PEOPLE ANDLEARNING: A BEUEF SYSTEM

Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D.
MCHIGAN STATE UNWERSITY
JANET KRU‘LJK WYAN
1973

 

 

> u tqs‘ls

' LIZ? RARY '

Midi; ;an State

”gmimmunityimam!!!“ ‘ , V m, r,

12 98 ‘ a

.frrAr-I-«I a'

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled
PEOPLE AND LEARNING: A Belief System

presented by

JANET KRULIK RUNYAN

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. . Education
_ degree 1n ____

e
r

$15M V 033 ex m

Major protester

 

 

 

. Kaela?

N 4—,!” " (;f) (T. /

ABSTRACT
PEOPLE AND LEARNING: A BELIEF SYSTEM
By

Janet Krulik Runyan

The learning process discussed herein is based
upon specific beliefs about people and the way they
meet their needs. Chief among these beliefs is one that
says while people all share common thoughts and feelings,
each person attempts to meet these needs in unique ways.
People need, and deserve, enough freedom to "be" all of
their uniqueness and they need many opportunities to
explore and experience. This is the process of human
learning and it can be exciting, challenging, and joyful.

Rules and regulations, competition and evaluation,
and expectations, all severely limit or restrict a
person's right to be himself, to act spontaneously, and
to select his own learning experiences. No one can know
what another person should do, or learn. Personal growth
and learning experiences are most rewarding when "teachers"
are facilitators of learning, helping each "student" to
learn the things they are eager to learn, solve problems
they wish they could solve, and answer questions they are
curious about. This type of learning is defined by those

who want to learn and facilitated by those who want to

Janet Krulik Runyan

share in such learning. Learning facilitators can help
to provide such learning experiences by themselves
becoming more open and more honest; by being accepting
and supportive of all individual differences; by discard-
ing expectations and manipulations; by sharing their
dreams, their fears, their problems, and their feelings;
by caring; by loving; by assisting and aiding rather

than directing and forcing.

All of us need to express and share our feelings
as well as our thoughts in order to experience both
emotional and intellectual growth. The dependence and
interdependence of the emotional and the intellectual
is important to recognize. Our feelings and our emotions
don't disappear just because they are ignored. Personal
and interpersonal factors do influence learning and
motivation. Our research tells us that this is so. But
more research is needed using various conceptual and
operational definitions including both comparative and
longitudinal studies.

The activities, the feelings, and the behaviors
of the people help to determine any environment. Environ-
ments that are conducive to exciting, joyful learning
and personal growth allow for decision making with
students where all opinions are encouraged, shared, and
accepted. Such environments plan for and make use of
feedback from all persons in that environment. They are

stimuli-producing, focusing on self-directed learning.

Janet Krulik Runyan

They are non-threatening, conducive to the meeting of
individual needs and self-actualization. They are warm,
non-authoritarian, and supportive; non-competitive and
informal; they foster respect and trust; subordinate-
superior relationships cease; and, perhaps most important,
they are open or unstructured. People will create their
own learning environments if they feel free to do so. At
the present time, the organizational and contextual
environments of most schools seriously impede the creation
of environments that are consistent with the type of learn-
ing described.

Learning programs compatible with the beliefs
stated thus far are available and are being used in a
few schools. Such programs include many options and strive
to help people develop and understand both their intellect
and their emotions. They provide opportunities for self—
growth and development of all human potential. The
approach is individualistic and creative with much less!
emphasis on content, knowledge, and essentials. Students
generate and discover, laugh and cry, love and hug.
People will create their own forms of learning and will
take responsibility for their learning needs when we stop
imposing structure from without and allow it to come from

within.

PEOPLE AND LEARNING: A BELIEF SYSTEM

BY

Janet Krulik Runyan.

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Secondary Education
and Curriculum

1973

‘. re
. .;5
as v
a):
l:
\-
f!
f! \‘1'
-. ‘3
I.
.#
3 .\
fl i
. I

To all persons who are trying to make a difference

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my guidance committee
for their interest, support, and especially the freedom
that was provided throughout my graduate work. Dale
Alam is truly a facilitator of learning and a warm,
accepting human being. Vince Salvo shares himself and
his feelings with all who care and, by example, helps
to facilitate change both personal and institutional.
Jchn Suehr helps to make change happen in the schools,
but more importantly in people.

The support of my husband, Dave, means a great

deal to me. . .he understands and he cares.

iii

On Children

Your children are not your children.

They are the sons and daughters of
Life's longing for itself.

They come through you but not from you,

And though they are with you, yet they
belong not to you.

You may give them your love but
not your thoughts.

For they have their own thoughts.

You may house their bodies but not
their souls,

For their souls dwell in the house of
tomorrow, which you cannot visit,
not even in your dreams.

You may strive to be like them,
but seek not to make them like you.

For life goes not backward nor tarries

with yesterday. . .

Kahlil Gibran
The Prophet

 

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEDICATION O O O O I O O O O O O 0

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . .

PREFACE I O O O O O O I O O O O 0

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . .
Section

I. PEOPLE, LEARNING AND SCHOOLS . . .

About Human Learning . . . . . .

Human Needs . . . . . . . . .

Human Actualization . . . . . .

Human Motivation . . . . . . .

The Public Schools. . . . . . .

Social Class and Achievement. . .

Stratification With the Schools. .

About Research . . . . . . . .

Summary . . . . . . . . . .

II. THE ENVIRONMENT. . . . . . . .

The Environment of the School Day. .

The Environment and Learning . . .

Open Schools. . . . . . . . .

What Needs to Be Done. . . . . .

Summary . . . . . . . . . .

The Organizational Environment of the

SChOOl O I O O O O I O O 0

III. THE PROGRAM . . . . . . . . .

What is. . .What Could Be . . . .
Facilitating Learning. . . .
The Effects of Leadership on People .
Learning to Think . . . . . . .
Learning to Feel . . . . . . .
Options for Personal Growth. . . .
Learning and T-Groups. . . . . .
People and Values . . . . . . .
Conclusion . . . . . . . . .

Page
ii
iii

vii

14
21
24
28
32
35
39
43

45

45
48
56
S9
65

65
76

76
81
84
87
96
100
118
121
124

Page
FOOTNOTES 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 126

BIBLIOGRAPHY O O O O O I D O O O C O O 137

Vi

PREFACE

It is well to keep in mind that the model of
science in general, inherited from the impersonal sciences
of things, objects, animals, and part-processes, is
limited and inadequate when we attempt to know and to
understand whole and individual persons and cultures.

It was primarily the physicists and the astronomers who
created the subculture known as Science (including all

its goals, methods, axiomatic values, concepts, languages,
folk-ways, prejudices, selective blindnesses, hidden
assumptions). This is an impersonal model, failing with
the personal, the unique, the holistic.1

As Maslow tries to enlarge science by abstracting,
integrating, and experiencing, so too, does this disserta-
tion. Reliable insights into learning require that our
empirical studies be based on varying conceptualizations
of the learning process. Learning is experiencing. Our
research must take into account the person who is doing
the learning. Feelings and processes must be integrated
with data and content. Roger Williams says:

In dealing with people statistics should be used
with care. A group of peOple is something like a
collection of marbles of all sizes and compositions,
and all colors of the rainbow. Try to 'average'

these marbles and you come out with nonsense. You
can average their color by mounting them on a

vii

circular disc and rotating it rapidly. The color
comes back a dirty-gray. But there isn't a dirty-
gray marble in the lot! People are as distinctive
as marbles, and when we attempt to average them
we come up with a dirty-gray 'man.’ Averaging
when applied in this careless way to people can

be vicious for we are all unique specimens.

Orthodox scientific investigations are the only
methods used to study the learning process and this
process will continue to move into an even more mechanistic,
dehumanizing direction. A rediscovery of man and his
human capacities, needs, and aspirations is occurring
slowly in politics, industry, religion, education, and
also in the psychological and social sciences. Our
schools can be leaders in the restoration of humanly-based
values. It is time to reconceptualize learning; to work
with our students in a freer atmosphere, to allow students
to choose their own learning experiences, and to offer
both cognitive and non-cognitive school experiences. If
these things are to happen, we need a change, not only
in our conceptualizations, but in our perception and
evaluation of familiar data as well. Dr. Philip Jackson,
past chairman of the ASCD Elementary Education Council,
said it well: "The field of education, in my opinion,
does not need better tests and more sophisticated research

designs nearly as badly as it needs new ways of looking

at some of its oldest problems."3

viii

INTRODUCTION

The main concern of this thesis is the individual,
the person. It is about people learning together; about
people meeting their own needs and helping others meet
their needs. It is about human learning and the programs
and enVironments that allow for such learning.

This is not an empirical study in the sense that
specific variables are manipulated or measured. Sugges-
tions for studies of this nature are offered. Nor is this
a definitive study. It is the beliefs and feelings of
the writer about people and learning based on personal
experience, study, and research.

The "procedural methodology" makes use of research,
theory, and practice relevant to behavioral change processes,
education, sociology, psychology, and political science.
This information is then applied to educational organiza—
tion settings, programs, and individuals.

While there are many critics of today's schools,
few are offering remedies, solutions, or programs although
general suggestions, alternative models, and specific
techniques are beginning to emerge. These represent real
efforts toward reconceptualizations in education. Too
many of these are modifications of existing practices that
perpetuate either the structural or environmental status

1

quo. Many neglect underlying assumptions that are at

best questionable and at the least undesirable. Making
schools "relevant" and more "individualized" will not
change the basic training process which is set up. Despite
some new materials, innovative programs, and experimental
teaching methods, many of today's schools often resemble
the schools of the 1950's. Essentially the rules, the
mistrust, the boredom have not changed. The sections that
follow discuss differing belief systems regarding human
behavior and learning. Some remedies, solutions, and
programs based on specific beliefs about learning and
people are offered. Hopefully, future empirical research
studies will provide evidence in support of the substantive
material and hypotheses contained herein.

In education, as in other endeavors, progress is
measured by enumerating shortcomings and by drawing
critical attention to failures. Education in this country
has traditionally been in a state of crisis and perhaps
this is a source of strength; creativity proceeds from
the known to the unknown and crisis situations demand
creativity. At the present time, we are living in a
society where three revolutions have converged simultan-
eously; the industrial-scientific revolution, the communica-
tions revolution, and the educational revolution. These
three revolutions have been responsible for jamming us
together and bringing us into face-to-face contact, thus

increasing the tension of daily living and raising our

level of expectations and demand for freedom and mobility.
The crisis now in education calls for creative solutions.

Since we are a pluralistic nation of very differ-
ent kinds of people, we have different values and beliefs,
different life styles, different goals, and different
aspirations. We may each learn best in very different
environments. Some of us may learn best by having no
structure, others may need a rigid structure. Some may
not need a "teacher", others may need programmed materials
or computer-assisted lessons, or just conventional class-
rooms. If the assumption that people learn best in
different ways is correct, then we should work to provide
as many learning options as possible. Such options
provide the focus for much of this thesis.

The first section, "People, Learning, and the
Schools", provides a discussion on learning: What is
learning and what is involved in the process of learning?
When does learning occur and how is it achieved? The
role of the school and its effect on people and learning
is considered. The relationship between learning and
human needs, between learning and motivation, and the
concept of human actualization are all explored. Research
suggestions are offered.

The second section discusses environments that
are compatible with the learning beliefs expressed in
the first section. Within the context of the daily school

setting the following factors are considered:

Stimuli-producing environments, human behaviors, the
physical structures and the decision making structures.
The section closes by looking at the organizational
environment of the school. This is a more academic
discussion of educational decision making and the power
relationships of persons in the school system, drawn
mainly from organizational studies in sociology and
political science.

The final section, "The Program", includes a
brief, general discussion on program and curriculum
choices. Focus then turns to the facilitation of
learning including research findings on "leadership";
on learning to think and learning to feel with suggested
Options for each; on learning and T-Group theory, and
on valuing. Underlying all of this is the concern that
people's needs are met in a relevant, interesting, even
exciting manner, and in a way that allows for self-

growth.

SECTION I

PEOPLE, LEARNING AND SCHOOLS

Every human being is of supreme value because his
experience, which must be in some measure unique,
gives him a unique view of reality: and the sum
of such views is needed if mankind is ever to
comprehend its destiny.

Rebecca West,
Black Lamb and Grey Falcon

 

Students. . .teachers. . .administrators. . .school
board members. . .people. . .human beings, each unique.
Each with special throughs and feelings. Each concerned
With and interested in their experiences and the environ-
ment that affects them and is affected by them. Each of
us trying to meet our personal needs in our own way. Each
of us learning.

However learning is defined and regardless of how
it is measured, it is the person who does the learning;
the person who eXperiences, works, plays, shares, grows.
What is learning and when does it occur? How is learning
achieved? What is involved in learning? These questions
are the concern of this section. Discussed also is the
relationship of human needs and learning, human motivation,
actualization for more satisfying living, and the role of

the school as it related to all of these concerns.

About Human Learning

 

In Education and Ecstasy George Leonard says that
no one can be rescued from learning; learning is what
human life is.4 Learning involves the acquisition of
insights, skills, and knowledge; to learn is to change.
Education is a process that changes the learner. Learning
is living and life is an education. It is an illusion
that the most important learning happens in school. All
learning is important regardless of when and where it
occurs. Learning in school does not occur differently
than the way it does outside of school. Learning consists
of much more than cognitive, intellectual input and
output; it consists of finding out who you are and who
you would like to become and why; of empathetic under-
standing, of spontaneous curiosity and originality. It
consists of sharing with openness and honesty. . .a sharing
of both ideas and feelings. All of these learnings can be
facilitated by allowing students to grow and develOp by
following their positive instincts of curiosity, imagination,
and self-fulfillment; by allowing for exploration, inter-
pretation and analysis; by allowing for communication to
and with themselves and with each other; The association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD) says,

Within the broad limits of good taste both students
and teachers should be free to explore and test
values without restraint or fear of criticism. . .
Ethics, morality, human feeling and emotion need to
be part of the curriculum if the school intends that

teachers and classrooms will effect student behavior
significantly.5

Dr. Dwight Allen, Dean of the School of Education
at the University of Massachusetts, says that education
consists of more than an additive acquisition of knowledge.
We need to provide ways of opening up individual experiences;
of providing more options so that different needs can

b met in different ways. We need to treat students as

(D

scholars. Today, a child quickly learns that virtually
everything he does will be evaluated in abstract, absolute
terms: good and bad. Yet, there is no such thing as
bad learning. Learning is learning. Bad learning simply
means that the learning does not fit into the program. . .a
program that has been defined before the student is even
brought into it and one that rarely bends to accept the
unique differences of human beings.7

There are different types of learning and differ-
ent kinds of knowledge. There is academic knowledge that
transcends experience and there is direct knowledge of
the world gained only through personal experience. Some
Speak of cognitive as Opposed to affective learning:
cognitive, meaning conceptualizing or thinking; affective,
meaning experiencing or feeling. Abraham Maslow discusses
"experiential knowledge" and "spectator knowledge";
Maslow says that all of life must first be known experien—
tially: "There is no substitute for experience, none at
all. All the other paraphernalia of communication and
of knowledge--words, levels, concepts, symbols, theories,

formulas, sciences-—all are useful only because people

already know experientially. The basic coin in the realm
of knowing is direct, intimate, experiential knowing.
Everything else can be likened to banks and bankers, to
accounting systems and checks and paper money, which are
useless unless there is real wealth to exchange. To
manipulate, to accumulate, and to order."8

Neither the cognitive/conceptual knowing or
affective/experiential learning is to be given priority.
A complete human being, a psychologically healthy person,
develops each as completely as possible. He will do this
in his own way; he will meet his learning needs at the
time and place of his choosing. He will, if given the
freedom to do so.

It is a trap to dichotomize eXperiential knowledge
and conceptual knowledge. They go hand in hand,
complimenting each other. Yet, schools put heavy emphasis
on the cognitive at the expense of the affective or
experiential. Maslow contends that experiential know-
ledge is prior to verbal-conceptual knowledge, and that
they are hierarchically integrated and need each other.
Schools where both types of learning are encouraged, or
allowed to occur, are exciting, rewarding places for all
of the people fortunate enough to be there. How often
are people in schools lost in the present, losing the
past and future for the time being? Living totally in
the here-and-now, immersed, concentrated, fascinated?

These are some qualities of good learning eXperiences;

laid aside are words, analysis, dissecting, classifying,
defining. To the extent that they intrude is the
experience less "full". There is some pretty empty
experiencing occurring in many schools today.

Growth is a concept that can serve as an example.
Students are in school to grow. Unfortunately this growth
is usually reserved for cognitive learnings, and for the

tudents alone. Why not all_persons growing together by
experiencing together? And experiencing each other by
sharing problems, hopes, fears. . .our feelings. Teachers
and students together can overcome common fears and help
each other over difficult changes. As personal problems
are overcome, together, then we can become more truly
interested in the world for its own sake.

A continuous development of the capacity for
commitment and responsible decision-making is an
important factor built into the learning concept. By
insuring freedom Of choice and multiple avenues of
communication we can end the tradition of programming
a passive child.9 In order to promote responsibility
for self growth, commitment, and learning, people must
be given such Opportunities. People who have their life
programmed by others are not apt to be able to structure
their own lives; the longer a person is denied this
function, the longer it takes to learn to determine and
meet his individual needs and to take the responsibility

for his actions. Although very little research has been

10

done with students who are in "Open" or "freed up" schools,
it appears as though long periods of inertia is the rule
rather than the exception. These students often seem
excited at first, spending much time socializing and
engaging in what seems like random activity. However,

many rapidly become disenchanted and begin to yearn for

the "normal" routine where they are pretty much told what
to do and when tO do it. This time seems to be a critical
point and it is at this point that we can facilitate learning
by encouraging the student to determine his own needs and
goals. More will be said about this later on. This is

the kind Of learning that so few people are ever given

the opportunity to experience. Much, much research needs
to be done in "Open" schools. A truly Open school permits
learning situations where very little structure is provided
for the students, and what structure is provided is done
wiEh_those persons affected. Data does indicate more
positive attitudes on the part of students when they are
given increased responsibility for their learning

activities.10

In other research with students in "open"
environments, many of them encompassed the traditional
book learning definition with interpersonal relationships
and self insight; most of the students who were inter-
viewed said that there was a period of adjustment for them
and after that adjustment they became much happier.11

Research conducted during the adjustment period

which may be as long as one year or more, is likely to

ll

indicate low scores on self-concept, achievement, and
ther factors being influenced by the transition from
a structured to an unstructured learning situation. This
indeed may be the case in a comparative study of sixth
grade students in an "Open" room and those in a
"departmentalized" room. Achievement and self concept
was lower in the Open room than in the more traditional
room.12 Until more schools experiment with less structured
learning programs and environments, research efforts are
greatly hampered.l3
John Holt feels that young children tend to learn
better than grownups and better than they themselves
will when they are Older. In short, says Holt, children
have a style of learning that fits their condition, and
which they use naturally and well until we train them out
of it; only a few children in school ever become good at
learning in the way we try to make them learn. Most of
them get humiliated, frightened, and discouraged. They
use their minds, not to learn, but to get out of doing
the things we tell them to do to make them learn. The
children who use such strategies are prevented by them
from growing into the human beings they might have become.
This is the real failure that takes place in school;
hardly any children escape. School must become a place
in which all_children grow, not just in size, not even
in knowledge, but in curiosity, courage, confidence,

independence, resourcefulness, resilience, patience,

12

competence and understanding. What teachers and learners
both need to know is, first, that vivid, vital, pleasurable
experiences are the easiest to remember, and secondly,
that memory works best when unforced. Memory is not a
mule that can be made to walk by beating it. When we
are anxious and afraid we think badly and even perceive
badly, or not at all. When we make children afraid we
stop learning dead in its tracks.14 In far too many Of
our schools today our children are afraid, and even if
they are not afraid, they seldom "delight" in learning.
Holt goes on to say that children learn to speak
before they get to school. They do this by patient and
persistent experiment; by trying many thousands of times
to make sounds, syllables, and words; by comparing their
own sounds to sounds made by people around them, and by
gradually bringing their own sounds closer to the others.
Above all, by being willing to do things wrong even while
trying their best to do them right. What would happen
if we tried to teach speaking to children? Most likely,
before they got very far, children would become baffled,
discouraged, humiliated, and fearful, and would quit
trying to do what we asked them. If, outside of our
classes, they lived a normal infants life, many of them
would probably ignore our "teaching" and learn to speak
on their own. If not, if our control of their lives
was complete (the dream of far too many educators), they
would take refuge in deliberate failure and silence, as so

many Of them do when the subject is reading.15

13

The most serious challenge that our whole educa-
tional system faces is meeting and providing for each
learner's needs. All types of learnings need to be
facilitated and students need to be allowed to select
what they feel fits them best. This is Organic Learning
Theory and it attempts to free people to grow by encourag-
ing stimuli-producing environments. According to Dale
Alam, Secondary Education and Curriculum Professor at
Michigan State University, Organic Learning Theory supports
the concept of alternative environments within the school
setting. Even these alternatives are meaningless if
perceived as undesirable by the learner; if, once selected
by the student, the teacher proceeds to establish goals,
reject feedback, and, in effect reduce stimuli to control
the learning option.16

A learners needs are human needs. If these needs
are not met by the schools, we face the alternative that
our educational system will essentially collapse. When
schools begin to meet the needs of the people they serve,
that part Of a persons life education will become the joy,
even adventure, that it more often is outside of school.

