving, my daughter came home with a headdress and a pilgrim vest that she made at school. Who am I to tell her the whole truth about the horrors of domination? But I have In Whose Interest? • 103 to because it is the only way to break the cycle of lies. Mann states that “the control of knowledge takes several forms, but the main form is omission” (p. 104). In A Different Mirror, Takaki (1993) goes into great detail about the ugliness of domination and control, “by force, by surprise, by famine in burning their corn, by destroying and burning their boats, canoes and houses...by pursuing and chasing them with our horses, and blood-hounds to draw after them, and mastives [sic] to tear them” (p. 36). To share these truths is not only scary, but it can also breed mistrust and possibly discussion and questions. Mann’s argues that the solution to these issues of domination is overturning capitalism. Reardon’s (2013) article blames parents of poor students, “There is a lot of discussion these days about investing in teachers and ‘improving teacher quality,’ but improving the quality of our parenting and of our children’s earliest environments may be even more important” (p. 5). This statement was alarming because his article is about the fact that rich children are having a better educational experience. I wonder what Mann would say about this assertion. Reardon ends his article with the following,

The more we do to ensure that all children have similar cognitively stimulating early childhood experiences, the less we will have to worry about failing schools. This in turn will enable us to let our schools focus on teaching the skills—how to solve complex problems, how to think critically and how to collaborate—essential to a growing economy and a lively democracy.” (Reardon, 2013, p. 5)

Mann’s views are different because he wants students to learn about the continued struggle against exploitation of children and laborers—the very group that Reardon appears to blame. Mann is insistent that teachers, students, and parents rise up and fi ght against capitalism and the ruling class. “Teaching a dialectical analysis of freedom and authority entails the teaching of class consciousness” (p. 113). My question is who is brave enough, and how do we begin? I have this information, and I can share it with my children, but is that enough? If I walk away with anything other than excitement for the truth shared in this chapter it will be the fact that Mann repeatedly states: “Schools cannot be understood apart from a class analysis of society” (p. 114). In American society, whites have benefi ted the most. Critical Race Theory, which is used to take a critical look at how race is embedded in society, offers an opinion on how class, race and power intersect. “Confi nement to certain neighborhoods, in turn, limits where black and Latino parents may send their children to school and so perpetuates the cycle of exclusion from opportunities for upward mobility that have enabled many poor whites to rise” (Delgado & Stefanic, 2012, p. 121).

MICHAEL W. APPLE—“COMMONSENSE: CATEGORIES AND CURRICULUM THOUGHT” Apple begins this chapter with an excerpt from Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Carroll. In the excerpt, the Queen is trying to convince Alice that it is far 104 • CRYSTAL DONNETTE WHITE better to be punished when you have committed no crime than punished when you are guilty. The usage of this is brilliant, because the chapter is about labeling, ethics, and morality in our school system. It is about putting on the label of criminal or deviant and then punishing children even if the shoe does not fi t. The additional imagery that comes to mind is from the Harry Potter series where children are lined up and asked to sit in a chair on stage in front of their peers and teachers. A hat is placed upon their heads, and they are then sorted into their houses where they will spend the next seven years of school. All of the houses have a reputation, and each child has secret hopes as to where they will be placed. As I apply the mirror imagery I am horrifi ed at the possibility that a child’s “funhouse” mirror could be crushed if they are sorted into the wrong “house” or, in our world, “track” in school. “By being the primary institution through which individuals pass to become ‘competent’ adults, schools give children no choice about the means by which they are distributed into certain roles in society” (p. 122). As I read through the chapter, the following words came up frequently: “commonsense,” “ameliorative,” “assumptions,” “labeling,” “curriculum,” “sorting,” “category,” “emancipation,” and “technical.” The above words are all about the labeling of children in schools. Apple uses a theoretical framework to suggest something so frighteningly simple: we must use a critical lens to not only examine what is happening in schools, but actually do something to change it. He is essentially stating that people created schools, yet we forget that we have the ability to change them. Apple argues that school reform actually does more harm than good, because instead of solving the actual problems we keep enforcing “new” measures or glossing over the real moral and ethical implications of the problems. School reform measures have turned into blaming the students who score poorly on tests, those from marginalized groups, or those labeled as deviant. And, we forget that the labeling and sorting of individuals “can be deadening, that it results in the elimination of diversity, that it ignores the importance of confl ict and surprise in human interaction is too often lost in the background in our rush to ‘help’” (p. 119). We are electing to eliminate the funhouse mirror by taking away a child’s hopes and dreams or maybe we are looking at children as a distortion or “funhouse mirror” because on our inability to truly see their real refl ections. The idea of children being stuck in a track is disheartening, but it is a response to the need for society to be in control. Apple writes not only from a critical lens, but also a Marxist and emancipatory lens. This is about people having their destinies decided for them by institutions that seek to control. There is also an undertone that the area of curriculum studies being analyzed by scientifi c and technical fi elds is harming the fi eld and ultimately the institution of schooling. “We must examine in depth our overdependence on ‘scientifi c’ models of procedure, especially those drawn from fi elds whose constitutive interests embody strict control and certainty when dealing with the problem of human action” (p. 147). Apple ends his chapter in the same way he begins it, with a call for educators and curriculum scholars to question ourselves. In the beginning of the chapter, he In Whose Interest? • 105 addresses morality and ethics on the individual level. “By the very fact that school people infl uence students, their acts cannot be interpreted fully without the use of an ethical rubric” (p. 117). He then addresses it on an institutional level. “In what ways can the fi eld of curriculum employ insights taken from disciplines with an interest in technical control and certainty and still maintain an emancipatory interest itself?” (p. 147). What resonated with me the most is best articulated in this quote taken from Apple’s chapter:

The distribution of labels amongst a student population is actually a process by which one social group makes value judgment about the appropriateness of another group’s action. If such a perspective is correct, then the points that I have been articulating suggest that a good deal of investigation remains to be done showing how the meaning structures of dominant groups in American society when imposed upon schools have rather wide ethical, political, and social implications in that they may assist in sorting out individuals according to class, race and sex quite early in life. (p. 138)

Apple ends his chapter by wanting educators to be committed. As a parent I also choose to be committed to monitoring how my children are being viewed in the school system. How are they being sorted and or labeled based on the expectations of the institution and society?

CLOSING THOUGHTS We are the ones that we have been waiting for.—Hopi Elders The last chapter in this book is entitled “Commitment.” It reminds readers that:

inequity, inequality, injustice, unequal access, and preferential treatment are built into a total systemic pattern; and that these circumstances serve the interests of those groups and persons in our social world who have the power to make decisions that affect the lives of everyone. (p. 152)

What is the purpose of schooling: “training or educating” (p. 152)? This yearbook is asking all of us to take a real look at schools and then ask questions: lots of questions. This process is daunting because it seems that there are always questions but perhaps not the correct ones. My views on teachers have drastically shifted, and I believe that they are caught in this web of wanting to do the best they can with tied hands. I have new questions that I will consider when working with my children’s teachers and administrators. I see that this work is messy and while the answers all seem to be apparent; the mess is entrenched in the fabric of society. Yet, as Apple indicated, we created schools! My conclusion is that there are two mirrors at work: the funhouse mirror and the regular mirror. Both are needed if we are truly going to assess what is happening in education. The funhouse mirror reveals surprises, hopes, fears, and gross exaggerations and omissions. The regular mirror represents reality, which is the 106 • CRYSTAL DONNETTE WHITE historical, systematic, and the existing person staring back in the mirror. The funhouse mirror creates the illusion that education is accessible to the masses, while the real mirror reveals education beneﬁ ting the dominant culture. Both mirrors are needed to ask the real questions posed by the authors: Whose interests are at play? Who is beneﬁ ting? What is fun? Who gets to go to school? What school? What can I do as a parent? What freedoms do teachers have to put themselves and their passions into the subjects that they teach? Essentially, what role do we have to play in this complex affair of schooling, involving varied experiences, perceptions, realities and truths? Children, parents, teachers, government, and society should have hopes and dreams for our educational system. It is easy to see the distorted promises of education via the funhouse mirror and the inequities in the real mirror. My hope is that all children can stare in that funhouse mirror and be imaginative, creative, and maintain the ability to laugh at themselves. That would leave us to help them capitalize on their hopes and dreams because we are working furiously to make their reality one where everyone has a seat at the table or at least a spot in front of both mirrors. Everyone has a choice. While I know that my mother did not have the money to take us to the bigger and more expensive amusement park she did everything possible to make it a good experience at the smaller place. I loved the funhouse mirror. Who am I to walk up to my children and tell them that the ability to hope and dream and laugh is not real? If public schooling is an expectation for all children, then the opportunity to learn and grow must be facilitated in a way that provides opportunities to individual children. The amusement park that I loved closed in 2009. It was open for 81 years and brought joy to many children. As a child, I did not know that my mother took us to the second best park. Children should not feel that they are attending a second tier school or that they are receiving a less than excellent education. My mother made it fun and exciting for us through preparing us to have a great time before we arrived. She explained the rules and her expectations. The parallel is that as a parent I have to be sure to provide preparation at home in order for my children to have a good experience no matter what school they attend. This means having access to resources to assist my children in their pursuit of education. I realize that this will look different for every parent, but it is imperative that parents be a positive part of the process in some form. That can be helping with homework, reading parent newsletters, checking the school websites, networking with other parents, or simply asking about a child’s day at school. I want my children to remember the lessons that I instilled at home. I want them to remember that I supported their academic pursuits and their personal struggles. I remember my mother’s instructions for the amusement park, and even though the physical place does not exist, I still have fond memories of the experiences. If our schools no longer physically existed, what memories and tools would we like our children and young people to have as a result of having attended them? I propose ones where they were involved in the process and able to participate fully regardless of social standing. In Whose Interest? • 107

This effort is not simply for aimed toward teachers and students; I reassert the notion that we are they!

REFERENCES Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2012). Critical race theory: An introduction. New York, NY: New York University Press. Macdonald, J. B., & Zaret, E. (Eds). (1975). Schools in search of meaning:An ASCD yearbook. Washington, D.C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Reardon, S. (2013, April 27). No rich child left behind [Electronic version]. The New York Times, p. SR1. Retrieved April 28, 2013, from http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com /2013/04/27/no-rich-child-left-behind/ Takaki, R. (1993). A different mirror: A history of multicultural America. New York, NY: Back Bay Books.

CHAPTER 8

MY LENS, MY LANDSCAPE

Yvania Garcia-Pusateri

Greene, M. (1978). Landscapes of learning. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Transcendence has to be chosen; it can be neither given nor imposed. It is my view that persons are more likely to ask their own questions and seek their own transcendence when they feel themselves to be grounded in their personal histories, their lived lives. That is what I mean by “landscapes.” —Maxine Greene

Education cannot take place without the art of learning. Learning should be seen and facilitated like a great art, much like the delicate undertaking of the pristine ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Michelangelo, known mainly as a sculptor, took this endeavor as an opportunity to learn his craft. His art demonstrates that learning is not a point of no return, but instead an endless quest. In Landscapes of Learning, Maxine Green (1978) prepares the reader for his or her own eternal quest:

The point is that learning must be a process of discovery and recovery in response to worthwhile questions rising out of conscious life in concrete situations. And learning must be in some manner emancipatory, in the sense that it equips individuals to understand the history of the knowledge structures they are encountering, the

Curriculum Windows: What Curriculum Theorists of the 1970s Can Teach Us about Schools and Society Today, pages 109–122. Copyright © 2015 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. 109 110 • YVANIA GARCIA-PUSATERI

paradigms in use in the sciences, and the relation of all of these to human interests and particular moments of human time. (p. 19)

Maxine Greene was an educator, philosopher, social activist, and part-time dreamer who writes about the humanistic nature of education and philosophy. In 1955, Maxine received a doctorate in education from New York University (NYU). After going on to teach at NYU, Montclair State College, and Brooklyn College, Maxine was hired as a faculty member at the Teachers College, Co- lumbia University, and quickly became isolated stemming from her strong female voice surrounded by disapproving male colleagues. I appreciate Maxine’s humanistic approach to the curriculum and her emphasis on the importance of wide-awakeness, imagination, social justice, the arts, and the importance of living a meaningful and moral life; that all comes through her book. This curriculum is not only theorized but lived, it was her pedagogy. “Wide-awakeness can play a part in the process of liberating and arousing, in helping people pose questions with regard to what is oppressive, mindless, and wrong” (Greene, 1978, p. 51). Landscapes of Learning was given to me for this assignment. While I had other books in mind, I gave the acclaimed Maxine a try on a long trans-Atlantic fl ight. I was returning from a work trip, and I knew the eight hours and forty four minutes would allow me to read a decent amount of the book. To be honest, I was not looking forward to the read. Having my heart set on Paulo Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed or Nick Aaron Ford’s Black Studies: Threat or Challenge, my disappointment had left me little motivation to give the book a chance. However, I knew I needed to get it done, so I began and by the time I landed back in heartland of America, I was halfway done with the book and pleasantly surprised. Maxine Greene’s unique perspective on social justice and progress and its incorporation into the classroom surprised me. These perspectives not only enhanced my interest, but ignited a desire to continue the quest she had set before me. Landscapes of Learning not only prepares educators for a quest into educational and societal disillusionment, but shows them a secret window that displays a sense of lingering hope that can only be seen by emerging leaders who are wide-awake and alive. As Greene (1978) references, this window is only visible to those who “live with [their] eyes open” (p. 43). The theoretical framework of Greene’s (1978) work depicts the signifi cance of the individual learner and his or her contribution to society as a critical thinker and social activist. “A human being lives, as it were, in two orders—one created by his or her relations with the perceptual fi elds that are given in experience, the other created by his or her relations with a human and social environment....To be in touch with our landscapes is to be conscious of our evolving experiences, to be aware of the ways which we encounter our world” (p. 2). Greene’s holistic approach to push the reader to search the soul for his or her own wide awakeness and landscapes ensures learning as an art form. As a reader, I was able to refl ect on my landscapes to see if I was truly wide awake to understanding this concept. Much like a secret door to an unknown land, it was as if My Lens, My Landscape • 111 she was providing me with the key to unlock a secret window. However, to look through the window, I had to ask myself certain questions: Was I an emerging leader who could see that there is still hope for society? Could I demystify the disillusionment that encases our educational system? Was I disillusioned myself? My own landscapes have provided with me a lens that suggests that society views me through a certain lens as well. As a Latina, my life has been different, and it was always communicated to me that I was different. My parents came to America as young adolescents with little knowledge of their new home except for the perception that it was the “land of opportunity.” It was the belief that brought so many over; it was the same belief that has motivated so many to fi ght for the “American Dream.” The landscapes that were shaped by my parents’ experiences created the life I was brought up in. While my parents saw themselves as Americans, their cultural identities were still key components of my rearing. I was not just going to have the normal American life, but a life imbedded in Ecuadorian and Guatemalan values. Our cultural background was crucial to the formation of my landscape. All my life, my parents told me I was different and used this as way to explain why I was not allowed to do some things or act a certain way. As a child and then as an adolescent, this “difference” frustrated me. I wanted to go out and do things with my friends; I didn’t want to worry about a ridiculous curfew, or have to explain to my friends why I had to ask permission for certain things, or as a college freshman have to call my parents every day to let them know I was fi ne even though I was only 20 minutes away. This belief that I was different frustrated me, and I could not understand how my racial identity made any difference. While I say I did not understand nor see the difference, I was still able to notice the subtleties of others in their behavior towards me or my parents. My mother’s name is Sandra, and everyone at our church calls her “Sandy,” never Sandra. While this may seem minuscule, it was odd to me that everyone else would call her Sandra. It was the same for my father, his name is Rigoberto, but everyone calls him Rigo. Another subtlety that was common during my childhood was the way people outside of my family spoke to me; it was always slow and clear. It was as if they were unaware I that I could understand English. As my racial identity made its grand entrance in college, I began to understand my mother and father and their endless speeches about the importance of our culture and the resilience of our people. I started to pay closer attention to the subtleties of others, especially my friends and professors. For the longest time, my friends thought I was Mexican and did not understand the difference between South American and Central American. My professors used my identity as a teaching tool to discuss illegal immigration. Never had I been called upon to talk about a subject that had no bearing on my life or have the opportunity to realize that I was the only Latina in the room. While my ethnicity became a dominant identity to me, my worldview was therefore impacted, creating my lens. This lens reinforced the challenges and in- 112 • YVANIA GARCIA-PUSATERI equities of my identity when it called my competencies into question. However, when I think of Maxine’s window of hope, I wonder if I can truly see it. Despite my life experiences as a woman of color, I was happy to believe that such a window exists. Even though I’m tempted every day to fall into the disillusionment of society and its failures, I believe in the human spirit and its consciousness for progress. “Consciousness thrusts toward the world, not away from it; it thrusts towards the situations in which the individual lives her or his life” (Greene, 1978, p. 14). The main ideas in Landscapes are spread across these chapters: Emancipatory Education, Social Issues, Artistic-Aesthetic Considerations, and Predicaments of Women. While each chapter explores its own relationship to education, it comes back to the main relationship, which is with society. Emancipatory Education is split into fi ve sections that offer validity to the American selfhood and its relation to experiencing and understanding the unknown. Greene (1978) writes that,

If learning focuses upon lived life, it should enable persons to recognize lacks in the situations through which they move. Recognizing lack or deﬁ ciency (infringements on personality, exclusion, or neglect), they may learn how to repair and transcend. Much depends on how their life situations are understood, on the degree to which they can avoid taking what is for granted, on what they are willing to risk. (p. 19)

Greene is providing insight into the American mind that is trained to believe that it is self and ready-made; the unknown is scary and impossible. Its landscape is standard and not imaginative. However, Greene (1978) reminds us that “as students are enabled consciously (and critically) to order their experiences by means of such schemata, they ought to be left free to look out upon their own landscapes, or what may be thought as their own perceptual ground” (p. 19). As the landscape deepens, the self becomes stronger, creating individualism. The “I” and “Me” “create and recreate the self through the agency of the ‘I’. To do this requires a considerable ability to look reﬂ ectively and critically at the ‘Me’; to select future projects, and to gear actively into the world” (Greene, 1978, p. 36). This focus not only creates a deeper self, but wide-awakeness creates a “plane of consciousness of highest tension originating in an attitude of full attention to life and its requirements” (Greene, 1978, p. 42). This concept of self connects nicely with Greene’s notion of “wide-awakeness.” She brings this up in a section of the ﬁ rst chapter entitled “Wide-Awake- ness and the Moral Life.” For persons to visualize their landscapes they must be wide-awake; they must be conscious and aware. Lacking “wide-awakeness” does not help them achieve a moral life. Greene (1978) tells us that “Lacking wide- awakeness, I want to argue, individuals are likely to drift, to act on impulses of expediency. They are unlikely to identify situations as moral ones or to set themselves to assessing their demands” (p. 43). My Lens, My Landscape • 113

Greene makes it clear in this chapter that the concept of “wide-awakeness” is not only an aspect of leadership among educators, but a call to action. Social justice is not only an underlying theme, but her personal belief. While systematic oppression takes place every day, Greene encourages readers to open our eyes and acknowledge it. If we do not, then we start to take for granted the simplicities of our lives. However, if we do not acknowledge the systems within our society, are we immoral for not being fully awake?

I am suggesting that, for too many individuals in modern society, there is a feeling of being dominated and that feelings of powerlessness are almost inescapable. I am also suggesting that such feelings can to a large degree be overcome through conscious endeavor on the part of individuals to keep themselves awake, to think about their condition in the world, to inquire into the forces that appear to dominate them, to interpret the experiences they are having day by day. Only as they learn to make sense of what is happening, can they feel themselves to be autonomous. Only then can they develop the sense of agency required for living a moral life. (Greene, 1978, p. 44)

While others can’t fault how one has trouble making sense of life, of his or her understanding of the system and privilege, I still fault them for refusing to open their eyes to the rest of the world. It’s no secret that our society allows for some to prosper and others to not. Colonization may have given birth to our country, but colonization also discontinued indigenous societies, causing their way of life to cease to exist. Our quest for freedom and a new world blinded us and created a need to overthrow and oppress. As we left the British monarchy to escape our own persecutions, we recreated the same systems. Iris Young (1990) writes, “But oppression also refers to systemic constraints on groups that are necessarily the result of the intentions of a tyrant. Oppression in a sense is structural, rather than the result of a few people’s choices or policies. Its causes are embedded in the unquestioned norms, habits, and symbols, in the assumptions underlying institutional rules and the collective consequences of following those rules” (p. 41). Greene recommends that we push ourselves to be awake and acknowledge that there are systems that were created to benefi t some and prevent others from moving up. While some can’t help but benefi t from the system, they should at least acknowledge their place of privilege and use their power to help others. While Greene uses the term “wide-awakeness,” I recognize the similarities between this term and the lens through which I see the world. I feel that my racial identity provides me insight to the systemic inequities that encompass our society, especially in the areas of race, class, education, and healthcare, to name just a few. For many marginalized Americans, these inequities stem from their racial identities and are daily reminders of the systemic injustices that have tainted the American dream. While Maxine discusses oppression in society and the classroom, she still maintains a sense of hope. She hopes for those who are wide-awake to acknowledge the disparities within our society and to take a stand in the most important place, 114 • YVANIA GARCIA-PUSATERI the classroom. As wide-awake educators, the new generation can be engaged in a lived curriculum. While I still have hope, I cannot ignore my lens and society’s lenses. When I walk into a room, certain aspects of my identity are apparent and society’s lenses conjure certain assumptions of who I am. If society was truly awake, would their lenses exist? If society has lenses, do our educators have their own lenses and how do they go about maintaining wide-awakeness? McNeil (2000) uses standardized testing as an example: “In the name of improving educational quality and holding schools and school personnel more accountable for their professional practice, the state government enacted a set of standardized controls to monitor children’s learning and teachers’ classroom behavior” (p. 4). If these exams were created to improve the quality of education, whose lens was used to create the criteria of the exams? “In the name of ‘equity,’ these reforms imposed a sameness. In the name of ‘objectivity’ they relied on a narrow set of numerical indicators” (Mc- Neil, 2000, p. 4). Greene would see testing as a form of power used to keep teachers from seeing themselves as equal participants in the process of learning. Like the systems within society, teachers experience the system through the hierarchy to which they must adhere. “Classroom teachers, assigned a relatively low place in the hierarchy, share a way of seeing and of talking about it” (Greene, 1978, p. 44). While testing is a standardized aspect of the educational experience, teachers must fall into place and administer the exams no matter how they feel about it. Performing a duty that they are against demonstrates the need for teachers to exhibit “wide-awakeness.” If they disagree with the process, they acknowledge the moral issue; however, they still accept it as “that’s the way it is.” Greene (1978) argues that if teachers pursue such efforts, they would keep themselves awake. “They might become increasingly able to defi ne their own values with regard to testing; they might conceivably see a moral issue involved” (p. 45).

If teachers today are to initiate young people into an ethical existence, they themselves must attend more fully than they normally have to their own lives and its requirements; they have to break with the mechanical life to overcome their own submergence in the habitual, even in what they conceive to be the virtuous, and ask the “why” with which learning and moral reasoning begin. (Greene, 1978, p. 46).

If teachers demonstrate “wide-awakeness,” then they can produce students who exhibit these values. While Greene explores going back to basics and analyzing the mystiﬁ cation of teacher education, I feel that the section, Wide-Awakeness and the Moral Life, is the strongest part of the chapter. Most teachers came into the profession to make a difference in the lives of students and shape the minds of great leaders of tomorrow. But how can they truly engage in the learning process if they are not wide-awake or brave enough to question the hierarchy? Greene (1978) demonstrates the importance of a moral education. “If teachers are not critically conscious, if they are not awake to their own values and commitments My Lens, My Landscape • 115

(and to the conditions working upon them), if they are not personally engaged with their subject matter and with the world around,” Greene writes, “I do not see how they can initiate the young into critical questioning or the moral life” (p. 48). Social Issues is broken up into fi ve sections. As a reader, I enjoyed her views on justice and its signifi cance within our educational system. Greene opens up this section with her description of praxis and its use to fi ght oppression. “Praxis involves a transformation of that situation to the end of overcoming oppressive- ness and domination. There must be collective self-refl ection; there must be an interpretation of present and emergent needs; there must be a type of realization” (Greene, 1978, p. 100). I view Greene’s praxis as a vessel leading the educator to consciousness and wide-awakeness. The praxis will prepare educators and those willing to lead to step through the window and transform into the emerging leaders needed to not only engage society but fi ght the injustices and awaken those who are blinded to their involvement within system. “The conscious actions of many individuals daily contribute to maintaining and reproducing oppression, but those people are usually simply doing their jobs or living their lives, and do not understand themselves as agents of oppression” (Young, 1990, p. 42). Transformation in our schools is another aspect of educators exhibiting wide- awakeness and consciousness. However, working in a hierarchy, teachers fi nd themselves involved in an “intellectual revolution” where they must institute a praxis, creating “covert-teachers.” “Covert-teachers must develop perspectives on the structures that condition and manipulate; on the other hand, they must withstand the seductions of self-righteousness, the pull of institutional bad faith” (Greene, 1978, p. 102). As a covert-teacher, they are not only exhibiting wide- awakeness, but are able to understand their own landscapes. Praxis is the call to action for educators; it constitutes the self-transformation they need in order to facilitate the learning that should take place in the classroom, not only teaching, but engaging the students in a curriculum that aligns with moral education. Greene (1978) brings up this concept of knowing your own history and narratives. Once we are able to understand our own biographies, it becomes easier to understand others. Greene (1978) believes, “If educators can remain in touch with their own histories, their own background consciousnesses, can they engage with others who are making their own efforts to transcend” (p. 103). If educators fail to understand their own histories, they will be unable to see how their own privileges are positioned within the system. While I am not a K–12 educator, the importance of knowing my history allows me to connect with students who have similar upbringings as myself and serve as an advocate to them. Students struggle with trust, especially educators or administrators. Many students come in with their own lenses and when asked to trust, they don’t see the person but the position they hold. The racial identity of the administrator is going to play a role, because his or her history is going to inform the student’s preconceived notions. Trust can only take place if the educa- 116 • YVANIA GARCIA-PUSATERI tor or administrator makes a point to understand the student’s history. During my college years, it was very rare that I saw diverse administrators, let alone one who was Latina. If educators learn their history, they will be able to utilize their place of power and persuasion to create ways that encourage students to connect with the curriculum and see themselves as agents of change. For educators teaching small children, their intentions can help them see the historical fi gures as refl ections of themselves. Maxine Greene (1978) ties in the importance of educators understanding their narratives through the work of Nell Keddie’s Classroom Knowledge “which discusses the ways in which educational deviants are created and their deviant identities maintained’ by a differentiated curriculum” (p. 104). Classroom Knowledge is focused on the distribution of power and knowledge. Keddie talks about the structure of power within the classroom and how educators can either be aware of their participation or be completely unaware. Educators have a responsibility to teach their students and prepare them for the year ahead; however, this teaching is constrained as it must refl ect the model of the curriculum that is usually a product of a colonizing education. Such education is used to communicate and maintain the social order that blinds our students and future leaders to the power and control embedded in our societal systems. This blindness in turn enables us to live a life unawake. Maxine Greene (1978) reiterates Keddie’s fi ndings:

The school may be seen as maintaining the social order through the taken for granted categories of its super ordinates who process pupils and knowledge in mutually confi rming ways. The ability to maintain these categories as consensual, when they are among the clients in school confl icting defi nitions of the situation, resides in the unequal distribution of power. (p. 104)

Keddie goes onto conclude that there not only needs to be understanding of the relationship between the social distribution of power and the distribution of knowledge, but also the acknowledgement that such a relationship exists. Much like Greene’s theoretical framework of wide-awakeness and consciousness, Neil Keddie is urging educators to be aware of their positions of power. As teachers, they dictate the lesson; however, not understanding the curriculum and its intent prevents them from acknowledging their participation in the system. A lack of understanding leads to teachers being unaware of the impact they have. Their fear or indifference allows the distribution of power and knowledge to destroy the hope for wide-awakeness or for students to create their own landscapes. “We must fi ght for curriculum which is personally liberating and politically en- lightening; we must reject our pretentions as professionals—pretentions which lead only to a defeatist quietism and isolation—and ally with other members of the working class” (Greene, 1978, p. 107). Artistic-Aesthetic Considerations is divided into fi ve sections and reiterates the importance of wide-awakeness and landscapes in regard to literary arts. This My Lens, My Landscape • 117 chapter outlines her argument to keep the arts and humanities in education. Greene (1978) writes that, “Works of art are, visibly and palpably, human achievements, renderings of the ways in which aspects of reality have impinged upon human consciousness” (p. 163). Greene notes that “all art forms must be encountered as achievements that can only be brought to signifi cant life when human beings engage with them imaginatively” (p. 163). The arts allow society to become individuals and dreamers. Studying and participating in the arts frees your mind to create masterpieces. You are given the opportunity to escape and ponder the realities of your life. This escape is another way to achieve wide-awakeness, the freeing of your mind provides a sense of consciousness and understanding of your own meaning. Maxine Greene (1978) teaches us that “Human reality—the lived reality—could only be understood as a diffi cult, indeed a dreadful freedom. To make things harder for people meant awakening them to their freedom” (p. 162). I believe that the lived reality is another example of the window, the hope that citizens are given a chance to understand their meaning and purpose, that they can fi nally be awake and the see the world as it truly it is. With this knowledge, the disparities of our society can be fi xed, starting with education. As Greene (1978) connects the arts to wide-awakeness, it’s also important to note that the arts illuminate the human experience. “There are works of art, there are certain works in history, philosophy, and psychology that were deliberately created to move people to critical awareness, to a sense of moral agency, and to conscious engagement with the world. As I see it, they ought—under the rubric of the ‘arts and humanities’—to be central to any curriculum that is constructed today” (p. 162). I appreciate that Dr. Greene advocates for the arts. While they are part of our cultural heritage, they are also important to study because they tell the stories of our history. Art is not just for enjoyment; it is a refl ection of our evolution as a society. Not only is art important, but literature, classical and modern, provides historical perspectives and poses questions so that we may be critical and cognizant that history is prone to repeating itself. I agree with her standpoint on the signifi - cance of the arts; but I also struggled a little in this chapter. While my educational background provided me the opportunity to interact with art and literature, some of the writings and art she mentioned were unknown to me. I found myself looking up different artists and books to gain a point of reference. Although Maxine Greene had a good point, I was disappointed that she did not reference diverse writers or artists. I understand that this book was written in the late 1970s, but as an advocate for social justice, I would have hoped for Greene to speak to this exclusion in her advocacy for the arts. If wide-awakeness provides us with a mind-set to create landscapes, understand moral engagements and simply be free, how can our freed consciousness not acknowledge that the “great works of art and literature” are not merely exclusive to the individuals from the dominant culture? 118 • YVANIA GARCIA-PUSATERI

Greene (1978) proposes that

the important thing is for these perspectives to be sought consciously and critically and for meanings to be perceived from the vantage points of persons awake to their freedom. The arts are of focal signiﬁ cance in this regard, because perceptive encounters with works of art can bring human beings in touch with themselves. (p. 165)

If art facilitates critical thought and consciousness-raising, then why not allow the arts of others to have a voice? Wide-awakeness should not be manipulated to advocate for aspects of society that continually participate and benefi t from the system. In her next chapter, The Artistic-Aesthetic and Curriculum I was interested to see the route she took. Maxine Greene (1978) writes that “Curriculum, to me, ought to be a means of providing opportunities for the seizing of a range of meanings by persons open to the world, especially today” (p. 170). She also goes on to say that “Our schools, although always prone to serve the interests of whatever social and economic institutions have been dominant, stand in a somewhat different relation to the culture than they did in time past” (p. 170). While schools should be vessels of knowledge and critical thinking, I agree that the schools have their own masters to answer to. The curriculum falls victim to that to which the young impressionable minds of children become victims as well. Greene (1978) calls this, as others in her area did, the “hidden curriculum.” I combed through this chapter hoping that she would identify cultural aspects of curriculum. I knew she would continue her campaign for a heavier concentration, but I was disappointed again. Her strong voice for representation of culture was nowhere to be found in this chapter, although it hinted at the recognition of poverty. If we are to be open to the world as she wishes us to be, then why not acknowledge the curriculum needs not only the arts and humanities, but culture as well? The concept of “the lived curriculum” needs to encompass culture. Without a study of culture, we cannot know our histories. Another theme that rises in this chapter is Greene’s use of the word “experience.” She links experiences to the curriculum and how this word has different meanings that can be used as vessels to link them to the curriculum. Greene writes (1978), “Our concern in teaching, it seems to me, is to enable our students to interpret these experiences, to acquaint them with and free them to refl ect upon the range of cognitive styles” (p. 174). She goes on to to reference art as an area where experience and the curriculum can meet. While I feel that this is a noble attempt, art is also a way to refl ect your lack of experience. Art, while it comes in many forms, can be used to dictate class. Art is Vincent van Gogh, or it’s the street graffi ti that students pass along on their way to school. If art is going to be used to engage students, then art should be universal. As an educated woman, I see art in different ways; street graffi ti is art to me, as well as Van Gogh’s “Starry Night.” But this may not be the same for another person. If I were a student and my teacher told me the street graffi ti I pass every day is not art, then my “experience” or concept of art is not correct in his or her My Lens, My Landscape • 119 eyes, therefore, communicating to me that I’m wrong. My view of art is that art is a product of my cultural upbringing. If I did not visit many art museums and street graffi ti were my defi nition of art, then the teacher’s dismissal of my understanding of art is a dismissal of my culture. Race is an inherent aspect of culture, and it’s important that Dr. Greene acknowledges that integrating “the arts” into the curriculum needs to refl ect a fair representation of all arts, not just the defi nition of as she puts it, “the interests of whatever social and economic institutions [that are dominant].” Maxine Greene’s (1978) fi nal section, Predicaments of Women gave me hope that she was going to use this opportunity solidify her stance on social justice. Greene grabbed my attention as she opens this chapter with fi erce rationalization of writing this chapter: “I want to discuss the lived worlds and perceptual realities of women because I am so sharply aware of the degree to which they are obscured by sex and gender roles. I am convinced that the imposition of these roles makes women falsify their sense of themselves” (p. 213). Split up into three sections, Maxine Greene opens up with the concept of the lived world. She brings up an interesting point that the lived lives of women are the interpreted realities of and by men. I found this to be fascinating that while she wrote these words in 1978, they continue to ring true in 2013. Although women have evolved into renowned leaders in business, education, and world affairs, they are still not given the opportunity to interpret their own lived realities. The male interpretation of women enables disparities in equality, for instance, in wage gaps, lack of political presence, and education. The list goes on to health care, which was a major factor for women in this past general election (2012). Women’s rights to contraceptives and reproduction health, as well as the roles they played in acts of rape, were judged and called into question. Like no other election before, the candidates’ view on women’s healthcare was on the same level of foreign affairs. Although women have made signifi cant cracks in the glass ceiling, it still remains unshattered, a window seemingly closed to half of humanity in most places. Greene talks about the importance of the lived experience of women. Much like educators knowing their history and perpetuating that knowledge within the classroom, women must do the same. If our society is dictated by men, the perception of our history is controlled as well. The birth of our society is told through eyes of men while we forget that women were present as well. Maxine Greene (1978) encourages the reader again that knowledge of one’s history is important. “If women are in touch with themselves and in concrete communication with others, they have a ground against which to consider the mystifi cations that work on them, the inequities that prevail—even today in this presumably liberated time” (p. 218). It comes down to an “intensifi ed awareness of women’s own realities, the shape of their own lived worlds” (p. 219). As the oppression of women reared itself again, Maxine Green focused on the education and the workforce of women. Greene (1978) writes that, “Women were considered predominantly spiritual creatures, emotional and delicate; if they were 120 • YVANIA GARCIA-PUSATERI to be educated at all, the purpose was to educate them for dutiful and dependent lives—for subordination and powerlessness” (p. 227). As schools multiplied, the need for teachers did as well. As nurturing was seen as an apparent characteristic for teaching, women were seen as ideal candidates. Other qualities were welcomed as well; “They were genteel, intrusive models; they were stern mother sur- rogates; delegated to impose social control, they often ran their classrooms with iron hands” (Greene, 1978, p. 228). Within this lived experience, Maxine Green made it clear that there was need for their freedom and independence. She talks about the challenge of sexism and causing men to view women as the weaker sex instead of as equals. Sexism was the hardest to overcome in the classrooms, as gender-roles were normal aspects of the curriculum. Greene (1978) points out that “Contemporary open classroom teachers have not tended to divide children into ‘sides’, but very few have as yet confronted the effects of sexism on textbooks, curriculum, and even the language spoken day to day” (p. 246). Greene (1978) believed the only way the oppression of women could end was with the implementation of Paolo Freire’s “conscientization—to overcome inter- nalized oppression and perhaps to bring about (even within as inequitable system) a kind of equity” (p. 240). While this last section focused on the freedoms and independence of women, Greene continued to leave women of color out of her argument. She never once mentioned the struggle of minority women. Although the 1970s served as an important decade for feminism, a social justice advocate and feminist like Maxine Greene missed the boat. Even though she preached the importance of maintaining a sense of wide-awakeness and consciousness, she continued to leave out the voices and struggles of women of color. Even though I appreciate her willingness to infuse her writing with social justice and feministic concepts, I cannot entirely view her as an ally. In my eyes, she was aware of the entire cause. As a White woman, her struggle was the struggle of the women who looked like her. For the most part, I have only been able to connect my gender to the curriculum of my education. However, my struggles as a woman of color are not the same as those of a White woman. While we may fi ght against the issues affecting women, it is clear there is a disparity between them. The wage gap is a universal issue for all women; it still presents division between female ethnicities. “While most women suffer from the wage gap, it does not affect all women equally. Ac- cording to the 2004 Median Annual Earning U.S. Census data, African American women earn only 68 cents for every dollar a man earns, while Hispanic women earn only 57 cents to the male dollar” (wageproject.org). Generally White men make $45,542 compared to White women who make $32,486, which calculates to a $13,056 difference. While women all around are affected by the wage gap, the stark difference between White women and women of color cannot be ignored. Even though I was pleasantly surprised by and enjoyed Greene’s work, I wish My Lens, My Landscape • 121 she would have provided a space in her book that advocated for and spoke to my identity as a woman of color and the struggles we face, in particular. While I have my criticisms, I still believe in Greene’s work. She acknowledges the systematic injustices within society and our educational system. She recognizes that the curriculum is often used to reiterate the beliefs and values of the dominant group. I appreciate that her theoretical framework on wide-awakeness and consciousness utilizes and validates the human experience. To be a successful educator, one must ignite the human spirit and implement a “lived curriculum.” She talks about the landscape and the importance of knowing our histories. For the curriculum to have meaning, it needs to connect with the learners. They have to see aspects of their own cultures and histories integrated. Even though our educational system can seem lost, her window of hope reminds readers that there is still time. We just need to be willing to free our minds and prepare to challenge the dominant forces that wish to perpetuate the system. As an educator myself, my lens consisting of aspects of my history shapes my landscapes. These histories can also be viewed as “hidden windows” where I can fi nd commonality with other women and their experiences as minorities. While some of our challenges may present different outcomes, our struggles provide us a common ground. This common ground can also strengthen my relationships with students; my racial identity may be the fi rst connection; my upbringing and life experiences may be refl ections of their landscapes. Students need to make connections with their peers, but a connection to an educator provides a venue to discuss their landscapes and allow students to not only see their refl ection in their educators, but a version of their own future selves. Greene’s window allowed me to question my own wide-awakeness and consciousness. I examined my own knowledge of my history and how I was utilizing it, and I asked myself if my work and contributions to society refl ected the actions of an emerging leader. While I am not a K–12 educator, my work in higher education has allowed me to serve students of color and other marginalized populations. As a woman of color, I refuse to forget my history, and every day I let it shape my landscapes. I know what it is like to be the only person representing your race and ethnicity and to have society’s lenses inform the assumptions of your counterparts. It is not a hindrance to me but a reminder that my journey is not only my landscape, but also a refl ection of where I came from and whom I represent. This refl ection also encompasses my ongoing journey of advocacy and other social justice work centered within education. My history also allows me to connect with students who are coming to terms with their own lenses. I help them shape their own landscapes and provide them a space to ask their own questions. While Maxine’s journey as the solo woman is described in this particular work, it does not take into account the struggles of all women. Maxine Greene took me on a quest; she opened up my eyes to her hidden window where the concepts of wide-awakeness and consciousness release you from your inner-being to discover your true realities. While she does not hide the 122 • YVANIA GARCIA-PUSATERI ruthless realism of our society and educational system, she does provide us with hope. This hope represents the future of education. Educators must follow this call to action and understand their roles as social agents of change. We must remember that teaching is the paintbrush and learning is the great masterpiece that is created. Greene (1978) writes:

Learning must be a process of discovery and recovery in response to worthwhile questions rising out of conscious life in concrete situations. And learning must be in some manner emancipatory, in the sense that it equips individuals to understand the history of the knowledge structures they are encountering, the paradigms in uses in the sciences, and the relation of all of these to human interests and particular moments of human time. (p. 19)

Educators have to be held accountable and not dismiss their histories or landscapes. These constructs remind them that their profession is humanistic and that the curriculum needs a diverse representation and should reﬂ ect our history as a people. Students in all grades need to make a connection with the curriculum; they need to see the stories and voices of their ancestors. This connection allows students to awaken themselves and see their reﬂ ections as emerging leaders.

