Men had better be without education

than be educated by their rulers.

Thomas Hodgski
Freedom and Authority

Freedom implies dropping the bondage of the past, abandoning authority,

exploring relationships in the present.

‘.....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.’

Freedom From the Known, pp. 17-19.

‘.....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?

‘Say, for instance, I go to a guru. I go to him because I think he is a great

man who knows the truth, who knows God, and who can therefore give me
peace. I don’t know anything about this for myself, so I go to him, I
prostrate myself, I offer him flowers, I give him my devotion. I have the
desire to be comforted, to be told what to do, so I create an authority. That
authority does not really exist outside of me.

‘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.’

Life Ahead pp 35-38

The associations and reactions to what is happening is the conditioning of

the mind. This conditioning prevents the observation of what is taking place
now. What is taking place now is free of time. Time is the evolution of our
conditioning. It is man’s inheritance, the burden that has no beginning.
When there is this passionate observation of what is going on, that which is
being observed dissolves into nothingness.

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.

when an event is taking place there is the immediate, racing current of

associations in the mind? And if one instantly sees this starting to happen,
that observation instantly stops it and it is gone?

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.

It seems as if the content of thought essentially has no meaning in the art of

living.

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.

Relationship is to all things -- to nature, the birds, the rocks, to everything

around us and above us -- to the clouds, the stars and to the blue sky. All
existence is relationship. Without it you cannot live. Because we have
corrupted relationship we live in a society that is disintegrating.

The art of living can come into being only when thought does not
contaminate Love.

Letters to Schools Volume One, 1st August 1977 pp. 68-71.

‘.....Authority and tradition may be wrong; they may be a comforting
illusion. To discover whether that void is true or false, whether it exists or is
merely another invention of the mind, the mind must be free from the net of
authority and tradition.

‘"Can the mind ever free itself from this net?"

‘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.’

Commentaries on Living III, pp.34.

‘...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.’

Life Ahead, pp. 174.

‘...Discontent is the means to freedom; but in order to inquire without bias,

there must be none of the emotional dissipation which often takes the form
of political gatherings, the shouting of slogans, the search for a guru or
spiritual teacher, and religious orgies of different kinds. This dissipation
dulls the mind and heart, making them incapable of insight and there easily
moulded by circumstances and fear. It is the burning desire to inquire, and
not the easy imitation of the multitude, that will bring about a new
understanding of the ways of life.

‘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.’

Freedom and Authority

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)

In relationship to religious education (RE), we are creators; in relationship to

religion, we are creatures. We make RE; in religions we learn that we are
made. We thus have authority over RE but religion has authority over us.
Religion is revealed; RE is only enacted.

This is the contrast which seems to establish the difference between

theology and education as a whole, and between religion and RE in
particular. Theology (we often think) is given; education is contrived.

The purpose of this chapter, however, is to challenge this distinction. Both

parts of it are exaggerated: religion is more of an artefact than we sometimes
think, and RE less. The contrast between the two sides of the antithesis can
only be obtained by falsifying each. The argument will show not only that
the distinction is false, but that the appeal of the distinction itself, its taken-
for-granted quality in much religious thinking, springs from a kind of
falseness. This falseness in turn affects the kinds of authority which are
attributed to religion and RE.

ALIENATED AUTHORITY

I can be alienated from my friend but not from my enemy. Alienation

implies a bond. In alienation that which we ourselves have produced is
estranged from us. In extreme forms of alienation, we are actually made by
those objectified realities which stand over against us, and the height of
alienation is when this curious inversion of the truth is actually affirmed in
conscious thought. In such situations, the alienated products of our own
creativity claim authority over us.

Leaving political structures aside, the three principal modem forms of

modem alienated authority are the commodity, the media and religion. The
commodity occupied a central position in modem consumer societies.
Commodities attract our desire and mould our desire at the same time. They
both define and enshrine the pleasures which make life worth living. They
appear before us as if created by nature to perfectly match our needs.(1) The
media also possess authority to define the significant. A great deal of this
authority is obtained through

the apparent objectivity - we should say the objectivisation - which gives

them the quality of natural presentation. The rises and falls of temperature.
governments and share prices are all announced in the same factual manner.
This is what things are like.(2) The intentions and interests behind the
production of commodities and commercials are disguised and forgotten.

Beside these characteristically contemporary forms of alienation is the third,

the classic example of human inability to recognize human productivity:
religion. There is, however, a significant difference. In the commodity and
the media the externalised authority is not made explicit. Our attention is not
drawn to it because its power lies in its unexamined naturalness. With
religion, on the other hand, the objectivisation of authority is not only highly
articulate but self-proclaimed and self-defined. Ideations, such as revelation
and inspiration crystallise the apparently non-human structure, giving, it an
a priori quality, a sort of numinous, analytic (3) quality.

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

Consciousness depends on contrast. We know that we sleep because we

awaken. Before the contrast there is the world of undifferentiated one-ness.
At first the baby does not have a world; he or she is a world.(4) This and that
appear. Self and not-self emerge. There is speech and speaker, thought and
thinker. We shall call this quality of thought its dialectical aspect.

The dialectical quality of thinking has been emphasized by modern

philosophy (Hegel) and psychology (Piaget). Piaget saw patterns of thought
as passing through a series of equilibrations when a balance between inner
and outer worlds had been achieved. In the work of Hegel, dialecticity had
become a principle being worked out in the history of human culture and
spirituality, but Piaget emphasized that dialectical qualities of thinking do
not arise merely at the ideational level but are the result of interaction
between the growing person and the world. For Piaget, dialecticity was
genetic, developmental and environmental, being necessarily concrete before
it could be abstract. Even in its abstract form it remains the linguistic
refinement of concrete, experience.

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

Dialectical thinking is healthy because the mind is situated in a world. Not

only does that keep thinking material, relative and incarnate but it retains the
possibility that the relationship between mind and world will itself become
an object of perception, thus making it possible to think about thinking. A
mind enclosed within itself is given over to stereotypes, illusions of
absoluteness, and egocentricity. As the literature on cognitive pathology
shows, mental processes which lack the dialectic are incapable of realistic
self-criticism or of methodological enquiry.(10) Instead, they revert into
brooding, fantasizing (11) and repetition. It remains true, however, that non-
dialectical thought possesses authority. It is authoritative just because it is
non-negotiable, and it is non- negotiable because it exists in a world filled
with nothing but mirror images of its own projections.

As examples of non-dialectical thought we may take racism, tribalism, all

forms of national totalitarianism, and certain mental illnesses such as
schizophrenia. It has often been pointed out that all of these conditions,
whether collective or individual, have common characteristics. They tend to
exaggerate space and to fracture time.(12) They tend to offer a strong sense
of identity by marking a sharp boundary beyond which there lies the other -
the alien other.(13) They concentrate goodness within whilst evil is expelled
to the outside. They are all naturalistic, presenting themselves as rooted in
biology, be this natural evolution, or the mystic realities of blood and soil,
and they tend to arise as simplifying reactions to crises.(14) If the crisis
should deepen, they become forms of ‘delirious perception’, (15) taking on
qualities of absolute succour and ultimate demand, infused with a sort of
generalized moral value which produces an inner sense of righteousness
which justifies an ever more devout commitment to an ever more elevated
authority. The delirious quality will become ecstatic in paroxysms of
violence.

REIFICATION AS A PROCESS OF NON-DIALECTICAL

THINKING

Reification is the cognitive result of projection. In projection, we attribute to

others the emotions and intentions we ourselves have; in reification, ideas
which are the products of our personal and social lives become independent
of us. A reified idea has a false life of its own. There may, of course, be a
real object which corresponds to the reification. In reification, however,
perception becomes deductive, i.e. controlled by the inner world of the
perceiver. Reification is the cognitive aspect of alienation which thus
describes the situation of the one whose life has become more or less ruled
by reifications. The objects of reification are absolute, one-dimensional,
fascinating or even hypnotic, and the relationship of the thinker to them is
non-dialectical. Although the concept of reification has some use in the
interpretation of cognitive disorders such as schizophrenia, it is mainly used
to describe concepts which have a social base. Reification is typically the
product of a social group, a collectivity.