Implicit throughout this thesis is the belief that
every person has certain needs, that these needs can best
be met in certain ways, and that different people meet
their needs in different ways. Again and again this theme
will resound. Most people can effectively meet their own

needs if allowed to do so. If they can not, then programs

14

to facilitate the meeting of individual needs are
necessary. These needs and the ways they can be met
concern every person called "educator" and every person
involved in the educational process. We need to help our
students determine and effectively meet their own needs.
This is learning. Until a person can effectively meet
her or his own needs, other learning suffers.

By definition then, the educational process of
people consists of learning by working, sharing, growing,
alone and together. Experiencing is learning and is
necessary for growth to occur. A person cannot learn or
grow until he is free to provide his own structure and
meet his own needs in his own way. The reality of an
institution exists in the experiences Of the persons who

comprise it.

Human Needs17

 

Some progress has been made in the study of
characteristics which comprise the human personality.
Experimental psychology has contributed knowledge about
motivation, learning, frustration and conflict; child
psychology has contributed experimental and observational
studies on the develOpment of personality characteristics;
psychological testing, or psychometrics, has contributed
techniques for the measurement of personality character-

istics; psychiatry has contributed the insights of

15

psychoanalytic and other theories of personality. In
time, these areas of inquiry may bring a more complete
understanding of the structure and dynamics of personality.

At the present time there is no one general theory
of personality. Freud's theory emphasized biological
drives and needs. Most other theories place somewhat
greater emphasis on social factors. Alfred Adler
emphasizes a drive or striving for superiority. Karen
Horney makes basic anxiety the central concept of her
theory. According to Horney, the child learns ways of
dealing with anxiety; these, in turn, form a pattern of
"neurotic needs." Another theorist, Henry Murray, has
an even longer list of needs than Horney. Murray's
needs were arrived at in a different way: be distinguished
twenty-eight needs based on a representative sample of
fifty-one young men. These needs include affiliation,
aggression, play, achievement, autonomy, and order, each
varying in strength from person to person.

Abraham Maslow's self-actualization is a multiple-
factor theory positing five levels of needs arranged in
a hierarchy from lower to higher levels. They are:
physiological needs such as hunger and thirst; safety
needs, such as security, stability, and order; belonging-
ness and love needs such as need for affection,
affiliation, and identification; esteem needs such as
prestige, success, and self-respect; need for self-

actualization. The order of listing these needs is

16

significant in two ways. This is the order in which such
needs tend to appear in the normal develOpment of the
person. It is also the order in which they need to be
satisfied. If earlier needs are not satisfied, the
person never gets around to doing much about the later
needs. Those in an "affluent" society, on the other hand,
will manage to satisfy the needs lower in the hierarchy
and in many cases be preoccupied with the need for self-
actualization.

The need for self-actualization refers to the
need to develop the full potentialities of the person.
Naturally, the meaning of this need varies from person
to person, for each has different potentialities. For
some, it means achievement in literary or scientific
fields; for other, it means leadership in politics or
the community; for still others, it means merely living
one's own life fully without being unduly restrained by
social conventions.

Trait theory, espoused by Gordon Allport, assumes
a multiplicity Of needs that are never quite the same
from one individual to the next. It may be distinquished
from other theories in two important respects. One is
the concept of the uniqueness of personality; the other
is the concept Of functional autonomy of motives. In
the course of development, each person acquires motives

as part of satisfying other motives. An example of the

1?

functional autonomy concept is the poor boy who earned his
first pennies to ward Off hungar and discomfort but
continues to work day and night at amassing a large
fortune long after he has acquired enough money to meet
his physical needs.

Theories which stress social factors in develop-
ment include Eric Fromm's "escape from freedom", Harry
Sullivan's crucial interpersonal situation, Erik Erickson's
ego integrity search with its' eight stages.

Certainly learning plays a major role in the
develOpment of the characteristics which differentiate
personalities. Complex motives are learned and these
motives are important characteristics of personality. In
addition, abilities, attitudes, and interests are shaped
by reinforcement. R. D. Laing, psychiatrist and physician,
says:

We will find no intelligibility in behavior if we
see it as an inessential phase in an essentially
inhuman process. We have had accounts of men as
animals, men as machines, men as biochemical
complexes with certain ways of their own, but there
remains the greatest difficulty in achieving a
human understanding of man in human terms.1

Everett Shostrom has developed a Personal
Orientation Inventory measuring self-actualization. In
the P.O.I. Manuel Shostrom says:

In considering the relative importance of past,
present, or future experience it has been said
that Freud's system of therapy focuses primarily
on the past; that is, psychoanalysis uses the past
experiences Of an individual as primary in deter-

mining his present adjustment to life. Psycho-
analysis is sometimes referred to as an archeological

l8
expedition into the individual's history with the
emphasis on 'having been'.19
Some psychologists feel that delving into the past serves
the purpose Of finding "causes" (and thus excuses) for
the present situation.

In a similar manner it may be said that Adlerian
psychology, with its emphasis on goals for the individual,
Stresses a future orientation with emphasis on "becoming."
This orientation aggravates the usual tendency to try
always to be a step ahead of actuality. Thus, pe0ple who
"live for the future" never catch up with the events for
which they have prepared and never reap the fruits of
their sowing. Their rehearsal for even the most unimportant
situation may rob them of the ability to act spontaneously
when it arrives. Existential and Gestalt therapists, in
contradiction to the Freudian or Adlerian, emphasize a
here-and—now or "being" orientation to living, and stress
the here-and—now as the significant variable for thera-
peutic work.

From the foregoing discussion one factor stands
out and that is that different individuals have many
differing needs and attempt to meet those needs in a
variety of ways. The only way that the school, or any
institution or person can help meet human needs is to
provide options and allow the individual freedom to
choose from those options. These options must include

more than the traditional cognitive or factual subject

19

matter. Instead of imparting predetermined chunks of
knowledge and acceptance of the status quo, learning
environments and programs must be created that will
allow students to explore such things as social and
political change, human existence, freedom, creativity,
and community. Along with reading, writing, and
arithmetic, the student may select self-exploration,
interpersonal and human communication skills, explora-
tions for leisure time and for cybernation, without
conformity and structure for all. Emotional maturation
becomes part of the educational process by a continuous
concern from kindergarten to the university for making
self-knowledge part of the curriculum, recognizing the
emotional or affective side of humans and providing
Opportunities for growth in this important area. A
persons freedom is the right to know what he feels. In
the words of William Schutz,

We have succeeded only in creating a generation

of young peOple who are unable to distinguish

thoughts from feelings, and unable to express

feelings even when they recognize them. They

are unable to distinguish between their own wants

and what their wants ought to be.20
In short, we are "training" more and more young peOple
to be unable to recognize and meet their needs. People
need to feel, recognize, understand, and articulate all
Of the things that go on inside them. If children are

to have freedom to know what they feel, they must be

encouraged and helped to attend to their forbidden thoughts,

20

and to put them into words; to talk out loud about love
and hate, jealousy, fear, curiosity about the body, and
family relationships.
Earlier it was stated that if children are to
learn, or experience, they must feel safe. Maslow discusses
this safety need, saying that in general only a child
who feels safe dares to grow and experience. He can't
be pushed ahead, because the ungratified safety needs
will remain forever underground, always calling for satis-

21 How can we know when the child feels safe

faction.
enough to dare to choose a new behavior or new experience?
Only the child knows whether he feels safe and by his
choices he tells us the right moment when his courage
outweighs his fear. We Often know little or nothing about
the fears and insecurities of people in schools. . .not
the students, the teachers, the custodians, administrators,
r school board. How many children sit in classes, fear-
ful of questioning? How many young people go through

high school and perhaps graduate without sharing that

fear, whatever it's cause? With our competitive educa-
tional models, disciplined behavior expectations and

rigid schedules, it is hard to imagine a safe, reassuring,
supportive atmosphere. Is the person in school accepted,
trusted, respected? Are educational situations permissive,
admiring, praising, gratifying, non-threatening, non-
valuing, and non-comparing? Is gentleness, love, and

understanding conspicuous by its presence? Most of these

21

question statements are answerable only in the negative.
People can't be forced to grow and no one can prefer it
for them. When peoplegather together each must be
accepted respectfully, trusted, and helped to grow. We
must trust and love each other allowing freedom for each

to learn.

Human Actualization

 

Schools must help people become more autonomous,
more spontaneous, more confident. Maslow's self-actualizing
person is one who is more fully-functioning and lives a
more enriched life than does the average person. Such
an individual is seen as developing and utilizing all
of his unique capabilities, or potentialities, free of
the inhibitions and emotional turmoil Of those less self-
actualized. The self-actualized person appears to live
more fully in the here—and-now. He is able to tie the
past and the future to the present in meaningful continuity.
He appears to be less burdened by guilts, regrets and
resentments from the past than is the non-self—actualized
person and his aspirations are tied meaningfully to
present working goals. ’He has faith in the future without
rigid or over-idealistic goals. Carl Roger's writings,
along with those of Everett Shostrom reflect the same

idea.22

Another dimension of self-actualization is inner

directedness and outer directedness. The source of

22

direction for the individual can be inner in the sense
that he is guided by internal motivations rather than
external influences. The inner-directed person appears
to have incorporated principles and character traits
started by parental influences and latter on influenced
further by other authority figures. The outer-directed
person appears to have been motivated to develop a radar
system to receive signals from a far wider circle than
just parents. There is danger that the outer-directed
person may become over-sensitive to "others" opinions

in matters of external conformity. Approval by others
becomes, for him, the highest goal. Manipulation in

the form of pleasing others and insuring constant
acceptance becomes his primary method of relating. At
present, schools encourage and reward this latter process.
Not only is it necessary to please the "teacher" but
current behavior modification techniques such as Operant
conditioning through positive reinforcement greatly
increase outer-directedness.

The support orientation of self-actualizing
persons tends to lie between that of the extreme other-
directed and the extreme inner-directed person. He can
be characterized as having more of an autonomous self-
supportive, or being-orientation. Whereas he is other-
directed in that he must, to a degree, be sensitive to

people's approval, affection, and good will, the source

23

of his actions is essentially inner-directed. He is free,
but his freedom is not gained by being a rebel or pushing
against others and fighting them. He transcends complete
inner-directedness by critical assimilation and creative
expansion Of his earlier principles of living. He discovers
a mode of living which gives him confidence.

Personal growth toward self-actualization thus
may be said to involve development of inner-directedness
of support, but in addition it is seen to involve develop-
ment of time competency. The healthy individual is one
who lives primarily in the present. Living fully in the
moment, or the present, does not require concern for
support or sustenance. To say, "I am adequate now", rather
than "I was adequate once", or "I will be adequate again",
is self-validating and self-justifying.

What has all this to do with school? Plenty!
This kind of human growth is learned. Students SEQ
teachers can share with each other their feelings about
their growth in these important areas, helping each other
determine self-actualization. Is this not "achievement?"
Shostrom discusses other self-actualizing values such as
feeling reactivity, self—regard, self-acceptance, synergy,
awareness, capacity for intimate contact, and acceptance
of aggression. These are human concerns. . .human learning
for human understanding. When are "educators" going to

show concern for these learnings? As schools move toward

24

"performance contracting", "assessment", and "behavior
modification" techniques, human education becomes even
less of a reality; human needs are met even less
effectively than in the past. Contracting does not
encourage a person to actualize; it holds him to a

future behavior and/or task that has been planned at some
past time, often by someone else. Feelings and circum-
stnaces change. If the contract allows for these changes
why have a contract at all? Behavior modification
techniques, i.e., positive reinforcement such as M&M's,
is simply external control and severely limits a persons
ability to recognize his own needs, as well as preventing
actualization. Assessment is a measuring of the worth

of the person. We need to help all students feel a sense

H!

0 self worth and this is not accomplished by the use
of competitive, valuing behavior or techniques.

The schools are doomed to the failure of producing
citizens who are poorly equipped and poorly prepared to
help solve the highly complex problems, technical and
social,of the twenty-first century, or even their own
personal problems, as long as they continue to use per-

:Eormance contracting, assessment, and behavior modifica-

tion techniques.

Human Motivation

 

Earlier, motivation was discussed in connection

with self-actualization. What causes a person to do

25

things. . .to speak, to write, to run, to play, to work?
In short, what motivates a person? What causes them to
respond, and to respond in the way that they do? Do we
respond a certain way because we feel like doing so,
because we expect desirable rewards for doing so, or a
combination Of both?

E. F. Skinner believes that behavior can be
explained in terms of "causes" or conditions which lie
beyond or outside Of the individual; it should be possible
to produce behavior according to plan simply by arranging

the proper conditions.23

Skinner's Stimulus-Response
Theory makes use of reinforcement and conditioning in
the learning process; behavior is directed by stimuli
from the environment. A person selects one response
inStead Of another because of the particular combination
of prior conditioning and present physiological drives
which are Operating at the moment of action. Stimulus-
Response Theory maintains that anyone can learn anything
of which he is capable if he will allow himself to be put
through the pattern of activity necessary for conditioning
to take place. Most behavior modification and Operant
conditioning programs found in the schools today are
based on Skinnerian Theory.

Men such as Carl Rogers and Arthur Combs disagree
with the notion that the individual is no more than a
link between a series of complex causes and their inevit-

24

able and predetermined effects. They believe that

26

people's behavior is a function of their perceptions, that
perceptions lie inside of people, and cannot be dealt with
directly. Abraham Maslow and Everett Shostrom would, of
course, agree with Rogers and Combs. Recent research can
also be interpreted as support for this view of human
motivation: George Mayeske found that a student's self-
concept of ability accounts for the greatest variance in
his school achievement.25 James Coleman found a pupil
attitude factor, which appears to have a stronger relation-
ship to achievement than do all of the "school" factors
together; this factor is the extent to which an individual
feels that he has some control over his own destiny.26
Wilbur Brookover says,
One's self-conceptions about his role as a student
indicates to the individual whether he ought to
learn certain things, where he can learn those things,
and if he feels that he can learn them, when and
where to learn them. . .recent research by the
authors and their associates shows that self-concept
of academic ability is significantly correlated with
school achievement. Self-concept accounts for a
significant portion of achievement independent of
measured intelligence, socio-economic status,
educational aspirations, and the expectations of
family, friends, and teachers.

When the meanings that govern people's behavior
are seen as lying inside them, our own behavior in working
with them becomes facilitative; assisting and aiding
replaces directing or forcing. Or, to state the point
differently, if we believe that behavior is a function

of the forces exerted on people, then the methods we will

use in working with them will have to do with attempting

27

to control the forces acting upon people. Shostrom calls
these latter methods manipulative behavior, and Combs
says that people who are dealt with in this manner tend
to become dependent upon the people who are manipulating
them. It also means the person or people who are doing
the controlling or manipulating must know where people
should go in order to know how to try and get them there.
No one can know where another person should go.

Thus, with regard to human motivation, it is the
contention here that people learn more and in a more
enjoyable manner if they are allowed to determine their
own needs and choose their own experiences in their own
way. When people are free to learn they will find their
own best ways. Learning to experience and learning to
experience the freedom to be one's self is human learning
for human understanding; in order to fully experience,
to become Maslow's self-actualizing person who meets needs
effectively, we must allow these needs to come from within
that person, not impose them from without upon him,
Instead of educating children to lose themselves, limit-
ing experiences, controlling the lives of others, let's
help them to be aware of their feelings and their bodies,
to expand their awareness by providing experiences and
the freedom necessary to enjoy these experiences. Skinner
talks about freedom and control of men, but these two

terms are mutually exclusive and show an inverse relationship;

28

i.e., the more control there is the less freedom there
can be. This approach is fundamentally a dictatorial
approach. It is a strange thing, says Arthur Combs, that
it is the most used method of dealing with people in our
society, despite the fact that we pride ourselves on
living in a democracy and abhorring dictatorships.28
If we wish to avoid dependent relationships and
manipulative behaviors, it is necessary for us to find
ways of helping, facilitating, aiding, people, rather
than attempting to direct, force, or coerce them; we help
people develop faith in their own dignity and integrity,
and accept the responsibilities for their own behavior.
This approach is consistent with the basic democratic

idea that when men are free they can find their own best

ways.

The Public Schools

 

Schools today do not allow people to effectively
meet their needs. The rule rather than the exception,
is the school where adults make all of the important
decisions, set up all the important rules, regulate the
time and responsibilities of the students. The person
somehow gets lost in a maze of scheduling, rules, and
regulations. Seldom do students venture to inquire
about what they can hope to learn or whether they can have
a say in what will be studied. Academic freedom is

almost completely disregarded. The student is kept in

29

slavery to his master. What freedom has the student to
decide what is worth learning and doing and saying in
pursuit of an education? When Johnny doesn't do well in
school the focus is on Johnny: "What is wrong with
Johnny?" meaning Johnny's presumed ability, capacity, or
behavior. Seldom is the question, "What is wrong with
the school?" We build into a school a design to make
certain children don't learn and we perpetuate that
design. Goethe said that if you want students to become
great scholars you must begin by dealing with them as
though they are already great scholars. As an example of
how students are treated in school, Edgar Friedenberg
compares adolescents to nineteenth-century colonial peoples:

Adolescents are among the last social groups in

the world to be given the full nineteenth-century

colonial treatment. . .administrators. . .prefer

to study the young with a view to understanding them,

not for their own sake, but in order to learn how to

induce them to abandon their barbarism and assimilate

the folkways of normal adult life. . .like the best

of missionaries, he is sympathetic and understanding

toward the people he is sent to work with, and aware

and critical of the larger society he represents.

But fundamentally he accepts it, and often does not

really question its basic values or its right to

send him to wean the young from savagery.2

Postman and Weingartner base their entire book

about schools and teaching on the thesis that change,
ccntant, accelerated, ubiquitous, is the most striking
characteristic of the world we live in and that our
educational system has not yet recognized this fact.30

Schools must be a place where adolescents examine the

sources of their pain and conflict and think its meaning

30

through, using their continuing experience of life to
help them build better social arrangements in their turn.
Freidenberg says that the school requires the kind of
conformity that abandons the experience of the individual
in order to usurp a tradition to which he does not belong
and to express a view of life foreign to his experience
and, on his lips, phony. For an adult this is self-
destructive; for an adolescent it is the more pitiful

and tragic, because the self that is abandoned is still
immanent and further growth requires that it be nurtured

31

and continuously clarified and redefined. The school

can be a place where both students and teachers learn
about themselves. . .their feelings, their behaviors.

It can be a place where the deepest concerns, doubts,
fears, and sorrows are shared with other human beings,
along with joy, happiness, success, and love. It can be
such a place; it seldom is. Two sociology professors in
California maintain that our educational system is set-up
so as to make meaningful learning almost impossible:

If it were our heinous design to create a situation
in which 'learners' would be deliberately prevented
from getting excited about ideas, from forming
'communities' of learners who get caught up in
creating and thinking and trying to work out the
puzzles of life together; if we wanted to make

sure that everybody would remain constantly pre-
occupied with extrinsic rewards, busywork, routines,
and bureaucratic maze-running; if we wanted to make
learning a 'grind' where you're always on trial and
must, for survival in the system, learn to pretend
to know and hide your real questions; if we wanted
people to be continuously coerced into writing
down, listening to and memorizing what they haven't

3l

asked about, don't care about, and know is

unrelated to their lives; if we wanted to make

absolutely sure that all of the learning that

might incidentally take place be fragmented in

the extreme so that students have little chance

of ever putting things together; if we wanted to

assure the appearance of tranquility while we keep

passion, excitement, and spontaneity stiffled; if

these were our explicit goals, then we would come

up with a system just like the one we have now.

Walk around a school and listen. Is there a

sound of eager involvement? Passionate debate about
issues of life? People getting excited about their latest
discoveries? People trying to figure out how to best
live their lives and what things are worth giving them-
selves to? People considering the relevance of larger
events in the world to their own experiences? People
sharing joy and love? These activities are conspicuous
by their absence in the majority of schools. Education
today takes no account of the fundamental fact that signi-
ficant learning takes place only when people have emotional
involvement. . .when they are really caught up in the
adventure of learning. Self-appropriated learning is the
only kind that has much meaning. It is the learning that
people actually build their lives on. People can learn
incredibly fast when they are excited about something.
The present structure with its pat programs and regimenta-
tion tries to stuff learning into artificial, emotionally
dead routines.

