Professional Documents
Culture Documents
‘.....If I were foolish enough to give you a system and if you were foolish
enough to follow it, you would merely be copying, imitation, conforming,
accepting, and when you do that you have set up in yourself the authority of
another and hence there is conflict between you and that authority. You feel
you must do such and such a thing because you have been told to do it and
yet you are incapable of doing it. You have your own particular inclinations,
tendencies and pressures which conflict with the system you think you ought
to follow and therefore there is a contradiction. So you will lead a double life
between the ideology of the system and the actuality of your daily existence.
In trying to conform to the ideology, you suppress yourself--whereas what is
actually true is not the ideology but what you are. If you try to study yourself
according to another you will always remain a second-hand human being.
‘A man who says, "I want to change, tell me how to", seems very earnest,
very serious, but he is not. He wants an authority that he hopes will bring
about order in him. But can authority ever bring about inward order? You
may see the truth of this intellectually but can you actually apply it so that
your mind no longer projects any authority, the authority of a book, a
teacher, a wife or husband, a parent, a friend or of society? Because we have
always functioned within the pattern of a formula, the formula becomes the
ideology and the authority; but the moment you really see that the question,
"How can I change?" sets up a new authority, you have finished with
authority for ever.
‘Let us state it again clearly: I see that I must change completely from the
roots of my being; I can no longer depend on any tradition because tradition
has brought about this colossal laziness, acceptance and obedience; I cannot
possibly look to another to help me to change, not to any teacher, any God,
any belief, any system, any outside pressure or influence. What then takes
place?When you reject something false which you have been carrying about
with you for generations, when you throw off a burden of any kind, what
takes place? You have more energy, haven’t you? You have more capacity,
more drive, greater intensity and vitality. If you do not feel this, then you
have not thrown off the burden, you have not discarded the dead weight of
authority.
‘But when you have thrown it off and have this energy in which there is no
fear at all--no fear of making a mistake, no fear of doing right or wrong--
then is not that energy itself the mutation? We need a tremendous amount of
energy and we dissipate it through fear but when there this energy which
comes from throwing off every form of fear, that energy itself produces the
radical inward revolution. You do not have to do a thing about it.
‘So you are left with yourself, and that is the actual state for a man to be who
is very serious about all this; and as you are no longer looking to anybody or
anything for help, you are already free to discover. And when there is
freedom, there is energy; and when there is freedom it can never do anything
wrong. Freedom is entirely different from revolt. There is no such thing as
doing right or wrong when there is freedom. You are free and from that
centre you act. And hence there is no fear, and a mind that has no fear is
capable of great love. And when there is love it can do what it will.’
‘.....I think we should also consider the question of authority. You know
what authority is; but do you know how authority comes into being? The
government has authority, has it not? There is the authority of the State, of
the law, of the policeman and the soldier. Your parents and your teachers
have a certain authority over you, they make you do what they think you
ought to do--go to bed at a certain time, eat the right kind of food, meet the
right kind of people. They discipline you, do they not? Why? They say it is
for your own good. Is it? We will go into that. But first we must understand
how authority arises--authority being coercion, compulsion, the power of
one person over another, of the few over the many or the many over the few.
‘Because you happen to be my father or mother, have you a right over me?
What right has anyone to treat another like dirt? What do you think creates
authority?
‘First, obviously, there is the desire on the part of each one of us to find a
safe way of behavior; we want to be told what to do. Being confused
worried, and not knowing what to do, we go to a priest, to a teacher, to a
parent or to somebody else, seeking a way out of our confusion. Because we
think he knows better than we do, we go to the guru, or to some learned
man, and we ask him to tell us what to do. So, it is the desire in us to find a
particular way of life, a way of conduct that creates authority, is it not?
‘While you are young, the teacher may point out that you do now know. But
if he is all intelligent he will help you to grow to be intelligent also; he will
help you to understand your confusion so that you do not seek authority, his
own or any other.
‘There is the outward authority of the State, of the law, of the police. We
create this authority outwardly because we have property which we want to
protect. The property is ours and we don’t want anyone else to have it, so we
create a government which protects what we own. The government becomes
our authority; it is our invention, to protect us, to protect our way of life, our
system of thought. Gradually, through centuries, we establish a system of
law, of authority--the State, the government, the police, the army--to protect
‘me’ and ‘mine’.
‘There is also the authority of the ideal, which is not outward but inward.
When we say, "I must be good, I must not be envious, I must feel brotherly
to everybody" we create in our minds the authority of the ideal, do we not?
Suppose I am intriguing, stupid, cruel, I want everything for myself, I want
power. That is the fact, it is what I actually am. But I think I must be
brotherly because religious people have said so, and also because it is
convenient, it is profitable to say so; therefore I create brotherhood as an
ideal. I am not brotherly, but for various reasons I want to be, so the ideal
becomes my authority.
‘Now, in order to live according to that ideal, I discipline myself. I feel very
envious of you because you have a better coat, or a prettier sari, or more
titles; therefore I say, "I must not have envious feelings, I must be
brotherly." The ideal has become my authority, and according to that ideal I
try to live. So what happens? My life becomes a constant battle between
what I am and what I should be. I discipline myself--and the State also
disciplines me. Whether it is communist, capitalist or socialist, the State has
ideas as to how I should behave. There are those who say the State is all-
important. If I live in such a State and do anything contrary to the official
ideology, I am coerced by the State-0-that is, by the few who control the
State . . . . .
‘To come back: we create authority--the authority of the State, of the police,
the authority of the ideal, the authority of tradition. You want to do
something, but your father says, "Don’t do it." You have to obey him,
otherwise he will get angry, and you are dependent on him for your food. He
controls you through your fear, does he not? Therefore he becomes your
authority. Similarly, you are controlled by tradition--you must do this and
not that, you must wear your sari in a certain way, you must not look at the
boys or at the girls. Tradition tells you what to do; and tradition, after all, is
knowledge, is it not? There are books which tell you what to do, the State
tells you what to do, your parents tell you what to do, society and religion
tell you what to do. And what happens to you? You get crushed, you are just
broken. You never think, act, live vitally, for you are afraid of all these
things. You say that you must obey, otherwise you will be helpless. Which
means what? That you create authority because you are seeking a safe way
of conduct, a secure manner of living. The very pursuit of security creates
authority, and that is why you become a mere slave, a cog in a machine,
living without any capacity to think, to create.’
The observation of the anger that is taking place now reveals the whole
nature and structure of violence. This insight is the ending of all violence. It
is not replaced by anything else and therein lies our difficulty. Our whole
desire and urge is to find a definite end. In that end there is a sense of
illusory security.
There is a difficulty for many of us in the observation of anger because
emotions and reactions seem inextricably part of that anger. One doesn’t feel
anger without associations, content.
Anger has many stories behind it. It isn’t just a solitary event. It has, as you
pointed out, a great many associations. These very associations, with their
emotions, prevent the actual observation. With anger the content is the
anger. The anger is the content; they are not two separate things. The content
is the conditioning. In the passionate observation of what is actually going --
that is, the activities of the conditioning -- the nature and structure of the
conditioning are dissolved.
Yes. It is really very simple, so simple that you miss its very simplicity and
so its subtlety. What we are saying is that whatever is happening -- when
you are walking, talking, "meditation" -- the event that is taking place is to
be observed. When the mind wanders, the very observation of it ends its
chatter. So there is no distraction whatsoever at any time.
Yes. Remembrance has no place in the art of living. Relationship is the art of
living. If there is remembrance in relationship, it is not relationship.
Relationship is between human beings, not their memories. It is these
memories that divide and so there is contention, the opposition of the you
and the me. So thought, which is remembrance, has no place whatsoever in
relationship. This is the art of living.
The art of living can come into being only when thought does not
contaminate Love.
‘The mind cannot free itself, for any effort on its part to be free only weaves
another net in which it will again be caught. Freedom is not an opposite; to
be free is not to be free from something, it’s not a state of release from
bondage. The urge to be free breeds its own bondage. Freedom is a state of
being which is not the outcome of the desire to be free. When the mind
understands this, and sees the falseness of tradition, then only does the false
wither away.’
‘...But you see, most of us are afraid to find out for ourselves what is true
and what is false, and that is why we merely accept what somebody else
says. The important this is to question, to observe, never to accept.
Unfortunately, most of us only listen to those whom we regard as great
people, to an established authority, to the Upanishads, the Gita, of whatever
it is. We never listen to the birds, to the sound of the sea, or to the beggar. So
we miss what the beggar is saying -- and there may be truth in what the
beggar is saying, and none at all in what is said by the rich man or the man
in authority.’
‘The young are so easily persuaded by the priest or the politician, by the rich
or the poor, to think in a particular way; but the right kind of education
should help them to be watchful of these influences so that they do not
repeat slogans like parrots or fall into any cunning trap of greed, whether
their own or that of another. They must not allow authority to stifle their
minds and hearts. To follow another, however great, or to give one’s
adherence to a gratifying ideology, will not bring about a peaceful world.’
in
Religious Education
JOHN M. HULL
in Brian Gates (ed.) Freedom and Authority in Religions and Religious
Education London, Cassells 1996, pp. 97-111 ISBN 0-304-32483-3
(hardback) 0-304-32419-1 (paperback)
ALIENATED AUTHORITY
The very fact that the commodity and the media conceal the source and
nature of their authority while the religions affirm theirs, often in shrill
tones, is in itself not without significance. In spite of the contrasts between
them, these forms of modern, alienated authority are essentially
complementary and interlocking. Together they create a complex which is so
all-pervading that we may speak not only of examples of alienation but of
alienated existence.
DIALECTICAL THINKING
In their emphasis upon work, the mutuality of the exchange between human
beings, and environments, and the impact of this exchange upon patterns of
thinking there is much in common between Jean Piaget and Karl Marx.(5)
Hegel had already shown that social contrasts such as that between the lord
and the serf could be tolerated by being denied or rationalized, and had
interpreted this as a sort of denial of dialecticity. The consciousness of the
serf, even if it became a happy consciousness through religion, was false
because the true impact of the disparity of power between the serf and lord
had been denied.(6) Nevertheless, it was the Marxist understanding of the
relationship between ideas and work (praxis) and the application of this to
the psychology and sociology of politics which has most in common with
the
approach of Piaget, and no doubt both Marxist and Piagetian influences are
significant in the changed relationship between subject and object which is
such a feature of recent developments in method, whether in the natural or
the social sciences.
