MIAMI UNIVERSITY the Graduate School

MIAMI UNIVERSITY The Graduate School

Certificate for Approving the Dissertation

We hereby approve the Dissertation

Daniel J. Ciamarra

Candidate for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy

______Director (Tom S. Poetter)

______Reader (Richard A. Quantz)

______Reader (Denise Baszile)

______Graduate School Representative (Bob Burke)

ABSTRACT

SPEAKING UP: USING A PEDAGOGY OF LOVE TO DEBUNK TECHNICAL TEACHING AND LEARNING PRACTICES

by Daniel J. Ciamarra

At present, our students are valued for their capacities to thoughtlessly absorb and regurgitate standardized facts and figures. Meanwhile, the affective facets of schooling, such as love, relationality, compassion, acceptance, integrity, and altruism are overlooked by politicians and educational decision makers, who claim these elements lack academic rigor. In this study, I use the dominant views of the educational elect to accentuate the current push for a more standardized, accountable, and scientific approach to schooling. Then, I employ the counternarrative as a methodological tool for talking back, offering up personal stories and experiences that frame the power of agapic love to demystify the normative views of schooling. More specifically, I employ personal narrative as means for providing teachers a voice, one which aims to debunk confounding generalizations or refute common claims about what education is or ought to be. Finally, I analyze the divergent stories through multiple theoretic and practical lenses in order to make meaning of my experiences. Moreover, the counternarratives in this study focus on how agapic love can be utilized in pedagogical and curricular efforts to transcend the present conditions that hinder many students and teachers from being and becoming who they really are. These personal narratives of love, relationality, compassion, empathy, passion, selflessness, and more, are used to counter that which have become accepted as good teaching and learning practices. In essence, the personal counterstories are used to give a firsthand account, direct from the frontlines and sidelines, of what it means to be a teacher, how our learning communities are being affected by educational initiatives such as ―No Child Left Behind‖ and ―Race to the Top,‖ and how agapic love can be used as a tool for debunking the presently legitimized scientific aims of schooling.

SPEAKING UP: USING A PEDAGOGY OF LOVE TO DEBUNK TECHNICAL TEACHING AND LEARNING PRACTICES

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to the Faculty of

Miami University in partial

Fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Department of Educational Leadership

Daniel J. Ciamarra

Miami University

Oxford, Ohio

2010

Dissertation Director: Dr. Tom S. Poetter

Table of Contents Acknowledgements and dedication ...... v CHAPTER ONE – AN OPENING TO THE HEART ...... 1 An Introduction to the Study: Love Begets Love ...... 1 Overview of the Text ...... 2 The Purpose of the Study ...... 5 Existing Obstacles for Agapic Love ...... 6 The “Normal” Narrative ...... 11 The Other Side of the Coin ...... 14 Concluding Thoughts...... 16

CHAPTER TWO – AN ANALYSIS OF LOVE ...... 20 “Proven” Practices for Modern-Day Schooling ...... 20 Using Love to Debunk the Purposes of Schooling...... 23 What’s Love Got To Do With It? ...... 24 Unpacking the Agape Suitcase ...... 26 The Pedagogy of Love ...... 30 Three Critical Elements of Agapic Love ...... 34 A Final Word ...... 39

CHAPTER THREE – DISRUPTING THE DOMINANT VOICE...... 40 The Master Narrative: Leading Our Learning Communities ...... 40 Disrupting the “Accepted” Methodologies of Educational Research ...... 43 Speaking for the Unspeakable: A Methodological Journey ...... 49 The Counternarrative: What’s NOT Being Accounted For ...... 54 Closing Remarks ...... 59

CHAPTER FOUR – GETTING RELATIONAL ...... 61 The “Legitimate” Teacher ...... 61 Rethinking “Legitimacy” in the classroom ...... 66 It’s All About Relationality ...... 68 Barriers for Building Relations ...... 76 Putting Relationality Into Action ...... 80 Final Thoughts ...... 85

CHAPTER FIVE – EVERYONE NEEDS COMPASSION ...... 86 “Conventional” Conceptions of Compassion ...... 86 Where’s the Compassion? ...... 90

iii

To “Be” Compassionate ...... 94 Bringing Compassion to Life: Examining the Key Ingredients ...... 99 Final Thoughts on Compassion ...... 107

CHAPTER SIX – A CALL FOR SELFLESSNESS IN SCHOOLS ...... 108 Today’s Educational Agenda ...... 108 Rethinking Our Educational Aims ...... 113 A Call for Altruism in Education ...... 116 Exploring the Landscape of Altruism ...... 120 Final Thoughts ...... 125

CHAPTER SEVEN – CONCLUSION: TURNING TOWARDS A PEDAGOGY OF LOVE ...... 129 Our Schools are “Excellent”…But at What? ...... 129 Analyzing the Images ...... 133 Actualizing a Pedagogy of Love ...... 138

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 145

Acknowledgements and Dedication I dedicate this dissertation first to my loved ones. They have made many sacrifices for me to reach this goal. My wife Amber has proven to be a saving grace during this tumultuous journey. Amber picked up the slack in every department of our lives in order to see this through, and for that I am forever indebted to her. My son Luca has been an endless fountain of love and joy – thanks buddy for bringing levity to my life when it was needed the most. Both my mother and mother-in-law pitched in to help raise Luca in these early and crucial stages, while my wife kept working to support the family, and there‘s not enough room in this document to thank them for all that they have done. I would like to thank my mother, father, and two brothers for always having my back, helping me through some rough patches, and for loving me along the way. This is to all of you who have had a hand in rearing me. Finally, and most important, I would like to thank God for being patient with me, pulling me up out of the muck, and for getting me back on track so that I can go and change the world, one loving relation at a time. My church family at Whitewater Crossing Christian Church has been nothing short of a blessing during these last three years, and I want to thank each and every member for their continual love, support, and kinship. I would like to personally acknowledge James Hansee for his time and feedback as we navigated the art of speaking for Love within the secular confines of present-day schooling. My dissertation committee has been fantastic from day one. Dr. D., I want to thank you for dumping gasoline on my passionate fire for education, for inspiring me to speak boldly in the name of love, and for taking time to shoot the breeze. Richard, I don‘t know how you are able to know all that you do and share it with all of us in such a kind, sincere, and humble manner, thank you for everything you have done for me since day one. Tom, where do I begin? Your passion is contagious. Your enthusiasm made this daunting task seem easily attainable. It was a joy to work with you. Words cannot describe how grateful I am for the hours of time you spent reading my work, giving me feedback, coaching me en route to the finish line, talking me down from jumping off the roof when things got complicated, and for being a lifelong mentor and friend. Thank you. Thank all of you for your time, energy, guidance, and insightful wisdom regarding my colossal dissertation topic of love. Finally, I want to acknowledge all of those past, present, and future colleagues, students, parents, friends, and loved ones who helped mold this dissertation. This concept of love was

v actualized by all of you during my amazing journey as a teacher. I dedicate this work to all of you who have played a key role in shaping who I am, what I stand for, and what is yet to come.

CHAPTER ONE – AN OPENING TO THE HEART “As individuals or as peoples, by fighting for the restoration of our humanity we will be attempting the restoration of true generosity. And this fight, because of the purpose given it, will actually constitute an act of love.”1

An Introduction to the Study: Love Begets Love The impetus behind writing this dissertation has been burning inside me since I began my teaching career in 1998, and perhaps predates this, going back to my days as a student. I can recall asking, ―Why do we as teachers focus on everything but the children?‖ It seemed as though teaching and learning had been reduced to a robotic task and most of the teachers and learners recognized and rejected its impersonal mission, at least tacitly if not overtly. I remember thinking: all we need is to invest ourselves into the lives of our students and allow them to feel loved, valued, and appreciated. But instead, my school, like many others, was infatuated with menial tasks, paltry objectives, and ―scientific‖ means for monitoring the learning process. Each day we were worrying about what objectives were being taught, finding ways to monitor student growth, and technically supervising the lives of our children. The daily grind of this scripted, routinized, and technicized form of education left me feeling like Sisyphus: day in and day out pushing my students up nearly to the top of the mountain, only to have them fall back down to the bottom. We started the fruitless climb all over again the next day. These feelings of witnessing children being robbed of a meaningful, holistic, and humanistic form of education led me to write this dissertation. As Denise Taliaferro Baszile would say, I have meditated on these feelings and have used them to keep the fire burning inside of me.2 Thus, this study identifies the dominant views of education, offers up counterstories to decenter the legitimate forms of ―excellent‖ education that permeate our schools today, and ultimately explores practical solutions for improving our classrooms, curricula, teachers, students, learning communities, and the public educational system, by and large. In this study, I use the dominant views of the educational elect, such as Bill Gates, Michelle Rhee, Arne Duncan, as well as my run-ins with local superintendents, principals, and school board members, to accentuate the current push for a more standardized, accountable, and

1 Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed (New York: Continuum, 2000), 45 (hereafter cited in text as PO) 2 Denise Baszille, both in personal conversation and as referenced in “The Fire Inside: A critical meditation on the importance of freedom dreams,” Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 2006

1 scientific approach to schooling. Then, using an amalgam of Nash‘s ―scholarly personal narrative,‖3 Pinar‘s work on currere,4 and various conceptions of counternarratives, I attempt to ―Talk Back,‖5 by offering up personal stories and experiences that frame the power of agapic love to debunk the normative views of schooling. More specifically, I will employ personal narrative as means for providing the voiceless (read: teachers, including myself) a voice, one which aims to ―provide a counternarrative that disputes misleading generalizations or refutes universal claims‖6 about what education is or ought to be. Finally, I will analyze the divergent stories through multiple theoretic and practical lenses in order to make meaning of my experiences. The counternarratives in this study will not only speak back to the prevailing views of educational agendas, but will mainly focus on how agapic love can be utilized in pedagogical and curricular efforts to transcend the present conditions that hinder many students and teachers from being and becoming who they really are. These personal narratives of love, relationality, compassion, empathy, passion, selflessness, and more, will be used to counter that which have become accepted as good teaching and learning practices. In essence, the personal counterstories are used to give a firsthand account, direct from the frontlines and sidelines, of what it means to be a teacher, how our learning communities are being affected by educational initiatives such as ―No Child Left Behind‖ and ―Race to the Top,‖ and how agapic love can be used a tool for demystifying the presently accepted scientific aims of schooling.

Overview of the Text There are several factors that need be mentioned before proceeding. First, the reader should notice a general flow for each chapter: (1) an introductory story that captures the central beliefs that drive current educational decision making; (2) a counterstory that spotlights the shortcomings of the dominant views and puts forth viable solutions, ideas, and theories to move beyond the status quo; and (3) a theoretical analysis of both accounts. When (re)telling these

3 Robert Nash in his work Liberating the Scholarly Writing: The Power of Personal Narratives (New York: Teachers College Press, 2004), (Hereafter cited as Nash). 4 William Pinar, Autobiography, politics, and sexuality: Essays in curriculum theory 1972-1992. (New York: P. Lang, 1994). 5 Bell hooks, Talking back: Thinking feminist, thinking black (Boston, MA: South End Press, 1989). 6 Mary Jo Maynes, Jennifer L. Pierce, & Barabar Laslett, Telling stories: The use of personal narratives in the social sciences and history (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2008), 1.

2 stories, I will be using actual quotes (which will be italicized) and my memory from these events to paraphrase (which will be in quotes but not italicized) what took place. Each chapter will signify a mini-case study, or case chapter, and will follow the general format above. In addition, each person mentioned in these mini-case studies, while based on ―real‖ experiences and data, will be given a fictitious name to protect their identities. Second, this study is not an attempt to universalize or generalize the meanings of love. I will speak of the central tenets of love, mainly that of the agape form and how it can be actualized in and out of the classroom, as well as call attention to many of the agreeable (or not agreeable) factors that comprise a loving relationship, such as faithfulness, trust, compassion, selflessness, and the forging of authentic relationships. Therefore, I prefer to view the notion of naming love like that of making lasagna. As an Italian cook, I love to make and eat lasagna. However, there is no agreement upon what constitutes the ―best‖ or even an ―acceptable‖ form of lasagna. Some like to use ricotta cheese, some prefer mozzarella; others prefer a red sauce to a cream sauce; I like to use capers in my sauce, my grandmother refuses to do so; some favor a meatless form of lasagna, while meat-lovers loathe such a dish. No matter how we slice it, there are myriad ways to make lasagna, all of which appeal to a certain audience. However, none of these dishes can come about without adhering to some ―central tenets‖ for making lasagna. For instance, it is nearly impossible to make lasagna without boiling water, without a pot to hold the water, without noodles, or a tray to house the noodles, or some binding agent like cheese, or sauce, or cream; in fact, without such items, the dish can no longer be named lasagna. In a similar fashion, my conceptions of love cease to exist once I do away with a main ingredient, like compassion, kindness, care, patience, humility, mercy, grace, or selflessness, for example. I am not arguing that these concepts make every instance of love authentic or legitimate, but I am suggesting that loving relationships, particularly those between teachers and students, require a general set of virtues. I will unpack these ideas and offer a working definition later on in the text. Third, I am not writing this in an attempt to glorify myself as a teacher. Rather I am hoping to share with the reader my experiences in relation to the difficult terrain that I had to navigate (i.e., decide what to do as a teacher versus what I was being asked to do). Many teachers are faced with the arduous task of deciding how much of themselves they are willing to compromise in order to be the teachers they are being asked to become by their districts. While I

3 may speak boldly against these agendas, and perhaps celebrate a ―victory narrative‖7 from time to time, this treatise is not intended to be a sanctimonious recounting of my days as a teacher. Fourth, this study is not a ―bitch-session‖ about what is wrong with education. While I will point out many factors that suggest our system is broken or at the very least wounded, I will also write liberally and poignantly as to how to go about ameliorating said factors. Basically, we can‘t fix something if we don‘t know what‘s broken. Nonetheless, we mustn‘t stop at the location of the problem. Rather we ought to work diligently and intelligently towards restoring the identified components that call for repair. Thus, this work serves as an effort to move beyond the discovery of critical issues plaguing our educational system and towards possible remedies. Finally, I want to address the general outline for this dissertation, briefly covering the flow of the work. Chapter Two will be an extensive review of the literature vis-à-vis the agapic concept of love, explicitly revealing how the agape (or selfless) form of love is operationalized in a pedagogical manner both within and outside of the classroom. In addition, I will highlight the central themes that will be used to formulate a working definition of love, as well as unveiling the main items that I will unfold in chapters four, five, and six, such as relationality, compassion, and altruism, respectively. Finally, this chapter will follow the format sketched above, consisting of a dominant narrative and counternarrative regarding love and its actualization with respect to teaching and learning, as well as a theoretical analysis of both accounts. In Chapter Three I will reveal my methodological underpinnings and discuss how counternarratives and the scholarly personal narrative can be used to arrive at some form of truth. This section will draw deeply on the methodological premises of counternarratives; in particular, I will focus on the personal narrative or autobiographical components of narrative. In Chapter Three, I examine the personal counternarrative; how it can be used in educational research; why I will be using it; potential ethical concerns; ontological and epistemological roots; and existing tensions regarding its use in academia. I begin by investigating recent conceptions of the personal counternarrative and then move towards establishing a working understanding that will be apropos to my research.

7 The term “victory narrative” was first coined by Patti Lather in a paper presented to AERA titled “Textuality as praxis” in New Orleans, April 1994.

Chapters four, five, and six expound on the framework laid out in the literary and theoretical reviews of chapter two, advancing the concepts of relationality, compassion, and altruism. Chapter four explores the use of relational pedagogy and discusses how present systems of schooling work to dismantle the teacher-student/student-teacher relationships espoused by Freire.8 In addition, this section will highlight how the implications of recent educational directives, such as NCLB, which has focused too stringently on measurable results, reduces students and teachers to objects, shackling and restraining them from envisioning and creating a more liberatory form of education. Chapter Five investigates how teaching as an act of love requires one to be passionate and compassionate, truly seeking to discover the authentic and evolving identities of her students. Chapter Six examines the dialectics amongst altruism and egoism by inspecting the role the self plays in the selflessness of love. Finally, the dissertation closes with an epilogue that pulls the preceding chapters together. The intent of this section is not to provide a series of ―outs‖ or beg for mercy by pointing out any pitfalls, but rather to offer up a brief synopsis to help the reader enjoy the particular flow of this dissertation. I chose to use the story and counter story approach in order to elucidate my points and shore up my arguments, as well as engage the reader in a rich text that captures the ebbs and flows that make up the difficult terrains of present-day teaching and schooling.

The Purpose of This Study At present, there is no room for such topics as love at the social, educational, or even personal dinner tables. We have become a ―cynical society,‖9 making it difficult, if not impossible, to discuss love and its democratic worth vis-à-vis schooling in particular, and within social contexts in general. Love has become taboo. In fact, many politicians and educational decision makers either overlook the importance of love in our schools or find it to be too soft and not part of the academic endeavors of schooling. However, according to Freire (2005) It is impossible to teach without the courage to love, without the courage to try a thousand times before giving up. In short, it is impossible to teach without a forged, invented, and well-thought-out capacity to love…We must dare, in the full sense of the

8 See PO chapter 2 for explanation of teacher-student and student-teacher roles. 9 John Hoyle and Robert Slater, “Love, Happiness, and America’s Schools: The role of Educational Leadership in the 21st Century,” Phi Delta Kappan 82.10: 790 – 794 2001.

word, to speak of love without the fear of being called ridiculous, mawkish, or unscientific, if not antiscientific.10 Thus, a chasm exists today between the academic pursuit of acquiring knowledge in schools and the humanistic quest for becoming better citizens. The former encourages students to ―have‖ more things, while the latter implores students to ―become‖ or ―be‖ an active member of society.11 Hence, the purpose of this study is to expose what can happen to teachers, students, communities, and the general public if we focus too tightly on the objective components of teaching, such as test scores, building report cards, and other quantifiable factors that validate educational aims. In addition, this research paper examines the moral and ethical ramifications stemming from an educational system that objectifies teachers, children, and learning in general. My goal is to use personal experiences (as a teacher) to serve as counternarratives to existing discourses which legitimize the acceptable present-day purposes of schooling. Thus, my research question attempts to answer the following: How does one teacher manifest love in and out of the classroom while navigating the difficult terrain of modern-day teaching? Let us first delve into the problems at hand which call for such a study.

Existing Obstacles for Agapic Love Current discourses circling around educational reform focus on such narratives as ―Closing the achievement gap,‖ ―Raising expectations,‖ ―Firing bad teachers,‖ ―Increasing global competition,‖ ―Boosting math and science test scores,‖ and ―Holding teachers more accountable,‖ just to name a few.12 These powerful and unbridled expressions have fueled a great deal of debate about the current status of the American educational system, and have merely emulated their predecessors (i.e., the ―Elementary Secondary Education Act,‖ the ―Space Race,‖ ―A Nation at Risk,‖ ―No Child Left Behind,‖ and now, ―Race to the Top‖). Moreover,

10 Paulo Freire, Teachers as cultural workers: Letters to those who dare teach (Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 2005), 1 (hereafter cited in text as TCW). 11 Erich Fromm, To Have or To Be (New York: Harper & Row, 1976) (hereafter cited in text as To Have or To Be). 12 J. Alter, “A case of senioritis: Gates tackles education’s two-headed monster,” Newsweek November 28 2010; Michelle Rhee, “What I’ve learned: We can’t keep politics out of school reform. Why I’m launching a national movement to transform education,” Newsweek December 6 2010; E. Thomas & P. Wingert, “Why we can’t get rid of failing teachers,” Newsweek March 15 2010.

6 each of these narratives has been constructed as irrefutable, whereby any attempt to challenge the phrasing of these projects would conversely make one a proponent for harming children. For instance, the phraseology ―No Child Left Behind‖ is an artful manipulation that persuades the general public to consider that (a) up until now schools have been leaving children behind; (b) parents need to support this movement – would you want your child left behind? and (c) anyone that does not support this act is an advocate for leaving children behind. This mindfully constructed phrase, not unlike the aforementioned slogans, has influenced countless educators, and the public, to accept the neoliberal stance that ―things are the way they are because they cannot be otherwise.‖13 In turn, these forceful narratives have led the masses astray and have worked industriously to make changing the status quo nearly impractical. Present approaches in education work conscientiously at depositing disconnected pieces of information into the docile minds of students, merely reifying the ―banking‖ method of teaching.14 In turn, the banking approach, and its attempt to mythicize our world(s) through shifty narratives, functions as a hegemonic tool to keep the present system in place, stripping the autonomy, creative power, and critical consciousness of those who possess the capacity to imagine a better form of education, i.e., teachers and students.15 In effect, this dehumanizing system reduces its participants to objects and thus we begin to mechanistically view education as ―something someone does to somebody else.‖16 By doing so, the banking method has served to dismantle the relational components epitomized in Buber‘s notion of I-Thou,17 which is the relation of subject-to-subject, by replacing it with an I-It relationship, or a subject-to-object affiliation. Thus, the I-Thou – constructed on the grounds of mutuality and reciprocity between two subjects – becomes displaced by an I-It relationship of separateness and detachment. Moreover, the erosion of our relational building blocks is exacerbated by technical focuses (i.e., number of days in school, length of periods, attendance, etc.) which eschew the ―moral numbness‖ and ―spiritual alienation‖ which are

13 Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Heart (New York: Continuum, 1997). 14 See PO chapter two for a breakdown of the “banking” theory. 15 Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of freedom: Ethics, democracy, and civic courage (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 1998) (hereafter cited in text as PF). 16 Ted Sizer, Horace's compromise: The dilemma of the American high school (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1984), 3. 17 Martin Buber, I And Thou (New York: Scribner, 1958) (hereafter cited in text as Buber).

7 endemic in our schools today.18 Will this ever change? Will teachers, schools, and the public one day care more about people than the results they produce? Why don‘t we focus more on the relational components of teaching? Can we ever see education as something other than a purely cerebral, intellectual, and academic endeavor? When will we realize the distressing ramifications of solely focusing on a banking system that cares only about test scores, achievement data, attendance records, and so forth? I have witnessed many ills that have followed the wake of the recent educational reform efforts mentioned above. I have observed how the limited focus on math, science, and reading standards has narrowed the curriculum by clipping the amount of attention granted toward other areas of schooling, like the arts, humanities, and social sciences.19 I have painfully watched as a curriculum practices too firmly fixated on standards, skills, and concepts caused students to be estranged from a desirable world.20 I attempted to fight back against the factory approach of schooling, which has caused a rise in the number of disengaged students, increased school dropout rates, forced teachers to teach to the test, dampened student and teacher motivation, demoralized teachers, and had an overall negative effect on public education.21 In essence, I witnessed our educational policies at work, tirelessly aiming to supplant a humanistic educational experience for students with a more dehumanized and technocratic form of education. So, the line of defeated students stands out in my memory: If only Gina‘s spotless academic record could have protected her from prevailing social pressures, would she have refrained from hanging herself? Certainly William had an ―excellent‖ educational career, receiving a ―perfect score‖ on the math and science portions of the Ohio Graduation Test. Would that his test scores could have sheltered him from being verbally and physically assaulted

18 David Purpel, The moral & spiritual crisis in education: A curriculum for justice and compassion in education (Granby, Mass: Bergin & Garvey, 1989). 19 A. Klein, “Survey: Subjects trimmed to boost math and reading,” Education Week, 26.44: 7-7 2007; L. Rose & A. Gallup, “The 39th annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup poll of the public's attitudes toward the public schools,” Phi Delta Kappa 89.1: 33-45 2007. 20 Dwayne Huebner, The Lure of the Transcendent: Collected Essays by Dwayne Huebner, ed. Vicki Hillis (Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum, 1999) (hereafter cited in text as Huebner). 21 B. Jones, “Looking through different lenses: Teachers' and administrators' views of accountability,” Phi Delta Kappan 87.10: 767 2006; Susan Ohanian, “Survey shows Vermont teachers’ attitudes toward NCLB,” retrieved from http://www.substancenews.com June 20th, 2009; “You've seen how NCLB,” NEA Today 26.1: 17-17 2007; J. Nehring, “Conspiracy theory: Lessons for leaders from two centuries of school reform,” Phi Delta Kappan 88.6: 425-432 2007; S. Stitzlein et al., “Illinois project for democratic accountability,” Educational Studies 42.2: 139-155 2007.

8 for his sexual orientation? Still yet, how could our drive to close the achievement gap stop Shane from ending up behind bars, defend Jacqueline from being sexually assaulted by her stepdad, or support Brooklyn through her intense battle with depression? Where does the gravity of increasing math and science test scores weigh in with respect to Matt being cyber-bullied by seven of his classmates, people whom he believed to be his friends? How does our goal of being number one in the world, vis-à-vis test scores, help Dante, who helplessly watched as the cops hauled his father to jail for a domestic dispute? If only my words wouldn‘t have fallen on the deaf ears of my principal and school counselor concerning Randy‘s drug use, perhaps he could have survived his recent overdose on heroin. If only they would have listened when I told them about Jenna‘s troubles at home, maybe she wouldn‘t have run away, only to never be seen again. Common discourses, especially those which aim to bash educators, claim that teachers are ―insulated from accountability.‖22 If so, who is ―accountable‖ for these horrific accounts? How many more must suffer? How many more suicides, overdoses, and unfortunate losses of life should we witness before saying ―enough is enough‖? Accordingly, I disrupt, or counter, the dominant narratives that (mis)shape present-day schooling practices by focusing instead on a personal narrative, one that introduces the silenced voice of the teacher. In particular, the purpose of my project is to decenter the commonly accepted narratives about school successes based on quantifiable measures and to begin focusing on the intangible and immeasurable concepts such as love, compassion, faith, and personal relations that make teaching a joyful art. Ultimately, I will explore my life as a teacher (using personal narratives as an approach) in order to uncover the current tensions between teacher-role and teacher-self. By teacher-role I mean the act of attending to the daily minutiae of the profession, whereas by teacher-self I mean unpacking who I am and how I managed the former while manifesting a classroom community replete with love. So, I deal with ancillary questions such as what was I as a teacher being asked to do? Was what I was being asked to do in the best interests of my students? Do schools in general call teachers and students to be moral, loving, and ethical beings? If so, to what ends? How have the dramatic shifts towards incessant accountability of a certain legitimated type

22 E. Thomas & P. Wingert, “Why we can’t get rid of failing teachers,” Newsweek March 15 2010.

9 changed the practice of teaching? If so, to what ends? What are some of the effects stemming from the narrowed approach of teaching to the standards? Hence, I want to explore how, if at all, the reductionist views of ―raising test scores‖ and ―closing achievement gaps‖ have adversely affected the emotional, psychological, and spiritual welfare of our students, teachers, and learning communities. In doing so, I will examine, through first-hand accounts, how the teacher-self has been supplanted by current ideologies which push for specific, quantifiable, and normalized roles of what it means to be an excellent teacher, learner, school, and even society. Primarily, my focus will be to analyze the dialectic among teacher-role(s), i.e., the techno-rational approach to a standardized form of teaching and learning (which seems to dominate conversations), and the teacher-self, or my values of the more ethereal, and yet still very valuable intangible components of teaching and learning such as, love, faith, compassion, relationality, and the like. Given these thoughts, how does one teacher manage the tensions between doing what is expected and doing what he feels is vital in a child‘s life? As noted above, how does one find time to care for that which ails our students when it is not even on the ―objective‖ radar(s) of the powers that be? How can we teach what is expected, when we know that what is needed is lacking? How can teachers cling to the intangibles of teaching when they are being asked to solely focus on detached results like test scores, grades, attendance, and other attributes of the teacher-role that are easily assessed? In effect, this study aims to unfold how one teacher manifests love in and out of the classroom while navigating the difficult terrain of modern-day teaching. Still yet, how do teachers manage the daily chores of modern-day education in a way that doesn‘t mitigate the veracity of love in our learning communities? I will answer these various questions by working within frameworks of Baszile‘s (2008) counterstory, the scholarly personal narrative, and Pinar‘s use of currere. I use the counterstory to ―talk back‖ to the grand narratives which drive our educational system by offering up love and relationality as viable tools for moving forward in the field of education. In addition, I utilize Pinar‘s method of currere to create a subjective form of knowledge that encapsulates my own point of view regarding my experiences as a teacher.23 Finally, my research is bolstered by Nash‘s scholarly personal narrative, which is an unabashed admission that our own lives tell a

23 William Pinar, Autobiography, politics, and sexuality: Essays in curriculum theory 1972-1992. (New York: P. Lang, 2004).

10 story (or several stories), and ―when narrated well, can deliver to [our] readers those delicious aha! moments of self and social insight that are all too rare in more conventional forms of research‖24 On one hand, my research reveals how our current educational system works to disengage teachers and students from the learning process; that is to say, the system focuses too rigorously on the scientific components of schooling – like test scores, and ―best practices‖ – at the detriment of the teacher and learner. While on the other hand, it draws on the selfless ―love‖ of the teacher as a manner for creating better schools, learners, curriculums, teachers, and possibly a better world. Ultimately, my work explores how the love (agape love) of a teacher can transcend the current system of education, to rise above all that stands in its way, be it social injustices, societal estrangement, an absence of feeling worthy in the world, or whatever the case, which I will unpack in latter chapters. What follows is an account that adheres to the aforementioned outline for this document, that is, a dominant narrative revealing the ―truths‖ of our educational system, a counternarrative that aims to highlight and debunk these ―truths,‖ and a theoretical analysis that makes meaning of my personal experiences.

The “Normal” Narrative 25 I got to work early that morning to make sure my science lab was properly setup. All my copies were laid out at the students‘ tables, the lab equipment and safety goggles were neatly arranged at the center of the room, and the quote of the day was posted on the board. Then I sat down, drank my coffee, and waited for the monotony to begin. Bob, our building principal, had arranged for the eighth grade teachers to meet with him to discuss our ―leading indicator data.‖ Basically, this data was ascertained through a series of tests administered quarterly by the district to predict each student‘s likelihood of passing the Ohio Achievement Tests (OATs). Each ―core‖ teacher, or ―legitimate‖ subject teacher, such as math, science, reading, and social studies, was responsible for creating, administering, and evaluating what were called ―anchor assessments.‖ An anchor, or benchmark assessment, was a district-wide common evaluation tool that was administered at the end of each quarter. As a science teacher, I was

24 Nash, 24. 25 Please recall that when (re)telling these events the author will italicize actual quotes and will not italicize that which has been paraphrased.

11 responsible for meeting (during what was supposed to be my plan time) with other eighth grade science teachers across the district to design a universal science test for all of our eighth grade students. The idea was to ensure that each learner was getting an identical curriculum, to manage what and how the teacher‘s were educating their students, and this common assessment was used to monitor the students‘ progress, so we were told. It turns out that the tests were used as intended, but in addition, these common assessments were used to examine the effectiveness of each individual teacher. Upon completing the anchor assessments, consisting of 20 multiple choice questions, the teachers were to run them through the scantron, enter the scores into an Excel Spreadsheet (giving each of the 120 students an exact score), and plot the data on a series of graphs and tables. Then, the students were to be placed into categories based on their marks; each question was worth one point. For instance, 18 and above was considered ―advanced,‖ 16-17 ―accelerated,‖ 12-15 ―proficient,‖ 9-12 ―basic,‖ 0-8 was considered ―limited.‖ The terms above, ―advanced,‖ ―accelerated,‖ and so on, are official terms coined by the Ohio Department of Education, and refer to a student‘s cognitive ability vis-à-vis standardized assessments. From there, using Microsoft Excel, the teachers were to color code the marks, highlighting the advanced students in green, the accelerated and proficient in blue, the basic in orange, and the limited in red. The students in ―green‖ were thought to be the most likely to pass the OATs, the ―blue‖ students revealed those who were on pace to achieve, the orange indicated those students who were teetering between success and failure, and the students in red were literally referred to as ―a lost cause,‖ which really bothered me. According to the administration, if the tests were constructed following the guidelines, objectives, and standards set in place by the state, then these benchmark scores could be used to predict a student‘s chance of passing the OAT. This was vital to the mission of my district, because if too many of our students were to fail the OAT, we would be in jeopardy of losing our ―excellent‖ state rating. Nonetheless, after we scored the tests, entered them in an Excel document, and color coded them, we were to email them directly to Bob, three days prior to our meeting date. Miraculously, the tests were administered on Friday, and our meeting took place on the following Thursday, which meant we had to jump through all the hoops over the weekend. I can vividly recall teachers sitting on pins and needles, hoping that their scores would appease

12 the testing gods. So, 8:20 a.m. rolled around, and the entire pack of eighth grade teachers headed to the anchor assessments meeting. Math and Reading always went first, since their scores were the only ones that counted towards our building report card. The building report cards were based on several factors such as attendance records, number of suspensions, percentage of highly qualified teachers, the average index scores (based on the results of the math and reading portions of the OAT), and other quantifiable measures. Bob began at once, ―So Jenny, tell my why nearly half of your math students scored below proficiency this quarter (this particular meeting took place at the end of the third quarter)?‖ ―Well,‖ Jenny began, ―the students have a really tough time understanding algebraic functions.‖ Bob immediately cut her off by asking, ―What have you done to remediate them?‖ Poor Jenny, she was always at school, constantly giving of herself in order to benefit her students. Then she sheepishly replied, ―Well, I show up to work every morning at 6:30 a.m. to help my students, I call home to sing praises or report the shortcomings of my students, I work through my lunch, I post grades online, and I update my website daily.‖ Jenny took a stand, but you could just tell that she was frightened to heed Bob‘s response. This entire conversation skipped by Bob, then he replied, ―That‘s good, but what are you doing to ensure that they get the material they missed?‖ I remember laughing on the inside, wondering if he would ask his son (whom I taught) questions like this after teaching him how to make a layup. Again, Jenny went through her tirade, only to succumb to Bob‘s expertise and knowledge and agree that she could attempt to ―differentiate‖ her instruction in order to meet the needs of all learners. Of course, none of us could fathom what else Jenny could do, she poured her heart and soul into her job, and more importantly, her students. Nevertheless, we moved on. Bob continued with Kathleen, one of the language arts teachers. ―I see here that you have several students whose reading scores are in the ‗blue‘ and ‗orange‘ levels. How do you plan to ensure that the ‗blue‘ group stays where they are, or moves up, while working with the ‗orange‘ students to make sure they are capable of passing the OAT?‖ asked Bob. Kathleen was a great teacher. She had great rapport with her students and worked diligently to prepare her students for not only the tests that lied ahead, but she also prepared them to be critical thinkers, problems solvers, and productive citizens. Kathleen replied with the standard response to silence Bob, ―I make sure that each lesson is well thought out and tailored to the individual needs of my students. I differentiate my

13 instruction so that students of all levels can learn in their own unique ways.‖ Since it was the third quarter, all of us could forecast what Bob was going to ask, and how each group member would respond. This answer was great in Bob‘s eyes. Likewise, I must admit, it was what most of the team would do in order to survive these horrific meetings. A few of us would fight back but typically with no avail. We sort of gave in, compromising a piece of who we were in order to lessen the pains associated with this strict and militaristic style of leadership on teaching and learning. Bob eventually took aim at every teacher, ending with me. Science was not at the top of the pecking order at this time, so we would typically go last. I would often times volunteer to bat cleanup, making sure that I would either take or throw the last punch.

The Other Side of the Coin 26 Bob opened with, ―Mr. Ciamarra, can you explain why so many of your students scored so highly on this quarter‘s benchmarks?‖ If only he knew half the truth, I thought to myself. ―Well Bob,‖ I wittily replied with a feigned smile, ―I would attribute my students‘ success to me actually giving a damn about who they are.‖ See, the fact of the matter is, I gave the anchor assessments, but at the end of the day, I threw them away. Bob had no clue. I made the numbers up on the Excel document, just to placate him. I went on, ―My students and I work hard to establish a mutual respect, a genuine rapport, and a loving relationship with one another. We understand that learning cannot take place if it is removed from personal interactions.‖ I could tell that Bob was not anticipating my response. I would normally just give him what he wanted to hear so that I could move on with my day, but I was tired of lying, tired of hiding who I was and what I believed to be valuable in the classroom, so I spoke up. Bob was befuddled. I presumed that he was not happy with my response. Then he replied, ―I am glad to hear that you and your students are such good ‗friends,‘ but how are you teaching the material as to produce these results?‖ I wish he wouldn‘t have gone there. I was under the impression that I was being led down a road that I didn‘t want to be on. Bob was coaxing me to mention how I differentiate my instruction in order to produce such high marks. I believed that students should be getting a personalized form of instruction, but I was infuriated by the way my students were pigeonholed into groups, or better yet, shades of colors that

26 Please recall that when (re)telling these events the author will italicize actual quotes and will not italicize that which has been paraphrased.