The ordinary person is a shriveled, deseccated

fragment of what a person can be:

32

As adults, we have forgotten most of our childhood;
not only its contents but its flavor; as men of the
world we hardly know of the existence of the inner
world; we barely remember our dreams, and make little
sense of them when we do; as for our bodies, we
retain just sufficient proprioceptive sensations to
coordinate our movements and to ensure the minimal
requirements for biosocial survival. . .to register
fatigue, signals for food, sex, defecation, sleep;
beyond that, little or nothing. Our capacity to
think, except in the service of what we are danger-
ously deluded in supposing is our self-interest and
in conformity with common sense, is pitifully limited;
our capacity even to see, hear, touch, taste and
smell is so shrouded in veils of mystification that
an intensive discipline of unlearning is necessary
for anyone before one can begin to experience the
world afresh with innocence, truth and love.33

In a conference sponsored by the National Student Associa-
tion, the discussion focused on the need to redefine a
good education for today's youth. The participating
students concluded that any viable definition should
embrace at least these three elements: (1) Relevance to

a world of rapid social change; (2) commitment to the
individual as the sine qua non of value in the educational
process; and (3) readiness of the educational system to
explore diverse and changing needs of the current student
population in order to meet the very different develop-

mental opportunites many of these students require.34

Social Class and Achievement

Regardless of the relationship between social
class characteristics (social and economic factors,
beliefs and values) and achievement, class does appear
to be an important factor in terms of who gets educated,

where the] receive their education, and how they receive

33

it. These factors, in turn, are important in determining
the type of occupation open to an individual and the
amount of remuneration he can expect to receive for his
work. The success of students in school is found to be
directly related to their class background in virtually
all studies.

Strodtbeck35 emphasized the social and cultural
motivational sources of academic achievement in his study
of Jewish and Italian high school students. His findings
suggest the motivational significance of group differences
in family interaction, particularly power relations in
the socialization process and value orientations toward

37 and others

achievement. Similarly, Parsons,36 Kahl,
have underlined the importance of social class membership
as a major determinant of the occupational aspirations

and achievement of youth. They have emphasized class-
related differentials in the socialization of children

and the consequences of such differences for the attitudes
of youth toward academic achievement, occupational
aspirations, and plans for college education.

Mayeski concluded that the social and economic
status of the students consistently related to school
outcomes:

For both students and teachers, the American
educational system reflects the structure of
American society. It therefore tends to perpet-
uate and even further increase the differential

learning experiences that students bring to the
educational setting by virtue of their birth.3

34

Minority pupils, except for orientals, have far less con-
viction than whites that they can affect their own
environment. Whatever may be the combination of non-
school factors which put minority children at a dis-
advantage in verbal and non-verbal skills when they enter
the first grade, the fact is the schools have not overcome
it. The findings of the United States Commission on Civil
Rights support those of the Coleman Report regarding the
extent of racial isolation and extent of disparity in
educational achievement between Black and White children.39
What this research tells us is simply that the
schools are providing different learning experiences for
different people, based on some form of stratified group—
ing arrangement. These grouping arrangements in turn are
based upon factors other than the needs of the students
as determined by consultation with them. What interests
them? What do they want to learn about? Not only are
students with different backgrounds (class differences)
being sorted and grouped regardless of their interests
or their feelings, they are subjected to evaluation
rtechniques to measure their "achievement." A student is
evaluated and his achievement measured regardless of
whether he wants to be where he is or doing what he "must"
do. No wonder many people leave school feeling that they

have no control over their own destiny.

35

When social class composition was held constant
in other research, the factor most crucial in affecting
school achievement was the school climate, or academic
norms. The expectation of the teachers accounts for high
or low achievement: the more prevalent the emphasis by
the staff and student bodies of high schools on the
importance of such matters as intellectualism and achieve-
ment, the higher the achievement level of individual
Students, regardless of their personal or socioeconomic

characteristics.40

As long as a person must be evaluated
in competitive environments, he will try to perform as
he feels the evaluator wants him to. Once again, a

practice that leads to other-directedness and pleasing

others, regardless of inner needs or wishes.

Stratification Within the Schools

 

Emphasis in the schools is on identifying and
selecting studenusrather than on efforts to cultivate
the appropriate social climates or environments which
would be harmonious with the needs of each. In molding
children to a stratified society, the school engages in
continuous sorting and selecting of students; rating,
ranking, and separating them into various quality groups.
Children from higher social strata usually enter the
"higher" quality groups and those from lower strata the
"lower" quality ones. School decisions about a child's

ability will greatly influence the kind and quality of

36

education he receives, as well as his future life,
including whether he goes to college, the jobs he will
get, and his feelings about himself and others.

The chief official instruments used for sorting
students into homogeneous or ability groups are standardized
tests and teacher judgments. Unofficial factors often
enter the selection decision, such as parental inter-
vention, a child's behavior, or quotas in each grouping.
Project Talent47 reports that 54 percent of high schools
had homogeneous groupings and 49 percent had tracks in
the early 1960's.

Another part of the school stratification process
is the "normal curve of distribution," a statistical
extrapolation that has been erroneously interpreted by
some educators to mean that a certain proportion of
students must be "failures," another percentage "near

misses,‘ and on up to "honors." Most upper-income

parents do not tolerate a system in which administrators
expect that teachers will grade on a curve from honors

to failure. The common assumption that 10 or 20 percent

of students must fail according to the iron law of
statistics and the demands of secondary and higher education
that students must thereby be ranked and only a certain

proportion given "A's," "B's," etc., is more than suspect

as a means of educating and dealing justly with students.

37

Placing responsibility for the failure of students,
especially those from low-income families outside of the
school occurs daily. This is done by pointing to the
"limited native intelligence" of the disadvantaged along
with "cultural deprivation" factors.42

Critics claim that 1.0. tests are biased in favor
of the language and training of upperestrata children and
do not measure native ability. They further claim that
these tests label students, retard the progress of many,
and provide a rationale for the failure of schools. They
do not even attempt to measure creative ability,
motivation, curiosity, persistence, industry, and capacity
for sustained effort.

The total impression transmitted to many educators
by the concept "cultural deprivation" is that the "rejected,"
"disadvantaged," or "deprived" child is handicapped, not
by school or society, but by their own culture and
behavior, and that he is so different and "crippled" that
he cannot be expected to achieve as others do. Many
cultural differences, however significant they may be to
school achievement, are adaptive responses to social
realities and inequities, and are hardly under the unaided
control of the family culture. Persuasive longitudinal
studies on the effect of preschool education on later
performance are lacking and some contrary evidence points

to the repeated finding that the "deprived" enter kindergarten

38

as the intellectual equal of other children but regress
Steadily as they continue in school starting in about the

43 This would tend to indicate that

third or fourth grade.
the problem is in the school rather than the preschool
years spent at home.

At any rate, the term "cultural deprivation,"
says Kenneth Clark, masks the fact that these are human
beings who are "deliberately and chronically victimized
by the larger society in general, and by educational
institutions specifically. . ." Clark suggests that one
of the things we should do is:

get rid of our guilt-determined sentimentalism and
over-solicitousness in the actual education

process. Let us approach these children in terms
of educational requirements, standards, and demands,
as if they were human beings and not lepers. Let
us not teach these children as if they were differ-
ent, as if one had to be specifically careful how
you teach them to read.

Perhaps the most striking attribute of the
disadvantaged, or culturally deprived, that needs positive
attention in the school is a sense of powerlessness.
Feelings of powerlessness among the disadvantaged inhibit
knowledge and occur even more frequently than among white,
middle class students.

When the schools can begin to meet the intellectual
and emotional needs of people; when cooperation replaces
competition; when options are offered that interest every-
one; when people trust and respect each other; then terms

like cultural deprivation, I.Q., achievement, and groupings

will seldom be heard, much less practiced.

39

The basic contention underlying the discussion
thus far is: the schools function importantly in the
Operation of the system of statuses and social class of

he society in which they exist; education is the main
instrument for upward mobility and will become increasingly
more so in the future; and, finally, social mobility,
social change, and education are closely related.45 The
society stratifies its members and offers to various
strata widely variant material and status rewards. The
school is part of the society's stratification system

to the extent that it prepares students for a "place"

in society like that occupied by their parents. Thus,

the schools function importantly in the operation of

the system of statuses and social class and most available
evidence indicates that the role of the schools in this
respect will take on added significance in the coming

years.

About Research

 

Educational research to date has grown from various
dimensions and indicators based on either the stimulus-
response conditioning and reinforcement theory, or the
role and interactionist theory. Operationalized dimensions
of variables that reflect these theories can seldom provide
support for different theoretical orientations. When
propositions outside the framework of conventional theories

are tested, applying differing conceptualizations of

40

variables such as school achievement, learning, etc.,
than we can better evaluate all theories and construct
new ones or build onto present theories. No theory can
predict something that isn't contained within the theory:
no support for alternative learning procedures can be
forthcoming until research is conducted using non-
traditional operational definitions. For example, if
learning is defined as self-actualizing, or as experienc-
ing, and achievement were to be measured in terms of
self growth, what would our research data show? If
achievement is defined by the student instead of the
school, what differences in learning and attitude would
occur?

All factors affecting achievement and attitudes
are impossible to control, no matter what conceptualiza-
tions are used. Components of attitude formation and

46 It is nearly impossible

identification are questionable.
to separate the effects of the various factors thought

to influence school outcomes, however these factors are
defined and operationalized: social class composition,
school climate and other body variables, pupil programs

and policies, facilities, school personnel, expenditures,
etc. None of our analyses can tell us in any specific

way how much of a change will occur in certain school
outcomes if certain school resource inputs are systemically
altered.47 Students' feelings about their school experiences

are one of our best indicators of the kinds of learning

taking place. Yet they are ignored.

41

Recent research data reveal an impressive array
of emotional and interpersonal accompaniments to teaching
and learning; some can be traced to the teacher and role
uncertainty; others from the different pressures exerted
on the teacher by students with different expectations,
desires, and personality styles. Still others stemmed
from changes in the interpersonal situation in the class-
room over time.48 Other data indicate more positive
attitudes on the part of students when they were given
increased responsibility for their learning activities.49
As already mentioned, there is some data that show lower
achievement and self concept among students when they are
placed in an open space learning situation with freedom
for exploration; when people are taken from an environ-
ment where their life-pattern has been structured for
them by others, and placed in situations where they are
given little or no direction, they usually can not function
well in providing for their own needs. The transitional
period can be one of discomfort and uncertainty. Our
attention will return to this important area of concern
when the discussion centers upon "Leadership Effects"
in the last section.

Research is needed to study the effects of moving
from a highly structured learning situation into a less
structured or free setting. Any research done with

students who are in a less structured setting then they

have been used to, must take into account this important

42

intervening variable. It can mask the effect of relation-
ships between any other variables and can, in fact,
explain the reason for low achievement as well as low
self-concept. Also, when using terms like achievement,
performance, and learning, keep in mind that in a learning
situation where structure is provided these terms are
usually defined and measured by significant others such
as teachers or parents. In a truly open or free learning
situation they must be defined and measured by the individual
who is "achieving" or who is "learning." In other words,
if a person is free to learn, only that person can judge
whether he is learning. He may be failing miserably
when measured by traditional criteria, yet be learning
a great deal. And the reverse is true also; one may be
a very "high achiever," yet be learning very little.
Comparative research is needed that looks at
the process called learning in both structured and non-
structured school situations. Is learning more pleasurable
in less structured situations? Are these experiences more
easy to remember and does memory work best when unenforced?
How well do students "perform" in a required subject
compared to the same subject when that subject is selected
and desired by the student? How do the feelings of the
students in each group compare? How can human beings meet
their needs most effectively and what effect does this

have on their learning? In what type of learning setting

43

do students feel most safe and what has a feeling of
safety to do with a students learning? What is the
relation between trust, acceptance, and learning? What
about creativity and initiative--are they best fostered
in the less structured situations as hypothesized in
this paper?

What relationship is there between self-
actualizing (as Rogers and Shostrom use the term in our
earlier discussion) and learning? Do people have to.
learn to be free; i.e. to recognize their own needs and
attempt to satisfy those needs? Are inner-directed
people better able to satisfy their needs than other-
directed people are?

What role do emotional and interpersonal factors
play on learning? Do such factors inhibit or enhance
intellectual goals and cognitive efforts?

These are but a few of the areas that need
investigating by our researchers. These concepts need
to be given operational definitions and investigating
procedures using different conceptualizations. Data
collected in this manner may give us much clearer evidence

in support of the contentions stated in this thesis.

Summary

Human learning is defined as the process by which
a person acquires insights, skills, and knowledge. The

process involves experiencing, so learning may be defined

44

as experiencing. There are cognitive experiences and there
are emotional or affective experiences. Literature on
human motivation tells us that people learn more and in
a more enjoyable manner if they are allowed to determine
heir own needs and to choose their own experiences in

their own way. When people are free to learn they will
find their own best ways.

The schools can best help each person to meet his
or her needs by offering many options, both cognitive
and affective, in an atmosphere free from fear and anxiety
where people feel safe enough to attempt new experiences
and behaviors. Each person can be helped to function more
fully, to become more autonomous, more confident. When
learning is viewed in this manner our own behavior in
working with students becomes facilitative, assisting and
aiding replace directing and forcing. The very least the
school can do is help to make learning experiences more
enjoyable, more exciting, and more meaningful to students
than it now is in most schools.

The following sections discuss in more detail
environments and programs that are compatible with the

beliefs about learning expressed thus far.

SECTION II

THE ENVIRONMENT

Develop a climate in the system in which the
focus is not upon teaching, but on the facilita-
tion of self-directed learning.

Carl Rogers

The Environment of the School Day
A recent description of one school's environ-

ment reads:

On a typical day, a visitor to The School would

be impressed by its friendly, warm atmosphere.

There is a sense of community. The record player

is on and people are talking. In the art room,

several people are watching a demonstration on

the potter's wheel, and two students are develop-

ing film in the dark room. Paintings and charcoal

drawings on the walls brighten the room.50

The environment described above is that of an

alternative school that expects to be fully certified
shortly by the Michigan Board of Education. The
philosophy of this school is to provide a noncompetitive,
informal environment which will encourage people to
learn and grow in their individual and unique ways and
at their own speed. The School encourages students to
enroll who feel that they can function in an atmosphere

that calls for considerable decision making regarding'

their own growth.

45

46

This is one example of an environment that is
consistent with the beliefs about learning that have
been expressed. It is a non-threatening environment
conducive to the meeting of individual, human needs and
facilitative of self-actualization and decision making.
It is a warm, open, and supportive type of environment
where people feel free to express their emotions as well
as their opinions. When environments are supportive
and people feel accepted and secure, they become less
defensive and communication becomes more honest and more
valid. Overt defense reactions such as disruptive,
attention-seeking actions, daydreaming, regression,
projection, apathy, cheating, rationalizations, etc.,
will be lessened. Usually these defensive reactions take
place in a climate where people have no other outlet
for frustrations.

Processes external to us affect all of our
experiences. Factors in our environment play upon our
senses in ways that are both conscious and unconscious.
Empirical research indicates that the school climate, or
environment, has a significant effect on learning.51
The non-competitive, informal environment of the school
described is not the environment found in most schools
today. Most frequently bells signal the interruption of
any exciting learning that may be occurring, jolting

people out of the present moment, ready or not. Leisurely

47

conversation, a few alone moments, or relaxation of

any type between classes is impossible because the next
bell will ring shortly and that means a certain place at
a certain time for all. Behavior is further controlled
due to the presence of hall monitors and regulations for
moving to and from classes. Competition is usually
evident through the display of "A" papers and other
academic and athletic achievements. If a "teacher" and
"student'I are talking, most often the former is talking
33 the latter, not with him. And most probably the
"teacher" is showing little concern for the students
feelings. Interactions between students and teachers
are seldom spontaneously warm and friendly with the two
people sharing a bit of themselves and their feelings
that day.

Visitors in the usual school are often viewed
suspiciously with their freedom to move around the
school severely curtailed. Often tags or stickers are
issued by the "office." When environments are informal
and warm, all persons are always welcome; a visitor
becomes a friend and the title and/or credentials he holds
is of little significance.

The artificial environment found in the usual
classroom is different from any preschool or postschool
environment that the student is likely to encounter.

Consider, for example, the following:

48

One can still find schools in which children are
expected to act as robots who have surrendered
full control of their every action to an all-power-
ful teacher. They are supposed to sit ramrod stiff
in tomblike silence, ready to spring into obedient
action at the command of the adult who sits enthroned
at the front of the room.
This type of environment may do irrepairable harm to the
emotions and self-esteem of the people who must endure
it. Readl and Wattenburg say that such a concept of
discipline is harmful and can be defended only by

strenously ignoring a mass of scientific evidence.

The Environment and Learning

What are specific characteristics of an environ-
ment? An environment consists of any external stimuli
that affects the senses: the smells, sounds, sights,
tastes, and touch or feel. It consists of the feelings
of the various people and of the activities in which these
people are engaged. It consists of the physical build-
ing structures and the feelings generated by those
structures. It is the effect created by each of these
separate factors as well as the effect created by their
interaction. The environment can either meet personal
needs and attempt to fulfill them or it can deny that
these needs exist.

Behavioristic learning theory attempts to control
learning by reducing stimuli. Stimuli producing environ-
ments attempt to free people to grow, to perceive alter-

natives. Dale Alam, mentioned earlier, says that all

 

49

learning stems from stimuli, and considering all the
stimuli available to, and created by individuals, how
can schools continue to believe that they can reduce the

stimuli to the point that learning can be controlled.

continues:

The greatest need facing school people today is

for us all to become more accepting of differences.
Though differences have always existed, the school
effort has been to reward similarities. . .an
attempt to create similarities does several damag-
ing things: it reduces teacher and administrator
growth, precludes establishing alternatives,
necessitates heavy rules and enforcement, and fails
to support change.

Such environments do not meet personal needs, are not
stimuli producing, and greatly inhibit personal growth.
Such beliefs are supported further:

Most commonly, schools have measured their 'success'
in terms of whether or not their clients (students)
have been willing to yield to the norms which have
been established and which are imposed. Idealistic
statements to the contrary, schools have not prized
diversity, nor is decision making a function they
have been willing to permit as a prime character-
istic of the human condition in a democracy. In
such situations, learning has become an ability to
manipulate or recall cognitive knowledge in what
may appropriately be described as a presentation-
replication or authority-listener syndrome.
Affective approaches, or approaches aimed at
creativity have been haphazard and, all too often,
the school has stated affective objectives but .
failed to plan for their achievement and assessment
or evaluation. Affective, individualistic, and
creative approaches have been suppressed by calls
for knowledge, content, and essentials.

Environments that reward differences and unique-
ness are those that are left "open" or "unstructured;"
they allow for individual freedom and they allow for

different needs to be met in different ways. They aid

50

everyone to discover his uniqueness, assist in developing
this uniqueness, and facilitate the sharing of such
uniqueness. How are such environments created?

The first step is a commitment to the type of
Learning process described thus far: learning that is
defined by those who want to learn and facilitated by
those who want to help and share in such learning.

Carl Rogers says that he has come to feel that the only

ana.LdT.-— m rum . um I', 1”
v V
- _' ,‘i'l'y
:- at."

learning which significantly influences behavior is self-

discovered, self-appropriated learning. Rogers "signifi- vi

 

cant learning" is stated in the form of specific behaviors.
They include:
The person comes to see himself differently.
He accepts himself and his feelings more fully.
He becomes more self-confident and self-directing.
He becomes more the person he would like to be.
He becomes more flexible, less rigid, in his perceptions.
He adopts more realistic goals for himself.
He behaves in a more mature fashion.
He becomes more open to the evidence, both of what is
going on outside of himself and of what is going
on inside of himself.55
With beliefs such as these stated by Rogers, and
commitment to open or unstructured environments, programs
such as those to be described later become possible and
can be explored.
External stimuli consisting of unlimited sights,
sounds, smells, and tastes are brought into the learning
environment, or the learners venture forth to experience

what they wish. For example, a person wants to listen to

rock music (or jazz, classical, blues, etc.), so such

51

music is brought into that persons learning environment
in any way possible. Perhaps some people want to experience
the solitude of a walk through the snow or the soft sound
of a flowing stream; or the crackle of a campfire, or

the majesty of a mountain. Some may wish to experience
the taste of Chinese, or Italian food, perhaps even cook
their own. Each person will create their own ways of
experiencing including sensory experiences if they are

in an environment that encourages and stimulates them to
do so. . .one that makes use of external stimuli. How
about incense or candles burning on occasion? Music or
recorded environmental sounds? Posters of nature?
Pictures of people and their emotions? External sensory
stimuli facilitates learning if it meets the learners
needs. Consider the following:

Those individuals who consider that the prime
road to advancement of culture and knowledge
consists in unswerving application to study and
competition among students might well ponder the
circumstances of one of the most important scienti-
fic discoveries of all time made by one of the '
most creative men who has ever lived. I refer to
Isaac Newton. . .and the discovery of gravitation.
The discovery took place under a tree. At the
time he was sitting idly in his mother's garden.
He was not at Cambridge, was removed from tradi-
tional learning, because in that year, 1665, the
plague had broken out in southern England. The
University of Cambridge was closed for eighteen
months. We know from Newton's account, told in
his old age, what his state of mind was at the
time of his discovery. He described himself as

in an eager, boyish mood. 'I was,‘ he said, 'in
the prime of my age for invention.‘ An eager,
boyish mood in a young man not at school but
idling in a garden led to a great scientific
advance.