There is always an element of falseness about reification, possibly self-

deception. This may take the form of inversion (as when that which we have
made is thought of as having made us) or of taking the part for the whole. In
the latter case, the reification has something in common with a fetish,
although the latter is a concept drawn from religious studies and
psychoanalysis, while the former is drawn from the sociology of knowledge
and cognitive psychology.(16)

THE PART-WOMAN AND THE PART-GOD: AN EXAMPLE OF

NON-DIALECTICAL IMAGERY

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 should also be noted that the blissful egocentricity which is characteristic

of the pornographic image and the reified divine image is also a
characteristic of the relationship between the modern consumer and the
beautiful and desirable artefact. This has been

discussed in the literature on the sociology and psychology of shopping. The

falsity of pornography can be seen in contrast to the true nature of human
sexuality, which is not called intercourse for nothing. It is one of our
profound forms of mutuality and takes place in concrete relationship to the
world, where each is the world to and in the other. Wherever woman is
worshipped without actual relationship (or man as the case may be) the
result may well be pornographic. A similar thing happens in the religious
realm wherever God is worshipped apart from the kingdom of God and the
mission of God.

AUTHORITY IN DEVELOPMENTAL PERSPECTIVE

Up to this point we have been examining false forms of authority springing

from alienated existence. We have described these forms of authority as the
reified expressions of social realities often fed by individual needs, sparked
off by a combination of personal and social crisis. We have noticed that
these alienated forms of authority are non-dialectical, and we have argued
that loss of dialectical quality is a feature of reified authority.

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.

Mediations may be social and political, or they may be autobiographical and

religious. Education operates through the mediations, and is itself one of
them. The approaches to authority within any religious tradition will be
many and various, and it would be possible to study the way in which
historical factors in the development of doctrine have mediated the doctrines
of authority, or the authority of the entire doctrinal system, in certain ways.
From the point of view of the educator, however, the mediations exhibited
within the religious tradition itself remain at the level of content. In order to
give us a theory of education and an actual teaching technique, we must turn
from theological mediations per se to the social and individual context. In
the first few pages of this chapter, various aspects of modem culture were
taken as mediations of authority. We must now turn to human development
itself as an important mediating influence.

AUTHORITY AS A COMPOSITION

The study of authority has attracted the attention of cognitive psychologists.

This is because the way in which authority is construed is generally
reckoned as involving cognitions regarding truth, kinds of evidence,
credulity, autonomy and other attributes which are relevant

to styles of cognitive operations. One of the most influential workers in this

field is the American William G. Perry, whose studies of the development of
epistemological reasoning in American college and university students lies
behind much of the work in justice reasoning done by Lawrence Kohlberg
and in faith development by James W. Fowler and Sharon Parks. (17)

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.

The second position is labelled multiplicity pre-legitimate. We observe that

characteristic of this first phase is the appearance of multiple authorities. The
experience of pluralism is vital in educating people in authority-reasoning.
The first few positions are arranged according to the way in which the
student handles the experience of multiplicity. At first, the multiplicity is
regarded as being deceptive: ‘True authorities must be right. The others are
frauds. We remain right; others must be different and wrong. Good
authorities give us problems so we can learn to find the right answer by our
own independent thought.’ We notice that the student finds an educational
explanation for the difficulties that he or she is meeting. The good teacher, it
is now thought, does not want us to accept the right answers on authority,
but to work them out for ourselves. The introduction of problems and
multiple possibilities is a pedagogical device, a way of making us think.
Behind this, however, there remains the one single true authority all the
time. The transitional case is ‘but even good authorities admit they don't
know all the answers yet’. The position begins to break down when the
educational theory is contradicted by the self-confessed ignorance of the
teachers. The student wonders whether this is, in turn, just an educational
ploy or whether the teachers really mean it.
In position 3, multiplicity subordinate, a way has been found of organizing
the conflict which goes beyond interpreting it as mere pedagogical tactics.
What organizes the multiplicity is the concept of progressive knowledge, or
an ongoing research programme. The position is called ‘subordinate’
because the multiplicity is still held to be subordinate to the residual

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’.

This tendency to generalize the contextual nature of authority is fully

articulated in position 5: ‘then all thinking must be like this, even for them.
Everything is relative but not equally valid. You have to understand how
each context works. Theories are not truth but metaphors to interpret data
with. You have to think about your thinking.’ With this fifth position, the
second phase, relativism discovered, comes to its climax and begins to break
down with the transitional ‘but if everything is relative, am I relative too?
How can I know I am making the right choice?’

With position 6 we commence the final phase of the development of what I

am calling authority-reasoning. This final phase is called commitments in
relativism developed. Here a synthesis is attempted between the idea of an
absolute authority unrelated to the self, and the opposite idea of individual
relativism. The focus now turns towards the authority of

commitment, or the nature of commitment to authoritative truth. The

problem now is how commitment is to be handled, and the positions deal
with various ways in which commitment is transformed. Position 6 is
labelled commitment foreseen and the example is ‘I see I am going to have
to make my own decisions in an uncertain world with no one to tell me I am
right’. The transitional is ‘when I decide on my career or marriage or values,
everything will straighten out’. Once again, we have a kind of eschatological
deferment, what Erik H. Erikson would have called ‘the moratorium’. The
young adult at this stage is still naive about the nature of fully mature adult
life. It is still seen as a period of stability on the far side of commitment.

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)

This is why position 8 is labelled orientation in commitments: ‘I have made

several commitments; I have got to balance them. How many? How deep?
How certain? How tentative?’ Here, instead of authorities external to the self
being co-ordinated by some means or other, beyond the control of the
student, a variety of authorities are being administered by the student herself
or himself. The transition from stage 8 is marked by ‘things are getting
contradictory. I can't make logical sense out of life's dilemmas.’

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)

It would be easy to criticize Perry's interesting scheme by pointing out how

it enshrines the characteristic student values of America in the 1960s.
Without denying the importance of some such critique, we must at the same
time be careful not to evade the force of Perry’s conclusions by a too-facile
relativisation. We would be left with the thought that if the scheme of Perry
is relative to his own culture, then what develop- mental view of authority is
mediated by our own culture? The central suggestion made in this present
chapter is that we need to take the kind of scheme put forward by Perry and
to use it as an instrument for the criticism of our own approaches to
authority, as mediated through our own religious and social institutions,
especially those typical of our kind of late twentieth-century industrial
capitalism. Only then will we have the possibility of a worthwhile
educational theory.

Moreover, we have the interesting possibilities of applying Perry’s scheme

to religious traditions. Do all religious traditions encompass all nine
positions? Is the authority of a religious tradition relatively content-free, i.e.
mediated principally by cognitive and cultural structures rather than by
specific doctrinal formulations? Do specific religions, or sub-religions
within major traditions, tend to cluster around one position rather than
another?

RELIGIOUS APPLICATIONS OF AUTHORITY-REASONING

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 stage 4, authorities are accepted or rejected on the basis of rational

principles, and there is an awareness of ideology, world-view, and the need
for coherence within one’s own valued system of commitment. Indeed,
compatibility with one's own system of belief is a principal criterion for the
selection of authority. Previously, acceptance of authority was tacit, now it
becomes explicit. Authority may reside in ideas, systems, institutions and
traditions, as well as in persons. Authority in this fourth stage is internalised,
since the person can arbitrate between competing claims for authoritative
status.

There is a tendency in stage 5 not only to hold multiple sources of authority,

but to relate these in complex patterns through the increased capacity for
inter-contextual perspective-taking. It is within this dialectic of multiplicity
that the locus of authority evolves within the stage 5 self. The uncritical
subjectivity of stage 3 is mediated through the rationality of stage 4 into a
new kind of critical subjectivity. In stage 6 this is actualised in a critical
relationship between self-chosen but universal principles and a transcendent
ground.

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

the idea that these forms of authority-reasoning are paralleled by a series of

forms of dependence. Corresponding to the authority-bound stage, we have
dependent/counter-dependent. This exposes the link between uncritically
accepted external authority and total trust or unexamined dependence upon
another. This corresponds to Fowler’s stage 3 ‘synthetic conventional faith’,
since authority is conceived mainly in interpersonal terms. The bounds of
the authority will usually be quite clearly defined. The trusted person or the
group represented by that trusted person will be the locus of trust and source
of authority. The sense of what is authoritative rests on a felt dependence
upon a trusted group.