Emergence like that, transcendence like that, are necessary if persons are to achieve a sense of effectuality again. If they can remain in touch with their perceptual landscapes, if they can be critical and aware, they may be able to overcome passivity and the temptation to withdraw. We must all choose ourselves as learners. (Greene, 1978, p. 20)

REFERENCES Greene, M. (1978). Landscapes of learning. New York and London: Teachers College Press. McNeil, L. (2000). Contradictions of school reform: Educational costs of standardized testing. New York, NY: Routledge. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/book s?hl=en&lr=&id=BEHgpGElOxgC&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=standardized+testing& ots=HkmWeoHWH_&sig=sYWyC40LpSgBeICLf7Cj8kTEf4s wageproject.org. (n.d.). Wage women are getting even. Retrieved from http://www.wageproject.org/ﬁ les/who.php Young, I. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. CHAPTER 9

THROUGH A GLASS DARKLY History-onics and Moderation in Tanner and Tanner’s (1975) Curriculum Development

Kelly Waldrop

Tanner, D., & Tanner, L. (1975). Curriculum development: Theory into practice. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing.

The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Or so Chicken Little thought as he ran from friend to friend trying to convince them the end was near. The1970s was a decade of similar sentiment, especially when it came to ﬁ nding a focus for curriculum development. The era began with the gradual winding down of the Vietnam War, the ﬁ rst war the United States is said to ever have lost. From the Kent State Univer- sity student protests and their tragic results to terrorist hijackings, oil embargos, Middle East wars, earthquakes, and Richard Nixon, the country seemed perpetually on the brink of the disaster that was foretold by doomsayers of the 1960s who lamented our nation’s demise due to the great Sputnik debacle. Hot on the heels of the rise of Progressive education in the earlier half of the century and the case having been made for the ability of education to improve society, the worm turned as our political leaders made the obvious deduction that what could be ascribed as improving society could also be blamed for its failings. Having lost the great space-race, education was held to account for our students’ supposed inability to compete globally.

Curriculum Windows: What Curriculum Theorists of the 1970s Can Teach Us about Schools and Society Today, pages 123–139. Copyright © 2015 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. 123 124 • KELLY WALDROP

The adage that those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat it is a strong indicator that Tanner and Tanner’s work, Curriculum Development: Theory into Practice, fi rst published in 1975 with subsequent editions brought out in the 1980s and 1990s, has not been broadly read by contemporary curriculum decision makers. Once again, we hear continued lamentations that our schools are failing to position our citizens to ensure that we not only compete, but win when it comes to out-thinking and out-performing other nations. In the 1960s, of course, that competition was primarily scientifi c as the threat of cold war annihilation hung over the world with its heavy implications of mutually assured destruction. Now, the competition is economic, as other countries across the globe rise in prominence as consumer and productive powerhouses and as our citizens fi nd themselves competing in a worldwide job market with equally qualifi ed yet more affordable labor forces. The world of curriculum thought—into which the Tanners’ detailed and scholarly feat of historical review of the curriculum fi eld would enter—was one of an extreme response to the Sputnik defeat. Politicians and curricularists alike had called for and instituted a narrow focus on mathematics and scientifi c achievement, and the fi rst movements that called for schools to be held “accountable” for their efforts had begun in the adoption of statewide testing programs designed to ensure excellence in student learning. Perhaps as a result of this environment in combination with a tendency toward a traditional view of curriculum, the overall tone of Curriculum Development is one of careful and considered moderation, of a seeming desire to talk curricularists down from the proverbial ledge to take a steady, reasonable, and scientifi c view toward curricular development. Little, it seems, has changed since that time, save for the movement from statewide curricula and testing schemes to national curricula and the ratcheting up of consequences for students, teachers, and administrators for students’ failure to ex- cel on standardized tests. Of course, in the world of curricular thought, much has changed, not the least of which is the reconceptualization of the fi eld, which had its beginnings at the University of Rochester Conference in 1973 and reached full bloom with Pinar’s 1978 “state-of-the-art” address to the curriculum division of the American Educational Research Association in which he would call for an approach to curriculum from a view of understanding it, rather than developing or planning it (Pinar, Reynolds, Slattery & Taubman, 2008). Where Tanner and Tanner (1975) argue for curriculum development to be a collaborative effort among teachers, administrators, and university professors, the post-Reconceptualization curriculum fi eld marked, some argue, the retreat of the curriculum scholar from the schools and into a role of theory development, rather than curriculum development (Pinar, Reynolds, Slattery & Taubman, 2008). Into the gap left behind, as Tanner and Tanner warned, have stepped private foundations and textbook companies. Tanner and Tanner’s (1975) work raises timeless questions, including what curriculum is, how it works, and how it should be developed. Their answers, although dated and incomplete in many ways, provide a template for what would Through a Glass Darkly • 125 certainly be an improvement over current mechanistic procedures of teaching to the test. At the same time, their view of curriculum is based on an understanding of democracy that is distinctly a 1970s “me-generation” perspective, and as such is deeply contradictory. Ultimately, their work argues for the institution of a clear, theoretical center for curriculum that is not subject to political whim or to emotional hand-wringing and doom saying. The center they promote is a Dewey- an-based concept of social improvement, the very heart of Progressive thought. However, their path to that improvement is signifi cantly to the conservative side of center when it comes to their interpretation of Dewey, and as such, creates many confl icting concepts that keep their work from being as straightforward as they might like. That said, their historical perspective and considered advice for weathering the pendulum swing of political extremism as it impacts our educational system are both timely and powerful.

THE TWO TANNERS: A BRIEF PROFESSIONAL BIOGRAPHY Daniel Tanner and Laurel Tanner have been fi xtures in the curricular scene since the late 1960s and 1970s. Both rose to prominence in the 1970s as the fi eld of curriculum began to trend toward an interest in and examination of its own history (Schubert, Schubert, Thomas, & Carroll, 2002). Daniel Tanner is a Profes- sor Emeritus at Rutgers University where he served as the Director of Graduate Programs in Curriculum Theory and Development from 1967 to 2009. His early work in the fi eld focused on the development of curricula for secondary schools, and his fi rst major work on curriculum history was the work on which this paper is based, Curriculum Development: Theory into Practice. He has continued to write and publish since that time on issues relating to curriculum, progressive education in general, the impact of the John Dewey Society in particular, and the need to moderate the impact of business and political interests on education. Laurel Tanner, who passed away in October of 2013, ended her career as a Pro- fessor Emerita at Temple University and an Affi liate Professor at the University of Washington. She was noted for work on issues relating to discipline in schools (e.g., Classroom Discipline for Effective Teaching and Learning, 1978) and the legacy of John Dewey and his laboratory school. She is most prominently associated with efforts to study and analyze the history of the curriculum fi eld and is credited with having formed the Society for the Study of Curriculum History in 1978 (Marshall, Sears, Allen, Roberts, & Schubert, 2007). Her second joint work with Daniel Tanner, History of the School Curriculum, published in 1990, is praised as an excellent and helpful historical treatment of the subject of curriculum (Pinar et al., 2008; Schubert et al., 2002). In addition to being well-known and respected for their work on the history of curriculum, the Tanners have the distinction of having been major players in the dramatic turn of the Reconceptualization. As will be discussed below, the Tanners’ (1975) work in Curriculum Development makes clear two strongly held beliefs, one being that the “radicals” (e.g., p. 82) of the 1960s (known to the rest of us as 126 • KELLY WALDROP the Romantics, such as A. S Neill and John Holt) were an imminent threat to our schools, and the second being that scientifi c thought and methods were absolutely necessary for any attempts to improve curricula. These beliefs would mark them during the decade of the 1970s as the Reconceptualization began and throughout their careers as conventional and traditional curriculum thinkers (Marshall et al., 2007; Pinar et al, 2008). After Pinar’s “state-of-the-art” address mentioned above, the Tanners published a scathing rebuke in an article entitled, “Emancipation from Research: The Recon- ceptualist Prescription” in Educational Researcher (1979). In the article, they accuse the Reconceptualists of being connected with the “radicals” from the previous decade by reviving their “paranoid” concepts and would go on to label Reconceptual- ist thought as promoting “mystical illumination” and as patently “atheoretical” (pp. 8–10). The vehemence of the Tanners’ response to Pinar’s arguments was such that it provoked a call for civility in discourse from Pinar (Pinar et al, 2008). The Tan- ners weren’t alone in their concerns. However, they were certainly less restrained than many of their colleagues in their response. Philip Jackson, too, questioned the underlying premise of the Reconceptualization, that the fi eld had grown stagnant, and also noted that it marked a new and perhaps troubling change in the relationship between the university scholar and the school practitioner (Pinar et al, 2008). In the end the parties seemed to agree to disagree and all went their own ways, with the Tanners continuing to focus on producing well-received histories and strong arguments for moderation in movements toward curricular improvement.

CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT: A SYNOPSIS Curriculum Development (Tanner & Tanner, 1975) is a broad ranging and comprehensive treatment of all things curricular. It is divided into four parts: Part 1— The Search for Rationale; Part 2—The New Reformation—Science and Senti- ment; Part 3—Crosscurrents in Curriculum Reform and Reconstruction; and Part 4—Improving the Curriculum. The four parts cover a wide spectrum of issues relating to curriculum, from what it is thought to be to how it should be formulated and by whom. Throughout, as noted above, is a deep and thorough review of historical treatments and trends in each of the subjects covered. The work is centered around a group of themes that reveal the authors’ interest in scientifi c principles and methods; their roots in the progressive educational philosophy of John Dewey; their love for and belief in the institution of the public comprehensive school; their distrust of anything considered radical (whether radically liberal or conservative); and a fi rm belief that teachers should be involved in curricular decision making but that they are unfi t for doing so without careful preparation and assistance. These overarching themes will be dealt with more fully in the next section of the paper, while this section will simply attempt to provide a brief sketch of the work’s content, Parts 1–4. Part 1, The Search for Rationale, begins the work with a discussion of the nature of curriculum and the ways in which that nature was theorized and defi ned Through a Glass Darkly • 127 through the late 19th century and up to the Tanners’ time of writing in 1975. They explain how curriculum has been treated by various scholars over the years. They discuss the diffi culty in attempting to divide the instruction process from its subject matter and outcomes and also the effects of differences in defi nitions of what counts as knowledge. At the end of the discussion, the Tanners offer their own defi nition of knowledge as a “tool of” and “by-product of thought” that provides the learner with avenues of meaning making and the ability to “exercise greater control over” the learner’s environment (p. 42). They also provide a “tentative defi nition of curriculum” as occurring only in school, as “planned and guided learning experiences and intended learning outcomes, formulated through the systematic reconstruction of knowledge and experiences,” the result of which should be the “continuous and willful growth in personal-social competence” (p. 45). Further, they argue that curriculum should include both “established” and “emergent” knowledge (p. 45). It is left to the reader’s imagination how a curriculum can simultaneously be “planned” and “systematic” and for “intended outcomes” while also making room for “emergent” knowledge (p. 45), but more will be said later about the uneasy alliance in the Tanners’ work between conservative methods and progressive philosophy. Part 1 opens with what will be a continuing argument throughout the work, which is that curricula must be developed with a central purpose in mind, and that the purpose of schooling as theorized by the curriculum developer has a vast and essential impact on the learning experience. The Tanners sympathize here with what they view as the Deweyan mode of experimentalism and a middle path between the authoritarian mode of intellectual development and the romantic view of independent thought and existentialism. Additionally, they launch one of their seemingly patented blistering attacks on those they call the “romantic naturalists,” who they say are in favor of total freedom for the learner and who they argue are “against the pursuit of academic excellence” (p. 82), whose notions of educational experience are no better than the “ethic of the ghetto street” (p. 82), and who would create “a child monster” by approaching education with the view that the child’s innate goodness should be nurtured and allowed to grow (p. 85). The fi nal chapter of the section deals with sources of and infl uences on curricula. The discussion opens with a consideration of the role society plays in the development of curricula, both as a source of subject matter and as an overriding purpose, as curriculum is posited as serving the dual function of fi tting the student to enter society as a productive member and also as a citizen who can and will help improve society. The shape of knowledge, whether seen as cultural heritage or the sum of disciplinary production, is also considered an impactful source of curricular content, both subject matter and teaching methods. The learner is the fi nal source of curricular infl uence discussed. This is not to say that Tanner and Tanner suggest learners be considered as actively participating in the curriculum development process, but rather that the abilities and developmental, physical, and emotional needs of the student impact what can be taught and how. Further, it 128 • KELLY WALDROP is suggested that the ease in evaluating educational outcomes affects the teacher’s decision to include or exclude curricular material. Finally, Tanner and Tanner conclude that infl uences on curriculum should be managed to ensure that the school lives up to what they view as its primary function, to “instill the rising generation with the power of reason,” which will ensure “social improvement” (p. 140). Part 2, The New Reformation—Science and Sentiment, begins the historical work of the book in earnest, as Tanner and Tanner outline perspectives on curriculum, including issues of who should be schooled, what should be taught, and how it should be taught and evaluated, ranging from the earliest iterations of public schools in America to their time of writing. Beginning as early as the statutory requirements of the Massachusetts colony in 1647 for townships of certain sizes to provide reading and writing teachers and all the way through the early part of the 1970s, the Tanners provide a detailed outline of the development and reform of the American public school system. Highlights include changes in methods from rote learning and recitation to the “effi cient” methods of the platoon school, through a Herbartian notion of personal discovery, a focus on the interest of the child in child-centered schools, Kilpat- rick’s project method, the activity method, and others and fi nally landing in the skill and drill methods of the 1960s. The purposes of education and the content of the curriculum are also reviewed, from the birth of the fi eld with Herbert Spen- cer’s timeless question, “What knowledge is of most worth?” (p. 168), through John Dewey’s belief that schooling should serve democratic purposes and prepare students for effective citizenship. The political and cultural views of the 1950s and 1960s, as noted above, turned to education as the solution to and cause of the nation’s purported failures on the global stage, which encouraged content to be crafted by subject experts with the purpose of preparing students to be scientifi - cally competitive in order to ensure the country’s security. The Tanners especially note that criticizing schools had become both a pastime and big business as best- selling books were published condemning schools as part of society’s problem, rather than as its solution. In Part 3, Crosscurrents in Curriculum Reform, the Tanners step back from their chronological, historical treatment of curriculum thought to provide an overview of larger movements, trends, and methods of educational organization as they continued to impact the curriculum of the mid-1970s. The disciplinary approach to organization of the curriculum gained infl uence and use as the demand for excellence, especially in the subjects of science and mathematics, continued to grow. The narrowing of both educational and social aims resulted in subjects being treated with increasingly narrow focus and with less and less synthesis across the curriculum. Attempts were made to begin teaching more complex material to students earlier in the curriculum, and the handing off of curriculum development to subject matter specialists saw a decline in belief in the ability of the teacher to adequately impart the new curriculum, giving rise to the fi rst attempts to create “teacher-proof” curricula (p. 444). Through a Glass Darkly • 129

The post-Sputnik, Cold War Era move to drive national scientifi c achievement through improved curricula instigated a new interest in and focus on the gifted student. This focus, at the same time, brought up questions about the purpose of a general education, versus an education designed for post-secondary educational excellence. Knowing that synthesis and relevance is needed for the transferability of education to use outside of an educational environment, discussions began of ways to maintain the focus on disciplinary subjects while providing a meaningful education for those not destined to become physicists. These explorations resulted in such concepts as “broad fi elds” and “core curricula.” In the fi nal chapter of the section, Tanner and Tanner make an impassioned argument for the benefi ts of the inclusion of vocational education in the curriculum. Part 4, Improving the Curriculum, constitutes the concluding chapters of the book and provides the Tanners’ argument, against the backdrop of history, for how curriculum improvement and development should proceed. The fi rst chapter focuses on the “role of the teacher” in curriculum improvement, which argues that teachers are involved in curriculum development if by no other means than by engaging with the curriculum in the classroom. The chapter contends that teachers are largely unprepared for their role in producing new knowledge about the curriculum due to poor preparation provided by teacher education programs and argues that those programs should do more to provide teachers with the skills they need to conduct meaningful scientifi c research on curriculum innovation that goes beyond simply trying to improve their teaching methods. It also highlights the role of the supervisor in supporting teachers, by giving them the time and tools they need to work on the curriculum, and the role of the university professor in providing direction and assistance to ensure that any research done is scientifi c, which will, according to the Tanners, ensure its usefulness. Further, university professors are also said to be responsible for providing teachers with information on “approved practices” as methods of innovation that have been established by others in the fi eld. Finally, the chapter argues that teacher needs are a good, if not the only, source of direction for research on the curriculum. The second chapter of the section discusses the “role of the supervisor,” who is at fi rst defi ned by the Tanners as anyone with the words “curriculum” or “instruction” (p. 618) in their title and later amended to be the principal, who is said to be the “curriculum director” of the school (p. 634). Supervisors are encouraged to focus on curriculum, rather than focusing solely on administration. In-service teaching demonstrations are dismissed as demeaning since they suggest the teachers are “poorly prepared” (p. 621). Supervisors are also argued to be less knowledgeable than they should be on curriculum development methods, since most of them began as teachers. In addition to boning up on curriculum research, supervisors are encouraged to familiarize themselves with the “politics of curriculum change” (p. 624) so that they might be able to analyze and argue successfully for improvements as needed. Involving teachers in the curriculum development process and giving them time to work on curriculum development is encouraged. Finally, the 130 • KELLY WALDROP

Tanners argue that every curriculum supervisor should create a standard process through which all curriculum improvements must be evaluated. They contend that no less than the very fate of our society depends on the development and systematic application of criteria for curriculum development. The fi nal chapter, Evaluation for Curriculum Improvement, could just as easily have been entitled, “The Role of the University Professor,” for it concerns itself primarily with the production of sound, scientifi c research in curriculum. Its primary thrust is the elimination of bias in educational research. The chapter outlines several studies and demonstrates their weaknesses due to the bias of the researchers and argues that researchers should air and examine their own biases in order to set those biases aside in favor of reason, which should guide the research. The Tanners also argue that researchers should continue to reevaluate and establish the “approved practices” mentioned above for the benefi t of teachers.

DEWEY OR DON’T WE: CURRICULUM FOR THE “ME DECADE” The 1970s have, in retrospect, been dubbed the “me decade,” as the fear and turmoil in the world encouraged those who had previously turned outward to address social ills in the 1960s to turn inward. The 1970s have been labeled a time of “self-obsession and self-reliance” even to the point of narcissism, as idealism collapsed under the weight of cynicism (Marshall et al., 2007, p. 112). Curriculum Development has numerous overarching themes and tensions that become apparent within the fi rst few pages of the work. Even as the Tanners argue for moderation and for cool-headed rationality in the face of strong political and social winds, the larger message of their work strongly refl ects their own personal and highly emotional responses to various curricular ideas and in this way strongly refl ects the spirit of the time in which it was written.

DEWEY AND THE DEMOCRATIC CURRICULUM The single most consistent and pervasive thread throughout the book is the presence of the educational philosophy of John Dewey. Referred to on almost every page, the Deweyan notion of schooling serving the purpose of social improvement is a continual touchstone for the Tanners as they relate and evaluate the history of curriculum thought. That said, their reading of Dewey is highly refl ective of an individualistic perspective. They argue that his work Democracy and Education focuses on “preparing people to make intelligent decisions about social change” (p. 219). They support this argument by quoting Dewey on the purpose of education as “a freeing of individual capacity in the progressive growth directed to social aims” (p. 219). So, according to the Tanners’ reading of Dewey, education is for the purpose of social aims, but those aims are achieved through the development of individual capacity. The Tanners return to the notion of societal connection in Deweyan educational thought when they again quote from Dewey on the subject of democracy Through a Glass Darkly • 131 as a “social process” (p. 219) and “conjoint communicated experience” (p. 525). They also emphasize their defi nition of democracy as “choice making” both as individuals and as groups (p. 606). However, this rests in tension with the Tan- ners’ earlier argument that the primary function of the school is to provide “the rising generation with the power of reason,” from which “the likely outcome is social improvement” (p. 140). The subtle difference between the two is key. Where Dewey talks about democracy as social processes and communication, the Tan- ners translate these ideas into rational choice making. Dewey’s (1916/2011) Democracy and Education, which the Tanners say suggests that education is about promoting individual freedom of thought, also outlines three aims of education: natural development, social effi ciency, and culture. Each of these prescribes a pendulum swing from the needs of the individual (natural development—the ability of the student to play to her natural strengths) and the needs of society (social effi ciency—fi tting the student for becoming a productive member of society) and settling in the middle (culture—allowing the student to explore what she likes from the culture her society offers). Although the Tanners attempt to maintain a focus on the Deweyan purpose of education as benefi ting society, they are distinctly uncomfortable with the idea of students being allowed to explore and develop specifi cally from their individual needs and desires, both of which are also Deweyan aims for democratic education. Tanner and Tanner write in opposition to the methods of those they call the “romantic naturalists,” saying, “Not only are immediate interests [of students] taken for needs but self-indulgent talk is taken for inquiry and knowledge-production, and teaching becomes a kind of child-centered therapy” (p. 88). Real knowledge-production, according to the Tanners, comes from the promotion of rational, scientifi c thought produced through fairly tightly controlled curricula initiated and planned by the adults in the situation. It is assumed that students are not rational creatures and must be taught how to think reasonably. This tension between educating the individual but without giving over any control of the curriculum to the student is one that continues throughout the text.

POSITIVISM AND PROGRESSIVISM Part of the tension between the societal focus of Progressive educational philosophy and the focus on individual abilities comes from the Tanners’ positivistic view of science and research. A love of science is evident throughout the text, and a discussion of the defi nition of science and a defense of it is a prominent part of the early sections of Curriculum Development. Physics is frequently held up by the authors as the paragon of scientifi c example. Further, whenever research is discussed, a positivistic perspective is apparent with criticisms leveled at studies that did not provide adequate control groups. No exceptions are made, even if creating a control group would mean withholding the best curricular materials and teaching methods from the control group students. The Tanners also equate the “scientifi c method” with the “experimental method” (p. 310) and equate both with 132 • KELLY WALDROP

Deweyan philosophy (p. 256). This positivistic perspective signifi cantly limits sources for curricular improvement, as ideas must be tested under strict conditions for statistical correlations to be satisfactorily established. The fi nal section of the book, which focuses on research for curriculum improvement, highlights the tensions between the Progressive ideal and positivistic scientifi c methods. The Tanners argue in the Progressive vein that there is “no single ‘scientifi c method’ nor any single approach to curriculum development” (p. 643). Then, they turn around and suggest that teachers must be carefully supervised by experts in research methods to ensure that the experimentation they do is conducted within accepted forms and bounds of research to ensure that the fi ndings are scientifi c and, therefore, useful. The reader might expect the Tanners to turn to Dewey’s (1929/2003) work on the subject, The Sources of a Science of Education, for support in their chapter on educational research. They do so only once when quoting Dewey’s claim that education is about discovering values and defi ning worthwhile objectives. They instead focus almost exclusively on the need to discuss and eliminate as far as possible researcher bias from the research so that the results will be accurate and scientifi c and not simply a refl ection of the social or political whims of the time. They ignore Dewey’s (1929/2003) advice that while a science of education should be “systematic” and intelligently controlled, it should also avoid the urge to convert statistical results into rules of conduct or directions for instruction (p. 9). It should instead, he argues, provide insight into how gifted teachers do what they do and open up more options for ways to teach and learn (p. 10). Finally, Dewey (1929/2003) argues, in direct confl ict with the Tanners’ perspective, that, “Educational science cannot be constructed simply by borrowing the techniques of experiment and measurement found in science” (p. 14). The uneasy marriage of Progressive philosophy and positivist research ideology explains the Tanners’ attempt at “middle of the road” conclusions. They argue, for example, that teachers should be involved in but not really in charge of curricular development and improvement, at least not without signifi cant supervision from those with a greater understanding of scientifi c methods. They argue that students should be given experience in making choices but not without some controls, because we don’t really want their needs and desires to be at the heart of the curriculum. Therefore, they should be given the responsibility of choice but only within a prescribed set of options. Students should be given the opportunity to work in groups in order to learn to make choices together, but the focus of group work shouldn’t be simply learning to work in a group. In each instance, they dip their toes in the Progressive pool only to jerk back toward a conservative attitude.

MODERATION, ANTI-RADICALISM, AND THE DANGEROUS STUDENT The Tanners’ most scathing attacks are leveled at those who they believe are taking extreme positions and who are, in those positions, criticizing and outright threaten- Through a Glass Darkly • 133 ing the existence of our public schools. First on their list are the “romantic naturalists” who, in the early part of the twentieth century began a movement toward a “child-centered curriculum” (p. 81). Tanner and Tanner accuse these folks of promoting sentiment over science and the indulgence of the whims of the child over academic excellence. They connect these early efforts to base the curriculum on the natural interests of the child (which, as already noted, was also of concern to Dewey) to “radical” educational reformers of the 1960s who they say embraced the same dangerous notions of naturalism to the point that they painted schools as evil failures out to destroy the creative capacity of children (p. 83). Into this group get lumped A. S. Neill, John Holt, and Herbert Kohl, among others, all of whom are ac- cused of straying too far from “the organized knowledge of race experience” (p. 87). It is hard to tell what the Tanners object to more about the Romantics, whether they be those from the 1920s or the 1960s: that they question the social benefi t of scientifi c rationality or that they put the students’ needs and interests at the center of the curriculum. They entirely dismiss the possibility raised by Holt that our organized educational processes could have the potential to crush a student’s natural curiosity under the weight of schooling. Instead, they argue that focusing on the natural development of the child will equate to overindulgence, resulting in the creation of a “child monster” (p. 85). The Existentialists likewise are treated with disdain, since they sought to free themselves from “rational constraints” in order to “challenge the repressions and inadequacies of our social institutions” (p. 89). The Tanners argue that these thinkers, Maxine Greene fi rst among those to be mocked, simply don’t understand science, because if they did they would agree that scientifi c rationality is the only way to intellectual freedom. The Tanners directly connect the rejection of scientifi c rationality with the focus on the needs and interests of the students and connect that focus with a move to dismantle the school system altogether.

RESPONSIBILITIES IN CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT Throughout the work, the Tanners repeatedly explain that teachers are and should be responsible for developing curricula. However, it is also made clear that the authors feel teachers need an extensive support structure in order to be able to do the kind of research that will make signifi cant advances. From a lack of knowledge about the curricular fi eld to a tendency to take the easiest path towards student evaluation, the Tanners’ belief in the inability of teachers to improve curricula without ample help is made clear through the text. The fi rst chapter in the book’s fi nal section is intended to address the role of the teacher in research but instead makes the argument that teachers are not prepared to oversee educational research in their classrooms, which according to the positivist, scientifi c rationality of the Tanners is the only acceptable and useful method of truly innovating the curriculum. As a result, the bulk of the chapter is given over to an argument that teacher preparation programs need to do a better job in instructing their students in research methods so that this defi cit will eventually 134 • KELLY WALDROP be overcome and so teachers may participate as they should in curriculum development. Another major thrust of the chapter is that teachers must be carefully supervised by qualifi ed research professionals. These two areas of interest shift the focus of the chapter away from the role of the teacher and more solidly on the role of the university professor as fi rst the preparer of the teacher/researcher and then as the supervisor of curricular research in the schools. The fi nal segment of the chapter is the only part of it actually dedicated to what teachers, themselves, should be doing, but rather than being given advice on innovation, they are warned that simply trying to improve teaching is not developing curricula. Further, they are told that they should limit their attempts at innovation to “approved practices,” which have been sanctioned by “recognized authorities” (p. 603). Although it is unclear at fi rst who those authorities might be, the same phrase is later equated with university professors or school district level curriculum experts. Once again, teachers are patted on the head and told to stick to subject matter and teaching methods that have been devised by others. They are also advised that they don’t need to try to reinvent the wheel, that someone has likely come up with and rigorously tested ideas that can be instituted as innovations in their classrooms. The chapter dedicated to the supervisor’s role highlights once again the role of the university professor, as supervisors are also said to need better university training in order to do the work of curriculum development. Supervisors are encouraged to read scholarly research on curriculum that is produced by university professors. Ironically, as mentioned above, it is suggested that care should be taken in how the supervisor attempts to help bring his staff up to speed in order to conduct research, since suggestions that they are not prepared would be demeaning to them. While simply attempting to improve teaching methods is not considered actual curricular innovation on the part of the teacher, the Tanners argue that the quality of instruction must be intrinsically intertwined with curriculum development on the part of the supervisor. In their most bold and decisive departure from Progressive philosophy, the Tanners argue every supervisor should set up “channels through which all curriculum proposals must pass” in order to be adequately vetted and scientifi cally tested before being put into place (p. 638). These procedures are called “machinery” by the Tanners, and they argue that having in place “procedures and criteria” for curriculum development would make the process more effi cient, because when a new proposal came along the “machinery” would “be already in motion for acting upon the proposal” (p. 640–641). They liken the process to that of a pharmaceuti- cal company developing and testing a new drug before sending it to the market and say that the process will ensure a rational treatment to the curricular need and that it that will prevent the solution from being “vulnerable to selfi sh interests and the exigencies of the moment” (p. 641). While it is frustrating to us today that so many of the school “reform” attempts instituted by politicians have no support from research and are unlikely, according to the research we have, to improve Through a Glass Darkly • 135 anything, the Tanners’ narrow notion of how that research can be conducted and how curricula can be improved is only the tiniest step in the right direction. The language they use to describe it, the same language used when talk of applying the methods of manufacturing improvement to schooling, is disturbing. The fi nal chapter, which details the responsibility for the production of scientifi c and useful (redundant phraseology in Tanner terms) research on curricula, focuses almost exclusively on the need to identify and remove researcher bias from educational research. The Tanners in this chapter take great offense at studies concluding that students’ home lives and socio-economic class have a greater impact on their future life than does their schooling. The Tanners argue that the researchers are really saying that school is pointless, due to a bias against public schooling. In an ironically biased and baseless way, the Tanners also argue that those same researchers have not rushed to take their own children out of schools, which they say should be the logical next step if they truly believed in the scientifi c fact of their results. Their argument against bias demonstrates again the Tan- ners’ tendency to lash out irrationally at those with whom they disagree, all the while arguing for rationality to rule the day.

THROUGH THE DARK GLASS: THE ABSENCE OF STUDENT INVOLVEMENT When asked to consider a curriculum window for this book, the image that immediately sprang to mind was that of a dark window in which all the viewer could see was her own distorted face. The combination of dark cynicism and the self- involvement of the “me decade” is quite literally reﬂ ected in the image. It could be argued that the Tanners’ focus on the roles of the supervisor and university professor is reasonable given that Curriculum Development was arguably written as a textbook for graduate students in curriculum. However, that argument does not go far enough toward explaining the single largest lacuna in the work, the role of the student in curriculum development, which is entirely eclipsed by the focus on the supervisor and professor. As noted above, the Tanners are deeply suspicious of student-centered curricula and associate them with radical, romantic positions that they deem hostile toward schools and that they attack with vigor and venom. This bias explains why less than three pages out of a work that spans 711 pages is given over to discussing ways in which students can be involved in writing, developing, and improving curricula (p. 580, 605–606). For the largest part, students are treated in the book as those who are done to, who are educated, and who are presented curricula for consumption. While the Tanners make every effort to hold true to their Deweyan roots by arguing that there is no set curriculum out there waiting for students to encounter it and that the curriculum is intimately tied to the process of instruction, when it comes to developing curricula, students are ignored altogether. When discussing the basis for curriculum reform, for example, their exact words are telling. They say that curriculum reform should be based on the “needs of the users (teachers)” (p. 647). 136 • KELLY WALDROP

The parenthetical notation of (teachers) as users of curriculum exemplifi es the fact that the Tanners do not think of students as users of curriculum, but how they do think of students in relation to the curriculum is not made clear, since they don’t really talk about any connection between the two. Further, they recommend the proposal of Chester Babcock who is quoted, “Provision must be made in any organizational structure for the initiation of change by any group—teachers, prin- cipals, central administrative and/or supervisory staff, the curriculum decision- making body or groups within the community” (p. 637). Note the stark absence of students as a group that could potentially initiate curricular change. In the few areas where student involvement is discussed, it is presumed to be a result of contact with the curriculum that had been developed by others. Teach- ers, for example, are given the responsibility of capitalizing on collateral learning by offering students opportunities to move more deeply into topics in which students show interest. The Tanners acknowledge that teachers must be given the curricular freedom and fl exibility to engage in these collateral-learning exercises. “Teacher-proof curricula, it must be remembered, are also pupil-proof,” since they set “constraints on pupils in selecting topics for exploration” (p. 580). It is, of course, noted that teachers should plan to engage in these activities so as not to completely derail their plans or completely surrender the curriculum over to student interests. Teachers are encouraged to include students in setting educational goals and objectives “even when curriculum content is prescribed and courses are required” (p. 606). Group goal setting is also encouraged as a method for gaining social skills and is argued to be the foundation for future learning. They write, “Involving pupils in goal setting is involving them in planning the curriculum” (p. 606). All of this, of course, is to be planned for by the curriculum developer. The absence of a clear and detailed exploration of what might be the student roles and responsibilities in developing curricula is concerning for many reasons. One is that it is diffi cult to see education as a force for promoting democracy without the presence of democratic procedures within the school and more specifi cally within the classroom. Secondly, the absence of a full treatment of their role places them outside the circle of those constructing knowledge and dooms them to the position of consumers only. Finally, it can prevent students from seeing themselves as active participants in their own education. Bartholomae (2003) argues that the insistence on holding students in a subordinate position while attempting to teach them to wield privilege results in education that “becomes more a matter of imitation or parody than a matter of invention and discovery” (p. 408), as Dewey (1916/2011) would have it be. Insistence on holding students in a narrowly prescribed role is also, I believe, responsible for some of the teacher concerns that the Tanners would argue should be one of the major thrusts of curriculum scholarship. Insisting that students remain in a subordinate position with the teacher as the sole arbiter and source of knowledge pins the teacher down as well into that single role. In my own fi eld of writing instruction, we have learned to rely heavily on student guided curricula, Through a Glass Darkly • 137 both in the selection of subject matter and in the critique and even graded evaluation of student papers. The establishment of a collaborative learning community within the classroom, rather than just the one-on-one relationship between the teacher as the holder of all knowledge and the student as the consumer of that knowledge, provides the opportunity for students to gain new and deeper understandings of material as it is related to them from multiple perspectives (Trimbur, 1985). The teacher is also freed to explore working to improve student writing beyond simply focusing on what is wrong, which is often all a teacher has time for in the traditional grading process (Trimbur, 1985). Students experience many benefi ts of collaborative and constructivist teaching methods in the writing classroom. Students may do better work because they know their peers will see what they have done, and they may respond more favorably to the suggestions of their peers than to the suggestions of their teacher (Rieber, 2006). Students’ abilities to critique and assess their own work are improved through collaborative activities (Topping, 2001, p. 21). Further, it is argued that such activities provide students with opportunities to work construc- tively together and to create and incorporate multiple viewpoints into their writing (Smagorinsky, 2006). Moving beyond the classroom, the improved ability of students to critique their own work and the work of others is argued to be a practice that can likewise improve critical thinking and even lead to a greater ability to understand and formulate effective solutions to social ills (Trimbur, 1985), a major focus of both Dewey and Tanner and Tanner. This is just one small example of one way to involve students in the development and implementation of one kind of curriculum. Collaborative and constructivist efforts to involve students may indeed be the only way to allow students to see themselves, their lives, and their cultures refl ected in the curriculum in a way that makes sense to them. The Tanners argue that curriculum supervisors making strides toward curriculum improvement will save both the school and the society, but I would argue that working to ensure that students clearly see themselves as crucial to and fully involved in constructing curriculum is infi nitely more important. Deweyan scholars argue that we need students to leave school, go forth, and make the decisions that will improve society, but to do so they must feel as if they are more than pawns of that society. The fi rst step is acknowledging that school is not separate from society. The school, as an extension and institution of society, must be the fi rst to reach out to students and to encourage their involvement within the school walls at the most basic and important levels. Doing that will truly prepare them to get on with that work once they continue life in society after they are no longer students.

PROPPING UP THE SKY: CURRENT SOCIAL TRENDS, BIAS AND CURRICULUM SCHOLARSHIP As noted above, the decade in which we fi nd ourselves has many similarities to the decade in which the Tanners wrote Curriculum Development. Economic and 138 • KELLY WALDROP national security crises from the previous decade have left deep scars on our society from which we are still recovering. As in the 1970s, the social and political response to those crises has been to crack down on education, moving toward teacher-proof materials, pushing “the basics,” and focusing on achievement in science and math (Poetter, 2013). The cynicism and self-involvement of the 1970s in many ways explain the themes that emerged from the Tanners’ work. A stag- gering accomplishment of historical research, the book is also a strange mix of Progressive and scientifi cally rational arguments, a jumble of strongly held biases and arguments warning against the dangers of strongly held biases. That said, their argument for a collaborative effort between teachers, administrators, curriculum specialists, and university professors sounds pretty good in comparison to our current situation. Today’s school curriculum is almost entirely dictated by textbook and testing companies, and neither teachers nor administrators typically have any say in the matter. As for the university professors, their work has, as previously noted, in many ways moved away from schooling. The post-Reconceptualization scholar seems to shout her ideas about schooling into the dark beyond the glass that simply refl ects her own image and voice right back at her. It is well and good to argue for students to have more say in the curriculum when we all know that such a change is highly unlikely, regardless of how effective it may be. At this early date in our decade, we have to wonder what future historians will make of our time and of the curricular work that will refl ect the spirit of this era. What will they call the decade in which Bin Laden was killed, Obama was elected to a second term, and Defense of Marriage Act was struck down? What curricular legacy will come from the era that saw unprecedented movements toward national curricula, the entrenchment of high-stakes standardized testing, but also widespread protests against both? The new generations of learners are both more connected than ever, with information and conversation literally at their fi nger- tips, and more isolated than ever, with discussions with the person sitting next to them being sidelined in favor of one more tweet or Facebook post. The ultimate message of Tanner and Tanner’s work for us today is to take a good hard look in that dark refl ecting glass. Maybe, as I hope to be the case, the bleakness of our recent past is clearing and we will once again be able to see more than our own refl ections staring back at us. Maybe the students in our schools will someday soon be able to see themselves refl ected more clearly in curricula they have helped develop. The Tanners’ arguments against social bias and the changing of curriculum to the tune of political whim should be taken very seriously, as should their inability to heed their own advice. We should be thinking about the times in which we live and the ways, both good and bad, that those times may be affecting how we propose that curriculum should be addressed as a subject for discussion and as a process of learning. Our times will be refl ected in our work just as surely as our work will refl ect on our times, and all of it will refl ect on our- Through a Glass Darkly • 139 selves, our schools, and our students. Let us hope that when we look back at those refl ections from the perspective of the future we will like what we see.

REFERENCES Bartholomae, D. (2003). Inventing the university. In C. Glenn, M. Goldthwaite, & R. Con- nors (Eds.), The St. Martin’s guide to teaching writing. (5th ed., pp. 403–417). Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s. Dewey, J. (1929/2003). The sources of a science of education. In The collected works of John Dewey. Retrieved from http://library.nlx.com.proxy.lib.muohio.edu/xtf/ search?browse- collections=true Dewey, J. (1916/2011). Democracy and education [Kindle Edition]. Retrieved from http:// www.amazon.com/Democracy-Education-introduction-philosophy-ebook/dp/ B0082ZJ6WS/ref=tmm_kin_title_popover?ie=UTF8&qid=1363021519&s r=1-1 Marshall, J. D., Sears, J., Allen, L., Roberts, P., & Schubert, W. H. (2007). Turning points in curriculum: A contemporary American memoir. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Poetter, T. S. (2013). Stemming the tide. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 49(3), 100–104. doi:10. 1080/00228958.2013.819195 Pinar, W. F., Reynolds, W. M., Slattery, P., & Taubman, P. M. (2008). Understanding curriculum. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc. Rieber, L. J. (2006). Using peer-review to improve student writing in business courses. Journal of Education for Business, 81(6), 322–326. Schubert, W. H., Schubert, A., Thomas, T., & Carroll, W. (2002). Curriculum books: The ﬁ rst hundred years (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc. Smagorinsky, P. (2006). Research on composition: Multiple perspectives on two decades of change. New York, NY: Teachers College Press, c2006. Tanner, D., & Tanner, L. (1975). Curriculum development: Theory into practice. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing. Tanner, D., & Tanner, L. (1979). Emancipation from research: The Reconceptualist prescription. Educational Researcher, 8, 8–12. Tanner, L. (1978). Classroom discipline for effective teaching and learning. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Topping, K. J. (2001). Peer assisted learning: A practical guide for teachers. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books. Trimbur, J. (1985). Collaborative learning and teaching writing. In B. McClelland & T. Donovan (Eds.), Perspectives on research and scholarship in composition. New York, NY: Modern Language Association of America.

CHAPTER 10

A RAINBOW OF COLORS My Life Experience, Currere Moments, and Curriculum Theorizing

Tela Bayamna

Pinar, W. (Ed.). (1975). Curriculum theorizing: The reconceptualists. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.

