At this point I may have some divergence from many of my colleagues on what constitutes education for a sustainable world. We train teachers to set up specific curricula with specific goals and objectives – lesson plans. While I don’t disagree with this, I did it myself for many years, I always had a niggling problem with prescribed learning overall. In my class evaluations by students (which are always anonymous) I have been accused of many things over the years, occasionally that I was dogmatic. I was always surprised by this for many students in the same class would extol my flexibility in allowing them to think freely. What I realized about my teaching technique was that I was perhaps a tad insensitive to students who had rigid belief systems by challenging their beliefs. Students with flexible belief systems loved my challenges to explore their beliefs freely and recognized that was just what I was doing. Student with rigid beliefs wanted the ‘correct answers’ found from the textbooks or mainstream sources. My challenges (framed as counter ideas, whether I believed them or not) were seen as an authoritarian counter to their beliefs (and dogma’s).
In Bill Scott’s blog, he quotes Susan Brown, from the University of Manchester, who has written for Steady State Manchester [SSM]:
“… This means that even when we wish to change education we end up reverting to default educational understandings and processes that are not conducive to shaping a steady state. For them to be so they need to be fused at a fundamental level to the vocabulary of mutuality, shared ownership, collaboration, humility, creativity, experimentation, learning from failure, discovery, motivation and imagination.”
Bill comments that while these qualities are admirable, they are not present in modern educational systems. For people who have done well in the consumer lifestyle, many of these attributes presented by Brown will seem like an anathema to their current way of living. Considering the 85% of the LDCs and the large numbers of people in the MDCs that live a life of poverty, barely making it through, or are stressed out with how they live, the transition away from the consumer nightmare might not be a tough as we think. That’s if we, the educators, present a better picture for steady state living than the hyper-consumer driven one. Personally, I think a Bedford 2045 (see Scotts blog) sounds better than a current Bedford 2018 with all its consumerist problems, but then I am a minimalist kind of guy. (More explanation soon – I’m trying to keep each post somewhat on track with the heading).
I know many teachers who complain about highly prescriptive educational processes (especially standardized testing) that do not allow teachers to do the jobs they would love to do – teach students to think, not just successfully regurgitate information. I think it was Albert Einstein who claimed that he didn’t memorize details, because details could be found in books, and he saved his mind for thinking. Sir Ken Robinson talks (google any of his talks) about how our current education is designed for a different age, when the elites needed mindless but trained workers for the industrial work environment of previous centuries. We are no longer in a period of rapid industrial growth. Our education must reflect the potential future we now face. A future where adaptation must occur, and thinking must be able to readily adapt to unforeseen changes and situations. He further talks about how educational system worldwide are being ‘reformed,’ but thy are merely trying to improve a broken model. What is required is a radical transformation of educational systems from standardized schools to personalized learning. This would allow situations where the natural talents of learners can be recognized and nurtured. We are entering a new world where communities will need the full range of diverse talents and skills to be able adapt and flourish to quickly changing conditions. The standard education generally trains for one area. Not that we don’t need specialists, we do, but we also need them and everyone else to be big picture thinkers as well as detail thinkers, where each person’s talents, that they wish to pursue, can be maximized – where everyone can follow their passion. I know from my own experience that formalized education didn’t work well. At age 14 I had an aptitude for science, and was promptly channeled into science classes for my future as an engineer (or scientist, but at the time physics and math ‘seemed’ my forte). I wasn’t a particularly good artist but I loved art class. I loved all the arts and humanities, and in middle school loved doing ‘wood and metal working classes as well. For many years I had to indulge those desires through my own learning, playing with tools, and visiting the library regularly. So, I totally understand what a different paradigm of learning could look like. I love learning, but what I wanted to focus on at any time didn’t fit any given curricula. At this point some teachers being asked to create a personalized learning space for each student are probably recoiling in horror at the perceived difficulty of doing this.
The Greek philosophers have much to teach us about how we educate. Socrates said, “I cannot teach anybody anything, I can only make them think.” Aristotle, “Educating the mind without educating the heart is no education at all.” There are numerous quotes attributed to these early thinkers as they ‘taught’ their followers philosophic thinking. Which is more appropriate to the current times? Facts or thinking, or perhaps a mix of both? And then what facts are crucial. I would recommend not asking the discipline specialists. Whenever I read a report of what each specialist expects the general learner to know, it ends up looking more like a list for PhD’s in that field. Almost by definition, each specialist thinks that everything in their knowledge bank is essential. Obviously, there is knowledge that is needed, but what? And who decides if not the specialists. Leaving it to the institutional systems doesn’t seem as if that would help. In 1982, Mocker and Spear, developed a simple matrix that clarified the variation between the ‘means of learning’ (who controls where it occurred – in an institution or at the learners control) and the ‘objectives of learning’ (who controls the content, the institution or the learner). Formal learning occurs when the institution controls the place and content. Self-directed occurs when the leaner chooses where they will go and what they will choose to learn. In-between are informal and non-formal (where the institutions have partial control), or as my Chinese colleagues pointed out to me one time when I was explaining this model – they didn’t have informal or non-formal, only NOT-formal. Presumably, we will not see the end of educational institutions, but how will we teach and what will we emphasize as content essential to success in a steady state lifestyle. Not simple questions and much debated everywhere, yet without resolution – especially in regards to beliefs of what is essential content? How do we organically educate without force feeding dogmatic views? How do we teach the teachers?