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.

Sharon Parks emphasizes that dependence is a health-giving mode of human

relationship. She rejects as a typical aspect of Enlightenment rationality the
idea that maturity involves a move from dependence towards autonomy.(23)
Nevertheless, she insists that dependence, while a permanent axis of adult
development, passes through several modes of composition. In each of these
modes, it is related to a similarly evolving mode of authority.

So it is that we pass into the second phase, where inner dependence is

associated with ‘unqualified relativism’. By inner dependence Parks means
that during this period while the various sources of authority outside the self
are not denied or excluded, as is vainly attempted during the period of
counter-dependence, the inner voice of the self is accepted as one of the
multiple sources of authority. There is a new capacity to care for and respect
the self, which is conjoined with other sources of authority. This then passes
into the third form of dependence, which is inter-dependence corresponding
to ‘commitment in relativism’.

Sharon Parks’ treatment is interesting because of the way in which a

developing sense of authority is shown to be mediated through aspects of
trust, friendship, confidence and the need for some form or other of
dependence. She uses this insight to criticize Fowler’s direct transition from
external, uncritical authority to internally validated self-composed forms of
authority.(24) The locus of authority does not shift in one, complex
movement from outside to within, characterized by greater adjudication of
more complex alternatives, but passes through an intermediate stage of
relativism. During this stage of late adolescence or early adulthood, the
authority of self-chosen commitments is knowingly weighed against other
recognized authorities, so that authority is controlled by personal loyalty to
the chosen and trusted group in the presence of a known and understood
relativity. It is not quite the same as Fowler’s ‘synthetic conventional
authority’ (Fowler’s stage 3), and nor is it quite the same as his stage 4,
‘individuative reflective’ authority. Parks emphasizes that this in-between
stage is the time when the mentor, the guru, the counsellor/friend is
especially important in the life of the student or young adult. Through this
evocation of personal loyalty, the possibility of commitment within relativity
is secured for the maturing self. Parks has thus deepened our understanding
of the way in which patterns of authority are grounded in emotional
development and need for security.

AUTHORITY AND MODERNITY: THE CONTEMPORARY

EDUCATION PROBLEM

‘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:

The spiritual world in to which the child grows in consequence of such

dependence as well as the fantasies with which he peoples the real world,
his dreams and wishes, his ideas and judgements are all dominated by the
thought of man's power over man, of above and below, of command and
obedience.(32)

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.

THE ROLE OF RELIGIOUS EDUCATION

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.

If children are brought before the objectified and extrinsic authority of a

sacred text in a way which leaves no scope for humour, disagreement,
fantasy and other forms of child-like anticipation of adult dialectical
thinking, the result may be a fixation into reified,

fetish-like relationships. These will be thrown off by the adolescent during

the period of counter-dependence and may only be resumed at the cost of
adult integrity, as often happens in adult conversion experiences when they
are of the infantile type.(38) Those whose introduction to sacred texts has
been of this kind, but who are unable to pass successfully through counter-
dependence, may well find themselves in adult life fixed and frozen in
infantile forms of congregational life, where non-dialectical worship and
resistance to open and critical education will create an atmosphere which
makes learning and adaptation increasingly impossible. Such brittle and
dogmatic faith will become increasingly tribalised in its relations with the
outer world and increasingly compartmentalized in its interior institutions.

This is why it is important that RE syllabuses should continue to be

multicultural. In 1988 RE in England and Wales passed through a period
when an attempt was made to reduce its dialectical qualities in the interests
of tribalised religion and national capitalism. We can interpret the horror of
‘mish-mash’, an expression frequently used to denigrate the multi-faith
approach, as being the horror of the non-dialectical mind for the freedom
and openness of the dialectical.(39) Luckily, through a providential
conjunction of ignorance and incompetence on the one hand, assisted by
some shrewd .religious educational drafting on the other hand, we seem
likely to have escaped the worst consequences of this brief tribalistic revival
even if it continues to linger.(40) We must, however, go on insisting that
there is no such thing as Christian-based RE or pure and simple Christian
collective worship in our maintained schools. The law requires that RE
should both reflect Christian traditions and take account of the teaching and
practices of the other principal religions. In this reflection and this taking
account of we may well be able to renew an emphasis upon learning religion
which will encourage pupils to reflect upon and to take account of what they
learn. The absurd vagueness and indirectness of the expression ‘wholly or
mainly of a broadly Christian character, (41) offers a chink of hope,
although not a very large one, for maintaining collective worship in a more
or less educational context. Whether this possibility will be realized is
doubtful. If the intentions of those who insisted upon Christian collective
worship are realized, we will have a new kind of non-dialectical worship, in
which religion will fulfil with almost embarrassing candour its role in the
maintenance of the authority of the powers that be. If, as seems more likely,
the whole thing collapses under the weight of its own administrative
nuisance-value, we shall probably see a return to collective worship as the
reification of school authority expressed in mainly moral terms. In either
case, the task of a religious education which advances human freedom will
be impaired.(42)

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

FREEDOM AND AUTHORITY IN THE PHILOSOPHY

EDUCATION SYSTEM

by James on 07:31 PM, 01-Oct-10

Freedom is never total or absolute! Be careful not to trample other people's

freedom as you exercise your own freedom. Freedom generally refers to
peace, independent, emancipation, not depriving when exercising own
wishes or rights. Thus freedom to the access of basic rights and
fundamentals, for instance freedom of speech, worship or choice.
Freedom is also described as absence of constraints, restrictions, limitations,
restraints thus allowance of being able to do what you want or exercising
your free will as long as you aren't infringing other peoples' rights.
Freedom can be determined by time, place or audience. The greatest Greek
philosopher Plato once says, ''Total freedom without any form of restrictions
may lead to anarchy, chaos and a lot of disturbances''.
Therefore freedom becomes effective when the authority is exercised. These
two cannot be separated they are two sides of the same coin. For without
authoritative imposition of rules and regulations freedom can only results
into social upheavals or disasters.
Authority is the right and power to control something, it is also the mandate
of power given to govern and maintain order. Hence authority commands
power or right to direct orders and make others obey them.
Whilst philosophy has been for some time seen concerned with the search
for knowledge and wisdom. The branch also focused with giving meaning to
human action ,language among their issues. Philosophy covers certain ideas
of all human beings and inspired for irrespective of race or colour,equities
,democracy ,freedom and authority.
Therefore Education and authority is often associated with dogmatism and
repression supported by threats ,deprivation of priviledges punishment
(expulsion). Clef observes two contradictory (opposing demands) of
Education ,thus demand for better freedom and increase of authority.
Education system demands for liberty and for the control and order. One
may ask: ''Is it possible to have both freedom and authority at the same time?
There are two forms of freedom:
•Positive freedom to choose or associate of choice ,suppose in the form of
constraints or control.
•Negative freedom from descrimination ,oppression, from threats abuse.
Authority is categorised into four groups:traditional ,legal ,personal and
charismatic.
Traditional authority from tradition of our customs and values ,the law and
power is handed from older generation to the succeeding generation ,this
authority is conditioned by one's family or blood for example
chiefs,father ,mother ,kings or employees.
Legal or rational authority comes from the law ,governments,courts
,police ,magistrates ,parliment ,judges ,teacher. Corporal punishment can be
given to school children only from the headmaster or deputy or a delegeted
teacher. Legal authority is derived from laws ,parliment,statutes teachers has
legal rational authority.Schofied (1972:263)makes the observation that rulers
and teachers passes legal rational authority .Both have to make laws and
rules to guide content backed by authority.
Personal authority is derived through merit and Educational qualifications.
The authority teacher possesses based on qualifications
,diplomas,certificates . Other personal authority is found in doctors,hair
dresser,farmer ,dentist etc.
Charismatic authority is the ability to influence and convince others using
'unseen' powers and 'unseen' authority. Schofield(1972:262)says,''The most
obvious possesser of charismatic authority is Jesus Christ himself ,he taught
as one who has authority and not as the scribes''. Infact all religious founders
Buddha ,Gandhi, Muhammad, Bab or socialists like Karl Max Lenin, Stalin
are talented charismatic people.
Charismatic authority emergies naturally because ,it possesses special and
qualities for example ,peer group ,star ,church leader among other
charismatic leaders.These people are body without any authority ,but they
gain it by being respected with others.

http://zvavanhu.mywapblog.com/freedom-and-authority-in-the-
philosophy.xhtml

Freedom vs. Authority

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.”

