Right To Education - Revision history

Elizabethbolg: /* Does public polling reveal insights about the right as experienced in different countries? */

2022-08-03T17:53:52Z

Does public polling reveal insights about the right as experienced in different countries?

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:53, 3 August 2022
Line 2,170:		Line 2,170:

	===Does public polling reveal insights about the right as experienced in different countries?===		===Does public polling reveal insights about the right as experienced in different countries?===
			According to polling data from the Euro Barometer, published by the European Commission in June 2022 [surveyed from Feb 2022-Mar 2022], it was revealed that with regards to EU citizens and International Partners, “over nine in ten respondents (91%) agree that promoting education for all should be one of the main priorities of the EU’s action in partner countries.” (European Commission 2022). With respect to peace and international security, having been polled as the first most pressing issue, the Euro-barometer polling data revealed that, “the second most pressing challenge mentioned is health (39%), followed by education (37%) and water and sanitation (30%).” (European Commission 2022). The overall concern that EU citizens expressed in varying countries towards education reflected the significance of the effect of educational evolution on future generational success. Education was regarded as being a priority among citizens in corresponding polled countries in the EU, with respect to the digitalization of education and further supporting digital access for institutions. “Almost eight in ten (79%) think it is important for the EU to support partner countries in going digital [in regards to education].” (European Commission 2022).
			The significance of the right to an education is not only rooted in how an education is administered, but who is prioritizing that right to an education.Within America, there is a split that divides the right to education, first the right to educational access is qualified as a necessity based on federal legislation, but it is not enforced as a protected individual right under federal law. According to a Pew Research Center survey regarding what Americans had to say about schools [years K-12], “Americans express a bit more ambivalence toward the role of colleges and universities in workforce preparation, with around half of adults (52%) saying these higher-education institutions should have a lot of responsibility in making sure workers have the right skills and education to succeed. About half (49%) say employers should have a lot of responsibility in this role, but people are less likely to assign a lot of responsibility to state (40%) and federal governments (35%).” (Bialik 2017). Within his scope of analysis, beliefs surrounding the right to education vastly differ based on where responsibility lies in the American education system. Simultaneously, the right to education is regarded as being valuable within a democratic society, as well as being viewed as a right that is not federally protected under the Constitution. Meanwhile, in terms of economic benefits of providing access and protection fo the right to education, the protection of the right to education would greatly improve future work generations to come. “Six-in-ten adults say the public K-12 education system has a lot of responsibility in making sure the U.S. workforce has the right skills and education to be successful in today’s economy, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted in association with the Markle Foundation in 2016.” (Bialik 2017). The value placed upon the education system itself reflects the importance of the right to education within America. A protected right must be valuable if it prepares students to enter the workforce, and simultaneously works as a means of income when education is lawfully protected. The debate surrounding who actually bears the responsibility for the adequacy of that education in regards to workplace preparation underlines the importance of education by the principle of absence. An absence of education would have damaging consequences on the future workforce generations in America, thus, the right to education is significantly valuable when viewing the negative consequences related to not providing a right to education in the American system.

			References:
			Bialik, Kristen. 2017. “Most Americans say K-12 schools have a lot of responsibility in workforce preparation.” Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/08/25/most-americans-say-k-12-schools-have-a-lot-of-responsibility-in-workforce-preparation/.
			European Commission. 2022. ““EU citizens strongly support international cooperation to reduce poverty and build partnerships with partner countries” European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_22_3584.

	==Conflicts with other Rights==		==Conflicts with other Rights==

Elizabethbolg: /* How does federalism change, if at all, the exercise or application of this right? What examples of this can one point to? */

2022-08-03T17:43:40Z

How does federalism change, if at all, the exercise or application of this right? What examples of this can one point to?

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:43, 3 August 2022
Line 2,277:		Line 2,277:
	When the Federal government implements a ‘quid pro quo’ legislation such as NCLB and Race to the Top, that supplementally institutes financial consequences for schools that fail to meet their requirement, the Federal government is explicitly putting a price tag on adequate education funding. The price of this funding ultimately adds up to how well a school can perform within the limited parameters of standardized testing achievements that heighten a circumstantial and skewed qualifying standard. “It is important to note that while equality considerations may demand some Federalization of education funding, they don't necessarily require Federalization of policy.” (McGovern, 2011, pg. 1546). When implementing educational policy on a federal level, the government has the authority to institute requirements to incentivize higher levels of student performance. For example, the federal policy NCLB of 2001 instituted provisions that required any public school would be required to meet adequate yearly progress in terms of students’ academic growth rates. With regards to educational legislation, the federal government has a responsibility to prioritize the success of public institutions over the needs of states. In practice, this can constitute promoting policy legislation that is in accordance with federal goals. “Requiring all states to pass specific legislation in order to receive extra funding is, as a practical matter, largely indistinguishable from providing money for a specific policy purpose knowing it will require considerable supplementation by state treasury.” (McGovern, 2011, pg.1539).		When the Federal government implements a ‘quid pro quo’ legislation such as NCLB and Race to the Top, that supplementally institutes financial consequences for schools that fail to meet their requirement, the Federal government is explicitly putting a price tag on adequate education funding. The price of this funding ultimately adds up to how well a school can perform within the limited parameters of standardized testing achievements that heighten a circumstantial and skewed qualifying standard. “It is important to note that while equality considerations may demand some Federalization of education funding, they don't necessarily require Federalization of policy.” (McGovern, 2011, pg. 1546). When implementing educational policy on a federal level, the government has the authority to institute requirements to incentivize higher levels of student performance. For example, the federal policy NCLB of 2001 instituted provisions that required any public school would be required to meet adequate yearly progress in terms of students’ academic growth rates. With regards to educational legislation, the federal government has a responsibility to prioritize the success of public institutions over the needs of states. In practice, this can constitute promoting policy legislation that is in accordance with federal goals. “Requiring all states to pass specific legislation in order to receive extra funding is, as a practical matter, largely indistinguishable from providing money for a specific policy purpose knowing it will require considerable supplementation by state treasury.” (McGovern, 2011, pg.1539).