The results of this change in scientific method in recent decades are well
known. Facts are already embedded within theories; observation and
interpretation are intermingled. The impact of a dialectical relationship
between the knower and the known has been so great that for years
philosophers of science have been describing any other view as a kind of
naive objectivisation.(7) It can now be seen that the positivistic science,
especially of the nineteenth century, with the inexorable logic of its
accumulation of facts, its ignorance of its own social and cultural function
and its claims of normative knowledge, was in itself a striking example of
alienation.(8) That which had been created by human beings stood over
against the human mind as an unanswerable truth. Again we see how it is
that when dialecticity is denied, that which stands over against human life as
an unqualified authority becomes suffused with sacred power. Science
became a religion, and evoked the commitment of total loyalty from its
worshippers.(9)
NON - DIALECTICITY
The pornographic image has a fetish-like quality. The part is taken for the
whole, and there is an addictive aspect, in that arousal becomes increasingly
difficult without pornographic aid. The pornographic image also has definite
features of reification: it is a stereotype, it is depersonalised, and it
represents a kind of abstract perfection with whom there can be no real
relationship. Relationship is unnecessary to fulfilment, and the pornographic
image offers its devotee a fulfilment which is both authoritative and
egocentric.
Relations with the part-God have a similar intensity. In the fetish-like image
of God the part is taken for the whole, there will be no development of the
relationship, and there will be powerful impulses towards repetition. In their
reified form, the images of God perform social functions which are
concealed from the devotee; for example, in adoring God the devotee is
adoring his or her race, nationality, tradition or identity. It is a noticeable
feature of relationships with reified images that there is a powerful sense of
otherness - the masturbator before the pornographic image ‘forgets’ that he
or she is masturbating, so effective is the sense of erotic otherness, and the
worshipper of the reified and fetish-like God-image has a similar sense of
ecstatic otherness which produces nothing but a state of inner aesthetic
spirituality, exhausting itself in egocentric bliss. In both cases the reified
authority will have blissful qualities which will be (in the case of religion at
any rate) defended in the name of individualism.
It would be a mistake to believe that one can pass directly from ‘false’
authorities to a ‘true’ authority. While it is true in general that all false
authority is non-dialectical, there is no sharp break between the dialectical
and the non-dialectical. Authority, like dialecticity, takes many forms.
Moreover, just because the non-dialectical does exercise a strange kind of
authority over us, we cannot necessarily conclude that the dialectical is
devoid of authority. Perhaps mutuality has its own authority. By thinking
about authority in terms of non-dialecticity and alienation, however, an
attempt has been made here to point to an essential feature of all authentic
authority, namely, its mediated quality is not denied. Authority is false when
it is experienced as confronting the self in an external, objectified manner. It
is the process of reification which abolishes mediation and gives authority
its mysterious numinosity.
AUTHORITY AS A COMPOSITION
Perry was particularly interested in the impact which their studies made
upon students in higher education and how students developed not only in
academic but in ethical maturity. Perry distinguishes nine basic positions
with respect to authority. The fourth position is subdivided into 4A and 4B,
and between each position there is a transitional period. Each position and
each transition is illustrated by a typical response, so altogether there are 20
typical statements (bearing in mind that there is a transitional statement
between positions 4A and 4B). Each of the positions (including 4A and 4B)
is given a label; thus there are ten labels. The whole process is grouped into
three broad phases of development.
The first developmental phase is called dualism modified. Before this phase
even begins, we have the first position, which could be called ‘dualism
unmodified’ or ‘uncritical dualism’. The dualism which Perry has in mind is
that of an absolute distinction between the knower and the known, such that
knowledge is absolutely transcendent, it is objectified over against the
knower as being authoritative, unchangeable and simply true. Authority, in
other words, is absolutely external to the self; self and truth are at opposite
poles. Perry labels position one ‘basic duality’ and illustrates it with the
following statement: ‘authorities know, and if we work hard, read every
word, and learn right answers, all will be well’. The transition from this is
‘but what about those others I hear about? and different opinions and
uncertainties? Some of our own authorities disagree with each other, or
don’t seem to know, and some give us problems instead of answers.’ We see
that the breakdown of absolute authority begins with exposure to conflict
and contradiction.
image (from the first position) of an absolute and unified authority which
will triumph in the end. We might call this a kind of eschatological view of
authority: ‘Then some authorities and differences of opinion are real and
legitimate temporarily, even for authorities. They are working on them to get
to the truth.’ This third position begins to break down when there is what we
might call a sort of eschatological delay. The conviction gradually dawns
on1he student that the eschatological explanation does not provide for a
working approach to life’s problems. It is too remote. ‘But there are so many
things they don’t know the answer to, and they won’t, for a long time.’
The fourth position straddles the end of phase 1 (dualism modified) and the
start of the second phase (relativism discovered). The fourth is transitional,
but it is divided into a first part and a second part with its own transitional
period. During this important stage a new way of organizing conflict
emerges. All hankering after an absolute and final truth is abandoned, at
least in the form understood by the student at the first phase. A reaction sets
in which takes the thinker to the opposite pole: acute individualism, or
subjective relativism. Perry uses the expression ‘solipsism’, suggesting that
a revival of egocentricity has occurred, in which the mind falls back upon
itself, the external authority having failed, it turns inwards to its own isolated
experience. The label for position 4A is multiplicity (solipsism) co-ordinate.
Here the multiplicity is no longer made subordinate to a final, absolute truth,
but various views are co-ordinated by a theory of individual subjectivity.
‘Where authorities don’t know the right answers, everyone has a right to his
or her own opinion. No one is wrong.’ The transitional is ‘but some of my
friends ask me to support my opinions with facts and reasons’ or it may take
the more rebellious form: ‘then what right have they to grade us?’
Just as the first phase dealt with the different ways in which diversity was
handled, so the second main phase (from position 4A onwards) is concerned
with how relativity is handled. The same techniques are used as had
previously been used for the organization of diversity. Thus we find, first of
all, relativism subordinate. Now relativity is no longer co-ordinated
according to simple or naive individual's subjectivity, as in 4B, but in
accordance with a new principle, that of evidence. ‘In certain courses,
authorities are not asking for the right answer. They want us to think about
things in a certain way, supporting opinion with data. That is what they
grade us on.’ In other words, the authority is no longer the simple, naked
authority of an absolute, converging truth, but is the authority of evidence.
Thus there are different kinds of authority, just as there are different kinds of
evidence. This leads into the next position when it is generalized: ‘but this
way seems to work for most courses and even outside them’.
Initial commitment is the label given to position 7 with the example ‘well, I
have made my first commitment’ with its transitional ‘why didn’t that settle
everything?’ The eschatological hypothesis has once again collapsed, and
we have now reached the point where, as Robert Kegan puts it, the self
emerges from the position where it is an administrating institution to the
position where it has an administrating institution.(18)
We may compare the stage reached by position 8 with the crisis which
Erikson suggests as being characteristic of adult middle life. He describes it
as the struggle between generativity and stagnation, which leads to the
strength or virtue of being able to nurture or care if it is successfully
resolved.(19) Perry’s final stage is labelled evolving commitments: ‘This is
how life will be. I must be whole hearted while tentative, fight for my values
yet respect others, believe my deepest values right yet be ready to learn. I
see that I shall be re-tracing this whole journey over and over again, but, I
hope, more wisely.’(20)
In the ten or fifteen years which followed the work of Perry, considerable
progress was made in clarifying the way in which cognitive structures
mediate understandings of authority. In the ‘faith development’ theory of
James Fowler, the six major stages are dissected by seven aspects which run
right across the stages. One of these is ‘locus of authority’ and the criteria
for the allocation of various understandings of authority to a given stage of
overall development are set out in the Manual for Faith Development
Research.(21) In the first stage ‘authority is external’ and may be regarded
as a form of attachment to the principal parent-figure. Authority is thus an
aspect of dependence. In stage 2, the older child is able to negotiate with
authorities to achieve a more favourable balance of power, which springs
from the child’s stronger sense of self, insight into social roles, and grasp of
language. Authority, however, is still external. In stage 3 authority is
grounded in the tacit conventions of society. Social approval is a principal
factor in determining whether authority will be accepted. The guidance of
significant others is sought, and the criteria which are valued are of an
interpersonal kind, such as honesty, charm or integrity. Authority is based on
trust.
In comparing the scheme of Perry with that of Fowler, one must remember
that Perry is dealing only with college students, and we may take his work as
having to do with the interchange between Fowler’s stage 3 ‘synthetic
conventional faith’ and stage 4 ‘individuative reflective faith’. We find this
more fully developed in the work of Sharon Parks, who has taken the middle
phase of Perry’s scheme (positions 4A and 5, ‘relativism discovered’) as
suggestive of an intermediate stage between Fowler’s 3 and 4. In general,
Parks combines Perry and Fowler to produce four basic stages in the
evolution of authority. In the first of Parks’ positions, we find authority-
bound/ dualistic forms of cognition, in which 'The person’s knowing is
inextricably bound up with the power of the trusted Authority’ .(22) The
dualism lies in the tendency in this first stage to sharply divide truth from
falsehood, us from them, and the little tolerance for ambiguity. Parks
emphasizes that many adults do not receive permission from their religious
groups to go beyond this form of knowing all their lives.
Parks agrees with Perry that the second phase in the composition of
authority may be called unqualified relativism. This leads to the third stage,
commitment in relativism, while she calls the fourth stage convictional
commitment (paradoxical). Parks develops in some detail
When this kind of absolute dependence collapses during the critical years of
late adolescence, especially during higher education, its place may be taken
by ‘counter- dependence’. One pushes against the pattern of authority; one
resists the role of the authoritative other in order to break free. The capacity
to create a new kind of authority is still lacking, however, and so in this
phase of counter-dependence the authority of the other is still paramount,
although in negative tension.
‘Today it would seem that among many Christians the process of growing
into mature human beings is estranging them from the faith.’(25) Many
adults get trapped in a sort of magical faith in which complete security was
offered through mere repetition. Segundo remarks that if this security is
challenged through education, the result would be a sense of deep anxiety.
(26) Cognitive developmental psychology does illuminate the sequences
through which authority is composed by the self. It is less illuminating on
the problem of arrested development, although Fowler’s idea of institutional
sponsorship up to but not beyond a certain stage is an interesting suggestion,
which he has developed in his studies of congregational conflict.(27) We
need the resources, however, of a psychoanalysis and critical social theory if
we are to use the rest of the material to form an effective theory of RE today.