In this course, we will consider the competing promises and aspirations

embodied in the Constitution, and how the Supreme Court has balanced
these desires over the years. We will begin by considering the origins of the
Constitution—why it was adopted, what issues were debated during the
process of drafting and ratification, and how it was initially enacted. We
will then consider how the Constitution has evolved over the years—both
through the amendment process and decisions by the Supreme Court. We
will focus on Supreme Court decisions that resolved, or attempted to
resolve, disputes over individual freedom and authority in cases involving
slavery, race discrimination, free speech, sex discrimination, gun ownership,
 discrimination based on sexual orientation, school prayer, government
power during wartime or crisis, flag burning, the detention system at
Guantanamo, and military tribunals.

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.

This course is intended to discuss the tension between individual freedom

and authority as reflected in the Constitution, as defined by the Supreme
Court, and as lived and debated by Americans. I eagerly look forward to
discussing these fascinating issues with you, and to finding out whether you
think the Supreme Court has made the right decisions on these central
matters that go to the heart of what it means to be an American, and to enjoy
freedom in an ordered society.

Fulfills the foundation requirement of Area 2 of General Education.

Related Items: Show Related Items

Click on any of the links below to perform a new search
Title: Freedom and Authority in Modern Educational Theory
Authors: Miller, Peter J.
Descriptors: Authoritarianism; Conceptual Schemes; Educational
Philosophy; Educational Theories; Elementary Secondary
Education; Higher Education; Humanistic
Education; Teacher Attitudes
Source: Curriculum Theory Network, 5, 4, 334-339, 76
More Info:
Help Peer-
Reviewed: N/A
More Info:
Help
Publisher: N/A
Publication
1976-00-00
Date:
Pages: N/A
Pub Types: N/A
Abstract: Examines the question of freedom and authority as it relates
to formal education and argues that educators' preference for
either freedom or authority is essentially procedural in
nature and that such a preference is relatively superficial and
unimportant. (Author/JG)
Abstractor: N/A
Reference
N/A
Count:
Note: N/A
Identifiers: N/A
Record Type: Journal
Level: N/A
Institutions: N/A
Sponsors: N/A
ISBN: N/A
ISSN: N/A
Audiences: N/A
Languages: N/A
Education
Elementary Secondary Education; Higher Education
Level:

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

As reported from the Education and Science Committee

Commentary

Recommendation

The Education and Science Committee has examined the Education

(Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill and recommends by majority
that it be passed with the amendments shown.

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.

This commentary covers the major amendments that we recommend.

Voluntary membership

We recommend that clause 6 be amended to substitute new sections 229A to

229CA for sections 229A to 229C of the principal Act; and that clause 7 be
deleted. Clause 6 of the bill as introduced would replace section 229 of the
Act, and clause 7 would repeal sections 229A to 229D. We agree with the
submission by the New Zealand Law Society that the repeal of section 229
of the Act is unnecessary. We consider that the drafting of new section 229
is complex, and the wording of particular sub-clauses has the potential to
create confusion as to their meaning and application. We consider that to
minimise any uncertainty, and to ensure that the policy objectives of new
section 229 are achieved, it is preferable for each of these policy objectives
to be dealt with separately in sections 229A to 229CA.

New section 229A provides that no student or prospective student at an

institution is required to be a member of a students’ association.

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.

Miscellaneous and consequential amendments

Commencement date

We recommend that clause 2 be amended to provide for a commencement

date of 1 January 2012. This would give students’ associations about a year
to prepare for the change to voluntary membership (which is the intent of
clause 2 in the bill as introduced), and this date would also coincide with the
beginning of a new academic year, which would be most administratively
convenient for students’ associations and institutions.

We recommend that new clause 9 be inserted to provide a transitional

arrangement for students who are enrolled at an institution on 1 January
2012, being part-way through a summer school programme. Any
compulsory membership of such students would continue until the end of
that enrolment. Membership would be voluntary in respect of any
subsequent enrolment at an institution.

Act will not bind the Crown

We recommend that clause 5 be removed. This would make this amending

legislation consistent with the principal Act, which does not bind the Crown.

Student members of councils

We recommend that new clause 4A be inserted. This would make a

consequential amendment to section 171(2)(e) of the principal Act, which
would change the way the student members of an institution’s council are
chosen.

Private training establishments

We recommend that new clause 6A be inserted, to amend section 229D.

This would ensure that private training establishments are included in the
institutions to which the provisions of new sections 229A to 229CA would
apply.

We recommend that new clause 8 be inserted. This would make a

consequential amendment to section 236(1)(a)(i) of the principal Act, which
concerns private training establishments.

New Zealand Labour Party minority view

The Labour Party opposes the Education (Freedom of Association)

Amendment Bill on the grounds that it will destroy the representation,
advocacy and services that tertiary students receive from student
associations, and as a result will undermine the educational success and
campus experience of many students.

Students Associations play a critical role in the success of students in tertiary

institutions. We heard from many submitters about the important part that
student associations have played in supporting students through their studies,
in terms of direct welfare and pastoral support; advocacy with tertiary
institutions, Government departments and other agencies, such as insurance
companies; and the provision of sporting, cultural, entertainment, media and
other services. These services are generally provided in a very cost-effective
way, and are run by students for students.

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.

We were told by tertiary institutions that student association’s representative

function is valued by them as an effective way of engaging with students.
Minority groupings of students, including Maori and International students
groups expressed to the Committee the valuable support they and their
members receive from student associations.

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.

It is unrealistic to expect tertiary institutions that are already facing cuts to

funding and restrained budgets to be able to redirect spending to student
services. They will be forced to choose between only providing a fraction of
the services that associations provide, or charging higher student service
levies. These levies may in fact be more than student association fees
because they will have to pay for what is now voluntary labour that is
provided by students through the student association. Therefore the effect of
the bill may well be that students will end up paying more for services.
Labour believes the premise of the bill is in fact incorrect. Student
Association membership is not compulsory. Student Associations are
democratic organisations which ensure that services are provided for
students, by students. The law provides for conscientious objection to
membership. It is highly regrettable that the National and ACT members of
the Committee did not take the opportunity to improve aspects of the
operation of the law such as the process for promoting objection to
membership.

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.

Labour members believe that this bill is an ideological exercise to target

student associations because of their role in campaigns on issues that have
affected students such as tertiary fees and student allowances and loans. It is
also premised on isolated examples of improper behaviour in student
associations to brand them as unaccountable. The reality is that student
associations are incorporated societies which are required to produce
accounts, and it is indeed through this process that occasional irregularities
have come to light.

A number of useful suggestions were made during the submission process to

improve accountability and transparency of student associations, which
would have had widespread, and therefore enduring, support. It is
unfortunate that these were not taken up by the Government members. Sadly
this bill as it stands ignores pragmatic changes. It will spell the end of the
activities of student associations which have been the life-blood of campuses
for well over 100 years in many cases. It will reduce the quality of student
experience, leave some students vulnerable and change control of student
affairs from students to institutions.

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.

With very minimal student or institutional demand, the bill appears an

ideological solution in search of a problem. We believe an underlying
objective of the bill is to weaken Students’ Associations and undermine their
membership and financial viability, and, in doing so, reduce student
democracy, student participation, and students’ voice on University and
Polytechnic boards.

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.

The bill aims to uphold a debatable interpretation of the right to freedom of

association, by ensuring that no student is compelled to join an association.
The majority of Student Associations operate under a compulsory
membership model where any student can—though a tiny fraction actually
do—choose to opt out of their Student Association membership. If there is a
problem to be fixed, then it is simply to make it clearer to students that they
can opt out of existing associations under the existing legislation. The Green
Party member notes the Human Rights Commission considers that students’
freedom to not associate is protected sufficiently under the current Act.

