HOLISTIC EDUCATION: AN ANALYSIS OF ITS PEDAGOGICAL APPLICATION
DISSERTATION
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate
School of The Ohio State University
By
Lucila Telles Rudge, M.A.
*****
The Ohio State University
2008
Dissertation Committee:
Dr. Brian W. Edmiston, Advisor
Approved by
Dr. Anna O. Soter, Co-advisor
Dr. Bryan R. Warnick
Dr. Rebecca Kantor
Dr. John P. Miller
____________________________
Advisor
College of Education and Human Ecology
ABSTRACT
This dissertation is a theoretical and interpretative study, in which I analyze and
evaluate the pedagogical application of the philosophical ideas advocated by the holistic
education movement in four approaches to schooling.
Holistic education is an eclectic and inclusive movement, which emerged in the
mid-1980s as a response to the then dominant worldview of mainstream education. It is
an educational paradigm that integrates the idealistic ideas of humanistic education with
spiritual philosophical ideas. It incorporates principles of spirituality, wholeness, and
interconnectedness along with principles of freedom, autonomy, and democracy.
Holistic education theorists assume an integration of what most progressive and
democratic movements in education have proposed should be kept separate, namely,
spirituality and humanistic ideals.
While these principles may be combined philosophically into an ideal of
education, the question I ask in this study is as follows: could they be jointly applied in
an approach to education? In this dissertation, therefore, I explore the pedagogical
applicability of these principles and examine some of the tensions that arose for me as I
compared how holistic education principles were applied in different approaches to
schooling.
ii
To carry out this study I selected four approaches to schooling that draw on
holistic educational ideals in order to analyze the pedagogical application of the
philosophical principles advocated by the leading theorists in the holistic education
movement. For analytical purposes, I synthesized the principles of holistic education
into eight broad principles (spirituality, reverence to life/nature, interconnectedness,
human wholeness, individual uniqueness, caring relations, freedom/autonomy, and
democracy). For each of the appointed principles, I identified pedagogical features
across the selected school systems that I argue promote that particular principle and I
examined the way and the extent by which they are applied. Finally, I compared the
findings of all pedagogical features to determine the extent to which each principle is
applied in each of the pedagogical approaches to schooling.
The findings of this study indicated that there are tensions in accommodating
pedagogically the spiritual and humanistic principles of holistic education in one
approach to education. I examine some of these tensions across the four selected
approaches to schooling.
iii
Dedicated to my beloved children
Julia and Matheu,
for their love and endurance
throughout this challenging journey
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am grateful to the members of my committee, Dr. Brian W. Edmiston, Dr.
Anna O. Soter, Dr. Bryan R. Warnick, Dr. Rebecca Kantor, and Dr. John P. Miller. I
want to express my appreciation for the thorough work of Dr. Soter. I want to give
special thanks to Dr. Warnick for his help in the last stages of this dissertation and to
Dr. John Miller for his guidance in the earlier stages. I also want to acknowledge my
gratitude to Dr. Ron Miller, who gave me advice in the very early stage of this
dissertation. And finally, I want to express my deep appreciation to my advisor, Dr.
Edmiston, for his guidance, support, and assistance throughout my study at OSU.
v
VITA
1962………………………………………. Born – São Paulo, Brazil
1987………………………………………. B.A. in Performing Arts, University of
São Paulo
2000………………………………………. M.A. in Drama in Education, University of
Central England
1985-2002………………………………… Foreign Language and Drama Teacher,
Brazil, San Martin, and United Kingdom
2002-2008………………………………….Doctoral student, The Ohio State
University
2004-2007………………………………….Graduate Research Associate, The Ohio
State University
FIELDS OF STUDY
Major Field: Education
Cognate Areas: Drama in Education, Transformative Education, and Discourse
Analysis
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract...........................................................................................................................ii
Dedication...................................................................................................................... iv
Acknowledgments .......................................................................................................... v
Vita ................................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables................................................................................................................. xi
Chapters:
Preface ............................................................................................................................ 1
1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 4
1.1.
1.2.
1.3.
1.4.
1.5.
Holistic Education – Its Beginning and Evolution ........................................... 5
Philosophies, Theories, and Worldviews Underlying Holistic Education ....... 8
Definitions of Holistic Education................................................................... 13
Purpose of this Dissertation............................................................................ 19
Mode of Inquiry.............................................................................................. 21
1.5.1. The Selection of Holistic Pedagogical Practices ................................. 26
1.5.2. Method of Analysis ............................................................................. 28
1.6. The Interpretative Nature of this Study .......................................................... 33
1.7. Definitions of Terms....................................................................................... 34
1.8. Chapters Organization .................................................................................... 36
2. School Movements with Holistic Pedagogical Practices ....................................... 37
2.1.
2.2.
2.3.
2.4.
2.5.
The Homeschooling Movement .................................................................... 38
Democratic/Free Schools............................................................................... 40
Open Schools................................................................................................. 42
Quaker/Friends Schools................................................................................. 43
Krishnamurti Schools .................................................................................... 45
vii
2.6. KPM Schools................................................................................................. 47
2.7. The Robert Muller Schools ........................................................................... 49
2.8. Selecting the School Movements .................................................................. 51
2.8.1. Waldorf Schools ................................................................................. 56
2.8.2. Montessori Schools ............................................................................ 61
2.8.3. Neohumanist Schools ......................................................................... 66
2.8.4. Reggio Emilia Schools ....................................................................... 70
3.
The Four Spiritual/Holistic-based Principles and their Pedagogical ApplicationSpirituality, Reverence for Life/Nature, Interconnectedness, and Human
Wholeness.............................................................................................................. 75
3.1. Human Spirituality ........................................................................................ 77
3.1.1. The Principle of Human Spirituality in the Four School Systems ..... 81
3.1.1.1. Waldorf Schools................................................................... 82
3.1.1.2. Montessori Schools .............................................................. 84
3.1.1.3. NHE Schools........................................................................ 86
3.1.2. Pedagogical Features that Foster Human Spirituality........................ 88
3.1.2.1. Development of Morality..................................................... 88
3.1.2.2. The Arts ............................................................................... 89
3.1.2.3. Meditation and/or Religion .................................................. 91
3.1.3. Evaluative Summary ......................................................................... 93
3.2. Reverence for Life/Nature............................................................................ 96
3.2.1. The Principle of Reverence for Life/Nature in the Four School
Systems ............................................................................................. 97
3.2.2. Pedagogical Features that Foster Reverence for Life/Nature ........... 99
3.2.2.1. Earth Connection .............................................................. 100
3.2.2.2. Environmental Education.................................................. 102
3.2.2.3. Cosmic Awareness............................................................ 103
3.2.2.4. The Arts ............................................................................ 104
3.2.3. Evaluative Summary ....................................................................... 105
3.3. Interconnectedness ..................................................................................... 108
3.3.1. The Principle of Interconnectedness in the Four School Systems .. 111
3.3.2. Pedagogical Features that Foster Interconnectedness ..................... 113
3.3.2.1. Awareness of the Principle of Interconnectedness ........... 114
3.3.2.2. Experiential Learning........................................................ 115
3.3.2.3. Transdiciplinary/Interdisciplinary Approach.................... 115
3.3.2.4. The Arts ............................................................................ 117
3.3.2.5. Documentation.................................................................. 118
3.3.2.6. Physical Space .................................................................. 119
3.3.3. Evaluative Summary ....................................................................... 120
3.4. Human Wholeness...................................................................................... 122
3.4.1. The Principle of Human Wholeness in the Four School Systems .. 125
viii
3.4.2. Pedagogical Features that Foster Human Wholeness ..................... 126
3.4.2.1. Supplementary Activities, Environment, and
Nutrition........................................................................... 127
3.4.2.2. Experiential Learning........................................................ 128
3.4.2.2.1. Appropriate Materials...................................... 128
3.4.2.2.2. Learn by Doing................................................ 129
3.4.2.2.3. Imagination...................................................... 130
3.4.2.2.4. The Arts ........................................................... 131
3.4.2.3. Meditation/Visualization/Yoga......................................... 133
3.4.2.4. Assessment........................................................................ 133
3.4.3. Evaluative Summary ......................................................................... 134
4. The Four Humanistic-based Principles and their Pedagogical Application –
Individual Uniqueness, Caring Relations, Freedom/Autonomy, and
Democracy............................................................................................................ 137
4.1. Individual Uniqueness .................................................................................. 138
4.1.1. The Principle of Human Uniqueness in the Four School Systems ... 140
4.1.2. Pedagogical Features that Nurture Individual Uniqueness ............... 143
4.1.2.1. Extended Teacher-Student Relation ................................... 143
4.1.2.2. Child-Centered Approach to Learning................................ 144
4.1.2.3. Multiple Means of Expression ............................................ 145
4.1.2.4. Respect for Diversity .......................................................... 146
4.1.3. Evaluative Summary ......................................................................... 146
4.2. Caring Relations ........................................................................................... 150
4.2.1. The Principle of Caring Relations in the Four School Systems........ 151
4.2.2. Pedagogical Features that Foster Caring Relations ........................... 153
4.2.2.1.a. Strong Sense of Community ............................................ 154
4.2.2.1.b. Atmosphere of Friendship and Respect ........................... 155
4.2.2.1.c. Collaboration and Cooperation ........................................ 155
4.2.2.1.d. Universal Love................................................................. 156
4.2.2.2. Teacher’s Role ................................................................. 157
4.2.2.3. Parents’ Role.................................................................... 159
4.2.3. Evaluative Summary ......................................................................... 160
4.3. Freedom/Autonomy...................................................................................... 161
4.3.1. Inner Freedom ................................................................................... 162
4.3.2. Freedom of Action/Autonomy .......................................................... 165
4.3.3. The Principle of Freedom/Autonomy in the Four School Systems .. 167
4.3.4. Pedagogical Features that Foster Freedom/Autonomy ..................... 170
4.3.4.1. Independence ...................................................................... 170
4.3.4.2. Freedom of Choice.............................................................. 172
4.3.4.3. Freedom of Mind and Expression....................................... 173
4.3.4.4. Freedom from Consumerist Values .................................... 175
ix
4.3.4.5. Meditation and/or The Arts................................................. 176
4.3.4.6. Teacher’s Role .................................................................... 177
4.3.4.7. Teacher’s Autonomy........................................................... 179
4.3.5. Evaluative Summary ......................................................................... 180
4.4. Democracy.................................................................................................... 184
4.4.1. The Principle of Democracy in the Four School Systems ................ 186
4.4.2. Pedagogical Features that Foster Democracy ................................... 187
4.4.2.1. Democracy in the Classroom .............................................. 188
4.4.2.2. Democracy in the School .................................................... 190
4.4.3. Evaluative Summary ......................................................................... 192
5. Discussion and Conclusion................................................................................... 195
5.1. Philosophical Agreement Between Holistic Education and the Four
School Systems ............................................................................................ 196
5.2. Pedagogical Application of the Eight Selected Principles in the Four
School Systems ............................................................................................ 200
5.3. Discussion..................................................................................................... 203
5.4. Limitations.................................................................................................... 215
5.5. Implications for Future Research ................................................................. 219
5.6. Conclusion.................................................................................................... 220
Notes........................................................................................................................... 223
List of References....................................................................................................... 242
x
LIST OF TABLES
Table
3.1 Summary of the pedagogical application of human spirituality in the
four school systems ............................................................................................... 95
3.2 Summary of the pedagogical application of reverence for life/nature in the
four school systems ............................................................................................. 106
3.3 Summary of the pedagogical application of interconnectedness in the
four school systems ............................................................................................. 121
3.4 Summary of the pedagogical application of human wholeness in the
four school systems ............................................................................................. 135
4.1 Summary of the pedagogical application of individual uniqueness in the
four school systems ............................................................................................. 147
4.2 Summary of the pedagogical application of caring relations in the
four school systems ............................................................................................. 160
4.3 Summary of the pedagogical application of freedom/autonomy in the
four school systems ............................................................................................. 182
4.4 Summary of the pedagogical application of democracy in the
four school systems ............................................................................................. 192
5.1 Philosophical agreement between contemporary holistic education and the four
school systems ..................................................................................................... 197
5.2 Pedagogical application of the eight selected principles across the four school
systems ................................................................................................................ 201
xi
PREFACE
This dissertation is part of a long journey that I have trodden in search of an
educational ideal that could be pedagogically implemented.
About twenty-five years ago, I had my first experience as an educator. I took a
teaching position in the early childhood program of a private school in São Paulo,
Brazil, my home country. It was an ordinary school, following “traditional” or
“conventional” methods of teaching and learning and no different from what I had
experienced throughout my life as a student. There, I also found the regular practices of
competition, repetition, memorization, purposeless activities, disconnected curriculum,
consumerism, excessive authority, and so forth.
After two years of experiencing such empty and materialistic system of
education, I decided to leave the teaching profession. I felt no purpose in what I was
doing and at that time I knew nothing better.
Two years later, I heard of a job opening for a kindergarten teaching assistant
position in a small private school in my neighborhood. The school seemed different
from what I had experienced before; I needed a job, so I took the position. It was a
Waldorf School, of which I had never heard before.
1
In a relatively short period of time, I began realizing how different that system
was from the ordinary approaches to schooling I was used to. All activities seemed to
have a philosophical and spiritual purpose for their application. Teachers were kind and
respectful and they seemed to deeply care for each individual child. There was no
competition of any kind; no grades or rewards. Consumerism was strictly avoided and
so was any kind of media (TV, advertising).
I was very impressed with the Waldorf pedagogy and in a short period of time I
became a strong advocate of the movement. I studied the spiritual science of Rudolf
Steiner (Anthroposophy), the founder of the movement, as well as several other spiritual
philosophies related to his teachings. I read extensively about Waldorf education and
attended several courses and workshops offered by the Anthroposophical movement. I
visited many Waldorf Schools in different parts of the world (USA, UK, The
Netherlands, South Africa) and I raised my children based on Waldorf principles.
As I grew older and new life experiences came my way, I began distancing
myself from the Anthroposophical movement and I started searching for other
approaches to education. Due to life circumstances, my children could no longer attend
Waldorf Schools and I had to face mainstream education again. It was a painful
experience to see my own children participating in such meaningless and materialistic
education.
My rage against mainstream education increased as the years went by and I had
to witness the damage it was causing to my children. By the time I came to Ohio, USA,
to do my PhD in education, I had already become a radical advocate against mainstream
2
education and an idealist in search of an educational ideal that could be pedagogically
implemented. During my years of study at The Ohio State University, I researched
alternative approaches to education, alternative approaches to schooling, radical
movements of education, as well as spiritual initiatives in education.
For my dissertation, I had decided to further my research about alternatives
approaches to mainstream education. My goal was to synthesize the literature in this
area in order to propose an ideal model of education, which I had, for so long, reflected
upon.
While searching the literature, I discovered the field of holistic education, about
which I knew nothing at the time. As I researched further into the field, I noticed how
closely aligned my ideas were with the holistic education movement. The more I
studied the field, the more I realized that what I was trying to propose was already out
there expressed in the ideas and thoughts advocated by the leaders of the holistic
education movement. I felt no reason to pursue my original proposal. I then decided to
redirect the focus of my dissertation and concentrate on the field of holistic education.
As my initial interest was to explore the pedagogical application of the educational
ideal, I carried the same question to my investigation of holistic education.
3
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
This dissertation is a theoretical and interpretative study, in which I analyze and
evaluate the pedagogical application of the philosophical ideas advocated by the holistic
education movement in four approaches to schooling.
Holistic education is an eclectic and inclusive movement, which emerged in the
mid-1980s as a response to the then dominant worldview of mainstream education. It is
an educational paradigm that integrates the idealistic ideas of humanistic education with
spiritual philosophical ideas. It incorporates principles of spirituality, wholeness, and
interconnectedness along with principles of freedom, autonomy, and democracy.
Holistic education theorists assume an integration of what most progressive and
democratic movements in education have proposed should be kept separate, namely,
spirituality and humanistic ideals.
While these principles may be combined philosophically into an ideal of
education, the question I ask in this study is as follows: could they be jointly applied in
an approach to education? In this dissertation, therefore, I explore the pedagogical
applicability of these principles and examine some of the tensions that arose for me as I
4
compared how holistic education principles were applied in different approaches to
schooling.
To provide the reader with a better understanding of the field of holistic
education, in the following sections, I briefly describe the evolution of the movement,
outline the philosophies, theories and worldviews underlying holistic education, and
illustrate some of the main principles and concepts that integrate the holistic educational
paradigm. A more detailed account of the ideas embedded in holistic education is
provided in the subsequent chapters.
Following the introduction of holistic education, I describe the mode of inquiry
and the method of analysis employed in this study. I, then, explain the structure and
organization of the succeeding chapters.
1.1. Holistic Education – Its Beginning and Evolution
Holistic education is a fairly new movement, which began to take form as a
recognizable field of study and practice in the mid-1980s in North America. 1 It emerged
as a response to the dominant worldview of mainstream education, often referred to as
the “mechanistic” or “Cartesian-Newtonian” worldview. 2 Rather than attempting to
provide a model of education, holistic education seeks to challenge the “fragmented,
reductionistic…assumptions of mainstream culture and education.” 3 In other words,
holistic education is concerned with “underlying worldviews or paradigms in an attempt
5
to transform the foundations of education...” 4 As Ron Miller, one of the leaders of the
movement, argues,
Holistic education is not to be defined as a particular method or technique; it
must be seen as a paradigm, a set of basic assumptions and principles that can
be applied in diverse ways. 5
The first initiatives of the holistic education movement came in the late 1970s
from the members of the transpersonal/holistic education group (Theodore Roszak,
George Leonard, Joseph Pearce, Beverly Galyean, Jack Canfield, James Fadiman,
among others) who formed a “Holistic Education Network and published two volumes
of proceedings.” 6 This enthusiastic group believed holistic education could be the
revolutionary movement of our time. Their activities, however, Ron Miller reports, did
not last very long and few years later most members had moved on to different
projects. 7 Ideas around holistic education, though, continued to evolve, and gradually
the term “holistic education” grew in popularity across educators and psychologists,
especially among the human potential/New Age movement. Although holistic education
was sprouting across North America, until the late 1980s, there was not any clear
definition of what this particular education really entailed. The first attempt to
conceptualize and define holistic education as a distinct movement came from two
scholars, Ron Miller and John Miller. In 1988, John Miller published The Holistic
Curriculum in Canada, the first coherent and systematic account of holistic education,
6
and Ron Miller launched his new journal Holistic Education Review in the U.S (today
published under the title Encounter: Education for Meaning and Social Justice). 8 Two
years later, in 1990, Ron Miller published What are Schools for? Holistic Education in
American Culture, a groundbreaking book in which he traces the history of holistic
education. In the same year, Ron Miller, together with Philip Gang, Edward Clark (two
very active advocates of holistic education), and others in the field founded the Global
Alliance for Transforming Education (GATE) with Gang as its director. 9 GATE held
annual conferences for few years and in 1991 issued Education 2000: A Holistic
Perspective, in which they proclaimed ten principles of holistic education (see page 1213 for a brief description of these).
The holistic education movement continued to grow. Several articles and books
were written on the theme, 10 institutes were opened to work with teachers and educators
to implement holistic practices * , and conferences were established to attend the
emerging field of holistic education. † Efforts to define, conceptualize, and theorize the
field persisted. Among the most significant works representing this area, we have:
Nakawaga’s dissertation (later published into a book), Education for Awakening: An
Eastern Approach to Holistic Education, which explores the theoretical foundation of
holistic education from an Eastern perspective; Nava’s book, Holistic Education:
*
It is almost impossible to track down all institutes working to implement holistic educational practices throughout
the world. We can, though, name a few institutes that have adopted the concept of “holistic education” as the core
practice in their programs: The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at the University of Toronto in Canada,
lead by Professor John Miller; The Holistic Education Institute in the UK, lead by Dr. Roger Prentice, The Holistic
Education in Oregon, USA, lead by Dr. Scott Forbes and the Holistic and Integrative Education Unit in San
Bernardino, at California State University.
†
International Foundation for Holistic Education in Guadalajara, Mexico; Holistic and Aesthetic Education at OISE
in Toronto, Canada; American Education Research Association (AERA): Holistic Education (SIG) and the
International Conference on Children’s Spirituality.
7
Pedagogy of Universal Love, which provides a comprehensive account of the nature
and applicability of holistic education; and Forbes’ dissertation (also published into a
book), Holistic Education: An Analysis of its Ideas and Nature, which presents a sound
philosophical foundation for holistic education.
Today, holistic education is recognized in many parts of the world as a potential
response to the challenges and difficulties faced by the modern world. 11 Nonetheless,
although the term “holistic education” is gradually spreading through schools,
universities, and organizations, the field itself is still fairly unknown in the mainstream
academic world.
1.2. Philosophies, Theories, and Worldviews Underlying Holistic Education
Holistic education is an eclectic and inclusive movement. Writers in the field
draw on and integrate various educational theories as well as diverse spiritual and
holistic philosophical orientations. On the educational side, contemporary holistic
educators (Ron Miller, Forbes) claim that holistic education has its roots on the
romantic educational theories of Rousseau, Pestalozzi, and Froebel. 12 John Miller,
however, traces holistic education back to the ancient Greeks. 13 Overall, holistic
education incorporates ideas and principles from humanistic (Plato, Rousseau,
Pestalozzi, Froebel, Tolstoy, Maslow, Rogers) and progressive educators (Dewey and
his followers), transpersonal thinkers (Channing, Emerson, Thoreau, Ripley, Alcott,
Montessori, Steiner, Krishnamurti), anarchists (Ferrer), social critics (Paul Goodman,
8
Jules Henry, Edgar Friedengerb, Myles Horton) as well as radical critics (Holt, Kozol,
Illich, A.S. Neill, amongst others).
In addition to drawing on the ideas and theories advocated by these thinkers,
Contemporary holistic educators also integrate concepts and principles from other
philosophical orientations. Nakagawa, a leader in holistic education in Japan, points out
six major theories or worldviews underpinning holistic education: perennial philosophy,
indigenous worldviews, Life philosophy, ecological worldview, systems theory, and
feminist thought. 14
Perennial Philosophy has guided the works of John Miller, Parker Palmer,
amongst other contemporary holistic educators. 15 This ancient philosophy, which was
taken up by Huxley, and recently by Wilber, and Lemkow, 16 is “primarily concerned
with the one, divine Reality substantial to the manifold world of things, and lives and
minds.” 17 Huxley defines perennial philosophy as:
…the metaphysic that recognizes a divine Reality substantial to the world of
things and lives and minds; the psychology that finds in the soul something similar to,
or even identical with, divine Reality; the ethic that places man's final end in the
knowledge of the immanent and transcendent Ground of all being – the thing is
immemorial and universal. 18
The main themes of perennial philosophy that have been incorporated by
holistic education are: divine Reality, Oneness, Wholeness, and multiple dimensions of
9
reality.
Indigenous worldviews are another orientation that has been integrated in
holistic education. The former has influenced primarily the works of two contemporary
holistic educators, Rachel Kessler and Gregory Gajete. 19 The major ideas included the
indigenous worldview that have been built into the theories and practices of holistic
education are: reverence for nature, the earth, the universe, and the Spirit; the
interconnectedness and sacredness of reality; and human’s reintegration with nature.
“Life philosophy,” argues Nakagawa, has also had great weight in the works of
contemporary holistic educators. 20 Ron Miller and Atsu´hiko Yoshida (another leading
figure in holistic education in Japan) are two scholars, who have positioned the concept
of “Life” at the core of their theories of holistic education. “Life philosophy,” describes
Nakagawa, “assumes that there exists a fundamental Life force, or a universal Life
process.” 21 This Life force “generates and organizes all beings in the cosmos.” 22 “Life
philosophy” assumes “that our lives have a purpose, a direction, a meaning, and a goal
that transcends our personal egos and particular physical and cultural conditioning.” 23 It
recognizes that we are connected, at deep and profound levels, “to the continuing
evolution of life and the universe.” 24 Contemporary holistic educators who endorse this
concept of “Life” usually conceive education as a “manifestation of Life and at the
same time a vehicle in the service of reconnecting human life with the fundamental
Life.” 25
The ecological worldview has been one of the most influential orientations to
contemporary holistic education. As well pointed out by Nakagawa, the “ecological
10
perspective is so integral in contemporary holistic education that the term “holistic” is
often interchangeably used with “ecological.” 26 The ecological worldview, often
associated with deep ecology (Naess, Capra), 27 “focuses on the principle of
interconnectedness of all beings in nature, life and the universe…a living phenomenon
is understood only in relation to other phenomena and in larger ecosystems.” 28
Ecological thinking assumes that everything is interdependent and all life forms are part
of the same web of life (ecosystem). The ecological worldview is often addressed in
holistic education through “ecological literacy”, where topics such as environmental
issues, dialogues with nature, the interdependence of reality, and sustainability are
explored. Edward Clark, David Orr, and Ramón Nava have been some of the most
active contemporary holistic educators in this area. 29
Systems theory, explains Nakagawa, “is a theoretical attempt to explore
comprehensive, cosmological models of the cosmic world.” 30 Similarly to the
ecological worldview, systems theory also recognizes the interdependence of all things,
but its exploration of the subject is based on “systemic explanations of the dynamic
structure of the universe,” or the cosmic world. 31 Systems theory, describes Nakagawa,
generally
…assumes several major subsystems within the entire universe such as the
inanimate physical realm, primordial life forms, the biological realm of plants
and animals, the mental field (symbolic and linguistic systems) produced by the
human mind, and socio-cultural systems….The systems views not only describe
11
these subsystems in detail but also underline their structural connections. 32
This systemic worldview is present in the “holistic theory” of Ron Miller, a
theory based on “multiple levels of wholeness;” 33 in the “integrated curriculum” of
Edward Clark, 34 a systemic curriculum built on “system thinking;” and in the work of
few other scholars, most notably Thomas Berry and Atsu´hiko Yoshida, in the field of
holistic education.
Finally, feminist thoughts have also had impact in the field of holistic education,
particularly the ideas articulated by Nel Noddings and Riane Eisler. The most relevant
work of Noddings to holistic education has been her ideas on caring relations. 35
Noddings has proposed a caring-centered education that calls for the cultivation of
relations of care in school, which includes: caring for the self, for the inner circle, for
distant others, for animals, plants and the Earth, for the human-made world, and for the
world of ideas. Similar to Noddings but focusing more on the egalitarian aspects of
relationships, Eisler designed a model of education, which she called “partnership
education.” 36 Her “partnership model of education” includes themes such as:
democratic and egalitarian structure; equal rights to females and males; respect;
peaceful conflict resolution; empathy; caring; non-violence; mutual responsibility; and
connections to the Earth. Noddings’ thoughts on “caring relations” and Eisler’s ideas on
“partnership education” are directly or indirectly present in the works of virtually every
holistic educator.
12
1.3. Definitions of Holistic Education
Thus far, we have examined the evolution of the holistic education movement
and the various theories, philosophies, and worldviews, from which the latter has
emerged. Yet, we have not explored what holistic education really entails. What are the
principles underlying holistic education? What defines holistic education? What is the
aim of holistic education?
Amid the descriptions of holistic education, there appears to be a unanimous
agreement that the main purpose of holistic education is to “nourish the inherent
possibilities of human development.” 37 Rather than being concerned with basic
knowledge and skills acquisition, holistic education is primarily concerned with the
overall development (physical, intellectual, emotional, and spiritual) of the individual.
The ultimate goal of holistic education, though, as argued by some theorists in the field
(Nakagawa, Forbes), is self-transformation. 38 Nakagawa, for instance, claims that the
main objective of Eastern holistic education is to transform the total being in pursuit of
the higher “Self.” 39 The ultimate aim is to realize what he calls the “formless Self”
(enlightenment). 40 Forbes, in the West, draws a similar argument (although more
compatible to Western thinking) and maintains that the highest goal of holistic
education is to reach “ultimacy,” which he defines as “the highest state of being that a
human can aspire to” (e.g. grace, self-actualization, or enlightenment). 41 In Eastern
holistic education, the practices of contemplation (meditation) and arts are the primary
means to bring about the “real” transformation of the self, while in Western holistic
13
education, experiential knowledge (life experience), argues Forbes, is the main path to
reach “ultimacy.”
Another defining element of holistic education, with which most theorists in the
field appear to agree, is the acknowledgment of spirituality. Several contemporary
holistic educators (John Miller, Ron Miller, Nava) argue that the spiritual principle is
what differentiates holistic education from all other alternative approaches to
education. 42 The view of spirituality advocated by the holistic education movement is
usually broad, inclusive, and detached from any particular faith or creed. It is a vision
that may or may not involve belief in a personal God. The holistic view of spirituality
also differs in some respects from the New Age Movement, which tends to have a more
individualistic view of spirituality, emphasizing personal empowerment, and selfaggrandizement. 43 In general, the spiritual vision advocated in the field of holistic
education, embraces four main concepts – the belief that there is a “divine Reality
substantial to the manifold world of things, and lives and minds,” 44 the idea that we are
all interconnected and interdependent, and part of an “intricate web of life,” 45 the
notion that there is a purpose for every life in the universe, and the conviction that there
is a continuous plan of evolution in which we are all involved.
A third factor, which is also acknowledged by practically all leaders in the field,
is the recognition of wholeness and/or interconnectedness as a fundamental principle of
holistic education. Most theories and worldviews underlying holistic education are
rooted in concepts of wholeness, integration, and interconnectedness. The basic
underlying assumption of holistic education is that “everything in the universe is
14
fundamentally interconnected” and part of the same “whole.” 46 This context is
evidenced in Clark’s “integrated curriculum”, in John Miller’s “holistic curriculum,” in
Ron Miller’s “holistic theory,” and in Gang’s “purposes of holistic education.”
Clark’s “integrated curriculum” is built upon his construct of “systems thinking,”
which views everything in terms of “integrated systems of relationships.” 47 Human
intelligence, thinking, and learning are seen as an inseparable process, part of a “single,
dynamic, multi-faceted, functional capacity that is inherent in human consciousness.” 48
In his “integrated curriculum,” Clark offers a systemic design to “reflect the natural
process of intelligence/thinking/learning, to demonstrate the interrelationship among
subjects, and to allow students to construct their own meaning.” 49 John Miller’s
“holistic curriculum” is also based on this “relationalist worldview.” 50 His curriculum
focuses on connecting linear thinking and intuition, mind and body, self and
community, and the various domains of knowledge as well as nurturing one’s
relationship to the Earth and the soul. 51 Ron Miller’s “holistic theory” follows the same
paradigm, but the focus is on making connections between “multiple levels of
wholeness.” 52 According to Miller, a “holistic conception of education recognizes
wholes within wholes – that is, it strives for the integration and meaning at each level of
organization.” 53 Miller identifies “five levels of wholeness:” the person, the community,
the society, the planet, and the cosmos. In Miller’s argument, the individual “exists
within a communal context, which is a larger, more inclusive system. This communal
context, in turn, is shaped by the society of which it’s a part.” 54 The society, in turn, is a
member of the global family of humanity; and finally, the “human family as a whole,
15
along with its host planet, is contained in the all-embracing wholeness of the cosmos,
the absolute… 55 Finally, there is Phil Gang’s vision about the “purposes of holistic
education,” purposes which are either directly or indirectly related to the notion of
wholeness and interconnectedness. 56 In his proposal, Gang outlines four broad goals of
holistic education:
•
Give young people a vision of the universe in which all animate and inanimate
are interconnected and unified.
