Resources
Alternatives in Education: An Exploration of Learner-Centered, Progressive, and Holistic Education
|
Prepared for AERA, New Orleans
Contents:
Too often teachers as well as parents and researchers know little about
the diversity of educational choices available. This paper provides an
overview and some philosophical grounding for understanding the commonalties
and differences among learner-centered, progressive, and/or holistic
alternatives in education. Based on a collection of over 500 resources in the Paths of Learning
database, the primary purpose of this paper is to offer both an initial
synthesis and exploration into educational alternatives that exist today
between the cracks of mainstream education and culture. It presents and
organizes information about the growing numbers of schools and education
centers that call themselves learner-centered, progressive, and/or holistic.
It is not a conclusive writing on any one type of alternative; rather,
it is part of a larger project that attempts to create a framework for
more meaningful discussion and research into differing types of philosophical
alternatives in education. Using extensive networking efforts, I have connected with many innovative schools, educators, and authors whose focus is integrating living and learning, community and students. While some sources of data for this summary report include over three years of informal interviews and observations with persons at alternative schools, the primary sources have been written materials (books, journals, dissertations, etc.) that describe and investigate person-centered schools and other learning options for educating students. Confusion in communication and terminology is often the first hurdle
for even opening a discussion about educational alternatives. All too
frequently, we use the same words to describe different things, or different
words to describe the same thing. For example, a concept as frequently
used as "freedom" refers to quite different (and often contradictory)
concepts depending on the ideology, or mode of thought, from which one
is speaking. [1] Teachers within alternative education may often use the same words
as other teachers but mean completely different things. Sometimes they
even mean completely different things from each other. When more conventional
educators stick to subject matter such as language arts or math as their
primary concerns, the ambiguity of words such as freedom, learning, and
power can be sidestepped. Indeed, the categories and classifications
in traditional performance-based education are much more defined in contrast
to the "fuzzy" categories for learning, subject
matter, and teaching methods used within educational alternatives. [2] Even the term "alternative" is ambiguous; for some people
(especially in many U.S. states), it implies schools for "at risk" youth
only, rather than being for the education of all children and often for
adults as well. So sometimes it is useful to distinguish "philosophical
alternatives" from the "at-risk alternatives." These philosophical
alternatives include educational options for the developmental needs
and learning styles of all children, and often for adults as well. However, "philosophical
alternatives" is a mouthful, so I often use "alternatives" for
short. One might also call many of these alternatives "person-centered
approaches to education," drawing on terminology established by
Carl Rogers. However, some of the alternatives may draw more on the work
of John Dewey or even A.S. Neill, such that "person-centered" may
not be an accurate descriptor. Further, the phrase "approaches to
education" can imply individual classroom settings, school settings,
or general curricular or developmental theories. For the purposes of
this paper, I wish to stay within a framework of schools, or places like
schools. Other words used in place of "alternative" by different authors
include non-traditional, non-conventional, or non-standardized. Unfortunately,
these words sometimes have negative connotations as well as multiple
meanings. Also some alternatives may look traditional, conventional,
or even "standardized" to the untrained eye, until you see
inside more closely. Within the field of alternatives, words such as
authentic, holistic, and progressive are frequently used as well; however,
these words each have different meanings which are more specific or more
ambiguous than simply "alternative." Therefore,
I'm sticking with "alternatives" for simplicity's sake. The term "school" may also be misnomer. Many educational
alternatives do not call themselves "schools," feeling that
this implies a traditional square building with classrooms where students
sit in rows of desks and are led by a teacher. However, when I use the
word "school" throughout this paper, it implies those places
where people gather intentionally to learn (with no implications of what,
why, or how). Of course, many schools are no longer solitary "places" (like
school buildings) but include multiple sites for meeting within the community
as well as within nature. The advent of "virtual schools" and "virtual
communities" further complicates matters because some schools are
now gatherings of minds and hearts without a physical location for bodies
to meet. Thus, the only real thing that most schools still have in common are people and the intentionality for learning. Aside from referring to schools, the word "educational alternatives" in this paper also includes community learning centers, homeschooling communities, cooperative life-long learning centers, and an assortment of other learning communities. [3] Qualities for Distinguishing
Educational Alternatives
In 1994, MacMillan Publishing released the Almanac of Education Choices,
which at that time listed over 6,000 progressive and holistic schools
and homeschooling resource centers (Mintz, 1994). Even if parents have
only a few alternatives in their local community, in addition to visiting
those schools, understanding the underlying differences between alternatives
can inform their selection. In addition, for teachers and educational
researchers, there is little that has been done to provide a comprehensive
overview of the entire context of educational alternatives that might
give greater insight into the particular approaches within which they
are working. The schools and learning communities described in this paper feature
both commonalties as well as differences. In an attempt to speak to those
even within education who are as yet unfamiliar with the many educational
alternatives available, I begin with a practical overview of specific
types of schools that are philosophically alternative, delineating issues
and features that they often use to describe themselves. Then, I move
on to exploring the types of education embedded explicitly or implicitly
within these schools. Generally speaking, in terms of their commonalties, these alternatives
are not hardened institutions with hardened rules or procedures. Avoiding
many levels of school bureaucracies, these alternatives are flexible,
caring learning communities where people come before procedures, rules,
or technology. These philosophical alternatives are not ideal learning communities;
they are as susceptible to conflict as any other organization or school.
Students disagree with teachers; teachers disagree with parents (and
often with each other); parents disagree with school principals. They
are often unique, however, in the way in which conflict is approached
and resolved, along with the value that is found (and sometimes even
welcomed) within each conflict. Philosophical alternatives are rooted in philosophies about life and
learning that are fundamentally different from mainstream schooling.
