102,807
edits
Changes
From Nordan Symposia
Jump to navigationJump to searchNew page: Image:lighterstill.jpgright|frame *Spiritual Awakening Through Education *by James Moffett. *San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass, 1994 ==A revie...
[[Image:lighterstill.jpg]][[Image:Universalschoolhouse.jpg|right|frame]]
*[[Spiritual]] Awakening Through [[Education]]
*by James Moffett.
*San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass, 1994
==A review==
by: JACK MILLER and SUSAN DRAKE
*Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto
*Toronto, Ontario
Educators avoid the word “[[spiritual]].” It makes them uncomfortable. This
discomfort and avoidance betray the sad [[state]] of [[education]] today. We [[focus]]
on outcomes rather than have students explore the fundamental questions
of life. These questions include such issues as: What is the [[purpose]] of
[[human]] life? What is our role in the [[universe]]? What is the [[nature]] of [[reality]]?
How can we deal with human suffering? To be educated should mean that
one has addressed these issues in the course of one’s life. Of course, these
questions cannot be answered through [[logic]]al or direct means. We must
explore and [[experience]] them through [[art]], [[literature]], [[science]], and the
various spiritual [[tradition]]s and [[practice]]s. Unfortunately, we do little of this
in our schools or universities; instead, we cover [[material]] and solve problems.
We fiddle, while Rome burns.
It is admirable, then, that James Moffett has tackled the issue of [[spirituality]]
in his book ''The Universal Schoolhouse: Spiritual Awakening Through
Education''. In this review we would like to focus on Moffett’s approach
to “spiritual awakening” and how he would like to see this occur within
education.
At the beginning of the book Moffett makes a strong case for spirituality
and for its central place in education. He suggests that a spiritual approach
to life is the most inclusive. Spirituality for Moffett denotes unity and
seeing “life whole”. This means seeing everything including “the state
of your [[finance]]s or the hidden motives of someone you are dealing with”
as well as the [[divine]]. For him it is not enough just to know in this more
holistic way, but to act and serve others with that [[knowledge]]. Moffett also
suggests that to live spiritually is to be free from compulsions and attachments.
We awaken from our attachments to see life differently: “All spiritual
leaders regard ordinary life as a kind of sleep. This is why their goal is
awakening. We are [[automatons]] living out the posthypnotic suggestions of
our conditioning, which we take for [[free will]] and choice, just as we take the
theater sets we have constructed around us as the real world” .
Moffett argues that spirituality means that the fundamental questions
referred to at the beginning of this review “should undergird education
just as they underlie our routine activities. Whether avoided or confronted,
these are not only issues but the issues”.
Moffett has given us, then, a comprehensive definition of spirituality;
however, we feel that two elements are missing in his exposition. One of
these elements is a sense of awe and [[wonder]]. John Bradshaw, for example,
has included this in his own view which we quote here: “Spirituality is a
state of fullness, an amplitude. With spirituality we see with a larger [[vision]].
The whole comes into view. We grasp what the [[philosophers]] call the ‘coincidence
of opposites.’ We see things holistically, not as objectified parts.
We have reverence for all [[things]], and reverence pervades our life. Reverence
means ‘to see a world in a grain of sand,’ as Blake wrote. Every aspect
of the [[creation]] is wonderful and sacred”.
Moffett does refer to this sense of awe later in the book but not within
what he calls “the metaphysical framework” which provides the basis of his
educational vision.
Finally, we believe that spirituality involves imperfection.
Sometimes spirituality can focus too much on [[divinity]] and
perfection, and can ignore the [[paradoxe]]s and conflicts that are part of
being a [[human being]]. Spirituality does not mean that we can become like
gods; instead, it should acknowledge the woundedness that is inherent in
our [[humanity]]. Our compassion for other humans and for our lives often
comes out of our own suffering: “Our very brokenness allows us to become
whole. ‘No one is as whole as he who has a broken [[heart]],’ said Rabbi Moshe
Leib of Sasov. ‘Wholeness,’ then, does not mean that the heart is not
‘broken,’ that the pain does not sear. To [[experience]] sadness, despair, tears,
and howls of pain demonstrates not some violation or deficit of spirituality
but rather the ultimate spirituality of acceptance” (Kurtz and Ketcham
1992, 61). A spirituality that includes this [[sense]] of imperfection is a more
holistic spirituality, and we believe that Moffett’s framework would benefit
from its inclusion.