The American Jesuit W. W. Meissner has drawn upon psycho-dynamic
theories of personality development to shed light on the nature of adult
acceptance of authority. 'The patterns of protection, well-being and authority
inherent in family structure find their natural extension and elaboration in
religion.'(28) The conflicts of the anal period of early childhood are
particularly significant. The child comes to realize more sharply his or her
dependence upon superior powers, and there may be a narcissistic
compensation which may take the form of an all-powerful Heavenly Father.
This ‘idealizing projection’ is extremely important in the history of adult
religious authority. Heinz Kohut has studied in some detail the way in which
early narcissistic wounding (i.e. some king of break in the relationship
between the child and the mother which inflicts a sense of deprivation upon
the child) may be met by either an attribution of grandeur to the self or the
idealization of the parental image.(29) In the former case, the self is holy,
just and righteous, while weakness and evil are expelled beyond the
boundaries of the self. This becomes important in forms of tribalism and
nationalism. Its religious form is when the tribe or nation with which the self
identifies is glorified as the perfect source of authority. The situation when
through projection the other is idealized, while the self is seen as poor, sinful
and unworthy, is equally important for religion, and may be particularly
observed in certain kinds of Christianity.(30) Kohut emphasizes that
although there are pathological forms of narcissistic compensation, there are
also normal, healthy and life-giving forms of narcissism.(31) The idolisation
of the grandised self may indeed prevent me from having a genuine respect
and affection for my actual self, while if my worship of God springs from
my own need I may not be able to pass beyond the projection of my need
into the One who is to be loved for intrinsic reasons. Nevertheless, without a
general sense of living within a benevolent and supportive world which may
well include a loving God, I may lack the optimism and confidence which
can inspire real creativity, but fixation upon the totally adorable power of the
all-beautiful other can lead me into self-accusation and excessive passivity.
By opening the bounds of the self to relationships with structures beyond the
self, the way is prepared for a rich accession of meaning, which goes far
beyond the infantile authoritative dependence and becomes a resource for
mature life. The psycho-analytic approach enables us to distinguish the types
of religious authority which flow from the oral period, the anal period and
the super-ego period, and is thus an essential complement to the cognitive
theories of Perry, Fowler and Parks.
Max Horkheimer was one of the first to create the bridge between the
authority of the family understood in psychoanalytic terms, and that of
society. When the child eternalises
the authority of the parent, it is the entire authority structure of the parental
culture which is being digested. Today, the authority of the school has
largely taken the place of parental authority in the task of defining centres of
power, truth and meaning:
Thus it seems natural that the world of adult life should be experienced in
this way. It is natural for some to command, while others obey. It is because
of their central role in the formation and maintenance of this view of social
power that ideas of God have such a fetish-like quality. One asserts them,
affirms them, denies them, blasphemes them, and adores them, but it is
difficult to think them.(33)
It is at this point that the far more complex and subtle theories of
contemporary social critics such as Claude Lefort (34) and Cornelius
Castoriadis (35) become helpful. The discourse or rhetoric which maintains
the modern sources of authority has become more and more transparent. The
rhetoric of freedom grows more strident as the sense of helplessness before
the vast impersonal forces of money grows deeper. Even the destruction of
the ozone layer and the greenhouse effect are spoken of as if they were
meteorological phenomena, not consequences of human intervention. Lefort
remarks ‘The discourse on liberty always comes back to support the
discourse on property, just as the discourse on justice comes back to support
the discourse on order’.(36)
We see thus that in the study of modern education, authority and freedom
are not to be poised against each other, as in the classical reason of the
Enlightenment, but are to be seen as joined together in the contemporary
rhetoric of industrial power. The tacit authorities continually reinforce our
alleged freedom, while actually contributing to our increased helplessness.
Unable to handle their own multiplicity, and the victims of their own social
function in the maintenance of the bourgeois historical enterprise, Western
religions exemplify more and more the characteristic features of false
consciousness.
In the opening pages of this chapter, reference was made to the non-
dialectical as being a pathological quality in the authority-reasoning of
adults. If we look again at the stages of normal authority-reasoning
described by the cognitive developmentalists, we see that it would be
possible to describe the earlier stages as being non-dialectical. The
egocentricity of children’s thinking is necessarily of this nature, but if adults
thought like children, they would be insane. Children are not insane (37) to
think like children, but the task of education is to enable healthy children to
become healthy adults. This means that non-dialectical forms of thinking
must give way to dialectical relationships, and at this point we have to
realize that the normal development through the stages is today severely
interrupted by the forms of alienation and false consciousness which have
been described. We need to examine our methods of RE in the light of this
predicament.
In the long run, and this is what lies behind these reflections about the role
of reified authority in late industrial capitalism, the only true authority in
today's world is the authority of human poverty and wretchedness. Our
theology and our religious education are, after all, not to be so sharply
contrasted as at first we thought. They have this In common: they are both
functions of the people with whom we stand in solidarity.
Homepage
http://zvavanhu.mywapblog.com/freedom-and-authority-in-the-
philosophy.xhtml
GOVT-105
Like all organized societies, the United States attempts to navigate a course
between individual freedom and authority, liberty and security. The nation’s
(revised) founding document, the United States Constitution, was itself a
compromise between a desire for enhanced power for the central
government and a passion to preserve individual freedom (originally, for a
limited portion of society, but over the decades and centuries, for an ever-
increasing number of Americans). As retired Supreme Court Justice David
Souter put it in a May 2010 commencement address, the Constitution
“embodies the desire of the American people, like most people, to have
things both ways. We want order and security, and we want liberty. And
we want not only liberty but equality as well.”
As Justice Souter also observed, when liberty and security clash, the Court
“is forced to choose between them”. We will consider how the Court
decides what the Constitution means in specific cases, and will consider
different theories of constitutional interpretation, including originalism and
the Living Constitution (as well as how these theories may share something
in common), and we will discuss political argument over “activist” v. “strict
constructionist” judges, a controversy Justice Souter also addresses in his
speech.
Many of the cases we will discuss were decided against a specific contextual
backdrop—for instance, free speech cases decided just after World War I
and the Russian Revolution, the Japanese-American internment and Pledge
of Allegiance cases decided during World War II, the Pentagon Papers case
decided during the Vietnam War (which also has relevance to recent debate
over the Wikileaks disclosure of U.S. diplomatic cables), and recent cases
involving Guantanamo detainees decided during the undeclared war on
terror. We will consider how and whether context affects (or should affect)
the way in which the Court has decided these cases.
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?
_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ142894&ERICExtSearc
h_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ142894
Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill
Member's Bill
75—2
Commentary
Recommendation
Introduction
This bill would amend the Education Act 1989 by removing any
requirement for a student to join a students’ association; preventing any
person from exerting undue influence on a student to join or not join, or
cease to be a member of, a students’ association; and preventing a person
from being required to pay a membership fee to a students’ association
unless that person chose to become or remain a member of that association.
Its aim is to uphold the right of students to freedom of association.
Voluntary membership
Undue influence
New section 229B would prohibit a person from exerting undue influence on
any student or prospective student to become or remain a member of a
students’ association, cease to be a member of a students’ association, or not
become a member of a students’ association. This broadens the application
of the prohibition on undue influence from that in the bill as introduced.
Complaints
The bill as introduced does not provide for a regime to enforce the
prohibition on the exertion of undue influence. New section 229C would
establish a complaints procedure to be followed when undue influence was
considered to have been exerted. The new section is modelled on section
229L as introduced by the Education (Tertiary Students Association
Voluntary Membership) Amendment Act 1998 and repealed by the
Education Amendment Act 2000.
Payment of fees
New clause 229CA would clarify the categories of fees that may and may
not be collected from students. It provides that no person is required to pay a
membership fee to a students’ association, or to pay money to any other
person as an alternative to paying such a membership fee, unless that person
chooses to become or remain a member of that association. It would provide
that a person who is not a member of a students’ association may not be
required to pay a representation fee to the association for any services that
the association provides generally to the institution’s student body. It further
provides that neither of these provisions prevent a students’ association from
either charging a person who is not a member of the association for the
provision of a specific service to that person, at that person’s request; or
being contracted by an institution or any other person to provide services to
students of an institution.
The effect of these provisions would be to ensure that it was voluntary to
pay to be a member of an association or to be represented by an association,
while preserving the ability of associations to charge for services on a user-
pays basis or to be contracted to provide general services to students on
behalf of the institution.
Collection of fees
New clause 229CA would make it clear that institutions would be required,
if asked by a students’ association, to collect the membership fees of the
association, but only if the council was provided with a copy of the
association’s current constitution and an independently audited set of the
association’s financial accounts for the last financial year; and that the
council must pay all membership fees so collected to the association in a
timely manner.
The new clause would also allow a council to decline a request to collect
membership fees, or withhold all or part of any fees already collected, if it
believed that either the terms of the association’s constitution were being
breached, or the accounts disclosed financial irregularities. The council
would be able to retain any fees withheld until it was satisfied that all
breaches of the terms of the association’s constitution, and all financial
irregularities, had been appropriately addressed by the association.
The council would be able to charge an association for the actual and
reasonable costs incurred in collecting fees.
Commencement date
Over the years student associations have been behind the creation and
development of some of the major initiatives that have supported students
such as Student Job Search, University Games, student newspapers and
radio, student health and counselling services, hardship funds, subsidised
bus transport, gym and recreation facilities, clubs and societies facilities,
bookshops and much more.
The bill will effectively destroy student associations. They will struggle to
attract and retain members, particularly at the time of enrolment when
students are paying out a large amount in tuition fees. They will need to
devote significant resources, time and attention to attracting members, which
will come at the cost of the actual representation, advocacy, support and
services they are trying to provide. The Committee heard that a survey
conducted in Australia following the introduction of Voluntary Student
Unionism there showed that 72 percent of associations had total or near total
cuts to services, campaigns and student support programmes.
Student Associations will also have to put in place mechanisms for dealing
with “freeloading” students who use services but are not members.
Moreover there is no ability under the law to charge a representation fee, so
if student associations achieve success in terms of representation it will
automatically be received by non-members.
The bill in fact reduces the choice that students have. Under the current law
whether a student association has universal or voluntary membership is up to
students themselves. If 10 percent of students sign a petition a referendum
has to be held on the nature of membership. Such a referendum has resulted
in the University of Auckland having a voluntary student association, but
others, such as the University of Otago choosing to stay with universal
membership. It also prevents, as happened at Waikato University, an
association after choosing to go voluntary to return to universal membership.