While these philosophies differ in many specifics, what they have in
common is that they tend to not be rooted in an overly objective or solely
rational way of knowing that causes conventional schooling to divide
learning into isolated components. Many alternative educators argue instead that who the learners are,
what they know, how they know it, and how they act in the world are not
separate elements, but reflect the interdependencies between our world
and our selves. As author Parker Palmer explains, "The images of
self and world that are found at the heart of our knowledge will also
be found in the values by which we live our lives" (Palmer,
1983, p. 21). Taking this a step further, Palmer describes the teacher
as the mediator between the knower and the known, the "living
link in the epistemology chain," teaching a way of being in the
world, a mode of relationship (Palmer, 1983, p. 29). Human development,
then, is part and parcel with education, and includes the emotional,
ecological, spiritual, physical, social, and intellectual aspects of
living. Another quality that distinguishes these alternatives from traditional
schools is their long and unique history within well-rooted philosophical
foundations. As educational historian Ron Miller explains:
More recently though in a somewhat different vain, social critics such
as John Holt, Paul Goodman, Ivan Illich, and Paulo Freire have examined
education from anarchist-leaning perspectives, that is, critiques of
the ways that conventional schooling subverts democracy by molding young
people's understandings. [4] A third quality that distinguishes alternatives from traditional education
is their diversity. Unlike traditional private and public schools which
are remarkably similar across time and space, most alternative schools
do not subscribe to the "one model fits all" mentality. Each
alternative creates and maintains its own methods and approaches to learning
and teaching. This is a critical point that is often missed by newcomers
(including myself). When initially learning about Montessori, Waldorf,
or democratic schools, the overwhelming attitude of parents and teachers
is often: "Oh, yes! Finally, education that pays attention to the
unique needs of each child!" Once this excitement wears off, however,
one may realize that there are many ways of conceiving and understanding
the needs of the whole child in balance with the needs of the community
and society at large. Thus, each alternative approach is founded upon slightly, and sometimes
drastically, different beliefs about what it means to live, learn, love,
and grow in today's society. (For examples of philosophically diverse
schools, visit the member web sites of schools and organizations in the
National Coalition of Alternative Community Schools, www.ncacs.org/links.htm). Unfortunately, by uncritically hailing John Taylor Gatto, A.S. Neill,
Rudolf Steiner, Daniel Greenberg, or Maria Montessori, parents as well
as educators may create other systems that are as dogmatic and rigid
as the system they were leaving. A particular alternative education system
may appear on the surface to be "the answer," but
at another level, it is still just a system. To create alternatives that
are truly nurturing for children and integrated with communities, we
must be conscious of the values, philosophies, and beliefs behind the
systems and within ourselves. Then, rather than defending one alternative
as "the answer," we can open to the idea that there is no "one
best system" -- just a diversity of systems that match, or do not
match, with the diversity of people in the world. Further, such awareness
can also enable us to change our educational systems in more conscious
ways that are aligned with how we ourselves are changing. This in turn
helps keep us from getting stuck in a stagnated perception of what education "should" look
like. When looking for qualities that distinguish educational alternatives
from each other, one could certainly identify the curricula taught within
schools. Across educational alternatives, we find that traditional subjects
such as reading, writing, and math are not always taught separately but
integrated into students' overall learning [5]. Other
subjects like environmental education, ecology, or spirituality, which
are often not found in more traditional school curricula, emerge from
the interests of learners and teachers in a more open-ended learning
community [6]. Yet, for the most part, subject matters
are only indirectly related to the core philosophies and educational
approaches used in many alternative schools. In the end, what is studied
matters far less than how it is learned and how it becomes relevant in
students' lives [7]. Another important overall point that I've noticed less in the literature
and more from speaking with people is that often these approaches will
vary considerably within a single type of alternative from one cultural
setting to another. For example, the Sudbury school near Chicago was
quite different from the Sudbury school that I visited in Seattle (see
section that follows for a brief description of this democratic model
school). Or, I have a colleague who taught for many years at a Krishnamurti
school in England who claims that their approach to education might be
considered quite distinct from the Krishnamurti schools in India. Finally, the size of most alternative schools seems to vary in the
range from about 10 to 400 students, with the many of the longer-lasting
alternatives seeming to maintain a population of 30 to 100 students.
These numbers match with considerable research on small schools (see www.ael.org/eric/small.htm)
that indicates many advantages of maintaining small schools, regardless
of philosophy. In addition, many person-centered alternatives maintain
a staff:student ratio that is far better than average. Increasingly, people hear about Waldorf schools and Montessori preschools
in the United States, and many people have known for years about Quaker
schools as well. Often, though, people who might find several educational
approaches attractive have only learned about a single type of school,
remaining unaware of the diversity of choices available. In addition,
it often seems that educators fail to read much literature on schools
outside of their own "type." It is as if there
is an assumption that what other types of schools are doing is somehow
too different from teachers' own goals and interests, and it takes too
much time to read about other kinds of education when such education
presumably does not directly address the primary concerns of one's own
school or schooling options. In fact, I would argue that the similarities
between many person-centered alternatives and the ideal that many public
school teachers dream about are important. Some of the fundamental roots
for allowing educators, parents, and researchers to learn for ourselves
more about the nature of "significant learning," I believe
can come from seeing commonalties within the diversity of schools that
call themselves learner-centered, progressive, and holistic. The descriptions that follow illustrate eight types of educational alternatives, along with resources and links for more information. The summary for each type of school does not necessarily reflect any one school within that category. With some exceptions (such as Waldorf, Montessori, and Sudbury-model schools), most philosophical alternatives tend toward less rigidity in how each school creates itself from the dynamics of the local community and the values, beliefs, and experiences of current members. Democratic and Free Schools Many educators have heard of Summerhill, the radical "free school" in
England, founded by A.S. Neill in 1921[8]. Fewer people
know about the many other schools that have developed similar approaches
on their own, or modified Neill's premises to fit their own needs and
community. From Play Mountain Place in Los Angeles to the Albany Free
School to the Children's Village School in Thailand, free schools have
not withered away but continue to flourish with records of their long-term
successes [9]. Their primary purpose is to create a
safe environment where children can learn freely, that is without the
use of force or coercion, drawing on children's curiosity to lead their
own learning. Many free schools are structured in ways that often lead them to be
democratic schools as well, where staff as well as students have an equal
vote. Some schools allow votes on all matters, including financial, conflict
resolution, staffing, and minor administrative decisions. Other schools
divide into committees, or sometimes the director maintains powers to
make some administrative decisions. Voting in democratic schools is usually
done in weekly all-school meetings. At the Albany Free School, whenever
a child or adult feels their rights have been infringed upon by another,
they may call an all-school meeting at any time to resolve the conflict
immediately. The leader of an all-school meeting is generally elected
at each meeting and is usually a student rather than an adult. Rules
and procedures agreed upon by the whole community via a democratic vote
have a tendency to be honored by community members young and old, with