Moffett’s plea for spiritual education is part of the growing [[movement]] in
holistic education. Moffett himself makes this connection when he states,
“The very definition of spirituality as all-inclusive is the one that most
applies to education. Advocates of holistic education, for example, insist on
the total development of all levels of a human being”.
The case that Moffett makes is not dissimilar to that made by others in
recent years including Miller (1992), Oliver and Gershan (1989), Purpel
(1989), and ourselves (Miller 1988; Miller, Cassie, and Drake 1990; Drake
et al. 1992). For example, David Purpel (1989, 113–118), in his book The
Moral and Spiritual Crisis in Education, makes the case for the following goals:
:1. the examination and contemplation of the awe, [[wonder]], and mystery of the [[universe]];
:2. the cultivation and nourishment of the [[process]]es of [[meaning]]-making;
:3. the cultivation and nourishment of the [[concept]] of oneness of [[nature]] and [[humanity]], with the concurrent responsibility to strive for [[harmony]],peace, and [[justice]];
:4. the cultivation, nourishment, and development of a cultural [[mytho]]s that builds on a [[faith]] in the human capacity to participate in the creation of a world of justice, compassion, caring, love, and joy;
:5. the cultivation, nourishment, and development of the [[ideals]] of [[community]], compassion, and [[interdependence]] within the [[tradition]]s of democratic principles; and
:6. the cultivation, nourishment, and development of attitudes of outrage and responsibility in the face of injustice and oppression.
The vision is similar to Moffett’s except for Purpel’s stronger emphasis
on the need for social justice and the struggle against various forms of
oppression. It is important to see that the vision articulated by Moffett,
Purpel, and others is not limited to education. The principles articulated
by Moffett can also be found in fields such as health (Ornish 1990; Kabat-
Zinn 1990), business (Senge 1990; Covey 1990), sports (Murphy 1992), and
politics (Mandela 1994). Underlying these visions is an awakening to the
interconnectedness of life.
This awakening is in opposition to the way we have tended to see
individuals not only as separate from each other, but in constant competition
with each other. We have tended to see the world as “us” and
“them,” as fragmented thinking has dominated. We break things down
into small units; yet, rarely is there an attempt to synthesize or see
[[things]] as part of a larger whole. Education has a long history of fragmentation,
from the twenty thousand objectives developed by Franklin
Bobbit, to Skinner’s [[behaviorism]], and the outcomes that dominate today’s
[[curriculum]] documents.
It is also important to see that the awakening described by Moffett is not
“[[New Age]].” Spiritual education and holistic education have their roots in
Plato and the whole Platonic tradition (e.g., Plotinus, Dante, Swedenborg,
Emerson, and Penrose) in the West. This tradition has also been called
“the perennial [[philosophy]]” (Huxley 1970), which underlies the [[mystical]]
traditions of the various faiths around the world. The perennial philosophy
suggests that the universe is an integrated whole and that we are intimately
connected to that whole. Pythagoras argued that we are [[microcosms]] of the
universe itself. There exists within each [[person]] what the saints and sages
have referred to as the Self, the [[heart]], the soul, or what Thomas Merton
called the “[[divine spark]].” Education, then, can be seen as a means to
activate this spark. Activation of the divine spark is what Moffett calls spiritual
awakening. The rest of this review essay will discuss Moffett’s strategies
for facilitating this awakening.
====UNDERSTANDING OUR PRESENT SITUATION====
To know how to truly change education, Moffett suggests that we have to
understand the forces that determine public education practices. For him,
the problems with schools are organizational and [[political]] rather than
problems inherent in the learning process. As a master teacher in [[languages]],
he gives numerous examples of how educators have learned to
teach reading and writing, but are stopped from following their own best
[[wisdom]] by the political agendas governing schools.
For Moffett, institutions are concerned with control rather than learning.
The “particle approach” by which our schools are run evolved during
the industrial revolution. The assembly-line model is lodged deeply in the
North American [[psyche]] and is still being favored by administrators because
it simplifies administration, not because it facilitates learning. Practices
grounded in this [[philosophy]] ensure control through fragmentation. Some
examples of these practices are the textbook industry’s domination of
curriculum choices, the call for higher standards and standardization, and
[[behavior]]al objectives or outcomes masked as accountability. Teaching
through the [[discipline]]s rather than in an integrated fashion also ensures
fragmentation. These practices fly in the face of holistic or organic learning
that Moffett recommends as the only approach to the skills being
taught, such as writing well, solving problems, or [[thinking]] critically.
Moffett’s concerns about organization and [[politics]] as the fundamental
reasons for today’s educational crisis are shared by others (Madaus 1994).
