The journey has begun. Where we go from here is a matter of individual choice, but we have all set off in the direction of freedom — freedom for ourselves, for our students, for society, and for public education. The freedom we crave is that of curricular decision-making, a release from the shackles of the dominant paradigm with its standardization and proficiency examinations and with its “one size fits all” mentality. Elliot Eisner (2002) writes, “The curriculum is essential to any educational enterprise… When policymakers and educational theorists define curriculum for a school or a classroom, they are also defining the forms of thinking that are likely to be promoted in the school. They are, in effect, laying out an agenda for the development of the mind” (p.148). Eisner refers to more than just intellectual capacity in his definition of curriculum; he promotes the development of the soul, of the individual, and of an artist. He writes, “I would urge teachers to use standards as an opportunity for discussion, as considerations for curriculum development, but not as prescriptions for processes or even goals. What goals or aims are appropriate for students is not best defined solely by policymakers who are not in contact with the students schools are intended to serve” (p. 177). Curriculum decisions including “outcomes” are best made using “curriculum wisdom” (Henderson & Kesson, 2004). It is not an easy task to go against the grain. This goal requires tremendous self-knowledge, confidence, and the willingness to take those first steps toward the greater good.
This is a difficult journey to make alone. How will we select companions vital for the success of this journey? How do we engage the ready and the willing? How can we inspire those around us to join us in the challenge? According to Thomas Kelly, the answer lies in leadership and vision. “Create a vivid, aesthetically appealing structure that captures your dreams of the ideal, and others from all over, as if attracted by a magnetic force, will make the great journey to participate in a deeply satisfying, even spiritual experience” (Henderson & Kesson, 2004, p. 153). This paper will outline our plan to accomplish our mission, which is to arouse in our students, colleagues, and community members, the willingness to strive for the education that we all deeply covet. It is one that is centered around not just subject content, but around self-growth and the betterment of the society, one under conditions of democratization, one that will enable our children to not only be intelligent and capable in subject knowledge, but also to be good people and moral members of our democratic society.
First in our quest to become curriculum leaders, we must get to know ourselves, both professionally and personally. We have begun to do so by means of the modes of reflective inquiry outlined in Henderson and Gornik’s (In process) Transformative Curriculum Leadership, 3rd Edition, which include the following: disciplinary inquiry, poetic inquiry, critical inquiry, multiperspective inquiry, ethical-political inquiry, visionary inquiry, and other relevant investigations that we utilize along the way.
Since most teachers are already highly skilled in the techné or disciplinary mode of inquiry, they find that the first step on the journey towards curricular freedom begins with teaching for understanding as outlined by Wiggins and McTighe (2005) in Understanding by Design. It is here where we begin as well. By deliberately critiquing our own practices, we can launch the process of change. According to Wiggins and McTighe, the goal is not to abandon the dominant paradigm’s standards and benchmarks for curriculum, but rather to work with these limitations and cast them in a different light. They suggest that we start by rephrasing the standards into “essential questions” based on what they identify as six facets of understanding (explanation, interpretation, application, perspective, empathy, and self-knowledge). “In other words, schooling must enable students to be on the inside of how understandings are born, tested, and solidified through inquiry, criticism, and verification. Our students need a curriculum that treats them more like potential performers than sideline observers” (p. 122). Through disciplinary inquiry, we will question our decisions for not only what we teach, but for how we teach and assess our students’ learning as well. “How one teaches something is consistent with what is taught. Method or approach infuses and modifies the content that is being provided. Thus, teaching becomes part of curricular processes, and curricular processes, including their content, become a part of teaching; you can’t teach nothing to somebody” (Eisner, 2002, p.150). When we begin to think of the designing, planning and teaching of curriculum in the form of processes, rather than procedures or prescriptive agendas, we can advance along our journey towards freedom. We can reflect on our own capabilities and shortcomings, and investigate ways to improve what we are offering our students on a daily basis. The following questions are a place to begin:
• What do my students already know about the topic?