Pinar’s book Curriculum Theorizing (1975) has important signifi cance for the curriculum fi eld and educational practices today. Pinar encourages educators and learners not to have the fear of retelling stories of their educational experiences. He encourages learners and educators to commit themselves to begin a self-examination, an autobiographical refl ection of their educational experiences with the aim of understanding democratic society better and designing a curriculum that refl ects life as it is lived by students in the racially and culturally diverse United States. Pinar (1975) believes that in the long run it is expected that the autobiographical refl ection on educational experiences will allow us to see what the future holds for educational practice. By telling the stories of their educational experiences, students and educators will have the knowledge of their past and present and will be able to envision what the future will be like and anticipate new ways of thinking about education. Pinar

Curriculum Windows: What Curriculum Theorists of the 1970s Can Teach Us about Schools and Society Today, pages 141–153. Copyright © 2015 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. 141 142 • TELA BAYAMNA

(1975) calls educators and learners to become proactive about their future in order not to become powerless spectators of their life stories. Pinar is encouraging us to search for new identities through curriculum theorizing, and he argues against strategies such as standardized testing, the alienation of students from a political agenda, and the lack of freedom in schools. He suggests school reforms such as the reconstruction of curriculum through the process of “currere” because schools are in crisis and need to recover from their nightmare. Through the currere process, we each can “look inside ourselves as well as outside, and begin to describe, as honestly and personally as we can, what our internal experience is [but] to do so is not easy” (Pinar & Grumet,, 1976, pp. 3–4). Additionally, Madeleine R. Grumet, co-writer of Pinar’s book, Toward a Poor Curriculum (1976) argues that “currere is an autobiographical process of refl ection and analysis in which one recalls his educational experiences and examines it…Currere asks questions that encompass cognitive development within more general inquiry” (p. 114) Unlike Plato who uses his allegory of the cave to show us that knowledge belongs to the World of Ideas and that the world of the common people (our world) is an illusion, Pinar’s method, currere, suggests that knowledge belongs to the world of common people and we can use what we experience in our world to design a curriculum that will refl ect the realities of our world and help students succeed in school. Currere is a concept related to our time and space and it is a method that allows refl ecting and exploring the complex relationship that we have with nature and with others in order to fi gure out the implications for education. I chose to study Pinar’s work because I want to know to what extent curriculum theory can really help save our schools in crisis in our technological age. American curriculum is divided, and the division is exacerbated by a lack of will, from those supporting the standardized test curriculum on the one hand and those supporting the self refl ection curriculum on the other hand, to work together to come up with a consensus on how to better address education issues. The division in American curriculum highlights the problems of race and class, which still exist in American society. White and Black, rich and poor have differences in their outlooks and methods for working and educating in school. They have different outlooks about what children should achieve in school, how they should achieve it, and what teachers should be doing with students in school. Also, instead of letting educators deal with the problems of education, politicians took over all problems related to curriculum that had typically been left “to the discretionary judgments of educators” (Pinar, Reynolds, Slattery, & Taubman, 1996, p. 34). The understanding of this division in society is important in order to understand the division in American curriculum. My aim is to generate a language that shows my understanding of the educational problem in the United States based on the experience I had studying in a national curriculum in Togo, in West Africa, and ultimately here to give a tentative solution to the problem. I wish to develop my own currere, if you will. A Rainbow of Colors • 143

In the United States, in the traditional fi eld, curriculum reform is synonymous with improvement and development while in the contemporary era curriculum reform requires the understanding of experiences, of actions performed at home and in school, and the results which come from the performance of these actions. The shift in the understanding of curriculum requires that we understand curriculum not exclusively as “school materials” but as “symbolic representation” (Pinar et al., 1996, p. 16) of race, gender, or politics, for example. Curriculum can be understood as a symbolic representation of the political text of the country. Curriculum theory can be challenged by other theories, and Pinar points out that “there is no one defi nitive way of developing curriculum or of engaging in curriculum inquiry” (Pinar et al., 1996, p. 19). I strive to understand how education problems can be resolved in the United States. I ask myself, as a beginning doctoral student, if it is worth continuing to battle in a fi eld in which history seems to repeat itself over and over without any hope of ending the cycle. I ask myself to what extent curriculum shapes my identity as an educator and as a citizen. What is the ultimate responsibility of educators? What is the role of public schools? Kathleen Knight-Abowitz (2013) explores the purpose of public schools:

The purpose of school, according to many, is to get a good job or career. This aim, while important is essentially private—aimed at promoting economic gain for individuals, families, companies, and, by default, the nation… Public schools are called upon to educate all students who walk through their doors. This call is particularly critical for those millions of students who exclusively rely on the public schools as a place of opportunity, class mobility, and full citizenship. (pp. 13–14)

Pinar also feels that public schools have the responsibility to lead students to become full citizens, which can be aided through currere. I agree that the purpose of public schools is not just to help students get a job, but also to help become full citizens. This is important because we are citizens before we become managers, teachers, and politicians; our positions in the workplace are secondary to our citizenship, and it is important that schools prepare us for full citizenship in order for us to be successful in our lives, in our communities, and in our careers. My argument in this chapter is nourished mostly by the wisdom I had from reading chapter 21, “Sanity, Madness and the School,” written by Pinar (1975) in Curriculum Theorizing: The Reconceptualists.

REVIEW OF PINAR’S WORK In the view of Pinar (1975), the curriculum fi eld moves in the direction of a more engaged cultural politics and madness. Pinar contrasts the characteristics of children termed “fi eld-dependent” with those termed “fi eld-independent” and argues that “fi eld-dependent” children “seem unable to free themselves from the constraints of the situation in which they fi nd themselves. They tend to be dependent on environmental supports, i.e., other-rather than self-validating; they seem unable to initiate activities” (p. 367). On the other hand, “‘fi eld-independent’ chil- 144 • TELA BAYAMNA dren do not seem to require environmental supports; they tend to be self-validating; they take initiative; they are active…they tend to like themselves” (p. 367). Pinar wants to awaken us to these kinds of realities in public education. Educators do not get to know the capacities of both fi eld-dependent and fi eld-independent children because the implementation of traditional curriculum in classrooms typically does not allow interaction between teachers and their students. Traditional curriculum specialists belonging to the 20th century and their textbooks do not exist anymore in the reconceptualized fi eld (Pinar et al., 1996, p. 5). Contemporary curriculum theorists criticize the technical component of the traditional curriculum. We have lived in a society where the curriculum is controlled by the bureaucracy and not by the educators and the students. Pinar wants students to know what they can learn from each other and what cultural connections exist between them and others. While trying to fi nd a solution to the education issues, Pinar is humble enough to recognize that his method is not universal and writes that, “Modifi cations are welcomed as you work…we must be utilitarian” (Pinar & Grumet, 1976, p. 55). I agree with Pinar that we must be utilitarian and look at what has been done in the past and fi gure out how it can be helpful to us now and in the future and what needs to be changed. For example, Pinar and Grumet (1976) introduces us to the work of philosophers such us Jean Paul Sartre, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Buber, and others and shows us how they have been able to theorize their experiences through philosophical activities. In his view, educators need to help students perform philosophical activities to theorize about their experiences, and he believes that educational research as it is conducted cannot perform this task of educating if it focuses on the outward and the merely visible instead of the internal experience of students in society and schools. Educators need to allow some moment of “fantasy” (Pinar & Grumet, 1976) in school because fantasy is important in human life; it allows students to imagine what they want to become; it brings with it radical freedom and radical freedom is not only important in human life, but it is at the heart of what being human is. Pinar’s philosophy of education is helpful; however, it is important to know that philosophers write from a level of being that is grounded in internal experience, and it is not given to everybody to be able to perform these activities unless you are knowledgeable in the fi eld. Teachers can help students perform philosophical activities to theorize their experiences, but I am wondering how many teachers are knowledgeable enough in philosophy in order to help students achieve this goal. I am also wondering what exact method teachers can use to help students theorize their experiences when Pinar himself argues that he does not know how one distinguishes between a healthy and an unhealthy fantasy life (Pinar & Grumet, 1976). I felt like Pinar showed again his level of humility when he writes that he has not found a method to be used for the problems of education and, “It is this search for a method [he is] on now” (p. 5). Pinar does not want to stop the research by saying that he has found the method to be used and save the schools in the United States. Pinar’s philosophy gives room for future scholars to continue the research for a better future of our schools. However, Pinar suggests that, if a method were to be gen- A Rainbow of Colors • 145 erated, he would prefer the method to take a psychoanalytic, interpretive approach. The method should work “in an experiential way to shift the ontological center from exterior to interior… [and it must] help further the cognitive development of those employing it, and give understanding of educational experience in its political, social, and psycho-social dimensions” (Pinar, & Grumet, 1976, pp. 14–15). Pinar’s philosophy of education can be used in academe to help students be logically consistent about what it is they experience and make of it a conscious contribution to their evolution. By discussing philosophy, Pinar wants students to model their philosophy in their lives because it will help develop narrative imagination, which in the view of Marianna Papastephanou (2002) helps to cultivate empathy, tolerance, and identity with the other. As Papastephanou (2002) posits,

Identiﬁ cation with the Other becomes less problematic and difﬁ cult when represented in narrative forms of expression than when taught didactically, for the affective dimension involved in reading about others’ lives operates in more subtle and unconscious ways and bends resistances more effectively. (p. 71)

Pinar believes that the cultivation of empathy can help achieve this goal of identifying with the other. When we develop narratives about ourselves, about our world-views, and about self understanding of the world, we attain knowledge about ourselves and the world. The development of narratives leads to the development of critical thinking and allows problem solving, decision-making, and also a critique of the ideology that does not allow us to get rid of the illusion about the self. The development of narratives “may also contribute to curricular changes since it di- rects our attention to different ways of teaching literature and different criteria for selecting novels and other texts. It cultivates both sensitivity and awareness of how the other is depicted in our literary texts” (Papastephanou, 2002, p. 72). The development of narratives assists in the cultivation of empathy and tolerance. Reading Pinar’s book leads me to open a window on my personal educational and career experiences and to see what I can get rid of and what I can keep. It is also a window which will allow American society to learn from my educational and career experience and keep what is useful. Pinar (1975) suggests returning to whenever one is able to reach back (p. 57). Therefore, I am returning to the experiences I had working in a village in Togo and to some experiences I had working with Head Start in the United States. My life experience is a rainbow of colors that portrays the different parts of the world in which I have lived and worked; it shows what I have done and who I am becoming due to the way my identity has been shaped in different places. My story, my currere journey, will open a window of many colors and suggest a way forward.

EXPERIENCE WITH PLAN INTERNATIONAL IN TOGO When I was in Togo, I went to Catholic private schools because my parents could afford to pay for my school tuition. I am thankful for this inestimable gift of 146 • TELA BAYAMNA

“school” that my parents gave me. The private schools I attended had the same educational program as the public schools in the country. In Togo the educational system is a national system, which is modeled after the French system. It is a system infl uenced by Western civilization in which teachers are told what the curriculum is; teachers are told what to teach students; they do not design the curriculum by themselves. All of the colonies of France after independence have adopted the education system of their old masters. In the national curriculum in Togo, standardized tests are used to measure how students are learning and how teachers are teaching. These tests are used as a means of administrative control over the education of the Togolese. In the national curriculum the achievement of the students is measured at the end of the school years by standardized testing and makes it look like the students who do not pass the test at the end of the school year are not intelligent. Students take the test once a year, and those who do not pass the tests have to repeat the grade and take the test again the following year until they pass the test, and some students drop the classes due to the fact that they do not pass the tests. In this traditional school environment, teachers think that learning occurs from memoriz- ing and reciting materials. Our school teachers became instruments of “approved intellectual and moral culture, charged with the task of expunging destructive impulses and fueling the empty mental tank” (Freire, 1998, p. 5). They were less concerned with what the students have to bring to the table. Teachers bring the knowledge to students in the classrooms then measure student achievement in schools through the standardized tests. Students are not given the opportunity to be independent, to become self disciplined, and to critically analyze problems. Schools do not allow time for fantasy and creative thinking. In this educational system, we force ourselves to pay attention all the time. Of course, we catch ourselves daydreaming on occasion, but we reprimand ourselves for inattention, and once again forcefully concentrate on the lesson, like Paul, one of the two fi ctional children that Pinar and Grumet (1976) uses in his chapter “Sanity, Madness, and the School” to illustrate how schooling has a distortive effect upon fantasy (p. 362). Students are educated for a particular commodity. For example, teachers educate us in the Togo classroom so that we are ready to take the tests and fi nish within the time allocated for the tests and graduate with degrees for particular jobs. The educational system does not understand that students bring to the classroom a unique way of performing and students who do not pass the standardized tests have so much more potential than test scores indicate. As Pinar & Grumet (1975) points out in this traditional way of teaching:

The point of view, then, that has persisted in the curriculum literature is the teacher’s point of view, and the person comes to know the internal reality of her students to a limited extent, and given scheduling constraints, teaching tradition, etc., the teacher tends to make limited use of this limited knowledge. (p. 17) A Rainbow of Colors • 147

Additionally, at home we were acquiring what was in the heads of the elders. In school, teachers want us to be obedient and succeed in school and life. At home our parents emphasize the importance of being obedient, just like our schools, in order for doors to be open to us in life. Our educational system and the education I received at home infl uenced the way I think and behave and have had a positive impact in my life. I studied and passed the standardized tests required in high school; I went to college and received college degrees in Sociology. I was hired with my degrees as a social worker by Plan International, one of the oldest and largest children’s development organizations in the world. My mission at Plan International was to work in a poor community called Talkate Cope, in northern Togo. My long-term goal was to see students and their families become self-suffi - cient one day, but for most of the families, their short-term goal was to have food to feed their children and themselves. Because of my education and the social environment in which I grew up, as a city girl, I wasn’t sure if I was going to fi t in that village. But fortunately, what I experienced there ended up changing my life. I often asked myself how people make it in poor communities and are happy in spite of their poverty. I believed what my family, my environment, had brought me up to believe. My family brought me up to believe it is hard to live in poverty and it is important to receive college degrees, have a career, and become self suffi cient. I only knew the reality about my nearby environment, and I wouldn’t have come out of my disillusionment about villages if I hadn’t had the opportunity to work in a village. The education I received in school about life in villages was completely different from the experience I had at Talkate Cope. I believed what I saw around me in the city was important to make one happy until I saw something different that made me realize that what I thought was the essence of happiness was just an illusion. From my experience, city people do not nurture their relationships with others, but in the villages, relationships with others are the most important things that help people live happy lives despite their poverty, as it was the case at Talkate Cope. I went to Talkate Cope to help my fellow brothers and sisters improve their lives. They didn’t have access to clean water, food to feed their children, or technology. As a Social Worker, I was excited to live my fi rst experience after college in a village and experience a different life style. Talkate Cope helped me appreciate life in a village. I had to help members of the community develop strategies and tools they could use to prevent dryness of their land and obtain a good harvest. A proverb in my native language says that hungry people do not have ears to listen, but I was fortunate that despite their hunger, they came out and listened to me. My job was to share my knowledge with them to help them get out of poverty. In order for me to win over this community, I put my social work skills to work; I learned in my social work classes that in order to be accepted and be integrated in a community one must put oneself at the level of the people with whom one works. I did just that. My parents also told me that based on our culture, women 148 • TELA BAYAMNA are supposed to stay in the group of women and men in the group of men. I knew that and I respected the culture. So, school and home helped shape my identity and my behavior. Our school believed that its primary functions are to teach people to adjust to society; for this reason, schools emphasized “obedience to present authorities, loyalty to the present forms and traditions, skills in carrying on the present techniques of life” (as cited in Pinar, 1975, p. 77). In our schools, we are, as Pinar (1975) said, “fi eld- dependent” children unable to free ourselves from the constraints of the situation in which we fi nd ourselves. We are modeled and manipulated in both our home and schools to fi ll some predetermined roles. But the good thing is that the obedience I learned in school and at home helped me gain women’s and even men’s trust in the village. As I helped women with their household chores, the women opened up to me and talked to me about their family life. It gave me the opportunity to open up to them and share my experiences with them as a city-based, educated woman. During our conversations we learned to know each other. I also had a chance to discuss with some men in the village during our group activities. The men and women alike showed a lot of admiration for me because in spite of being an educated woman from the city, I respected a gender-based tradition and thus showed respect to all of them. Members of this community accepted me among them. I truly felt like I belonged. I lost most of the biases I had before I went there. My work experience made me realize that “it is necessary to know of the lives of our contemporaries, not only in order to believe in their integrity, which is after all but the beginning of social morality, but in order to attain to any mental or moral integrity for ourselves or any such hope for society” (Adams, 2002, p. 79). I learned that through the discovery of the world and the things that are offered to me by nature, I will be able to help build a stronger society, and learn to accept and respect other cultures the way they are. I learned very quickly that wealth is not always what brings happiness; love, family and relationships with others can bring all the happiness in the world. I also learned that people’s happiness depends on what they value the most in life; it may be a visit at their house to enquire about their health, the smile of a loved one, or a hug from a child. People in that community do not worry about what they do not have. They count their blessings every day and are grateful for what they have. They fi nd joy in every small thing they own. I found joy living with them. However, life in that village was far from easy for me. I had to wait for hours or sometimes days before my boss sent somebody over in the village to take me to the next city and get food and supplies that I needed. Social work is a commitment; I was committed to my job and was able to survive there. Food was very scarce. Getting food for children in this locality was a struggle for the parents; cooking food and distributing it among the children had to be precise because parents had to make sure that each child in the household had something to eat before A Rainbow of Colors • 149 s/he went to bed. Usually parents didn’t worry about themselves; they preferred to feed their children. I found myself living like the adults in that community. I shared my food sometimes with some children in the village. It was a pleasure for me to share what I had with the children, and making kids happy was one of my goals in that village. The good news is that while living there, I didn’t eat any pro- cessed foods. I knew how to grow foods, and people in that community also knew how to grow food. I knew how to care for food in order to have a good harvest, and I knew when to look for food. With my new life and experience in that village, I became less concerned about the city lady that I was, and I wanted to integrate into my new community and spend quality time with the villagers. Although life in that village was hard, I did not give up. People in the village loved the compassionate and caring person I was becoming. I was making healthy connections with them. These connections had transformed my narrative. My life was changing; it was a metamorphosis that was making me become a completely different person, open to this new world, their world, and ready to accept others as they are. The human connection that I learned in that village, in Togo, helped me years later in the United States when I was hired in 2005 by Cincinnati-Hamilton County Community Action Agency/ Head Start to work as a Family Service Worker with low/moderate income families in Hamilton County.

EXPERIENCE IN THE HEAD START PROGRAM IN CINCINNATI, OHIO Head Start was created in 1964 under the Economic Opportunity Act as part of the “War on poverty” (Frisvold & Lumeng, 2011, p. 374). The goal of the program is to provide education, health, and welfare to children living in poverty, because these services are usually inadequate and often inaccessible to poor children in poor communities. The program seeks to ensure that children and their families receive the necessary services that can help them improve their lives. As a Fam- ily Service Worker with Head Start my primary role was to enroll children in the program and to provide support to families whose children are enrolled in the program. I was responsible for providing families with information about the program and about the support services that are available in the community and to help them secure the needed services. I was also the liaison among teachers, families, and the community. In the United States, I had to use my social work skills again in order to work with a poor community. Although poverty in each of these countries does not have the same face, people have the same expectations of the person who is there to help them. In my new community, I needed as well to show that I was there for them and understood their life experiences. I showed compassion in order for them to trust me and work with me. At Talkate Cope, although I was from Togo, I was viewed as a stranger because I did not belong to the village. And with families in the Head Start program, I was also viewed as a stranger because I am originally 150 • TELA BAYAMNA from Africa. Social work is a commitment, and you have to love it in order to do it. The experiences I had working in Togo and in the United States and how these experiences changed my life led me to come up with the idea of representing my life with an image of the globe with multiple colors. The multiple colors identify the cosmopolitan citizen that I became in the world. By “cosmopolitan citizen” I mean that I became a citizen who is at ease in different countries and cultures. I am having interest in many parts of the world. As an adult and a cosmopolitan citizen, I have a good deal of personal experience about the culture in my country, and I am becoming accustomed to American cultures. I can argue that Togo and the United States can be viewed like an orange and an apple, with Togo being the orange (small country) and the United States being the apple (a big country). So, one must be careful when comparing both countries. Togo is a homogeneous country where the national curriculum does not affect students the same way it will affect students in the United States with its diverse population and culture. I had experience with standardized tests and with memorization, and I feel that I can judge the relative merit for measuring student achievement. From experience, I posit that memorization limits rather than promotes students’ intellectual development. Memorization “hampers both the freedom and the capacity for adventure of the student” (Freire, 1998, p. 57). Learning should be enjoyable and should not be perceived by students as punishment. Memorization and standardized tests take away student creativity, and they decrease student innovation. With the emphasis on memorization, teachers do not develop their creativity, and they only teach to the tests instead of teach the children. As a result of my many years of experience as a student with standardized testing, I argue that it is not completely a bad thing. Test scores “are often better than any single alternative, and almost better than the alternative of not considering test scores at all” (Phelps, 2003, p. 217), but standardized testing harms when it has high stakes. When schools use test scores as a tool to prepare students only for employment, for potential economic gain, education becomes a commodity or an investment rather than as a way of exploring how students can experience human ﬂ ourishing. Also, students who take standardized tests have so much more potential than test scores indicate, and when they do not pass the tests, it does not mean that they are not intelligent. For example, my classmates who did not pass the tests we took together in school have different potentials than I had, and the fact that I passed my tests and they failed the tests does not mean that I am smarter than they are. I passed the tests because I had a cultural capital that prepared me to do so. I had a cultural capital that they did not have. By cultural capital, I mean that I had the resources, attitudes, knowledge, and skills that they did not have access to. My classmates may have failed their tests because they lacked the resources, attitudes, and skills that could contribute to their success in this particular aspect of schooling. A Rainbow of Colors • 151

I posit that it is advisable that both the advocates of standardized tests and the advocates of self refl ection work together and include in the curriculum the wisdom coming from each of them. We need in America a balanced approach in the educational system, instead of a rigid and totalitarian approach. In the United States, it is not wise to advocate for a national system as it is in Togo, for example, because the national system will not refl ect the realities of the different states of the country. I am not sure the impact a curriculum based only on self refl ection will have on the educational system of the United States, but I feel that it is better to fi nd a solution that will not jeopardize the future of students. I advocate for a consensus between reconceptualists and Western traditionalists concerning the school curriculum in the United States. But I also agree by extension with Pinar (1976) that in the process of reforming the curriculum, teachers’ work needs to be praised, but students also need to be represented in the curriculum:

The teacher’s perspective is obviously an important one. But it has dominated our research and practice too long, and while it is rarely admitted publicly, it is true we are stuck. We are uncertain where to go next… a student’s perspective [does not need to] be portrayed from the point of view of the teacher…What is missing is the study of the student’s point of view from the student’s point of view. What is missing is the portrayal of the self from the point of view of the self. (Pinar, 1976, p. 17)

The historical context of the United States is one of the problems that makes it hard to develop and implement an education that is inclusive, just, and equitable and based on the students’ point of view. The historical context also contributed to create a binary system in which White people and people of color are put in two different boxes and the binary system impacts negatively the educational system. The historical context of the country created a political and economic oppression by White people over people of color. This oppression allowed the implementation of Western civilization in schools and does not allow students to learn from their own point of view, the point of view of the self. Western civilization does not allow the implementation of currere in schools, the knowledge that Pinar is after. However, it is important to keep working to make sure we give students an education that will prepare them to confront all situations in the future.

POSSIBILITIES FOR MOVING FORWARD Pinar’s book gives us some insights, some tentative answers along the way on how to improve education in the United States. With standardized testing and the rise of the common core, the United States has a national curriculum by default; it is a curriculum similar to that of my original country, Togo. Unfortunately, in a country that is not homogenous like Togo, I am not sure what future we prepare students for if we do not balance the approaches. We cannot change the past of American education, but we can improve the future of American education. The improvement of American education will not be accomplished by copying the 152 • TELA BAYAMNA curriculum of other countries because their education system is “great” somehow, nationalized, standardized, technically effi cient, etc. Those of us working in the fi eld should adopt an approach that privileges curriculum theorizing, which according to Pinar’s process of currere takes the form of learning experiences and cannot be planned, but depends on experience, and on understanding the historical and cultural setting of the experience. Curriculum theorizing takes the form of a living organism when it is not divorced from the environment, culture, and experience. Yet, it is a complex process because the task of theorizing demands a deconstruction of educational experiences from a personal perspective. It is a method that has to be distinguished from a technical planning process, which is supposedly precise and that will lead to planned for outcomes. Pinar (1975) observes that the reconceptualists instead tend to concern themselves with the internal and existential experience of the public world. They tend to study not “change in behavior” or “decision making in classroom,” but matters of temporality, transcendence, consciousness, and politics. Therefore, curriculum theorizing is intended to guide school leaders, advocates, and proponents toward a better future. It is not intended to give us a precise answer about how to fi x our schools based on a successful moment in the history of America, because there have never been any golden days in the history of the American school curriculum. It will be diffi cult to have a golden theory that could help solve all the problems of education in the United States. The goal of curriculum theory is not to fi nd an eternal truth. Theory functions to provoke you to think (Pinar et al., 1996, p. 8). Theory functions to provoke you to wake up, to use your critical thinking and discover the reality hiding behind the political language. Should American education adopt a national system? Should states and local communities try to create a system of education in which all levels of education are educated as one system instead of several? Should American education adopt a more balanced approach between standardization and self-refl ection? Regard- less of the type of system American education adopts, it is important to remember that in this technological age the world became a small village, and educators and policy makers should be aware of that and generate the new curriculum accord- ingly. The time has come for American education to think of the kind of education America’s diverse population needs in this technological age. Based on the lessons learned in my two life-changing experiences, my currere, I could suggest that American education adopt a balanced approach between traditional education and progressive education because there are virtues and challenges in traditional education, and traditional education can be complemented by a progressive education. From experience I know that, in traditional education, educators rule the classrooms, and students execute what they are asked to do. I reject this kind of external authority, but I argue with Dewey (1938) that there is a certain dialectic at play that works if we explore it further, into experience:

When external authority is rejected, it does not follow that all authority should be rejected, but rather that there is a need to search for a more effective source of A Rainbow of Colors • 153

authority. Because the older education imposed the knowledge, methods, and the rules of conduct of the mature person upon the young, it does not follow, except upon the basis of the extreme Either-Or philosophy, that the knowledge and skill of the mature person has no directive value for the experience of the immature. (p. 21)

In other words, some aspects of traditional education are effective, and a total rejection of traditional education for progressive education may jeopardize the future of students. Traditional education has its own weaknesses and strengths, and it is important to know the strengths that we need to keep in the curriculum and to move forward toward the next iteration of curriculum and curriculum theorizing. In my life, I have seen the value and positive direction of adult authority and cultural customs that may appear on the surface to lack equity, maybe even justice. But in the long run, society and communities and people make decisions on the norms at hand, striving for insight, freedom, and truth. We are all on that journey together, storying our lives, ﬁ nding balance, and making meaning.

REFERENCES Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Macmillan. Freire, P. (1998). Pedagogy of freedom: Ethics, democracy and civic courage. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littleﬁ eld. Frisvold, D. E., & Lumeng, J. C. (2011). Expanding exposure: Can increasing the daily duration of head start reduce childhood obesity? Journal of Human Resources, 46(2), pp. 373–402. Knight-Abowitz, K. (2013). Publics for public schools: Legitimacy, democracy, and leadership. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers. Phelps, R. (2003). Kill the messenger: The war on standardized testing. Piscatawy, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Pinar, W. (Ed.). (1975). Curriculum theorizing: The reconceptualists. Berkeley, CA: Mc- Cutchan. Pinar, W. & Grumet, M. (1976). Toward a poor curriculum. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing. Pinar, W. F., Reynolds, W. M., Slattery, P., & Taubman, P. M. (1996). Understanding curriculum: An introduction to the study of historical and contemporary curriculum discourses. New York, NY: Peter Lang Papastephanou, M. (2002). Arrows not yet ﬁ red: Cultivating cosmopolitanism through education. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 36(1), 69–86.

CHAPTER 11

BECOMING A WHOLE HUMAN

Angie Meissner

Berman, L. M. & Roderick, J. A. (1977). Curriculum: Teaching the what, how, and why of living. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

THE CHANGING LANDSCAPE Recently, I traveled from the comforts of my humdrum, uptight, Midwestern life to a city I’d never been in and always wanted to visit. Being newly divorced and fi nally having the means to travel sans kids, I took advantage of the opportunity to take a much needed vacation—a little R and R from the last 9 months of my life’s chaos. In my younger years, I had been to California many times; a cross country fl ight was routine for me. My companion on the journey, however, was a rookie traveler—new to the Western states and a fi rst time fl yer. For hours I silently watched him stare out the window in awe of the vast, changing landscape, snapping oodles of pictures and short videos to document the experience. And for the fi rst time in my life, I realized that this time, I was paying attention, too. The journey of my own life, from educator and career woman, to stay at home mother, to a now single, working mother pursuing a much different life path, coincided metaphorically with those changing landscapes we passed over and that I had always taken for granted.

Curriculum Windows: What Curriculum Theorists of the 1970s Can Teach Us about Schools and Society Today, pages 155–169. Copyright © 2015 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. 155 156 • ANGIE MEISSNER

The fl at, farming fi elds of the Midwest, where growth begins and fl ourishes reminded me of the beginnings of my adult life and career as an educator. There was a time when I was fresh, organic and lively. I had absolutely everything to offer to the educational world because I was young and free of responsibilities—no children, no husband, no ties to anything other than my career. I poured my heart, soul, and free time into creating an educational environment that allowed me to accomplish my number one goal: my students and I learning from and teaching each other things in order to become better human beings. The desolate, isolated plains that followed those fi elds of growth afforded me the opportunity to refl ect on how my life eventually began to shift after I married and began a family. Teaching the students in my classroom how to become better human beings started taking a back seat to my biological children’s needs. I felt the internal pull of personally ensuring they would grow to become well- intentioned human beings as well. However, being able to afford my children that opportunity led to me leaving my teaching career behind. Little did I realize at the time how much this would affect the future landscape of my own life. Watching the miles and miles of desolate plains pass through that window made me lament the many years of my life I spent feeling desolate and isolated, going through the motions of just being “mommy,” missing my educational career and longing for balance among work, education, and family. Those miles of desolate plains were eventually met by cumbersome mountain ranges that created a stark barrier between what had come before and what was yet to come. My mind drifted to the circumstances that arose in my own life that caused barriers along the path of past and future. When my family was complete—4 small children and a husband who had a time-consuming, important career—I felt trapped by a mountain that seemed impossible to climb. My children and I had been teaching and learning from each other during my time at home with them, and I had been keeping up with my continuing education in the attempt to stay current, but I was left questioning if that counted for anything in the education fi eld. I had been away for more than 7 years and had a Master’s degree plus a good amount of additional graduate hours. While I was at home, new testing measures were being implemented in the fi eld. Common core standards were being developed. Licensure and teaching qualifi cations were being modifi ed. All kinds of new shifts and barriers from within the educational world left me feeling hopeless and feel as though I could not climb the mountain to re-enter the career fi eld I wanted to return to while delicately balancing the needs of my family as well. As the mountains passed, we fl ew over the hot, dry dusty space of the desert where the cracks, fi ssures, and canyons show the wear and tear of the earth. In that moment, I realized that I had spent so many years losing myself in being a mom, leaving my career behind, and unconventionally educating myself and my children, that I was much like the desert. The years I had spent yearning for and fi ghting for balance in my life had caused it to become dry, to the point where my Becoming a Whole Human • 157 marriage and family literally fell apart and broke into pieces. These experiences were my own cracks, fi ssures, and canyons. The visible signs of the broken earth mirrored the personal wear and tear my life had taken after fi ghting so hard to make it to the other side of the mountain. I didn’t expect this “ah-ha” moment from the simple, silent observation of my companion on a cross country fl ight. However, I recognized what was happening and found myself writing feverishly, documenting my own process and comparing it to what Louise Berman and Jesse Roderick (1977) discuss throughout their work as being the connection between people and their settings. I was experiencing and creating curriculum in paying attention to my process and giving it voice by writing the beginnings of this chapter.

LEARNING OUTSIDE OF THE STERILE CLASSROOM Berman and Roderick’s curriculum text titled, Curriculum: Teaching the What, How, and Why of Living, was published in 1977 and centers around one major idea: a person can grow, learn, teach others, and become more able to serve the world at large by paying attention to the interplay he/she has with his/her own setting. The simple interplay of observing my companion on our ﬂ ight was just that. It was a rich opportunity for me to grow, teach, and learn about myself in a way that would allow me to better serve others. Engaging with this text as a whole afforded me not only the opportunity to learn from a curricular perspective situated in 1970s, where the general notion was to focus on caring, loving, supporting others, etc., but it also allowed me the intellectual space to question and make numerous comparisons between those perspectives and how they relate to my own, present, personal experience. Berman and Roderick (1977) assertively introduce their text to the reader in the following way:

This book is written for those who are interested in providing settings where the person can develop skill in utilizing past impressions, present perceptions, and future hopes as resources in dealing with life’s basic questions—the what, how and why of living. (p. 1)

They argue that teaching, learning, and curriculum development do not occur in a vacuum. This is an argument we, as educators, know, but which we are not able to voice in current academic settings because movements in standardized education make doing so impossible. The value of learning and giving voice to curricula that happen outside of a sterile classroom has been all but lost, which is shameful, because its value is so important. An old friend of mine recently posted a Facebook status I secretly wished Ber- man and Roderick could have read because it solidiﬁ es the importance of their argument. Much like learning from my ﬂ ight, my friend learned something from 158 • ANGIE MEISSNER a mundane Metro bus ride to and from work in downtown Cincinnati. One Friday afternoon, she wrote,

I have learned that riding the Metro creates a community all its own. Yesterday, I found myself signing a card for a girl who I only know by ﬁ rst name and bus stop who was diagnosed with cancer last week, and marveled at the expressions of sympathy for our driver who just returned to our route after spending some time with his mother before she died. (Laramore, 2013)

Not only do these experiences typify the learning lessons Berman and Rod- erick believed students should be afforded—opportunities for them to engage in and reﬂ ect on how interactions with social contexts and daily activities play a part in learning and development—but they argue that it is our responsibility as educators to equip the younger generation with the tools to create new knowledge, to deal effectively with the day to day conundrums of life, and successfully pass those on to future generations. Their words from 35 years ago ring true to our current state of affairs in society:

The uncertainty of the times, the mobility of the population, and the inability to predict fully what the future holds for anyone necessitate the development of persons who can deal realistically, joyously, and in a transcendent manner with life and its many challenges. No parent or teacher can leave with the young the speciﬁ c knowledge necessary to solve life’s dilemmas. But those responsible for their education can provide opportunities for the young to acquire inner resources that enable them to deal effectively with the circumstances of living. (Berman & Roderick, 1977, p. 3)

From Berman and Roderick’s (1977) viewpoint, being able to equip our youth with the tools necessary to become fl uent in dealing with the juxtapositions of life begins with understanding how one’s social contexts and ability to live and interact within them affects who they are as individuals and how they are perceived by others. They spend the fi rst several chapters of their text discussing subjects such as patterns of child rearing, mobility, rootedness (or lack thereof) and branch- ing, power balance and shifts, giving and receiving, sharing resources, desires for new competences, inner discipline and outer procedures, and consideration and achievement of alternate destinies. All of these subjects are brought to the forefront and discussed in order to establish the authors’ curricular stance, but more important, they work to establish the central theme of the text—people wanting and needing conditions for growth and renewal tend to interact with others, ideas, and institutions that work to help enhance themselves. They want and need social contexts that can contribute to their wellbeing. They need the exposure and infl u- ence that comes from the curricula found outside of sterile classrooms. Educators are responsible not only for presenting students with textbook knowledge given in sterile classrooms, but more so, for presenting exposure to the skills necessary to encompass real-world knowledge in order to choose proper social contexts that Becoming a Whole Human • 159 will allow them to grow, fl ourish, and be fertile in the rich decisions life presents to them daily.

THE IMPORTANCE OF EMPOWERMENT Berman and Roderick (1977) discuss how too often persons are duped by other people or circumstances into believing that they have no control over their actions, thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. Personally, I can attest to the notion of being duped into feeling powerless. For me, the joint decision to sacriﬁ ce my teaching career for the wellbeing of my children left me, over time, feeling powerless and out of control. While subconsciously I was aware all along that staying home to care for them was in their best interest, it left me feeling warped and unimportant. Engaging in the social context of “full time mommy” was one that was plentiful and full of growth for my children, but one that did not serve my own personal en- hancement. This is not to say that I hated my circumstances and being a mother. I was simply a woman who needed balance between work and family environment. Rather than feeling empowered by my work as a full time mother, I felt resent- ful that my partner was able to leave and go to a “real job” outside of the home. My world felt mundane, unimportant and out of my own personal control. I had babies that needed my full attention, and I wasn’t sure how to balance that with my need for teaching children other than my own. Spending many years, day in and day out, in the sterile space of feeding, changing diapers, and taking care of the children’s needs took away my power to realize that performing these tasks was just as important and self-serving as the years I had spent teaching other people’s children in a classroom outside of my home. I lost sight of the importance of the unconventional and how empowering my work as “mommy” actually was. It wasn’t until I was forced to step away from that seemingly sterile environment that I was able to shed light on its actual importance. My realizations about my own personal situation coexist with the same realization that Berman and Roderick (1977) try to shed light on: everyone has the ability to have control over their actions, thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, but they must be taught the proper skills to possess that control. In retrospect, the reality of my own situation was that I had choices. I could have taken a stand. I could have fought to make my voice heard. I could have gone back to work. I could have found balance. But I didn’t, because I was duped, by myself and my situation, into believing that I had lost the power to exercise my voice in expressing my thoughts and feelings, and my ability to make decisions to enhance a space that I did not believe was fertile, rich, and full of growth for me. I did not have the proper skills to be in control of my situation. It was not until recently that I made the connection between process and context that Berman and Roderick’s (1977) work so brilliantly puts forth. It took living in emotionally desolate conditions, climbing the mountain of “mommy-hood,” and overcoming the physical barriers of a divorce to realize that the knowledge and skills I had inherently, paired with ones I gained along the way, enabled me to step 160 • ANGIE MEISSNER up and forward for the ﬁ rst time in my life as a process-oriented individual with the voice necessary to be powerful and in control of my space. Berman and Roderick (1977) argue that students who become process-oriented individuals are exposed to various social contexts. In being exposed to such contexts, they learn how to acknowledge their interactions with those contexts and give voice to the process of doing such. A process-oriented individual is one who knows how to function, gain control, and live a life that has constant growth when it comes to the basic human qualities of personal actions, thoughts, feelings and behaviors. I, personally, agree with that argument. Studying their work alongside my changing landscape has opened my eyes to the fact that I have inadver- tently educated myself, and my children as well, in this curriculum that doesn’t get enough attention in the public educational realm. The function of education should be to focus on producing process-oriented individuals, as these are the kind of individuals who can make our world a more self-aware, self-enriching environment.

PROCESS-ORIENTED INDIVIDUALS Process-oriented individuals have a fully developed range of qualities related to perception. Berman and Roderick (1977) discuss a variety of these qualities throughout the text, all of which have merit. However, I have chosen to highlight the following qualities: being curious about one’s own observations; giving to others in a way that is well-intentioned and well-received without being forceful; being an acting individual who carries out decisions with purpose; seeing that possibilities are endless while showing reserve in expressing those possibilities to others; seeking opinions from others rather than relying on approval from them; being the best monitor of one’s own behavior; living a life of ﬂ air, humor, and ease; and thriving on contributions the world makes to one’s life while making contributions in return. Not only do I believe that these seven qualities are the most noteworthy of what the authors are trying express as most important, but they are also ones that resonate most clearly to what I’ve gained along the way in my personal struggle. A process-oriented individual is curious about her own observations—about self and others. I’ve always had a keen sense of observation. I notice things, about myself, situations, and other people that many times go unnoticed by passersby. Simple details—the same cars I pass every day on my way to work, the way someone’s hair catches the light, or how a complete stranger watches me interact with my children—are things that I constantly pay attention to. This quality is one I’ve passed on to my own children as well, either inherently or unconventionally by being at home with them over the years. Not a day goes by without each of us bringing to the table an observation about something we feel is important, a healthy curiosity into seeing and communicating about the “causes and effects” of life. Becoming a Whole Human • 161

Developing this quality of curiosity in a sterile educational environment is necessary for two reasons. It affords children the opportunity to become more aware of their social contexts—people, places, and the interplay of one with the other. It also opens the window to fostering stronger communication skills. Giv- ing students the space to voice their observations, questions, and concerns about the contexts they encounter helps foster independent thought and stresses the importance of being a well-rounded giver and receiver, not only in the classroom, but in real-world situations as well. Being well-intentioned and well-received without being forceful in communicating with others and social contexts is also a quality that a process-oriented individual possesses. This quality, I believe, is what has made me a good mother and a successful educator, not only in the classroom, but also in the unconventional education of my children. In dealing with children, whether they have been my own or other people’s, I have always been a listener fi rst and an opinion/advice giver second. In doing such, I believe the child with whom I am communicating can see I am well-intentioned. They trust I care about their wellbeing fi rst and foremost and will be honest and not pushy in my response to their attempts in reaching out to communicate. I believe Berman and Roderick (1977) would stress this quality as the most crucial of the seven I’ve chosen to discuss. It is the key to becoming an effective and effi cient communicator. Fostering this quality inside of the classroom is as necessary as one learning the alphabet and counting to 100 in order to become more self-serving individuals. Classroom practice in its development must involve repeated exposures to practice in dialogue and feedback while inside the classroom, about things outside the realm of school. Opportunities for semi-structured social forums, where children can be free to converse and receive feedback and support from peers who are trustworthy and encouraging, are crucial to developing well- intentioned and strong, but not forceful, communicators. Individuals who have strong communication skills are typically confi dent decision makers as well. Standing fi rm in the face of adversity takes a great deal of courage, no matter the situation. One must often make diffi cult decisions knowing the consequences may be long lasting. Process-oriented individuals are acting individuals. They are confi dent in making those kinds of decisions and carrying them out with purpose. They see the potential for endless possibilities when decisions are made, yet they are somewhat reserved in how they express those possibilities to others. The events that happened on my journey through marriage, motherhood, and divorce, and in turn their resulting consequences, have educated me in ways I never imagined. I have learned there is a great deal of power in choice and possibility. Being handed papers that direct you to pick up and start your life over in its entirety forces one to stand in the face of adversity. And while my landscape had changed from lively, fresh, and full of growth to bare, isolated, and desolate, I was faced with a very diffi cult choice. I could dry out and evaporate in my own self- pity and allow myself to be swallowed by the cracks and fi ssures of my failures, 162 • ANGIE MEISSNER or I could stand up, walk away with my head held high, and see the potential in what possibilities lay at the doorstep of such failures. I chose the latter, reserved and cautiously, in order to avoid making the same mistakes twice. Choosing to see the potential in the future taught me an important lesson in personal relations. Seeking out and relying on the approval of others, as I had been conditioned to do for many years, was completely unnecessary and detrimental to my ability to be a whole person. I know now I am the best monitor of my own behaviors. I now seek out opinions of only those who are trustworthy, honest, and closest to me and who communicate openly about any situation at hand. But most important, I no longer rely on anyone’s approval in order to make further decisions. I am now acutely aware of the interplay social contexts have on how I live my life. I have become a true process-oriented individual. I possess the qualities necessary for growth, self-awareness, and service to others. Berman and Roderick (1977) open their text with a passage about the interplay of persons and settings, which ties to my own learning process:

Persons simultaneously want the security of the past and the potential adventure- someness of the future, the freedom of aloneness and the mutuality of compatible persons, the excitement of organizing and the stability of the organized. Persons have a need to break out of barriers and at the same time to be enclosed by familiar surroundings. Persons want to serve but at the same time want to be served. Because persons want and need the conditions for growth, expansion, and constant remaking they tend to interact with persons, ideas, and surroundings, places, organizations— a social context—which contribute to their wellbeing ... The persistent interplay between the person and his setting is a theme of this book. The interplay can be constructive or destructive either through intent or carelessness. Persons and institutions stand to gain or lose depending upon the fruitfulness of the interplay. (p. 7)

The interplay of social contexts along with the changing landscape of my life have been both destructive and constructive. Experiencing destructive contexts along the path paved the way for greater, constructive contexts. Living the process of interplay between these contexts has allowed me to do several things. It has enabled me to position myself in the world as one who possesses the strength and grace to handle what daily life throws my way. It has given me the opportunity to see things from other perspectives. It has taught me to be more service-oriented with others. It has allowed me the ability to make diffi cult choices and be okay with their consequences. It has shown me what it means to “walk in someone else’s shoes” and defi ned sacrifi ce. It has given me space to broaden my horizons by returning to the workforce and starting a new educational path. Ultimately, it has allowed me to achieve the things laid out in Berman and Roderick’s aforementioned passage. Most important, however, the process has opened my eyes to the importance of living a life of fl air, humor, and ease. The authors take great care discussing the idea that one who does not live a life with these qualities in mind is not a complete individual. To do this consistently, one must apply the qualities previously Becoming a Whole Human • 163 discussed in this chapter to their daily interplay with varied social contexts and experiences. Flair, humor, and ease in living can occur then when one is able to invite others to join in the goal of making life more meaningful for themselves and others. Being able to do so allows individuals the opportunity to thrive in an environment that is personally ideal, where the world makes constructive contributions to their personal being while also providing them the space to make those same types of contributions to the world at large. The goal then, if our society at large is to achieve forward progress, much like my own, in the process of interplay and living with purpose, is to educate our youth in the qualities and skills of process orientation. Accepting and recognizing the qualities of process-oriented people as dynamic, multifaceted, and critical raises the central question: What can schools do to facilitate process-oriented development?

