Philosophy of Education

“Sanctuaries are made not found¹” is a quote that continuously speaks to me.  It succinctly describes the many processes involved in our development. I believe that learning and development are synonymous – that is, when we are growing and developing as beings, we are learning. The moment we stop learning, we stop growing. However, this growing/learning process does not happen in isolation. We are structured and designed for connection². Therefore, learning is the process through which truth is constructed by the weaving of experiences. This unraveling of an experience is informed by knowledge, shaped by skill, and enriched by communication. If belonging to a group is not contingent upon performance, freedom of expression and action make the experience sumptuously rich for everyone involved.

This, of course, is growing/learning in an environment where unconditional love is strived for. In our modern society, we view the years spent on school as years dedicated to academic learning. This view on learning requires a specific structure in order for it to be beneficial and not detrimental to a student because it is based on performance. Belonging, therefore, becomes dubious grounds, and with it, freedom of expression and action are continuously vulnerable to the imperatives of an institution.

What, then, are the requirements of learning within an institution? It is essential that we recognize the act of learning as a process that only happens within a relationship³. This learning relationship is influenced by and exerts influence on the environment under which it operates⁴. Therefore, keen awareness of the environment, from the physical classroom where both teacher and students meet to the era in which we live, is one pre-requisite to being able to teach. The development of this awareness also allows the teacher to view her students as morally solvent⁵. This is a pre-requisite because the learner must choose to enter into a learning relationship. And he will only choose to do so if he views the her other as morally solvent. If the learner views the teacher and his classmates as morally bankrupt, the learner will choose to not enter into this learning relationship and, therefore, will choose to not learn⁶.

This sounds like an insurmountable task within an environment afflicted by competition and stained by paradigms of scarcity – we cannot be completely solvent in scarcity. Yet, it is not impossible to create because we are wired for connection. It is impossible for us to NOT connect when given the chance -we have to work hard at ignoring; just as it is impossible for us to NOT learn (because learning is growing). How, then, do we create such environments were moral solvency is default and, therefore, where we would choose to enter into learning relationships with our peers and teachers? I believe that it begins within the teacher and it is maintained by a firm grip on hope.

In order for a teacher to be able to impart her knowledge to her students and in order for her students to be willing to learn from her, she must first become their student and remain as their student. She must take in everything about them from their mannerisms to their expressed hopes and dreams. She must put her thoughts, experiences and judgments on hold and allow herself to be opened and to be changed by them. She must be willing to enter into this relationship without preconceptions or preset measuring sticks. This earning to learn from her students, this openness toward them will only draw her students into a reciprocal stance. They will, little by little open to her, be drawn by her, and by her hopes and her dreams. Her moral solvency is only perceived in their minds in as much as they know her – or better yet: in as much as she makes herself known to them.

Entering into a learning relationship takes time. However, at some point in the course of experiences, the learner solidifies his choice to learn from the knowledgeable one⁷. When the learner makes this choice, he allows the teacher to see him in all his capacities. It is then and only then, that a teacher can define an accurate ‘Zone of Proximal Development⁷.’ And this space between what the teacher imparts and what the student is able to do on his own is maintained because neither one will distance or hide. They will both move at the same rate as in dance. All the strategies and scaffolding techniques can now become efficient tools to increase the ability of the learner because they are based on an accurate representation of the student’s capacities (the student has not hidden them) and they are accepted by the student (as opposed to being coerced or manipulated).

Learning is a process of the construction of a new common reality. It is not side-by-side work. It is the weaving of our understandings, the creation of the world WE want. It is a deeper realization of who WE are. I would slightly change Shailor’s quote: sanctuaries are not found, WE make them.

Cited Works 

1.  Shailor, Jonathan
2. Brown, Brené (2007). It thought it was just me (but it isn’t). New York: Penguin Group, Inc.
3. Freire, Paulo (1969). La educación como práctica de la libertad. México: siglo xxi editores, s.a. de c.v.
4. Brofenbrenner, Urie (1994). Ecological Models of Human Development. The International Encyclopedia of Education, 3(3), 1643-1647.
5. Parker, Palmer. (1998). The Courage to Teach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
6. Kohl, Herbert (1994). I Won't Learn From You. Minneapolis, IN: Milkweed Editions.
7. Graham, Sandra (2005). Developing Through Learning: A Review of the Work of Piaget, Vygotsky, and Bandura. Alverno College