• How do I provide a safe, non-threatening environment among my students?
• How do I promote the idea that the process of learning is equal to or even more important than finding the correct answer?
• In what ways do I provide opportunities for my students to take ownership of their learning experiences?
• How do I model and promote self-reflection in my classroom? Am I providing time for my students to reflect on their own learning experiences?
• Why am I teaching this lesson/unit/topic? What are the criteria for the content decisions that I am making?
• What outcomes do I want for my students? Why?
• What experiences do I want my students to have? Why?
• How do I assist my students in relating the topic to themselves and/or their community?
“Every time a teacher designs a curriculum activity, events are planned that have an impact on students’ thought processes. Thus, how curriculum activities are designed, the mode of cognition that are evoked, the forms of representation that are presented or which students are given permission to use all affect what students are likely to think about” (Eisner, 2002, p. 151). When taken in this light, our day-to-day decisions about content and classroom activities should be made neither lightly nor quickly, but rather with deep thought and respect for the individual students in our classrooms.
As we feel more comfortable and confident with the process of disciplinary inquiry, and as we begin to experience success and improvement in our preparation and teaching practices, we can begin to expand into the other modes of inquiry. This can be done in any sequence, as they are not accomplished in a hierarchical order, but rather the modes of inquiry are integral and inseparable parts of the overall whole (as illustrated in the Henderson and Gornik’s flower design).
Multiperspective inquiry, or dialogos, works directly with disciplinary inquiry, as it requires us to branch out from ourselves and to honor those around us, from students, to colleagues, to community members. It involves being open to criticism, acknowledging our own faults, and recognizing more than our own view to any issue, whether it is in a discussion with a colleague about at teaching method, or in a student-led discussion about racism. According to Henderson (2001), “Teachers who are committed to this way of working with their students must be comfortable with ambiguity and uncertainty” (p.73). We put ourselves in the role of facilitator, not dictator in the classroom, and this mode of inquiry demands that we model patience and compassion for students, giving them each a voice and valuing what each has to contribute. “When the teacher’s perspective is one that might be called emergent rather that prescriptive, the stakes for pedagogical innovation are higher and the demands are greater. The more teachers open the door to the suggestions of the students, the more opportunities they provide for genuine individualization” (Eisner, 2002, p. 152). Outside of our classroom, we further develop skill in this inquiry mode by collaborating with other teachers and faculty members, as well as with parents and community members. The following questions provide a starting point:
• How do I provide opportunities for my students to express their side of the issues in our class?
• In what ways do I model being open and respectful to others’ opinions?
• How do I encourage students to explore multiple solutions and to brainstorm using imaginative problem solving? Do I ask “What if” questions?
• How do I encourage students to challenge their egocentric tendencies?
• How do I provide a safe, non-threatening environment for my students?
• Do I acknowledge the value and importance of those who participate in class discussions?
• Do I ask questions about points of view and the limitations that come with them?
Critical inquiry, or praxis, deals with the social, economic, and political relations among people, and is enhanced by multiperspective inquiry. Multiperspective inquiry requires us not only to be willing to hear, but also to try to understand and to accept other points of view. It compels us to think deeply about the obstacles to 3S teaching and how these barriers can be overcome, both in our classroom and in public education as a whole. This mode of inquiry forces us to examine specific elements of our practice, such as fairness in our classroom and our individual assessment strategies, as well as our overarching beliefs about what a democratic society looks like and how we as teachers can be proactive in promoting one. “Through critical inquiry, we confront social and personal inequities; and by taking on such challenges, we breathe ethical meaning into our instruction” (Henderson, 2001, p.153 – 154). Critical inquiry compels us to see that there are different versions of the truth in this world, and that through education we have the power to right the wrongs in our community. Transformative teachers look for ways to support their students’ learning styles, are cognizant of the hidden and null curriculum, and empower their students as individuals and as members of a democratic community. We will use the following questions to initiate our reflective practice in the critical mode:
• How do I make the students part of the rule setting in my classroom?