•
Help students synthesize learning and discover the interrelatedness of all
disciplines.
•
Prepare students for life in the 21st century by emphasizing a global perspective
and common human interests.
•
Enable the young to develop a sense of harmony and spirituality – which are
needed to construct world peace (italics added). 57
Besides the themes of spirituality and interconnectedness, which are central
aspects of holistic education, several other principles and concepts integrate the
conceptualization of the latter. The statement Education 2000, for example, lists ten
basic principles of holistic education:
I – Educating for human development – The primary purpose of education is to
nourish the inherent possibilities of human development.
16
II – Honoring students as individuals – Each learner is unique, inherently
creative, with individual needs and abilities.
III – The central role of experience – Education is a matter of experience and
learning is primarily experiential.
IV – Holistic education – The concept of “wholeness” should be at the core of
the educational process.
V – New Role of educators – Educators ought to be facilitators of learning,
which is an organic, natural process and not a product that can be turned out on
demand.
VI – Freedom of choice – Students and parents should have opportunities for
real choice at every stage of the learning process.
VII – Educating for a participatory democracy – Education should be based on
democratic values and should empower all citizens to participate in meaningful
ways in the life of the community and the planet.
VIII – Educating for global citizenship – Each individual is a global citizen.
Education therefore, should be an appreciation for the magnificent diversity of
human experience.
IX – Educating for earth literacy – Education must spring organically from a
profound reverence for life in all its forms and nurture a relationship between
humans and the natural world.
X – Spirituality and Education – Every person is a spiritual being and education
must nourished the healthy grow of his/her spiritual life. 58
17
In addition to Education 2000, which includes most of the principles related to
holistic education, there are other definitions of holistic education, which are worth
examining as they complement the above illustration. John Miller, for instance, frames
holistic education within a “transformation model” of education, arguing that the core
motto of holistic education is to seek transformation, that is, to seek the continuing
growth of the individual and society. 59 Miller synthesizes holistic education as an
approach that encompasses three main principles: 1) “Connection” – entails integrating
school subjects; establishing connections with the community; fostering student’s
relationship with the earth; and encouraging students to connect to their souls, their
deeper sense of selves. 2) “Inclusion” – refers to including students of diverse races and
abilities and providing a range of educational approaches to attend the differences in
learning styles. And 3) “Balance” – means reaching for equilibrium between
complementary energies (individual learning and group learning, analytic thinking and
intuitive thinking, content and process, and learning and assessment). 60 Ramón Nava (a
leader in the field in Mexico and Latin America), on the other hand, defines holistic
education within four basic dimensions: scientific, ecological, social, and spiritual. 61
The scientific dimension involves developing a scientific consciousness to the new
science (e.g. chaos theory, the gaia hypothesis, quantum theory, etc.). The ecological
dimension is concerned with educating students to live in a sustainable culture. The
social dimension emphasizes an education for peace, social participation, and global
citizenship. The fourth dimension, spirituality, is at the core of all educational activity
18
and is the dimension that “allows the student’s potential to flourish.” According to
Nava, it is “through spirituality that we come to know our true nature.” 62 Finally, Ron
Miller provides another definition of holistic education (in addition to his “holistic
theory”), which places more emphasis on the social, cultural and democratic dimensions
of education. Miller views holistic education as primarily a “democratic education,
concerned with both individual freedom and social responsibility.” 63 He argues that
children should be allowed “freedom to develop according to their unique (and
ultimately spiritual) destines and to follow their own personal interests as well as [be
challenged] to engage in their social and political milieu critically.” 64 Overall, Miller
describes holistic education as containing the following broad characteristics: 1) it
nurtures the development of the whole person; 2) it revolves around relationships
(egalitarian, open, and democratic relationships); 3) it is concerned with life experiences
(instead of “basic skills”); 4) it “recognizes that cultures are created by people and can
be changed by people” (instead of conforming and replicating a established culture); 65
and 5) it is founded upon a “deep reverence for life and for the unknown (and never
fully knowable) source of life.” 66
1.4. The Purpose of this Dissertation
As can be noted from the previous sections, the field of holistic education has
already been extensively studied. Leaders in the field have traced the historical roots of
holistic education (Ron Miller); investigated its purpose (Nakagawa, Forbes),
19
proclaimed its principles (Education 2000), and outlined the educational and
philosophical theories underpinning the movement (Ron Miller, John Miller,
Nakagawa, Forbes); they have designed holistic curriculums (John Miller, Clark) and
suggested holistic practices (Kessler, John Miller). What has not yet been examined in
the field of holistic education is the correspondence between its principles and theories
and the pedagogical application of them. Although there have been some loose
connections between holistic theories and pedagogical practices (of which the Waldorf
pedagogy and the Montessori method are the most cited) 67 and several empirical
investigations of holistic practices, * 68 there has never been a systematic analysis of the
pedagogical application of holistic education in relation to its philosophical and
educational ideas. One attempt on this direction came from Forbes, in his book Holistic
Education: An Analysis of its Ideas and Nature, based on his dissertation, where he
outlines and discusses (using Bernstein’s competence model) eight pedagogical features
of holistic education. Nevertheless, his effort is still geared towards an investigation of
pedagogical ideas instead of an examination of the pedagogical application of holistic
education. This dissertation, therefore, investigates this unexplored area. Its purpose is
to examine, and analyze the pedagogical application of the principles advocated by the
holistic education movement using four approaches to schooling as the basis for
investigation. Furthermore, considering that holistic education integrates ideas and
principles from diverse educational and philosophical theories and worldviews in one
*
Waldorf and Montessori Schools, in particular, have been widely researched. Additionally, there has been empirical
research of holistic practices in other educational settings. Flakes’ edited book Holistic Education: Principles,
Perspectives and Practice, for instance, provides several examples of holistic practices.
20
single educational paradigm, this study also explores some of the tensions that arise as
they are applied by other approaches to education with similar assumptions.
1.5. Mode of Inquiry
The process of inquiry that I used in this study included the following steps.
First, I researched the field of holistic education and tried to understand what holistic
education is. Considering the wide scope of this movement added to hundreds of
educational initiatives that claim themselves as holistic, it was not an easy task to
understand what holistic education stands for. The next step included the identification
of the philosophical principles of holistic education. To identify the principles, I focused
my attention on the works of theorists (John Miller, Ron Miller, Forbes, Nakagawa,
Nava, Clark, Gang) who attempted to define and conceptualize holistic education. This
was not an easy task either. As seen previously, each theorist defines certain principles
as the foundation of holistic education. Many of them overlap but many others do not.
Education 2000: A Holistic Perspective, in one way, is the work that best synthesizes
the principles advocated by the holistic education movement. However, this statement
was written in 1991 and much has been added to the conceptions of holistic education
since its publication. Forbes, for example, in his book Holistic Education: An Analysis
of its Ideas and Nature, includes additional principles as the philosophical foundation of
holistic education (e.g. autonomy, inner freedom, inherent motivation to learn, and so
forth). Nakagawa, in Education for Awakening, describes the Eastern perspective of
21
holistic education and provides a new dimension to the movement. Ron Miller wrote
several articles and books after the Statement 2000 (in which he was one of the authors),
still with an attempt to define holistic education. Hence, in view of such a complex field
with such amplitude of conceptions and definitions, I decided to assign the principles
instead of using, for example, the principles listed by Education 2000. I identified,
therefore, eight principles, which I argue, encompass most of the ideas advocated by
leaders of the holistic education movement. The eight principles are: spirituality,
reverence for life/nature, interconnectedness, human wholeness, individual uniqueness,
caring relations, freedom/autonomy, and democracy. Four of them (spirituality,
reverence for life/nature, interconnectedness, and human wholeness) encompass the
spiritual/holistic orientation of holistic education whereas the other four (individual
uniqueness, caring relations, freedom/autonomy, and democracy) comprises the
humanistic ideas embedded in its educational paradigm.
The principle of spirituality, as discussed earlier, is a central theme in holistic
education. Spirituality is what differentiates holistic education from all other alternative
approaches to education. Most theories and worldviews underlying the movement of
holistic education (perennial philosophy, indigenous worldview, and life philosophy)
are spiritually oriented. The aim of holistic education is spiritually grounded (i.e. a
concern with human and spiritual development/inner transformation) and the holistic
values and beliefs are spiritually centered.
Reverence for life/nature is another principle that integrates the spiritual
orientation of holistic education. Contemporary holistic educators place great emphasis
22
on nurturing a “sense of reverence towards nature and life,” 69 on developing “ecological
awareness,” 70 on “educating for earth literacy,” 71 and on establishing “earth
connections.” 72 This principle is a central aspect of the ecological and the indigenous
worldviews, which have greatly influenced holistic education.
Interconnectedness is the most common principle across the conceptions of
holistic education. This principle is present in almost all theories and worldviews
underlying holistic education and in practically all definitions concerning the latter.
Throughout this chapter we have already seen how dominant this principle is in holistic
education.
Human wholeness is a humanistic principle (educating the whole child has
always been a central theme in humanistic education) adapted to the spiritual/holistic
paradigm of holistic education. Usually contemporary holistic educators discuss human
wholeness into five essential elements: intellectual, emotional or affective, physical,
social, aesthetic, and spiritual. 73 They regard all of them as equally important and call
for an education that nurtures them all.
Individual Uniqueness is another principle that integrates the humanistic
orientation of holistic education. Contemporary holistic educators recognize every
person as a unique being with inherent qualities, potentialities, and needs, and with a
singular way to interact and respond to reality. 74 They reject any form of standardized
approach to education and call instead for an education that begins with the child, with
the “living reality” of each individual. 75
23
Freedom/Autonomy is a central theme amongst humanistic as well as
transpersonal educators. Holistic education integrates the views from both strands.
Overall, freedom/autonomy in holistic education usually stands for inner freedom,
freedom of mind and expression, and freedom of action. Contemporary holistic
educators are usually concerned with the attainment of inner/spiritual freedom, through
providing an atmosphere that allows freedom of mind and expression, and with an
education that fosters freedom of choice and autonomy in the learning process. 76 With
the exception of a few who have paid more attention to this principle (Ron Miller,
Nakagawa, Clark) in their advocacy for holistic education, 77 the theme of
freedom/autonomy is more present in the works of former educators who are commonly
referred as pioneers or contributors to the movement of holistic education, than in the
works of contemporary holistic educators. 78
Caring relations is a humanistic principle that has been fully embraced by the
holistic education movement. The relationship between teacher and students and among
students themselves, is seen in holistic education, as the foundation for learning, social
life, and social justice. 79 This principle is present in the works of practically every
holistic educator. This principle is also central to Nel Noddings’ works, which has had
great impact in the field of holistic education. 80
Finally, democracy is another principle that has been widely discussed in
humanistic education, which has been incorporated by the holistic education movement.
Contemporary holistic educators refuse to accept a rigid authoritarian system ruled by
economic, social, or cultural power. 81 Instead, they call for “participatory democracy,”
24
where citizens are empowered to participate in meaningful ways in the community, in
the society, and in the planet. 82 They argue for an education that values egalitarian,
open, and democratic relationships, similar to Eisler’s model of “partnership
education.” 83
These eight broad principles integrate the two paradigms incorporated by the
holistic education movement, the humanistic and the spiritual paradigm. While most
educators (Rousseau, Dewey, Holt, Neill, Illich, among others), who have advocated for
ideas of freedom and democracy, have always kept spirituality separate from education,
contemporary holistic educators try to integrate them. Although the principles from
these two paradigms might coexist well philosophically, I see some tension in
accommodating them pedagogically. Particularly those that are more spiritually
centered (spirituality, reverence for life/nature, interconnectedness) with those that are
more democratically oriented (freedom/autonomy, democracy). As stated earlier, most
educational movements that embrace democratic ideas (free/democratic schools) tend to
avoid spiritual issues, whereas those that are more spiritually oriented (Waldorf
Schools) tend to avoid libertarian ideas. Hence, as I explore the pedagogical
applicability of these principles I also examine possible tensions that might arise as they
are applied.
25
1.5.1. The Selection of Holistic Pedagogical Practices
The third step involved in this study concerns the selection of pedagogical
practices. Instead of choosing single practices carried out by individual teachers, I chose
to focus the analysis of this study on well-established pedagogies already implemented
in schools. More specifically, I selected pedagogies represented by large school
movements, which had caused not only local and national impact but also international
attention and therefore proliferated worldwide. The inclusion of solid, well-established
pedagogies, carrying holistic practices at local and international levels, I argue,
increases the trustworthiness of the findings of the analysis because of the consistency
of such practices on a larger scale.
The process for selecting the school movements included first, a search of
school movements that carry holistic pedagogical practices. I searched for alternative
approaches to schooling that seemed to endorse many of the philosophical principles of
holistic education in the descriptions of their pedagogies. I selected eleven school
movements (Democratic/Free Schools, Open Schools, Quaker/Friends Schools,
Krishnamurti Schools, Waldorf Schools, Montessori Schools, NHE Schools, Reggio
Schools, KPM Schools, Robert Muller Schools, and the homeschooling movement).
After having selected the school movements, the next step was to refine this
selection. As the purpose of this study was to examine the pedagogical application of
the philosophical principles of holistic education, I needed to select school movements
that most incorporated the ideas advocated by the holistic education movement.
26
Additionally, I wanted to select large school movements operating at local and
international levels, as a means to increase the trustworthiness of the findings of this
study.
To be able to select the school movements, I researched the literature, examined
the websites of several schools and organizations/associations related to each
movement, and e-mailed some school units (Neohumanist Schools, Robert Muller
Schools, Quaker Schools) in order to obtain supplementary information. Based on my
interpretation of the literature, I selected four school movements, which seemed to meet
both criteria I had assigned. In Chapter 2, I explain in detail why I chose only four
school movements.
As a final point, I want to clarify that I do not claim any of the eleven school
movements as representations of a holistic education. I see them as alternative school
movements carrying holistic pedagogical practices based on a philosophy that might
share some common ideas with the field of holistic education. Nowadays, some school
movements (Quaker, Krishnamurti, Waldorf, Montessori, NHE Schools) call
themselves holistic, as the term “holistic” becomes more popular, however, there are
others (particularly Reggio Schools) that have never referred to their approaches as
holistic. The reader should be aware that these eleven school movements emerged
before the holistic education movement came into view, which means their philosophies
of education were already well solidified when the field of holistic education began to
delineate its own philosophy.
27
1.5.2. Method of Analysis
Rather than empirically collecting data from schools, the analysis of this study is
drawn from the extended literature of the selected school systems. That means this
dissertation is essentially theoretical and interpretative.
The method of analysis used in this study involved the following approach. For
each of the selected principles, I first examined the philosophical and educational ideas
advocated by the holistic education movement. I also explored the philosophical
thoughts of earlier educators about the principles, those that have been influential to the
evolution of holistic education.
Second, I explored the school systems’ perspective about the principle. I
analyzed the literature I was able to obtain and I determined the extent to which the
school system seemed to endorse each principle.
Third, I identified pedagogical features across the selected school systems that
promoted the principles. For every pedagogical feature identified in one school system,
I searched the other selected systems to examine if they also had that feature in their
pedagogical approach. At times a pedagogical feature was more evident in one school
system than in the other. Thus, by revisiting the school systems for every new
pedagogical feature identified, I could confirm that I was not missing a feature that was
not initially apparent. Occasionally, several activities were identified as promoting one
main concept. In that case, I combined the activities in one single theme. For example,
in regards to the principle of reverence for life/nature, I identified across the school
28
systems various activities fostering “earth connection” (caring for the environment,
playing in the environment, trips to the nature, meditation, etc.). Instead of making each
single activity a pedagogical feature, I integrated them all into the theme of “earth
connection.” This procedure was important to make the representation of the
pedagogical applications of each particular principle more clear and organized.
Otherwise, there would be too many pedagogical features and the analysis would
become too confusing.
I limited the identification of pedagogical features to the general curriculum or
the general practices of the selected school systems, which was explicit in the literature.
For example, in regards to the principle of interconnectedness, one of the pedagogical
features identified across the school systems to promote this principle was to bring
awareness to the interrelation and interdependence of life, humanity, the natural world,
and the universe. This is a very broad theme, which could be addressed through
projects, discussions, or lessons in any school. Thus, it could be argued that this feature
could be present in any school system. Nonetheless, the school systems, in which this
pedagogical feature was identified, have this feature as a regular practice in their
curriculum. That is, teaching about interconnectedness is part of their general
curriculum. Hence, rather than including occasional practices, I considered only the
pedagogical features that were explicitly and recurrently present in the school systems’
educational approach.
For each pedagogical feature identified, I examined the way and the extent by
which the feature is applied in the selected school systems. Considering the uniqueness
29
of each school system, I had to be very thorough in my analysis of the pedagogical
features, as they varied considerably from one system to the other. The arts, for
example, which were several times identified as a facilitating medium for fostering
various principles (spirituality, reverence for life/nature, interconnectedness, human
wholeness, freedom/autonomy), are applied quite differently across the selected school
systems. Namely, some of them have the arts at the center of their approach to
education, weaved throughout the entire curriculum, whereas others have the arts as a
separate subject offered daily or weekly (depending on the age group). Additionally,
some school systems use the arts as a medium to develop sensibility and a sense of
aesthetics and to connect humans with their inner selves, whereas other uses the arts as
a medium for learning. As a result, each school system applies the arts quite differently.
Hence, all these factors were taken into consideration when interpreting the pedagogical
application of each principle.
To systematize my interpretation of the application of the pedagogical features
relative to each principle, and to be able to compare it across the school systems, I
assigned five levels of application (very high, high, moderate, low, N/P). Six main
questions guided my interpretation to determine the levels of application of each
pedagogical feature: Is the pedagogical feature present? In what ways are the
pedagogical feature applied? Is the pedagogical feature applied to foster a certain
principle? To what extent is the pedagogical feature applied? To what extent is the
pedagogical feature applied in one school system in comparison to another? Is the
pedagogical feature constantly applied across the schools of the school system?
30
I, then, used the following rationale to assign the level of application for each
pedagogical feature:
Very high = the pedagogical feature is extensively applied in the educational
approach of the school system.
High = the pedagogical feature is not applied as extensively as it is applied in
the other school system(s), or the pedagogical feature is not directly applied to foster
that particular principle.
Moderate = the pedagogical feature is applied to a lower extent in comparison to
other school systems or it may not be constant across the schools of a school system.
Low = the pedagogical feature is occasionally applied.
N/P = the pedagogical feature is not present
To illustrate the rationale described above, below I use the example of two
pedagogical features that were identified as conducive to foster the principle of
spirituality: the arts and meditation and/or religion.
All selected school systems have the arts in their approach to education.
However, as already discussed, the ways and the extent by which the arts are applied in
each school system vary considerably. Hence, the school systems, in which the arts are
at the center of their curriculum and they are used as a means to foster spirituality, I
considered their application of arts relative to the principle of spirituality “very high.”
In another school system, where the arts are also dominantly present but they are used
31
as a medium for learning instead of a means to foster spirituality, I considered their
application of arts relative to the principle of spirituality “high.” A school system may
not use the arts as means for spiritual development, however, if we consider the
argument that the arts can be a medium for spiritual connection (Steiner, Sarkar, see
page 77), the school system is indirectly promoting the principle of spirituality. Finally,
the school system that offers the arts as a separate subject few times a week, I regarded
their application of art as “low.”
In regards to meditation and/or religion, I also found great variation across the
selected school systems. One of them uses meditation as a daily practice in their
approach to education. Meditation is at the core of its curriculum and it is one of the
main activities purposefully used to foster spirituality. I, therefore, considered their
application of meditation relative to the principle of spirituality “very high.” Another
school system draws on religious lessons and rituals (singing, versus, rhythmic
movements, etc.) as a means to promote spirituality. Religious lessons are optional and
offered once or twice a week. The rituals are weaved through the children’s daily
activities. In this case, I regarded their application of religion/ritual as “high” because
these two activities are not as extensively and intensely applied as meditation is in the
other system. A third school system draws on religious lessons as a medium to promote
spirituality and uses the practice of silence as a means to have children appreciate
quietness (which is one form of meditation). However, not all schools in this system
offer religious lessons. I, therefore, interpreted their application of religion/meditation
as “moderate.” Finally, in the other selected school system, neither meditation nor
32
religious lessons are part of their curriculum. In this case, I assigned “N/P” (not
present).
After identifying the pedagogical features and determining its level of
application relative to the principle being addressed, I synthesized the findings of all
pedagogical features in a table (illustrated in Chapters 3 and 4). I, then, compared the
findings across the school systems and determined the extent by which each principle is
applied in the pedagogical approach of every school system.
Before ending this section, I want to explain that the focus of analysis of this
study is on the pedagogical application of the principles advocated by the holistic
education movement and not on the pedagogy of the selected schools movements. I use
these school movements or school systems, as they are called throughout the analysis
(see definitions of terms), to analyze how the philosophical principles of holistic
education are applied pedagogically. Although I interpret and evaluate the school
systems’ application of the principles throughout this study, my interest is to investigate
how the principles are applied (or not applied) and not to judge whether or not a school
system applies these principles in their approach to education.
1.6. The Interpretative Nature of this Study
This is a theoretic dissertation in which I analyze, interpret, and evaluate the
pedagogical application of the philosophical ideas advocated by the holistic education
movement in school systems that carry holistic pedagogical practices. This work
33
involved a great measure of subjective interpretation and inference. I researched and
analyzed the field of holistic education. I interpreted its philosophy and selected eight
principles that I judged would encompass most of the ideas advocated by the
movement. I selected the school systems based on the criteria I defined. I identified the
pedagogical features and interpreted the school systems’ application of them based on
my reading of the literature. Finally, I evaluated the pedagogical application of the
principles based on my interpretation of the literature.
In order to foreground my subjectivity, particularly in regards to the pedagogical
application of the principles across the schools, I tried to explain in detail the method of
analysis used in the interpretation of the pedagogical features, so the reader could
evaluate my own interpretation. Additionally, I deliberately described the pedagogical
features with reasonable detail so the analysis would be transparent and the reader
would have a clear idea of how I drew my evaluations. Nonetheless, despite my efforts
to foreground my subjectivity, this study still reflects my subjective interpretation of the
literature gathered.
1.7. Definition of Terms
The use of some terms in this dissertation needs clarification. The first one
concerns the usage of “school movements” and “school systems.” The term “school
movement” usually refers to an approach to schooling based on a philosophy of
education whereas the term “school system” normally implies a system of education
34
that is applied in schools. The eleven approaches to schooling referred in this chapter
are school movements, however not all of them are school systems (e.g. homeschooling
movement).
In Chapter 2, when I describe the eleven approaches to schooling I use the term
“school movement,” as my intention in this chapter is to discuss their philosophical
approach to education. In the following chapters, however, when I analyze the
pedagogical application of the principles in the selected approaches to schooling, I use
the term “school systems” because I essentially discuss the application of their
philosophy of education.
Other terms that need to be clarified are: “contemporary holistic educators,”
“pioneers” and “holistic educators.” As discussed earlier, holistic education is an
educational paradigm, which has its roots in the works of the ancient Greeks. Although
the movement of holistic education is relatively new, the holistic educational paradigm
is not. Leaders of the holistic movement have identified several thinkers (Plato,
Rousseau, Pestalozzi, Froebel, amongst others) as the pioneers of holistic education and
they often refer to them as holistic educators. Hence, in this study, when I refer to the
pioneers of holistic education, I use the term “pioneers.” When I refer to the educators
who have initiated or are currently involved with the movement of holistic education, I
use the term “contemporary holistic educators.” Finally, when I refer to the pioneers as
well as the contemporary holistic educators and those in between, I use the term
“holistic educators.”
35
1.8. Chapters Organization
This dissertation is organized into five chapters. In Chapter 2, I examine eleven
school movements carrying holistic pedagogical practices (cited above), appoint those
that have been selected for the analysis of this study, and explain the reasons why only
four school movements were selected. In Chapter 3, I explore the four spiritual/holisticbased principles (spirituality, reverence for life/nature, interconnectedness, and human
wholeness). Each principle is explored separately following the method of analysis
described in the previous section. I first examine the holistic view about each principle
and its implication to education. I then investigate the philosophical perspective of the
selected school systems about each principle and how they apply the referred principle
in their educational approach. Finally, I examine the correspondence between the school
systems’ perception of that particular principle and the holistic view and I evaluate the
pedagogical application of each principle across the school systems. In Chapter 4, I
explore the humanistic-based principles individual uniqueness, caring relations,
freedom/autonomy, and democracy). I follow exactly the same structure used in Chapter
3. In Chapter 6, I synthesize the findings relative to all principles and discuss them. I
then describe the limitations of this study, address the implications for future research,
and draw a final conclusion.
36
CHAPTER 2
SCHOOL MOVEMENTS WITH
HOLISTIC PEDAGOGICAL PRACTICES
During the 1900s, the educational sector saw the emergence of various
alternative school movements, * particularly in the northern hemisphere. Some of them
evolved into hundreds of schools around the world (Montessori Schools, Waldorf
Schools), others were very popular for a few years but after while lost their appeal
(Open Schools), whereas others never grew very wide (KPM Schools, Krishnamurti
Schools). Most of these alternative school movements emerged as a response to a
dissatisfaction with the shortcomings of mainstream education. Some of them were
more humanistic centered while others were more spiritually oriented. Overall, they all
shared one thought in common; they were concerned with the overall development of
the child. The most well-known alternative school movements in the West, which are
significant to the field of holistic education, are: The Democratic/Free Schools, Open
Schools, Quaker/Friends Schools, Krishnamurti Schools, Waldorf Schools, Montessori
*
Alternative school movements are here referred as philosophical educational movements that emerged as an
alternative to mainstream education. Most of the school movements addressed in this chapter emerged in the private
sector. There are, however, several alternative approaches to schooling in the public system as well. Nonetheless, the
public initiatives usually adapt the philosophy of alternative educational movements to their system of education
instead of developing their own movement. Reggio Emilia Schools are an exception, which is later discussed in this
chapter.
37
Schools, Neohumanist Schools, Reggio Schools, KPM Schools, Robert Muller Schools,
and the homeschooling movement. 84
Considering the inclusiveness of the holistic education movement, it can be
argued that these eleven school movements carry holistic practices in their approach to
education. However, as explained in Chapter 1, not all of them have been selected for
the analysis of this study. According to my interpretation of the literature, only four
school movements seemed to meet the criteria I assigned for selection. In the following
sections, therefore, I first introduce each school movement and then I explain my
rationale for selecting or not selecting each one of them.
2.1. The Homeschooling Movement
The homeschooling movement is perhaps the largest alternative school
movement in the world with 1,1 million students being homeschooled in the United
States alone, 85 about 170,000 in England and Wales, 86 and several more thousands
around the world. 87 The homeschooling movement began in the late 1970s with John
Holt, an American educator, who became utterly dissatisfied with the
institutionalization of schooling and its consequent limitations. According to Holt, the
schooling system was the greatest inhibitor to learning. 88 He believed schools bored
children and destroyed their desire to learn. In his view, schools fill up “their days with
dull, repetitive tasks that make little or no claim on their attention or demands on their
intelligence.” 89 Moreover, Holt argued that schools encourage students “to feel that the
38
end and aim of all they do in the school is nothing more than to get a good mark on a
test, or to impress someone with what they seem to know.” 90
Holt’s dissatisfaction with the schooling system began while he was a private
school teacher. When he joined academia (as a visiting lecturer at Harvard and
Berkeley) he quickly became a supporter and advocate of school reform, along with
several of his colleagues. 91 However, soon he realized that the educational changes he
sought for schools would not happen. Holt envisioned making schools smaller with
more individualized learning places, decreasing testing as much as possible, and
fostering human relationships over competition for grades and school prestige. By the
late seventies he had given up on the possibility that schools would welcome and assist
the sorts of changes he was suggesting. He then began considering other ways of
learning without conventional schooling. In 1977, he founded the first magazine about
homeschooling in the US, Growing Without Schooling, a magazine written for parents
and the public in general. Holt dedicated the rest of his life to supporting and writing
about homeschool learning.
Holt’s homeschooling movement rapidly grew and today it has become one of
the largest alternative movements in the world. The reasons for homeschooling vary
from family to family. The motives include financial and religious reasons, a desire to
provide a better education at home, dissatisfaction with the schooling system, among
several other reasons. The curriculum and methods of instruction used by each family is
also very diverse. The market for homeschooling is now very extensive, offering a wide
39
range of curricular possibilities. Even the Waldorf and Montessori methods are now
available for homeschool families.
2.2. Democratic/Free Schools
The democratic/free schools represent another large movement in education.
Some theorists label them as free schools, others as democratic schools, while still
others use both terminologies to define this group. 92 The democratic/free school
movement has its roots in the Anarchists’ Modern Schools of Spain in the late 19th and
early 20th centuries. Francisco Ferrer’s Modern School (Escuela Moderna) is perhaps
the most successful example of that time. 93 This movement resurged again in the 1960s,
inspired by the radical and libertarian ideas of educators who envisioned they could
revolutionize education (Ivan Illich, John Holt, Paul Goodman, A.S. Neill, among
others). 94 The oldest surviving free/democratic school is Summerhill School, in
England, founded in 1921 by A.S. Neill. The latter was an avant-garde educator who
believed that children could only thrive in an environment of freedom. 95 In Summerhill,
students experience boundless freedom unrestricted from any adult authority. Lessons
are not compulsory, activities are chosen freely, and school and community issues are
discussed and voted democratically by pupils and staff in a form of self-government.
The Summerhill “free school model” gained great popularity in the 1960s,
inspiring the opening of several schools in various parts of the world. Ron Miller
estimates that in the United States alone, between 400 to 800 free schools opened
40
between mid 1960s and late 1970s. 96 Although several of them closed within a short
period of time, many remain in operation with significant success. In the Alternative
Education Resource Organization (AERO), an association dedicated to support the
educational alternatives around the world, 246 schools are listed as democratic schools
(175 in thirty countries and 71 in USA). 97 The most well known successful examples of
the free/democratic school movement in the United States are the Sudbury Schools. The
Sudbury model originated at the Sudbury Valley School in Massachusetts in the
1960s. 98 The success of its method spread across the U.S. and to other parts of the
world. Today there are 34 schools following the Sudbury model, 24 in USA and 10 in
the world (Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Israel, Netherlands). 99
The key characteristic of this school movement is its emphasis on freedom and
democracy. Students usually have a central voice in the educative process and in most
aspects of school operations. They are free to choose the activities they desire and to
continue the activity for as long as they deem needed; they are responsible for their own
learning and empowered to direct their own education; and they participate in town
meetings with the faculty and staff to decide upon issues concerning the overall
functionality of the school. 100 The democratic/free schools value independence and
autonomy and hold trust and respect for the individuality of each individual as essential
requisites for a pedagogy based on free and democratic values.
41
2.3. Open Schools
The Open Schools were part of a new group that emerged parallel to the
democratic/free school movement in the late 1960s. They shared very similar values
with the democratic/free schools, in the sense that they too, were established on the
principles of freedom, independence, trust, autonomy, and democracy. * The main
characteristic that differentiates the Open Schools from the free/democratic schools is
their non-graded system and the absence of rigidly prescribed curriculum programs. The
Open Schools are usually defined as having “classrooms without walls.” Students from
all ages interact and study together based on their interests instead of their grade levels.