THE IMPORTANCE OF EDUCATING FOR THE WHAT, HOW, AND WHY OF LIVING Berman and Roderick (1977) believe it is a school’s responsibility to play a major part in educating students with the qualities of a process-oriented person. Curricula based solely on the core subjects are not nearly enough for students, missing the mark in the importance human relations play on the development of well-rounded people. While Berman and Roderick do not believe that core subjects should be cut out completely, they feel curricula should be reworked and replaced with ones that equally incorporate skill development as it relates to the process-oriented individual. Three main skills on which the authors focus their work in relation to process orientation are decision making, involvement, and peopling. These are respectively what they deem the what, how, and why of living. Education in these basic skills is the crux of developing process-oriented individuals equipped to serve each other and society on a much more humanistic level. Shifting our current focus in education from teaching only fact regurgitation and test taking skills to one that is rich in showing how learning occurs, the differences in individuals, and caring about the human element of others is crucial in saving the humanism that currently lies in the shadows of our schools, waiting to be rediscovered. Decision making is considered the concept in which the individual can choose to act upon his/her environment, rather than only being acted upon by it. It is the, “what should I do?” question one asks when faced with a choice. The true decision making skill curricula schools should provide have been all but eliminated. The most important decisions students are currently faced with in school are which multiple choice answers are the correct ones for the test. Berman and Roderick (1977) argue for teaching the important notion that choices made within the context of school are not limited just to what the teacher sets forth as important or “right,” but also that choices about real life contexts outside of the classroom are of equal importance and that a test is not the only way for one to show he/she is knowledgeable in an area, either inside the classroom or out of it. 164 • ANGIE MEISSNER

Schools should bear the responsibility of providing classroom opportunities in practicing the importance of real decision making—which includes activities in owning one’s responsibilities inside and outside the classroom, giving and receiving support among peers in the process, and understanding that in making a decision, students alone have the power to act upon their environment with that decision, instead of the environment/decision acting solely upon them. Exposing students to the “what” of living can allow them to become more fully versed in the “how” of the living. The “how” of living works as the skill one uses to achieve commitments. In- volvement is related to the representation of long-term and ultimate goals of a person, inside and outside of school. It is the “how should I carry out my plan?” question one asks after he/she makes a decision. Current curricula do not provide for the planning of “how” in education, because they already have set forth a “how” for students. The “how” students are given in schools presently is pre-formed by top-down legislators, as well as state and national standards, and relates only to the core subjects. It does not focus any attention on an individual’s interest in personal long-term goals outside of a classroom, but rather involves meeting and being proﬁ cient only in standards monotonously set forth by the system. Berman and Roderick (1977) found this notion very disheartening, even in the 1970s. They wrote:

Current literature on education lacks adequate evidence that involvement as it relates to curricular concerns has been carefully examined. ... Each person must determine what he wants to do, what he needs to do and what he is capable of doing. Each person must also determine how he will carry out that which he decides to do. ... Advocates of the various forms of open education, however they deﬁ ne it, encourage those responsible for the educations of others to provide learning experiences that not only encourage the learner’s innate curiosity ... but also make it possible for him to provide a setting in which learners want to explore and pursue their interests ... a need still exists for more speciﬁ city in describing involvement and for establishing relationships between the concept of involvement and the implications for curriculum development. (pp. 62, 64)

Failure to provide these settings for students takes away from their opportunity to develop into process-oriented individuals, which also hinders their ability to develop skills in setting and achieving their own personal goals. Development of “how” builds on the skill of “what,” and combined, they work to produce the “why” of living. The “why” of living is the skill, when developed, of being able to interact among others so one can learn new truths, insights, positive emotions/feelings, and constructive, collaborative actions in relation to whatever decision there is to be made. This is a skill, much like the others, that crosses the barriers of schooling and real-life learning. This “peopling” occurs when one becomes fully aware of his/her own needs and wants, which in turn allows others in the same space to become self-aware as well. It is the question one asks when it is time to carry out Becoming a Whole Human • 165 the plan. “Why should I involve these people in my decision, and how does this beneﬁ t us all?” It is the skill crucial to reintegrating the importance of human relations into the context of schooling. Current educational reform has dropped the ball of integrating peopling skills altogether. In the push to make educators accountable, legislators have lost sight of the importance of a teacher’s ability to do just that on their own. Accountability should come from our youth being able to successfully serve society at large with skills and knowledge they have acquired through formal schooling in process orientation by completing service projects, apprenticeships, and individual acts of giving, instead of being assessed on how many questions are answered correctly on a standardized test. Berman and Roderick (1977) attest to this by saying:

Traditionally, the school has planned opportunities for engagement with things but has planned to a lesser degree for engagements with persons. The school has an opportunity to provide the setting in which persons can learn “information processes, techniques, and values” as they relate to persons. If this is done, individuals can build personal knowledge of peopling and ultimately we might possess a body of public knowledge in this area. Such knowledge might cut across the disciplines and ﬁ elds which now exist and purport to deal with various dimensions of man. (p. 91)

Shifting to rework current curriculum practices so that students can have equal access to the skills Berman and Roderick suggest as ﬁ tting is problematic. Achieving a school curriculum equally balanced with the what, how, and why of living is ham- pered by the barrier of assessment. In the eyes of lawmakers, if a new shift in educational practice does not have stringent assessment tools attached in order to provide accountability, it will not receive the important attention it properly deserves. In the face of the testing and assessment rage that is our current educational system, I believe in order to properly bring the importance of the humanistic curricula to the forefront of reform and to see change, educators must focus their efforts on using communication as the foundation for change. Communication is an observable process. It is also at the heart of human character, relations, and being a process-oriented individual. People learn by doing, talking about their experiences, and receiving feedback in order to better themselves. This allows them to be more apt to serve others. Schools have a wide range of opportunity to provide curricular experiences grounded in communication. Through communication, the possibility exists for teachers, students, and the community to work together in gathering information about individuals, each other, and social contexts; obtain feedback about past, present, and future curricular decisions; and plan for new learning opportunities.

RETURNING TO THE REAL From the day I fi rst stepped foot into my own classroom as a middle school teacher, I have pondered why our educational system has not paid more attention to the 166 • ANGIE MEISSNER importance of humanism in student development. I recognized very early on in my career that what my young teenage students needed weren’t lessons from the big green book of standards that would help them supposedly to score well on a test. They needed someone to help mold them into positive role models, among themselves and for future generations. I used to tell my students at the beginning of every school year that my goal as their teacher was not just to teach grammar, writing, reading, and comprehension skills, but also to help them learn how to become better human beings. My only classroom rule was that you had to give respect to receive it. My door was always open for communication with them. I made them aware daily that I cared about their lives, in and outside of school, and that I understood the trials and tribula- tions of teenage life. I incorporated my own personal stories of young adulthood into my lessons whenever the opportunity presented itself. And I allowed them the choice to incorporate their personal curricula into our learning space. I worked diligently to create a “family” atmosphere in my classroom. I never felt more successful in doing just that the year one of my classes decided to call me “Mother V” instead of “Mrs. V” (my married name began with the letter V). Colleagues and other school personnel would look strangely at my students greet- ing me in that manner because it was extraordinary; but I didn’t fi nd it strange at all. Being called “Mother V” was the single greatest compliment I ever received as a teacher. It was my students’ outward expression of acknowledgement that the social and familial atmosphere I strived to create had been successful, which meant meeting my personal goals as an educator. At the end of that year, I was confi dent my students left my room equipped with the skills necessary to better serve themselves, their peers, and the sometimes cruel, unpredictable world we live in. If being deemed “Mother V” by my students was the single greatest compliment I could receive, one might ask why the feelings from being “mommy” in the years I spent taking care of my young children are so far removed from the ones I felt being termed “mother” by my students. It could be argued that both situations afforded me the opportunity to create positive “family” atmospheres where humanism was at the forefront of the educational process, with the only difference being the age of the children. And there is truth to that argument. Both spaces did give me the opportunity to dig deep and teach fundamentals of living along with the necessary knowledge of curricula. What sets them apart, however, is the outward acknowledgement I received in each space and how that affected my own ability to be a process-oriented individual. I referenced earlier that my educational classroom was built on the basis of respect, a core quality in process orientation. You had to give it to receive it. In that space, everyone’s thoughts, feelings, and contributions were acknowledged, praised, at times challenged, but in the end, respected. Earning the title of “Mother V” from my students was, in my own eyes, the ultimate outward showing of respect from my students. It was their way of letting me know they had learned, Becoming a Whole Human • 167 understood, and respected the diligent efforts I took to enhance their lives. It gave me the confi dence and drive to keep going because I knew I was making a difference. My abilities to incorporate process orientation were working and being successful. My personal classroom on the other hand, where I was “mother” to my small children, was a far cry from being respected. My children were much too young as infants and toddlers to be able to understand the depth of the things I was working hard to instill in them. They were not able to give me the outward showing of respect my students from the classroom had given me. Knowing this, it seemed natural for me to seek acknowledgement and respect from their father, the man who was supposed to be my co-teacher, partner in crime, confi dant, and biggest supporter. Honestly, who better to give me the confi dence and drive to keep going when I no longer had a classroom full of teenagers to do so? Unfortunately, those pieces of the process I sought from him were never once expressed outwardly to me, causing me to lose a piece of my individuality. I left my educational career to focus solely on my personal career with the hopes of being able to take my well-crafted process and use it to become a happy, respected, part of the home team and “mother” for the greater good of our family. However, what I had worked years to craft and perfect in my educational classroom met with friction, negativity, and disrespect in my personal classroom space. My once diligent, successful efforts fell on deaf ears and ultimately ended up being detrimental to my own humanism. I ended up feeling far removed, unsuccessful, and stripped of my confi dence and ability to function as a process-oriented individual. I had no knowledge of Berman and Roderick’s (1977) work all those years ago. Sometimes I wish I would have. Maybe I could have used the knowledge from their windows of insight to help wipe clean the cobwebs on my own panes. Regardless, in studying their work now, many years later, I feel their ideas about process orientation are ones that have potential to throw the curriculum window wide open, allowing the breeze of past practices in process to blow in growth and opportunity for our current, educational fi eld. Now more than ever, I feel strongly that all students in school systems should have access to the type of process curriculum Berman and Roderick (1977) make arguments for and one similar to the one I crafted in my own classroom. If educators were given the space formally and equally to incorporate the interplay of person and context into curricula, future generations of youth would be better served and, as a result, become more well-rounded contributors to society. Looking back on my own education, I believe I was fortunate enough to have experienced some of what the system was like before the testing and accountability movement became the driving force in how students are educated. I can remember as far back as Kindergarten being able to do simple things in my classroom—cut and paste with my peers, color, participate in circle time, paint, play with toys, sing songs with my teacher—things a normal fi ve year old child should focus on. These simple tasks may not have taught me how to read or write or 168 • ANGIE MEISSNER count to 100 per se, but they built the framework for learning how to be a social creature in the context of a classroom. They gave me the opportunity to develop communication, as well as the necessary social and relational skills. I compare my Kindergarten experience to my son’s current experience, and it makes me fretful, angry, and sad at the kind of education he and his peers are receiving. Rather than being able to partake in the simple pleasures of coloring, painting, and playing in centers with his peers, he is instead plagued with reading drills, math tests, and writing workshops. My child is not being afforded the simple opportunities to learn crucial social and process-oriented skills he will eventually need to be a well-rounded individual in society. The only thing school is giving him currently is an enormous amount of pressure to perform, which is causing him to have panic and anxiety attacks about going to school. Several weeks ago, my son began calling home from school complaining of belly aches and having tumultuous emotional outbursts about going to and staying at school. The situation was deeply troubling for me, as he had always been happy-go-lucky about school and life in general. A visit with his school principal and teacher uncovered and pinpointed the source of his dismay. A comprehensive math assessment was given by his teacher a day before his outbursts began. The test caused him so much frustration and trouble that he began internalizing his woes and applying them to his feelings about school in general. He told us he didn’t want to go to school anymore because he was bad at math and that, because he was bad at it, he was going to have to keep taking tests until he got it right. My heart broke for him and any of his peers who have been in the same shoes at some point throughout the school year this year. The simplistic innocence of my fi ve year old child has been tarnished thanks to an educational system that cares not about him learning the skills he needs to successfully cope with life, but more about if he can read, write, and do math. He is fi ve. He should not be expected to be a fl uent reader or even know what the concept of math is. He should be a social butterfl y and a great crayon/marker/watercolor artist. His troubles should come from someone not sharing toys on the playground and not because he didn’t understand what was on the math test. It is entirely too frustrating for me, as an educator and a parent, to sit and watch the children of our future start out with so much baggage. Why then can’t parents like me, educators, and communities band together to enact change and rid ourselves of the accountability monster our educational system has created? Is it simply because process orientation and humanism cannot be formally measured? Or is it rather that big business and legislation do not stand to profi t from a curriculum equally balanced in life skills? The answer, at this point, is beyond the realm of my knowledge. I’m not sure I’ll ever be able to fi nd it. What I do know, however, is that if current educational practices are causing my child this kind of strife in my own humdrum, uptight, Midwestern town, then things like this are happening in other towns, big and small, across the landscape. Much the way the physical landscape changed along Becoming a Whole Human • 169 the cross-country journey I took and the metaphorical landscape change I encountered in my own personal life, the landscape of our educational system needs to change. There is great opportunity in planning to give students an educational landscape where creating community takes precedence—a wide open fi eld of space where ideas, interactions and processes of humanism can be planted, fertile and fresh, and harvested into a crop that will be nutritious for all who partake in its cultivation. Changing the landscape means metaphorically building new towns, with solid buildings of knowledge, where the windows are always open to let the breeze of change blow through. And it is up to no one but us, human to human, to fi ght to educate ourselves in how to properly insert the screens to keep out the things that pose barriers to the fruition of a new landscape for our youth.

REFERENCES Berman, L. M., & Roderick, J. A. (1977). Curriculum: Teaching the what, how, and why of living. Columbus, OH: Merrill. Laramore, E. [Erin]. (2013, April 19). Riding the Metro. [Facebook status update].

CHAPTER 12

CURRICULUM PROBLEMS AND PROFESSIONAL CONSCIENCE IN A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY

Angela Trubceac

Reid, W. A. (1978). Thinking about the curriculum: The nature and treatment of curriculum problems. London, UK: Routledge.

After leaving my safe harbors and embarking on the next step of my educational development, I accepted the challenge of becoming involved in developing my own humanistic window through curriculum theory. The starting points for this decision were my commitments to life-long learning, the willingness to discover new things, and my hope of gaining a better understanding of my role as a female educator in a post-Soviet country. I have also been inﬂ uenced alternately by the mind-numbing and interest-killing routine and corruptible mechanisms in the Moldovan school system. My intellectual journey to self-knowing brought me to Miami University as a graduate student, and as an Edward Muskie scholar, part of the last cohort of this illustrious and generous scholarship program. I was pleasantly stunned and challenged in the seminar from the beginning by Dr. Thomas Poetter who infected me with his excitement about the goals of this course and by his commitment to students’ independent work on book chapters

Curriculum Windows: What Curriculum Theorists of the 1970s Can Teach Us about Schools and Society Today, pages 171–187. Copyright © 2015 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. 171 172 • ANGELA TRUBCEAC for this Curriculum Windows series. I found myself surrounded by an intelligent, young, international cohort of doctoral students, provoked by our professor to explore curriculum books of the 1970s and to demonstrate how the major curriculum theorists can illuminate our way forward in educational theory and practice and, thus, to bring our contribution to the fi eld to bear in the dawn of a new mil- lennium. In an attempt to capture the zeitgeist of the 1970s and its historical signifi cance, I want to mention several unique memories that ultimately prove the triviality of those years under Soviet rule. Born in USSR, I spent the 1970s in school. I recall how as a child I pondered the USSR’s isolation from much of the world. When watching international sports on TV, I wondered why the spectators always rooted against the USSR’s teams and athletes, even when they performed very well. Each time when the glorious Soviet hockey team scored, I heard only a derogatory “Uugghh!!!” I asked my father about this, and he said bluntly, “The capitalists don’t like us, and they don’t like the USSR!” “But why?”—I insistently waited for an answer to my question. My father’s stern answer scared me, “Because they are our enemies.” The heightened fear of the USA and NATO armies was revealed in my school experience. The communist system induced us to conformity and to obedience through repressive authoritarianism, imposing on us foreign values and traditions. Later in my high school, the ultra-ideological Soviet Curriculum deprived us of our national history and language but provided us with disciplines like “Military Training.” We had weekly classes focused on defense drills in case of nuclear attack—rehearsing evacuations from school and hiding in shelters like basements and cellars, learning to handle the real AK–47 assault rifl es, and cramming our heads with “important” knowledge of Soviet and American offensive and defen- sive systems. I remember the dreadful nightmares I had almost every night in my adolescent life about how American Pershing and Tomahawk missiles could be fl ying at any moment above my peaceful, rustic, native village. I remember our naive hopes of achieving “developed socialism” in the 1980s, as our “beloved” communist leaders boastfully promised we would. Needless to say, I am so happy that we never achieved that promised goal, and that the political leaders on the both sides of the Iron Curtain fi nally found the will and the power to stop the arms race and the Cold War. Due to impenetrable physical and ideological barriers that were separating us in that time, the 1970s, I lived behind the iron curtain, and William Reid, author of Thinking About the Curriculum: The Nature and Treatment of Curriculum Prob- lems (1978), lived in the free world. As a result of the distance, it hasn’t been easy to understand and to fi nd ways to comprehend his way of thinking. Interests and politics often divide people according to many fundamental elements, causing confl icts. But in the long run, I saw more things that unite Reid and me than divide us. Being a European citizen, having many shared values and traditions and a common history, for the sake of a future peaceful Europe and in order to Curriculum Problems and Professional Conscience in a Democratic Society • 173 use and transfer the developed expertise and tools to support educational institutions in Moldova, I came to truly understand and respect Reid’s philosophy, which helped me to illuminate my experience of schooling in USSR and Moldova through a window to a new tomorrow. I hope my window to curriculum theory will offer a new look for diagnosing our present discomfort of ethnic segregation in Moldova’s system of education, which is not congruent with the principles of democracy, and call for a multicultural and pluralistic understanding of the Mol- dovan curriculum. Participation in this project is, for me, an opportunity to focus on complex curriculum questions related to the principles of democracy, analyzing the challenges that many democratic regimes today face in different parts of the world, which will suggest some valuable lessons for education today.

THINKING ABOUT THE CURRICULUM: THE NATURE AND TREATMENT OF CURRICULUM PROBLEMS William A. Reid is considered one of the best known British curriculum theorists of the 20th century. Graduating from Cambridge University, he started his educational career teaching in high schools, and then, he conducted curriculum research at the University of Birmingham, where he obtained his Ph.D. After his early retirement from the University in 1988, he continued his journey at the London Institute of Education and, subsequently, at the University of Texas in Austin. He also actively collaborated on many different projects at the University of Oslo and at the University of Victoria, British Columbia. His large corpus of writings is on the notion of curriculum deliberation, continuing in the deliberative tradition of Joseph Schwab’s (1969) work. He is the author of a plethora of scholarly articles and books, contributing regularly to the Journal of Curriculum Studies, often co- editing with his American counterparts. The essays of Reid’s (1978) book, Thinking About the Curriculum: The Nature and Treatment of Curriculum Problems, relate to various aspects of curriculum studies. Reid’s goals in the book were to identify and discuss important themes that we should be concerned with as a necessary, preliminary step to approaching curriculum questions with a specifi c, appropriate kind of thinking (a mixture of the practical and theoretical). He argued for curriculum research and educational research that would be more responsive to the need of solving practical problems, such as designing, implementing, and evaluating curricula. Reid’s view of curriculum research differed in some important respects from others’ of the time period; he stated that there is no fi nal solution, no panacea for curriculum problems. He believed that the genuine success of any solution is measured by the ability of it to move us on to new problems and to new solutions. Ultimately, the best endeavors are to reconceive and redefi ne curriculum tasks, what Schwab has called the “fl ight upward” from the fi eld of curriculum (Schwab, 1969, p. 3). As a high school history teacher, I intend to fi nd my own responses and perhaps solutions to current curriculum problems using my windows from the past 174 • ANGELA TRUBCEAC to the present that reveal my professional conscience, morals, and values for a democratic society. I hope to open a window of opportunity and freedom, which will open Moldovan society to truly democratic ideas and beliefs. I search for a window of hope, which will supersede the limitations of our present day democracy and will position the education of society on a higher level in Moldova. All over the world people are reaching decisions about what should be taught and learned in schools, but we have little knowledge about what connections may exist between styles of decision-making and curricular outcomes. And this is where the deliberative model comes into play. Reid (1978) is helpful in describing what the possibilities are on this continuum of action. My conclusion is that only by asking the right questions are we likely to fi nd answers that will result in meaningful and lasting solutions to curriculum problems, especially in Moldova. In Reid’s (1978) fi rst chapter, his goal is to understand what actually goes on in schools. In his opinion, the 1970s was a decade of curriculum crisis, and thus, a matter of acute public concern, qualifi ed by Reid more as a cacophony than as a thoughtful debate. The author sees two causes of this crisis: (a) the lack of economic resources in schools; and (b) how the school, through the curriculum, lost touch with the desires of individuals and the needs of the community. Reid established a set of questions that challenged educators in 1970s and can still challenge us today. He asks us these still relevant questions:

• What kind of identity should curriculum studies be seeking, and what kinds of learning metaphors should guide its enquiries? • Which variety of possible future curricula should we choose and by which criteria should we determine our preferences? • How can communities adequately debate questions of curricular ends and means? • How can curriculum studies be conceived as an enquiry that assists in the resolution of curriculum problems?

Providing adequate answers to his questions can help us to see the ﬁ eld more clearly or perhaps put us on a path to correct the mistakes and missteps we have made. I also hope these questions can help me to express my ideas in ways that might be consumed by other like-minded teachers, educators, and curricularists in both the USA and the Republic of Moldova. One key point is that the knowledge of past curriculum theory informs the current understanding of society. The curriculum deliberation approach to curriculum development revolving around conversations is still a useful activity for teachers to participate in, in order to provide appropriate educational opportunities for their students. Looking for answers to Reid’s (1978) questions, I intend to open a gloomy and dreary fenestra, ushering in, simultaneously, the breeze of a new educational environment, so as to enlighten the dark of the cave, a long-term trap for many Moldovan teachers and students. Curriculum Problems and Professional Conscience in a Democratic Society • 175

CONSTRUCTING MY CURRICULUM WINDOW/FENESTRA Reid’s main goal, as one of the most infl uential neo-humanist curriculum writers and educators of the 20th century, was to use the function of human study to explain, interpret, and evaluate specifi c types of human activity and achievement that is of meaning, signifi cance, and value. He thought that curriculum studies should place more emphasis on the necessity of incorporating value orientation in the work and place less emphasis on theorists and researchers as decision-makers, while including parents and students in curricular decisions. He believed that the future of curriculum belonged to the “reconceptualists,” those intellectuals who believed that society should be changed as a result of action. He said that the “reconceptualists” were interested in infl uencing what was taught through “the plans, intentions, hopes, fears, dreams and the likes of agents such as teachers, students and curriculum developers or policy-makers” (Reid, 1978, p. 108). This philosophy helps frame my fenestra to curriculum problems in Moldova today. It is consists of four windowpanes. The fi rst pane is an opaque window. It serves as a metaphor of struggle of Moldovan intellectuals during the Soviet occu- pation and following our liberation to reach to the light and truths of their identity and history, toward and through cultural renaissance and education. The second pane is a barred window, which represents the perils of authoritarian systems on human activity and achievement and the persecutions imposed by different political systems on intellectuals who dared to think differently, critically, and independently. The fear of reprisal for independent thinking and political action is still alive in the minds of many Moldovans today, but still, a vine growing and twining through the bars represents the hope of the human spirit. The third pane denotes a cracked glass, a depiction of the collapse of the USSR and the dramatic social-political transformations that occurred, which opened different perspectives and beliefs about curriculum studies, as well as about the world, the past, the present, and the future. The blue sky behind the window represents aspirations, spirituality, meditation, spiritual relaxation, transparence of the void, and hope. The fourth pane presents a thoughtful child, looking wonderingly through the window. It evokes the present day situation of education in Moldova, where thousands of children have been abandoned by parents working abroad, left in the hands of the state, becoming a burden for their old and poor grandparents. But each child lives on, full of concerns, aspirations, and hopes for a better, re-conceptualized curriculum and world through which to live freely and with purpose. The panes are bordered with a barbed wire frame, which represents the legacy of the past, the tenuousness of freedom, and the self-surveillance and incarcera- tion imposed by our own prejudices and limitations. It also represents the soul, which is yearning to seek freedom from turmoil and despair. All together they form a new curriculum fenestra that brings a different perspective on professional conscience in a democratic society, a way to realize, compare, and reconstruct past learning experiences, fi ltered through philosophical and psychological screens, 176 • ANGELA TRUBCEAC trying to understand and explain the differences in how to treat and relate with the world around us, helping us to walk forward to the plenitude of our human nature.

CURRICULUM DEBATES AND CURRICULUM STUDIES In solving any “curriculum crisis,” Reid (1978) notes four approaches that dominated writing in Curriculum Studies in the 1970s. Two of them are the “rational managerial” approach and “radical critique” (p. 10). The fi rst approach concen- trates on producing methodologies for carrying out such curriculum tasks as design, implementation, and evaluation. The writers in this tradition speak of behavioral objectives, psychometric methods, educational technologies, systems theory, and mastery learning. They are concerned with technical structures, control and effi ciency, performance and achievements, leaving the questions of morality on the side lines. The second group of writers is aware of the problems of the “hidden curricula,” the intentions and practices that lie behind calls for the accomplishment of objectives. These writers criticize those who get involved in practical curriculum tasks and declare that the only way to be involved in the improvement of the curricula is to work for social revolution. The third approach, called the “reactionary” solution (p. 10), idealized the past in an attempt to recreate or reinvigorate the satisfactory features of the system that we have lost or neglected. Reid (1978) calls the reader instead to look for a fourth type, the “constructive response” (p. 12), which represents a number of essential features that would need to be refl ected in a philosophy and the practice of curriculum studies. The essential features of “constructive response” are:

1. The need for public learning as a means to the solution of problems. 2. The need to move away from a dependence on rational knowledge seeking. 3. Acknowledgment of the legitimacy of the different meanings that different people attach to facts and situations. 4. Rejection of the possibility that problem solutions that are “right” and universally applicable can be converged on. 5. Acceptance that problem situations are “open ended” and that the search for solutions should not be closed off by adherence to ﬁ xed views on the appropriateness of ends or means. 6. Recognition of the fact that practical problems can be solved only in action. (Reid, 1978, p. 12)

This continuum of responses, which suggests the necessity of moving toward more “constructive responses,” plays an important role in the story of post-Soviet education in Moldova. The lack of breathing room that we sense in Moldova, when both the country and the curriculum have been divided into two parts (labeled as Romanian-speaking vs. Russian-speaking, pro-European vs. pro-Russian, hence Romanian-phobia vs. Russo-phobia, or traitors and extremists), requires Moldo- Curriculum Problems and Professional Conscience in a Democratic Society • 177 van educators to be active and to get urgently involved in the democratic, deliberative process to fi nd those “constructive responses” to our local “reactionary” curriculum problems. The artifi cial barricades and dividing lines are draining our power and energy, and so we lose the windows of opportunity and hope. To move towards democracy, Moldovans must take a step back if we really care for the ideas we promote. We must have respect for the other participants in the curriculum debate and not see them as tools or slaves, but as living people and personalities, and also we need to make compromises. The European Union was built on compromise, overcoming the trauma of two wars between France and Germany; we, too, need to let our wounds heal, to fi nd the ability to see the common good, the understanding that we can make more together as a society and can go further than we can on our own as individuals. A Romanian proverb says: The weak seek revenge; the powerful forgive; the happy go forward! Trying to organize everything, communism presented itself more as a place of disorganization, countered by imposing structures and instruments. After 1991, Moldovan educators began to seek “constructive responses” to educational problems, starting with school management and the design of the educational process. It was perceived at fi rst with disbelief, generated by previous experiences, but that disbelief has begun to assert itself in a new way, as an instrument for obtaining effi ciency, rather than seeking democracy, in the educational fi eld.

THINKING ABOUT THE PRACTICAL: THEORY AND PRACTICE Reid’s (1978) idea that, “Curriculum tasks are practical tasks” (p. 14), resonates with my thinking. Curriculum tasks present us with problems we can solve only by taking action. The questions of how and in what ways ordinary teachers should think about curriculum hold a special meaning for me. From the time I became a high-school history teacher, more than 20 years ago, I taught in a whirlpool of current events, especially the seemingly eternal political, social, and economic crises in Moldova. Discussing curriculum, on fi rst blush, seemed a luxury, with so much work to be done on the ground. There was little time to think about our actions or to refl ect on the things we did. When the country burns and struggles, we do not need theorized subtleties, especially in a fi eld such as education, or so conventional thinking goes. As in many other countries, before Moldovans used the term “curriculum,” we used notions like “education plan” and “school program” to refer to documents describing the organization of materials for organized learning, especially in higher education. They were written and sent to schools by a central education department in Moscow to be implemented unquestioningly all around the USSR, without taking into account the local characteristics. Since the 1990s, after independence, the term “curriculum” began to be used more widely, because one component of the Education Reform Program, supported by the Government of Moldova and by the World Bank, was named “Curriculum.” Many teachers do not understand that by using the term “curriculum,” we are not using just another 178 • ANGELA TRUBCEAC word instead of the older Romanian signifi ers such as “plan,” “school program,” or “syllabus,” but we position ourselves in a different learning paradigm beyond the limited, traditional architecture of rigid and strictly defi ned school disciplines. Teaching is always associated with theorizing, but theorizing is often claimed to be inappropriate for practitioners. It scares many, if not all practitioners. Reid (1978) helps us to understand how theory might be useful and helpful in carrying out those curricular tasks that can be thought of as “proactive” (p. 14). Sometimes we create a false dichotomy: theory vs. practice, and one or the other can be relegated to a subordinate role. Reid fi nds a way to understand the nature of theory and of seeing curriculum tasks while avoiding being exclusively on the side of theory or practice, of separating the notion of curriculum from that of teaching. Curricula must be translated into action. And this happens only in schools and classrooms, where curriculum becomes a reality and is enacted. Reid argues that a second sort of curricular thought, a “reactive” kind (p. 14), is needed to keep theory from getting in the way of practical matters.

Teams lose, it is said, because instead of playing their ‘natural’ game they try to follow some theory about how to play effectively. Similarly, the argument goes, children fail to learn as well as they might because of the inappropriate and unworkable ‘theories’ foisted on teachers by teacher educators and curriculum experts. (Reid, 1978, p. 15)

Reid (1978) argues that if the experience of curriculum is to be worthwhile for students, teachers are obliged to accept two commitments: (a) “to justify what is taught and how it is taught” (p. 15), and (b) to be capable of modifying their behavior in order to avoid actions that are not worthwhile and to adapt themselves to changing the defi nition of what is worthwhile. Although we often learn without having a purpose in informal contexts, the curriculum in formal settings like classrooms can provide an organized, systematic, and relatively easy learning event. Curriculum theory distinguishes between written and formal curriculum, the taught and implemented one in the classroom, the learned and assessed one, and the hidden one, which is learned beyond formal curricular intentions. The hidden curriculum often happens when teachers, students, and/or parents share different values and opinions than those provided by the offi cial curriculum or when the offi cial curriculum or unoffi cial curriculum of the school infl uences them without their conscious knowledge of it. Schools in Moldova, after the dismantling of the unequal system of Soviet education, faced a central issue—how to better integrate former subordinate populations into the mainstream by creating a fair, reliable curriculum for all ethnicities. How can Moldovans now be more pluralistic and inclusive, as a majoritarian ethnicity, as a result of independence in 1991? Reid (1978) can help us to learn how to not waver—especially during electoral campaigns run by populist and political speculators—with the notion of pluralism but to actually implement benefi cial multicultural curricula into Moldovan society. Reid can also teach us about how to manage, with great intelligence and honesty, the harmonious integration Curriculum Problems and Professional Conscience in a Democratic Society • 179 of ethnic and immigrant groups in the Moldovan nation and culture, promoting the multicultural model as an advanced democracy, which will harmonize our coexistence. We do not need curriculum theories to provide us with the objectives of education. “The job of curriculum theory is to fi nd ways in which conceptions can be made real by increasing our understanding of the phenomena of public educational systems” (Reid, 1978, p. 18). Guided by beautiful intentions and urgent needs, Moldovan educators need to develop curriculum theories that will help create understanding of the phenomena of a democratic public educational system, without insisting on linguistic and cultural integration of minorities into the majority culture. Such attitudes of assimilation undermine the very foundations of democratic coexistence. An open and pluralistic society based on tolerance and recognition of diversity is a true society. We have to stop using Moldova as an experimental lab, testing the preservation of the perpetual aberrant multiculturalism of Russian culture, continually imposed by Russia’s military and political pressure on Moldova. We need a deliberative, transformative curriculum, which will help us to fi nd solutions to the installation of linguistic dominance put in place by the legalization of the primacy of Russian language and culture within Moldova after our state’s independence in 1991. Rus- sian replaced the offi cial Romanian language in public life, thus stimulating and maintaining the disdain and reluctance of minority groups to know Romanian, which encouraged integration into Russian culture. Many Moldovans cannot tolerate the contempt, ambition, and domination of the Russian minority, who do not want to integrate. Thus, the coexistence between the native and immigrant minority has become increasingly tense. Maybe we have to stop trying to create a society where we are the dominant element? As an ethnicity, Moldovans are a small part of a whole. Through my curriculum window, I hope to fi nd the answer for the question - Who are we as a nation? What is the relationship between democratization and development of the state and nation in post-Soviet Moldova? We are a society where people do not vote doctrinally, but rather geopolitically. In a society divided on grounds of nationality (ethnicity), which is especially noticeable on May 9th, when some celebrate “Victory Day over fascism” and others “Europe’s Day,” we must try to avoid pro-Romanian and pro-Russian biases and rifts. We need a window of forgetfulness and forgiveness, a window to a common future. Having an instable balance of power between the actual and former oppressor and the marginalized, oppressed groups, we continue to participate in the same circle of dominance and oppression, justifying oppression and injustice, and fearing freedom. Freire noted, “Freedom is acquired by conquest, not by gift. It must be pursued constantly and responsibly. Freedom is not an ideal located outside of human beings; nor is it an idea which becomes myth. It is rather the indispensable condition for the quest for human completion” (Freire, 1970, p. 47). According to Freire’s theory, freedom will be the result of praxis—informed action—when a balance between theory and practice is achieved. With a critical consciousness and coun- terbalance it will become evident that mutual acceptance and understanding is 180 • ANGELA TRUBCEAC possible through engaged multiculturalism, dialogue, and political change. Think- ing about practical problems, we need to use education in a refl ective manner, as an instrument to liberate, not dominate others. Otherwise we will remain trapped in this cyclical game; we will remain the same country torn in two pieces.

PRACTICAL REASONING AND CURRICULUM DECISIONS Reid (1978) argues that curriculum problems belong to the class of practical moral problems. Their uniqueness is found both in the context in which they arise and in the knowledge required for their solution. But because there is no ultimate solution for these practical, moral problems, we have to live with uncertainty, until they will be reconceived and redefi ned. The author emphasizes that the researchers don’t have to separate questions of “What should be taught” from questions of “How” (Reid, 1978, p. 30), because what is learned by students is not simply a function of selected content, but is also a result of pedagogy and the organizing of the classroom. Questions of “What” have an infi nite number of answers, but can be limited to some extent by the values of society, community, and individual researchers. Questions of “How” can be oriented on more effective decision/making, implying a commitment of researchers to view the nature of curriculum problems and proper means to their solutions, as well as the style in which they are presented, the view they have on society or of human nature. Reid (1978) has his own way of identifying curricular problems; he sees them arising from questions that stimulate suggestions for curriculum tasks to be effectively carried on, rather than from questions demanding an answer to a statement of activities or of content. He hopes that at any given time there will be a consensus about curriculum amongst all parts of the enterprise of education, as opposed to an administrative decision, which will not move the fi eld away from the status quo. He sees a place for investigations about the worth of curricula in the tradition of Eisner’s indisputably progressive standard of “educational connoisseurship,” when an educational connoisseur, possessing cultivated tastes, should be able to remark on and critique curricular problems in the same vein as one might critique art (Eisner, 1975, p. 2). Recognizing that curriculum decisions are always, to some extent, political decisions, Reid (1978) warns decision-makers to be aware of whose interests and desires they support. Decision-makers need to take into consideration the opinions of those concerned—teachers, students, administrators, voters, taxpayers—which will provide them with the means of drawing conclusions on how to combine the theoretical and the practical, therefore matching the ideals to norms, curriculum planning, and its implementation. If we really want to change the status quo, we need to understand how it came about, “what tends towards its maintenance and what confl icts and dissonances point the way to possible modifi cation” (Reid, 1978, p. 36). Taking this stance, theorists and researchers cannot adopt a neutral, value-free political position. Instead they have to shift from supporting the existing power Curriculum Problems and Professional Conscience in a Democratic Society • 181 structure to a possible and worthy ideal—combining their professional values with the plurality of values of their constituents, concentrating on questions of means rather than ends, thus taking up issues of social justice in classrooms. Rais- ing the general level of appreciation of the nature of curriculum problems and solutions should be the goal of the improved decision-making and the new, critical tradition of curriculum research. Reid’s (1978) book provided a real window on the curriculum for me. He gives the most attention to the problem of practical curriculum problems. He addresses on multiple occasions the question, “What do we mean by curriculum theory?” His response is: Theories represent effective practices about how to plan, implement, and evaluate curricula that turn on effective decision-making, which is a kind of problem-solving. In short, curriculum theories are theories about how to solve curriculum problems, through “interactive consideration of means and ends,” though “deliberation” or “practical reasoning” (Reid, 1978, p. 42). We encounter many uncertain, complex, and practical problems of great public importance every day in Moldova, such as:

a. Should we build another school, a church, or a mosque? b. Should Transnistria and Gagauzia (two basically autonomous regions populated primarily by Russians, Ukrainians, and Turkic Oghuz tribes) have their own national assemblies? c. Should school administration consist of teachers or professional managers? and d. Should we vote for the same demagogue politicians who often look to their voters as a ﬂ ock deprived of reason, memory, and dignity?