14 signified who they were. Nonetheless, I countered by stating, ―My students are not just objects, or numbers, or colors, they are people!‖ In spite of his red face, I continued, ―My students are more than just a test score, or an excellent banner, or a checkmark on a building report card, they are real human beings with real problems. They don‘t give a damn about nucleotides when they are wondering if or when they will be eating again, or when mom will get home to relieve them from their babysitting details, or if they need to lock their door at night to keep their less than sober stepdad from coming in.‖ By now, Bob was ready to blow a gasket. I had attacked the one thing that made him look good, the stature of the school. The meeting was almost over, when Bob publicly announced, ―See me in my office.‖ I knew what was coming, so I thought. ―Do you find pleasure in attempting to sabotage me in front of your peers?‖ Bob vehemently asked. I was a little taken aback by his tone. I realized that Bob was not playing around, and then he asked, ―Are you trying to damage my reputation or challenge my agenda?‖ I felt like a Cobra backed into a phone booth. I remember thinking, it is fight or flight time. I was tired of being bullied so I stood up for me, my students, and any other teacher who felt that we were denying our students the type of learning they needed. I fired back, ―If that‘s how you want to take it, then go ahead. I am not trying to sabotage you or your agenda, I am just trying to stand up for my students. Your plan of attack fails to refer to the students by their names. Hell, you just give them colors and numbers and pretend everything is hunky-dory.‖ Bob and I continued to exchange words, but the meeting was going nowhere. I took a swing at the playground bully and he didn‘t like it. Bob failed to understand how forging genuine relationships, serving the needs of my students, and bearing the pains of my students was beneficial to the grand scheme of teaching and learning. Since I failed to state any objectives, cover any state standards, or describe how I was going to accomplish the district wide aims, Bob could not comprehend my point of view. In fact, this one episode had lasting impacts on my teaching career and scarred my chances of becoming a leader within my district. Not even one year removed from this heated exchange of beliefs, I would again have another run-in with Bob. I had just completed my master‘s degree and had finished my fourth year in the district, which meant I was eligible for tenure, so I applied. Not long after, Bob pulled me into his office and said, ―You know, tenure is big deal in this district. We look at it as placing a million dollar investment in our employees.‖ After pouring over the minutiae of

15 gaining tenure, Bob had pointed out that I ―lacked the leadership needed to become a million dollar investment in this district.‖ I once again hung in there and exchanged punches with a less than polite superior, this time delivering my final blow. I began right away with, ―How could I better demonstrate my capacity to lead?‖ I added (rather vociferously), ―Look at my record as a leader in this district: I have been elected educator of the year, twice; I was nominated as the Disney Hands-On teacher of the year; I have coached three sports; I volunteered to work 5 summer basketball camps in a row; I am the chairperson for NJHS (National Junior Honor Society); I created an afterschool program for students from divorced families; I was chosen by YOU to „lead‟ a group of teachers in the writing of the school‟s mission statement; I was selected by YOU to „lead‟ a workshop on differentiated instruction; I was handpicked by the people in district office to be on a team of science teachers to decide on a new science curriculum; and I just „led‟ a school wide campaign that raised over $1500 for Katrina victims.‖ But Bob did not bend. ―I am sorry,‖ he said, ―but you don‘t offer the type of leadership that we are looking for.‖ That was it. After this final confrontation, I began looking for new jobs, particularly in other states. I hated this man, this district, and the state. Then it dawned on me. I was not being asked by my district to do the things mentioned above, in fact, quite the contrary, I was being asked to be a passive follower, adhering to all the district wide directives, not challenging them or pointing out their pitfalls. However, I could not continue to do what I was being asked to do. I could not hide any longer. I was unable to pretend any longer that the prescribed form of teaching espoused by the district wasn‘t affecting me or my students. Or, in the words of Brian, a former colleague, ―I couldn‘t continue to wake up each day and sell my soul to the devil.‖ So, at the end of the school year, I resigned. It was time that I stood up and announced how love, compassion, and relationality ought to trump the spoon-fed education that only works hard enough to meet the mandates of the state, which are less than impressive.

Concluding Thoughts At the present, teachers are honored for following the script. According to many of the dominant voices in education, as well as my experiences as a classroom instructor, a ―good‖ teacher is one who ―raises test scores,‖ ―meets adequate yearly progress,‖ and ―closes achievement gaps.‖ Thus, teachers of late have been forced to adhere to these policies in order

16 to avoid being lambasted by their superiors, the media, and the general public, often times compromising who they are in order to sustain job security. Additionally, the teacher‘s ―merit‖ has largely been determined by one accepted point of reference, how well her students perform on an objective and standardized form of assessment, causing her to shift from a moral and ethical framework that centers on love and care towards a dehumanizing and programmable form of teaching that cultivates credulity. As a result, teaching and learning have been reduced to menial and mechanized tasks, objectifying both the teacher and learner. Take for instance the normative account above where students were categorized and sorted by ability levels. It‘s not so much that Bob‘s main objectives were implausible, rather, it was the heartless and appalling manner in which they were practiced. Honestly, throughout our entire meeting, I never heard a single name mentioned, a real person cited, or a personal story put forth, rather each child was objectified to a number, or color. It was as though each child had become an object whose worth was dependent upon his or her ability to store and recall the detached bits of information deposited in them by their teachers.27 Moreover, each teacher was praised for her ability to ―fill‖ the empty receptacles (read: students), to reduce herself to an unimaginative, passive, and authoritative being.28 What‘s more, our students sit through long lectures, often times feeling estranged, except that they are driven by the act of amassing and ―owning‖ a collection of facts, stories, and ideas from other sources, making them feel important by what they have recently ―banked‖.29 Along these lines, our students are learning to care more about what they have as opposed to who they are becoming. For instance, according to a survey conducted by Richard Weissbourd, ―About 40 percent of students identified getting into a ‗good college‘ as more important than being a ‗good person.‘‖30 This should sicken us, but shockingly enough, it has become a commonly accepted norm. In all reality, many parents, teachers, and educational objectives are quietly centering their relational and emotional aims around achievement, which is damaging to a child‘s moral growth and detrimental to how one comes to know and understand what it means to love and to be loved.31 In effect, we are teaching our children that if they fail, we, their parents, teachers,

27 See PO chapter two for banking concept. 28 See PO chapter two for viewing students as “empty receptacles.” 29 To Have or To Be. 30 Richard Weissbourd, The parents we mean to be: How well-intentioned adults undermine children's moral and emotional development (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2009), 62 (hereafter cited in text as Weissbourd). 31 Weissbourd.

17 and role models, are obligated to withhold our love from them, making it conditional and restrictive. This is contrary to what love is all about. Love is a free and boundless spirit, an unconditional energy source that ―binds us to the abode of life and everything in it that we call good or beautiful.‖32 Certainly one (particularly of a postmodern bent) could mull over the words above and deconstruct their meaning, but is that not the case with any wording, phraseology, or idea? Nevertheless, love can be many things, and often times, attempting to define or nail it down can be thought of as a nebulous endeavor.33 While I will not attempt to define the indefinable right now, I will make my attempt in the next chapter. For now, I want to address the pedagogical and curricular powers of love. When examining the mini-case studies above, imagine if we were to teach the material in tandem with the real lives of our students. Visualize how the students would feel if we were to view them as whole beings and not as an arbitrary number or a means to an end. This is where love enters the mix. Consequently, our education system, if it has any regard for what it means to be human, must join the teaching of content with the moral formation of our learners.34 As Freire noted, ―Education is an act of love, and thus an act of courage.‖35 Therefore, through transitive properties, teaching is love, thus suggesting that ―love is [also] an act of courage, not of fear…love is a commitment to others… [and] the cause of liberation.‖36 In this vein, love has the power to set us and our students free. Hence, the impetus behind this study is to examine how love can be used as a pedagogical tool for transcending the present conditions that allow our education system to remain stagnant and oppressive. Let‘s face it, Great teachers have impacted the human race tremendously by urging us to practice unconditional love toward each other. This is true of Confucius, Lao Zi, the Buddha, Jesus Christ, Muhammad, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and Mother Theresa, to name just a few…they have given us love as skills, as tools, as a fundamental mechanism, and as a powerful, practical strategy to effectively resolve our conflicts and

32 Daniel Liston and Jim Garrison, Teaching, learning, and loving: Reclaiming passion in educational practice (New York: RoutledgeFalmer, 2004), 1 (hereafter cited in text as L&G). 33 Erich Fromm, The art of loving (New York: Continuum, 2006) (hereafter cited in text as The Art of Loving). 34 PF. 35 Paulo Freire, Education for Critical Consciousness (New York: Seabury Press), 33. 36 PO, 89.

problems…these teachers are great not because they want to stand above others, but because they give themselves unconditionally to benefit the life of others, making others great beings like themselves.37 Teachers who actualize these notions of love do so in order to freely give of themselves, devoid of terms, conditions, and agreements, so that their students can grow and develop into autonomous and selfless beings who have the capacity to construct a better tomorrow. Love‘s power, both within and beyond the classroom, is endless. As a result, ―love has the power to inspire students to seek after knowledge, love can unite the teacher and student in the quest for knowledge, and the love of learning can even empower students to challenge knowledge thereby pushing its limits.‖38 Hence, love can spark one‘s interest in a subject, to inspire others to become altruistic and noble beings, and love can rouse revolutionary thoughts and actions. In fact, ―Living a pedagogy of love in our classroom and communities defies the prescriptive formulas and models of the past, calling for the ‗reinvention‘ of our radical vision not only of schooling but of American society – a vision of a society that is unquestionably shaped by a democratic commitment to human rights [and] social justice‖39 In the following chapter, I dig deeper into the literature, theories, and nuances that speak about love. I will tease out the various conceptions of love regarding multiple topics, particularly honing in on how agapic love is operationalized in a pedagogical and curricular manner. Following the telling of each story (the dominant and counter), I draw upon the overarching themes of relationality, compassion, and altruism to provide an analysis that makes more explicit the connections between the literature and my personal stories. Finally, I will make use of the counterstory to shed light on how love is currently clipped by many educational agendas, as well as speaking boldly as to why love must be afforded a place in the present discourses regarding educational reform.

37 Jing Lin, Love, Peace, and Wisdom in Education: A vision for education in the 21st century (Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield Education, 2006), 17-18 (hereafter cited in text as LPWE). 38 Daniel Cho, “Lessons of love: Psychoanalysis and teacher-student love,” Educational Theory 55.1: 79 2005. 39 Antonia Darder, Reinventing Paulo Freire: A pedagogy of love (Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 2002), 30.

CHAPTER TWO – AN ANALYSIS OF LOVE “It is impossible to teach without the courage to love, without the courage to try a thousand times before giving up. In short, it is impossible to teach without a forged, invented, and well- thought-out capacity to love.”1

“Proven” Practices for Present-Day Schooling 2 Please recall that this research study is twofold, to highlight the manifestation of one teacher‘s love in the classroom and to examine how one might traverse the rocky terrain that consumes modern-day teaching. As such, this chapter begins by paying attention to the latter and concludes with the unpacking of the former. Thus, the chapter gets underway by capturing the philosophical and ideological voices that seem to be dominating the wider conversations vis- à-vis educational decision-making today. At present, that which has become legitimized in the field of education must center on the technical and ―provable‖ components of teaching and learning. These dominant narratives are birthed by political forces, driven by the media, guilelessly accepted by the general public, housed in our schools, and reified by various school officials and teachers. The prevailing powers behind these voices may vary, but most, if not all of them, are in agreement that we should only accept educational directives which can be ―scientifically proven‖3 and/or show ―profitability.‖4 Thus, what follows are accounts of public officials, school leaders, policy makers, teachers, and so on, who have embodied this school of thought. My teaching career began just two years prior to the authorization of the No Child Left Behind Act. Of course NCLB did not, in the words of Billy Joel, ―start the fire,‖5 but the act certainly did what it could to dump gasoline on it. I remember what it was like to teach prior to the hype of ―high stakes testing.‖ I am not suggesting that these years prior to NCLB were in any way the golden age of teaching and learning, but I will admit that this policy, as well as its

1 TCW, 5. 2 Please recall that when (re)telling these events the author will italicize actual quotes and will not italicize that which has been paraphrased. 3 Robert Marzano, Classroom assessment & grading that work (Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 2006). 4 Peter McLaren, G. Martin, R. Farahmandpur, & N. Jaramillo, “Teaching in and against the empire: Critical pedagogy as revolutionary praxis,” Teacher Education Quarterly 31.1: 131-153, 2004. 5 The 1989 song by Billy Joel titled “We didn’t start the fire” portrays how each generation inherits the ills of its predecessor. Likewise, NCLB had inherited many of the educational ills from prior reform efforts.

20 predecessors and heirs, did its best to ―pound the life out of learning.‖6 Nevertheless, this bill set in place the very premises that undergirded the ―difficult terrain‖ that I as a teacher had to navigate, at least with respect to my entry point into the profession. This particular bill brought with it many phrases that quickly became common chitchat around the teachers‘ lounges. For instance, I can still hear the chatter resonating through the cold and detached hallways of my schools, echoing phrases like ―closing the achievement gap,‖ ―increasing our test scores,‖ and ―raising expectations,‖ all of which endorsed NCLB‘s objectives. I also remember my district leaders taking these aims to the nth degree. In my third year of teaching, the district decided to strengthen its grip through standards-based teaching by intensifying the means for monitoring quantitative outcomes through the use of curriculum maps. Of course, there was Bob, holding a blazing baton in one hand and the Robert Marzano (a leader in standards-based instruction and assessment) playbook in the other, ready to (mis)lead his troops towards closing the wrong gaps. Nevertheless, a curriculum map was a rigid framework used to pace the doses of spoon- fed materials given to the students, making sure that each student was ―filled‖ with homogeneous chunks of knowledge, which were uniformly doled out by routinized teaching scripts and predetermined dates. For instance, every math, reading, social studies, and science teacher in the district had a monthly calendar crammed full of objectives that needed to be met, and an explicit timeline for when they were to be taught and assessed. Each day was literally marked by a series of objectives that needed to be covered on or before a given date. For example, on September 22, I was supposed to be teaching the differences between observations and inferences, which were both state objectives and potential ―test‖ items. Furthermore, in order to thoroughly ensure that every teacher was following the script (literally), the dreaded ―anchor assessments‖ mentioned in the previous chapter, were mandated and scheduled to be given, ―covering‖ all of the standards and objectives laid out in the curriculum maps. I was left wondering where on the map I could find information about my students‘ lives. I don‘t think many people would object to the notion of using a general outline to establish goals, standards, and objectives. However, most every teacher agreed that this was over the top, in that it forced the hands of many teachers and learners, stripped the classroom of its autonomy, deskilled the art of teaching, and restricted the very nature of creativity and joy in

6 Tom Poetter, “Recognizing joy in teaching,” Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue, 273 2006.

21 learning. Furthermore, it was nearly impossible to cover the inexhaustible list of standards. Nonetheless, the district went ahead with its plans much to the dismay of the staff. Next came the posting of objectives on the board, followed by the administrative walkthroughs (talk about being imprisoned), and finally the quarterly meetings with Bob, as previously referenced. The walkthroughs were the most painful. One of the administrators would actually walk through the classrooms, taking note of the objectives, making sure they were being taught and formatively assessed, all the while failing to provide any feedback to the teachers. Ugh! This was, however, just the start. The initiatives above caused schools, especially my school, to become overly focused on standards, test scores, ―excellent banners,‖ and much more. The plans of NCLB may have been good on paper, which is debatable, but once they were operationalized, all hell broke loose. My district began to scrutinize every student and teacher move. They wanted to make certain that all students could show yearly growth, or that they met ―adequate yearly progress (AYP),‖ so they began to double-check the status of the special education populations (because they were responsible for our building missing 3 of the 25 state indicators of excellence), and forced teachers to do everything possible to sustain our placard of ―excellence.‖ These unruly demands prompted the district to cut every corner and to overlook the moral and ethical implications of their actions. Once again I was a bit perplexed that a student‘s growth was only measured unilaterally, failing to take into account the moral and spiritual components of growth, like that of kindness, empathy, and compassion. What‘s more is that these initiatives paved the way for the recent voices which have dominated the dialogue regarding educational purposes and practices. The times have changed, but we are singing the same song about reform that we have been singing for too many years. President Obama implores us all to ―Race to the Top,‖ Newsweek believes that poor teachers are the reason that our schools are failing,7 Gates and others are arguing that pay needs to be based on merit,8 and Arne Duncan still maintains that high performing schools are those which ―close achievement gaps,‖ ―raise graduation rates,‖ and send our kids to ―college.‖ However, as a former teacher with firsthand knowledge of the classroom, I am left with more questions than answers. What does the ―top‖ look like, Mr. Obama? What makes one a poor teacher and who determines this? How do we actually measure one‘s merit? And, when considering educational

7 E. Thomas & P. Wingert, “Why we can’t get rid of failing teachers,” Newsweek March 15 2010. 8 J. Alter, “A case of senioritis: Gates tackles education’s two-headed monster,” Newsweek November 28 2010.

22 transformations, when are we going to look beyond the tangible measurements of test scores and standards and into the intangibles, such as the hearts, lives, and souls of our students?

Using Love to Debunk the Purposes of Schooling 9 After school my room shifted from a science lab to a support group. Students with varying problems, concerns, and stories would casually approach me, quickly opening the floodgates. Often times I would just sit and listen, letting them pour out their emotions on my desk. I would always ask, why me, what the hell have I done to make my students feel safe or comfortable enough to share these stories with me? I always had an idea of what was really happening, but I could never place my finger on it. Then, as of late, it has dawned on me: I was giving them a type of education that was liberating, refreshing, and enjoyable. Moreover, I was allowing them to enter a space free from judgment, one filled with care, compassion, empathy, generosity, passion, and several other virtues bound by love. It was a place where the students and I worked both publicly and privately to serve the collective and individual needs of the group, to forge authentic relationships, relentlessly striving to penetrate the barriers that separated us, in an attempt to discover both ourselves and the other. On one hand, my methods were revered by my students, parents, and community members, while on the other they were viewed as rebellious by the administrators, making me a thorn in their sides. I wasn‘t trying to be stubborn or obtuse, but I just couldn‘t wrap my mind around what I was being asked to do; it was utterly inconsistent with my mission (i.e., providing a type of learning that was student-centered and filled with love). I struggled to wake each day and pretend that the standards, objectives, test scores, ―excellent‖ banners, AYP, and other district wide projects were on my radar of concern. I found it baffling that school leaders, as well as my colleagues, could buy into something that cared more about its status than it did about the people who made it what it was. I was disturbed by the fact that every initiative of my district seemed to disregard the welfare of its students and teachers. How was I supposed to worry about Tory‘s test scores when I was concerned for her safety at home? When was I supposed to convince Randy that knowing the periodic table was more important than him feeling ―weirded-out‖ by smoking pot with his dad? Why would I

9 Please recall that when (re)telling these events the author will italicize actual quotes and will not italicize that which has been paraphrased.

23 place all my care and attention on something like objectives and standards when nearly none of them addressed the reality of my students‘ lives? It was once I began asking these thorny questions that I came to better understand my mission, to cultivate caring classrooms that would manifest love. I found it to be far more important to become a part of my students‘ lives, to invest a part of my life into theirs, to do life together, as opposed to just focusing on academic outcomes. I would begin my school year by telling my students, ―Welcome to Mr. C‟s Life Science class, where you are going to learn more about life than science.‖ Right away we would begin to truly know one another. I was very open with my students, sharing with them the ups and downs of my life, hopefully allowing them to sidestep some of the many landmines that delayed my moral and spiritual growth. I would use my transparency to spur others to be open, always letting them know they were free from judgment. I wasn‘t afraid to put myself out there, to make myself vulnerable. In turn, my students would let go of their trepidations, allowing me to see them for who they really were. The learning community thrived because we encouraged one another to display a true form of love, constantly building each other up and steering clear from the societal temptations to tear one another down.10 Before going any further, I would like to pause in order to further examine what I mean by love, more particularly, how agapic love is actualized in the classroom.

“What’s Love Got To Do With It?” What is love? This is a loaded question. Many scholars would argue that to answer such an inquiry would be like trying to nail Jell-O to a tree, an impossible task, or, at the very least, an exercise in futility.11 Nevertheless, I will attempt to answer this question throughout this chapter, keeping love within the boundaries of teaching and the agape notion of altruistically serving others. Love‘s many faces have transformed over time, so that the overall picture may have become unrecognizable. We have confounded love by speaking of it in countless conditions, such as ―I love my dog,‖ ―I love chocolate,‖ ―I love playing golf,‖ or ―I love my partner.‖ Thus,

10 Leo Buscaglia, Love (New York: Fawcett Books, 1972) (hereafter cited in text as Love). 11 A. Beall and R. Sternberg “The social construction of love,” Journal of Social & Personal Relationships 12.3: 417– 438 1995; Love; Robert Greenleaf, Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness (New York: Paulist Press, 2002); David Halpin, Romanticism and education: Love, heroism and imagination in pedagogy (London: Continuum, 2007) (hereafter cited in text as Romanticism & Education); Tim Loreman, Love as Pedagogy (Boston: Sense Publishers, 2011) (hereafter cited in text as Love as Pedagogy).

24 love fails to have an agreeable connotation within many public spaces because it has been socially constructed to mean both everything and nothing at the same time,12 allowing love to fall victim to ―polysemy,‖13 or having a diversity of meanings. There are myriads of reasons to suggest why love has grown to have multiple meanings, many of which work to denature its very essence. Love may be the most widely researched phenomenon in the history of humankind, making a review of the literature an almost insurmountable feat. Thus, it is not feasible to cover every aspect of love, which is why I have narrowed my examination of love to the following areas: (1) the agapic sense of love; (2) a pedagogical understanding of love; and (3) an unpacking of the central tenets of love, such as relationality, altruism, compassion, empathy, and so on. I would like to begin with a laconic overview of the countless ways that we recognize love. When looking at love, one must ask, under what context are we viewing the word? For instance, are we referring to love as a religious, philosophical, psychological, neurological, biological, or social framework? The many nuances of love shift with regard to contextual situations. Love‘s meanings can also vary within the larger arenas above. For example, on a smaller scale, the biological components of love could further reveal how love is signified between mother and child, father and child, mother and father, and so on. As a result, one may come to know love through an anthology of frameworks: sexual, filial, passionate love, romantic love, friendship, love of family, love of country, love of objects, compassion, chivalric love, married love, and love of humanity.14 Or, one could opt to explore the annals of love, perhaps revisiting the historical typologies espoused by Plato or Aristotle. The English language is devoid of emotional verbiage and thus uses the word love so insecurely, so heavily, and so inaccurately, that love has lost its meaning in many social circles.15 However, the Greeks were able to differentiate amid the typologies of love by using such terms as Eros, Philia, and Agape. The term Eros, the Greek ―erasthai,‖ is used to signify that part of love comprising an ardent, concentrated desire for something; it is often referred to as a sexual

12 Diane Ackerman, A natural history of love (New York: Random House, 1994); A. Beall and R. Sternberg “The social construction of love,” Journal of Social & Personal Relationships 12.3: 417– 438 1995. 13 E. Berscheid, “Searching for the meaning of love,” eds. R. Sternberg & K. Weis, The new psychology of love (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2006) 171-183. 14 L&G; D. Norton, & M. Kille, Philosophies of love (Totowa, N.J: Rowman & Allanheld, 1983); I Singer, The nature of love (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984). 15 E. Berscheid, “Searching for the meaning of love,” eds. R. Sternberg & K. Weis, The new psychology of love (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2006) 171-183.

25 yearning, hence the modern notion of ―erotic,‖ from the Greek ―erotikos.”16 This is more in line with positions like ―I love sex,‖ ―I love my partner,‖ or ―I am infatuated with another.‖ For the purpose of this study, I will steer clear of erotic love. The word philia displays a fondness or appreciation towards another. Aristotle describes philia as a friendship, a loyalty to our families, acquaintances, and others in society.17 Aristotle elaborates on the kinds of things we seek in proper friendship, suggesting that the proper basis for philia is objective: those who share our dispositions, who bear no grudges, who seek what we do, who are temperate and just, who admire us appropriately as we admire them, and so on.18 However, I find Aristotle‘s views to be rather elitist, where love only welcomes congruent mentalities, which is highly problematic. In fact, some have used this line of thinking to shroud their immorality, dressing it up as an act of love, such as Hitler‘s grand plan to create a master race, the use of Apartheid to discriminatorily segregate populations of ethnic differences, and even some Christians who have blown up abortion clinics in the name of God. When speaking of love, I am not calling to mind the eros sense of sexual relations, Valentine‘s Day, or the general affection displayed between partners, nor am I summoning a love couched in the Greek understanding of philia, whereby one fosters friendships based on collective commonalities with others. For this study, I am focusing on a sacred love; an esoteric sense of love that the Greeks would call Agape; a selfless and steadfast love that the Hebrews would call Hesed. ―Agape is unselfish love. It is self-giving, not self-seeking.‖19 So, ―in the most general way, the active character of love can be described by stating that love is primarily giving, not receiving.‖20 Thus, love is a humanitarian pursuit, and anyone who chooses to love another must be willing to grapple with the multifaceted components of love.

Unpacking the Agape Suitcase Agape love is most commonly tied to a religious understanding of love; in particular, it is identified as a Christian form of love, where God is love and so the two are used

16 Diane Ackerman, A natural history of love (New York: Random House, 1994); A. Beall and R. Sternberg “The social construction of love,” Journal of Social & Personal Relationships 12.3: 417– 438 1995. 17 Aristotle, Rhetoric (New York: Modern Library, 1984). 18 ibid. 19 J. Hoyle, Leadership and the force of love (California: Corwin Press, Inc, 2002), 2. 20 The Art of Loving, 20.

26 interchangeably.21 ―For the Christian, God‘s love, or agape, is unconditional love freely given to all.‖22 Thus, at the very core of agape love lies the notion of self-sacrifice, which implies that love is based more on giving – unconditionally – than receiving. When speaking of ―giving,‖ agape is not referring to material offerings; rather it is the giving of one‘s self, the investment of one‘s life into another. Or as Fromm stated, ―Giving [of one‘s self] is more joyous than receiving, not because it is a deprivation, but because in the act of giving lies the expression of [one‘s] aliveness.‖23 This unconditional form of giving is the life-force of agape, since it relies on the love of individuals to propagate it throughout given communities.24 Agape love is not limited to being held hostage by its environmental and/or social perception. It entails the decision to proactively seek someone's well-being. ―Agape is ideally self-transcending and giving.‖25 Agape is a sacrificial love, not based on a feeling, but a determined act of the will, a joyful resolve to put the welfare of others above our own. ―As such, agape possesses the features of unselfishness, equality, creativity and stability which enable those who seek to aspire to it to break through the barrier of selection which features so much as a limiting characteristic of both eros and philia.‖26 Correspondingly, agape love transcends other forms of love because it is based on the choice to serve both the self and others. In a similar fashion, teachers have a choice to love their students, or in this instance, a decision to altruistically serve their students. This unconditional act of service requires the lover to accept the other, in spite of resistance, asking the lover to suffer with the other, to exonerate the other, and to seek personal fulfillment of the other.27 However, this notion of othering can be harmful. Delpit, suggested that the ―cultural assumptions guiding white, liberal-minded, suburban teachers can be harmful to the inner-city students when they impose their middle class norms and values.‖28 As a result, teachers must strive to become genuinely compassionate. As such, this form of genuine compassion ―must be based on respect for the other, and on the realization that others have the right to be happy and overcome suffering as much as you. On this basis, since you see

21 W. Clough, “To be loved and to love,” Journal of Psychology & Theology, 34.1: 23-31; Romanticism & Education. 22 L&G, 11. 23 The Art of Loving, 22. 24 L&G. 25 L&G, 12. 26 Romanticism & Education, 76. 27 P. Tillich, Systematic theology (Vol. 1) (London: Nisbet, 1953). 28 Linda Delpit as cited in L&G, 12.

27 that others are suffering, you develop a genuine sense of concern for them.‖29 Moreover, it is critical that we consciously choose to demonstrate unconditional love for and with one another, i.e., love ―him as he is, not as I need him to be as an object for my use.‖30 In manifesting this component of love, teachers ought to recognize that ―a loving relationship is the unconditional acceptance of another person.‖31 In this light, teachers must seek to love their students for whom they are, not as an object of use (i.e., a test score). As such, agape love is dependent upon one‘s volitional desire to serve the other. ―Volitional love is the love of the will. Volitional love is the choice, the willingness of a person to be attentive to the legitimate needs, best interests, and welfare of another, regardless of how he or she happens to feel on certain days.‖32 Volitional love is the choice one makes to not simply say I love another human being, but to put these words in action, corroborating the presence of compassion. In this sense, agape love espouses the words of John the apostle, ―let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth.‖33 Hence, ―To love somebody is not just a strong feeling – it is a decision, it is a judgment, it is a promise,‖34 which is depicted by our actions for, and with, those we love. How does one go about putting such a thing as agape into practice? One reason we hear of so few ―great‖ teachers is because it is easier to maintain the status quo than it is to challenge the system, to announce the importance of loving one another. This implies that love requires effort. Often times, teachers attempt to give life to love in their classrooms, but this love fails to subsist. Consequently, the love doesn‘t die of natural causes, ―It dies from neglect and abandonment…it dies of blindness and indifference and of being taken granted for…in the end, love dies of weariness, from not being nurtured.‖35 This death of love in our schools persists because ―it is easier to say that one should act in kind ways than to actually

29 Dalai Lama XVI, The Dalai Lama’s book of love & compassion (Hammersmith, London: Thorsons, 2001), 21 (hereafter cited in text as The Dalai Lama). 30 The Art of Loving, 26. 31 Leo Buscaglia, Loving each other: The challenge of human relationships (New York: Fawcett Books, 1984), 48 (hereafter cited in text as Loving Each Other). 32 James Hunter, The world's most powerful leadership principle: How to become a servant leader (New York: Crown Business, 2004), 85 (hereafter cited in text as Hunter). 33 Cited from the NIV Bible 1 John 3:18. 34 The Art of Loving, 51. 35 Leo Buscaglia, Born for love: Reflections on loving (New York: Fawcett Books, 1992), 6 (hereafter cited in text as Born for Love).

28 act in kind ways.‖36 Given that ―Love is an activity, not a passive affect,‖37 we are left with classrooms devoid of love, because, well, ―It is difficult to love.‖38 Then again, life is full of difficult choices. So, when one chooses to become a teacher, one indirectly chooses to love one‘s students. Under this line of reasoning, the choice to become a teacher is synonymous with the choice to love. Said another way, if I want to teach, I want to love. These choices are what make a world of difference in the lives of our students. Nieto averred, ―I have found that the most effective teachers are those who ground their work in love.‖39 As I reflect on my days as a teacher I have several proud and not so proud moments. My most cherished memories did not arise from personal accomplishments; rather they came from the successes of my students, they came from seeing the love come full circle. In order to manifest love in classrooms, teachers need to take the lead in fostering the types of learning environments conducive for care, kindness, compassion, and the like. Moreover, ―if they are not prepared to do [so] then their presence will be, in the final analysis, detrimental to teaching and learning through love and therefore a betrayal of students.‖40 Hence, if teachers hope to see a marked improvement in the lives of their students, then they need to be willing to humbly enter the lives of the students in a loving manner. Looking back, it was easy to observe which teachers loved their students. These teachers were constantly around. They were in the community, they attended afterschool events, they were the ones whose rooms were packed after school, and they made it a point to find a good quality in every student. In fact, these teachers epitomized loving relationships by demonstrating a deep admiration for their students and for the strengths they possessed.41 These were the teachers who cared more about the actual student as opposed to what the student could produce. The teachers who grounded their work in love were consumed by selflessness. Those who loved were those who made a choice to serve the needs of their students. This was not a ―sappy‖ love that one would find on TV, rather these teachers manifested ―a critical love, a love that

36 Love as Pedagogy, 18. 37 The Art of Loving, 21. 38 Parker Palmer, To know as we are known: A spirituality of education (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1993), 9 (hereafter cited in text as To Know as We are Known). 39 Sonia Nieto, Dear Paulo: Letters from those who dare teach (Boulder, Colo: Paradigm Publishers, 2008), 129 (hereafter cited in text as Dear Paulo). 40 Love as Pedagogy, 20. 41 Sonia Nieto, What Keeps Teachers Going? (New York: Teachers College Press, 2003) (hereafter cited in text as What Keeps Teachers Going).

29 demanded, and expected, nothing but the best from students, a love that believed that students can engage with the world, and that they have a right and responsibility to change it.‖42

The Pedagogy of Love We rarely hear the term ―love‖ spoken within the context of education, especially when speaking of pedagogy.43 I suspect one reason why we fail to hear the word love uttered in educational contexts is because of the ―age-long antipathy between reasoned judgment and emotional expression,‖ which has forced teachers to create a healthy space between themselves and their pupils.‖44 However, many scholars are beginning to boldly speak of love‘s enormity vis-à-vis pedagogy and educational reform: Daniel Cho has asserted that love not only has a place within pedagogy, but that it should be a necessity;45 Garrison has posited that education‘s successes are rooted in our wisdom about the ways we love;46 Huebner has reported that ―education happens because we are loved;‖47 Nieto has affirmed that teaching is ―a vocation based on love;‖48 and Freire has summated that teaching devoid of humility and love is meaningless.49 So how do we know when love is present? Fromm pointed out, ―there is only one proof for the presence of love: the depth of the relationship, and the aliveness and strength in each person concerned; this is the fruit by which love is recognized.‖50 Love cannot be pinned down, or placed in a box, so its presence must be ascertained through the spirit of its actions, which morph and shift as one transforms over time. Consequently, we must come to grips with our ―unfinishedness;‖51 recognizing that love is never complete, rather that it is fluidly fluctuating and is documented, in due course, via our actions. Basically, love is as love does, whereby one displays a will to love.

42 Dear Paulo, 129. 43 Jim Garrison, Dewey and Eros: Wisdom and desire in the art of teaching (New York: Teachers College Press, 1997) (hereafter cited in text as Dewey & Eros); Romanticism & Education; bell hooks, Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom (New York: Routledge, 1994); Love as Pedagogy; What Keeps Teachers Going. 44 Romanticism & Education, 71. 45 Daniel Cho, “Lessons of love: Psychoanalysis and teacher-student love,” Educational Theory 55.1: 79-96 2005. 46 Dewey & Eros. 47 Huebner, 397. 48 What Keeps Teachers Going, 32. 49 TCW. 50 The Art of Loving, 93. 51 PF.

However, according to Buscaglia love is a learned phenomenon.52 Indeed we are born with the capacity to love, but we must first become cognizant of love‘s propensities in order to plausibly grasp its splendor. It is through experiencing others caring for them and naturally caring for others that people build what is called an "ethical ideal," an image of the kind of person they want to be.53 Thus, we begin to recognize who we want to be based on how others love us, or withhold love from us. ―We love one another because we have been loved and because we know, from our tradition, that life without love is empty and perhaps meaningless.‖54 Moreover, it is critical that we consciously choose to demonstrate unconditional love for and with one another, i.e., love ―him as he is, not as I need him to be as an object for my use.‖55 At present, love is a phenomenon that is taught and learned (and perhaps mis-learned) in myriads of public and private circles. One can learn love from a mother or father, from a family member, from a community member, through church, via the media or social media, and so on. In addition, one learns how to love, what to love, whom to love, and where to find love. Moreover, most of these representations have objectified love, meaning that one loves another based on what he or she possesses or what qualities he or she has. These concepts are reified by many social forces, particularly through the media and social media. For instance, the media depicts love through such TV shows as Tough Love, Mad Love, Big Love, The Love Boat, and Everybody Loves Raymond. Or, one can visit websites like eHarmony in order to find love, as if it were something that could be digitally obtained. What is more is that these media driven social constructions begin to capture the word love, altering its meaning, and thus creating a dominant narrative which enslaves love, limiting its freeing powers. Love becomes reduced to an object, a thing that one can and should acquire, diminishing the power of our loving relationships. When viewing this representation of love through a Buberian lens, the relational components of the I-Thou are supplanted by an I-It relationship, causing the mutual, holistic, and authentic connection between the two subjects (read: I-Thou) to become displaced.56 In effect, the ―I‖ confronts and qualifies a conceptualization of the being in its presence and treats that being as an ―object.‖ Consequently,

52 Love. 53 Nel Noddings, Caring, a feminine approach to ethics & moral education (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984). 54 Huebner, 363. 55 The Art of Loving, 26. 56 Buber.

31 love constructed by the media/social media works to replace the genuineness of agape love with a checklist of love-worthy items, a series of objects one ought to possess in order to be lovable (i.e., he is hot, she has money, he has a nice car, etc.). Nearly every TV show that speaks of love reifies this checklist mentality. Can you recall a time when the media portrayed love as an act that selflessly served others? Furthermore, this perception of love promulgates from the TV to the family room and is circulated throughout society. In this way, teachers, parents, and community members begin to view children as objects worthy of love. For instance, the teacher may ask: Do they pay attention? Do they sit still? Will they hand in their homework on time? Can they be trusted? Do they inappropriately shout things out during class? Do they get good grades? The number of yes answers checked off by the teacher determines the amount of love that the student is worthy of. This checklist moves beyond the proximal observations of the teacher and towards the social gaze of test scores, attendance, socio-economic status, sexuality, race, and the like. As such, this type of love, especially within the context of educational love, becomes socially accepted because many students who fail to be loved have failed to demonstrate proficiency in or possession of the above items. As a result, love becomes something that seems to be unobtainable. Since earning the love of others becomes impossible, individuals begin to learn how to love themselves more than those around them. There are many dangers that stem from such a line of reasoning. In the 4th century B.C., Confucius‘ neglected rival Motse wrote: When nobody in the world loves any other, naturally the strong will over power the weak, the many will oppress the few, the wealthy will mock the poor, the honored will disdain the humble, the cunning will deceive the simple. Therefore all the calamities, strife, complaints, and hatred in the world have arisen out of a lack of mutual love.57 As mutual love has diminished over time, that which is the opposite of love – apathy – has risen to power.58 According to Motse, our incapacity to care for others has left us with the adverse conditions that plague modern times. Hence, love must truly recognize the self and the other. Self-love is not to be confused with selfishness, which is diametrically opposite, for the

57 Motse as cited in Huebner, 77. 58 Love.

32 selfish will oft times display a scarcity of love, and may even loathe their existence.59 Self-love is the genesis for being capable of freely conferring love to others. Bauman declared: What we love when we ‗love ourselves‘ is a self fit to be loved. What we love is the state, or the hope, of being loved – of being an object worthy of love, being recognized as such, and being given proof of recognition. In short: in order to have self-love, we need to be loved or to have hope for being loved.60 As a result, our ability to love ourselves must be undergirded by the love bestowed upon us from others. Then, and only then, can we impart it. Ultimately, the love for others must commence with us loving ourselves, which I will tease out in Chapter 6. We call on love to reconcile our unfinishedness, not to complete the self, but to willingly acknowledge our capacity to transform the self. Love‘s veracity vows to ward off destruction, sheltering the self so that it can become whole through the acknowledgement of personal weaknesses; by healing internal disparities through reconciliation, love promises to prevail.61 Love is no ordinary thing; rather it is an art,62 which requires discipline, focus, endurance, faith, and the transcending of narcissism. When examining the pedagogy of love, one ought to ponder or challenge the following propositions. Love is subjective, not objective. Love is abstract, not concrete. Love is ineffable, not something easily calculated. Love is amorphous, not to be contained. Love is fluid, not fixed. Love does not keep secrets, for it is transparent. Love does not cower when trouble avails, it persists. Love is not destructive, it builds others up. Love is self-giving, not self- seeking. Love is genuine, not two-faced. Love is a series of oxymora, yet discernable. Meaning: love is tender, yet strong. Love is painful, yet pleasurable. Love is blind, yet sees. Love is silent, yet loud. Love is quiet, yet dynamic. Ultimately, ―love never fails,‖63 because ―when man [or woman] has love he [or she] is no longer at the mercy of forces greater than himself [or herself], for he [or she], himself [or herself], becomes the powerful force.‖ 64

59 The Art of Loving. 60 Zygmunt Bauman, Does ethics have a chance in a world of consumers? (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 2008), 34. 61 Huebner. 62 The Art of Loving. 63 Cited in the NIV bible I Corinthians 13:8. 64 Love, 100.