The theory of Open Schools is that children learn in different ways, at different times, at
different paces, and according to their interests. 101 The teacher is expected to act as a
guide and resource person encouraging students to work independently, to progress at
their own pace, and to develop independent thought. They also work as advisors helping
students in their choices of courses, activities, and with their educational goals. Most
learning activities are carried on individually or in small groups. The form of
assessment in Open Schools usually includes a comprehensive evaluation of the
academic performance of the student as well as an assessment of his/her overall
development.
Although most literature about Open Schools comes from the 1970s, we can still
find Open Schools operating in the United States, England, Canada, India, Latvia,
*
Several Open Schools are listed under the Democratic Schools’ list at AERO.
42
Slovenia, and Poland, reports Muir. 102 There is also a very successful K-8 public school
in Portugal (Escola da Ponte), which does not designate itself as an open school but is
very much aligned with the principles and pedagogical concepts endorsed by this
movement. In the United States, the most successful and well-documented schools are
the Jefferson County Open School (K-12) in Colorado and St Paul Open School (K-12)
in Minnesota. Both schools are public schools and have been in existence for more than
35 years. 103
2.4. Quaker/Friends Schools
Different from the previous groups, the Quaker Schools distinguish themselves
for their spiritual orientation. The Friends Schools, as they are also called, emerged out
of “The Religious Society of Friends”, originated in the UK. 104 The core belief of the
Quaker or Friends’ Society is that religion should start from personal experience and
not from doctrine. In their belief, all individuals have “that of God” in them and through
contemplation and silence they can have access to the God within. 105 In addition to this
core belief, Quakerism also places honesty, truth, integrity, simplicity, community,
peace, and respect for the individual, as their fundamental values. They also distinguish
themselves for their refusal to confine truth to one creed, their openness to other views,
and their insistence on equal rights for all people.
The Quaker Schools were first founded in England in the late 1600s and shortly
after they were established in the United States, Pennsylvania. These types of schools
43
were distinguished for their attention to diversity and equality. They were one of the
first educational institutions to provide schools for both boys and girls and the first
schools in the U.S. to accept black Americans in their classrooms. 106 Today there are 95
Quaker Schools worldwide, 82 in the U.S., 9 in the UK, and 4 in Australia, Canada,
Palestine, and Lebanon. 107 Although every Quaker School is unique in its pedagogical
approach, all schools share the same beliefs and values endorsed by the Quaker
movement. In general, Quaker Schools are characterized by an atmosphere of
friendliness, openness, cooperation, and participation. There is a strong sense of
community in their schools and relationships are formed on the basis of respect and care
for the other. Pedagogically, Quaker Schools claim to support the overall development
of the child and respect the students’ different learning styles; however, a close
investigation of their schools reveals strong emphasis on academic preparation. *
Most Quaker Schools are boarding schools and have a strong international
outreach. Their popularity is not limited to the members of The Society of Friends; in
fact the great majority of their students and staff are not even Quaker themselves.
*
There seem to be a contradiction between Quaker Schools’ claims and their actions. Several Quaker Schools in the
United States (though not all) use standardized test scores as a requirement in their admission process (I e-mailed
several of them). For a school that values the differences amongst subjects and their wholeness, it seems unusual that
the selection of candidates is dependable upon a test that only measures one aspect of the individual.
44
2.5. Krishnamurti Schools
The Krishnamurti Schools are distinct and unique in their “methodless”
approach to education. 108 Teachers in Krishnamurti Schools, reports Peterson, are most
of the time “creatively free to come up with their own methods and ideas,
corresponding with age, needs and aptitudes of their students.” 109 Jiddu Krishnamurti,
the founder of this movement, deplored specific methods of instruction. 110 He thought
teachers should have the autonomy to develop and create their own lessons and
activities. In fact, he insisted that teachers free themselves from all theories and
educational methodologies in order to discover their own ideas and their own ways of
educating. Krishnamurti viewed education as primarily an act of self-discovery
(including teacher and student), of awakening one’s mind, one’s intelligence. * He
believed most individuals were psychologically conditioned by internal (internalized
discursive patterns) and external authorities (religion, nationalism, class distinctions,
etc.) and lived in conformity to a set of values established by society without
questioning them. Education, therefore, in his view, was to free human’s mind from its
own conditioning. Its role was to help individuals investigate their thoughts, question
their values and beliefs, and examine the competing forces shaping their minds; and not
merely teach academic knowledge. In a talk he gave in Ojai, California, Krishnamurti
explained his vision of education:
*
Krishnamurti used the word intelligence and mind interchangeably, defining it as “the capacity to perceive the
essential, the what is…” (Krishnamurti, Education and the Significance of Life, 14)
45
Education in the modern world has been concerned with the cultivation not of
intelligence, but of intellect, of memory and its skills…Surely a school is a place
where one learns about the totality, the wholeness of life. Academic excellence
is absolutely necessary, but a school includes much more than that. It is a place
where both the teacher and the taught explore not only the outer world, the
world of knowledge, but also their own thinking, their own behavior. From this
they begin to discover their own conditioning and how it distorts their thinking.
This conditioning is the self to which such tremendous and cruel importance is
given. Freedom from conditioning and its misery begins with this awareness. It
is only in such freedom that true learning can take place. In this school it is the
responsibility of the teacher to sustain with the student a careful exploration into
the implications of conditioning and thus end it. 111
The freeing of human mind is the core principle guiding all Krishnamurti
Schools. Although there is “no communicable method or system of education” amongst
the schools, 112 they all share the philosophical ideas expressed by Krishnamurti.
Namely, all Krishnamurti Schools are committed to foster the spirit of inquiry in the
students, to make them think critically, to encourage them to pursue their own
knowledge and discoveries, and to engage them in self-reflection. 113
Currently there are 9 Krishnamurti Schools, in which 6 of them were founded by
Krishnamurti himself (California, USA (1975), England (1969), and 4 in India (19311973) and 3 by the Krishnamurti Foundation in India. There is also a handful of
46
Krishnamurti-inspired schools spread worldwide (Brazil, USA, India, Argentina, and
New Zeeland), which are not sponsored by the Foundation. 114
2.6. KPM Schools
Another model of schools, which is not large in number but very significant in
its method, is the KPM Approach to Children, named after its founder Sri K.
Padmanabha Menon. There are only two schools in the world that model this approach,
one in southern India (founded in 1987) and one in Texas, USA (founded in 1995).
Both schools are sponsored and supported by Atma Vidya Educational Foundation,
located in India. 115
The KPM Approach to Children was developed by Sri K. Padmanabha Menon,
an Indian sage, who envisioned an education that would honor to the highest extent, the
“dignity of [each] individual.” 116 He argued that the “role of the adult [was] to take the
child's expressions seriously, as genuine, and respond to him in the belief that his
thoughts and feelings matter.” 117 Menon believed that children needed a foundation of
self-worth and confidence during their upbringing; they needed to feel empowered in
their ideas and initiatives in order to grow into integrated, self-assured adults. His
profound trust on the children’s potential to think, create and learn, led him to develop a
real learner-centered approach to education.
In KPM Schools, children are truly respected, valued, and “unconditionally”
accepted by their teachers. 118 They are encouraged to initiate their activities, express
47
their thoughts and ideas, and seek their own discoveries. Moreover, they are expected to
surpass their own teachers’ knowledge. As Borich states, what makes the KPM
Approach unique is the teacher’s “unconditional acceptance of the child in promoting
self-initiated inquiry that encourages, indeed expects, the child to go beyond the teacher
without limits.” 119
In terms of its pedagogical method, KPM Schools have a very holistic approach
to teaching and learning. They view learning as an integrated process of “envelopment”,
wherein understanding and knowledge evolves from a “series of nests of knowledge”
woven from various directions. 120 The KPM approach tries to incorporate the child’s
interests, Nature, the school environment, and all subjects in an interlaced thread of
learning. Borich provides an excellent summary of the learning process involved in the
KPM Schools:
KPM educators believe that true education must come from first-hand
experience, from an active engagement with the lessons of Nature, conveyed
through conversation, demonstration, investigation, problem-solving, and
physical activity that promote the discovery of interconnections while
encouraging the learner's imagination and self expression. Learning arises from
self-initiated activity. The role of the teacher is to awaken, invigorate and
support [the child’s] courses of thought. It is to heighten the child's awareness of
self and environment and to awaken the production and exercise of integrative
thought… The teacher enters the child's world—to feel the learner's mind, where
48
it is going and where it wants to take the teacher. 121
This “unconditional” acceptance of the child’s leadership in the learning process
is what makes the KPM Approach to Children so uniquely learner-centered.
2.7. The Robert Muller Schools
The Robert Muller School, founded in 1990, in Texas, USA, is a fully accredited
school from birth through high school. The school was named after a former United
Nations official and peace activist who outlined the “World Core Curriculum for Global
Education,” which was fully implemented by the school. In his curriculum, Muller
outlined two main areas of study: the universe, our planet and its family and the role of
the individual within the cosmic evolution. 122 He proposed four main segments as a
framework for his curriculum:
Our Planetary Home and Place in the Universe – Furthering knowledge of planet
Earth, from the infinitely large (the Universe, the stars and outer space) to the
infinitely small (microbiology, chemistry, nuclear physics).
The Family of Humanity – Learning about our story in the planet, the unfolding
of our existence.
Our Place in Time – Interconnecting our knowledge of humanity and our planet
and finding our place in it, our responsibility to it.
49
The Miracle of Human Life – Furthering human growth through the
development of: a) good physical lives (teaching to see, to hear, to observe, to
create, to do, to use well our senses); b) good moral (emotional) lives (teaching
truth, understanding, humility, liberty, reverence for life, compassion, altruism,
and teaching to love); c) good mental lives (teaching to question, think, analyze,
synthesize, conclude, communicate and to focus from the infinitely large to the
infinitely small, from the distant past and present to the future); and d) good
spiritual lives (spiritual exercises of interiority, meditation, prayer,
communication with the universe, eternity, and God. 123
The vision embedded in the World Core Curriculum is fully embraced by the
staff running The Robert Muller School. They view their work as an opportunity to
serve the world and contribute to the evolution of the planet. They deeply believe that
the “World Core Curriculum is one every human child on this planet deserves and
should experience as a foundation for life.” 124 In their view,
The World Core Curriculum, when implemented correctly, will cause a student
to have a picture of her/himself as one Cosmic Unit, part of the human species,
existing for a limited period of time on the planet Earth, and contributing to the
entire planetary scheme. The student will have a clear realization that he/she
plays a definite part, however minuscule, in creating or damaging harmonious
relationships in this magnificent interdependent system! 125
50
To complement the World Core Curriculum, The Robert Muller School
developed a program (GEMUN) that models the United Nations assemblies to further
children’s knowledge about current issues concerning the world and human’s
responsibility towards it. Once a year elementary and middle school students from all
over the world meet in Texas for a Two-day Model United Nations session to discuss
and propose possible solutions for world problems. 126
The Robert Muller School serves as a model and resource center for others who
intend to adopt the curriculum. 127 There are no records of how many schools have
implemented the curriculum, however according to the president of the school, Gloria
Crook, more than 700 groups or individuals around the world have purchased a copy of
the “World Core Curriculum” with stated intention to begin schools or use the
curriculum in existing schools. 128
2.8. Selecting the School Movements
Thus far I have examined seven alternative school movements carrying holistic
pedagogical practices. Some of them are more humanistic oriented, others are more
spiritually centered, while others have elements from both strands in their education.
Depending on the philosophical orientation of each movement, the presence of holistic
elements in their educational approach increases or decreases. Overall, they all have
some aspects of a holistic education.
51
Nonetheless, none of these seven school movements were selected for the
analysis because they did not seem to meet the criteria I applied in this study. As
explained in Chapter 1, I used two criteria to select the school movements: 1) school
movements that most approximate to the philosophical ideas advocated by the holistic
education movement, and 2) large school movements operating at local and
international levels.
The homeschooling movement was excluded right from the start. The reasons
for homeschooling and the educational principles adopted by each family are so diverse
that it is impossible to even determine how close the homeschooling movement is to
holistic education. As Robin Martin says, the “goals of homeschooling vary as widely
as the goals and purpose of schools around the world.” 129 The diversity involved in the
homeschooling movement, therefore, was the decisive factor for not selecting them for
the analysis.
The free/democratic schools and Open Schools are very large school
movements, however, of all school movements, they are the ones that least incorporate
the holistic education principles. These school movements have a very strong
humanistic orientation that values freedom, autonomy, and democracy, however they
lack the spiritual aspects of holistic education. As discussed earlier, the concepts of
spirituality and interconnectedness are central aspects holistic education; they are their
major defining characteristics. Therefore, the free/democratic and Open Schools were
also not included in the selection of school movements.
52
The Krishnamurti Schools are moderately well represented worldwide, and
unlike the two school movements discussed above, they do carry the spiritual element in
their approach to education. Additionally, Krishnamurti Schools place great emphasis
on “freedom of mind” and self-transformation, which is an important aspect of the
holistic education movement, particularly Eastern holistic education. 130 Nonetheless,
the fact that Krishnamurti Schools have a “methodless” approach to education, 131
makes it very difficult to determine whether the other principles of holistic education
are present or not in their pedagogy. This fact alone added to the impossibility of
analyzing a pedagogy that varies from school to school, eliminated Krishnamurti
Schools from the selection of school movements.
The Quaker Schools represent a fairly large movement and like the
Krishnamurti Schools, appear to be very holistically oriented. They tend to integrate
both, the humanistic and the spiritual aspects of holistic education. Spirituality is at the
core of Quaker philosophy while cooperation, participation, openness, equality, and
respect for diversity guide their educational approach. Nonetheless, a close investigation
of Quaker Schools reveals that they are not as holistically centered as they appear. The
first issue that distances them from the ideals of holistic education is their emphasis on
academic preparation. * As discussed earlier, the primary goal of holistic education is
the development of the whole individual; academic preparation is regarded as important
but it is only one of several aspects of intellectual growth. Another factor that positions
*
Although Quaker Schools value the overall development of the individual, there is strong emphasis on academic
preparation. The fact that most Quaker Schools are high schools may be the reason why there is so much emphasis on
academic preparation.
53
Quaker Schools further away from holistic education is the requirement of standardized
tests in their admission process. Standardized tests disregard individual differences
(using the same standard measure for all subjects) and measures only academic
knowledge. Holistic education, on the other hand, values individual differences in all its
aspects and regards all knowledge (artistic, social, kinesthetic, spiritual) as valid and
important. These two contradictory aspects of Quaker Schools excluded them from the
list of selected school movements.
The KPM Approach to Children and The Robert Muller Schools, in comparison
to the five school movements thus far discussed, are the school movements that appear
to be the most aligned with the principles advocated by the holistic education
movement. The learner-centered approach of KPM Schools emphasizes freedom,
autonomy, individuality, and caring relationships. Additionally, they have a very
integrated view of learning, analogous to Clark’s “integrated curriculum,” discussed in
Chapter 1. The Robert Muller Schools, on the other hand, have the principle of
interconnectedness and spirituality at the heart of their curriculum (“The World Core
Curriculum”). Like contemporary holistic educators, they also hold the vision that we
are all divine beings, interconnected and interdependent, and part of an “intricate web of
life,” 132 involved in a purposeful and continuous plan of evolution. Nonetheless,
although these two school movements appear to be very aligned with the principles of
holistic education, they are the smallest movements of all discussed so far. The KPM
Approach to Children has only two schools worldwide and The Robert Muller School
stands on its own (as seen earlier, there is no record or control of schools implementing
54
their curriculum). Having not met the second criterion, these two school movements
were also not included in the analysis of this study.
Concluding, none of the seven school movements so far described meet the two
criteria assigned for selection. The four school movements that have not been described
yet (Waldorf, Montessori, Reggio Emilia, and Neohumanist Schools) were the only
ones that met both criteria. First, all of them are large school movements spread
worldwide. The Waldorf system has about 900 schools and 1500 kindergartens in
operation throughout the world, the Montessori Society has over 1,100 affiliated
schools across several countries, the Neohumanist Schools and Centers around the
world amount to nearly 1050 establishments, and the Reggio Emilia system has close to
50 preschools and centers located in Italy besides several hundreds preschools spread
worldwide that have been inspired by the Reggio approach. In addition to the magnitude
of the outreach of these four school movements, the four of them also hold a very
holistic approach to education. Waldorf and Montessori Schools are often recognized in
the field of holistic education as authentic examples of holistic educational practices. 133
Neohumanist Schools, although relatively unknown in the West, have also been
identified by leaders in the field as an example of a holistic education. 134 These three
school movements have their philosophy embedded within a spiritual paradigm and
they embrace most of the principles advocated by contemporary holistic educators.
Reggio Emilia Schools, however, are usually not associated with the holistic education
movement, mostly because of their social constructivist view of human identity, which
55
tends to deny the spiritual vision held by contemporary holistic educators. * Nonetheless,
a close investigation of Reggio Emilia Schools revealed that although they may not
apparently share the spiritual paradigm of holistic education, they have most of the
principles advocated by the holistic education movement present in their approach to
education. As the criterion was to choose school movements that most approximate to
the overall principles of holistic education, Reggio Emilia Schools were also included.
Having defined and explained the selection of the four school movements
included in this study, I shall now describe in detail each school movement.
2.8.1. Waldorf Schools
The first Waldorf School † , die Freie Waldorfschule (The Free Waldorf School)
was established in 1919 in Stuttgart, Germany, by the Austrian philosopher, Rudolf
Steiner. After World War 1, a German industrialist, Emile Molt, invited Steiner to
create a school for the children of the workers at his Waldorf-Astoria factory.
Concerned about the damage caused by the war, Molt asked Steiner to introduce a new
approach to education, which would attend to the social, economic, and political life of
Europe. 135 Upon Molt’s request and using his spiritual-inspired theory of human
development (Anthroposophy) as a basis, Steiner developed the curriculum for the
*
The sociocultural perspective views human identity as socially and culturally constructed. Although they may
recognize human agency, they usually deny any theory that conceives humans as spiritual entities that unfold from
within.
†
The schools following Steiner’s system of education are either called Steiner or Waldorf schools. For clarity
purposes, in this dissertation, I will only use the term “Waldorf School.”
56
school. * He then recruited and trained the teachers, and for several years supervised the
operation of the school. This first school became the model for the subsequent schools.
Today there are nearly 900 Waldorf Schools in over 58 countries, about 1500 Waldorf
Kindergartens worldwide, and more than 110 teacher-training centers for Waldorf
education spread in 34 countries. 136 † In addition, there are more than 550 residential
and day schools for special children scattered throughout several countries. 137 Most
Waldorf Schools are within the private sector. However, there are some scattered public
schools, mostly in Europe, that have adapted the Waldorf pedagogy for their
educational system.
Most Waldorf Schools are comprehensive schools, from preschool through high
school. All of them are independent of external control (with the exception of the public
schools that adopted their pedagogy) and run as a self-governing administrative unit.
Teachers are in charge of the administration of the school and they usually elect a
faculty member or an outside individual to manage school finances. All decisions
regarding students, faculty, curricula, enrollment, finances, etc., are brought to the
“college of teachers” (or faculty council) for discussion and resolution. 138 Each school
has a physician trained in Anthroposophical medicine (a strand of medicine based on
the spiritual science developed by Steiner), who visits the school periodically and often
attends the faculty council meetings.
*
Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925) founded the Anthroposophical Movement in 1912 when he broke away from the
Theosophical Society. Most of his theories, though, are based on his knowledge of Theosophy, (see Steiner,
Theosophy) a spiritual philosophy founded by Madame Blavatsky, Olcott, and Judge in 1875. The Secret Doctrine
(1888) written by Blavatsky is the most important work within the Theosophical field.
†
The numbers above refer only to schools that are members of the Worldwide Association of Waldorf Schools. Of
894 schools listed worldwide, 639 are located in Europe.
57
Waldorf teachers are usually required to undertake a two-year teacher-training
course prior to teaching. In some countries (Canada), the training program is completed
within one year. Besides thoroughly studying Steiner’s spiritual-inspired theory of
learning and human development, student teachers also undergo intensive artistic
training. Steiner considered it essential that every teacher developed the artist within,
arguing that all subject matter had to be rendered into artistic experience before being
presented to the child. 139 Additionally, teachers are expected to apply themselves to the
study of Anthroposophy (the spiritual science developed by Steiner) throughout their
teaching lives in Waldorf Schools. *
The goal of Waldorf education is to develop creative, intelligent and wellrounded individuals. It is based on the belief that with right guidance and proper
nurturing, the child will naturally unfold at the appropriate stage of development. There
is significant emphasis on the spiritual aspect of human development and teachers are
endowed with the task of bringing the child’s soul-spiritual nature into harmony with its
corporeal nature. 140 The arts are at the center of the Waldorf curriculum and are
regarded as one of the chief mediums for harmonizing the spiritual and physical
dispositions of the child. All lessons are permeated with artistic activities, be it math,
science, or history. Additionally, students take separate classes in drawing, painting,
*
Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925) founded the Anthroposophical Movement in 1912 when he broke away from the
Theosophical Society, a spiritual movement founded by Blavatsky, Olcott, and Judge. Anthroposophy is a human
oriented spiritual philosophy born out of Steiner’s philosophy of freedom, his own spiritual experiences, and his
knowledge of Theosophy.
58
modeling, woodcarving, singing, instrumental playing, and Eurythmy. * 141 They also
participate in several performances throughout their school years.
Waldorf education is divided into three distinct periods: early childhood (0-7),
middle childhood (7-14), and adolescence (14-21). The keynote of early childhood is
“imitation”. Teachers, parents, and caregivers are considered responsible for creating an
environment that is worthy of the child’s unquestioning imitation. They are expected to
provide an environment that offers the child plentiful opportunities for meaningful
imitation and creative play activities. In Waldorf nursery-kindergartens, children play at
cooking, become mothers, fathers, kings, and queens, they sing, paint, and color. They
hear stories, model beeswax, bake bread, make soup, and build houses out of boxes,
sheets, and boards. In short, the nursery-kindergartens are designed to mirror the home
environment and any formal academic learning (reading, writing) is strictly avoided
until the child enters first grade. 142
Middle childhood is characterized by the appreciation of beauty, the discovering
of truth, and the power of the child’s imagination. All teaching is done through pictorial
means to work on the children’s imagination, feelings, and desire to learn. Folk tales,
legends, and mythology are central learning tools during this period to address moral
issues. Middle childhood in the Waldorf system spans grades 1-8. The class teacher
usually takes the class in the first grade and continues with it until the eighth grade. S/he
is responsible for the main subjects (reading, writing, arithmetic, history, geography,
*
Eurythmy is an art of movement originated and developed by Rudolf Steiner himself. It is a system of rhythmic
movement performed to verse or music for artistic or therapeutic purposes.
59
etc.), which are taught in the “main lesson”— a two-hour period at the beginning of
each day. Specialized teachers teach other subjects, such as foreign language, music,
craft, and Eurythmy. The class teacher is in charge of the academic achievement and
progress of each pupil and s/he maintains close contact with parents to discuss the
child’s overall development. 143
The adolescent period is marked by the development of thinking, reasoning, and
the abstract power of the intellect. Steiner did not design a curriculum for this period
(neither for early childhood); he only indicated what was needed for the proper
development of the adolescent during this phase. The secondary school or high school,
therefore, is an adaptation of Steiner’s educational teachings with the regular curriculum
offered in mainstream education. High school students no longer have a class teacher;
they attend different classes taught by specialized teachers. They still have, though, a
tutor who watches over their academic progress and individual development throughout
their high school years. The same group of students, which began in the first grade,
continues as a group through the final year of high school.
Parents have an important role in the community life of Waldorf Schools. They
take part in committees; they are responsible for organizing, planning, and working in
the festivals promoted by the Waldorf system; and they maintain close contact with
teachers. They also often attend lectures sponsored by the school to further their
understanding of Anthroposophy and Waldorf pedagogy.
While internally inclusive, the Waldorf movement is very isolated from all other
educational groups. 144 Teachers are usually so immersed into Steiner’s view of human
60
development that they often seclude themselves from other educational views, and
sometimes even from the ‘outer world’ itself. 145
2.8.2. Montessori Schools
The Montessori method emerged from a “scientific” pedagogical experience
with young children that Maria Montessori led in Rome, Italy. After developing a
methodology for working with children with disabilities, Montessori was given the
opportunity to work with “normal” children ages 4 through 7 in a poor area of Rome. 146
In 1907 she started the first Casa dei Bambini (Children’s House) with 60 children of
working parents from the district of San Lorenzo, in Rome. Grounded upon her
scientific observations of these children’s ability to absorb knowledge from the
environment and their interest in manipulating materials, Montessori created her
innovative educational methodology along with a series of educational materials. Every
activity, equipment, and material Montessori developed, “was based on what she
observed children to do “naturally”, by themselves, unassisted by adults.” * 147
There is no record of how many Montessori Schools are operating around the
world. Basically, any school can call itself Montessori because there is no trademark on
the name. 148 It is estimated that in the United States alone, there are more than 5,000
schools calling themselves Montessori. 149 Additionally, there are hundreds of programs
*
Although Montessori indeed developed her whole method based on her observations, it is important to state that she
also studied in detail the works of Itard and Seguin about educating “defective” children, and the writings of
Rousseau, Pestalozzi, and Froebel. She was deeply influenced by all of them (Ahmadi, “The Montessori Method”).
61
in public and charter schools in the U.S. that have adapted the Montessori method to
their curriculum. 150 There are, however, two major accrediting organizations, one in
Italy (The Association Montessori Internationale – AMI) and one in the U.S. (The
American Montessori Society – AMS), which have some control over the movement
around the world. These two associations promote the application and propagation of
Montessori’s original ideas and provide support to their member schools. There are
over 1,100 member schools in the private and public sector across the world affiliated
with either of the two organizations. 151 In the United States, there is a large number of
public schools affiliated with the American Montessori Society. They receive support
from the Society through annual conferences, on-line bulletin boards, tutoring
symposiums, and visits to schools. 152
All Montessori teachers are required to take a one-year-full-time teachertraining course to teach at the member schools. There are more than 110 accredited
Montessori teacher-training centers operating in 24 countries, out of which 78 are
located in the United States. 153 Adults taking the program are required to study
Montessori’s philosophy in theory and practice, her view of child development, and the
special materials she developed. They are specially trained in the use of Montessori
materials because of the particular aspects of each piece and its functionality in the total
scheme of the Montessori Prepared Environment. The courses prepare adults to work
with children at three levels: Assistants to Infancy (0-3 years old), Casa dei Bambini (36 years old) and Elementary (6-12 years old).
62
The purpose of Montessori Schools is to provide the best possible environment
to develop balanced, independent beings, participant in the adult community. Central to
Montessori philosophy is the deep faith in the child’s spontaneity and potential to
discover, learn, and create knowledge. It is a philosophy based on the belief that the
child must develop naturally and in accordance with its possibilities. 154 Teachers are
thus expected to guard, protect, assist and allow the child to develop spontaneously and
independently. The special materials developed by Montessori and the “prepared
environment” for each group level are the trademark of Montessori Schools and the
foundation for the whole Montessori pedagogy. They are the primary means from
which the child develops its autonomy and independence, two qualities mostly praised
in Montessori Schools.
Montessori education is divided into three broad periods (“planes of
development”) of approximately six-year intervals, each of which is further subdivided
into three-year segments. 155 The first “plane of development” (0-6 years old) is
considered to be the period of transformation, where children explore the world through
their senses and develop their intellects through their interaction with the environment. *
Children in this age group are regarded as “sensorial explorers.” They are grouped into
multiage classrooms (0-3 years old –Infancy Room and 3-6 years old–Casa dei
Bambini) and usually there is one teacher and one assistant responsible for each group.
The “Infancy” room (0-3 years old) provides a nurturing environment where
children are guided in their motor coordination, independence, and language
*
The first plane of development is sub-divided into the unconscious “Absorbent Mind” (0-3) – the environment is
absorbed unconsciously, and the conscious “Absorbent Mind” (3-6) – the environment is absorbed consciously.
63
development. The materials used in this age group include home-based utensils for
cooking, washing, cleaning, as well as puzzles, games, and other objects to aid the
children in their sensorial and motor skill development. 156
The next sub-age group (3-6 years old), ‘Casa dei Bambini’, is the hallmark of
Montessori education; it is the “plane of development” in which Montessori devoted
most of her studies. Children in this group explore independently the especial materials
displayed purposefully around the classroom. They are free to seek their learning
activities but are disciplined to keep on task. Literacy and numeracy are introduced
through the materials when the child indicates readiness to it. Children progress at their
own individual pace and some of them may master reading and writing before the age
of six. There is great emphasis on work over play, following Montessori’s belief that
children at this age are far more interested in “working” than in “playing.” 157
The second “plane of development” (6-12 years old) is viewed as an intermediate
period of uniform growth, where children “develop their powers of abstraction and
imagination, and apply their knowledge to discover and expand the worlds further.” 158
Children at this stage are regarded as “conceptual or reasoning explorers,” going
through intense development of their intellect. They are also grouped in multiage
classrooms (6-9 years old and 9-12 years old) and usually one teacher is responsible for
the group. The curriculum is geared to develop the children’s reasoning abilities, and to
support their thirst for knowledge. 159 The course of study is highly individualized and
students progress at their own pace and academic ability. To introduce new topics, the
teacher presents demonstration lessons to small groups or sometimes to a single student.
64
After the instruction, students disperse to work independently or in small groups. They
are allowed to work on their projects for long periods of time without being interrupted.
Usually all work is done in the classroom and unless students cannot finish their work
in class, there is no homework. In addition to the academic curriculum, children (from
infancy till high school, varying according to each grade level) also participate in
practical life activities, which include: cooking, doing the dishes, cleaning the
classroom, watering the plants, as well as exercises of grace and courtesy towards all
members of the community.
The third plane of development (12-18 years old) is also regarded as a period of
intense transformation, where adolescents transit from childhood to adulthood. It is
considered the age of social development, of critical thinking, and is regarded as a
period of self-concern and self-assessment. 160 Adolescents are regarded as “humanistic
explorers,” “seeking to understand their place in society and their opportunity to
contribute to it.” 161 Montessori has never developed a specific curriculum for this
period. She even asked those who consulted her on this stage not to call the school
Montessori. 162 Nevertheless, despite her request, several Montessori Schools have
extended their curriculum and included the latter grades in their programs. The courses
offered are adapted to accommodate the standard curriculum and Montessori’s
pedagogy. The curriculum is still highly individualized and students progress at their
own pace and academic ability.
Finally, Montessori Schools, contrary to Waldorf Schools, are often very open to
the wider arena of education and to the field of public research in general. There are
65
several studies involving Montessori Schools, especially in the area of child learning
outcomes. 163
2.8.3. Neohumanist Schools
Neohumanist Education is firmly rooted in the principles of Neohumanism, a
philosophy based on spirituality, ecology, and social change introduced by Indian
philosopher Prabhat Rainjan Sarkar in 1982 in his book Liberation of Intellect:
Neohumanism. Drawing on multiple traditions, from eastern (Tantra philosophy) to
western philosophical views, Sarkar sought to blend the “oriental introversial
philosophy (subjective approach) with the “occidental extroversial science (objective
adjustment).” 164 His philosophy is grounded on notions of: Ontology (Oneness of
existence), Epistemology (Absolute and relative knowledge), Axiology (Cardinal
human values), Psychology (Expanded view of the mind), Metaphysics (Cycle of
creation), and Spiritual Practice (Yoga practices). The base of Neohumanism is
universal love, including love for plants, animals, and the inanimate world.