I think these questions are of national and curricular importance, and they have to be answered by consulting all interests, goals, and values, and by taking into account all evidence, legacies of past history, and present arrangements. Reid’s arguments resonate with mine in that the goal of our solutions is not to vote for the party, but to produce a situation where the party has power; it’s not about giving Transnistria and Gagauzia their own assemblies, which they already have, but to create, through the setting of these more democratic assemblies, new political, social, and economic contexts. In doing so, we will build a bridge between the two banks of the Nistru River. Even if the practical problems are in a sphere of uncertainty, people are quite good at solving them. What is most diffi cult is to evaluate solutions to these problems. Reid (1978) speaks about “deliberation” and “practical reasoning” as methods of solving every day, practical problems, seeing them as intricate, intellectual, and social processes. These methods imply identifying the question we must respond to, establishing grounds for deciding on answers, and choosing among the available solutions. The author reminds us that humans, through their evolution and civilization, advance things that yesterday were in doubt and that fi lled them with 182 • ANGELA TRUBCEAC anxiety, leaving the mind free to achieve higher things. But still, what constitutes progress and what represents decline is a matter of controversy. Reid sub-divides uncertain practical problems into the “prudential and the moral,” while acknowledging the sometimes obscure boundary between the two. “Prudential reasoning” is “part of practical reasoning, in which the reasons for acting are restricted to the wants, desires, needs and aims of the agent” (Reid, 1978, p. 44). The author presents a family of problems from three areas, ranked as follows: practical and theoretical; procedural and uncertain within the practical; and moral, ethical and prudential within the uncertain. Reid invites us to shuttle the problems back and forth, looking at them in different ways, to determine which perspective will help fi nd the best solution. It seems that curricular problems have all the characteristics of uncertain problems, because they pose questions that have to be answered and because we make decisions on unsure grounds. As teachers we often asked ourselves “Why do I teach that?” We ask for a justifi cation rather than for a formal proof, for “a reasoned argument to show that what we are doing is the outcome of a rational consideration of a range of possibilities” (Reid, 1978, p. 46). What has precedence or predominance over curriculum problems? Reid is in total agreement with Tyler’s rationale for curriculum planning, implementation, evaluation, and design based on procedural principles. He suggests that the ends of education are never fi xed. Neither are the means of enforcing offi cial ideology. Nothing can be saluted as “the most rational, dispassionate procedure that good minds could devise” (Reid, 1978, p. 48). To sum up, I want to revisit the argument that there are two general categories of problems: theoretical problems and practical problems, and curriculum problems are an intrinsic part of the second category. There are also various ways of solving these problems, depending on the context, on the ends in view, etc. Many curricular problems are subordinate ones. Reid suggests that practitioners should not be left alone to fi nd solutions for curricular problems. Researchers, theoreticians, and philosophers, as sources of expertise, should be very involved in curriculum decisions and appreciate the situation, through fi ve stages: appreciation, reality judgment, value judgment, generation of alternatives, and proposals. Pro- viding authority, connecting facts, opinions and values, helps teachers to reach relevant judgments and conclusions, changes their minds and views, and helps them to frame their own appreciation. Appreciation is educative in the way that deliberation is seen as generally educative. For example, students can debate issues in classrooms such as: democratic election of a head of class, gender equality, and Moldova’s original transition from communism to a market economy, which will help them to develop and evaluate their own competence and the strength of ideas of others.

THE PROBLEM AND THE THEORY OF CURRICULUM CHANGE Reid (1978) held a progressive view of schooling and loudly opposed those who saw schools merely as effi cient, delivery systems of a particular kind of goods. He Curriculum Problems and Professional Conscience in a Democratic Society • 183 concluded that curriculum change is rather a sort of socio-cultural change. Describ- ing theories of socio-cultural change, Reid (1978) divided them into two categories: “functional theories” (problems of order and social equilibrium,) and “confl ict theories” (social and curriculum change hinging on fundamental social confl ict) (p. 73). I think there are some relative advantages of these two approaches, both being complementary to and compatibly used in Moldovan curriculum study. The functionalist asks questions about how society manages to work and to survive, which are very relevant to a young, post-communist Moldovan society now looking for more stable, predictable forms of relationships among different ethnic and minority groups. Confl ict theorists regard what exists as a result of the exercise of power and call for the shifting of balances and the democratic distribution of power between competing groups in Moldovan society. These theorists have imported into schools a more utilitarian approach to curriculum backed up by an ethos that stressed Romanian national values. If we accept this position, the evolution of curriculum “can be seen as a series of responses to the infl uence exerted over it by social classes which used their political power to attempt to change the way in which the benefi ts of public school education were made available” (Reid, 1978, pp. 74–75). The general drift of these two categories of theories helps me to understand curriculum changes in my country. After WWII, Moldova had a very low degree of independence and a tradition of organizing education related mainly to Russia. Later, Moldovan educators advocated for full independence of their education system from Russia. Even after Moldovan independence in 1991, Russia did not want to give up its claim to ex-Soviet nations and worked to deepen economic, fi nancial, military, and ecclesiastical dependence of the newly independent states. At the end of the 20th century, Moldova was forced to re-conceptualize its most important areas of life, and because education is responsible for much that happens in human life and in the people, Moldova was forced to think in new ways and new existential and ontological dimensions for education. The more transparent and deliberative Moldova becomes, the more democratic it will become. Reid (1978) penned a memorable image of the role of knowledge inside a country, valued by some and despised by others. Knowledge and truth are almost always instruments of political domination and supremacy, or evolutionary gue- rilla warfare, never free from political implications. Can curricular knowledge be objectively free or intrinsically worthwhile? Perhaps, but only if we build a tradition of critical discussion about curricular content. We should not be afraid to highlight and critique. Criticism and deliberation will help gain understanding of social change.

RATIONALISM OR HUMANISM? THE FUTURE OF CURRICULUM STUDIES In his last chapter, Reid (1978) argues that through such powerful mechanisms as deliberation and judgment, curriculum studies can create its own future that 184 • ANGELA TRUBCEAC refl ects the nature and needs of the fi eld. Reid has chosen to examine the future of curriculum studies with a binary view: practical vs. theoretical activity, or rationalism vs. humanism. He tries to make a treaty of peace or at least an armistice between the bifurcated natures of curriculum. We don’t need a reign of rationalism or humanism. Rather we need their coalition: rationalism’s stress on ends, objectives, science, technology, and innovation, combined with humanisms’ favor for means, intentions, ideas, artistry, and creativity. In just this way, curriculum studies must be concerned both with what is and with what might be. “To try to separate the two and make them logically and procedurally distinct is to deprive it of any chance of coherent and useful development” (Reid, 1978, p. 107). Curriculum reconceptualists, theorists, and practitioners together, have to be concerned with making judgments on values as well as on facts, on policy-making and on intellectual movement, believing that both society and curriculum can be changed and that the change can come only as the result of action if students, parents, and other community members are to be part of this process. These changes depend on how judgments are made about the competence of problem solutions and the procedures that led to them and how and for what purposes the activity should be conducted, producing new normative contexts for curriculum tasks. Reid’s (1978) book stimulates me, as a history teacher, to produce new contexts and fi nd various tools and techniques designed to promote social science, history, and civic education, which will enable civic engagement of Moldovan teachers and students as active citizens in a process of deliberation on crucial issues of public governance.

CONCLUSIONS CONNECTED TO TODAY’S CURRICULUM IN MOLDOVA Looking back soberly and critically on Moldovan education, I see many gifted intellectuals and teachers who use the traditions of practical reasoning and deliberation in practical situations in Moldova. The growth of this tradition makes possible the discussion of practical examples and reveals new possibilities and insights through experimentation, which may result in a new body of knowledge about how to engage people (youth and adults) in effective deliberation. Although Moldova is among the least successful post-socialist countries in terms of economic development, it has not lost its intellectual potential and ability to solve curricular problems. To this end, Moldova holds the fi rst place among post-socialist countries in implementing educational projects and reforms. The phenomenon of its “matriarchate” in education plays an important role in Mol- dova’s system of education, as it does in other post-communist countries. The female intellectuals voluntarily assumed the role of solving extremely diffi cult educational, cultural, scientifi c, and political issues. It is also signifi cant that, despite the poverty of about 80% of the population, in Moldova there is a strong tendency for youth education. Not everything is clear and bright in our education sys- Curriculum Problems and Professional Conscience in a Democratic Society • 185 tem, since bribery and corruption—negative phenomena characteristic of all poor countries—are particularly widespread in Moldova’s educational institutions. This indirectly proves not only that Moldovan citizens are poorly assisted and protected by the state in addressing the education of children, and, therefore, resort to illegal methods, but it shows we have a strong belief that the most reliable exit from economic crisis is education and training. In addition, there are many schools isolated from children’s experiences, dominated by teachers’ authority and students’ apathy, by drill and mechanical teaching, by commonplace pattern and routine, by fear of failure and desire for promotion. Yet, I hope that signifi cant changes in the school system and curriculum launched in the 1990s in Moldova, as a part of our political and social system, do continue. The deliberations about curriculum as an expression of ideological struggle and of different paradigms of educational curricular models must go on. Curriculum reform of the 1990s in Moldova, appreciated by some and disputed by others, has left a systematic and well-explained curriculum in several documents, including master-plans and school curricula. Conceptually, important steps towards a new curriculum culture were taken. My fear is that the current political situation in the country might reduce the reforms and efforts of the 1990s, since our politicians have been involved in one massive scandal after another. Some Moldovan politicians are duplicitous, greedy, selfi sh, and loud. Publicly, they look to maintain the status quo and trumpet the idea of Moldova-as-a-democracy and the importance of its integration into the European Union. In actuality, they live a life radically different from most simple people in our nation. While peasants in outlying areas eke out a meager living or fi nd jobs overseas, these politicians revel in new riches, fl y their personal planes, own palaces around the world, are surrounded by fl ocks of paid damsels, eat cavi- ar, and drive above the broken streets in expensive cars escorted by police, staring through the shaded windows at their sheep-like voters. But becoming “national leaders” doesn’t make them capable of leading the people, of feeling compassion for them, and of justifying their trust and expectations. Even the so-called Demo- cratic and Liberal parties don’t have a strong will to change the existing situation. I don’t have pity for these politicians in our non-stop political crisis, especially for those who dramatically became richer through coming to power. I also don’t have pity for those who repeatedly agree to be herded, driven, and bought by these politicians. I regret that the project called the Republic of Moldova, as a state, is gradually degenerating into a hospice for losers and unskilled workers for European black markets. We need therapy. As Cornel West argues, we need the enactment of “democratic paideia—the cultivation of an active, informed citizenry” in order to preserve and deepen our democratic experiment, coupled with parrhesia—frank and fearless speech—that is the lifeblood of any democracy (quoted in Gabbard, 2009, p. 25, emphasis in the original). We cannot negate or forget the past, but we need to bury the corpse of the totalitarian past from our curriculum and our mentality, full of backward-minded, 186 • ANGELA TRUBCEAC illiberal, leftist (communists), nostalgic (S oviet) views. We don’t have to let the past continue to stifl e our present and future. We need to focus on the creation, implementation, and championing of deliberative education as a process that deeply employs speech, communication, discussion, and debate in the classroom in order to maximize students’ participation in the learning process. Can Moldovan teachers and educators afford to be inactive and wait, or leave the responsibility of change to other actors? My answer is an absolute “no.” Reid’s (1978) work challenges us: Maybe we have to start digging now. Maybe it is not too late. Maybe we have to start the change with ourselves—teachers. Who if not us should do this noble and peaceful work? I know there is room for hope. This is my window of hope for an utterly enchanting education for every present and future teacher and student in Moldova. My curriculum window is introspection to new perspectives and hopes, innovative horizons, and the chance of transformation in Moldovan education. It is not an escape from reality or a passive contemplation, but a dialogue between human beings always looking for change for the better. It is a window of receptivity, a means of refl ecting on the external world, and a more profound approach to the inner world. My window is a way out of the cave to the intelligible light outside. I think wherever we are closed off, we can open through the power of our minds and souls a window to tomorrow and continue to seek optimal philosophical or political formulas of existence. There are a lot of very diffi cult decisions that we must make. But to make them, we must understand very well what kind of society we want to build. In addition to the political elites that we must educate, we also must educate all citizens. It is crucially important to develop an education system open to all at the university level. Only under such conditions will the Moldovan educational system wake up to reality and actually be de-Sovietized. I suppose that through my window I saw not only a problem but diagnosis as well; I also found some remedies for the backwardness of the education system in Moldova. As I read Reid (1978), I can start re-imagining my fenestra. If Reid peers through it, he can see educators and intellectuals that are no longer silenced, but becoming the professional conscience of a democratic society. Behind the bars are no longer the ideas and voices of dissent, but our fears, intolerance, ignorance, chauvinism, and prejudices. The cracked pane symbolizes a multitude of opinions and generated alternatives, due to the growth of a democratic deliberative discourse and all the participants’ personal, practical, knowledge that infl uences the curriculum development process. The fourth pane is no longer a hopeless look into the future, but rather a spark of insight full of hope and promise, a call for action and involvement in the deliberative, educative process. And fi nally, the barbed wire frame is used to build a symbolic bridge between all participants in the complex discourse about the nature and treatment of curriculum problems. “Unless these issues are further explored empirically, deliberative curriculum theory will remain fi rmly in the theoretic, and not grounded in the practical” (Han- nay, 1989, p. 198), as advocated by Reid. Practical action on curriculum issues, Curriculum Problems and Professional Conscience in a Democratic Society • 187 engaged in widely by a broadly defi ned and representative citizenry, is our next most deliberative and democratic way forward in education and as a nation.

REFERENCES Eisner, E.W. (1975). The perceptive eye: Toward the reformation of educational evaluation. Stanford, CA: Stanford Evaluation Consortium. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: The Continuum International Publishing Group Inc. Gabbard, D. (2009). The anarchist movement in education. In W. Ayers, T. Quinn, & D. Stoval (Eds.), The handbook of social justice in education (pp. 24–29). New York, NY: Routledge. Hannay, L. M. (1989). Deliberative curriculum theory: A call for action. McGill Journal of Education, 24, 187–201. Reid, W. A. (1978). Thinking about the curriculum: The nature and treatment of curriculum problems (pp. 24–29). London: Routledge. Schwab, J. (1969). The practical: A language for curriculum. The School Review, 78, 1–23.

CHAPTER 13

OPEN YOUR WINDOWS… WINDOW SHOPPER (Re)Conceptualizing John I. Goodlad’s Curriculum Inquiry via Gil Scott Heron and Hip-Hop

Brian W. Collier Jr.

Goodlad, J. I. (1979). Curriculum inquiry: The study of curriculum practice. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

I am going to begin this chapter in what most would probably assume is unortho- dox and self-deprecating. I will start with an admission. My admission is that I am struggling mightily with writing this chapter. I am not struggling to articulate thoughts because the literary work is not understood or comprehended. It is not that the theoretical constructs that make up most curriculum texts overwhelm me. Yet, here I am at 11:34pm, drafting again. I am warring with making sure that I am respectful of a classic curriculum text that indeed still has value even three decades after it was written. My struggles entail making sure that my critical and “colorful” perspectives are voiced. This is probably my fourth version of this chapter, and I ﬁ nally realized what is missing. My voice was missing. My very

Curriculum Windows: What Curriculum Theorists of the 1970s Can Teach Us about Schools and Society Today, pages 189–205. Copyright © 2015 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. 189 190 • BRIAN W. COLLIER JR. essence in the previous drafts was invisible. After going through almost twenty years of schooling, I denied the one element that I previously embedded in all of my academic work. I haphazardly overlooked the fact that my skin color and the experiences connected to this particular ebony vessel. My narrative and the way I interpreted Curriculum Inquiry have been impacted by this obvious fact. I am indeed a male of African descent, and through each reading I honestly felt very little connection to the text itself. This incessant and internal gnawing feeling is what made writing about this book diffi cult. I knew something was missing, but in each previous write-up, I thought I “nailed” those essential elements down. I realize now I was still grazing my reality. This realization was exacerbated by the fact that during the time frame in which Curriculum Inquiry was written, people of color had been at the center of most education discussions for the previous 20 years, yet, in this text, the open discussion and impact were seemingly omitted. The discussion of diversity can never be equated to the discussion of race. This consistently reminded me that certain conversations and narrative are privileged. I am not suggesting that this was intentional, but I must admit that I believe that Goodlad missed a “golden” opportunity to specifi - cally address a very important discourse and demographic. I can only make this assertion because it seems that whenever any “old white guy” says anything in education or curriculum, it becomes canonized in the discourse of schooling and educational theory. This has rarely been the case for scholars of color, and recognition of such revolutionary ideas was typically acknowledged posthumously. That being said, there is no doubt that John I. Goodlad had a huge impact on curriculum theory and praxis and isn’t just any “old white guy.” On the “fl ip side,” while his open references and at times explicit discussions on diversity are compelling, the omission of people of color in this particular text inextricably gives me a platform and demographic to discuss critical issues that currently face students, especially students of color. His omission makes the mission of this particular text easy for me to accomplish. I am able draw on his work and historic events that ultimately help propel and connect his work to what is relevant today in curriculum theory. So, what are windows? Windows are often broken by accidental baseballs. Tapped on by softly thrown rocks to get a lover’s attention. Yelled out of so that kids can come in once the streetlights come on. Covered with plastic to keep all of the heat in because one’s home is poorly insulated. Barred to keep out the un- savory characters that were raised not to steal but life’s circumstances and atrocities have made them predatory survivors. Opened to allow for fresh air. Cleaned every spring so one’s hope can be renewed with the blossoming of a new season while witnessing the fl ourishing of perennial beauties. They are places where little children wish upon a star, while for others they serve as an impenetrable safety measure. Windows are pathways, magical wardrobes, and barriers all in one. But I wish to expand the visualizations of the widow metaphor. Windows are not just made of glass and a wood frame, but they could also be accessories one wears Open Your Windows…Window Shopper • 191 on their eyes, or bodies of water that have the power to distort an image with one gust of wind. Windows are everywhere, and in the instance of this analysis, they surround my understanding of how curriculum within the context of Curriculum Inquiry promotes the idea of diversity in schooling and education that was not seen before the book was published. That does not suggest that the ideas were not discussed or thought of, but within academic research or curriculum, in some instances, the practical implementation was missing. In this discussion, my metaphorical windows are Gil Scott Heron and the Hip Hop culture that was birthed in the 1970s. Heron, a spoken word artist and musician, provided a very specifi c musical context in the 70s. It was one that was radical and specifi cally insightful for African Americans. His music, like Hip Hop, spoke and continues to give voice to those who were historically voiceless. His music and the lyrical content discussed not only the social and political climate of the decade, but it also recognized the metaphorical pathways and barriers that exist within society that help to maintain the status quo. The pathways and journey toward equity in his context were social liberation and justice, while the continual barriers were racism, classism, and sexism. The images embedded on Heron’s Refl ections album cover also depict the pathways and barriers that are evident in society. The sunglasses depicted on the cover, themselves could also be considered both a pathway and barrier to one’s understanding and contextualization. There are similarities between Heron and Hip Hop music of 1970. At that time, Hip Hop was rooted in understanding the daily rigors of being Black and telling those narratives like old griots. Social uplift was its pathway. In many regards and by many scholars’ assertions, Hip Hop has become a barrier. This tension goes deeper because Hip Hop and the culture that has developed in the past 30 years has been co-opted and commodifi ed to fi t into a very specifi c paradigm. That paradigm is capitalistic in nature, which in turn can be historically correlated with classist, sexist, and racist ideologies. I assert that Hip Hop still has great value but the commodifi ed version promotes a barrier that sometimes impedes the social benefi ts and purpose of its original intent. In the process of writing this chapter on John I. Goodlad’s Curriculum Inquiry, I came to the realization that trying to expand this particular conversation was like looking through a pair of mirrored sunglasses, the kind depicted on Heron’s album cover. On the exterior of the mirrored sunglasses, the refl ection is often of things or people that are in the immediate visual proximity of the wearer of the glasses. It refl ects not only what is intended, but the images seen from either perspective are contextualized depending on what explicit images within the fi eld of view the wearer is focusing on. This holds true for whoever is looking at the refl ection in the mirrored glasses. Although the context may be different, the image remains the same. I suggest this analogy simply because education, curriculum, schooling, and teaching operate in a similar capacity. Although the context of school, education, curriculum, and teaching can vary depending on one’s philosophical 192 • BRIAN W. COLLIER JR. underpinnings, there are still some profound commonalities in each that transcend generations of theory, practice, and experience. I will explicitly seek to give a voice to and acknowledge a few phenomena that occurred in the 1970s when John I. Goodlad’s book Curriculum Inquiry was published. Goodlad specifi cally uses this book to address several and key related ideas: 1) Curriculum involves diverse stakeholders; 2) students and their experiences with teachers in classrooms are often discounted in the educative process. One of the explicit phenomena developed in the book was the understanding of diversity. This notion supported and substantiated the importance of previous laws and ideas, which surrounded integration or desegregation. The discussion of diversity, integration, and desegregation are inextricably connected. Depend- ing on one’s philosophical position within the discourse of race, the two words “integration” and “desegregation” mean very different things and have historically caused much debate. I discuss understanding and positionality here because the 1970s was an era during which these two terms had a huge impact on how education process was viewed. One word connotes a forced yet unwanted coexistence (desegregation) while the other term refl ects and openness for diversity, equity, and equality (integration). It is with this that I believe that Goodlad’s open recognition and discussion about the importance of diversity within curriculum, population, teaching, schooling, praxis, and philosophies is so profound and an understanding of how all this took shape within the 1970s is paramount. In order to contextualize this decade further, I will continue specifi cally to use Gil Scott Heron as an example throughout this discussion. He provides a context in both Hip Hop culture (which originated in the 1970s) and the greater social structure that helps to connect Goodlad to the 1970s. Their work, like Hip Hop and curriculum theory, has transitioned through the past three decades and is continuing to evolve. Yet and still, some fundamental “truths” or “realities” exist and remain pertinent to the discussion of curriculum theory and the Hip Hop art form. Moreover, Gil Scott Heron also provides the inspiration and the image that ground this analysis. This image once again comes from his album cover Refl ections. The image of Heron depicts him wearing mirrored sunglasses that refl ected images from the past few decades. Those images offered a critique of past eras that emphasize a capitalist American culture, while also refl ecting the racial confl ict that help to begin the discussion of diversity. Things such as the American fl ag on top of a dollar bill were displayed. People and groups like the police, Ku Klux Klan, and jazz musicians all adorned the cover of the album. One side of the glasses seems to resemble the idea of “White America” while the other resembles the structure of “Black America.” Each of these images represents a profound cog in the message he conveyed in his music. Finally, all of these images were placed on a musical scale. I can only assume that the intent for doing so was to explicitly state that his music was meant to refl ect the social climate and potential social change within society and the American sociopolitical structure. Including the Open Your Windows…Window Shopper • 193 larger social structure becomes paramount when examining Goodlad and the text Curriculum Inquiry. Now, what does this mean for this curriculum project? What is the point? To answer this I fi rst reference James Baldwin’s essay 1963 essay “A Talk to Teach- ers.” In his discussion of teachers and education, he asserts:

The paradox of education is precisely this—that as one begins to become conscious one begins to examine the society in which he is being educated. The purpose of education, ﬁ nally, is to create in a person the ability to look at the world for himself, to make his own decisions, to say to himself this is black or this is white, to decide for himself whether there is a God in heaven or not. To ask questions of the universe, and then learn to live with those questions, is the way he achieves his own identity. But no society is really anxious to have that kind of person around. What societies really, ideally, want is a citizenry which will simply obey the rules of society. If a society succeeds in this, that society is about to perish. The obligation of anyone who thinks of himself as responsible is to examine society and try to change it and to ﬁ ght it—at no matter what risk. This is the only hope society has. This is the only way societies change.

James Baldwin prophetic words are visible in today’s format of schooling. His open recognition is that schooling and subsequently, learning, is a journey for both teachers and students. One’s identity is directly connected to this process, and if this process is stripped away by something like standardized testing, then society as a whole is inevitably doomed. Fighting for equitable and individually valued educational experiences is essential to human development and existence. I specifi cally reference these words because Heron often references in his lyrics poets and writers like James Baldwin, Countee Cullen, Langston Hughes, and Claude McKay. They, too, are a part of Hip Hop’s genealogy. Their poetic works shaped Heron’s worldview. Considering how Heron has helped to inform Hip Hop, I think it is paramount to reference James Baldwin in order to confront the current paradigms associated with schooling, for they too are connected. From a curriculum theorist standpoint, Bill Schubert (1992) would suggest, “the journey of one’s theoretical development is a complex process of theory infl uencing practice and practice infl uencing theory” (p. 236). That being said, as a minority researcher and someone who is currently theorizing on a curriculum text, I fi nd it impossible to escape my racial positionality. Although there are several other social constructs I could use to examine this text, experientially, race is the one construct that is impossible to avoid within this text and seemingly every morning when I wake up. From a racialized context, I believe that Goodlad’s work serves as a very signifi cant and seminal text for those in the dominant group. For minorities, many of the collaborative ideas he discusses and theory to practice issues he raises were issues minorities had to address because in many cases they were isolated from monetary resources and political leverage in this country. His- torically, the minority’s only recourse was to operate within its own realm, while fi ghting for basic things. This is especially the case when examining education. 194 • BRIAN W. COLLIER JR.

Specifi cally within Curriculum Inquiry, I believe that the text is revolutionary in a sense that many within the dominant group were now thinking about curriculum and education in truly “progressive” communal and collaborative capacity. It also resembled an idea that Hip Hop espoused and fundamentally entails, that is of giving a voice to the voiceless. This included both individual and communal voices. In Curriculum Inquiry, this could be seen in the way teachers, administrators, and politicians are depicted. I would suggest that this could be visible in the communal involvement and insight placed in the text. The reality is that Good- lad’s method of evaluating education, curriculum, teachers, and students, is for some very messy and not streamlined. For those who prefer standardized, mechanistic methods, his approach included far too many people and positionalities and did not explicitly promote bureaucracy within schooling, which still seems to be the norm. His method and progressive philosophies do not compartmentalize education into a specifi c box. He does briefl y recognize that every environment is different and no one way will work. In a country that today seems to pride itself on measuring students on the same scale and promoting an so-called meritocracy, Goodlad’s thought process can quickly problematize some issues such as standardization and the rush to homogenize curriculum and teaching. In essence, he promotes resistance, a form that may be more passive than Heron’s version, but it still equates to resistance. That is one important factor when thinking about any concept or set of ideas being revolutionary.

ENGAGING CURRICULUM INQUIRY In Goodlad’s Curriculum Inquiry, two resonating questions that continue to re- verberate throughout the text are “What is curriculum?” and “Whose interests are being served in this process?” In the fi rst few chapters, Goodlad’s conceptualization of curriculum and the subsequent study that followed defi nes and envisions curriculum in three specifi c ways. His collaborative project was “to be conceptual rather that theoretical or empirical and our purpose was to construct an ordered view of the domains of curriculum and possible interconnections or relations among them” (p. 3). He and associates conducted inquiries into the nature of educative practices in the 1970s in schools. What I admire about Goodlad and this particular project is the openness to admit that even prior to writing the text they operated under the principle that curriculum is often a “puerile exercise in ideas, antiseptically removed from institutions and the people who work there” (p. 3). This is an issue that resides not only in K–12 education but also in higher education. It is often the idea that because there are rifts and differences between the two realms of education, theory and practice, this is the reason why many confl icting issues in education exist and persist. Goodlad eloquently states, “The problem of the practitioner is to gain perspective, to see connected things related. The problem of the theoretician is to stay suffi ciently close to practice to avoid assuming his own, probably preferred, world of action” (p. 19). The recognition of such a rift and the realization that theory and practice need to be intertwined Open Your Windows…Window Shopper • 195 enhances the need for continuity between higher education institutions and K–12 institutions. Bill Pinar would suggest that the notion of school “deform” has continued to be a critical issue in education today. Pinar (2012) suggests, “that educators have no formal control over curriculum, the very organizational and intellectual center of schooling” (p. 5). I would extend this notion further and suggest that curriculum is not just removed from the institutions and its workers but also from the students being served, the parents they are inescapably connected to, and the community they at times consciously choose to ignore. Each subsequent entity plays a signifi cant role in the process of designing curriculum and the implementation of schooling, even if there is not an explicit and obvious connection. A non- connection is still an act as well. In the opening chapters of Curriculum Inquiry, Goodlad’s study conceptualization—on which much of the book is based—is thoroughly discussed. Ultimately, the conceptual framework for the study is indicative of one’s curricular experiences, be it as a student or a practitioner. Curriculum Inquiry as a curriculum text is rooted in a progressive idea that seeks to acknowledge not only the individuality of the different level of experiences of curriculum, but also the different experiences of teachers, students, and politicians. These varied experiences and understandings of curricula all shape the educative process. John Dewey would suggest that “the fundamental factors in the educative process are an immature, underdeveloped being; and certain social aims, meanings, values incarnate in the matured experience of the adult. The educative process is the due interaction of these forces” (Dewey, 1902/1966, p. 2). Dewey is suggesting that the education process is one that is experienced by “immature” beings but still is predicated on the experiences that the adult has to offer. This does not suggest the students have no say in their educative process, but oftentimes the process is indeed dependent on adults. W.E.B. Dubois (1903) discussed this educative process from a different perspective. He stated:

The function of the university is not simply to teach breadwinning, or to furnish teachers for the public schools, or to be a centre of polite society; it is, above all, to be the organ of that ﬁ ne adjustment between real life and the growing knowledge of life, an adjustment from which forms the secret of civilization. (p. 70)

Dubois is positioning education in a way that inclines it to be an individual’s navigation through real life, an education in and of itself. This makes the process a life long journey that is evolutionary. It is also a journey that involves several challenges, inﬂ uences, and people. Education is not only an academic process, but also a social one that includes engaging the community one resides in. Therefore, education is progressive at its best, honoring human beings and their contributions to the learning process and the experiences had in the moments shared in the educative process. 196 • BRIAN W. COLLIER JR.

The conceptual framework that was designed by Goodlad’s collaborative group is designed to focus on 1) the formal decision-making process in curriculum, that is how school curriculum decisions are made in or for schools; 2) curriculum development, that is the way in which ideas for creating/implementing curriculum are carried out; and 3) the results from examining curriculum at the societal, institutional, and instructional levels, that is what does curriculum practice look like from these societal perspectives. Curriculum inquiry is the study of this work in all its aspects: context, assumptions, conduct, problems, and outcomes. This type of inquiry occurs in three different phenomena: substantive (goal/subject), political (social), and technical (professional) (p. 17). Each of these three phenomena look at what occurs inside the realm of education, how society views curriculum and perceives who benefi ts most, and the actual processes educators consider when thinking about curriculum. However, Goodlad does recognize that “curriculum inquiry is incomplete until it goes beyond the pieces to study the relationships among them and thus encompass the whole” (p. 17). These curriculum decisions extend into the realm of teacher praxis and curriculum law policies. Both of these particular curriculum areas of decision- making are discussed in-depth and are excellent examples of the issues that stem from each the three being so typically and distinctively disconnected in practice. Questions as to who should make curriculum decisions often arise, and still it can be said that there are no easy ways to decipher how curriculum decisions should be made. This was evident when Goodlad and his counterparts constructed the framework and text and is evident in the way other curriculum specialists frame their current arguments about education and the ways curriculum is implemented in schools today. When Goodlad speaks of curriculum and curriculum inquiry, he explicitly discusses the connections between the various levels in education. There is a “truth” that some believe disconnects students, curriculum, and the passion teachers possess in their daily practices (Pinar, 2012, p. 18). This inevitable truth implies that “actual learning” cannot take place in the classroom regardless of the curriculum. Depending on what constitutes learning, it oftentimes dictates the defi nition of education and learning. For some, learning could be equated to sitting in a classroom fi guring quadratic equations while for others it could entail learning how to count numbers and money by shootin’ dice or counting cards in a lunch time spades game for another kid’s already state subsidized free lunch pizza. One of those images actively refl ects the traditional conceptualization of schooling and education. The process of learning algebraic essentials has always been a staple with American education. The curriculum associated with this content area is not only socially acceptable but one that is not questioned. The second image I suggested comes from a completely different understanding of curriculum. This is a curriculum that could be easily associated with and rooted in surviving the day-today rigors of being in an impoverished or marginalized position. It is a curriculum that requires one to be creative and innovative in the way he or she navigates life Open Your Windows…Window Shopper • 197 and the obstacles that it presents. These obstacles vary depending on race, social status, or gender but nonetheless they exist. What is most important to recognize is that curriculum is shaped by our experiences. Our experiences are undeniably a space where individuals learn the most. These experiences are connected to their community and the cultural background they come from. Ignoring any of these nuances associated with curriculum sets an understanding of schooling, education, and learning back a hundred years. Even in the late 1970s, Goodlad acknowledged that the culture that existed in curriculum was always rooted in and guided by innovative thinking, but that the infl ux of standardized testing even then would ultimately stymie teachers’ origi- nality and ingenuity when it comes to developing culturally relevant pedagogical practices that are inclusive of all students (Goodlad, 1979, p. 30). He goes further to state that “although much lip service is given in this country and elsewhere to the importance of taking into account the needs and interests of students, such is done only in rare instances” (p. 9). At this point, it is thoroughly understood that students are rarely considered, asked, or directly included in the actual curriculum process, which again is predicated on the “reality” that education practitioners are indeed considered to be the most integral purveyors or disseminators of knowledge (Goodlad, 1979, p. 33). Yet, this is not their primary nor their most important function. As referenced earlier, W. E. B. Dubois wrote about this phenomenon within education, and it was from an anti-western conceptualization. One of the primary differences is that he wrote it from the perspective of higher education and the functionality of the university in conjunction with the purpose of education. At the heart of his words, my usage of them, and its relevance to this topic, I believe that John Goodlad and most other education scholars engage education in a way that challenges the status quo and the antiquated methods associated best with didactic methods of power and control with traditional notions of curriculum and pedagogy. Although Curriculum Inquiry doesn’t explicitly engage these didactic methods, an epistemology that is rooted in an “American Exceptionalist” paradigm, or even the term, the progressive stance that he takes throughout Curriculum Inquiry could lead to future research examining the power structures that have historically dictated the curriculum and policy decisions made in this country. Their desire to disassociate themselves with such marginalizing practices gives way to not just how Goodlad conceptualized this particular text, but also the way future progressive texts would be written. It allows for a continual assessment of not only present curriculum practices, but also the constant refl ection of one’s own educational and philosophical underpinnings.

UNDERSTANDING SOCIETAL, INSTITUTIONAL, INSTRUCTIONAL, AND PERSONAL CURRICULUM DECISIONS One aspect within Curriculum Inquiry that Goodlad addresses that I believe is profound is the differing levels of decision-making in curriculum. Before a thor- 198 • BRIAN W. COLLIER JR. ough understanding of the differing levels of curriculum decision-making can begin, the basic levels should be deﬁ ned. The levels are as follows:

…Instructional (with decisions primarily the responsibility of a teacher or team of teachers guiding a speciﬁ c group of learners), institutional (with decisions primarily the responsibility of total faculty groups under the leadership of administrators), and societal (with decisions primarily the responsibility of lay boards and legislators at local, state and federal levels of government). (p. 102)

The personal domain or personal curriculum decision-making concept surrounds understanding the individualized experiential perspective explained by teachers in the corporeal classroom. It can be closely aligned with the instructional domain. For the sake of following Goodlad’s study and conceptualization, I will continue the remainder of the chapter in the order that the text was organized. Even though the structure is hierarchal, it makes logical sense to continue in the format because it does validate how the problems stemming from a purely hierarchal structure cause fundamental problems within curriculum and the decision making process. As previously stated, Goodlad’s Curriculum Inquiry reaffi rms the idea that there are several systemic, institutional, curricula, political, pedagogical, and communal disconnects between each level of decision-making. This was the case in 1979 and still seems to be a prevalent issue in today’s education system. Without regurgitating the statistics from Goodlad’s text, it is paramount to recognize that at the societal level of decision-making, the research shows that there are huge obstructions and discrepancies between state legislatures, local government offi cials, and actual practitioners. This is immediately apparent in the number of respondents in the study. What Goodlad chose to do was interesting. When survey- ing the participants, he cast a rather wide net considering he chose to use a single state, California. The group he surveyed at the state level had the worst data representation. Their lack of responses in conjunction with the abundance of excuses and in some instances outright dismissals, only affi rms why they are so disconnected and at times make curriculum decisions that are not in the best interests of the students or teachers. In addition, at the legislative level, there was no real evidence that could substantiate that those who responded actually knew what was going on at the school level. Could they discuss the policies? Yes, but in some instances those at the local level exuded more competence when it came to policy. When examining the institutional and the instructional levels, the data became more telling. Initially, the term “schooling” becomes most obvious. Schooling is a term that must be addressed in any discussion of curriculum. For most, the institutional is not only integral to the schooling process but mandatory to the very existence of the academic institution (Goodlad, 1979, p. 129). Throughout this entire process, the human interactions and collaborations that must come to fruition when considering schooling and the educative process are unavoidable (p. 130). Although the actual methods and procedures carry a substantial amount of weight in the discussion of curriculum, I think, Goodlad seeks to address the humanistic Open Your Windows…Window Shopper • 199 components that exist and are essential when attempting to examine any form of curriculum. One can easily delineate the difference between a curriculum rooted in addressing the full human (teacher and student). The learner, practitioner, learning objectives, and materials in this case all become interdependent. When examining the instructional/personal domain of the curriculum decision- making process, the process itself becomes more personal. Goodlad recognizes that educators have struggles and need a substantial amount of support from the other levels of decision-making. At the same time, the study for the book showed that practitioners desire and in some instances require more respect. The instructional decisions on a day-to-day basis receive more blame than the other levels of decision making. Being a practitioner, I fi nd that the decision making process in this realm is often the most underrated. As suggested in the study, most policy makers do not understand the nuances that go into creating and implementing curricula on a daily basis. This is one very specifi c window within this analysis. This metaphorical window allows for the interrogation and understanding of curriculum in a capacity that is not sterilized and standardized. Curriculum does not have to be an abstract term that is predicated solely on traditional academic content. As stated, early curriculum reconceptualized can take on many different ideas and subsequently, learning opportunities. Education and learning inevitably have the potential to become more impacting and purposeful. What I appreciate in Goodlad’s work is that he does not diminish this process. He does, however, question if practitioners could do more when it came to staying abreast of the current policy concerns. This is not necessarily unproductive. It reaffi rms that teachers are capable of understanding the politics within education. He acknowledges that far too many times practitioners are not given enough credit or the opportunity to become multifaceted change agents within the chosen profession. The most important idea within this curriculum domain is that it forces one to deviate from the “rational” or traditional notion of curriculum and the process that ensues (p. 195). By diverging from the norm, one has the potential to investigate new methods and ideas about education and curriculum design.

DISSECTING TRADITIONAL AND CURRICULUM DESIGN RESEARCH The early chapters of the text address the defi nitions and purpose of curriculum. Goodlad and his associates call curriculum and curriculum development a “signifi cant human activity.” This makes curriculum an active process that is not only impacted by the receivers and implementers, but also those inanimate objects and experiences that stem from the continual educative process. “The study of curriculum is the study of this practice and how practice might improve” (Goodlad, 1979, p. 4). Thus, Goodlad’s inclination to specifi cally discuss and engage in the notion of how curriculum theory addresses a different set of research questions. In his research, he looks to extend the dialogue-surrounding curriculum. For him, curriculum theory “is a fi eld of scholarly inquiry within the broad academic fi eld 200 • BRIAN W. COLLIER JR. of education that endeavors to understand curriculum as educational experience” (p. 30). The educational experiences have been discussed by several theoreticians from various contexts. Curriculum has always been an ever-changing conversation, and depending on the era, it has shifted in different ways. John Dewey tended to address the desire to educate the whole child. Carter G. Woodson and WEB Dubois addressed the historical issues of race. In the 1970s, Goodlad addressed the curricular decision- making process and method. Goodlad would ultimately suggest that the “purpose of curriculum both practical and theoretical, presumably is to improve the knowledge, skills and attitudes of human beings. The intent is to enhance one’s ability to fi nd meaning in one’s life” (p. 20). Again, this is not any different from a Duboisian or Deweyian sense of Democratic education, but again I believe that Goodlad’s overall intent is to understand how curriculum looks distinctively different to specifi c groups. He openly acknowledges that curriculum planning is a process that “goes on wherever there are people responsible for, or seeking to plan, an educational program” (Goodlad, 1979, p. 27). This is evident in the classroom, the school boardroom, and the state legislature. Goodlad purposefully discusses each level. For example, he uses the example of teachers not knowing certain legislative policies and the impact of not legally understanding those policies. On the fl ip side, this was also the case for legislature interest and involvement in the daily institutional practices. Teachers’/ Legislators’ lack of interest was even more evident when it came to contributing data to Goodlad’s study and providing information for their corresponding county and school district. The mere fact that Goodlad’s study did not receive a substantive amount of responses from these state representatives to even be considered a valid contribution to the study is very informative as to the actual state legislators’ interest. What must not be understated is the complexity that exists within this topic. “Curriculum practice and its study are enormously complicated by the fact that the substantive, the political-social and the technical-professional are not neatly separable or identifi - able entities” (Goodlad, 1979, p. 33). It is with this in mind that Goodlad chooses to engage curriculum on the three levels. For his study, the distinctions between societal, institutional, and instructional become most obvious. Within each space, there are very specifi c goals and questions that must be addressed. Curriculum and the process in which it is created democratically are inevitably part of a continual process everyone engages in. As a whole and in theory, a democratic society should desire for the continual improvement of the education system and educative process which ultimately should demystify the “perception of the gap between present realities and envision possibilities into goals and assigns responsibility for achieving these goals to educational institutions” (Goodlad, 1979, p. 37). These educational systems and institutions that subsequently create, decide, and enact curriculum operate under the guise of one fundamental principle, and that is of service to all students. This idea and principle serves as another important metaphorical window. Open Your Windows…Window Shopper • 201

The open recognition in Curriculum Inquiry that diversity and individual experiences account substantially and should be taken into consideration when discussing the curriculum decision-making process makes Goodlad’s and his col- laborators’ work viable and relevant to any community. Moreover, considering the test-driven and standardized test culture that was beginning to gain in popularity and in practice, it was paramount that someone at least attempted to present a counter narrative to that discourse. The idea that students learned at the same pace and from the same content standards was absurd. It was even more outrageous to think that one’s culture and background became a measuring stick for academic success. What seems to come from such ideas were educational models of schooling and learning that are rooted in cultural deﬁ ciency models. While there is no explicit recognition that Goodlad was attempting to negate and disprove such narratives, it is a responsible and coherent starting point for the discussion. If curriculum is designed in a capacity that takes into consideration the decision making process as well as what the student desires from educative processes, the curricula content as we traditionally conceive of it would be the least important factor in the discussion of curriculum. Moreover, it allows curriculum to holistically be reconceptualized. I do not believe curriculum can or should be formatted based on one model or understanding. Curriculum is much more complex and ﬂ uid than current schooling allows for. Most schooling is still predicated on the production of a student who follows a set of standardized rules and ideas and never changes this way of thinking. That does not and cannot constitute learning.