The pedagogy of love, or love-based pedagogy, is a multifaceted construct that draws on multiple theories to formulate the following definition: Love is one‟s volition to serve others, in a manner that edifies the lover and the beloved by identifying and meeting their needs, cultivating compassion that is operationalized through one‟s actions. Love-based pedagogy is inspired by an amalgam of scholarly work that champions the critical and ethical elements of Freire, Guevara, Giroux, McLaren, Kincheloe, King Jr., Noddings, Buber, Hooks, Buscaglia, Fromm, and others. This revolutionary and radical form of pedagogy is informed by many critical theorists and believes that ―Love, as a yearning to connect with our natural and social worlds in a meaningful fashion, can fuel our critical intent to act against the structures that block an abundant and engaged approach to teaching and learning.‖65 As a result, the pedagogy of love operationalizes the hypotheses illustrated throughout this chapter and hinges on many of the notions of critical theory/pedagogy. Critical theory in education is most commonly linked to the comprehension and transformation of our world, or in Freirean terms, the naming and renaming of our world, whereby participants make a ―conscious‖ effort to make the injustices of our times more just.66 Likewise, ―Critical pedagogy is a way of thinking about, negotiating, and transforming the relationship among classroom teaching, the production of knowledge, the institutional structures of the school, and the social and material relations of the wider community, society, and nation-state.‖67 Thus, love-based pedagogy relies on the aforementioned proclivities of agape love, ―Guevara‘s belief in the necessity of love in revolution, and Freire‘s claim that critical pedagogy requires love, humility, and faith.‖68 It is my contention that love is not only the binding agent for critical thought, but it is also the vehicle for actualizing a critical agenda.

Three Critical Elements of Agapic Love Love is comprised of a multitude of building blocks; however, for this project I aim to examine three key ingredients of agapic love, which are relationality, compassion, and altruism. This is not to say that all love must possess these three aspects, rather, these things are the

65 L&G, 3. 66 PO. 67 Peter McLaren, Che Guevara, Paulo Freire, and the pedagogy of revolution (Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield), 35. 68 Daniel Liston, “Critical pedagogy and attentive love,” Studies in Philosophy of Education 27: 387 2008.

34 epicenter for a love-based pedagogy. The triad of relationality, compassion, and altruism bolsters many of the concepts throughout this chapter and brings to life the deeper components of agapic love. Each factor of what I am calling ―the three critical elements of agapic love‖ speaks to a specific aspect of agapic love: relationality calls for a genuine affiliation with others; compassion desires a profound empathy for others, which is not to be camouflaged as pity; and altruism expects that we actualize the former in a selfless manner, without surrendering our authentic selves. Chapters 4, 5, and 6 will thoroughly unpack these concepts, but for the time being, I would like to explore the surface levels of each element.

Relationality What is relationality? Relationality, within an educational setting, takes up those things which presently are viewed as nonessential or imperceptible, those items not presently policed by technical measurements, such as love. For Bingham and Sidorkin the profound and trusting personal relationship is the ―bedrock‖ of academic success.69 The concept of being a ―relational‖ teacher is about attending to the interconnections that take place on a daily basis within our schools without losing the actors that comprise these relations, the students, as well as exposing both the implicit and explicit natures of schooling. Thus relationality, particularly in an educative manner, is a ―triadic reality,‖ which moves beyond the face-to-face relations and into a third space, that of the experiential or conceptual, and aims to join the actors with the ―subject matter‖ in order to carve out new spaces for interaction with and connection to knowledge.‖70 In a similar fashion, Palmer proclaimed that relational teachers: Join self, subject, and students in the fabric of life because they teach from an integral and undivided self; they manifest in their own lives, and evoke in their students ‗a capacity for connectedness.‘ They are able to weave a complex web of connections between themselves, their subjects, and their students, so that student can learn to weave a world for themselves.71

69 Charles Bingham, & Alexander Sidorkin, No education without relation (New York: P. Lang, 2004) (hereafter cited in text as No Education Without Relation). 70 No Education Without Relation, 146. 71 Parker J. Palmer, “The heart of the teacher: Identity and integrity in teaching,” Change Magazine 29.6: 15 1997

The students, empowered by this relational and loving form of teaching, are encouraged to work critically and consciously to authentically (re)name their worlds.72 This must arise from the relational teacher, who understands that children do not care how much their teachers know until they know how much their teachers care.73 Ultimately, relational teachers understand that their words and actions are without meaning until placed within a framework of specific relations, bearing in mind that education‘s number one mission is to build complex relations that include the students in a wider context than currently exists,74 including the establishment of agapic love in the classroom. Loving relationships are the backbone of teaching. Nonetheless, relationality, a major building block of love-based pedagogy, is dependent upon many additional factors. Meaning, an educative relation must also be built upon trust, mutual respect, critical dialogue, acceptance, and the ability to be transparent. Additionally, it should be noted that no single component of love‘s triad will produce fruitful results in isolation, thus relationality also relies on compassion and altruism.

Compassion Everyone needs compassion, but what is it? ―At root, compassion means, to be together with someone‟s pain.‖75 Harboring another‘s pain requires one to be merciful, patient, kind, just, passionate, and forgiving, which is held together by one‘s capacity to empathize with others. Clearly we are equipped to handle the best of times; compassion, however, offers reprieve to others during times of distress, and requires us to embrace the adversities of others. These tough times will reveal the true nature of everyone involved. The compassionate teacher humbly enters the lives of her students, empathizing with them, faithfully feeling what they feel, and deeply caring for her students.76 Thus compassion requires teachers to profoundly know their students, to be a part of their lives in a way that goes beyond the present requirements of preparing students for tests.

72 PO. 73 This is a common phrase in the field of education that is cited by many authors. This particular citation is from John Maxwell, Leadership gold: Lessons learned from a lifetime of leading (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2008). 74 No Education Without Relation. 75 Ron Heifetz, & Martin Linsky, Leadership on the line: Staying alive through the dangers of leading (Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School Press, 2002), 235. 76 LPWE.

Furthermore, compassion allows teachers to find a deeper meaning for their vocation, imploring them to transcend the scripted form of knowledge that often times turns students off. In this sense, teaching as an act of love demands that we wake our students up, not anesthetize them with lifeless forms of learning that fail to tap into the realness of their lives. Thus, we need to expose them to a form of knowledge that is filled with love. Palmer stated, ―A knowledge that springs from love will implicate us in the web of life; it will wrap the knower and the known in compassion, in a bond of 77awesome responsibility as well as transforming joy; it will call us to involvement, mutuality, accountability.‖ Yet, with this form of teaching and learning comes a great deal of responsibility. It requires us to place ourselves in harm‘s way, to place the hearts and souls of our students above our own, it a way that does not abnegate the self, without knowing how the story will end. This is a difficult task. Then again, so is acting compassionately towards those who are hard to love. I choose to say ―hard to love‖ because it is a common response from pre-service teachers, asking me, ―how do I love the students who are hard to love?‖ This is a great question. My answer is not perfect, but I tell them, ―You have to see yourself in that other person.‖ This is not the clichéd idea of walking in another person‘s shoes. It is an act of love, a giving of the self, an act of penetrating the beloved in order to discover the self and the other.78 To me, seeing yourself in another means you are willing to forgive and to be willing to judge yourself more harshly than those around you. Finally, I tell the young and eager future teachers who ponder the difficulties associated with loving the unlovable, ―Keep in mind, it is not the healthy who go to see the doctor.‖ For hooks, ―forgiveness and compassion are always linked: how do we hold people accountable for wrongdoing and yet at the same time remain in touch with their humanity enough to believe in their capacity to be transformed?‖ 79 However, in a natural sense, we as humans are quick to ask for forgiveness, but once forgiveness warrants reciprocity, asking us to be merciful towards others, and we often suffer from an acute sense of amnesia. Why are we so absorbed by the transgressions of others? Why do we notice the speck of dirt in our neighbor‘s eye and pay no attention to the plank in our own eye (Matt. 7:3)? If we are to manifest love in our classrooms we must grow to become more compassionate beings, which hinges on our

77 To Know as We are Known, 9. 78 The Art of Loving. 79 Quote by bell hooks, found at www.brainyquote.com.

37 capacities to critically reflect over our own lives, in a genuine attempt to locate ourselves, before hastily poring over the lives of others. Thus, we must be slow to judge and quick to forgive.

Altruism I would like to begin by clearing the air. Altruism is often times referred to as the opposite of egoism,80 setting up a binary opposition between the two terms. In this dualistic line of thought, one can only be selfless or selfish, making it an either/or condition. However, I would like to argue that one could be selfless and selfish at the same time, creating a both/and situation. For instance, the common biblical phrase of ―love thy neighbor as thyself,‖ is often times misread as a self-righteous axiom, whereby we are called to be selfless beings and to love oneself is a sin. However, if we read closely, we see that we are called to love our neighbor in a similar fashion to how we love ourselves, making a case that one ought to selflessly love others in accordance to how one selfishly loves himself. Fromm suggests that ―if an individual is able to love productively, he loves himself too; if he can love only others, he cannot love at all.‖81 When teaching pre-service teachers I often times refer to this as the airline analogy. You may recall the flight attendant going over what to do in case of an emergency, reminding us of the importance of placing the air mask over our own mouths first, then assisting small children and those around us. You see, it is vital that we love ourselves, for if we cannot understand how to love ourselves, then how are we to love others? Moreover, Bauman reminded us that in order to have self-love we need to be loved by others or at the very least, have hope for being loved.82 Ergo, it is paramount that we begin loving our students, for our love is a prerequisite for cultivating self-love in others, and thus can be used to give birth to new love, creating an endless circle of love. Essentially, altruism is an extension of agape love. Both are selfless in nature, however, each relies on other factors in order to exist. For instance, in order to serve the other, we need to know the others‘ needs, which requires us to listen empathically. In addition, we must be able to locate our true selves in order to openly and honestly share our lives with others, which rest on our ability to be critically reflective and our willingness to change ourselves. In part, this notion

80 J. Rachels, & S. Rachels, The elements of moral philosophy (New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2010). 81 The Art of Loving, 56. 82 Zygmunt Bauman, Does ethics have a chance in a world of consumers? (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 2008).

38 is rooted in Greenleaf‘s concept of ―servant leadership,‖83 where the goal is not to fix or change others but to work on changing ourselves. Tolstoy echoed this principle when he remarked, ―Everyone wants to change the world, but no one wants to change himself.‖84 If we are to carve out new spaces in education, to create change that promotes hope for our students, then we should begin by exploring and changing ourselves.

A Final Word Today‘s schools need to be reconfigured in order to make love a more central aim. Freire reminds of that it is impossible to teach without the courage to love and that we must boldly speak of love‘s transforming powers.85 At present it is typically taboo to speak of love, especially within an educational context. If we hope to see changes take place in our schools, then we teachers mustn‘t sit back and wait for the next hierarchical brainchild to be birthed, rather we ought to begin advocating for and promoting the sense of love that has been revealed in this chapter. If we hope to construct a wiser, kinder, and more compassionate future, then we must construct a new philosophy of education, grounded in a fresh epistemology which is founded on the centrality of love.86

83 Robert Greenleaf, Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness (New York: Paulist Press, 2002). 84 Cited in Hunter, 100. 85 TCW. 86 LPWE.

CHAPTER THREE – DISRUPTING THE DOMINANT VOICE “The trouble with trying to discover objective truths in our worlds is that we are constantly distorting them with our narrative truths”1

The Master Narrative: Leading Our Learning Communities 2 It was like boarding the ―mothership.‖ I remember driving for about 90 minutes, imagining the whole way there, what could possibly take place at an Ohio Leadership Advisory Council (OLAC) meeting? I was somewhat filled with excitement that I was going to hear about strategies for improving our schools, while at the same time filled with anxiety that it was going to be another typical educational meeting filled with communiqués as opposed to communication. Sadly, the former feelings were quashed the moment that Paula walked out to address the crowd, allowing the latter qualms to loom larger than life. Paula, the keynote speaker, was my former superintendent, and as expected, she hit rewind, pressed play, and let the familiar songs of old emanate from the microphone. Once I noticed Paula, I immediately began to scan the giant room of the convention center to see if there were any familiar faces that drank the Kool-Aid. Instantly I saw Bob and Paul, two of my former principals. As I continued to look around, I realized that the room was filled with administrators from all around Ohio. Each person had an identification tag that included their name, school district, and title. Everyone at my table was a graduate student attending the OLAC meeting as part of a course requirement; however, nearly every other table was filled with principals, assistant principals, curriculum directors, and superintendents. In short, I got the feeling that this day was going to be a lot like getting a root canal, discomforting at least, and most likely ―rotten.‖ Paula addressed the crowd, ―If we hope to see changes taking place in our schools then we need to realize the importance of standards-based research.‖ This was easily the one millionth time that I had heard this phrase. In fact, it was phrases like this one that helped push me out of the classroom and into graduate school. I was continually haunted by statements like the one above, forever waiting to hear someone speak of something besides test scores, rubrics, common assessments, standards-based research, and other quantitative measures that meant very

1 Nash, 38. 2 Please recall that when (re)telling these events the author will italicize actual quotes and will not italicize that which has been paraphrased.

40 little to me. Instead, I was surrounded by the dominant narratives espoused by Paula, the state, my district leaders, and nearly everyone in education. I wanted to zone out and forget about the whole day but deep inside of me there existed a burning fire, an endless rage that needed to hear these stories in order to provide a counterstory. Nevertheless, Paula continued filling the room with her infinite wisdom, spewing out myriads of educational buzz words, all of which lacked substantive meaning. ―In order to make our schools more ‗effective‘ we need a district-wide focus on student achievement that focuses our goals on student outcomes, programs aligned with state standards, and support for the use of particular forms of instruction,‖ she continued. A red flag went up at once. I was stuck on that last phrase, ―particular forms of instruction.‖ I waited to hear her unpack what she meant by this but I could only infer that she meant ―standards-based‖ instruction. I didn‘t matter, everyone else was already onboard. They weren‘t there to critically examine the messages being heard. I kid you not; it was like listening to the State of the Union Address, every time she spoke the people clapped. I was amazed and appalled. Paula preached on, ―We need to make better use of our district-wide data, making certain that we use our data to ‗reliably‘ assess student learning and to make data-driven decisions that impact our districts.‖ I was blown away by how Paula would press next on the slide show and literally read to the crowd, and they would feverishly jot down her rhetoric as if it contained golden words of wisdom. I felt lost. I was angry. I was so frustrated that all I wanted to do was scream. Then Paula hit the crowd with a barrage of ―data‖ mumbo jumbo, ―We need to use ‗data‘ to set performance targets in our schools…model the effective use of ‗data‘…require the use of student achievement ‗data‘…establish ‗data‘ teams…use ‗data‘ from common assessments to inform our classroom instruction techniques…monitor staff use of ‗data‘ to structure learning goals.‖ It was like being in the ocean as a storm approached, as soon as you regained your composure, ―boom!‖ another wave would knock you back down, allowing a split second of reprieve to catch your breath. I was tired. Fighting to stand after each data wave knocked me off my feet was exhausting. Seriously, how could anyone speak for five minutes and the use the word ―data‖ a zillion times? ―Our district leaders need to ensure that all teachers are delivering high-quality instruction that is based on research-based practices,‖ Paula carried on. Finally, she closed her speech by stating, ―We must close the achievement gaps in our schools by closing the

41 implementation gaps. We need teachers teaching commonly aligned standards to our students that are derived from research-based practices.‖ The convention center erupted in applause. All I could hope for was that the food was better than the opening lecture. The food was so-so. It may have tasted better if I knew that I didn‘t have to sit through back-to-back two hour lectures that were going to exactly replicate the opening remarks. There were three presentations to choose from, all focusing on how the effective use of ―data‖ saved the day for other school districts. After lunch I attended a case study based on a local Ohio school district. It sounded intriguing. But, as expected, I entered the room and almost immediately the argotic chatter began to fly. The speaker filled us in about the district, told us the initiative behind the case study, and began to speak. ―Through participation in the Ohio Improvement Plan (OIP), the district transitioned from a strategic plan with multiple goals to a single, coherent district plan with one goal – increase student achievement by 5% in reading, math, social studies and science.‖ Ugh! I wanted to ask a million questions. My head was racing with critical thoughts and my heart was pounding with moral dilemmas. I began to feel nervous, waiting for the perfect moment to ask one the countless questions racing through my mind. The speaker carried on, discussing the four-step action plan that was used to accomplish their goal. My throat began to dry out as my heart raced. I was going to do it. I was going to ask a personal question about the impersonal data. Finally, once the speaker paused long enough and asked if there were any questions, I raised my hand. ―I have a two part question,‖ I nervously asserted. I was nervous because there were state officials, district superintendents, and former superiors in the room. But then I realized, I‘m not a teacher in their district any longer, I don‘t have to answer to anyone per se, I have nothing to lose, so I asked, ―First, I was wondering what sort of qualitative data you used to inform your findings; and second, do any of your goals and objectives focus directly on students and not just what they can produce for you and your school?‖ The room became very silent. I wasn‘t trying to be a jerk; I genuinely wanted to know if these things ever surfaced during their deliberations. It was as awkward as the ―who passed gas‖ moment on the elevator. I really wanted to hear an answer but instead I got the all too common cold-shoulder. His answer was short and aloof, sort of like a mother nonchalantly saying to her child, we will discuss this when your father gets home. The speaker replied, ―Our goal was to determine if our targeted goal was being met, which doesn‘t seem to address your particular

42 question.‖ I rolled my eyes in disbelief. I pretended that being ignored, once again, didn‘t bother me, but deep down I was seething. Based on the answer I received, I concluded that the district would more than likely tolerate a school shooting, one or more cases of sexual misconduct between teachers and students, and a school-wide riot, so long as the main goal was met. I am being facetious, but partly, there is some truth to what I am saying here. Nonetheless, I uncomfortably sat through the rest of the meeting and loathed the idea of attending another recapitulation of the technical solutions for education‘s ―adaptive problems.‖3 On our way out the door the presenters implored us to fill out a survey regarding their seminar. Of course, the questionnaire was nothing out of the ordinary. It consisted of 10 questions and used a basic 4-point Likert scale, ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. It was par for the course considering the entire day was spent being lectured on the superiority of objective measures, quantitative results, and the use of ―standards-based‖ research. I barely lasted 30 minutes in the last seminar before I realized that I would rather count the bricks on the walls outside than listen to one more story about how great it is to scientifically monitor our teachers and students. That day, like many others as a teacher, took its emotional toll on me. I sat back and helplessly watched as each drone was inculcated with the scientific procedures needed to encode their students and teachers with an ―infallible‖ form of teaching and learning, at least based on the technical results revealed by the OLAC presenters. I was demoralized. At the end of the day, I knew that each ―leader‖ was ready to depart the mothership and deploy the indoctrinated jargon of OLAC into the lives of their students, teachers, and community members, and there was nothing I could do about it, until now!

Disrupting the “Accepted” Methodologies of Educational Research 4 We have grown to become a society enthralled by scientific claims. In fact, it is nearly impossible to hear to a reference being made that is free from scientific rationale and reasoning. Take for instance the following: SportsCenter has a ―Top 10‖ list that highlights the accounts from our sporting world; major league pitchers are valued based on wins and losses, earned run averages, and number of strikeouts; the merit of NFL quarterbacks is assessed based on passer

3 Ron Heifetz, (1994). Leadership without easy answers (Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1994). 4 Please recall that when (re)telling these events the author will italicize actual quotes and will not italicize that which has been paraphrased.

43 ratings, number of touchdowns versus interceptions, and yardage passed for; a coach‘s job is subject to wins and losses, no matter how they are obtained, just look at the recent allegations surrounding the former ―Coach of the Year‖ Jim Tressel; and the list goes on. This is only fitting with regard to the sporting world, but it spills over into every sphere of life, because at present, society is consumed by the efficacy of ―science‖ and ―scientific evidence.‖ For example, in popular culture: people are ―voted off the island‖ in shows like Survivor, VH1 selects a list of the top 100 songs from certain decades; Maxim Magazine releases its top 100 models each year; 4 out of 5 dentists seem to prefer Trident chewing gum; local news stations poll the public nightly with matters like: do you think President Obama should be reelected, text ―1‖ for ―yes‖ and ―2‖ for ―no;‖ Dancing With the Stars is determined by the combination of a zero to ten judge‘s score and a tally of American votes; and in proportion to these events, our schools are determined ―excellent‖ based on test scores, index ratings, adequate yearly progress; and list goes on. All of these results are derived from quantitative measures. Nearly everything seems to be ―validated‖ by some sort of technical element, as if there were an exact science for determining such things. But I ask, what about the small things that are done along the way that produce results not accounted for! For instance, what about the player on a sporting team that provides camaraderie in the clubhouse in order to allow the team to gel, or the coach that just seems to establish chemistry with his or her players so as to breed acceptance, or what about the teacher who uses love, relationality, and compassion to inspire children to reach new heights? These items are not easily, or not at all, discernible, perhaps, through scientific measures, which is why my study relies on the counternarrative to reconstruct or reclaim that which is alive and responsible for stimulating a ―good‖ form of education, the spirit of agapic love, the essence of relationality, and soul of compassion. The OLAC account above is just one of countless examples that reify the positivistic agendas of educational elites, whereby empiricism is favored as the ―gold standard‖ for research.5 The entire framework centers on the technical and abnegates the personal. Thus, I want to challenge the commonly held conceptions that educational research must be supported by scientific or objective truth claims. As a matter of fact, I would like to challenge the

5 E. St. Pierre, “Scientifically based research in education: Epistemology and ethics,” Adult Education Quarterly 56: 239-266 2006.

44 dominant beliefs that science, or positivism, is the ―only‖ legitimate form of knowing. In the following sections I will address how I plan to define or use the counternarrative – or counterstory, I will use the terms interchangeably – to lay bare the presently legitimized forms of schooling and also offer up a fresher methodology that welcomes the indefinable and ethereal components of teaching and learning. Hence, I will use a counternarrative to give rise to the teacher‘s point of view; in particular, how agapic love can be used to debunk the dominant discourses which are controlling educational policy and decision-making today. As stated above, at present, it is nearly impossible for educational research, particularly within the K-12 arena, to become legitimized unless it can be proven by so called ―scientific research.‖ As such, in terms of educational practices, one cannot be deemed a worthy teacher unless she can scientifically prove that ―value‖ has been ―added‖ to her students. Moreover, schools and school districts alike are not viewed as effective unless they can physically display their technical aptitude with a placard that warrants their societal acceptance. As a result, the ―standard discourses‖ work to maintain a stale and stagnant form of education that is rooted in ―scientism‖6 and only accepts ―research-based‖ practices, which are purely objective, as legitimate forms of teaching and learning. Furthermore, these ―research-based‖ practices are not considered valid unless they accept ―science as the highest form of genuine knowledge, or often even the only one.‖7 Standard discourses like the aforementioned accounts are not ―standard‖ because they are better or because they carry with them greater scientific truths, rather they are ―standard‖ because they carry with them the political power to legitimize and implement specific doctrines.8 In effect, schools have long since believed that scientific practices can improve the overall effectiveness of and validate our purposes for schooling. ―The fundamental idea is that better science will make better schools—that ‗quality‘ science will enable us to finally reengineer schools so they work.‖9 Not surprisingly, ―The desire to make educational research and practice

6 Patti Lather, “This IS your father's paradigm: Government intrusion and the case of qualitative research in education,” Qualitative Inquiry 10.1: 15-34 2004. 7 Ted Benton, and Ian Craib, Philosophy of social science: the philosophical foundations of social thought. (New York: Palgrave, 2001), 13. 8 Richard Quantz, notes from an online lecture about “Standard Discourses” *PDF document+. Retrieved from Online Lecture Notes: https://mymiami.muohio.edu/webapps/index.html. 9 E. St. Pierre, “Scientifically based research in education: Epistemology and ethics,” Adult Education Quarterly 56: 239 2006.

‗scientific‘ emerges in the midst of a neoliberal and neopositivist ‗conservative restoration,‘‖10 where once again the objectives are aimed at raising the bar, curtailing our present economic woes, closing achievement gaps, at the same time asking teachers to climb the mountain of accountability while being forced to wear roller skates. This over-acceptance of an epistemology that holds science and scientific results at the pinnacle of educational research, often referred to as ―scientism,‖ or more commonly known as positivism, has not come without a price. While many educational pundits like Bill Gates and Arne Duncan are advocating for an increased use of scientific methods for monitoring teacher efficacy,11 some teachers, I contend many of which are attempting to manifest love in their classrooms, are beginning to draw a line in the sand, declaring ―enough is enough.‖ In turn, the very scientific processes being implemented to get rid of our ―failing teachers‖12 are having reverse effects, in which the loving, caring, and life-altering teachers, often times referred by students as the ―best” teachers, are leaving the classroom since they feel they, and their students, are being stripped of their individuality and creative powers, deprived of the basic and positive human qualities of love, compassion, and civility, and rendered automatons enslaved by heartless and dehumanized methods of schooling.13 The teachers are being shackled, restrained, and stripped of their autonomy and gifts. The over acceptance of the technical components of schooling have worked to deskill the profession, making one‘s calling in life uneventful or sometimes even painful. Palmer placed the spotlight on these issues when he stated: We blame teachers for being unable to cure social ills that no one knows how to treat; we insist that they instantly adopt whatever ‗solution‘ has most recently been concocted by our national panacea machine; and in the process, we demoralize, even paralyze, the very teachers who could help us find our way.14

10 Patti Lather, “This IS your father's paradigm: Government intrusion and the case of qualitative research in education,” Qualitative Inquiry 10.1: 15 2004.

11 J. Alter, “A case of senioritis: Gates tackles education’s two-headed monster,” Newsweek November 28 2010. 12 E. Thomas & P. Wingert, “Why we can’t get rid of failing teachers,” Newsweek March 15 2010. 13 Dave S. Collingridge, “Phenomenological insight on being hindered from fulfilling one's primary responsibility to educate students,” Alberta Journal of Educational Research 54.1: 112-123 2008. 14 Parker J. Palmer, The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscape of a teacher's life (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1998), 3-4 (hereafter cited in text as The Courage to Teach).

As a result, the science of teaching and learning has supplanted its creative and imaginative counterpart (read: art), placing the once joyous art of teaching on the endangered species list. Gardner added to the critiques of ―scientism‖ when he wrote, ―too often, we think of science as the prototype of all knowledge, rather than one powerful way of knowing that needs to be complemented by artistic and humanistic and perhaps spiritual stances.‖15 Consequently, this dominant form of ―knowing‖ has placed science at the apex of many k-12 educational aims, making many other claims appear anecdotal, atheoretical, or methodologically soft. This privileging of a positivist research agenda, and indirectly, a denunciation of those methodologies outside of positivism, creates a master narrative for what ought to be done in order to rectify or repair our educational problems. However, this also opens the door for other methodologies, namely the counternarrative, to decenter these beliefs and perhaps reclaim a new form of ―truth‖ or ―validity‖ in educational research. Furthermore, ―The trouble with trying to discover objective truths in our worlds is that we are constantly distorting them with our narrative truths,‖16 which is why I will later visit the notion of using counternarratives to shed a new light on the deep-rooted objective truths of schooling. Let‘s face it, ―truth‖ is subject to ―our‖ own understanding(s) of the world anyway, our own personal subjectivities. Thus, objective truths hinge on the ―truthiness‖ of the persons involved, creating a messy, blurry, and incomplete reality for the field of educational research. No matter how we slice it, the ―truth‖ of our educational status is rooted in the perceptions of the teachers, students, parents, communities, policymakers, and the like. For instance, more than half of Ohio‘s schools are rated ―excellent;‖17 however, teachers or students may dispute this on the grounds of their own value of or conceptions of the term excellent, or they may altogether challenge the terms and conditions that deem a school excellent. What‘s more, scientific truth claims, by pretending to be impartial and empty of a personal voice, create merely an illusion of objectivity.18 In effect, science is provided a voice through the camouflaged narratives it constructs, like ―adequate yearly progress‖ or ―value added,‖ to make absolute or legitimate truth claims. As such, my work on personal narratives

15 Howard Gardner, Five minds for the future (Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School Press, 2007), 17. 16 Nash, 38. 17 Statistic retrieved for the 2009-2010 school years from the Ohio Department of Education at: http://ilrc.ode.state.oh.us/PublicDW/asp/Main.aspx. 18 Laurel Richardson, Fields of play: Constructing an academic life (New Brunswick, N.J: Rutgers University Press, 1997).

47 and personal counternarrative recognizes the dangers of elevating science as the only source of knowledge, and its propensity to curb the powers and legitimacy of other modes of knowing.19 Thus, if we are to better understand the problems and solutions of our educational system, we must appreciate and value other ontologies and epistemologies, other ways of knowing and being in the world that accept ―truth‖ to be more than just a matter of fact. Even in scientific communities, the acceptance of truth claims ―is based more on shared practices and tacit agreements…than on universal and objective criteria.‖20 Shouldn‘t the same hold true for education? Ultimately, my epistemological views are directly in line with Nash‘s take on the value of the scholarly personal narrative: It all depends on your story. You see, it‘s always the story that frames, explains, and justifies your claim to an exclusive truth. There is just no way around this. No matter how convinced, brilliant, or enlightened you are, you can‘t avoid people asking you the following questions: Says who? Where are you coming from? Why? So what? Why should it matter to me? Sorry, dear readers. The long and the short of it is that I need to know your story, and you mine. Truth starts and ends there, both for you and for me. There is no exit. Sartre was right.21 Additionally, since I am interested in studying the untold or ethereal ingredients that comprise the art of teaching, I must rely on a methodology that allows for a ―critical subjectivity‖22 which rejects many of the absolute truth claims of positivism. One cannot calculate, using numbers or quasi-experimental testing approaches, the love present in a teacher‘s classroom, nor the joy, care, faith, hope, or any of the other virtues. Likewise we cannot gauge, through positivist methodologies, the amount of disparity, pain, or hopelessness that is present. Thus, I am relying on the autobiographical narrative and my personal counterstories to incarnate (not quantify) these elements and to illuminate approaches to education and studying education that care more about the souls at stake than the ―achievements‖ of participants. I aim

19 Stanley Aronowitz, Science as power: Discourse and ideology in modern society (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1988). 20 Mary Jo Maynes, Jennifer L. Pierce, & Barabar Laslett, Telling stories: The use of personal narratives in the social sciences and history (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2008), 98. 21 Nash, 39. 22 Norman K. Denzin, & Yvonna S. Lincoln, The landscape of qualitative research (Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, 2008).

48 to employ the narrative ―I‖ or ―we‖ to shine a new epistemological light on the stale and stagnant system that espouses and reifies the exclusive use of objective truths. Moreover, I will draw on the counternarrative to demystify the mainstream views that currently have a stranglehold on educational policy and decision making.

Speaking for the Unspeakable: A Methodological Journey I have used the method of dominant narrative, counternarrative, and analysis in the first two chapters, and in this chapter, I expound on the methodological premises of the counterstory. My methodology began as an exploration of Clandinin and Connelly‘s conceptions of narrative inquiry.23 I wanted to capture the essence of my experiences as a teacher and use them to make meaning of the events in my life. Upon meeting with my committee, I realized however that I had more to say than just a recapitulation of my ―storied life,‖24 I had a story that challenged the dominant voices of present-day education. Thus, I have chosen to use the scholarly personal narrative, Pinar‘s method of currere, and the counternarrative to undergird my methodology section. I have selected the method of currere in order to inform or bolster my understandings for my own personal or autobiographical narrative as a teacher, which in effect, is manifested in my use of the counternarrative. I will begin by examining both the autobiographical components of currere and the dynamics of the scholarly personal narrative, as well as establishing a foundation for what is meant by narrative and counternarrative. There is a great deal of symmetry between autobiographical narratives and personal narratives; therefore I have linked the two together in this section. Narratives, particularly autobiographical or personal ones, are historically tied to MacIntyre‘s viewpoint that ―human beings are by nature story-telling animals.‖25 Thus, humans have, since the beginning of time, lived storied lives whereby their sole means for conveying knowledge and making meaning came from the telling of stories.26 What is more, one‘s personal story, ―when narrated well, can

23 D. Jean Clandinin, & F. Michael Connelly, Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers) (hereafter cited in text as Narrative Inquiry). 24 Narrative Inquiry 25 Alisdair MacIntyre, as cited in Ted Benton, and Ian Craib, Philosophy of social science: the philosophical foundations of social thought. (New York: Palgrave, 2001), 102. 26 D. Jean Clandinin et al., Handbook of narrative inquiry: Mapping a methodology (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2006); Petra M. Hendry, “Narrative as inquiry,” The Journal of Educational Research 103: 72-80 2010; Telling Stories; Donald Polkinghorne, Narrative knowing and the human sciences (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1988).

49 deliver to the readers those delicious aha! moments of self and social insight that are all too rare in more conventional forms of research,‖27 as well as allow the reader to become a part of the story, to enter the life of another. This is important, for as Eakin (2008) stated, one‘s ―story functions as the primary avenue to the self of another person.‖28 Given that I am attempting to counter the dominant narratives in education with my own personal narrative, it is important that I link my story, moreover, my life, with my readers, in a way that helps them to unpack the ―other‖ narrative, the lesser known accounts, and to allow them to view themselves as part of either/both stories. Therefore, in this study, I use the personal counternarrative as a tool for ―retelling‖29 my lived experiences as a teacher. As a result, I use myself as a character for inquiring into both the dominant and counternarratives used in this study, whereby my life as a teacher becomes the object of this study, providing counter- narrations of my lived experiences so as to make meaning of the various events and highlighting the need for agapic love in and beyond our schools. I am aware that there are other reconstructions for the narratives I use in this study,30 but I will use my constructions of these stories to push the envelope of legitimacy, to butt up against the current narratives that seem to be dominating all facets of schooling (i.e., NCLB and ―Race to the Top‖). Likewise, many critical pedagogues have reminded us that education is inherently political,31 which calls for teachers who are willing and able to expose and challenge the voices of the powers-that-be. At present, there is one story being read aloud and accepted, one ―official‖ narrative for rectifying education, like the OLAC example above, which is not coming from the teacher‘s point-of-view. Therefore, this study is not only timely in that it questions the hegemonic dimensions of schooling, it is also timely in that it implores teachers to share their testimonies, autobiographical accounts, memoirs, and personal stories, to capture that which makes difficult the terrain of modern-day education, while proposing a more hopeful and humanistic outlook for schooling.

27 Nash, 24 28 Paul J. Eakin, Living autobiographically: How we create identity in narrative (Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell University Press, 2008), 57. 29 Narrative Inquiry. 30 ibid. 31 Henry A. Giroux, Pedagogy and the politics of hope: Theory, culture, and schooling: a critical reader (Boulder, Colo: WestviewPress, 1997); Joe L. Kincheloe, Critical pedagogy primer (New York: P. Lang, 2004); Peter McLaren, Life in schools: An introduction to critical pedagogy in the foundations of education (New York: Longman, 1994).

Freire considers this type of teacher to be progressive, bearing in mind that in order to be such, he or she must consider ―testimony‖ to be a coherent and undying discourse in the act of promulgating a liberatory, loving, and humane form of education.32 Correspondingly, our capacity to improve the overall effects of schooling hinges on the testimonies, autobiographical accounts, and counterstories of our teachers. Nieto suggests that all teachers bring with them their autobiographies, thus the difficulty lies in acknowledging how our experiences, values, beliefs, and so forth, work to hinder, or advance, our vocational efforts as teachers, and undertakings with our students.33 More important, Nieto declared, ―Being aware of and valuing one‘s autobiography must be at the heart of teaching because, as educator Linda Gibson has described it, teaching is ‗an encounter with the self.‘‖34 In this manner, autobiographical narratives call for a deep sense of critical reflection, one that strives to raise levels of ―critical consciousness‖ enough to achieve a profound reading of, or understanding of the world, to ―demythologize‖ perceived levels of understanding concerning political, social, and educational realities, to unveil and take on the oppressive elements that confound one‘s understanding of their world, and ultimately to allow one to rename the world around them.35 Nash underscored the importance of critical self-reflection by declaring that ―it is up to the writer to make sense of the ‗raw material of life‘ by looking inward, not outward, at least initially.‖36 This inward gaze, per se, allows one to examine the world through the lens of the individual, in order to more fully grasp the complexity of the socio-political forces working against the self, in hopes of resisting its hegemonic propensities. This brings into play the construction of the narrative. Many narrative inquirers believe that we own our stories, making them inseparable from our selves,37 while others, particularly those operating within the post-structural paradigm, argue that no new narrative can be constructed by claiming that all knowledge is socially constructed, thus signifying that even our own personal narratives are merely a microcosm of larger socio-cultural constructions which have already been established for us. In this manner, we must be mindful of our coexistence

32 TCW. 33 What Keeps Teachers Going. 34 What Keeps Teachers Going, 25. 35 Paulo Freire, Education for Critical Consciousness (New York: Seabury Press); PF; PO. 36 Nash, 27. 37 Narrative Inquiry; Paul J. Eakin, Living autobiographically: How we create identity in narrative (Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell University Press, 2008), 57; Nash; William Pinar, Autobiography, politics, and sexuality: Essays in curriculum theory 1972-1992. (New York: P. Lang, 1994).

51 amid ―larger cultural, social, and institutional narratives,‖38 bearing in mind that often times what we construct, in turn, constructs us. Nash refers to this as ―the constructivist circle,‖ making the case that ―Each of us is both constructivist and constructed. The stories we construct then turn around and construct us, and we them…forever.‖39 Similarly, Garfinkel believed narratives to be an interpretive process; however, he posited that we could ―never arrive at some final, definite interpretation.‖40 This is a challenge within any research project, the ability to avoid ―absolute‖ or ―generalizing‖ claims about the way things are or how they ought to be. That's why we ought to continuously raise the following questions (and more): Who owns the story? To what ends? Can the story be changed, if so, by whom? What happens when narratives compete? How do the stories affect communities of people?41 These questions not only underscore the potential limitations of the personal and/or autobiographical narrative but also pave the way for the presence of complex ethical issues. Eakin stated, ―Because our own lives never stand free of the lives of others, we are faced with our responsibility to those others whenever we write about ourselves,‖42 which should hold true for every methodology, and is especially vital for those of us who are writing personal narratives. It follows that our ethical interests should also consider a series of questions, such as: Why are we airing the secrets of others? How can a violation of one‘s privacy serve the purpose(s) of our narratives? Can our points be made in a similar fashion? Have we considered the other‘s side of the story? Are we pressing the moral boundaries? Is there a point that we ought not to cross?43 Furthermore, there exists an ethical obligation to set straight those presently legitimized narratives in education which work to objectify our teachers and students – pigeonholing them by use of standardized measurements, and valuing them based on acceptable scientific results – by granting legitimacy to the personal counterstory. Dominant narratives can be deleterious to

38 D. Jean Clandinin et al., Handbook of narrative inquiry: Mapping a methodology (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2006), xvi. 39 Nash, 36. 40 Harold Garfinkel, as cited in Ted Benton, and Ian Craib, Philosophy of social science: the philosophical foundations of social thought. (New York: Palgrave, 2001), 95. 41 S. Pinnegar, & J. G. Daynes, “Locating narrative inquiry historically: Thematics in the turn of narrative,” ed. D. J. Clandinin, Handbook of narrative inquiry (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2006). 42 Nash, 132. 43 ibid.