For all of these reasons, Labour believes this bill should not proceed. Labour
also takes this opportunity to note that should this bill become law, on a
return to Government it would be our intention to move to repeal it.
Green Party minority view
The Green Party member can see no justification for this legislation and
agrees with the majority of submitters that the likely outcomes will be
damaging for the tertiary education sector.
The bill would take away students’ rights to choose the membership system
best for them. It would take away the compromise agreement reached in
2001, which allowed students to choose whether they wanted to be voluntary
or universal via a petition and a referendum.
Committee process
Committee membership
Catherine Delahunty
Jo Goodhew
Colin King
Sue Moroney
Louise Upston
In his book Power, Adolph Berle discussed what he believed are five laws of
power: (1) Power inevitably fills any vacuum in human organization, (2)
Power is invariably personal, (3) Power is invariably based on a system of
ideas or philosophy, (4) Power is exercised through, and depends upon,
institutions, (5) Power is invariably confronted with, and acts in the presence
of, a field of responsibility.
Authority, on the other hand, involves the moral right (and sometimes, too
the legal right) to settle issues or disputes. It means the right to control,
command or determine. Authority is natural: that is, it emanates from the
intense demands of man’s nature. Human beings require and desire
authority, even as they desire and demand friendship, love and family. Any
human group, organization or institution demands authority. A family needs
parents to lead it and set guidelines. A baseball team requires coaches, a
manager, a general manager and an owner. A police or fire department
requires a chief who will make and enforce the rules for the department. A
church group needs leaders who will help decide and enforce church
policies. Everyday experience, then, reveals man’s need for authority.
But something tragic happened during the past decade: A total war on
authority erupted. What resulted was an inordinate emphasis on “freedom,”
and the wrong sort of freedom at that. As Russell Kirk and other scholars
have observed, the consequence of the total war on authority was freedom
without order, freedom without discipline or restraint, freedom without
authority. Certainly, though, any tolerable social order demands a delicate
balance between freedom and authority, for authority helps to teach man
self-control and keeps human beings from committing mayhem against their
neighbors.
The state too can help to restore authority in society by guaranteeing the
authority of other institutions—for example, families, schools and churches
—by exercising authority in its own proper sphere, and by not usurping the
authority of other bodies. It can serve to promote authority in society by
guaranteeing that God-given rights are protected, and by enforcing laws
justly.
• Sign In to E-Mail
• Print
As Americans, we're not sure we share values. We're sometimes even afraid
to use the word values. We talk about teaching ethics in schools -- people
say, "What ethics? Whose ethics? Maybe we can't." And they confuse that
with teaching of religion. And we are afraid to reaffirm the basics upon
which a lawful and a decent society are based. We're almost embarrassed by
We look upon authority too often and focus over and over again, for 30 or
40 or 50 years, as if there is something wrong with authority. We see only
the oppressive side of authority. Maybe it comes out of our history and our
background. What we don't see is that freedom is not a concept in which
people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is
about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human
being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you
do.
[ Another interruption. ]
At the core the struggle is philosophical. There are many, many things that
can be done in law enforcement to protect us better. There are many things
that can done to create a government that is more responsive and more
helpful. The fact is that we're fooling people if we suggest to them the
solutions to these very, very deep-seated problems are going to be found in
government. . . .
The solutions are going to be found when we figure out as a society what our
families are going to be like in the next century, and how maybe they are
going to be different. They are going to have to be just as solid and just as
strong in teaching every single youngster their responsibility for citizenship.
We're going to find the answer when schools once again train citizens.
Schools exist in America and have always existed to train responsible
citizens of the United States of America.
If they don't do that, it's very hard to hold us together as a country, because
it's shared values that hold us together. We're going to come through this
when we realize that it's all about, ultimately, individual responsibility. That
in fact the criminal act is about individual responsibility and the building of
the respect for the law and ethics is also a matter of individual responsibility.
Ads by Google
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/03/20/nyregion/freedom-is-about-authority-
excerpts-from-giuliani-speech-on-crime.html
We usually make the distinction between two kinds of authority: formal and
personal. Formal authority is the power given to someone by a social
institution as a consequence of one=s place in a system of rules. Therefore,
by virtue of their appointment, election or selection, the army officer, the
magistrate, and the teacher are in authority. They help to maintain a social
order or enforce a specific type of social control. Their authority is usually
supported by a legal power. The policeman is able to get his orders obeyed
because his power rests on the legality of some normative rules.
The teacher is an authority figure in both of the above senses. On the one
hand, he is put into authority by a community (city or state) in order to
educate his students. On the other hand, he is able to leave a lasting
influence on his students if he displays some personal qualities such as
enthusiasm, love of the subjects, compassion, sense of humour.
The teacher should emphasize not so much the >authority= but the >spirit=
of tradition, a tradition that provides students with a range of possibilities, a
sense of order and belonging, and an urge to keep alive their creative powers
and adventurous mentality.
1. Joan Goodman
1. Graduate School of Education, University of Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia, USA, joang@gse.upenn.edu
Abstract
• Share
o Share Xml
o Delicious
o Facebook
o Digg
o Reddit
o StumbleUpon
o Close
• Print
Schools that are rated ‘outstanding’ by Ofsted will be fast tracked through
the process.
Schools who wish to apply for academy status can now register their interest
online and will receive further guidance on how the process works.
Further details of today's changes will form part of the Academies Bill.
Subject to Parliamentary approval the Government will allow all maintained
schools to apply to become an academy with schools rated outstanding being
fast-tracked for approval by the Secretary of State. Other primary, secondary
and special schools will be able to convert at a later stage with the final
decision on which schools become academies resting with the Secretary of
State.
'The freedom to set our own term and holiday dates means we are able
to maximise learning and teaching time and put a two-week break in
the long autumn term and start the academic year early.'
'I believe that there will be considerable enthusiasm for this initiative.
Outstanding schools by their very nature have outstanding heads who
thrive on greater independence and autonomy. They deserve to be
trusted and in my view will be able to do so much more to progress
their own and other local schools who may need support. I have been
afforded these premier conditions for many years and recognise how
critical it has been to the success of Thomas Telford School and the
family of schools that have grown from our independence.'
Notes to editors:
5. More than a third of academies with GCSE results in 2009 have seen an
increase of more than 15 percentage points (5+ A* - C including English and
mathematics) compared with the last results of the schools they replaced.
Contact details
Central newsdesk
for media enquiries
Telephone: 020 7925 6789
2. Time will be allocated (on a daily basis) for all students to discover and
develop their own talents - so they can learn how to "follow their own bliss"
educationally. This "freedom-path" comes out of Joseph Campbell's
educational breakthrough discovery - based on the idea - that "when you
allow a student to follow their bliss, they will find your bliss". Students will
then create their own semester long "Projects of Bliss"- which will express
and develop their highest talents - and which will include all strands of the
regular "skills based curriculum" like math, reading, writing, speaking,
project building and historical perspective.
3. Teachers will also be given the freedom (and time) to teach THEIR own
passion, talents and "bliss" as well. They will be allowed to express their
own opinions about politics and religion; as long as they clearly state that
they are speaking ONLY their opinions. Students will then be allowed to
respond in kind, with courteous, thought provoking questions. The really
"big questions" of life will be allowed BACK into the classroom
conversation - like - "What is the purpose of life", "Why was I born" -
"What is the path of happiness?"
6. Letter grading will cease, whenever possible and "all suggestions for
improvement" will be openly agreed upon by the students, teachers and
parents accordingly. All evaluations and "ratings" will be done in periodic
meetings, with all parties represented equally. ( This type of subjective
evalution is being tried in Canada and Australia, with great success.)
The best thing about this ACT - is that IT COSTS NOTHING - and
would even
please religious people in the Red States who have long sought a more
open
debate between proponents of "Darwinism" and the newer idea of
"Intelligent Design."
I can tell from my own experience - that students LOVE to philosophize
and
theorize - if only they're given the freedom to do so. This Bill could
certainly be a bridge between liberals and conservatives, between the
religious right and the more scientific left - and open a healthy
stimulating dialogue that will keep kids from dropping out of school
because of sheer boredom.
“In the name of the best within you, do not sacrifice this
world to those who are its worst. In the name of the
values that keep you alive, do not let your vision of
man be distorted by the ugly, the cowardly, the
mindless in those who have never achieved his title.
Do not lose your knowledge that man’s proper
estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind
and a step that travels unlimited roads. Do not let
your fire go out, spark by irreplaceable spark, in the
hopeless swamps of the approximate, the not-quite,
the not-yet, the not-at-all. Do not let the hero in your
soul perish, in lonely frustration for the life you
deserved, but have never been able to reach. Check
your road and the nature of your battle. The world
you desired can be won, it exists, it is real, it is
possible, it’s yours.” – JOHN GALT
Freedom in Education Versus Right to Education
In freedom in education there are no masters and slaves. In "right to education" there are
freeloaders and parasitical "free-askers."
Has public education achieved its goal? In truth, public “free” education has
achieved its goal perfectly — it has turned a potential free-thinking child that will
fight for freedom, into a adult incapable of abstract reasoning, that demands to be
enslaved by the state. In fact, public education has done such a good job at this, that
most people cannot imagine a society where public education does not exist
Yes, I’m for the complete abolition of the University of the Philippines and all state
schools, colleges, and universities (SUC). However I don’t believe that privatization of
all public SCUs is the first reform. I truly understand why most of my very passionate
critics continue to insist that education is a right. It is very clear: they are ignorant of the
proper, real concept of rights. They think they have a right to everything or anything.
Perhaps they think that rights is like a bumper sticker or a humanitarian slogan that
anyone can use for his/her own benefit. Or perhaps they think that this abstraction-
“rights”- is divorced from reality. Yes, it’s the Law of Identity which they ignore or try to
negate.
Rights are positive, indispensable conditions to man’s existence. They primarily pertain
to a right of action, not a right to something. For instance, property rights pertain to a
right to action. Property rights guarantee that you own the title to your property, and that
you are entitled to its fruits or any other benefits that might accrue from the use of such a
property. I don’t think this is difficult to understand.