The overwhelming majority of submissions have been opposed to the bill

and have cited considerable expected negative impacts on associations’
ability to effectively deliver services, advocacy and representation—services
which tertiary providers will not be able to provide with current budgetary
constraints—as the major reasons to support the status quo. We agree with
submitters’ concerns that the impact on Student Associations membership
and funding levels will be likely catastrophic and this will have long-term
implications for the future of our universities, and indeed of our democracy.
Appendix

Committee process

The Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill was referred to

the committee on 23 September 2009. The closing date for submissions was
31 March 2010. We received and considered 4,837 submissions (including
4,418 form submissions) from interested groups and individuals. We heard
132 submissions, which included holding hearings in Dunedin,
Christchurch, and Auckland.

We received advice from the Ministry of Education.

Committee membership

Allan Peachey (Chairperson)

Catherine Delahunty

Hon Sir Roger Douglas (to 8 September 2010)

Jo Goodhew

Colin King

Hon Nanaia Mahuta (to 18 November 2009)

Hon Trevor Mallard

Sue Moroney

Hon Heather Roy (from 8 September 2010)

David Shearer (from 18 November 2009)

Louise Upston

Gareth Hughes replaced Catherine Delahunty, and Grant Robertson replaced

David Shearer, for this item of business.
Freedom and Authority, A delicate Balance

Mr. Gow is a freelance writer in Arlington Heights, Illinois.

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.

Power, in other words, is the capability of accomplishing something. It

means control over others. It can mean, but does not necessarily imply, the
legal ability to do or accomplish something.

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.

A harmful breakdown of authority in one area of life almost inevitably leads

to the erosion of authority in other areas as well. For example, we witness in
our society today a virulent and officious assault on authority in the family
and in schools—elementary through university.
Restoring Authority

What steps should we take to achieve the restoration of reasonable authority

(not blind force or coercion) in our society? One way that authority can and
will be restored in society is when those who have (or should have) authority
begin to exercise it in their appropriate spheres of responsibility. Thus,
authority in the family can be restored when parents fight to regain their
right to educate their children. Teachers can help to restore authority by
exercising their right to discipline unruly and discourteous students, who are
infringing upon the right of other students to learn.

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.

'Freedom Is About Authority': Excerpts From Giuliani Speech on

Crime
Published: March 20, 1994

• Sign In to E-Mail
• Print

Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani was among the speakers on Wednesday at a

forum about crime in the cities, sponsored by The New York Post. The
Mayor discussed how crime and law enforcement had changed in New York
over several decades, and how society had changed. Here is an excerpt, as
transcribed by The New York Times.

We constantly present the false impression that government can solve

problems that government in America was designed not to solve. Families
are significantly less important in the development of children today than
they were 30 or 40 years ago. Religion has less influence than it did 30 or 40
years ago. Communities don't mean what they meant 30 or 40 years ago.

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.

[ Interruption by someone in the audience. ]

You have free speech so I can be heard.

[ 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

Authority and Education

by Dr. Csepregi Gábor

Ottawa, CA

Authority plays a central role in various areas of our life. We encounter

authority in the family, army, religious community, etc. We notice that some
men or women are given the right to lay down rules and apply these rules to
particular cases. Whenever a special person (or group of persons) is
considered as source, interpreter and enforcer of rules, the term authority is
used. We may define authority as the power or right to create, lay down, and
enforce rules. Authority is connected with the rule-governed form of social
life.

Authority involves power, to produce (being an 'author') and to regulate a

certain kind of behaviour. This power is communicated and maintained
through words, symbolic gestures, rituals, etc. We need only think of the
manner of speaking and dressing of legislators, judges, police forces, priests,
and doctors to illustrate this.

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.

Personal authority is a power conferred spontaneously to people because of

their competence, special knowledge, or moral quality. This kind of
authority does not rely on an impersonal normative order; it is recognized
freely by the members of a community. It can always be challenged and the
refusal to accept this authority does not entail legal sanctions. Personal
qualities (leadership, wisdom, charity, etc.) are the most common sources of
this type of authority. It is through their prestige, popularity, magnetism, or
charisma that some people are able to elicit and regulate human behaviour.

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.

Doubtless, the formal authority of a teacher is a very important element in

every educational process. A teacher needs to be supported by the local
community or the government, especially when he is exposed to the
criticism of the parents. Thanks to this support, he is able to transmit to his
students not only knowledge and skill but also the norms and values of a
specific community. A difficult problem that every conscientious teacher has
to deal with is this: should he defend, uncritically, the interests of those who
put him in authority? Should he identify himself uncritically with every
single norm of his own society?

To be truly effective, teaching must rely on a personal authority. This means

that the sincere and committed teacher comes to recognize the freedom and
legitimate rights of each student. He knows that learning greatly depends on
the student=s voluntary participation in what is going on in the classroom.
Authority and freedom cannot be dissociated one from the other: freedom
without authority lacks goals and guidance, authority without freedom
transforms power into tyranny. Therefore, a good teacher does not wish to
see his orders carried out mechanically and wants to work with individuals
who submit themselves freely to his demands. He also accepts the
challenges of the students, remains open to their criticism, and evolves just
as much as they do. He is never certain that his orders or advice will meet no
resistance. From this uncertainty arises the risk of giving orders, a risk that
the teacher must accept. When a student calls the personal authority of his
teacher into question, the teacher has failed in his primary educational
function. Yet only by taking this risk of failure, in the practice of authority,
can educational successes be attained.
A major problem educators have to deal with is the general decline of
authority. In our age, not only their own authority, based on their own
power of conviction, is called into question but also that of the parents,
political figures, and older people. Notwithstanding the current refusal to
make use of the parents= or older people=s accumulated wisdom, authority
does not disappear. It surfaces, often in a less conspicuous form, when one
relies on experts, follows some social conventions, or accepts the moral
standards of corporations and other communities. It has been convincingly
shown that those who reject, the most energetically, the authority of their
parents or teachers will readily submit themselves to the "tyranny of the
majority" within their own group. The authority of a youth group is
considerably stronger than the severest parental authority. There is in every
human being a great desire to belong and to conform to the norms and orders
of a specific social unit. One of the most important lessons of our century is
that individuals, as well as nations, cannot live without authority. Therefore,
it is important to teach people to accept authority, and teach them in such a
way that their acceptance will never turn into blind submission. In other
words, a critical and responsible attitude in the face of authority should be
nurtured. No less important is the self-education of the teacher: he should
continuously change, evolve, and remain open to criticism.

Another important source of worry for educators is the refusal to

acknowledge the validity of a particular tradition. Tradition is a stock of
experiences, customs, values, habits, and institutions acquired or created by
previous generations and transmitted to each new generation. Tradition is a
form of authority since it contains a prescriptive value-system, insights,
advice, and orders. We live in an age in which many tend to vigorously
reject the legacy of previous generations. On the one hand, this divorce from
past ideals can be explained by the erosion of a sense of community. On the
other hand, a bitterness over, and attack on, tradition is prompted by the
dissatisfaction with the evils left behind by the previous generation: wars,
pollution, greediness, joblessness, and increasing mechanization of human
life, etc.

Once again, it is important to emphasize that it is impossible to step outside

a tradition: contemporary individualism is just as much rooted in a particular
tradition as is the discontent with some inherited mentalities and
achievements. In short, one fights or recognizes a tradition in the name of
another tradition.
 Teachers should encourage their students to approach the legacy of the past
with an attitude of critical solidarity, an attitude that rejects both careless
revolt and blind conformity, and analyzes, re-interprets, and selectively
assimilates a particular tradition. Thanks to this attitude of openness,
students are able to creatively dissociate themselves from of the bondage of
fixed behaviour while discovering and preserving the great achievements of
the past. According to the English philosopher Alfred N. Whitehead, both
change and conservation are needed. A change without conservation is a
leap from one disappearing entity to another, from nothing to nothing. Mere
conservation without change cannot conserve.

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.