• Do I treat my students fairly (not necessarily equally)?
• How do I respond when students do not treat each other with respect?
• How do I model and encourage a more democratic society through the six decision-making processes?
• Do I really know/understand the social context of my students and the community in which I teach? Where are in the inequities?
• What is my vision of a just society?
According to Henderson & Hawthorne (2000) the focus of critical inquiry “is on becoming more aware of the overt and covert, interpersonal and personal, institutional and societal, historical and cultural factors that repress, suppress, and constrain inquiring teachers” (p.50). They suggest that we “Open [our] eyes and look around” (p.50). As part of our leadership plan, we intend to do just that, to look around at our selves, our schools, and our communities. We are determined to seek out injustice and to question the policies and practices of our schools that are not supportive of all of our students.
“Coming to know the self of a student and coming to know one’s own self – developing insight – is at the very core of developing wise curriculum judgments” (Henderson & Kesson, 2004, p. 51). In order to make the subject matter meaningful, teachers and students must be able to relate personally to it. It is difficult to engage in meaning making if we cannot see a connection of the subject matter to our lives. How can we become personally engaged in the subject matter? How can we invest ourselves in our students’ education as well as our own? “Poetic inquiry is the imaginative and aesthetic questioning that culminates in personal meaning making and creative expression” (Henderson & Gornik in process chapter 3 guide).
In a conversation with teaching colleagues, a math teacher argued that math teachers should earn more money because expertise in mathematics is a highly advanced skill and a state assessed core subject. A fine arts teacher countered that people do not learn math for math’s sake; the only reason people take math classes is as a means to eventually engage in the arts. This example of a coffee break exchange is perhaps simplistic, but it does illustrate the importance of aesthetics in our lives. Each of us is a unique human being and makes meaning in a slightly different way. We are all at different points in our journeys of life. How can we better know ourselves, our students, and the beauty that motivates us to greater understanding? “Autobiographical inquiry examines teaching and leading as a personal calling to a caring vocation; encourages one to examine his/her inner core by becoming aware of the aesthetic and spiritual dimensions of his/her work… (Henderson & Gornik in process, page 9). Clandinin and Connelly (2000) asserted, “Experience happens narratively. Narrative inquiry is a form of experience. Therefore, educational experience should be studied narratively” (p.19). Through the process of learning our students’ stories and sharing ourselves with responsible, professional judgment, we can better integrate the components of subject matter, self, and society into our teaching. Just as we can see that responsible, professional, educational decisions must consider the students’ narratives and their current situations and contexts, we can also see that a standardized curriculum is not the best solution. Henderson pointed out that, “Poesis is the enemy of standardization, to the extent that standardization dehumanizes us” (2004, p. 51).
In light of this, we need to devise a form of assessment that reaches above standardized test scores. We need to make sure that our assessment of our students, “is consistent with the platform and the vision of the program” (Henderson & Hawthorne, p. 103). Since our goal is to help our students to develop deep disciplinary understanding through democratic (self and social) methods, we need to ensure that the deeper understanding is evident. This can be done by including some of the following methods. First, we can have our students complete a portfolio of their work. Students can also create an exhibit of their work, complete an interview, create a model, or hold a conversation with others in the class. Another way would be to have students act as teachers within the class and have them teach the rest of the students about their topic. Service learning oriented activities can also be incorporated to help assess how students are interacting within the community and their level of social awareness. Since we are constantly working on getting to know our students on a more personal level, we can be more attuned to look for an increased level of self-esteem. This can be an indicator of self-growth. All of these methods of assessment help us see growth in our students above and beyond subject matter alone. The following questions can help us begin to foster our skill in poesis:
• How do I cultivate my students’ sense of wonder and excitement about the subject matter?
• Do I choose activities and assessments with my specific students in mind?
• Do I teach my subject matter holistically?
• How do I allow my students to make the subject relevant and personal to their lives and situations?
• Do I promote expressive activities that extend beyond the text?