Education, like all others, is a commodity. Like health care or a light bulb, education is a
product that people might need or might not need. It is subject to the law of supply and
demand. The so absurd phrases “right to education”, “right to accessible education or
“right to quality education” are just some of the most disgusting perversion of the concept
of rights. They are a by-product of the nineteenth century rise of socialism or collectivism
that infected the whole of Europe and the United States.
But what is freedom in education as opposed to the right to education? With this, I’d like
to post the following information from Capitalism.org, which tackles the proper concept
of Education.
Capitalism supports freedom in education as opposed to the tax funded “free” education
run by the state. Under capitalism, the indoctrination of the young by the officials of the
state is illegal. Under capitalism, education, like food, computers, and medicine, is taken
on as a private profit making enterprise, not because education is unimportant, but
because it is so important (like all private enterprise this leaves room for private charity,
but this is a secondary issue).
The only “free” education under capitalism is provided by private individuals, i.e.,
parents paying for their child’s education, i.e., individuals acting as a group, e.g., church
groups and non-religious groups.
The price of a “free” public education is freedom. The collectivist (Nazi, communist,
socialist) notion that there is such a thing as a “free” education is a monstrous myth —
anything of value must be paid for. The state per say produces nothing, all state funds are
forcibly taken from others through taxes, etc. When one recommends the “state funding
of education to preserve freedom“, one is asking that the freedom of one’s fellow citizens
be abridged, that their wealth be looted by public officials, all for the alleged purpose of
protecting freedom. This is a contradiction in terms: freedom of action under a system of
rights, is never preserved by the violation of those rights. That is, no matter how good the
alleged ends, evil means are never justified.
What the advocates of “free” education espouse is not leaving individuals free to pay for
their own education, or free to pay for the education of another, or free to decide on the
content of that education. Rather, they advocate the robbing of one man to pay the for the
unearned benefit (in this case the “schooling”) of another. The proper name for such a
program is not “free” education, but is legalized theft. This is what those who advocate
“free” state supported education actually endorse.
The key issue here is whether one is forced to pay for education of oneself (or others)
voluntarily of one’s own free-will — as with private education; or, if one is forced to pay
for the education of oneself (or others) at the point of a gun (to see this gun appear,
simply volunteer to refuse to take part in “voluntary” taxation).
Government is an agent of force; force and mind are opposites; to impose the will of
public officials upon its citizens, is to render its citizens slaves. Contrary to the
collectivist doctrines espoused throughout American colleges, the mind of a child — or
an adult — does not belong to the state: each man is an end to himself. It is said that
children learn by example, is there any doubt to what kind of example “public-free”
schooling is teaching?
If a parent does not approve of a private school they can remove their children and their
money from it, and take both elsewhere. No such option exists in societies with public
schools: whether parents send their children to a public schools or not, and whether they
approve of the ideas taught in those schools or not, they must still pay for public
education through compulsory taxation. This added burden often makes it impossible for
many parents to even afford to send their children to private schools.
In fact, in America there are no truly private schools, since government determines the
standards and thus much of the content of both public and “private” schools. Today’s
“private” schools, like “private” business under Hitler’s Germany, are for the most part
are only private in name, but are not private in substance.
There is no such thing as a ‘right to education’, since such a ‘right’ makes slaves of those
who are physically forced to pay or teach for someone else’s so called right. For this
reason alone public schooling should not be saved, or reformed, but it should be
abolished — as it is a violation of individual (human) rights.
What about those who cannot afford to pay for their education?
As for those select few who cannot afford to pay for their own education they can resort
to private charity, which will be greatly enlarged through the use of tax credits. School
vouchers is another “mixed economy” option, depending upon how it is implemented.
Also, under capitalism, since their would be no public schools, more private schools
would appear, which would lead to more competition, and a decrease in the cost of an
education.
Are not all private schools better because they are private?
That a school is private does not make it intellectually better than a public school — a
private school can be worse then a public school. Public schools can dip their hands into
the public treasury for dollars — private schools cannot. What is important is that a
school actually provides a *rational* education.
Under capitalism a private school would be better; because, if it is not, it will not receive
any funds; the same cannot be said of public schools, as the worse they seem to get, the
more money they receive.
Having government fund schools means that government will control content. As the
money taken from taxpayer’s by government is not limitless, it must be allocated
somehow. It is through the allocation of funds that government controls content, i.e., “We
don’t like your content, you won’t get any funding from us.”
In the short-term, the political solution are tax credits for education (see Ayn Rand’s
article in the VOICE OF REASON on this subject for details). This will allow people
(who pay for public schools through their taxes) a tax credit which can be used to pay for
the private (or public) school of their choice, or it can even be used for home schooling.
Individuals, or businesses, can even use the money to pay for someone else’s education,
and then receive a tax credit. More importantly, tax credits will transfer fiscal control
from bureaucrats back to individuals, thus forcing public schools to compete in the
market for dollars — just like private schools do.
Given the terrible record of public “education”, it is dubious whether any rational
individual would voluntarily pay for it, if it were not “free.” Of all the government
interventions into people’s lives, has any been as great a failure as the sad spectacle of
public education? The drug addiction of teenagers unable to cope with reality (so they
have no desire to face serious issues like this); student crime and violence (since they do
not understand why it is wrong to initiate force against others, after all the government
does); functional illiteracy of thousands (all the more important so they can’t read this);
and most importantly the inability to think in principle (so they will not know when the
principle of their rights is being violated). These are the results of inserting the power of
destruction (to be applied towards brutes and criminals) to an act of production —
education.
Has public education achieved its goal (the goal implied by its logic)?
In truth, public “free” education has achieved its goal perfectly — it has turned a
potential free-thinking child that will fight for freedom, into a adult incapable of abstract
reasoning, that demands to be enslaved by the state. In fact, public education has done
such a good job at this, that most people cannot imagine a society where public education
does not exist.
Where in the 19th century America, parents had to be forced with bayonets to turn their
children over to be indoctrinated into the concentration camps for the young — public
schools — a century later, many parents turn in their children voluntarily — and many
even go so far as to demand that the state take them!
If any so called humanitarian is truly concerned about children and adults, then he will
help free their minds and bodies from the ravages of the inhumane atrocities of a
compulsory state “education.”
http://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/07/27/freedom-in-education-versus-right-
to-education
The main goal of Forum is to introduce the educational standards of the contemporary
democratic society into the Croatian education system.
The members of the Forum are education experts, experienced practitioners and
academics, professors and teachers, parents and students that want to improve on various
education issues.
During the past 18 years, main activities of the Forum include creating and implementing
education programs for methodological training of the teaching professionals, non-violent
conflict resolution, health education, civic education, student scholarships, and training in
the field of methodology of teaching.
Program «We Can Work It Out: A Network of Medication Centres», which is, so far
based in, and implemented through:
In the period of 2000-2010 the most important results of the Forum for Freedom in
Education's activities are:
•
• Receiving two institutional grants by the National Foundation for Civil Society
Development (2006-2009 and 2010-2012)
• 4 EU-funded project were developed and implemented.
• Over 2000 teachers from all over Croatia have been a part of the „Educating for
Health“program since 2000.
• Project „Reading and Writing for Critical Thinking“ was expanded in the region
by implementing a series of training modules in Serbia, Montenegro, Slovenia
and Bosnia and Herzegovina.
• Organising a conference of the European Forum for Freedom in Education
entitled „Teaching through and for democracy: New school – the path to the
modern democratic society“ in Brijuni in 2005.
• Eli Pijaca (Executive Director of Forum) and Zoran Pavletić (trainer) are
members of the „Reading and Writing for Critical Thinking International
Consortium Board“, an organisation promoting critical thinking and active
learning as a means of acquiring quality education.
• Based on the program „Reading and Writing for Critical Thinking“a program
„Active learning and Critical Thinking for Higher Education“was created as a
own program.
• The president, Vesna Mihoković Puhovski was a member of the Council for Civil
Society Development and of the Executive Board of the European Forum for
Freedom in Education.
• Founding mediation centres in Zagreb, Rijeka and Velika Gorica in partnership
with the respective cities.
• Mediation was introduced as a part of the school curricula in schools in Rijeka
and Velika Gorica.
• The development and implementation of the practices of volunteering in Forum as
a way to actively include youth into public affairs.
• The program“Reading and Writing for Critical Thinking“was successfully
completed by 3.000 teachers and teaching staff in the period 2008-2010
• Successful cooperation with the Croatian legal Centre and the Croatian Debate
Society
• The creation and implementation of own standards and systems of evaluation and
the quality for the programs and seminars.
• Over 150 high-school students received scholarships for studying abroad.
• Program „Reading and Writing for Critical Thinking“was introduced as an
elective class at the Teaching Academy of the University of Rijeka.
• The introduction of the program „Street Law“ as an elective class in the school
curricula in the Primorsko-goranska county.
http://www.enjoined.edupolicy.net/index.php/2011-02-23-11-51-40/34-
parners/87-forum-for-freedom-in-education.html?start=3
I know that education could be a lot better for less cost and I will explain how to get
there, but many people just can’t get their head around such innovation, so let’s start with
what everyone believes, and then look at some analysis that everyone can immediately
recognize has a ring of truth, and then we’ll explore a solution that a majority will
instantly recognize as superior to the status quo.
Everyone agrees that education could be a lot better for a little more cost, and everyone
agrees that it could be at least somewhat better without increasing the cost; but somehow,
education never gets better. Somehow, innovation has been suppressed.
The obvious reason for a lack of innovation in education is that parents and children have
no meaningful choice, and the obvious reason that parents have no meaningful choice is
because there is no meaningful competition in the education industry, and the reason
there is no meaningful competition in the education industry is because the education
industry is a monopoly.
The reason the education industry is a monopoly is because it has only one customer –
government, and for education, government has only one customer – unions, and unions
have only one customer – teachers.
Unions represent teachers – not parents or kids. Unions are about power.
Apparently, government and union leaders think that parents and children need to just
shut up and sit down.
A friend of mine, let’s call him François, disagrees – vehemently. François knows that
parents have lots of choice because he has studied the issue and talked with some
teachers. François says that he understands education much better than me even though I
have three children in school and he has no children at all (because he doesn’t want to
increase his carbon footprint)!
I asked François to give me his best example of how he knows that we parents have so
much control over our children’s education, and he explained that the parents on his
street go to PTA meetings where they forced the government to raise their taxes and to
hire more teachers! FORCED?! Higher taxes and more union members are exactly what
politicians and union leaders want!
Smaller class size may sound like a good idea, but it is an idea that has been proven false.