Yet, we do not believe he explores this far enough to illuminate the dilemmas
confronting educators today. In North America, two polarities have
developed: one calling for a “back to basics approach” and the other calling
for a holistic-integrated one. In working with school systems we have
experienced a constant dialectic between these two extremes. Given this
tension, many systems are caught between political agendas demanding
accountability at the same time as they are developing curriculum models
that have the potential to be more integrated and holistic. The [[paradox]]
confronting educators is that accountability is being defined as a return to
the very practices that negate the holistic, integrated approach to learning.
How does a teacher reconcile a [[movement]] where the [[rhetoric]] hails “success
for all” with the more sinister suggestion that following this path will actually
lead to more centralized bureaucratic control and less effective learning
for students (Symth 1992)?
Moffett deplores the current move toward the market system for developing
alternative schools. For him, we need alternative choices within schools
rather than choosing between good or bad schools. He calls for the spiritual
[[perspective]] as the only one that is inclusive enough to build a new
educational model. We agree that the spiritual [[dimension]] is an important
element to any approach to an authentic model of education.
===MOFFETT’S VISION IN PRACTICE===
Moffett’s vision is the [[universal]] school—the school without walls that gives
everyone access to everything at [[public]] expense. It offers constant and
limitless choice and involves learners of all ages. The accountability of the
system lies in the basic premise that everything that is done is done for the
benefit and at the request of the learner who is helped by a variety of
advisors. It is bounded by the metaphysical and the cosmological. The
schoolhouse, in [[fact]], is the [[cosmos]].
Moffett offers an [[ideal]]istic [[vision]] for education. Everyone is a learner
and we all are learning from each other. The schoolhouse becomes the
[[community]] and the “master social service.” Indeed, in his vision education
can prevent crime and eliminate welfare. Health management and parental
education are also included. It seems as if education has the answers for
all people at all times. This thought could be viewed as [[ironic]] given that
most teachers today feel that their parameters have expanded and that they
have to be all things to all people.
Moffett’s [[vision]] of the universal schoolhouse is so far from traditional
models that he begins by connecting the [[reader]] with the known. He explores
ways that are already known to work, such as: witnessing, imitating,
collaborating, experimenting, interacting, tutoring, coaching, apprenticing,
visiting, playing games, home schooling, self-learning, and community
service. Integrated curriculum, project learning, and teaching through the
arts are some of the aspects of the universal schoolhouse.
Although rarely acknowledged by Moffett, the paths that he explores are
recent additions in mainstream education. For example, integrating curriculum
is being advocated as a route to educational reform (Beane 1995;
Cardellichio 1995; Drake 1993). His recommendation of project learning
echoes Ted Sizer’s notion of exhibitions and the “Essential Coalition for
Schools,” where students complete a project that can be publicly displayed
and assessed. Moffett encourages a strong presence for the arts as ways to
learn, not as simply content to be taught. This view is gaining a large
following (Sautter 1994), especially in light of the current popularity of the
multiple intelligences (Gardner 1983), as a guide for curriculum designers
(Armstrong 1994). How would these approaches to education differ in
delivery if the spiritual dimension were added? This is Moffett’s essential
question, but it has been left unanswered.
Moffett’s vision [[sound]]s wonderful; but, from our [[perspective]], he has not
grounded it thoroughly enough in [[reality]]. He assumes that people following
spiritual principles will act in socially responsible ways; for example, the
rich will learn to voluntarily share their wealth once they [[experience]] the
new educational system that has transformed social services. In reading the
book one could only wish for such an idealized world; but Moffett offers
little advice on how to get there. He only briefly mentions spiritual disciplines
as a path and uses [[Waldorf schools]] as an example of what can be
done in a system grounded in a spiritual tradition.
Thus, it is what Moffett has left out that is dissatisfying. He has ignored
the day-by-day complexities involved with implementing a new vision. How
will all the organizations (government, church, business) become positively
interdependent? How can school systems deal with accountability at
the same time as they effect education policies that follow good learning
principles? Why does he not consider the dangers of the technological
imperative (Postman 1993) when he enthuses about technological advances
in his spiritual vision? Why does he not suggest how the teacher can
inspire awe and mystery for the universe as a path to spiritual awakening?
Why does he not tell us how all of us (for we will all be students in the
universal schoolhouse) can find the spiritual path in our everyday lives?
Why has he not provided practical ways in which the spiritual perspective
could ground implementation?