Neohumanism is essentially a set of principles for living through the ethic of universal
love. 165 At its core is the notion that humanity is “one universal society with one
universal ideology and one cosmic goal.” 166
The first Neohumanist educational center was founded in India, in 1963, under
the direction of Sarkar. 167 The movement grew rapidly nationally and abroad and in
1990, Ánanda Marga Gurukula, a university based entirely on Neohumanist principles,
66
was founded in Ánanda Nagar, India. Today there is a network of schools spread in 50
countries, serving students in privileged areas as well as in less affluent regions. There
are around 850 kindergartens and primary schools, 22 secondary schools, and 150
children’s centers (including orphanages) scattered throughout the world. 168 All
Neohumanist Schools, which will be referred from now on as NHE Schools, are within
the private sector and are supervised by Ánanda Marga Gurukula University, the
headquarters of Neohumanist Education. 169 Ánanda Marga offers distance-learning
programs in neo-humanist teacher education, a mandatory program for NHE
teachers. 170 There are currently two programs offered at the institution, the NHE
Introductory Certificate Program (minimum 3 months) and the NHE Early Childhood
Diploma Program (1-2 years). These two degrees focus on personal development (with
strong emphasis on self-analysis), interpersonal competence, ethics, social
responsibility, and universal love. The NHE Introductory Certificate Program offers an
introduction to the fundamental ideas of Neohumanist Education. The NHE Early
Childhood Diploma Program (1-2 years) is designed to provide teachers with a solid
basis of Neohumanist Educational theory and practice for early childhood education.
Teachers applying for the NHE Early Childhood Diploma Program are required to have
a 45-day-spiritual-lifestyle-training prior to the beginning of the course. After
completion of the program, teachers are expected to improve what they have learned
through regular training periods. 171
The aim of NHE Schools is to provide an ideal learning environment where each
child can develop its physical, cognitive, creative, social, emotional, and spiritual
67
potential to its highest possible level. 172 The focus in NHE Schools is on personal
growth (moral development, integrity, self-confidence, self-discipline, cooperation),
human values, self-knowledge, the development of universal love, and service to
humanity. More than any of the other school movements, spirituality is at the center of
NHE Schools, in the sense that it is openly practiced through meditation, contemplation,
visualization, yoga, etc. The ultimate aim of Neohumanist education is self-realization
through self-knowledge and the development of universal love, which they believe is
only possible through spiritual practice. 173 The role of the teacher is of primary
importance in NHE Schools. They are expected to be exemplary role models,
embodying the highest human qualities, and to guide and lead the child into the path of
self-realization and service to humanity. 174
Different from Waldorf and Montessori education, Neohumanist Education does
not have a fixed predetermined methodology (however, they are not “methodless”
either, as the Krishnamurti Schools are). NHE Schools usually adapt their pedagogical
methods according to the customs and needs of each particular culture, particularly in
their approach to teaching and learning. 175 Although NHE Schools may differ in their
teaching methodologies (though the philosophical principles of Neohumanist education
are firmly fixed), they do have some pedagogical activities which are common to all of
them. For example, in all schools, students participate in the “Morning Circle” (which
may be a whole school or an individual class morning circle), an activity designed for
students to explore their inner selves and expand their feelings to universal love. 176
“Morning circle” usually include the following activities: quiet time, yoga, singing,
68
dancing, guided imagery, meditation, story telling, drama, sharing, or listening. Also
common to all schools is the presence of the arts at the center of their curriculum and
the use of stories (fairy-tales, fables, myths), as a means to convey ethical and universal
values and to expand students’ mental and spiritual potential. 177
Similar to Waldorf and Montessori Schools, NHE Schools also define three
main periods in education: early childhood, primary, and secondary school. 178 The
emphasis on early childhood is on maximizing the child’s full potential as well as
establishing a solid foundation for life, based on cooperation, sharing, generosity, and
equality. Nurturing kindness to self, others, and the created world are central themes in
the early childhood program. All activities in this age group are geared to personal and
spiritual growth rather than academic development. Children are usually involved in
activities such as play, dramatization, stories, songs, and art. They might be introduced
to formal literacy and numeracy or not, it depends on the profile of each school.
For the primary and secondary years, the focus is on developing ethical and
universal values with the intent of developing a compassionate and responsible member
of the world community. All academic subjects are directed towards this goal. For
example, in Science, students are introduced to ecological and environmental
instruction, as a way to foster their understanding and appreciation for the
interdependence of all creation. In Social Studies, students examine history through
universal and non-discriminatory lenses (as opposed to biased history), in order to learn
about the course of human history and the interconnectedness and interrelation of all
69
events and their role in it. 179 Finally, in Language Arts, students are introduced to
selected literature that conveys and explores ethical values.
The arts are present in all grades. Teachers are encouraged to integrate the
artistic element into their instruction and to seek foster a sense of the aesthetic in
students. Foreign language is usually introduced in the first grade but the schools in
India have adopted English as the medium of instruction, believing that for the building
of “One Human Society,” it is necessary to have one common language. 180
Finally, parents at NHE schools are usually active participants in the community
life of the school. They are often required to do voluntary work at school. They attend
classes and/or workshops and they maintain close contact with their children’s
teachers. * 181
2.8.4. Reggio Emilia Schools
Unlike Waldorf, Montessori, and NHE Schools, which arose from the ideas of
one particular thinker, the Reggio Emilia System emerged from a joint collaboration of
educators and parents. In face of the destruction caused by World War II, a group of
parents in the small city of Reggio Emilia, in Italy, began working together to build new
schools for their young children. They envisioned a school that would foster their
children’s critical thinking as well as community and democratic values. The ideal and
purpose of these parents inspired the visionary educator, Loris Malaguzzi, to join in this
*
NHE Schools offer workshops for parents to help familiarize them with the philosophy and principles of
Neohumanist Education.
70
collaborative effort. 182 Under his leadership the Reggio system evolved from a parentcooperative movement into a public-city-run system of preschools and infant-toddler
centers. The first municipal preschool was founded in 1963 followed by the launching
of infant-toddler centers in 1970. Today the city supports 23 preschools, 13 infanttoddler centers, and 10 affiliated centers. 183 Similar to Montessori education, the
Reggio approach also emerged from practice and experience. Nonetheless, different
from the former, the latter never evolved into a specific model of education with
defined methods. In fact, Reggio educators have always hesitated in writing down the
principles of their approach, fearing that their descriptions would be taken as
prescriptions. 184 According to them, education is to be viewed as a process of constant
transformation and adaptation to existing situations and never a model to be followed.
Reggio preschools became internationally recognized in 1991, when a board of
experts assigned by Newsweek magazine identified the preschools as the most avantgarde early childhood institution of the world. 185 Their popularity grew rapidly
worldwide and in 1994, leaders of the movement founded the Reggio Children and the
International Association Friends of Reggio Children, in response to the international
demand for exchange opportunities and professional development, as well as to protect
and enrich the educational practice and theory developed in the Reggio infant-toddler
and preschool centers. 186 Since then, more than 13,000 people from 72 countries have
participated in seminars, professional development, and conferences promoted by the
organizations. 187 Today there are contact-people, organizations and universities spread
throughout the world disseminating the Reggio approach to early childhood education
71
through courses, seminars, professional development, and conferences. 188 Countless
public and private preschools and infant-toddler centers around the world have adopted
the Reggio approach to their educational system and the movement continues to grow.
The preschools and infant-toddler centers in Reggio Emilia are administered by
a pedagogical-didactic coordinating team, composed of the Director of Education, the
Director of the infant-toddler centers and preschools, and a group of pedagogistas
(curriculum team leaders), who coordinate and are responsible for the schools and
centers assigned to them (five to six centers). Each center has two teachers per
classroom, one atelierista (an arts teacher who works directly with classroom teachers
in curriculum development and documentation), and the support staff. There is no head
of school; all teachers share equal status. 189 Children are grouped according to their age
(12 children in infant classes, 18 in toddler classes, and 24 in preschool classes) but they
usually stay with the same teachers for three years. 190 School staff meets every week for
approximately two and half hours to discuss the children’s progress. There is strong
sense of community and the environment of all centers is carefully prepared and
aesthetically pleasing.
The Reggio centers have as their primary goal, to cultivate and guide carefully
each child’s intellectual, emotional, and social potential. 191 At the core of their
philosophy is the image of the child as competent, 192 with active and lively minds and
great potential for development, 193 and an inherent desire to learn and grow. 194 The
Reggio approach is a system of education based on relationships, integration, and
interactions. Learning is viewed as emerging from the interactions amongst children,
72
adults, and the environment. 195 Reggio educators draw upon various arts mediums
(speech, movement, drawing, painting, modeling, play, singing, among others) as a
means to explore and develop the child’s ideas, feelings, and thoughts. It is an
educational system that recognizes, values, and encourages the children’s “hundred
languages” of expression. 196
Although there is hesitation to adhering to theories and models, the Reggio
approach, reflects the socio constructivist perspective to early education. Thinkers such
as Piaget, Vygotsky, Bruner, and specially John Dewey were widely read by the
educators at the Reggio centers and their influence is noticeably present. 197 The
curriculum is emergent, involving the active collaboration of children, parents, and
educators. It is based on long-term, open-ended projects, where children can work
through large blocks of uninterrupted, unscheduled time, depending on their will and
motivation. 198 As in Montessori Schools, the school environment plays a special role in
educating the child. It is carefully prepared and materials are purposefully positioned to
attract the child’s curiosity and stimulate its cognitive potentials. Reggio leaders often
refer to the environment as “the third educator.” 199 Teachers work in pairs with the help
of the atelierista to aid children to express their ideas through different media and
symbol systems. They often follow the children’s interest, creating learning
opportunities that engage the children’s attention and motivation. Teachers also serve as
“resources and guides to the children” by carefully observing, listening, facilitating, and
documenting their work. 200 They meet on a daily basis to discuss the children’s
73
progress, to evaluate the project they are engaged in, and to plan activities to further
their learning.
Families play a vital role in Reggio centers. They not only participate in the
community life of the school but they also take part in the pedagogical aspects of their
child’s education. Parents often help with the projects carried on at the centers; they
discuss pedagogical issues with Reggio educators, and they frequently talk to teachers
about their child’s progress. 201
A final point to illustrate is the value placed on research in the Reggio system.
Research is a tool used by all educators in the center on a daily basis. It is regarded as a
permanent learning strategy for both children and adults. It is viewed as a means of
questioning, reflection, and re-evaluation, a medium for discovering new
possibilities. 202
74
CHAPTER 3
THE FOUR SPIRITUAL/HOLISTIC-BASED PRINCIPLES
AND THEIR PEDAGOGICAL APPLICATION
SPIRITUALITY, REVERENCE FOR LIFE/NATURE,
INTERCONNECTEDNESS AND HUMAN WHOLENESS
The principle of spirituality, as discussed in Chapter 1, is a central theme in
holistic education. It is the primary factor that differentiates holistic education from all
other alternative approaches to education. 203 The view of spirituality endorsed by the
holistic movement is grounded in theories and worldviews (perennial philosophy,
indigenous worldview, life philosophy, and ecological worldview) that value oneness,
wholeness, interconnectedness, reverence for nature and life, integration, divinity, and
multiple dimensions of reality. It is a view that regards every life in the universe as
sacred, interconnected to an “intricate web of life,” 204 and part of a purposeful
evolutionary plan. Human beings are regarded as primarily spiritual beings, as
“individual expressions of a transcendent creative source,” 205 who have a purpose and a
meaning “that transcends [their] personal egos and particular physical and cultural
conditioning.” 206
The broad and inclusive spiritual orientation of the holistic education movement
guides its educational philosophy, a philosophy that is concerned with relations,
75
interconnections, and integration. Overall, the eight principles selected in this analysis
express in one way or another various aspects of a spiritual orientation of holistic
education. Even the more humanistic principles (individual uniqueness, caring relations,
freedom/autonomy, and democracy) are rooted in the spiritual paradigm underpinning
the holistic movement. Given the broadness of the principle of spirituality, in the first
section of this chapter, I focus the discussion on the holistic view of spirituality in
relation to human beings and I examine the implications of this view for holistic
education. The other spiritual aspects of the holistic philosophy are addressed in the
subsequent sections when I discuss the other three spiritual/holistic-based principles
(reverence for life/nature, interconnectedness, and human wholeness). From now on,
therefore, the principle of spirituality will be referred to as human spirituality.
The structure of this chapter is organized in the following order. I first examine
the holistic view of the principles. I then discuss the philosophical perspective of each
school movement about the principles and their pedagogical application. Finally, I
examine the correspondence between the school movements’ perception of the
principles and the holistic view and I compare the pedagogical application of the
principles across the school movements. Each principle will be discussed separately. A
comparative analysis between the findings related to the pedagogical application of all
principles in the four school movements is presented in Chapter 5, after all principles
have been discussed.
76
3.1. Human Spirituality
As stated above, contemporary holistic educators regard humans as primarily
spiritual beings, as manifestations of a divine source. Each individual is recognized as a
complex and unique being, influenced by subjective and objective realities. Wilber’s
integral theory of consciousness is an example of how human spirituality is interpreted
in the field of holistic education. 207 Wilber draws on Plotinus and Aurobindo’s theory
of the “Great Chain of Being” to suggest that the inner self “is composed of a spectrum
of consciousness,” which ranges from subconscious to self-conscious to
superconscious; from pre-personal to personal to transpersonal; from instinctual to
mental to spiritual; or from instinct to ego to God. 208 Additionally, Wilber argues that
human consciousness operates at four different levels or dimensions: subjective
(individual/interior or intentional), objective (individual/exterior or behavioral),
intersubjective (collective/interior or cultural), and interobjective (collective/exterior or
social). In Wilber’s theory,
…consciousness is not located merely in the physical brain, nor in the physical
organism, nor in the ecological system, nor in the cultural context, nor does it
emerge from any of those domains. Rather, it is anchored in, and distributed
across, all of those domains with all of their available levels. 209
77
In sum, in Wilber’s theory, humans are viewed as manifestations of a complex
interrelation of consciousness operating at different levels. Human individuality is not a
construct of the sociocultural environment neither a pure manifestation of a divine
source. Rather, it is an expression of both, manifested in unique ways.
While contemporary holistic educators recognize the complexity of human
individuality, as argued by Wilber, they still give primacy to the idea of the child as
“creatively unfolding from within.” 210 At the heart of holistic education is the image of
the child as a spiritual being, “seeking expression in the form of a human body.” 211 For
contemporary holistic educators, the child is born with inherent potentials, which
naturally unfold at the right stages of development. In their view, the role of education
is to allow the child’s “self-unfolding” to take place gradually and naturally. 212 More
specifically, the function of education is to nourish, guide, and bring forth that which is
already potentially present within each child.
This vision of education advocated by contemporary holistic educators echoes
the educational views of various Western thinkers, who are usually referred to in the
movement of holistic education, particularly those who have been identified as the
pioneers of holistic education (Plato, Rousseau, Pestalozzi, Froebel). 213 Plato, for
instance, also viewed humans as spiritual entities connected with the universal principle
of life. 214 He identified the universal and human realities as composed of two ultimate
entities, spirit/soul and form/body. 215 He believed the soul or mind was free and
universal and lived in the transcendent and abstract world of ideas, disentangled from
the world of senses. 216 The mind, Plato argued, contained all knowledge and wisdom
78
and only needed the right guidance to reveal itself. The role of education, in Plato’s
view, was just a matter of drawing out this inherent knowledge. 217
In Rousseau’s educational philosophy we also find this emphasis in bringing
forth humanity’s inherent potential (although Rousseau never discussed this matter in
spiritual terms). To begin with, Rousseau had deep faith in the goodness of “man.” 218
He believed the child was born morally good. He maintained that human virtue would
naturally flourish as long as the child’s heart was secured from vice and error, prejudice
and opinions, habits and judgments. 219 Additionally, Rousseau had a profound trust on
the child’s capability to learn, create, and act. For him, proper nurturing and guidance
was all the child needed to unfold its intrinsic potentials. In short, for Rousseau, if the
child was guarded from destructive conditioning and correctly guided and nourished,
her inherent potentials would naturally unfold.
This stress on allowing the natural unfolding of the child’s innate potential is
also present in the education of Froebel and Pestalozzi. Froebel viewed humans as
reflections of divine will, endowed with blissful qualities and tendencies. 220 He saw
education as a means to bring forth and lift into consciousness one’s inner divinity. In
his view, the purpose of education was to encourage and guide the individual as a
conscious, thinking and perceiving being in such a way that s/he would become the pure
and perfect image of his/her divine inner self. Pestalozzi, not as devotional as Froebel,
would not define the child in such religious language. Instead, he referred to the inner
self of the child as the child’s “inner powers.” 221 For Pestalozzi, the role of the educator
was to ensure that no outer influence would disturb the child’s natural course of
79
development. Education, in his view, ought to always start with the child and be based
on an act of love. Without love, he argued, the child’s “inner powers” would never
naturally unfold.
The same emphasis on nurturing and guiding the self- expression of the child’s
inherent potential is also found in the works of several other educators (William
Channing, Ralph Emerson, Bronson Alcott, Francis Parker, Leo Tolstoy, Maria
Montessori, Rudolf Steiner), who are commonly associated with the evolution of the
holistic education movement. 222
Among Eastern holistic educators, there is also attention to nourishing the
child’s intrinsic essence; however, there is not as much reference to the child’s “selfunfolding,” as there is in Western holistic thinking. The focus in Eastern holistic
education is on spiritual realization, on the transformation of the total being as a means
to realize the “higher self”, the “formless self.” 223
Concluding, holistic educators in general, regard humans as spiritual beings
endowed with inherent knowledge and capabilities. Usually they advocate for an
education that values the child’s inner potential, nourishes its possibilities of
development (to the point of spiritual realization), and allows its “self-unfolding” to
naturally take place. Hence, rather than seeing the individual as an empty vessel ready
to be filled and shaped (Locke), 224 which underlines the foundation of mainstream
education, 225 holistic educators view each child as a unique being already endowed with
its own divine essence, which only needs proper guidance and nourishment in order to
come into manifestation.
80
3.1.1. The Principle of Human Spirituality in the Four School Systems
Of the four school systems, Reggio is the only one that does not share the
holistic view of human spirituality. Reggio’s educational philosophy is grounded on
sociocultural perspectives, 226 which views the self as socially and culturally constructed
instead of spiritually unfolding from within. Although Reggio educators acknowledge
and recognize the individuality and subjectivity of each child, they still view the
individual as a “construction (self-constructed and socially constructed)… defined
within a specific context and culture.” 227 As the Reggio approach is not grounded on the
principle of human spirituality, Reggio Schools are not discussed in the first part of this
section.
Contrary to the Reggio system, the other three school systems, Waldorf,
Montessori, and NHE have their educational philosophy deeply rooted within a spiritual
paradigm. Even Montessori Schools, which do not appear as particularly spiritually
oriented, nonetheless embody a deep spiritual foundation. These three school systems
are grounded in the belief that humans are essentially spiritual and physical
manifestations of a divine source. In Waldorf and Montessori Schools, the idea that the
child is a “spiritual embryo,” who unfolds its faculties through a gradual process of
incarnation, is at the center of their philosophy. 228 Both school systems have their entire
pedagogy built upon this assumption. In NHE Schools, however, the emphasis is more
81
on spiritual realization (such as the Eastern holistic view) than on the unfolding process
of incarnation. Following the Eastern tradition, NHE Schools regard humans as divine
expressions of an “Infinite Universal Consciousness.” 229 Each individual is viewed as a
diversified unique manifestation of the same Cosmic Mind, who, under adequate
spiritual guidance and practice, can come to reveal Its knowledge and wisdom. 230
Although Montessori, Waldorf, and NHE Schools embrace fully the principle of
human spirituality (with slight variations in their conceptualization of it), they differ in
their approach to implementing this concept. In the following sections, I examine how
the principle of human spirituality is manifested in each of these three school systems
and what activities they offer that are explicitly related to spiritual development.
3.1.1.1. Waldorf Schools
Waldorf Schools usually stand out for their strong spiritual values. As explained
in Chapter 2, the Waldorf pedagogy was built upon Steiner’s spiritual-inspired theory of
human development (Anthroposophy). Steiner conceived the individual as a threefold
being of body, soul, and spirit. The body (including the physical, etheric, and astral
body, and the ego), * he claimed, is the entity through which one perceives the world
and belongs to it. 231 It functions as the basis for the soul’s life. The soul is the means
through which one constructs for oneself, one’s own world. It is the vehicle between the
body and the spirit, operating therefore, as the basis for the spiritual life. The spirit is
*
Steiner conceived human individuality as composed of four bodies: the physical body, the etheric body, the astral
body, and the ego.
82
the highest entity through which a world, exalted above both the others, reveals itself to
the individual.
Steiner interpreted the growth and development of the child as a process of
gradual incarnation, “as the descent of a spiritual entity into a material sheath fitted for
existence in a world of matter.” 232 In his theory, the process of spiritual incarnation
occurs in four broad stages: the moment of birth, from 0-7, 7-14, and 14-21. 233 For each
of these stages, Steiner associated the unfolding of one of the bodies that integrate the
individual (0 = physical body; 0-7 = etheric body; 7-14 = astral body; 14-21 = ego).
According to him, with the exception of the physical body, which is fully born with the
infant, the other three bodies unfold gradually at different periods of the child’s
development, finding fuller expression at the end of each cycle. Additionally, he
claimed that in each of these seven-year periods there is the predominance of one aspect
of human character. Namely, during the first septennium (0-7), he argued, willing is the
most dominant aspect; during the second period (7-14), feeling is the prevailing
characteristic; and in the third septennium (14-21), thinking dominates the life of the
individual.
Based on his spiritual view of human incarnation added to his conception of
cosmic evolution, Steiner developed the Waldorf curriculum. He designed the entire
program as a means to support the gradual unfolding of the child’s spiritual nature. He
gave specific guidelines for each year of instruction, particularly for the middle
childhood (7-14) program. Broadly speaking, in Waldorf education, early childhood (07) focuses on strengthening the child’s will and its vital (etheric) body; all activities are
83
designed with that purpose in mind. In middle childhood, the emphasis is on working
with the feeling aspect (predominant in this stage) of human character. Instruction is
expected to draw on imagination, beauty, and truth in order to reach the students’
feelings and engage them in the learning activity. Finally, in the last septennium, the
curriculum is planned to foster the adolescent’s reasoning and analytic thinking. 234
3.1.1.2. Montessori Schools
Unlike Waldorf Schools, Montessori Schools do not appear to be particularly
spiritual. Montessori Schools are more recognized by the structure of their methods than
by the spiritual orientation that guided their founder. 235 The emphasis appears to be
more on emotional, physical, and intellectual development than on spiritual
development. Nonetheless, despite the lack of apparent evidence of a spiritual
orientation in the Montessori Schools, Montessori education is unquestionably
spiritually grounded. 236 As discussed to earlier, the education conceived by Montessori
was built upon the belief that the child is a spiritual “embryo”, whose faculties unfold
through a gradual process of incarnation, from birth to the end of puberty. 237 Similar to
Steiner (though different in length period), Montessori also interpreted the unfolding of
the child’s spiritual nature as occurring into three periods, or rather, three “planes of
development” of approximately six-year intervals, each of which further subdivided
into three-year segments. 238 Additionally, Montessori identified certain periods of the
child’s development as most favorable to creating and refining particular human
84
characteristics. She called these special periods “sensitive periods” describing them as
stages of intense interest and activity toward a particular sensibility, such as language
acquisition, motor skills development, etc. Different from Steiner’s theory,
Montessori’s “planes of development” emerged from her intense observation of the
natural spiritual unfolding of the child.
Generally speaking, in the first “plane of development”, where children are
regarded as “sensorial explorers”, the emphasis is on nurturing the child’s senses. The
school environment is carefully prepared with adequate materials to aid the children in
their sensorial, motor, and intellectual skill development. 239 In the second “plane of
development,” where children are viewed as “conceptual or reasoning explorers,” the
focus is on developing their powers of abstraction, imagination, and reasoning.
Montessori elementary programs often begin the school year with the telling of the
“Great Lessons” (a set five stories about the Universe and human civilization written by
Maria Montessori). These “Great Lessons” present a holistic vision of knowledge,
drawing on material from the various disciplines. They are meant to spur the
imagination of elementary students, thus initiating exploration into the curriculum. In
the last “plane of development,” where adolescents are regarded as “humanistic
explorers,” the aim is to foster their critical thinking and guide them in their search to
understand themselves and their place in the world. During this period, students are
encouraged to pursue long-term group projects of their interest where they can explore
the outside world and put into practice the practical life skills they have acquired
through their Montessori education.
85
Unlike Steiner, Montessori did not outline a specific curriculum for each year of
the child’s development. Although she developed a pedagogical method for attending to
each plane of development (with the exception of the last one, see chapter 2), she did
not determine the curriculum content for each year, as Steiner did. Her “planes of
development” are used as a guideline for observing the children’s growth and serving
them to succeed in their progress rather than for teaching a determined curriculum. The
central idea in Montessori education is to let the child grow from inside out at its own
natural pace; to permit its soul to freely create its own individual instrument. 240 The
purpose is to protect as well as allow the child’s spiritual energy, which is seeking to
express itself, to naturally manifest at its own time.
3.1.1.3. NHE Schools
Of the three school systems discussed in this chapter, NHE Schools are
unquestionably the most open and outspoken about spiritual issues. While Waldorf and
Montessori Schools, have human spirituality embedded in the context of their
curriculum (specially the Montessori Schools), NHE Schools, have human spirituality
explicitly articulated in their curricula. From a very early age children are introduced to
the spiritual vision that they are more than their bodies and minds, that they are first and
foremost eternal and precious beings, part of a divine creation, of an “Infinite Universal
Consciousness.” 241 Additionally, students in NHE Schools participate in various
spiritual activities (meditation, yoga, visualizations, dancing, singing, drama)
86
specifically geared to develop spiritual awareness throughout their education. As stated
earlier, the ultimate aim of Neohumanist education is self-realization through selfknowledge and development of universal love, which they believe is only possible
through spiritual practice. 242 Hence the reason for the insistence of NHE Schools in
including spiritual activities in their curriculum.
Besides the daily practice of spiritual exercises as a means to foster human
spirituality, NHE Schools also place great emphasis on the right guidance of the child’s
personal nature. They position the development of morality, integrity, cooperation, selfknowledge and universal love as essential requirements for spiritual development. From
early childhood till latter grades, NHE educators strive to develop these values in the
heart and mind of each of their students.
In regards to the unfolding of the child’s nature, Neohumanist education does
not follow specific age periods of development. Instead, they use the term “layers of
mind” to explain the child’s spiritual unfolding. 243 They describe the nature of mind as
a system of five levels. Each level is subtler than the other and in each “there is an
increasing awareness and depth to inner knowledge.” 244 The five layers are: sensorial
(perceives and responds to the world through sensory and motor organs); intellectual
(analyses and interprets the world); creative (expands its view of the world); intuitive
(has the qualities of discrimination) and spiritual (has the sense of oneness). According
to Neohumanist educators, the teacher must know in depth each layer of mind and be
constantly attentive to the developmental stages of each child in order to guide its
87
education accordingly. The aim is to carry students to the highest levels, yet never
disregarding the lowest ones.
3.1.2. Pedagogical Features that Foster Human Spirituality
In addition to the pedagogical approaches described in the preceding section, the
three school systems discussed in this chapter also draw on specific practices to nurture
human spirituality. The activities that most stand out as particularly oriented to spiritual
development are: the development of morality, the arts, and the exercise of meditation
and/or religion.
3.1.2.1. Development of Morality
Waldorf and NHE Schools are the two institutions that most emphasize the
development of morality. Both Steiner 245 and Sarkar 246 considered the acquisition of
moral values as an essential step for spiritual growth. * In Waldorf Schools, the reading
of stories (fairy-tales, myths, fables, or legends) and the teacher’s exemplar behavior are
the two main vehicles employed to transmit ethical values to children. 247 Waldorf
teachers are required to act as role models, as moral leaders. They are supposed to
carefully watch what they think and do (as Steiner claimed that children could perceive
*
Most religions also regard moral development as a means to spiritual realization. For Buddhism, for example, the
development of morality is the primary requisite into the path of enlightenment (Watson, The Lotus Sutra). This same
emphasis on the development of morality or virtue is found in Plato (The Republic) and Aristotle’s (Nicomachean
Ethics) works. Both philosophers placed ethics and moral development at the center of their philosophy of education.
88
morality beneath action and thought) and to strive to display an ideal behavior worth of
imitation. 248 In NHE Schools, there is similar emphasis on the role of the teacher as an
exemplary model of ethical principles. NHE teachers are expected to lead a life inspired
by moral values and to pass them on to their students in their daily interaction with
them. 249 In the academic curriculum, literature is one of the primary means by which
morality is brought on to children. Unlike Waldorf Schools, the literature used in NHE
Schools is not limited to fairy-tales, myths, fables, or legends; it also includes modern
stories, biographical narratives, or any literature rich in ethical values. Finally, in NHE
Schools, morality is also addressed through drama, singing, or dancing, and most often
is a theme for contemplation in meditation. In short, morality is at the center of the
Neohumanist curriculum in all grade levels.
3.1.2.2. The Arts
The practice of the arts is also central to both Waldorf and NHE Schools. Steiner
as well as Sarkar considered the arts as an essential element to place the individual in
rapport with his/her inner self. Steiner even more than Sarkar, positioned the arts as a
connector between the spiritual and the earthly world. * 250 He believed that through the
arts the individual could connect with his/her own spiritual source as well as with the
spiritual realm itself. In Waldorf Schools, the entire curriculum is permeated with the
*
Several other philosophers have also linked arts with the spiritual world. Some regarded art as a representation of
the supreme (Plato, Plotinus), others as a path of return to God (Eckhart), as a form of contemplation (Schopenhauer),
as the ultimate expression of nature (Goethe), as belonging to the realm of ideal (Hegel), or as the road to beauty and
to freedom (Schiller). (Steiner, The Arts and their Mission; Schiller, On the Aesthetic Education of Man).
89
artistic element. Children experience the arts through painting, drawing, modeling,
music, singing, playing instruments, drama, etc. All the arts activities are carefully
guided according to Steiner’s instructions for each grade level. In addition to these
regular artistic activities, students in Waldorf Schools also practice Eurythmy, an art
form especially developed by Steiner. 251 Eurythmy is a movement art performed to
verse or music, in which each vowel and each consonant has a spiritual significance and
a specific movement attached to it.
In NHE Schools, the practice of arts is also a core element in their curriculum,
especially in the earlier grades. The arts are viewed as a means to help children delve
into their subtle minds and make them more sensitive to the wonders of nature and the
mysteries of the created world. 252 It is considered as an avenue to discover beauty and
to develop a sense of subtle aesthetics. Finally, the arts are regarded as a powerful
instrument to enable the youth to “look upon everything of the world in a spiritual
sense, to realize in everything the blissful, transcendental entity”. 253 Like in Waldorf
Schools, children in NHE Schools also participate in a variety of artistic activities
(painting, drawing, singing, dancing, drama, etc). However, unlike the former, the
activities are spontaneously generated in class instead of being based on a specific
structured model.
In Reggio Schools, the arts are also at the center of their curriculum. It is present
in all learning activities and regarded as the primary means of expression for young
children. However, in Reggio Schools, the arts are viewed as a language of expression
and a medium for learning and not a vehicle to develop subtlety or to connect the child
90
with its spiritual self. 254 Nonetheless, although Reggio Schools may not consider the
arts in the same manner as the other two school systems, children may be developing
subtlety or connecting with their inner selves if Sarkar, Steiner, and others’ (Goethe,
Schiller) argument is taken into consideration. 255 Hence, although Reggio Schools
apparently are not spiritually oriented, they offer a pedagogical practice that indirectly
promotes this principle.