Smaller class size has minimal educational benefit. The only ones who benefit
significantly from smaller class sizes are government and unions.
Those poor parents … they were so desperate to help their children … They probably
thought it was their idea, but clearly it was the union’s idea. There was probably one guy
who was thinking for himself a little bit and expressed doubt, and those poor desperate
parents probably insinuated (in that passive-aggressive left coast way) that he might not
be one of them, at which point, he would be terrified that some of them might be thinking
he was a closet right-wing, teacher-hating lunatic who watches Glenn Beck. Then those
poor desperate parents proceeded to jump through every hoop as the union played them
like a piano.
Imagine if education were about the kids instead of political power.
Imagine if education were about the future instead of political power.
In the near future, I will explain a solution that I think the majority who care about the
children will agree with.
-----
I’ll have more to add to this article soon, but for the rest of it, I’m just going to throw out
compelling information as I find it, and then I will develop solutions.
College cost inflation has increased much faster than general inflation.
It seems like College is becoming a scam. Surely the internet, video lecturers, recorded
lectures, and other innovations could cut college costs by about 90%.
What about K – 12? Consider that Jimmy Carter and Congress created the Department of
Education in 1977, and that inflation adjusted costs per student have doubled since then;
whereas, results have gone down.
http://www.endofinnocence.com/2011/03/freedom-of-education.html
CAPITALISM, DEMOCRACY, FREEDOM AND EDUCATION
By Manuel Cereijo
There is little argument today about whether or not there is a relationship between
capitalism and democracy. Two great economists of the last generation, Max Weber and
Joseph Schumpeter, detailed the linkage. Weber contended that democracy in its clearest
form can occur only under capitalist industrialization, and that it had its greatest
opportunity in a society which emphasizes individual responsibility. He stated flatly that
history clearly confirms that modern democracy rose along with capitalism and in a
casual connection with it.
Schumpeter was even more emphatic. He stated that modern democracy is a product of
the capitalist process, and the two were mutually supportive parts of a rising modern
civilization. Schumpeter was careful to point out, however, the tension between
capitalism and democracy. He cautioned that the means at the disposal of private interests
were often used to interfere with the mechanism of competitive leadership. The
Friedmans say that despite the advantages which flow from capitalism, the relationship
between political and economic freedom is complex and by no means unilateral.
The essential nature of capitalism is social harmony through the pursuit of self-interest.
Under capitalism, the individual's pursuit of his own economic self-interest benefits the
economic self-interests of all others. The system means the complete separation of
economy and state, just like the separation of church and state.
Capitalism is the social system based upon private ownership of the means of production.
However, the primary premise of capitalism, the one that I consider most important, is
that is based on individual rights. It is the only politico-economic system based on the
doctrine of individual rights. This means that capitalism recognizes that each person is
the owner of his own life, and has the right to live his life in any manner he chooses as
long as he does not violate the rights of others.
Contrary to widely held beliefs, capitalism is not a system which exploits a large portion
of society for the sake of a small minority of wealthy capitalists. Ironically, it is actually
socialism that causes the systematic exploitation of labor. Exploitation is inherent to the
nature of socialism because individuals cannot live for their own sake, rather they exist
merely as means to whatever ends the socialist rulers may have in mind.
Most critics of capitalism now accept the crucial role of entrepreneurs and businessmen
in the earlier stages of the system. The source of the gifts of capitalism is the supply side
of the economy. In the capitalist economies of the West, this simple recognition is the
core of all successful economic policy. Karl Marx erroneously located the means of
production in the material arrangements of the society rather than in the metaphysical
capital of human freedom and creativity. However, supply can create its own demand,
even in the political realm.
All political systems are ultimately the expression of some underlying philosophy. For
example, Marxian socialism upholds that man is a collective entity shaped by economic
forces beyond his control whose greatest good is to serve the ends of "society".
Capitalism is morally good for each person to strive for his own happiness, and that the
proper social arrangement for men to live under is one in which the initiation of physical
force is banished. This is the ideological basis upon which the United States was
implicitly founded.
Capitalism is the only political system that is based upon man's true nature as a being
who possesses the faculty of reason-capitalism is the only system that recognizes that
human beings can think. Indeed, individual rights and capitalism not only protect the
individual person and property of each human being, but most importantly, they protect
the individual mind of every human being.
The greatest aggressor against man has been the various governments that man has
adopted throughout history. This is why it is crucial that governments be limited in their
ability to use force by a constitution based upon individual rights.
Capitalism is the only system in which freedom and liberty can exist. An individual is
free when force is not being initiated against him. A man's freedom can only be infringed
upon when another person or group of persons initiates the use of physical force against
him. The fact that an individual cannot start his own company is a violation of his
freedom. In a free society all men may act as they choose as so long as they do not
infringe on the freedom of others.
Freedom is one whole, and anything that reduces freedom on one part of our lives is
likely to affect freedom in the other parts. Democracy and capitalism have very different
beliefs about the proper distribution of power. One believes in a completely equal
distribution of political power,"one man, one vote', while the other believes that is the
duty of the economically fit to lead the development of society. However, in democratic-
capitalistic societies power comes from two sources-wealth and political position. It has
been possible to convert economic power into political power or, conversely, political
power into economic power.
Few hold one without quickly gaining the other. The conversion creates a dynamic
equilibrium that holds democracy and capitalism functioning properly.
Obviously, extended discussion of the economic values and assumptions inherent in the
Constitution of the United States, and how they intersect with its political values and
assumptions is impossible here. But I will try to simplify some. Implicit in the spare,
matter of fact prose of the Constitution are embedded three specific economic values
deserving of comment.
The first of these is the right to private property. It is assumed, in the Lockean tradition,
to flow from the law of nature itself. It is not a concession by those governing to the
governed. Along with the right to life and to liberty, the right to property is natural,
unalienable and essential to meaningful existence. Government's responsibility, its very
purpose, therefore, is to protect individuals in the enjoyment of their natural rights and to
secure their persons and property against infringement or violence.
A second economic value implicit in the Constitution is support for private
entrepreneurial activity. The Constitution provides for defining the national economic
interest in relations with other nations, regulating interstate trade, creating a reliable
money supply, securing copyright and patent rights, granting corporate charts, and
protecting the sanctity of private contracts. Increased trade and commerce always
improve the life for both workers and proprietors.
A third value of special significance is the rule of law. No power can be exercised except
in accordance with the procedures, principles and constraints contained in the law. The
vibrant economic growth which the Constitution was intended to promote are to be
controlled by law. The inherent limitations of the legal order are understood to be
fundamental.
The basic values and the fundamental assumptions inherent in the Constitution continue
to serve the nation's guideposts. There also appears to be a growing concensus that a high
level of education is a necessary condition also for democracy. A high level of education
presupposes that all citizens in democratic societies need more than minimal education.
They need to develop an understanding of the essential concepts and the actual
functioning of constitutional governments and of market economies.
The decisions which citizens in free societies are called upon to make in both their
personal and political lives are replete with the ideas-and choices-of economics. A basic
grounding in economics is essential, if they are to make sense of policies in print and on
the airwaves and if they are to make intelligent choices in polling booths. Ignorance in
today's world forms a prison from which citizens must be given the tools to escape.
Schools, to be sure, do have significant, if not sole, responsibility for providing students
with a core of basic knowledge about social, political, and economic issues and for
teaching them to think critically, listen with discernment and communicate honestly and
effectively. Schools also bear responsibility for helping to provide students with the skills
they need to function as citizens in democratic communities and in a market economy.
In this modern technological world, skills, education, and knowledge can be called
human capital. Human capital differs from physical capital in three important ways. (1)
Human capital can not be owned; (2) Human capital investments require a long time
horizon;(3) Human capital generate the man-made brainpower industries. These are
another basic reasons linking education, capitalism, and democracy. However, a college
education is very expensive. Approximately from Kindergarten to a University degree a
family expends some $160,000
While it may be true that not everyone needs sophisticated high-tech training, the
technology is affecting many job categories not normally associated with high
technology. For the foreseeable future, the economy will be driven at the leading edge by
the strengths or weaknesses of the nation's high technology industries and by the ability
of other industries to absorb new technologies. Both situations require a sustained
infusion of resources into education of the young and reeducation of the work force.
Engineering education has become one of the main sources of long run sustainable
competitive advantage for the United States. If one looks at the breakthrough firms of the
1990s, it is clear that there is a lot of productivity to be gotten tearing down traditional
functional walls between areas such as R&D, design, manufacturing, or sales and by
pushing decision making much farther down into the organization to cut layers of
management hierarchy. But all of those actions, vital for democracy and capitalism,
require a much better educated and skilled engineering and technical workforce.
Within the engineering profession, one of the most critical job categories are electrical
and computer engineering. There are presently about 600,000 electrical engineers
working in the United States. Projections for 2005 are 700,000.
Today, the ascendant nations are masters not of land and material resources but of ideas
and technologies. Electronics is the world's fastest-growing major industry. Computer
software, a pure product of mind, is the chief source of added value in world commerce.
The global network of telecommunications carries more valuable goods than all the
world's supertankers. Today, wealth comes not to the conquerors of land but to the
emancipators of mind.
The infrastructure that is really going to count in the future is not so much the physical
infrastructure but the knowledge infrastructure, and as mentioned above, the engineering
infrastructure. The government should be making the necessary investments in
engineering education. Public technology, and public engineering education are vital for
capitalism, democracy, freedom. The successful interplay of corporations and
engineering education is critical to American industries.
A country's wealth is a more slippery sum than the spending power of its citizens or the
reservoir of its resources. Wealth consists in assets that promise a future stream of
income. This is a very important concept that unfortunately most Latin American nations
do not practice. The flows of oil money, for example, do not become an enduring asset of
a nation until they can be converted into a sock of remunerative capital-industries, ports,
roads, airports, schools, and working skills-that can offer a future. A wealthy nation must
be able to save as well as to consume. This is not a world anymore inwhich the gain of
one nation can only come at the expense of another.