52 many subaltern groups, and sometimes even to the larger public or even within privileged circles, thus a counterstory is an ethical alternative for repairing our damaged identities.44 This anarchic methodology is needed to bring balance to the presently oppressive and unethical guidelines that act as gatekeepers for what is deemed acceptable and unacceptable in the field of educational research. Hence, I have chosen to employ a personal counternarrative in order to reclaim the identity and integrity of teachers by and large, to redefine what it means, outside of the normative constructs of today, to be a teacher, and perhaps, the reader may choose to use the provided counterstories as a model for redefining what it means to be a ―great‖ teacher. Finally, so as to gain insight into the coherence of the autobiographical narrative, and establish a basis for the counternarrative, I turn to Pinar‘s method of currere. In its simplest form, currere is a strategy used to enhance self-reflection, to give a fuller meaning of one‘s encounters or experiences.45 Currere relies on four parts: (1) the ―regressive‖ asks teachers and learners to examine past educational experiences in order to better understand what has shaped their philosophical values and beliefs; (2) the ―progressive‖ invites us to use our beliefs derived from the ―regressive‖ processes to inform our future decisions; (3) the ―analytical‖ uncovers the connection between the past, present, and future; and (4) the ―synthetical‖ encourages one to make meaning of the present by drawing on our regressive, progressive, and analytical learnings.46 Furthermore, the autobiographical practice of currere can be used to question the post- critical views of narrative production, allowing one to free oneself from the entanglements of larger social constructions. According to Pinar: By focusing on the individual, it is possible to reclaim the abstractions and begin to extricate oneself from capture by ideology. One‘s voice becomes discernible. By working regressively, progressively, analytically, and synthetically, one begins to reclaim oneself from intellectual and cultural conditioning. It is work to initiate a dialectical (rather than passive) relation to scholarly work, to oneself, to the world…The method of currere is one way to work to liberate one from the web of political, cultural, and

44 Hilde L. Nelson, H. L., Damaged identities, narrative repair (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2001) (hereafter cited in text as Damaged Identities).

45 William Pinar, Autobiography, politics, and sexuality: Essays in curriculum theory 1972-1992. (New York: P. Lang, 1994). 46 ibid.

economic influences that are perhaps buried from conscious view but nonetheless comprise the living web that is a person‘s biographic situation.47 Certainly one is not free from the cultural, political, and ideological factors that piece together consciousness. However, currere is one strategy which can be used to allow one to transcend the outside forces – the muck – that works against an individual‘s construction of the self. Hence, the practice of currere can be used to defog the miasmatic atmosphere created by social, political, and educational powers that encumber us from constructing an authentic self. Additionally, we should draw on Pinar‘s methods of currere to undergird our work in the counternarrative, i.e., to shore up our autobiographical narratives so as to more clearly counter the dominant stories working against us. At this moment in time, the dominant narrative, which operates within a standard discourse, is distancing itself from other forms of knowing. Thus, it is imperative that we stem this tide of positivist thought. Thankfully, autobiography may just be able to ―lessen the distance between science and art and thereby open the way toward a more integrated, adequate, and humane vision for studying the human realm‖.48

The Counternarrative: What’s NOT Being Accounted For Often times there exists a master-, or meta-, or grand-, or dominant narrative that works to inevitably construct or define the identity of individuals. By identity I am referring to the personal conceptions one has of oneself, as well as how other persons, and social, political, religious, and cultural entities, conceive of her or him.49 Nevertheless, ―One of the key functions of master narratives is that they offer people a way of identifying what is assumed to be a normative experience…[whereby] wittingly or unwittingly, we become the stories we know, and the master narrative is reproduced.‖50 The classroom is by far one of the most common spheres to witness this phenomenon unfolding. Novice teachers, as pointed out by Poetter & Badiali, typically adopt practices that worked for their teachers, or implement conventions that worked

47 William Pinar, Autobiography, politics, and sexuality: Essays in curriculum theory 1972-1992. (New York: P. Lang, 1994), 108. 48 Mark Freeman, “Autobiographical understanding and narrative inquiry,” ed. D. J. Clandinin, Handbook of narrative inquiry (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2006), 120. 49 Damaged Identities. 50 Michael Bamberg, & Molly Andrews, Considering counter-narratives: Narrating, resisting, making sense (Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamin Publishing Company, 2004), 1 (hereafter cited in text as Considering Counternarratives).

54 well for them as students, therefore blindly, and sometimes intentionally, reifying the master narratives of educational legitimacy.51 Master narratives have a way of normalizing or naturalizing our habits and behaviors, such that ―the more we as subjects become engaged in these routines, the more we become subjected to them.‖52 In this sense, master narratives have a sense of control that consciously or subconsciously guides the decisions and actions of individuals. For instance, the educational master narrative of ―adequate yearly progress‖ implies that teachers and learners have a milestone to reach, which is obtained through standardized measures, and suggests that when arrived at, teachers and students have accomplished just enough to become tolerable, or ―adequate.‖ However, not all dominant narratives are inherently hegemonic, nor does one‘s compliance with a dominant narrative imply that he or she is agrees with or supports a hegemonic agenda.53 To some degree, the agapic love revealed in this study hints at a dominant narrative which espouses the virtuous axiom of ―love thy neighbor as thyself,‖ yet it is not a master narrative in the realm of educative practices, thus I have turned the corner so as to employ it as a counternarrative. Moreover, I am attempting to use this axiom in a new fashion, in a way that gives birth to a new discourse in education, because, as Ikemoto reminds us, ―By responding only to the standard story, we let it dominate the discourse.‖54 In fact, I am striving to make use of love as an autobiographical voice that is oppositional, countercultural, and radical, so as to propagate counterhegemonic ways of knowing that takes the reader out of his comfort zone and asks him to challenge his conscious or subconscious assumptions regarding the status quo.55 I am, as Bamberg & Andrews cautioned, aware that I will be viewed as an outsider for constructing a view about education that goes against the permissible grain,56 but I ask, what is the point of countering anything if it is not willing to ―go against‖ something else? How can we revolutionize something by adhering to existing conditions? Moreover, who, throughout history, has ever led a charge without being

51 Tom S. Poetter, & Bernard J. Badiali, Teacher leader (Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education, 2007). 52 Considering Counternarratives, 360. 53 ibid. 54 L. Ikemoto, “Furthering the inquiry: Race, class, and culture in the forced medical treatment of pregnant women,” ed. A. Wing, Critical race feminism: A reader (New York: New York University Press, 1997), 136. 55 Margo V. Perkins, Autobiography as activism: Three Black women of the Sixties (Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 2000). 56 Considering Counternarratives

55 rebellious, countercultural, or willing to swim against the currents of normative thoughts and actions? Regardless of one‘s religious affiliations, it is hard to refute that Jesus provided an engaging counternarrative in his time, imploring the Jews to break away from the habit of strict interpretation of Mosaic laws and to follow a new form of teaching, a new covenant, one that spoke authoritatively, yet free from legalistic doctrines. Likewise, it is hard to dispute the efficacy of the Civil Rights counternarratives delivered by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X, Medgar Evers, and many other African-American‘s who momentously battled racism in order to reconstruct justice, and reclaim some level of humanity. The same holds true for many courageous leaders who have challenged the dominant narratives that served to oppress and subjugate marginalized groups throughout history, and presently, periodically to the point of death. To some degree, it could be argued that now is the time for teachers, students, and community stakeholders to splinter the dominant ideologies that are corrupting and oppressing those within our educational system, i.e., it is time to combat the master narratives with counternarratives. However, it is imperative that we not merely appeal to master narratives as a means of moral justification; rather we ought to refuse to give in to these narratives by attempting to uproot them and replace them with a better alternative, namely, a counterstory.57 Before going any further, I would like to explore the meaning(s) of the term counternarrative, and unpack some of the proclivities circling around its use. Generically speaking, the counternarrative serves as a critique of the modernist predilections of ―grand,‖ ―master,‖ and ―meta‖ narratives.58 The counterstory functions as a tool for revealing, dissecting, rupturing, and primarily debunking hegemonic discourses that work to maintain oppressive conditions.59 Counternarratives also exist to ―counter not merely (or even necessarily) the grand narratives, but also (or instead) the ―official‖ and ―hegemonic‖ narratives of everyday life: those

57 Damaged Identities 58 M. Peters, & C. Lankshear, “Postmodern counternarratives.” ed. H. Giroux, Counternarratives: Cultural studies and critical pedagogies in postmodern spaces (New York: Routledge, 1996), 1-40. 59 Daniel G. Solorzano, & Tara J. Yosso, “Critical race methodology: Counter-Story telling as an analytical framework for education,” Qualitative Inquiry 8.1: 23-44 2002.

56 legitimating stories propagated for specific political purposes to manipulate public consciousness by heralding a national set of common cultural ideals.‖60 Counternarratives are commonly constructed as ―little stories‖61 – which arise from marginalized populations whose historical renditions have been excluded from or misrepresented in the telling of the official or master narratives.62 Thus, counternarratives generally surface from marginalized communities in relation to race, class, sexuality, gender, and so forth, and often times are attempting to challenge the oppressive conditions set forth by the master narratives. Counternarratives can also be a retelling of a story that draws attention to the morally relevant details typically suppressed by master narratives.63 Fundamentally speaking, telling or expressing counternarratives serves as a tactic for challenging the oppressive conditions of master or dominant narratives and aims to emancipate those entangled by the convoluted webs of social, political, and cultural forces that strip them of their identity. More often than not, counterstories function as political acts that aim to splinter or disrupt the myths surrounding uncontested dominant narratives.64 However, my project aspires to go beyond the familiar constructions of marginalization by claiming that all teachers and students, regardless of race, class, sexuality, creed, and so on, are in one way or another being oppressed by a dominant voice, one that wishes to standardize, or more to the point, normalize our educational experiences. For instance, I am using the counternarrative from a white male, middle-class, Christian, heterosexual point-of-view, contending that, at present, nearly every student and teacher voice has been and is being marginalized, oppressed, subjugated, forgotten, and distorted to some extent. I am not stating that all groups are on a level playing field, or that each subgroup is oppressed in similar fashions, quite the contrary. I am arguing that if the counternarrative exists to provide a voice to the voiceless, if it exists to critique, challenge, debunk, and splinter the

60 M. Peters, & C. Lankshear, “Postmodern counternarratives.” ed. H. Giroux, Counternarratives: Cultural studies and critical pedagogies in postmodern spaces (New York: Routledge, 1996), 2. 61 Jean-Francois Lyotard, The postmodern condition (Manchester University Press, 1984). 62 R. Delgado, “Storytelling for oppositionists and others: A plea for narrative,” Michigan Law Review 87, 2411- 2441 1989; Paul J. Eakin, Living autobiographically: How we create identity in narrative (Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell University Press, 2008); Giroux, H. A. et al., Counternarratives: Cultural studies and critical pedagogies in postmodern spaces (New York: Routledge, 1996); Telling Stories; Daniel G. Solorzano, & Tara J. Yosso, “Critical race methodology: Counter-Story telling as an analytical framework for education,” Qualitative Inquiry 8.1: 23-44 2002. 63 Damaged Identities. 64 Giroux, H. A. et al., Counternarratives: Cultural studies and critical pedagogies in postmodern spaces (New York: Routledge, 1996).

57 acceptance of grand narratives, then it is needed now more than ever, for and from all teachers and students, regardless of race, class, gender, sexuality, religion, and the like, in order to wrestle with the dominant ideologies that are driving the despotic educational policies, practices, and decisions of today. For my study, I am using the counternarrative as a means for reclaiming my identity and integrity as a teacher, as well as for making a case for love as a pedagogical tool for ameliorating the prevailing problems of present-day schooling, and by and large, since our own personal stories are never free from others,65 I am aiming to reclaim the identity of ―the teacher.‖ In terms of ―identity,‖ I draw on Nelson‘s notion that ―We are what we care about,‖ signifying that: Personal identities consist of a connective tissue of narratives – some constant, others shifting over time – which we weave around the features of our selves and our lives that matter most to us. The significant things I‘ve done and experienced, my more important characteristics, the roles and relationships I care about most, the values that matter most to me – these form the relatively stable points around which I construct the narratives that constitute the sense I make of myself.66 At root, integrity means ―wholeness.‖ Our integrity is derived from our thoughts, words, and actions being wholly congruent.67 Essentially, one‘s integrity is materialized through recognizing the self, and by critically reflecting on one‘s actions during those trying times in life. This notion of wholeness is never complete, but rather constantly being formed and reformed. Palmer (1998) declared that: Integrity requires that I discern what is integral to my selfhood, what fits and what does not – and that I choose life-giving ways of relating to the forces that converge within me: do I welcome them or fear them, embrace them or reject them, move with them or against them? By choosing integrity, I become more whole, but wholeness does not mean perfection. It means becoming more real by acknowledging the whole of who I am.68 Since I am also attempting to build a case for manifesting love in our schools, I will use my counterstories to place in check the master narratives that are presently (mis)leading our educational system. As made evident in the first three chapters, the methods for this study begin

65 Considering Counternarratives; Paul J. Eakin, Living autobiographically: How we create identity in narrative (Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell University Press, 2008); Damaged Identities. 66 Damaged Identities, 72. 67 Hunter. 68 The Courage to Teach, 69.

58 with established stories attempting to capture the master narratives of our times vis-à-vis educational practices, then I offer up a counterstory that challenges these master narratives by making a case for the use of a new pedagogy of agapic love, and a new epistemology, ontology and methodology of the counternarrative, which transcends the limits of contemporary forms of research – oscillating between shared conceptions of empiricism, scientism, and positivism – by looking deeper into the intangibles of educational research, and finally I analyze the two stories through multiple lenses (i.e., interpretive, critical, and theoretical). I draw on my past experiences, both personal and professional, my in-progress thoughts, existing literature, and archival records to construct both the dominant and counter stories in this research study. My archival records are a collection of documents from my teaching career that extend from district-wide meeting notes to personal letters written to me from students. All official and personal names brought into play by this study will be removed or altered in order to maintain confidentiality. Since my work is autobiographical, and is a recollection of my past, I will be working within the boundaries of my own memory. Many narrative inquirers, especially those writing autobiographically, are able to portray their stories as an actual rendition of what took place; however, we must bear in mind that ―memory is selective, shaped, and retold in the continuum of one‘s experiences.‖69 Or, as Molloy (2000) noted, autobiography is always a ―re-presentation, that is, a retelling, because the life to which it supposedly refers is already a kind of narrative construct.‖70 Thus, I must be mindful of how my past, present, and future experiences have/will influence the recounting of my life as a teacher, as well as be cognizant of how social, cultural, and political forces work to (re)shape my views.

Closing Remarks In summary, by using a narrative approach – in particular a personal or autobiographical counternarrative – I examine how as a teacher I navigated the difficult terrains of modern-day education (i.e., managing the daily chores) without forgoing my ontological responsibility of manifesting love in and beyond the classroom. In effect, I explore the course of my life as a teacher, through a critical and interpretive lens, to determine both the outcomes of standards-

69 Narrative Inquiry, 142. 70 Stated by Molloy in Narrative Inquiry, 101.

59 based practices as well as possible and practical approaches or solutions to curtail their effects. I aim to reveal, through multiple counterstories, what can happen to teachers, students, communities, and the general public if we focus too tightly on the objective and quantifiable components of teaching and learning. Particularly, I use my counterstories to investigate the moral and ethical ramifications stemming from an educational system in general, and research agenda in particular, that objectifies teachers, children, and learning overall. My goal is to use personal experiences (as a teacher) to serve as counternarratives to existing discourses which legitimize present purposes of schooling. Ultimately, the success of my project can be judged by the extent to which the counterstories I tell shift the common conceptions in education (the master narratives) from a detached and technical practice towards a loving, thoughtful, and emancipatory form of schooling that cares more about the souls it reaches than the subjects it teaches.

CHAPTER FOUR – GETTING RELATIONAL “There is only one proof for the presence of love: the depth of the relationship, and the aliveness and strength in each person concerned; this is the fruit by which love is recognized.”1

The “Legitimate” Teacher 2 It was my first year as a teacher. I remember spending countless hours during that first week of school, prior to the students arriving, decorating my room. The school was really old. My science lab was straight out of the 1940s. The walls were lifeless and bland, so I decided to deck out my new room. I was a science teacher, but it was hard to tell. I covered the lackluster walls with quotes and cool colors. I had pictures of me and my loved ones plastered on a poster behind my desk. I covered my desk with stickers from my favorite bands, places I had visited, and things I liked to do. My room was cozy and welcoming, but I could tell it was lacking something. Then it dawned on me, I will be sharing this room with my students, perhaps I should allow them to share in the sprucing up of our room. The first day of school was atypical, to say the least. I sent my students on a scavenger hunt. I instructed the students to move about the room and find as many things they ―knew‖ about me, could ―infer‖ (introducing an important scientific concept) about me, and wanted to know about me. I probably should have left out the last part, eighth grade students will pretty much ask you anything, especially if it makes their teachers feel uncomfortable. Like Shane, who I knew for less than 5 minutes, who asked me ―how many women have you been with?‖ and ―have you ever smoked pot?‖ It would have been easy to crumble or to fly off the handle, but I remained calm, using humor to deflect the issue. I asked with a puzzling look on my face, ―What‘s pot?‖ Shane just smirked and we moved on. I sat back and observed. The students were mingling and really digging the scavenger hunt. Several of the boys and girls were interested in my pictures, stickers, and quotes. After letting them circulate the room for about 15 minutes, we reconvened and talked about who I was. Many of them had figured out the basics about me: such as where I received my degree from, how many brothers I had, and that I loved to travel. My goal was to not bore them by going over what every other teacher was going over on the first day of school. I wanted them to know that

1 The Art of Loving, 93. 2 Please recall that when (re)telling these events the author will italicize actual quotes and will not italicize that which has been paraphrased.

61 my classroom was a place for students to be themselves, to be honest and open, to build genuine relationships forged by mutual respect, and know that I would not judge them. Basically, I wanted to be transparent enough so as to invite them, indirectly, to reciprocate these values. After giving the students a chance to get to know me, I got to know them. We pushed the tables and chairs up against the walls of the classroom and sat in a circle on the floor. The students looked puzzled, as if they were waiting for me to do ―teacher-like‖ things. I could sense that they were somewhat flummoxed, yet they were tranquil and comfortable, so I continued. Things were going great. We went around the circle introducing ourselves. I had asked the students to introduce themselves by doing the following: use an alliterative adjective to describe yourself, tell us something fun you did over the summer, and something that makes you unique. They were still on summer time, giving me a glazed look like what do you mean by ―alliterative,‖ and what‘s an adjective again? After explaining it, using myself as an example to clarify the task at hand, we were under way. I asked if anyone wanted to go first. Immediately hands flew up. ―Ok, you can go first,‖ as I pointed to a young lady about to hyperextend her elbow. ―Remember,‖ I recalled, ―use an alliterative adjective,‖ she interrupted, ―I‘m ‗Awesome-Amanda,‘ and um, I went to Myrtle Beach over the summer, oh yeah, you so shoulda been there, these hot guys were playing football on the beach and I like totally got their numbers, it was way cool.‖ The class began to snicker. ―That‘s good,‖ I tried to redirect her, ―tell us what makes you unique?‖ She bellowed, ―Oh, oh, I can totally lick my own elbow.‖ The class went up an uproar. ―Show us, show us,‖ they shouted! It was at this time that Suzy, the other eighth grade science teacher poked her head in the room, ―Is everything alright over here,‖ she asked? I quickly quieted the class, ―Yeah, sorry if we are being too loud, we‘re just trying to have a little fun getting to know each other.‖ I remember thinking, why am I apologizing? It was harmless. We were only having fun. But, since school was supposed to be boring and literally suck the life out of students (according to Suzy and many of us who had already gone through school), I guess I felt obligated to ask for forgiveness. We continued to go around the room, only making it about halfway around the room. Each story came with side stories and it took us a while to get through the exercise. The kids and I were excited and kept interjecting. Plus, I had to keep butting in to settle the mob of laughing

62 students (and teacher). So I agreed that we would pick up tomorrow where we left off. Then I hit them with a knockout punch. ―Before you go, take out your agendas (the school provided each student with his and her own daily planner) and jot down your homework,‖ I stated. A crashing wave of ―boos‖ erupted. ―Wait,‖ I whispered, ―you haven‘t even heard what I want you to do.‖ Homework just carried with it a negative connotation. ―Who cares, it is homework, it has to suck,‖ stated one of the girls in the back of the room. I spoke over the negative vibes, declaring, ―I want you to go home tonight and make a poster that personifies who you are, or tells me more about who you are.‖ I went on, ―feel free to add whatever you want to the poster,‖ and while smiling at Shane and shaking my finger I added, ―Just make sure it is school appropriate.‖ Each of my four blocks really seemed to enjoy the unusual start to the school year. As some of the students were leaving they waived and shouted, ―See you later Mr. C.‖ I smiled, and joyfully replied, ―Bye, have a great day, and I will see you tomorrow.‖ I couldn‘t have imagined a better start to the school year or my teaching career. My school worked in teams and we decided that we would meet after the first day to hash out any schedule issues, glaring concerns, and whatnot. I strolled into the meeting wearing my oversized smile. Rather promptly, the other eighth grade teachers began asking me, ―What was going on at your end of the hall?‖ One of them spoke up, ―I was trying to go over my course requirements with my students but I couldn‘t because we were constantly interrupted by the commotion at the end of the hall.‖ I had one day under my belt and already I had upset the applecart. Most of my team members had 20 or more years of teaching experience. I was just a newbie, so what did I know? I didn‘t know what to think. A million thoughts went racing through my mind: Were they right? Did I do something I wrong? Should I have covered my course objectives? Should I have assigned seats like everyone else? I just froze, sitting there like a deer in the headlights. My friends, colleagues, and fellow team members seemed upset. Karen, a veteran teacher in her thirty-third year said to me, ―You have to be their teacher, not their friend.‖ At once the others chimed in, ―The general rule is, don‘t smile before Christmas,‖ declared Beth. John spoke up, ―It‘s ok to be friendly, but you shouldn‘t get too personal with your students, it‘s just taboo to be friends with your students.‖ I was under the impression that our ―afterschool‖ meeting had turned into a personal intervention. I took in some of what the veterans were telling

63 me, but overall, I stuck with what worked for me. More important, I was left wondering why they were so jaded about their jobs and negative towards their students. I got to school early the next morning, making sure that everything was ready to go, and eagerly waited for my students to arrive. They excitedly marched into the room. Nearly all of them had a poster board overflowing with pictures, magazine clippings, glitter, and doodles. I thanked the class for bringing in their posters and told those who did not have one not to worry but to bring it in at their earliest convenience. In all reality this was a voluntary act under the guise of homework, which carried with it a mandatory implication, so I didn‘t want to degrade them for failing to complete the intended task. We finished the second day getting to know each other and after school I hung the posters around the room. Several students poked their heads in to oversee me hanging their work. There were so many posters that I had to take down some of my own decorations in order to make room. I spent the remainder of the week getting down to brass tacks, but because we established such a loving and affable learning community, the students didn‘t seem to mind the laborious tasks of going over the course outlines, discussing expectations, policies, and so on. The year was going great and was flying by. The students and I were working hand in hand to make learning meaningful, and were having lots of fun doing so, which came to a halt the day Paul, my building principal, came to observe me. In all seriousness, this was the second time Paul had stepped foot in my room, the first since the school year had begun. I was glad to finally see him. It was my first year as a teacher and I wanted some type of affirmation or at the very least a little constructive criticism. The lesson went extremely well. I remember asking Paul to join one of the groups in discovering the properties of solids, liquids, and non-Newtonian substances (commonly known in the science world as ―Oobleck,‖ a term coined by Dr. Seuss). The lesson was like a firework show, it took hours to plan and envision, but only minutes to come to an end. It was proper protocol to schedule a post-observation to go over the lesson, so I set up a time to meet with Paul right away. I entered Paul‘s office just three after the lesson. I was anxious, excited, and nervous, all at once. This was the first time I had been officially observed since college, and I felt like I nailed the lesson. But, we spoke very little about the lesson. Paul, a former biology teacher, began the meeting by telling me the lesson was great and that he had fun in my class. I was super stoked. Then Paul dropped the hammer, crushing my spirits. He followed with,

―However, I do want to talk with you about a few things that I feel first year teachers need to know.‖ ―There are a lot of rumors flying around here about you having students in your room after school.‖ I thought to myself, yeah, I‘m their teacher, isn‘t that a good thing? In addition, I wondered what the hell this had to do with my lesson. Paul carried on, ―It‘s not a good idea for you to have young men and women hanging around your classroom after school. I‘m not implying anything,‖ he maintained, ―just making sure that you are aware of the dangers of being alone with students after hours.‖ I wasn‘t naïve to the dangers of what Paul was speaking about, and I was rather glad to hear him point out the potential pitfalls associated with befriending students. However, I wasn‘t ready for what followed. ―Teachers should not befriend their students,‖ Paul vehemently declared. ―You are the authority figure and need to maintain a professional distance between you and your students,‖ he continued. I was confused so I asked him, ―What do you mean by professional distance?‖ Paul replied, ―You need to dehumanize yourself in front of your students.‖ This was the first time that I had ever heard the term dehumanize, and I was certain that he had used the term improperly. The word carried with it the undertone of being less than human, or failing to be human altogether. All I could envision was a robot-teacher, half man, half machine who could literally grade scantrons by sight. So I asked, ―Are you suggesting that I not get to know them on a personal level?‖ ―Precisely,‖ Paul answered. ―Why would knowing their personal lives be pertinent to teaching them,‖ he asked? I was completely lost. In fact, I was starting to get a little hot under the collar. I wondered if he was being serious, to which I rejoined, ―How am I supposed to teach them as if they do not exist beyond the four walls of my classroom? Seriously,‖ as I began to speak louder, ―Do you really believe that their lives outside of school have no bearing on what they do in school?‖ Paul answered, ―We are only responsible for what they produce under our watch, nothing more, nothing less.‖ I couldn‘t imagine how to teach someone apart from knowing who they really were, and I knew that Paul and I were going to have to silently agree to disagree. Regardless, Paul pressed on, telling me that the posters hanging in my room were disturbing and needed to come down, that I needed to remove the personal photos of me and my loved ones, and demanded that I make my room look like a ―real‖ science classroom. I was dejected. All of my hard work was in vein. In fact, he had written me up and placed a strike in

65 my professional portfolio because one of the posters had a picture of a student standing next to his father, who was drinking a beer. If truth be told, I was written up because I challenged his authority and questioned his philosophical beliefs. So I asked him, ―Why am I being reprimanded for being personable, caring, and part of my students‘ lives?‖ And he callously replied, ―Your job is to teach them the skills and knowledge needed to advance their educational careers, not to care about or become a part of their personal lives.‖

Rethinking “Legitimacy” in the Classroom 3 I have a story to tell. However, before I begin, I want to clear the air. I am not sharing these stories with my readers to feel good about myself, or toot my own horn, or to ―validate‖ my pedagogical or philosophical beliefs. No! I am sharing these stories because they are not commonly voiced in the educational world. I want to speak up in order to provide agapic love a proper place in the discourses concerning educational reform. Moreover, I want to challenge or debunk the dominant views – that academic excellence deals solely with the accumulation and regurgitation of learned skills and content – which are distorting public education and reifying the difficult terrain that teachers must navigate by calling attention to the intangible components of teaching present in the artifacts below. Thus, the letters that follow are not a sanctimonious unfolding of my teaching career, rather they are making public a voice that is often times silenced or discredited in the field of education, a voice filled with love. My first year as a teacher was coming to a close. It was a rather challenging year, so many changes were being made, I was constantly swimming against the currents of normative schooling practices, and I felt like I was just spinning my wheels. I started to doubt my ―calling‖ to be a teacher, asking myself constantly if I was making a difference in the lives of my students. It was another routine day of me pulling teeth and feeling discouraged. Then, just as I was about to head home, I checked my mailbox. I noticed a large stack of brightly colored papers in my mailbox held together by a rather large and shiny paperclip. Apparently it was teacher appreciation week. I began to leaf through the papers, taking a glimpse at the names and reading the comments. By time I got through the third one I developed a lump in my throat and began to

3 Please recall that when (re)telling these events the author will italicize actual quotes and will not italicize that which has been paraphrased.

66 weep. My students were so thoughtful and thankful, singing my praises as a teacher. My entire outlook changed instantly. I would like to share with my readers a few of the many uplifting letters, starting with Amy. Amy was a great student who worked extremely hard at accepting the challenges I set before her, in spite of the fact that she was sorting through many of life‘s hardships. Her parents had recently divorced and she was coping with the ebbs and flows of shared parenting. In addition, she was learning to manage many of the typical challenges that adolescent students faced, such as peer pressure, hormonal alterations, and surviving middle school. Here is what she had to say about being part of a relational classroom filled with love: Thank you so much for your support and encouragement throughout this year. You challenged me and helped me through some tough spots in my life. I felt as if you knew some of the problems I was having and you helped me to express myself by listening. I just hope that your students next year will learn as much as I have and have someone to encourage them the way I did. Thank you for teaching me so much about myself and life. Thank You, Amy Another student, James, a low functioning student with multiple disabilities added his thoughts. James had probably never known what it was like to feel praised and valued, constantly failing to meet the menial standards of schooling and to appease his teachers. James was a boisterous student who gave many teachers fits. His IQ bordered on the lower region of cognitive abilities but he had a jovial spirit and a refreshing outlook on life. He was overweight and was often times teased by his classmates, but he knew that I would not tolerate that kind of behavior, thus allowing him to feel safe in my classroom, and to be himself. Here is what he had to say about feeling loved: I was glade to have you as a teacher this year. Im going to miss you because you where the nicest person in the world you where like a Dad to me because you treat me like a Son. I wish I could have you next year because you wher funny during class you make science fun for me. Hope to see you in the neighbor hood during the summer time and do stop by my house to say Hi to me I would like to hear from you. Your Friend James. Finally, there is Kelly‘s account. Kelly had carried with her the label of being the ―smartest‖ student in her grade since kindergarten. She was a curious student, always asking the difficult questions that her teachers often times tried to dodge, and she possessed a raw craving

67 for learning. Kelly had been labeled gifted and demanded that she be challenged by her teachers. Kelly would never admit it to other teachers, but she shared with me the pressures and stresses she had to handle in order to maintain her status of the ―smart kid.‖ Kelly wrote: I am sure you‟ve already read a billion of these but I‟ll write one anyways. I think what makes you such a great teacher is that you try and teach just as much about life as you do about science. Your combination of humor and facts with some stories mixed in makes your class exciting and fun. It keeps us interested while we learn. I personally love how you teach us more than you have to, and go the extra mile for the gifted students. It makes school not as boring. Thank you for all that you do. I hope you‟re here next year and don‟t get fired for being yourself, Kelly Again, I would like to reiterate that these letters are not intended to make me out as the pious savior of education, but rather they are suggesting that something exists that brings forth such praise, and I call that ―thing‖ love. In this particular fashion, I am speaking of the relational components of love, that is, the teacher‘s willingness to view the whole person, to respect and value each individual child, to welcome them as they are, and to invest a part of herself into the lives of her students in order to forge authentic loving and caring rapport between the teacher and her students. Hence, love, specifically relational love, is a critical element for educating our students beyond the scope of present schools of thought, where good test scores and grades seem to trump or better yet silence the importance of loving relationships between teachers and students.

It’s All About Relationality In this section I will use the accounts above to explore the meaning of relationality, how I plan to make use of the term, present barriers that encumber teachers from becoming more relational, as well as unpack the central tenets of relationality needed to foster a love-based pedagogy. In addition, I will visit the negative conceptions that presently portray relationality as an inappropriate or unseemly aspect of teaching and learning.4 First let us begin by investigating what is meant by the term relationality.

4 Daniel Cho, “Lessons of love: Psychoanalysis and teacher-student love,” Educational Theory 55.1: 79 2005; E. J. O’Quinn, & Jim Garrison, “Creating loving relations in the classroom,” ed. D. Liston, Teaching, learning, and loving: Reclaiming passion in educational practice (New York: RoutledgeFalmer, 2004) 49-64.

Relationality deals with the notion of being relational, that is, of being in relation with two or more things. At the core of everything in our universe lies one simple truth, everything is bound by relationships, nothing is free from something else.5 In the sense of schooling, teachers share relations with their students, parents, communities, subject matter, and so forth. As a result, we are never free from one or more of these things, making the relationship the genesis for education.6 When using the term relationality, I am referring to a deeper connotation, one this is both bounded and unbounded by love. Bound in the sense that love provides a basis for relationality7 and unbound in the sense that genuine relations formed through agapic love can result in an endless empowerment of teachers and learners, infinite possibilities for teaching and learning, vast improvements for the overall scope and purposes of schooling, and can ultimately yield a boundless amount of positive results.8 On the other hand; and more commonly reported, student teacher relations divorced from moral and ethical guidelines can cross over into dangerous waters and may result in unhealthy relations,9 which I will take up in the latter parts of this chapter. Nevertheless, all humans long to be in some type of relationship10 and thus long to be connected in some fashion.11 We connect to and with one another through a multitude of ways, be it socially, physically, metaphorically, psychologically, personally, and so on. Throughout time people have hungered for the interconnections of self and society: from convening in the agora, to gathering in the amphitheater to watch a play, or perhaps meeting in the town hall to discuss pertinent socio-political issues. In more recent terms, citizens have convened at sporting events, in golf leagues, around poker tables, and at shopping centers. However, the latest in- thing has us convening via social networks, where people still long to be connected, yet now ―connectivity‖ takes place in chat rooms, on ―Facebook,‖ within blogs, or through ―tweeting.‖

5 Margaret Wheatley, “Relationships: The basic building blocks of life,” May 20, 2011, from http://www.margaretwheatley.com. 6 No Education Without Relation. 7 Love as Pedagogy 8 LPWE. 9 Daniel Cho, “Lessons of love: Psychoanalysis and teacher-student love,” Educational Theory 55.1: 79 2005. 10 Buber. 11 Margaret Wheatley, Turning to one another: Simple conversations to restore hope for the future (San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2002).

Regardless of the times, or despite the various mediums we choose to bring into play, human life has and continues to find meaningfulness in relationships with one another.12 Relationality is a term which can be used to investigate a wide variety of fields. For instance, one could examine the relations between nurse and patient, lawyer and client, player and coach, and so forth. For this chapter, I am interested in exploring the relationships present between students and teachers. More specifically, I aim to examine the affects love-based relations have (or doesn‘t have) between teachers and students, analyze the building blocks of relational pedagogy, and evaluate the components of relational leadership. Finally, I will negotiate a set of factors such as trust, respect, dialogue, vulnerability, and acceptance, to name a few, used to undergird the caring and wholesome relations needed to manifest love in and beyond the schoolroom. The relations between teachers and learners are the backbone of education. Bingham and Sidorkin contend that modern-day civilization has the capacity to teach themselves, yet ―Schools remain because education is primarily about human beings who need to meet together.‖13 In a Buberian sense, schools exist in order to whet the human appetite for being in relation with one another.14 As made evident in the accounts above, my students did not so much applaud my ability to ―fill‖ them with knowledge (which did take place – but it just occurred within more ―natural‖ and affable experiences), rather they approved of my ability to carve out safe spaces for personal relations to breathe and admired my capacity for making learning a personal, gregarious, and meaningful experience. By doing so, I created a capacity for students to be connected with one another, with me as their teacher, and with the subjects that we were mutually engrossed in. In essence, I was able to actualize Palmer‘s concept that relational teachers: Join self, subject, and students in the fabric of life because they teach from an integral and undivided self; they manifest in their own lives, and evoke in their students ‗a capacity for connectedness.‘ They are able to weave a complex web of connections

12 No Education Without Relation; Buber; Margaret Wheatley, Turning to one another: Simple conversations to restore hope for the future (San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2002). 13 No Education Without Relation, 5. 14 Buber.

between themselves, their subjects, and their students, so that student can learn to weave a world for themselves.15 In this fashion, the student has a minimal role of just being in the classroom. He or she has the free will to accept the manifestation of connectedness displayed by his or her teacher, that is, the student can voluntarily choose to accept this invitation to be connected or deny it, but just by being in the classroom, he or she is in a relationship with the teacher. Likewise, my students were encouraged to be themselves by witnessing me teach from an undivided, genuine, and devoted self. By following Palmer‘s notion of ―We teach who we are,‖16 I was able to invite others to join in the sometimes awkward and idiosyncratic act of being themselves in a place that typically did not invite them to do so. I would frequently challenge the status quo and I would testify to my students of the power behind speaking against those educational tools that dominated and dehumanized us (i.e., the testing craze). My testimonies, and audacity to speak boldly against the inhumane structures of modern-day schooling, allowed my students to feel comfortable enough to chime in with me, passing the baton to the next generation of leaders. On the whole, I would contend that my students valued and embraced the ―loving‖ relations that were created in the classroom, even if they never named them as such. Loreman maintains that ―love is an essential ingredient in the relationship between teacher and learner.‖17 Expounding on this key ingredient, Freire understood that the components of humility, courage, trust, and respect were critical for bolstering love, as well as for making the relationship a focal point for both linking teachers and learners and for advancing a liberatory, progressive, and radical form of education.18 Moreover, any failed attempt for establishing love, trust, and humility would work to immobilize the educational relationship,19 conceivably leading to a dislocation the educational backbone. Teachers, especially those who wish to manifest love in and out of the classroom, must operate within a relational framework in order to create healthy, imaginative, and affective experiences with and for their students. At the forefront lies the notion of valuing the other for who she is and not as an object of use that we

15 Parker J. Palmer, “The heart of the teacher: Identity and integrity in teaching,” Change Magazine 29.6: 15 1997

16 The Courage to Teach 17 Love as Pedagogy, 5. 18 Paulo Freire, Education for Critical Consciousness (New York: Seabury Press); PF; PO. 19 Frank Margonis, “Relational pedagogy without foundations: Reconstructing the work of Paulo Freire,” Philosophy of education 99-107 1999.