He claims that most desired reform could be achieved by throwing out
the old, unjustified teaching [[practice]]s that dominate because of [[political]]
will. He offers, by way of replacement, an abundance of excellent practices
that educators have shown can work and already exist in some pockets. He
gives us [[personal]] examples of excellence from language arts, but he has
neglected to tell us how this wholesale reversal will take place. Indeed, the
Eight-Year Study conducted in the late 1930s was grounded on many of the
same learning principles, such as learning through experience and integrated
studies, that Moffett advocates today (Aikin 1942). The Eight-Year
Study involved twenty-eight high schools and was a heavily researched
project led by Ralph Tyler and included researchers such as Hilda Taba and
[[Bruno Bettleheim]]. Yet, the success of this project and its affirmation of
learning principles such as Moffett advocates has largely been obscured. In
keeping with Moffett’s own theory, political agendas and the [[culture]] of
educational policymakers have been put forth as the reason why this study
has been ignored (Kahne 1995).
In the final [[analysis]], Moffett never really wrestles with the bureaucratic
beast that he denounced in the first part of the book. If the problem lies
in the organizational [[structure]], why does he not give us a way to change
that structure? We might suggest that there is a current movement toward
organizational restructuring following spiritual principles that might fit
Moffett’s vision well (Wheatley 1992; Senge 1990).
In a world in need of a new vision, Moffett’s definitely has a place. At a
time when most school districts are shying away from including [[values]] in
the curriculum, Moffett has pointed out the very necessity of not only
including values, but of being guided by a spiritual perspective. We only
hope that his next book will offer more [[insigh]]ts on how to do this.
===REFERENCES===
*Aikin, W. 1942. The story of the eight-year study. New York: Harper and Brothers.
*Armstrong, T. 1994. Multiple intelligences in the classroom. Alexandria,VA: Association
of Supervision and Curriculum Development.
*Beane, J. 1995. Curriculum integration and the disciplines of knowledge. Phi Delta
Kappan 76(8): 616–622.
*Cardellichio, T. 1995. Curriculum and the structure of school. Phi Delta Kappan
76(8): 629–632.
*Covey, S. R. 1990. Principle-centered leadership. New York: Simon and Schuster.
*Drake, S. M. 1993. Planning integrated curriculum: The call to adventure. Alexandria,
VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.
*Drake, S. M., J. Bebbington, S. Laksman, P. Mackie, N. Maynes, and L. Wayne. 1992.
Developing an integrated curriculum using the Story Model. Toronto: OISE Press.
*Gardner, H. 1983. Frames of mind. New York: Basic Books.
*Huxley, A. 1970. The perennial philosophy. New York: Harper Colophon.
*Kabat-Zinn, J. 1990. Full catastrophe living. Using the wisdom of your body and mind to
face stress, pain, and illness. New York: Delacorte Press.
*Kahne, J. 1995. Revisiting the eight-year study and rethinking the focus of educational
policy analysis. Educational Policy 19(1): 4–23.
*Kurtz, E., and K. Ketcham. 1992. The spirituality of imperfection: Storytelling and the
journey to wholeness. New York: Bantam.
*Madaus, G. 1994. A technological and historical consideration of equity issues
associated with proposals to change the nation’s testing policy. Harvard Educational
Review 64(1): 76–95.
*Mandela, N. 1994. Long walk to freedom. Boston: Little, Brown.
*Miller, J. P. 1988. The holistic curriculum. Toronto: OISE Press.
*Miller, J. P., B. Cassie, and S. M. Drake. 1990. Holistic learning: A teacher’s guide to
integrated studies. Toronto: OISE Press.
*Miller, R. 1992. What are schools for? Brandon, VT: Holistic Education Press.
*Murphy, Michael. 1992. The future of the body: Explorations into the further evolution of
human nature. New York: Jeremy Tarcher.
*Oliver, D. W., and K. W. Gershan. 1989. Education, modernity and fractured meaning.
Albany: State University of New York Press.
*Ornish, Dean. 1990. Dr. Dean Ornish’s program for recovering from heart disease. New
York: Random House.
*Postman, N. 1993. Technolopoly: The surrender of culture to technology. New York: Vintage.
*Purpel, D. E. 1989. The moral and spiritual crisis in education: A curriculum for justice
and compassion in education. Granby, MA: Bergin and Garvey.
*Sautter, R. C. 1994. An arts education school reform strategy. Phi Delta Kappan
75(6): 432–437.
*Senge, P. 1990. The fifth discipline. New York: Doubleday.