As for Montessori Schools, a similar argument can be drawn. They too, do not
appear to interpret the arts in the way NHE and Waldorf Schools do but they also offer
artistic activities in their schools. However, in Montessori Schools, the arts are not
integrated throughout their curriculum as the other three systems are. They are offered
as a separate subject for the elementary and upper grades (the early childhood program
normally does not have the arts included). Elementary students usually have art classes
once a day, whereas upper grade students have art classes once a week.
3.1.2.3. Mediation and/or Religion
Waldorf, Montessori, and NHE Schools use meditation or religious lessons as a
vehicle to further human spirituality. In NHE Schools, an Eastern-based school system,
meditation is the regular practice. Most eastern traditions claim that meditation is an
indispensable practice for spiritual development and the road to enlightenment. 256 In
NHE Schools, children meditate on a regular basis. Through meditation (as well as
contemplation, yoga, and visualization) they are invited to connect with their deepest
91
self, to further their sense of belonging to the universe, and to develop their love for all
creation. 257 In other words, they are encouraged to maintain an inner connection with
the spiritual world.
In Montessori Schools, a version of meditation is included in their daily
activities, termed the moment of “silence.” Montessori believed that silence was a
crucial activity for bringing humans in connection with their soul. 258 Hence, in
Montessori Schools, children are taught to sit or lay still and listen to silence. They are
trained to practice quietness and to appreciate the value of stillness. Nonetheless,
despite Montessori’s stress on the spiritual aspect of this activity, its emphasis appears
to be more on appreciating quietness than on fostering spiritual connection. 259
In Waldorf Schools, religious lessons are the common spiritual practice; these
are usually offered as an optional activity. Depending on the magnitude and the
diversity of the school population, the range of choices (Catholicism, Protestantism,
Judaism, etc.) for religious lessons may vary. Additionally, every Waldorf School offers
“free” religious education, based on Steiner’s nondenominational view of Christianity.
The lessons usually include: acknowledging the divine expressed in nature (grades 1-4);
understanding the historical side of religion through love (grades 5-8); reflecting on
Christ’s endeavors (grades 9-10); and studying comparative religion along with
concepts of cause and effects (grades 11-12). 260 These lessons are taught by one of the
regular Waldorf teachers carefully selected by the college of teachers.
92
In addition to religious lessons, Waldorf Schools also draw on “rituals,” which
include morning verse, singing, rhythmic movements, lighting candles, etc. These
rituals are used as a means to bring the child close to its spiritual nature.
In Montessori Schools, religious lessons are also optional and most often follow
the Catholic faith. However, not all Montessori Schools offer religious education.
3.1.3. Evaluative Summary
Waldorf, Montessori, and NHE Schools share the holistic view that humans are
spiritual beings, manifestations of a divine source, endowed with inherent knowledge
and potentialities. Like most holistic educators, the three school systems also claim that
education must nourish and guide the child’s inherent possibilities of development and
allow its self-unfolding to naturally take place. Montessori and Waldorf Schools are
more aligned with the Western holistic view of education (emphasis on the selfunfolding). Through their theories of development, each school system, in its particular
way, seeks to attend the natural unfolding of the child’s spiritual nature. NHE Schools,
on the other hand, follow the Eastern holistic perspective (emphasis on spiritual
realization). Their focus is on orienting the child’s spiritual development through
spiritual practices (meditation, visualization), with the ultimate aim of realizing the
“higher Self.” 261 In short, the three school systems are aligned philosophically either
with the Eastern or the Western holistic view about education and they all share the
holistic view of human spirituality (with slight variations about its conceptualization).
93
In regards to the pedagogical application of this principle, table 3.1 summarizes
the findings across the four school systems. * As the table indicates NHE and Waldorf
Schools appear to be the most committed to applying pedagogically the principle of
human spirituality. Perhaps NHE Schools apply this principle more openly (human
spirituality is a subject openly discussed with children from a very early age in NHE
Schools, while in Waldorf Schools, only adults discuss this matter) † and intensively
(through the daily practice of meditation) than Waldorf Schools but on the whole the
two school systems appear to give primacy to the spiritual development of the child.
The arts, moral education, spiritual practices, religious education, and their theories of
development (which includes the Neohumanist conception of the “five layers of mind”)
are the main pedagogical means by which these two school systems foster human
spirituality in their schools.
*
As explained in Chapter 1, I assigned the level for each pedagogical feature according to the following
rationale:
Very high = the pedagogical feature is extensively applied (e.g. development of morality is a constant
theme in the NHE and Waldorf curriculum).
High = the pedagogical feature is not applied as extensively as it is applied in the other school system(s)
(e.g. in Waldorf Schools, religion/rituals are not practiced as extensively as meditation is practiced in NHE Schools)
or the pedagogical feature is not directly applied to foster that particular principle (e.g. Reggio Schools have the arts
at the center of their curriculum, however, the arts are not used as a means to connect the child with its spiritual
nature. In Waldorf Schools, for example, the arts are used as a means to nurture the child’s contact with its inner self
(among other usages). Steiner has given several guidelines to introduce children into artistic experiences with that
vision in mind. Hence, in regards to the principle of human spirituality, the arts are applied more extensively in
Waldorf Schools than Reggio Schools).
Moderate = the pedagogical feature is applied to a lower extent in comparison to other school systems or it
may not be constant across the schools of a school system (e.g. religious lessons are not offered in all Montessori
Schools).
Low = the pedagogical feature is occasionally applied (e.g. the arts in Montessori Schools are offered as a
separate subject daily or weekly (depending on the age group), in contrast to Waldorf, NHE, and Reggio Schools,
where art is at the center of the curriculum).
N/P = the pedagogical feature is not present
†
Although Steiner’s spiritual theories are openly discussed among teachers and parents, children go through their
twelve years of school almost practically unaware of Steiner’s Anthroposophical theories.
94
Pedagogical Features
Waldorf
Schools
Montessori
Schools
NHE Schools
Reggio Schools
Developmental theories
Development of morality
The arts
Meditation and/or religion
Very high
Very high
Very high
High
Very high
N/P
Low
Moderate
Very high
Very high
Very high
Very high
N/P
N/P
High
N/P
Table 3.1 Summary of the pedagogical application of human spirituality in the four
school systems
In Montessori Schools, this principle is applied to a much lesser extent than the
other two systems. Apart from their theory of development, which is aimed at the
natural/spiritual unfolding of the child, Montessori Schools do not draw on additional
pedagogical features to nurture human spirituality as much as NHE and Waldorf
Schools. Although they offer artistic activities and the practice of silence (religious
education is not offered in all Montessori Schools), which are activities that promote
human connection with the spiritual realm, they do not offer them as extensively as the
other two school systems. Artistic activities, for example, are limited to elementary and
upper grades and offered as a separate subject once a day (elementary grades) or once a
week (upper grades), and the practice of silence is used more as means to appreciate
quietness than to foster spiritual connection. Hence, even though Montessori’s
educational philosophy is very aligned with the holistic view of human spirituality, the
pedagogical practices of Montessori Schools do not reflect this vision as much as the
other school systems do.
Finally, in Reggio Schools, the principle of human spirituality is more indirectly
addressed than explicitly applied. Although Reggio Schools do not share the spiritual
95
vision advocated by contemporary holistic educators (at least explicitly), they indirectly
promote children’s connection with the subtle (spiritual) world through the medium of
the arts.
3.2. Reverence for Life/Nature
In holistic education, there is special attention to how humans relate to the
natural world. 262 Rather than trying to dominate or control it, contemporary holistic
educators seek to understand the natural world through a sense of reverence. In their
view, every life (animal, vegetable, human) is sacred, it has a purpose, it is part of the
same web of creation, and hence, deserves respect and admiration. 263 Influenced by the
indigenous and ecological worldviews and the philosophy of life, 264 contemporary
holistic educators advocate a worldview that fosters a sense of reverence for life, the
Earth, and the Universe, 265 respects the natural world and its inhabitants, 266
acknowledges the sacredness and purposefulness of life, 267 and recognizes the
interdependence of our ecosystem. 268
In holistic education, the emphasis is on developing ecological awareness,
establishing Earth connections, and nurturing a feeling of reverence for the natural
world. John Miller, for instance, proposes a curriculum to restore the students’ relation
to the Earth and the created world. 269 He argues that humans have lost the connection
they used to have with the natural world and that education needs to reestablish this lost
connection. Clark, on the other hand, advocates for an education that challenges “the
96
way people think about their relationship to” the natural world (italics in original). 270
He proposes an environmental education that investigates our relationship with nature
as well as “the relationships that exist among everything that is part of our planetary
ecological system” (italics in original). 271 Finally, Nava suggests an “eco-education”
aimed at developing ecological awareness and educating for a sustainable culture. 272
More than just advocating for a regular scientific environmental education, which he
argues, is usually “limited to transmitting technical information about the
environment,” 273 Nava calls for an education that fosters children’s respect, love, and
reverence for the natural world, that develops an awareness of the interdependence of
nature, and that prepares them to live in a sustainable society, “one that satisfy its needs
without diminishing the [resources] for future generations.” 274
Holistic education then, aims to reawaken young minds to the wonders and
sacredness of the natural world and the universe, to teach them about the relationships
and interdependences of our planetary ecosystem, to develop in them a feeling of
reverence for all forms of life, and to form responsible young adults who understand,
respect and care for the environment in which they live.
3.2.1. The Principle of Reverence for Life/Nature in the Four School Systems
The four school systems have the principle of reverence for life/nature in their
approach to education. Among them, NHE Schools are the one that gives most primacy
to this principle. Neohumanist educators recognize all parts of the Universe, from the
97
tiniest atom to the largest star, as sacred and divine. They regard the natural world as
important as humans and argue that all animals, plants, trees, birds, etc. deserve the
same level of respect and reverence as given to humans. 275 Similar to contemporary
holistic educators, Sarkar, the founder of the movement, also claimed that humans are
deeply connected with all life in the universe and part of the same web of creation.276 In
NHE Schools, the emphasis is on developing ecological awareness of our relationship
with the universe, expanding children’s love of the little creatures, the animals, the
plants, the planet, the stars, and so forth, and fostering an attitude of respect and care for
the living bio-community. 277
Waldorf Schools also give great prominence to this principle, although not as
intensely as NHE Schools. Like Sarkar and the contemporary holistic educators, Steiner
too, regarded all forms of life as sacred and intrinsically interconnected. 278 Nonetheless,
rather than emphasizing awareness of our interconnection with universal life, Steiner
focused on cultivating the innate relationship children have with nature. Based on his
spiritual sense of the cosmic world and the Earth rhythmic processes, * Steiner
advocated for an education that would nurture humans’ inherent connection with Earth
and its “life rhythms.” 279 Hence, in Waldorf Schools, primacy is given to nurturing
children’s relation with nature and its processes, fostering a feeling of respect and
reverence for all life on Earth, and developing a sense of gratitude for nature’s gift. 280
*
Steiner’s spiritual knowledge of cosmic energies and the Earth rhythms led him to develop the biodynamic
agriculture, which is a form of farming based fundamentally on the interrelationship between planetary and cosmic
energies. Most Steiner Colleges offer courses in biodynamic farming. Today there are many farms spread throughout
the world following this agricultural orientation.
98
In Montessori Schools, reverence for life/nature is also an important aspect of
their education. Montessori developed a special curriculum for the junior grades (6-12
years old), the “cosmic curriculum,” with the intention to awaken the children’s minds
to the wonders of life, the interconnectedness of the Universe, and the thread of cosmic
evolution. Montessori’s view about the cosmic and the natural world was very similar to
that of Steiner, Sarkar, and contemporary holistic educators. Montessori too, considered
all life in the Universe as divine, interconnected, and part of the same process of cosmic
evolution. 281 In Montessori Schools, the focus is on fostering respect and caring for the
natural world, and promoting awareness of the interdependence mid humans, the Earth,
and the Cosmos.
In Reggio Schools, the principle of reverence for life/nature is also present in
their educational approach, even though they do not share the spiritual view often
associated with this principle. Reggio educators do not refer to the natural world as
sacred neither do they discuss the interdependence of the Earth and the Universe; yet,
they still foster the children’s connection with nature. They encourage direct contact
with the natural life at the school and they support research projects that further
understanding of the natural world.
3.2.2. Pedagogical Features that Fosters Reverence for Life/Nature
The four school systems have several pedagogical features that foster reverence
for the natural world. Four main themes integrate the pedagogical features identified
99
across the school systems that promote this principle: Earth connection, environmental
education, cosmic awareness, and the arts.
3.2.2.1. Earth Connection
The four school systems promote, in one way or another, the child’s connection
with life on Earth. Direct contact with nature is the most common pedagogical approach
across the four systems to foster this connection with the natural world. Although they
might differ in their pedagogical intention with this practice and in the degree to which
it is applied, they all encourage children to experience nature on a regular basis.
In Montessori and NHE Schools, the emphasis is more on caring for the
environment whereas in Reggio and particularly Waldorf Schools, the stress is on being
in the environment (emphasis added). For example, in Montessori Schools, young
children are required to water the plants in the classroom, feed the animals, and work in
the vegetable garden. Montessori believed that children should be encouraged to
appreciate the natural development of plants and realize that animals (that is domestic
animals) need our care to survive. 282 In addition to looking after the natural
environment, students (elementary and middle school) in Montessori Schools often go
on trips to wild nature.
In NHE Schools, there is also great emphasis on looking after the environment.
Children of all ages are involved in planting (usually a vegetable garden), watering the
seeds, looking after the animals in their schools, recycling waste, etc. 283
100
In Reggio Schools, children are more often in nature than looking after the
natural world. They are constantly playing out in the garden and exploring nature’s
gifts. 284 Inside the building, there are enough plants for them to observe, explore, and
look after. There is no requirement, however, to take care of the plants, as in Montessori
or NHE Schools. A child that waters a plant does that from its own will rather than from
a sense of duty.
In Waldorf Schools, the emphasis is primarily on being in the nature. Most
Waldorf Schools are surrounded by a yard with trees and plants. Young children spend
considerable time playing outdoors, climbing tress, digging holes, talking to the little
creatures, and so forth. They often bring to their classrooms, twigs, autumn leaves,
rocks, or other earth elements they find in the nature. Older children usually work in the
vegetable garden and often go on trips to wild nature. 285
Besides fostering direct contact with nature, Waldorf and NHE Schools also
draw on other pedagogical practices to nurture the child’s connection with life on Earth.
In NHE Schools, the most frequent activity is meditation/visualization. Through the
practice of meditation, students are led to contemplate about the Earth and the Universe;
they are guided to visualize their connection with the created world, and to feel at one
with the trees, the birds, and the Earth. 286 NHE educators believe that acquiring this
feeling of connection, of oneness is a fundamental step in developing love, respect, and
admiration for all living creatures.
Waldorf Schools offer a series of activities to nourish the child’s connection
with the natural world. The most common and regular activities include: listening to
101
stories, reciting verses, and singing songs about the elements and the life on Earth as
well as drawing, painting, and modeling nature themes. 287 Additionally, Waldorf
Schools give special attention to the celebration of the seasons of the year. Throughout
the year, children participate in the celebration of each season through specific stories,
rhymes, rhythmic movements, songs, food, and special events. 288
3.2.2.2. Environmental Education
Of the four school systems, NHE Schools are the ones that most emphasize
environmental education in their curriculum. Through a combination of experiential
learning (gardening, recycling, collecting trash), lectures, research, projects, and
discussions, students learn about environmental issues and means of sustainability
(organic agriculture, waste recycling, renewable energy, forestry and wildlife care). 289
Although primacy is given to direct contact with the natural world, Neohumanist
educators complement students’ experiential learning with academic and scientific
knowledge about the environment.
In Reggio Schools, environmental education happens informally through the
children’s research projects. Themes about the natural world typically arise from their
contact and interaction with nature. 290 Through their research projects, children learn
about the “life” they are inquiring or the environmental issue they are investigating.
In Waldorf Schools, the emphasis of their curriculum is more on learning
(experientially as well as academically) about the elements of the natural world (in
102
geology, botany, zoology) than on discussing environmental or sustainability issues. 291
Nonetheless, their schools do offer environmental education, particularly for the later
grades. Attention to this issue, however, varies according to each school.
In Montessori Schools, environmental education is mostly experiential. “Going
out” is a regular practice in the Montessori curriculum. From elementary through high
school, students go regularly on field trips. For environmental education, students visit
farms, the zoo, the aquarium, parks, lakes, rivers, environmental centers, recycling
centers, and so forth. They are usually required to take notes of their observations and
then discuss in class their discoveries. 292
3.2.2.3. Cosmic Awareness
Of the four school systems, NHE Schools are the ones that most emphasize the
development of cosmic awareness. In NHE Schools, the development of cosmic
awareness is fostered primarily through meditation/visualization. 293 In the same way
that students are guided to meditate about the created world, they are led to contemplate
the Universe, to visualize their connection with it, and to feel one with it. Songs, verses,
dance, and literature are other means used in NHE Schools to promote universal
consciousness. 294
In Montessori Schools, cosmic awareness is promoted through Montessori’s
“cosmic curriculum,” which she developed for the junior grades (6-12 years old). 295 It is
not a detailed curriculum for the full academic year but a set of five imaginative epics
103
about the evolution of the universe and human civilization. Montessori’s aim with these
“Great Lessons,” as she called them, was to lead children into the wonders of creation
and the universe, teach them about the evolution of humanity, and bring awareness to
the thread of cosmic evolution and our role in it. 296 These lessons are usually read to
children in the beginning of the school year. They are meant to spur the students’
imaginations and lead them into new areas of study.
In Waldorf Schools, cosmic awareness appears to be fostered primarily through
the astronomy classes of the middle school curriculum. 297 However, the focus in those
classes is more on studying the interrelation of the planetary system rather than on
promoting awareness of our connection with the cosmic world.
3.2.2.4. The Arts
The arts are another pedagogical practice identified across the school systems
that foster a sense of reverence for the natural world. In Chapter 3, we saw that both
Neohumanist and Waldorf educators position the arts as an essential element for
spiritual development. They also view the arts as a means to develop admiration,
respect, and appreciation to the created world. Both Sarkar and Steiner considered the
arts as a means to enable children to perceive the subtlety of things, to appreciate
beauty, and to make them more sensitive and reverential to the magnificence of the
natural world. 298 Both viewed the arts as an expression of the realm of beauty and
104
argued that our experience with beauty helps us “rediscover our connection with the
world.” 299
As discussed earlier, the practice of the arts is at the center of the curriculum of
NHE, Reggio, and, Waldorf Schools. It is a pedagogical domain that children
experience on a daily basis in the three school systems. Although in Reggio Schools, the
arts are interpreted differently from Waldorf and NHE Schools (as a language of
expression and a medium for learning), children experience the arts as extensively as
Waldorf and Neohumanist children. Hence, considering Sarkar and Steiner’s argument,
Reggio Schools indirectly foster appreciation for aesthetics and for the natural world.
Similar argument can be made for Montessori Schools but to a much lesser extent, as
the arts in their schools are offered as a separate subject few times a week, depending
on the age group.
3.2.3. Evaluative Summary
Table 3.2 summarizes the findings relative to pedagogical application of the
principle of reverence for life/nature across the four school systems. As the table
indicates, of the four school systems, NHE Schools are the most committed movement
to apply the principle of reverence for life/nature in their educational approach. Besides
sharing the holistic philosophical perspective about this principle, NHE Schools also
endorse most of the educational ideas suggested by contemporary holistic educators.
They foster Earth and Universal connection through meditation and direct contact with
105
nature (Earth connection and cosmic awareness). They promote ecological awareness of
the interdependence of our planetary ecosystem through experiential and academic
learning (environmental education). They nurture the children’s feeling of reverence for
the natural world through a variety of activities; and finally, they seek to develop
responsible young adults who understand, respect and care for the environment in
which they live (environmental education).
Pedagogical Features
Waldorf
Schools
Montessori
Schools
NHE Schools
Reggio Schools
Earth connection
Environmental education
Cosmic awareness
The arts
Very high
High
Moderate
Very high
Moderate
High
Moderate
Low
Very high
Very high
Very high
Very high
Moderate
Low
N/P
High
Table 3.2 Summary of the pedagogical application of reverence for life/nature in the
four school systems
Waldorf Schools also share the holistic view about this principle; however, their
application of it is not as intensive and comprehensive as NHE Schools. Although there
is a series of activities designated to foster reverence for the natural world in their
curriculum (artistic activities, literature, extensive direct contact with nature), Waldorf
Schools do not place much emphasis in developing awareness of humans’
interconnection with universal life neither do they give as much primacy to
environmental education, in terms of sustainability, as NHE Schools do. In sum,
Waldorf Schools do not apply the principle of reverence for life/nature as extensively as
NHE Schools.
106
In Montessori Schools, the principle of reverence for life/nature is applied to a
lower extent than NHE and Waldorf Schools. Although Montessori’s view about the
cosmic and the natural world echoes the contemporary holistic educators,’ 300
Montessori Schools do not apply this principle as much as Waldorf and NHE Schools
(similar to the findings of the first principle discussed). Namely, to promote earth
connection, Montessori Schools draws only on direct contact with nature, whereas
Waldorf and NHE Schools offer additional activities (meditation, literature, the arts).
The contact children have with nature is also limited in comparison to Waldorf Schools.
In regards to environmental education and the development of cosmic awareness,
Montessori Schools appear to give similar attention to this matter as Waldorf Schools
but relatively less than NHE Schools. Universal consciousness, for example, is a central
theme in NHE Schools, addressed on a regular basis through various means (meditation,
the arts, literature, discussions) whereas in Montessori Schools the main vehicle that
fosters cosmic awareness (“cosmic curriculum”) is introduced once a year. Finally, in
Montessori Schools, the arts are experienced a few times a week, whereas in the other
school systems, the entire curriculum is embedded with the artistic element.
Of the four school systems, Reggio Schools are the ones that least apply the
principle of reverence for life/nature. Although Reggio educators apparently do not
embrace the holistic thoughts about this principle, they still appear to apply the principle
of reverence for life/nature in their approach to education. They encourage earth
connection through direct contact with nature, they support the children’s investigation
of the environment and its natural life through projects (environmental education), and
107
they indirectly foster sensibility and a sense of aesthetics through their intense use of
arts in the curriculum. Hence, even though Reggio Schools do not embrace the spiritual
paradigm often associated with this principle, they ultimately nurture the children’s
feeling of reverence for the natural world through the various activities they provide.
3.3. Interconnectedness
The concept of interconnectedness is the most distinguishing aspect of holistic
education. 301 It is present in most theories and worldviews (perennial and Life
philosophy, indigenous and ecological worldviews, systems theory) that underpin the
holistic movement and it is the foundation of the holistic educational paradigm. 302 The
basic underlying assumption of holistic education is that everything is integrated,
interrelated, interdependent, interconnected, and part of the same whole. 303 The
“universe and all that exists within it are one interrelated and interdependent whole” 304
and every life is viewed as “rooted in the same universal life-creating reality.” 305 In
other words, every living organism in the universe is regarded as part of an “intricate
web of life,” connected at deep levels and dependent upon each other to grow and
maintain itself. 306 A phenomenon is always understood in relation to other phenomena
and never in isolation. Thus, instead of classifying phenomena into distinguished
categories, the holistic view seeks to understand them within a large “set of
relationships.” 307
108
Contemporary holistic educators seek to foster this sense of wholeness,
interconnectedness, and integration in all areas of the curriculum. They call for an
education that gives young people this vision of unity and interconnectedness of the
universe, that acknowledges the interdependence of phenomena, and that prepares
citizens to live “cooperatively at peace in the global village.” 308 They advocate for a
curriculum that seeks to integrate the various domains of knowledge; 309 connects mind
and body, and linear and intuitive thinking; establishes connections with the
community; fosters students’ relationship with the Earth; and encourages them to
connect to their “transpersonal Self.” 310 Finally, they argue for an education that
recognizes that “intelligence, thinking, and learning are inseparable processes” 311 and
part of a “single, dynamic, multi-faceted, functional capacity that is inherent in human
consciousness.” 312 Learning, they claim, occurs naturally and inevitably as one interacts
with the world, draws connections, seeks relations, and constructs meaning.
This view of learning advocated by contemporary holistic educators echoes the
constructivist perspective of learning as well as the works of several educators
(Aristotle, Rousseau, Pestalozzi, Froebel, Steiner, Montessori, Dewey, Rogers, amongst
others) who have advocated for experiential learning. Among them, Dewey was one of
the most adamant advocates for learning through experience. Similar to contemporary
holistic educators, Dewey also considered learning and thinking as an inseparable
process that emerges as a result of experiences, connections, and meaning making. 313
For Dewey, learning was an act of thinking; and thinking, he defined as a process of
making connections and forming relationships; a process of making “connecting links
109
explicit in the form of relationships.” 314 Dewey regarded experiential learning as the
best educational means to foment thinking. Experience, he argued, awakens students’
curiosity and incites them with a desire to understand the phenomenon, which in turn,
can only be understood through a process of connections; which, in Dewey’s view, is
the whole process of thinking.
Similar to Dewey, although more holistically oriented, contemporary holistic
educators also call for experiential learning in education. In their view, “education is a
matter of experience,” of engaging the learner with the world, with life, and with the
reality in which s/he lives.
To summarize, contemporary holistic educators endorse a “relationalist
worldview,” 315 which regards life and all phenomena as intrinsically interconnected,
interrelated, interdependent and part of the same whole. They call for an education that
fosters this perception of the world, prepares citizens to live in a global society, nurtures
connections and relationships (between mind and body, linear and intuitive thinking,
individual and community/Earth, personal and transpersonal self), * promotes the
integration of various domains of knowledge, and recognizes learning and thinking as
one inseparable process. Finally, similar to other philosophers and educators,
contemporary holistic educators also consider experiential learning a fundamental
process in the act of educating.
*
The themes illustrated in brackets will not be discussed in this section as they will be addressed, or they have
already been addressed (Earth connections), in other segments (human wholeness, caring relations).
110
3.3.1. The Principle of Interconnectedness in the Four School Systems
Waldorf, Montessori, and NHE Schools share the holistic view about the
principle of interconnectedness. As discussed earlier, Steiner, Montessori, and Sarkar
believed that everything in the universe is interconnected, interdependent, and part of an
inseparable whole. Like contemporary holistic educators, the three thinkers also claimed
that we all come from the same cosmic unity and that we are all intrinsically interrelated
and part of the cosmic evolution. 316 They also supported the notion that a phenomenon
should never be studied in isolation but always in relation to other phenomena. 317
Although Steiner, Montessori, and Sarkar appear to share very similar views
about this principle, the three respective school systems differ in their application of it.
In NHE Schools, the vision of cosmic unity is at the basis of their curriculum.
As discussed elsewhere, Neohumanism is based on a philosophy of universalism, which
views humanity as “one universal society with one universal ideology and one cosmic
goal.” 318 From early childhood through high school, NHE Schools strive to foster
among students an awareness of our relationship with the Universe. For young children,
the emphasis is on furthering their sense of connection with the cosmic world through
love (primarily through meditation, stories, songs), whereas for older students the focus
is on expanding this feeling of connection through knowledge (through literature, social
studies, scientific investigation). 319
In Montessori Schools, awareness of this principle is fostered primarily through
their “cosmic curriculum.” As discussed previously, Montessori created this curriculum
111
for the junior grades (6-12 years old) to awaken their minds to the wonders of creation
and the universe and to develop awareness of the thread of human and cosmic
evolution. 320 Additionally, she sought to provide a curriculum that would integrate
knowledge from various areas into single lesson units. Hence, through her “cosmic
curriculum,” Montessori envisioned an educational approach that would have all school
subjects correlated around themes and centered in the knowledge of the cosmic plan. 321
In Waldorf Schools, the emphasis is more on developing Earth connection
(which was discussed earlier) than on fostering awareness of universal interconnection.
Nonetheless, there is still great emphasis in Waldorf Schools to foster awareness of the
principle of interconnectedness. Their focus is on developing understanding of the
interrelation and interdependence of all things, teaching students about the connections
between cause and effect, and bringing awareness to the consequences of human
actions. 322
In addition to their philosophical perspective about interconnectedness, the three
school systems also apply this principle in their pedagogical approach to teaching and
learning. Like holistic education, they regard experiential learning as a fundamental
aspect in education and they try to integrate knowledge from various disciplines as
much as possible.
Reggio Schools, different from the other three school systems, do not seem to
share the spiritual vision of interconnectedness advocated by contemporary holistic
educators. As pointed out earlier, Reggio educators do not discuss universal
interconnections neither they talk about cosmic evolution. Nonetheless, they still have
112
the concept of interconnectedness at the heart of their education. The Reggio approach
is based on the notion of relationships. 323 Education is viewed as a result of encounters,
interactions, and relations. Learning is understood as a “co-creation of knowledge”
evolving at any point in time through the interaction among people and the people’s
interaction with the environment. 324 Experiential learning is at the center of Reggio
Schools and its regarded as an essential educational process to address the wholeness of
the child. 325 Finally, in Reggio Schools, the curriculum is emergent, constructed around
themes, which means knowledge from various domains is integrated into thematic units
instead of being studied separately through distinct disciplines.
3.3.2. Pedagogical Features that Foster Interconnectedness
As seen in the foregoing, the principle of interconnectedness is present in the
pedagogical approach of the four selected school systems. Although each school system
has its own approach to addressing this principle, overall they share similar pedagogical
features that foster the principle of interconnectedness. Six pedagogical themes were
identified as conducive to promoting this principle: awareness of the principle of
interconnectedness, experiential learning, transdiciplinary/interdisciplinary approach to
teaching and learning, the arts, documentation, and the physical space.
113
3.3.2.1. Awareness of the Principle of Interconnectedness
The three school systems that endorse the spiritual values of this principle
(Waldorf, Montessori, and NHE Schools) offer pedagogical practices that foster
awareness of interconnectedness. The most common practice across the three school
systems to develop understanding of this principle is the teaching of curricular content.
Montessori Schools have a specific curriculum to bring awareness to this principle
(“cosmic curriculum”), whereas NHE and Waldorf Schools seek to foster awareness of
interconnectedness through the various subjects of their curriculum. Overall, the three
school systems devote special attention to teaching about the interrelation and
interdependence of life and reality. The main curricular themes across the three school
systems to address this principle are: the trajectory of human history, the interrelation of
all life-societies, the relation between cause and effect, the interdependence of human
endeavor and its effects on the natural, cultural, social, and economic world, and the
interdependence of our ecosystem. 326 Their aim is primarily to demonstrate through
curricular content how everything is deeply interconnected and how consequential our
actions are.
Meditation/visualization is another activity, offered by NHE Schools, which is
aimed at developing awareness of the principle of interconnectedness. 327 The focus of
this activity, however, is to establish a sense of connection with the cosmos. According
to the leaders of the movement, only through spiritual practice can one achieve a true
sense of belonging to the Universe; only through a contemplative and disciplined way
114
can one truthfully reach a feeling of connection with the cosmos. 328 In NHE Schools, as
already discussed, students meditate on a regular basis. From a very early age they are
led to contemplate about the Universe, to visualize their connection with it, and to feel
one with it.