.,min?

2

. . . ‘ w
'5” éHA’r"
.

 

52

Where does the physical structure fit and what
are its affects? Buildings and designs, textures and colors,
can help create an atmosphere of warmth or coldness; of
distance or closeness; of harshness or softness; of
rigidity or flexibility. People can create their own
atmosphere even if the structures are undesirable to them.
A few people painting and decorating, creating pillows,
chairs. . .anything that can be exhilerating and satisfying
to them. Let's allow people to help create their own
environments regardless of existing structures.

Obviously, the program affects the environment.
The activities that occur and the way they occur are
part of the environment. Are "teachers" interacting with
"students" in such a way that each listens to the other
in an accepting, feeling, manner? Are students opinions
and wishes heard, shared, and facilitated? Closed,
authoritarian environments condemn most learners to
continuing criticism, sarcasm, discouragement, and
failure so that self-confidence, aspiration, and a healthy
self-concept are destroyed. An open, non-authoritarian
atmosphere can be conducive to learner initiative and
creativity, encouraging the learning of attitudes of
self-confidence, originality, self-reliance, enterprise,
and independence.57 This is learning at its best and
the kinds of learning experiences that people need if
they are to live and function in the world of today and

tomorrow. The activities, the feelings, and the behaviors

 

53

of the people are very important in determining the
atmosphere that will prevail.

Trust is a fundamental necessity for an optimum
learning situation. Mutual trust and mutual respect go
hand in hand. Only in an atmosphere of trust and respect
can people feel free to reveal their deepest thoughts and
feelings, and only when these thoughts and feelings are
expressed can people learn or change.

The proper relationship in a democratic atmosphere
requires mutual respect and trust, and a sense of
equality which is independent of individual differ—
ences of knowledge, information, abilities, and
position. A teacher, or learning facilitator,

with respect for each child, who treats him with
dignity and friendliness, may induce him to accept
the order and regulations necessary for any social
function. . .children want to respect their teachers
and want to be respected too.

Data from a trust survey show that 49 per cent
of the teenagers questioned said that they did not trust

adults, and 17 per cent were undecided.59

We are trying
to facilitate learning of students and over half of these
people don't even trust us! Data from another study
reveal that we have communicated a sense of personal
failure to our students; the longer we have them, the
less favorable things seem to be. Regardless of achieve-
ment, the students who remain in school feel they are
doing inadequate work and their teachers make them feel
"not good enough."60 Environments that produce these

feelings must change if students are to grow in a healthy

manner both socially and emotionally. The only way to

54

create a healthier environment for learning is through
the development of closer, more trusting relationships
of all the people. Those persons who are characterized
by self-trust, openness, and trust in others, will, by
their behavior, help others to learn the same. These are
the people we need in the schools to facilitate learning.
Such behaviors also lead to a climate of acceptance where
the atmosphere is warm and secure. Interactions in this
type of environment will be characterized by a lack of
moralistic or judgmental attitudes: an atmosphere where
people feel free and secure to speak frankly, and where
they are able to listen with understanding and lack of
defensiveness; an atmosphere which enhances a person's
worth, no matter what his faults. With these elements
present, a truly accepting climate can be said to exist.61
Such a climate attempts to convert hostility and suspicion
toward others into trust, love, and awareness of other's
dignity as fellow human beings. It maximizes the
opportunities for the individual to gain self-acceptance.
What effect does the decision-making structure
have upon the environment? Whg makes decisions, and
hgthhey are made affects a learning environment as much
or more than any other one factor. There can be plenty
of external stimuli, a warm, supportive, emotional atmosphere
with plenty of program options; the physical environment
can be pleasant and desirable to those people present.

But if the type and style of decision making is not

44;")

. . é‘k‘l-V
D

 

" i Wm:

we.

55

conducive to an open, free learning environment, than
all other factors are meaningless. The only type of
decision making that is consistent with the learning
beliefs presented involves Ell.Wh° are to be affected
by the decision. Only those persons doing the experiencing,
can decide what they need and how to go about meeting
those needs. Decisions made £2£ peOple by people who
have no direct contact with them are destructive to the
person and to learning. There must be communication, a
sharing of feelings where each listens to the other.
Decisions must not be imposed from without but must
come from within. Only then can teachers and administra-
tors refrain from feeling responsibility for decisions
they have made for others. And only then can students
begin to take their own responsibility for decision making.
This is learning and the type of learning that all people
can experience if they are allowed to do so. The decision
makers, the administration, and the faculty, can help
provide this type of learning atmosphere. .
Traditionally, administrators have been more
concerned with putting out the brush fires which develop
on a day-to-day, and even minute-to-minute basis then with
planning long range approaches to human interaction. The

art and science of administration, like the art and science

m

0 teaching and living, could become a continuous process

growth. Instead of calling for the knowledge,content,

H]

O

and essentials, referred to earlier, decision-makers can

56

use a more affective, individualistic, and creative

approach.

Open Schools62

 

Open Schools attempt to meet human needs in human
ways. Such schools are organized around the needs of
learners and their interests. Basic is the need for
students to be themselves here and now, to create and to
love, to face adversity, to behave responsibly, to be
human. Such schools attempt to provide an environment
that allows the learner to grow by taking responsibility
for personal decisions and by offering many learning
options that include both intellectual and emotional
learning. Open environments are more informal, supportive,
and flexible. These schools integrate knowledge, skills,
appreciation, and understanding; traditional schools
divide these dimensions into various kinds of subject
matter. In open schools, teachers and learners can learn
together; the teacher can function as a facilitator of
learning including his own learning as well as the learning
of others. The noise level is higher, the atmosphere is
relaxed, there is a sense of fun in learning and the
teachers may not be recognizable. Parents and other adults
frequently participate, and the outside environment is
integral to the life of the school. Books are frequently
written by the students and all persons have a broader

range of learning alternatives. Open schools are concerned

L-

 

, 4
.. .;. E'LJL‘Y’

.|6

IPA. 1-1”: an"! 'l'. !

"cl—.1.

57

with the so-called "basic skills" and with so much more.
Reading is important, but only equal to listening,

feeling, touching, seeing, and smelling. Open schools
increase the opportunities for personalization of learning.
Many people are committing themselves to education where
the environment is Open, dropping authoritarian models of
behavior.

Ronald Barth offers an "open" model of education.63
This model is consistent with our discussion of Open
Schools, enhancing the latter concept. Barth's model is
based on the assumption that knowledge is unique to each
individual and that a child learns from the direct personal
explorations of his environment. Barth offers his model

as an alternative to the traditional model which he calls
the "transmission of knowledge" model, based on assump-
tions that all children must have a certain amount and

kind of factual information transmitted by a teacher.

Barth diagrams the "transmission of knowledge" model as
K+C+A+S, where "K" represents all accumulated knowledge,
"C" curriculum or the selections from "K" that are con-
sidered essential and appropriate for children of different
ages to know; "A" represents the agent, usually a teacher,
who transmits the curriculum or the selections from "K"
that are considered essential; "S" represents the students
who "learn" the selected curriculum. According to Barth,

this model of education, with its many built-in assumptions,

u'.”?
.2. ”'1
Ether;

T .g—_ -. NI!

 

“Hull .
‘4” .

"nu-4 _

';

58

leads to student resentment and hostility, fragmentation

of experience and knowledge, and debilitating anxieties.
Barth's "open" model emphasizes the creation of

a psychological climate in which the child will feel free

to be curious, free to make mistakes and learn from them,

free from judgmental evaluation, free to learn from his

environment, his fellow students, his "teacher," and from

his experience. In this Open model, diagrammed as

Ché—yRW
2 e
T

learning occurs during the interaction between the child
(Ch) and the real world (RW). The teachers place (T) is
somewhere outside the learning process, a facilitator

of learning. The facilitator is asking entirely differ-
ent kinds of questions than the teacher. Instead of the
traditional questions such as:

"What do I think would be good for the student
to learn at his particular age and at his level
of competence?"

"What does the state require him to learn?"

"How can I provide the proper curriculum?"

"How can I motivate him to absorb this
curriculum?"

"How can I best teach him?"

"How can I best evaluate him?"

the questions become:
"What things puzzle you?"
"What are you curious about?"
"What issues concern you?"
"What problems do you wish you could solve?"

When the student has the answers to these questions, the

teacher asks:

 

59

"Now how can I find the resources which would
help my students learn in ways that would provide
answers to the things that concern them?"

"How could I help them to learn the things
they are eager to learn?"

The "Open Model" presented here leads to the type of
learning environment found in "Open Schools" and one that
is conducive to the type Of learning described earlier.
Open schools have been evaluated with traditional
assessment instruments and students do as well as those
from traditional schools, but they also learn and grow in
ways that aren't even being "assessed" or "evaluated:"
critical thinking, independence in learning and growing,
trust, ability to solve problems. Students from Open
Schools show more interest and enjoyment of school, better
attendence, and more positive attitudes toward teachers.
Open schools can help develop a society that is more Open,

individualistic, participatory, and trustful with more

open political and social institutions.

What Needs to Be Done
It is impossible to separate the environment from
the program, because the latter plays such an important
part in helping to create the environment. Here, the
program is subjected to a more general treatment with

specific and greatly elaborated program recommendations

covered in the last section.

 

I
l
, .

. I tan-m
its: 2

60

Neil Postman and Charles Weingartner place the
teachers and their attitudes in the center of any
significant innovation in education: "The beliefs,
feelings, and assumptions of teachers are the air of a
learning environment; they determine the quality of life
within it. Some of the assumptions held by many teachers a.
today include: '5

l. The more "content" a person "knows," the t
better teacher he is. L

2. That "content" is best "imparted" via a
"course of study."

 

3. That "content" is best kept "pure" by
departmentalizing instruction.

4. That "content" has a "logical structure" or
"logical sequence" that dictates how the
"content" should be "imparted."

5. That bigger schools are better than smaller
schools.

6. That smaller classes are better than bigger
classes.

7. That "homogeneous groupings (with students
"grouped" on the basis of some real or fancied
similarity) makes the learning of subjects
more efficient.

8. That classes must be held for "periods" of
about an hour in length, five days a week,
for about 15 weeks in order for a "course"
in a "subject" to happen.64

There is no evidence to support any of these

assumptions; indeed, there is massive evidence to refute
them. Learning environments such as those described in
this section cannot be achieved as long as the people in

our schools adhere to assumptions such as these.

61

A list of proposals that attempt to change
radically the nature of the existing school environment
and that are designed to change the perceptions of teachers
now functioning in the school might include the following:
1. Declare a five-year moratorium on the use

Of all textbooks.

22
2. Have "English" teachers "teach" Math, Math f;
teachers English, Social Studies teachers Science, Science 3
teachers Art, and so on. E
3. Transfer all the elementary school teachers to g;

 

high school and vice versa.

4. Require every teacher who thinks he knows his
"subject" well to write a book on it.

5. Dissolve all "subjects," "courses," and
especially "course requirements."

6. Limit each teacher to three declarative
sentences per class and fifteen interrogatives.

7. Prohibit teachers from asking any questions
they already know the answers to.

8. Declare a moratorium on all tests and grades.

9. Require all teachers to undergo some form of
psychotherapy as part of their in-service training.

10. Classify teachers according to their ability
and make the lists public.

11. Require all teachers to take a test prepared

by the students on what therstudents know.

62

12. Make every class an elective and withhold a
teacher's monthly check if his students do not show any
interest in going to next month's classes.

13. Require every teacher to take a one-year leave
of absence every fourth year to work in some "field"

other than education.

fig

14. Require each teacher to provide some sort of E;-
evidence that he or she has had a loving relationship with E
at least one other human being. 3

15. Require that all the graffiti accumulated in E;

 

the school toilets be reproduced on large paper and hung
in the school halls.

16. There should be a general prohibition against
the use Of the following words and phrases: teach, syllabus,
covering ground, I.Q., makeup, test, disadvantaged, gifted,
accelerated, enhancement, course, grade, score, human
nature, dumb, college material, and administrative
necessity.65

Such proposals as these are a few among many
possibilities that can help create an environment that
makes it difficult, if not impossible, for teachers to
function with their Old assumptions about learning. They
would, if enacted, probably cause anxiety among the
students because we would not "teach" them. They would
be forced to look at their own largely unexamined beliefs

and assumptions. In so doing, they can begin to feel a

deeper emotional involvement in their own learning because

63

whatever they produce is going to represent a uniqueness
about themselves. They can begin to explore beliefs that
are contradictory to those they have held and to develop
a belief system of their own. People learn more from
what they generate and discover than from what someone else
hands out and pours in.

Other significant changes in the learning environ-
Ament would alter the subordinate-superordinate relation-
ship between the students and the adults as well as
focusing the student's attention upon the "here-and—now"
instead of on the "then and there."66

The subordinate-superordinate relationship creates
a dependency relationship where the student depends
almost completely upon an authority figure for what the
rest Of society considers prerogatives of the individual.)
The loss of such prerogatives as going to the washroom,
talking with another person, and choosing to participate
in a particular experience are only some of the examples
of the degree Of independence the adolescent must forfeit
when he attends school. Environments such as these make
it impossible for peOple to grow psychologically.

Focusing students attention on the "then and
there" places emphasis mainly on ideas and experiences
from the past. Placing equal emphasis on the "here-and-

now allows students to focus on emotional and intellectual

matters of concern and relevency to them at the moment.

64

Greater emphasis must be placed upon collecting
and using feedback. Feedback is information shared by
individuals and organizations about the relevency and
effectiveness of exhibited behaviors. Direct feedback
is immediate and is shared by both the sender and the
receiver. Indirect feedback is delayed and anonymous,
and is often obtained through the use of pencil and
paper instruments. Both types can be helpful. What
people say or feel about the school environment will
need to become as important a consideration as what is
done. Schools need to become open systems Of communication
instead of the characteristic bureaucracy with its
hierarchial patterns of authority and control. The prime
Objective of the supervisory process would focus on
facilitating growth with equal emphasis on both effective
and cognitive efforts. The creation Of effective feed-
back mechanisms enhances learning; in giving or receiving
feedback, the goal is to help individuals become more
productive as they become more aware of their internal
values, the way in which others perceive their behavior,
and the possible consequences of their actions. Feedback,
both direct and indirect, can be used for teacher and
administrator growth, for more effective community, and
for "classroom" learning.

Systematic collection of attitudinal data from
the community, from students, and from teachers can easily

provide the administrator with an eXpanded base for

{[7

51:..-

L . .wm-eaiswa

smug-nu .

65

meaningful decision making. Decisions can be more clearly
articulated as developmental, experimental, or temporary.
T-Group theOry and practices can be considered as a way

to employ and provide for wider use Of direct methods of

collecting and using feedback.

. , .
.LE $3.3,“
r .-

 

Summary ?
By way Of summary, then, let us say that an environ-
ment where people can experience learning in a growthful
manner is nonthreatening and allows for the facilitation {g
' ,2

of both cognitive and affective needs. The learning
facilitators are warm, open, and accepting individuals
who make decisions EEEE people, not £95 them; and, they
are interested in their own self growth as well as the
growth Of their students. Many external stimuli and
Options are available, and the physical structures help
create warmth, closeness, and flexibility. Subordinate-
superordinate relationships cease to exist, focus is more
with the "here-and-now," and effective provisions are
made for adequate feedback from all persons.

The Organizational Environment
of the SOhool

 

The viability of school systems to meet demands
and adapt to change is seriously questioned. Unless,
and until, those concerned with educational goals and
practices see this enterprise as one of problem-solving,

of creative solutions, of continuing innovation, the

66

concept Of human education for human needs will never
become a reality.

Social scientists have only recently begun the
systematic study of educational decision-making and the
power relationships of persons in the urban school system.
The accumulated evidence indicates a basic sickness in
the school structure: the total environment of the system
prevents progress and changes that would meet new situa-
tions and serve new populations. Most of the research
exploring dimensions of change in the educational system
indicates that existing structural, behavioral, and
attitudinal mechanisms act as impediments or inhibitors
against change far more often than as facilitators Of

67
change.

As different cleavage lines within the society
emerge, as resource allocation differs, as components of
class, status, and power change, corresponding changes
in educational practices may occur. Or, better yet, the
educational institutions may provide the impetus and
accelerate such changes in the larger society.

Robert Merton, a well-known sociologist who has
focused much of his academic efforts on the study of
formal organizations, says that,

The bureaucratic structure exerts a constant
pressure upon officials to be methodical, prudent,
disciplined. If a bureaucracy is to operate
successfully, it must attain a high degree of
reliability Of behavior, an unusual degree Of
conformity with prescribed patterns of action. . .

but this very emphasis leads to a transference of
the sentiments from the aims of the organization

ems: '

, .mffl'fl'fi

"AMT. .1... all 451-

'v1" '2 .1
RW'
’- 5-..!-

 

67

onto the particular details of behavior required

by the rules. Adherence to the rules, originally

conceived as a means, becomes transformed into an

end in itself.68
Another student of organizational behavior, Michael Crozier,
states that in any kind Of organization there is a con"
stant pressure to escape from reality. Centralization
is one of the ways to achieve this escape, completely
impersonal rules are another. Difficulties with the

"customers,' poor communication with and unsatisfactory
adjustment to the environment, difficulties in achieving
a task, and other goal-related difficulties, cannot and
will not lead to greater flexibility within the system.69

As a result of these factors characteristic of
organizational environments, the following behaviOrs are
noted in the field of education:

1. School administrators and personnel will
Often agree on abstract or Operational goals when conditions
either internal or external to the system seem to indicate
change; this behavior will be observed least when the
change is perceived as incremental and most when the
change approaches the innovative.

2. The need for control and regulation, especially
when uncertainty threatens, will appear in the form of
ritualist attitudes and formal regulations leading to
patterns Of conformity and rigidity both attitudinally,

often under the guise of professionalism, and structurally

by centralization.

“1.. a if!!!“
D

2
'~. '1‘:' "ll '

. - 2"utir'

r_V

1

 

68

3. Loyalty to the organization (and routine) will
occur at the expense of organizational aims and purposes;
i.e., goal displacement and subsequent difficulties in
the task environment.

4. Since there are few obvious criteria of per-
formance in the schools, they will turn to indirect
symbols Of achievement to earn public acclaim such as
national merit scholars and number of graduates who continue
with their educations.

A few examples drawn from studies of educational
institutions indicate support for the above examples.
Support for Merton's contention that bureaucrats will
show "ritualistic" attitudes,70 and Dror's observation
that under conditions of high-rate change it is easier
to agree on abstract goals,71 is provided by Robert Crain
in his study of desegregation.72 Crain found that the
education profession and many individual superintendents
responded to politically-tinged conflicts in three ways:
(l) by narrowing their frame of reference so that they
can silence critics by refusing responsibility for the
issue; (2) by trading low priority values such as free-
dom Of curriculum reform; and (3) by developing the claim
that expertise is required to make school decisions, so
that critics can be ignored.

Education has traditionally been characterized
by; isolation from the larger socio-political environ-

ment; centralization employed to deal with decisions of

 

AJ'KII

- ‘ ' 1&2".

- a":
I!

69

an increasingly sensitive political nature; professionalism;
permanence; tradition; and significant resources. Many

of these standards are based on values unrelated to demands
or need in the school environment.73 Recruitment into

the educational system is structured and restricted due

to professionalism and centralization. This restricts

the scope of schools search for administrative abilities
and intensified differences between the "professionals"

and lay people in the administrative process.74 This leads
to impersonality, lack of communication, and further
centralization.

