Roger’s statement apparently stimulated irritation within the student, who responded: “Yes, I agree that no one knows everything about a subject. But you know better than we do what has been done in the field and know better what is worth learning.”
Again Rogers listened intently to what the student said and then responded: “It might be so that I have a better grasp of what has been done in the field of psychotherapy than you do. And maybe I have a better grasp of what is usually taught in this area. However, I am reluctant to decide by myself what is important for you to learn because I believe that the most important aspect in learning is to choose what is worth learning. If I alone make that choice, every day I would be reserving the most important part of learning for myself.”
That lesson has stayed with me over the years and it helps me remember the value of bringing students in as partners in determining what is worth learning.
Students’ Fears of Student Involvement in Objective Setting
It is not uncommon for students who have already gone through many years in Domination Schools to feel uncomfortable when given the opportunity to help establish their own learning objectives. “Listen,” one of them will say, “I don’t want all this negotiation with you. Tell me what I need to learn.”
So when I am teaching and hear such a comment, I first offer that student empathy for his discomfort. Then I suggest that he try to enjoy a new and radical approach that I am going to try. I say to the class: “I’d like to see a show of hands. How many of you are here because you know what the subject is and you really want to learn it?” That will be Group A. “And how many of you are here because you’re afraid of what’s going to happen to you if you’re not here?” That will be Group B.
Now, I’d say in almost all of the schools that I’ve been working in, about three-fourths of the students fall into Group B. After the show of hands, I suggest that we not proceed with class until everybody is in Group A, but that no one join Group A out of a sense of fear or obligation. The conversations that then emerge between the two groups not only concern the values of the course materials, but also the students’ and my personal values.
Some students never learn to appreciate this approach, or at least will not admit to it, but most grow to see its worth. Often the student who raised the original objection will be able to come up with the most compelling reasons for why this class will be Life-Enriching (even if he is unfamiliar with this concept) and will be better able to convince those in Group B to join Group A than I will.
Partnership in Evaluation
The partnership relationship between students and teachers in Life-Enriching Education is also reflected in choosing how to determine when learning objectives have been reached. This requires the ability to create measurable objectives and the means for evaluating whether they have been reached.
If a teacher learns to establish mutual objectives with students that are clear, attractive, and relevant, I see six consequences resulting, all of which enhance the student’s autonomy and interdependence and support partnership between teachers and students.
When objectives are measurable and mutually established, the students become less dependent on the teachers. In fact, once students know exactly what the objectives are and how to measure when they have been reached, it is sometimes possible that the students can get there without any help at all from the teacher. Conversely, if the objectives remain only in the mind of the teachers, then the students have no alternative but to passively wait for instructions from the teacher.
When objectives are measurable and mutually established, evaluation can be objective rather than subjective. One of the benefits of stating objectives in terms of student behavior is that a criterion can be established to determine concretely if and when the objective has been reached. In the majority of cases, students can test themselves to see where they are in relation to where they want to go. This allows the teacher and the students to escape the arbitrary evaluation involved in the “grading game.” Once the criteria have been mutually decided upon, the students keep working until they reach their objective.
3. When objectives are mutually established and measurable, I see the student as being able to play a more active role in self-evaluation. This follows from the advantages listed above. That is, once objectives are stated in clear measurable terms, the students are better able to evaluate their own performance and hence can play a more active role in evaluation.
When objectives are mutually established and measurable, the students have more of a chance to gain a sense of accomplishment. Once students know what the objectives are and how to evaluate them, they can keep working until they have totally mastered the objectives. In contrast, I see it as quite possible for students to go through twelve years of school and never feel that they have completely mastered any objective, if objectives are vaguely defined and evaluation is arbitrary. All one has to do to get by in the majority of classrooms is to get a higher score on a test than other students. Thus, students can get an “A” in a class without feeling that they have really learned anything in that class. The “A” could be obtained merely by learning more than the other students did (or by having already known it before). I personally have never found receiving a high grade as meaningful as knowing that I have reached a learning objective of my own creation.
When objectives are mutually established and measurable students have more commitment to reach the objective than if the objective is created for them. I believe that the apathy characteristic in many classrooms can be largely traced to a lack of commitment by the students to the objectives toward which they are working. In fact, as has been mentioned, in many cases the students are not even clear as to what the objectives are. Industrial psychologists have documented the degree to which morale and productivity are related to commitment to objectives. I believe it is a mistake to begin any course of instruction before the teacher is convinced that each student is committed to the proposed objective. When students are actively committed to objectives, I also see discipline problems greatly reduced. The more the goals of the student and those of the teacher coincide, the less problem of control I would anticipate.