With the use of narrative inquiry, responsible, professional judgments will compel educators to use ethical-political inquiry to ensure a safe environment. Henderson and Gornik have provided a definition to this inquiry:
Ethical-political inquiry supports collegial inquiry into the creation and nurturance of an ethical-political agreement; suggests educators challenge existing knowledge/practice and ethically ground their actions to create safe classrooms where students will flourish and experience democratic living; recognizes that there are values common to a democratic society that transcend individual and group identity interests; suggests educators need to understand the “community” dynamics in order to foster reciprocal dialogue among members of the “community” and allow for the presentation of diverse perspectives; and examines the local political realities and how they can be negotiated and why educators have an ethical responsibility to work in this way in societies with democratic ideals. (in process)
This task is not easily accomplished in today’s power struggle over America’s schools and curriculum. Gardner (1999) observed, “Few would deny to the school the primary role in the inculcation of knowledge and truth. However, whether schools should be the principal communicators of beauty and goodness is much less certain” (p. 34). For practicing teachers, it is tempting to take the easy road and avoid controversial topics. However, we must question the reasons why we are in the classroom. Where are the truth, beauty, and goodness in a sanitized, standardized lesson? Gardner (1999) confirmed, “… Education must continue to confront truth (falsity), beauty (ugliness), and goodness (evil), in full awareness of the problematic facets of these categories and the disagreements across cultures and subcultures” (p. 35). What can teachers consider as they contemplate the difficulties of this enormous task? Is there anything on which we can reach a consensus? When confronted with this challenge, Henderson and Kesson (2004) have offered us these words of hope:
Although there are intense conflicts over ethical/political issues because we live in a pluralistic society with many conflicting values, people at many different points on the political spectrum agree that democracy has its core one central theme: the uniqueness and worth of every individual. (p. 59)
As teachers, we must make a great effort to cultivate this inquiry, as it is the keystone in making educational decisions in a democratic society. Henderson and Kesson (2004) emphasized:
Educational leaders need to become skilled facilitators of ethical conversations, with the intention of helping develop the disposition to question and clarify one’s values and value hierarchy as an ongoing process. In a complex, pluralistic democracy, competing interests must be weighed against each other. Citizens who lack the skills to examine their own values and beliefs will be predisposed to making habitual dogmatic decisions rather than rational, compassionate ones. (p. 60-61).
The following is a sample of questions offered by Henderson & Gornik (In process) to help evaluate the extent to which we use the ethical-political inquiry in our practices:
• How do I provide an environment that encourages openness, exploration, and the freedom to ask?
• How do I provide an atmosphere where people can grow together through collaborative problem solving?
• In what ways do I examine why things are the way they are and how could they be?
• In what ways have I included the voices of the stakeholders in the broader “community”?
• Am I ready to welcome constructive criticism as a way to grow? Do I view suggestions as a threat or a motivator?
An easily overlooked, yet integral part, to a curriculum leadership plan is visionary inquiry. Teachers can become so overwhelmed with the day-to-day chores of classroom management and housekeeping tasks that they lose contact with their visionary inquiries. They forget about their hopes and aspirations for themselves, for their students, and for society. Some teachers neglect this inquiry after having a series of defeats or reality checks, especially in today’s “do more with less” educational economy. However, dreams and plans are the work of the soul. Our ideals about changing the lives of students and making the world a better place are the reasons why most of us became teachers in the first place; and these are what we need to keep us motivated on our journey towards elevated judgment and becoming transformative leaders. What better way is there to nurture our souls than by fostering our visionary inquiries? If we do not dream it, how can we design it and make it a reality? The following questions are examples of ones that can guide us even further in our visionary inquiry:
• What is the purpose of public education?
• What does 3S teaching look like?
• How can I encourage others to join me in teaching for 3S understanding?
• What is our mission as a school? How can we achieve that mission?
• What knowledge and skills should be part of the curriculum?
• Who should be involved in curriculum decision-making?
Being a leader requires a vision, and through this mode of inquiry we can continue to focus on the path ahead and hope for a better tomorrow with regard to our teaching and the educational experiences that our students have day to day.
Working within these modes of inquiry and developing our skills at reflective designing, planning, teaching, and assessing will enable us to improve our classroom practices, our relationships with our students, and our overall abilities as a professional. We will also better understand our selves and our motivation behind the choices we make in our classroom. Our journey cannot end there, however. We will most likely encounter other questions, even other modes of inquiries, as we progress on our path towards better curricular judgment, and we must be flexible in our plan in order to incorporate and to meet these new challenges as they arise. Moreover, when we are comfortable in doing so, we must then share our experiences with those around us.
An important part of any journey is that of collaboration with others. We often seek out the company of others not only to offer companionship, but also to have an open communication and dialogue with that person about our experiences. This voyage is no different. As the self-reflection process begins, it is essential to begin forming critical friendships to help along the way. In searching for this critical friend (Henderson & Garnik, In process; Barth, 2001), it is important that we keep in mind several key qualities of an effective partnership. First, this companion does not need to be immediately within our school environment. He can be from another building, a graduate school class, or another district. Secondly, we need to examine his readiness to begin along this self-reflective journey. Henderson and Gornik (In process) describe this friend as a “trusted colleagu[e] with teaching and leadership ability who possess [es] strong interpersonal skills.” They also suggest that critical friends can include not only colleagues and community members, but students as well. What is most important about finding this person is that we ask the following questions about him:
• Does this person share similar beliefs about this issue, even though they might not be exactly the same?
• Is this person either engaged in the same or similar process?
• Does this person understand the relationship I am asking for?
• Can this person provide me with opposing views to my own in order to challenge my thinking?
• Will this friend be open and honest with the situation?
• Is this person willing to be an advocate for the transformative curriculum philosophy? (Henderson & Gornik, In process; Costa & Kallick, 1993)
• Is this person willing to take the time to listen and to dialogue fully with me?
With these initial questions asked and answered, the next step is establishing and maintaining a working, collaborative relationship. This may be difficult if we are not working in the same building. However, it is critical to set up a definitive meeting time in which we can sit down with each other, expand our understanding and proficiency in the inquiries, modify, and refine our leadership plans. If both of us work within the same building, seeking common planning or lunch periods might be a viable option, as it will enable us to have enough time to meet in order to avoid too many conflicts and interruptions from outside sources.
Once the meetings begin, an apt way to start looking at each other’s journeys is through creating and sharing currere narratives. This will give us insight into our friend’s journey, and it will allow us to see each other’s roots in implementing 3S understanding. This will also allow us to reflect on our own narrative with a new perspective. Since we all come to this place of understanding from different routes, and we all may currently be in different places along our journey of understanding, it may be helpful to see where everyone comes from in order to help plan where we will be going.
It is important to establish an open dialogue with our critical friend, one that includes a two-way exchange that encourages each person to speak freely about his ideas and beliefs. Each person will need to be open to the other’s views and thoughts. When a disagreement does occur, it should be done with constructive criticism that is intended to offer contrasting points of view, but not to put down the other person’s side (a facet of multiperspective inquiry). Each person should be respectful of the other, no matter how opposing the views may be, and these discussions should be embraced, as they most likely will lead to a further understanding of the 3S process and a step forward along our path towards our leadership goal.
An established relationship with a least one critical friend will allow us to begin the planning process for inspiring others to join us in our inquiries. Once opinions and views are presented and a curriculum decision is formed, the next step will be to seek out other voices for deliberation and to find research to foster our journey. This will be essential when it is time to present the plan for change to our stakeholders. Together with our critical friends, we will gather and examine data to obtain support for our viewpoint. It is best to present a well-researched and deliberated position instead of one based just on general statements and fads.