Click on any of the links below to perform a new search Title:

The "Freedom and Authority Memorandum": A Philosophical Addendum in
Educational Administration. Authors:
Kaminsky, James S. Descriptors:
Decentralization; Educational Administration; Educational Change; Educational
Policy; Elementary Secondary Education; Foreign Countries; Institutional
Autonomy; Philosophy; School District Autonomy Source:
Journal of Educational Administration, v19 n2 p187-200 Sum 1981 More Info:
Help Peer-Reviewed:
More Info:
Help N/A Publisher:
N/A Publication Date:
1981-00-00 Pages:
N/A Pub Types:
Journal Articles; Opinion Papers Abstract:
Applies a philosophical perspective to the landmark 1970 memorandum
"Freedom and Authority" written by A. W. Jones, then Director-General of
Education in South Australia. In the memorandum Jones attempted a
decentralization and reform of South Australian schools. (Author/JM)
Abstractor:
N/A Reference Count:
N/A
Note:
N/A Identifiers:
Australia (South Australia) Record Type:
Journal Level:
N/A Institutions:
N/A Sponsors:
N/A ISBN:
N/A ISSN:
N/A Audiences:
N/A Languages:
English Education Level:
Elementary Secondary Educatio

Student authority: Antidote to alienation

1. Joan Goodman
1. Graduate School of Education, University of Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia, USA, joang@gse.upenn.edu

Abstract

The widespread disaffection of students from school is manifested in

academic failure, indifference, and defiance. These problems can be
alleviated, I argue, when an authority structure is developed that combines
three components — freedom, power, and legitimacy. Authority understood
as either power or freedom is apt to subvert students’ school attachment
even while attempting to strengthen it; authority that combines power and
freedom, when perceived by all parties as serving a legitimate mission, is apt
to enhance engagement. The bonding potency of authority is augmented
when it is joined to strongly marked school purposes and dispersed to
students. The three components of authority are interwoven with school
visions and student authority into various patterns: some schools lean more
towards power, others more towards freedom; some operate under highly
moralized and totalizing visions, others under vaguer, less moral, and less
encompassing visions. The nature and interdependence of the three
components and the trade-offs under various combinations are discussed.
While legitimate authority has many faces, if schools are to be engaging
places for students it is essential that the norms promoted are welcomed by
them; advantageous to that process is ordaining students with authority to
advance prevailing norms.
http://tre.sagepub.com/content/8/3/227.abstract

Gove: 'Teachers, not politicians, know how best to run schools’

Press notice
Press notice date: 26 May 2010
Region: All
Press notice id: 2010/0088
Updated: 21 July 2010

• Share
o Share Xml
o Delicious
o Facebook
o Digg
o Reddit
o StumbleUpon
o Close
• Print

Greater freedom and independence were promised to primary and secondary

schools today as Secretary of State for Education, Michael Gove, invited all
schools to apply to become academies.

Writing to schools today, he announced the Government will open up the

Academies programme to all schools including, for the first time, primary
schools and special schools. He also pledged to make the process of
becoming an academy quicker and less bureaucratic, removing local
authority powers to block schools that want to become academies.

Schools that are rated ‘outstanding’ by Ofsted will be fast tracked through
the process.

Subject to Parliamentary approval of the Academies Bill, which was

introduced in the House of Lords today, the first tranche of these academies
will open in September 2010 and schools that become academies will enjoy

• freedom from local authority control

• the ability to set their own pay and conditions for staff
 • freedom from following the National Curriculum
• greater control of their budget
• greater opportunities for formal collaboration with other public and
private organisations
• freedom to change the length of terms and school days
• freedom to spend the money the local authority currently spends on
their behalf.

These freedoms will be in addition to system-wide reductions in bureaucracy

due to be announced shortly. This will shift power from central and local
government back to heads and schools.

Michael Gove said:

'The Government is genuinely committed to giving schools greater

freedoms. We trust teachers and headteachers to run their schools. We
think headteachers know how to run their schools better than
bureaucrats or politicians.

Many school leaders have already shown a keen interest in gaining

academy freedoms. They want to use those powers to increase
standards for all children and close the gap between the richest and the
poorest.

Today I am inviting all schools to register their interest. It is right that

they should be able to enjoy academy freedoms and I hope many will
take up this offer.'

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.

Today's announcement was welcomed by headteachers, academy sponsors

and national education bodies.
Patricia Sowter, Headteacher of Cuckoo Hall Primary School, indicated her
school would apply for academy freedoms. She said:

'To achieve success in our school we have always been committed to

effective and non-bureaucratic ways of working. I have always felt that
successful schools should be given the option to adopt the same level
of autonomy that comes with academy freedoms. These freedoms
would allow Cuckoo Hall to continually build on its success and shape
its own future by choosing our own curriculum to best meet the needs
of our children.'

Dan Moynihan, Chief Executive Harris Federation:

'Academy freedoms for outstanding schools will remove bureaucratic

shackles from headteachers and give them the scope and incentive to
run their schools even more entrepreneurially for the benefit of
children and their communities. This policy change is a major step
forward in creating a world class educational system.'

Sally Coates, Principal of Burlington Danes Academy:

'I welcome today's announcement. I have led inner-city schools under

local authority and academy control and I know that academies enjoy
the freedom to put into practice fresh ideas to keep students motivated
and genuinely enthused about learning. Academies have the autonomy
to really respond to the needs of the local community context and
strategically shape their offer to meet those needs.'

Tom Clark, Executive Chairman of the Foundation, Aided Schools and

Academies National Association (FASNA) said today:

'FASNA have always said that to ensure a high-quality education for

all pupils, headteachers need to have control over how they run their
school; and importantly need to be free from local authority
intervention. FASNA welcomes this initiative and is confident that
many of our schools will be keen to apply for these freedoms.'

Dr Elizabeth Sidwell CBE, CEO Haberdashers' Federation:

'At the Haberdashers' Federation we value our academy freedoms very

highly. Overall they encourage a sense of responsibility and allow our
 principals to take decisions and be accountable for these. The best
heads flourish in this way. We enjoy self determination in the
allocation of our resources and so get the best deals for our schools in
all support services.

'Freedom also means we can act promptly and apply resources to

teaching and learning where it is most needed. For example, through
efficiencies of scale we are able to give all our primary children free
cooked lunches which benefits their health, social skills and most
importantly their learning.

'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.'

Ian Foster, Chair of the Board – Academies Enterprise Trust:

'It seemed to me so often in recent years that, with a few notable

exceptions, the Academies programme provided failing schools with
reward and opportunity whilst excluding the best schools from the
freedoms and opportunities that becoming an academy offers. I am
very pleased that the new policy addresses that whilst, at the same
time, continuing to allow more challenged schools to become
academies, under the control of successful sponsors or commissioned
by parents. As a sponsor with a track record of success the Academies
Enterprise Trust is looking forward to playing a proactive role in
growing the academies network.'

Sir Kevin Satchwell, Headmaster Thomas Telford School:

'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.'

ARK Schools said:

 'Having academy status has given ARK Schools the opportunity to
design a curriculum and staffing model that is having real impact in
delivering high achievement for disadvantaged pupils. ARK's three
academies with GCSE pupils achieved a weighted average annual
increase in GCSE attainment of 7.8 percentage points since opening.'

Notes to editors:

1. Michael Gove's letters to heads are available on DfE's academies pages.

2. The Secretary of State's letter to schools and his letter to outstanding

schools are available to download from this page.

3. Schools can register their interest on DfE's academies pages.

4. There are currently 203 academies open in 83 local authorities.

Academies have seen a 5.0 percentage point increase in the proportion of
pupils achieving at least five GCSEs at A*-C including English and Maths
(for those academies with results in 2008 and 2009), double the average
national increase of 2.5 percentage points.

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

"FREEDOM IN EDUCATION ACT"

We co-signers of the "Freedom in Education Act" believe that - in order to
restore democratic principles, philosophical openness, metaphysical debate, and
economic freedom of choice back into the classroom conversation - that it is
absolutely necessary to reintroduce freedom of speech and lively debate
back into the daily American Public School Curriculum.
Necessary Steps towards a Restoration of Freedom in Education:
1. Freedom of speech/discourse/debate will be allowed back into the
classroom conversation in all American schools. The daily discussions will
be courteous, respectful and orderly. Students will be allowed to speak
from the teacher's podium, in order to share a wide range of subject
material, including their belief systems, religious ideas and other wide
ranging interests. Following each "sharing" - there will be a press
conference during which time the other students may ask clarifying
questions. At all times, the participants will follow "Roberts Rule of Order"
to assure classroom order and proper decorum.

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?"