When objectives are mutually established and measurable, the student and the teacher are protected against irrelevance. When the teacher tries to show the student how his life will be enriched by working toward an objective, the teacher soon finds certain areas of the curriculum that do not seem to meet the needs of the student. Perhaps they were relevant when they were established in the curriculum fifty years ago, but they may no longer be relevant today.
Unfortunately, finding that a subject is not relevant to students does not always mean that it will be removed from the curriculum. At times the rigidity of educational institutions leads to subjects being required even after they have lost all semblance of relevance. In such cases, as was described earlier, I see honesty to be the best policy with students. This honesty may be stated: “I would like to recommend the following objective for no other reason than that attaining it is highly valued within this school system. Although I can see no intrinsic value in learning it, I would suggest learning it in order to protect yourself in the present system. I would be most happy to explore with you ways in which we can make reaching this objective as pleasant as possible.”
I would offer the following example of a teacher trying to establish mutual objectives with subject matter a student didn’t see as Life-Enriching but that was required by the educational system. This dialogue took place in a seventh grade classroom for thirty students who were not achieving in a regular program. I helped design the program and trained the teacher who was selected to conduct it.
When the teacher and students were discussing what objectives the students might work toward, the teacher recommended that the students learn to multiply and divide fractions. One student asked why it was important to multiply and divide fractions.
The teacher answered: “There are some jobs that you are lik
ely to do that require knowing how to multiply and divide fractions. For example, if you ever cook it helps in either cutting down or expanding the recipe. Also in carpentry it helps in either cutting down or expanding what you are building from scale drawings.”
At this point the student said, “But I’m not going to be a cook or a carpenter.”
The teacher thought about this for a moment and said, “Now that I think of it, I have not had a need to either multiply or divide fractions since I’ve been out of school.” Thinking a while longer the teacher said: “However, I do know this. Problems requiring the multiplication and division of fractions are on most achievement tests, and if you don’t do well on achievement tests you are likely to get stuck in low track classes in the school system.
“Problems requiring the multiplication and division of fractions are also on many civil service examinations. If you don’t know how to solve them it could hurt your chances of getting a job in the future.” At this point, the student questioning the objective decided that it would be worth his while to learn to multiply and divide fractions. Had he not chosen this objective, the teacher would have respected his choice and seen whether he could interest him in other objectives.
When teachers and students can see no Life-Enriching value to subjects required by the educational system within which they are functioning, another option would be for the teachers and students to work as partners in attempting to remove from the curriculum the objectives they see as irrelevant.
Accountability, “Yes,” Grades, “No”
In Life-Enriching Educational programs, tests are given to determine whether or not objectives have been reached, and if not, the tests provide information about what the student still needs to accomplish. Tests are not given at the end of instruction solely to determine grades.
Reporting on a student’s progress in a Life-Enriching Education classroom is done by describing the competencies that a student has developed. This can be done through a report card or parent conferences, if appropriate. If parent conferences are chosen, I would prefer students to be involved in the conferences.
Grades are not given in Life-Enriching Educational programs. Instead, reports are presented about exactly what students are able to do at the end of the learning period that they were not able to do at the beginning.
I frequently hear the statement from teachers, “But we have to give grades in our system.”
I understand the conditions they are referring to. I recall one time when I was teaching at a college in St. Louis. An administrator came to my office two days after grades were due and angrily demanded that I hand in my grades. I explained that I was choosing an alternative evaluation system.
The registrar was surprised by my response and said, “But you have to give grades.” I said I was choosing not to give grades because to do so would be in conflict with my values. The administrator asked me to clarify what values of mine wouldn’t be met by giving grades.
I explained that half of the students at the college were Black yet 80 percent of failing grades went to Black students. I said it wasn’t in harmony with my values to participate in an evaluation system that discriminated on the basis of race.
I further explained that I see grades as unfair in that they seldom take into account the unequal levels at which people begin a course of instruction. If students begin the semester far above others in the class on achievement skills, they are quite likely to get a high grade (provided that they do not irritate the teacher personally), even though they may have learned little or nothing during the semester. Conversely, students who started the learning period far behind the others are likely to get a low grade even if they show considerable improvement.
I also pointed out that grades contribute to extrinsically motivating students, and I wanted to be sure my students were doing the work solely because they saw the intrinsic value of doing so. I expressed my concern about the effect this extrinsic motivation had on students. I can think of no better way to make people unnecessarily anxious and other-directed than to establish vague, teacher-directed goals and then punish students with social disapproval (in the form of a low grade) when they do not reach the goals.
