Philosophies of Learning Communities Introduction by Ron Miller
* * * * *
We turn now from describing the methods and practices found in diverse community learning models to examining more closely the underlying philosophies that have given rise to these programs. Philosophies, not philosophy, because the community learning approach is rooted in the belief that there are many legitimate ways to learn, and many useful ways to support learning. Rather than fighting to establish one correct approach to teaching and learning, the community learning model recognizes that each educational philosophy is appropriate for particular needs and specific situations. Growing children differ in their style and rate of learning, and in their temperament and interests; families differ in their values and aspirations; communities differ in their social and economic characteristics; and, quite simply, times change. By understanding the range of educational options, communities and families can deliberately choose modes of learning that address their most important needs.
Paradoxically, perhaps, this attitude of openness to different ways of learning itself reflects a particular philosophical position. Educators and parents who choose community-based learning are quite deliberately saying "No!" to the dominant worldview of the modern age, which values standardization, materialism, efficiency, profit and power; instead they affirm an alternative or "postmodern" worldview that recognizes diverse human needs and the moral, cultural and ecological contexts within which these needs arise. The recognition of diverse ways of learning reflects a belief that education and other social institutions need to be responsive to people's experience and understanding; the systems we set up to guide our lives need to be flexible and organic and relational. In their chapter Kathia and Alexander Laszlo call this an "evolutionary systems" perspective. While not every contributor to this book would use the same terminology, I think most would agree that rigid, authoritarian educational systems represent a flawed conception of human development and a narrow understanding of the living systems within which we exist. The chapters in this section explain why the mechanistic, competitive, and increasingly standardized system of schooling given to us by the Industrial Age is no longer adequate (if it ever was) in an emerging post-industrial age.
In order to provide an overview for the chapters that follow, I think it is useful to compare community-based learning approaches to other theories of education that are more familiar to educators, parents and citizens in the modern age. Following (and expanding) upon the work of Canadian educator John P. Miller,1 I would like to present a brief outline of four basic educational orientations. This is not an exhaustive description of all possible ways of teaching and learning, but it does help us classify our choices according to several broad purposes. Miller identifies three orientations, which he calls "transmission," "transaction," and "transformation"; I would add a fourth, which we might call "self-direction."
A transmission approach believes that the primary purpose of education is to induct young people into the established values, beliefs, and accepted knowledge of the existing society or community. Teaching transmits information to students, who are expected to absorb, memorize, or otherwise master the material they are taught. Learning is seen as a receptive activity--the taking in of external data. Knowledge is seen as being stable and for the most part predetermined; there is an emphasis on "basics"--those pieces of knowledge that are widely considered essential. E.D. Hirsch's popular series of books defining lists of facts and concepts that children should know at each grade level, and William Bennett's popular books on moral education, reflect a transmission orientation. Families or communities with strongly held religious or cultural beliefs who want to ensure that their children adopt these beliefs also tend to favor transmission approaches. Indeed, any educator or parent may find certain situations in which the transmission of specific knowledge is an appropriate strategy, and some children do appear to learn better from direct, carefully planned instruction. But most schooling in the modern age is heavily influenced by this understanding of education, to the point where it has become authoritarian and rigid. Today, government officials, along with leaders of corporations, foundations, universities, and other institutions, determine what all students "need" to know, and this becomes educational policy, expressed in standards, state-mandated textbooks, high stakes testing, and relentless control over teaching and learning.
A transaction orientation, according to John Miller, is more sensitive than the transmission position to the social context of learning. Knowledge is not an objective entity that students compete to acquire for themselves, but is generated in relationships between people, through conversation and dialogue, and in relationships between the learner and the larger world, through meaningful activities, experimentation, and adventure. Knowledge is not completely fixed in advance (that is, it does not consist merely of information or facts), but is "constructed" as the learner makes sense of his or her experience. Thus there is more room for individual differences, more respect for diverse understandings and points of view; transaction education is not trying to mold young people into the shape of the existing society but allowing them to develop a more thoughtful and critical attitude toward their society. This approach is generally concerned with strengthening democracy in education and society because only a democratic community encourages such dialogue and experimentation. Although the teacher is not treated as the authority figure s/he would be in a transmission approach, s/he plays an important role in students' learning, by engaging in dialogue, questioning, and being a thoughtful and caring mentor. This understanding of learning was promoted by John Dewey and the progressive education movement, and also by the psychologist Jean Piaget and "developmental" educators. Some versions of it have been called "humanistic" education.