	References		References:
	Bowman, Kristine L. "The Failure of Education Federalism." University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, Forthcoming (2016).		Bowman, Kristine L. "The Failure of Education Federalism." University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, Forthcoming (2016).
	Heise, Michael. "The Political Economy of Education Federalism." (2006).		Heise, Michael. "The Political Economy of Education Federalism." (2006).

Elizabethbolg: /* Under American jurisprudence, what permissible exceptions exist? */

2022-08-03T17:43:21Z

Under American jurisprudence, what permissible exceptions exist?

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:43, 3 August 2022
Line 2,296:		Line 2,296:
	(Former) President George W. Bush first introduced the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001, the explicit goals of the Act stated that the United States government must adequately provide access to education for all children residing in America. The respective state government is responsible for providing public education based on its Congressional-approved curriculum and budget, regarding class courses and available state resources (Ryan, 2003, pg. 2). The goals of the ‘No Child Left Behind Act’ were closely related to boosting the academic success of children in public schools. The ultimate goal of the act was to ‘eliminate the achievement gap between low-income area and higher-income area schools’ that were subsequent results of low attendance and inadequate public school funding. The NCLBA stated that schools must meet proficient level scores on state-administered standardized tests. These schools which received federal funding were additionally subjected to sanctions if they did not reach the minimum proficiency scores required by the state. Thus, these ‘underperforming’ schools were labeled as ‘low-success’ in comparison to successful performing schools that would not receive penalty sanctions for their proficiency test score achievement. The incentives used in the NCLBA utilized a duality of positive and negative reinforcements to encourage the elimination of the achievement gap. These incentives that are categorized by the author as ‘perverse’ embody an example of a permissible exception to the right to education, instead of forcing each child to perform at an advanced level, the federal government imposed such incentives to maneuver a legal technique to efficiently raise school performance without infringing upon educational access at the state level. Although under American Jurisprudence the right to education is significantly valued, at the federal level, education is seen as a means to an end. The permissible exception to the right to education under NCLB of 2001underlines the way that an exception can be used to thwart an educational agenda to serve the needs of the federal government in terms of educational funding and the use of test score incentives. First, a negative incentive was enforced by using penalty sanctions to punish underperforming schools. Next, a positive incentive was utilized to establish an achievable goal for students to meet in order to boost their test growth rates. Although this incentive to continue to encourage students to try their hardest was not effective, the standardized test scale disproportionately advantaged schools with a few numbers of test questions, questions that were strategically easy to answer, as well as utilizing testing ranks to push lower-performing students out of certain schools. By dividing children’s performances into categories such as ‘low performance’, ‘proficient’, and ‘advanced’, the NCLBA promoted perverse incentives for schools to divide children into categories based on income, race, and background (Ryan, 2003, pg. 8). In order to boost their school’s ranking, institutions would be allowed to propose to parents to move their children to another school if they did not reach the minimum performance level on standardized state tests. This further encouraged schools to push out ‘underperforming’ students to avoid penalty sanctions and further negative consequences from not meeting the proficiency test rank level. Under the NCLBA, schools were also forced to make adequate yearly progress, regardless of if they were receiving federal funding. Thus, all schools in America were pushed to ‘make progress’ every year regardless of their previous student growth rates, this attitude further created an unrealistic proficiency level made to push out low-performing students from schools (Ryan, 2003, pg. 12).		(Former) President George W. Bush first introduced the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001, the explicit goals of the Act stated that the United States government must adequately provide access to education for all children residing in America. The respective state government is responsible for providing public education based on its Congressional-approved curriculum and budget, regarding class courses and available state resources (Ryan, 2003, pg. 2). The goals of the ‘No Child Left Behind Act’ were closely related to boosting the academic success of children in public schools. The ultimate goal of the act was to ‘eliminate the achievement gap between low-income area and higher-income area schools’ that were subsequent results of low attendance and inadequate public school funding. The NCLBA stated that schools must meet proficient level scores on state-administered standardized tests. These schools which received federal funding were additionally subjected to sanctions if they did not reach the minimum proficiency scores required by the state. Thus, these ‘underperforming’ schools were labeled as ‘low-success’ in comparison to successful performing schools that would not receive penalty sanctions for their proficiency test score achievement. The incentives used in the NCLBA utilized a duality of positive and negative reinforcements to encourage the elimination of the achievement gap. These incentives that are categorized by the author as ‘perverse’ embody an example of a permissible exception to the right to education, instead of forcing each child to perform at an advanced level, the federal government imposed such incentives to maneuver a legal technique to efficiently raise school performance without infringing upon educational access at the state level. Although under American Jurisprudence the right to education is significantly valued, at the federal level, education is seen as a means to an end. The permissible exception to the right to education under NCLB of 2001underlines the way that an exception can be used to thwart an educational agenda to serve the needs of the federal government in terms of educational funding and the use of test score incentives. First, a negative incentive was enforced by using penalty sanctions to punish underperforming schools. Next, a positive incentive was utilized to establish an achievable goal for students to meet in order to boost their test growth rates. Although this incentive to continue to encourage students to try their hardest was not effective, the standardized test scale disproportionately advantaged schools with a few numbers of test questions, questions that were strategically easy to answer, as well as utilizing testing ranks to push lower-performing students out of certain schools. By dividing children’s performances into categories such as ‘low performance’, ‘proficient’, and ‘advanced’, the NCLBA promoted perverse incentives for schools to divide children into categories based on income, race, and background (Ryan, 2003, pg. 8). In order to boost their school’s ranking, institutions would be allowed to propose to parents to move their children to another school if they did not reach the minimum performance level on standardized state tests. This further encouraged schools to push out ‘underperforming’ students to avoid penalty sanctions and further negative consequences from not meeting the proficiency test rank level. Under the NCLBA, schools were also forced to make adequate yearly progress, regardless of if they were receiving federal funding. Thus, all schools in America were pushed to ‘make progress’ every year regardless of their previous student growth rates, this attitude further created an unrealistic proficiency level made to push out low-performing students from schools (Ryan, 2003, pg. 12).