everyone understanding the procedures necessary for overturning a decision. The role of the children is to learn, with the expectation that they
will follow their own interests. In addition, students are expected to
serve as responsible community members, following the rules of the community
or facing the consequences. The role of teachers and parents varies from
school to school. In some schools, teachers offer classes for students
who wish to take them; in other schools, teachers are cautious even about
teaching until the students request a lesson. Like Summerhill, the Sudbury Valley School (SVS) believes that parents tend toward the unnecessary use of authority and external compulsion to educate children which Sudbury tries to avoid [10]. Thus the SVS school community is primarily the students and staff; however, other schools modeling themselves after SVS are so small that parents often serve as staff to get the schools started. In contrast, at Play Mountain Place (PMP), the role of the parents has been significant from the get-go in the 1950s because the PMP philosophy considers everyone to be a teacher and so they strive to involve parents in the daily activities of the school. For more information about PMP and other free schools, visit the Paths of Learning Online Library at: www.PathsofLearning.net/library/freeschools2000.cfm. Folk Education Folk education is "learning that happens when individuals and
communities come together to celebrate culture and life in order to critically
analyze challenging and especially oppressive situations, to build a
knowledge base to apply that knowledge to create alternative possibilities
for the institutions in which we live and work" (as
quoted from the Folk and People's Education Association of America web
site, www.peopleseducation.org). Folk education is a grassroots movement whose history began in Scandinavia
in the 1800s. Unlike other alternatives described in this paper, which
are mostly for youth and K-12 education, folk education is more concerned
with the political empowerment of adults. As we move into the new millennium
adults might be more familiar with folk education through experiences
with voluntary simplicity, eco-teams, or other informal grassroots movements. Within academia, this type of learning is sometimes called "radical
adult education" as it aims to get at the roots of education for
social change. In its profile of the original folk high schools, the
Informal Education Homepage states:
In 1925, over 300,000 young Danes attended folk schools, which were
free of government control, a place having nothing to do with grades,
tests, or even diplomas, but having everything to do with emotionally-charged
issues directly relevant to the lives of the participants. The American
social activist Myles Horton [11], who visited these
Danish folk schools in 1931, found that the most successful folk schools
dealt as much with feelings and will as with memory and logic (Adams,
1975). Also called people's education, this movement aims to provide education
that is of, for, and by the people. Its power is such that governments
or companies in political power tend not to like it, as it stirs people
to think and act in ways that disturb the status quo. Educational activist
Paulo Freire [12] was exiled from Brazil from 1964
to 1979 for teaching his fellow citizens to read in ways that also made
them more aware of their own disenfranchisement. Today the movement of folk education in the United States is facilitated
by the Folk and People's Education Association of America. Through its
newsletter and quarterly journal as well as its annual conference, the
FPEAA supports radical adult education in many forms from simplicity
circles to participatory action research to other grassroots groups in
cultural work, environmental work, economic work, and community leadership. [13] It is my hope that adults experiencing various forms of folk education can begin to see the meaningful connections between being and action, learning and doing, and other less traditional ways of thinking about education. As people understand these connections through their own experiences, the ground is laid for philosophical shifts within education across all ages. Friends (Quaker) Schools Quakers (members of the Religious Society of Friends) have contributed
to social and educational reform in American culture since the seventeenth
century. Friends schools are distinct from many other religious alternatives
in the extent of their person-centered practices. Known for their academic
rigor, Friends schools also pride themselves on the development of a
caring community within and beyond the walls of the school. Examining the missions of schools in the Friends Council on Education
(http://mathforum.com/fce/),
several themes stand out. The goals tend not to distinguish the end of
education from the process of learning. Both the purpose and process
of education involves treating each person with dignity and respect,
and understanding that different people learn in different ways. They
sometimes describe the goal of self-direction as helping students to "uncover
their own leadings." Personal and individual responsibility within
the community are essential for success. In addition, life-long learning,
social justice, and challenging human oppression are often supplementary
goals of the Friends schools. At the global level, Quakers like to think
of it as "creating the world that ought to be." Many Friends
schools emphasize "simplicity, honesty, the peaceful
resolution of conflict, the dignity of physical labor, mutual trust and
respect, and care for each other and the earth" (from The Meeting
School web site, http://www.mv.com/ipusers/tms/). Quaker schools tend to be organized in somewhat traditional ways, within
classrooms where teachers tend to use traditional methods to facilitate
discussions around common academic subjects. They often use grades and
grade levels for student advancement as well. Their use of meetings,
silence, queries, and conflict resolution techniques are the primary
approaches by which they enliven their educational goals and philosophies.
These processes give a more heartfelt flavor to decision-making within
the schools. For conflict resolution, they engage in "clearness
committees." Author Parker Palmer describes these committees as "a
communal approach to discernment" that is designed to protect "individual
identity and integrity while drawing on the wisdom of other people" (Palmer,
2000). In addition, you can find a useful listing of Peace and Conflict
Resolution Education Bibliography for different age groups posted in
the FCE web site. The student's role in Quaker schools is to serve as responsible learner and community member. Among other characteristics, the teacher's role is "To make daily space for the inward journey of every student." For a brief list of 16 characteristics of teachers identified by the FCE, visit FCE web site, and click on "Best Practices." Parents are not mentioned much in the Quakers' online educational literature and a number of Quaker schools in the U.S. are residential which limits the involvement of parents in many ways. Nonetheless, one Quaker educator once described parents as "partners and allies" with the school. Homeschooling, Unschooling, and Deschooling As perhaps the largest alternative school movement in the 1990s, from
1994 to 1996, the numbers of homeschoolers may have grown from an estimated
0.8 to 1.4% of the K-12 student population in the United States. While
these figures are estimates, it is quite certain that between 345,000
to 636,000 children ages 6 to 17 participated in home education during
those years [14]. The goals of homeschooling vary as widely as the goals and purposes
of schools around the world. Like other educational alternatives, homeschooling
expands well beyond traditional modes of teaching and learning as well.
Of particular interest for parents thinking outside the mainstream approaches
are the movements of "unschooling" and "de-schooling" within
home education. (It should also be noted that homeschooling approaches
also exist in affiliation with Montessori, Waldorf, and many other educational
philosophies.) Unschooling is a form of homeschooling that was popularized by educator
and author John Holt in the 1970s. Today, the unschooling philosophy
is perhaps best expressed in popular books by Grace Llewellyn and Linda
Dobson [15]. In 1997, Llewellyn's Teenage Liberation
Handbook: How to Quit School & Get a Real Life and Education was
published as a practical guide for teenagers (and parents) who were fed
up with traditional learning where students remained hidden inside classrooms
and text books. Her purpose was to illustrate the means and resources
for learning through the community and personal experiences (apprenticeships,
etc.). She showed how homeschooling could be a fulfilling use of time
while also providing the necessary social interactions far and beyond
what is available in most traditional schools. A complementary trend in homeschooling, called deschooling, began with
the publication of Ivan Illich's famous book, Deschooling Society (1971).