Evidence that recruitment is structured and limited
in public education is provided by two situations: when
returned Peace Corps volunteers have been introduced into
a school as student teachers, the discomfort of the
established staff created an intolerable strain, and the
experiment was abandoned.75 A second example of similar
nature has occurred when under-prepared personnel have
been used as subprofessionals and aides in the schools as
part of the New Careers for the Poor Programs (Office of
Economic Opportunity).76

The professionalism of teachers acts as an
inhibitor to change because they are unable to assimilate
changes which disrupt the beliefs by which they structure
their roles. James Thompson states that when an organiza-
tion incorporates large numbers Of professionals, the

tendency is for them to insist that decision premises be

70

set only by professionals; he states further that if
performance in discretionary jobs is evaluated in terms
of adherence to rules, individuals in those jobs are
discouraged from exercising discretion which would reduce
their scores on such criteria.77 Both of these factors
serve to further inhibit change in educational institutions
and such practices perpetuates subordinate-superordinant
relationships, poor communication between people, dis-
courages creativity, and effectively prevents a learning
environment that is facilitative of peoples needs. The
people cannot trust each other in such an environment and
openness and support are non-existant.

The nonprofessional groups involved in education
such as parent-teacher associations, civic groups, and
specialized education-oriented interest groups are all
generally supportive of existing systems and reinforce
their counterparts in the school system. Thus, behavioral
rigidity, agreement on abstract goals, control and regula-
tion through centralization and impersonal rules is

perpetuated further. Patricia Sexton writes in The American

 

School, that among participants in the schools communica-
tion system, which is almost unexplored, are lay boards,
private and governmental groups, schools of education,
administration, educational organizations, plus teachers,

students, and parents. Sexton says further that:

-fiwmnwg
rang-5’

q ~ I 93.". ‘2

 

71

The more obvious communication deficiencies have
been, between central administration and lower
administration, among teachers, from students to
those above, between low-income parents and all
school personnel. . .it has its most serious con—
sequence in organizational inertia and atrophy.78
Thus, the poor communication system, both internally and
externally, serves as a further impediment to change in
the schools, and leads to poor human relations networks.
These and other difficulties are utilized by individuals
and groups for improving their position in the power
struggles within the organization, thus generating new
pressures for impersonality and centralization.79
Educational programs were the first and remained
the most essential components of the Community Action

endeavors, referred to earlier and discussed by Marris

and Rein in Dilemmas Of Social Reform.80 These authors

 

confess to the fragmentary and roughly classified
Statistical nature of the experiments but some of their
impressions are worth noting; The crucial task was to
change the perceptions of teachers, instructors, adminis-
trators, and employees, and to restore pupils' confidence
in themselves: new reading techniques, more sensitive
counselling, more imaginative curricula, reorganization
of the grade structure, and more thorough knowledge of
the culture Of the neighborhood on the part of the teacher.
These reforms were to be instituted in cooperation with
the school system, and carried out by the teachers them-

selves. Even where the problems were handled most

72

sensitively, the program encountered resistance on the
part of some Of the teachers and it was found that extensive
orientation of both old and new staff was essential with
the various innovations. A much more thorough and
necessary accounting of the various factors involved cannot
be related here. The classroom innovations which were
successfully put into practice concerned techniques, while
those which tackled the teachers' preconceptions more
directly evoked a poor response. Robert Dentler, reviewing
and comparing the educational programs of four of the
projects argues that the work of the action programs in
the domain Of public education cannot be called innova-
tive but more like an inventory of means for exporting
the decent American suburban public school into the inner
city areas.81 The projects helped the schools to develop
educational methods already widely accepted in the teaching
profession, provided that the changes were tackfully
introduced, and everyone was prepared. If they tried more
challenging innovation, which questioned the teachers'
basic assumptions, the schools might not give them a fair
test. It was found that:

Institutions would not, in practice, commit them-

selves either to the sacrifices of autonomy implied

by the project's structure, or to its innovative

spirit. . .(the schools) participation seems often

to have been merely defensive. To have rejected a

grant, and refused its cooperation in a progressive

community venture, would have incited a public

opinion already critical of school performance.

But it did not at heart believe that shortcomings
sprang from unimaginative administration and

73

insensitive teaching; it preferred to lay the blame

on inadequate resources. To the school system, the
projects were a fund-raising resource, whose
independent views on education practice were a
tiresome impggtinence, directing money into peripheral
experiments.

Marris and Rein sum up their observations by saying
that "more radical reforms would have to turn to strategies
less dependent on the cooperation of practicing teachers."83
Where a more aggressive approach (the exercise of power
and pressure) was used the resulting incidents suggested
that the school system was not prepared to tolerate
criticism; if the challenge came from professional services
which depended upon the schools' cooperation it would be
quashed; if it camethrough public protest, it provoked
an equally public reaction. These findings by Marris and
Rein support our earlier hypotheses drawn from the
bureaucratic literature.

Studies done on the issue of school desegregation
provide further evidence Of the schools resistance to
change.84 Usdan maintains that the insulation and
isolation Of educators from politics instinctively cause
them to shy away from controversial and volatile social
issues and that the suppression of overt conflict and
the removal Of publicly sensitive or controversial
issues becomes of prime importance to boards of education;
he also feels that school boards are conservative
institutions dedicated to preserving the status quo and

transmitting the values Of contemporary society to the

young.

74

Based on all of these studies, the following can
be expected:

1. Extensive orientation of all staff is essential
for any innovation.

2. Innovations in an educational system will be
successfully put into practice if directed toward technique
while those which tackle the teachers preconceptions will
evoke a poor response.

3. The attitudes of school board members toward
the issue is one of the most important factors in deter-
mining the eventual outcome, and most boards will be con-
servative and dedicated to preserving the status quo.

4. Major changes in educational institutions will
be least likely to occur in large cities with well-
established political machines and the ideology of the
civic elite will affect acceptance Of such changes both
in determining the cities position as well as that of the
school board.

5. The success of civil rights and other minority
groups in bringing about educational changes will have
little effect on the implementation of such changes.

Thus, variables that have been found to relate to
change at both the individual and organizational level
do not predominate in the school system. Much more
research is needed. Few students of complex organizations

and public administration have directed their research

75

efforts toward educational institutions. Sociologists

have stressed stratification in the schools when doing
their research. For the most part political scientists
have done exploratory studies. Data indicates that only

as the educational system experiences stress, strain,

and dysfunction, will any change occur. It seems likely
that the schools will depart from traditional concerns

and programs only when strain occurs, when individuals
capable of producing new ideas are present, and when the
organizational pattern maximizes flexibility and opens
lines Of communication. At present, the environment of

the school system prevents progress and changes that would
meet new situations and serve new populations. It cannot
be said that many of the people concerned with educa-
tional goals and practices see the enterprise as one of
creative solutions and continuing innovation. As "teaching"
moves more toward "facilitated learning" and when beliefs
similar to those expressed here become more acceptable,
then learning environments, both organizational and contex-

tual, will change.

fins-VIM

\
.. .fi ,1}!
,-A his..."

 

SECTION I II

THE PROGRAM

If we treat human beings merely as objects to be
controlled, instead of persons to be released for
growth, we may become partners to dehumanization.

Arthur G. Wirth, Chairman John Dewey Society

What is. . .What Could Be

 

In a Peanut's carton Lucy is telling a friend
that she learned something in school that day: she
signed up for folk guitar, computer programming, stained
glass art, shoemaking, and a natural foods workshop. She
got spelling, history, arithmetic, and two study periods.
Her friend replied, "So what did you learn?" Lucy
answers, "I learned that what you sign up for and what
you get are two different things."85

A listing Of public schools that provide for
student's needs by allowing for curriculum choices would
be impressive. Many, many schools throughout the United
States have put together some very fine programs and are
experimenting with different learning experiences. Public
schools in over thirty states have already complimented
their conventional program by creating Montessori Schools,

Drop-Out Schools, Multi—Cultural Schools, Learning Centers,

Free Schools. . .and on and on. Berkeley, California

76

77

has over l/3 Of its student body participating in 24
alternative public schools. In Seattle, Washington, over
5% of the public school students have chosen to enroll
in over 30 alternative public schools. Much the same
thing has been happening in Philadelphia, Minneapolis/St.
Paul, Madison, Chicago, Grand Rapids, Boston, Ann Arbor,
New York, and on across the country.8

The development of options in public education
has been slow and steady work, for success has demanded
the reeducation Of many boards of education, parents and
administrators. At present public school Options are still
small indeed. With the exception Of a half—dozen school
districts that have developed clusters of diverse options,
few public schools have more than one option, and too
often it involves only a few students. Such schools
are Often under attack from their colleagues in conventional
programs, from conservative school boards, and from insecure
administrators. At best they can only be called a begin-
ning, but it is a beginning that holds promise of the day
when all American yough may be able to select learning
experiences from a wide variety of educational options both
in public school and without, and from the cradle to the
grave. The program, or curriculum, discussed in this
section is one that can help to meet every students mental
and emotional needs in ways selected by that student; it is
concerned with the ways people relate to each other around

different forms of learning; it is about people making the

78

best use they know of all their capacities, alone and
together.

This section does ESE deal with learning to fulfill
others expectations and pleasing those in authority; it
is not about age, grade, and credential differentials;
it does not talk about individualized instruction where
differences are assumed and programs created to make certain
that predictions are correct; it is not about labelling,
classifying, and degrading children. There are.too many
beautiful things about a human being to give him a label,
grade his performance, and cast him aside.

A serious rethinking of broad goals by educators
with far greater student participation is heard from
researchers and theorists alike. Students are demanding
such changes. Relevant curriculum change with a close
examination Of familial-societal values and factual
behavior is necessary. In some recent peace research
Paul Smoker says that maximization of choices can be
thought of as characteristic of an emergent peace system
and that an essential component of peace is the continuous

87 This

creation of new and more desirable social states.
dynamic definition Of peace is quite different than the
Old one of peace as absence of violence. Maximization
of variance and mutual aid (human, animal, biological,
and social) also agrees with recent cybernetic theories

that point to centralized control as inefficient. Smoker

maintains that a crisis is symptomatic of a war system

79

where the crisis is the narrowing of perception of alter-
natives. The implications of such research for educational
programs seems Obvious.

Snell and Gail Putney, two psychologists, say:
"As developed in the usual curriculum, the life-adjustment
emphasis becomes instruction in techniques of adjustment
to conventional patterns. The child learns how to appeal
to a date or how to conduct a meeting; he learns nothing
of himself. The typical teacher is not trained to know
himself and can hardly lead others to self-knowledge."88
Curriculum emphasis today revolves mainly around fitting
in, getting ahead, and pleasing others. Learning programs
impart predetermined chunks of knowledge and acceptance
of the status quo. We need to help develop people who can
cope effectively with change; it isn't enough to educate
for today. We have to think about what the world is going
to be like in thirty years and educate for thirty years
hence and forty years hence and a hundred years hence. The
world today for the first grader is not going to be his
world in thirty years. Look at how 935 world has changed,
say, in the last ten, even five, years! No wonder we are
confused and up tight and anxious: we were not prepared
to deal with the world in which we are living. And we
are not allowing our students to prepare. The relation-
ships between students and teachers is seldom based on
trust and openness. Without trust, communication suffers
and with poor communication experiencing and sharing

together will not occur and learning suffers.

80

The remainder of this section focuses on the
facilitation Of learning: on mental or cognitive learning
experiences that help develop thinking capacities, and
on emotional or affective learning experiences that help
develop feeling or emotional capacities. There is an
interdependence between emotional and intellectual learning.
When we "think" we are, at the same time "emoting." The
fact that teachers exclude the emotions from their lessons
does not mean that those processes are unaffected by what
the teacher does. It is important to remember this inter-
dependence even though "thinking" and "feeling" are con-
sidered here in separate sections. We apply critical
thinking techniques to matters that are largely in the
affective domain and our emotions seriously affect our
thinking. Psychologist Gerald Egan maintains that fuller
interpersonal living is not ordinarily one of the fruits
Of eight, twelve, or sixteen years of formal education.89
A well-integrated person is one who is comfortable with
both his mental and emotional states and who has developed
and understands both. ‘

Emphasis throughout is given to the improvement
of trust and communication between people, program options
that can provide people the opportunities for self-growth

and allow fOr explorations Of the self and development

Of the human potential that we all have.

81

Facilitating Learning

 

Ten teen-agers in New York City, meeting with a
group of 150 teachers maintained that there was an "almost
total" lack Of communicatidn between teen-agers and
adults. "The teachers don't want to communicate with us,"
said one 18-year-old. "But they should. A long talk is
much more effective than just taking a failing student
aside and saying, 'You have two 65's and three 40's, and
it looks bad for you.‘ Another boy, 15, complained that
the only time he heard his principal's voice was over his
school's loud speaker system. When one of the students
said that a lot Of the trouble comes from a lack of love
between students and teachers, one of the teachers shouted
back, "It's not my job to love my pupils, it's my job to
teach them." The students complained about methods of
discipline and racial discrimination. Some of the
teachers in the audience walked out.90

In youth conferences dealing with education and
in thousands Of schools students are demanding greater
say in all phases Of their school learning. The number
Of students seeking alternative learning experiences
outside Of the public school system increases each day
and numbers in the millions. Each year more students and
more teachers become drop-ouun drop-outs from a public
institution that exists to serve their learning needs
but instead forces them to adjust to standards, timelines,
and rules of morality and conduct that is, to them,

degrading, dehumanizing, and unnecessary.

82

Where does all this leave our present-day classroom
teacher? And our teachers-in-training? The teachers who
get up and walk out Of meetings such as the one described
and those who fail each day to effectively communicate
with their students are probably useless for facilitating
learning experiences. It might take a lifetime for anyone
to create the conditions that would permit these teachers
to modify their perceptions. A person grows when he is
expOsed to inconsistencies in his values and his patterns
of action, and, from his own identification of needs, can
be helped to develop new patterns which integrate values
and behaviors.91

The major source of teachers for the type of
learning experiences that meets people's needs and
facilitates learning must come from the institutions that
are now training prospective teachers. These institutions
must help future facilitators of learning with their
interpersonal growth, by helping them become aware of their
inconsistencies. In-service training for teachers already
certified can do the same. The supervisory process in
schools can focus upon facilitating teacher growth by
conducting regular attitudinal and value-related studies.
Measurement Of student feedback on classroom climate and
process-oriented discussions of the feedback could be held
between students, teachers, and the supervisor or
administrator. Teacher performance could also be evaluated

by using systematic feedback collection and evaluation

raj:

- arm, 1"} an. M'
' I

 

83

procedures. But this must all be done within an environ-
ment Of trust, acceptance, and openness if it is to be
grOwthful. The material and information contained under
"Learning to Think" and "Learning to Feel" provides guide-
lines for all persons to experience learning in different
ways than has been traditional. Students may begin to

find school less distasteful as their teachers try to

become facilitators Of learning and, at the same time, allow
themselves the experience of growth by learning to think :

and learning to feel. Growing along with our students is

 

tflmaone best way to facilitate their learning. It is hard
and it can be painful but it is also joyful and the only

way to truly experience together. Those of us who were

 

most "successful" by conventional school standards will
have the most difficult time. We have to unlearn what?
we learned best: to sit quietly, to accept without 4
question whatever nonsense was inflicted upon us, to
ventriliquize on demand with a high degree of fidelity,
to go down only on the down staircase, to speak only on
signal from the teachers, and so on. As we undertake
inquiry into our own largely unexamined beliefs and
assumptions we can facilitate such learning with our
students. Just as the beliefs, feelings, and assumptions
of teachers are the air of the learning environment and
determine the quality of life within it, so too, are they
the air of the program and so, too, do they determine the

quality of the program.

84

The Effects Of Leadership on People

There is a wide variety of research studies of
various kinds and types which all point to the conclusion
that the type of leadership called "democratic" or
"participative" results in higher satisfaction among the
participants than the kind of leadership called "autocratic"
or "directive."92 Delegating tasks to subordinates so
that they may carry them out in their own way was facili-
tative Of performance, and having concern for the sub-
ordinate as a human being increased performance.93

Much of the research that looks at such factors
as leadership, environments, motivation, achievement and
work performance, and organizational change comes from
industrial and organizational psychology. Much of this
work has relevant applications to education. SO also
does the work done with group dynamics and small groups
by sociologists and psychologists.

The classic experimental study by White and
Lippitt shows clearly that the different patterns of
leadership style resulted in distinctive kinds of behavior
among group members. Both group solidarity and group
productivity differed markedly, and a characteristic

94 White

emotional atmosphere developed in each group.
and Lippitt examined the effects upon individual and
group behavior Of three variations in social atmosphere

labeled, "democratic," "authoritarian," and "Laissez faire."

 

85

It was found that autocracy can create much hostility

and agression, plus discontent that does not appear on

the surface. There was more dependence and less individ-
uality in autocracy. On the other hand, in the democratic
situation, where all policies were a matter of group
discussion with decisions encouraged and assisted by the
leader, there was more groupmindedness and friendliness;
work motivation was stronger, and originality was greater
with less critical discontent.

The laissez-faire leadership resulted in behaviors
consistent with the thesis presented here; i.e. that with
complete freedom for group or individual decisions and
complete nonparticipation of the leader, aggressive
actions were frequent, there was more information asking
and more work directions, more group-minded suggestions,
more play-minded and more work-minded conversation, less
work done. Laissez-faire was less organized, less
efficient, and definitely less satisfying. In our first
section where "learning" was discussed it was stated that
achievement and self-concept is lowered when people move
from situations Of high structure to one of less
structure. This is a period of some insecurity when the
participants do not function well in providing for their
own needs. One possible hypothesis regarding this

phenomena would state that until people learn how to meet

 

their needs in a manner that is satisfying and rewarding

to them, insecurity, uncertainty, and discomfort will

86

persist. Resulting behaviors of random activity, agression,
withdrawal, etc., may be due to frustrations caused by
introduction to the new, open learning environment. During
this adjustment period the role played by the learning
facilitator may be very crucial. The facilitator can help
peOple meet necessary needs by working with them, moving

along the spectrum of democratic to laissez-faire.

.mwmwmwm

When Carl Rogers used his non-directive methodology

in a course, the class was not prepared for such a totally

.IWRA’IH 'l I
‘t ‘ -

unstructured approach. They were perplexed and frustrated
and demanded that Rogers play the role assigned to him

by custom and tradition: to set forth in authoritative
language what was right and wrong, what was good and

bad. Everyone looked to Rogers but Rogers looked to
everyone else, receiving every contribution with attention
and regard. Hard, frustrating sessions followed;

students spOke at random, saying whatever came into their
heads. It all seemed chaotic, aimless, a waste of time;
lacking in continuity and direction. By the fifth session
something happened. Students spoke to one another, by-
passed Rogers, wanted to be heard and asked to be heard.
The group changed from a halting, stammering, self-
conscious group to an interacting group, a brand new
cohesive unit, carrying on discussion and thinking. Rogers
joined in but his role became merged with the group; the
group was important, the center, the base of operation,

not the instructor. It took four sessions before the class

87

began to provide the content, to speak up, to share, to

agree and to disagree, and to become closer.95
Much more research is needed in the area of leader-

ship styles and effects and on unstructured or open

environments. How do these factors relate to learning

and the meeting of human needs? What effect, if any, do

these, as well as other factors, have on cognitive

learning? On emotional learning? On personal growth?

Learning to Think

 

Thinking may be understood as a method of inquiry
which is directed toward understanding; thinking may help
us to see the alternatives which are relevant and to help
us anticipate a variety of consequences associated with
alternatives. Thinking is a cognitive process which
makes use of our minds.

Learning is most significant when we are caught
up in the adventure of learning, when we are involved

because we are interested. In Jonathan Livingston Seagull

 

Richard Bach says that the most important thing in living
is to reach out and touch perfection in that which we
most love to do.96 This is learning at its ultimate.

The age or I.Q. of a person is 22E.a determinant of
learning ability. If a person truly wants to learn some-
thing he will do so even against tremendous Odds as many

biographies, autobiographies, and case histories indicate.

To be sure, we can learn information that has little meaning

88

to us but it is not vital, joyful learning; we are seldom
moved to get very deep into learning about something

that has no interest or relevance to us and if we are
forced into such situations we soon come to resist all
learning experiences imposed upon us. The majority Of
students today use their minds as noted earlier; not to
learn but to get out of doing the things we tell them to
do tO make them learn. Instead of increasing the capacity 'E
of the student to determine and meet his own learning ;

needs we decrease it. Schools, in dealing with pre-

 

processed information and not raw reality, effectively
prevent students from naming their experiences, environ-
ment, or existence and thereby students are prevented
from finding and putting meaning into their life.
"Knowledge," or cognitive information is not the original
substance. It is processed data. Already someone elSe
has tampered with it; someone Observed it (or made it up);
recognized a pattern or imposed order on it; attached
significance (found meaning in) to a particular pattern
and disregarded others; translated the significance into
an imprecise code called language, and called the result
"knowledge." For example, the teacher is talking or
something is written on the blackboard, or on a sheet of
paper, or printed in a book. This is not the real world
the student is seeing or hearing, but rather a translation,
an algebra Of the real world, simplified and fragmentized

with much left out.97

89

The only legitimate objective in "teaching" is

that the student and teacher shall be changed in such a
way as to transcend mere intellectualizing and to become

a better, more fulfilled person. William Schutz says

that we want something to happen to students which incul-
cates a joy-Of life they can carry out of the classroom
and into life; he defines "joy" as that feeling that comes
from the fulfillment of one's potential.98 According to b
Schutz, joy requires a vital, alive body, self-contentment, :

productive and satisfying relations with others, and a

 

successful relation to society.