	References		References:
	Ryan, James E. "The Perverse Incentives of the No Child Left Behind Act." Public Law Working Paper 03-17 (2003).		Ryan, James E. "The Perverse Incentives of the No Child Left Behind Act." Public Law Working Paper 03-17 (2003).
	Wood, Emily H. "Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights and the Right to Education in American Jurisprudence: Barriers and Approaches to Implementation." Hastings Women’s Law Journal 19, no. 2 (2008): 303.		Wood, Emily H. "Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights and the Right to Education in American Jurisprudence: Barriers and Approaches to Implementation." Hastings Women’s Law Journal 19, no. 2 (2008): 303.

Elizabethbolg: /* What are the typical exceptions or limitations placed on this right? */

2022-08-03T17:43:08Z

What are the typical exceptions or limitations placed on this right?

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:43, 3 August 2022
Line 2,288:		Line 2,288:
	The exceptions or limitations placed on the right to education include systemic class barriers, racial discrimination, and social/cultural disproportionality. Each of these factors affects the distribution of the specific access to education and the level at which it is adequately provided to citizens. In the United States, the typical limitations placed on the right to an education are commonly motivated by economic factors. For example, after the implementation of child labor laws in the late 1930s, many children were newly introduced to the right to an education, furthermore, a protected right for an education (Stambler, 1968, pg. 193). The motivating factor behind this progression towards upholding the right to education included both child labor injuries and deaths, as well as the social cost of depriving children of basic education and knowledge. Without educating young children and youths while their minds were still malleable, future generations would begin to witness the consequences of an uneducated group of children. The right to education has been upheld in the past based on increased social pressure to shift cultural norms surrounding child laborers, as well as economic pressure placed on legislators to further advance the American workforce and future generations for the enhancement of society as a whole (Stambler, 1968, pg. 195).		The exceptions or limitations placed on the right to education include systemic class barriers, racial discrimination, and social/cultural disproportionality. Each of these factors affects the distribution of the specific access to education and the level at which it is adequately provided to citizens. In the United States, the typical limitations placed on the right to an education are commonly motivated by economic factors. For example, after the implementation of child labor laws in the late 1930s, many children were newly introduced to the right to an education, furthermore, a protected right for an education (Stambler, 1968, pg. 193). The motivating factor behind this progression towards upholding the right to education included both child labor injuries and deaths, as well as the social cost of depriving children of basic education and knowledge. Without educating young children and youths while their minds were still malleable, future generations would begin to witness the consequences of an uneducated group of children. The right to education has been upheld in the past based on increased social pressure to shift cultural norms surrounding child laborers, as well as economic pressure placed on legislators to further advance the American workforce and future generations for the enhancement of society as a whole (Stambler, 1968, pg. 195).

	References		References:
	Stambler, Moses. "The Effect of Compulsory Education and Child Labor Laws on High School Attendance in New York City, 1898-1917." History of Education Quarterly 8, no. 2 (1968): 189-214.		Stambler, Moses. "The Effect of Compulsory Education and Child Labor Laws on High School Attendance in New York City, 1898-1917." History of Education Quarterly 8, no. 2 (1968): 189-214.

Elizabethbolg: /* How does federalism change, if at all, the exercise or application of this right? What examples of this can one point to? */

2022-08-03T17:38:30Z

How does federalism change, if at all, the exercise or application of this right? What examples of this can one point to?

@@ Line 2,265: / Line 2,265: @@
 ===How does federalism change, if at all, the exercise or application of this right? What examples of this can one point to?===
 ==Limitations / Restrictions==
 ===What are the typical exceptions or limitations placed on this right?===

Elizabethbolg: /* Under American jurisprudence, what permissible exceptions exist? */

2022-08-03T17:36:08Z

Under American jurisprudence, what permissible exceptions exist?

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:36, 3 August 2022
Line 2,273:		Line 2,273:

	===Under American jurisprudence, what permissible exceptions exist?===		===Under American jurisprudence, what permissible exceptions exist?===
			The key difference between a protected right in America such as freedom of speech, and freedom of expression, and the right to an education includes the way that it is viewed in relation to other civil rights that are valued under American Jurisprudence. “The right to education has been recognized in a number of international covenants. Apart from the Covenant on ESC Rights, the right to education is also emphasized in Article XII of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man of 1948, which proclaimed that "the right to education ‘should be based on the principles of liberty, morality and human solidarity’ and should prepare every person 'to attain a decent life, to raise his standard of living, and to be a useful member of society.’” (Wood, 2008, pg. 310). Although the right to education is significantly valued under various versions of Declarations of Human Rights, it is not legally protected under the Constitution as a civil right. In Plyler v. Doe, the right to education was further explored as a necessity to ensure the well-being of citizens and their knowledge base; “Neither is education merely some government benefit indistinguishable from other forms of social welfare legislation. Both the importance of education in maintaining our basic institutions and the lasting impact of its deprivation on the life of the child, mark the distinction. The American people have always regarded education and the acquisition of knowledge as matters of supreme importance. In sum, education has a fundamental role in maintaining the fabric of our society.” (Wood, 2008, pg. 317). Rather than dismiss the right to an education as an extra “benefit” for the citizens of America, it was recognized as a key component of continuing the success of society.
			An example of a past permissible exception to the right to an education was documented in a case study regarding the process of integration within Denver Public Schools in the mid-1950s. In an attempt to increase ‘cultural pluralism’ (or student diversity), Denver Public Schools failed to adequately integrate public schools in the surrounding metro area. Many schools in Denver at the time were populated by either predominantly African American, predominantly Latinx, or predominantly white student populations (Romero II, 2004, pg. 77). Ethnic and income level integration was rare, based on the fact that the DPS district had no interest in integrating schools that they were solely responsible for. After a violent altercation broke out at a high school that was failing to be properly integrated, DPS had to address the public outcry over their malfeasance. Their proposed solution was to close down one high school and open another that was set to be integrated. Instead of properly supplying the new school with resources and well-trained teachers, they were given mediocre funding and resources so that DPS could claim deniability. The polarization in Denver at the time (briefly following the Little Rock Nine event) became increasingly volatile, to the point that white high schools in higher-income areas were receiving SAT prep classes, foreign language classes, as well as many other advanced academic resources. Simultaneously, in lower-income neighborhoods that had higher populations of Hispanic and African American students in the Denver Metro area; their high school courses included home economics, English language classes, and a variety of other educational resources that were weak in comparison to the level of quality academic resources provided to the wealthier areas (Romero II, 2004, pg. 81). The effect of this permissible exception to the right to education, due to the failure from DPS to protect the right to education without consequences of discrimination infringing upon education, underlines the consequences of an unchecked permissible exception with regards to the right to education. The permissible exception, utilized through tools such as redlining and racially based school segregation to separate education access to disproportionately affect a minority group in the 50s, was strategically used to further advance the educational inequalities between POC students and white students in Denver. This exception to the right to education, which is still ongoing in America to a degree (based upon socioeconomic status in a particular region) is still legally permissible under the Constitution and consequently through the separation of governmental power within Federalism. State governments can amend their Constitutions to mandate guidelines surrounding school district codes and educational access, however, if their federal funding falls short of the status quo, then states are left to deal with the lack of resources themselves.
			(Former) President George W. Bush first introduced the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001, the explicit goals of the Act stated that the United States government must adequately provide access to education for all children residing in America. The respective state government is responsible for providing public education based on its Congressional-approved curriculum and budget, regarding class courses and available state resources (Ryan, 2003, pg. 2). The goals of the ‘No Child Left Behind Act’ were closely related to boosting the academic success of children in public schools. The ultimate goal of the act was to ‘eliminate the achievement gap between low-income area and higher-income area schools’ that were subsequent results of low attendance and inadequate public school funding. The NCLBA stated that schools must meet proficient level scores on state-administered standardized tests. These schools which received federal funding were additionally subjected to sanctions if they did not reach the minimum proficiency scores required by the state. Thus, these ‘underperforming’ schools were labeled as ‘low-success’ in comparison to successful performing schools that would not receive penalty sanctions for their proficiency test score achievement. The incentives used in the NCLBA utilized a duality of positive and negative reinforcements to encourage the elimination of the achievement gap. These incentives that are categorized by the author as ‘perverse’ embody an example of a permissible exception to the right to education, instead of forcing each child to perform at an advanced level, the federal government imposed such incentives to maneuver a legal technique to efficiently raise school performance without infringing upon educational access at the state level. Although under American Jurisprudence the right to education is significantly valued, at the federal level, education is seen as a means to an end. The permissible exception to the right to education under NCLB of 2001underlines the way that an exception can be used to thwart an educational agenda to serve the needs of the federal government in terms of educational funding and the use of test score incentives. First, a negative incentive was enforced by using penalty sanctions to punish underperforming schools. Next, a positive incentive was utilized to establish an achievable goal for students to meet in order to boost their test growth rates. Although this incentive to continue to encourage students to try their hardest was not effective, the standardized test scale disproportionately advantaged schools with a few numbers of test questions, questions that were strategically easy to answer, as well as utilizing testing ranks to push lower-performing students out of certain schools. By dividing children’s performances into categories such as ‘low performance’, ‘proficient’, and ‘advanced’, the NCLBA promoted perverse incentives for schools to divide children into categories based on income, race, and background (Ryan, 2003, pg. 8). In order to boost their school’s ranking, institutions would be allowed to propose to parents to move their children to another school if they did not reach the minimum performance level on standardized state tests. This further encouraged schools to push out ‘underperforming’ students to avoid penalty sanctions and further negative consequences from not meeting the proficiency test rank level. Under the NCLBA, schools were also forced to make adequate yearly progress, regardless of if they were receiving federal funding. Thus, all schools in America were pushed to ‘make progress’ every year regardless of their previous student growth rates, this attitude further created an unrealistic proficiency level made to push out low-performing students from schools (Ryan, 2003, pg. 12).

			References
			Ryan, James E. "The Perverse Incentives of the No Child Left Behind Act." Public Law Working Paper 03-17 (2003).
			Wood, Emily H. "Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights and the Right to Education in American Jurisprudence: Barriers and Approaches to Implementation." Hastings Women’s Law Journal 19, no. 2 (2008): 303.

	===Under international human rights laws, what permissible exceptions (often called derogations) exist?===		===Under international human rights laws, what permissible exceptions (often called derogations) exist?===
	===Have political theorists or philosophers discussed the permissibility of exceptions to this right?===		===Have political theorists or philosophers discussed the permissibility of exceptions to this right?===

Elizabethbolg: /* What are the typical exceptions or limitations placed on this right? */

2022-08-03T17:31:36Z

What are the typical exceptions or limitations placed on this right?

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:31, 3 August 2022
Line 2,267:		Line 2,267:
	==Limitations / Restrictions==		==Limitations / Restrictions==
	===What are the typical exceptions or limitations placed on this right?===		===What are the typical exceptions or limitations placed on this right?===
			The exceptions or limitations placed on the right to education include systemic class barriers, racial discrimination, and social/cultural disproportionality. Each of these factors affects the distribution of the specific access to education and the level at which it is adequately provided to citizens. In the United States, the typical limitations placed on the right to an education are commonly motivated by economic factors. For example, after the implementation of child labor laws in the late 1930s, many children were newly introduced to the right to an education, furthermore, a protected right for an education (Stambler, 1968, pg. 193). The motivating factor behind this progression towards upholding the right to education included both child labor injuries and deaths, as well as the social cost of depriving children of basic education and knowledge. Without educating young children and youths while their minds were still malleable, future generations would begin to witness the consequences of an uneducated group of children. The right to education has been upheld in the past based on increased social pressure to shift cultural norms surrounding child laborers, as well as economic pressure placed on legislators to further advance the American workforce and future generations for the enhancement of society as a whole (Stambler, 1968, pg. 195).

			References
			Stambler, Moses. "The Effect of Compulsory Education and Child Labor Laws on High School Attendance in New York City, 1898-1917." History of Education Quarterly 8, no. 2 (1968): 189-214.