71 teachers routinely – whether consciously or subconsciously – manipulate so as to assimilate her into a set of normative ideals. The loving teacher sees in her students a broad sense of who they truly are, she understands that they are ―unfinished‖ or ―incomplete‖ and knows that through viewing her students as their authentic selves she can begin to construct what Buber referred to as a bona fide I-Thou relation, cherishing the subject-to-subject relationship present in love.20 In the same way, Freire (2000) indicated that ―Education must begin with the solution of the teacher-student contradiction, by reconciling the poles of contradiction so that both are simultaneously teachers and students,‖21 therefore espousing Buber‘s subject-to-subject relation and calling for an equitable structure of power between teachers and students. This equitable construction of ―teacher-student‖ and ―student-teacher‖22 implores teachers and students to locate the beauty present in the other, and is a key element for creating relational classrooms. Garrison observed, ―Teachers and students must share interests and concerns; they cannot avoid each other in evolving classroom situations.‖23 These shared interests cannot become mutual if one is the authority figure and the other is the dominated subject. This requires the teacher to be themselves and to connect themselves with theirs students, and their subjects, in a way that makes them vulnerable to apathy, judgment, and even ridicule.24 This also suggests that ―The deeper and more intimate our relationships, the greater the potential risk and the greater the potential for growth.‖25 However, if we are to manifest love in and beyond our classrooms, we ought to be willing to daringly step out of our own personal frames of mind and into the others, to act with particular regard ―for‖ the other.26 In essence, being relational requires the teacher to know their students: to discover their likes and dislikes, find out what makes them who they are, understand and accept them for who they are, and ultimately, to know what makes them tick, all while acknowledging and managing the power differentials present between teachers and students.

20 Buber. 21 PO, 72. 22 ibid. 23 Dewey & Eros, 40. 24 Parker J. Palmer, “The heart of the teacher: Identity and integrity in teaching,” Change Magazine 29.6: 15 1997 25 Dewey & Eros, 42. 26 Nel Noddings, Caring, a feminine approach to ethics & moral education (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984).

On the other hand, O‘Quinn & Garrison cited that ―Many, especially postmodernists, counter that in one way or another it is impossible to know others who are truly different from us, leaving us then in a quandary of impossibility‖27 In spite of this apparent impracticality, relational teachers do attempt the impossible – to know their students – even though they are well aware of the unrealistic act of truly ―knowing‖ the other. Just because there is a rupture amongst epistemological positions, or a failure to locate common ground, does not give us (educationalists) a green light to abnegate our tacit obligation to get to ―know‖ our students in a manner that cultivates authentic, loving, and caring relations. Papas (1993) reminds us that ―A fuller, broader, and expansive self is one that has a direct personal interest in particular others and the relationships she shares with them.‖28 In this sense, when we attempt to know the ―other,‖ especially an ―other‖ unlike ourselves, we often times learn the most about who we truly are and seize the opportunity of exploring our old selves so as to construct or advance a new self.29 In essence, it may be unfeasible to truly ―know‖ yourself, or another, but teachers who venture outside of their comfort zones are frequently the ones who establish solid trusting, caring, and lifelong relations with diverse learning groups. These teachers, by being transparent and open-minded, are able grow in new dimensions, allowing them to forge authentic relations with those who are commonly labeled as ―different‖ or ―outside‖ of the mainstream. Therefore, it is critical that the loving and relational teacher recognizes that human relations are at the center of everything we do.30 As a result, a relational pedagogue adheres to the Deweyan philosophy that the self- realization of the child is at the crux of our educational aims, placing emphasis on the moral growth of the individual – integrity, personality, and character – as opposed to the amount of subject matter the child can store up and regurgitate.31 This is not to say that loving and relational teachers abandon the importance of subject matter altogether, rather they contend that learning cannot take place devoid of deep and communal relationships.32 Nonetheless, the

27 E. J. O’Quinn, & Jim Garrison, “Creating loving relations in the classroom,” ed. D. Liston, Teaching, learning, and loving: Reclaiming passion in educational practice (New York: RoutledgeFalmer, 2004), 53. 28 G. F. Papas, “Dewey and feminism: The affective and relationships in Dewey’s ethics,” Hypatia 8.2: 86 1993. 29 Dewey & Eros. 30 No Education Without Relation; N. Lucas, S. R. Komives, T.R. McMahon, Exploring leadership: For college students who want to make a difference (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2007); Margaret Wheatley, “Relationships: The basic building blocks of life,” May 20, 2011, from http://www.margaretwheatley.com. 31 John Dewey, The child and the curriculum (Chicago, Ill: University of Chicago press, 1902). 32 No Education Without Relation

73 growth of our learners does not occur in isolation; rather it transpires through shared experiences and relationships. For these reasons, the relational teacher ought to work tirelessly to evoke empathy, intelligence, liability, care, love, and wisdom in order to promote the wholesome relations needed to transform our classrooms, schools, and perhaps the world, taking into account that these fragile and finicky relations are disrupted by every action we take, regardless if it is well intended or not.33 That is why it is critical for those who view teaching as a form of leadership to treasure the fruitfulness of connecting with something larger than themselves, like the lives and dreams of others.34 In this light, teaching, when viewed as an act of leadership, becomes an inherently relational or communal process.35 On the other hand, one must be extremely cautious when striving to construct loving and caring relations. Far too often, teachers, administrators, schools, and learning communities paint a deficit portrait of students – viewing them as ―empty vesicles‖36 – which typically only captures the dominant viewpoint of the ―painter,‖ per se, and devalues or ignores the students‘ perspective.37 This school of thought, only taking into account one ―legitimate‖ or ―normalized‖ point of view, is highly problematic. Many would argue that the relational works of Dewey and Freire have endless value; however, is hard to overlook the ―absolute‖ claims that both make about teachers, learners, and the overall processes of schooling. Both propose counterhegemonic views that bring into question the oppressive and narrow-minded beliefs that drive present-day education; yet both also present their own dominant and prescriptive views. Margonis (1999) reveals: Contemporary arguments against ethical approaches reliant upon a philosophical anthropology suggest that universalistic portraits of humans serve as means of control as well as means of liberation. If Michel Foucault is right, descriptions of the human essence codify characteristics of a small segment of people and then become means of policing and coercing those who do not already embody those traits. Jean-Jacques

33 Margaret Wheatley, “Relationships: The basic building blocks of life,” May 20, 2011, from http://www.margaretwheatley.com. 34 Tom S. Poetter, & Bernard J. Badiali, Teacher leader (Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education, 2007). 35 N. Lucas, S. R. Komives, T.R. McMahon, Exploring leadership: For college students who want to make a difference (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2007). 36 PO. 37 Frank Margonis, “Relational pedagogy without foundations: Reconstructing the work of Paulo Freire,” Philosophy of education 99-107 1999.

Rousseau‘s portrait of Emile or Dewey‘s description of the inquiring child would thus appear as tools of assimilation whereby dominant groups discipline students to successively approximate a vision imposed upon them. Far from being a path of liberation, child-centered pedagogy might well be a particularly surreptitious means of domination.38 Given these claims, the loving and relational teacher must constantly seek to know the other, regardless if this process is perceived as impractical, in a way that steers clear of coercing them into an ―accepted‖ or ―legitimate‖ form of goodness. It is perfectly acceptable for a teacher to live a life of love, to model a moral and ethical agenda that promotes love, compassion, care, empathy, trust, respect, critical dialogue, passion, hospitality, forgiveness, selflessness, acceptance, kindness, peacefulness, and so forth. However, it is not acceptable for a teacher to define these virtues for others. This allows the teacher to freely give to her students while still maintaining an authentic self, a self that is ―in what one does‖39 not behind what one does. The former suggests that the actions are prompted by love, while the latter implies a method for controlling and dominating the student. Time and again, I was able to venture beyond the difficult terrain of the expected norms of teaching – those which typically functioned as blockades against teacher-student relations – so as to bond with my students, even the child who slipped through the cracks, so to speak, to get ―know‖ all of them to the best of my ability. I did so by modeling the qualities above, by allowing my students to ―see‖ what these traits looked like through their own eyes, and by allowing them to construct their own meaning, or draw their own conclusions, based on our shared experiences. Relationality involves a focus on five primary components: trust, respect, dialogue, being transparent, and accepting others. These concepts are key to not only cultivating relationships with students, but more important, for manifesting love in and out of the classroom. So, what is keeping students and teachers from bonding in ways that promotes loving and caring relations? Why are these profound relations lacking in our schools today?

38 Frank Margonis, “Relational pedagogy without foundations: Reconstructing the work of Paulo Freire,” Philosophy of education 99 1999. 39 G. F. Papas, “Dewey and feminism: The affective and relationships in Dewey’s ethics,” Hypatia 8.2: 86 1993.

Barriers for Building Relations Our proneness for establishing relationships in schools is dwindling at best, and altogether absent at worst.40 Children are asked to be side-by-side with one another, all day long, yet they are encouraged to keep to themselves and to resist the inherent predilection of interacting with those around them, unless granted permission. However, It is common to hear buzzwords like ―inquiry-based learning,‖ ―collaboration,‖ and ―teamwork,‖ but these terms are discarded and made extraneous the moment schools ―individually‖ assess students by means of objective tests. So, are we really promoting a collaborative learning environment? Are the students actually questioning that which they learn? Do they curiously search for knowledge (as inquiry-based instruction would suggest)? Sir Ken Robinson has recently made the case that schools do not value collaboration or inquiry, in fact, they often times refer to these processes as cheating, since the individual did not arrive at some conclusion on his or her own, which is regarded as group work in the real world.41 Nevertheless, the estranged phenomenon above, of isolating individuals from groups, has long since been a hidden agenda of schooling, implicitly manipulating students to conform to socio-cultural norms – typically that of only one society, one race, one class, one gender, one sexuality, and one culture. Jackson described these experiences as students learning ―how to be alone in a crowd,‖ whereby students were demanded to ―ignore‖ those around them.42 Dewey added that we have become so enthralled with our successes being measured by recitation and examination ―that for one child to help another in his task has become a school crime.‖43 In this process of being exposed to a hidden curriculum, students are incongruously asked, and many times required, to abstain from a rather natural tendency to want to be connected with others. I am using the word ―natural‖ to underscore Huebner‘s sentiments that love, and the longing to be in relation to one another, is not a calculated act or learned phenomenon, rather it is a given, an intrinsic characteristic of being human.44 Thus, in a Buberian sense, schools ought to be places where the ―I‖ and ―Thou‖ come together in a genuine form to satisfy a ―natural‖

40 No Education Without Relation. 41 These views were captured from Sir Ken Robinson’s RSA animate video titled “Changing Education Paradigms,” Retrieved from http://www.thersa.org. 42 Philip W. Jackson, Life in classrooms (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1968), 16. 43 John Dewey, The school and society (Chicago, Ill: University of Chicago press, 1943), 13 44 Huebner.

76 craving for togetherness.45 Yet, such is not the case. In reality, during the ―Era of Excellence‖ (which began in the 1980s following the Reagan Administrations release of A Nation at Risk) students have been compelled to compete with one another, to look out for their own well-being, and to solely focus on individual results such as test scores, rank, grades, and so forth.46 Huebner cautioned that a school agenda focusing only on these skills, concepts, and understanding, would foster estrangement from the world, which is becoming more and more visible in our schools today.47 The competitive arena constructed by schools during the ―Era of Excellence‖ has created a rift between the self and society. Hoyle and Slater, drawing on the work of Alexis de Tocqueville, reported that democracy provides people with the false notion that they can accomplish all matters on their own, promoting a type of ―hyper-individualism‖ which, over time, works to undermine the love, trust, and reciprocity needed to establish profound connections with one another.48 Another factor exacerbating this spate of individualism is that ―American‘s have become intoxicated with the power of self-esteem,‖49 blindly following the misconception that self-esteem and happiness can become a moral basis for raising our children. We hear all the time in our schools and society things like ―Do what makes you happy‖ or ―Don‘t do that, you may crush their self-esteem.‖ Certainly it is important to tend to these elements of life; however, solely focusing on the individual and individual results confounds our capacity for fostering loving relations. In addition to its push for individualism, the ―Era of Excellence‖ has caused a rise in the focus on ―measurable‖ results, which have served to objectify teachers, learners, and the overall experiences of education. Teachers have been forced to focus stringently on the achievement results of their students, and not so much on the individual student, per se. The present educational system, replete with a preposterous number of standards and objectives, implores teachers to ―deposit‖ detached bits of information into the submissive and ―empty‖ minds of

45 Buber. 46 No Education Without Relation; Alfie Kohn, No contest: The case against competition (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1986). 47 Huebner. 48 John Hoyle and Robert Slater, “Love, Happiness, and America’s Schools: The role of Educational Leadership in the 21st Century,” Phi Delta Kappan 82.10: 790 – 794 2001. 49 Weissbourd, 43.

77 their students.50 Moreover, ―The more completely [the students] accept the passive role imposed on them, the more they tend simply to adapt to the world as it is and to the fragmented view of reality deposited in them.‖51 As such, students are cultured to believe that their function is to obediently accept the present form of education, which presses them to compete, without regard for others, for cultural capital. In turn, students become so enthralled with the egoistic agenda of preserving and bettering the self – like ―Pac-Man‖ insatiably gobbling up tiny pellets and avoiding everything else – that there is no time in the day or room in the curriculum to profoundly connect with their fellow classmates. Likewise, teachers are cultured to believe that their sole objective is to ―fill‖ students with knowledge, and the more completely they fill the minds of their students, the more superior a teacher they have become,52 again overlooking the importance of creating dense networks of personal relations.53 As a result, it has become more important to focus on that which each student has obtained (like test scores, grades, and so forth) rather than focusing on who they really are. Consequently, the impetus to ―have‖ more things is adversely working against our ability to ―become‖ more complete beings. Fromm contended that over time we have gradually worked to transform our speech style from referring to our state of being towards our state of having; such as, we no longer say that I am troubled; we instead say I have a problem.54 Fromm (1976) also declared that this ongoing adaptation in our speech style has initiated some form of alienation: By saying ―I have a problem‖ instead of ―I am troubled,‖ subjective experience is eliminated: the I of experience is replaced by the it of possession. I have transformed my feeling into something I possess: the problem. But ―problem‖ is an abstract expression for all kinds of difficulties. I cannot have a problem, because it is not a thing that can be owned; it, however, can have me. That is to say, I have transformed myself into a

50 PO. 51 PO, 73. 52 ibid. 53 Margaret Wheatley, “Relationships: The basic building blocks of life,” May 20, 2011, from http://www.margaretwheatley.com.

54 To Have or To Be.

―problem‖ and am now owned by my creation. This way of speaking betrays a hidden, unconscious alienation.55 The same holds true in our schools today. Instead of students uttering ―I am smart‖ or hearing teachers declare ―She is on the ball,‖ we hear phrases like: ―I got all A‘s on my report card.‖ ―I got a 32 on the ACT.‖ ―He has been suspended.‖ ―I got a 1050 on the SAT.‖ ―She had perfect attendance.‖ ―She got a full ride to Harvard.‖ ―He has 1500 friends on Facebook.‖ ―I have a boyfriend.‖ As Garrison noted, ―Culture has us before we have it,‖56 and is clearly made evident by the way our children organically accept contemporary customs. Having their consciousnesses shrouded by objectivism, students are reduced to things, to an ―It,‖ or object, and rarely discover this dehumanizing process – at least not while being schooled. Buber cautioned that ―As soon as the relation has been worked out or has been permeated with a means, the Thou becomes an object among objects…fixed in its size and limits.‖57 At present, the means which has permeated the once authentic Thou, or subject-to-subject relationship, is the very processes of schooling. The objective agenda of our contemporary education system is steadily working to dismantle the humanistic components of schooling. Little by little people are becoming more and more ―physically‖ disconnected from one another, highlighting Fromm‘s point that we are slowly becoming more and more alienated from one another and underscoring Buber‘s claim that every I-Thou relationship is inevitably destined to become an I-It, or objectified relation. Palmer furthered this discussion adding: By disconnecting us from the world, objectivism has led us into actions so inharmonious with reality that catastrophe seems inevitable if we stay the course. Objectivism, far from telling the truth about how we know, is a myth meant to feed our fading fantasy of science, technology, power, and control. If we dare to move through our fear, to practice knowing as a form of love, we might abandon our illusion of control and enter a partnership with the otherness of the world.58 However, entering into partnerships with others can be dicey. In recent times, sex allegations between teachers and students have become common, making relationality in schools

55 To Have or To Be, 18-19. 56 Dewey & Eros, 39. 57 Buber, 17. 58 The Courage to Teach, 57.

79 a precarious thing. Teachers are constantly warned by administrators to refrain from getting too close to their students and students are often times questioned by others if they happen to befriend one of their teachers. Daniel Cho‘s work examines love as pedagogy with regards to recent sexual scandals and the standardization movement, highlighting the ―vagueness‖ between love and sex and the ―devaluing‖ of love based on teachers potentially exhibiting favoritism when assessing student work.59 The blurry and multifaceted lines that police teacher-student relations need be in place; however, they should not work to induce ―‗child panic,‘ where cultures are created wherein teachers feel discomfort at what were previously normal forms of intimacy between children and adults, such as occasional hugs with youngsters.‖60 By doing so, we run the risk of making the affective inappropriate and work to disrupt the powers of relationality, driving a deeper wedge between teachers and students. Obstacles, hurdles, barriers, blockades, obstructions, and so on, are set in place to deter one from completing some task. At present, the hindrances mentioned in this section are functioning in opposition to love and counter to the natural tendency to be in relation with one another. According to the Claremont study, the primary predicament causing crises in our schools was the lack of solid, loving, and healthy relationships.61 As a result, it is our ontological obligation as teachers to circumvent these obstacles so as to create loving, caring, respectful, hospitable, accepting, compassionate, selfless, forgiving, and passionate relationships with and for our students.

Putting Relationality Into Action No matter the time, there always exists a need for relational leaders, and regarding educational matters, there is no better time than the here and now. Relationality, which is a critical element for constructing love-based classrooms, hinges on one‘s capacity for establishing mutual trust, respect, and rapport, and for initiating a critical dialogue with and for students, and for accepting others as they are and not for how one hopes to exploit them. Relationality relies heavily on one‘s ability to be transparent and vulnerable enough to invite others to willingly participate in the relationship. In this section I unpack each of these tenets of relationality and discuss how they can be used to cultivate caring and loving learning communities.

59 Daniel Cho, “Lessons of love: Psychoanalysis and teacher-student love,” Educational Theory 55.1: 79 2005; 60 Love as Pedagogy, 10. 61 The Claremont Study was cited in No Education Without Relation, p. 2.

Teaching is unlike many other professions. Each day, hundreds of children walk through our doors, each carrying with him or her a unique and individualized lived curriculum. Every child marks a new chapter of a boundless book. As a result, ―Teaching involves trust and respect as well as close, special relationships between students and teachers.‖62 One‘s capacity for manifesting love in and out of the classroom must begin with deep and personal relationships, and these relationships must be founded by mutual trust and respect. Respect is a word that I grew up fearing. I had to respect my mother and father. I had to respect my elders. I was forced to be a respectful citizen. However, once I matured and broke away from these archaic understandings of the term, I no longer feared respect; rather I began to cherish it. I had come to realize that respect was something that all people deserved, and, much like love, respect worked best when it was freely given and freely accepted.63 When looking through the dictionary for definitions of the term respect, I came across such phrases as: feelings of admiration for; thoughtfulness; an attitude of deference, esteem, or regard; polite, kind, or considerate; to treat courteously. Hunter defined respect as ―treating people like they are important.‖64 At any rate, the term implies one to act volitionally, not be forced, as indicated above. Teachers must realize that they are not ―due‖ the antiquated form of respect they may be accustomed to, rather, they must opt to garner respect by generously giving it to their students. By being open-minded and vulnerable, the teacher is able to knock down the defensive walls students erect and can begin to build bridges that connect both parties. By getting to ―know‖ or understand their students, teachers are not only demonstrating their capacity to love, but are willing to humble themselves in efforts to grow as humans. Margonis pointed out, ―Coming to understand the students enriches and transforms the teacher. It makes ‗thinking with‘ possible, and it enables teachers to show the appropriate respect to their students.‖65 Without the foundational element of respect, relationality doesn‘t have a leg to stand on. Students (and people in general) are apprehensive to engage in relations where respect is not present. Our students need to know that we accept them for who they are and that our relations with them will not only eschew judgment, but will strive to better understand their authentic selves. Freire believed that ―our relationship with the learners demands that we respect

62 What Keeps Teachers Going, 37. 63 Loving Each Other; J. Hoyle, Leadership and the force of love (California: Corwin Press, Inc, 2002). 64 Hunter, 97. 65 Frank Margonis, “Relational pedagogy without foundations: Reconstructing the work of Paulo Freire,” Philosophy of education 102, 1999.

81 them and demands equally that we be aware of the concrete conditions of their world, the conditions that shape them.‖66 The moment that our students realize that we don‘t have a clue about who they are, or show some sign of trying to better understand them, is the moment that we have lost their attention and respect – sometimes permanently. ―Students who sense the teacher‘s disrespect will react defensively, hiding their understandings, fearful the teacher has already judged their worldview.‖67 More often than not, the student‘s defensiveness – which results from the disrespect of the teacher – is viewed as poor behavior by the student, and not the teacher, which begins to erode trust. The students begin to detect a level of contradiction, where the teachers insinuate that respect is necessary, yet they fail to display it, causing the students to anxiously wait for the teacher to contradict himself.68 The reciprocated respect between teachers and learners is vital, yet it cannot prevail if detached from its counterpart – trust. Trust is not obtainable if devoid of respect as much as respect is not accessible if it is without trust. Nevertheless, trust requires us to have faith in another, to rely on her, to believe in her, and to confide in her. As such, teachers need to display a sincere and loyal amount of faith in their students. By doing so, teachers are taking an interest in the lives of their students, showing that they believe in them, and opening the door for students to return this love and trust, thus confiding in their teachers. However, trust is a delicate flower. The smallest issues, with the greatest intentions, can disrupt the circle of trust created between teachers and learners. We may casually toss the word love around, but when it comes to trust, people are guarded and hesitant to freely dole it out. Based on Bauman‘s estimations, ―The world today seems to be conspiring against trust.‖69 It has hard to refute this claim. Politicians have been caught in deceit, priests have been brought up on sexual misconduct charges, athletes have lied about using performance enhancing drugs, celebrities have cheated on their wives, teachers have slept with their students, and on and on. And, these reports do not take account for the complex personal matters that influence our attitudes on trust. We may not be able to shape what transpires in public spheres, or affect what is portrayed by the media, nor can we control what happens in the private lives of our students,

66 TCW, 102. 67 Frank Margonis, “Relational pedagogy without foundations: Reconstructing the work of Paulo Freire,” Philosophy of education 103, 1999. 68 TCW. 69 Zygmunt Bauman, Does ethics have a chance in a world of consumers? (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 2008), 64.

82 but just because these areas are unsupplied with trust, does not entitle schools and teachers to be distrustful. Teachers must be vigilant in determining what takes place under their watch, building networks of trust, and forever bearing in mind that the fragile relationships among teachers and students lie in the balance. Because once the levels of relational trust have been lessened, people become more likely to isolate themselves, to shut down, and become uncooperative, consequently, as these behaviors increase, the fate of trust inversely decreases.70 Without trust, the relationship is on its deathbed. In essence, ―A loving relationship is one of trust and acceptance which creates a tender warm feeling of security and commitment. It offers unlimited support and strength upon which one can always draw.‖71 Relationality is deeply rooted in mutual trust and respect, but also relies heavily on acceptance. Students rarely welcome respect and trust without first being accepted. In recent times, there has been a push to teach tolerance in school, which is not to be confused with acceptance. I can tolerate things that I detest, such as beets, grapefruit, and the University of Kentucky basketball program (no offense to any UK fans). But people are not objects. They are complex beings which cannot be ―tolerated‖ in a similar vein to how one tolerates an inanimate object. Thus, acceptance transcends tolerance by negotiating a mutual basis for establishing a relationship, whereby both parties attempt to reconcile their differences by locating some inherent value in the other‘s point of view.72 The notion of acceptance does carry with it some baggage. For instance, acceptance presupposes a relationship of ―othering‖73 whereby the dominant subject has to ―accept‖ the other subject. We must recognize that there are implicit powers operating in schools that reify the notion of ―othering‖ by signifying the teacher as the possessor of the dominant voice and the student as the subaltern voice. Moreover, we must draw on Berry‘s work to better understand how intolerance is burgeoned by those who view other different racial, ethnic, or cultural backgrounds as a threat.74 Teachers on average, whether knowingly or unknowingly, struggle to accept those from ―other‖ cultural backgrounds, citing most often that they have nothing in

70 Thomas Sergiovanni, Rethinking leadership: A collection of articles (Thousand Oaks, Calif: Corwin Press, 2007). 71 Loving Each Other, 48. 72 Love as Pedagogy. 73 G. Spivak, “Can the Subaltern Speak? Speculations on Widow-Sacrifice,” Wedge 7.8: 120-130 1985. 74 Love as Pedagogy.

83 common.75 However, I would argue that we have a moral obligation to love, respect, and value all students, regardless of race, class, creed, sexuality, gender, and other taxonomic groupings that (mis)label children. Thus, acceptance, which is a derivative of relationality, which is derived from love, is also a volitional act. As a result, one can either choose to flee from his or her comfort zones and embrace the differences of another, or stay inside his or her bubble, accepting things the way they are, i.e., one-sided, racialized, homophobic, classist, patriarchal, and altogether unjust. But, if we are to enact a pedagogy of love, we must recognize these hegemonic proclivities and use love as practical tool for demystifying them. Moreover, we have to appreciate that ―A loving relationship is the unconditional acceptance of another person…which both parties feel so loved, so accepted and so safe that they can share their innermost feelings, dreams, failures, success, without reservation.‖76 Finally, relationality is governed by our capacity to initiate a critical form of dialogue that (re)imagines a new world of educational possibilities. The aforementioned elements of relationality lay the foundation needed to enter into a critical form of dialogue. Dialogue originates from two or more people being united by a mutual exploration for truth and is nourished by love, hope, faith, humility, and trust.77 In this manner, dialogue is not the talking to, or at, or over another, rather it is the talking with another. Moreover, this dialogical undertaking entails that discourse must take place among others, together, in an inclusive manner – maintained by faith, hope, respect, humility, and trust – and ―cannot exist…in the absence of a profound love for the world and for people.‖78 Turning to Huebner, we find that ―The requirements of love, that a person freely give, freely receive, internalize that which has been received, and give once again from the newness of one‘s self, are also the requirements for true conversation.‖79 This means that dialogue needs to be circulated, from teacher to student and student to teacher. Not in the existing oppressive state of deposit and regurgitate, but through the exchange of new ideas, through the communal passing of knowledge from one to the other, and back again. Thus, dialogue implores both parties to not merely exchange information, but to act on the ideas shared, to reshape them, or perhaps each other, in a way that encounters both self and other, to help one another grow and develop

75 ibid. 76 Loving Each Other, 48-49. 77 Paulo Freire, Education for Critical Consciousness (New York: Seabury Press). 78 PO, 89. 79 Huebner, 78.

(Huebner, 1999). In essence, dialogue is an attempt by teachers and students to interact in the naming of their world, in a subjective manner, not by ―depositing‖ ideas into one another, nor as a means for ―oppressing‖ each other, but through the display of a profound love for one another.80

Final Thoughts Love expressed through relationality has the potential to excite learners about school. By taking an interest in building relationships with students, students tend to take an interest in their teachers and in learning. Noddings stated that students who are brought up in loving, caring, and relational classrooms typically show an ―increased interest in the subject matter (if she is interested, it must be worth exploring); enhanced self-esteem (if she sees something in me, I must be worth something); and concern for others (if she cares about them, perhaps I should too).‖81 Interesting to report, these increased attributes did not arise from standardized tests, curriculum maps, anchor assessments, data-driven results, or any other ―scientific‖ means, rather they emerged from feeling loved, welcomed, supported, and appreciated. Likewise, my mailbox was overflowing with letters of appreciation because I invested my life into the lives of my students, because we created deep, nourishing, and loving relations, strong levels of mutual trust and respect between us, and sincere forms of acceptance, not because I followed the ―official‖ curriculum. The bottom line is, ―Children become the company they keep.‖82 We cannot be responsible for the company they keep outside of school, but under our care, students need to see love being operationalized, they need to bond with their teachers in a way that nurtures respect, trust, faith, and acceptance. If we hope to see the world become a more respectful place, richer in love, filled with hope, faith, trust and acceptance, and teeming with compassion, then we must begin to model these things for our students. In the next chapter, I will examine the second critical component of love – compassion.

80 PO. 81 Nel Noddings, Foreword. In C. W. Bingham (Ed.), No education without relation (New York: P. Lang., 2004) vii. 82 Dewey & Eros, 42.

CHAPTER FIVE – EVERYONE NEEDS COMPASSION “Each of us in our own way can try to spread compassion into people‟s hearts. Western civilizations these days place great importance on filling the human 'brain' with knowledge, but no one seems to care about filling the human 'heart' with compassion.”1

“Conventional” Conceptions of Compassion 2 Summer break was coming to a close and it was time for teachers and students to tackle another new beginning. District officials had begun to pack envelopes with back to school material, while building administrators organized their back to school speeches. Teachers were beginning to file in, one-by-one, to fill their rooms with bright colors, intriguing bulletins, and inspiring quotes. Soon the silent and tranquil halls would be filled with noisy students, excited to reconnect with their friends and to meet their new teachers. Ellen, a real go-getter and intense principal, was bouncing around the halls smiling and waving at her teachers (it was the first day back for the teachers, the students still had three days before the school year was officially underway). Ellen appeared enthusiastic and excited to start the school year. She was a serious leader who was amiable with her staff, but demanded a great deal from herself and her teachers. Ellen was ―Type A‖ person who could never relinquish her power and control to her staff and students. Behind her friendly smile was a tightly-wound, ambitious, business-like person. Suddenly, the humming of the PA system flipped on and caused the teachers to freeze in place, expecting it to be hard to hear, yet the voice easily reverberated off the walls because the students were not there to interrupt or absorb the blast. ―Ladies and Gentlemen,‖ Ellen announced, ―Thank you for being here today. I am excited to begin another school year with this dedicated and professional staff. Our back to school meeting will be held in the library and will begin in 15 minutes.‖ Ellen‘s passion was nearly unmatched. Yet, in the eyes of her staff, that passion was seen as self-fulfilling. Many of the teachers were hanging out in the lounge, exchanging stories from the summer, making copies, and perusing the ―welcome back‖ agenda. It was going to be another typical meeting, the administrators were going to talk at us and we were never going to have a chance to talk back.

1 Quote from the Dalai Lama 2 Please recall that when (re)telling these events the author will italicize actual quotes and will not italicize that which has been paraphrased.

Gradually, the teachers began to pour into the library, each looking for that perfect seat that would make the meeting more palatable. Ellen welcomed each entering teacher with a warm and friendly smile as they entered the library. The room was draped with flags from varying nations and overflowing with student accolades and awards paying homage to the school‘s ―national‖ recognition. The tables were neatly organized. Every seat was accompanied by a folder which was filled with important documents and annual forms that needed to be completed, signed, and returned to the office. Projected on the whiteboard was a friendly message that read, ―Welcome back friends and family of Fairview Middle School.‖ Then Ellen motioned Gina, her administrative assistant, to dim the lights. ―Welcome back friends and family of Fairview Middle School,‖ Ellen amiably and readily declared. ―I am excited to start another school year as your leader and I am very fortunate to be surrounded by so many great teachers, students, and community members,‖ Ellen announced. She went on, ―I hope everyone had an enjoyable and relaxing summer vacation. Last year was a trying one, to say the least. We had a rough group of students and I am fairly confident that most of you are happy to see last year‘s eighth graders moving on.‖ My friends and colleagues did not appreciate the jab and began to roll their eyes and whisper to one another. ―I wish I could say that this year was going to be easier, but in hearing from the elementary teachers, we may have an even rowdier bunch,‖ Ellen coldly stated, as if they were unable to be tamed and undeserving of our love and compassion. But I know this staff, and you are always up to the challenge,‖ believed Ellen. ―Speaking of challenges,‖ Ellen asserted, ―I would like to begin our meeting and kick off this new school year with some positive news. Thanks to your hard work and dedication, we have scored above the state‘s thresholds in the areas of reading and math, and as a result of our ‗EOG‘ (End of Grade) test scores, each teacher will be receiving a $1,500 bonus.‖ In the state of North Carolina, teachers received merit pay based solely on how well the students performed on the ―End of Grade‖ examinations. Ellen continued, ―These assessments are vital for the success of our learning community and for upholding our national prestige of being a ‗Blue Ribbon School of Excellence.‘ So go ahead and take a few minutes to celebrate your hard work and accomplishments with one another.‖ After about five or ten minutes of teachers talking about their personal lives, the meeting recommenced. ―I again want to thank each and every one of you for your diligence and devotion to sustaining our commitment to excellence here at Fairview

Middle School,‖ Ellen announced. ―But, being at the top means it will be even more difficult to demonstrate adequate yearly progress,‖ she added. The new school year was no more that 30 minutes old and already the teachers were zoned out and switched on to autopilot. Nearly the entire room of teachers had already lost interest in what was Ellen was rambling on about. ―However important it is for us to celebrate our accomplishments, it is equally important that we are willing and able to locate areas of improvement,‖ Ellen interjected. ―Remember our motto,‖ she explained, ―There are only two types of schools, growing or declining. Which one are we? Many of you would argue that we are a growing school, and that may well be true; however, we continue to show growth in the same areas,‖ Ellen reported. Like the ears of a perceptive cat, a few of the teachers began to perk up in their chairs after hearing this. ―Many of our Asian and White populations are excelling in the areas of Reading, Writing, and Math, while many of our Black and Hispanic students are failing to meet the State‘s basic requirements,‖ she added. My jaw dropped. I had to ask myself, ―Did she just say what I think she said?‖ ―Look at Figure 1.1,‖3 as she changed slides. Then she shouted it off the rooftop by displaying the chart below. The state actually disaggregated the data for the 2005-06 and 2006- 07 school years into the following categories.

2005-2006 2006-2007 Student # At or # Valid Percent At or # At or # Valid Percent At or Subgroup Above Level Scores Above Above Level Scores Above Level III III III All Students 518 634 81.70% 519 641 81.00% Female 265 317 83.60% 255 323 78.90% Male 253 317 79.80% 264 318 83.00% American Indian * * * * * * Asian - 91 >95% 104 113 92.00% Black 41 98 41.80% 37 100 37.00% Hispanic 16 32 50.00% 21 42 50.00% Multi-Racial 20 27 74.10% 29 35 82.90% White 351 386 90.90% 327 350 93.40%

―These results indicate that we are failing to adequately educate our Black and Hispanic populations,‖ Ellen declared. She went on to add, ―As you can see, 92% of our Asian and 93%

3 Figure 1.1 was obtained from the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction and was retrieved from the following site on June 5, 2011: http://accrpt.ncpublicschools.org/app/2007/disag/. The information in the table displays the reading and math composite results for students ranging from grades 3 – 8 in a particular North Carolina School district.

88 of our White students are scoring at or above ‗Level III‘ on the EOGs with respect to the reading and math composites, while only 37% of our Black and 50% of our Hispanic students are doing so.‖ I couldn‘t believe that this was taking place. My skin began to crawl and I tried to slither under the table to hide my uneasiness. How could she stand up in front of her African-American teachers and call out an entire race? Wow! Nonetheless, ―Level III‖ was a fixed range set in place by state officials and was considered the minimum level used to indicate a ―passing‖ or ―proficient‖ test score. ―As we zoom in and examine Figure 1.2‖4 (see below), she continued, ―we can more fully distinguish which subgroups need the most attention.‖

2005-2006 2006-2007 Student Subgroup # At or # Valid Percent At # At or # Valid Percent At Above Level Scores or Above Above Level Scores or Above III III Level III Female - American Indian * * * * * * Female - Asian - 53 >95% 58 64 90.60% Female - Black 25 56 44.60% 15 56 26.80% Female - Hispanic 8 10 80.00% 11 17 64.70% Female - Multi-Racial 8 11 72.70% 16 18 88.90% Female - White 172 187 92.00% 155 168 92.30% Male - American Indian * * * * * * Male - Asian - 38 >95% 46 49 93.90% Male - Black 16 42 38.10% 22 44 50.00% Male - Hispanic 8 22 36.40% 10 25 40.00% Male - Multi-Racial 12 16 75.00% 13 17 76.50% Male - White 179 199 89.90% 172 182 94.50% Economically Disadvantaged 31 82 37.80% 37 117 31.60% Not Economically Disadvantaged 487 552 88.20% 482 524 92.00% Limited English Proficiency 22 33 66.70% 29 53 54.70% Not Limited English Proficient 496 601 82.50% 490 588 83.30% Migrant * * * * * * Not Migrant 518 634 81.70% 519 641 81.00%

Ellen stated, ―The results in this figure highlight our areas of highest need. Again, our Black populations, both male and female, need to improve their test scores. Likewise, so do our Hispanic, Economically Disadvantaged, and LEP (Limited English Proficiency) populations.‖

4 4 Figure 1.2 was obtained from the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction and was retrieved from the following site on June 5, 2011: http://accrpt.ncpublicschools.org/app/2007/disag/. The information in the table displays the reading and math composite results for students ranging from grades 3 – 8 in a particular North Carolina School district and is disaggregated based on the above categories.

She just seemed to go on as if it were ok to make ―objective‖ claims – which failed to identify larger socio-political issues – about cultural entire races, cultures, and ethnic groups. ―In addition,‖ she asserted, ―our test scores have dropped from 6 to 18 percentage points concerning our Black Female, Economically Disadvantaged, and LEP students from last year to this year.‖ Ellen continued, ―Therefore, we are charged with the daunting task of raising these particular students‘ test scores. We must sift through the data and find our ‗soft 3s‘ (these are the students who scarcely missed – by one or two questions – level III status) and do our best to push them over the threshold.‖

Where’s the Compassion? 5 I vividly recall the meeting above. I remember feeling uncomfortable and stunned by Ellen‘s sheer lack of compassion and understanding for her students and staff. How could she blast the African-American and Latina populations without better understanding their situations? Where was the compassion? On what grounds was she granted authority to belittle the African- American and Latino teachers that were present in the staff meeting? If I was uncomfortable, what must it have been like to be one of the marginalized persons Ellen was lambasting? I was familiar with the implicit racial norms of the South, but this went beyond that. These claims were without equivocation and many times failed to look beyond the objective measures that served to legitimize Ellen‘s allegations. Where was her proof that these students needed to improve? How would raising the test scores of these populations right the social and political wrongs that continued to marginalize and oppress these populations? Most of all, how could every teacher sit and ―silently‖ accept these claims? Even though I was troubled, I too remained somewhat silent. I would fight back with my actions and my teaching style, but I never attempted to debunk the main sources that were driving these ―legitimated‖ thoughts – until now. Through my silence I subconsciously accepted Ellen‘s declarations and allowed them to work against myself and my students, at least to some degree. While employed at Fairview Middle School, I would oftentimes struggle to teach completely from my heart because it was busy challenging many of the competing claims used by Ellen, and other dominant voices, to shroud the oppressive realities working against my

5 Please recall that when (re)telling these events the author will italicize actual quotes and will not italicize that which has been paraphrased.