Everett Shostrum believes that only when man can
give in to his natural rhythnic expression of strength
§h§_weakness, aggression hhg love, positive and negative
feelings, will he then become actualizing. Only when
people share feelings with trust, openness, honesty, and
mutual acceptance can there be joy in learning, and a
working together toward actualization. The traditional
classroom where the teacher leads and the students respond
and where emphasis is on coercive cognitive learnings
can never produce joy in learning nor self-actualization.
Nor can love between humans exist in such an atmosphere.
Love has to spring spontaneously from within and it is in
no way amenable to any form of inner or outer force. Love
and coercion can never go together. But love cannot be
forced on anyone; it can be awakened through love itself.

Love is essentially self-comminicative. Those who do not.have

90

it catch it from those who have it. . .99 Only when

teachers become facilitators of learning and begin to
love themselves and others can growthful and joyful learning
occur and be shared.

If we are going to put people together in a place
called "school" then let's allow them all, students and
teachers alike, to share learning experiences in ways that
meet their unique, individual ways. If a student wants
to learn about natural foods, or folk guitar, or shoe-
making, there will undoubtedly be others who share this
interest; others who may have experiences in these areas
and want to share them. Or others who just want to learn
these things also. And if just one person is interested
he needs the freedom to pursue his interest in ways
selected by him. If people are left free to learn they
will learn what is interesting and appealing to them,
or whatever they feel they need. Surely they would learn
to read, and spell, and do math, and write, just as they
learn to speak, because they need to know these things;
whatever interest they wish to pursue would be at least
partially dependent on reading or writing, on math or
some other basic skill. This would happen if we allowed
people to be free to learn from the beginning. Once
structured learning is placed upon people they become
dependent on that structure. The more structure there is,

the more rules and regulations, the less responsible the

91

student can become for determining or choosing his needs
and the behaviors that will satisfy those needs. By the
time our students get to high school a great many of them
are unable to work toward their own goals because they
can't even identify goals for themselves. The teachers
goals and the schools goals are the ones that count, and
most Of our students have learned to meet these expecta-
tions well; they have not learned to meet their own learning
needs or to take responsibility for these needs.

We can help facilitate learning that is relevant,

interesting, and exciting by listenihg_to students, and

 

having them share their interests with us; by asking them
such questions as: "If you could do what you most want to,
what would you do?" What worries you the most? What
makes you happy? Or, what do you enjoy doing that you
seldom share with others? What are your strengths? What
are your weaknesses? Of course such types of questions
require trust and openness. People must truly communicate
with each other in order to carry on discussions of this
nature. . .discussions that help facilitate the recognition
and meeting of needs. Effective cognitive learning cannot
occur without such communication.

We can also facilitate relevant, interesting, and
exciting learning by providing many Options from which
the learner may choose. There are innumerable ways in
which a person can learn about something that interests

him and there are innumerable things that interest people.

92

We can help to provide both the learning Options and ways
to experience these options. At the present time many
people, especially students, are interested in political
and social change, human existence, community, creativity,
and freedom. Many Of these concepts are not presently
dealt with in curriculums, and, if they are included, they
are most often treated in a way that is bland, that seldom
questions, that ignores reality.
The ever-alert suppliers of educational materials
have responded to the heady chorus of demands for
'relevence' with a glittering array of books, work-
books, games, posters, casettes, and filmstrips
designed to seduce students into believing that
now at last school will give meaning to their lives.
These materials are no more relevent to the central
theme Of our students' lives than were the leftover
third-grade readers or the games of spelling base-
ball which they have replaced.
Furthermore, many well-meaning teachers, seeking to reach
out to the students, employ their song, the stories of
their tribulations, their idiom (which is not our idiom)
as a vehicle for inculcating the same dreary morals and
meaningless lessons which we and they customarily believe
to constitute education.

How much emphasis we place on the school syllabus
and lesson plans. One of the biggest disadvantages of
lesson plans is that they perpetuate learnings that are
prescribed by someone else at some time prior to the time
they are to be used. TOO many things intervene between

the time a "lesson" is "planned" and the time it is ”taught."

The students are excited about, or interested in, some

93

other phenomena; another teacher is called upon to sub-
stitute using someone else's lesson, a lesson that may

be Of little interest to either student or teacher at this
point. But the lesson plan must be followed in order for
school to go on! Neil Postman and Charles Weingartner
have some comments appropos to all of this:

A syllabus not only prescribes what story lines

you must learn (the War of 1912 in the sixth grade,
chromosomes in the eleventh, South America. in the
ninth), it also prescribes the order in which skills
must be learned (spelling on Monday, grammar on
Tuesday, vocabulary on Wednesday). This is called
the 'sequential curriculum' and one has to visit the
Ford Motor plant in Detroit in order to understand
fully the assumptions on which it is based. In fact,
the similarities between mass production industries
and most existing school environments are striking:
five-day week, seven-hour day, one hour for lunch,
careful division of labor for both teachers and
students, a high premium on conformity and a corres-
ponding suspicion Of originality (or any deviant
behavior), and most significantly, the administra-
tion's concern for product rather than process.

But the larger point is that the sequential curriculum
is inadequate because students are not sequential;
most significant learning processes do not occur in
linear, compartmentalized sequences.

When the words ‘teach' and 'teaching' are simply
subtracted from the operational lexicon along with
'course Of study' and 'covering ground,‘ a dramatic
difference in behavior results. Then remarks are
made in which the student rather than the subject
is central. One must be centrally concerned with
the hearts and minds of learners. No competent
learner ever says to himself, 'In trying to solve
this problem, I will read two books (not less than
20 pages, with a minimum of 15 footnotes. . .' The
only place one finds such 'standards' is in a school
syllabus. They_do not exist in natural, human
learning situations, since they have nothing to do
with the conditions of learning--with what the learner
needs to be and to do in order_toIlearn about learn-
ing, or indeed about anything,*"‘

 

94

If we are interested in helping people to learn
and answer such questions as, "What is it that this organism
needs without which he cannot thrive?", it is impossible
to come up with the answer "The three R's." The emotional
and intellectual realities Of the human condition dictate
the need to know how to learn as well as other needs such
as communication and relationships with other people, a
workable concept of self and freedom. Any curriculum
designed around these needs centers around the structure
of the learner and his learning needs and less around the
structure Of the subject. Unless an inquiry is perceived
as relevent by the learner, no significant learning will
take place. In order to know what is relevent to our
students, or any other person, we must communicate our
sincere desire to find this out and then listen carefully!
If we are successful and find out, then together with our
students, programs can be planned. The person must be
EDE.m°St important factor; not age, not values, not '
credentials, not experience. The young and old, rich and
poor, black, yellow, red, and white, must work together
to achieve open communication, trust, and learning. This
means working together to utilize each persons unique
capabilities or potentialities. It means telling each
other of our loyalties, no longer being competitors. It
means going through heavy changes, knowing where we are
headed, impatient to be there, losing ground, being afraid,

feeling the support Of those working with us. It means

95

wanting to give others our very best, sharing our best
with them, knowing they know in ways we can only sense,
feeling futile as guides and models, giving support when

102
we can.

When learning and the environment was discussed
earlier a list of assumptions commonly held by teachers
was Offered. These assumptions are also held by students
because they have been "taught" to believe this way. We
must help our students unlearn much of what they "know";
in order to help students recognize the fact that most of
their deeply internalized assumptions about education
are based on misinformation rather than information we
might begin by providing them with a set of beliefs in
direct contradiction to those they hold. One of the most
dramatic comes from a highly personal statement found
in Becoming a Person by Carl Rogers:

1. "My experience has been that I cannot teach
another person how to teach."

2. "It seems to me that anything that can be
taught to another is relatively incon-
sequential, and has little or no signifi-
cant influence on behavior."

3. "I realize increasingly that I am only inter-
ested in learnings which significantly
influence behavior."

4. "I have come to feel that the only learning
which significantly influences behavior is
self-discovered, self-appropriated learning."

5. "Such self-discoverd learning, truth that has
been personally appropriated and assimilated
in experience, cannot be directly communicated
to another."

97

in the form of program options can be provided that will
help develop and strengthen a person's feelings. Under-
standing feelings and developing better behavioral tools
to deal with people are definitely, if not positively,
related to how well students learn cognitive material such
as algebra or history and use it to cope with their environ-
mental relations and social living.105 The more accepting
a person is Of himself and others, the more highly motivated
he becomes to learn, the more open to risk exploring
experiences, the more aware Of learning opportunities,
and the more able to evaluate and criticize what he is
learning and has learned.106
We cannot learn to feel if we are told what to

feel or how we are feeling, or if our feelings are denied.
When this happens we close up our feelings, hiding them,
and soon we come to distrust our feelings and ourselves.
To help a person learn it is necessary to try and find
out why they want to learn, what they want to learn, and
how they want to learn. People will share this with us
if they like us, if they trust us, and if we care about
them because we like them. Few and far between are the
schools that provide learning options that people desire
in an atmosphere of openness, trust, and caring. James
Herndon illustrates this when he says,

A teacher comes into the teachers' room and says

happily, 'I had the greatest lesson today!‘ and

goes on to tell the other envious teachers what

it was that they hadn't thought of themselves and
says, 'the kids were all so excited1'107

98

Herndon goes on to say that the teacher has forgotten that
the kids hhyg to be there; that perhaps the grand lesson
was merely more tolerable than the usual lesson; that
perhaps the kids would have rejected both lessons if they
could. And, most importantly, Herndon says,

As long as you threaten people in school, you can't “x
tell whether or not they really want to do what you is
are proposing that they do; you can't tell if they ‘
are inspired by it; you can't tell if they learn
anything from it; you can't tell if they would keep
on doing it if you weren't threatening them. You
cannot tell. You cannot tell if the kids want to
come to your class or not. That is why the school
cannot learn anything about its students. Why famous
psychologists can successfully threaten pigeons into
batting ping-pong balls with their wings, but can
never learn anything about pigeons.

 

And that is why the schools are impeding learning experiences
rather than facilitating them. Especially impeded are
experiences that help people to Eggl.

It is impossible to deal with issues on a purely
intellectual level even when concerted efforts are made
to do so. Emotions, that is, our feelings, are always
with us and, if recognized and developed, greatly enhance
both living and learning. Knowing what we are feeling
and learning to enjoy those feelings makes for fuller,
more effective living on both the personal and interper-
sonal level. The schools have traditionally dealt with
cognitive or mental learning processes to the exclusion
of the affective or emotional learning processes. Emotions
are present and can be recognized but they are usually

ignored or stifled. There is evidence to suggest that

99

formal education has failed to serve the function of

unfettering human potentiality.109 For example, creativity

among students, far from being encouraged is often dis-
couraged or repressed. Gerald Egan, who has already been
mentioned, says that the general failure of education as
a vehicle of putting people in growthful contact with one
another is seen as one of the main reasons for the spread
of the encounter group phenomenon in contemporary society;

and Egan says:

Full, interpersonal living depends upon a person's
ability to involve himself effectively, even creatively,
with others, but this does not just happen, nor is it
the result of a 'gift' of creativity in human rela-
tionships. People have to learn how to interact
with others. But until recently, children (and
adults) have not been taught how to involve them-
selves with others. Children spend an enormous
amount Of their school time doing things next to,
instead Of with each other. Our society teems

with this kind of 'parallel' learning just as it
does with 'parellel' living. Therefore, it is
essential, from the earliest years of education, to
find ways of putting people into more effective
human contact with one another. . .human relations
learning is perhaps the most important kind of
learning, but it is the most neglected. Perhaps

it is presumed that such learning occurs naturally
outside the classroom situation. Most often it
does not; therefore, the majority of persons reach
adulthood without bein self-actualized on an
interpersonal level.11

Carl Rogers says that it is becoming increasingly
common in our culture for each of us to believe that every
other person must feel and think and believe the same as

I do. Children or parents or spouses are seldom permitted

100

to feel differently than we do about particular
issues or problems. On a national scale we cannot
permit another nation to think or feel differently
than we do. Yet the right of each individual to
utilize his eXperience in his own way and to discover
his own meanings in it is one of the most priceless
potentialities of live.

Options for personal and interpersonal growth on
the affective level need to be made available to students
in our schools. And these program Options can be growth-
ful and helpful only if such learning is facilitated by
personnel who have gone and are going through this kind

of growth themselves, or are at least trying to do so.

Options for Personal Growth

There are many ways to humanize education and to
make our educational system an exciting voyage of dis-
covery for warm, living persons; to bring feelings into
the learning process and learning into the process of
being a feeling human being. We don't start with the
kids, we start with pg: the adult men and women known
as teachers, principals, and superintendents. WE have
further to go and harder work than our students have in
learning to feel, to self-disclose and trust, to show
and share our warmth and our strengths along with our
anger and our weaknesses; in learning not to be the
authority and rule-maker. We can only give away what
we have. If we have warmth and love, caring and concern,
we can give it by sharing it. There are people who do

this, but there are not many and there are not enough.

101

Let's provide program Options that can help us all,
"students" and "teachers," to explore our senses and share
our feelings; options that can provide human growth
experiences. What would such a program be like? First
Of all, anyone could "take" any "course"; there would be
few restrictions, and each person would select what they
would like to d0.. Perhaps there could be daily sign-ups
where the "teachers" offer to share a particular interest
with all others who might care to participate on that day.
Or, perhaps anyone who desires to be the "learning
facilitator" may do so, Offering whatever it is that he
desires.

There are schools around the country that are
doing this or something similar.112 The Lulu Walker
Elementary School in Tuscon, Arizona allows its students
to sign for the program of the following day on the
afternoon of the day before; a computer does the program-
ming during the night. Many schools have "Open" class-
rooms Or "flexible programs." The Cleveland Heights High
School has a flexible program with an Open classroom
where a community of teachers and students attempt to find
the best way for each individual to learn. Students seek
their own level and rate of learning, choosing and develop-
ing courses that most interest them. Now in its third
year, the East Hill Elementary School is an Open enrollment,

'free school in the Ithaca, New York Public School system.

102

Student-centered, unstructured methods are used at this

school. The supplies and staff are very limited, with

 

older children assisting the younger ones. The planned
organization of this school by subject areas encourages

the students to work with each other and to work

through their own interests and abilities. Paraprofessional
and volunteer help are welcome. The "School Within a
School" (S.W.S.) at the Kinewa Middle School in Okemos,

Michigan is a voluntary alternative learning program

 

offered to everyone who would like to experience this
kind of environment. Each student in S.W.S. functions
in an "open" environment and the program relies heavily
on each individual's curiosity, needs, abilities, and
uniqueness as a person. The students plan their own learning
program. They may socialize, play chess, watch TV, read,
study, work on projects, and receive individual instruction
from a learning facilitator, or attend seminars given
daily on various content areas. The facilitators and
resource people give the students stimulus, encouragement,
praise, and criticism. Students help each other. NO dress
code is imposed, and the students may eat snacks and chew
gum. Experience with this program indicates it promotes
self control and personal responsibility.

The above examples are just a few Of the many
innovations being tried today; innovations that help
provide learning experiences for individual needs designed

with the people involved.

103

Program selections included under our options for
personal growth might begin with a "class" or "course"
on "love." The "course content" can include the sharing
and eXperiencing of tenderness, compassion, caring, and
loving, as well as reading about these concepts. Source
materials might include books like Erich Fromm's, The Art
of Loving.113 The lastest edition of Paul Samuelson's
economic textbook has a chapter called "Love and
Economics." It's a beautiful chapter. In his introduction,
Samuelson says, "I know my colleagues at Harvard are
going to say I have lost my mind, but for their benefit
I want them to know that I have just found it."114
Who is the emotionally sick person? The person
who adjusts to a sick society or the person who refuses
to do so? This course on "Love" might want to look at
the London psychiatrist, R. D. Laing and his book, Th2
Politics Of Experience: Laing has done exciting work
with emotionally disturbed children. He treats them as
if they are well and creative and they are well and
creative. Laing says, as part of his philosophy, "We think
much less than what we know! We know much less than
what we love; we love much less than what there is; and
to this promise extent, we are much less than what we are."115
This sounds similar to what a recent contributor the ghg
New Schools Exchange Newsletter wrote: "But if we need

all the love we can get, and hunger, too, always for growth

in our lives, then we had better make our learning a part

104

of our loving."116 A course on "Love" could deal with

all of this, plus so much more.

Another course option might be "The Uniqueness of
the Individual" where all that is unique in each person
is develOped and shared. Imagine what it would be like
if people said to each other, "It's good that you're
unique; it's good that you're different. Show me your
differences so that maybe I can learn from them."

How about a "Festival of Life" where any person
can share anything that is meaningful to him and all
who care to share: paintings, pottery, films, candle-
making, photography, meditation. Of course the partici-
pants in such a festival choose their own regulations
or structure and there are no bells ringing, no time
schedules, no hall monitors monitoring.

Other options might include psychodrama, body
and sensory relaxation, T-Groups, micro-labs, humanistic
games, and Gestalt Awareness Techniques. These types
of options provide for human growth eXperiences emphasiz-
ing the affective; our emotions, our senses, our feelings.
Brief descriptions of each of these activities or
experiences follow.117

The major goal in psychodrama is the ability to

 

become spontaneous; that is, to make new perceptions of
old situations or at least reorganize old cognitive

patterns so that new and more adequate responses are

105

facilitated. Dr. J. L. Moreno originated psychodrama
over 50 years ago by allowing children to act out their
problems spontaneously. And psychodrama is an "acting
out." Variations of psychodrama have application to
the humanistic classroom.

Body relaxation emphasizes body movement for

 

the achievement of the individuals potential for more
heightened feeling, pleasure, and greater self-
awareness. A person must be in contact with his body

if he is to be in contact with his feelings and emotions.
Various approaches are used by different persons. Some
of the most familiar names associated with a specific
approach are Dr. Ida Roff, Bernie Gunther, and Alexander
Lowen.

T—Grouping is undoubtedly the most significant

 

and by far the most frequent organizationally used

method for achieving the goals of decreased anxiety, more
satisfactory interpersonal competence, and self insight.
T—Grouping offers one of the simpliest and easiest methods

of learning about personal growth. A more complete discussion
of T—Grouping in the schools follows shortly.

The micro-lab is a smorgasbord of laboratory

 

eXperiences including verbal and non-verbal activities.
Micro—lab activities can be used with very large numbers
of people in contrast, say, to T-Groups or psychodrama!
Feelings, honesty, and the "here-and-now" are emphasized

in Micro-lab activities.

 

106

There are many humanistic games and techniques
that can be used and are being used in school today.
Gerald Weinstein and his associates at the University of
Massachusetts Center for Humanistic Education have developed
and tested many effective techniques in the classroom.

These exercises allow children to expand their openness

 

533..
into new areas, to fantacize Openly, to be creative and E3
have fun doing it all. James Sacco and Michael Burton, :
of the same Center, also have developed humanistic activi- 1
ties such as theatre, listening, writing, song, and E;

intellectual games.

Gestalt Awareness Techniques stress the integrated,

 

whole man rather than a split or half-man. They are use-
ful in helping all persons achieve greater self-awareness
and sensitivity to their own feelings. Included are

such activities as "here-and-now" statements of feelings,
noticing resistances to such statements, listening and
concentrating, and sharpening body senses such as breathing,
relaxation, stretching, etc. Gestalt Awareness Techniques
have considerable application to the classroom situation
and can also be useful in assisting teachers, or learning
facilitators, to achieve greater self-awareness and

sensitivity to their students. In Gestalt Therapy_Verbatim,
118

 

Frederick Perls discusses the techniques of Gestalt.
Many of the options described above are called by
different names, or the techniques vary slightly, depending

on the person doing the exercises. There are also techniques

107

such as transactional analysis that have applications for
people in schools. Persons interested in any of these
Options can easily find the techniques and styles best
suited to their needs. Helping to develop a humanistic
approach to education is not as easy as obtaining a new
curriculum guide and trying it out in the classroom but h
it is more exciting and infinitely more rewarding. The 7fim
Center for Humanistic Education, just mentioned, has
developed a block of instruction which uses the student

himself as the content for the course. Dr. Weinstein

 

and his associates at the Center have develOped techniques
and exercises that are particularly effective in humanistic
education. The point these men and women especially wish
to make is that humanistic education techniques and
games can be integrated into every kind of classroom.