4. Freedom of Reading, Thought and FOCUS will be restored to the

classroom environment. Students will be given time each day to forus on
the books they choose, research the subjects they choose - and freely
share their research with their classmates via public speaking. They will
be permitted to discuss their religions, philosophies, atheistic ideas or
even subjects like Quantum Physics, channelling and Area 51.

5. Freedom of Economic and Political Discourse will be included each day so

students may openly and freely discuss and debate what kind of
economic/political/governmental systems might best serve humanity
 during the coming "days of change". Students will be allowed to "question
the dominant paradigm" - and will be encouraged to come up with ( brain
storm) ideas to create a more compassionate, fair and cooperatve new
era of capitalism.

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.)

7. All dictatorial methods of school management will be re-evaluated and

reduced, while the "shared decision making" ideas of the Clinton era will
be re-introduced. Fear based rules and punishments will be replaced with
more "compassionate" regulations - agreed upon equally by students,
parents and teachers alike. All parties will cocreate a new Bill of Rights for
Teachers, Parents and Students. Humiliation - and "terror" - as forms of
punishment - will be replaced by "extra assignments" and other forms of
"discipline and control" that are compassion-based and fair.

"How can we expect to instill democratic principles and ideals into

our
students, when they are educated within a system that is based
on
tyrannical, dictatorial methods of domination and control? We
must cease
terrorizing our children into docile submission and let them
discover the
joy of real FREEDOM. This is the only way to allow them to
discover who
they really are - as opposed to what society says they should be."

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.

I really DO believe that - ( with the old capitalistic paradigm crumbling

all around us ) - that my SF students and I discovered some of the
"positive changes" that the new Government is looking for. I know for a
fact,
that when children ( and teachers ) are given more freedom - they
thrive!!!

They actually awaken to the "Cosmic Super Self Within."

“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

I strongly oppose the invalid concept of “right to education” because it contradicts

metaphysical reality, the Law of Identity, and the Law of Causality. It is true that this so
mediocre a species of right is guaranteed by our Constitution and the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights as some young fervent, passionate apologists of slavery try
to point out. There is no such a right as the right to education. The so absurd “right to
education” means state-funded education, which means the productive members of our
society must contribute something to serve those who have less in life. This sounds good,
but this mediocre trend is what is pushing this country toward complete collectivism and
disaster. There is only freedom in education, which is anchored on reality.

I wrote in my earlier blog the following statement:

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.

Doesn’t capitalism oppose “free” 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).

How is ‘free’ education funded under capitalism?

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.

What is the price of a ‘free’ state-funded education?

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 do collectivists really mean by “free education”?

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?

What kinds of ideas are taught by state-controlled (and funded) education?

If any government is allowed to gain financial control of education, then so it must

necessarily take over the content of that education: the realm of ideas. i.e., to make sure
it’s “money” is well spent. In such a situation is there any doubt that the supreme ideas to
be taught are obedience and servitude to the supremacy of the “people” and its
“democratic” spokesperson the state? Such is the death of a free society. For this reason it
is of critical importance that the government be completely removed from education,
must like it is from religion.

How do public and private schools differ?

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.

Are there any private schools in America?

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.

Is there a right to education?

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.”

What are some short-term solutions?

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.

What have been the results of public education?

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

Forum for Freedom in Education is a non-governmental, non-profit organisation, which

has been active in Croatia since 1992 and was registered in 1998 in accordance with the
provisions of the Law on Associations.

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.

Forum for Freedom in education is a member of

• the European Forum for Freedom in Education,

• the Street Law network,
• the Reading and Writing for Critical Thinking International Consortium,
• the Network of Education Policy Centres,
• the Coordination of Associations for Children.
The mission of Forum for Freedom in Education is to implement contemporary and
quality education programs and to impact the public policies, always in its activities
guided by the principals of fairness, non-violence, open communication, life-long
learning and critical thinking. By comparing and harmonising the education in Croatia
with the education standards of the contemporary democratic societies, Forum is
advocating for the right to choose education that creates a self-actualised person as well
as the right of equal access to it.

Programs implemented by the Forum for Freedom in Education

• Methodological training programs for teaching professionals: Reading and

Writing for Critical Thinking and Active Learning and Critical Thinking in
Higher Education
• Integral Civic Education Street Law, Rule of Law, Education for Anti-Corruption,
Mediation, EU Education.
• Health Education.

Programs for children and youth:

• High School Students' Scholarships for studying abroad

• EU Summer Academy

Program «We Can Work It Out: A Network of Medication Centres», which is, so far
based in, and implemented through:

• Mediation Centre Zagreb,

• Mediation Centre Rijeka and
• Mediation Centre Velika Gorica.

 Accomplishments of the Forum for Freedom in Education



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.

This project is funded by the European Union

this web site has been produced with the assistance of the European Union. The contents
of this web site are the sole
responsibility of Network of Education Policy Centers and can in no way be taken to
reflect the views of the European Union.

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.

By analogy, leadership is supply and public opinion is demand. In a democracy, a

reversal of the appropriate direction of influence allows impressionable figments of mass
sentiment to dictate to the powerful and permanent mechanisms of representative
leadership. The result is a restive and alienated electorate, a failure of political authority,
a sluggish and uncreative government, and a tendency toward national decline. That
supply creates its own demand is a principle of capitalism called Say's law. Capitalism
consists of providing first and getting later.

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 only purpose of government in a democratic capitalistic society would be to protect

its citizens from force or fraud. The protection from force, that is, the protection of
individual rights, would be achieved through the use of a police force to protect the rights
of citizens at home; a military, to protect the rights of citizens from foreign aggression;
and a court system to enforce contracts and settle disputes between citizens.

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.

An absolute democracy, which means unlimited majority rule, is incompatible with

capitalism and freedom. This is so because capitalism rests on the principle of individual
rights. In an absolute democracy, rights would really have no legitimate meaning because
they could always be voted away in the next election. When most people think of
democracy, they usually mean a constitutionally limited democracy. The function of a
limited democracy is to decide who held political power and how that power is
specifically exercised, but what that power is should be strictly defined and limited in the
constitution. Individual rights would not be subject to vote.

What is the relationship between capitalism and democracy? It is a question of great

moment. The dramatic political upheavals, demands for democratic governments, and
free market economy in Eastern Europe and Russia have moved the question to the
forefront. Modern democracy is a product of the capitalist process, and the two are
mutually supportive parts of a rising modern civilization. Economic and political freedom
are necessarily linked because both are expressions of one and the same impulse of
individual autonomy against the coercive power of the states.

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.

Economic freedom is an indispensable means toward the achievement of political

freedom. The kind of economic organization that provides economic freedom directly,
namely competitive capitalism, also promotes political freedom, because it separates
economic power from political power and in this way enables the one to offset the other.
The relationship between political and economic freedom is complex and by no means
unilateral. History suggests only that capitalism is a necessary condition for political
freedom. Clearly, it is not a sufficient condition.

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 and Control in Education

Autonomy and Accountability
Focus of International Discourse
R. Govinda
National University of Educational Planning and Administration
Freedom and Control
Focus of international discourse
 Closely linked to the nature of school and its relationship with the
providers
 Changing Relationships and Varying Expectations
To begin with … The Community in Charge
 School : Created and maintained by community
 School as a social contract between the teacher and the community
 Essentially a local arrangement
 Teacher occupied the centre stage – granting autonomy or keeping
control was not a question
Socialisation of the youngsters and transmission of knowledge/skills the
main concerns
And Then … The State Takes Over
 School: Organized and funded by the modern (nation-) state
 Part of public services
 Standardization of the Institutional Arrangement
 Raise of the Education Bureaucracy
Citizenship training, strengthening of national identity
Schooling as the means of investing in human capital for national
development
And Now ….. The Emerging Framework
 School: Organized and funded by the post-modern (globalized-) state
 Market gains ground as the New Arbiter for School Provision
 School as an enterprise – a negotiated instrument for ensuring the
delivery of predetermined merit goods
 Focus on providing individual choice and personal development
 Local (national) concerns get jettisoned in favour of the global
Framework for Autonomy and Control
- Contemporary Debates
 Autonomy from higher levels of government
 Local or organizational autonomy (autonomy inside the school)
 Consumer sovereignty (autonomy for parents and students)
Autonomy from Higher Levels of Government
 The Application and Approval Process
 Rule Exemptions
 Funding
 Reporting Requirements
Autonomy Inside the School
 School Governance
 School Personnel
 Budget
 School Admission Processes
Autonomy of Parents and Students
 Parental Choice
 Community Accountability
Autonomy and Accountability Framework
Autonomy and Accountability – where is the focus in international
discourse?
 Individual School is the basis for action – not the system – focus is on
strengthening each delivery point
 Teacher Autonomy is embedded in school autonomy for management
through SMC
 Direct involvement of the State machinery – How much of it is
desirable?
 Evidence based planning and management coupled with transparency
and accountability to the stakeholders is the new mantra
Autonomy and Accountability – where is the focus in international
discourse?
 School Evaluation by independent professional bodies for assessing
school/teacher performance
 Assessing teacher performance as part of school performance
 External examination results take centre stage
Autonomy and Accountability – where is the focus in international
discourse?
 Accountability to local masters is not something many school
authorities are familiar with
 School head acquires a critical role as leader for management of
school development
 Requires a new framework of personnel selection and management –
teachers have to belong to the school not the State system
Freedom and Control – Not a Black and White Issue
 Autonomy has to be designed innovatively to accommodate freedom
for action within the framework of a State managed not controlled system
 Inducing public accountability demands a radical transformation of
the organizational culture of the public education management system
 Regulation is not going away – but it has to change hands – Confining
Roles
 Political Leadership to Policy Making and Legislation
 Bureaucracy to Development Programming and Facilitation
 Professional Groups to Monitoring Implementation – Admission,
Recognition, Certification – Some aspects would be Self-Regulated

Freedom in Education
Thursday, 06 September 2007 17:23
A tribute to Milton Friedman
Economic Freedom Network Asia Forum 2007

3rd - 5th September 2007

New Delhi, India

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

3rd - 5th September 2007

New Delhi, India

Organised by: Centre for Civil Society, India, Friedrich Naumann Foundation,
and the Economic Freedom Network Asia

Leo Tolstoy's Educational Philosophy

Great Russian Author Believed in Freedom in

Education

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 Beliefs About Community Involvement

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 on Freedom in Education

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

• Educational Efforts of Leo Tolstoy

 • Anna Karenina: Themes
• Leo Tolstoy Books and Biography

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 describes children as learning in stages and as being unique individuals, a

concept that was being forwarded by other educational reformers in the mid to late 1800s.
Children are individually complex, so teaching them, he determined, requires teachers to
allow students to be free to choose when, what and how to learn.

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

Title: Freedom And education: an application of ethics, political philosophy and

philosophy of mind to some of the problems associated with freedom in education.
Authors: Lankshear, Colin Keywords: Children's liberty
free persons
freedom
education Issue Date: 1979 Abstract: It is generally acknowledged that educating children
entails limiting their social freedom, (or liberty), to some extent. The question is, how far
can children's liberty justifiably be limited in education, and on what grounds? One
approach to this issue adopted in recent educational philosophy involves the idea that
development of 'free' persons constitutes a key educational ideal, if not the educational
ideal itself. It is argued that children's liberty should be regulated in accordance with the
ideal of developing 'free' persons. After arguing in Chapter One that freedom may be
construed both as a relationship obtaining between human beings and as a form of
personality development, I examine philosophically the connection between children's
liberty in education and the development of 'free' persons. Some educational philosophers
identify 'free' persons with rational, (autonomous) persons, and suggest that the
development of reason is consistent with - and may actually presuppose - considerable
restrictions on children's liberty. In particular, development of 'free' persons may require
that children be initiated into the rational disciplines. Given the analysis of "social
freedom" which I advance in Chapter Two, this requirement can be seen to constitute a
serious curtailment of children's liberty. I argue that there are good reasons for
challenging the view that to be a 'free' person consists in being rational, and then advance
an alternative account of "free persons". This has quite different implications for the
social freedom of children in education from those of the 'rationalist' view. Indeed, I
conclude that whereas the 'rationalist' account of "free persons" is well-suited to
justifying a considerable degree of unfreedom for children, mine more obviously lends
itself to a positive end: namely, suggesting ways in which children may be offered
increased social freedom by comparison with much current educational practice.
Publisher: University of Canterbury. Education Degree: Doctor of Philosopy
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10092/1067 Rights: Copyright Colin Lankshear Rights
URI: http://library.canterbury.ac.nz/thesis/etheses_copyright.shtml Appears in
Collections:Theses and Dissertations

Authority and Education

by Marissa K. Lingen
October 1, 2000

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.

AUTHORITY ON THE JOB :

Barnard defines authority as the character of communication by which an order is

accepted by an individual as governing the actions that individual takes within the
system.

Barnard maintains that authority will be accepted only under the following conditions:

1. The individual can understand the order being communicated.

2. The individual believes the order is consistent with the purpose of the
organization.
3. The individual sees the order as compatible with his or her personal interests.
 4. The individual is mentally and physically able to comply with the order.

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.

7. A command is authenticated as coming from a manager.

TYPES OF AUTHORITY:

3 main types of authority can exist within an organization:

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:

The most fundamental authority within an organization, reflects existing superior-

subordinate relationships. It consists of the right to make decisions and to give order
concerning the production,sales or finance related behaviour of subordinates.

In general, line authority pertains to matters directly involving management system

production, sales, finance etc., and as a result with the attainment of objectives.

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.

As an organization expands, it usually needs employees with expertise in diversified

areas. Although small organizations may also require this kind of diverse expertise, they
often find it more practical to hire part time consultants to provide it is as needed rather
than to hire full time staff personnel, who may not always be kept busy.

LINE – STAFF RELATIONSHIPS :

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.

ROLE OF STAFF PERSONNEL:

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.

CONFLICT IN LINE – STAFF RELATIONSHIP:

From the view point of line personnel, conflict is created because staff personnel tend to

• Assume Line Authority

• Do not give Sound Advice
• Steal Credit for Success
• Fail to Keep line personnel informed of their activities
• Do not see the whole picture.

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.

Authority through structure

1. Grade levels
2. Student/teacher dichotomy
3. Teacher/principal dichotomy
4. School staff/principal dichotomy
5. Principal/superintendent dichotomy
6. Principal/district staff dichotomy
7. District staff/superintendent dichotomy
8. Superintendent/school board dichotomy
9. School board/voter dichotomy
10. State staff/district staff dichotomy
11. State superintendent/state legislature/governor trichotomy
12. State legislators/voter dichotomy

Authority through policy

• Federal educational policy
o No Child Left Behind Act
• State educational policy
o Compulsory School Attendance
o Number of days in a school year
o Teacher salaries
• District educational policy
• School building policy
o Discipline procedures

Authority through social positions

• Level of academic achievement
• Types of cultural affiliation/identity
• Race
• Gender
• Sexual orientation
• Religion
Exploring Taiwanese High School Students' Perceptions of and Preferences for Teacher
Authority in the Earth Science Classroom with Relation to Their Attitudes and
Achievement (EJ866504)

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.)

How Do Teachers View Their Own Pedagogical Authority? (EJ828152)

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

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

Institutional Authority and Traces of Intergenerational Conflict (EJ891634)

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

Institutional Authority and Traces of Intergenerational Conflict (EJ891634)

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:

1. Establish criteria and procedures for election to membership in the Graduate

Faculty.
2. Establish bylaws governing the election of Council members, the organization of
the Council, the frequency of its meetings, the procedural rules that will govern its
proceedings, and a procedure for Graduate Faculty review of Council actions.
3. Establish general policies and procedures pertaining to graduate programs and
graduate research within the University.
4. Strive to improve and enhance the quality of graduate education and graduate
research.
5. Promote the general welfare of the graduate students and faculty.
6. Foster and sustain the intellectual climate of the University.

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:

1. A preliminary presentation and discussion of the proposed amendment will be

made at a meeting of the Graduate Council.
2. At a second regular or special meeting of the Council, to be held no less than
thirty and no more than sixty days after the preliminary presentation, the proposed
amendment will be discussed and approved by a majority of Council members
present.
3. The amendment shall be approved by two-thirds of all Graduate Faculty members
voting in a mail ballot sent to all members of the Graduate Faculty.