90 marginalized students. I would give it my all, but sometimes, I was so tired, dejected, and beat down, that I couldn‘t put up a good enough fight. I was physically, spiritually, and emotionally drained. My levels of compassion were depleted by outside forces, and as a result, many of my students paid the price. I remember one student in particular who needed an extra shot of love each day. His name was Dante. He was a very polite, good looking, friendly, athletic, and a witty student. Or, if he were telling the story, he was ―tall, dark, and handsome.‖ Dante reminded me each day that my job entailed far more than the filling of the mind that Ellen portrayed above, rather it required me to top off the empty life-force tanks of my students with love and compassion. Every so often, I would relapse, disregarding the latter in order to satiate the former, and Dante would be there to humble me and redirect my efforts. During one particular instance, he and I were amidst a heated disagreement. I was badgering him (away from his friends and classmates) about not doing his homework and for failing the last exam he took in my class. Dante was trying to explain to me why he wasn‘t keeping up, but I cheekily paid no attention to him or his story. I only wanted what was best for Dante, and therein lies the problem. I wanted what was best for him in accordance with my worldview. I wanted Dante to do well in school so he could get a football or basketball scholarship (he was an extremely talented athlete). Much like Ellen, I wanted him to succeed, to ―be somebody‖ within my normative constructions of the world. It was only after getting to know Dante that my worldview drastically shifted. I always thought that I was modeling what it meant to be loving and compassionate to my students, until Dante came along and taught me what it means to be compassionate. It was his last home football game and he asked me to come and watch. That was the fun part. Dante dominated both sides of the field. He was a beast out there. Dante forced a fumble, had two sacks, countless tackles, and scored two touchdowns. It was so uplifting to see him thriving outside of the classroom, where he typically felt unsuccessful. Then after the game, Dante asked me if I could give him a ride home. I attended nearly every football game and practically every time Dante would be the last one hanging around and waiting for a ride. It crushed me that someone so loving, caring, gifted, and talented had no one to share his successes, or failures, with. The whole ride home, he never stopped talking about the game: ―Hey C, did you see me smash that little running back?‖ ―Did you like that swim move I used to

91 sack the quarterback?‖ ―How tight was that touchdown catch?‖ ―I was ‗beasting‘ people out there.‖ Then we got to his apartment complex and he invited me in to meet his brothers and sisters. I was hesitant to enter at first. Social norms tend to frown upon teachers mingling with their students, but I was anything but ―normal,‖ so I accepted the invite. Upon entering the apartment I noticed that there was an eviction notice stamped to the door. The electricity had been shut off. There was no food to be found. Dante had six brothers and sisters, five of which were younger than him. When I asked what his mom did for a living, he told me, ―She a crack head C. We ain‘t seen her in months. She comes and goes and will be back someday.‖ ―What about your dad,‖ I asked. ―He been in prison since I was a little kid. He and some boys beat some punks to death and he been in prison for like ten years,‖ he responded. I asked Dante if he was hungry, and when he said yes, I immediately took him up the street to feed him. I told him to get whatever he wanted and to order enough food for his brothers and sisters. After dinner, I dropped him off and headed home. The whole way home I remember thinking, how can I ever expect Dante to keep up with his schoolwork? Why should he care about passing my class when it doesn‘t help feed him or his family? What does passing a test mean for someone who has no electricity? Dante was literally the mom, dad, brother, provider, caregiver, and took on many other duties that most kids his age have and take for granted. Dante taught me many things, but most of all, he taught me how to be compassionate. He taught me how to love my students from a whole new perspective. Dante‘s story is one of many that helped me realize that love and compassion are what make education fulfilling and purposeful; that it is these elements, and not menial test scores, that bring hope to one‘s life. To be compassionate means to bear another‘s pain,6 and that is precisely what my students have helped me to comprehend. Stepping outside of my own frame of mind and into the lives of my students, as impartially as possible, has helped me to not only better understand them, but to also inspire and motivate my students to take up a more purpose driven life. I was able to teach them because I knew them. We allowed learning to take on new meanings because we cared about and treated each other as people in need of love, not students and teachers in need of producing desirable ―test‖ results.

6 Ron Heifetz, & Martin Linsky, Leadership on the line: Staying alive through the dangers of leading (Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School Press, 2002).

Dante‘s story was touching, but it wasn‘t the only teachable lesson in my educational career about compassion: I learned from Alejandra that while it may be difficult to learn how to speak English when living in a Spanish speaking home, it is comforting to hear a white teacher attempt to communicate in her native tongue. Carlos taught me that it may extremely difficult to be a gay student in a homophobic school setting, but just having one teacher as an ally can make a world of difference. I learned from Anna that affluence doesn‘t translate into a worry-free or unstressed life, and that many times students like her are overlooked since they produce desirable results. Randy taught me that good grades are futile if you are battling the demons of heroin, which he eventually overdosed on. This list goes on and on and reveals the importance of teaching from a loving and compassionate platform. The myriad accounts, trials, and tribulations of my students have placed for me a greater emphasis on the intangibles of teaching, such as love, care, respect, hope, faith, relationships, compassion, and so one, and less of an emphasis on the more commonly accepted purpose of schooling, the results they yield. Ellen‘s beliefs, as widely accepted as they may be, fail to take into account the emotional beatings, spiritual conflicts, psychological battles, hormonal changes, social struggles, family matters, and other outside forces which function to shape not only the educational experiences of our children, but also their worldviews. These ―legitimated‖ views cloak the hearts and minds of many teachers and administrators, and especially the general public, from witnessing the deep and troubling issues plaguing our educational system. Thus, when examining school data, like the data presented at our meeting by Ellen regarding test scores of our student body, we mustn‘t be removed from the real life issues that work against the unnatural forces of schooling. We ought to forever bear in mind that Dante, Alejandra, Carlos, Anna, and all of our students are first and foremost people, who bring with them their own lived experiences, and require us to lovingly, carefully, and compassionately view them as such. By viewing them merely as test scores, we are ―othering‖ our students, and in turn are creating a false distance between the I and the Thou of Buber‘s relational work.7 This phenomenon works to reify our students by use of a distant score, on a test that is distant from any sort of meaningful reality to the student, and society for that matter. If Baumann is correct,

7 Buber.

93 and ―People tend to weave their images of the world out of the yarn of their experience[s],‖8 then we desist with the objectification and othering of students by data, and instead provide them with more fruitful, wholesome, and loving experiences that will foster the reweaving of more compassionate, caring, and empathetic images of the world.

To “Be” Compassionate The stories above capture only a small fraction of those being affected by the deficient amounts of love and compassion in our schools today. The list goes on: Phoebe Prince was literally bullied to death by her peers at South Hadley High School in Massachusetts.9 A defenseless young woman was gang raped outside of school function at Richmond High School, just outside of San Francisco, and was brutally assaulted for more than two hours, while as many as 20 individuals naively watched and recorded the event on their cell phones.10 ABC local channel 13 in Detroit shared reports of wrestlers hazing underclassman by sodomizing, beating, and urinating on them.11 According to the National Center for Educational Statistics over 100 school shootings have taken place in the United States since 1966.12 A Maryland teacher was ―terrified‖ to return to work after one student attacked and assaulted her, while another recorded the April 22, 2008 event.13 These stories represent a minute portion of the present-day ills that plague our world, our neighborhoods, our youth culture, our schools, and so much more. In addition, the national headlines above fail to accurately portray the daily events that work against love and compassion in our schools. For instance, day in and day out, millions of students in our schools are being bullied, teased, tormented, pushed, shoved, laughed at, robbed, beaten, neglected, ridiculed, and otherwise maligned by their peers, and sometimes even their teachers. So I ask, somewhat

8 Zygmunt Bauman, Does ethics have a chance in a world of consumers? (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 2008), 56. 9 E. Eckholm, & K. Zezima, “6 teenagers are charged after classmate’s suicide,” The New York Times, retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com March 29th 2010 10 CNN, Police: “As many as 20 present at gang rape outside school dance,” retrieved from http://www.cnn.com October 27th 2009. 11 ABC local news, “Monroe Co. police investigate high school hazing,” retrieved from http://abclocal.go.com January 12th 2011. 12 National Center for Education Statistics, “Violence and discipline problems in U.S. public schools,” retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ssocs/tables/all_2004_tab_23.asp June 5th 2011. 13 MSNBC, “Teacher ‘petrified’ after being attacked by student: Baltimore educator says she cannot bring herself to return to work now,” retrieved from http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/24047456/ns/today- today_people/t/teacher-petrified-after-being-attacked-student/ June 5th 2011.

94 intolerantly, ―How can we sit idly by and watch the despotic agendas of modern times beseech us to place our students in direct competition with one another for test results, while the aforementioned events, which are underrated, are becoming daily occurrences in our schools?‖ Moreover, what is causing these events to take place? I would contend that these results are explicitly linked to a lack of love and compassion in our schools, and perhaps world. Fourth century Chinese philosopher Motse suggested that a lack of mutual love for one another would spur on oppressive conditions where dominant groups would enact their powers over weaker groups.14 Lin argued that our ―positivistic paradigms‖ and reductionist views of the world have bisected the mind from its compassionate and loving counterpart, the heart.15 Where a head separated from the heart results in ―minds that do not know how to feel and hearts that do not know how to think.‖16 Giroux argued that our youth have nowhere to turn in order to escape the public gaze which ―demonizes‖ or ―trivializes‖ them – through popular media – for being ―social menaces‖ whose immoral behavior needs to be policed by ―punishment-driven policies.‖17 Others, like Richard Weissbourd, have avowed that more than half of all Americans believe that the fundamental lack of moral values in our youth, such compassion for others, is ―a very serious problem,‖ and that it is dangerous to let parents off the hook by blaming pop culture.18 At the present, our best solutions for these concerns center on bureaucratic policies, procedures, and courses of action that incoherently call for less bullying, as if it were able to be flipped on and off like a light switch. Schools have begun to adopt anti-bullying policies in order to curtail the number of vicious attacks that take place against students and teachers, but I must admit that I am more than a little skeptical concerning the effectiveness of such policies. How can we expect morality to be conceived from legislative pronouncements? Anti-bullying policies have noble intentions and are greatly needed in our schools today; yet, they pale in comparison to the need for more loving and compassionate teachers, classrooms, schools, and learning communities. These policies become moot if they are not endorsed by love, relationality, compassion, and altruism. Hence, our solutions to such problems cannot stem from policies –

14 Huebner. 15 LPWE. 16 The Courage to Teach, 68. 17 Henry A. Giroux, Channel surfing: Race talk and the destruction of today's youth (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1997). 18 Weissbourd.

95 which become bureaucratized – rather our resolve must hinge on how we treat one another, how we care for one another, and how we promote agapic love in our schools. In essence, ―Our future citizens need to be equipped with the know-how to deal with life challenges and to transcend hatred through the cultivation of a universal, unconditional love for all.‖19 This form of unconditional love proposed by Lin, which I consider to be agapic love, is contingent on our capacities to demonstrate compassion with and for others. But what is compassion? Before attempting to name compassion or to discuss some of its critical elements, I would like to use ―The Cherokee Legend of Two Wolves‖ to set the backdrop: An old Cherokee is teaching his grandson about life. "A fight is going on inside me," he said to the boy. "It is a terrible fight and it is between two wolves. One is evil - he is anger, envy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego." He continued, "The other is good - he is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion, and faith. The same fight is going on inside you - and inside every other person, too." The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather, "Which wolf will win?" The old Cherokee simply replied, "The one you feed." This legend highlights the common theme throughout this work: that love, relationality, and compassion, are first founded by our volitions, and second, are incarnated through our actions. As a result, teachers who aspire to create loving classrooms must choose to ―feed‖ the elements of compassion that lead to human decency and respect for others, such as empathy, kindness, hospitality, passion, forgiveness, integrity, and humility, to name a few. As such, compassion is a term that signifies one‘s desire to take up the pains of another, as impartially as possible, in an attempt to eradicate or lessen said pains. Compassion is derived from two parts, ―co‖ meaning together, and ―passion‖ referring to an intense liking or enthusiasm for something, or also likened to the pain of another – as in the ―passion of Christ.‖20

19 LWPE, 9. 20 Ron Heifetz, & Martin Linsky, Leadership on the line: Staying alive through the dangers of leading (Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School Press, 2002), 235.

Compassion is an essential building block for creating loving relations. It requires one to genuinely ―empathize with others, to feel what others feel, and to care deeply for each other,‖21 without ―othering‖ them. This type of love invites and accepts, without judgment; it cherishes and wants fully to grasp the heart and soul of another.22 Compassionate love implores one to not only be concerned for another but to take actions with the intention of defending and advocating for the welfare another. The Dalai Lama reminds us that our compassion ought to be unbiased and extending towards every soul, irrespective of whether that soul is a friend or foe, and requires one to be sorry with and not for another.23 Compassion is the organ that breathes life into the body of love and is comprised of smaller constituents, such as empathy, hospitality, forgiveness, kindness, passion, humility, and integrity, which function to sustain our loving relations. When these factors are present, one ―touches another‘s pain from a place of simply being with them.‖24 However, some may wonder, how does one act compassionately when the other is not in pain? Or some may speculate, how does the element of compassion play itself out in a love- based pedagogy when pain is not present? Pain is an inherent process of life. According to Aldrich and Eccleston, ―Pain is a central and ubiquitous part of human experience,‖25 that varies within specific cultures, classes, genders, and so forth, and cannot be escaped. Ultimately, no one can ever be free from the fact that once they are born they are also approaching an inevitable death, which is and of itself a painful process. Thus, the loving and compassionate teacher ought to recognize that pain is an ever-present element that humans cannot flee from; making the case that seeing another‘s pain(s) is a vital process for becoming a compassionate teacher. In Christian terms, all of us have a cross to bear in life, which signifies a painful process similar to Jesus carrying his own cross to his own crucifixion. Though, the bearing of this cross did not take place just on that one day, but during His entire ministry (or life) of living out a life of compassion and love, up to his preordained death.

21 LPWE, 27. 22 Loving Each Other. 23 The Dalai Lama. 24 A. Diller, “The search for wise love in education,” ed. D. Liston, Teaching, learning, and loving: Reclaiming passion in educational practice (New York: RoutledgeFalmer, 2004), 174. 25 Sarah Aldrich, and Chris Eccleston, “Making sense of everyday pain,” Social Science & Medicine, 50.11: 1631, 2000.

Much like love, compassion is at the ontological root of every religious paradigm, and I would also contend that its presence undergirds the existence of many non-religious worldviews. Within both spheres, there are countless examples of loving individuals who epitomized what it means to be compassionate. Most notably in Christian circles, compassion is best displayed through the life of Jesus, who broke through all political, social, economic, cultural, and religious barriers in order to live out a life filled with compassion. Jesus fed the hungry, served the needy, defended the oppressed, healed many, ate with the sinners, congregated with infidels, and much more, even though his actions led to his own persecution and eventual death. Gandhi, also referred to as Mahatma (or the ―great soul‖), lived out the Hindu version of compassion, called ―daya,‖ by enduring the wraths of oppression without retaliating by means of violence.26 In Buddhist spheres, compassion is one of the four Brahmavihara, commonly translated as the four noble truths.27 The Sanskrit word karuna, meaning compassion, is used to bring to light the ―intention and capacity to relieve and transform suffering and lighten sorrows.‖28 For Buddhists, compassion means ―experiencing a trembling or quivering of the heart in response to a being‘s pain.‖29 In addition, the Great Buddha has taught us that no one is in greater need of compassion than ourselves,30 which is central to the next chapter‘s theme of loving the self. Finally, the Dalai Lama reminds us that Buddhist notions of compassion are not be confused with pity or looking down on others, rather genuine compassion ―must be based on respect for the other, and on the realization that others have the right to be happy and overcome suffering as much as [we do].‖31 In the Muslim tradition, God is revered as being merciful and compassionate, and thus each chapter of the Qur‘an begins with ―In the name of God the Merciful, the Compassionate.‖32 Compassion is noted in the Qur‘an as having sensitivity to the suffering of others, most notably that of orphans, widows, slaves, and the poor.33 Furthermore, the Qur‘an indicates that we are all

26 L. Fischer, The life of Mahatma Gandhi (New York: Harper, 1950). 27 A. Diller, “The search for wise love in education,” ed. D. Liston, Teaching, learning, and loving: Reclaiming passion in educational practice (New York: RoutledgeFalmer, 2004), 169-184. 28 Thich Nhat Hanh, Teachings on love (Berkley, CA: Parallax Press, 1997), 5. 29 Sharon Salzberg, Lovingkindness (Boston: Shambala, 1997), 104. 30 K. Armstrong, Buddha (New York: Viking, 2001) 31 The Dalai Lama, 21. 32 The Holy Qur’an. 33 The Holy Qur’an, 9:60.

98 children of Adam and are to be honored equally.34 Finally, faithful Muslims, particularly Sufis, ascribe to the notion that compassionate people mustn‘t be vindictive, specifying that anger and violence are always denounced by Allah and that Allah loves doers of good (to others).35 Similarly, Jewish customs refer to God as the ―Compassionate Father.‖ Nonetheless, religion and religious leaders do not have a monopoly on compassion. Throughout history, the world has come to know many loving and compassionate leaders. For instance: Clara Barton‘s love and compassion for taking care of the wounded eventually led to the founding of the American Red Cross; Harriet Tubman embodied compassion by risking her life to free oppressed slaves of the South; the compassion of Martin Luther King Jr. battled racism and fought to restructure the unjust social, economic, and political forces working against marginalized populations; Nelson Mandela used his love and compassion for justice to courageously battle the unjust and repressive conditions of apartheid and eventually established a multi-racial democracy in South Africa; and Victor Frankl‘s love and compassion brought hopefulness to many frightened Jews who were enduring the cruel and inhumane torture imposed in Nazi concentration camps. This list is inexhaustible. Furthermore, it goes to show that we can get through anything if we can come together in the name of peace, love, and compassion.36

Bringing Compassion to Life: Examining the Key Ingredients In nearly every facet of life, compassion is linked to the selfless act of setting aside our own wishes and desires, with the aim of empathizing with others in a manner that takes up another‘s pains and sorrows in hopes of alleviating or eradicating them. Thus, compassion requires one to demonstrate patience, kindness, empathy, forgiveness, passion, hospitality, integrity, and humility. However, compassion depends largely on one‘s prowess for deeply and profoundly knowing both the self and the other. Palmer declared: A knowledge born of compassion aims not at exploiting and manipulating creation but at reconciling the world itself. The mind motivated by compassion reaches out to know as the heart reaches out to love. Here, the act of knowing is an act of love, the act of entering and embracing the reality of the other, of allowing the other to enter and

34 The Holy Qur’an, 17:70. 35 The Holy Qur’an, 3:133. 36 Margaret Wheatley, “Relationships: The basic building blocks of life,” May 20, 2011, from http://www.margaretwheatley.com.

embrace our own. In such knowing we know and are known as member of one community, and our knowing becomes a way of reweaving that community‘s bonds.37 If we are to affect change in our schools, we must use agapic love and sincere compassion. In this manner, compassion is employed as a tool for connecting teachers and students, teachers and teachers, students and students, teachers and parents, parents and students, and so forth, and arises from empathy. Empathy is a term that connotes an ability to identify with others, to feel what others are feeling. In his work on empathetic pedagogy, Matthew Schertz writes ―empathy is the mediation of emotional information between two body- consciousnesses that involves systemic communicative processes operating between subjects which are, by definition and structure, relational.‖38 This requires that we not project ourselves onto or into others; rather we should become one and the same person, setting aside the temptation to analyze the other, and to completely and authentically receive him or her into our lives.39 Noddings goes on to add, ―Mothers quite naturally feel with their infants…Naturally, when an infant cries, we react with the infant and feel that something is wrong…This is the infant‘s feeling, and it is ours. We receive it and share it.‖40 However, it is problematic to assume that these behaviors are ―natural,‖ as Noddings suggests. In fact, several reports of child endangerment, neglect, and abuse, would imply otherwise,41 once again highlighting the notion that love, compassion, and are a matter of free will and choice. Nonetheless, teachers who wish to manifest love in and beyond their classrooms must endeavor to become one with their students and to perceive and feel that which they are feeling. In addition, teachers should strive ―to come to view the others‘ plights as if they were our own, and thereby enlarging our understanding of others‘ and our own lives.‖42 However, we must do so by treading lightly, for empathy can easily transform into pity and thus thwart the

37 To Know as We are Known, 8. 38 Matthew Schertz, “Empathetic pedagogy: Community of inquiry and the development of empathy,” Analytic Teaching 26.1: 8 2006. 39 Nel Noddings, Caring, a feminine approach to ethics & moral education (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984).

40 Nel Noddings, Caring, a feminine approach to ethics & moral education (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984), 31. 41 Sandra Hughes, “Child abuse spikes during recession,” retrieved from CBS News http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/05/20/business/childofrecession/main5029133.shtml May 20 2009. 42 L&G, 113.

100 intents of compassion. Nevertheless, it has been noted that empathetic teachers are more adept in responding to the emotional, academic, and affective needs of their students; and that students reciprocate the empathy displayed by the teacher by responding amicably to all of those involved in the learning process.43 Alongside empathy lies our ability to foster kindness in and out of the classroom. Much like love, and all of its virtues, kindness is difficult to define. In the simplest form, I describe kindness as a conscious act that shows consideration, and not pity, both for and with another. The Dalai Lama refers to kindness as an altruistic quality that displays warm- heartedness in helping others.44 Kindness evokes attention and appreciation, as well as encouragement for others. It seems relatively elementary to suggest that teachers should be kind, but given the enormous amounts of stress that they are asked to handle, it is worth noting that a compassionate and loving pedagogy cannot take place if kindness does not exist.45 In a nutshell, ―Kindness is the WD-40 of human relationships,‖46 and is commonly linked to hospitality. A teacher who aims to manifest love and compassion in and out of the classroom creates a positive and peaceful atmosphere that is filled with warmth and generosity. Much like other critical elements of love, hospitality and kindness are recognized by the fruits they bare. Loreman pointed out that students who are educated in hospitable spaces feel valued, appreciated, and accepted for who they are.47 This promotes a learning environment that allows authentic selves to emerge, both on the part of the teacher and the student. Palmer added: A learning space needs to be hospitable not to make learning painless but to make the painful things possible, things without which no learning can occur – things like exposing ignorance, testing tentative hypotheses, challenging false or partial information, and mutual criticism of thought.48 As a result, the failure to produce a compassionate and hospitable learning environment results in a stagnant classroom that smothers the critical and compassionate aims of love-based pedagogy.

43 Love as Pedagogy; Matthew Schertz, “Empathetic pedagogy: Community of inquiry and the development of empathy,” Analytic Teaching 26.1: 8 2006. 44 The Dalai Lama. 45 Love as Pedagogy. 46 Hunter, 94. 47 Love as Pedagogy. 48 To Know as We are Known, 74.

101

Kindness, hospitality, and empathy are vital for creating compassionate classrooms, yet each are derived from one‘s ability to undertake humility. Of all of the elements that comprise compassion, humility is the nexus which sustains it. ―Humility is in part the ability to listen to others as we forge connections and the courage to recognize that our perspectives and vision are partial and striving and must remain open to change.‖49 As such, humility requires us to be willing and eager to accept something which is apart from our own understandings, to know that we are not the only person who holds a specific belief, opinion, or moral stance. As Palmer noted, teachers who lack humility are often times incapable of creating a space for any voice to exist but his or her own.50 As well, we are reminded by humility that our kindness, empathy, and loving actions regarding others are not performed in hopes of receiving tangible rewards, rather they are carried out because we genuinely care for others. Lin proposes that humble teachers are not in the profession for themselves, nor are the fruits of their actions provoked by power and prestige; rather they use love and compassion to open for their students a wide array of possibilities.51 Loving and compassionate teachers realize that ―humility is the only lens through which great things can be seen – and once [they] have seen them, humility [becomes] the only posture possible.‖52 On the other hand, we must be mindful of maintaining a sense of balance. If we are too humble, perhaps our voice will be overshadowed by others. If we lack humility, perhaps we run the risk of acting narcissistically, failing to accept the valuable input of others and falling further out of relationship with them. In both cases, fostering a pedagogy of love would be difficult because of the lack of balance. They either remain open to change, as suggested by Boler, or they become prideful and stuck in their ways, willing to go down with the ship. Either way, the choices one makes begins to progressively carve out his or her identity, and ultimately laying bare one‘s integrity. Our volition to be compassionate and loving emerges from our inwardness, the core of our being – where our identities and integrities are fashioned and refashioned with each waking moment as a result of the decisions we make and the actions we take. Identity and integrity are

49 M. Boler, “Teaching for hope,” ed. D. Liston, Teaching, learning, and loving: Reclaiming passion in educational practice (New York: RoutledgeFalmer, 2004), 130-131. 50 To Know as We are Known. 51 LPWE. 52 The Courage to Teach, 110.

102 not limited to the good things we do but also the dark and hidden secrets that reveal the real us. Palmer defines identity as: …an evolving nexus where all the forces that constitute my life converge in the mystery of self: my genetic make-up, the nature of the man and woman who gave me life, the culture in which I was raised, people who have sustained me and people who have done me harm, the good and ill I have done to others and myself, the experience of love and suffering – and much, much more.53 Nelson reveals that our identities are shaped by the significant experiences in our lives, the things we care the most about, the values we hold.54 Nelson goes on to claim that our identities are also constructed through ways others perceive us and what appears to them to be important to us.55 Therefore, if we are attempting to manifest love and compassion in our classrooms, it is important for our actions to lead towards a moral growth of our character, towards wholeness but never becoming fully whole, while avoiding defamation derived from how others perceive our actions. However, if those outside personal, social, or political voices are misconstructing who we truly are, then we have an obligation to counter these constructions, as made evident by the methodological premises of counternarrative. Yet, in the end, each of us must take ownership of how our actions unfold over time to reveal our true selves, i.e., our integrity. At root, integrity means ―wholeness.‖ One‘s integrity, or wholeness, is derived from one‘s thoughts, words, and actions being wholly congruent. Palmer described integrity as: …whatever wholeness I am able to find within that nexus as its vectors form and re-form the pattern of my life. Integrity requires that I discern what is integral to my selfhood, what fits and what does not – and that I choose life-giving ways of relating to the forces that converge within me: do I welcome them or fear them, embrace them or reject them, move with them or against them? By choosing integrity, I become more whole, but wholeness does not mean perfection. It means becoming more real by acknowledging the whole of who I am.56

53 The Courage to Teach, 13. 54 Damaged Identities. 55 ibid. 56 The Courage to Teach, 14.

103

Essentially, one‘s integrity is materialized through recognizing the self, and by realizing that the predisposition to love others starts with loving the self. Thus, a loving and compassionate teacher will find success when he or she is willing to hold a mirror to his or her soul. In that mirror we oftentimes view a soul that has suffered through adversity and is deserving of forgiveness. Implicitly speaking, we humans are quick to expect others to forgive us, but once others need us to be merciful and forgiving, we seem to disregard this principle. Why are we so forgiving of our own transgressions and so unforgiving when it comes to others? In order to promote love in our schools, we must realize that from time to time those affiliated with the learning community may inadvertently or even purposely hurt one another. Moreover, the relations between teachers, learners, parents, and administrators are not like that of distant cousins; school people, students and all adults, must interact with one another on a daily basis, thus making forgiveness a critical component of love and compassion. By forgiveness, I am referring to one‘s ability to let go of the pain, hurt, resentment, and so forth that builds up inside of us and seems to linger around when others breach our levels of trust, respect, and love.57 This lingering effect can be toxic to our relationships and can run counter to the aspirations of love and compassion. Yet these ill feelings can be mitigated by forgiveness. ―Forgiveness is a catalyst creating the atmosphere necessary for a fresh start and new beginning.‖58 This new beginning must completely set the self and the other free. It is not forgiveness when some say ―I will forgive, but I will not forget.‖ This form of obstinacy only serves to impede our relations and advances an agenda contrary to love and compassion. As such, ―Forgiveness does not mean ignoring what has been done or putting a false label on an evil act. It means, rather, that the evil act no longer remains as a barrier to the relationship.‖59 This to me implies a deeper level of forgiveness, one likened to reconciliation. To forgive requires only the person who has been wronged to take action, while reconciliation requires both parties to ―come together‖ and mutually restore the love, trust, and respect of the relationship.60 The notion of reconciliation also implies that one is able to forgive him or herself for the wrongs they may have committed. Buscaglia informs us that:

57 Hunter. 58 Martin Luther King Jr., Strength to love (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2010), 45, (hereafter cited in text as Strength to Love). 59 Strength to Love, 45. 60 Everett L. Worthington, Forgiving and reconciling: Bridges to wholeness and hope. (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2003).

104

At one time or another, we will all need the forgiveness of others, but equally important is the forgiveness we owe to ourselves. Isn‘t it time to liberate ourselves from our self- imposed cells of guilt and regret? Love is not about opening old wounds. It is about healing them. It is about getting up and moving forward, and getting on with life.61 In this fashion, reconciliation means to go one step further than forgiveness, to work towards mending that which has been damaged on both ends, making forgiveness a proactive manner for maintaining loving relations. Loreman noted that ―reconciliation is a more loving way for two people to move forward, being more consistent with attaining the unity that is central to a loving pedagogy.‖62 As a result, those who opt to employ a loving and compassionate pedagogy need to constantly visit and revisit the pains and obstacles that work to hinder teachers and students from growing together with one another. This may be one of the most difficult components of enacting a pedagogy of love. An inability to forgive propagates a lack of trust, empathy, humility, and respect, and works to dismantle the loving and compassionate relations constructed between teachers and students. How can we expect radical pedagogy, such as the pedagogy of love, to take place if we cannot genuinely forgive one another? Not a day will go by where at least one student or one teacher makes a mistake, thus it is vital that we incorporate forgiveness into our heart, our minds, and our classrooms. Lin emphasizes that ―Genuine forgiveness sets the offender free to begin a new path in life and prevents the buildup of anger and eventual outbreak of violence.‖63 In this manner, forgiveness – and some would argue reconciliation64 – is an act of love that not only heals the hearts of both parties, but works to proactively transcend and hopefully bring an end to the hatred, violence, and resentment that impede us from living in peace and harmony with our own selves and others. In effect, forgiveness is an attribute of the strong65 and cannot occur if it is devoid of love.66 The attributes mentioned thus far work to frame the vehicle of compassion; however, the driving force, or its motor per se, is passion. Teachers who strive to manifest love and

61 Born for Love, 131. 62 Pedagogy of Love, 53. 63 LPWE, 28. 64 Everett L. Worthington, Forgiving and reconciling: Bridges to wholeness and hope. (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2003). 65 Mohandas K. Gandhi, The way to God (Berkley, CA: Berkley Hills, 1999). 66 Strength to Love.

105 compassion in and beyond their classrooms need to be fueled by passion – a passion for life, for themselves and others, for their subjects, and for love. These teachers are passionate about forging loving relations with all of their students, colleagues, and community members. Passionate teachers take a special interest in their fields of study, so they can impart, and not indoctrinate, that passion onto their students. These teachers are passionate about empathetically bearing the pains of others. They are slow to rise towards judgment and quick to offer forgiveness. They humble themselves before their students. They take an undivided interest in righting the social, political, and educational wrongs, forever fighting to establish a more just and loving form of pedagogy. In the words of David Halpin, ―passionate teachers…express themselves to the full, even when their efforts receive little or nothing in return.‖67 This driving force – passion – reveals the love and compassion which makes teaching a joyful art. As Poetter observed, ―The joy in teaching comes from the exercise of our passion, and the remaking of our passion into learning by students.‖68 As a result, the love and compassion that resides in us is promulgated by passion as a free flowing source of energy for our students to gobble up and draw them near to us in a way that unifies teacher and student as one body striving to awaken the essence of learning. If we turn to the work of Robert Fried we find that passion is the deciding factor for greatness in the classroom.69 Fried says, [W]hen I ask myself what makes the greatest difference in the quality of student learning – it is a teacher‘s passion that leaps out. More than knowledge of subject matter. More than variety of teaching techniques. More than being well-organized, or friendly, or funny, or fair. Passion. With teachers, as with anyone who has a goal in life to do great things – to create works of art or defend the environment or right social wrongs or create new technologies – passionate people are the ones who make a difference in our lives. By the intensity of their beliefs and actions, they connect us with a sense of value that is within – and beyond – ourselves.70 However, passion is just the engine that powers compassion and it constituents. If one acts only with passion and fails to be humble, empathetic, forgiving, hospitable, kind, or to act

67 Romanticism & Education, 87. 68 Tom S. Poetter, “Recognizing joy in teaching,” Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue, 275 2006. 69 Robert L. Fried, The passionate teacher: A practical guide (Boston: Beacon Press, 1995).

70 Robert L. Fried, The passionate teacher: A practical guide (Boston: Beacon Press, 1995), 16-17.

106 with decency, he or she will only come across as monomaniacal. A passion uninhibited by the abovementioned qualities is likely to speed out of control and wreck the intentions of the loving teacher. Halpin alerts us that charismatic teachers are not to be confused with passionate ones.71 Charisma merely inflates a sense of popularity that may perhaps inspire students, while passion ―is what drives the teacher to transcend the routine of the school day and to push the boundaries of human interaction towards joy,‖ and I would add, love.72

Final Thoughts on Compassion Compassion may be an easy word to speak of, but it is a difficult term to put into effect. Compassion is not only a critical element for sustaining love, but it is also vital for establishing a classroom where real learning can take place. As such, compassion is made known by way of one‘s moral integrity: by his or her ability to empathetically bear the pain of others, to grant forgiveness when needed, to act humbly, to accept another without qualifications, to evoke a sense of passion that awakens both teacher and learner, all while seeking to challenge the status quo line of reasoning that appears to dominate our educational worlds today. With that being said, we need to employ a new form of pedagogy that spreads compassion in a manner which aims to fill the heart as much as, if not more than, it aims to fill the mind. In essence, this will require a great deal of thought, time, talent, and energy, on everyone‘s part, to avert our intentions from a self-absorbed ontology and towards a more selfless and loving one, which I undertake to explore in the next chapter.

71 Romanticism & Education 72 Tom S. Poetter, “Recognizing joy in teaching,” Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue, 275 2006.

107

CHAPTER SIX – A CALL FOR SELFLESSNESS IN SCHOOLS “Every man must decide whether he will walk in the light of creative altruism or in the darkness of destructive selfishness.”1

Today’s Educational Agenda 2 Before sharing the stories that capture the dominant and counter views concerning altruism in today‘s world of education, I would like to take a moment to point out that this chapter is slightly different. So far, I have used only my lived experiences and one story to capture the ―legitimate‖ beliefs concerning our present-day educational aims. However, for this chapter, I have decided (since I couldn‘t settle on which story to use) to tell the dominant views through reflecting on my interactions with all the key stakeholders involved in the daily practices of schooling: students, parents, teachers, and administrators. After telling all four stories, I will again provide a counter view that calls into question the ―accepted‖ norms of modern-day schooling. As a result, this particular method will allow me to offer up and unpack the dominant viewpoints from multiple subgroups involved in the educational processes, as well as illuminate the importance of altruism in constructing teacher identity and practices in education.

The Administrative Attitude The story I am about to share may not have ―actually‖ taken place during my tenure as a teacher, but it is so similar in nature to my personal experiences as a teacher that I felt compelled to share it with my readers. The following account is an excerpt from John Hoyle and Robert Slater‘s work ―Love, Happiness, and America‘s Schools: The Role or Educational Leadership in the 21st Century.‖ The story goes as such: A recent event in an affluent Texas school district would be comical if it weren‟t true. During the final week of school, the superintendent‟s office sent an urgent message to all teachers and administrators. An announcement delivered over the public address systems in each of the school buildings said, “All professional staff are required to meet in the high school auditorium at 3 p.m. sharp today; we have some very bad news to share with you.”

1 Martin Luther King Jr. 2 Please recall that when (re)telling these events the author will italicize actual quotes and will not italicize that which has been paraphrased.

108

One second-grade teacher, hearing the dark message, said, “My first thought was that someone had died.” Rumors were flying throughout the district about the announcement. That afternoon, 200 employees entered the high school auditorium in hushed silence, wondering if there had been a school shooting, bombing, or some other horrible event. The curtains on the stage opened, and stand at the podium was the superintendent, with his central office entourage seated on either side of him. The superintendent said, Good afternoon. It is good to see each of you on such short notice. Perhaps some of you have heard that our district received shocking news from the Texas Education Agency. For as long as I have been your superintendent, this district has been proud to be in an elite group of schools with “exemplary” status. Today we are sad to report that one of our schools, Magnolia Elementary, dropped from “exemplary” to “recognized” status. This causes our district to fall from “exemplary” to “recognized” for the first time since the state rating system began. To be “recognized” in this community is a failure on our part, and we must come up with good answers about how we can rectify this situation. My office and the Magnolia staff will begin immediately working on math practice tests and curriculum to make sure that the five students who failed to master 90% of the math content will not fail again.3

The Parent‟s Perspective The following is an ―actual‖ email sent to me by a parent during the first few weeks of school. So as to retain its original content, I have not modified it in terms of grammar or structure; however I have changed names to protect each actor‘s confidentiality. Mrs. H wrote: Just checking in (and thanks for talking with us last night at "Open House"!), but I wanted to ask for your help and thoughts on how to help Bobby (in your 2nd Bell class). It's probably not the "end-of-the-world" (grade-wise) at this point, but I was concerned about how this first quiz (from Chapter 1-A) in "Chem-Comm" went today,

3 John Hoyle and Robert Slater, “Love, Happiness, and America’s Schools: The role of Educational Leadership in the 21st Century,” Phi Delta Kappan 82.10: 792 2001.

