I cannot tell you how much I love this:

Vision:The guiding vision and orientation of the Faculty is to develop educational thought and practices which promote education as a humanising influence on each person and on society locally, nationally and internationally.

It resonates with everything that motivates me to teach and to investigate the potential, the parameters and the contradictions in my own practice. What I particularly love is that it articulates the notion that there is that which is human, and in the distinction of that which is humanising, what is human is implied as something static but something evolving and growing - something that is becoming. By implication also, there is that which is inhuman and that which his dehumanizing.

I don't think there is anything more important in the realm of human inquiry than identifying and questioning our assumptions. They are like distorting lenses through which we examine the world; the whole point about them is that we do not see them because we are looking *through* them. 

I'd very much like to bring up a really basic assumption in the light of recent dialog. What is 'human'? Suppose that, as we answer that question, instead of referring to all that we have pieced together to make what we 'know' about a human being (or being human), instead we were to say that we do not, entirely know: that it is an understanding of what is human, is developing exponentially, being reshaped by our modern explorations in the same way that our understanding of the physical universe has been reshaped by quantum physics. When you peer into the material universe deeply enough, you find that there is nothing there but a range of vibrational energy. When  you peer deeply enough into the human being, all that really appears to exist is an 'I am' that is being. The potential of that 'I am', the potential of each individual is coming to be understood as vastly greater than we have previously imagined, in line with our developing understanding.

Division and classification satisfies our need to feel that we have translated our world into manageable, organized units; it provides both the illusion of structure and the illusion of control. (Which I think is something like one of those cartoon characters happily walking along in mid air until he realizes that the road beneath him is no longer there!) It defines and fixes, (from 'definire' to finish or end) and thus ends all other potentials in the defining. Fixing things is useful in the context of, say a conversation, (in which, by fixing meaning we both limit that meaning and exclude all other meanings), where it allows clear communication and restricts the possibility of misunderstanding. But in the context of human beings themselves, the 'that which we are' it can be lethal. 

More and more research has been emerging to suggest that we are fixed, (like butterflies pinned to a collector's card, dead and flightless), not only by the definitions that have been assigned to us, (the stories we have been told about who and what we are), but by the expectations of those who influence us. (Self Fulfilling Prophecy, 'Pygmalion' effect, 'Galatea' effect and 'Golem' effect.) Race, social class, background, parental history and.... IQ tests, aptitude tests, exam results! Now tests and exams may be essential for measuring learner progress and course effectiveness but they can provide the learner with 'proof positive' of the limits of his or her ability. And that 'proof' acts like the imaginary road beneath the cartoon character. They just keep walking along it, even when it is pure fiction. We can't do away with progress markers, but perhaps we should think about redesigning them, so that they no longer define - fix and kill - our students' potential.

We are what we are? The Pygmalion principle was used to stunning effect by the BBC in a series called changing places than which I can think of no better demonstration of how utterly insubstantial 'who we are' and 'what we are capable of' really is. We are so much more mutable than we want to believe. And so are our students - no matter what they believe about themselves. Some people are just brighter than others? Not according to brain research. We are not 'what we are'. The undamaged brain (and even the damaged brain to a degree) is remarkably plastic. It also seems that each of us has a capacity far beyond the parameters of 'normal' range so long as it is not suppressed in some way. (So the intelligence of a human being, while genetics do play a part, is a largely a matter of what survives 'suppressors' and what is encouraged to develop.) Einstein himself believed that something in European and American education systems killed a crucial element in human potential - curiosity. Some people learn one way while others learn another? What about learner styles and aptitudes that classify us into neat types with predefined abilities? There is a good deal of nonsense spouted about them, as though they held the key to who we are and what we are capable of. All they really tell us is that human learning absolutely requires to take place in learning rich environments, (so that dual coding can take place in the brain), and that some of us will learn most easily through a combination that emphasizes visual, audio or kinetic stimulus. That doesn't mean we cannot learn in other ways or that we can't and shouldn't develop our less developed processing centers. 

It's worth repeating; the brain is plastic so learning styles can change. Aptitudes aren't set in stone either - not by any manner of means. They can and do change profoundly and we certainly should not define our students by them and pin them to classifications like dead butterflies. We can certainly recognize where our students are *right now* and work with that. But we are truly killers, (of their potential and dreams), if we project a single moment in their evolution onto them as a fixed and defining summation of who they are and what they can be, if we project this one moment in their learning development into their future as an immutable destiny. 

It's nice to feel that we are in control; that we know who people are and we can predict outcomes. It makes us feel safe and (probably without noticing it), a little god-like. But awe and wonder isn't safe and you cannot predict and classify miracles. You can kill them though. You can be so sure of what you know, so much in control, so certain of what is possible that nothing else *is* possible. 

We classify one another, definitively, at our own peril - and our students at theirs. I propose, therefore, as part of that which is humanising in education, that which admits, (and leaves open), the truly unlimited potential in every student, which measures progress as a point in time and not a defining judgment of the student and that which is prepared to be less in control and more shocked by  the unknown and wholly unpredictable in the development of every student.
love
Sara
________________________________________
From: Practitioner-Researcher [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of [log in to unmask] [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 11:56 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Educational influence and Social Formation

On January 11, 2011 at 5:36 AM Brian wakeman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

..... However it is not possible to disentangle values and vision from professional practice.  What has motivated me,  has not been legislation or bonuses, but deeply held beliefs.  For all my limitations and failings, they have been hammered out and tested through the fires of forty years of work in education. Briefly they have been "Agape", "Chesed" (mercy, lovingkindness), and "Shalom"(peace, wholeness, human flourishing), and "image of God".....

Dear Brian and all,
I do like the above point that emphasises that values and vision are related in professional practice. I'd like my educational influence to be judged in terms of evidence that I have enhanced the flow of lovingkindness - I'll work on this over the coming year to see what emerges in my enquiry into enhancing my educational influences and generating educational knowledge. Tomorrow (12th January), I'm
presenting
the Foundation Hour at Liverpool Hope University on '
Accounting for Ourselves in Our Living Educational Theories'
You can access my notes for the presentation at http://www.actionresearch.net/writings/jack/jwlhufoundation120111.pdf (or from the What's New section of http://www.actionresearch.net and they begin:
 "I am hoping that you will find that my ideas are consistent with the vision and purpose of the Strategic Map 2010-11 of the Faculty of Education of Liverpool Hope University:
Vision:The guiding vision and orientation of the Faculty is to develop educational thought and practices which promote education as a humanising influence on each person and on society locally, nationally and internationally.
Purpose: To contribute to the development of knowledge and understanding in all fields of education, characterising all work with values arising from hope and love.  (LHU, 2010)
In exploring the implications of living the vision and purpose, as an adjunct professor in the Centre for the Child and Family, I am focusing on developing educational thought and practices which promote education as a humanizing influence on each person and on society locally, nationally and internationally."



I'm wondering if my points in the notes for the presentation about:






*

Acknowledging a loving dynamic energy as an explanatory principle.






  *Recognising living contradictions in explanations of educational influence,






appear valid to you?  Any responses to the presentation will be welcome, no matter how critical !




Love Jack.