A recent book on the topic edited by Matt Hern entitled Deschooling Our
Lives provides practical examples "about people,
individuals, families, and communities taking control of the direction
and shape of their lives . . . and homelearning as a fundamentally cooperative
social project" (Hern, 1996). In the book's foreword, Ivan Illich
writes:
Often when progressive-thinking parents hear about such homeschooling trends, the gut reaction is that it is a good idea-in theory. Yet, the fears of "what if?" often lead parents to use less learner-centered methods of educating their own children. For more evidence and "fear-relieving" facts and stories about how unschooling really works, Holt Associates' "Q & A on Homeschooling" (www.holtgws.com/QA.htm) is a good place to start, along with other works by John Holt. To locate national and local networks of unschoolers, try www.unschooling.org (The Family Unschoolers Network), as well as www.unschooling.com (sponsored by Home Education Magazine). In addition, Karl Bunday's School is Dead; Learn in Freedom web site (http://learninfreedom.org/) provides evidence on how students can and do learn on their own with great success and with greater freedoms than ever. Bunday also shows that despite this nontraditional approach, homeschoolers are admitted into many highly selective colleges. Krishnamurti Schools How do we move beyond our own conditioning? How do we create schools
for the young that do not instill in them our own fears and prejudices?
According to Jiddu Krishnamurti, we must create an education that is
not a "system" but is built around the attitudes and qualities
of the teacher and child and how they relate to one another. What exactly constitutes a Krishnamurti School? What are the intentions
and aims of these schools? These questions, along with important implications
about the roles of teachers, were addressed by Krishnamurti in 1984 in
a statement made at a school in Ojai, California, based on his teachings:
Structurally each Krishnamurti school is each quite unique as each endeavors to evolve from a "methodless" or "pathless" approach [16]. Some have evolved with an academic focus, others with a spiritual emphasis, and others with a more psychological foundation for student development. More information about specific schools, foundations, or educational centers inspired by Krishnamurti can be found on the Krishnamurti Information Network's Community web pages: http://www.kinfonet.org/Community/. Montessori Schools These schools are in principle based on methodologies developed by
Dr. Maria Montessori, the first woman to become a medical doctor in Italy
and one of the most respected pioneers in education as well. As Ron Miller
explains, "Montessori's central concern was the natural development
of the child, the healthy formation of the physical, mental, and spiritual
qualities that are latent in the human being and which unfold, she believed,
according to a purposeful, even divine, life force (for which she used
the word horme) . . . Given the proper nurturing environment, horme impels
the child to unfold his or her potential personality, to expand his powers,
assert his independence, and create an adult identity" (Miller,
R., 1997, p. 160). Montessori's own work focused around research through direct observations
of young children. Thus, the strength of the Montessori method is working
with the developmental needs of young children. As of 1997, there were
over 3,000 Montessori schools in the United States. These are primarily
private schools, but some are public; as school choice expands, more
and more Montessori charter schools will likely appear as well. The American Montessori Society states that "The aim of Montessori
education is to foster competent, responsible, adaptive citizens who
are lifelong learners and problem solvers" (AMS POSITION STATEMENT
KEY CONCEPTS AND PRACTICES). The student's role in a Montessori school is to engage in experiences
and activities designed to foster physical, intellectual, creative and
social independence. The teacher's role is to develop curricula and learning
environments that are age-appropriate and aligned with the Montessori
philosophy and methodology. Families are consider partners with the schools,
an integral part of each child's total development. For more details on the philosophies and structures of Montessori schools,
consult any of these large and growing organizations:
Open Schools (and Classrooms) The Open Classroom: A Practical Guide to a New Way of Teaching by author
and New York City teacher Herb Kohl (1969) defined a radical alternative
that came to be used even in public schools in the 1970s. This book was
a direct response to working in an authoritative school environment that
was more about controlling students than teaching them. Kohl describes
the struggles, problems, failures, and successes of teachers trying to
create non-authoritarian classrooms amidst the "battles with self
and system" that teachers encounter in public schools (Kohl, 1969,
p. 15). The Coalition of Essential Schools continues the legacy of open
classrooms:
Several open schools now have long and well-documented track records,
including the Mankato Wilson Campus School, Mountain Open School (now
the Jefferson County Open School), and St. Paul Open School [17].
In describing the early days of one school, educational researcher Robert
Skenes writes:
One of the best resources documenting the successful practices of open classrooms, open schools, and related humanistic endeavors in public education is Dorothy Fadiman's video "Why Do These Kids Love School?" (1990). This video profiles eight progressive public schools in the United States with high standards that are "met through mutual trust" within each school community. The three features shared by the profiled schools are: (1) innovative curricula, with teachers free to be creative, (2) non-competitive environments, and (3) shared responsibility for the school amongst all school members -- students, teachers, and administrators. Waldorf (or Steiner) Schools Finally, we come to the growing phenomenon of the spiritually-based
Waldorf education. Waldorf schools are based on the "anthroposophical" (human
wisdom) teachings of Rudolf Steiner in the early 20th century. This approach
aims to educate children to "become free, responsible, and active
human beings, able to create a just and peaceful society"(Koetzsch,
1997, p. 216). Waldorf educators consider themselves to be "child-centered" because
one of their hallmarks is focusing on the needs of the whole child. Paradoxically,
however, in an important sense they are teacher-centered as they are
clearly led by teachers. Waldorf teachers aim to help children in learning
the life rhythms for creating an inner balance which helps prepare them
for creating lives of outward balance. Structurally, Waldorf schools are similar in some ways to Montessori
schools. Both tend to be private schools, with some trials as public
charters as well. Both are mostly small schools for younger students,
with a focus on the developmental needs of students. However, the core
philosophies are quite different. Maria Montessori did significant research
into natural learning and the unfolding needs of the whole child. In
contrast, although Rudolf Steiner founded the first Waldorf school in
Stuttgart, Germany, in 1919, overall he was more involved with the development
of his own spiritual philosophy of human wisdom than with researching
education or children. Nonetheless, his approach has a number of holistic
elements that appeal to many parents as well as teachers. Steiner schools
focus on integrating the inner rhythms of nature and child through music,
art, and dance. Also, it is worth noting that both Montessori and Waldorf schools have their own special teacher credentialling programs. Further, both types of education have not been often studied by outside educators or researchers who are not already committed to the school philosophies and structures [18]. Summary Remarks on Types of Schools This summary of eight types of schools was written to show teachers
and researchers the breadth of educational alternatives as they now exist,
to illustrate that when we speak of "alternatives," it
is not one or two small trends, but a growing plethora of person-centered
approaches to education, expressed in a diversity of ways. It should
also be pointed out that these summaries were provided as small "samples" into
a diverse array of educational stories told by over 500 resources in
the Paths of Learning Resource Center, representing many hundreds of
schools, programs, and projects. Other types of schools and educational
approaches such as the Reggio Emelia approach to early childhood education
(Edwards, Gandini, & Forman, 1998), the emerging Enki Education,
or many ancient native traditions, would fit squarely into these examples
as well. For a more complete summary and discussion of these and other types of alternatives, I recommend Ronald Koetzsch's book, The Parents' Guide to Alternatives in Education (1997, Shambhala Press). In addition, the Informal Education Homepage(www.infed.org/) is an excellent source for historic descriptions of core educational philosophers and activists who are associated with these alternatives, including Paulo Freire, Carl Rogers, J. Krishnamurti, Maria Montessori, John Dewey, and many others. Frameworks for Education: Maps for
Understanding the Territories of Alternatives In beginning to examine this wide variety of philosophical alternatives,
I've also given much consideration to frameworks for understanding the
philosophical connections and differences among these alternatives. For
researchers studying a diversity of schools "outside the mainstream," frameworks
are necessary for knowing what issues within teaching or learning to
give attention for developing a more insightful inquiry about the nature
of teaching and learning, and the elements of practice that seem to facilitate
meaningful learning. Clearly, when the goals for education shift, this
needs to refocus the structures and issues about which we are asking
research questions. There are many ways to categorize and contemplate various types of
education: holistic, progressive, humanistic, libertarian, emancipatory
or popular, constructivist, and the list goes on. The two schemas summarized
in this section present frameworks which I have found most useful for
thinking about education that goes beyond the traditional achievement-focused
schools. First is an "orientation" framework
that allows us to see the relative differences among varying types of
education, and second is a more sociological framework that allows us
to examine Holistic Education by its own merits. While these frameworks may ring familiar to many holistic educators who have begun to examine this field, for teachers and school directors who are on the front lines of developing their own unique practices, there appears to be a continual (and healthy) grappling with how to reflect and talk about what they do. Further, there is currently little research being done in the field of Holistic Education in particular, and my review of the literature indicates that this may be due in part to the lack of a cohesive yet encompassing framework for identifying what questions to ask about the field. Across the past few centuries, hundreds of educational alternatives have emerged, and teachers often know when they are facilitating a level and quality of learning that is quite different from "the norm," but relatively few researchers have yet examined closely these unique approaches to education. Or, when they are examined, it is done from within the narrow framework of a single type of school, that allows for limited transferability of research results, or within a framework more suited to questions about traditional education. Four Orientations of Education Examining education from a perspective of wholes within wholes (Wilber,
1995), one type of education does not have to foreclose another. Building
on the work of John P. Miller (1996), educational historian Ron Miller
identifies four distinct orientations of education that have emerged
in the past century: transmission, transaction, transformation, and self-direction
(Miller, R., 2000b, pp. 201-205). The "transmission" orientation asserts that the world is
made of individual pieces, and thus curriculum can be divided into separate
units. Education is the process of teachers transmitting knowledge, beliefs,
values that are accepted by society. Students are the recipients of information,
and learning is the process of memorizing information or acquiring skills.
This orientation is especially associated with the "back to basics" movement
as well as with E.D. Hirsch's popular books on cultural literacy. Ron
Miller explains the benefits and dangers of this orientation of education:
The "transaction" orientation asserts that the world is made
of ever-changing pieces, "an ongoing stream where everything is
in a state of flux"(Miller, J., 1996, p. 14). Education is the process
of experimental problem solving, in which teachers help students learn
the scientific method through application. Whereas the teachers were
seen as the authority in the transmission approach, in this approach
they are guides who encourage students in dialoguing, questioning, and
engaging in thoughtful reflection. Students are viewed as inquisitive
critical thinkers and problem-solvers. This pragmatic orientation is
especially associated with John Dewey and the progressive education movement.
Many philosophical alternatives fall within this orientation. This orientation
also encompasses some of the progressive reforms and school change movements
in mainstream education as well. A third orientation identified by Ron Miller is that of self-direction.
This orientation assumes a basic trust in human nature and a worldview
that is perhaps most like the transactional orientation. (John Miller
includes such approaches within the transaction orientation.) Ron Miller
qualitatively differentiates self-direction from the transactional perspective
because unlike the others, it is concerned with learning as such, and
often repudiates education as a distinct profession. In fact, advocates
of self-direction are noted for doing away with most structures of schooling
such as grades, lesson plans, age groupings, and teaching strategies.
Teachers serve as neither guides nor facilitators (unless requested by
youth); teachers are primarily resource persons. Students are responsible
for both initiating and for directing their own education. Unlike the
holistic or transformative orientation there is no emphasis on the spiritual
development of the child or teacher. Authors and educators most associated
with self-direction are John Holt and A.S. Neill. The alternatives most
associated with this orientation include free schools as well as unschooling. The "transformation" orientation asserts that the world is
not made of pieces at all, but of interactive and interdependent wholes
within wholes. It further asserts that we are all evolving and that there
is a cosmic source to our existence (which David Bohm calls the implicate
order; others call it God or the Tao). Both John Miller and Ron Miller
describe this orientation as supporting "holistic
education." As Ron Miller writes in his recent book Caring for New
Life: Essays on Holistic Education:
Some of the authors whom both Millers identify within this orientation
include Krishnamurti, Maria Montessori, Rudolf Steiner, and Joseph Chilton
Pearce, as well as philosophers such as Emerson and Whitehead. Other
philosophers such as Ken Wilber and Aldous Huxley are also frequently
referenced within this orientation of education, particularly noted for
their claims of a universal evolution and "perennial philosophy" of
humankind that seems to cut across cultures, religions, and political
orientations. Within the four orientations outlined above, authors and researchers have a tendency to be drawn one or another orientation, for a variety of social, cultural, and political reasons. According to Ron Miller (1997), there have been five primary and interrelated trends that have influenced American culture and the evolution of schools towards the transmission orientation that we now know as "mainstream." These trends have included: the Puritan theology and Protestant ethic, scientific reductionism, restrained democratic ideology (and tensions between conservative republicans and liberal democrats), beliefs inherent in capitalism, and the nationalism that is now more prevalent than ever in post-9-11 America. Movements toward the three other orientations may in some ways be reactions against the predominance of these cultural trends, thus causing schools that support such orientations to seem similar in many ways. Yet, each non-transactional orientation has its own unique history, philosophy, and motivations that draw people toward it. A Framework for EnCompassing Holistic Education Having now explored these four orientations and their various expressions
within schools, I find myself drawn toward the fourth and most encompassing
orientation, the home for Holistic Education. This may be rooted in my
own biased interest in self-development as an often-overlooked element
that seems critical to social change. For reaching a point of inquiry
into Holistic Education, it may be useful for some (like myself) to have
traveled through experiences and understandings of the various types
of schools and education mentioned in this paper. This intellectual journey
demonstrates the ever-widening circles (or "holons") for approaching
education. Many teachers may also come to an intuitive understanding
of Holistic Education through their direct experiences with students
in traditional schools. In whatever way the interest in Holistic Education
becomes engaged, once an inquiry begins into the wholeness of learning,
there emerges an ongoing dilemma of how to talk about, much less research,
such an encompassing orientation to education. Recently, Scott Forbes completed a detailed analysis of the sociological
and philosophical precedents of holistic education (1999). Forbes's work
is important especially to the field of research because it gives grounding
for a general study of Holistic Education based on its own merits. Thus,
rather than looking at Holistic Education as a comparison to other types
of education, we can begin to see it in its own light. Also, instead
of looking at solitary and unique expressions of holistic education as
seen in various types of schools, we can begin to see how different schools
fit more or less within the broader framework of Holistic Education at
large. Just as Dewey delineated the field of "progressive education" for
closer study and examination, I believe that Forbes has started on the
path for developing a rigorous framework for better understanding Holistic
Education, while leaving ample space for its many individual expressions. Forbes analyzed six primary authors whose writings form underlying
principles that have inspired most holistic schools and holistic approaches
to teaching: Rousseau, Pestalozzi, Froebel, Jung, Maslow, and Rogers.
These authors all indicated that students can learn but they are not
taught per se. Instead, a teacher facilitates the needed learning by
providing students with opportunities for developing wisdom or "real
knowledge." Students themselves have the agency and inherent motivation
for learning. For any approach to education, perhaps the three most basic questions
to be asked are: What is the goal of education? What needs to be learned?
And what facilitates the needed learning? Forbes addresses these questions
by looking at the commonalties of how the historic authors, across time
and cultures, would likely have answered these questions. In the process
of doing so, he realized that some new terms needed to be put into use
so that we can better discuss concepts that are often talked about yet
seldom named. One of these concepts, pertaining to the goal of education,
he borrowed the word "Ultimacy" from Paul Tillich.
While I can not do justice to the depth and precision of Forbes' writing
on Ultimacy, the essence is that holistic educators share the common
goal (which is interconnected as both an end state and a process) of
being the most that a human can be. This has been described in varying
ways from both psychological as well as religious perspectives, such
as atman, undus mundus, natural man, self-actualization, peak experiences,
or elevating human nature to its highest, its noblest. Addressing the question of "What needs to be learned (in holistic
education)?" Forbes examined experiential knowledge as the source
for that which makes Ultimacy possible. He identified five core elements
of "sagacious competence" that were commonly referenced across "the
Authors" examined. These included: (1) Capacity of having good judgment,
(2) Ability to be free (psychological, not political freedom), (3) Ability
to discover and refine values, (4) Meta-learning, and (5) Social-ability
(not social skills). He used these issues as the basis for then examining
what the Authors had in common in terms of "what facilitates the
needed learning." What is unique about Forbes's analysis is that not only did he delineate
the field of Holistic Education based on its historic and intellectual
precedents, but then he went on to develop a more complete sociological
understanding of it, expanding on the work of Basil Bernstein. Using
Bernstein's model for competence-based pedagogy, Forbes added two elements
of social logic so that Holistic Education could be considered as a fourth
mode of competence-based pedagogy. Looking at competence-based pedagogy
(which would include most philosophical alternatives in education), Bernstein
identified five areas of social logic that make it unique:
After careful study of Bernstein and Holistic Education, Forbes identified
two additional aspects of social logic that would be necessary to distinguish
Holistic Education from the other competence-based approaches to pedagogy:
Of course, one must review Forbes's work directly for a full appreciation
of the meanings embedded in this sociological framework. My primary point
in summarizing the work here is to suggest it as one of the only complete
frameworks that I have yet seen that would allow holistic education researchers
to inquire systematically into educational alternatives, across and within
the varying types of schools presented in this paper. Any type of alternative school, such as those described in this paper,
may use one or more curricular foci, may use an assortment of methodologies,
and may have more or less holistic elements within their formal and informal
interactions. The transaction oriented (or progressive) schools are most
likely to focus on content as an integral and significant part of how
a school is structured. In contrast, the transformation (or holistic)
schools may well have rigorous academics within the school, but the academics
are not generally the focal point for how the school day or year are
structured. For self-direction, whether or not academics are studied
depends on the self-assessed needs of the learner. Of course, no clear
boundaries exist between these orientations; many schools as well as
homeschooling families are in the process of deciding for themselves
an orientation that best matches their beliefs about freedom, structure,
and learning. Educational orientation is an on-going dialogue that emerges
as adults and students observe and reflect on their own experiences. For those who are interested in researching progressive, self-directed,
or holistic approaches to education, there are clearly many overlapping
features, elements, or social logic that define their structures and
goals. Unfortunately, due to overlap, the distinctions often go unrecognized.
As a result, I've seen teachers within these fields talk about issues
such as methodology, learning, or social justice, believing that they
are speaking about the same thing when in fact they are not. Often, all
that they really have in common is that they are interested in some kind
of meaningful learning for students, and they are NOT talking about traditional
(or transmission) approaches to these matters. Based on my exploratory analysis of resources about educational alternatives,
I have developed a chart for helping identify patterns and core issues
that distinguish the three non-transmission types of education. Most
schools and approaches to education crisscross these three orientations;
few fall solidly within any single orientation. However, it is useful
to see the distinctions, so as to take care when studying or working
within schools to see that what you are doing may not be at all the same
as what is being done in other educational alternatives, even though
some of the teaching methodologies and performance outcomes may have
similarities. Chart Title: Core Distinctions Among Orientations of Competency-Based
Education [Please write to Robin for a copy of the chart. It did not fit well within this web formatted page.] A Word About School Choice Systems Another related issue to educational alternatives that needs a bit
of attention relates to school choice systems. A majority of states in
the U.S.A. have legislated "charter schools" in
the past decade, a system of school choice that ideally allows more kinds
of schools to be created with a less rigid structure of accountability,
for encouraging greater school autonomy [19]. In addition,
vouchers continue to be a hot topic in political debates on educational
reform. As parents exercise their choices within public as well as private
settings, they are often confused about what all these choices really
represent. People often ask me about charter schools as if they were
a type of school. In fact, charter schools represent many types of schools.
The charter status of a school relates only to how public education is
governed at the macro level of politics, and not how the school approaches
education. For example, some charter schools are Waldorf, others are
back-to-basics, and many are specialty schools (such as schools focused
on foreign languages, arts, or music). Charter schools and vouchers are two types of "school choice" programs.
(See the Center for Education Reform web site, www.edreform.com, as a
primary source promoting both charters as well as vouchers.) While many
alternative educators support school choice, there are nonetheless many
dangers and pitfalls associated with this reform movement. For starters, "choice" does
not necessarily lead to the development of what I would call "real" choice,
that is schools which are significantly different in their fundamental
philosophies of education (Martin, 2000). Like enrolling in private schools, school choice programs often provide
a smaller class size and more individualized methods of instruction,
which can certainly benefit students. Still, it remains to be seen whether
or not the school choice movement will have significant impact on the
awareness of families for choosing more philosophically diverse schools. For parents who take time to compare their choices, the tendency thus
far is toward choosing more back-to-basics types of schools or specialty
schools, many of which are just as traditional in their approaches to
learning as the public schools. After analyzing a 1985 survey of 575
parents with students in 14 magnet schools in a county on the East Coast,
Jeffrey Henig concluded:
The factors that parents consider in choosing a school depend partly
on the type of school choice program and the kinds of parents who are
using it. For example, in selecting private schools, parents often look
at the other kinds of families attending that school (their social status
or religious affiliations). In other studies, it is found that parents
consider location as a primary factor of selection. On the other hand,
in Milwaukee's early targeted voucher program (targeted to low-income
families) parents stated that their choices were based on such matters
as educational quality, teaching approach and style, discipline in a
chosen school, and atmosphere (Witte, 2000, p. 63). However, there is
still limited research on the deciding factors in how parents choose
schools, or how those selection criteria impact the students' success
in schools. Most "school choice" rhetoric focuses on several non-validated
assumptions about systems for school choice. First, school choice advocates
assume that opportunities for choice will mean more options, which has
not yet been validated by research. Second, many advocates as well as
parents continue to assume that there is "one best system" and
that the guiding factor of choice would and should be academic excellence
based on test scores and student performance. From her research of a
St. Louis inner city transfer program, Amy Stuart Wells (Wells, 1996,
p. 32) describes how parents choosing to transfer their children to new
schools tend to accept the "achievement ideology" of the schools
into which they are transferring. The emphasis on an academic performance
model of education is further evidenced by the number of studies (all
of them!) that focus almost exclusively on academic achievement as the
sole factor for comparing the success of students enrolled in school
choice programs. Third, choice advocates assume that school choices will
level the playing field for disadvantaged students (from lower income
families or traditionally disenfranchised populations), when in fact
evidence shows that whether this is true depends a great deal on the
details of how the choice program is designed and implemented (Fuller & Elmore,
1996, p. 195-199). In reality, many advocates for school choice programs
are entrepreneurs and corporate leaders who have something to gain by
creating a competitive market system for our schools that has the appearance
of being more "democratic." On the flip side of the coin, a choice system such as the one now in
place in Milwaukee can be a great supporter of truly alternative schools.
Many philosophical alternatives do not cater to upper-class families
and so financially they often struggle to survive. Vouchers as well as
charters are two means by which they can more easily serve students from
a range of social classes, nationalities, and ethnic backgrounds. For
example, in Maine if students live in small towns where there is no public
school they are given vouchers to choose whatever private school they
wish in their area. When I visited Liberty School in Blue Hill, Maine,
I found it thriving with over 60 students, a relatively well-paid staff
and well-designed facilities. In contrast, schools of similar philosophies
that I had visited in other states often struggle to attract even a dozen
or so students. Plus, they often face the added problem of attracting
a majority of students who come to their school only as a last resort
(having practically dropped out of other schools) rather than those who
would be attracted to the school because of its philosophical beliefs. When weighing finances with philosophies, if students are not failing in the traditional schools, most parents believe the public schools are good enough and offer their children socializing experiences that they can't get in schools that are too small. Thus, alternatives find themselves in a bind and are sometimes willing to take the risk of a "few strings attached" in order to get the added financial benefits of public school choice programs. I began this paper by describing the problems with word usage in educational
alternatives and then presented qualities for understanding the differences
among and between educational alternatives. Next, I summarized the various
types of alternative schools that many people hear about in passing or
that perhaps they want to learn more about but are not sure where to
begin. From these specific schools I stepped back to show more clearly
the philosophical landscape into which such alternatives can be located
by describing types of education. For holistic education, which I believe
faces a most challenging task of framing its work in consistent yet encompassing
ways that can be explained within the more dominant culture of education,
I summarized a particular framework that might be especially useful for
researchers in the field. Finally, I wrapped up by highlighting some
recent political issues regarding school choice which may (or may not)
impact the growth of the philosophical alternatives discussed in this
paper. In a society where issues of pluralism and diversity are valued as
part of creating a more sustainable world and just democracy, the diversity
of philosophical perspectives in education needs to be acknowledged.
While I would not advocate the acknowledgement or integration of schools
that are openly hostile towards other perspectives, the philosophical
alternatives highlighted in this paper are those that embrace values
(such as compassion and wholeness) that are almost universally accepted
across religious and cultural viewpoints. At present, whether we look
at higher education, education research, teacher education, K-12 public
schools, educational media, or the culture at large, the gross lack of
acknowledgement and inquiry into the kinds of alternatives discussed
in this paper constitutes what I see as discrimination against well-established
philosophical alternatives in education. This discrimination hinders
the development of human potential by limiting our explorations of how
to facilitate meaningful learning and diverse expressions of core values
such as creativity, courage, collaboration, and love. My hope is that this paper has provided a framework for parents and teachers to better understand approaches to education within your own schools and communities, while providing researchers with greater insight into the appropriate frameworks and thus questions for initiating study into educational alternatives. Rather than continuing to reinforce "mainstream education" which reaches most of the population at arguably shallow levels of knowledge acquisition, I would like to see education research become part of the move to expand the "real choices" in education. For this to happen, parents, educators, and researchers must themselves become better educated about educational alternatives. Once it is understood that the purpose and means for educating is interconnected with what is learned, then the significance for diverse approaches to learning becomes critical for supporting human development in a pluralistic society. -- Adams, F. (1975). Unearthing Seeds of Fire. Winston-Salem, NC: John
F. Blair. AMS POSITION STATEMENT KEY CONCEPTS AND PRACTICES. [Web document]. Available:
http://www.AmericanMontessoriSociety.org/positions/ Bernstein, B. (1996). Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity: Theory,
Research, and Critique. London: Taylor & Francis. Chubb, J. E., & Moe, T. M. (1990). Politics, Markets, and America's
Schools. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute. Clark, E. T. (1997). Designing and Implementing an Integrated Curriculum:
A Student-Centered Approach. Brandon, VT: Holistic Education Press. Dhongchai, R., & Dhongchai, P. (1997). Real Life at Moo Baan Dek:
The Coming of Age of An Alternative Education Community. Bangkok, Thailand:
Foundation for Children Publishing House. Edwards, C., Gandini, L., & Forman, G. (Eds.). (1998). The Hundred
Languages of Children: The Reggio Emilia Approach-Advanced Reflections
(Second ed.). Greenwich, CT: Ablex Publishing Corp. Fadiman, D. (1990). Why Do These Kids Love School? Santa Monica, CA:
Pryamid Film & Video. Forbes, S. (1999). Holistic Education: An Analysis of Its Intellectual
Precedents and Nature. Unpublished dissertation, University of Oxford:
Green College. (A variation of this study is being published in 2002
by the Foundation for Educational Renewal.) Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum
Publishing Corp. Fuller, B., & Elmore, R. (Eds.). (1996). Who Chooses? Who Looses?
Culture, Institutions, and the Unequal Effects of School Choice. New
York: Teachers College Press. Glines, D. (1995). Creating Educational Futures: Continuous Mankato
Wilson Alternatives. San Diego, CA: National Association for Year-Round
Education. Greenberg, D. (1987). Free at Last: The Sudbury Valley School. Framingham,
MA: Sudbury Valley School Press. Greenberg, D., & Sadofsky, M. (1992). Legacy of Trust: Life After
the Sudbury Valley School Experience. Framingham, MA: Sudbury Valley
School Press. Gregory, T. (1993). Making High School Work: Lessons from the Open School.
New York: Teachers College Press. Henig, J. (1996). The Local Dynamics of Choice: Ethnic Preferences and
Institutional Responses. In B. Fuller & R. Elmore (Eds.), Who Chooses?
Who Looses? Culture, Institutions, and the Unequal Effects of School
Choice. New York: Teachers College Press. Henry, M. (1993). School Cultures: Universes of Meaning in Private Schools.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp. Hern, M. (Ed.). (1996). Deschooling Our Lives. Philadelphia, PA: New
Society Publishers. Illich, I. (1971). Deschooling Society. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Koetzsch, R. (1997). The Parents Guide to Alternatives in Education.
Boston: Shambhala Press. Kohl, H. (1969). The Open Classroom: A Practical Guide to a New Way
of Teaching. New York: Random House. Krishnamurti, J. (1953). Education and the Significance of Life. New
York, NY: HarperCollins. Krishnamurti, J. (1981). The Intent of the Krishnamurti Schools, [Web
document (from speech at Brockwood Park, England, 1 September 1981)].
Krishnamurti Information Network. Available: http://www.kinfonet.org/Community/schools/about_schools.htm
[2002, March 22]. Marshak, D. (1997). The Common Vision: Parenting and Educating for Wholeness.
New York: Peter Lang. Martin, R. (2000). What Is Real School Choice? A Research Paper on School
Choice Issues Using Research on Family Considerations to Argue Against
the Market Metaphor. http://www.PathsofLearning.net/library/. Available:
http://www.PathofLearning.net/archives/schoolchoice.htm. Mayhew, K. C., & Edwards, A. C. (1936). The Dewey School: The Laboratory
School of the University of Chicago. New York, NY: D. Appleton-Century
Company, Inc. Mercogliano, C. (1997). Making It Up As We Go ALong: The Story of the
Albany Free School: Heinneman Press. Miller, J. (1996). The Holistic Curriculum. Toronto, Canada: Ontario
Institute for Studies in Education Press. Miller, R. (1997). What Are School For? Holistic Education in American
Culture (Third ed.). Brandon, VT: Holistic Education Press. Miller, R. (1999). Introduction to Holistic Education, [WWW Document].
Available: http://www.PathsofLearning.net/library/holistic-educ-intro.htm. Miller, R. (2000a). Caring for New Life: Essays on Holistic Education.
Brandon, VT: Foundation for Educational Renewal. Miller, R. (Ed.). (2000b). Creating Learning Communities. Brandon, VT:
Foundation for Educational Renewal. Mintz, J. (Ed.). (1994). Almanac of Education Choices. New York: MacMillan
Publishing. Palmer, P. (1983). To Know as We Are Known: A Spirituality of Education.
San Francisco, CA: Harper. Palmer, P. (2000). The Clearness Committee: A Communal Approach To Discernment
(Related Resources: Related Writings), [Web document]. Center for Teacher
Formation. Available: http://www.teacherformation.org/html/rr/index.cfm
[2002, March 22]. Skenes, R. (1978). Free Forming: Greater Personal Fulfillment Through
Living Democracy. Colonial Beach, VA: DaySpring. Skenes, R. (2000). Experimenting with Futuristic Systems of Learning.
In R. Miller (Ed.), Creating Learning Communities. Brandon, VT: Foundation
for Educational Renewal. Smith, M. (1996, June 20, 2001). Folk High Schools: a survey of their
development and listing of key texts, [Web document]. Informal Education
Homepage. Available: http://www.infed.org/schooling/b-folk.htm [2002,
March 22]. Wells, A. S. (1996). African-American Students' View of School Choice.
In B. Fuller & R. Elmore (Eds.), Who Chooses? Who Looses? Culture,
Institutions, and the Unequal Effects of School Choice. New York: Teachers
College Press. Wilber, K. (1995). Sex, Ecology, Spirituality: The Spirit of Evolution.
Boston, MA: Shambhala Publications. Witte, J. F. (2000). The Market Approach to Education: An Analysis of America's First Voucher Program. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Copyright 2002 - Robin Ann Martin You may redistribute this summary report for noncommercial purposes, provided you reference the Paths of Learning web site at www.PathsOfLearning.net and attach this paragraph. |