Masha Rudman's Learning Theatre, also at the
Center, helps enable all persons, teachers and students,
to live and feel their learning. Dr. Rudman begins a
description of her project by saying:

Creative, concerned, and perceptive teachers have
always recognized that different children learn
from and respond to the same stimulus in very
different ways. These teachers have attempted

to vary their teaching styles in order to reach

as many students as possible. They have encouraged
their students to report on their learning in as
interesting and effective a manner as possible.
They have always recognized that the student learns
more from what he generates and discovers than from
what the teacher hands out and pours in.

108

Dr. Rudman concludes with:

If we are to accept the responsibility of
institutionalizing growth in today's society

we must be courageous enough to discard all of

our preconceptions about the current institution

of education, especially those that dictate the
notions of 'classes,' 'teachers,‘ and the stereo-
typed in—take—regurgitation process called learning.
Education today can be a box: sometimes its walls
are 'flexible,‘ interchangeable, movable, but the
confines of the box remain. Into this box we insert
curricula, administrators, teachers, and students.
Each of these components is separate, integral,

to itself, and unequal in value or position com-
pared to the others. If the box is shaken, the
components might get jarred and bounce against each
other, but the box is generally positioned so that
it is immovable. Sometimes other components are
added, but always in the context of the box. The
Learning Theater does not merely open the box, but
throws it away.119

Learning and T-Groups

 

A great deal has been written about the application
of T—Group learning for school change. T—Groups have been
used as a laboratory method of learning for seminar
teachers, as a vehicle for teacher, administrator and
student change, for conflict resolution, for improved
decision making, and for other concerns such as personal
growth, openness, trust, acceptance, and feedback. A
fairly large amount of research has been done on T-Groups
and their processes using various dimensions and indicators.

Much of this research appears in the Journal of Applied

 

Behavioral Science. Psychology Today also carries this

 

 

research and related articles.

_.mswwg
“Eat—:3 "

.f .-1r

‘ .17 (1“.3‘7' - ‘HL;T I!

will u}..- w

 

109

T-Groups, Sensitivity Groups, or Encounter Groups
are laboratory experiences in learning in which group
members study their own behavior and interactions. T-Group
members are participating in the formation of a small
society by instantly feeding back what they learn about
intra-personal and inter-personal relationships in forming
that society. Dr. John Suehr describes T-Groups as unique
among human development programs in that immediate behavior
is the subject for analysis and forms the basis for learning;
"Briefly, it is a relatively unstructured group in which
the data for learning are not outside the individual
learners and their experience, but are their actions and
reactions as they work to create a learning group."120
Group members become sensitive to all members needs and
point this out honestly, not with the idea of tearing
down but by supporting others to help them move and become
more self-actualizing. Certain core interactions that
take place are self-disclosure, expression of feeling,
support, confrontation, self-examination, and inevitable
various tendencies to flee the work of the group.

A T—Group, just as a class or any group of persons,
will be of most value to those participating if they are
allowed to set and move toward their own goals. T-Groups
often perform the function of learning how to learn and
learning how to become more effective in giving and
receiving help. Because of more open and accurate communica-

tions, T-Groups can also perform the function of greater

 

110

self-understanding, greater sensitivity to other "selves,"
greater understanding of the roles of group members, and
greater conflict resolution.

When people get together out of a sincere desire
to experience self-growth and a willingness to share this
experience with others; and when support, trust, and
caring are obvious by their presense; than a T-Group can
provide Opportunities that are not to be found elsewhere.
The opportunity to share human emotion, encounter other
persons in a growthful way; in short, to experience fuller
interpersonal living, is seldom provided to persons in
this society. The schools can provide these experiences
by Offering T-Groups for those who may be interested.

Research shows that T-Group participants Often
have a deep conviction that the experience was important
and significant in their lives; that changes may occur
in the way they view themselves and others, and that
personal or occupational crises requiring major decisions
get resolved. Participants often say they are more open
and honest, more intimate and accepting of others, more
self aware and aware of others, more spontaneous, confident

121 Five general areas of potential change

and talkative.
thought to be relevant to the encounter group experience
include: (1) the persons values; (2) the persons attitude
toward encounter type experiences; (3) the person's

behavior as reflected in the way he c0pes with his problems

111

and relationships; (4) aspects of the person's self-view
such as self-esteem and self-image; (5) the person's View
of others. Whether a participant identifies with the
group, whether he likes it, his role in the group, and
whether the group likes him are all relevent to the

outcome according to this research. It was also found

that group members who like their groups, who participated
actively, and who are valued by other group members learned
more; marginal or deviant members tended to have negative
outcomes.

Leadership behavior was examined in this same
research. The most effective leaders, from the participants
view, were high in caring (friendship, love, support,
praise, affection); moderate in giving meaning to
experiences members undergo; and moderate in the amount of
stimulation and their executive behavior.

T-Groups cannot, and should not, be expected to
produce magical, lasting change. They can "provide
opportunities for human beings to explore and express
themselves." Educators need to be aware of the implications
of T—Group research and of the possibilities for T-Groups

in the schools.

People and Values

 

Each person takes his experiences and discovers
his own meanings; similar experiences may lead to different

meanings to different people. These meanings may be held

112

as values or part of a person's belief system. Here,
values could be defined as those elements that show how

a person has decided to use his life. Current practices
with values in the classroom generally involves either a
moralistic telling or an exposure Of children to the
"right" atmosphere. Not enough use is made Of techniques
which directly and intensely involve students and show
respect for their values, whatever they may be. Students

and teachers can enhance their own personal growth by

 

identifying and clarifying their values. They can also
begin to recognize what affect, if any, their values

and beliefs have on their behaviors. Carl Rogers believes
that the individual, with values mostly introjected, held
as fixed concepts rarely examined or tested, is the
picture of most of us. Rogers says:

By taking over the conceptions of others as our own,
we lose contact with the potential wisdom of our
functioning, and lose confidence in ourselves. Since
these value constructs are Often sharply at variance
with what is going on in our own experiencing, we
have in a very basic way divorced ourselves from our-
selves,and this accounts for much of modern strain
and insecurity. This fundamental discrepancy between
the individual's concept and what he actually experi-
ences, between the intellectual structure Of his
values and the valuing process going on unrecognized
within-—this is a part of the fundamental estrangement
of modern man from himself.122

When people can share their views and feelings
about values and beliefs, communication becomes more open
and honest, thus more effective. Each person can learn

to respect anothers values and even admire that person,

113

while, at the same time rejecting for themselves particular
values that are important to that other person. Lessons
have been developed that can help with the development

of values, the acceptance of differing values, and values
clarification techniques. Dr. Sidney Simon, formerly of
Temple University but presently with the University of
Massachusetts School of Education, has developed classroom
exercises and experiences which lead toward the development
of values. Simon will ask his students to list the five
most important things in which they believe. Eventually he
will have them test these values against a set of criteria
which he believes are a fair measure for values. Simon has
several exercises which force students to think about
priorities. These and many other values activities and

exercises are discussed in his book, Values and Teaching.123

 

A learning facilitator will demonstrate personal
and professional concern in planning value analysis and
value education as legitimate inclusions in existing class-
room eXperiences. Values help to make individuals and
groups more human. Values are not facts, concepts, or
skills. Personal values are primary factors in explaining
human behavior such as decision making and judgment. An
integrative set of personal values is as important for
living as any fact or skill. Students need the opportunity
to live by their value system, not that of the teachers,

the administrators, nor the school boards. And, they need

114

opportunities to share and clarify their values with all
of the people with whom they interact, not with just their
peers. They need to feel accepted while they are sharing
their values. Such activity can lead to value changes
which is part of personal growth, as well as a resolution
of personal problems and anxiety resulting from value

inconsistencies.

Conclusion

 

Before bringing to a close this discussion on the
school program, a few thoughts seem appropriate. If one
way seems right for some of us in this complicated world,
that doesn't make other ways wrong. We each have our own
right and wrong ways. We each have to deal with our own
realities by using our own prescriptions, hoping that they
are healthy and correct. Let's share our experiences and
learn from this sharing but let's not prescribe for any—
one but ourselves. People will create their own programs,
their own forms of learning. The number of faculty and
the materials available really does not matter. What do I
need in order to learn simple math? I need someone who
knows math, has a little patience, a place to meet, and
time. How about 2 o'clock at my house? Your apartment?
The library? PeOple will create their own forms of
learning such as classes, schools, one to one, two learners
without a teacher, small groups, if they can get to the tools

of learning easily enough. When people are allowed to

115

take responsibility for their learning needs they are also
learning to take responsibility for their own life. The
more Options available, the more people can meet their needs.
The more we structure learning, the fewer the needs that

are met. Schedules, rules, bells, grades and grading,
requirements, certification and credentials. . .all limit
the ability of the person to meet his own learning needs

in his own way. Any person can best meet their emotional

and intellectual needs when they can choose from a variety

 

of program Options, where their choices reflect their
gwn_values.

The discussion in this section has looked at learning
activities outside of those found in traditional school
programs. Some learning options, both intellectual and
emotional, have been presented. These options attempt to
meet people's needs and allow for self growth that is
relevant, interesting, and exciting to the persons involved.
Trust, communication, and caring are important in order for
people to relate to each other effectively. Suggestions

have been offered for learning and growth in these important

areas 0

 

FOOTNOTES

116

FOOTNOTES

lAbraham, H. Maslow, The Psychology of Science
(New York: Harper and Row, 1966), p. xiii. Along with
Maslow's thoughts about science, the views of others that
have interest and relevance to education include: Thomas
Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1962); J. Bronowski, Science
and Human Values (New York: Harper and Row, 1956).

 

Roger Williams, You Are Extraordinary (New York:
Random House, 1967).

3Philip Jackson, "The Consequences of Schooling,"
in The Unstudied Curriculum: It's Impact on Children,
Norman V. Overly, ed. (Association for Supervision and
Curriculum DevelOpment, N.E.A., 1970).

 

4George Leonard, Education and Ecstasy (New York:
Dell Publishing Company, Inc., 1968).

 

5Association for Supervision and Curriculum Develop-
ment, Perceiving, Behaving, Becoming (Washington: 1962
Yearbook),p. 201.

6R. Rosenwein, W. J. McKeachie, B. E. Ringwald,
and R. D. Mann, "Conflict and Style in the College Class-
room," in Psychology Today (February 1971), pp. 45-47, 76-79.

 

7Dwight Allen, "The Seven Deadly Myths of Education,"
Psychology Today (March 1971), p. 70.

 

8Maslow, gp. cit., pp. 45-46.
9Harold C. Lyon, Learning to Feel--Feeling to Learn
(Columbus: Charles E. Merfill Publishing Company, 1971),
p. 93.
10Albert Southern, "Attitudes Found Among Students
in University Courses on Adult Eduation When Given Increased
Opportunities for Self-Direction," (unpublished Ph-D-
dissertation, Ohio State University, 1971).
11Okemos School Board, "Evaluation of the School
Within a School," (Okemos, Michigan: September 1971): P. 30.

117

118

12John W. Sackett, "A Comparison of Self-Concept

and Achievement of Sixth Grade Students in an Open Space
School" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Iowa, 1971).

13The term "structured situation" or "structured
environment" means that a person is controlled or regulated
by activities, rules, and regulations imposed by other
persons, institutions, or organizations. An "open" or
"free" environment means that the person is controlled
from within. That is, he is free to know his own feelings
and to act on them.

14John Holt, How Children Learn (New York: Dell
Publishing Company, 1967), pp. 9-10.

15

 

Ibid., p. 54.

16Dale Alam and Frank Blom, "E1ectives,You Say!"
The Michigan Journal of Secondary Education, 13, no. 3
(Spring 1972), pp. 11-13.

17This subsection contains a fairly academic dis-
cussion of needs, drives, and the general area of
personality, providing a theoretical base for much that
is contained in this thesis. Much.of the material can be
found in Clifford Margan and Richard A. King, Introduction
to Psychology (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966), pp. 490-495.

18R. D. Laing, The Politics of Experience (New York:
Ballentine Books, 1967), pp. 28?29.

19Everett Shostrom, Personal Orientation Inventory;
P.O.I. Manual (San Diego: Educational and Industrial
Testing Service, 1960), pp. 18-19.

20William Schutz, Joy (New York: Grove Press,
Inc., 1967), p. 15.

21Abraham H. Maslow, Toward a Psychology of
Being (Princeton: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1968),
p. 49.

 

 

 

 

 

 

22Carl Rogers, On Becoming a Person (Boston:

Houghton Mifflin Company, 1961); Shostrom, pp. 333.;
Maslow, 9p. git; Shostrom dichotomizes the time competent
person (time competent vs. time incompetent), and has
developed an instrument that allows individuals to measure
themselves on this dimension. The following discussion

of inner-directedness and outer-directedness, and of time
competency, is taken from this source.

 

119

23B. F. Skinner, "Freedom and the Control of Man,“
in Readings in Curriculum, ed. by Glen Hass and Kimball
Wiles (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1965), pp. 183-195.

24Arthur W. Combs, "Seeing is Behaving," in Hass
and Wiles, pp. cit., pp. 195-212; Carl R. Rogers, "Learning
to Be Free," in Hass and Wiles, pp, cit., pp. 203-218.

25George Mayeske, et al., A Study of Our Nation's
Schools, United States Office of Education, 1967.
(Mimeographed.)

26James S. Coleman, Equality of Educational

Opportunity, United States Department ofWHealth, Education, .e

and Welfare (Washington, D.C.: United States Government ' ~
Printing Office, 1966).

F!

27Wilbur Brookover and Edsel L. Erickson, Society,

Schools and Learning (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1969), ‘

pp. 103, 105.

28

 

 

 

‘
.._w ,5)!

:ngm—i'

 

 

 

.7 1|
‘gp, " . I ‘- J _ n
'12! "f...- .-

Combs, pp. cit., p. 199.

29Edgar Freidenberg, Coming of Age in America
(New York: Vintage Books, 1965), p. 1}

30Neil Postman and Charles Weingartner, Teaching
as a Subversive Activity (New York: Dell PubliSing
Company, 1969).

31

 

Freidenberg, pp. cit., p. 13.

32Don Robertson and Marion Steele, The Halls of
Yearning (Lakewood: Andrews Printing Company, Inc., 1996),
pp. 5-60

33

 

Laing, pp. cit., p. 26.

34James W. Trent and Judith L. Craise, "Commitment
and Conformity in the American College," Journal of Social
Issues (July 1967), 47. '

35Fred L. Strodtbeck, "Family Interaction, Values,
and Achievement," in Talent and Society, ed. by David C.
McClelland, et al. (New York? D. Van Nostrand, 1958),
pp. 135-191.

36Talcott Parsons, "General Theory in Sociology,"
in Sociology Todpy, ed. by R. K. Merton, et al. (New York:
Basic Books, 1958), pp. 3-38.

 

 

 

120

7Joseph A. Kahl, "Educational and Occupational
Aspirations of 'Common Man' Boys," Harvard Educational
Review, 23 (Summer 1953), pp. 186-203.

38 . .

Mayeski, pp. Cit.

39Thomas Pettigrew, Racial Isolation in the Public
Schools (United Commission on Civil Rights, 1967).

40Edward McDill and Rigsby Meyers, "Institutional
Effects on The Academic Behavior of High School Youth,"
Sociology of Education, XL (Summer 1967), 181-199; Edward L.
McDill, "High School Quality, Family Background and Student
Achievement} American Journal of Sociology, 1969.

41"Project Talent," Survey by the University of
Pittsburgh, in The American School, ed. by Patricia Sexton
(Englewood Cliffs: PrentiEe-Hall, Inc., 1967).

 

 

 

 

 

42Sexton, pp. cit., p. 59.

43McDill, Meyers and Rigsby, pp. cit.

44Kenneth Clark, "The Clash of Cultures in the
Classroom," Integrated Education, 1963.

45Robert J. Havighurst, "Education and Social
Mobility in Four Societies," in Education, Economy and
Society, ed. by Halsey, Floud and Anderson (Glencoe:
The Free Press, 1961); Robert Perrucci, "Education,
Stratification, and Mobility," in On Education--Sociologica1

 

 

 

Perspectives, ed. by Hansen and Gerstl (New York: JOhn
Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1967)pp. 105-155; Howard S. Becker,
"Schools and Systems of Stratification," in Halsey, Floud
and Anderson, pp. pit., pp. 93-104; T. H. Marshall, "Social
Selection in the Welfare State," in Halsey, Floud and
Anderson, pp. pit., pp. 148-163.

 

6Martin Fishbein, Attitude Theory and Measurement
(New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1967); Charles
Kiesler, Barry Collins and Norman Miller, Attitude Change
(New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1969).

 

 

47Mayeske, pp. cit.
48Rosenvein, et al., pp, cit., pp. 45-47, 76-79.
49

Southern and Albert, pp. cit.

121

50"The School is An Alternative," Joint Issue
(January 8, 1973), p. 20; (Post Office Box 24, East Lansing,
Mich. 48823): The School opened in Easting Lansing in
September, 1972, under the direction of Cliff Bourbas,
a former public school teacher.

51

 

 

McDill, et al., pp, cit.

52Fritz Redl and William Wattenburg, Mental Hygiene
in Teaching (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1959),
p. 383.

 

 

53Alam, et al., pp, cit., p. 12.

54Marie Kelley and Edgar Kelley, "Feedback:
Dimensions of T-Groups for School," in SensitivityfiTraining:
An Inquiry Appgoach to School Development, ed. by John
Suehr (working titleT’Chapter 5. (To be published.)

 

 

5Rogers, On Becoming a Person, pp, cit.

56M. Freedman, "The Mens Colleges and the Image of
Man," Journal of the American Association of University
Women, 57 (1964) 107-110

 

 

57Postman and Weingartner, pp. cit., pp. 149-150.

58Rudolph Drukurs, M.D., Psychology in the Classroom
(New York: Harper and Row, 1957), p. 2351

59Daniel Hogan, "A Feeling of Trust," in Suehr,
pp, cit., Chapter 6.

6OChesley F. Hargrave, "For Student Change," in
Suehr, pp. cit., Chapter 9.

61Mark W. Hardwick, "Acceptance,"
Chapter 7.

62John Suehr, "Open High Schools," editorial in
Secondary Education, Vol. 14, No. 1 (Fall 1972), pp. 3-5.

63Ronald Barth, "The Way it Is, The Way it Could
Be," unpublished paper on open education. (Dr. Barth has
served as assistant to the Deans of Princeton University
and the Harvard Graduate School of Education.)

64Postman and Weingartner, pp. cit., pp. 33, 144.

65Ibid., p. 137-140.

 

in Suehr, pp, cit.,

 

122

66 .
Hargrave, op. Cit.

67Peter Marris and Martin Rein, Dilemmas of Social
Reform (New York: Atherton Press, 1967); Robert L. Crain,
The Politics of School Desegregation (Chicago: Aldine
Publishing Company, 1968); Marilyn Gittell and Alan G.
Hevesi, The Politics of Urban Education (New York: Praeger,
1969); Patricia Sexton, The AmeriCan School: A Sociological
Analysis (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1963);
Arnold Rose, "School Desegregration: A Sociologist's View,"
in Affirmative School Integration: Efforts to Overcome
De Facto Segregation in Urban SchoOls,’éd.’by ROscoe Hill
and MalcOlm Feeleyi(Bever1y Hills: Sage Publications,
1968); Michael Usdan, "School Desegregation: An Educator's
View," in Hill and Feeley, pp, pit,, pp. 125-140; see also
Gittell and Hevesi, pp, plp., p. 8 and p. 315.

68Robert K. Merton, "Bureaucratic Structure and
Personality," in Reader in Bureaucracy, ed. by Merton, Gray,
Mockey and Selvin (Glencoe: The Free Press, 1952), p. 365.

69Michael Crozier, The Bureaucratic Phenomenon
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7OMerton, pp. cit.

71Yehezkel Dror, "Muddling Through--'Science' or
Inertia?" in Readings on Modern Organziations, ed. by Amitai
Etzioni (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1969),
p. 166.

 

72Robert L. Crain, The Politics of School Desegre-
cation (Chicago: Aldine Publishing CO., 1968), p. 129.

73

 

Gittel and Hevesi, pp. cit., p. 5.

74James D. Thompson, Organizations in Action (New
York: McGraw-Hill Company, 1967), p. 156.

75Peter Marris and Martin Rein, Dilemmas of Social
Reform (New York: Atherton Press, 1967), p. 69.