3.3.2.2. Experiential Learning
The four selected school systems give primacy to experiential learning in their
educational approaches. In the early childhood program across the four school systems,
children “learn by doing” literally the entire time they spend in the school. For the later
grades in Waldorf, Montessori, and NHE Schools, children also have the opportunity to
“experience” academic content on a regular basis (through the arts, cooking, gardening,
trips, etc.). Overall, the goal of the four schools is to connect what students learn in the
classroom with real life situations or vice-versa. 329 Their aim is to help students see the
connection between academic learning and the world they live in. More than just
focusing on integrating student’s personal experiences in the learning process, the four
school systems try to a great extent to incorporate the world in their curriculum.
3.3.2.3. Transdiciplinary/Interdisciplinary Approach
The four school systems support either a transdiciplinary or an interdisciplinary
approach to teaching and learning. A transdiciplinary approach is usually defined as a
115
method where content from different disciplines are blended and explored through
thematic units, mostly through projects. 330 The interdisciplinary approach, on the other
hand, typically incorporates knowledge from one discipline into others. 331
The NHE system argues for the transdiciplinary approach but their schools do
not necessarily follow this methodology. 332 As described in Chapter 2, NHE schools do
not have a fixed methodological approach to teaching and learning. They usually adapt
their pedagogical methods according to the customs and needs of each particular
culture. The literature shows examples of schools striving to implement this approach as
well as cases of schools using very traditional methods of teaching. 333
Montessori Schools usually have both approaches in their pedagogical methods;
however the transdiciplinary mode appears to dominate. Maria Montessori was a strong
advocate of research-project-based learning. She urged teachers to never present
isolated facts to children in lessons but to group them together in a logical unit in order
to form center of interests to students. 334 She recommended initial lessons as a means to
open several “rays of interest” to students to lead into “lines of research.” 335
Throughout the year, students in Montessori Schools are engaged in research projects
either individually or in groups. Sometimes their projects are centered on just one or
two disciplines but in general, they seek to integrate knowledge from various areas as
much as possible. 336
In Waldorf Schools, the interdisciplinary approach is the most predominant
method. Although subjects are taught separately, there is constant effort to integrate
116
content of one discipline into the teaching of the other. * 337 Sometimes, academic
content is taught through themes and knowledge from various disciplines are integrated
into a lesson unit. But overall, the interdisciplinary mode is the most characteristic of
the Waldorf pedagogy.
The Reggio approach is entirely transdiciplinary. Reggio Schools do not have a
pre-determined program of study; the curriculum emerges along with the learning
situations. Almost all learning activities are integrated into projects. 338 A project may
start from an idea posed by a child, an event experienced by another one, an initiative
by the teacher, or a discussion in a group. It might begin with a graphic representation
or a verbal exploration. 339 The project evolves based on the questions and comments
raised in the discussions and on the interests of the children involved. 340 These projects
are open-ended, often moving to unanticipated directions, and they may last for few
days or several months. They include a variety of themes and they integrate knowledge
from diverse areas.
3.3.2.4. The Arts
As discussed previously, Waldorf, NHE, and Reggio Schools make extensive
use of the arts in their approach to education. Besides using the arts as a vehicle to
foster human spirituality (Waldorf and NHE Schools) and reverence for life/nature, the
*
The fact that there is only one teacher (during the eight years of middle childhood education) teaching all core
subjects facilitates this integration. But even in high school, where there is a teacher for each subject matter, there is
still an effort to integrate knowledge from different disciplines.
117
three school systems also use the arts as means to facilitate learning. 341 Through the
medium of the arts, children experience the content of the lesson (particularly in
Waldorf Schools), express their feelings and thoughts about it, process the knowledge
embedded in it, and create new meaning. The arts are therefore used as a connector
amongst knowledge, experience, expression, thinking and learning.
Of the three school systems, Reggio is the one that most emphasizes the arts as a
medium for learning. * The arts are used as the primary vehicle for all the projects
created in their schools. It is used as a means for children to communicate their
thinking, develop ideas, create meaning, and construct their projects. 342 Every school
has a mini-atelier in each classroom and a centrally located atelier with an abundance of
materials to engage children in learning activities. Thus, in Reggio Schools, rather than
experiencing the content of the lesson through the arts, children create the lesson with
the arts.
3.3.2.5. Documentation
Documentation is another pedagogical practice that fosters the principle of
interconnectedness, which is characteristic of Reggio Schools (none of the other school
systems have this feature in their pedagogical approach). It is an activity in which
*
Waldorf and NHE Schools use the arts more as medium to foster spirituality, subtlety, and sense of aesthetic than as
a medium for learning. Hence, of the three systems, Reggio Schools are the ones that most use the arts as a medium
for learning. In Montessori Schools, the arts are not used as a medium for learning. They are offered as a separate
subject and, therefore, they are not included in this section.
118
teachers document (through note taking, tape recording, photograph taking, and/or
video recording) the process of children’s research projects. * 343 Documentation works
as an agent connecting the entire process of inquiry from beginning to end. It is a
resource that allows teachers to identify areas of interest that arise in groupconversations, to interpret and analyze group-discussions, to plan new cycles of inquiry,
to frame questions to stimulate the project, to re-evaluate the process, to reframe
questions, to re-plan, and so on. Furthermore, it is an instrument that makes the process
of learning (with all its intrinsic relationships) visible. In sum, documentation is a tool
that links the whole cycle of research and demonstrates how interrelated learning is.
3.3.2.6. Physical Space
The physical space is also a characteristic of Reggio Schools and a significant
element that promotes the principle of interconnectedness. The physical space of
Reggio Schools is especially designed (from a collaboration between architects and
educators) to support the interweaving of relationships among children, between
children and adults, among adults, and between children and the environment. 344 There
is a central piazza, located at the center of the building and open to all classrooms, to
facilitate encounters and group interactions. The kitchen is wide-open to allow children
*
Documentation is a very important aspect of Reggio centers. Teachers spend entire afternoons examining children’s
drawings, photographs, and conversations. Their system of documentation serves various purposes. It functions as a
memory to guide adults in planning the project work, evaluating the direction of the work, and finding new strategies
for next steps. It works as a research tool to interpret the children’s thinking, learning, and their different languages of
expression. It serves as a professional development tool. And it is used as a form of assessment of the child’s
development.
119
to communicate with the staff. Each classroom has a mini-atelier and designated spaces
for large- and small-group work to facilitate learning interaction. Each center has a
centrally located atelier open to all classrooms, so children can have easy access to it
and all classrooms are connected by wall-size windows to provide a sense of integration
between spaces. 345 In sum, the physical space in Reggio Schools embodies the principle
of interconnectedness in its own structure, and from its configuration it fosters
interrelation among people and integration of people with the environment.
In regards to Waldorf, Montessori, and NHE Schools, there is no reference in
the literature about using the physical space as a means of promoting interactions
neither to facilitate relationships.
3.3.3. Evaluative Summary
Table 3.3 summarizes the findings relative to the pedagogical application of the
principle of interconnectedness across the four school systems. As the table indicates, of
the four school systems, Reggio Schools most apply the principle of interconnectedness
in their pedagogical approach to education. Although Reggio educators do not appear to
embrace the spiritual values advocated by contemporary holistic educators about
interconnectedness, they do agree with most of the holistic thoughts in regards to
education (integrated and experiential learning, education based on relationships and
connections). In comparison to the other three school systems, Reggio Schools have the
most transdiciplinary approach to teaching and learning (emergent curriculum) and
120
most of the pedagogical features identified across the school systems to foster
interconnectedness (five out of six). Again, although Reggio Schools do not explicitly
teach about interconnectedness, they inevitably bring awareness to this concept
(without the spiritual aspect) through their interconnected approach to education.
Pedagogical Features
Waldorf
Schools
Montessori
Schools
NHE Schools
Reggio
Schools
Awareness of interconnectedness
Experiential learning
Transdiciplinary/interdisciplinary
approach to learning
The arts
Documentation
Physical space
High
Very high
Moderate
Very high
Very high
Very high
N/P
Very high
High
High
N/P
N/P
High
N/P
N/P
N/P
Moderate
High
N/P
N/P
Very high
Very high
Very high
Very high
Table 3.3 Summary of the pedagogical application of interconnectedness in the four
school systems
Contrary to Reggio Schools, Waldorf and NHE Schools fully share the holistic
view about interconnectedness, philosophically and educationally. However, their
pedagogical application of it is not as extensively as Reggio Schools.’ Waldorf and
NHE Schools have fewer pedagogical features than Reggio to promote
interconnectedness (four instead of five); their approach to learning is not as integrated
as Reggio Schools’ and they do not use the arts as a medium for learning (as a
connector) to the same extent as does the Reggio approach. In comparison to each other,
both Waldorf and NHE Schools appear to apply the principle of interconnectedness to a
similar extent. Although NHE Schools give more primacy to developing awareness of
this principle (through meditation and the curriculum) than Waldorf Schools, the latter
121
compensates for this gap by providing an interdisciplinary approach across all schools
(not a constant practice in NHE Schools).
Montessori Schools are the ones that least applies the principle of
interconnectedness in their pedagogical approach in comparison to the other three
school systems. Although Montessori’s philosophical and educational view about the
principle of interconnectedness was very aligned with the holistic perspective,
Montessori Schools do not apply this principle as extensively as the other school
systems. Namely, of the six pedagogical features identified across the schools that foster
interconnectedness, Montessori Schools offer only three. Of these three activities, their
approach to teaching and learning appears to be very integrated (maybe even more than
Waldorf Schools), although not as much as Reggio Schools; however their attention to
bring awareness to interconnectedness is not as extensive (once a year through the
cosmic curriculum) as Waldorf Schools (across the curriculum throughout the year) and
NHE Schools (through the curriculum and meditation). In regards to experiential
learning, there appear to be no difference among the four school systems.
3.4. Human Wholeness
The principle of human wholeness is based on the same idea of unity embedded
in the concept of interconnectedness, where nothing exists in isolation. Thus, rather
than considering the individual as an assemblage of units, the concept of human
wholeness recognizes the person as one inseparable, integrated whole. Therefore, body,
122
mind, heart, and soul are all regarded as interconnected elements of one indivisible unit.
Feeling, thinking, sensing, and willing are so deeply connected and dependent upon
each other that one does not exist without the presence of the other.
The principle of human wholeness is also central to holistic education. Usually
contemporary holistic educators define human wholeness as comprising five essential
elements: intellectual, emotional or affective, physical, social, aesthetic (creativity), and
spiritual. 346 They regard these elements as equally important and co-dependent upon
one other.
Contemporary holistic educators fiercely argue for the development of the whole
person. They call for an education that values the intellectual as well as the emotional,
social, physical, creative, intuitive, and spiritual potentials of the child. They call for an
education that nurtures the child’s overall growth. 347 Alongside advocating for whole
child development, contemporary holistic educators also call for an education that seeks
balance. 348 Balance between the intellect and the feelings, logic and creativity, analytic
and intuitive thinking, content and process, individual and group learning, concept and
experience, learning and assessment. 349 The goal of holistic education to “integrate
objective achievement with the subjective, personal, interior, spiritual aspects of
life.” 350
In regards to learning, contemporary holistic educators also interpret it as a
whole, integral process. 351 In their view, learning is not “merely a cognitive function”
that takes place only in the head. 352 “It is a social, physical, emotional, cognitive,
aesthetic, and spiritual process. It is a whole, transforming act.” 353 Contemporary
123
holistic educators advocate for experiential learning, which they claim as the best means
to address the wholeness of the child. Through experience, they argue, the whole person
is immersed in the process of learning. Experience, in their view, not only connects the
learner with the world and the reality they live in but also draws on all human aspects to
make learning happen. 354
The holistic education’s advocacy for experiential learning is anchored in the
work of earlier philosophers and educators (Aristotle, Rousseau, Pestalozzi, Froebel,
Dewey, Francis Parker, Carl Rogers, Abraham Maslow, among many others) who also
argued for an education aimed at the development of the whole individual. Overall,
these thinkers shared the same concern, that education must nurture all aspects of the
individual, it must constantly seek to engage the whole child in the learning process, and
it must be centered on experiential learning. 355 They all condemned mainstream
education for addressing excessively the “head,” neglecting the “hand” and the
“heart.” 356 Like contemporary holistic educators, they also viewed learning as a whole
act involving the whole person and not an isolated function that happens in the mind
alone.
Concluding, holistic educators in general (as well as humanistic educators),
value human wholeness and argue for an education that nurtures the development of the
whole child. They call for a “balanced” education (particularly contemporary holistic
educators); they fully support experiential learning; and finally, they view learning as an
intrinsic act involving all human faculties and not merely a function of the brain.
124
3.4.1. The Principle of Human Wholeness in the Four School Systems
The four school systems have the concept of human wholeness at the heart of
their philosophy of education. Like holistic education, they also recognize all human
faculties as equally important and intrinsically interconnected. Although they identify
developmental periods (with the exception of Reggio Schools) where one human aspect
dominates more than the other, overall the four school systems consider all areas of
human activity as deeply connected. The Waldorf system is perhaps the only one that
does not fully support this sense of wholeness. Steiner overly emphasized the
predominant periods of willing, feeling, and thinking and made too clear cuts between
them. 357 His insistence in this matter is reflected in the excessive attention given in
Waldorf Schools to the development of each human aspect in each developmental
period, and their resistance in promoting any activity that would access a faculty (e.g.
intellectual faculty) not yet developed (such as that demanding that writing can only be
introduced at the age of seven). *
Also similar to holistic education, the four school systems are concerned with
the development of the whole individual. The four systems are committed to nurture the
growth of each child’s physical, cognitive, creative, social, emotional, and spiritual
potential (Reggio Schools usually do not refer to spiritual side of the individual). 358
*
Although Steiner stressed that each aspect should be developed at the “appropriate” time, his ultimate goal was to
harmonize the child’s threefold nature (willing, feeling, thinking) and thus develop a balanced and well-rounded adult
(Steiner, The Education of the Child in the Light of Anthroposophy).
125
Additionally, following the holistic view, the four systems also endorse an education
that balances objective achievement and subjective/personal development. Although the
focus in Waldorf, Montessori, and NHE Schools appears to be on personal
development, they are also concerned with cognitive development and academic
accomplishment.
Finally, in respect to teaching and learning, the four school systems share the
holistic educators’ advocacy for experiential learning and their emphasis in involving
the whole child in the educational activities instead of only its “head.” Namely, in
Waldorf, Montessori, and Reggio Schools, writing, for example, is an organic process
that either emerges from the wholeness of child (Montessori and Reggio) or is absorbed
by its wholeness (Waldorf). 359 In Montessori Schools, children manipulate the letters of
the alphabet with their hands, internalize their sounds, and compose words, as they feel
ready for it. In Reggio Schools, children write words as they find the need for them; that
is, words that have meaning for them. In Waldorf Schools, children experience the
letters and the words through stories, drawing, and movement, that is, they absorb the
letters or words with their whole being. *
3.4.2. Pedagogical Features that Foster Human Wholeness
As stated in the previous section, the four school systems value the wholeness of
the child and they are committed to nurture its overall development. Their approach to
*
There are no specific guidelines in NHE Schools for the introduction of literacy. It varies according to the system of
each culture or country.
126
education provides several pedagogical practices as a means to address the whole child.
They offer a variety of supplementary activities in addition to the regular academic
classes; they draw extensively on experiential learning; they have a comprehensive
form of assessment that evaluates the whole child; and they provide a balanced and
nutritious diet to children.
3.4.2.1. Supplementary Activities, Environment, and Nutrition
The four school systems provides and/or supports various activities in addition
to the regular academic classes to foster the overall growth of the child. In Montessori
Schools, children participate in music, visual arts, drama, cooking, gardening, and
physical education. 360 In Waldorf Schools, students also practice music, drama,
gardening, and physical education, besides handwork, woodwork, metal work, weaving,
sculpture, painting, eurythmy, etc. 361 In NHE Schools, dance * , singing, gardening,
drama, play, physical activities, and spiritual practices are essential components of their
curriculum. 362 In Reggio Schools, free play, make-believe, movement, and singing
integrate their overall approach to learning. 363
Also common to all school systems, is their emphasis on providing a natural
outdoor environment and a balanced and nutritious diet to children. All of them support
the belief that children need a healthy diet and proper outdoor facilities to develop and
*
In NHE schools, children practice “Mudra” dance, a form of movement that seeks to communicate ideas and
feelings in a very subtle way. Mudra dance is often combined with some of the 5,000 songs Sarkar has composed.
The themes include, devotion, empathy, love, nature, among others.
127
maintain their physical body strong and well. Of the four school systems, only the NHE
Schools follow a vegetarian diet, claiming it to be essential for spiritual development. 364
The other three approaches limit themselves to the nutritional aspect alone.
3.4.2.2. Experiential Learning
As already discussed, the four selected school systems give primacy to
experiential learning in their educational approaches. In the past section I explored their
emphasis on connecting academic content with real life situations through diverse
activities experienced in and out of school. In this section, I examine how the school
systems employ experiential learning as a means to engage the whole child in the
learning process. Four main pedagogical elements were identified as conducive to
involving the whole child in the learning experience: appropriate materials, learn by
doing, imagination, and the arts.
3.4.2.2.1. Appropriate Materials
The four school systems use diverse materials to engage the child in whole
learning experience. Montessori and Reggio Schools, however, are the ones that most
emphasize the role of a prepared environment with appropriate materials as a means of
learning. Both school systems draw extensively on these two resources to engage young
children in whole learning experiences. In the two school systems, the school
128
environment is carefully prepared to promote and facilitate children’s learning. In
Montessori Schools, the emphasis is more on preparing the environment with suitable
materials to foster children’s independence whereas in Reggio Schools, the focus is on
creating an environment that nourishes the children’s sensory perceptions, stimulates
their imagination, awakens their thinking, and gives them joy. 365
In regards to the materials, Montessori Schools use “sensorial materials,”
especially designed to teach children cognitive concepts, whereas Reggio Schools use
raw materials to allow children to create its own concepts. In both school systems, the
materials are used as a means to engage children in the learning activity, to stimulate
their will to learn, and to integrate their whole being in the process. The materials also
serve the function to transform abstract thoughts or ideas into concrete form. In
Montessori Schools, the material itself conveys the idea embedded in it (e.g. wooden
materials composed of sets of ten objects representing the basis of the decimal system)
while in Reggio Schools, the materials are the vehicle to convey the children’s ideas
(e.g. paper, paint, wood, plastic, etc. are used to represent how the fax system
operates). 366
3.4.2.2.2. Learn by Doing
The four school systems emphasize learn by doing in their approach to
education. In the early childhood program of the four school systems, young children
learn by doing literally the entire time they spend in school. Depending on the type of
129
school, they may be involved in free play, make believe, art, cooking, games, singing,
movement, dancing, or meditation. In Montessori and Reggio Schools, young children
also learn by doing through the materials they manipulate and the projects they
develop. 367
For the higher grades, Waldorf, Montessori, and NHE Schools also try to
incorporate learn by doing in their pedagogical approach. In Montessori and Waldorf
Schools, there is strong emphasis on making children experience concepts in a concrete
way. In reading, mathematics, history, or geography, children in both types of schools
are always experiencing content lesson concretely (through appropriate materials,
experiments, project-work, cooking, gardening, expeditions, etc.). 368 In both school
systems, the concrete tends to precede the abstract, so children can make the
connections themselves through their own perceptions instead of learning it through
their “heads.” 369
In NHE Schools, there is an effort to use “hands-on projects” as much as
possible. 370 However, because of their flexible methodology to teaching and learning,
we cannot affirm that learn by doing is a constant approach for the latter grades across
all their schools.
3.4.2.2.3. Imagination
The four selected school systems draw on the children’s imagination to engage
them in the learning experience. Montessori and Waldorf Schools focus on the role of
130
the imagination particularly during middle childhood. Both Montessori and Steiner
recommended that during this period, all teaching should steer the imaginative faculties
of the child. 371 When teaching involves the child’s imagination, they claimed, the whole
child is involved in the process. It touches the child’s emotions, it stimulates its desire
to learn, it steers its intellect (Montessori’s argument), and it works on its creativity. * In
Montessori Schools, imagination is nurtured primarily through literature and the manner
in which themes are introduced to children (usually through narration of stories). In
Waldorf Schools, the entire middle school curriculum is taught through pictorial means
(the telling of stories, and artistic activities of painting, drawing, and modeling) and
every work the student produces (throughout all grades) is permeated with the artistic
element. In NHE Schools, literature, drama, and meditation are the main vehicles to
nurture the child’s imaginative faculties. Neohumanist educators often use drama as a
means of instruction, as a way to engage students experientially with academic
content. 372 In Reggio Schools, the environment, the materials, and the arts are all
features that are utilized to stimulate the children’s imagination. 373
*
Steiner’s emphasis on drawing on imagination during this period was also a way to avoid stimulating the
intellectual aspect of the child, of whom he believed as not yet fully awaken at this stage. Through pictorial means, he
argued, the child’s “intellect would assimilate only what it is capable of;” and would therefore not be burdened to
premature development (Childs, Steiner in Theory and Practice, 95)
131
3.4.2.2.4. The Arts
The arts are another pedagogical practice, extensively used in Waldorf, NHE,
and Reggio Schools (and partially employed in Montessori Schools) that foster whole
learning experience. Of the three systems, Waldorf and NHE Schools are the ones that
most emphasize the arts as a vehicle to engage all human faculties in the learning
experience. Namely, Steiner considered the arts as an essential element to connect
thinking, feeling, and willing. 374 He argued that the arts harmonize the human aspects
because it works on all of them simultaneously. Steiner vehemently recommended that
all teaching and schoolwork be embedded with the artistic element. No instruction, in
his view, should remain in the purely intellectual realm. 375 Sarkar had similar view and
also insisted that the arts should be at the core of the curriculum. 376
Although Waldorf and NHE Schools may place more emphasis in using the arts
as means to engage children in whole learning experience, the three school systems are
equally committed to integrate the arts in their curriculum. * In Montessori Schools, as
*
In the previous sections, I made some distinctions about the application of the arts among the school systems. For
example, for the principle of human spirituality and reverence for life/nature, I interpreted Waldorf and NHE
Schools’ application of the arts as “very high,” whereas Reggio Schools’ application of it, I interpreted as “high.” The
opposite happened when I addressed the principle of interconnectedness. I interpreted Reggio Schools’ application of
this principle as “very high” and Waldorf and NHE schools’ application of it as “high.” This distinction was made
because of the ways in which the arts are used in these three school systems (medium for spiritual development,
medium for learning). In the case of human wholeness, I argue, the situation is different. Regardless of how the arts
are used, as a medium for learning or for spiritual development, the whole child is always involved in the process of
artistic creation. Hence, as the three school systems are equally committed to integrate the arts in their curriculum, I
argue, they are also equally committed to promote human wholeness.
132
discussed previously, the arts are offered as a separate few times a week, depending on
the age group.
3.4.2.3. Meditation/Visualization/Yoga
The practice of meditation/visualization/yoga is another pedagogical activity
that fosters the integration of the whole being. Of the four school systems, NHE Schools
are the only ones that offer this activity. Neohumanist educators use meditation/
visualization/yoga as a means to nurture the children’s physical body (yoga), to
encourage their imagination (through visualization), to cultivate their feelings of love
(through practicing universal love—see Chapter 4, caring relations), and to connect
them with their inner selves (“super conscious mind”). 377
3.4.2.4. Assessment
The last pedagogical feature identified as conducive to nurturing the
development of the whole child is the form of assessment employed in these school
systems. Waldorf, Montessori, and Reggio Schools evaluate and assess each child as a
whole instead of focusing on its academic achievement alone. 378 Tests and grades are
usually avoided and replaced by daily evaluation of students’ academic performance,
assignments, and behavior in class. Parents receive descriptive evaluations of their
children’s progress reporting their academic achievements as well as their emotional,
133
social, and physical growth. In Reggio Schools, the assessment is even more detailed
and comprehensive. Teachers keep a diary, where they trace the daily experience of the
child. They also tape-record and video-record all discussions in class and take
photographs of the children’s work, which they later share with parents. Most often
parents come to the centers to discuss their children’s overall progress with teachers and
to receive the documentation of their child’s work. 379
In regards to NHE Schools, there is no reference in the literature about the forms
of assessment employed in their schools.
3.4.3. Evaluative Summary
While the four school systems appear to fully endorse the concept of human
wholeness in their approach to education, they present some variations in their
application of this principle pedagogically. Table 3.4 summarizes the findings relative
to the pedagogical application of this principle across the four school systems. As the
table indicates, of the four school systems, Waldorf, NHE, and Reggio Schools appear
to be the ones that most apply the principle of human wholeness in their approach to
education. Although the Neohumanist and Reggio approach seem more aligned with the
holistic view of human wholeness than the Waldorf system (the latter emphasizes the
distinction amongst thinking, feeling, and willing), the three school systems appear to
have similar pedagogical commitment to nurture the overall growth of the child.
134
Pedagogical Features
Supplementary activities/
environment/nutrition
Appropriate materials
Learn by doing
Imagination
The arts
Meditation/yoga
Assessment
Waldorf
Schools
Montessori
Schools
NHE Schools
Reggio Schools
Very high
High
Very high
Very high
Very high
N/P
Very high
High
Very high
Very high
Moderate
Low
N/P
Very high
Very high
High
High
Very high
Very high
Very high
N/P
High
Very high
Very high
Very high
Very high
N/P
Very high
Table 3.4 Summary of the pedagogical application of human wholeness across the four
school systems
Waldorf, NHE, and Reggio Schools have the artistic element embedded in their
pedagogical activities and most of the activities draw on the children’s imagination.
Waldorf Schools may not emphasize the use of appropriate materials for whole learning
experience as much as Reggio Schools neither they have meditation/yoga in their
schools but they offer a wider variety of supplementary activities than the other school
systems, they promote learn by doing as much as possible, and they have a very
comprehensive form of assessment. Reggio Schools do not have meditation/yoga as part
of their curriculum either and they may not offer as many supplementary activities as
Waldorf Schools do but, on the other hand, they draw extensively on appropriate
materials and learn by doing, and their form of assessment is the most comprehensive
of all school systems. NHE Schools do not emphasize the use of appropriate materials
as Reggio Schools and we do not know if learn by doing is constant across their schools
in the latter grades. Additionally, there is no reference in the literature about the form of
assessment in NHE Schools (considering the values embedded in the Neohumanist
135
philosophy of education, it is hard to conceive that students will be assessed with
traditional methods based only on grades). Nonetheless, NHE Schools offer daily
practice of meditation/yoga and continual involvement in complimentary activities
(they may not offer the same variety of activities as Waldorf Schools but they appear to
employ them with as extensively as Waldorf Schools). Hence, the three school systems
appear to be equally committed to nurture the overall development of the child.
Montessori Schools appear to apply the principle of human wholeness to a less
extent in comparison to the three school systems discussed above. Although they fully
agree with the holistic view of human wholeness, their pedagogical method to address
this principle is not as inclusive as the other systems. Of the pedagogical practices
identified across the four school systems, Montessori Schools emphasize learn by doing
as much as Reggio and Waldorf Schools; their form of assessment is as comprehensive
as these two school systems; and they use appropriate materials for whole learning
experience more extensively than Waldorf and NHE Schools. However, in Montessori
Schools, the arts are practiced to a much less extent; their stress on imagination is
limited to middle childhood alone; they appear to offer fewer supplementary activities
in comparison to Waldorf Schools, and they do not have meditation/yoga as a regular
practice in their schools. In sum, overall Montessori Schools do not appear to apply the
principle of human wholeness to the same extent as the other three school systems.
136
CHAPTER 4
THE FOUR HUMANISTIC-BASED PRINCIPLES
AND THEIR PEDAGOGICAL APPLICATION
INDIVIDUAL UNIQUENESS, CARING RELATIONS,
FREEDOM/AUTONOMY AND DEMOCRACY
In the previous chapter, I explored the more spiritually and holistically oriented
principles that integrate holistic education and I examined how the selected school
systems applied these principles in their pedagogy. In this chapter, I investigate the
other four principles selected in this study, the ones that comprise the humanistic ideas
embedded in holistic education: individual uniqueness, caring relations,
freedom/autonomy, and democracy.
Following the same structure used in the previous chapter, I begin by examining
the holistic view about these principles. I then discuss the philosophical perspective of
each school movement about the principles and their pedagogical application of them.
Finally, in the last section, I examine the correspondence between the school systems’
perception of the principles and the holistic view and I compare the pedagogical
application of the principles across the school systems. Again, each principle is
discussed separately.
137
Reiterating once more, a comparative analysis between the findings related to
the pedagogical applicability of all principles in the four school systems is presented in
Chapter 5, after all principles have been discussed.
4.1. Individual Uniqueness
Contemporary holistic educators recognize every person as a unique being with
inherent qualities, potentialities, and needs, and with a singular way to interact and
respond to reality. 380 In acknowledging human uniqueness, contemporary holistic
educators do not deny the influence of the sociocultural environment; rather, they
understand it as a contributing factor to human singularity. As discussed in the previous
chapter, contemporary holistic educators view each individual as a complex and unique
being, influenced by subjective and objective realities. In the holistic view, human
individuality is not merely a construct of the sociocultural environment neither a pure
manifestation of a divine source. Rather, it is an expression of both, manifested in
unique ways.
In addition to acknowledging the uniqueness of each individual, contemporary
holistic educators also bring attention to the diversity of humanity as a whole. 381 They
advocate for a culture that acknowledges the multiple layers of diversity (cultural,
racial, religious, gender, ethnic, etc.) but does not transform the diverse categories into
means of separation between humankind. In other words, they call for a “culture of
138
peace,” one that honors differences but does not separate humans into distinct clusters, a
culture that nurtures mutual understanding, tolerance, respect and cooperation. 382
Contemporary holistic educators advocate for a curriculum that begins with the
child, with the “living reality” of each individual. 383 They reject any form of
standardized approach to education (which assumes that everyone is capable of
displaying the same aptitude and skills) and call instead for an individualized approach
that accommodates the needs and particularities of every child. 384 They recognize that
there are different learning styles, multiple ways of knowing, and “multiple kinds of
intelligence” and they acknowledge all of them as equally important. 385 Finally, for
contemporary holistic educators, every individual develops differently at a singular
pace. The educator, therefore, must respect the natural unfolding of each child, attend to
its particular needs, and provide support for the growth of its inherent potentialities. 386
This emphasis of holistic education to always have the child as the starting point
in the educative process is rooted in Rousseau’s thoughts about education. 387 The latter
was the first philosopher to advocate for a child-centered education and to point out the
need to understand and respect individual qualities, differences, and aptitudes in the act
of educating. Rousseau emphasized that the role of the educator is to constantly observe
and study his/her pupils in order to respond to them accordingly. In every teaching, he
argued, the teacher must carefully watch the child, anticipate where the child’s interest
might lead, and then be prepared to guide him/her in the best possible way. The child,
he wrote, “ought to be wholly involved with the thing, but [the teacher] ought to be
wholly involved with the child.” 388
139
Rousseau’s emphasis on allowing the child to lead the way is echoed in the
works of various holistic and humanistic educators, who have also argued for the childcentered approach to education. Most advocates in this area (including contemporary
holistic educators) recognize the uniqueness of each individual and the majority of them
believe that every child is a competent learner, who only needs proper guidance and
support in order to develop and thrive.
On the whole, holistic educators recognize that each human being is a complex,
competent, and unique individuality (influenced by subjective and objective competing
forces) that develops differently, learns differently, and unfolds his/her faculties at a
distinctive pace. Contemporary holistic educators reject any standardized method of
education and call instead for an individualized approach that accommodates the needs
of each individual, an approach that begins with the “living reality” of each child.