CONCLUSION Understanding Goodlad and analyzing Curriculum Inquiry for the purposes of (re) imagining his work within a very different decade and context were challenging tasks for me. Curriculum Inquiry within the 1970s context spoke profoundly to the climate in which the text was written. It was far more progressive than most educational systems and national policies put forth at the time. I do ﬁ nd that Goodlad’s method and approach to curriculum is one that promoted teachers, students, and administrators alike to seek individuality while being collaborative. Curriculum also ought to promote a sense of solidarity within speciﬁ c spaces and circumstance. It is obvious in a progressive framework that students are at the center of learning. It is also exposed within the framework that individual experiences shape what constitutes curriculum and knowledge. Using Hip Hop and Gil Scott Heron as a frame of reference and metaphor inclines me to believe that true change will occur over time and in the midst of controversy. One of Heron’s most famous songs talks about revolution occurring publicly. It will also occur with people who are not afraid to lose everything. “The revolution won’t be televised …it will be live.” The same can apply to Goodlad’s Curriculum Inquiry and education in general. Teachers, administrators, students, parents, and community members will all have to become active participants in the process of curriculum. 202 • BRIAN W. COLLIER JR.

Although Goodlad focused on very specifi c components within curriculum and curriculum decision-making processes, it still is imperative to recognize that each step within the text and curriculum process all unmistakably impact students and ultimately society. For example, if schools, politicians, and those in power ever admitted that the process of schooling acts as a gatekeeper, true change could begin to take place. Schools still serve as a place where students fundamentally operate in a way that teaches them to navigate the process of schooling in a way that reproduces the same groups, ideas, and classes of people. Schools let in, support, and reward those who conform to the dominant group’s ideologies. If you fi t in as a student and follow the rules, you get the stamp of approval and get a high school diploma. On the other hand, schools also inherently weed out those who challenge the status quo or those deemed unfi t. The labels of “bad,” “lazy,” or “slow” are enough for students to be discarded or deemed useless. Many times this includes those who have been historically marginalized. This historical practice of marginalization occurs in both ethnically/socioeconomically diverse schools and schools that are more homogeneous. From a curricula standpoint, this becomes very important, and considering the makeup of most K–12 educators (White women), it becomes even more important to discuss. I discuss this particular phenomenon because schooling has and for the foreseeable future will be dominated by this population of teachers, and the need for culturally relevant pedagogy and praxis is vital to changing the current paradigms associated with schooling. We can no longer just promote diversity but must be extending this discourse into a realm that promotes social justice. I believe that Goodlad made some profound assertions about how curriculum has been and is envisioned. He allows for an honest assessment and a different perspective on how teachers and students could potentially view curriculum. In the 1970s, these were novel ideas because diversity and the idea of “integration” served as a way for schools to make valid attempts to be inclusive of all students and the communities they serve. The acknowledgements the authors consistently made throughout the text provides freedom for teachers to explore innovative ways of teaching students in any environment. It successfully hands the classroom back to the teachers and the parents. Another reason for such a change is that it actually allows educators to practice progressive tenets. Learning becomes student driven. Although curriculum and the decision making levels may not be able to be empirically proven, experience has taught me that educators and students alike fi nd it very diffi cult to accept any form of curriculum that is not refl ective of them, the institutions and communities they serve, and their individual experiences. For most students, these factors make school relevant. Politicians are another story; they are at the center of the defi nition of power, but even they seem to have diffi culty passing lies off as truth. What I believe Gil Scott Heron successfully does in his music is to challenge traditional sociopolitical paradigms and practices. Ultimately, varying ways of knowing and doing come at a cost. It also will take Open Your Windows…Window Shopper • 203 sacrifi ce and time to reform an education system that was not based on social justice. Heron delves into the historical issues associated with being marginalized. Goodlad, on the other hand, goes about this in a different way. He exposes the systemic structures and the historical roadblocks within the education system and the educative process to shed light on why curriculum within schools does not match up with what people think is being taught. By showing the communication barriers and even the lack of interest from local and national politicians, he makes a case for educators that all of the problems in education can’t be solved solely in the classroom. Education is a collaborative project. It is a collaborative initiative in the sense that it requires various kinds of people, skills, positionalities, and ideas. Collectively, the potential growth for schools that operate in a collaborative capacity is limitless. It means intentionally including everyone in the community in the educative process. Regardless of the status or makeup of the community, it becomes paramount to understanding the students and the cultural climate they come from. These attributes within education cannot be omitted, and when they are, the individuals most adversely affected are the students. One example of curriculum that I can explicitly expound on deals directly with my experiences in schools. From 1998 to 2002, I attended a suburban school in a very affl uent school district that has had a good academic reputation. The combination of these two attributes would incline any parent to send their kid to the school. For four years, I woke up before 5:00am to catch a bus at 5:40am. I rode that school bus for two hours every day when it was blistering hot and when it was freezing cold and the temperature could not be regulated because the bus company was too cheap to fi x the buses. This daily ritual became normal and acceptable. Admittedly, I barely went to class and could seemingly always be found in the gym with a basketball in my hands. There were rarely occasions when I was actually expected to be in class. In those 4 years, there were a handful of “real teachers” that required me to be excellent. For them, my full participation was not an option. When I stayed after school for my football games or basketball games, there were times when I would get home after midnight because the school only paid for one cab, and I lived on the opposite side of the city. Then I would need to be back up the next day before 5am to get right back to school. You may ask, “Why is this relevant?” Students have been doing this since Brown vs. Board. It is relevant because this should not have to be the accepted practice to receive “a quality” education. Inherently, this facet within education is not discussed enough. When parents feel the need to ship their child out to a distant district away from their own culture, it has the potential to have some damaging ramifi cations. These consequences are not limited to the child, but students should be the focal point. Such experiences could easily shape their ideas and alter their identities. It could cause them to refl ect on their cultural backgrounds in both an elitist capacity and self-pitying way. This all occurs while others are constantly asked and required to subject themselves to an experience that isn’t expected or desired by those who have resources or have power to control their 204 • BRIAN W. COLLIER JR. educative process. This is not to suggest that this is what transpired with me, but I now question how many students experienced this same phenomenon and why certain groups of people were not inconvenienced having to leave their environment. Now, I am not saying that the school I attended was a “bad” school. It is not an attempt to condemn or lambast the institution. Nor am I suggesting that it did not prepare me for engaging real world issues. In fact, it allowed me to have an education that showed me how to navigate schooling. Learning on the other hand came from a curriculum that stemmed mostly from experiences and rarely from books. In connecting the aforementioned narrative to both Goodlad and Heron, I believe that the curriculum embedded within the process of busing informs students, particularly myself (then and now) that my value in society and even within my school district was established on the basis that my value was distinguishably correlated with my race. This singular form of curriculum was and still is pervasive in schooling today. On a larger scale, how do curriculums that resemble that of a busing curriculum, explicit school curriculum, or curriculum that commodifi es human beings on the basis of race or gender help shape society? Does this education process give practitioners and even citizens the right to devalue certain communities or methods of learning? All of my questions surround the greater ramifi cations within society. It would be easy to say this is just a school problem and therefore a curriculum/content problem, but it is not. I believe the way in which Goodlad begins the discussion of curriculum and curricula decision-making speaks to addressing these larger social issues. This is why I believe that using Gil Scott Heron, his musical infl uence, and the aforementioned images serve as a viable window metaphor. Both Goodlad and Heron sought to revolutionize their respective discourses. Although Goodlad does not engage the Curriculum Inquiry in a militant way like Heron might, he does expose the shortcomings in each level of the decision making process. Heron, on the other hand, explicitly discussed the atrocities and situations that spoke to not addressing certain problems within society. He spoke to and for those whose voices had been silenced. He also addressed with conviction those who haphazardly wielded the power to change the problems that existed. This could also be said of Goodlad, as he spoke about the infl uence and lack of support from politicians. Each critiqued power relations and the institutions in their own way. Goodlad sought to coax big and small government to take a more proactive role in the way they contributed to the educative process. Ultimately, a traditional form or understanding of curriculum can (intentionally or unintention- ally) teach students about the values and ethics of this culture. The research Good- lad provides substantiates why policies and praxis do not match up. In current educational paradigms, standardization has become a central theme. Although current educational research has addressed this by also considering cultural context, Goodlad successfully interrogated this approach in the 1970s. Open Your Windows…Window Shopper • 205

Goodlad goes further to explain the importance of allowing educators the freedom to explore their own methods of teaching and evaluating. Curriculum In- quiry does not limit educational possibilities, and this makes sense considering the era and context in which the text was written. This becomes important when investigating curriculum in different philosophical ways. The ways of teaching, governing, and leading must also be open for adaptation. Heron’s open challenge to the hierarchal infrastructure is something Goodlad does throughout his text in a strategic and academic way. The progressive mindset that he possessed throughout his work always helps to reafﬁ rm that the center of schooling and the educative process is the students. The students have always been the constant variable in the educative process. Although content standards change and students vary in backgrounds and abilities, the important factor is that in some way educators, administrators, and policy makers keep in mind that their decisions and their pedagogical practices impact the current students and future generations of students. In reality, the curriculum decisions and the curricula decision-makers must begin to reﬂ ect the needs of the communities schools they serve. It will take a collaborative effort from the community and the practitioners on the front line. These two groups serve as two essential cogs in the progression of curriculum theory and praxis. Without them curriculum theory would lose a vital voice and perspective. What I believe will ultimately revolutionize the paradigms associated with education entails openly analyzing the institutional structures, like busing or sports eligibility, that typically maintain educational goals that are not progressive in any capacity, that is they often don’t have the best interests or the perspectives of student experiences in mind.

REFERENCES Baldwin, J. (1963/1985) A talk to teachers. In J. Baldwin, The price of the ticket: Collected non-fi ction 1948–1985 (pp. 325–332). New York, NY: St. Martins Press. (Originally printed as “The Negro Child—His Self Image” in December 21, 1963). Dewey, J. (1902/1996). The child and the curriculum. Chicago and London: The Univer- sity of Chicago Press. DuBois, W. E. B., Lemert, C. C., Marable, M., & Gilkes, C. T. (1903; 2004). The souls of Black folk. Boulder, CO: Paradigm. Goodlad, J. I. (1979). Curriculum inquiry: The study of curriculum practice. New York: McGraw-Hill. Pinar, W. (2012). What is curriculum theory? New York, NY: Routledge Schubert, W. H. (1992). Practitioners infl uence curriculum theory: Autobiographical refl ections. Theory Into Practice, 31(3), 236–44.

CHAPTER 14

BECOMING AN EDUCATIONAL CRITIC Strap on Your Backpack

Ryan Denney

Eisner, E. W. (1979). The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school programs. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc.

INTRODUCTION Elliot Eisner helped to redefi ne the curriculum fi eld of the 1970s by applying the technique of “criticism,” which had served him well in his chosen fi eld of Art. One of the major contributions he made to the fi eld came with his book The Educational Imagination, with the fi rst edition appearing in 1979. The curriculum fi eld at the time was engaged in a massive transition with many experts in the fi eld retiring and often being replaced instead by subject specialists rather than curriculum theorists. The decade would come to be known within the fi eld as the time of Reconceptualization, and Elliot Eisner became one of the leading voices calling for change. Eisner would take a vastly different approach from the dominant Tylerian system, which relied heavily on effi ciency and uniformity (Tyler, 1949). Instead,

Curriculum Windows: What Curriculum Theorists of the 1970s Can Teach Us about Schools and Society Today, pages 207–219. Copyright © 2015 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. 207 208 • RYAN DENNEY

Eisner focused on trying to understand curriculum theory in the larger educational fi eld. To accomplish this, Eisner would use his educational background in the arts to address the questions of curriculum that were currently being asked. What Eis- ner did was to view curriculum not as a technical draft needing to be tweaked, but rather as an artistic landscape to be explored. Once the fi eld was explored, Eisner again called on his skills as a critic to then take the aesthetic experience of the fi eld and guide others along so that they too could enjoy the journey. Too often within the education fi eld one will fi nd him/herself caught between dueling forces of thought on any number of topics, not least of all curriculum. The draw that Eisner brought was that he did not call for an outright abandonment of quantitative studies within the curriculum fi eld as some others would suggest. Instead he took the next step to see curriculum beyond the hard data by viewing it from the murky realm of aesthetics. As a classroom teacher who is developing expertise in theory and practice, it is easy to know from day to day that no single lesson plan will go exactly as planned, let alone an entire curriculum. These factors will shift from class to class and from year to year. Eisner compared this to a stage actor performing multiple showings of a single play; no two performances will be the same, even though the script is the same. The fi eld of curriculum is not something that can be studied in a lab and replicated precisely out in the world as some politicians and billionaire philanthropists might wish people to believe. Instead, as it is so aptly named, it is a “fi eld” and like any good landscape it must be explored, mapped, and experienced fi rsthand. Curriculum specialists must become more like wilderness guides who are armed with the hard data that is their trail map, yet have the personal expertise of having explored the fi eld fi rst hand in order to make their way across rough, unexplored terrain. The best part of being a guide is that often the process of leading others through the fi eld allows for new discoveries that had previously gone unnoticed. The map then is able to be updated with the guide’s personal notes, and thus, the fi eld is never assumed to be completely understood, but instead is always being discovered.

“ON THE ART OF TEACHING” Within the boundaries of the Educational Imagination, Eisner explains that the majority of his work is dedicated to what he felt was wrong with the curriculum fi eld during the 1970s. Once the problem—as Eisner saw it—had been defi ned, he then brought forth the major thesis of the book, that is that education, teaching, and specifi cally curriculum are less of a science and more of an art. Eisner explains this saying, “…it is an art in the sense that teaching can be performed with such skill and grace that, for the student as well as the teacher, the experience can be justifi ably characterized as aesthetic” (Eisner, 1979). Eisner drew on his own background within the arts to show what many teachers would understand about their style: that it is a form of performance. Even for those teachers who subscribe to the scientifi c and behavioristic theories of Becoming an Educational Critic • 209 education, when it came to the teacher’s own teaching it could not be specifi cally categorized. Eisner states that the performance will never be fully understood, and if it is claimed to be, then the performance has left the realm of art and has crossed into science. Eisner concludes that there are four main senses that suggest that teaching is in fact more of an art than a science. The fi rst sense is that teaching is an aesthetic experience, much like live theater in which the energy from the performer and the audience are connected on a heightened level. The basic curriculum remains the same from class to class, but each individual lesson would be uniquely different much the way different performances of the same show can be different. Essen- tially, a lesson could be performed adequately in the morning and could become superb or abysmal in the afternoon due to the slightest shift in any number of factors. A class being taught following lunch can be vastly different in tone and tempo than one taught earlier in the day. The second sense that Eisner explores is that of qualitative judgment of the situation. Eisner illustrates that within each individual lesson the teacher/performer must make qualitative judgments based on the fl ow of the class. Any teacher can tell you that the same lesson given to different classes can have vastly different outcomes. If a classroom teacher has 27 high school seniors in a remedial class, the tone and language used to hold their attention might be different than for a class of 13 honors level students. Each class might have the same basic framework, but the qualitative judgments that that the teacher makes are unique to each class. The third sense has to do with teaching as a heuristic or adventitious activity. Eisner explains that for true teaching to take place, just as in art, there must be a chance of discovery and exploration not just on the students’ parts but on the teacher’s part as well. This means that within the confi nes of a predetermined curriculum there must remain the possibility of discovery for discovery’s sake. Often in the teaching world this is most often referred to as a teachable moment. A teachable moment could come in the form of an unexpected question from a student relating to a current event that could be connected to the lesson. Even though the discussion might skew from the lesson’s intended course, learning still takes place, and perhaps at an even deeper level than if the teacher had stayed true to the map’s course. The fi nal sense that Eisner attributes to teaching as an art is that the ends are often created in the process rather than vice versa. Eisner uses the example of the difference between a craftsman and an artist. The craftsman uses a defi ned process whereby skills are used to arrive at a preconceived destination. The artist uses skills through a process to discover ends that were not initially envisioned, but arrived at nonetheless. Eisner does not suggest that the teacher should abandon all routine and repertoires in favor of spontaneity, but just as the previous three senses have shown, artistic freedom on the teacher’s part must be allowed if any true teaching is to take place. 210 • RYAN DENNEY

EDUCATIONAL CONNOISSEURSHIP AND EDUCATIONAL CRITICISM The two most important theories that Eisner discusses in The Educational Imagi- nation are that of Educational Connoisseurship and Educational Criticism. The concept of educational connoisseurship will be explored fi rst since educational criticism can only been seen through the lens of connoisseurship. Eisner explains that connoisseurship is known as “knowledgeable perception,” or more put simply the ability to perceive the subtle, complex, and important aspects of the subject. A person can be a connoisseur of any subject ranging from art, music, and food, for example. However, Eisner explains that people more often than not merely recognize things rather than perceive them. A subject may be perceived and recognized but not always in the reverse order. This is to say that a person may recognize that there are two sets of tables at the furniture store, one has been mass-produced and the second has been handcrafted. To the uninitiated, there would appear to be very little difference between the two. They are both made of wood, both have four legs, and both appear to be relatively stable. In fact, the only major difference to the uninitiated would be the price, with the mass produced table typically being the less expensive of the two. Eisner understood that to truly perceive the differences the person would have to have the ability to discern the skill and labor that went into the handcrafted model over the mass-produced one. Perceiving the distinctions would require an understanding of what a true craftsman does versus what a machine does. A person does not need to be a fi ne furniture craftsman in order to be a connoisseur, but he or she does need the ability to see beyond mere recognition. Essentially, connoisseurship is a private act that is focused on exploration and discovery for the love of the subject. If connoisseurship is the private act of exploration and discovery of a subject, Eisner explained that criticism is the public act of using critical language to bring connoisseurship to others. Put another way, the job of the critic is to render the aesthetic experience of the subject into language that a layperson could understand. Eisner explains that criticism is not an exact science that can be objectively measured and quantifi ed, but rather something that is wholly subjective and unique to each critic. Criticisms can vary in depth depending on the ability of the individual critic’s level of language. Eisner notes that to achieve a certain degree of connoisseurship one must have a practical base of knowledge to draw from. If a person was to become a connoisseur of fi lms, then it would bear to reason that the connoisseur would have to have seen many types of fi lms in order to have a frame of reference to draw on when comparing them to any new fi lm. Whenever a new fi lm is taken in, the connoisseur can compare it to a vast library of previous fi lms in order to render an opinion of its quality. Though it should be noted that the mere quantity of fi lms watched is not an indication that someone is a connoisseur but merely someone who can recognize or classify a fi lm. Becoming an Educational Critic • 211

Eisner explained that on the path towards connoisseurship one has to work his or her way through the fi rst step known as “recognition,” followed by “perception” and fi nally “connoisseurship.” The fi rst step of recognition is the simple ability to classify something according to its distinctive features. In keeping with the fi lm example, Eisner understood that to classify a fi lm as a Comedy or Action is the act of classifi cation. The ability to distinguish the various features on an individual fi lm and what makes it specifi cally different when compared to the vast library of other fi lms is the level of perception. It is the ability to perceive those distinct features of an individual fi lm that marks one as a connoisseur. In many ways this would be the same as comparing experience with expertise. Experience and expertise can be explained by saying a teacher may have experience based on the number of years in the classroom, but may or may not be an expert. Once again this marks a comparison between quantity and quality. An ineffective teacher with 20 years of experience is still an ineffective teacher. The educator who explores various pedagogical methods is constantly refl ecting on what did and did not work in order to hone his or her skills would be taking the steps towards expertise and connoisseurship. Though connoisseurship is a wonderful level to achieve, it only affects the individual connoisseur. To be truly effective as an educator one has to pass from connoisseur to critic. Criticism according to Eisner is “the art of disclosing the qualities of events or objects that connoisseurship perceives.” To put this into more pragmatic language, criticism is the ability to take all of those intricate details that only the connoisseur can discern from years of experience and convey how those details contribute to the fullness of the object or event in question. If connoisseurship is the act of exploring a topic in its fullest, then criticism is the act of guiding others to experience so that they, like the connoisseur, can more deeply appreciate the experience at hand. The relationship between connoisseurship and criticism as it applies to the fi eld of education is the main focus of Eisner’s work in The Educational Imagination. According to Eisner, there are three distinctive areas of criticism within the educational context: descriptive, interpretive, and evaluative. Eisner (1979) states that these three aspects of educational criticism are “sharper on paper” than in actual practice but distinctive enough to warrant their own descriptions (p. 203). The descriptive aspect of criticism is “an attempt to identify and character- ize, portray, or render in language the relevant qualities of educational life” (Eis- ner, 1979, p. 203). Eisner gives examples of the various environmental factors in specifi c classrooms, and specifi c idiosyncrasies of teachers within those environments. The descriptive aspect is essentially concerned with what factors can be observed and recorded on the surface. The interpretive aspect is the next logical step in the process, taking what information one has gleaned from the descriptive aspect and attempting to provide meaning to the observed qualities. Eisner shows that this part of the criticism calls for skills that the social sciences can provide. By using various social theories and 212 • RYAN DENNEY models, a critic can derive meaning from an otherwise useless pile of data that would bear no useful fruit for the study of curriculum. The fi nal aspect of educational criticism is the evaluative, which Eisner states “most clearly distinguishes the work of the educational critic from that of the social scientist” (Eisner, 1979, p. 209). The social scientist, having gathered ob- servational data, then providing an interpretation, would consider the criticism complete. The educational critic has to then determine if the observed and interpreted data has achieved some kind of predetermined objective. This is the most diffi cult stage for the educational critic due in part to so many parties disagreeing about what it means to be “educated.” The combination of these three aspects of educational criticism, to the dismay of many, does not lend to what Eisner calls the scientifi c trinity of reliability, validity, and generalization. When data is reliable and valid some kind of gen- eralizations can be made. When a generalization can be made it becomes much easier to make predictions about future outcomes. Predicable outcomes within the educational fi eld are what various politicians and business leaders would like to have occur. The predictions make it much easier to put a number on everything within the education fi eld, most notably in the form of grades and test scores. These scores allow those in control the ability to assign what they see as the bare minimum dollar amount possible towards education or to make judgments about the value of returns on previous investments. Eisner, and other curriculum theorists of the 1970s including the “Reconceptu- alists,” challenged the notion that education could be strictly and effi ciently quantifi ed into a one-size-fi ts all mold. The educational critic, employing the powers of exploration and performance, defi es the restrictions that the powers that be would seek to impose on legitimate education evaluation.

CHANGE IN THE CURRICULUM FIELD, THE 1970S While Eisner’s work and interests are not usually considered to be examples of what became known as the reconceptualist movement that gained steam in the late 1960s and into the 1970s as a response to the Tylerian and Behaviorists concepts of curriculum, he was part of the curriculum scene working to transform the fi eld of curriculum studies. Eisner’s work proposed to look at the curriculum fi eld through an aesthetic lens that incorporated various factors such as philosophy, theology, emotion, and experience. The viewpoint of Eisner, and many Reconcep- tualists, was to look at the curriculum fi eld through new eyes and, in the case of Eisner, to see the world as an artist (Pinar, Reynolds, Slattery, & Taubman, 2008). To fully understand the reconceptualist movement is to fi rst understand what it was not as well as what it was specifi cally trying to reconceptualize. The curriculum fi eld, up until the 1970s, had been dominated by the writings and philosophies of Ralph Tyler. Tyler’s viewpoint was an answer to a massive logistical problem of trying to educate America’s youth effectively and effi ciently and with minimal cost and a refl ection, according to Tyler, of the fi eld as it was being experienced Becoming an Educational Critic • 213 by practitioners in schools at that time. Tyler’s methods focused on the idea of creating a curriculum based on objectives. The idea was very straight-forward, that is to educate the most students effectively there needs to be a foolproof plan (Pinar et al., 2008). By the 1970s, the “lesson plan,” based on predetermined behavioral objectives, had become one practical answer meant to help teachers teach their classes without spending equal amounts of time outside the class creating new plans for the next day. The idea of a lesson plan that assisted teachers and administrators to manage time and have a general idea of where to direct the class is not what Eisner criticized, but rather how the lesson plan came to dominate all areas of the curriculum at the cost of discovery, experience, and creative freedom. No longer was a classroom teacher given the freedom to explore areas within subject matter based on individual classes, but newly required to follow the lesson plan at all costs. Eisner saw this as an attempt to completely dehumanize the education process. A new curriculum concept emerged from the roots of Tylerianism and its behavioral orientation with its main focus on Intended Learning Outcomes (ILO). The lesson plan included many layers of specifi c “behaviors” that were desired from every student at the conclusion of any lesson. The behaviorial approach had become widely used and popularized within the private business world, factories, and the military. Behaviorism allowed a cost effective and effi cient means to enable workers/soldiers to acquire industry specifi c skills quickly while at the same time minimalizing the chances of human error within a given task. Though this might sometimes prove effective on an assembly line or the battlefi eld, it was pointed out by Eisner and others to be incredibly ineffective and even harmful when applied to school curriculum (Pinar et al., 2008). It was from these practices within the curriculum fi eld that Eisner and others began to question the educational practices within the education fi eld. As a curriculum specialist, Elliot Eisner would spend the majority of his professional career studying and teaching about his central thesis of “educational connoisseurship and criticism.” Leading up to these topics, Eisner challenged the common practices of the day in his article “Educational Objectives: Help or Hindrance,” which demonstrated the ineffectiveness of the “scientifi c” approach in education that was championed by Ralph Tyler. Eisner’s book The Educational Imagination became one of his most important contributions to the fi eld of curriculum studies during his career. Eisner himself was not without his critics. Many argued that without some type of baseline or objective, the classroom would deteriorate into a free-for-all without direction of any measure of success. Regardless, it is important to credit Eisner as an important contributor within the fi eld of education and if his approach of connoisseurship and criticism were added to the rigid scientifi c approach, the solution might lie somewhere between the two extremes. 214 • RYAN DENNEY

WINDOWS It was a cool morning in the “Sangre de Christo” somewhere in a section of the Rocky Mountains of northern New Mexico in the summer of 1996. My heart rate was picking up ever so slightly, and as I looked just around at my trail mates, they looked as anxious as I felt. I tightened the shoulder and waist straps of my pack that contained close to 50 pounds of gear needed for the next two days. The very idea of lugging 50 pounds through the wilderness now makes my back give a twinge of protest, but to my 16 year-old self, it was a challenge to overcome. Our trail guide, named Rachel, had accompanied my small crew for the fi rst several days of our journey, but she had departed the day after having determined that we were fi t to operate on our own. Now the seriousness and excitement was truly sinking in as my scout leader handed me the map and compass followed by the simple question “where to?” The place was Philmont Scout Ranch, one of three high adventure camps the Boy Scouts of America operated throughout the United States. I had been saving and preparing for this 10- day backpacking trip for close to two years. My crew was small, consisting only of four scouts (myself included), a junior adult, and two adult scout leaders. On this particular morning, the rest of my crew and I were standing at a barbed wire fence that marked the border between Philmont and a section of Carson National Forrest known as the “Valle Vidal,” the Valley of Life. The unique feature about the Valle Vidal was that there were no established trails to follow in it or through it. My crew and I were about to cross into un- charted territory, and the only guides we had were our map and our compass and our ability to use them correctly. Once the map was in our hands we began to plot out a course. We knew where we were and where we had to go, but the actual route was yet to be determined. We confi dently oriented our map to north, found our bearings, and studied the landscape, which occasionally required us to reference the key. We then laid out a route that we felt would take us to our destination as quickly and as safely as possible. Having decided on the route, we anxiously climbed onto the wooden step ladder over the barbed wire, and we began our journey into the unknown wilderness of the Valle Vidal. As I stared out the window of my classroom at the high school where I currently teach, it was the memory of this backpacking trip of my youth that seemed to vividly illustrate the dynamic vitality of Eisner’s work and the curriculum fi eld for me. The transition from connoisseur to critic is not a task that is easily undertaken, and not everyone can do it. Criticism is the ability to take those subtle aspects of a particular fi eld that make it unique and special and convey those intricacies in a meaningful way that non-connoisseurs can understand and appreciate them. In many ways the window in which to study the curriculum fi eld today can be seen through a cartographic perspective. In other words, the fi elds of curriculum theory and practice need to be seen as a map. Imagine for a moment the wide expanse of wilderness that I experienced all those years ago as being the fi eld of education. The beginning of the journey can be seen as those fi rst uncertain steps Becoming an Educational Critic • 215 that my crew and I took into the Valle Vidal, and the destination can be interpreted as the point in which the person is determined to be “educated.” It is through the window of cartography that I believe the fi eld of curriculum can be best taught and understood. When the fi eld of education is seen through the window of a map it is very much like the Valle Vidal. It is vast and wild. There are many routes one can take in order to achieve the same results. The wilderness of education and process that my crew and I experienced through exploration can be equated to Eisner’s description of connoisseurship. We were free to explore and choose the direction we wanted to take in order to get to our destination. The lack of predefi ned trails gave us the freedom to see parts of the Valle Vidal that perhaps we would not have otherwise seen had our path already been laid out for us. We were masters of our own fate. This freedom, however, does not mean that every path leads to the ideal destination. There were always unforeseen obstacles that had to be overcome and occasionally we had to backtrack. All of these were noted on our individual map for future reference and chalked up to experience. The paths that we were paving in many ways could have been equated to what Eisner described in his educational criticism theory. Through our own exploration in the Valle Vidal, my crew and I were able to become connoisseurs of its hidden valleys and peaks. The notes and experiences we left behind in our journals and maps can be seen as our criticism. Eisner would argue that the fi eld of education should have its curriculum mapped in the same way that the Valle Vidal had been. The curriculum/map shows the major points of interest, such as the beginning points and the end points. The lay of the land should be provided in details just as one might fi nd on a topographical map with other certain landmarks identifi ed through the use of a key. All of this information can be found on any topographical map and relies on very precise mathematical measurements and plotting. In a way, this is the same quantitative data that behaviorists and effi ciency experts purport to provide to the education fi eld. Essentially they provide the outer framework. Within the map/curriculum, the trail guides in this fi eld of education are the teachers who have explored and become connoisseurs of their fi elds. They accompany students, the crews/classes, on their journey through the fi elds. They offer suggestions and guidance in order to assist the crews/classes, but the general path is up to the students. It is within this capacity that educational criticism can be practiced under Eisner’s defi nition. When teachers and students are given the freedom to explore and become scouts on their own educational journeys, true education can take place. Unfor- tunately, the current fi eld of curriculum looks nothing like the imaginary fi eld I see through my window. Instead, I see an artifi cial amusement park of hollow facades only giving the illusion of a wilderness. There are signs everywhere telling you where to go and, more important, where not to go. No sense of discovery or ownership is gained through this maze of concrete and falsehood, rather just a predetermined route designed by politicians and corporations. 216 • RYAN DENNEY

The current state of curriculum, as seen through the window of cartography, is more attuned to the use of a Global Positioning System (GPS) rather than to using map and compass. A GPS is certainly an incredible tool of the modern age that has more than once assisted stranded drivers and hikers when in trouble. The advancement of technology has allowed almost everyone with a smartphone to have access to this tool and has greatly improved the lives of even the most direction- ally challenged people. However, when the current educational system appears to be relying solely on this technology rather than as a tool to use, the educational system as a whole is that much weaker. To understand how the current state of schooling in modern America can be compared to a GPS, rather than to a map and compass, it fi rst requires a basic understanding of a GPS. First, let the image of a GPS come to mind, and its basic function from the perspective of the user. A digital screen, whether this be a standalone unit or a feature on a smart phone, displays a person’s current location. The user then types in the address of the destination they wish to travel towards and chooses the command for “go.” The device processes the data at lightning speed using information from a tremendous number of satellites currently orbiting the planet, and directions are given to the user. The only thing left to accomplish is for the user to simply follow the instructions on the device until they arrive at their destination. The imagery of the GPS is precisely what can be seen in the modern Ameri- can classroom. When the curriculum fi eld is viewed through the window of the map and compass, several features come to mind. First of all, to use a map and compass requires some levels of technical skill such as orienting the map to the North, understanding the symbols presented in the key, the use of the compass, and how to align the information from the three dimensional world onto the two- dimensional map. Once the skills are developed on the student’s part, the student is then able to use those skills to explore the surroundings by using the map leading to a certain level of self-reliance. The GPS on the other hand does not require such skill. In fact, the absence of skill is the very feature that the producers are attempting to develop. No skill is required in using a GPS besides the basic understanding of a digital interface, which given the current level of technology usage in the country is not in short supply. How then is the current curriculum fi eld like that of a GPS rather than a map? One may only need to look into most school classrooms on any given day. The school systems have been bombarded with an onslaught of requirements for the past two decades in the form of standardized testing, budget cuts, and federal government programs such as No Child Left Behind or Race to the Top. Schools are forced to come up with the most cost effective way to churn out “educated” students according to guidelines set by others. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the average percentage of a state’s budget that is dedicated to K–12 education is 25%. Politicians often wanting to get elected promise to cut spending and raise standards. Often these cuts are seen most in Becoming an Educational Critic • 217 the fi elds of the arts and in extracurricular activities. Ironically enough, these are the fi elds that encourage the most free thought and exploration, the very fi elds of endeavor and experience that Eisner would be championing. The most cost effi cient means of delivering a product to the consumer is to hand the students a preprogramed GPS designed for simple use with predetermined waypoints saved. The student then only has to follow the set path laid out by whatever the department of education has determined to be the quickest and cheapest route needed to reach his/her goals. The teacher then is no longer in the role of trail guide who accompanies the students along their path of exploration, but rather that of a tour guide at an amusement park. The tour guide has a set script he or she is to follow and will follow the exact same path every time with zero deviation. One would have to assume that Eisner would not consider this pathway to be considered education; however, this business model for schooling is being sold all across America. States are anxious in these economic times to cut their budgets wherever they can, and the solution of focusing on the “basics” and of producing more students who are “college and career ready” seems to be the order of the day. After all, for many people the purpose of education is for the student to eventually get a job and start contributing to the Gross Domestic Product. To many it would make good business sense to become as standardized as possible. This way every student, no matter where they are in the country, can be equally measured against the standard to determine exactly who is and who is not “educated.” If a student is failing, it is because the predetermined route on their GPS has not been followed, and the correction must be to simply backtrack, fi nd where the deviation occurred, and right the wrong turn. Teachers and schools are more and more at the mercy of big government catering to the needs of big business, who in turn are making an even bigger profi t from selling the GPS units to the schools in the form of textbooks, curriculums, standardized test prep materials, and so on. The practices of exploration and discovery about which Eisner writes are not found but in fact are highly discouraged at the cost of effi ciency and control. Over the period of two days my crew and I trekked our way through the wilderness of the Valle Vidal with only our navigational skills and grit. Rather than hiking in a single fi le line, as is the custom while on a trail, we instead chose to spread out as we made our way across a fi eld of wild grass that reached to our knees. The sky was blue, the temperature was comfortable, and the atmosphere was light. The main difference between what our crew was experiencing in the wilderness versus simply following any predetermined routes had to do with the fact that there were no routes to be had. Under normal hiking practices, one con- sults the map, determines the proper trail to take, and simply follows it until the next check point. The results of this approach usually creates a situation in which the lead hiker watches the trail while everyone else tends to watch the boots of the hiker in front. 218 • RYAN DENNEY

The second problem with set trails and checkpoints was the time schedule that needed to be maintained. While traveling during the rest of the camp, every leg of the journey was on a strict schedule that had to be maintained. The camp was lit- tered with sub-camps that all had different themes and activities to participate in. Though these camps were fun and worth the experience, it was often at the price of the hike itself which was often rushed. Hence, the hikes felt more like a forced march to be endured rather than enjoyed. The trip into the Valle Vidal had no trace of these two problems. The absence of a trail allowed every member of the crew to hold their heads up to see the beauty that was the mountains of New Mexico, and not merely their crew mate’s dirty boots. The second and most crucial aspect of those two days had to do with the loosened schedule. The freedom to hike, and not march, brought out the joy that only the human experience of nature can provide. The two days were not without their trials. More than once, backtracking was required to get back on course, and I recall a shortcut through an overgrown fi eld fi lled with horse fl ies; I still have some of the scars from those horse fl y bites. We eventually did come to our destination safe and sound. Our brief time in the Valle Vidal to explore and discover contained the happiest moments of the entire trip. I imagine, as I stare out my classroom window, if the world of education could have only been like those two days. I think Eisner would agree with me that it would certainly be worth the trip, horse fl ies and all.

CONCLUSION Elliot Eisner’s major work The Educational Imagination took place during the same time as the emergence of the group known as the Reconceptualists, which was seen as an attempt to counter the rigidity that had long dominated the curriculum fi eld up to that point in the early 1970s. Many might suggest that Eisner was trying to do away with all scientifi c and quantitative approaches. Nothing could be further from the truth. Eisner’s work with educational connoisseurship and criticism instead appears to provide the next stage of curriculum development instead of replacing it. If the education fi eld were truly seen as an unexplored body of land, then hard science would provide the information that can be found on the topographical map. The metaphorical examples such as lines of latitude, longitude, elevation, natural features like rivers and lakes are concrete and measurable, especially from a distance, thanks in part to modern technology. The ability to explore and make notations in order to help provide leadership to those actually on the ground can only be achieved with fi rst hand expertise and experience. This is the connection to connoisseurship and criticism that I argue is what Eisner was attempting to suggest in The Educational Imagination. In this way, both the scientifi c data of the policy makers and the personal touch of the individual educators are able to work together in achieving what is after all the point: to educate and empower each child to take his or her place in the world after having a rich schooling experience. Becoming an Educational Critic • 219

The window of the fi eld of education is in many ways the same view I had as a 16 year old scout staring past that barbed wire fence into the great unknown. Those two days of freely exploring and trekking imparted lessons well beyond the obvious ones of orienteering and back packing. I was emboldened to chart my own course, to truly test my skills in a real way, and was rewarded with an actual sense of accomplishment knowing I could replicate it outside of that individual setting. As a professional educator, I am able to become my own connoisseur who constantly explores the various nuances of my chosen fi eld. I continually deal with obstacles imposed by others without many good reasons, and I will on occasion make a wrong turn and have to turn back, but with careful review and help from other guides, I am usually able to lead others along the emerging path. All of these experiences then allow me to become the critic/guide to help my own students in their personal treks into the fi eld of education. I am able to provide pointers and tips acquired from my own travels, but only so far as to not deprive those students of their own sense of discovery. The curriculum fi eld today is not dead as it was so heartlessly declared to be over 40 years ago, but instead it needs new explorers to personally go beyond the artifi cial amusement parks of today and once again courageously tighten their pack straps, take their bearings, and cross the fence to make a new way.

REFERENCES Eisner, E. W. (1979). The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school programs. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc. Pinar, W. F., Reynolds, W. M., Slattery, P., & Taubman, P. M. (2008). Understanding curriculum. (Vol. 17). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Tyler, R. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

CHAPTER 15

THE TWO WAY MIRROR— HIDDEN POWER AND VEILED DOMINANCE A Call for Action

Amy Leonard Baldridge

Apple, M. W. (1979). Ideology and curriculum. New York, NY: Routledge.

THE DREAM I watch the scene unfold before my eyes, much like a cat secretly perched in a tree. I am taking in all that is happening below me and around me, yet I remain unnoticed by the actors on this stage. It is as though I am playing the part of an unknown omniscient witness, seeing what is occurring and understanding the intentions behind the events. It is from this unusual vantage point that I ﬁ nd myself peering into a large classroom ﬁ lled with active and enthusiastic young adolescent students. All are engaged in the instructional activities and conversations of the day with their young teacher, front and center, recording subjects for their discussion/debate on the board.