At any point during this process, the circle of critical friends can and should be expanded in order to develop a network and move in the spirit of democracy. In doing so, the same initial questions should be asked about the new members of the group. Common discussion time as a group will still be critical; however, it will become more of a challenge as the number of members increases. Some suggestions would be to use email accounts or a list-serve to be able to contact and share thoughts with each other, or to approach administration about obtaining professional development time that can be used in order to collaborate with the group. If little money is available for this, grants can be written to help facilitate with issues such as team teaching or action research. A seriously committed group may even be willing to come into school early or stay late in order to sustain meaningful dialogues. This issue of common discussion time may pose one of the biggest threats to sustaining and expanding critical friendships. However, if all participants are truly dedicated, we will be sure it happens.
Once time for discussion is created, an important aspect that needs to be addressed is the environment in which people meet. Similar to when it was just two critical friends, it is important to make sure all people feel safe to discuss and to share within the group. This is quite like setting up our classrooms to make sure all students feel comfortable to participate. Some critical friends may feel intimidated to speak when there is a large group. By allowing all people to speak openly and without criticism or critique from others, each member can feel equally important and valued.
The next step involved in this journey will be to present our ideas to stakeholders. The first element of this task is to identify exactly who our stakeholders are. Hopefully, some of these stakeholders will already be involved as “critical friends.” This will be based on our own personal situations. Stakeholders usually include students, department members, grade level teams, administrators, parent groups, curriculum directors, members of the school board, community members, and voters. As these groups are identified, their priorities need to be acknowledged. Common priorities include state mandated test scores, school report cards, financial situations, status quo, comfort levels, college preparation of students, vocational education, and teacher unions, to name a few. Again, they will be unique to each of our own personal experiences.
When these priorities are established, we will need to create a proposal on how to present our plan of change to that particular group of stakeholders. Different groups may require different approaches based on their main concerns. Each group may also require different forms of data and research to help address its priorities. Included in our plan will also be predictions for possible conflicts and possible resolutions, as well as alternative ways to discuss our plan with each group should it be necessary. Along the way, there will be some roadblocks. Some of these can be predicted. However, with some pre-planning on our group’s part, they can be dealt with immediately showing that we are serious about our professional commitment. Whether we are presenting our plan at a town meeting or at a department level meeting, we will be prepared to demonstrate our deep commitment to our beliefs about teaching for 3S understanding under conditions of democratization.
Once a decision has been made about our issue (which hopefully will result in the changes we are seeking) our journey will not end. It will be important to continue informing our stakeholders about the progress that our change has made. I hope that we will be able to report positive outcomes, but if the changes do not transform in the way we were hoping, it will be necessary to investigate and explain why. We would also consider what adaptations could be made to our proposal to ensure success. If our plan were successful, the next step will be to expand our areas of change, which may include sharing our process, along with our struggles and achievements, in presentations at local, state, and national conferences. It may also include creating workshops for other teachers in order to inspire them to begin or to continue their own journeys. Whatever result of our first attempt at modifying the system yields, the key concept is that our journey never ends. Even when we are successful in causing positive change in our situations, we need to be continually moving along our personal journey and engaging others and ourselves in the reflective inquiry process. In doing so, we are constantly changing ourselves and our individual leadership plans, which enables us to continue growing as a teacher, a student, colleague, individual, and a member of a democratic society.
References
Clandinin, J. & Connelly, M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Eisner, E. (2002). The arts and the creation of the mind. New Haven: Yale.
Gardner, H. (1999). The disciplined mind: what all students should understand. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Henderson, J.G. (2001). Reflective teaching: Professional artistry through inquiry. (3rd edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Henderson, J.G. & Gornik, R. (2000). Transformative curriculum leadership (3rd edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Henderson, J.G. & Hawthorne, R.D. (2000). Transformative curriculum leadership (2nd edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Henderson, J.G. & Kesson, K. (2004). Curriculum wisdom: Educational decisions in democratic societies. Upper Saddle River, NJ: New Merrill/Prentice Hall
Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. (2004). Understanding by design. (2nd edition). Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