Finally they call for a culture that fosters understanding, tolerance, and respect for the
diversity of humankind.
4.1.1. The Principle of Human Uniqueness in the Four School Systems
Waldorf, Montessori, NHE, and Reggio Schools recognize, value, and respect
human uniqueness in their approach to education. Waldorf, Montessori, and NHE
Schools place more emphasis on the inherent inner self as the dominant factor in their
view of human individuality whereas the Reggio system highlights the influence of the
sociocultural environment in the formation of the individual. 389 Nonetheless, all four
140
systems recognize each person as a unique being, with inherent qualities, potentialities,
and needs. * Teachers in the four school systems are expected to have a deep
understanding of their pupils (cognitively, emotionally, and physically) and a firm
disposition to nurture the development of each child.
Every school system approaches this principle in distinct ways. In Montessori
Schools, the emphasis is on observing and following the child’s
developmental/cognitive needs. Teachers are trained to carefully observe each child’s
cognitive development and guide him/her according to his/her readiness for learning. 390
In Reggio Schools, the focus is on knowing how children learn and what is the best
means to assist them to express their ideas. 391 Reggio educators are also trained to
methodically observe the children’s cognitive progress and to guide them accordingly.
In NHE and Waldorf Schools, the primary concern is the inner, overall development of
each student. In the Waldorf system, particularly, teachers are expected to know each of
their pupils intimately and profoundly. 392 Steiner was very emphatic that teachers
should have a thorough understanding of their students to guide them in their overall
development. 393 He claimed that only through a deep understanding of the child’s
individuality could teachers truly educate individually.
Similar to contemporary holistic educators, Waldorf, Montessori, NHE, and
Reggio Schools also reject standardized methods of education. However, only
Montessori and NHE Schools advocate for an individualized approach to learning. Both
*
Although Reggio educators value each child’s individuality, they never consider the child in isolation. For them, the
child is always seen in relation to other children, to adults, to the environment, to the community, and to the society
as a whole.
141
systems claim that lessons should be created on the basis of each child’s ability and
level of development. 394 Between the two, Montessori is unquestionably the most
individualized approach. Maria Montessori was adamant that the child is the one who
indicates the course of learning; the role of the teacher is to observe, study each child,
and then lead him/her to the next learning step. 395 In Reggio Schools, children also
indicate the course of learning and teachers direct the activities based on the their
contributions. However, in Reggio Schools, learning is always a social act and it
happens primarily in groups.
In regards to accommodating different learning styles and multiple means of
expression, Reggio Schools pay most attention to this matter. Reggio educators claim
that children have a “hundred different languages” to express themselves. 396 In their
view, children’s “expression through many media is not a separate part of the
curriculum but is inseparable from the whole cognitive/symbolic expression in the
process of learning.” 397
In general, the four school systems share the holistic advocacy for an education
that fosters understanding, tolerance, and respect for the diversity of humanity. With the
exception of NHE Schools, this concept is usually more implicit in the relationships
established in their schools than explicitly discussed in classrooms. Neohumanist
educators insist on celebrating diversity with children in their schools to help them
appreciate the uniqueness of humankind represented in the various world cultures. 398
Their aim, however, is not to be limited to the differences alone. Their goal is to help
142
children realize unity in the midst of multiplicity; to help them appreciate the diverse
manifestations of the same universal mind. 399
4.1.2. Pedagogical Features that Nurture Individual Uniqueness
As seen in the preceding section, the four school systems recognize and cherish
individual uniqueness in their system of education but each movement appears to
approach this matter in distinct ways. Four main pedagogical elements were identified
across the four school systems that foster this principle: extended teacher-student
relation, child-centered approach to learning, multiple means of expression, and respect
to diversity.
4.1.2.1. Extended Teacher-Student Relation
While in mainstream schools, children typically spend a year with a class
teacher; in Montessori, Reggio, and Waldorf Schools, children usually stay with their
class teacher for at least two to three years. In Montessori and Reggio Schools, children
normally spend three years with the same teachers. 400 In Waldorf Schools, young
children have one teacher for two to three years whereas middle school students have
one main class teacher for eight years. 401 Through this extended contact, teachers
deepen their understanding of each pupil; they follow his/her development for a longer
period of time and consequently, they are able to guide each student more appropriately.
143
In regards to NHE Schools, there is no reference in the literature about the
numbers of years children stay with the same teacher.
4.1.2.2. Child-Centered Approach to Learning
Reggio, Montessori, and NHE Schools advocate for a child-centered approach to
learning. Montessori and NHE Schools offer an individualized method as a means to
honor the centeredness of the child in the learning process. In Reggio Schools, the
emergent curriculum (see discussion, p.117) is what most distinguishes their childcentered approach to learning.
In Montessori Schools, the entire program, from early childhood through high
school, draws on individualized methods to teaching and learning. 402 Children typically
work independently, on their own, in their own rhythm, receiving the guidance from the
teacher whenever needed or when the teacher deems appropriate. Older students
continue their education in the same “free method” of study. 403 They work
independently (either in groups or individually) and progress at their own pace. During
instruction, they are usually grouped according to their level of development in a
particular area rather than by age.
In NHE Schools, the emphasis is more on meeting each child’s needs through an
individualized approach than on following the child’s lead. Teachers are expected to
provide a variety of educational choices to accommodate children’s different learning
styles and their interests, talents, and multiple capabilities. 404 Although there is an effort
144
in the NHE system to provide an individualized approach, I cannot affirm that this is a
constant method across their schools because of the flexibility of pedagogical
methodology in their educational system.
In Reggio Schools, the child-centered approach to learning is mostly reflected in
the emergent curriculum. In Reggio Schools, the curriculum literally emerges from the
children. All projects and activities evolve from children’s ideas, interests, and
curiosity. Similar to Maria Montessori and most holistic thinkers, Reggio educators also
argue that it is the children who lead the way. 405 The role of the teacher is to observe,
listen, question, document, interpret, challenge, and guide. It is a “pedagogy of
listening”, as they call it. 406 Children take the lead; teachers listen, observe, document,
interpret and act. As children move forward, teachers plan, guide, facilitate, challenge,
and maximize their possibilities for learning. And hence, the curriculum emerges. 407
4.1.2.3. Multiple Means of Expression
The four school systems recognize that there are multiple ways of knowing and
experiencing the world and multiple means to express ideas, knowledge, and thoughts.
Hence, they all offer a variety of learning experiences that nurture the children’s
multiple intelligences and diverse learning styles. * Nonetheless, among the four
approaches, Reggio is the one that most promotes multiplicity of expression. In Reggio
*
Although in NHE Schools, teachers are expected to provide a variety of educational alternatives to encourage
children’s diverse means of expression, we cannot, once again, affirm the consistency of this practice across their
schools because of the flexibility of their learning methodology.
145
Schools, children are encouraged to use multiple means of expression (speech,
movement, drawing, painting, modeling, etc.) to communicate their ideas and
thoughts. 408 Every project carried out in their schools draws on different mediums and
children have the freedom to choose what suits them better. 409
4.1.2.4. Respect for Diversity
The four school systems indirectly promote understanding, respect, and
tolerance towards diversity through their emphasis on establishing caring and respectful
relationships among all members of their school community. 410
In addition to fostering respect for diversity indirectly, NHE Schools also bring
attention to this matter directly in their approach to education. Through literature, the
arts, discussions, celebration of different cultures, and meditation, Neohumanist
educators seek to awaken the children’s mind to the richness of diversity. Their goal is
to help children see “the other” with an open mind, free of prejudices, biases, dogmas,
or stereotypes. 411
4.1.3. Evaluative Summary
Table 4.1 summarizes the findings relative to the pedagogical application of the
principle of individual uniqueness across the four school systems. As the table indicates,
of the four school systems, Reggio Schools appear to be the most committed to address
146
this principle. Although the Reggio approach is known for its emphasis on the social
aspects of learning, Reggio educators appear to value individual uniqueness almost to
the same extent as contemporary holistic educators. Besides sharing most of the holistic
ideas about this principle, Reggio Schools appear to be the ones that most attend to
individual uniqueness in their pedagogical approach. The teacher-student relationship in
Reggio Schools may not last as long as in the Waldorf system, and their attention to
diversity may not be as intensive as the NHE Schools.’ Yet, the Reggio approach
appears to be the one that most accommodates children’s individuality. Along with
Montessori Schools, Reggio Schools have the most child-centered approach to learning
(through the emergent curriculum); and of the four school systems, it is the Reggio
Schools that most pay attention to promoting children’s multiple means of expression.
Thus, through the emergent curriculum and their attention to multiple means of
expression, Reggio educators provide endless possibilities for children to express their
uniqueness.
Pedagogical Features
Extended teacher-student
relation
Child-centered approach to
learning
Multiple means of expression
Respect to diversity
Waldorf
Schools
Montessori
Schools
NHE Schools
Reggio Schools
Very high
High
N/P
High
N/P
High
High
Very high
High
High
Moderate
High
Very high
Very High
Very high
High
Table 4.1 Summary of the pedagogical application of individual uniqueness across the
four school systems
147
Montessori Schools embrace most of the holistic ideas about individual
uniqueness and they are almost as committed to nurture this principle as Reggio
Schools. Namely, they provide an individualized approach to education (child-centered
approach to learning) to accommodate the uniqueness of each individual; their attention
to diversity is similar to that found in Reggio Schools; and like Reggio educators,
Montessori teachers also spend about three with their students. “Multiple means of
expression” is the only pedagogical feature, which is more extensively present in
Reggio Schools than in Montessori Schools. The materials used in Montessori
classrooms, particularly in the early childhood program, are designed for specific
cognitive functions. 412 Thus, rather than allowing multiple means of expression, these
materials limit children to specific learning outcomes. Montessori Schools, therefore,
appear to apply the principle of individual uniqueness slightly less extensively than
Reggio Schools.
NHE Schools appear to apply this principle to a lower extent than Reggio and
Montessori Schools. Although their view about individual uniqueness is very aligned
with the holistic ideas, their application of it is not as constant and extensive as the other
two systems. There is no reference in the literature about the number of years students
and teachers spend together; the individualized approach to learning is not constant
across all their schools (child-centered approach to learning). There is also no indication
that all their schools accommodate multiple means of expression. Respect to diversity is
the only pedagogical feature relative to this principle, which NHE Schools apply to a
148
greater extent than the other school systems. In sum, overall NHE Schools do not apply
this principle as constantly and extensively as Montessori and Reggio Schools.
Waldorf Schools appear to be the least committed to attend to individual
uniqueness. Besides differing in some ways from the ideas advocated by contemporary
holistic educators (Waldorf Schools do not support individualized approaches to
learning or accommodate different learning styles), Waldorf Schools also do not show
much attention to catering to each child’s individual learning needs. Although Waldorf
teachers know their students in depth, watch their development closely through an
extended period of time (8 years), provide a variety of activities that nurture the
children’s multiple intelligences (multiple means of expression), and promote an
atmosphere of respect, inclusiveness, and tolerance among all students in the school
(respect to diversity), they do not alter their approach to teaching and learning to
accommodate students’ different learning styles. In Waldorf Schools, instruction is
typically performed by the class teacher and directed to the whole class. 413 All students
participate in the same learning activities, regardless of their particular learning styles. *
They learn the same content and move forward as a group. If a student is having
difficulty to follow the class, special arrangements are made together with the family to
help him/her overcome his/her difficulties. However, if a student is advanced in his/her
*
The aim of Waldorf education is to develop rounded-balanced adults. They believe that all children should
experience a range of activities, even if it is difficult for them (if it is not part of their nature). In that way, they seek
to help students overcome their limitations and become more completed and integrated beings (Rocha, Schools
Where Children Matter).
149
class in comparison to his/her colleagues, s/he is usually held back to the level of the
group. 414
4.2. Caring Relations
Caring relations is a concept that has been extensively discussed by Nell
Noddings. 415 According to the American philosopher, care is a basic condition in
human life toward which everyone longs and strives. Caring relations, she describes,
begins with the mother and her infant; it is a relation in which the mothers responds out
of love and natural inclination. This “natural caring,” she adds, is an experience that the
infant perceives as good and for the rest of his life seeks in others the recurrence of this
special caring relationship. 416 Broadly speaking, caring relations involve love, respect,
receptive attention, concern, and a genuine interest for the other.
Caring relations are at the heart of holistic education. The relationship teachers
establish with their students is regarded as the foundation for learning, social life, and
social justice. 417 Holistic educators in general (contemporary and pioneers) believe that
only in an atmosphere of mutual affection, respect, empathy, acceptance, and trust, can
students thrive; only in “caring learning communities,” will the children’s potentials
prosper. 418
Overall, contemporary holistic educators advocate for an education that fosters
loving, caring and genuine relationships between teachers and students and among the
students themselves. 419 They call for an education in which all members of the
150
community (teachers, parents, students, and staff) are valued and cared for; an
education that fosters friendship, companionship; brotherhood; and meaningful
connections.
Contemporary holistic educators also draw attention to what is needed for
teachers to establish caring and authentic relationships with their students. A common
argument among them is that teachers need first to be able to connect with their deeper
selves before they can establish authentic relationships with their students. 420 Palmer,
for instance, argues that caring and genuine relations are constructed based on a sense
of connectedness we establish with the other. 421 This sense of connectedness, he adds,
is dependent upon our ability to reconnect ourselves to our deeper selves, our spiritual
sources. In Palmer’s view, teachers who are disconnected from their souls cannot
connect with their students. If they do not know who they are, he argues, they cannot
understand who their students are.
Palmer’s argument is echoed in the works of John Miller, Richard Brown, and
Rachael Kessler, three leaders in the field of holistic education, who have established
holistic teacher-training programs. The three educators have placed “soul connection” at
the heart of their programs. 422
4.2.1. The Principle of Caring Relations in the Four School Systems
The four school systems have the principle of caring relations at the heart of
their pedagogical approach. Similar to holistic educators, they too, see positive and
151
loving relationships as the foundation for the child’s education. They also believe that in
order to flourish, students need a safe environment, where they feel loved, respected,
understood, and accepted to be able to unfold their qualities and capabilities. 423
Steiner, for example, was very adamant that teachers must love all their students
unconditionally and fully accept each one of them as s/he is. Education, he argued,
ought to always “be based on love for the child,” and teaching and educating must be
“approached on the basis of this living experience.” 424 Montessori too, viewed
education as an act of love and urged teachers to try to understand, respect, and accept
the individuality of each student. 425 She believed children need caring teachers working
together with them and not authoritarian figures working upon them. 426
In Reggio Schools we find this same emphasis on respecting, valuing, and
accepting each child. Reggio educators are deeply committed to work with the
children’s ideas. Each contribution is valued, respected, and integrated in the projects
they create. 427
In NHE Schools, love, respect, and empathy are also essential attitudes expected
from every teacher, and from every student as well. Neohumanist educators believe
children should be taught the values embedded in the principle of Universal love (nonviolence, compassion, justice, tolerance, reciprocal respect, friendship, love for all,
etc.). 428 They claim children from a very early age are already capable of and should
have the opportunity to think and meditate upon those values.
In addition to fostering caring and positive teacher-student relationships, the
four school systems are also committed to building a sense of community in their
152
schools. There is a friendly atmosphere among teachers, parents, students, and staff, and
parents are usually very active in the community life of the school. 429
In regards to the holistic emphasis in helping teachers connect with their deeper
selves, only Waldorf and NHE Schools emphasize this aspect. Both Waldorf and
Neohumanist educators go through intense spiritual training (through meditation, the
arts, readings, etc.) before they take a teaching position. 430 They are also required to
continuously work on their self-development throughout their teaching career.
4.2.2. Pedagogical Features that Foster Caring Relations
As seen in the preceding section, the four school systems are committed to build
caring relations in their schools. Two main pedagogical features were identified across
the four school systems that contribute to building a caring community: the role of
teachers and the role of parents. In addition to these two major aspects, each school
movement appears to have one special characteristic that is most accentuated in their
approach to this principle. In Waldorf Schools, the strong sense of the community is
what most characterizes their method. In Montessori Schools, the atmosphere of
friendship and respect is the most highlighted feature. In Reggio Schools, collaboration
and cooperation are the elements that most define their approach. In NHE Schools,
universal love is their most distinguishing characteristic.
153
4.2.2.1.a. Strong Sense of Community
Waldorf Schools are characterized by a strong sense of community in their
schools. Several aspects contribute to develop this feeling of community. To begin with,
the great majority of students in Waldorf schools spend their entire education in the
same school. * 431 From first through eighth grade students remain within the same group
and the same teacher. In some countries the class may even go all the way through high
school together. During their school-life, students go on several trips with their class
teacher and twice a year, parents, students, and teacher go on parent-organized day
trips. 432
Another factor that adds to building a sense of community in Waldorf Schools is
the range of activities promoted by the latter. Throughout the year, Waldorf Schools
celebrate festivals (in which the parents organize), promote seminars, workshops, and
lectures, sponsor performances, and frequently invite parents to watch their children’s
presentations.
In sum, this close, frequent, and intense contact among teachers, students, and
parents is what makes their sense of community so strong.
*
Most parents choose the Waldorf system because of its unique approach to education rather than because of its
locality. As Waldorf schools are usually comprehensive, K-8, and some of them K-12, most families have their
children complete their education in the same school.
154
4.2.2.1.b. Atmosphere of Friendship and Respect
In Montessori Schools, the atmosphere of friendship and respect cultivated in
their schools is the distinguishing feature of their system that promotes caring relations.
Teachers as well as students are expected to build positive, caring, and constructive
relationships with all members of the school community. 433 Students are often assigned
to work with other students they might have difficulties in relating to, so they can learn
to work out their differences. They are often encouraged to assist the younger ones; they
are continuously reminded not to disturb their colleagues’ independent work; and they
are frequently asked to respect each other’s different personalities. 434
In addition to this atmosphere of respect and understanding cultivated in the
daily life of the school, Montessori Schools also promotes a range of trips (daily and
week-long trips) throughout the year to strengthen the relationship between students and
teachers and between the students themselves. The emphasis is always in developing
friendship, understanding, and respect toward the other.
4.2.2.1.c. Collaboration and Cooperation
One of the most distinguishing features of the Reggio approach is the strong
sense of collaboration and cooperation among all members of the school community. 435
It is present in the way children work, in how teachers, educators, children, parents, and
staff relate to one another, and in the support provided by the city administrators. In all
155
Reggio Schools, teachers work in pairs. All the work they do with children is jointly
planned, discussed, and analyzed. They frequently exchange ideas and plan project
work with the atelierista and they continuously receive support from the team of
pedagogical coordinators. Parents also collaborate with teachers and children in their
projects and they often participate in discussions concerning educational issues.
When working with children, teachers take the role of partners. 436 They are
always ready to follow the children in their discoveries, to learn with them, to reflect on
their own practice, and to change. Thus, rather than adopting a hierarchical attitude,
Reggio teachers take a cooperative stance, where everyone is subjected to learning and
everybody is responsible to make it happen.
4.2.2.1.d. Universal Love
A unique feature of NHE Schools is their emphasis on developing universal
love. As discussed previously, Neohumanist educators believe children should be taught
values of non-violence, compassion, justice, tolerance, reciprocal respect, friendship,
and love for all. Stories, drama, dancing, singing and mediation are some of the means
by which children are introduced to think about these themes. 437 Singing mantras and
meditation, though, appear to be the most common mediums used in their schools to
invite children to enter into a state of love. Neohumanist educators believe that chanting
mantras and meditation are essential vehicles to arouse feelings of love and to bring
unity among people. 438 In NHE Schools, teachers and children sing or chant mantras
156
(words of deep spiritual meaning) several times during the day, usually before
meditation and meals. During meditation, children are often invited to contemplate
upon the principles of universal love and to expand their feelings of love to those
around them, to the wider community, and to humanity as a whole.
4.2.2.2. Teacher’s Role
In the four school systems, the role of the teacher is essential in fostering caring
relations. In general, teachers across all school systems are expected to provide a safe
environment to children, where they feel valued, respected, understood, accepted, and
cared for. Additionally, teachers are supposed to build positive and friendly
relationships with parents and make them feel part of the school community
(particularly in Reggio, Waldorf, and NHE Schools).
Although the four school systems appear to share similar views about their
expectations for teachers to foster caring relations, they differ in the ways in which they
approach this matter.
In Waldorf Schools, teachers are expected to establish a deep and intimate
relationship with each student. 439 They must attentively observe every one of them,
listen to their needs, bring them to their meditation, and develop a deep understanding
of them. They are expected to protect, love, and fully accept each one of them. 440 The
intense and close contact teachers have with their pupils inside (eight years with the
157
same class) and outside the school environment (field-trips, excursions, and home
visits) * is what facilitates the development of this intimate relationship.
Montessori teachers are also expected to love, understand, and accept all their
students but most importantly, they must respect each one of them. 441 Their role is to
strive to establish positive relationships with their pupils based on respect, equality, and
love. They are supposed to have an egalitarian relationship with their students, where
they respect and support the choices and decisions they make.
In Reggio Schools, the teachers’ primarily role is to assist children to achieve
the best in themselves. That includes, knowing their pupils well, establishing a personal
connection with each one of them, respecting their thoughts, contributions, and
decisions, assisting them to implement their ideas, and caring for their wellbeing442
In NHE Schools, the emphasis is on practicing the principles of universal love.
Teachers are expected to show kindness, generosity, patience, humility, and selflessness
toward children, and to be just and fair. 443 They must foster cooperation, compassion,
and sharing among children. Finally, they must strive to build a loving and caring
relation with each child and its family. †
*
Waldorf teachers usually pay a visit to each new child’s home soon after they enter the school.
Neohumanist teachers also pay a home visit to each new child that comes into their school, as a way to establish a
closer rapport with the child and its family.
†
158
4.2.2.3. Parents’ Role
Parents have an important role in the community life of the four school systems.
Their participation and dedication to the school are important aspects in the
development of caring relations in the school community. Although parents’
responsibilities vary across the four school systems, and across each school, overall,
they share some common roles.
In both Waldorf and NHE Schools, for example, parents help organize and
coordinate most school’s events and activities, they participate in lectures and
workshops offered by the school, * they serve on parent (NHE) or school (Waldorf)
committees, and they have a very close contact with their children’s teachers. 444 In both
systems, parents take an active role in the community life of the school but inside the
classroom their roles are quite different. In NHE Schools, parents are welcomed to
volunteer in the classrooms or even to teach some “electives.” 445 In the Waldorf system,
parent’s participation inside the classroom is practically nonexistent.
In Montessori Schools, parents also help with the school’ events and activities;
however their participation in the community life of the school does not appear to be as
extensive as the parents’ in Waldorf and NHE Schools. On the other hand, Montessori
parents, as in NHE Schools, are usually welcomed inside classrooms to share their
*
Both Waldorf and Neohumanist education offer lectures to parents to help them understand the philosophy of their
movement and the education their children are getting at school. The objective of both movements is to assist parents
to educate their children in accordance with their philosophy.
159
expertise or to help with the activities. 446 They also tend to have a close relationship
with their children’s teachers.
In Reggio Schools, parents take an active role inside and outside the classroom.
They collaborate with teachers in the projects they develop with children, they assist
students in their learning activities, they frequently meet with teachers to discuss the
progress of their children, they participate in discussions with Reggio educators and
administrators, and they help with the school’s proceedings and activities. 447
4.2.3. Evaluative Summary
The four school systems appear to be closely aligned with the contemporary
holistic view about caring relations. The holistic teacher training (helping teachers
connect with their deeper selves) is the only aspect that is not shared by all school
systems (only by Waldorf and NHE Schools). Nonetheless, in regards to the
relationships expected in education, the four approaches support the ideas advocated in
holistic education.
Pedagogical Features
Waldorf
Schools
Montessori
Schools
NHE Schools
Reggio
Schools
Teacher’s role
Parents’ role
Distinguishing characteristics:
* Strong sense of community
* Atmosphere of friendship and respect
* Collaboration and cooperation
* Universal love
Very high
Very high
Very high
Very high
Very high
Very high
Very high
Very high
Very high
Very high
Very high
Very high
Table 4.2 Summary of the pedagogical application of caring relations in the four school
systems
160
In regards to their application of this principle, table 4.2 summarizes the findings
across the four school systems. As the table indicates, the four school systems appear to
be committed to develop caring relations in their schools. Although each system
emphasizes one aspect over the other, they are all very firm about the role of the teacher
in caring for his/her students and the school community. The parents’ participation may
vary across the four school systems but on the whole they all contribute in one way or
another to the development of a caring community.
4.3. Freedom/Autonomy
Different from the other principles, the concept of freedom/autonomy is not a
theme widely discussed among contemporary holistic educators. With the exception of
a few who have paid more attention to this principle (Ron Miller, Nakagawa, Clark) in
their advocacy for holistic education, 448 the theme of freedom/autonomy is more present
in the works of former educators (Rousseau, Froebel, Pestalozzi, the American
transcendentalists, Dewey, Krishnamurti, Steiner, Montessori, etc.), radical critics
(Illich, Holt, Neill), and anarchists (Ferrer), who are commonly referred as pioneers or
contributors to the movement of holistic education, than in the works of contemporary
holistic educators. 449
161
Broadly speaking, in holistic education, the principle of freedom/autonomy
stands for inner freedom, freedom of mind and expression, and freedom of action.
Holistic educators are usually concerned with the attainment of inner/spiritual freedom,
through providing an atmosphere that allows freedom of mind and expression, and with
an education that fosters freedom of choice and autonomy in the learning process. 450
Considering the complexity of this subject, I first examine the holistic view about inner
freedom and freedom of mind and expression before I explore the holistic arguments
about freedom of action.
4.3.1. Inner Freedom
Reaching inner freedom is an important theme in both Western and Eastern
holistic education. In Eastern holistic education, inner freedom is usually interpreted as
spiritual freedom; freedom from all bondages that inhibits one to reach the “higher
Self.” 451 In other words, for Eastern holistic thinking, to reach inner freedom is to
realize the “formless Self;” to achieve enlightenment. 452 Meditation and the arts are
usually the primary means used in Eastern holistic education to attain spiritual freedom.
In Western holistic education, inner freedom is commonly associated with
“psychological freedom,” freedom “from destructive conditioning, habits, and
opinions.” 453 To reach inner freedom, in Western thinking, is to free oneself from
conformism, 454 from external authorities, 455 from internalized discursive patterns, 456
and from alienation. 457 It is the ability to think for oneself, to find its own truth, to be
162
oneself. Critical thinking, deep reflection, investigation of internalized discourses, and
sheltering from destructive conditioning are the main themes advocated by Western
humanistic/holistic thinkers to reach inner freedom.
Krishnamurti, * for example, who has dedicated his life to free human mind from
the conditioning effects of internal (internalized discourse) and external authorities
(religion, nationalism, theories, etc.), insisted that only through a process of deep
investigation and self-discovery could one reach a state of freedom. 458 All external
authorities, he claimed, are forms of conditioning that imprison one’s self into preestablished patterns of thinking and obstruct one’s ability to perceive reality as it really
is. According to Krishnamurti, only when we are “constantly inquiring, constantly
observing, [and] constantly learning,” can we “find truth.” 459
Another means for fostering inner freedom, particularly during childhood, which
attracted various thinkers in the field of holistic/humanistic education, is sheltering
children from external hindrances (harmful authorities, judgments, and opinions).
Rousseau, Neill, and Illich were some of the advocates in this area. Rousseau, for
example, believed that guarding the child from the pressures and corruptions of a
“civilized society” was vital in order to form a free person. 460 His main concern was
with the damaging effects of adults’ judgments and opinions upon the child’s reasoning.
For Rousseau, a young mind would only thrive in an ambience of liberty, free from
external authority and from the “passions and opinions of men.” 461 Only in freedom, he
argued, would a youngster be able to see with his eyes, feel with his heart, and judge
*
Although Krishnamurti is originally from India and his ideas reflect his Eastern heritage, his work has greatly
influenced Western thinking, especially in the field of psychology.
163
with his mind. Only in freedom would he be able to become a free man, where “no
authority [would] govern him beyond that of his own reason.” 462
Neill, too, believed that sheltering the child from external authority was essential
in order to raise free individuals. 463 In his view, compelled respect to authority and
moral discipline always implies fear, which wipes out any possibility for real freedom.
In his school (Summerhill), Neill sought to provide an environment free of any
authority (be it discipline, direction, suggestion, moral training, religious instruction,
etc.) and of any adult expectation (to avoid conformity). In that way, he believed
children could have a chance to discover themselves, to think by themselves and to
ultimately be themselves.
Illich was considerably more radical than Rousseau and Neill in his advocacy
for sheltering children from destructive influences. He regarded the “institutions” as the
chief destructing forces and he positioned the institutionalization of schooling as the
worst of them. 464 He criticized the schooling system as being the most powerful agent
in alienating, shaping, and molding one’s thinking. He argued that the impact of the
schooling system on society’s mode of thinking and acting in the world is so powerful
that subjects are instructed to believe that competing, possessing, and consuming are the
only true reality. Illich proposed the complete eradication of the schooling system as the
only way out to terminate the perpetual cycle of alienation and indoctrination.
The radical views reflected in Illich and Neill’s work added to the romantic view
of Rousseau and his followers, and the self-inquiry advocated by Krishnamurti, are
164
examples of the search for “psychological freedom” or inner freedom advocated in the
field of holistic education.
4.3.2. Freedom of Action/Autonomy
Western holistic education usually pays more attention to freedom of action or
freedom of choice than Eastern holistic education. The latter is primarily concerned
with inner freedom, which was discussed in the preceding section.
The advocacy for freedom of action and freedom of choice in Western holistic
education is founded on the fundamental premise that children have an inherent
motivation to learn and an incredible ability to act and deliver. Most educators and
philosophers, who were key thinkers in the evolution of the holistic education
movement (Rousseau, Pestalozzi, Froebel, Rogers, among others), 465 as well as other
thinkers, who have also been linked to the movement (Holt, Neill, Illich, Montessori,
among others), had a profound trust on the child’s innate desire to learn and in their
potential to make learning happen. They believed children are natural, born learners,
who can be trusted in their pursuit for learning “without much adult coercion or
interference.” 466 A common argument among them is that children ought to be afforded
enough freedom to seek out their own learning experiences; they need to feel that they
are the author and agent in the learning process, that they can make decisions about
what and how they want to learn. 467 It is the children’s interests that should lead the
learning activities and not otherwise. Another argument shared by most advocates of
165
freedom in education is that learning is the result of an independent, voluntary,
autonomous act carried out by the child itself and never a product of someone’s
teaching. 468 Genuine learning, it is argued, can only emerge from the subject’s own
discoveries, experiences, and conclusions.
The teacher’s role within this atmosphere of freedom usually takes the form of a
facilitator. Most advocates in this area argued that the teacher’s primary function is to
observe, guide, and stimulate children’s inquiries. It is the child who leads the way, the
teacher follows and supports. 469
In summary, Western holistic education calls for an education that trusts
children’s inherent motivation to learn and their potential to make learning happen. An
education that gives them freedom of choice in their learning experiences, supports their
inquiries (teacher as the facilitator), fosters their independence and autonomy, and
places them as the agent in the learning process. In short, they argue for an education
that begins with the child. As Ron Miller claims, the child is the “true beginning of
holistic education.” 470
An education that starts with standards, with government mandates, with a
selection of great books, with lesson plans—in short, with a predetermined
“curriculum”—is not holistic, for it loses the living reality of the growing,
learning, seeking human being. 471
166
4.3.3. The Principle of Freedom/Autonomy in the Four School Systems
With the exception of Reggio Schools, the other three school systems have the
development of free human beings as their ultimate goal. Although each approach
follows a different path to reach such goal, Waldorf, Montessori, and NHE Schools are
committed to provide, what they believe to be, the best means to develop free
individuals.