109 and your impressions on how Bobby performed on this work (since we're so early in the school-year). Noting that Bobby received a 70%, I am concerned about how he is understanding (or possibly "not understanding") the material and/or whether he has studied enough to grasp the concepts. I also encouraged Bobby to review last night, as well as during this morning during Advisory! He knew about the test since both of us check "Progress Book" on a regular basis. I'm also assuming that these past 2 weeks of class have been pretty fundamental and relatively easy (compared to what's coming up during the rest of the year), and that this first quiz (on Chapter 1) would have been somewhat easy to comprehend the concepts. It's not that Bobby "flunked" the quiz, but to me (also a former teacher) there is concern that Bobby isn't "up-to-snuff" yet, and that he also needs to exhibit and/or gain "study-skills" (review, review, and more review!) since he has not been, thus far, successful on these rather simple tasks at the beginning of this academic year. My concern is that "Chem-Comm" is a Level 2 class (and not, obviously "Honors Chem" nor is it "AP Chem"), so I would think that the "academic rigors" for "Chem- Comm" wouldn't be as high. If assuming this to be true, then I'm concerned about whether Bobby is either not being encouraged enough to attend to his work (nor studying effectively the material being presented in class), or possibly Bobby is not taking enough time here at home to review and master the material. Bobby also had another "quiz" (in his "College and Test Prep" class with Mr. H, which is 3rd Bell), so I will be interested in finding out how Bobby performed on this particular quiz, too. So far Bobby has a "D" (66.67%) in Mr. H's class due to their first "PSAT Quiz" last week. Mr. H brushed off this poor academic scoring to me, and mentioned that his class will have many more possibilities to bring up a student's grade during this Qtr, but I'm still a bit concerned about Bobby's academic results. The quiz scheduled for today in Mr. H's "College and Test Prep" class was on "Latin Roots" (which factor into some of the ACT/SAT questions -- and, in fact, I think that it's a shame that more high schools don't offer Latin as a Language!). If Bobby also "bombs" Mr. H's "Latin Roots" quiz today, then I think that we (including Mrs. G to be

110 added into the equation for discussion) should look at our options on what is needed to help Bobby, academically speaking. So back to the initial question and concerns: since we all know that a student's grades (especially during Junior year) are crucial to success and for consideration by a potential college's application process (overall GPA and strength of curriculum), I will be antsy about how Bobby will be applying himself to these academic challenges during this year. My biggest concern is whether (1) Bobby is being challenged enough? or (2) whether Bobby is being overwhelmed and over his head, academically at this point? To also mention Bobby's recent academic history in Science, he received an overall "B" average during both his Freshman and Sophmore year in Level 2 (Physical Science and Biology), but it was also with alot of "proding" and "pushing' from me (to also encourage Bobby to take advantage of every "extra credit" opportunity and "hall passes") to bring up his grades in these classes. Historically, Bobby did not perform well on the Anchor Tests in most of his classes last year. He also "down-sized" from "Honors English" to "Level 2" English for his Junior year since he earned a "C" average for Honors English during his Sophomore year. Also: Bobby did pass all of his OGTs last spring, so that hurdle has been overcome! On last year's "PLAN" (pre-ACT test), he received the approximate ACT score of 17-21 (which was also a concern – not exactly good enough to get into a good college!). We'll have to see how he performs on next April's ACT. Let's keep in touch since I also greatly appreciate what you are doing (I'm a former teacher, too: been there/done that!). If you think that a mini-conference (either before or after school) with both Bobby and me would be helpful to "jump-start" his academic achievement, then I'll be available to sit in on this "get-in-gear" session with you. At this point, Bobby doesn't really have the drive to give him the incentive to achieve (vs. where I wanted to become a teacher as a professional since I was in elementary school), so right now Bobby doesn't realize what the whole point is for him to perform well or to take the initiative to improve. Bobby's probably like many other students who are just skimming the surface (academically), whereas he has more academic ability than he actually shows in his test results.

111

Thanks for your help! I'll greatly appreciate your candor. Melinda H. (mom to Bobby) (B.S. in Educ. - Elem. Educ. & Special Educ. major, with a Music Educ. Minor)!

I would like to further point out that this particular parent would go on to send me ―37‖ additional emails of similar length and content throughout the duration of one school year. Nearly every time I posted a grade online Mrs. H. would take action.

The Student‟s Stance ―Hey Mr. C., do you have a minute to chat,‖ Alexis asked. ―Sure,‖ I replied, ―What‘s up?‖ Alexis said, ―Well, I am thinking about taking AP chem. next year. I really want to be a chemical engineer and I was thinking that this would help me get into Vanderbilt‘s engineering program. Also, I only scored a 27 on the ACT and I am not sure if that is good enough to get into Vanderbilt. What do you think?‖ I was rather familiar with questions of this nature, so I gave her my standard response: ―You have to do what makes you, you! Planning out your future is impossible if you don‘t know what really makes you tick, so ask yourself, would being an engineer make you excited and happy? Would you wake up each day energized to go to work? Is this something that you really, really, really want to do the rest of your life, or, is it something that sounds cool and makes others happy, like your parents?‖ I could tell that it was sinking in, but Alexis couldn‘t seem to break free from the social tag of wanting to be respected as an engineer. She countered with, ―I‘m not really sure but I love chemistry and being a chemical engineer sounds great. They get paid a lot of money too.‖ To which I replied, ―Money will not bring you happiness, but finding something that brings you to life will add priceless value to your life. I cannot make life decisions for you. I can only give you my advice and you have to decide what to do from that point forward.‖ ―Thanks Mr. C.,‖ she said with a smile, ―I will give it some thought.‖

The Teacher‟s Thoughts ―Hello Jen. Do you have any big plans for the holiday weekend?‖ I asked. ―My husband and I were going to go out of town but I have way too much work to get down before my grades are due,‖ she responded. ―Oh yeah, I‘m sorry to hear that,‖ I civilly stated. ―Well,‖ she said

112 with a big sigh, ―I have to grade my anchors for this quarter, input those scores, grade the unit tests for my algebra students, input those scores, round up any failing grades to meet the 50% rule (in our district, students were not allowed to receive less than a 50% on any assignment, no matter how big or small, and regardless if they finished it or not), calculate my final grades for the quarter, input the data into spreadsheets indicating which students are at risk of failing the OGT (Ohio Graduation Test), and make unit plans for next quarter and have them ready for Tuesday. Not to mention the fact that I have three little ones running around.‖

Rethinking Our Educational Aims 4 The stories above underscore a demoralizing, yet in my opinion, accurate depiction of what is taking place in our schools today. Moreover, these accounts also highlight the battles taking place in the hearts, minds, and souls of our parents, teachers, students, and educational leaders. The narratives above indicate that schooling ought to be an ―it‘s all about me‖ approach, where each child is solely and selfishly responsible for competing with others to achieve desirable outcomes. The superintendent‘s story represents a district consumed by test results, to the point where consciously or unconsciously, they crushed the spirits of those responsible for the outcomes. The mother‘s email is all about her child‘s grades and academic achievements and had very little to do with the emotive regions of his life. The conversation with Alexis revolved around personal successes with regards to getting into college, taking AP classes, and getting a good enough ACT score to get into a ―good‖ college. And finally, the tiny clip used to signify a common exchange between two colleagues reveals how teachers have been and continue to be run over by the exclusive focus on academic results. Thus, the stories above suggest that schooling is all about ―me.‖ As a result, each person is informed that he or she must grab a hold of his or her ―bootstraps‖ and pull themselves up to a socially acceptable level of academic achievement. But, what these stories don‘t take into account is that schooling is a relational practice5 that needs to care not just for the individual, but also for the collective good of the entire learning community. As a result, schooling needs to be concerned about the growth of both the self and society.6 What about the teachers who care

4 Please recall that when (re)telling these events the author will italicize actual quotes and will not italicize that which has been paraphrased. 5 No Education Without Relation. 6 John Dewey, The school and society (Chicago, Ill: University of Chicago press, 1943).

113 more about a child‘s well-being that they do about his or her test results? Do our students respect other values besides achievement data? Are there schools which exist whose mission is to create loving environments that care about the advancement of the individual and the overall community? When thinking of a place where students, teachers, parents, and administrators were enthralled with something more than the status quo ―results‖ of education, and were driven by a sense of love and care for each other and their community, Federal Hocking High School (FHHS) came to mind. The school is run by Dr. George Wood, who like Deb Meier and Ted Sizer, believes that schooling should be more than the ―results-driven‖ and ―scientific‖ approaches espoused by our state legislature. In fact, Dr. Wood believed that schooling should incorporate the self-growth of the individual into the larger growth of the general public. During a recent visit to FHHS, I was able to witness the pouring out of a selfless love that aspired to improve the individual and collective efforts of an entire learning community. First and foremost, the school was driven by the affective leadership of Dr. George Wood. Dr. Wood cherished his staff and students as people and not merely a means to predetermined ends. It was amazing to observe an educational leader in action who knew, inside and out, all of his teachers and students. Dr. Wood created a congenial learning community that cared not only about each individual child and teacher, but also the group of people that comprised the local neighborhood, and he made it a point to bridge the two. By concomitantly being hands-on and hands-off, Dr. Wood was able to lay out a flexible framework that was driven by democratic principles, provided room for his students and teachers to grow as both as individuals and as a larger group, apply goals to the ―real‖ lives of those involved, allow students to demonstrate their unique abilities through ―exhibition‖ and not just rote and memorized forms of assessment, and overall followed the ―Less is More‖ approach initiated by Ted Sizer.7 Dr. Wood utilized the approaches generated from the ―Coalition of Essential Schools‖8 movement to guide his staff, students, and local community towards more equitable and democratic aims. Most of all, I was able to witness how selflessness played in role in underpinning relationality. Dr. Wood‘s core belief was we ―must start with knowing who are

7 Ted Sizer, Horace's compromise: The dilemma of the American high school (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1984). 8 Ted Sizer, Horace's hope: What works for the American high school (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1984), 3.

114 students are,‖9 and build on the foundation of those healthy relations to foster a democratic style of teaching and learning. During my visit, I was able to see Dr. Wood put this theory into motion. He bounced around the school doing a million things a minute, calling everyone by name, taking the time to genuinely interact with staff and students, and allowing his lively spirit to fill those around him with inspiration. What was most fascinating to me was how the school day was laid out, so as to operationalize his beliefs about making educational a selflessly communal approach. The school day consisted of four class periods, each period being 80 minutes long. The school year was divided into semesters, allowing students to take up to 8 classes each year. The teachers and students were granted autonomy in designing the flow of each day. Teachers had three instructional periods per day and had an eighty-minute block of time to do planning, research, and analyze existing school programs (which was highly promoted by Dr. Wood). In addition, students were required to have 27 credits to graduate, a senior project, at least 50 points of democratic citizenship points (for doing things like community service), a senior portfolio, and performance assessments that asked students to demonstrate their knowledge (not just regurgitate it and move on). These ideas allowed students to move beyond the confines of a routine school day and to work creatively and collaboratively with and for their community in order to benefit both themselves and their local neighborhood. In addition, FHHS invites students to be on the school board, provides them with the opportunity to make use of one of their class periods to work as interns with and in community programs, and encourages students to serve on a board of trustees or the student government. By serving on these committees, students were granted the rights to vote for actual changes in the school and not the common ―vote for me and I will get a soda machine installed in the cafeteria‖ slogans. FHHS is a place that allows students and teachers to creatively use their minds in order to solve larger social problems. Overall, this school counters the normative practices utilized by many schools to make learning highly personalized and highly unpalatable, by encouraging all members to take up an active learning style that is driven by both individual and communal efforts. Federal Hocking High School is a place that encourages love (even if members didn‘t acknowledge it as such) to blossom as a result of wholesome relations, compassionate leaders,

9 George H. Wood, A time to learn: Creating community in America's high schools (New York, N.Y.: Dutton, 1998), 37.

115 and a school driven by selfless aims to benefit the self and others affiliated with the learning community.

A Call for Altruism in Education In the case above, teaching is referred to as an agapic, or a selfless form of love that cares about both the self and other. As a result of actualizing this form of love, teachers and learners are held accountable for their personal growth as well as being held accountable for the development of others in their learning environments, which runs counter to current educational agendas. Present-day schooling practices care only about the results of the individual,10 making our schools a breeding ground for selfishness,11 as evidenced by the dominant narratives at the beginning of the chapter. According to Kohn, our schools work to destroy the love of learning in children by placing them in direct competition with one another for grades, gold stars, honor rolls, and so forth, which works to foster social estrangement and cultivate self-regard.12 Furthermore, Kohn points out that these ―contemptible rewards‖ are obtained by using non-cooperative approaches that force individuals to duplicate the same answers as others, supplanting the efforts of collaboration with competition.13 Certainly we ―compete‖ for things in the real world, but that does not mean that we should do so in a manner that suppresses the collective efforts of communal living. This line of reasoning promotes a self-absorbed form of schooling, which spills over to birth a narcissistic society, and runs counter to the aims of altruism. Leo Buscaglia added to this line of reasoning, stating how competition has worked to erode our capacities to love: It‘s unfortunate that so many of us are encouraged to develop a competitive spirit early in life because it so often works to the detriment of a cooperative spirit necessary for love. The world becomes an arena of winners and losers, where character is shaped according to one‘s ability to survive, where winning is the only sign of success and where we are constantly measured against others to determine and validate our worth. Love is not a

10 No Education Without Relation; Alfie Kohn, No contest: The case against competition (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1986); LPWE; Ted Sizer, Horace's compromise: The dilemma of the American high school (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1984). 11 Weissbourd. 12 Alfie Kohn, No contest: The case against competition (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1986) 13 ibid.

116

competitive sport. Winning in love comes through cooperation, compromise and caring. When we become masters of these skills everybody wins.14 This quote highlights the present reality in our schools, that there are actually winners and losers who must compete for success (i.e., grades, test scores, and so forth), and these ―realities‖ work to abnegate the principles of altruism (i.e., selflessly living with and for one another). In addition, the competitive arenas of schools are being driven by fruitless ―scientific‖ results which are causing students to have to fight for their own gains. This form of schooling has triggered parents, teachers, students, administrators, and the general public to become overly preoccupied with their own concerns and successes.15 Likewise, schools have used the last four decades to push for an increased concentration on the self-esteem of our young ones, leaving students to believe that they are unique and special individuals, independent of anything they do or have.16 As a result, our educational system, along with many other factors, have worked diligently to birth a hyper-individualized society that selfishly focuses on themselves to the point that they have nothing tangible or no one significant to sustain them. Twenge suggests: Our growing tendency to put the self first leads to unparalleled freedom, but it also creates an enormous amount of pressure on us to stand alone. This is the downside of the focus on the self – when we are fiercely independent and self-sufficient, our disappointments loom large because we have nothing else to focus on. But it‘s not just us: Generation Me has been taught to expect more out of life at the very time when good jobs and nice houses are increasingly difficult to obtain. All too often the result is crippling anxiety and crushing depression.17 The selfishness generated through schooling is directly aligned with rises in depression and is contradictory to the aims of altruism. Altruism is a highly contested vision for humankind and has been weighed against the conflicting ethic of egoism throughout centuries of philosophical debates. The term altruism was coined by the French philosopher Auguste Comte to signify an unselfish regard for others. Comte‘s original use of the word called for an extreme

14 Born for Love, 27. 15 John Hoyle and Robert Slater, “Love, Happiness, and America’s Schools: The role of Educational Leadership in the 21st Century,” Phi Delta Kappan 82.10: 790 – 794 2001. 16 Jean M. Twenge, Generation me: Why today’s young Americans are more confident, assertive, entitled – and more miserable than ever before (New York: Free Press, 2006). 17 Jean M. Twenge, Generation me: Why today’s young Americans are more confident, assertive, entitled – and more miserable than ever before (New York: Free Press, 2006), 109.

117 ethic that centered exclusively on promoting the happiness of others and as a result failed to take into account the rights of the individual. This dismissal of the self does not support a type of true love, nor does it alone bring about more happiness. True love cannot be devoid of self love, thus we must reject an ethic that deals only with the welfare of others. Of course, this does not suggest that altruism should not tend to the needs of others or that it is not a critical component to love. As such, altruism is commonly linked to the idea of love, but they are not one in the same. Of course love can be an altruistic act but not all altruistic acts are therefore deemed an act of love. King distinguishes between the two: Altruism is then a term always related to others, to collaborative and cooperative ways of acting, to transcending the individual self, whereas love has many different dimensions that are probably not covered by the more neutral-sounding ―altruism.‖ Would we speak of a metaphysics of altruism? Love and altruism are of course intrinsically related to each other, for love expresses itself through ―works of love,‖ through altruistic action, and such action can spiritually and socially transform human individuals and communities. 18 In a more thorough sense, altruism is defined by Eisenberg et al. as ―behavior motivated by concern for others or by internalized values, goals, and self-rewards rather than by the expectation of concrete or social rewards, or the desire to avoid punishment or sanctions.‖19 This seems to suggest that altruism can be derived as not only concern for others, but also incorporates how one‘s cultural values, social mores, and personal gains figures into the equation. However, some would make the case that once an act becomes a quid pro quo transaction – an I‘ll scratch your back if you scratch mine – then it can no longer be claimed altruism. Clough sheds a little light on this subject by undertaking to unpack the selfishness of selflessness found in love, or vice versa: Love is not diminished if there is a benefit to the giver as well as the receiver, but self- benefit makes altruism suspect. Gratitude is a fully acceptable expression of love but taints altruism with the embarrassment of quid pro quo. One can feel and show gratitude

18 Ursula King, “Love—A higher form of human energy in the work of Teilhard de Chardin and Sorokin,” Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science 39.1: 81 2004. 19 N. Eisenberg, K. Guthrie, B. C. Murphy, S. A. Shepard, A. Cumberland, & G. Carlo, “Consistency and development of prosocial dispositions: A longitudinal study,” Child Development 70.6: 1360 1999.

118

as part of a mutually upbuilding relationship. But altruism in response to love no longer appears unselfish and perhaps can no longer be unself-conscious.20 In their work The Elements of Moral Philosophy, Rachels & Rachels attempted to tease out the dialectics present among altruism and egoism by highlighting the divergent views of selfishness and selflessness.21 Rachels & Rachels (2010) claimed that ―Some people believe that we have no duties to other people. On their view, know as Ethical Egoism, each person ought to pursue his or her own self-interest exclusively.‖22 The flip side of this coin, known as altruism, is the notion that each person ought to display an unselfish concern for others. When examining both terms exclusively, as done by Rachels & Rachels, we fall victim to the binary trap that one can only be either egoistic or altruistic. Meaning, the actions we engage in, or the results from these actions, must be either selfish or unselfish. However, if we view these two terms in a dialectical manner, we find that one can be both selfish and selfless at the same time. For example, it is possible to have an altruistic agenda in serving another, such as assisting an injured motorist, and receive either a tangible reward – like a Good Samaritan plaque – or an intangible reward of feeling good about oneself. Those who examine these two viewpoints exclusively would argue that acting unselfishly ultimately makes people feel good about themselves; giving them something in return for their actions and thus making them naturally selfish. But we mustn‘t view the two as separate items incapable of coexistence. When examining our actions in relation to their motives, as being both altruistic and egoistic, we are able to see that our selflessness can be a derivative of selfishness as much as our selfishness can be a derivative of selfless actions. Hence, it is possible to selflessly set out to help another and feel a sense selfish gain, but what is your motive? Without getting down to quantum levels of analysis, we need to simply ask ourselves, do the motives behind our actions drive us to be selfish or do they drive us to be selfless? If my motive is to help another so as to feel good about myself, I would contend that I have acted in a selfish manner. On the other hand, if my motive is to justly serve another, I would contend that I have acted in an altruistic manner, regardless if I gained any tangible or intangible rewards from the act.

20 William R. Clough, “To be loved and to love,” Journal of Psychology & Theology 34.1: 25-26 2006. 21 J. Rachels, & S. Rachels, The elements of moral philosophy (New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2010). 22 J. Rachels, & S. Rachels, The elements of moral philosophy (New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2010), 63.

119

This concept is critical for manifesting love in and out of classrooms. If we are to create a more loving, caring, and compassionate world, we must be willing to enact a form of love that is not contingent on others reciprocating our love. Likewise, we must be willing to serve another in need, without degrading him or her; we must be willing to forge genuine relations with others, without using others for personal gain; and we must be willing to have compassion with and for others, without shaming another. If my motive is to make selfish gains, and in the process hurts others is that any greater or lesser an act of righteousness than the opposite act of selflessly setting out to help others and ―accidentally‖ harming them? I am hesitant to answer, but I will attest that standing on the sidelines and engaging in philosophical debate over these matters does not change the fact that others may be in need. Therefore, regardless if one ascribes to the dichotomous relations of egoism and altruism purported by Rachels & Rachels, or if one accepts that our motives swing the philosophical pendulum back and forth allowing egoism and altruism to share common ground, he or she needs to actualize love by taking a stand to serve others. But, we must tread lightly. Sometimes we can set out to assist another in the act of love and still violate one‘s right to privacy, we could degrade someone by being charitable (which was referred to in the last chapter has taking ―pity‖ on another), and most of all, we can only ―imperfectly‖ know the needs of others and thus may not be well suited to pursue them.23 Furthermore, Nietzsche would maintain that treating others more important than ourselves would not only debase or humiliate the self but would also impede one‘s self-growth and originality.24 When deciding to act in an altruistic manner, one must be cognizant of these underlying pitfalls and rely on relationality (which is established by trust, respect, acceptance, transparency, and dialogue) and compassion (which is made known by empathy, kindness, integrity, hospitality, passion, and humility) to circumvent potential stumbling blocks, as well as drawing on the critical components that comprise the landscape of altruism.

Exploring the Landscape of Altruism The convoluted concept of altruism can be hard to grasp. As a result, I would like to explore the intricate constituents which comprise altruism, such as being critically reflective,

23 J. Rachels, & S. Rachels, The elements of moral philosophy (New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2010). 24 B. Leiter, “Nietzsche's moral and political philosophy,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu June 20th 2011.

120 listening empathically, making sacrifices, and recognizing that genuine love must begin with self-love. Altruism also relies on the earlier elements of relationality and compassion. All three of these elements can stand free from one another, but love is diminished and sometimes eradicated if they fail to work in harmoniously to value others. Thus, it is nearly impossible to selflessly serve another if we have not established the trust, respect and acceptance needed to forge a genuine relation with others or if we have failed to humble ourselves so as to have compassion with and for another. Likewise, it is impractical to assume that teachers can manifest altruistic love in their classrooms if they do not possess the ever-perceiving eyes and discerning ears that allow them see and hear the needs of others. In order to operationalize an altruistic form of love, teachers must first see those in need and recognize their needs. It is a common act to encounter another and find in them something that needs to change for our benefit, or based on our worldview, or our circumstances, but this is not love. Fromm and Buscaglia remind us that love requires an impartial heart to take in the other for who he or she truly his and not for an object of use.25 In order to selflessly serve another, we must first value them as a person who has individual needs, regardless if those needs don‘t jive with our own beliefs. We must recognize that ―A loving relationship is one in which each one sees the beloved not as an extension of self but as a unique, forever becoming, beautiful person.‖26 Beyond seeing the whole person and locating his or her needs, one must be willing to empathically listen to others in order to better understand those needs. Many of us think we are good listeners, but let‘s face it we are just downright poor listeners, if we even attempt to listen at all.27 Listening is just one of those things, like singing, dancing, and making love, that people think they are good at, but in reality they aren‘t. Freire contends that one reason we struggle to listen is because the democratic principle of communicating with one another has been supplanted by the more authoritative concept of ―top down‖ communication, which is the speaking at, or to another.28 This is clearly an issue in our schools, where the art of dialogue typically centers on the one with power (read: teacher) talking ―at‖ or ―to‖ those with less power (read: students). Aside from the technical drawbacks of the modern-day notions of narration and regurgitation, which seem to drive the processes of

25 The Art of Loving; Born for Love. 26 Loving Each Other, 50. 27 Born for Love; The Art of Loving; Hunter. 28 PF.

121 schooling, a collapse in the art of listening also has major drawbacks to the loving, caring, and altruistic components of schooling that undergird the relations between teachers and students. ―Listening is an attitude toward people. It is developing the willingness, even the desire, to hear people out, better understand them, and learn something new.‖29 Buscaglia cautioned that poor or selective listening skills can make feeble our attempts to love another.30 By not listening, or filtering through another‘s message to deem what is and is not important, we convey that what others are saying is not significant, and as a result, we convey a message that neither are they.31 Thus, we cannot listen halfheartedly, or grudgingly, rather we must listen empathically, because if we cannot listen to others, we cannot partake in love.32 Empathic listening requires one to not just hear what others have to say, but to take it all in, to attempt to know where the other person is coming from. Hunter stressed that ―Empathic listening is the skill, the discipline, of extending yourself for others by really working to ‗see it as they see it and feel it as they feel it.‘‖33 This form of listening allows us to fully know our students, their wants, desires, needs, and so much more. Freire wrote, ―It is listening to the student that I learn to speak with him or her.‖34 Yet, today‘s teachers are taught that it is there job to talk ―to,‖ or worse yet ―at‖ their students, and to fill their minds with empty facts and figures, which contradicts the goals of love-based pedagogy. Therefore, we must employ listening as a strategy for taking up a concern for others, for hearing what he or she has to say, because ―listening is love in action‖ and love is most fully perceived through the use of ―all‖ of our senses.35 By using all of our senses, we able to better understand how to go about serving another. One key factor for serving another in love is the altruistic element of sacrifice. The term sacrifice is by and large linked to the concept giving something up, which may hard for some people to grasp. In a superficial manner, teachers are often times asked to give up their lunch time to work with a student: give up a plan period to meet with a colleague, parent, or student; lend a hungry child money for lunch; or give a colleague a hand with a lesson, experiment, or

29 Hunter, 115. 30 Born for Love. 31 PF; Hunter. 32 The Art of Loving. 33 Hunter, 114-115. 34 PF, 106. 35 Born for Love, 167.

122 unit plan. In a deeper sense, teachers may need to sacrifice their egos to humble themselves before their students, colleagues, parents, or administrators; sacrifice their pride when a child disproves them; or they may need to sacrifice their self-interests in order lovingly support or console a child in need. No matter how we slice it, love is more an act of giving than it is receiving.36 In this fashion, giving does not suggest that one has to ―sacrifice‖ who he or she is in order to serve another. In fact, Fromm would suggest that giving does not sacrifice a piece of oneself, it builds a new self: In the very act of giving, I experience my strength, my wealth, my power. This experience of heightened vitality and potency fill me with joy. I experience myself as overflowing, spending, alive, hence as joyous. Giving is more joyous than receiving, not because it is a deprivation, but because in the act of giving lies the expression of my aliveness.37 As previously stated, this does not mean that love seeks to give in order to receive, quite the contrary. However, from time to time one‘s giving is returned. Fromm adds, ―…in giving he [or she] cannot help bringing something to life in the other person, and this which is brought to life reflects back to him [or her]; in truly giving, he [or she] cannot help receiving that which is given back to him [or her].‖38 As a result, the selfless acts of true giving are often times returned, but that mustn‘t be one‘s main objective. In line with Clough‘s contentions above, Buscaglia repeats that: Sacrifice for personal gain is demeaning and unnatural. But, illuminated by love, self- sacrifice becomes sacred…When we give up something for someone we love, no matter how great the sacrifice, there can be no conditions. What we do, we do because we will it, free of implications of future payment, or debt, or guilt. Only in this way is sacrifice a healthy manifestation of love.39 Learning to serve, give, or make sacrifices for another is not something inherently derived from the gene pool, it is learned through social, cultural, and spiritual undertakings.40 Martin Luther King Jr. emphasized that ―Everybody can be great because anybody can serve.

36 The Art of Loving. 37 The Art of Loving, 21-22. 38 The Art of Loving, 23. 39 Born for Love, 119. 40 Love as Pedagogy.

123

You don't have to have a college degree to serve. You don't have to make your subject and verb agree to serve. You only need a heart full of grace. A soul generated by love.‖41 In this light, education should not be the filling of the mind with useless facts; it should be the touching of another‘s soul in a way that motivates him or her to want to come to life by giving to others, in the name of love. Being able to give with no strings attached requires a critical reflection of one‘s life, penetrating and interrogating the soul so as to uncover the true self deserving of love. By reflecting on our own lives we begin to see how the similar yet different lives of others compare with ours to unravel a multi-layered image of the self. Thayer-Bacon noted: [Others] offer us contrasting images, they cause ruptures in our understanding, and they cause discontinuities. These contrasts others offer allow us the chance to become more conscious of who we are and more self-reflective. These contrasts also expose us to other possibilities and differences and help to stimulate our ideas of what is possible. Then we can even change something about ourselves that we do not like. We can grow and develop further; we can enlarge our thinking.42 These contrasting views allow us to first see ourselves as selves fit to be loved. Several authors have claimed that a love for one‘s self is the genesis of love.43 Therefore, it is vital for teachers to realize that loving themselves first is a viable way to love their students. Fromm stated if ―…[we] can love only others, [we] cannot love at all,‖44 which often times teachers fall victim to. This does not imply that self love is an ego-centered endeavor, rather it implies that self love is a struggle to rediscover and maintain one‘s genuineness and uniqueness through displaying respect, care, and concern for oneself.45 A failure to treat ourselves with the love and respect we deserve fosters a state or feeling of hopelessness. Others soon begin to see that we cannot love ourselves, or that our love is fleeting, and thus be reluctant to accept what we have to offer.

41 Hunter, 78. 42 Barbara J. Thayer-Bacon, “Personal and social relations,” ed. C. W. Bingham, No education without relation (New York: P. Lang, 2004), 172. 43 Love; Loving Each Other; Born for Love; The Dalai Lama; The Art of Loving 44 The Art of Loving, 56. 45 Love.

124

As Buscaglia firmly stated, we can only give what we have, and if we don‘t have love for ourselves we cannot give it to others.46 And if we rob ourselves love, what will we have to give to others. Kierkegaard averred ―To cheat oneself out of love is the most terrible deception; it is an eternal loss for which there is no reparation, either in time or in eternity.‖47 Bauman reminded us that self-love also arises from our need to feel worth from the love of others.48 This makes one‘s self love a precondition for developing self-love in others, which breeds new forms of love and gives others the choice to freely and altruistically dispense them, conceivably creating an eternal circle of love. Ultimately, our aims for manifesting love and propagating altruism require us to develop the best ―self‖ possible, then and only then can we selflessly share it with others.

Final Thoughts At present, our world is highly self-centered and our schools are its breeding grounds. Our teachers, students, administrators, parents, and general public are being led to believe that our future successes hinge on menial test scores, grades, technology, an increased awareness of mathematical and scientific practices, academic awards, getting straight As, attending college, and other tangibly acquired attributes, while the more substantive items such as love, compassion, relationality, and serving the needs of others are being denied a place in our schools. We are training our students to drive their sports cars of selfishness towards an imaginary finish line, which is detached from reality, and once they never reach it we have the audacity to presume that they, the victims, are to blame. How bizarre is that? Innocent children are being placed (without a say) in a cold and scientific world that promotes a ―ME-ism‖ that fails to take into account those around us, and we are wondering why they are so self-absorbed. How dare we be so bold and presumptuous? The four narratives at the beginning of this chapter suggest that schooling is and should remain a journey of self-centeredness. In this day and age, schools are consumed with the self- growth, self-development, self-esteem, and self-seeking goals of students but only within a limited and universal model that normalizes these objectives. As a result, children come to know

46 Born for Love. 47 A quote from Soren Kierkegaard used on the title page of Leo Buscaglia, Love (New York: Fawcett Books, 1972) (hereafter cited in text as Love). 48 Zygmunt Bauman, Does ethics have a chance in a world of consumers? (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 2008).

125 success and ―goodness‖ through their own grades, tests scores, and academic achievements, and fail to see the bigger picture of working collaboratively to reimagine a more hopeful, egalitarian, and pluralistic society that holds mutual and personal growth in the same regards. But what if we were to advance a form of schooling that encouraged and equally accepted the betterment of both the self and society? What could be different if our educational means were washed in altruism, and the actors altruistic? By acting altruistically, schools could transform from places that exclusively promote children to selflessly strive for their own gains and to imagine working for the advancement of others. By listening to and reflecting on the needs of others, schools could move beyond the current conceptions of the neighborhood and into a more loving and intricately connected concept of fellowship. This would require individuals to look beyond their own gains and to visualize how their actions could impact others and hopefully lead to the development of a more loving, caring, and giving society. Though, nowadays altruism seems only to rear its head in the wake of natural disasters, tragic acts of violence, and by and large in response to something awful which has taken place. For instance, schools and society have worked to give support to victims of deadly hurricanes (like Katrina), tsunamis, and the tragedies of 9-11. However, what could be gained if we, instead of acting in response to these heartbreaking events, fostered a proactive form of loving others that continuously looked after one another? Envision a form of schooling that cared just as much about the development of others as it did about the development of the self? Society cannot sustain itself just through the promotion of self-seeking interests.49 If we cannot work with and for one another, we are in trouble. Thus we must transcend the current campaigns that call for selfish gains in our schools by supplanting them with more selfless aims. Instead of superintendents preaching about slumping test scores, perhaps he or she would be inclined to speak about the mental, physical, emotional, psychological, and spiritual welfare of our teachers and learners. If we were to create selfless goals for our schools, perhaps our parents would email teachers and principals with something other than an anthology about only his or her child. Instead of our kids being overwhelmed with the social pressures of getting into a good college, maintaining high marks, and getting a good job, maybe our children could work in

49 Ursula King, “Love—A higher form of human energy in the work of Teilhard de Chardin and Sorokin,” Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science 39.1: 81 2004.

126 concert to reimagine a better world filled with generous and altruistic love. And ultimately, the advancement of altruistic learning spaces would ―accept‖ teachers working collaboratively with one another, their students, and the community to incite a kinship that centers on being profoundly connected with one another. The practice of selflessness would allow humankind to better identify with others, encourage our students to see beyond their own lives and into the lives of others, and to come together as a collective group of people concerned about one another. If we focus only on our selfish motives then we ponder every decision and wonder how it may benefit us, and thus encumber the caring and giving spirit of altruism. By advancing a school system founded on selfish gains, we are hindering the intuitive minds and discerning hearts of our students from being willing and able to take up and alleviate the pains of others. It is paradoxical that when we work to encourage selfishness it proves fleeting and elusive, but when we work to advance selflessness it tends to bring about mutual happiness.50 Nevertheless, our society in general, and schools in particular, continue to advocate for selfish accomplishments that overlook the needs of others. As a result, we discursively forsake the concept of selflessness by supporting technical advances that typically only better the self. I wonder if the lack of selflessness in our world has anything to do with the erosion of our morals, our spirits, our beliefs, and our capacities for love. I wonder if our own scientific pursuits have promulgated a selfish world that is consumed by having more stuff. I would love to close this chapter with my own profound thoughts, but my words pale in comparison to the insightful advice of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.. In his book Strength to Love, Dr. King poignantly constructed a fictitious letter to Americans that captured these sentiments. He wrote: But, America, I wonder whether your moral and spiritual progress has been commensurate with your scientific progress. It appears to me that your moral progress lags behind your scientific progress, your mentality outdistances your morality, and your civilization outshines your culture. How much of your modern life can be summarized in the words of your poet Thoreau: “Improved means to an unimproved end.” Throughout your scientific genius you have made of the world a neighborhood, but you have failed to employ your moral and spiritual genius to make of it a brotherhood. So, America, the atomic bomb you have to fear today is not merely that deadly weapon that can be

50 Hunter.

127

dropped from an airplane on the heads of millions of people but the atomic bomb that lies in the hearts of men, capable of exploding into the most staggering hate and most devastating selfishness. Therefore I would urge you to keep your moral advance abreast of your scientific advances.51 These words capture for me the imminent peril that lies ahead of us if we don‘t redirect our aims from scientific pursuits towards those which manifest a more caring and compassionate world that profoundly loves one another for who they are and not who they need to become. Our schools could stand to heed the advice from Dr. King, as well our world could afford to revisit these words. On the whole, it is terribly difficult to imagine selflessness thriving in a world mediated by selfish pursuits. However, a love-based pedagogy can be one possible tool for ameliorating such a world, which I will unfold in the next and final chapter.

51 Strength to Love, 146.

128

CHAPTER SEVEN – CONCLUSION: TURNING TOWARDS A PEDAGOGY OF LOVE “To work in the world lovingly means that we are defining what we will be for, rather than reacting to what we are against.”1

Our Schools are “Excellent”…But at What? So far I have opened each chapter with a story that portrays the dominant views regarding our educational system, and followed them with a counterstory. For this chapter, I will be coupling my words with images so as to portray both the dominant and counter-views at the same time. Instead of responding using two sections to lay out both views, I will include the dominant and counter narratives in the same segment. It has been said that ―a picture is worth a thousand words,‖ so why not use some illustrations to capture my final thoughts? What follows is a series of images collected by Susan Ohanian – a winner of the 2003 NCTE George Orwell Award for Distinguished Contribution to Honesty and Clarity in Public Language – that work to simultaneously highlight and counter the dominant views of education. The following picture was taken by Jim Stevens, cited by Ohanian:2

1 Quote from writer, educator, and co-founder of PeerSpirit Christina Baldwin. 2 Picture taken by Jim Stevens and appeared in the Contra Costa Times, cited by educator and activist Susan Ohanian, retrieved from http://www.susanohanian.org/show_nclb_cartoons.php July 5, 2011.

129

Cartoon by Signe Wilkinson , cited by Ohanian:3

Image cited by Ohanian:4

3 Cartoon by Signe Wilkinson, first woman to win Pulitzer Prize for editorial cartooning. She has the distinction of having been named the Pennsylvania state vegetable substitute by the former speaker of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives. Her cartoons are syndicated by the Washington Post Writers Group, cited by educator and activist Susan Ohanian, retrieved from http://www.susanohanian.org/show_nclb_cartoons.php July 5, 2011. 4 Image used to reveal how teachers are being blamed for everything, cited by educator and activist Susan Ohanian, retrieved from http://www.susanohanian.org/show_nclb_cartoons.php July 5, 2011.

130

Image cited by Ohanian:5

Ohanian, a representation of today‘s child:6

5 Image used to put an end to the absurdity of test-driven education, cited by educator and activist Susan Ohanian, retrieved from http://www.susanohanian.org/show_nclb_cartoons.php July 5, 2011. 6 Image cited by educator and activist Susan Ohanian to represent what has become of our students as a result of reifying them with tests and menial data, retrieved from http://www.susanohanian.org/show_nclb_cartoons.php July 5, 2011.