David Orr stipulates that the main role of education is to learn to live well in a place, know how to do things well, rightly, and in ways that are useful for life. He ardently espouses that no student should ever graduate before they can demonstrate an understanding of key cognitive and content principles.
These include things like: the laws of thermodynamics, the basics principles of ecology, carrying capacity, energetics, least-cost and end-use analysis, limits of technology, appropriate scale, sustainable agriculture and forestry, steady state economics, and environmental ethics.
While some may disagree with Orr’s list, he at least has thought about what essentials are necessary to understand how the world works and to keep it in a sustainable steady state. That knowledge can help us understand the essential need on how to live and support a steady state lifestyle in dynamic flux. The first part of his comment above is the one rarely talked about – how do we live well in a given area? In indigenous cultures, children are naturally taught how to life well in a place and be a supporting community member. The wisdom is passed down from generation to generation with values instilled through careful inculcation that allows a spiritual understanding of place. Now that is something people can rebel about. Today, teachers are not allowed to teach values since parents do not want their kids infected with someone else’s values. Values are always present in a culture, but if they are discussed openly and often, then they would hold the highest egalitarian ideals for everyone in that culture – the Platinum Rule? But if the parents are locked into the belief systems of a consumer lifestyle and do not know how to think, how are the kids (and aware adults) to begin that process of transformation? We have a dog-eat-dog world only because it serves the needs of the elite. This kind of world is NOT who the rest of us are, or who most of us want to be. Dr. Tony Alessandra sums up the platinum Rule as: “Treat others as they wish to be treated.” To do so, we must learn to view the world as others see it, to adapt our communication style to their behavioral style, to lead others in a way that motivates them to want to follow, to sell in a way that makes it comfortable for them to buy, and to embrace our differences while admiring the strengths in others.”
In my first permaculture class, I had students working in groups to develop a 640 acre community using the principles from Bill Mollison’s Intro to Permaculture text. The guidelines: It just had to fit the concepts of permaculture and be long-term communities – the students had to develop a plan that would be critically evaluated by the rest of the student groups in the class. The students could ask me for advice but I essentially just observed and added occasional comments. The result? Some exceptionally well thought out plans that might even be feasible in todays world. I simply let them think their way through the process over 15 weeks and offered critique when an idea seemed outlandish or dependent on too much financing. As a full class project, they had to design and create a permaculture design garden on a unused 100 cubic meter grassy area on the campus. The result was a creative garden encompassing the concepts of permaculture design, and phenomenal heirloom organically grown vegetables for the Summer and Autumn months. I ‘allowed’ the students to think and they did so with great relish and enthusiasm.
We can get away from the mass-production process of students in batches. We can at least begin a conversation in how to handle learners with different aptitudes at different ages. As Ken Robinson points out, why are all 5year old’s treated the same? For that matter, why are all 18year old’s expected to be similar and ready for college. My experience as a college professor taught me clearly that many first-year students would be better off working before going to college. I cannot count the numbers who were at college getting a degree that had no idea why they were doing so. Although for some it was simple. One young lady came to see me to tell me how much she disapproved of what I was doing in class. When I asked what that was, she said with a straight face, “You are trying to make me think. I didn’t come to college to think, I came to get a degree for a better job.” And therein lies the cattle market mentality – completely trapped in the illusion of life we call modern consumerism. Think about an educational system where we could learn whatever we wanted and there were no exams or tests. OK, maybe that is a bit too extreme. But what would an education look like that prepared us to live successfully in a steady state system? And what would that system look like sociologically-culturally in how we lived? Teaching everyone to think would be great for us, the people, but not for the elites. As Jefferson is supposed to have said, ”
An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people.”
Whatever we chose, thinking for ourselves and knowing how to think and evaluate information has to be a prerequisite. And then including the attributes that Susan Brown from Manchester mentions might give us a system that promotes how to live collaboratively, compassionately, and equitably. Is there a vision of Love that can bind us all together? Love that is a deeply abiding spiritual love, not the screwed up Hollywood version of it most people spend their lives chasing and agonizing over. (To be discussed more deeply in another post soon.)
From the WHO album, On the Threshold of a Dream: In The Beginning by Graeme Edge.
First Man: I think, I think I am, I think.
Establishment: Of course you are my bright little star. I've miles and miles of files, pretty files of your forefather's fruit. And now to suit our Great computer, your magnetic ink.
First Man: I'm more than that, I know I am, at least, I think I must be.
Inner Man: There you go, man, keep as cool as you can. Face piles and piles of trials with smiles. It riles them to believe that you perceive the web they weave, and keep on thinking free.
0 Comments