Curriculum Windows: What Curriculum Theorists of the 1970s Can Teach Us about Schools and Society Today, pages 221–236. Copyright © 2015 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. 221 222 • AMY LEONARD BALDRIDGE

I see the usual organized chaos that surfaces so often when adolescent learners are in the presence of a beloved instructor. The laughter is louder, the questions are plentiful, and the energy levels are elevated, along with their collective voices. The enthusiasm is contagious, and the good-natured banter between the teacher and her students seems to foster a sense of belonging and membership. There is an ebb and fl ow evident in the tempo of the learning experience unfolding in this classroom. A sense of community is revealed in the ways in which the students treat one another, and in the ways in which the teacher models respect and genuine regard for her pupils. The students appear excited about the Socratic Seminar planned for the day. In this class, each has a voice and is assigned a role in the effort to critically evaluate the perspectives presented as truths from within their readings. The teacher has developed an activity called, “who wins/who loses?”; this activity was designed to help her students analyze how certain groups within the reading stood to gain and benefi t from seemingly neutral decisions, while other groups are burdened and oppressed by them. The reading provided a rich context for this scrutiny. This is a place I feel drawn to; it is an environment that is simultaneously personalized, interesting, challenging, and safe. It seems an ideal place in which to learn. As a look around I notice that the physical classroom is fairly typical in all respects except for the wall adjacent to the front of the class. The entire south side of the classroom is not fi lled with windows as one would have assumed, but instead is lined with enormous mirrors in the exact sunken spaces where the windows should have been. It reminds me immediately of a ballet studio where mirrors fi ll the walls and serve to provide a visual focus to assist the dancers with the execution of precise movements. These mirrors seem strange and out of place, yet the students and teacher seem unaffected by their presence. The students neither generate monkey faces into the glass, nor appear distracted by the constant replication of their every motion played out in the refl ections. It is as though they are somehow oddly conditioned to them. I draw nearer to investigate more closely, and it is here that I discover the true function of the mirrors. They are not at all what they appear, but are instead a portal for others behind the glass to monitor, critique, and possibly infl uence the actions of this classroom, quietly and unobtrusively from within the shadows of a hidden room. In my all-knowing state, I can see clearly that the teacher and students are intent on their objectives and not consciously aware of the presence of these others silently watching them. As in dream states, I silently will myself to cross over from the classroom toward the darkened adjoining room, where I can identify a row of ominous fi gures, similar in size and stature assembled below me. They are all cloaked in identical dark robes with hoods raised, shrouding their faces. They are seated shoulder to shoulder, gazing into the classroom through their hidden window. I see them occasionally recording notes on their tablets. Situated directly behind them I observe what appears to be three kings clad in crimson velvet capes and seated on elevated The Two Way Mirror—Hidden Power and Veiled Dominance • 223 thrones. It seems eerie and fully unsettling, but my curiosity pushes me forward. The hooded fi gures in the front row total six in all. I manage to position myself directly behind them in an attempt to identify what they are watching so intently. It is from this perspective that I am able to see something that looks like words affi xed to the back of their robes. These words seem more like parts of an assembled, connected code than an individual name or title. I whisper each of them aloud as I look from robe to robe. I see:

1. Agent of Social Control 2. Agent of Economic Power 3. Agent of Political Power 4. Agent of Legitimate Knowledge and Selective Tradition 5. Agent of Commonsense Assumptions and Practices 6. Agent of the Hidden Curriculum

The room is cloaked in darkness, making it diffi cult to see clearly; however, aside from their unique labels, they seem exactly identical. These agents pause to converse with one another from time to time, but mostly they remain stationary before the window. I turn my attention to the aristocratic fi gures seated behind them. The somber trio appears ancient as they sit motionless, intently studying the classroom beyond the glass. The crowns they wear are made of shining gold and are laden with dazzling jewels. Despite the blackness of the quarters, the glare from the crowns continuously fl ashes across the walls of the room and deep into the recesses of every corner. The kings cast what appears to be an ongoing cosmic lightshow across the shadows of the murky space. I fi nd it hypnotic and unsettling. These three monarch fi gures seem tremendously powerful, which leaves me perplexed by their fi xation on the happenings of this middle school classroom on the opposite side of the window. I am curious and wonder if they have a vested interest in what is occurring. Is there something at stake in the instruction that is unfolding in the classroom? Who are they exactly, and how are they connected to the six agents that join them as members of this strange audience? Is there col- lusion? Is there an understood common agenda? What is the underlying purpose beneath this assembly? There is a sense of foreboding that increases as I draw nearer to them. Their chiseled faces are so white they almost glow, as if ghostly illuminated specters or living statutes. Their features, harsh and pointed, seem to be etched from stone or marble and I sense that these entities are not to be trifl ed with, and certainly not to be underestimated. There are carvings visible at the top of each of the thrones above their crowns. These inscriptions are imposing with capitalized letters, as though shouting their titles to subordinates. I read the following, “IDEOLOGY, HEGEMONY, and CULTURAL DOMINANCE.” The three kings reach forward and tap the shoulders of one hooded agent who immediately rises and proceeds toward the side door. This agent bears the title, 224 • AMY LEONARD BALDRIDGE

“Agent of Legitimate Knowledge and Selective Tradition.” Unseen, I follow close behind him, still curious about what is transpiring. This agent opens the door and produces a folder of notes and a large textbook from beneath his robe. He hands these items to a man in a suit wearing a badge identifying him as a state educational representative. The exchange appears covert, with sideways glances and suspicious silence. The agent closes the door and resumes his seated position among the fraternity of others before the glass. I decide to follow the state offi cial with his newly acquired contraband into the connecting room. I enter a conference room that is well lit and houses one of the two-way mirrors from within the adjacent classroom. The state education offi cial copies and dis- tributes these duplicate folders to several curriculum specialists situated around a large conference table. As he takes his place at the head, he passes the textbook to the neighbor on his left. It circulates around to each of the head-nodding follow- ers until all have viewed and recorded the contents. Almost simultaneously, these curriculum minions arise with folders in hand, and proceed with their marching orders. They disperse, exiting through various doors. This distribution of information is reminiscent of an assembly line system, as opposed to that of any process even loosely predicated upon democratic principles. I am still struggling to understand the connection among the agents, the kings, and the information being distributed to the state offi cial and local curriculum directors. I ask myself how to make sense of the puzzling series of events; then I witness the fi nal leg in this race that reveals everything. One of the curriculum directors knocks on the door of the very classroom being monitored and I observe the teacher move from her place with her students as neutral moderator within the Socratic Circle to answer the door. She is handed the folder and textbook, and the door closes abruptly. After reviewing the material, she looks out at the faces before her and shares that their “who wins?/who loses?” analytical debate activity must now conclude and their focus must shift to formal assessment preparation over the revised objectives she just received. The teacher is privately aware that despite their narrow perspective, the content objectives she holds in her hands refl ect the selected curriculum that will be assessed and measured. It is clearly what matters most. She worries that these assessments will ultimately sort and track her students unfairly, thereby limiting their opportunities to become empowered, valued, discerning, and participating citizens. She is tormented by the certainty that she has no voice and no control over the mandatory content being prioritized, legitimatized, and mandated for her to impart. She fears that social and economic inequities will be perpetuated and strengthened through this top-down, imposed curriculum and testing cycle purported as politically neutral. Such a large-scale mechanism would be oblivious to the realities of individual students’ needs, interests, and cultural values. She feels frustrated that the curriculum she was given seems to be more like a laundry list that keeps growing in length, preventing her from having suffi cient time to focus her efforts on leading students to analyze and critically think and write. (I fi nd The Two Way Mirror—Hidden Power and Veiled Dominance • 225 it privately to be an outrageous paradox that the curriculum seems more like an intrusion on the learning process in that classroom.) The teacher sighs and assures herself that in a democracy, the educational experts seated at the table would certainly have engaged in collaborative sessions similar to her Socratic Seminar processes, where debate is encouraged, and questions expected. In her inner dialogue, she further contends that in order to remain true to their belief in serving all children equitably, these educational specialists in their high positions of authority would stand strong in refuting unfair practices based on ideological rules passed off as acceptable, as commonsense truths, and as “givens.” She concludes her own self-deceiving narrative by declaring that advocates for justice would feel compelled to present considerations on behalf of the underprivileged and underrepresented students. These empowered advocates would divert courses of action that would otherwise impede the success and growth of students, especially those from disempowered sub-groups. Such checks and balances would have to be implemented throughout an institution founded on democracy and equity. They would be especially critical for neutralizing the overwhelming imbalance of power, strength, and voice that accompanies the infl uential and dominant culture. It would be unjust and immoral, otherwise. The young teacher turns on her heels and moves toward the board, satisfi ed that she is doing what is required of her and what is right. She has been raised in a world founded on order, obedience, and respect for authority. She has been taught that those in positions of power are not to be questioned, as they are far more experienced and wiser than she. This novice realizes her limitations in matters as important as curricular content, and physically shutters at the prospect of her students encountering the required high-stakes assessments ill-prepared. She would simply never forgive herself if they were penalized and suffered limitations of future opportunities due to her ineptitude. So it is with this conviction that she picks up an eraser and vigorously eliminates every last trace of the words refl ecting the ideas that she and her students had generated together only moments before. The pupils, seemingly automatized, begin robotically reconfi guring their desks from a circle back into orderly and effi cient rows as the young teacher begins organizing the materials in the folder. Voices quieted now, the only noise radiating in the room is the hum of the fl uorescent lights overhead. It is a vastly different “learning environment” now than it was just 30 minutes ago. Perhaps the most disheartening transformation of all is the fi nal scene in which the teacher begins to disseminate the folder’s contents one row at a time while the students become transfi gured into compliant, subordinate receptacles of their newly selected curriculum. Gone are the active participants in a dynamic and dialectic exchange of ideas. Gone is the rich learning environment fi lled with analyses, arguments, humor, and debate. The entirety of the personalized curriculum, dialogue, relationships, and opportunities seems to have simply evaporated with the work of the eraser, and through the fateful journey down through the hierarchy of minions—the handing over of the magic folder. 226 • AMY LEONARD BALDRIDGE

While situated on the classroom side of the glass, a subtle motion captures my attention and interrupts my focus. I turn to investigate its source. As I gaze into the mirrors, I am transfi xed at what I see visibly beyond the image of my very own refl ection. Though faint and opaque, I can make out the transparent outlines of smiling fi gures through the window alcoves behind the mirrors. I am watching a movement that is both familiar and rhythmic unfold before me. Chills like needles radiate down my back at the moment of my realization. I want to escape, but am paralyzed by fear at what I understand is occurring. Slow and in precise unison, the others are applauding what they see transpiring in the classroom through their window. I am jolted back to my conscious awareness, profoundly relieved to have been delivered from that disturbing scene. I lay still in my bed breathing deeply to steady my nerves, and slow my racing heart. I am grateful that I am awake and thinking clearly at last, and no longer subject to the whims of those frightening others in my lived nightmare. “It was only a dream,” I keep repeating convincingly to myself. There is no such thing as a hidden curriculum. There are no conspiracies to generate or perpetuate structural inequalities of economic and cultural power through curriculum in public schools. There are merely accepted truths, facts, knowledge, and information to be passed along to our children, and our children’s children for the intention of preserving our national heritage, our history, and our cultural traditions. I continue with this self-affi rmation by identifying that the current reform movement is actually designed to ensure that commonsense, legitimate, universal knowledge is taught consistently, so kids are not disadvantaged due to geography or the whims of a less-than-effective teacher. The state public education offi cials are even partnering with business and industry to develop vendor-approved assessments correlated to the curriculum. This was intended to guard against any deviation from the larger learning outcomes. This has all been designed to teacher- proof the curriculum, so all kids can receive consistent content to MITIGATE the achievement gap—not to exacerbate it! Schools are surely not being subjugated to secret schemes being developed to reproduce barriers of access to opportunities for certain groups. The propaganda we continue to hear is one of liberation from the shackles of a broken educational system, where our students will be prepared for college and the work place, and our economy as part of a well-prepared work force. Our educational system is actually broken (right?); we’ve all heard that message recycled in report after tired report. These are all efforts designed to benefi t the children, I am certain. It is lu- nacy to believe that there are “others” behind the scenes, covertly infl uencing key decisions to secure and reproduce their cultural dominance and power through something as pure as the schooling process. Besides, the vast majority of teachers and public education offi cials LOVE children and have devoted their lives to supporting their growth and well-being. These educators would never permit themselves to be used as instruments of marginalization in some hegemonic plot for cultural reproduction! This is the United States of America - a democratic The Two Way Mirror—Hidden Power and Veiled Dominance • 227 republic! Our schools are oozing with democracy, as evidenced by the fact that we teach all of our children, not only those with the means to afford a quality education. The teacher from my dream was not some puppet facilitator, carrying out the malicious motives of those seeking to sustain their power and dominance over others. That is the story line of some intriguing action fi lm, not the reality of public education and not the message of my dream. The teacher was merely preparing her students for the assessments that they had to take and pass. If that meant forgoing some teachable moments or time-consuming discussions, then, those would have been the logical sacrifi ces in this accountability-laden climate. At this, the dialogue with myself concludes. I am beginning, fi nally, to awaken and get my wits about me. But this dream has already taken its toll. It has robbed me of my peaceful rest, and has left me frustrated, anxious, and tired. Despite my exhaustion, further sleep eludes me as the nagging images of the reigning triumvirate and their hooded knights plague my every thought. At long last, I confront my private fears: If I concede their existence, I must also then concede their stronghold; and this would generate the most frightening nightmare of all, the unequivocal burden to act. The gravity of this realization and the scope of the oppression press on me. There is no changing the channel, no turning the page to escape what I know. I cannot wake up and forget this dream; there is no denying the existence of these agents any longer. I am only one person, but I have a voice. I choose my conscience. I choose to sleep at night, but tonight, at least, sleep won’t come again.

THE CURRENT REALITY OF PUBLIC EDUCATION Although Michael Apple would likely disagree with me, I have always felt that the intentions of most governmental offi cials to improve the quality and effi ciency of public education through top-down mandates are/have been primarily honor- able; however, the outcomes of such legislation in real public school settings are certainly not. Establishing high educational standards for children and ramping up their learning opportunities are both wholly appropriate objectives; however, these goals must be identifi ed and established in conjunction with educators, not handed to them by outsiders. In the dream scenario, the teacher robotically defers to the “orders” received via the agents at her door, clearly concerned that if she ignores the orders and persists with her (high-quality) instructional plans, she will ironically harm her students’ chances to perform well on the state tests. (The ONE day a year test that somehow has become elevated to a status far beyond its validity and worth.) Further, these orders were neither personalized for the children she was currently instructing, nor were they tailored to coincide with the focused content and learning goals that she had collaboratively developed with her students; yet, she stopped her teaching and obeyed the mandate that she focus on training and “test prep” rather than risk the possible fall out from low scores for her students and/or herself. Obviously the “others” must know best, and the districts and teachers need to be guided and con- 228 • AMY LEONARD BALDRIDGE trolled from above since they have singlehandedly somehow made a huge mess of America’s educational system. This is the very message repeatedly intimated or overtly claimed, and it is beyond offensive; it is simply untrue, and yet more and more decisions and mandates are predicated on this very premise. I posit that there is a shocking level of ignorance among American non-educators regarding the complexities associated with the ebb and fl ow of the educational system in the United States. To be entirely honest, there are plenty of educators that have not really explored this much, largely because they just plow ahead and teach the children they receive on their rosters rather than question why their free and reduced percentages are growing each year. With these increases come compounded challenges for learning, and increased strain on the students and their families to secure available resources. Such musings about the state of the economy and the impact on education are a luxury that most teachers cannot afford, as the time spent refl ecting on such issues does not mitigate the reality for the teacher or the children in the least. Most instead direct their focus and efforts toward overcoming the obstacles that they CAN impact, and they rally to secure resources for their children. Countless teachers whose income is also impacted by a fl ailing economy regularly visit their local Kroger or Wal-Mart each weekend to purchase bread, peanut butter, fruit, and cheese to ensure that all of their 29 classroom children will have full bellies in order to learn effectively. The unspoken truth that many educators quietly acknowledge is that all too often there might not be another meal await- ing that student beyond the breakfast and lunches being offered at school. These issues of poverty that have NOTHING to do with public education, teachers, or any “failing educational system,” profoundly impact the focus, the priorities, and the effectiveness of each teacher and each student on a daily basis. The fact is that the political elite conveniently omits in its admonishments of public education the correlation between the health of the economy and the well-being of society, including its children, which are housed in public schools for the majority of their day. This is an unconscionable omission by those in power, those who aim at di- verting attention toward the easiest scapegoats—the schools and teachers. I argue that there has been a pervasive lack of respect for teachers and the work they do since the 1983 publication of A Nation at Risk. A Nation at Risk (1983) highlighted the steady decline of (primarily) secondary schooling in the U.S. from the 60s to the 80s, citing among other evidence such indicators as the decline in national SAT scores, as well as the growing percentage of illiterate adults across the country. Many education scholars and public educators reviewed the fi ndings of the report and claimed the call for urgent and immediate school reform through increased rigor and higher standards was likely warranted; however, the resulting blame for the state of decline was levied squarely and exclusively onto public schools and public school teachers. The resulting negative perceptions of schools and teachers, though unfair, have left lasting and destructive effects ever since. The Two Way Mirror—Hidden Power and Veiled Dominance • 229

Absent in the report’s exhaustive list of educational shortcomings were any acknowledgements of the country’s changing demographics and economic challenges that had accompanied the recession of the early 80s. The increased percentages of citizens living at the poverty level, and the rapid rise in unemployment ushered in very different societal conditions over which the schools had no control, yet whose impact signifi cantly affected the learning conditions in which the schools, the teachers, and the students were situated. These extreme economic and social factors contributed to the changing demographics and the shifting educational performance outcomes within the nation, yet no culpability was attributed to anything or anyone other than the schools. It seemed to be the beginning of the “shame and blame” syndrome we continue to fi nd ourselves mired in. As of late, it seems that everyone that has ever attended or graduated from a public school system has a solution to propose that is considered superior to any recom- mendations offered by experienced administrators or professional teachers working within the public educational systems. Meanwhile, the powerful and wealthy states- men and businessmen have been granted unprecedented power and infl uence over the fi eld of public education, enabling them to experiment freely with various reform proposals, school choice, fi nances, and incentive grants. Their proclamations, strategies, and structures are loosely based on intuition, and their experiences within business models, rather than on widely accepted best practices in the fi eld of education, founded on educational research and sustained practice. The ideology and motives of these newly elevated educational gurus are questionable as well, and their attention to the unique needs of the minority and disenfranchised groups is virtually non-existent. It is here that Michael Apple would likely step in and present his claim that these business leaders have no intention of focusing on reducing the Achieve- ment Gap, but rather they aspire fi rst and foremost to ensure the nation’s economic strength (and secure their own wealth); they wish to enact strategies to reproduce the stratifi ed class system; and ensure the perpetuation of dominant culture through the schooling process (Shaughnessy, Peca, Siegel, & Apple, 2001). The result of the myriad changes and agendas is an army of exhausted and frustrated educators who have either been stripped of confi dence in their own expertise, or who have been shut up and shut down in the name of compliance with this new version of educational reform. Like the novice teacher in my dream scenario, many young educators mistak- enly assume this recent over-zealous, top-down educational accountability platform is the new Holy Grail to pursue without question. Since it has been repeatedly legitimatized through statutory approval across the nation, this new test-based curriculum essentially seems to trump their own instructional expertise, and the knowledge they possess of their students, effectively reducing such information to incidental at best. Concurrently, many seasoned veterans upon reviewing the plans for teacher evaluation and accountability (based primarily on each student’s singular test score performance) are mourning the loss of public education, as it had once been. Those capable of leaving have fl ed the fi eld by the thousands, an- 230 • AMY LEONARD BALDRIDGE ticipating the destructive effects of the mandates enacted by those well-intended, yet ignorant and powerful ones on teachers, students, instruction, and all of public education. The mid-career teachers wise enough to recognize the path on which we fi nd ourselves, as a nation, are themselves stuck in the current reform movement, and must decide whether to rise up and demand to be heard, or lie down and hand over the keys to the institution that has historically been responsible for equalizing opportunities and access to all in this nation—the rich, the poor, female, male, minority, mainstream, gay, straight, weak or mighty—to the powerful, and to leave them to their own devices and their agendas. The dream scenario, though a fantasy depiction, is all too real for professional educators and educational administrators today. Many are fi nding themselves at a crossroads, both personally and professionally. I believe that sooner or later, in navi- gating this educational landscape, it will all come down to a question of ethics and personal integrity. Simply, there are choices to make and most are not easy ones. For educators, it will continue to be more and more diffi cult to divorce themselves from the politics and “just focus on their classrooms,” since the mandates have now reached within those walls. For me, as a 15-year classroom teacher, and 13-year veteran administrator, I have learned that risks and loss can accompany even the most respectful challenges, or professional dissention. I have learned that I can no longer work in top-down autocratic systems, where ALL students are not prioritized, only SOME are. To feed my soul and honor my heart, I must work and engage with dedicated educators, in authentically democratic and collaborative settings. I must partner with those that are willing to be fl exible, to learn together, to change, to challenge one another, and above all, to serve the needs of the students, fi rst and foremost. I must be free to lead and team with committed teachers, aides, parents, and students to identify and work toward satisfying the vast and complex learning needs of the whole, and of the individuals through the collective wisdom of the larger team. I have learned that being strong does not mean being loud and dominant, but instead, being humble, tenacious, and gentle… I have learned above all else that courage is a prerequisite for leadership, and that confronting and challenging dominance and ugly, misguided priorities requires all of us, teachers and administrators alike, to tap into our inner strength and fortitude. It is not through ego that public education will be taken back by its teachers and school administrators, but instead through an unwavering commitment to serve ALL children each day. Profoundly motivating is the knowledge that for countless students, we, as dedicated educators, represent THE critical difference in their lives, a fact that will simply not be understood by the policy-makers, and will never be measured on a state test. To a teacher, this intrinsic knowledge is the truth that counts—the reality that truly matters.

MY JOURNEY WITH MICHAEL APPLE I researched Michael Apple to get to know him. I wanted to understand how this man organized a framework for describing cultural reproduction that was so pro- The Two Way Mirror—Hidden Power and Veiled Dominance • 231 found that scores of scholars have used his works over the years to contribute new knowledge to the fi eld of education. Apple is a professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, is recognized as an activist, prolifi c scholarly author, radical educational theorist, and leading lecturer on educational theory and reform. Apple’s contributions to the fi eld of education are profound and span the early 1970s through the current-day curriculum reform movements of 2014. Credited with forever changing the landscape of curriculum theory in North America through the publication of his highly infl uential text Ideology and Curriculum (1979), Apple sought to analyze the relationship between schooling and society (Gottesman, 2012). To this end, Apple researched early Marxist theory and developed a Neo-Marxist framework as a means of facilitating his exploration of the implicit assumptions deeply embedded in the institutions of schools and curriculum selection. Specifi cally, he was interested in the assumptions (“givens”) that exist in school culture, the everyday normalcies that do not draw any special attention or provoke any elevated level of concern, but quietly serve to maintain social stratifi cation through inculcating certain ideologies via the droves of students attending school each year. Apple eventually concluded with support from Antonio Gramsci’s research that it was precisely these seemingly benign assumptions permeating mainstream culture and public schools that nurture the reality of cultural dominance. Apple fi ercely argued that school curriculum could neither claim to be objective, nor truly stand outside the infl uence of other existing competing and dominant power structures. He presented that the very legitimization of certain curriculum over others was directly refl ective of the power of dominant ideological and hegemonic infl uences (Apple, 2004). This over-arching concept of curriculum control and mainstream assumptions spoke to me as a curriculum director in a public school system. Over the years as a school administrator, I had formulated many internal questions, such as, “Who actually authored the state standards? What exactly were the processes related to their production? Were they democratic? Were they inclusive of all voices, or only the dominant few? What would happen to the children not ready to be held accountable to the strict outcomes as defi ned therein? What about those children with special learning needs, or those with limited English profi - ciency?” And as I learned more, I began to formulate a larger question: “Who stood to profi t and who stood to be further oppressed through the standardized curriculum and testing movement that has swept the nation since the inception of No Child Left Behind in 2001?” I saw in some cases incredible opportunities presented to children through improved learning targets and higher expectations; however, I also have and continue to contend with several questionable mandates randomly imposed that stem from a purely political perspective with no positive regard for children. The No Child Left Behind Act ushered in new curriculum standards and unprecedented standardized testing and tied funding to them, which came with an often unseen 232 • AMY LEONARD BALDRIDGE cost. Schools shifted from learning centers to places where children learned to “game” the test through practice and preparatory sessions and tricks to provide them with an edge. In too many instances, educators have been slowly reduced to vehicles for information distribution rather than teachers of truth and learning. School administrators have recently become almost exclusively managers in their focus, pushing out the expectations from above, and holding the rank and fi le accountable. Gone is any authentic expectation of serving as an “instructional leader”; there is simply no time and no autonomy for that luxury. Under the auspices of verifying that the learning targets were actually being taught, the testing movement has been sanctioned, de facto as an objective measurement, free of bias. This is an obvious misnomer. To reduce all that is learned and all growth made to the performance on an assessment of specifi ed content on one day of a child’s life is ludicrous and short-sighted. The unfortunate and exhausting reality is that public schools are continually the target and victim of every imaginable converging political and ideological tension. Apple articulated a concern through his many published texts and narratives that due to the oppressive nature of the formal curriculum structure in public schools, teachers literally were unable to teach children to question, challenge, debate, and think. Instead, students were being taught compliance and obedience through a consensus-oriented perspective, conditions supporting the “hidden curriculum’s” domination of mainstream values and easily enabling students to be controlled. Apple felt this culture of political quiescence and blind acceptance by students of only one narrow perspective on social and intellectual confl icts (perceived truths) represented a recipe for maintaining the existing distribution of social power and rationality in American society. While many of his leftist radical contemporaries in the fi eld of curriculum were Reconceptualists and were engaging phenomenology, as Apple had done in his dissertation, Apple had begun instead to delve into Marxist thought, especially in the critical theory tradition (Kridel, 2003). He was in a minority, as very few were looking to Marxism as a framework for social change in North America (Schubert, Schubert, Thomas, & Carroll, 2002). Worth noting, Apple’s Neo-Marxist framework differed from the Marxist reform platform of the late 70s–early 80s, which narrowly focused on economics and class struggle as the defi ned barriers to social change. Apple acknowledged that class struggle was a factor, but dismissed the mechanical and economically formulaic manner in which the Marxist reformers structured the theory. Apple felt that the underlying issues were much more complex and daunting than anything so simply constructed. He posed that deep-seated, underlying ideological and cultural mediations were routinely establishing and perpetuating relations of domination and subordination; this, according to Apple, represented the greatest and most authentic critical challenge to real social change (Farahmandpur, 2004). The 70s moved many marginalized groups somewhat closer to the goal of social equality, yet Apple’s concerns mounted during the early-mid 1980s with the rise of the Neo- The Two Way Mirror—Hidden Power and Veiled Dominance • 233 conservative and the Neo-liberal platforms (Shaughnessy, Peca, Siegel, & Apple, 2001). Apple continues to warn today of their strict accountability-oriented focus and insistence on going back to “our roots,” reminiscent of the subtle maneuver- ing that excluded certain groups’ identities and promoted others’ histories through most of the 20th century. Ideology and Curriculum illuminates how complex social inequities are actually reproduced in the process of schooling, primarily due to ideological and cultural practices that occur inside the classrooms between teachers and students through the course of instruction. Apple argues that hegemonic forces have effectively saturated every last inch of the nation’s education landscape and he poses that the curriculum decisions about what is taught year after year to students in classrooms remains thoroughly infl uenced by the political, social, and economic interests and pressures (Apple, 2004). In his text, Apple tries to identify ways in which curriculum work seeks to benefi t certain groups and interests while marginalizing others. He challenges his readers to scrutinize how dominant economic, political, and cultural interests are tied to the process of schooling, and account for the ways in which culturally dominant ideology actually works within the overt and hidden curricula of the schooling process, and certainly within the current school reform movements. In his third edition of Ideology and Curriculum (2004), Apple included two additional chapters to the original 1979 text to expand the application of social dominance in the aftermath of 9/11 and to project forward to analyze new hegemonic relationships. He navigates sensitive terrain, identifying how patriotism and racism intersected in damaging and dangerous ways for certain citizens in society. Apple cautions the readers about losing sight of democratic principles in the quest for vengeance, and within the auspices of patriotism. He further highlights how quickly the infl uence of ideology and fervent and emotional reactions can reveal our basest prejudices, even when unintended and even when unknown to us. This reminded me of the stories I read about the concentration camps of World War II and how US citizens of Asian descent were corralled like cattle into these spaces to live in humiliation and under the watchful eye of those in control. Throughout education, and in the myriad of daily decisions made about teaching and learning, knowledge and power in schools are presented as agents that effectively preserve and distribute what is considered to be “legitimate knowledge.” It is through his Neo-Marxist lens that Apple identifi es the ways that ideology, economic pressures, selective tradition, the hidden curriculum, and dominance all work in concert to perpetuate cultural hegemony in schools. They act much like the agents in the dream to infl uence curricular choices that defi ne what is worth knowing as well as what is not to be taught. Apple paints a picture of an empowered majority weaving political, economic, and social hegemony in and throughout the public school system, while those executing the decisions are mostly behaving as blind puppets. He accounts for the increased sorting and marginalizing of students in school and eventually in society as a result of this process, and 234 • AMY LEONARD BALDRIDGE claims that once students are categorized, they are essentially doomed to remain forever linked to those labels, regardless. Apple suggests in all of his writings that most critical of all, citizens must be made aware of this cycle of reproduction, and of their participation, be it intentional or unknown, in the process. He holds that this self-refl ective confrontation provides the only chance of breaking the cycle and framing a new paradigm. It is through his Marxist perspective that he calls for those in the curriculum fi eld to pause and consider how the curriculum engages students in the shaping of a society that is rife with injustice and then to take action to counter the effects. He urges strongly that educational scholars and practitioners recognize and challenge the institutional forms of reproductive hegemony to begin to establish a just society for those underprivileged and oppressed groups struggling to be heard.

CONCLUSION As I refl ect on my role as a public school administrator, I can identify parallels to the teacher from my dream scenario. Often I feel powerless when contending with the increasing number of mandates being passed down from the state department of education. Sometimes, those edicts can leave me questioning what I know to be a best practice for children and for learning; they also cause me to evaluate my evolving role as a curriculum director. The number of top-down mandates has been increasing in volume and frequency, further complicating their effective implementation. Most recently, I have felt more like an Ohio Department of Education compliance offi cer than a supportive facilitator charged with empowering leaders to organize and improve practices for children. How I navigate these unchartered waters is the only thing truly in the realm of my control, and even in that space, there are more and more restrictions imposed. Despite juggling so many statutory requirements, there are still choices available to me. I have the power to determine how I will lead the implementation processes to ensure equitable representation of all children. I can still choose to involve parents and community members, administrative colleagues, teachers and students in conversations related to how best to approach the mandates we receive. I can certainly ensure that thorough consideration is given in advance of each action while in the planning and development phases to avoid setting in motion unintended subsequent actions and consequences, especially to those already disenfranchised groups. I can at the very least provide communication that is transparent, concise, and ongoing to ap- prise internal and external publics of the necessary changes, the rationale for and approaches we intend to employ. Essentially, I make choices each day that impact several others, including the community, the teachers, and the children we serve. These decisions must be made collaboratively, inclusive of multiple perspectives, and input. Most of all, similar to the resolution that my dream persona summarizes, there can be no acceptable excuses available that allow me to ignore my responsibility to speak up and oppose actions of injustice and exclusion. There is no opting out of combat- ing the dominant presence and majority voice that perpetually seeks to assert its The Two Way Mirror—Hidden Power and Veiled Dominance • 235 power over others, like a schoolyard bully with positional authority, using fear as a tool for intimidation and coercion. As through Apple’s Neo-Marxist philosophical lens, I must endeavor day-by-day to be a guardian of justice within the school system, confronting what is a threat to equality, democracy, and opportunities for ALL, not just the privileged majority. A quip that I frequently use when engaging others in decision-making is, “all means all.” I regularly use this line to frame a focus that measures and weighs the benefi ts or detriments of possible actions against the needs of ALL children, not just MOST of the children. Despite its extreme proposition, Michael Apple’s Ideology and Curriculum both broadened and reaffi rmed my commitment to an actionable platform of advocacy within the increasingly diffi cult landscape that is public education. There is more than just an interesting, complex, and provocative narrative to be discovered within the dense pages of this 1979 radical text; there is an accompanying charge, demanding that ethical educational leaders confront the truth of the oppressive powers in society and institutions, and eradicate the perpetuation of social injustices enacted in and through public education. Apple concludes with a clear call to action. He claims that leaders must move beyond acknowledging the dominant social and economic power structures pressuring educational decisions, to a stance of disarming it wherever they encounter it, be it in a subtle suppressive force behind the scenes, or in the form of the wealthy elite, well-positioned to infl uence policy with local Boards of Education to their favor. The ideology behind the selection of curriculum in public education refl ects a great deal about where we are, as a nation, on the continuum of embracing diversity and promoting equal voice. If the layers of the onion were peeled away from society to allow us an authentic view of what beliefs remain at the core, beneath the shrouds of political correctness and dominance, we would likely encounter age-old prejudices and assumptions often hidden from the view of the citizens themselves. Pinar (2012, p. xv), claims, along with other paragons of the curriculum fi eld, that “the most crucial curriculum question is, ‘What knowledge is of the most worth’?” This simple yet profound question intersects and reinforces the warnings embedded throughout each chapter of Apple’s text. I believe that in light of the convincing message of hegemony and dominance penetrating public education, the question should be augmented to become even clearer and more pointed… WHY was the knowledge chosen most important? According to whom? And who stands to benefi t from the particular selection? Belief systems are like engines, propelling a series of predetermined events forward and onward, over and over again. If the perpetuation of outcomes within this cycle is ever to be stopped, the hidden agents and their agendas must be confronted and exposed. Simply, the teacher in my dream must pause to explore her “classroom windows” more carefully. Further, she must focus her gaze purposely to discover what is occurring through the mirrors and behind the glass. It is within this space of realization that she must choose. Will she knowingly remain an ac- complice to hegemony, or will she, on behalf of the powerless, break the glass and expose the hidden truth? 236 • AMY LEONARD BALDRIDGE

REFERENCES Apple, M. W. (1978). Ideology, reproduction, and educational reform. Comparative Edu- cation Review, 22(3), 367. doi: 10.1086/445993 Apple, M. W. (2004). Ideology and curriculum (3rd ed.). London: Routledge Falmer. Farahmandpur, R. (2004). A Marxist critique of Michael Apple’s Neo-Marxist approach to educational reform. Journal of Critical Educational Policy Studies, 2(1), 1–23. Gottesman, I. (2012). From Gouldner to Gramsci: The making of Michael Apple’s ideology and curriculum. Curriculum Inquiry OISEUT. doi: 10.1111/j.1467- 873x.2012.00612.x Kridel, C. (2003). Biblio-revenance: Curriculum theorizing: The reconceptualists (1975) and ideology and curriculum (1979). JCT: Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 19(3), fall, 96–103. A Nation at Risk. (1983). The imperative for educational reform. The Elementary School Journal, 84(2), 112–130. Pinar, W. F. (2012). What is curriculum theory? (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Schubert, W. H., Schubert, A., Thomas, T., & Carroll, W. (2002). Curriculum books: The ﬁ rst hundred years (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc. Shaughnessy, M. F., Peca, K., Siegel, J., & Apple, M. W. (2001). Educational and curricular restructuring and the Neo-liberal and Neo-conservative agendas: Interview with Mi- chael Apple. Curriculo Sem Fronterias, 1(1), I-Xxvi. Retrieved February 23, 2013, from www.curriculosemfronteiras.org. CHAPTER 16

THE PURSUIT OF LIFELONG LEARNING

Deborah Heard

Overly, N. (Ed.) (1979). Lifelong learning, a human agenda. Alexandria, VA: As- sociation for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

As a fl edgling scholar, for the past 18 months I have been inundated with text after text full of theories, theorists, and theses. When choosing a text to explore for the curriculum project, I was immediately attracted to Norm Overly’s Life- long Learning—a Human Agenda. Although written as the 1979 Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD) Yearbook, this was not your typical ASCD curriculum yearbook. Overly’s inimitable approach to addressing curriculum of lifelong learning in the 1970s piqued my interest and stole my soul from the very fi rst page. The fi rst narrative, “Grandma’s Search,” instantly lured me in. A grandma’s girl myself, I was anxious to read what this grandma’s search was for and what it had to do with curriculum. It took only two pages for me to decide that this was the curriculum book for me. After reading four pages, I was grappling with this assembly of thoughts, narratives, poems, and news briefs (to name just a few of the genres in the book). Before long, I no longer felt like I was reading a curriculum book from the 1970s. I began to feel like I was watching a fi lm, a fi lm

Curriculum Windows: What Curriculum Theorists of the 1970s Can Teach Us about Schools and Society Today, pages 237–254. Copyright © 2015 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. 237 238 • DEBORAH HEARD of many different frames, each extracting a different experience from a different perspective. Wanting to delve completely into each infi nitesimal experience, I sat back, put on my three-dimensional glasses and prepared to partake in these transi- tory moments of uncertainty for the actors and actresses in each frame. The 1979 ASCD Yearbook is a compilation of lifelong goals, realities, and obstacles. Overly and his committee including Wilma Longstreet, Virginia Maca- gnoni, Carlos Ovando, Edna Mitchell, and George Harris, carefully craft a literary collage of lifelong learning experiences in the form of narratives, poems, news briefs, editorials, and refl ections all played to the tune of tweeters and woofers to represent different voices. Overly’s approach to addressing curriculum of lifelong learning not only captured my interest but it also grabbed my mind and spoke to my heart. As a thirty-something, African American woman pursing a PhD, reading about lifelong learning was like an out of body of experience. Every page turned was another moment of my adult existence playing out in my mind. And for moments actually lived, my heart raced from word to word, longing to become one with each encounter of the book. Unlike previous ASCD Yearbooks, the 1979 yearbook did more than address curriculum development issues of the period. Instead, Overly and his colleagues addressed life development issues of the period. Previous yearbooks were sys- tematically written to fi t into the perfect snow globe world of education. Nice, neat, expected topics for educators to discuss and ponder and put away until the next year. But 1979 was different. The 1979 yearbook brought intrigue and controversy and required personal interaction and insight from the reader. Instead of perfect white snow, when shaken, this glass globe was fi lled with sparkling, colorful glitter. In Lifelong Learning—a Human Agenda, Overly et al. break down the topics of lifelong learning in the 1970s in a rather simplistic order: The Goals, The Reali- ties, and The Obstacles which creates a gargantuan set of ideas and questions with very complex resolutions (if anything gets resolved, at all). Naïve and, I guess, a little nuts, I set out to mimic this monumental task from 30 plus years ago. Starting with a list of topics relevant for Americans and the American education system today, I wanted to create my own Lifelong Learning - Human Agenda fi lm with scenes of apposite experiences, goals, realities, and obstacles. My list included topics like: the recent re-election of President Barak Obama; Pop Cul- ture; Race to the Top; Teacher Accountability; Alzheimer’s; Teach to the Test; At- tention Defi cit Hyperactive Disorder; Terrorism; Pipeline to Prison; just to name a few. Simultaneously, I formulated a list of competent intellects and scholars to assist me by creatively writing their personal perspective on one of the chosen topics. Although strategic in my planning and confi dent in my chosen participants, time constraints and schedule confl icts made it almost impossible to accomplish what I would later discover was a tremendous feat even for the original authors. Feeling defeated, yet still determined, I resorted to plan B. The Pursuit of Lifelong Learning • 239

MEETING NORM As a new student, new wife, and the mother of a tween-age daughter (which is an entirely whole other learning experience!), I welcomed an opportunity for a two and a half hour drive on a Friday morning last Spring. Even the misty rain seemed tranquil compared to the usual Friday morning hustle and bustle. As I headed toward Bloomington, Indiana, I replayed in my mind the questions I’d prepared for Norm, the comments I’d rehearsed, and the small talk I’d recite: “How were the topics chosen?” “What did you enjoy most about your experience…?” “I really enjoyed this and that and so and so…la la la…” This puppet show continued until I rang the doorbell and ended the moment Norm Overly opened the door and opened his home to me. Over cheese eggs and blueberry scones, I learned all about Norm Overly and his colleagues who wrote Lifelong Learning for the 1979 Yearbook. Norm Overly was the chairperson of the ASCD 1979 Yearbook Committee and editor of the Yearbook while serving as Associate Professor of Education and Chair of the Department of Curriculum at Indiana University. Dr. Overly is a former elementary and high school teacher, educational missionary in Japan, as well as a former executive serving in many different capacities with ASCD in the 1960s. He has written and edited several publications and was actively involved in founding the World Council for Curriculum and Instruction (WCCI) and the Commission on Developing Curriculum Models for Lifelong Learning and was chair of Phi Beta Kappa (Overly, 1979). He was awarded The AERA Lifetime Achievement Award by Division B, Curriculum Studies, in 2014. In addition to learning all about Mr. Overly, I was privileged to learn about other committee members as well. While I will spare the reader the hilariously entertaining personal vignettes, the professional accolades of the committee are noteworthy: Wilma Longstreet, Overly’s good friend, graduate of Indiana Univer- sity and Dean of Education at DePaul; Carlos Ovando, one of Overly’s doctoral students who ironically followed in his footsteps as Head of Department of Cur- riculum Instruction at Indiana University and then on to Arizona State University; Edna Mitchell, Head of Mills College; Virginia Macagnoni, very spiritual, curriculum specialist, retired from University of Georgia; and George Harris, President of Essex County College. As I explained to Norm my failure at duplicating the committee’s work as an early attempt to writing this chapter, Overly politely denounced my effort by sharing the process of his. As a committee “all the members saw curriculum as complex,” and they were all concerned with diversity, pluralism, and leadership (Overly, 2013). They decided that curriculum had to be looked at as “What you teach, how you teach it AND what they actually hear” based on one’s own individual life circumstances and situations. So the committee met and compiled a list of topics and concerns surrounding education. From the plethora of ideas and topics on the list, they decided on three major themes: goals, realities, and obstacles 240 • DEBORAH HEARD and divided their topics appropriately into the three categories. And the writing began….and continued for three years. The beauty of the committee was that not only did each member contribute his or her own individual commentary at the end but the members collectively created the intertwined vignettes and experiences that made up the goals, realities, and obstacles sections. While some selections were contributed individually, many were written through hours and hours of collaboration which was sometimes done as a whole group, but most often pairs would meet and wrap their minds around the topics and themes while constantly considering their collective concerns: diversity, pluralism, and leadership. After my meeting with Overly, I began to think about how all the pieces explained to me had coalesced into the curriculum experience I now held in my hands. As I revisited the book, section-by-section, I mentally dissected it for evidence of those three key components. I canvassed the text for samples of diversity, pluralism, and leadership.

