Well thanks to thoe who helped me with texts on Education.
Why was I asking? Part of working in a denominational seminary as a theologian is being available to help the denomination think theologically about some of its practices. I have had some involvement in a project on 'community' for Anglicare, the Anglican church's vast welfare arm.
One of other things we are involved in a major way of course is education. We have, in Sydney, 40 or more schools, many of which are less than 20 years old. Some of them are what you would call 'elite' private schools, but many of them are low fee-paying schools in the less-advantaged western suburbs of Sydney.
But there is no consistent thinking about what it means to be a Anglican educational institution. Or, at least, such thinking as there is is quite ad hoc. The 'Christian' component gets tacked on somewhat, by having chapel services or some such. I would guess that little sustained thought goes into thinking through the implications of theology for the curriculum, or the practice of discipline, for example. Or, to what degree do schools foster social inclusiveness.
On the other hand, the Christian schools model, insofar as it promotes a sectarian view of knowledge and of the Christian community, is not the way forward either. Furthermore, taking models from the US and trying to replicate them in Australia ignores the massive cultural and historical differences between us on the very issue of education. So - I will read Doug Wilson, for sure: he is ALWAYS interesting, perceptive, funny and ... well, eccentric. But what works in remote Idaho in the political context of Obama's America is not automatically transferrable to Oz.
So, what is needed is a bit of theological thinking about education which will help educational practioners do their job to the glory of God.
Thoughts anyone?
28 comments:
I don't have anything to suggest myself, but I know someone who has recently completed a D.Phil in this field. I'll contact her and see what she would recommend.
Michael--can you explain what you mean in discounting the entire Christian school movement by saying that it "promotes a sectarian view of knowledge and of the Christian community"? I've been involved in a Christian school for 13 years, and from where I sit they seem to be well ahead of Anglican schools in applying a Christian worldview to education. So I am interested to hear what you mean.
Ian:
--... can you explain what you [MPJ] mean in discounting the entire Christian school movement by saying that it "promotes a sectarian view of knowledge and of the Christian community"?--
Perhaps by using the word 'insofar' he avoided doing so...
A worthy project, Michael. I regret not being exposed to much, if any, formal logic in my Christian school education. Teaching people how to think is a very powerful skill along with projects about Egypt and the climate of Australia!
I think the transferable parts of Doug Wilson will be the 'how to think' sections, as opposed to the 'this is how it should be done' sections.
Hi Ian! Well, Michael Canaris is right: that 'insofar' is right. Whenever I have read philosophical/theological materials emanating from the Christian Schools movement I have to say I haven't been impressed, though I do know that there are GREAT schools built around that model.
I think an Anglican, a distinctively Anglican, theological spin on this takes us somewhere else, for good or ill! - and it will have a lot to do with the (in my perception) more positive role of the Christian transforming society (as opposed to surviving in society).
I'd love to know what you've read from the Christian School movement that gives you that perception, Michael. Because I notice a very strong theme in that movement of transforming society (sometimes more than I feel comfortable with). Can I suggest I introduce you to some of the leaders of the Christian School movement? I'm sure it would be highly valuable for you to meet and talk about education. I suspect they'd learn from and be challenged by you in a good way. And perhaps Anglicans might even learn something from them (actually, quite a few of the CSM's leading thinkers are Sydney Anglicans).
...there is no consistent thinking about what it means to be a Anglican educational institution. Or, at least, such thinking as there is is quite ad hoc. The 'Christian' component gets tacked on somewhat, by having chapel services or some such...
YES! I'm about to finish my third year of primary ed (just four weeks of prac to go!!) and so I'm thinking about where I'll be teaching in a year or so. I'm really noticing how Christian schools so often tend to equate "Christian" with "academic" or "morally superior", with little thought about how every part of school and education needs to be brought under the Lordship of Christ. Schools that consider this seem to be few and far between, but I don't want to teach at a school that isn't under Christ. For one thing, it seems to be so common for kids to go through Christian schools and call themselves Christian because of that, but never to have turned to God in faith and repentance.
Hmm interesting - thanks Ian. Yes, I think part of any research I undertake ought to be seeking out people like this.
Note: I am asking if there could be a distinctively (Sydney) Anglican approach here, which is not to say that there mightn't be other approaches with their own angles on the issue.
Hi Michael,
Yes we need a distinctively Sydney Anglican understanding. That involves having a missional approach (seeing education as an Acts 6 type of diaconal ministry that doesn't alienate education from Gospel); it involves working out our theology of the child better in a multiculural setting and it means learning to respect the integrity of children's consciences and choices as well as that of their families, as they come from so many backgrounds. It's a wonderful thing that so many want what we have to offer if only we could organise ourselves to put it together.