76Garth L. Mangum, "Practical Consequences of
Guaranteeing Employment," Paper prepared for the United
States Chamber of Commerce, 1969.

77

 

 

Thompson, pp. cit., pp. 156, 120.

8Sexton, pp, cit., p. 78.

79Crozier, pp. cit., p. 194.

 

123

80Marris and Rein, pp. cit.

81Robert K. Dentler, "Strategies for Innovation
in Education: A View from the Top," Paper presented at
the second annual workshop of the Public Policy Institute,
Oct. 15-16, 1964.

82Marris and Rein, pp, cit., p. 148.

83Ibid., p. 67.

84Arnold M. Rose, "School Desegregation: A
Sociologist's View," in Hill and Feeley, _p, pip., pp. 106-118;
USdan, pp. 335., pp. 125-140.

85Charles Schutz, "Peanuts," in The New Schools
Exchange Newsletter, November 30, 1972, Issue No. 87
(St. Paris, Ohio: P.O. Box 820, 43072), p. 15.

86Bob Barr, "Options in Public Education," in the
New Schools Exchange Newsletter, March 15, 1973, NO. 94
(St. Paris, Ohio: P.O. Box 820, 43072),pp. 1-2.

87Paul Smoker, "Anarchism, Peace and Control:
Some Ideas for Future Experiment," in Journal of Peace
Research Abstracts, Northwestern University,71971,
no. 70786, p. 21. (Mimeographed.)

88Snell Putney and Gail Putney, The Adjusted
American: Normal Neuroses in the Individual and Society
(New York: Harper andiRow, 1966), p. 195.

89Gerald Egan, Encounter: GrouppProcesses for
Interpersonal Growth (Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing
Company, Inc., 1970), preface.

90New York Times, August 1, 1967; Reproduced in
Postman and Weingartner, pp. cit., pp. 133-136.

91Kelley and Kelley, pp. cit.

92V. Vroom, Work and Motivation (New York: Wiley,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1964).

93J. B. Miner, The Management of Ineffective
Performance (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963).

94Ralph White and Ronald Lippitt, "Leader Behavior
and Member Reaction in Three 'Social Climates'," condensed
from a fuller discussion contained in Chapters 3 and 5
of a book by the same authors, Autocracy and Democracy
(New York: Harper and Row, 1960).

 

 

 

124

95

Samuel Tenenbaum, Ph.D., "Carl Rogers and Non-
Directive Teaching," (unpublished paper.) (Dr. Tanenbaum
participated in this course.)
96

Richard Bach, Jonathan Livingston Sepgull (New
York: The Hearst Corporation, 1970), p. 60.

97Fred Moore, "School Resistance,"

Net, no. 4 (Winter-Spring, 1972), p. 4.
98

 

in Outside the

 

Schutz, pp. cit.
99Richard Alpert, Alias Baba Ram Dass, Be Now Here
(New York: Crown Publishing, 1972).

looMiriam, "Relevance: Theirs and Ours," editorial
in No More Teachers Dirty Looks, Vol. II, No. 3 (San
Francisco: BARTOC, Box 40143, 94940), p. 5.

101Postman and Weingartner, pp, cit., pp. 30, 32, 67.

 

102Salli Rasberry, "A Day I'd Like to Share," in
Outside the Net, pp. cit., p. 3.

103Carl Rogers, as quoted in Postman and Weingartner,
pp, cit., p. 145.

104Leo F. Buscaglia, "Love as a Behavior Modifier,"

Transcription of a speech, date and place unknown.

105Volney Paw, "A Psychotherapeutic Method of
Teaching Psychology," American Psychology, 4:104-09, 1949.

106

 

 

Hardwick, pp, cit.

107James Herndon, How to Survive in Your Native
Land (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1971).

108

 

Ibid.

109P. E. Jacob, Chapging Values in College (New York:
Harper, 1957); M. B. Miles, "Educational Innovation: The
Nature of the Problem," in Innovation in Education, ed. by
M. B. Miles (New York: Columbia University Teachers
College, 1964), pp. 1-46; Carl R. Rogers, On Becoming_a
Person (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1961), Chapter 13;
J. B. Guilford, "Factors that Aid and Hinder Creativity,"
in Teachers College Record, 63(1962)380-392; J. L. Holland,
"Creative and Academic Performance Among Talented Adoles-
cents," Journal of Educational Psychology, 52 (l961)136-147.

 

 

 

 

 

.7 #1:“),

 

125

110Egan, pp, cit., p. 13.
111Rogers, pp, cit., p. 21.
112

Sources for the examples that follow: Lulu
Walker Elementary School, Ampitheatre School District,
Tucson, Arizona; Cleveland Heights Board of Education,
"Cleveland Heights High School--Flexible Program, Some
Questions and Answers, 1971-72," Cleveland Heights, Ohio;
Sue Vargo, "East Hill Elementary School," in New Schools
ExchangpNewslettep, Dec. 31, 1972, Issue No. 89, pp, pit.
p. 3; Frank Blom, "Learning Alternatives: A School Within
a School," Kinewa Middle School, Okemos, Michigan.

113Erich Fromm, The Art of Loving_(New York:
Harper and Row, Inc., 1956)}

114Paul Samuelson, Economics (New York: McGraw-
Hill, 1970).

115

 

 

 

Laing, pp, cit., p. 30.

116Ronald Gross, "The Loaf and the Lovers,“ The
New Schools Exchang§_Newsletter, March 15, 1973, Issue No.
94, pp, cit., p. 3.

117Much of the information on each of these options
is taken from Lyon, pp, cit., pp. 104-176.

118Frederick S. Perls, Gestalt Thera y Verbatim
(Lafayette, Calif.: Real People Press, 19 .

119Masha Rudman, "The Learning Theatre," Trend
(Spring, 1969), p. 29.

120John Suehr, "Teachers Join Youth Workers in
Lab Learning," The Michigan Education Association Journal,
Vol. 42 (November 1, 1964), p.714.

121Morton A. Lieberman, Irvin Yalom and Mathew B.
Miles, "Encounter: The Leader Makes the Difference,"
Ps cholo , Toda (Del Mar, Calif: Communications/Research/
Mac ines, Inc., 014), pp. 69-76. Excerpted from
Encounter Gropps: First Facts, by Lieberman, Yalom and
Miles; to be published in March, 1973 by Basic Books, Inc.,
New York.

122Rogers, pp, cit.

 

126

123Louis Raths, Merrill Harmin and Sidney Simon:

Values and Teachipg_(Columbus: Charles E. Merrill, 1966).
Other helpful material that deals with values includes
Simon, Howe and KirsChenbaum, Values Clarification: A
Handbook of Practical Strategies (New York: Hart Publishing
Company, 1972); Gail Rogers, Freedom to Learn (Columbus:
Charles E. Merrill, 1970); Terry Borton, Reach, Touch and
Teach (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971); Steve Daniels, How

2 Gerbils. . .(Philadelphia: Westminister Press, 197177

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

127

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Alpert, Richard Alias Baba Ram Dass. Be Here Now. New
York: Crown Publishing, 1972.

 

Bach, Richard. Jonathan Livingston Seagull. New York:
The Hearst Corporation, 1970.

 

Borton, Terry. Reach, Touch and Teach. New York: McGraw-
Hill, 1971.

 

Bronowski, J. Science and Human Values. New York: Harper
and Row, 1956.

Brookover, Wilbur and Erickson, Edsel L. Society, Schools
and Learniqg. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1969.

 

Crain, Robert. The Politics of School Desegregation.
Chicago: Aldine Publising CO., 1968.

 

Crozier, Michael. The Bureaucratic Phenomenon. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1969.

 

Danials, Steve. How 2 Gerbils. . . Philadelphia:
Westminister Press, 1971.

 

Drukurs, Rudolph. Psychology In the Classroom. New York:
Harper and Row, 1957.

Egan, Gerald. Encounter: Group Processes for Interpersonal
Growth. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company,
1970.

Fishbein, Martin. Attitude Theory and Measurement. New
York: John Wiley and Sons, 1967.

Freidenberg, Edgar. Coming of Age in America. New York:
Vintage Books, 1965,

 

Fromm, Erich. The Art of Loving. New York: Harper and
Row, 1956.

 

Gittell, Marilyn and Hevesi, Alan G. The Politics of
Urban Education. New York: Praeger, 1969.

 

128

 

129

Herndon, James. How To Survive in Your Native Land. New
York: Simon and Schuster, 1971.

 

Hill, Roscoe and Feeley, Malcolm. Affirmative School
Integration: Efforts to Overcome De Facto Segregation

in Urban Schools. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications,
1968.

 

Holt, John. How Children Learn. New York: Dell Publishing
Company, 1967.

 

Jacob, P. E. Changing Values in College. New York:
Harper and Row,7l957.

 

Kiesler, Charles; Collins, Barry; and Miller, Norman.
Attitude Change. New York: John Wiley, 1969.

 

Kuhn, Thomas. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962.

 

Laing, R. D. The Politics of Experience. New York: Ballentine
Books, 1967.

 

Leonard, George. Education and Ecstasy, New York: Dell
Publishing Company, 1968.

 

Lieberman, Morton A.; Yalom, Irvin and Miles, Mathew B.
Encounter Groups: First Facts. New York: Basic
Books, 1973.

 

Lyon, Harold C. Learning to Fee1--Fee1ing to Learn.
Columbus: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company,
1971.

 

Margen, Clifford and King, Ricahrd A. Introduction to
Psychology, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966.

 

 

Marris, Peter and Rein, Martin. Dilemmas of Social
Reform. New York: Atherton Press, 1967.

 

Maslow, Abraham H. The Psychology of Science. New York:
Harper and Row, 1966.

 

. Toward A Psychology of Beipg. Princeton: D.
Van Nostrand Company, 1968.

 

Miles, M. B. Innovation in Education. New York: Columbia
University Teachers College, 1964.

 

Miner, J. B. The Management of Ineffective Performance.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963.

 

130

Perls, Frederick S. Gestalt Therapy Verbatim. Lafayette,
Calif.: Real People Press, 1969.

 

Postman, Neil and Weingartner, Charles. Teaching as a
Subversive Activity, New York: Dell Publishing
Company, 1969.

 

 

Putney, Snell and Putney, Gail. The Adjusted American:
Normal Neuroses in the Individual and SOOiety,
New York: Harper and Row, 1966.

 

 

Raths, Louis; Harmin, Merrill and Simon, Sidney. Values
and Teaching. Columbus: Charles E. Merrill,
1966.

 

Redl, Fritz and Wattenburg, William. Mental Hygiene in
Teaching. New York: Harcourt, Brace and
Company, 1959.

 

Robertson, Don and Steele, Marion. The Halls of Yearning.
Lakewood: Andrews Printing Company, 1969.

 

Rogers, Carl. On Becoming a Person. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin Company, 1961.

 

. Freedom to Learn. Columbus: Charles E.
Merrill, 1970.

 

Samuelson, Paul. Economics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970.

 

Schutz, William C. Joy. New York: Grove Press, Inc.,
1967.

Sexton, Patricia. The American School. Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice-Hall, 1967.

 

Simon; Howe and Kirschenbaum. Values Clarification: A
Handbook of Practical Strategies. New York: Hart
Publishing Company, I972.

 

 

Suehr, John, ed. Sensitivity Training; An Inquiry Approach

 

to School Develqpment. To be published.

 

Thompson, James D. Organizations in Action. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1967.

 

Vroom, V. Work and Motivation. New York:' Wiley, 1964.

 

Williams, Roger. You Are Extraordinary. New York: Random
House, 1967.

 

I I) III ll! III Illll. .I-l' lu I l! I l .1 '41:!) .l.]l Ill.

131

White, Ralph and Lippitt, Ronald. Autocraqy and Democracy,
New York: Harper and Row, 1960.

 

Articles and Periodicals

 

Alam, Dale and Blom, Frank. "Electives, You Say!" The
Jourpal of Secondary Education, Vol. 13, no. 3
(Spring 1972), 11-13.

Allen, Dwight. "The Seven Deadly Myths of Education."
Psychology Todpy, (February 1971), 45-47; 76-79.

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Perceiving, Behavipg, Becoming, Yearbook. Washington,
D.C.: 1962.

 

 

Barr, Bob. "Options in Public Education." The New Schools
Exchange Newsletter, Issue No. 87 (November 30,
1972): 15.

Becker, Howard S. "Schools and Systems of Stratification."

Education, Economy and Society, Edited by Halsey,
Floud and Anderson. Glencoe: The Free Press,
1961, 93-104.

Clark, Kenneth. "The Clash of Cultures in the Classroom."
Integrated Education, 1963.

 

Combs, Arthur. "Seeing is Behaving." Readings in Curriculum.

 

Edited by Hass and Wiles, Boston: Allyn and Bacon,
1965, 195-212.

Dror, Yehezkel. "Muddling Through--'Science' or Inertia?"
Readings on Modern Organizations. Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice Hall, 1969, 166.

Faw, Volney. "A Psychotherapeutic Method of Teaching
Psychology." American Psychology, Vol. 4 (1949)
104-109.

 

Freedman, M. "The Men's Colleges and the Image of Man."
Journal of the American Association of University
Women, Vol. 57 (1964) 107-110.

Gross, Ronald. "The Loaf and the Lovers." The New Schools
Exchange Newsletter, Issue No. 94 (March 15, 1973),
3.

 

 

132

Guilford, J. P. "Factors that Aid and Hinder Creativity."
Teachers College Record, No. 63 (1962), 380-392.

Hardwick, Mark W. "Acceptance." Sensitivity Training:
An Inquiry Approach to School’Development. Edited
by John Suehr. TO be published, 1973.

 

Hargrave, Chesley, F. "For Student Change." Sensitivity
Training: An Inqtity Approach to School Develpp-
ment. Edited by John Suehr. '

 

Havighurst, Robert J. "Education and Social Mobility in
Four Societies." Education, Economy, and Society,
Edited by Halsey, Flbud and Anderson, Glencoe:
The Free Press, 1961.

 

Hogan, Daniel. "A Feeling of Trust." Sensitivity Training:
An Inquiry Approach to School Development. Edited
by John Suehr. To be published, 1973.

Holland, J. L. "Creative and Academic Performance Among
Talented Adolescents." Journal of Educational
Psychology, Vol. 52 (1961), 136-147.

 

 

Jackson, Philip. "The Consequences of Schooling." Tpp
Unstudied Curriculum: It's Impact on Children.
Edited by Norman V. Overly, Association for
Supervision and Curriculum DevelOpment; National
Education Association, 1970.

Kahl, Joseph A. "Educational and Occupational Aspirations
of 'Common Man' Boys." Harvard Educational Review,
Vol. 23 (Summer 1953), 186-203.

 

Kelley, Marie and Kelley, Edgar. "Feedback: Dimensions
of T-Groups for School." Sensitivity_Trainingi
An InquirytApproach to SchooliDevelOpment. Edited
by John Suehr. To be publiSBed, 1973.

 

Marshall, T. H. "Social Selection in the Welfare State."
Education, Economy, and Society, Edited by Halsey,
Floud and Anderson, Glencoe: The Free Press, 1961.

McDill, Edward and Meyers, Rigsby. "Institutional Effects
on the Academic Behavior of High School Youth."
Sociology of Education, Vol. XL (Summer 1967), 181-
199.

. "High School Quality, Family Background, and
Student Achievement." American Journal of
Sociology, 1969.

 

 

i I. .1)-

133

Merton, Robert K. "Bureaucratic Structure and Personality."
Reader in Bureaucracy. Edited by Merton, Gray,
Mockey and Selvin, Glencoe: The Free Press, 1952,
p. 365.

 

Miriam. "Relevance: Theirs and Ours." Editorial in
No More Dirty Looks, Vol. II, no. 3 (1971), 5.

 

'Moore, Fred. "School Resistance." Outside the Net, No. 4
(Winter-Spring, 1972), 4.

 

Parsons, Talcott. "General Theory in Sociology." Sociology
Today. Edited by R. K. Merton, New York: Basic
Books, 1958, p. 3-38.

 

Perrucci, Robert. "Education, Stratification, and Mobility."
On Education--Sociologica1 Perspectives. Edited
by Hansen and Gerstl, New York: John Wiley and
Sons, Inc., 1967, pp. 105-155.

 

Rasberry, Salli. "A Day I'd Like to Share." Outside the
Net, No. 4 (Winter-Spring, 1972), 3.

 

Rogers, Carl R. "Learning to Be Free." Readings in
Curriculum. Edited by Hass and Wiles, Boston:
Allyn and Bacon, 1965, 203-218.

 

 

Rose, Arnold. "School Desegregation: A Sociologist's
View." Affirmative School Integtation: Efforts
to Overcome De Facto Segregation in Urban Schools.
Edited by ROscoe Hill and Malcolm Feeley, Beverly
Hills: Sage Publications, 1968.

 

 

Rosenvein, R. et a1. "Conflict and Style in the College

Classroom." Psychology Todey_(March 1970), 70.

 

Rudman, Masha. "The Learning Theatre." Trend (Spring,
1969), 29.

Sackett, John W. "A Comparison of Self-Concept and
Achievement of Sixth Grade Students in an Open
Space School." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Iowa, 1971.

Skinner, B. F. "Freedom and the Control of Men." Readings
in Curriculum. Edited by Hass and Wiles, Boston:
Allyn andeacon, 1965, 183-195.

 

Smoker, Paul. "Anarchism, Peace and Control: Some Ideas
for Future Experiment." Journal of Peace Research
Abstracts, 1971, no. 70786.

 

 

134

Southern, Albert. "Attitudes Found Among Students in
University Courses on Adult Education When Given
Increased Opportunities for Self-Direction."
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University,
1971.

Strodtbeck, Fred L. "Family Interaction, Values, and
Achievement." Talent and Society. Edited by
David C. McClelland, New York: D. Van Nostrand,
1958, 135—191.

 

Suehr, John. "Teachers Join Youth Workers in Lab
Learning." The Michigan Education Association
Journal, Vol. 42 (Nov{_l, 1964), 14.

. "Open High Schools." Secondary Education,
Vol. 14, no. 1 (Fall 1972), 3-5.

 

"The School is An Alternative." Qpint Issue (January 8,
1973), 20.

 

Trent, James and Craise, Judith L. "Commitment and
Conformity in The American College." Journal of
Social Issues (July 1967), 47.

 

Usdan, Michael. "School Desegregation: An Educator's
View." Affirmative School Integration: Efforts
to Overcome De Facto Segregation in Urban Schools.
Edited by Roscoe Hill and Malcolm Feeley, Beverly
Hills: Sage Publications, 1968.

Vargo, Sue. "East Hill Elementary School." New Schools
Exchange Newsletter, Issue no. 89 (Dec. 31, 1972),
3.

 

 

Papers, Reperts and Speeches

 

Barth, Roland. "The Way It Is, The Way It Could Be."
Unpublished paper on Open Education, Date and
place unknown.

Blom, Frank. "Learning Alternatives: A School Within
A School." A report available at Kinewa Middle
School, Okemos, Michigan, 1971.

Buscaglia, Leo. "Love As A Behavior Modifier." Transcript
of a speech, date and place unknown.

)lIl-llu . ll- II..II. l I! l
'1 '.il‘ 1|!

135

Cleveland Heights Board of Education. "Cleveland Heights
High School--F1exible Program, Some Questions and
Answers, 1971-72." Report, Board of Education.

Coleman, James. "Equality of Educational Opportunity."
United States Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare, 1966.

Dentler, Robert. "Strategies for Innovation in Education:
A View From the Top." Paper presented at the
second annual workshop of the Public Policy
Institute, Oct. 15-16, 1964.

Mangum, Garth L. "Practical Consequences of Guaranteeing
Employment." Paper prepared for the United States
Chamber of Commerce, 1969.

Mayeske, George, et al. "A Study of Our Nation's Schools."

United States Office of Education, 1967. (Mimeo-
graphed).

New York Times. August 1, 1967, report of a teacher-
student meeting.

 

Okemos School Board. "Evaluation of the School Within A
School." Okemos, Michigan, September 1971.

Pettigrew, Thomas. "Racial Isolation in the Public
Schools." United States Commission on Civil
Rights, 1967.

"Project Talent." Survey by the University of Pittsburgh.
The American School. Edited by Patricia Sexton,
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1967.

 

Schutz, Charles. "Peanuts." The New Schools Exchange
Newsletter, Issue no. 87 (November 30, 1972), 15.

 

 

Shostrom, Everett. "Personal Orientation Inventory."
P.O.I. Manual, San Diego: Educational and
Industrial Testing Service, 1960, 18-19.

Tenenbaum, Samuel. "Carl Rogers and Non-Directive Teaching."
Unpublished paper.

"WWW“