ON APPROACHING THE 1979 YEARBOOK Overly begins the reading experience by carefully explaining the intention and format of the book.

The Yearbook Committee has chosen to follow an expressionistic, literary model that permits a number of voices to speak from different perspectives as they reﬂ ect on or act out their search for purposeful learning in the past, present and future. But as professional educators are aware, the identiﬁ cation of goals by individuals and groups is but one part of the process of achieving learning at any level. The realities of our diverse environment restrict and expand our options, challenge us with new ideas or lull us into complacency; most critically, they pose obstacles which seem to prevent us from breaking through to the achievement of our nobler visions. (p. 2)

Thus came about the authors’ strategic division of the book: Part I - The Search for Goals, Part II - The Realities/The Obstacles and Part III - Coming To Terms. I could attempt to describe the demonstrative passion and conviction that resonated from the book. I could try to summarize the words to give you an overview of Overly’s overall intent. However, for me to do so would be depriving you—the reader—of a participative opportunity to experience the curriculum that Overly et al. created. Instead I offer the reader a preview of Overly’s expressionistic look at curriculum through your own 3D lenses.

PART I: THE SEARCH FOR GOALS Part I of Lifelong Learning exempliﬁ es how as humans we must begin to think critically and purposefully about our futures. In a multicultural society that is ever changing and growing, it is imperative that we plan our own future. The Pursuit of Lifelong Learning • 241

To wander without purpose in an aura of failure can only lead to the deepest despair. We are people in despair. Somehow, we must again become creators of and participants in our reality. We must become the makers of our history and our culture. (p. 12)

As educators, we must lead by example in order to inculcate a love of learning in our students, regardless of race, gender, class or academic ability.

S: Hey, Mr. Gutierrez, why did you decide to become a biology teacher and end up working in this rotten high school? Nothing good ever happens here.

T: You know, my being here is no accident. I want to be here. Years ago I discovered how difﬁ cult it is for people like us to overcome all the obstacles that keep us from reaching out dreams. I had a teacher in high school who had been to Puerto Rico and could see something good in us instead of all the bad. One day he told me “Gutier- rez, I think you have a ﬁ ne head. And you seem to be interested in science.” And he said if I wanted to go to college he would help me get there. So I went to college and majored in biology and became a teacher. I suppose because of what old Mr. Johnson did for me, I decided to come back to a “rotten” school—like you call it—to see what I could do. (p. 18)

Although the yearbook was written post segregation and major women’s movements, Overly et al. bravely incorporated ideologies around diversity that continued to be viewed as controversial, confrontational and counterproductive:

SUNDAY EVENING NEWS BRIEF ….brought to you by the makers of Klorets for sweeter taste and the United As- sociation of School Leaders….MISUSED DATA BANK INVADES RIGHT TO PRIVACY…GOVERNMENTAL STUDY SHOWS 18–25 YEAR OLDS FACE GLOOMY EMPLOYMENT FUTURE…Minorities Face Increased Unemploy- ment…WOMEN AND YOUTH, LAST HIRED, FIRST FIRED…CAREER EDU- CATION EXPENDITURE QUESTIONED…Will it create more jobs?...Teacher Fired—Admits Homosexuality…ALTERNATIVES TO TRADITIONAL FAMILY LIFE INCREASING according to a recently completed university study…AMISH STILL SEE EDUCATION AS THREAT TO THEIR CULTURE

PART II: THE REALITIES/THE OBSTACLES This section takes the reader on a rollercoaster ride of uncertainties of life. Un- fortunately, even when goals are set and we think our lives have been carefully planned and prepared, we are faced with circumstance and situations that are out of our control.

TUESDAY EVENING NEWS BRIEF DIVORCE RATE CLIMBS: PERCENTAGEOF WORKING MOTHERS IN- CREASES. . . TEENAGE PROSTITUTIN IS UP. . . Authorities from all major 242 • DEBORAH HEARD

cities, meetings in Washington report that they are baffl ed by the sudden rise in the number of young people, male as well as female, involved in the night life of their cities. . . WOMEN’S RIGHTS DEBATE CONTINUES. . . The percentage of unmarried women between the ages of 20–24 rose from 36 percent in 1970 to 43 percent in 1976. . . THE U. S. Census Bureau also reported signifi cant declines in nursery and elementary school enrollments while college enrollments increased by 34 percent during the fi rst six years of the 70s. (p. 77)

So often society makes it difﬁ cult to live together without compromising culture, history, even self, which can prove detrimental in one’s search for fulﬁ llment.

Most of the world’s population lives in villages. A transnational perspective is an abstraction that must seem very distant for these village dwellers who are involved in a continual struggle for minimum necessities. These are the people labeled “in need of development” by the intellectual elite. These are the people who have been labeled by Western change agents as distrustful, evasive, uncooperative, fatalistic, hostile to polity, lacking in empathy. The poor of the world have been perceived as objects to be acted upon rather than as co-inhabitors of a global ecosystem. They have been treated as passive entities rather than as dynamic human beings. (p. 60)

This was a time in our history when pluralism was not encouraged by schools but instead camouﬂ aged by covert attempts of assimilation.

If there are ways of behaving we learn because we are members of an ethnic group and ways of behaving we learn because we attend public schools from the age of four or ﬁ ve, what happens if these ways are different or even incompatible with each other? Does the school adjust for such cases? Should it adjust? (p. 113)

Leadership in schools was compromised by government controls.

A Query How can we talk of institutional credibility when everywhere the failures of schools are being sold to the public by educational muckrakers who seem able to tell us only what’s wrong, not what we can do. How can Americans still believe in us? (p. 103)

The narratives and commentaries of Part I and Part II are truly realities. They are realities for the poor who are marginalized in our society. They are realities for the minorities whose voices go unheard and whose opinions don’t matter. They are realities for educators who continuously struggle to maintain social order and integrity within our school systems. Although sad, it’s true that “Schools are getting…for getting grades…for getting by…for getting jobs…for getting in…for getting out of…forgetting…kids” (p. 95).

PAT III: COMING TO TERMS The ﬁ nal section of the book is justiﬁ ably titled “Coming to Terms.” In this section of the book, committee members take their own spin on lifelong learning. Confront- The Pursuit of Lifelong Learning • 243 ed with the obstacles of living in a diverse society, they discuss how we can continue to motivate students to pursue life to the fullest even when we know they will one day be faced with realities that are sometimes unfair, unjust, and unpredictable.

Uncertainty Wilma Longstreet addresses the idea of uncertainty. Longstreet asserts that we must accept and understand that human fulfi llment is not an individual feat but is societal, therefore we must prepare our students for unforeseen circumstances. She suggests implementing an open curriculum that explores/provides: 1) information devices that develop skills and infl uence quality of knowledge; 2) Uncertainties which include tensions between the individual and society; 3) Value Development which instills active analysis, evaluation, and development of value systems; 4) Scientifi c Inquiry skills development; and 5) Decision Making which allows students to become citizen-oriented decision makers even when faced with uncertainties (p. 140). By following an open curriculum system, students are armed with the tools to handle attacks of uncertainties in life.

Pluralism Virginia Macagnoni comes to terms by viewing curriculum as a human agenda. Macagnoi (1979) describes each person as a holistic being in the process of becoming (p. 140). According to Macagnoni, “the purpose of schooling is to enable the person to perceive and to integrate his six potentials (physical, emotional, social, intellectual, aesthetic and spiritual) as he encounters the problems of his existence that are real to him at the moment” (p. 141). She insists that accommodating a pluralistic society requires a curriculum comprised of a variety of learning modalities.

Diversity Carlos Ovando sheds light and insight on the pluralistic perspective. Ovando argues that the traditional model of lifelong learning in the form of night school and training certiﬁ cates does nothing more than help maintain the status quo and limit mobility for certain groups of people. “Realization of the potential of lifelong learning demands a recognition that the primary function of education is the creation of responsible culture makers” (p. 153). A pluralistic curriculum must include a variety of potential conﬁ gurations: individual to individual, individuals to institutions, and individuals to groups or cultures.

Leadership Edna Mitchell uses her chapter to expound upon educational leadership. Mitchell (1979) challenges classroom educators to exercise their authority and educational expertise beyond the schoolhouse into society as a whole: “We must develop a new image as active philosophers and responsible activists whose ener- 244 • DEBORAH HEARD gies are committed to the improvement of the whole of human life, not merely to narrow self interest in schooling” (p. 162). She challenges educators to self- liberate in order to facilitate transformative learning environments that meet students’ intellectual, social, economic, ethical, personal, psychological, physical, and vocational needs (p. 170). Coming to Terms Norman Overly comes to terms…with Monday morning… At the end of the day, when it’s all said and done, we must all come to terms with all that we live, all that we learn, all that we experience. Overly challenges us as individuals, as parents, as students, as ministers, and especially as educators to wake up and face Monday morning. Although we never know what Monday will bring, he reminds us of our responsibility to learning as a lifelong endeavor. He suggests paideia as an effective approach to facing our uncertainties. Overly (1979) deﬁ nes paideia as,

…the task of giving form to the act of living itself; treating every occasion of life as a means of self-fabrication, and as part of a larger process of converting facts into values, processes into purposes, hopes and plans into consummation and realizations. (p. 172)

As educational leaders we must decide how we will teach lifelong learning as an uncompromised way of life. Overly explores two extreme approaches to inculcating lifelong learning as a societal norm: The Utopian Style, which is oriented towards futuristic ideals and social change or The Reformation Style, which modifi es existing models. Overly (1979) fi nds fl aws in both models and offers the Comprehensive Approach instead: “The purpose of this comprehensive model is to promote the expansion of the incidental and the common claims made upon existing formal and informal systems that provide opportunities for learning and provide suggestions for moving beyond existing structures” (p. 180). The Com- prehesive Approach recognizes that like traditional learning, lifelong learning is a complex system that requires learners, experiences, resources, and authentication. Critique Several times during our meeting, Overly mentioned George Harris, although I did not recall reading his literary contribution. I scanned the text and found him mentioned with the others as one of the ASCD 1979 Yearbook Committee Mem- bers. I turned to my notes from Norm and carefully read my scribbles. George Harris…President of Essex County College…African American…administrator…no writing contributions. As I thought deeply, I could remember Norm stating that he did not know why but George Harris was not present during writing collaborations nor had he contributed any individual pieces. The more I thought about it, it seemed more peculiar considering the committee’s three central ideas: diversity, pluralism, and leadership. Overall, I was impressed by the writing style, topics, ideas and methods for future in the yearbook. The Pursuit of Lifelong Learning • 245

However, I was surprised by the fact that the only African American (diversity) on the committee who was the president (a leader) of a university (lifelong learning) had no contribution to a yearbook his very persona epitomized. I couldn’t help but wonder why the one opportunity for African American representation was evaded. As I combed the book, I couldn’t help but notice the African American authorial perspective the book was missing. Was this a subtle implication that lifelong learning is not relevant for African Americans? Or was this simply an indication of the lack of importance of the African American perspective in the1970s…and perhaps even still today?

CURRICULUM AND THE ‘70S AGENDA As an American and as a product of the ‘70s, I am no stranger to the political cata- clysms, global challenges, and social revolutions of that decade. The terrorists attacks at the Olympic Games in Munich and Watergate Scandal in 1972, the legalization of abortion in 1973, Nixon’s resignation in 1974, Author Ashe winning Wimbledon in ’75, Roots in ’77 and the Chrysler bankruptcy scare in ’79 were only a few of the prodigious events that helped mark America’s bicentennial celebration. These transitional times brought about a more visible transformation in education. According to Schubert, Schubert, Thomas, and Carroll (2002), the crisis ridden times of the late ‘60s and early ‘70s created great potential for America. Joseph Schwab and other curriculum theorists began to openly critique educational practices and curriculum theorists of the times. Schwab (1969) stated the following:

There will be a renaissance of the ﬁ eld of curriculum, a renewed capacity to contribute to the quality of American education, only if the bulk if curriculum energies are diverted from the theoretic to the practical and to the eclectic. By “eclectic” I mean the arts which unsystematic, uneasy, but usable focus on a body of problems is effected among diverse theories, each relevant to the problems in a different way. I refer (rather) to a complex discipline, relatively unfamiliar to the academic and differing radically from the discipline of the theoretic. It is the discipline concerned with choice and action, in contrast with knowledge. (p. 1)

Schwab (1969) argued that early views of curriculum theorists were formulated by experiences and ideas of children that were used as “discriminators and organizers” of what was later learned (p. 7). These discriminators and organizers are what we know today as standards and objectives. Schwab recognized as early as 1969 that this curriculum philosophy was grounded in objectives found under the tutelage of a single conception of culture, a single theory of history and political evolution, theories of personality and objectives that,

seek their aims in the knowledge needed to “live in the modern world,” in the attitudes and habits which minimize dissonance with prevailing mores of one’s com- 246 • DEBORAH HEARD

munity or social class, in the skills required for success in a trade or vocation, in the ability to participate effectively as a group. (p. 8)

Although they didn’t agree on all aspects of curriculum theory, Schwab and others realized that curricula of the past were grounded in dominant ideologies that did not serve the interest of all children in our diverse American population. However, the continued exploration throughout the ‘70s gave way to a new way of conceptualizing curriculum theory. Pinar and Grumet’s Toward a Poor Cur- riculum theorized the idea of a “poor” curriculum, which recognized learning as a journey that involved inner human feelings (Schubert et al., 2002). Curriculum began to be viewed as more human rather than strictly theoretical. According to Schubert et al., curriculum began being viewed as “humanistic education or teaching, affective education, confl uent education, open education, personalized education, and values clarifi cation” (2002, p. 197). Considering the intellectual conversations evolving among curriculum theorists, philosophers, and academic enthusiasts during the ‘70s, it’s no wonder that Overly and the other authors approached the 1979 ASCD Yearbook in a more eclectic manner. A period when the human experience was reifi ed as an important element in the education process should naturally beget such a marveled and appropriate yearbook. Along with other “experimental” texts of the ‘70s such as Life in Classrooms by Philip Jackson, Pedagogy of the Oppressed by Paulo Freire, and P. W. Mus- grave’s Knowledge, Curriculum and Change, Lifelong Learning—A Human Agenda offered readers a different approach to discussing curriculum. An opportunity to defi ne learning as an experience that differs from person to person, group to group, and place to place. An experience representative of the societal changes, technological innovations and interconnectivity of people deserves to be replicated as often as possible. My concern about the lack of representation in the 1979 yearbook left a natural desire in me to defi ne lifelong learning from the perspective of groups typically underrepresented throughout society. Feverishly I gathered the writings I had collected from my earlier attempt from my fellow scholars. Without predetermined topics, I sat down and looked over each one independently but this time instead of reading them (per se) I let them speak to me. Once again I was captivated by the collage of lifelong experiences that were evolving right there on my living room fl oor, right before my eyes. I digressed. I digressed back to Plan A. By recreating Norm’s Human Agenda, I could give voice to the voiceless about their goals, obstacles and realities. I longed to share the poems, narratives, and vignettes of those who aren’t typically called on to share, those who took the underground, the back seats, and the long marches. Unbeknownst to me, I had not failed. I was succeeding in creating a New Human Agenda, Our Agenda. So I determined to revisit those writings, and to give them life on the page. The Pursuit of Lifelong Learning • 247

APPROACHING OUR AGENDA As a child growing up in the inner city in the ‘70s, schooling looked differently than it does today. Teacher centered with emphasis on discipline and rote memorization, my education epitomized Eurocentric pedagogy and dominant class morals and values. During this time, schools lacked diverse representation, diverse leadership, and limited (if any) inclusion of “others.” Curricula did very little to promote identity and inclusion for minority groups, which resulted in limited interest and motivation towards academic achievement. John Ogbu (2003) refers to this as affective dissonance. This dissonance highlights the traditional curricula as an imposition to the learning of minority groups and schools as “an instrument by which Whites make Blacks feel inferior” (Wood, 2003, p. 92). Ogbu’s (2004) article “Collective Identity and the Burden of Acting White in Black History, Community, and Education” deﬁ nes and chronicles his concept of collective identity of African Americans. Developed in the late ‘60s through the early ‘70s, “Collective identity refers to people’s sense of who they are, their feeling of belonging…collective identity usually develops because of people’s collective experience or series of collective experiences” (p. 3). According to Ogbu, the identity of a group is formulated by historical and structural external factors that are generally linked to status problems including: 1) Involuntary incorporation into society; 2) instrumental discrimination; 3) social subordination; and 4) expressive mistreatment (p. 4). For many African Americans this idea of collective identity poses a problem in mainstream society among the dominant culture and therefore within school systems and institutions of higher learning. This sense of self or identity has historically been viewed as African Americans “opposing” assimilation into the dominant culture. However, for African Americans who: 1) were brought here by force and not by free will; 2) continue to be denied equal opportunity jobs, education, housing and political participation; 3) suffer continued oppression; and 4) are still denigrated culturally, maintaining their collective identity reiﬁ es their collective struggle. Although Ogbu’s research is concerned with African Americans, denigration of identity and self-awareness is problematic for all underrepresented groups in our society. Our education system, which is grounded in norms and values of the dominant class, has continued to perpetuate discriminatory practices against “others” on the basis of race, class, sex, religion, sexual orientation, and disability. Feelings of inferiority, disassociation, and marginalization typically lead to disengagement and minimal interest in formal education in early years and throughout life. These students are typically ill-prepared for the challenges and obstacles associated with institutional learning and therefore struggle with or evade formal educational opportunities.

OUR AGENDA Learning begins with deﬁ ning one’s self. How can a person uncertain of him or herself or uncomfortable with who he or she is, where he or she comes from or 248 • DEBORAH HEARD who came before, truly develop enough self-worth and self-conﬁ dence to be successful? Especially when the society they live in minimizes their very existence? It should be the goal of our education system to create learning environments that embrace differences and encourage individualism, activism, and equality.

Untitled I? Who am I? Am I who? I say I am. I. Where am I? Am I where? I say I am. I am In a space. A space where? Where I am? Free I am. Am I free? Free to be. Who I am. Who Am I? I am.

Confession of a White, Male Politician “I’m saying it loud. I’m a Republican who supports gay rights.”

Dear Son,

By the time you can read this I’m sure it will be too late, too late for you to experience this historical event that may never happen again. A monumental event that will bring about change in the African American culture. Your great grandparents didn’t get to see it and your grandparents were shell-shocked at the outcome. An African American president, President Barack Obama, re-elected into offi ce for a second term, is something that I believe will be unheard of for our people’s history. I just want you to understand the emotional toll and act of call and response that occurred during this time. At any moment there could have been an assassination, racism still exists and whites still hate blacks and browns. However, there was something special seen in Obama, something that didn’t allow most people to hate him for his skin. This was an empowering event Son, something that gave hope to every young African American, especially us men. You know I went to Miami Uni- versity, a PWI with a total population of blacks that roughly scraped the surface of being able to be considered diverse. During the campaign period I wouldn’t be able to ascribe to the countless times I heard that Obama was worthless, lazy, and not fi t for our country. The issue with this was that it wasn’t because he was an inadequate President, but “they” viewed him as an unequal human. A few weeks before the election Michelle Obama visited Miami to speak which was a magical event. I was able to personally go see her speak. Just the presence of his wife was enough to drag out the hidden racism within the very campus I call home. Streams of racial slurs and bashing exploded from various fraternity houses. I couldn’t tell you if they hated the Obamas for politics or for being black but whatever the case it opened my eyes and heart to a new realm. Obama gave me the confi dence to believe in myself, and the people. A wise man once told me that if “people don’t hate you, you aren’t doing The Pursuit of Lifelong Learning • 249

something right.” Obama embodies this idea, Son. He did something so great that the country hated him, again for a second time.

Love, Daddy

OUR GOALS

Mother to Child: Son, you can be anything you want if you put your mind to it. Child to Mother: Uh-uh, mama. My teacher told me I ain’t gone amount to nuthin.

3rd Grade Career Day @ Booker T. Washington Academy in Detroit: Hi. My name is J. Johnson. I am nine years old. I have six brothers and one sister. We live with my grandmother in downtown Detroit. When I grow up I want to be a lawyer. I plan to go to college and get a degree just like Michelle Obama.

BREAKING NEWS!!! BREAKING NEWS!!! BREAKING NEWS!!! President Obama has just proposed the Education Act of 2014. For the ﬁ rst time in American history, all high school graduates will be guaranteed access to a college education at a four-year, state university. Congress to vote in March 2014.

OUR REALITIES From a parent’s perspective, it is the educator’s responsibility to create curriculum that recognizes the potential in all students regardless of race or academic abilities or academic deﬁ ciencies. A grandmother and college professor concerned about the education of her own grandson wrote:

Dear Teacher, I fear that my grandson James will never be a reader. He is 9 years old now, and when I show him the Sunday comics, or read him a book at night and ask him to help me read, he always ﬁ nds a way to change the subject, or crack a joke, so that he does not have to engage in words on the printed page. He even avoids reading directions on the package of toys. His parents both read, and I know he gets encouragement at school. But what I see when he visits me is a persistent effort to avoid any reading.

On the other hand, when James visits us, he always fi nds something to fi x. He fi xed a drawer one day. He helped my husband build a swing set. He put together a mechanical pen that I had been trying to fi gure out for months. He is also very quick on computers. I puzzle over this. My brother also never read, and he was always “good at math” and he became an engineer, while I always read, and became an education professor. But this was many years ago, when I think schooling allowed for more diversity in learning styles.

When I look at James’ school, and the demands of testing and common core, I wonder what will happen to kids who have different strengths—good at math, but not language arts; good at reading, but not interested in science; can’t read, but can build a swing set. Is there room for them in the modern curriculum? 250 • DEBORAH HEARD

Sincerely, Worried Grandma

H. Morse Miami University EDL318-Teacher Leadership Assignment #5-Preservice Teacher Personal Reﬂ ection

Week one and two of my student teaching experience seemed like a breeze. After all, I was only asked to observe my mentor teacher educate the class and prepare them for the new school year. However, it was not until my third week when I recognized that my student teaching experience would serve as my test, a test that determined if I would make it as a teacher in an urban school district. During this third week, I was expected to take over the classroom, create and deliver all lessons, and prepare my students for the next grade level. I have never felt more pressure or been more overwhelmed than that moment when I realized that my students’ academic lives were right there in the palm of my hand. These were no longer the dolls that I played school as a child, nor were they my stuffed teddy bears that had to complete my assigned homework for a gold star. My students were real children.

I was faced with a critical personal decision. I had to decide if I was going to be as dedicated to my students as my past teachers were to me. I had to decide if I was going to do everything possible to help these students learn. I had to decide if I was going to devote my time preparing for these students to give them the quality education that all children deserve regardless of race or economic status. These children looked to me as their kindergarten teacher who they thought knew every answer to every question. I was their teacher, who they were counting on to enrich their minds and improve their lives and create their futures. These children were counting on me…. to save them.

To the Parents of B. Hunt: It is with our deepest regrets that we inform you that your child has been expelled from school for disorderly conduct and inappropriate behavior. Although we are aware of his recent diagnosis of Attention Deﬁ cit Hyperactive Disorder, we believe he would be better suited in your local public school district.

Sincerely,

Mr. Private School Administrator

R E P O R T C A R D

J. Johnson—3rd Grade Math—F Reading—D+ Social Studies—F Science—F Gym—C- The Pursuit of Lifelong Learning • 251

Teacher Comments: J. is a very sweet girl. However she is having trouble keeping up in all subject areas. She is often late to school and I have caught her sleeping in class more than ten times.

Promoted XX Retained in 3rd Grade

The true reality is some of goals and aspirations never come to fruition. Institu- tional and systematic racism, classism, and sexism all contribute to the educational failures, disappointments, and continued oppression of certain groups. Low expectations and the inability of teachers to relate to students lead to lack of motivation and disinterest in learning. Teachers enter the ﬁ eld with the “savior” mentality, which manifests as feelings of pity and sympathy as opposed to being supportive and em- pathetic.

Facebook Post R. Sellers

Yesterday at 11:39 pm

The Evanescence of the Black Male

Black males are hard to locate these days, have you seen one lately? Black males are disappearing by the droves and people are having a diffi cult time locating these men. Now what about those Black males who line the streets of a local neighborhood school or drugstore, have you seen them there? No one is able to locate these men, but there are signs that they are still around. Have you seen a Black male lately? “I saw millions of Black men and they were shouting and screaming at the top of their lungs,” stated Susan. I asked Susan where did you see all of these Black men, and she said “in prisons.” There are millions of Black men incarcerated in prisons across the U.S. There are so many Black men incarcerated that it is diffi cult to visibly encounter a Black man on a daily basis within society. Black men are treated like barbarians and many individuals feel that they are unfi t to live in society, so the antidote to this virus is to lock them up and throw away the key. But what would this country be like without Black men? Well, we would not have a gas mask, the traffi c light, peanut butter, and the light bulb to name just a few of those important contributions to this nation and the world. Then the question is why are so many of our Black men incarcerated in U.S. prisons? Shante’ said, “Black men fi ght each other every day on the streets to try and survive this harsh world.” Black on Black crime is destroying the Black male population along with the prison industrial complex that permeates this nation’s judicial system. Black men are more than just shooting targets and docile bodies, but how can we change a nation that does not want to change its views on Black men?

Like Comment Share For the dominant culture uncertainties could come in the form of divorce or loss of a job. However for marginalized groups, lifelong learning may be necessary to secure their space in life. It is an ongoing process of deﬁ ning one’s existence as a human being. In the article “The Constitution of Agency in Developing 252 • DEBORAH HEARD

Lifelong Learning Ability: The Being Mode,” Ya-Hui Su (2011) contends that lifelong learning has less to do with producing knowledge but more to do with helping students realize their existence. The target of the learning is “being in the world” not “knowledge of the world” (Su, 2011). For many African American men, this meaning of learning is essential in separating personal goals from societal realties and obstacles.

OUR OBSTACLES According to Kungu and Machtmes, “Changes in life circumstances or anticipated changes in life circumstances create learning needs” (2009). In this regard, lifelong learning can also be considered adult learning. Adult lifelong learning is learner centered, voluntary, and depends on learner’s interests and/or needs (Kingu & Machtmes, 2009).

T E X T M E S S A G E F R O M JORGIANA As u all no, I was laid off lst wk n was very upset I had been at the bank longer than jane but u no y I was the 1st 2 b let go. But its ok. 2day I registered 4 classes @ cinti state .

John Dewey said, “Education is not preparation for life, education is life itself.” Through our lives, we begin to learn from our experiences. Sometimes life happens when we least expect it but as lifelong learners we must prepare for those un-expectancies.

Use It or Lose It

It is not just a disease that affects the person suffering from it. I spent 8 years of my career working in a bank branch located in one of THEIR retirement communities. I’ve seen many of THEM suffer at the hands Alzheimer’s but not US. I thought I had witnessed it all, until it struck us. MY mother? She raised seven children ALONE and now she can’t even remember their names. I had never seen her shed a tear, not even when her son was KILLED. WE don’t know nothing about this. This disease belongs to THEM and it’s one thing I want THEM to keep from US.

OUR CURRICULUM Lifelong learning involves self-identity, social competence, and educational attainment. Humans begin learning from the moment they enter the world and continue to learn every moment of their lives. Ultimately, through this process of learning, the goal is to become a functioning, productive citizen in our society. For some individuals this is a privilege that is automatically granted. However, for others this learning experience is seen as an everyday struggle. The inequities and injustices that exist in America make self-identity, social competence, and educational attainment complicated and sometimes impossible. Goals are difﬁ cult to reach due to historically engrained realities and institutional and systematic ob- The Pursuit of Lifelong Learning • 253 stacles. If it is our intention to teach lifelong learning as an uncompromised way of life, educational institutions must create curricula that will encourage diverse ideas and perspectives and establish culturally competent and compassionate leaders. Like the theorists from the ‘70s, we must realize that curricula grounded in Eurocentric ideologies serve only the dominant class and further perpetuate a system of oppression.

MY MONDAY MORNING For more than one reason, I am a legitimate, self-diagnosed “lifelong learner.” My life as a traditional “learner” resumed in 2001 when I returned to school at age 27 to ﬁ nish my Bachelor’s degree. In 2003, my title proved true when I quit my full-time corporate job to become a substitute teacher, truer when I walked away from that to pursue my Master’s in Education full-time, truer still when I quit my teaching job and opened a daycare center. It proved truest when I walked away from that in 2012 to be a full-time doctoral student. The last 12 years of my life are a testament to my commitment to education, both formal and informal. My academic journeys and all the uncertainties that accompanied constitute the epitome of Lifelong Learning—my Human Agenda. The ultimate experience of lifelong learning is the pursuit of a PhD. This experience is especially rewarding for African Americans; however, according to NCES in 2008, enrollment of African Americans was 11.5% with only 6% graduating. “An obvious gap between enrollment, persistence and attainment exists in the doctoral education of black (and Latina/o) students” (Gildersleeve, Croom, & Vasquez, 2011). Although there are various factors that contribute to the gap in attainment of a doctoral degree, key factors include: lack of preparation for doctoral studies, feelings of isolation, and low expectations from faculty. These factors as well as others can often lead to feelings of humiliation, helplessness, and incompetence. Pursuit of a PhD is an immense accomplishment for anyone, but for African Americans (or other disenfranchised groups) it is a prodigious feat that for many is a mere dream. In preparation for writing this chapter, I recounted my ambitious goals, the harsh realities, and the countless unexpected obstacles I have faced in the last year as a doctoral student. The weight of the realities and obstacles that accompany this pursuit created feelings of doubt and extreme uncertainties. Knowing the sacriﬁ ces I made to pursue this degree, I realize quitting is not an option. Slowly but surely my emotions have evolved from feeling humiliated to being humble, from feeling helpless to being hopeful, from feeling incompetent to being empowered. This journey has required endurance and persistence and continuous self-fabrication. And on the days I feel like giving up and throwing in the towel, I take a look at my snow globe, full of colorful glitter and ask God for strength…strength to face Monday morning. 254 • DEBORAH HEARD

REFERENCES Gildersleeve, R. E., Croom, N. N., & Vasquez, P. H. (2011). “Am I going crazy?!”: A critical race analysis of doctoral education. Equity & Excellence in Education, 44(1), 93–114. Kungu, K., & Machtmes, K. (2009). Lifelong learning: looking at triggers for adult learning. The International Journal of Learning. 16(7), 501–511. Ogbu, J. (2003). Black American students in an affl uent suburb: A study of academic disengagement. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ogbu, J. (2004). Collective identity and the burden of acting white in black history, community and education. The Urban Review, 36(1), 1–35. Overly, N. (1979). Lifelong learning, a human agenda. Alexandria, VA. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Schubert, W. H., Schubert, A., Thomas, T., & Carroll, W. (2002) Curriculum books. The fi rst hundred years (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc. Schwab, J. (1969). The practical. A language for curriculum. The School Review, 78(1), 1–23. Su, Y. (2011). The constitution of agency in developing lifelong learning ability: the “being” mode. Higher Education, 62, 399–412. Wood, P. (2003). Motivate me. (Review of the book Black American students in an affl uent suburb: A study of academic disengagement, by John Ogbu). Journal of Education, 183(2), 85–95. ABOUT THE AUTHORS

ABOUT THE EDITOR Thomas S. Poetter is Professor of Curriculum Studies in the Department of Educational Leadership at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio. Since 1994, Poetter has been engaging students in inquiries into theory and practice in curriculum and teaching. His ﬁ rst book, Voices of Inquiry in Teacher Education (1997, Lawrence Erlbaum) challenged teachers to view inquiry as a key orientation for a lifetime of professional practice in schools. Since then, his students have authored and co-authored many books and articles as a result of coursework taken with him at Miami University including book-length works such as Critical Perspectives on the Curriculum of Teacher Education (2004, UPA), No Child Left Behind and the Illusion of Reform (2006, UPA), and 10 Great Curricula: Lived Conversations of Progressive, Democratic Curricula in School and Society (2012, IAP), and the ﬁ rst volume in a four volume series entitled Curriculum Win- dows: What Curriculum Theorists of the 1960s Can Teach Us about Schools and Society Today (IAP, 2013). Recently, Poetter outlined his curricular and pedagogical approaches with students in “Taking the leap, mentoring doctoral students as

Curriculum Windows: What Curriculum Theorists of the 1970s Can Teach Us about Schools and Society Today, pages 255–259. Copyright © 2015 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. 255 256 • ABOUT THE AUTHORS scholars” (The Journal of Natural Inquiry & Reﬂ ective Practice, 24(1), 22–29). A longtime public school advocate and partner, Poetter continues to write and teach with remarkably talented, focused students at Miami in the areas of curriculum, teaching, and public education renewal. This volume on Curriculum Theorists and their books from the 1970s will be followed by volumes on the 1980s (2015) and 1990s (2016).

Kelly Waldrop graduated Miami University’s Ph.D. program in Educational Leadership in August of 2014. She has two degrees (B.A. and M.A.) in English literature and composition from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, and spent fi ve years teaching English composition, literature, and business and technical writing at the college and university level before leaving academia to work at the executive level in the private sphere for an international manufacturing company. After moving with her family to Cincinnati, she worked for a year in a market research fi rm and then found her home in Miami University’s Farmer School of Business as a business writing instructor, where she taught full-time for fi ve years. In this capacity, she redesigned the curriculum for an introductory business writing class from a case- based course to a pragmatic, experiential course, and this work became the source material for her doctoral dissertation. Waldrop is currently editing two articles for publication in fi rst tier journals, one on the performative, pragmatic, and experiential theoretical frameworks that underpinned the curriculum redesign project mentioned above, and one on authorial identity in dissertation writing. The 1970s volume of Curriculum Windows marks her second appearance in the series, the fi rst being a feminist treatment of Philip Jackson’s (1968) Life in Classrooms. She will renew her work as a co-editor in the 1980s volume, in addition to contributing a chapter on William Schubert’s (1985) Curriculum: Perspective, Paradigm, and Possibility. Waldrop’s scholarship continues to be focused on the relationship between the worlds of business and education, and she is currently working on writing two books, one on the connections between business writing and organizational leadership, and one on successful graduate-student writing.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS Amy Leonard Baldridge is a doctoral student in Educational Development and Leadership at Miami University. She was a foreign language teacher in public schools for 15 years and has been a public school administrator for almost as long. Amy has held various administrative leadership roles, including high school assistant principal and curriculum director, and currently, she serves as director for a school that educates middle and high school alternative students, as well as supporting various Intensive Needs Classroom programs for students with profound behavioral issues associated with Autism Spectrum Disorder, Down’s Syndrome, About the Authors • 257

Fragile X, etc. Her areas of interest include democratic leadership, equity issues and social justice, educational policy, impacts of race, class, gender on schooling, teacher education, and improving the educational circumstances and opportunities for all public education students.

Tela Bayamna is a doctoral student in the Department of Educational Leadership at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio and will be a teaching assistant there during 2014–2015 school year. She is a former Social Worker with Plan International and a former Peace Corps languages instructor in Togo. She also has seven years of experience working as a Family Service Worker in Cincinnati, Ohio, for Com- munity Action Agency/ Head Start. Her research interests include family issues, gender issues in education, and higher education.

Brian Collier, Ph. D., is a visiting lecturer in the Department of Teacher Educa- tion at Northern Kentucky University. Prior to teaching at NKU, Brian was a dissertation scholar and Teaching Associate for 5 years in the Department of Edu- cational Leadership at Miami University (Oxford). His research interests include investigating and implementing alternative pedagogical theories and practices in K–20 educational institutions. Brian believes that pedagogical practices rooted in equity and social justice create educational practitioners and transformative leaders who enter learning spaces equipped to address the needs of all students. In addition, he feels equitable and alternative-teaching methods allow for students to achieve a sense of self-actualization by making the learning experience culturally relevant and academically engaging. Brian is a member of Phi Delta Kappa International (PDK) and the American Education Research Association (AERA) and is a husband and father of two beautiful daughters.

Ryan Denney is a doctoral student in the Department of Educational Leadership at Miami University. His research interests include social class, gender studies, and religious education. Ryan currently teaches high school full time for the Arch- diocese of Cincinnati.

Rayshawn L. Eastman is a doctoral student in the Department of Educational Leadership at Miami University. His research interests include social capital, college retention and persistence, and African American male success. As the Co- ordinator of Cooperative Learning Initiatives at Miami University, he works towards empowering all students to be academically successful.

Yvania Garcia-Pusateri is a doctoral student in the Department of Educational Leadership at Miami University. Her research interests include race, space, and place as it relates to multicultural centers on college campuses, critical race theory/Latina and Latino Critical Legal Theory (latcrt), curriculum theory, womanist/ feminist theory, and educational policy. Yvania currently serves as the Assistant 258 • ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Director of Diversity Affairs and Coordinator of Diverse Student Development in the Ofﬁ ce of Diversity Affairs at Miami University and has taught diversity seminars, as well as courses related to college and career development.

Deb Heard is a doctoral student in the Department of Educational Leadership at Miami University. Deb has recently completed her coursework and has begun her dissertation project. She has a wealth of experience working with at-risk, low income, urban children, and families ranging from teaching in the Cincinnati Public School District to owning and directing her own daycare center for over seven years. Her experiences working with marginalized groups fostered her research interests and dissertation topic surrounding welfare, poverty and social justice.

Robert Hendricks recently completed the Masters in Education, Curriculum and Teacher Leadership program at Miami University. From that time to the present, he has focused his study on the relationship of external social factors and their effects on students in the classroom and what approaches to education are necessary to address those issues. Robert now works in a high school in Boston, MA, where he guides students with mild to moderate learning impairments individually and in small groups to improve their attendance, academic performance, and behavior.

Johnnie L. Jackson is a third year doctoral student in the Educational Leadership Department at Miami University, where he is an instructor in its Sociocultural Foundations of Education course. He has four years of university teaching experience, with two years spent teaching in South Korea. His research interests include international education, study abroad, critical race theory, curriculum theory, mar- keting, and social media.

Yue Li is a doctoral student in the Department of Educational Leadership at Mi- ami University. She has nine years of quantitative evaluation and research experience on more than 20 externally funded projects funded by NSF, NIH, and Ohio’s Department of Education focusing on K–16 science, technology, mathematics, and engineering (STEM) education. Her research interests include gender and race equity in STEM education, curriculum theory, and educational evaluation and measurement.

Angie Meissner is a doctoral student in the Educational Leadership program at Miami University. In addition to being a student, she is currently a full time real estate agent/assistant with the Jeff Boyle Group at Coldwell Banker West Shell and a mother/stepmother to seven children. Her areas of interest in study are language development, curriculum theory, special education and social reform.

Kurtz K. Miller, Ed.S., is a second year doctoral student in Miami University’s Ph.D. program in Educational Leadership. He has over a decade of experience About the Authors • 259 teaching earth science, geology, physical science, physics, and teacher education at the secondary and university levels. His areas of research interest include STEM education, STEM school administration, Geographic Information Systems (GIS), school-business partnerships, pre-service teacher education, and near-surface geophysics.

William H. Schubert is Professor Emeritus of Curriculum and Instruction and University Scholar at the University of Illinois at Chicago, where he was a faculty member from 1975 to 2011. He received the Lifetime Achievement Award in Cur- riculum Studies from the American Educational Research Association in 2004, is an elected member of Professors of Curriculum and the International Academy of Education, and has received university-wide awards for teaching and mentoring from the University of Illinois at Chicago. Schubert has served as president of the Society of Professors of Education, The Society for the Study of Curriculum His- tory, and the John Dewey Society for Education and Culture, and was vice president of AERA. He co-edits a book series entitled Landscapes of Education with Ming Fang He for Information Age Publishing. His publications and collected books and documents are gathered in the William H. Schubert Curriculum Stud- ies Collection at the Zack S. Henderson Library at Georgia Southern University. Email address: [email protected]

Angela Trubceac is an Edmund S. Muskie Fellowship Program alumna and graduated from Miami University’s Educational Leadership Master’s program in 2013. Recently, she is back in her home country—the Republic of Moldova— teaching history and social studies in Onisifor Ghibu High School, Orhei, where she has taught for more than 25 years. Angela Trubceac is also a high school vice- principal responsible for extracurricular activities and leads the department of homeroom teachers. Her next step is to continue her education and research at her alma mater and has applied to Miami’s PhD program in Educational Leadership.

Kelly Waldrop, Ph.D., is a recent graduate of Miami University’s Ph.D. program in Educational Leadership. She has two degrees (B.A. and M.A.) in English literature and composition from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, and spent fi ve years teaching English composition, literature, and business and technical writing at the college and university level before leaving academia to work at the executive level in the private sphere for an international manufacturing company. After her rocket-scientist-husband took employment with General Electric Avia- tion, she moved with her family to Cincinnati. She worked for a year in a market research fi rm and then found her home in Miami University’s Farmer School of Business as a business writing instructor, where she taught full-time for fi ve years. She is currently working on writing two books, one on business writing and leadership and one on successful graduate-student writing. Her areas of study include 260 • ABOUT THE AUTHORS educational philosophy, curriculum theory, performativity theory, experiential education, business education, and writing.

Ashley Warren is a recent graduate of Miami University’s Master’s Program in Curriculum and School Leadership. She currently teaches AP Chemistry and AP Physics at Kings High School, in Kings Mills, Ohio, and is working to pursue her principal’s license through Miami University. Her research interests include science misconceptions, curriculum theory, educational psychology, and scientiﬁ c ways of thinking.

Crystal D. White is a doctoral student in the Department of Educational Leader- ship at Miami University. Her research interests include understanding how children learn about racial identity and how parents and teachers can support their learning. Her interests stem from working in Higher Education for over a decade and also being a Mom to two small children.