I would be very interested to hear what a distinctively Anglican Christian educational institution would look like, in a way that the Christian part is thoroughly integrated and isn't just tacked on. The Christian schools I have encountered so far don't have the distinctives of a particular church. Your typical C of E school in England probably isn't it, which is more or less the National Curriculum baptised with chapel services tacked on, as far as I can tell. Perhaps I caricature.
I completely agree with the emphasis on the Christian (through the gospel) transforming society, rather than just surviving within it. In what sense have you seen Christian schools promote a sectarian view of knowledge?
With Doug's books, bear in mind that he was one of the founders of Logos Christian School a couple of decades ago now, so don't be clouded too much by the political context of Obama's America. Doug would be the first to distinguish between principles and methods, and I think the theology and principles of classical Christian education more generally is what you will find in his books, rather than a particular incarnation of it.
I went to a parent controlled Christian School on the fringe of the Northern Beaches for 10 years.
Its philosophical background was not American - but Dutch - which you see as soon as you see the architecture - and carries on when you read the mission statement and teaching principles statements.
On a practical level:
* There was no Chapel - but in home-class for 15 minutes each morning the teacher would open scripture and take some time to pray with the class.
* In Economics we'd learn that economics is an approach to analysising and governing the world post-fall.
* In science we'd learn about the incredible beauty and wonder of the world - and for a moment ponder the intent behind it
I don't doubt that a Christian education can be tightly integrated into a school curriculum. Like all schools the implementation of this is heavily reliant on having a savvy headmaster and well-thought-out, enthusiastic (Christian) teachers.
That said - in a non-parent controlled model - different approaches to student integration and interpretation of the syllabus will fall out.
Unless (as I currently infer based on rather shaky circumstantial grounds could be possible) this upcoming list was specifically requested by them, it might also be worth consulting with Dr Cowling or Mrs Pearce of the (Sydney) Anglican Education Commission.
I have spoken unclearly somewhat.
What I mean by a 'sectarian' view of knowledge is the view that there is a 'Christian' worldview with almost no overlap with the secular one. So - don't let your children be taught science by an unbeliever, because true science is inaccessible to them. I exaggerate, but the gist of some writings is along these lines. The Bible is made to do too much work (is my suspicion). This comes over in lots of Christian writings on parenting and gender in particular - a few texts are characteristically squeezed for more juice than they have to give.
As a believer and a scientist let me say that such a thing as "a sectarian view of knowledge" certainly exists within the church: to what extent it's part of the Christian Schools movement I can't say.
One often enough meets with people who suppose (as a matter of course) that the believing scientist must be a representative of the church within the scientific community, whether (s)he knows or likes it, or not. (Don't much care for the "community" term, but nothing else obvious is to hand.) That representation might be conceived in many ways, not necessarily harried or light-in-a-dark-place, and the idea might not feel "sectarian" in the street sense, but really I think it is, and that it is bad as such.
And I do not feel that the lived experience as a scientist is like that, even under such occasional persecution as I have known.
The only language I have for the experience is that I have another set of intellectual loyalties ... and that this is part of what being a scientist is. If you are not loyal to certain practices and ideals and goals, and you don't own them as your own, then you simply aren't a scientist, or you're deficient as one. And to the extent that the church teaches that (or acts as if) it's illegitimate or suspect to have other intellectual loyalties, what's really being said is that one should not or cannot be a scientist. I could simply revile this as a philistine opinion (because, well, it is) but I would like to go one better.
Believers without resources to think through this sort of problem need help from (as it were) the teaching church. And within that community, this issue has been avoided for a long time, and should be squarely faced. But I have spoken on this theme before.
Here's a thought: instead of building our own schools, which suck middle class kids out of public schools, thereby undermining the ones they came from, we should use the money to support scripture teachers in public schools, Christian public school teachers, and holiday programs.
Are those options inherently mutually exclusive, though? Can't liberal and vocational education complement one another?
With that said, a touch less alarmism on the part of school-founders might help at times.
In your previous post Tom Brown's Schooldays was referenced. While Arnold's reforms to Rugby were indeed seminal, from what I can gather his educational writings by and large seem instrumental to broader theological, ethical and philological points. Lecture XXXI from his Christian life: its course, its hindrances, and its helps appears to encapsulate in more succinct form than the rest of his oeuvres much of his educational philosophy.
Sorry; make that Lecture XXXII.
Of seminal but incomplete influence on Arnold's educational views was S.T. Coleridge's 1830 Neo-Platonic tome On the Constitution of the Church and State, Chapter 5 of which views the promotion of liberal education as properly constitutive of the "national Clerisy"'s role. It might be worth checking some Hegel in conjunction with that work.
While I've yet to properly assess it, Jean Piaget's Child's Conception of the World has been warmly recommended to me.
I have yet to come across an Aglican school that I would regard as a truly Christian school. Most are elitist institutions that implicitly encourage a sense of social superiority, even arrogance, in their students (in saying that, my eldest son goes to one such school, but I don't truly see it as a Christian school, except when I am lying to myself).
The achievement in going to such schools is the parents', for being able to afford the fees (even if only barely), yet the kids often have a huge sense of entitlement. Sadly, many clergy kids end up with this arrogant attitude too.
Kate
Speaking as one such clergy kid, and as one who was a chaplain at such a school...
I am aware of the pitfalls, but I am also aware of the rich possibilities in such schools, at least in our context (Sydney)...
Re: Ian's comment, some years ago leaders from the some Christian schools tried to seek cooperation in some areas with leaders of Anglican schools, but were rebuffed; they wanted to go their own (sectarian??) way.
While some Christian schools might adopt a 'sectarian' approach as Michael calls it, in my (30 yrs+) experience, they are in a minority. The issues are more complex than you indicate. I suggest you read some of the writings of Christian educators.
As for philosophy of education, Google "philosophy of education" +syllabus [&/or +curriculum] should take you to curriculum/syllabus outlines of uni (teacher) education courses that will list key references. Do the same at Amazon.com (or Blackwell's).
Some specific suggestions: The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Education; Philosophy of Education: An Anthology; Noddings, Philosophy of Education; The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Education; Wolterstorff, Educating for Shalom, and Educating for Life; Blomberg, Wisdom and Curriculum: Christian Schooling After Postmodernity; Stronks & Blomberg, A Vision With a Task (available as PDF files online - Google search). (The latter two are broader, more 'philosophical' than the titles suggest.)
I think Andrew E's comment deserves more attention in this discussion. Is it too much to suggest that Jesus might just be ashamed of the strategy? You know- given the incarnation and all that...
Rowan Williams recently gave a Keynote Address at the CoE Academy Family Launch Conference on the theme: Christian Distinctiveness in our Academies, of which some elements may be applicable to our context.
A key snippet from the above follows:
--
... But perhaps the focal idea of liberation as I have sketched it could help us here; and I want to propose that the distinctive Christian contribution can be traced by looking at four elements in what a Christian is likely to understand by the word 'liberation.' These are –
(i)Liberation as being set free for relation. This means that a liberating education will not just recommend tolerance as the supreme virtue – a rather tired formulation, which too many people fall back on when challenged about values in education. Liberation needs to be seen as a capacity to approach the stranger without fear and with the intention of learning and befriending, so as to generate a mutual dependence. Thus -
(ii)Liberation as being able to cope with dependence. It sounds like a paradox; but at the heart of Christian practice and piety is a fusion of authority and surrender, fleshed out in the life of Christ. The Christian seeks to grow into a relation with others and with God in which others nourish him or her so deeply that he or she is able to arrive at better discernment in daily affairs, a discernment less vulnerable to selfish distortions – and so more free.
(iii)Liberation as freedom from the temptation to link your worth with your measurable achievement. To be Christianly free is to be able to feel secure in what you are rather than what you have done, because God's love is not measured in proportion to achievement. In practice, this means a certain freedom from obsessions around productivity, success, busyness, and what an ancient monastic writer famously called 'the heavy burden of self-justification'.
(iv)Liberation as a state in which the imagination and the emotions have a proper place. To be free must involve being able to nourish the imaginative side of your nature, not in a self-indulgent or fantasising way but simply in a way that allows you to see that the world is both mysterious and capable of change. And one lesson that is particularly hard for many to learn these days is about emotion. 'Liberated' from a culture that was afraid of emotion, we have often fallen into a new slavery to unexamined emotion, an uncritical attitude to feelings, desires, prejudices, ambitions and so on. The free person is on the road to a fusion of feeling and self-aware intelligence.
--
to Michael (Canaris): Thanks very much for the link to the AofC's talk, and the extract. It looks like excellent reading for my upcoming flight ...
This is a fantastic presentation which captures what philosophy of education is all about...
Term papers
Post a Comment