Then I told him that I saw the grading system communicating that competitiveness was to be valued above interdependence. In schools using grades competitively I see students learning that it is not only appropriate but actually expected that one climbs over others in order to attain a high grade. I said that I would prefer to see interdependence stressed in the classroom, to see students learn that their individual welfare is interwoven with the welfare of others. In such a classroom, the stress would not be on competing to get the grade but on everyone cooperating to see that all objectives are reached.
Finally, I explained that I understood that the purpose of giving grades was accountability, but I saw grades as being a very poor system of accountability. I told the registrar that I was preparing a description of what each student was able to do as a result of their time with me that they weren’t able to do before. In this sense, I pointed out I was being more accountable than teachers who simply handed in letter grades that told very little about what students had learned.
I was able to convince the registrar of the wisdom of my views. Other teachers, who have had less success in persuading administrators that grades are not in the students’ best interests, have tried different approaches. Morrie Schwartz (of Tuesdays with Morrie), a professor at Brandeis University during the Vietnam conflict, along with the rest of the Brandeis faculty, didn’t want to give failing grades to any of his students because that could easily result in their being drafted and possibly killed. So everyone received A’s.
Studies in the United States show that the A student learns the same amount each semester as the D or F student, if you measure growth from beginning to end. Why? The A students already know the material. Their parents prepare them, hire tutors, and provide enriching educational experiences that only the affluent can afford, so that their kids are the ones getting the A’s. Those kids are the ones raising their hands right away; they’re the ones with the answers.
But it only looks like we’re teaching them.
I do not want to imply that our goal is to simply get away with not giving grades. As with any conflict in which we use Nonviolent Communication, the goal is not to get our way. We want to make human connections that result in everyone’s needs getting met, and in the case of longstanding traditions such as grades, this dialogue between teachers who would prefer not to give grades and administrators who insist upon them can take a very long time. But as we communicate our preferences to not only the administrators but also to students, parents, and other teachers, we are slowly educating them, opening their eyes to new and wonderful possibilities, to our vision of schools where students learn willingly and eagerly, not just to earn A’s or avoid F’s.
NVC in Education
The Test
A high school teacher tells the following story.
My class is one of several “self-contained” classrooms in the district. It is for the kids who do not fit into the regular high school program, mostly because of chronic aggressive behaviors or because they’re so depressed they don’t function very well. The class is a bit of a pressure cooker, with tempers often flaring at a moment’s notice.
Before taking my first NVC class, I relied exclusively on a variety of behavior modification techniques to maintain order. This meant that I spent a good deal of my time bribing the kids with rewards and threatening them with punishments. While these techniques, particularly threatening punishment, often worked to get order in the moment, I had seen for a long time how they add to the seething resentments, anger, and low self-esteem that are so characteristic of these kids. Unfortunately, I didn’t have any other tools to manage the classroom—until I discovered NVC.
When I first heard the NVC trainer say that all people are ever saying is “please” or “thank you,” I laughed out loud. It wa
s an impossible stretch of the imagination to hear the things my students say as only “please” or “thank you.” But I guess I was desperate enough to try to make that stretch, because I very soon found myself hearing my students in a different way—actually hearing “please listen,” or “please help” in their demands and angry outbursts. Hearing in this new way, and learning to express my own feelings and needs to my students has changed the tone of my classroom from one of constant tension to more openness and trust.
One of the first times I experienced this shift was when we were preparing for one of the semi-annual state mandated standardized tests. Most of my students score below grade level on these tests and hate taking them. In the past, I had the attitude, “This is something we just need to get through and complaining about it won’t help.” This time, like the other times, I felt the tension in the air, observed the tightness in their bodies, and an increased amount of irritability with one another. What was different was that I sensed more clearly what was going on beneath their actions. With my newfound NVC skills, I could guess about what they were feeling and what needs of theirs were not getting met.
Silently I empathized with their unexpressed feelings and needs: “I imagine you are scared and want to protect yourself from the pain of failing again” … “I guess you are hurt and want to be acknowledged for the fullness of you rather than just being seen as a ‘bad student’” … “I hear you are angry and guess it’s because you want to protect your autonomy—to have choice about how you spend your time” … In addition, I was pretty sure that many of my students frequently felt hopeless about getting their needs met at school, or anywhere else for that matter. Having to endure standardized tests seemed to bring all of these painful feelings and unmet needs to the surface.
Life-Enriching Education Page 8