	===Under American jurisprudence, what permissible exceptions exist?===		===Under American jurisprudence, what permissible exceptions exist?===
	===Under international human rights laws, what permissible exceptions (often called derogations) exist?===		===Under international human rights laws, what permissible exceptions (often called derogations) exist?===

Mcmiller: /* Behaviorism */

2022-04-27T20:33:12Z

Behaviorism

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:33, 27 April 2022
Line 1,923:		Line 1,923:


	Burrhus Frederick Skinner pioneered the science of behavioral analysis and positive reinforcement as an educational tool. He is famous for his different experiences and his contributions to ‘operant conditioning’. His work is an important contribution to the field of education (“B. F. Skinner (1904–1990) - Behavioral Analysis, Social Service, Educational Reform” 2019). Skinner’s influence has been far greater than most professionals in education on psychology probably realize (Hawkins 1990). The legacy that Skinner left is represented most conspicuously in the behavioral models of education (~~https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00957002~~). For example, “Precision Teaching” is the only instructional system derived from Skinner’s work to use his monitoring method exclusively (Lindsley 1991). The book of Skinner: ‘The behavior of organisms’ announced Skinner’s vision for the future of behavioral analysis: “The importance of a science of behavior derives largely from the possibility of an extension to human affairs”. Ultimately this extension would impact American education (“B. F. Skinner (1904–1990) - Behavioral Analysis, Social Service, Educational Reform” 2019). In Skinner’s view, education has two major purposes: 1) To teach repertoires of both verbal and nonverbal education; and 2) to encourage students to display an interest in instruction. He endeavored to bring student’s behavior under the control of the environment by reinforcing it only when particular stimuli were present. Because he believed that human behavior could be affected by small consequences something as simple as “the opportunity to move forward after completing one stage of an activity” (“Influence on Education” 2019). Skinner created a ’teaching machine’ for the subject of math. The learning machine was engineered with positive reinforcement coming from correctly answering the questions. Hence, learning behavior were shaped by immediate positive reinforcement (“B. F. Skinner (1904–1990) - Behavioral Analysis, Social Service, Educational Reform” 2019). Sadly, for Skinner, his teaching machine didn’t become as popular as televisions and automobiles. It was Skinner most bitter disappointment as a social inventor. He thought that a revolution in education was necessary for the survival of American culture (“B. F. Skinner (1904–1990) - Behavioral Analysis, Social Service, Educational Reform” 2019). He thought that a technology of teaching incorporating behavioral science could properly educate a citizenry capable of effectively coping with an enveloping ominous world (“B. F. Skinner (1904–1990) - Behavioral Analysis, Social Service, Educational Reform” 2019). Skinner also explained the difference between informal learning, which occurs naturally, and formal education, which depends on the teacher creating optimal patterns of stimulus and response, also called ‘operant conditioning’ (“StackPath,” n.d.). The application of operant conditioning to education is simple and direct. Teaching is an “arrangement of contingencies of reinforcement” under which students learn. They learn without teaching in their natural environments, but teachers arrange special contingencies which expedite learning, hastening the appearance of behavior which would otherwise be acquired slowly or making sure of the appearance of behavior which might otherwise never occur (“StackPath,” n.d.). Skinner asserted that positive reinforcement is more effective at changing and establishing behavior than punishment, with obvious implication for the then widespread practice of rote learning and punitive discipline in education. Skinner also suggests that main thing people learn from being punished is how to avoid punishing (“Influence on Education” 2019). So logically he declines the punitive and coercive method (Skinner 1974). Skinner thinks that we should further abandon coercive techniques (“Home” n.d.). In the small paper “The shame of American education”, Skinner criticized the American educational system (Skinner 1984). The main message of the paper is that the behavioral models and practices are not yet widely adopted by American schools (~~https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00957002~~). Skinner believes that most problems in the American educational system can be solved if students learned twice as much in the same time and with the same effort. It has been shown that they can do so (a) when the goals of education are clarified, (b) when each student is permitted to advance his or her own pace, and (c) when the problem of motivation is solved with programmed instructional materials, so designed that students are very often right and learn at once that they are (Skinner 1984). The theories of human behavior most often taught in schools of education stand in the way of this solution to the problem of American education, but the proposal that schools of education simply be disbanded is a step in the wrong direction. Teachers need to be taught how to teach (Skinner 1984). Skinner believes that our major problems in education if students learned more during each day in school. It means using time more efficiently (Skinner 1984). In this paper, he gives four proposals to improve American education: 1) Be clear about what is to be taught, 2) teach first things first, 3) stop making all students advance at essentially the same rate and 4) program the subject matter (Skinner 1984). Skinner thinks that we need to decide in advance what a student is to learn. He thinks that educational policymakers are unwilling to specify what is worth knowing, and leave the decision to the student (Skinner 1974). Skinner thinks that in improving teaching it is less important to design better contingencies using those already available (“StackPath,” n.d.). At its core, reinforcement theory says that (a) when we’re rewarded for certain behaviors, those behaviors will increase, (b) if given the opportunity to escape painful situation, we will be motivated to behave accordingly, and (c) if behaviors do not receive reinforcement, they are not likely to be repeated (March 24 et al. 2021). For Skinner thinks that immediate and consistent reinforcement is, of course, desirable but this is not to deny the importance consequence so that they prove reinforcing. He not only knows, but he also knows that he knows and is reinforced accordingly (“StackPath,” n.d.).		