All the world will benefit from the increase impotence of statism and socialism. This is
the age of democracy, freedom, capitalism, dignity, safety, individual and family.
http://www.amigospais-guaracabuya.org/oagmc175.php
Freedom in Education
Thursday, 06 September 2007 17:23
A tribute to Milton Friedman
Economic Freedom Network Asia Forum 2007
Organised by: Centre for Civil Society, India, Friedrich Naumann Foundation,
and the Economic Freedom Network Asia
Freedom in Education
A tribute to Milton Friedman
Economic Freedom Network Asia Forum 2007
Organised by: Centre for Civil Society, India, Friedrich Naumann Foundation,
and the Economic Freedom Network Asia
Read more at Suite101: Leo Tolstoy's Educational Philosophy: Great Russian Author
Believed in Freedom in Education | Suite101.com http://www.suite101.com/content/leo-
tolstoys-educational-philosophy-a183374#ixzz1K8lqDoUe
Leo Tolstoy promoted the need for community supported education where children are
free to chose what and when to learn.
Read more at Suite101: Leo Tolstoy's Educational Philosophy: Great Russian Author
Believed in Freedom in Education | Suite101.com http://www.suite101.com/content/leo-
tolstoys-educational-philosophy-a183374#ixzz1K8lsrlmi
Though best known for his novels about Russian life, Count Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy
was also a major influence in Russian education.
His ideas were unusual and considered radical for his time and, thus, were frequently not
well received by politicians or educators. However, Leo Tolstoy's educational philosophy
contained strong beliefs about community involvement and freedom that were later
incorporated into newly forming public schools in Russia during the late 1800s.
Tolstoy's writings, including novels, diary entries, and essays, contain themes about the
importance of peasants. In the mid 1800s, not only in Russia but throughout Europe and
the US, schools were primarily private, though some towns and villages would establish a
public school. Most Russian peasants were illiterate, and Tolstoy's growing belief that
literature and art should be written for the masses and not only the educated elite spurred
his desire to make education accessible to everyone.
Read more at Suite101: Leo Tolstoy's Educational Philosophy: Great Russian Author
Believed in Freedom in Education | Suite101.com http://www.suite101.com/content/leo-
tolstoys-educational-philosophy-a183374#ixzz1K8lwnS9I
Early in his educational writings, Tolstoy emphasized not only the need for nationally
encouraged education but how that education needs to be for the people and guided by a
non-government association. Though his attempts to establish a Society of National
Education failed, he created his own school, first at his home estate of Yasnaya Polyana,
and later in neighboring villages.
Hired teachers were encouraged to teach both the fundamentals of reading, writing and
arithmetic and other topics such as music, gymnastics and art using their own teaching
talents and the needs and desires of the community. The parents and other members of
the community were the ones directly responsible for deciding to establish a school and
what should be taught to their children.
Tolstoy's ideas about freedom in education stemmed from his direct opposition to
authoritarian teachings and his belief's about the cognitive development of children. He
viewed compulsory education as contrary to nature, that students cannot be forced to
learn and trying to do so was a waste of time. However, when children are allowed to be
free to learn and their human dignity is respected, it's believed that they will willingly
learn to the best of their ability.
Read on
Much of his philosophy of the freedom a child needs to be able to learn grew from his use
of scientific methods to observe how children learn. He compared results of different
teaching methods that he both watched and employed himself to determine how children
learn and the best way to teach.
Tolstoy's ideas about education were not well received in his time by Russian politicians,
resulting in frequent visits by authorities and occasional closing of his schools. His desire
to find the best way to educate peasants was not squashed by the political opposition; he
continued to emphasize the need for national education driven by community needs and
appropriate teaching methods.
Read more at Suite101: Leo Tolstoy's Educational Philosophy: Great Russian Author
Believed in Freedom in Education | Suite101.com http://www.suite101.com/content/leo-
tolstoys-educational-philosophy-a183374#ixzz1K8m01JyQ
What qualifies us to talk about any given issue? When are people justified in forming an
opinion, and when should they admit they know nothing, and shut up? In short, should we
ignore a well formed, logical opinion, which may be a useful way of looking at something
from a unique perspective, because its proponent does not have traditional qualifications?
The way I ask that question makes it fairly clear what my answer will be: no way. If
someone has a good idea, it doesn't matter who the person is or what pieces of paper
hang on his or her wall. On the other hand, there are times when the pieces of paper
signify meaningful learning and achievement, and radically increase the chances that the
person will have a good idea on the topic at hand.
Education is a tricky field to deal with in this way. There are education professionals of
varying types-- administrators, classroom teachers, specialists of all kinds-- who work for
the educational establishment. It seems clear that teachers can and should give each
other and the rest of us their insights on education. But the best teachers aren't making
arguments from authority when they do so. The best teachers will site practice as well as
theory when they give their opinions.
Are teachers and administrators the only people who are qualified to speak on education?
Some of them would say yes. In fact, some teachers will brush aside parents and other
concerned parties in any discussion, saying things like, "Do *you* have a degree in
education?" and "When did you become an educational professional?"
No one should ever accept this. If the supposed educational professional has a good
reason for his or her position, he or she should be willing to share it, rather than standing
upon his or her diploma.
Parents sometimes have this problem-- but they also sometimes create it. Five minutes
after bemoaning the fact that nobody takes interest in the schools any more, they are
coldly inquiring of the rest of us when we had the children who would (presumably) induct
us into the secret club of Those Who Know Anything about education.
I'll tell you a secret: everyone was a kid, or else they still are. What? you may say. Is this
supposed to be profound? Evidently. We have all been through some portion of our
education. Teachers get to be viewed as hardened combat veterans-- and in many ways
they are. But the students are, too. We have all been through the trenches on this one, and
we need to discuss what did and didn't work from as many personality types and interest
areas as we can find. For any adult with experience in his or her own education and how it
affected professional life, there's a kid who could benefit. One of the problems with our
society is that education is too rarely discussed as a matter of great importance to
everybody, not too frequently.
I'm not surprised that childless adults are told that they don't know anything about
education, because children are told that they don't know anything about it, either. It's
heresy to suggest that a child should have input on his or her own education, that a child
should get to study what is interesting rather than what is on the list. The fact that it is the
child's life gets trumped by the existence of an authority figure. Of course, adults have had
the chance to become better informed than children. (Many adults haven't used that
opportunity, but that's another story.) But their wisdom does not stem from being adults,
or parents, or educational professionals. It comes from considering the issues at hand,
with experience of the systems of interest and the specific child in question.
Whenever people resort to the idea of the argument from authority, they have gotten in an
argument that can't be won. For example, say that someone tells me that I, a mere non-
parent, cannot possibly know what I am talking about, since this person has a two-year-
old and I do not. Fine. If I quote my friend who has three kids, or my mother who has
twenty-some-odd years of parenting experience, do I trump the authority of raising a two-
year-old? Does the other parent's experience become invalid? Of course not-- but neither
does mine. Similarly, we can follow the chain of school authorities up to the people who
head the departments of education at the most prestigious universities in the country. But
if they can only back up their arguments with their diplomas and not with logic, their
advice won't be worth anything more than mine is.
Nearly everyone agrees that education of children is vital to any society. If we allow fewer,
rather than more, interested parties into the discourse on the topic, we will lose good
ideas that might give the next batch of children a better experience than we had ourselves.
If we wait until we have children who have been through the school system, we have lost
precious time and possibly damaged the creativity and joy in learning of thousands of
children-- who are no less important for not being ours.
Authority is the right to perform or command. It allows its holder to act in certain
designated ways and to directly influence the actions of others through orders.
It also allows its holder to allocate the organization’s resources to achieve organizational
objectives.
Barnard maintains that authority will be accepted only under the following conditions:
The fewer of these 4 conditions that are present, the lower the probability that authority
will be accepted and obedience be exacted.
Barnad offers some guidance on what managers can do to raise the odds that their
commands will be accepted and obeyed. He maintains that more and more of a manager’s
commands will be accepted over the long term if:
1. The manager uses formal channels of communication and these are familiar to all
organization members.
2. Each organization member has an assigned formal communication channel
through which orders are received.
3. The line of communication between manager and subordinate is as direct as
possible.
4. The complete chain of command is used to issue orders.
5. The manager possesses adequate communication skills.
6. The manager uses formal communication lines only for organizational business.
TYPES OF AUTHORITY:
1. Line Authority
2. Staff Authority
3. Functional Authority
Each type exists only to enable individuals to carry out the different types of
responsibilities with which they have been charged.
LINE AUTHORITY:
People directly responsible for these areas within the organization are delegated line
authority to assist them in performing their obligatory activities.
STAFF AUTHORITY:
Staff authority consists of the right to advise or assist those who possess line authority as
well as other staff personnel.
Staff authority enables those responsible for improving the effectiveness of line personnel
to perform their required tasks.
Line and Staff personnel must work together closely to maintain the efficiency and
effectiveness of the organization. To ensure that line and staff personnel do work together
productively, management must make sure both groups understand the organizational
mission, have specific objectives, and realize that they are partners in helping the
organization reach its objectives.
Size is perhaps the most significant factor in determining whether or not an organization
will have staff personnel. The larger the organization, the greater the need and ability to
employ staff personnel.
e.g. A plant manager has line authority over each immediate subordinate, human resource
manager, the production manager and the sales manager.
However, the human resource manager has staff authority in relation to the plant manger,
meaning the human resource manager has staff authority in relation to the plant manager,
meaning the human resource manager possesses the right to advise the plant manager on
human resource matters.
Still final decisions concerning human resource matters are in the hands of the plant
manager, the person holding the line authority.
Harold Stieglitz has pinpointed 3 roles that staff personnel typically perform to assist line
personnel:
1. The Advisory or Counseling Role : In this role, staff personnel use their
professional expertise to solve organizational problems. The staff personnel are,
in effect, internal consultants whose relationship with line personnel is similar to
that of a professional and a client.
2. The Service Role : Staff personnel in this role provide services that can more
efficiently and effectively be provided by a single centralized staff group than by
many individuals scattered throughout the organization. This role can probably
best be understood if staff personnel are viewed as suppliers and line personnel as
customers.
3. The Control Role : Staff personnel help establish a mechanism for evaluating
the effectiveness of organizational plans.
The role of staff in any organization should be specifically designed to best meet the
needs of that organization.
From the view point of line personnel, conflict is created because staff personnel tend to
From the view point of Staff Personnel, conflict is created because line personnel do not
make proper use of staff personnel, resist new ideas and refuse to give staff personnel
enough authority to do their jobs.
Staff Personnel can often avert line-staff conflicts if they strive to emphasize the
objectives of the organization as a whole, encourage and educate line personnel in the
appropriate use of staff personnel, obtain any necessary skills they do not already
possess, and deal intelligently with the resistance to change rather than view it as an
immovable barrier.