*Symth, J. 1992. Teacher’s work and the politics of reflection. American Educational
Research Journal 29(2): 267–302.
*Wheatley, M. 1992. Leadership and the new science. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-
Koehler.
[[Category: Education]]
*[[Spiritual]] Awakening Through [[Education]]
*by James Moffett.
*San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass, 1994
==A review==
by: JACK MILLER and SUSAN DRAKE
*Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto
*Toronto, Ontario
Educators avoid the word “[[spiritual]].” It makes them uncomfortable. This
discomfort and avoidance betray the sad [[state]] of [[education]] today. We [[focus]]
on outcomes rather than have students explore the fundamental questions
of life. These questions include such issues as: What is the [[purpose]] of
[[human]] life? What is our role in the [[universe]]? What is the [[nature]] of [[reality]]?
How can we deal with human suffering? To be educated should mean that
one has addressed these issues in the course of one’s life. Of course, these
questions cannot be answered through [[logic]]al or direct means. We must
explore and [[experience]] them through [[art]], [[literature]], [[science]], and the
various spiritual [[tradition]]s and [[practice]]s. Unfortunately, we do little of this
in our schools or universities; instead, we cover [[material]] and solve problems.
We fiddle, while Rome burns.
It is admirable, then, that James Moffett has tackled the issue of [[spirituality]]
in his book ''The Universal Schoolhouse: Spiritual Awakening Through
Education''. In this review we would like to focus on Moffett’s approach
to “spiritual awakening” and how he would like to see this occur within
education.
At the beginning of the book Moffett makes a strong case for spirituality
and for its central place in education. He suggests that a spiritual approach
to life is the most inclusive. Spirituality for Moffett denotes unity and
seeing “life whole”. This means seeing everything including “the state
of your [[finance]]s or the hidden motives of someone you are dealing with”
as well as the [[divine]]. For him it is not enough just to know in this more
holistic way, but to act and serve others with that [[knowledge]]. Moffett also
suggests that to live spiritually is to be free from compulsions and attachments.
We awaken from our attachments to see life differently: “All spiritual
leaders regard ordinary life as a kind of sleep. This is why their goal is
awakening. We are [[automatons]] living out the posthypnotic suggestions of
our conditioning, which we take for [[free will]] and choice, just as we take the
theater sets we have constructed around us as the real world” .
Moffett argues that spirituality means that the fundamental questions
referred to at the beginning of this review “should undergird education
just as they underlie our routine activities. Whether avoided or confronted,
these are not only issues but the issues”.
Moffett has given us, then, a comprehensive definition of spirituality;
however, we feel that two elements are missing in his exposition. One of
these elements is a sense of awe and [[wonder]]. John Bradshaw, for example,
has included this in his own view which we quote here: “Spirituality is a
state of fullness, an amplitude. With spirituality we see with a larger [[vision]].
The whole comes into view. We grasp what the [[philosophers]] call the ‘coincidence
of opposites.’ We see things holistically, not as objectified parts.
We have reverence for all [[things]], and reverence pervades our life. Reverence
means ‘to see a world in a grain of sand,’ as Blake wrote. Every aspect
of the [[creation]] is wonderful and sacred”.
Moffett does refer to this sense of awe later in the book but not within
what he calls “the metaphysical framework” which provides the basis of his
educational vision.
Finally, we believe that spirituality involves imperfection.
Sometimes spirituality can focus too much on [[divinity]] and
perfection, and can ignore the [[paradoxe]]s and conflicts that are part of
being a [[human being]]. Spirituality does not mean that we can become like
gods; instead, it should acknowledge the woundedness that is inherent in
our [[humanity]]. Our compassion for other humans and for our lives often
comes out of our own suffering: “Our very brokenness allows us to become
whole. ‘No one is as whole as he who has a broken [[heart]],’ said Rabbi Moshe
Leib of Sasov. ‘Wholeness,’ then, does not mean that the heart is not
‘broken,’ that the pain does not sear. To [[experience]] sadness, despair, tears,
and howls of pain demonstrates not some violation or deficit of spirituality
but rather the ultimate spirituality of acceptance” (Kurtz and Ketcham
1992, 61). A spirituality that includes this [[sense]] of imperfection is a more
holistic spirituality, and we believe that Moffett’s framework would benefit
from its inclusion.
Moffett’s plea for spiritual education is part of the growing [[movement]] in
holistic education. Moffett himself makes this connection when he states,
“The very definition of spirituality as all-inclusive is the one that most
applies to education. Advocates of holistic education, for example, insist on
the total development of all levels of a human being”.