Burrhus Frederick Skinner pioneered the science of behavioral analysis and positive reinforcement as an educational tool. He is famous for his different experiences and his contributions to ‘operant conditioning’. His work is an important contribution to the field of education (“B. F. Skinner (1904–1990) - Behavioral Analysis, Social Service, Educational Reform” 2019). Skinner’s influence has been far greater than most professionals in education on psychology probably realize (Hawkins 1990). The legacy that Skinner left is represented most conspicuously in the behavioral models of education (Greer 1991). For example, “Precision Teaching” is the only instructional system derived from Skinner’s work to use his monitoring method exclusively (Lindsley 1991). The book of Skinner: ‘The behavior of organisms’ announced Skinner’s vision for the future of behavioral analysis: “The importance of a science of behavior derives largely from the possibility of an extension to human affairs”. Ultimately this extension would impact American education (“B. F. Skinner (1904–1990) - Behavioral Analysis, Social Service, Educational Reform” 2019). In Skinner’s view, education has two major purposes: 1) To teach repertoires of both verbal and nonverbal education; and 2) to encourage students to display an interest in instruction. He endeavored to bring student’s behavior under the control of the environment by reinforcing it only when particular stimuli were present. Because he believed that human behavior could be affected by small consequences something as simple as “the opportunity to move forward after completing one stage of an activity” (“Influence on Education” 2019). Skinner created a ’teaching machine’ for the subject of math. The learning machine was engineered with positive reinforcement coming from correctly answering the questions. Hence, learning behavior were shaped by immediate positive reinforcement (“B. F. Skinner (1904–1990) - Behavioral Analysis, Social Service, Educational Reform” 2019). Sadly, for Skinner, his teaching machine didn’t become as popular as televisions and automobiles. It was Skinner most bitter disappointment as a social inventor. He thought that a revolution in education was necessary for the survival of American culture (“B. F. Skinner (1904–1990) - Behavioral Analysis, Social Service, Educational Reform” 2019). He thought that a technology of teaching incorporating behavioral science could properly educate a citizenry capable of effectively coping with an enveloping ominous world (“B. F. Skinner (1904–1990) - Behavioral Analysis, Social Service, Educational Reform” 2019). Skinner also explained the difference between informal learning, which occurs naturally, and formal education, which depends on the teacher creating optimal patterns of stimulus and response, also called ‘operant conditioning’ (“StackPath,” n.d.). The application of operant conditioning to education is simple and direct. Teaching is an “arrangement of contingencies of reinforcement” under which students learn. They learn without teaching in their natural environments, but teachers arrange special contingencies which expedite learning, hastening the appearance of behavior which would otherwise be acquired slowly or making sure of the appearance of behavior which might otherwise never occur (“StackPath,” n.d.). Skinner asserted that positive reinforcement is more effective at changing and establishing behavior than punishment, with obvious implication for the then widespread practice of rote learning and punitive discipline in education. Skinner also suggests that main thing people learn from being punished is how to avoid punishing (“Influence on Education” 2019). So logically he declines the punitive and coercive method (Skinner 1974). Skinner thinks that we should further abandon coercive techniques (“Home” n.d.). In the small paper “The shame of American education”, Skinner criticized the American educational system (Skinner 1984). The main message of the paper is that the behavioral models and practices are not yet widely adopted by American schools (Greer 1991). Skinner believes that most problems in the American educational system can be solved if students learned twice as much in the same time and with the same effort. It has been shown that they can do so (a) when the goals of education are clarified, (b) when each student is permitted to advance his or her own pace, and (c) when the problem of motivation is solved with programmed instructional materials, so designed that students are very often right and learn at once that they are (Skinner 1984). The theories of human behavior most often taught in schools of education stand in the way of this solution to the problem of American education, but the proposal that schools of education simply be disbanded is a step in the wrong direction. Teachers need to be taught how to teach (Skinner 1984). Skinner believes that our major problems in education if students learned more during each day in school. It means using time more efficiently (Skinner 1984). In this paper, he gives four proposals to improve American education: 1) Be clear about what is to be taught, 2) teach first things first, 3) stop making all students advance at essentially the same rate and 4) program the subject matter (Skinner 1984). Skinner thinks that we need to decide in advance what a student is to learn. He thinks that educational policymakers are unwilling to specify what is worth knowing, and leave the decision to the student (Skinner 1974). Skinner thinks that in improving teaching it is less important to design better contingencies using those already available (“StackPath,” n.d.). At its core, reinforcement theory says that (a) when we’re rewarded for certain behaviors, those behaviors will increase, (b) if given the opportunity to escape painful situation, we will be motivated to behave accordingly, and (c) if behaviors do not receive reinforcement, they are not likely to be repeated (March 24 et al. 2021). For Skinner thinks that immediate and consistent reinforcement is, of course, desirable but this is not to deny the importance consequence so that they prove reinforcing. He not only knows, but he also knows that he knows and is reinforced accordingly (“StackPath,” n.d.).
	Skinner thinks that effective educational practices must be designed. An effective design must be based upon on outstanding of behavioral processes. The basic questions are these: Why should anyone teach, and why should anyone learn. They are questions about human behavior, and recent advances in the analysis of behavior are helpful in answering them (Skinner 1974).		Skinner thinks that effective educational practices must be designed. An effective design must be based upon on outstanding of behavioral processes. The basic questions are these: Why should anyone teach, and why should anyone learn. They are questions about human behavior, and recent advances in the analysis of behavior are helpful in answering them (Skinner 1974).

Mcmiller: /* Process Philosophy */

2022-04-27T20:27:45Z

Process Philosophy

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:27, 27 April 2022
Line 1,851:		Line 1,851:
	====Process Philosophy====		====Process Philosophy====

	Process philosophy is a 20th-century school of Western philosophy that emphasizes the elements of becoming, change, and novelty in experienced reality; it opposes the traditional Western philosophical stress on being, permanence, and uniformity (“Process Philosophy,” n.d.). Foremost among the many modern thinkers who have contributed to process philosophy have been Henri Bergson and Alfred North Whitehead (“Process Philosophy,” n.d.). Henri Bergson didn’t really write a lot about education so will focus here on the interesting works of Alfred North Whitehead. Alfred North Whitehead was an English mathematician, philosopher of science, and metaphysician (Evans 1998). Whitehead’s philosophy of education emphasizes the idea that a good life is most profitable thought of as an educated or civilized life. As we think, we life. Thus, it is only as we improve our thoughts that we improve our lives (Irvine 1996). There is only one subject-matter for education and that is life in all its manifestations (Whitehead 1959). Education for Whitehead is configured, he thinks that ‘The actual world is progress and process is the becoming of actual entities’ (Tamboukou 2016). This the main thesis of process psychology. Whitehead sees education as a temporal, growth-oriented, Whitehead’s most commonly known educational concept is that of the three stages of growth. These are called the stage of romance, the stage of precision, and the stage of generalization (Evans 1998, Whitehead 1967 & “Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947) - the Nature of Education, Educational Development and the Rhythm of Growth, Universities and Professional Training,” n.d.). Education should consist in continual repetition of such cycles. Romance is the first moment in the educational experience. All rich educational experiences begin with an immediate emotional involvement on the part of the learner. The primary acquisition of knowledge involves freshness, enthusiasm, and enjoyment of learning. The stage of precision concerns “exactness of formulation”, rather than the immediacy and breadth of relations involved in the romantic phase (“Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947) - the Nature of Education, Educational Development and the Rhythm of Growth, Universities and Professional Training,” n.d.). Precision is discipline in the various languages and grammars of discrete subject matters, particularly science and technical subjects, including logic and spoken languages (“Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947) - the Nature of Education, Educational Development and the Rhythm of Growth, Universities and Professional Training,” n.d.). Generalization, the last rhythmic element of the learning process, is the incorporation of romance and precision into some general context of serviceable ideals and classification. It is the moment of educational completeness and fruition, in which general ideas as, one may say, a philosophical outlook, both integrate the feelings and thoughts of the earlier moments of growth and prepare the way for fresh experiences of excitement and romance, signaling a new beginning to the educational process (“Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947) - the Nature of Education, Educational Development and the Rhythm of Growth, Universities and Professional Training,” n.d.). It is important to realize that there three rhythmic moments of the educational process characterize all stages of development, although each is typically associated with one period of growth (“Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947) - the Nature of Education, Educational Development and the Rhythm of Growth, Universities and Professional Training,” n.d.). Whitehead talks about the standardization. Education fails when it is locked into standardization when it should be focused on personalization. Each student is unique in his or her abilities, and in the particular forms of ‘intelligence’ that bring him or her joy and can help him or her contribute to the well being of the world (“Whitehead and Twelve Principles of Education,” n.d.). The students are ‘alive’, and the purpose of education is to stimulate and guide their self-development (Whitehead 1967). The ultimate aim of education should be the development within students an urge towards new creative adventures (Jones 2006); From the very beginning of his education, the child should experience the joy of discovery. The discovery is that general ideas give an understanding of that stream of events which pours through his life, which is his life (Whitehead 1967). He emphasizes that we should introduce the main ideas which are introduced into a child’s education be few and important (Whitehead 1959). Another important aim in education for Whitehead: We must stop thinking about learning and teaching with models that identify students with stupid particles and classroom space with an insulating vacuum. We must consider the content we are teaching as well, so that we do not indoctrinate our students with a misguided savage individualism (Brumbaugh, n.d.). One of the most important parts of the educational philosophy of Whitehead is his battle against ‘inert ideas’. He thinks that education should pay more attention to the appreciation of concrete things (Brumbaugh, n.d.). Inert knowledge is wat traditional education mainly produces, and therefore it is necessary “to eradicate the fatal disconnection of subjects which kills the vitality of our modern curriculum” (Riffert 2005). The only use of knowledge of the past is to equip us for the present (Whitehead 1967). Whitehead believes that inert ideas is not only useless: it is above all things, harmful (Whitehead 1959). The transfer of inert knowledge must be avoided at all costs (Jones 2006). According to Whitehead, probably the worst severe mistake is the sometimes implicitly held conviction that students “progress is steady” uniform advance from the elementary stages of the subject to the most advanced level which the student attains, a movement containing no changes in the kind of progress and no changes in pace (Riffert 2005). Linear, non-cyclic education ends up in failure because it is undertaken “without rhythm and without stimulus of intermediate success and without concentration” (Riffert 2005). Whitehead advises that we should not teach many subject areas, but what we teach, we should thoroughly (Jones 2006, Riffert 2005). Whitehead also emphasizes the disciplinary fragmentation (“Whitehead and Twelve Principles of Education,” n.d.). Whitehead criticizes modern compartmentalization of the subjects. Such absolute divorce of subjects neither is good in research nor in education (~~https://books.google.com/books?hl=nl&lr=&id=hqgxooqzbLsC&oi=fnd&pg=PA7&dq=whitehead+about+education&ots=ifY8AjndVd&sig=ovS3BxnieiU4rFctrf5rPHhKrnE#v=onepage&q=whitehead%20about%20education&f=false~~).Whitehead underlines the value of learning by doing (“Whitehead and Twelve Principles of Education,” n.d.). Education cannot be dissected from practice (“Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947) - the Nature of Education, Educational Development and the Rhythm of Growth, Universities and Professional Training,” n.d.). Whitehead, in addition, rejects the principle that “easy subjects should come first, and harder ones should only follow these easier ones”. Whitehead stresses the fact that, when learning students must be free to think “rightly and wrongly”. This means that making mistakes shouldn’t be hidden or explained away. On the contrary, it should be conceived as an unique opportunity and an additional source for gaining new knowledge (Riffert 2005). The role of the educator is to elicit energy and excitement, by resonance of his or her personality, to ensure that the learning environment does not dwell on and shifts from one mass of inert ideas to another, but rather maintain a focus on the underlying principles from which future generalization is possible (Jones 2006). It is not the job of the educator simply to insert into his students minds little chunks of knowledge. Regarding to content Whitehead holds that any adequate education must include a literary component, a scientific component and a technical component (Irvine 1996). The first includes not just the study of language, but also the study of high achievement in human thought and writing. The second includes practice in the observation of natural phenomena as well as exposure to the testing of theories and of the presumed law-like connections we find in the natural world. The third focuses primarily on the “art of utilizing” knowledge, especially in the production of goods but also in any area of so-called knowledge application Although all three components are essential for a proper education, varying degrees of emphasis will be required, depending on a student’s interests and abilities (Irvine 1996).		Process philosophy is a 20th-century school of Western philosophy that emphasizes the elements of becoming, change, and novelty in experienced reality; it opposes the traditional Western philosophical stress on being, permanence, and uniformity (“Process Philosophy,” n.d.). Foremost among the many modern thinkers who have contributed to process philosophy have been Henri Bergson and Alfred North Whitehead (“Process Philosophy,” n.d.). Henri Bergson didn’t really write a lot about education so will focus here on the interesting works of Alfred North Whitehead. Alfred North Whitehead was an English mathematician, philosopher of science, and metaphysician (Evans 1998). Whitehead’s philosophy of education emphasizes the idea that a good life is most profitable thought of as an educated or civilized life. As we think, we life. Thus, it is only as we improve our thoughts that we improve our lives (Irvine 1996). There is only one subject-matter for education and that is life in all its manifestations (Whitehead 1959). Education for Whitehead is configured, he thinks that ‘The actual world is progress and process is the becoming of actual entities’ (Tamboukou 2016). This the main thesis of process psychology. Whitehead sees education as a temporal, growth-oriented, Whitehead’s most commonly known educational concept is that of the three stages of growth. These are called the stage of romance, the stage of precision, and the stage of generalization (Evans 1998, Whitehead 1967 & “Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947) - the Nature of Education, Educational Development and the Rhythm of Growth, Universities and Professional Training,” n.d.). Education should consist in continual repetition of such cycles. Romance is the first moment in the educational experience. All rich educational experiences begin with an immediate emotional involvement on the part of the learner. The primary acquisition of knowledge involves freshness, enthusiasm, and enjoyment of learning. The stage of precision concerns “exactness of formulation”, rather than the immediacy and breadth of relations involved in the romantic phase (“Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947) - the Nature of Education, Educational Development and the Rhythm of Growth, Universities and Professional Training,” n.d.). Precision is discipline in the various languages and grammars of discrete subject matters, particularly science and technical subjects, including logic and spoken languages (“Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947) - the Nature of Education, Educational Development and the Rhythm of Growth, Universities and Professional Training,” n.d.). Generalization, the last rhythmic element of the learning process, is the incorporation of romance and precision into some general context of serviceable ideals and classification. It is the moment of educational completeness and fruition, in which general ideas as, one may say, a philosophical outlook, both integrate the feelings and thoughts of the earlier moments of growth and prepare the way for fresh experiences of excitement and romance, signaling a new beginning to the educational process (“Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947) - the Nature of Education, Educational Development and the Rhythm of Growth, Universities and Professional Training,” n.d.). It is important to realize that there three rhythmic moments of the educational process characterize all stages of development, although each is typically associated with one period of growth (“Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947) - the Nature of Education, Educational Development and the Rhythm of Growth, Universities and Professional Training,” n.d.). Whitehead talks about the standardization. Education fails when it is locked into standardization when it should be focused on personalization. Each student is unique in his or her abilities, and in the particular forms of ‘intelligence’ that bring him or her joy and can help him or her contribute to the well being of the world (“Whitehead and Twelve Principles of Education,” n.d.). The students are ‘alive’, and the purpose of education is to stimulate and guide their self-development (Whitehead 1967). The ultimate aim of education should be the development within students an urge towards new creative adventures (Jones 2006); From the very beginning of his education, the child should experience the joy of discovery. The discovery is that general ideas give an understanding of that stream of events which pours through his life, which is his life (Whitehead 1967). He emphasizes that we should introduce the main ideas which are introduced into a child’s education be few and important (Whitehead 1959). Another important aim in education for Whitehead: We must stop thinking about learning and teaching with models that identify students with stupid particles and classroom space with an insulating vacuum. We must consider the content we are teaching as well, so that we do not indoctrinate our students with a misguided savage individualism (Brumbaugh, n.d.). One of the most important parts of the educational philosophy of Whitehead is his battle against ‘inert ideas’. He thinks that education should pay more attention to the appreciation of concrete things (Brumbaugh, n.d.). Inert knowledge is wat traditional education mainly produces, and therefore it is necessary “to eradicate the fatal disconnection of subjects which kills the vitality of our modern curriculum” (Riffert 2005). The only use of knowledge of the past is to equip us for the present (Whitehead 1967). Whitehead believes that inert ideas is not only useless: it is above all things, harmful (Whitehead 1959). The transfer of inert knowledge must be avoided at all costs (Jones 2006). According to Whitehead, probably the worst severe mistake is the sometimes implicitly held conviction that students “progress is steady” uniform advance from the elementary stages of the subject to the most advanced level which the student attains, a movement containing no changes in the kind of progress and no changes in pace (Riffert 2005). Linear, non-cyclic education ends up in failure because it is undertaken “without rhythm and without stimulus of intermediate success and without concentration” (Riffert 2005). Whitehead advises that we should not teach many subject areas, but what we teach, we should thoroughly (Jones 2006, Riffert 2005). Whitehead also emphasizes the disciplinary fragmentation (“Whitehead and Twelve Principles of Education,” n.d.). Whitehead criticizes modern compartmentalization of the subjects. Such absolute divorce of subjects neither is good in research nor in education (Riffert 2005). Whitehead underlines the value of learning by doing (“Whitehead and Twelve Principles of Education,” n.d.). Education cannot be dissected from practice (“Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947) - the Nature of Education, Educational Development and the Rhythm of Growth, Universities and Professional Training,” n.d.). Whitehead, in addition, rejects the principle that “easy subjects should come first, and harder ones should only follow these easier ones”. Whitehead stresses the fact that, when learning students must be free to think “rightly and wrongly”. This means that making mistakes shouldn’t be hidden or explained away. On the contrary, it should be conceived as an unique opportunity and an additional source for gaining new knowledge (Riffert 2005). The role of the educator is to elicit energy and excitement, by resonance of his or her personality, to ensure that the learning environment does not dwell on and shifts from one mass of inert ideas to another, but rather maintain a focus on the underlying principles from which future generalization is possible (Jones 2006). It is not the job of the educator simply to insert into his students minds little chunks of knowledge. Regarding to content Whitehead holds that any adequate education must include a literary component, a scientific component and a technical component (Irvine 1996). The first includes not just the study of language, but also the study of high achievement in human thought and writing. The second includes practice in the observation of natural phenomena as well as exposure to the testing of theories and of the presumed law-like connections we find in the natural world. The third focuses primarily on the “art of utilizing” knowledge, especially in the production of goods but also in any area of so-called knowledge application Although all three components are essential for a proper education, varying degrees of emphasis will be required, depending on a student’s interests and abilities (Irvine 1996).

	Sources Whitehead:		Sources Whitehead:

Mcmiller: /* Stoicism */

2022-04-27T19:54:02Z

Stoicism

@@ Line 1,546: / Line 1,546: @@
 ====Ancient Chinese Philosophy====
 ====Stoicism====
 ====Early Indian Philosophy====
 ====Miscellaneous Hellenistic Schools (epicureans, academics, skeptics, etc.)====