Line personnel can do their part to minimize line staff conflict by sing staff personnel
wherever possible, making proper use of the staff abilities, and keeping staff personnel
appropriately informed.
*****
FUNCTIONAL AUTHORITY:
Functional authority consists of the right to give orders within a segment of the
organization in which this right is normally non existent.
This authority is usually assigned to individuals to complement the line or staff authority
they already possess.
Functional Authority generally covers only specific task areas and is operational only for
designated amounts of time. It is given to individuals who, in order to meet
responsibilities in their own areas, must be able to exercise some control over
organization members in other areas.
http://managementinnovations.wordpress.com/2008/12/18/types-of-
authority-line-staff-roles/
Authority in schools
From YRN
Jump to: navigation, search
Authority in schools operates on a variety of levels, both official and unofficial, implied
and inferred, inherent and assumed, coincidental and intentional.
Structure of schools
The main article for this section is Structure of education
Public schools in the United States are not democratic institutions, as defined by the way
the operate. However, they are instruments within a democracy, and are ultimately
accountable to the electorate. The following is the way that is played out in most schools:
1. President - The Secretary of Education, the federal Education Act and the US
Department of Education are all accountable to the President of the United States.
2. State Governor - In every state there is an individual elected by citizenry to lead
them. In ALL states that individual's purview includes education. In many states
that means that they appoint the chief state school officer in change of schools,
and in some states that means they appoint the state school board.
3. State Legislature - Every state has an elected group of officials responsible for
determining the budget the education system receives to operate, including the
amounts local schools receive in general and for specific programs.
4. State state school officer - Eight states have elected Superintendents of Public
Instruction who are accountable directly to the electorate for their decision-
making. In other states the Commissioner of Education or the Director of
Education is appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Legislature, both of
which are accountable to the electorate.
5. District school board - This body of decision-makers chooses budgets, policies
and actions on behalf of their local citizenry. Every seat on the local school board
is chosen by the electorate. Students on school boards
6. District superintendent - This individual is either hired by the school board or
elected by the citizenry.
Unfortunately, that is where the levers of democracy formally end within schools. From
there every level of decision-making is autonomous, acting only in accountability to the
command structure above it.
Share
Author(s) Lee, Min-Hsien; Chang, Chun- Pub Date: 2009-09-00
: Yen; Tsai, Chin-Chung Pub Type(s): Journal Articles; Reports -
Source: International Journal of Science Research
Education, v31 n13 p1811-1830 Peer-Reviewed: Yes
Sep 2009
Descriptors:
Student Attitudes; Earth Science; Correlation; Foreign Countries; Cultural
Influences; Teacher Student Relationship; Educational Researchers; High School
Students; Power Structure; Science Instruction; Secondary School Science; Science
Achievement; Teacher Role; Questionnaires; Factor Analysis; Test Validity; Test
Reliability; Learner Controlled Instruction; Asian Culture; Educational Environment
Abstract:
Educational researchers have suggested that the tension between the learner-centred and
teacher-centred pedagogies represents a real classroom issue that influences teaching and
learning. This issue may be particularly significant in East-Asian countries such as
Taiwan due to some cultural influences. For example, teacher authority is highly valued
in the culture. Accordingly, the present study aims to develop a questionnaire--the
Teacher Authority Survey (TAS), with actual and preferred versions--to explore students'
perceptions/preferences regarding teacher authority in the earth science course. The
relationships among students' perceptions/preferences for teacher authority, learning
attitudes, and learning achievements were investigated. Six hundred and seventeen
Taiwanese high school students were administered the TAS, the earth science attitudinal
questionnaire, and achievement assessment. Both exploratory and confirmatory factor
analyses indicated that the TAS developed in this study has satisfactory validity and
reliability measures. Correlation analysis indicated that the classrooms more oriented to
learner-centredness were correlated with more favourable attitudes toward learning.
Moreover, three clusters of preferred teacher authority--namely, teacher-centred
authority, uncertain authority, and sharing authority--were identified. Students who
preferred sharing authority tended to have more favourable learning attitudes, whereas
students in the uncertain authority group seemed to have lower earth science attitudes and
achievements. (Contains 5 tables.)
Share
Author(s) Harjunen, Elina Pub Date: 2009-02-00
: Pub Type(s): Journal Articles; Reports -
Source: Teachers and Teaching: Theory Evaluative
and Practice, v15 n1 p109-129 Peer-Reviewed: Yes
Feb 2009
Descriptors:
Teacher Role; Interaction; Teaching Methods; Teacher Responsibility; Power
Structure; Peer Relationship; Teacher Student Relationship; Classroom
Techniques; Foreign Countries; Interviews; Classroom Environment; Secondary School
Students; Teacher Characteristics; Student Motivation; Trust (Psychology); Ethics; Social
Justice; School Culture; Democratic Values
Abstract:
Authority, a fundamental part of the teaching-studying-learning process, is a problematic
and poorly understood component of classroom life. It can be said, in practical terms, that
pedagogical authority is constructed in classrooms, in teacher-student interaction and in
the spirit of their physical presence, confidence, appreciation, responsibility and respect,
and in the way they both relate to the content and norms. Based on the German
"Didaktik" tradition and classroom interaction, an approach for the analysis of
pedagogical authority is proposed providing an analytical tool for examining and
understanding its constitutive elements and explaining its construction. It posits the
existence of three types of interaction or relation from which pedagogical authority
emanates: pedagogical interaction, deontic interaction and didactic interaction.
Depending on how these relations are enacted in the classroom, they, in turn, may evolve
into pedagogical authority. Data collected from four teachers' interviews in Finnish
comprehensive schools are analysed and some empirical evidence is provided to show the
characteristics of these relations and how they construct this positive view of authority.
More research on pedagogical authority resulting from these relations in classroom
settings is needed to account for this critical educational phenomenon. (Contains 2
figures and 2 notes.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based
browsers or screen-reading software. Hide Full Abstract
Share
Author(s) Tufan, Ismail; Kilic, Pub Date: 2010-00-00
: Sultan; Tokgoz, Nimet; Howe, Pub Type(s): Journal Articles; Reports -
Jurgen; Yaman, Hakan Research
Source: Educational Gerontology, v36 n8 Peer-Reviewed: Yes
p676-686 2010
Descriptors:
Conflict; Age Differences; Power Structure; Older Adults; College Students; Student
Attitudes; Negative Attitudes; Social Status; Foreign Countries
Abstract:
While society's level of education increases in a modernization process, the knowledge
monopoly is taken over by the young. Increasing demand on knowledge attained through
organized education leads to increasing power by the young. In the modernizing society
of Turkey, this kind of struggle will occur between intellectual groups. Results of this
study reveal a conflict between the elder generations granted institutional authority and
the young population having the capability of seizing this authority. Obtained results
demonstrate that there exist remarkable negative aspects in the attitudes of the university
youth towards the institutional authority of the elderly. The importance of the study lies
in the fact that it is the first study introducing the concept of "intergenerational conflict"
to the sociological society of Turkey and, thus, paving the way to further research.
(Contains 1 figure and 4 tables.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for
text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Hide Full Abstract
Share
Author(s) Tufan, Ismail; Kilic, Pub Date: 2010-00-00
: Sultan; Tokgoz, Nimet; Howe, Pub Type(s): Journal Articles; Reports -
Jurgen; Yaman, Hakan Research
Source: Educational Gerontology, v36 n8 Peer-Reviewed: Yes
p676-686 2010
Descriptors:
Conflict; Age Differences; Power Structure; Older Adults; College Students; Student
Attitudes; Negative Attitudes; Social Status; Foreign Countries
Abstract:
While society's level of education increases in a modernization process, the knowledge
monopoly is taken over by the young. Increasing demand on knowledge attained through
organized education leads to increasing power by the young. In the modernizing society
of Turkey, this kind of struggle will occur between intellectual groups. Results of this
study reveal a conflict between the elder generations granted institutional authority and
the young population having the capability of seizing this authority. Obtained results
demonstrate that there exist remarkable negative aspects in the attitudes of the university
youth towards the institutional authority of the elderly. The importance of the study lies
in the fact that it is the first study introducing the concept of "intergenerational conflict"
to the sociological society of Turkey and, thus, paving the way to further research.
(Contains 1 figure and 4 tables.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for
text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Hide Full Abstract
http://www.gradsch.psu.edu/council/articles.html
Articles of Authority
PREAMBLE
Graduate education and graduate research are among the foremost functions of The
Pennsylvania State University. They constitute a dominant force in maintaining the
vitality of scholarly inquiry and intellectual achievement in the University community.
The accomplishments of graduate research and education are a major contribution of the
University to the Commonwealth, the nation, and the world.
Ultimate responsibility for all matters pertaining to graduate education and graduate
research rests with the Graduate Faculty. To provide for governance by that faculty and
to facilitate the creation and maintenance of graduate education and graduate research
programs of high quality and accomplishment, these Articles are hereby established.
DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY
The faculty of the Graduate School, as represented by the Graduate Council, is delegated
authority for the interests of the Graduate School except in those matters that have
University-wide implications; it shall administer its own affairs subject to review by the
Senate.
The review process shall include a report of actions of the Graduate Council to the Senate
through the Senate Council.
a. On special motion of the Senate Council, any of those actions may be placed on
the agenda of the Senate for appropriate action.
b. The Senate Council will provide for liaison with the Graduate Council.
c. The Dean of the Graduate School shall present an annual report to the University
Faculty Senate.
ARTICLE I
The Graduate Faculty of The Pennsylvania State University shall consist of its present
Members and such members of the University community as hereafter shall be
designated, on the basis of their academic credentials, scholarly achievements, and
abilities in graduate education and research, to be Members.
ARTICLE II
The Graduate Faculty shall be responsible, through its governing body, for the creation
and maintenance of all graduate programs in the University and for all matters pertaining
to graduate education and graduate research.
ARTICLE III
The authority of the Graduate Faculty shall be vested in a Council of Graduate Faculty
(the Graduate Council, or Council). The members of the Council shall be elected from
membership of the Graduate Faculty and from the membership of an officially sanctioned
graduate student organization as provided for in the Bylaws of the Graduate Council.
ARTICLE IV
The Graduate Council shall:
ARTICLE V
The Office of the Dean of the Graduate School shall have the responsibility for
implementing the policies and actions of the Council and the Graduate Faculty and for
administering the Graduate School so that it is effective in implementing and responding
to those policies.
ARTICLE VI
These articles shall be subject to amendment in the following manner: