Looking back over the educational objectives that professional educators determined would be helpful to me through the years, I would say they didn’t predict very well. I do not see my life as having been significantly enriched by the majority of subjects that were offered. In retrospect, I can see many areas of learning I would have preferred to pursue that I believe would have served me better than those chosen for me.
Of course, it is much easier for the teachers and students to mutually establish objectives when schools are structured to support them doing so. If the administration has established a fixed curriculum, two alternatives exist for the teachers and students. They can mutually decide to ignore the fixed curriculum, acknowledging the negative consequences this might entail (for example, not doing well on achievement tests). Or they can mutually decide to pursue the fixed curriculum so as to avoid the negative consequences. Perhaps they can come up with some creative ways to teach and learn the fixed curriculum.
Students Have Always Had a Choice
To involve students as partners in setting objectives is not as radical as it might seem at first. Whether or not the right of students to be partners in determining their objectives is recognized, the students still have the choice. It has been my experience that more will choose to pursue the objectives offered by teachers and administrators when these objectives are presented as recommended options (assuming, of course, that the objectives have life-enriching possibilities) than when they are presented as something that must be done.
In other words, the difference between Life-Enriching Educational programs and Domination Educational programs is not that a choice of objectives is present in the former and not in the latter. The difference is that this choice is acknowledged and respected in Life-Enriching Educational programs but obscured in Domination Educational programs.
I had an interaction with the principal of a high school in a large city in the United States who was extremely upset when I introduced the possibility of students being partners in decision-making about their learning. He protested that there were simply some choices that students weren’t allowed to make. I asked for an example.
He said: “In this state it is the law that students attend school until they are sixteen years old. Therefore, they have no choice as to whether or not they attend school.”
I found this rather humorous. Why was I at his school in the first place? The board of education had hired me to work with the schools in their city that had a 30 percent or greater unexplained absent rate each day. They hoped that I might provide the staff of these schools with ideas for how to make education more appealing to the students. Though the principal claimed that the students could not choose whether or not to attend school, at least 30 percent of the students were aware they had that choice.
During a break later in the day, one of the teachers came to me and said: “If you want to see something funny, you need to come into our school and watch the students laugh when the principal announces over the public address system that students must come to school every day. The 30 percent who need to hear the message aren’t here.”
Teachers’ Fears of Student Involvement in Objective Setting
Some teachers and administrators in Domination programs are shocked when I suggest students be brought in as equal partners in objective setting. I find teachers particularly concerned about involving students for two reasons. The first comes from their fear that the ignorance of students may interfere with their knowing what is best for them.
For example, I have heard from first-grade teachers, “I do not see how you can set mutual objectives with first graders; they do not know enough about the possibilities to make effective choices,” and I have heard from college instructors, “I do not see how you can set consensual objectives in technical subjects with students who know nothing about the field.” I do not see student ignorance as just cause for the teacher unilaterally establishing objectives. If teachers believe strongly in a certain objective, I would like to see them responsible for educating students regarding its importance to the point that the students are willing to actively commit themselves to it.
The second reason I find teachers concerned about establishing objectives mutually involves the possibility of a student rejecting values that the teacher considers crucial. This differs from the first situation in that no assumption is made of the student’s ignorance; the student simply does not agree that the objectives are important. In this situation many teachers believe in the “spinach theory” approach. This approach can be roughly summarized as, “Although they do not want to eat spinach now, if I force them to eat it they will come in time to appreciate my making them eat it.”
I am concerned about this type of thinking for two reasons. First, I question how many people do end up liking the “spinach” when introduced to it in this way. For every one anecdote I hear teachers relating about the students coming to like “spinach,” I hear ten students relating how much they hated their teachers for forcing it on them.
Secondly, even if more students did learn to like “spinach” being introduced to it in this way, I would still be concerned that they might learn from the teacher’s behavior that if you believe strongly about something, it is all right to “force it on someone else for his own good.” I have seen too much damage come from such thinking to want to see it perpetuated in our educational institutions.
If a teacher is finally not able to arrive at mutual agreement with a student regarding the importance of certain objectives, I hope the teacher is open to any one of the following three possibilities:
That the objectives are not valuable to the student and hence should not be presented as essential or mandatory for that student.
That the objectives are valuable but the teacher has been unable as yet to clearly communicate the value to the student. In this case the teacher would recognize that further dialogue is needed.
That the teacher communicates both a belief that the objectives are important, and a desire for the student to reach them, but also that the student will not be punished if these objectives are not reached.
Examples of Mutual Objective Setting
In a first-grade classroom in Montana, the teacher starts the semester by explaining to the students that she would like to teach them as much reading, math, science, and language arts as they would like to learn. She then demonstrates the range of possibilities of what each student could learn by the end of the semester. For example, she shows them a book that they could learn to read, and math problems that they could solve, and in this way tries to clarify in each subject area what they might achieve.
Next the teacher suggests that the students let her know when they have decided what they want to learn. During this time, the students are free to roam about and examine materials she has displayed in various parts of the room. As soon as students let her know what objectives they would like to work toward, the teacher establishes sub-goals with that student.
For example, if the students say they would like to learn to read the book held up by the teacher, the teacher might ask them whether they know the sounds of consonants (demonstrating, of course, what she means by consonants). If the students don’t know the consonant sounds, they and the teacher might agree on an immediate objective of learning six consonant sounds.
A second example of arriving at mutual learning objectives involves an undergraduate political science course in a university in Missouri. The teacher often has as many as three hundred students in this class, so establishing insdividual learning objectives could be enormously time-consuming. The first day of class the teacher distributes a sheet listing twelve different objectives. The students are encouraged to select any one of the twelve objectives that appeals to them, indicate their choice on a piece of paper, sign it, and return it to the teacher. This paper serves as a contract between the teacher and student, representing that they have mutually agreed upon objectives. If students are not actively interested in any of the twe
lve suggested objectives, the teacher requests that they come in for a private conference to consider additional objectives more to their interest.
Hearing the Need Behind the “No.”
In order to arrive at mutual objectives, it is often necessary for the teacher to hear the need being expressed when a student says “No” or “I don’t want what you are offering.” If teachers have Nonviolent Communication skills, they sense the needs behind such statements. Often such messages express: “I am afraid of failing and have a need to protect myself from the pain I have experienced when I have not been able to learn in the past,” or “I am suffering from personal troubles and have a need for understanding. Until I get this need met I have little energy to pursue any learning.”
Once the teacher has clarified the need behind the “No,” the teacher will be better able to meet that need in a way that allows the student to willingly pursue the learning activities suggested by the teacher.
And, of course, the teacher needs to always be open to the possibility that the “No” could mean that the student’s needs would not be met by what the teacher is offering and it might be to both the teacher’s and student’s benefit to find alternatives to what the teacher has offered.
A teacher gave me this example of application of these communication skills in resolving a conflict with a student in her sixth grade classroom. The situation occurred on the second day of school. The teacher had presented several math objectives. Everyone in the class had selected an objective to work on, except one boy who sat and sullenly looked out the window. The teacher recalled the following dialogue that occurred between the student and herself.
Teacher: You seem bored and disinterested in the math objectives I suggested. It seems you would like to do something else.
Student: (Angrily) Math is stupid!
Teacher: Sounds like you really hate math and want to do something more helpful to you.
Student: Yeah.
Teacher: I’m disappointed in myself. I wanted to make math appealing, but I can see I didn’t make it appealing to you.
Student: I don’t see why we have to do math anyway.
Teacher: Are you needing to see the importance of something before you study it? You don’t see any reason for doing math?
Student: Yeah.
Teacher: I’m confused now because I’m not certain whether you can’t see how the math could be useful or whether you just don’t like doing math. I’d like to know which it might be.
Student: It’s just too hard.
Teacher: Are you saying you’re frustrated and need more help to understand how to do the problems?
Student: Yes, and it’s boring.
Teacher: So you get bored with it and want some way of making it more exciting.
Student: Yes.
Teacher: I’m confident that we could make it easier and more fun and I’d like to try.
Student: How?
Teacher: I’ll need your help. I would need you to tell me any time the work becomes boring or difficult. Then we could experiment together to find ways of making it easier and more understandable.
Teacher: (Trying to empathize with student’s nonverbal behavior) You still seemed doubtful.
Student: What if you’re busy?
Teacher: So you want to know how we’ll handle that? Student: Uh-huh.
Teacher: In that case I would want you to do some other work that you were able to do until I have time. I wouldn’t want you to work on math if you were stuck.
With this reassurance that the teacher would do her best to adjust the work to fit the student’s level of competence and do her best to make the work interesting, the student was willing to commit himself to working toward an objective in math.
I do not mean to imply by this example that mutual resolutions always end by students doing what the teacher wants. As with all Life-Enriching interactions, what makes the resolution mutual is the teacher’s consciousness that the objective is not to get the student to do what the teacher wants, but to create the quality of connection that will allow both the teacher and the student to get their needs met.
In situations where the teacher and student mutually agree to pursue the student’s, rather than the teacher’s, desires in a conflict situation, I have frequently seen teachers interpret this possibility as the teacher “giving in” or the student “winning.” Such an interpretation is quite distressing to people who believe it is one’s “duty” as a teacher to see that students do what is “good for them” (meaning that students do what the teacher wants). But I believe that teachers “lose” only when they submit to a resolution against their will, not when they are influenced to change their position after understanding a student’s feelings and needs.
Exercise 6
Hearing the Need Behind “No”
In order to create mutual objectives and an atmosphere of mutual respect, rather than to impose our wishes on others, it is helpful to practice hearing the needs people are saying “Yes” to when they say “No” to our requests. Please circle the number in front of any statement in which Speaker B is able to hear the needs of Speaker A when Speaker A says “No.”
Person A (student): “No. I’m not going to spend my free time helping her with her work.” Person B (teacher): “We all need to help each other.”
Person A (student): “I don’t have to salute the flag.” Person B (teacher): “If you don’t, you’ll have to go explain yourself to the principal.”
Person A (parent): “I won’t make my daughter do something she doesn’t believe in.” Person B (teacher): “It sounds like you want to support your daughter in being honest and true to herself.’”
Person A (school principal): “No, you can’t eliminate letter grades in your class.” Person B (teacher): “I can’t keep participating in a system that ranks kids and contributes to stress and ruthless competition.”
Person A (student): “I won’t work on a group project.” Person B (teacher): “Just give it a try.”
Person A (student): “This assignment is so stupid. I won’t do it.” Person B (teacher): “Do you want to make sure that the work you do has meaning for you?”
Person A (student): “I won’t say I’m sorry when I’m not.” Person B (teacher): “I’m afraid you’ll be sorry if you don’t.”
Person A (parent): “I’m not willing to sit and listen to you tell me what’s wrong with my child.” Person B (teacher): “It sounds like you’d like more balance in our conversation, and might like hearing some things I admire and appreciate about your child as well as what is concerning me?”
Person A (student): “You’re not going to catch me reciting poetry.” Person B (teacher): “Do you think it’s not cool?”
Person A (student): “Coloring in maps is so boring.” Person B (teacher): “Would you like to find a different way to learn geography?”
Here are my responses for Exercise 6:
I didn’t circle this one because I see Person B lecturing Person A with the intention to induce guilt rather than hearing what’s going on in Person A. I guess that Person A needs respect for his autonomy and support for how he chooses to spend his time.
I see Person B making a threat rather than hearing what’s going on in Person A. My guess is that Person A needs to protect her/his autonomy.
If you circled this we are in agreement that Person B is attempting to hear the needs of Person A.
I see Person B stating his/her opinion in such a way as to imply that Person A is wrong rather than hearing Person A’s needs. I guess that Person A needs accountability and efficiency.
I see Person B responding with a suggestion rather than hearing Person A’s need. I might guess that Person A needs protection from some frustration or dissatisfaction similar to what she has experienced in a previous group project.
If you circled this number we are in agreement. I see Person B hearing what Person A is valuing.
If you circled this number we are not in agreement. I hear
Person B suggesting a threat and attempting to coerce by inducing fear rather than hearing Person A’s needs. I might ask, “Do you need empathy for the pain you are experiencing?”
8. If you circled this we are in agreement. I see Person B hearing the needs of Person A.
I see Person B probing and asking for an opinion rather than hearing the needs of Person A. A response that would indicate that Person B is listening for Person A’s needs might be, “Are you wanting to protect yourself from painful feelings, like embarrassment or fear?”
If you circled this we are in agreement. I see Person B attempting to hear the needs of Person A.
The Most Important Part of Learning
I once participated in a psychotherapy class with Carl Rogers and learned a powerful lesson about the value of student involvement in setting learning objectives in the first ten minutes of the course.
Rogers began the class in a way that was unfamiliar to me. Instead of coming in and directing the learning process, he simply sat and waited for us to express what we wanted from the course. One of my classmates expressed dissatisfaction with Roger’s nondirective teaching saying that he paid tuition to learn what Rogers had to offer and wanted to know why Rogers wasn’t presenting information to us about psychotherapy. Rogers sincerely listened to the student’s dissatisfaction and responded: “I believe that persons, regardless of how knowledgeable or creative they might be in a particular field, probably have no more than one or two ideas which are uniquely theirs. I could present to you the one or two concepts about psychotherapy for which I am given credit within five minutes. Then what would we do for the rest of the semester?”
Life-Enriching Education Page 7