The case that Moffett makes is not dissimilar to that made by others in
recent years including Miller (1992), Oliver and Gershan (1989), Purpel
(1989), and ourselves (Miller 1988; Miller, Cassie, and Drake 1990; Drake
et al. 1992). For example, David Purpel (1989, 113–118), in his book The
Moral and Spiritual Crisis in Education, makes the case for the following goals:
:1. the examination and contemplation of the awe, [[wonder]], and mystery of the [[universe]];
:2. the cultivation and nourishment of the [[process]]es of [[meaning]]-making;
:3. the cultivation and nourishment of the [[concept]] of oneness of [[nature]] and [[humanity]], with the concurrent responsibility to strive for [[harmony]],peace, and [[justice]];
:4. the cultivation, nourishment, and development of a cultural [[mytho]]s that builds on a [[faith]] in the human capacity to participate in the creation of a world of justice, compassion, caring, love, and joy;
:5. the cultivation, nourishment, and development of the [[ideals]] of [[community]], compassion, and [[interdependence]] within the [[tradition]]s of democratic principles; and
:6. the cultivation, nourishment, and development of attitudes of outrage and responsibility in the face of injustice and oppression.
The vision is similar to Moffett’s except for Purpel’s stronger emphasis
on the need for social justice and the struggle against various forms of
oppression. It is important to see that the vision articulated by Moffett,
Purpel, and others is not limited to education. The principles articulated
by Moffett can also be found in fields such as health (Ornish 1990; Kabat-
Zinn 1990), business (Senge 1990; Covey 1990), sports (Murphy 1992), and
politics (Mandela 1994). Underlying these visions is an awakening to the
interconnectedness of life.
This awakening is in opposition to the way we have tended to see
individuals not only as separate from each other, but in constant competition
with each other. We have tended to see the world as “us” and
“them,” as fragmented thinking has dominated. We break things down
into small units; yet, rarely is there an attempt to synthesize or see
[[things]] as part of a larger whole. Education has a long history of fragmentation,
from the twenty thousand objectives developed by Franklin
Bobbit, to Skinner’s [[behaviorism]], and the outcomes that dominate today’s
[[curriculum]] documents.
It is also important to see that the awakening described by Moffett is not
“[[New Age]].” Spiritual education and holistic education have their roots in
Plato and the whole Platonic tradition (e.g., Plotinus, Dante, Swedenborg,
Emerson, and Penrose) in the West. This tradition has also been called
“the perennial [[philosophy]]” (Huxley 1970), which underlies the [[mystical]]
traditions of the various faiths around the world. The perennial philosophy
suggests that the universe is an integrated whole and that we are intimately
connected to that whole. Pythagoras argued that we are [[microcosms]] of the
universe itself. There exists within each [[person]] what the saints and sages
have referred to as the Self, the [[heart]], the soul, or what Thomas Merton
called the “[[divine spark]].” Education, then, can be seen as a means to
activate this spark. Activation of the divine spark is what Moffett calls spiritual
awakening. The rest of this review essay will discuss Moffett’s strategies
for facilitating this awakening.
====UNDERSTANDING OUR PRESENT SITUATION====
To know how to truly change education, Moffett suggests that we have to
understand the forces that determine public education practices. For him,
the problems with schools are organizational and [[political]] rather than
problems inherent in the learning process. As a master teacher in [[languages]],
he gives numerous examples of how educators have learned to
teach reading and writing, but are stopped from following their own best
[[wisdom]] by the political agendas governing schools.
For Moffett, institutions are concerned with control rather than learning.
The “particle approach” by which our schools are run evolved during
the industrial revolution. The assembly-line model is lodged deeply in the
North American [[psyche]] and is still being favored by administrators because
it simplifies administration, not because it facilitates learning. Practices
grounded in this [[philosophy]] ensure control through fragmentation. Some
examples of these practices are the textbook industry’s domination of
curriculum choices, the call for higher standards and standardization, and
[[behavior]]al objectives or outcomes masked as accountability. Teaching
through the [[discipline]]s rather than in an integrated fashion also ensures
fragmentation. These practices fly in the face of holistic or organic learning
that Moffett recommends as the only approach to the skills being
taught, such as writing well, solving problems, or [[thinking]] critically.
Moffett’s concerns about organization and [[politics]] as the fundamental
reasons for today’s educational crisis are shared by others (Madaus 1994).
Yet, we do not believe he explores this far enough to illuminate the dilemmas
confronting educators today. In North America, two polarities have
developed: one calling for a “back to basics approach” and the other calling
for a holistic-integrated one. In working with school systems we have
experienced a constant dialectic between these two extremes. Given this
tension, many systems are caught between political agendas demanding
accountability at the same time as they are developing curriculum models
that have the potential to be more integrated and holistic. The [[paradox]]
confronting educators is that accountability is being defined as a return to
the very practices that negate the holistic, integrated approach to learning.
How does a teacher reconcile a [[movement]] where the [[rhetoric]] hails “success
for all” with the more sinister suggestion that following this path will actually
lead to more centralized bureaucratic control and less effective learning
for students (Symth 1992)?
Moffett deplores the current move toward the market system for developing
alternative schools. For him, we need alternative choices within schools
rather than choosing between good or bad schools. He calls for the spiritual
[[perspective]] as the only one that is inclusive enough to build a new
educational model. We agree that the spiritual [[dimension]] is an important
element to any approach to an authentic model of education.
===MOFFETT’S VISION IN PRACTICE===
Moffett’s vision is the [[universal]] school—the school without walls that gives
everyone access to everything at [[public]] expense. It offers constant and
limitless choice and involves learners of all ages. The accountability of the
system lies in the basic premise that everything that is done is done for the
benefit and at the request of the learner who is helped by a variety of
advisors. It is bounded by the metaphysical and the cosmological. The
schoolhouse, in [[fact]], is the [[cosmos]].
Moffett offers an [[ideal]]istic [[vision]] for education. Everyone is a learner
and we all are learning from each other. The schoolhouse becomes the
[[community]] and the “master social service.” Indeed, in his vision education
can prevent crime and eliminate welfare. Health management and parental
education are also included. It seems as if education has the answers for
all people at all times. This thought could be viewed as [[ironic]] given that
most teachers today feel that their parameters have expanded and that they
have to be all things to all people.
Moffett’s [[vision]] of the universal schoolhouse is so far from traditional
models that he begins by connecting the [[reader]] with the known. He explores
ways that are already known to work, such as: witnessing, imitating,
collaborating, experimenting, interacting, tutoring, coaching, apprenticing,
visiting, playing games, home schooling, self-learning, and community
service. Integrated curriculum, project learning, and teaching through the
arts are some of the aspects of the universal schoolhouse.
Although rarely acknowledged by Moffett, the paths that he explores are
recent additions in mainstream education. For example, integrating curriculum
is being advocated as a route to educational reform (Beane 1995;
Cardellichio 1995; Drake 1993). His recommendation of project learning
echoes Ted Sizer’s notion of exhibitions and the “Essential Coalition for
Schools,” where students complete a project that can be publicly displayed
and assessed. Moffett encourages a strong presence for the arts as ways to
learn, not as simply content to be taught. This view is gaining a large
following (Sautter 1994), especially in light of the current popularity of the
multiple intelligences (Gardner 1983), as a guide for curriculum designers
(Armstrong 1994). How would these approaches to education differ in
delivery if the spiritual dimension were added? This is Moffett’s essential
question, but it has been left unanswered.
Moffett’s vision [[sound]]s wonderful; but, from our [[perspective]], he has not
grounded it thoroughly enough in [[reality]]. He assumes that people following
spiritual principles will act in socially responsible ways; for example, the
rich will learn to voluntarily share their wealth once they [[experience]] the
new educational system that has transformed social services. In reading the
book one could only wish for such an idealized world; but Moffett offers
little advice on how to get there. He only briefly mentions spiritual disciplines
as a path and uses [[Waldorf schools]] as an example of what can be
done in a system grounded in a spiritual tradition.
Thus, it is what Moffett has left out that is dissatisfying. He has ignored
the day-by-day complexities involved with implementing a new vision. How
will all the organizations (government, church, business) become positively
interdependent? How can school systems deal with accountability at
the same time as they effect education policies that follow good learning
principles? Why does he not consider the dangers of the technological
imperative (Postman 1993) when he enthuses about technological advances
in his spiritual vision? Why does he not suggest how the teacher can
inspire awe and mystery for the universe as a path to spiritual awakening?
Why does he not tell us how all of us (for we will all be students in the
universal schoolhouse) can find the spiritual path in our everyday lives?
Why has he not provided practical ways in which the spiritual perspective
could ground implementation?
He claims that most desired reform could be achieved by throwing out
the old, unjustified teaching [[practice]]s that dominate because of [[political]]
will. He offers, by way of replacement, an abundance of excellent practices
that educators have shown can work and already exist in some pockets. He
gives us [[personal]] examples of excellence from language arts, but he has
neglected to tell us how this wholesale reversal will take place. Indeed, the
Eight-Year Study conducted in the late 1930s was grounded on many of the
same learning principles, such as learning through experience and integrated
studies, that Moffett advocates today (Aikin 1942). The Eight-Year
Study involved twenty-eight high schools and was a heavily researched
project led by Ralph Tyler and included researchers such as Hilda Taba and
[[Bruno Bettleheim]]. Yet, the success of this project and its affirmation of
learning principles such as Moffett advocates has largely been obscured. In
keeping with Moffett’s own theory, political agendas and the [[culture]] of
educational policymakers have been put forth as the reason why this study
has been ignored (Kahne 1995).
In the final [[analysis]], Moffett never really wrestles with the bureaucratic
beast that he denounced in the first part of the book. If the problem lies
in the organizational [[structure]], why does he not give us a way to change
that structure? We might suggest that there is a current movement toward
organizational restructuring following spiritual principles that might fit
Moffett’s vision well (Wheatley 1992; Senge 1990).
In a world in need of a new vision, Moffett’s definitely has a place. At a
time when most school districts are shying away from including [[values]] in
the curriculum, Moffett has pointed out the very necessity of not only
including values, but of being guided by a spiritual perspective. We only
hope that his next book will offer more [[insigh]]ts on how to do this.
===REFERENCES===
*Aikin, W. 1942. The story of the eight-year study. New York: Harper and Brothers.
*Armstrong, T. 1994. Multiple intelligences in the classroom. Alexandria,VA: Association
of Supervision and Curriculum Development.
*Beane, J. 1995. Curriculum integration and the disciplines of knowledge. Phi Delta
Kappan 76(8): 616–622.
*Cardellichio, T. 1995. Curriculum and the structure of school. Phi Delta Kappan
76(8): 629–632.
*Covey, S. R. 1990. Principle-centered leadership. New York: Simon and Schuster.
*Drake, S. M. 1993. Planning integrated curriculum: The call to adventure. Alexandria,
VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.
*Drake, S. M., J. Bebbington, S. Laksman, P. Mackie, N. Maynes, and L. Wayne. 1992.
Developing an integrated curriculum using the Story Model. Toronto: OISE Press.
*Gardner, H. 1983. Frames of mind. New York: Basic Books.
*Huxley, A. 1970. The perennial philosophy. New York: Harper Colophon.
*Kabat-Zinn, J. 1990. Full catastrophe living. Using the wisdom of your body and mind to
face stress, pain, and illness. New York: Delacorte Press.
*Kahne, J. 1995. Revisiting the eight-year study and rethinking the focus of educational
policy analysis. Educational Policy 19(1): 4–23.
*Kurtz, E., and K. Ketcham. 1992. The spirituality of imperfection: Storytelling and the
journey to wholeness. New York: Bantam.
*Madaus, G. 1994. A technological and historical consideration of equity issues
associated with proposals to change the nation’s testing policy. Harvard Educational
Review 64(1): 76–95.
*Mandela, N. 1994. Long walk to freedom. Boston: Little, Brown.
*Miller, J. P. 1988. The holistic curriculum. Toronto: OISE Press.
*Miller, J. P., B. Cassie, and S. M. Drake. 1990. Holistic learning: A teacher’s guide to
integrated studies. Toronto: OISE Press.
*Miller, R. 1992. What are schools for? Brandon, VT: Holistic Education Press.
*Murphy, Michael. 1992. The future of the body: Explorations into the further evolution of
human nature. New York: Jeremy Tarcher.
*Oliver, D. W., and K. W. Gershan. 1989. Education, modernity and fractured meaning.
Albany: State University of New York Press.
*Ornish, Dean. 1990. Dr. Dean Ornish’s program for recovering from heart disease. New
York: Random House.
*Postman, N. 1993. Technolopoly: The surrender of culture to technology. New York: Vintage.
*Purpel, D. E. 1989. The moral and spiritual crisis in education: A curriculum for justice
and compassion in education. Granby, MA: Bergin and Garvey.
*Sautter, R. C. 1994. An arts education school reform strategy. Phi Delta Kappan
75(6): 432–437.
*Senge, P. 1990. The fifth discipline. New York: Doubleday.
*Symth, J. 1992. Teacher’s work and the politics of reflection. American Educational
Research Journal 29(2): 267–302.
*Wheatley, M. 1992. Leadership and the new science. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-
Koehler.
[[Category: Education]]