Education for transformation is somewhat more difficult to describe, because it represents a more radical, even a countercultural, philosophy. Both John Miller and I call it "holistic" education. Essentially, this approach sees human development within a social and cultural as well as an ecological and spiritual context. To educate a human being is not merely to make one a knowledgeable, productive members of society (transmission) or an active, engaged citizen (transaction), but also to help each person discover the deeper meaning of his or her life. Who are we? Why are we on earth? What is our relationship to other living beings, and to the evolution of the cosmos itself? Holistic educators do not supply answers to these questions (that would be transmission), but they believe that every person is at heart a spiritual being who thirsts for insight and wisdom about such questions. To ignore them is to diminish our education as well as our humanness. "Transformation" occurs when a person is able to see through one's own cultural conditioning and limited ego identity, and realize one's connection to the unfolding universe itself (however this might be experienced or described). Education should be practiced in such a way as to encourage young people to pursue this understanding; essentially, this starts with teaching a reverence for life. Rudolf Steiner, Maria Montessori, Krishnamurti, and Joseph Chilton Pearce are probably the best known advocates of such an approach, but while it is countercultural, it also has roots in the ideas of respected philosophers such as Emerson and Whitehead.
There is, I think, a fourth general educational orientation that John Miller does not address--which I will call "self-direction." We find it well expressed in the writings of John Holt and A. S. Neill, and in the various democratic, anarchist, and "free" schools that have been established in this century. It seems to be the primary basis, as well, for the "unschooling" portion of the homeschooling movement. This approach is grounded in a basic trust in human nature: It claims that we are naturally learners, and if social institutions would stop cluttering our path with various prejudices, agendas, and limitations, young people would spontaneously and efficiently learn all that is necessary to live meaningful and productive lives. According to this view, a teacher is certainly not an authority, not even a mentor unless a learner requests it, and only in rare cases should be concerned with anyone else's spiritual development. The initiative for learning comes from the learner, and teachers are resources for the learner, whom he or she freely seeks out and selects. Most or all of the structures of schooling--grades, lesson plans, age groupings, teaching strategies, and so forth-- are, in this view, pretty much irrelevant to genuine, self-directed learning and are usually a hindrance. This orientation is qualitatively different from the first three (and was probably left out of Miller's list) because it is concerned with learning and has little or no interest in education as a specific profession.
As we see in diverse ways in this book, the community learning center idea springs primarily from this last educational orientation. Advocates of "self-direction"--led by homeschoolers, for the most part--want to replace schools (and all their trappings) with resource centers that learners freely use according to their individual needs. This is an important revolution in educational thinking, because our culture has organized schools with an extremely unbalanced and unhealthy emphasis on a "transmission" style of education. But the beauty of the community learning center is that it is not merely an individualistic reaction against oppressive education; rather, it opens possibilities for the balanced, flexible, and appropriate practice of all educational orientations. Families and individuals can, to be sure, use these centers in spontaneous, unstructured ways, but other kinds of learning can take place alongside purely self-directed learning--discussion groups or seminars, more highly structured courses (or tutoring) focusing on specific skills, and opportunities for mentorship and apprenticeship that could serve various purposes, from learning a craft to exploring the meaning of life. I envision people learning from each other's different choices, expanding their own perspectives by seeing how others work. A parent who comes in assuming that "basics" must be drilled into children might discover that some people learn them quite well in a freer atmosphere. A family committed to deschooling might find that some children do enjoy and benefit from direct instruction in some cases. A seeker of holism like myself might be surprised to discover how much children can find answers to life's big questions without explicit guidance; or, when young people find themselves in an environment where the adults take such questions seriously, they feel encouraged to explore them.
The important result of this openness to diversity would be the relaxing of our prejudices and defensiveness. Our society is becoming more fragmented, competitive and divisive as various groups seek to defend their beliefs and their turfs from the cultural and political forces of standardization. If we could come together in places where our views were respected and allowed, where we could dialogue freely with those who hold different views and see how their views make sense, I think we would make a giant step toward building a genuine participatory democracy. We have been told that local public schools are essential to democratic community life, but it is more and more clear that cultural and political conflict over education divides our communities bitterly.2 The contributors to this book envision a society in which communities provide dynamic, open-ended learning centers and welcome all citizens into them; we see these centers as truly public spaces in which people of all ages and persuasions can come together to learn and practice democracy. But this can only happen when all educational orientations are granted a legitimate place, and none of them, including self-direction, is privileged over the others.
The following chapters explain the beliefs, ideals, and values that support the model of community-based learning. These are diverse writings from a diverse group of authors, yet they speak to a common theme: A society that forces young people into mechanistic systems of learning diminishes both their individual potentials for growth and the health of their communities; authoritarian education is not sustainable because it violates inherent human needs for meaning, relationship, an authentic sense of self and a sense of place. The Industrial Age model of schooling is obsolete and damaging, and it needs to be replaced.
1. See John P. Miller, The Holistic Curriculum. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education Press (revised edition), 1996.
2. Stephen Arons discusses the divisiveness of public schooling in Short Route to Chaos: Conscience, Community, and the Reconstitution of American Schooling. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1997.
* * * * *
© Copyright 2000. Ron Miller - All Rights Reserved.
milleron@together.net