131

From the dailyriff.com, cited by Ohanian:7

Image by Ohanian (2009):8

7 Image from the dailyriff.com to portray the factory line approach of present-day education, cited by educator and activist Susan Ohanian, retrieved from http://www.susanohanian.org/show_nclb_cartoons.php July 5, 2011. 8 Image used to portray the silliness of standardization, cited by educator and activist Susan Ohanian, retrieved from http://www.susanohanian.org/show_nclb_cartoons.php July 5, 2011.

132

Image by Ohanian (2004):9

Analyzing the Images The images above capture the essence of this study. That is, there are dominant narratives calling for an exclusive focus on standardized and technical measures, while counternarratives from teachers are attempting to navigate the difficult terrains laid out by the former so as to enact a more loving, selfless, compassionate, and relational curriculum. These illustrations underscore the test-driven mentality of the dominant groups while at the same time capturing the heartlessness, or better yet the dearth of love in and out of our schools. Furthermore, schools and school districts are being driven to believe that they will become ―excellent‖ if all of their students score at or above levels of proficiency. The sets of images

9 Image used to portray how teachers are policed for following the guidelines of NCLB, cited by educator and activist Susan Ohanian, retrieved from http://www.susanohanian.org/show_nclb_cartoons.php July 5, 2011.

133 above reveal that ―legitimate‖ educational success must hinge exclusively on academic achievement results, regardless of what takes place behind the scenes. Take for instance the first image. Sandra Cantu was an 8 year old girl who had been abducted, brutally assaulted, raped with a foreign object, murdered, and stuffed into a suitcase.10 And in a pathetic attempt to pay homage to this tragic episode, her school district had the audacity to publicly display a sign reading: ―Our hearts are with Sandra‘s family. State testing begins, grades 4 & 5.‖ Who in their right mind would qualify this as a sign of respect? Airing both statements simultaneously indicates that one is just as significant as the other. Are you kidding me? Where is the decency? Have we really reached a point where the loss of a human life is viewed as being equally significant as the beginning of a menial state test? Come on. But, this should not come as a shock. The entire present-day educational agenda revolves around a ―standardized‖ approach that treats children as soulless products assembled on a factory line. The illustration of Duncan stamping students with approval clearly underlines this mentality. In addition, Duncan‘s audacious remark – ―We should be able to look every second grader in the eye and say, ‗You‘re on track, you‘re going to be able to go to a good college, or you‘re not...‘‖ – reiterates that success in school, moreover success in life, is dependent upon one‘s grades, test scores, and ability to enter a ―good‖ college. As a result, we are left with myriads of teachers that fulfill this mission by tacitly ―following the script,‖ as indicated by the image portraying the NCLB police. Instead of challenging these views, teachers, students, parents, administrators, and the general public implicitly legitimize them by adhering to the policies set in place. Ultimately, this standardized approach leaves us with Ohanian‘s representation of the modern child, where he or she is ―Faceless, Graceless, Born to fill in a bubble. Baseless, Placeless, Told to ‗stay out of trouble.‘ Traceless, Tasteless, just a piece of rubble…‖ As a result of having our relations permeated with a means, the Thou of our students and teachers are reduced to an It,11 leaving us with an objectified learning community. Each innocent child and teacher will be or has already become nothing more than a test score, a number. What is more, society has the effrontery to ―blame teachers for being unable to cure social ills that no one knows how to treat; we insist that they instantly adopt whatever ‗solution‘ has most recently

10 Laura Marquez, Scott Michels, and Sarah Netter, “Murder charges filed in Sandra Cantu case,” ABC News, retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com April 14th 2009. 11 Buber.

134 been concocted by our national panacea machine; and in the process, we demoralize, even paralyze, the very teachers who could help us find our way.‖12 As revealed in the introduction, educational reform efforts ranging from the 1965 ―Elementary Secondary Education Act‖ all the way up to the most recent effort of ―Race to the Top‖ have all named teachers as the sole culprit for our failing economies, our inability to compete globally, our incapacity to succeed on standardized tests, and much more. Thus, teachers have become the educational scapegoats, as indicated by Ohanian‘s depiction which reads ―Blame everything on teachers.‖ However, what is not taken into account are the countless factors implicated by the second image, such as students who are ―abused,‖ have ―no books,‖ ―no discipline,‖ or those who may be ―hungry,‖ on ―drugs,‖ or have the ―TV on 24/7.‖ These factors largely affect the teaching and learning relationship and are often times responsible for the things teachers are commonly blamed for. Parker Palmer was right to state that ―teacher- bashing has become a popular sport,‖13 just look around, every educational ill presumably results from poor teachers. However, failing to view all of the factors that come into play is as silly as blaming ―only‖ the dentists for an epidemic of poor dental hygiene – knowing full well that they can‘t brush every child‘s teeth, make them floss, cut back on the soda they drink, and so on. So up until now, schools have only been rewarded for what can be technically proven as success (i.e., test scores) and as a result, there is no push to improve anything beyond the scientific scope of schooling. In fact, teachers by and large are blamed as ―failures‖ if they do not productively promote and fruitfully fulfill this type of agenda. Although it is very problematic for our educational system to assume that schools are ―excellent‖ just because they fly a banner that says so, or that there is nothing essential to schooling beyond academic accomplishments. If our schools are so excellent: Then why is student and teacher depression on the rise?14 Why are teachers feeling like they are being hindered from fulfilling their main responsibility of teaching their students?15 Why are sexual relations between teachers and

12 The Courage to Teach, 3-4. 13 The Courage to Teach, 3. 14 Jean M. Twenge, Generation me: Why today’s young Americans are more confident, assertive, entitled – and more miserable than ever before (New York: Free Press, 2006). 15 Dave S. Collingridge, “Phenomenological insight on being hindered from fulfilling one's primary responsibility to educate students,” Alberta Journal of Educational Research 54.1: 112-123 2008.

135 students so prevalent?16 And how come defenseless children are being brutally assaulted and gang raped during school functions while bystanders join in by choosing not to react?17 By turning to the works of Paulo Freire, we discover that our incapacities to respond to these negative views of education arise from us being blinded by the myths and slogans used by the dominate elites to diminish or stamp out our levels of critical consciousness.18 By initiating and supporting a ―banking‖19 system of education, educational populations implicitly allow the depositing (by teachers) and acquiring (by students) of useless facts and figures to count as knowledge, our worse yet, to count as an authentic form of schooling. Thus, ―The more completely they accept the passive role imposed on them, the more they tend simply to adapt to the world as it is and to the fragmented view of reality deposited in them.‖20 This allows the oppressed populations to believe that they are inferior and in need of support from the dominant group. One way to ensure that the dominant elites maintain their positions of authority over subjugated populations is to ―conquer‖ them through the use of myths and slogans. Freire writes: …Oppressors attempt to destroy in the oppressed their quality as ―considerers‖ of the world. Since the oppressors cannot totally achieve this destruction, they must mythicize the world. In order to present for the consideration of the oppressed and subjugated a world of deceit designed to increase their alienation and passivity, the oppressors develop a series of methods precluding any presentation of the world as a problem and showing it rather as a fixed entity, as something given—something to which people as mere spectators, must adapt.21 How true is this for our schools today? We oftentimes view education as something fixed, both in terms of permanence and as something that does not need to remedied, and as spectators who have been stripped of their creative powers and critical consciousnesses, we acclimatize ourselves to this system as opposed to recognizing something better. Thus, we

16 Daniel Cho, “Lessons of love: Psychoanalysis and teacher-student love,” Educational Theory 55.1: 79 2005. 17 CNN, Police: “As many as 20 present at gang rape outside school dance,” retrieved from http://www.cnn.com October 27th 2009. 18 Paulo Freire, Education for Critical Consciousness (New York: Seabury Press); PF; PO. 19 PO. 20 PO, 73. 21 PO, 139.

136 accept that our schools are ―excellent,‖ because as ―fixed‖ entities they are doing what they are intended to do. Moreover, the dominant groups further conquer the defeated populations by instilling in them a humanitarian pursuit of helpfulness that allows the weaker populations the possibility to ascend by conforming to the dominant objectives. Freire adds: It is in the interest of the oppressor to weaken the oppressed still further, to isolate them, to create and deepen rifts among them. This is done by varied means, from the repressive methods of the government bureaucracy to the forms of cultural action with which they manipulate the people by giving them the impression that they are being helped.22 Consequently, we accept this system as it is, seeing nothing wrong with it and wanting to achieve our fullest potentials within it. We view things like ―NCLB‖ or ―Race to the Top‖ as a helpful strategies for improving our schools and not as things that restrict the growth of teachers and learners. Still, our governments enact educative legislation that warrants our participation in order to become successful people and ―excellent‖ organizations. Hence, we ―follow the script‖ and ―standardize‖ educational experiences and opportunities for our students, because that is how we climb the ladders of bureaucracy to become ―successful.‖ Furthermore, we teach our children that this is the way of the world, and then do the same for the next generation, creating an endless circle of repressive education where the dominant parties ―do not listen to the people, but instead plan to teach them how to ‗cast off the laziness which creates underdevelopment.‘‖23 Ultimately, our present-day educational agenda creates – or perhaps recreates – a system that allows us to hide behind our validated banners of excellence, permitting us to do no wrong so long as we achieve these results. However, children and teachers are wronged on a daily basis. In order to rectify this oppressive structure, we need to heighten the critical awareness of our educational populations so as to imagine a better way to educate our children. We need to rely on the curative powers of a pedagogy of love to critically unveil the shortcomings of our present system while reimagining a better way to authentically bequeath tomorrow‘s children with the tools to carve out a new world. These levels of consciousness cannot be obtained through normalized practices, thus we must follow Ohanian‘s advice and begin to focus on our students and not what they produce; in effect we must ―put the test to rest.‖

22 PO, 141. 23 PO, 155-156.

137

Actualizing a Pedagogy of Love At the heart of a love-based pedagogy lies the volition of the teacher. Does she have the will to ―love‖ her students? Does he desire to create a classroom couched in relationality? Will she choose to have compassion with and for her students in a way that does not show pity for them? Will he selflessly give of himself to benefit others? Teaching with an undivided heart and profound agapic love requires one who prefers to be compassionate, caring, giving, and willing to forge authentic relationships rooted in respect for all of humankind. These choices will set him or her apart from those who teach from a more ―official‖ or ―accepted‖ pedagogy. The pedagogy of love, or love-based pedagogy, is a multifaceted construct that draws on multiple theories to formulate the following definition: Love is one‟s volition to serve others, in a manner that edifies the lover and the beloved by identifying and meeting their needs, cultivating compassion that is operationalized through one‟s actions. Love-based pedagogy is inspired by an amalgam of scholarly work that champions the critical and ethical elements of Freire, Guevara, Giroux, McLaren, Kincheloe, King Jr., Noddings, Buber, Hooks, Buscaglia, Fromm, and others. This revolutionary and radical form of pedagogy is informed by many critical theorists and believes that ―Love, as a yearning to connect with our natural and social worlds in a meaningful fashion, can fuel our critical intent to act against the structures that block an abundant and engaged approach to teaching and learning.‖24 The bottom line is, teachers who are willing to operationalize a pedagogy of love are disposed to being a little radical. These teachers are devoted towards debunking the oppressive forms of education that hamper the moral and democratic growth of the individual. They thirst to connect with their students, sharing with them the ebbs and flows of life. Teachers who wish to manifest a pedagogy of love are passionate for life (both their own and that of others), for their subjects, and for a love that aims to remedy the world of its ills. These teachers are raring to empathetically respond to the emotional, academic, and affective needs of their students; being quick to forgive and slow to judge. Loving teachers readily accept their students for who they are, eager to talk with and not at them. A pedagogy of love is not for the faint of heart. In fact, it requires one to call into question the ―accepted‖ norms that dehumanize teachers and students, to resist a complacency which restricts the overall learning processes, and demands that teachers

24 L&G, 3.

138 dare to create more socially just classrooms. In essence, a teacher who aims to cultivate love is altogether excited to cherish the uniqueness of every student. As a result, teachers operating within this vein must be capable of shifting gears very quickly. This teacher must be adept at discerning when and how to use which of the attribute(s) above. The teacher is able to bounce back in forth between the qualities in the diagram below to maintain balance and to provide sustenance to a love-based teaching strategy. In reality, love is an interrelated construct, and with respect to pedagogy, excluding or neglecting just one aspect may adversely impact other facets of love.25

Relationality

Compassion Altruism

Thus, actualizing a love-based pedagogy is much like the human body working to maintain homeostasis: When the body is overheated it perspires. When it is too cold is shivers. When it is depleted of oxygen it yawns to take in more air. When thirst or hunger set in the brain tells us to drink and eat, and so forth. Working within a love-based pedagogy is no different. The teacher begins by using her transparency to create authentic relations and then must be able to fluctuate between the critical elements of love to provide a meaningful and affective form of instruction. Subsequently, when one is hurting, the teacher uses her compassion to uncover why; when one is need, the teacher discerns that need and then selflessly provides; when the relation is

25 Love as Pedagogy.

139 sullied, both the teacher and student work to reconcile these matters, and so on. When picturing this, it may be helpful to view the teacher as the conductor of a symphony. The teachers and students first work to collaboratively compose the music. Once the music has been written, which may need to be retuned along the way, each student is responsible for playing his or her instrument in the symphony of agapic love, and the teacher is charged with maintaining a harmonious and balanced group. As such, she must know when to strike up each section, telling the strings, percussion, brass, and woodwinds when to play, how hard and fast to play, and when to rest. Furthermore, this teacher/conductor must be able to signal and instruct individual components within each larger section, commanding the strings to begin, striking up the cellos, then adding the violins, dropping the cellos, and picking up with the violas, and so on. At the same time, she needs to alert the just the trumpets of the brass section and the flutes and clarinets of the woodwinds to chime in. The infinite oscillations make this a taxing yet crucial role. Likewise, the teacher must know when to strike up the compassion, relational, and altruism sections, deciphering how much of each to give out, where and when to assign each, and knowing when to swing to each section. Moreover, she too must be capable of informing individual components within each larger critical element of love in order to sustain wholesome and caring relations. For instance, this teacher/conductor needs to strike up the ring of compassion, understanding when to utilize levels of empathy, forgiveness, and hospitality, being certain not to cross into the precarious waters of pity, while maintaining a humble disposition and honest integrity. At the same time, this teacher needs to be able to create unique and authentic lesson plans, grade assignments, enter scores into an online grade book, respond to angry parents, answer the unruly demands of their bosses, and more, all while maintaining a melodious milieu. As a result, teaching within a love-based pedagogy can be a daunting task. So far this study has provided the reader with the rationale and justification for the use of a selection of elements that comprise a pedagogy of love, such as relationality, compassion, and altruism. I have highlighted these themes in each chapter with personal experiences, theoretical analyses, and pragmatic situations, in an attempt to spotlight existing quandaries as well as offer up a hopeful message for the fate of education. To close this work, I would like to dispense with the

140 scholarly jargon and get down to brass tacks. In this manner, I will provide the reader with some practical tools for adopting and actualizing a pedagogy of love. Relationality is clearly a critical constituent for carrying out a teaching strategy couched in agapic love. But how does one go about forging authentic and caring relationships without crossing over into the perilous precincts of improper relations? If you recall, in chapter four I unveiled a framework of relationality undergirded by aspects of respect, trust, dialogue, and acceptance. From my experiences, this begins with understanding and abiding by the principle that most people can love a lovable person, but it takes a special, set apart teacher to love the unlovable. This is typically pretty easy to spot, he or she will be crying out for help, and many of his or her other teachers will have overlooked or neglected these cries. If you want to open the gateway for positive loving relations, display to your students that you are willing to personally befriend even that one kid that every teacher has forsook. In essence, the loving teacher has to be willing to model the elements of respect, trust, acceptance, and dialogue by being the first to present them to her students. For example, befriending the ―annoying‖ kid informs the students that you are willing and able to accept and love all of your students. Next, we can try to employ some simple strategies for building respect. For instance, if one dips into the ring of altruism and attends a child‘s extracurricular activities, spends time speaking with him or her before or after school, takes the time to sit with his or her students at lunch and actually get to know them, acknowledge them as people with interests and desires, and freely give of ourselves with no strings attached, we will see that mutual respect will inevitably follow. Honestly, how many of us have ever failed to love and respect a teacher who was willing to do these things? Another important aspect of fostering love in and out of the classroom is to initiate a loving, compassionate, and caring dialogue between oneself and his or her students. Students are commonly strapped to a chair all day long and forced to listen to someone talk at them. Try prompting a conversation with students, then sit back and empathically listen to them, this too works to cultivate acceptance, trust, and respect. Here‘s some sound advice, don‘t try so hard to come across as someone who is interesting, just be interested in what our children are dying to tell us. I cannot begin to count how many times a student would approach me, just because I had accepted them for who they were, and would unload all of their dirty laundry right on my desk. In effect, our ability to listen empathically also helps us to better know the needs of our students.

141

By listening to our students, we show them that they are lovable, moreover, we tell them with our actions that it important for us to get to know them. Palmer refers to this type of love and knowledge as: …The connective tissue of reality – and we flee from it because we fear its claims on our lives. Curiosity and control create a knowledge that distances us from each other and the world, allowing us to use what we know as a plaything and to play the game by our own self-serving rules. But a knowledge that springs from love will implicate us in the web of life; it will wrap the knower and the known in compassion, in a bond of awesome responsibility as well as transforming joy; it will call us to involvement, mutuality, accountability.26 Once we have become entangled in the same webs of life as our students, we must use our compassion to empathize with our students in a way that causes us to become engaged in each others‘ lives and that holds us collectively responsible for one another. However, I must reiterate, this must not take place as an act of pity, our students see right through these actions and they will only work to dismantle the relationship. Truthfully, compassion for me was something that derived from my passions. By being passionate not just for our students, but sharing our passions with them, allows for genuine compassion to burgeon. Deep down, students want to know their teachers for who they truly are, so we should share our interests with them in a manner that encourage them to do the same. Some practical manners for becoming more compassionate may include listening to our students, talking with them about something other than academics, humbling ourselves to be their equals, and altogether being kind and hospitable. Palmer again informs us that being kind and hospitable suggests that: A learning space needs to be hospitable not to make learning painless but to make the painful things possible, things without which no learning can occur – things like exposing ignorance, testing tentative hypotheses, challenging false or partial information, and mutual criticism of thought.27 By creating compassionate classrooms we afford students the space needed to be their unfinished and genuine selves, learning to grow with each failure and to use these learnings to venture out into unchartered waters. Most of all, if one is attempting to manifest love in and

26 To Know as We are Known, 9. 27 To Know as We are Known, 74.

142 beyond our classrooms, he or she must be of a mind that sees others for who they truly are. If our thoughts, minds, bodies, souls, and actions are not wholly congruent our students will see right through us and will not feel accepted. So, once we have rooted our relationships in the elements of love such as respect, trust, and acceptance, we can begin to awaken the spirits of our students to not just participate in their educational journeys, but to identify and personalize them. By sharing our love with our students we begin to empower them to read their worlds for what they actually are and to begin reimagining what a more hopeful and caring world may look like. I am not pretending to have all the answers, but rather I am just suggesting love as a possible pedagogy that may be able to mend the fractured realities of our educational system. Education is often times tasked with preparing students for a new tomorrow, yet we can never imagine what that may entail. However, turning towards a pedagogy of love, students and teachers are afforded the tools needed for coping with many of life‘s uncertainties, for embracing the unknown. By teaching with a pedagogy founded in agapic love we are not aiming to prepare our students for an undetermined future, rather we are aiming to provide them with the accoutrement needed to transcend the present conditions by carving out a new tomorrow. At the beginning of this study I asked the question, ―How does one teacher manifest love in and out of the classroom while navigating the difficult terrain of modern-day teaching?‖ To actualize the tenets of love pronounced in this study means to have the volition to see others for who they truly are; to humble ourselves by sacrificing our egos, our pride, and our reputations to selflessly meet the needs of others; to establish levels of trust and respect that let every student feel loved and accepted; to cultivate love by displaying levels of self-love, self-respect, and self- care; to reflect on our practices in order to grow as individuals and to help others grow; to use our passions to inspire others; and to empathically listen to another in a way that reveals our love for him or her. In essence, to manifest love in and out of schools is to accept Freire‘s claim that: It is impossible to teach without the courage to love, without the courage to try a thousand times before giving up. In short, it is impossible to teach without a forged, invented, and well-thought-out capacity to love…We must dare, in the full sense of the word, to speak of love without the fear of being called ridiculous, mawkish, or unscientific, if not antiscientific.28

28 TCW, 5.

143

In closing, I would like to caution my readers that this is not the end all to be all. I am not suggesting that I have found the one and only formula for transforming public education. Love is a fluid and multifaceted construct that is incapable of being nailed down. In fact, any attempt to do so will stifle love‘s free powers and flowing spirit. Thus, this study is not an attempt to sanctimoniously tell others how to love. Rather it is intended to open up dialogue for what it means to teach as an act of love and how one may go about manifesting love in and beyond the classroom. The point is to offer up counternarratives, emphasis on the plural, that work to debunk the master narratives of education, thus we need to converse so that we can transform our educational system. I am not telling others what love is or how to love, rather I am inviting them to join me in offering up love as a pedagogical tool for providing hope and change. The Dalai Lama‘s work on love and compassion suggests that children who grow up in environments that lack human affection commonly struggle to develop mentally, physically, and morally.29 Moreover, when these children mature and have children of their own, this tragic cycle repeats. Therefore it is imperative that begin curtailing these effects immediately. In navigating the difficult terrains of education I have come to one conclusion, education as it is now must be no more. If we are to have serious regard for the welfare of our children and the fate of public education, then we need to enter into a critical form of dialogue that aims to revolutionize our educational system. To instigate this conversation, we should turn to the work of Jing Lin, who wrote: The goal of education must change from emphasizing only intellectual development to the holistic, integrated development of students‘ moral, emotional, ecological, and spiritual capabilities; we must educate our children to be kind and compassionate, to be sensitive and caring. These qualities are not secondary, but they are to be the top priorities of education in schools in the 21st century. Our future citizens need to be equipped with the know-how to deal with life challenges and to transcend hatred through the cultivation of…an unconditional love for all. We should learn to shorten the distance between what we aspire to – our desire and our actions for a peaceful, harmonious world – and what we are doing daily in the classroom.30

29 The Dalai Lama. 30 LPWE, 9.

144

Bibliography

ABC local news (2011, January 12). ―Monroe Co. police investigate high school hazing.‖ Retrieved from http://abclocal.go.com. Ackerman, D. (1994). A natural history of love. New York: Random House. Aldrich, S., and Eccleston, C (2000). Making sense of everyday pain. Social Science & Medicine, 50(11), pp. 1631-1641. Alter, J. (2010, November 28). A case of senioritis: Gates tackles education‘s two-headed monster. Newsweek. Aristotle. (1984). Rhetoric. New York: Modern Library. Armstrong, K. (2001). Buddha. New York: Viking. Aronowitz, S. (1988). Science as power: Discourse and ideology in modern society. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Bamberg, M. & Andrews, M. (2004). Considering counter-narratives: Narrating, resisting, making sense. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamin Publishing Company. Baszile, D. (2006). The Fire Inside: A critical meditation on the importance of freedom dreams. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 22(3), pp. 7-26. Bauman, Z. (2008). Does ethics have a chance in a world of consumers? Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Beall, A. and Sternberg, R. (1995). The social construction of love. Journal of Social & Personal Relationships, 12 (3), 417– 438. Berscheid, E. (2006). Searching for the meaning of love. In R. Sternberg & K. Weis (Eds.), The new psychology of love (pp. 171-183). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Benton, T. and Craib, I. (2001). Philosophy of social science: the philosophical foundations of social thought. New York: Palgrave. Bloom, L. R. (2002). From self to society: Reflections on the power of narrative inquiry. In S. B. Merriam (Ed.), Qualitative research in practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Bingham, C. W., & Sidorkin, A. M. (2004). No education without relation. New York: P. Lang. Boas, G. (1967). Love. In P. Edwards (Ed.), The encyclopedia of philosophy. Boler, M. (2004). Teaching for hope. In D. Liston (Ed.) Teaching, learning, and loving: Reclaiming passion in educational practice (pp. 117-131). New York: RoutledgeFalmer.

145

Buber, M. (1958). I and Thou. New York: Scribner. Buscaglia, L. F. (1972). Love. New York: Fawcett Books. Buscaglia, L. F. (1984). Loving each other: The challenge of human relationships. New York: Fawcett Books. Buscaglia, L. F. (1992). Born for love: Reflections on loving. New York: Fawcett Books. Cho, D. (2005). Lessons of love: Psychoanalysis and teacher-student love. Educational Theory, 55 (1), 79-96. Clandinin, D. J. (Ed.). (2006). Handbook of narrative inquiry: Mapping a methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Clough, W. (2006). To be loved and to love. Journal of Psychology & Theology, 34(1), 23-31. CNN. (2009, October 27). Police: As many as 20 present at gang rape outside school dance. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com. Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (2006). Narrative inquiry. In J. L. Green, G. Camilli, & P. Elmore (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research (3rd ed., pp. 477–487). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Collingridge, D. S. (2008). Phenomenological insight on being hindered from fulfilling one's primary responsibility to educate students. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 54(1), pp. 112-123. Coplin, B. (2005, May 31). Let's not forget real-world implications. USA Today, p. A13. Dalai Lama XVI (2001). The Dalai Lama‘s book of love & compassion. Hammersmith, London: Thorsons. Darder, A. (2002). Reinventing Paulo Freire: A pedagogy of love. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. Delgado, R. (1989). Storytelling for oppositionists and others: A plea for narrative. Michigan Law Review, 87, 2411-2441. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1998). The landscape of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. Dewey, J. (1902). The child and the curriculum. Chicago, Ill: University of Chicago press. Dewey, J. (1943). The school and society. Chicago, Ill: University of Chicago press.

146

Diller, A. (2004). The search for wise love in education. In D. Liston (Ed.) Teaching, learning, and loving: Reclaiming passion in educational practice (pp. 49-64). New York: RoutledgeFalmer. Eakin, P. J. (2008). Living autobiographically: How we create identity in narrative. Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell University Press. Eckholm, E., & Zezima, K. (2010, March 29). 6 teenagers are charged after classmate‘s suicide. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com. Eisenberg, N., Guthrie, K., Murphy, B. C., Shepard, S. A., Cumberland, A., & Carlo, G. (1999). Consistency and development of prosocial dispositions: A longitudinal study. Child Development, 70(6), 1360-1372. Fischer, L. (1950). The life of Mahatma Gandhi. New York: Harper. Freeman, M. (2006). Autobiographical understanding and narrative inquiry. In D. J. Clandinin (Ed.), Handbook of narrative inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Freire, P. (1973). Education for critical consciousness. New York: Seabury Press. Freire, P. (1997). Pedagogy of the heart. New York: Continuum. Freire, P. (1998). Pedagogy of freedom: Ethics, democracy, and civic courage. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum. Freire, P. (2005). Teachers as cultural workers: Letters to those who dare teach. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. Fromm, E. (1976). To have or to be? New York: Harper & Row. Fromm, E. (2006). The art of loving. New York: Continuum. Gandhi, M. K. (1999). The way to God. Berkley, CA: Berkley Hills. Gardner, H. (2007). Five minds for the future. Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School Press. Garrison, J. W. (1997). Dewey and eros: Wisdom and desire in the art of teaching. New York: Teachers College Press. Giroux, H. A. et al. (1996). Counternarratives: Cultural studies and critical pedagogies in postmodern spaces. New York: Routledge. Giroux, H. A. (1997a). Pedagogy and the politics of hope: Theory, culture, and schooling : a critical reader. Boulder, Colo: WestviewPress.

147

Giroux, H. A. (1997b). Channel surfing: Race talk and the destruction of today's youth. New York: St. Martin's Press. Greenleaf, R. K. (2002). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. New York: Paulist Press. Halpin, D. (2007). Romanticism and education: Love, heroism and imagination in pedagogy. London: Continuum. Hanh, T. N. (1997). Teachings on love. Berkley, CA: Parallax Press. Heifetz, R. A. (1994). Leadership without easy answers. Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Heifetz, R. A., & Linsky, M. (2002). Leadership on the line: Staying alive through the dangers of leading. Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School Press. Hendry, P. M. (2010). Narrative as inquiry. The Journal of Educational Research, 103, 72-80. hooks, b. (1989). Talking back: Thinking feminist, thinking black. Boston, MA: South End Press. hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. New York: Routledge. hooks, b. (1995). Killing rage: Ending racism. New York: H. Holt and Co. Hoyle, J.R. (2002). Leadership and the force of love. California: Corwin Press, Inc. Hoyle, J.R. and Slater, R. O. (2001). Love, happiness, and America‘s schools: The role of educational leadership in the 21st century. Phi Delta Kappan, 82 (10), 790-794. Huebner, D.E. (1999). The lure of the transcendent: Collected essays by Dwayne Huebner. Edited by Vicki Hillis (collected and introduced by William F. Pinar). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Hughes, Sandra (2009, May 20). Child Abuse Spikes During Recession. CBS News. Hunter, J. C. (2004). The world's most powerful leadership principle: How to become a servant leader. New York: Crown Business. Ikemoto, L. (1997). Furthering the inquiry: Race, class, and culture in the forced medical treatment of pregnant women. In A. Wing (Ed.), Critical race feminism: A reader (pp. 136-143). New York: New York University Press Jackson, P. W. (1968). Life in classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

148

Jones, B. D. (2006). Looking through different lenses: Teachers' and administrators' views of accountability. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(10), 767. Kincheloe, J. L. (2004). Critical pedagogy primer. New York: P. Lang. King, M. L. (2010). Strength to love. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. King, U. (2004). Love—A higher form of human energy in the work of Teilhard de Chardin and Sorokin. Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science, 39(1), pp. 77-102. Klein, A. (2007). Survey: Subjects trimmed to boost math and reading. Education Week, 26(44), 7-7. Kohn, A. (1986). No contest: The case against competition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Lather. P. (1994) Textuality as praxis. Paper presented to AERA, New Orleans, April. Lather, P. (2004). This IS your father's paradigm: Government intrusion and the case of qualitative research in education. Qualitative Inquiry 10 (1), 15-34. Leiter, B. (2004). Nietzsche's moral and political philosophy. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu Lin, J. (2006). Love, peace, and wisdom in education: A vision for education in the 21st century. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield Education. Liston, D. P. (2004). The allure of beauty and the pain of injustice. In D. Liston (Ed.) Teaching, learning, and loving: Reclaiming passion in educational practice (pp. 101-116). New York: RoutledgeFalmer. Liston, D. P., & Garrison, J. W. (2004). Teaching, learning, and loving: Reclaiming passion in educational practice. New York: RoutledgeFalmer. Liston, D. P. (2008). Critical pedagogy and attentive love. Studies in Philosophy of Education, 27 (pp. 387-392) Loreman, T. (2009). Respecting childhood. London: Continuum Loreman, T. (2011). Love as pedagogy. Boston: Sense Publishers. Loveless, T. (2006). The peculiar politics of no child left behind. Brown Center on Education Policy. Available from http://www.brookings.edu Lucas, N., Komives, S. R., McMahon, T. R. (2007). Exploring leadership: For college students who want to make a difference. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Lyotard, J. F. (1984). The postmodern condition. Manchester University Press

149

Margonis, F. (1999). Relational pedagogy without foundations: Reconstructing the work of Paulo Freire. Philosophy of education, pp. 99-107. Marquez, L., Michels, S, and Netter, S. (2009, April 14). Murder charges filed in Sandra Cantu case. ABC News. Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com Marsh, C., & Willis, G. (2007, 4th Edition). Curriculum: Alternative approaches, ongoing issues. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Marzano, R. J., (2006). Classroom assessment & grading that work. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Maxwell, J. C. (2008). Leadership gold: Lessons learned from a lifetime of leading. Nashville: Thomas Nelson. Maynes, M. J., Pierce, J. L., & Laslett, B. (2008). Telling stories: The use of personal narratives in the social sciences and history. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. McLaren, P. (1994). Life in schools: An introduction to critical pedagogy in the foundations of education. New York: Longman. McLaren, P. (2000). Che Guevara, Paulo Freire, and the pedagogy of revolution. Culture and education series. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield. McLaren, P., Martin, G., Farahmandpur, R., & Jaramillo, N. (2004). Teaching in and against the empire: Critical pedagogy as revolutionary praxis. Teacher Education Quarterly, 31(1), 131-153. MSNBC (2008). Teacher ‗petrified‘ after being attacked by student: Baltimore educator says she cannot bring herself to return to work now. Retrieved from http://today.msnbc.msn.com Nash, R. J. (2004). Liberating scholarly writing: The power of personal narrative. New York: Teachers College Press. Nehring, J. H. (2007). Conspiracy theory: Lessons for leaders from two centuries of school reform. (cover story). Phi Delta Kappan, 88(6), 425-432. Nelson, H. L. (2001). Damaged identities, narrative repair. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Nieto, S. (2003). What keeps teachers going? New York: Teachers College Press. Nieto, S. (2008). Dear Paulo: Letters from those who dare teach. Boulder, Colo: Paradigm Publishers. Noddings, N. (1984). Caring, a feminine approach to ethics & moral education. Berkeley: University of California Press.

150

Noddings, N. (2004). Foreword. In C. W. Bingham (Ed.), No education without relation (pp. vii.-viii). New York: P. Lang. Norton, D. L., & Kille, M. F. (1983). Philosophies of love. Totowa, N.J: Rowman & Allanheld. Ohanian, S. (2006). Survey shows Vermont teachers‘ attitudes toward NCLB. June 20, 2009, from http://www.substancenews.com Ohanian, S. (2011). Images retrieved June 20, 2011, from http://www.susanohanian.org Ohio Department of Education, (2011). School ratings. May 30, 2011, from http://www.ode.state.oh.us O‘Quinn, E. J., & Garrison, J. W. (2004). Creating loving relations in the classroom. In D. Liston (Ed.) Teaching, learning, and loving: Reclaiming passion in educational practice (pp. 49-64). New York: RoutledgeFalmer. Palmer, P. J. (1993). To know as we are known: A spirituality of education. San Francisco: Harper & Row. Palmer, P. J. (1997). The heart of the teacher: Identity and integrity in teaching. Change Magazine, 29 (6), pp. 14-21. Palmer, P. J. (1998). The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscape of a teacher's life. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Papas, G. F. (1993). Dewey and feminism: The affective and relationships in Dewey‘s ethics. Hypatia, 8(2), 78-95. Perkins, M. V. (2000). Autobiography as activism: Three Black women of the Sixties. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi. Peters, M. & Lankshear, C. (1996). Postmodern counternarratives. In H. Giroux (Ed.), Counternarratives: Cultural studies and critical pedagogies in postmodern spaces (pp. 1- 40). New York: Routledge. Pinar, W. (1994). Autobiography, politics, and sexuality: Essays in curriculum theory 1972- 1992. New York: P. Lang. Pinnegar, S., & Daynes, J. G. (2006). Locating narrative inquiry historically: Thematics in the turn of narrative. In D. J. Clandinin (Ed.), Handbook of narrative inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Poetter, T. S. (2006). Recognizing joy in teaching. Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue, pp. 269-287.

151

Poetter, T. S., & Badiali, B. J. (2007). Teacher leader. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education. Polkinghorne, D. (1988). Narrative knowing and the human sciences. Albany: State University of New York Press. Purpel, D. E. (1989). The moral & spiritual crisis in education: A curriculum for justice and compassion in education. Granby, Mass: Bergin & Garvey. Quantz, R. (2010). On Standard Discourses [PDF document]. Retrieved from Online Lecture Notes: https://mymiami.muohio.edu/webapps/index.html Rachels, J., & Rachels, S. (2010). The elements of moral philosophy. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. Rhee, M. (2010, December 6). What I‘ve learned: We can‘t keep politics out of school reform. Why I‘m launching a national movement to transform education. Newsweek. Richardson, L. (1997). Fields of play: Constructing an academic life. New Brunswick, N.J: Rutgers University Press. Robinson, K. (2011, March 9). RSA animate. Changing Education Paradigms. Retrieved from http://www.thersa.org Rose, L. C., & Gallup, A. M. (2007). The 39th annual phi delta kappa/ gallup poll of the public's attitudes toward the public schools. Phi Delta Kappa, 89(1), 33-45. Salzberg, S (1997). Lovingkindness. Boston: Shambala. Schertz, M. (2006). Empathetic pedagogy: Community of inquiry and the development of empathy. Analytic Teaching, 26(1), 8-14. Sergiovanni, T. J. (2007). Rethinking leadership: A collection of articles. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Corwin Press. Singer, I. (1984). The nature of love. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Sizer, T. R. (1984). Horace's compromise: The dilemma of the American high school. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Sizer, T. R. (1996). Horace's hope: What works for the American high school. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Spivak, G. (1985). Can the Subaltern Speak? Speculations on Widow-Sacrifice. Wedge, 7(8), pp. 120-130. Solorzano, D. G., & Yosso, T. J. (2002). Critical race methodology: Counter-Story telling as an analytical framework for education. Qualitative Inquiry, 8(1), 23-44.

152

Stitzlein, S. M., Feinberg, W., Greene, J., & Miron, L. (2007). Illinois project for democratic accountability. Educational Studies, 42(2), 139-155. St. Pierre, E. A. (2006). Scientifically based research in education: Epistemology and ethics. Adult Education Quarterly, 56, 239-266. Thayer-Bacon, B. J. (2004). Personal and social relations. In C. W. Bingham (Ed.) No education without relation (pp. 165-179). New York: P. Lang. Thomas, E., & Wingert, P. (2010). Why we can‘t get rid of failing teachers. Newsweek, 155 (11), 24-27. Tillich, P. (1953). Systematic theology (Vol. 1). London: Nisbet. Twenge, J. M. (2006). Generation me: Why today‟s young Americans are more confident, assertive, entitled – and more miserable than ever before. New York: Free Press. Weissbourd, R. (2009). The parents we mean to be: How well-intentioned adults undermine children's moral and emotional development. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Wheatley, M. (2002). Turning to one another: Simple conversations to restore hope for the future. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Wheatley, M. (2006). Relationships: The basic building blocks of life. May 20, 2011, from http://www.margaretwheatley.com Wood, G. H. (1998). A time to learn: Creating community in America's high schools. New York, N.Y.: Dutton. Worthington, E. L. (2003). Forgiving and reconciling: Bridges to wholeness and hope. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press. You've seen how NCLB. (2007). NEA Today, 26(1), 17-17.

153