The Situation

Inside the Outcome-Based Education (OBE) and the Choice K-12 discussions is a someone or group of someones the nature of whom we are no longer sure we understand. Not understanding them, we cannot define them. Not defining them, we cannot evaluate them or our work with them. Therefore, we experience a conceptual 'black hole' at the center of our otherwise fine and laudatory work (OBE, Choice K-12, etc.).

To rationalize education reform of any kind, we have to define with reasonable accuracy and broad agreement the 'who' we are dealing with. That who, that someone or group of someones who is the intended beneficiary of our labor is what we know we don't understand and therefore can't define or evaluate.

We're stuck until we can understand the 'who' sufficiently to define them accurately and to benefit them genuinely. 1

We have been understanding, defining and evaluating the 'who' theoretically, as a legal entity, a social one, a psychological or an ethnological one -- as an element of this or that context. This type of understanding, definition and evaluation is not wrong. It's just not complete, not enough. There's more to the 'who' than these theoretical categories take account of. Cold experience, if nothing else, is telling us this.

Ultimately, we run out of contexts in terms of which to understand, define and evaluate a 'who.' And at that point we're in trouble. We've used up all the theoretical categories and the 'who' is still doing things that don't fit the categories -- and we can't think of any new categories because we've been right thorough all along and thought of all the categories there are and that enough people are going to agree to.

So, we're in an epistemological crisis of the first magnitude.

Our situation is not unlike that described by an American journalist who remarked early in this century, 'We intend to give the Filipinos a measure of freedom once they shall stand still long enough to get measured.'

The Analysis

Our theoretical understanding of a student is not wrong, but it is insufficient. We need a full view.

Just now a number of people are proposing conceptual structures which they claim represent a full or a fuller view. Most of these are derived from systems theory or cybernetics, the science of communication and control.

The gist of these proposals is that we use phenomena rather than theory to understand, define and evaluate a 'who' whose interests we are addressing. Instead of asking only 'What are they a part of?', we ask, first, 'What are they doing?', and then, 'Where are they going?'. Out of these phenomenological concerns come, quite naturally, the theoretical ones involving law, sociology, psychology, ethnology, etc.

But the point is, the phenomena themselves are more primal and therefore more demanding of our attention than are the theories.

And this is our situation today: we have umpteen theoretical categories for any possible subject. 2 And as we ramify the categories so too we lower our happiness and sense of accomplishment. Our methods, in effect, presuppose the Filipino will stand still so we can measure him when the Filipino's nature is to do much more than that.

We need to understand, define and evaluate phenomenologically, by how life or the subject actually conducts itself. This will include, ipso facto, our theoretical concerns as well. The wide view includes the many narrow ones, which, obviously, do not include the wide.

We should derive structure from the way life is actually conducting its affairs. Then we are realistically in the right epistemological mode.

So that's the argument for what to do. Now, what to do.

The Conclusion

Phenomenological structure is personal, first, last and foremost. This is axiomatic. I should be very surprised if someone were to dispute it.

There are four personalities in every individual's life who are absolutely vital. They are, in order of importance: the mother, the father, the teacher and the visitor. This, too, is self-evident and, therefore, axiomatic.

These four personalities are the structure of the 'who' who is the center of our OBE and Choice K-12 discussions. This structure is phenomenological, comprising the way the 'who' conducts their life. Furthermore, it is hierarchical, with the mother in the first place, the visitor in the last, the father just after the mother and the teacher before the visitor. The hierarchy reflects the degrees of closeness these individuals have with a child.

One more concept is required. Every child has a vocation and, for the first many years of their life, the same vocation. It is, being a student.

As we know, being a student hardly has a beginning, much less an ending. It seems to be there from before any 'beginning,' so primal is it. This vocation is the inner drive and the direction, the engine and the axis of evolvement/involvement, of a human personality. We all know this to be true.

This fact has many consequences. I will mention two which are well known. First, what the child learns has to satisfy both their needs and those of the society in which they participate. Second, the teacher is next in importance to a child just following the mother and father. The teacher occupies a position of exceptional importance in a child's life.

The Summary

Mother
Father
Teacher
Visitor

The actual structure of a person's life. Personal. Phenomenological.

A child's vocation
is being a student.

The inner necessity of a person's life, the engine of culture. Personal. Phenomenological.

With personal and phenomenological structure at the center of our OBE and Choice K-12 discussions, we can dispel the 'black hole' and resume forward progress.

September 9, 1994
David R. Graham
Maywood Homeschool Leadership Team

Footnotes

1- We are aware that if we benefit the 'who' we benefit the whole, so that's not the issue. The issue is, we don't know who the 'who,' the 'student,' in fact, is. Return

2- Equity, Transition, At-Risk, ADA, ADD, Gifted, Special Ed., etc. Return