In NHE Schools, the emphasis is on attaining inner freedom. Similar to Eastern
holistic education, Neohumanist educators are mostly concerned with spiritual freedom,
with the realization of the “higher Self.” 472 The emphasis in their schools is on freeing
the mind rather than allowing children too much free choice. 473 The goal in NHE
Schools is to liberate human consciousness from all bondage that inhibits one to
perceive reality and to awaken the young mind to a vision of universalism. 474 In other
words, their aim is to liberate the intellect from narrow-mindedness, from bigotry
(commonly reinforced by the media, the literature, and most isms – capitalism, sexism,
racism, nationalism) and to inspire it with a more broadminded vision of life to the point
that one can perceive unity in the middle of multiplicity.
In addition to being concerned with the attainment of inner freedom,
Neohumanist educators advocate for “self-directed learning.” 475 They believe students
should have autonomy in their learning experiences and should be encouraged to pursue
their interests and to take ownership of their own learning. 476 Nonetheless, unlike
holistic educators, they do not seem to recognize the child’s inherent motivation to
167
learn. In NHE Schools, the emphasis is on awakening “the thirst for knowledge in the
students’ minds,” 477 instead of allowing the child’s innate desire to seek for knowledge.
In Waldorf Schools, the keynote is also the attainment of inner freedom but
within a more Western perspective. Rather than seeking spiritual freedom, the aim of
Waldorf Schools is to develop free individuals who can find their own truth when they
reach adult life. 478 Unlike most holistic/humanistic educators, Steiner interpreted
freedom as a state achieved in the course of adult life rather than a principle to be
practiced during childhood. 479 In fact, he sternly argued against affording undue
freedom to children prematurely. He firmly believed that before puberty, children are
not ready for independent judgment, for questioning values, for discussing ideas
objectively, or for intellectually determining right from wrong. He claimed that what
children needed is right guidance and a loving relationship with their teacher based
upon trust and respect for his/her authority. Hence in Waldorf Schools, “freedom is a
long-term goal cultivated through love, structure, and control.” 480 In high school
however, Waldorf students enjoy some level of freedom. They are encouraged to pursue
their interests, to take risks, to make decisions, and to voice their opinions. In short, they
are encouraged to invest in their own self-development.
In Montessori Schools, the emphasis is on the development of independence and
autonomy. Radically different from Steiner, Maria Montessori believed that the road to
inner freedom lies in providing freedom to children. 481 She placed independence as the
departure point in the path to attaining freedom. She claimed that no one could be truly
free without having first achieved independence as a basis. 482 For Montessori, a “child
168
who has never learned to act alone, to direct his own actions, to govern his own will,
grows into an adult who is easily led and must always lean upon others.” 483
Along with her advocacy for independence, Montessori, similar to holistic
educators, had deep faith in the child’s inherent motivation to learn. She even claimed
that young children favor work in place of play. She sternly argued that children should
have the freedom to choose their learning experiences and teachers should support and
guide their choices. In Montessori’s view, the more freedom we grant children to be in
charge of their own learning, the more independent and autonomous they become, and
the more responsible they turn out to be towards their own learning. 484
In Montessori Schools, therefore, children experience a great extent of freedom
(not to the point of the Free Schools). Their educational approach is carefully designed
to provide the best possible conditions to foster independence, autonomy, and
responsibility, and ultimately to develop free human beings.
Reggio Schools, contrary to Waldorf, Montessori, and NHE Schools, do not
state that their goal is to develop free and independent individuals. Yet, values of
freedom, autonomy, and independence are at the heart of their pedagogical approach.
Reggio educators believe children should have the right to choose, create, and construct
their own learning activities. They have the image of children as competent beings who
have “an inherent desire to grow, to know, and to understand things around them.” 485
Unlike Steiner, Reggio educators regard children as independent thinkers and
“producers of original points of view.” 486 Hence, in Reggio Schools, children as well as
educators exercise a high degree of freedom and autonomy in their activities. 487 As
169
discussed previously, Reggio Schools have no pre-determined curriculum. Teachers and
children are the authors of the curriculum. Jointly, they determine the content, the
duration, and the process of each learning activity. The curriculum emerges as the
children’s interests grow, it develops as teachers plan, it solidifies as research reveals. 488
In short, in Reggio Schools, children have the freedom and autonomy to co-construct
and co-create their own education.
4.3.4. Pedagogical Features that Fosters Freedom/Autonomy
As can be noted from the preceding section, the four school systems have
divergent views about freedom and distinctive ways to approach this principle.
Likewise, their pedagogical practices that address this principle are also somehow
different. Seven main themes integrate the pedagogical features identified across the
four school systems that promote freedom and/or autonomy: independence, freedom of
choice, freedom of mind and expression, freedom from consumerist values,
meditation/the arts, teacher’s role, teacher’s autonomy.
4.3.4.1. Independence
Of the four school systems, Montessori Schools are the ones that devote most
attention to the development of independence. As discussed previously, Maria
Montessori regarded independence as the departure point in the path to attaining
170
freedom. One of the main pedagogical elements in Montessori Schools to foster
independence is their “prepared environment” (the teacher’s role and freedom of choice
are other features, which will be addressed separately). Montessori believed that only an
environment especially prepared for the child’s needs, with appropriate furniture and
materials could render the child independent of the adult; only in a “prepared
environment” could the child function without adult’s help. 489 Hence, in Montessori
Schools, children from a very young age work independently with the materials they
choose from the “prepared environment.” As the majority of materials are selfcorrective, children do most of their learning on their own. As they grow older, this
independent learning continues through the individualized approach offered in
Montessori Schools (discussed earlier). 490 They are given the authority to make
decisions, to govern their learning experiences, and to organize their work. In sum, in
Montessori Schools, children are deliberately trained into self-discipline and
independence and they are expected to act accordingly.
In Reggio Schools, children also experience a significant level of independence
in their learning experiences. They are usually free to explore the schools’ environment,
which is also prepared (not with specially designed materials though) to stimulate the
children’s independent discoveries. They are encouraged to pursue their interests in the
projects they engage themselves, to make decisions, and to take charge of their work.
Nonetheless, Reggio children typically work in groups with the collaboration of
teachers and/or parents, who are constantly guiding and scaffolding their project work.
171
Hence, it can be argued that in Reggio Schools, children do not experience the same
level of independence as children in Montessori Schools.
In NHE Schools, independence is fostered primarily through their advocacy for
an individualized approach to learning and for “self-directed learning.” 491 As discussed
previously, Neohumanist educators believe students should have autonomy in their
learning experiences and should be encouraged to pursue their interests and to take
ownership of their own learning. However, as stated several times, due to the flexibility
of the Neohumanist learning methodology, I cannot affirm that this is a constant
practice across all NHE Schools.
In the Waldorf system, only high school students experience some independence
in their education. Usually at this level, students have more freedom to explore their
own interests and to make decisions on their own. 492
4.3.4.2. Freedom of Choice
In both Montessori and Reggio Schools, children enjoy a high level of freedom
to make choices. 493 In Montessori Schools, young children can freely choose their
learning activities as well as determine how long they want to spend in each activity. *
Older students have the freedom to choose the themes of their projects, to select
activities, and to organize and coordinate their independent work, as they deem
*
Although children in Montessori schools have great freedom to choose their activities, they are not allowed to do
just anything they want. They are expected to do something that is good and useful. The emphasis is on “work”. As
long as they are “working” on something purposeful, they enjoy the freedom to be in charge of their choices.
172
appropriate. * Montessori insisted that students be granted mental freedom to choose and
take what they need for their learning and that they should never be questioned in their
choices. 494
In Reggio Schools, all activities begin, grow, and end based on the children’s
interests and all projects emerge out of their ideas. With the help of adults, they create
their projects; they jointly choose the topics; they lead the course of the work, and
together they co-construct and co-create their own learning activities. 495
In NHE Schools, students enjoy some freedom of choice through the
individualized approach to learning and self-directed learning. 496 However, this may
vary from school to school.
In Waldorf Schools, only older students (high school) have the liberty to make
some choices in their learning experiences (e.g. projects, activities). 497
4.3.4.3. Freedom of Mind and Expression
Of the four school systems, Reggio Schools are the ones that most promote
freedom of mind and expression. In Reggio Schools, children are encouraged to freely
voice their thoughts, articulate their ideas, and express their feelings. 498 All their
projects are born out of their ideas, inquiries, and interests, which means what they
think and do is recognized and valued. Furthermore, the Reggio approach encourages
children to use multiple mediums of expression, allowing them more possibilities to
*
Montessori schools do follow a curriculum and students are subjected to it. However, teachers can organize in such
a way that students have the freedom to make choices while still attending the standards required by the curriculum.
173
communicate their ideas and thoughts freely instead of being restrained by one mode of
expression. 499
In Montessori Schools, children (at elementary and upper levels) are also
encouraged to communicated their ideas, express their thoughts, and voice their
opinions in most discussions, activities, and project work carried out in the schools. 500
However, in the early childhood program, children are somehow limited in their scope
of self-expression. Montessori’s “prepared environment” with specially designed
materials leaves little room for children to expand their thinking because they are
restricted to work only with the materials available, which limits their possibilities to
explore and think outside the confines of the material.
In NHE Schools, freedom of mind and expression is fostered primarily through
their critical pedagogy approach, or as they call it, their “critical spirituality”
approach. * 501 Neohumanist teachers are expected to constantly examine the sources of
their teaching materials; deconstruct biases embedded in books, stories, literature, and
songs together with students; raise questions in classrooms about prejudices, injustices,
and stereotypes; present various perspectives to students; teach students to analyze,
think rationally, and discriminate about facts and events; and help them evaluate a
situation in the light of universal welfare. 502 The goal of NHE Schools is to liberate the
young mind from dogmas and narrow-mindedness, to help them develop a broader
perspective of things, and to awaken them to a vision of universalism. A limiting aspect
*
The critical spirituality advocated by Neohumanist educators is quite similar to Freire’s “critical pedagogy” (The
pedagogy of the Oppressed) and his followers’. The main difference between their approaches is that Neohumanist
educators combine critical pedagogy with their “universal” vision of life (Bussey, “The Neohumanist Way”).
174
of the Neohumanist approach is the insistence of Neohumanist educators to convey their
vision of universalism to students because it induces them to accept this vision as the
truth.
In Waldorf Schools, once again, only high school students enjoy the freedom to
express their thoughts and their ideas. Adolescents usually are encouraged to voice their
opinions in discussions, to articulate their ideas in their projects, and to express
themselves in their artistic creations.
4.3.4.4. Freedom from Consumerist Values
Waldorf and NHE Schools regard materialistic/consumerist values as destructive
influences in the development of the young mind. 503 Leaders of the two systems believe
that consumerism subtly molds the children’s minds and drags them away from their
true being. Hence, both Waldorf and NHE Schools try to shield students from the
influence of consumerist values, or the pressure of “pseudo-culture,” * as Neohumanist
educators call it. In NHE Schools, the arts (including literature) are the main vehicles
used to distract children’s attention from materialistic values. These mediums,
Neohumanist educators argue, develop students’ taste for subtler and finer modes of
expression, and consequently turn them away from the emptiness of “pseudo-culture.”
In Waldorf Schools, consumerism is avoided at all levels. Television and “artificial”
toys are highly discouraged. Children usually have restrictions about what they wear (to
*
Neohumanist leaders call “pseudo-culture” all kinds of dance, music, and dress style that are produced with the aim
of being “short-term profit making”, proliferated basically everywhere through the media, toys, books, etc.
175
avoid conveying particular messages) and they are not allowed to bring toys or
electronics to school. All products and materials in Waldorf Schools tend to be naturally
made and most of the projects, activities, and performances usually employ hand-made
products. In short, Waldorf educators try their hardest to keep their students free from
consumerist values.
4.3.4.5. Meditation and/or The Arts
The practice of mediation and the arts are two other pedagogical features
identified across the schools that foster freedom. As discussed earlier, meditation and
the arts are the primary means used in Eastern holistic education to attain inner/spiritual
freedom. 504 Although none of the school systems refer to the arts as a vehicle to reach
spiritual freedom (Waldorf and NHE do recognize it as a means to connect with one’s
higher self), the presence of the arts in their curriculum indirectly works in this
direction, if we take the Eastern holistic perspective into consideration. As described in
the previous chapters, the four school systems have the arts in their curriculum.
Waldorf, Reggio, and NHE Schools have their whole curriculum permeated with the
arts, and Montessori Schools have artistic activities in the elementary and upper grades
as a separate subject.
In regards to meditation, NHE Schools are the only ones that have this practice
in their schools (considering that in Montessori Schools the emphasis is on quietness).
176
Meditation is deliberately used as a spiritual practice with the ultimate goal of spiritual
realization or spiritual freedom. 505
4.3.4.6. Teacher’s Role
The teacher is another vital element in the pedagogy of the four school systems
to foster freedom/autonomy. The teacher’s role in promoting this principle, though,
varies considerably from one system to the other.
In Montessori Schools, the teacher’s role is to foster the children’s autonomy
and independence. Teachers are expected to carefully balance their assistance to
children. They must strive to remain in “the background, only preparing for the children
to work by themselves.” 506 The role of Montessori teachers is to provide guidance and
encouragement, but only to the point that elicits the children’s interest; the rest should
be left to children themselves. 507 In short, in Montessori Schools, teachers are supposed
to “help the child to act for himself, will for himself, [and] think for himself.” 508
In Reggio Schools, teachers take a more dynamic role. Although they are also
very cautious about the assistance they provide to children (carefully listening,
observing, and deciding the right moment to intercede), they are, on the other hand,
very active in promoting opportunities to stimulate the children’s learning
experiences. 509 Reggio educators work as facilitators, “scaffolding” children to create
their own projects. 510 They give children freedom to exercise autonomy in their work
177
but they strive to provide the best possible assistance, so children can accomplish what
they might have not been able to if they were on their own. 511
In NHE Schools, the teacher’s role is to free student’s mind from narrowmindedness and bigotry and to inspire it with a more broadminded vision of life. 512
They are expected to foster critical inquiry in their classrooms through an atmosphere of
respect, mutual affection, and trust, so students can express their ideas freely without
criticism. Additionally, Neohumanist teachers are entrusted to carefully guide their
students into a spiritual lifestyle and to gently lead them to liberate their true selves. 513
Finally in Waldorf Schools, the role of the teacher is to guide, protect, and
control, so their students can safely tread the path to inner freedom. Waldorf teachers
are instructed to be role models for the young children, to provide direction and
authority to the elementary and middle school students, and to support the adolescents’
journey towards self-development. They are supposed to shield their students from the
influences of materialism and from the harsh reality of the real world (poverty, hunger,
abuse, violence). Waldorf teachers are also expected to protect their students from
judgments and opinions. They must present all subject matter completely free of any
ideological biases and they must restrain children from premature judgment (avoiding
discussions in class in the early grades). 514
178
4.3.4.7. Teacher’s Autonomy
The final element identified across the school systems that furthers
freedom/autonomy is the level of autonomy that teachers have to carry out their work.
Of the four school systems, Reggio Schools are the ones that afford most
autonomy to teachers/educators to design, organize, and plan their work with children.
Despite the fact that Reggio Schools are part of the public school system, which could
limit their autonomy to plan and teach, Reggio educators still appears to have more
freedom and autonomy to develop their work than teachers from the other school
systems. In addition to having the freedom to co-create (together with children) their
own curriculum, Reggio educators also have the autonomy to author the entire
pedagogical process. 515 They create learning opportunities, as they deem appropriate.
They document the children’s work and discuss new courses of action. They plan
projects based on their observations and analysis. They guide children as they progress.
They research, investigate, question, and learn with the students; and they re-orient the
educational activities as they discover new possibilities.
In Montessori Schools, teachers also enjoy significant freedom and autonomy in
the planning and management of their teaching, particularly in the elementary and upper
grades. 516 However, they have to follow the Montessori method (especially in the early
childhood program, where the method has been thoroughly described), which inevitably
limits their freedom to create new possibilities.
179
In NHE Schools, teachers do not have a pre-specified pedagogical methodology
to follow, which affords them more autonomy to plan and create their own lesson
plans. 517 However, Neohumanist teachers have to follow the Neohumanist educational
philosophy, which is fixed and well defined in terms of its educational goals (which
includes, development of morality, development of universal love, critical spirituality,
and so forth). Hence, although Neohumanist teachers have autonomy to create their
learning activities, they have to follow philosophical curriculum of Neohumanist
education.
In Waldorf Schools, teachers have considerable less autonomy in their work in
comparison to the other systems. They have to follow the strict guidelines of the
Waldorf curriculum and they are expected to follow the values embedded in the
spiritual science developed by Steiner (Anthroposophy). Nevertheless, Waldorf teachers
appear to have some freedom in the creation of their lessons and they seem to exercise
full autonomy (or control) to lead and guide their students. 518 In Waldorf Schools,
teachers have sole responsibility to guide their students’ path of development, as there
are no directors or principals in the Waldorf system (every teacher works under the
supervision of another teacher).
4.3.5. Evaluative Summary
Of the four school systems, Montessori’s philosophy appear to be the most
aligned with the ideas and values of holistic education. Although Montessori educators
180
do not refer to psychological freedom or spiritual freedom, they do share the holistic
quest for inner freedom and its advocacy for the children’s autonomy in education.
Reggio Schools support most of the ideas about freedom and autonomy in
education, which holistic educators argue for. However, they do not have as a goal in
their education, the development of inner freedom or the pursuit for psychological
freedom.
NHE Schools, on the other hand, share the holistic quest for inner (spiritual)
freedom as well as its advocacy for psychological freedom. Nonetheless, they do not
appear to value freedom of choice and autonomy to the same extent as holistic
educators. The Waldorf system appears to be least aligned with the holistic ideas about
freedom and autonomy. Although, they have the development of inner freedom as their
primary goal in education and they share some of the ideas argued by holistic educators
in regards to psychological freedom (protection from destructive influences), they, on
the other hand, strongly disagree with the idea of affording extensive freedom to
children prematurely.
In regards to the pedagogical application of this principle, table 4.3 summarizes
the findings across the four school systems. As the table indicates, NHE and Reggio
Schools appear to be the most committed to foster freedom/autonomy in comparison
with the other two school systems. Although Reggio educators provide greater freedom
(of choice, mind, and expression) and autonomy (independence) to children in their
learning experiences, and they appear to have more autonomy in their work in
comparison to Neohumanist educators; the latter compensates this difference with their
181
high commitment to guide the child into the path of inner/spiritual freedom (through
meditation, art, critical pedagogy, and freedom from consumerist values). Hence,
Reggio and NHE Schools appear to have the same level of commitment to foster
freedom/autonomy.
Pedagogical Features
Waldorf
Schools
Montessori
Schools
NHE Schools
Reggio Schools
Independence
Freedom of choice
Freedom of mind/expression
Freedom from consumerist values
Meditation and/or the arts
Teacher’s role
Teacher’s autonomy
Low
Low
Low
Very high
High
Very high
Moderate
Very high
Very high
High
N/P
Low
Very high
High
Moderate
Moderate
High
Very high
Very High
Very high
High
High
Very High
Very high
N/P
High
Very high
Very high
Table 4.3 Summary of the pedagogical application of freedom/autonomy across the four
school systems
In Montessori Schools, the principle of freedom/autonomy appears to be applied
at a lower extent in comparison to Reggio and NHE Schools. Although Montessori
Schools are very committed to foster the children’s autonomy and independence, and to
give them freedom to make choices, they do not appear to devote as much attention to
freedom of mind and expression as the other two school systems (the limiting aspect of
their “prepared environment” and no reference to freedom from materialism), neither do
they offer many opportunities for the development of inner/spiritual freedom
(meditation is not part of their curriculum and artistic activities are offered few times a
week). Montessori teachers also seem to have less autonomy in their work in
comparison to Reggio educators.
182
Waldorf Schools appears to be the least committed of all systems to foster
freedom/autonomy. That Waldorf educators have such a different conception in how to
guide the child into the path of inner freedom, in comparison to the other three systems
as well as the field of holistic education, helps to explain my findings about their
schools. Although Waldorf educators are very devoted to guide the child into the path
of inner freedom such as Neohumanist educators (through guidance, structure, and
control, art, and protection from destructive influences), the level of freedom and
autonomy they grant to children before they reach high school is practically nonexistent. In NHE Schools, children have some freedom of choice, mind, and expression.
In Waldorf Schools, from early childhood through middle school, children are
constantly under direction and control. 519 Elementary school teachers “direct students
step by step throughout almost all their experiences at school.” 520 There is hardly any
opportunity for children to engage in independent activities in class or to participate in
discussions, as most instruction is teacher-centered and discussions are highly
discouraged. Students are not allowed free composition because it is believed that they
are not mature enough to express original thoughts yet. 521 Their artistic activities are
also structured and directed by the teacher, following Steiner’s indications. In sum, in
Waldorf Schools, children have basically no freedom or autonomy in their education
until they reach high school. Finally, in addition to the students’ lack of freedom and
autonomy, Waldorf teachers also have less autonomy in the planning of their lessons in
comparison to the other three systems.
183
4.4. Democracy
The principle of democracy is also an important element in holistic education.
Contemporary holistic educators refuse to accept rigid, authoritarian systems ruled by
economic, social, and cultural power. Instead they call for a democratic system, which
values cooperation, group participation, shared-decision making, and egalitarian
structures. 522 They call for “participatory democracy,” where citizens feel “empowered
to participate in meaningful ways in the life of the community and the planet.” 523
The term “participatory democracy,” reports Ron Miller, was first used by the
“New Left in the 1960s (e.g. the Port Huron statement of 1962) as a way of reclaiming
the essence of democratic idealism in a society that believed had grown over-organized,
hierarchical and authoritarian.” Nonetheless, prior to the New Left movement, John
Dewey was one of the most important advocates in this area. 524 Dewey thought that a
democratic social organization is the best culture for ensuring the fullest development of
each person. 525 He believed that individuals need to feel that they are valuable
participants in a community. Additionally, he argued, in a democratic society,
individuals have the freedom to express their thoughts and ideas, the choice to
participate, and the power to create and transform; yet, they still have the social
responsibility towards the group and the society. 526 In a democracy, he claimed,
individuals have to learn to adjust their needs to meet the interests of the group and be
flexible to meet the demands of “the new situations produced by varied intercourse;” 527
it is a joint participation and a joint decision-making.
184
In education, the principle of democracy is applied in similar way. Members of
the community participate in the management and in the decisions regarding the social
institutions they are affiliated. A democratic education, argues Ron Miler (one the most
adamant advocates of democracy in the field of holistic education) enables young
people “to experience or practice meaningful participation in the social institution with
which they are most intimately involved.” 528 A democratic school, he continues, “is not
one that treats children as if they were already adults,” but one that teaches them to
engage in collaborative problem solving and prepares them “to exercise a mature sense
of social responsibility.” 529
In addition to advocating for “participatory democracy,” contemporary holistic
educators also call for open, democratic, and egalitarian teacher-student relationship. 530
Eisler’s “partnership education,” is an example of a democratic model of education that
values egalitarian relationships, which has been embraced by the holistic education
movement. 531 In “partnership education”, teacher and students’ knowledge and
experience are valued, cooperation among individuals and groups are facilitated,
decisions are shared and everyone is invited to participate. It is an approach to
education in which both students and teachers jointly discuss and make decisions about
the process, content, and structure. 532
185
4.4.1. The Principle of Democracy in the Four School Systems
Similar to holistic education, the four school systems also reject authoritarian
organizational systems and dictatorial relationships. In response, they too, advocate for
a mode of living based on democratic principles. In Each school system, this principle is
manifested differently.
In the Reggio approach, the most apparent indicator of their commitment to
democratic values is their emphasis on group work, cooperation, and collaborative
learning. In Reggio Schools, almost all activities involve the participation of two or
more individuals. Children work in groups, teachers work in pairs, and educators work
in teams. 533 Interaction, discussion, cooperation, and co-construction set the tone of
Reggio’s environment. Everyone is considered competent and every idea is regarded as
important. 534
In the Montessori system, the principle of democracy is most evident in the
mode of social living fostered in their schools. Montessori educators place great
emphasis on social education. From a very early age through high school, students in
Montessori Schools are educated to live as members of the class community. 535 They
are instructed to always balance their individual freedom with the needs of the group.
They are encouraged to be themselves and to act freely but they must simultaneously
restrict their individual “freedom for the sake of adjustment to the group.” 536
In Waldorf Schools, the exercise of democracy is manifested primarily in the
administration of the school and limited to adults. As described in Chapter 2, every
186
Waldorf School is self-governed by a collective body of teachers. All decisions
concerning curricula, students, faculty, enrollment, and resources come before the
college of teachers for discussion and determination. 537 They all share equal rights in
decision-making and they are all equally responsible for the various issues concerning
the functioning of the school and the well being of students.
In NHE Schools, Eisler’s “partnership education” is the best descriptor of their
advocacy for democratic values. 538 What most attract Neohumanist educators is Eisler’s
critique of authoritarian structures, hierarchies of domination, gender inequalities, and
cultures of power. Neohumanist educators, even more than contemporary holistic
educators, repudiate authoritarian systems ruled by economic, social, and cultural
power. At the heart of NHE Schools is the urge to awaken human mind to the social
injustices, prejudices, and bias reinforced by capitalism, sexism, racism, nationalism,
etc. The Neohumanist vision is to build a new culture based on democratic, egalitarian,
and cooperative values. 539
4.4.2. Pedagogical Features that Foster Democracy
As seen in the previous section, the four school systems include, in one way or
another, the principle of democracy in their schools. Nonetheless, the extent by which
this principle is applied varies considerably across the four systems. Two main themes
integrate the pedagogical features identified across the school systems that foster
democratic principles: democracy in the classroom and democracy in the school.
187
4.4.2.1. Democracy in the Classroom
Democracy in the classroom refers to issues related to the students’ daily
learning experiences which includes teacher-student and student-student relationships,
decisions concerning students’ work, and group work.
Of the four school systems, the Reggio approach appears to be the one that most
applies this principle in their classrooms. In Reggio Schools, children’s work is always
the result of a joint collaboration among teachers, parents, and children. 540 In every
project work, everyone participates as partners and all voices are heard, respected, and
valued. * Children are encouraged to share their ideas, to discuss their opinions, and to
jointly make decisions. As they co-construct and co-create group projects, they learn to
listen to each other, to adjust to each other’s thoughts, and to incorporate each other’s
ideas. Teachers too, share a similar level of democracy in their work. As described
earlier, in Reggio Schools, teachers always work in pairs. Together, they plan, interpret,
and guide the children’s projects. Moreover, they think together and co-construct
“together towards a common interpretation of educational goals.” 541
In Montessori Schools, democracy in the classroom is mostly evident in the
relationships among students and between teacher and students, in group-work, and in
the decisions concerning students’ work (only in the elementary and upper grades
*
In Reggio schools, parents are also valued as competent. They are trusted to be “informed and productive members
of a cooperative educational team”. They are regarded as active subjects, contributors of “complementary and
necessary knowledge”.
188
though). As stated previously, students in Montessori Schools are continuously
reminded to refrain their “freedom for the sake of adjustment to the group.” 542 They are
expected at all times to respect the interests of the group and to “help maintain the
existing social order.” 543 Hence, during group-work (which is a common practice in
Montessori Schools), group discussions, and in their daily relationships with colleagues
and teachers, students are invited to share their ideas and express their opinions but they
are required to respect and consider each other’s points of view, ideas, and
contributions, and to jointly make decisions. The same kind of behavior is also expected
of teachers in their interactions with students and with each other. In regards to
students’ work, teachers are supposed to consider their ideas, evaluate their choices, and
jointly reach a decision with them about the work in question (not doing the work is not
an option in Montessori Schools).
In NHE Schools, the emphasis is more on cooperation, understanding, and
collaboration than on shared-decision making. Group-work and teacher-student and
student-student relationships are the primary means by which democratic values are
practiced in their classrooms. NHE Schools tend to favor group-work as a practice for
learning (although it is not constant across all schools).544 They view group-work as a
means to facilitate cooperative learning and understanding among students. This
emphasis on cooperation, collaboration, and understanding is also present in the
relationships between students and teachers and between the students themselves.
In Waldorf Schools, only high school students experience some democracy in
the classroom. 545 As discussed previously, students in the earlier grades have hardly
189
any freedom or autonomy in their education, which precludes any possibility for
democratic participation. In high school, the primary means by which democratic values
are practiced are through group-discussions. Other than that, there is not much
opportunity for students to experience democracy in the classroom.
4.4.2.2. Democracy in the School
Democracy in the School refers to issues related to school management,
students’ general education, and the community life of the school (activities, festivals,
etc.). It usually involves shared participation, management, and decision-making of all
those who are affected by the social institution.
In none of the selected school systems, do students participate in the decisions
regarding their general education or in issues related to the school. “Town meetings” or
“self government,” a common practice in democratic/free schools to allow students
democratic participation in their education, is not employed by any of the four school
systems.
The degree of participation of parents in the management and decisions
concerning the school and the students’ education is mixed across the four school
systems. In Waldorf Schools, parents may serve in school committees (usually related
to school management) and participate in the organization of school activities. 546 Issues
related to the students’ general education is restricted to teachers. In Montessori
Schools, parents take similar role but their participation in the school appears to be less
190
intense than the parents’ in Waldorf Schools. 547 In NHE Schools, parents are usually
required to contribute to the school. They may engage in some school activities (serving
on parent committee, organizing festivals, etc.), develop and teach “elective” units of
study, or they may help with behavioral management strategies. 548 Parents’
participation in NHE Schools, however, varies considerably from school to school.
Educational issues, though, are usually limited to teachers. 549
In Reggio Schools, contrary to the other three systems, parents are very active in
all areas of the school. Besides participating in several activities concerning the
community life of the school, parents are also invited to discuss educational issues
inside and outside the school. Every Reggio School has a Community Early-childhood
Council comprised of parents, community members, teachers, staff, and the
pedagogista. 550 This Council is elected every There years to give opportunity to several
parents to participate and have an active voice in the educational projects of the centers
and preschools.
The teachers’ role in the school also varies across the four approaches. In
Waldorf Schools, teachers run a system of self-government. They are responsible for all
issues concerning curricula, students, and school management and they share equal
rights in all decision-making. 551 Montessori Schools usually follow the regular
hierarchical system with a principal, a body of teachers, and administrators. In Reggio
Schools, all educators (teachers, atelierista, pedagogista, and administrators) work in
collaboration with each other. 552 Together they discuss pedagogical issues, educational
outcomes, the implementations of new ideas, the welfare of the children and the
191
community, and so forth. As for NHE Schools, there are no references in the literature
about how educational issues are managed amongst teachers neither how schools are
normally run.
4.4.3. Evaluative Summary
Table 4.4 summarizes the findings relative to the pedagogical application of the
principle of democracy across the four school systems. As the table indicates, Reggio
Schools appear to be the most committed to applying democratic principles in
comparison to the other three school systems and the most aligned with the holistic
advocacy for “participatory democracy” and “partnership education.” In Reggio
Schools, there is shared participation and shared decision-making among educators,
parents, and children in almost all issues concerning the children’s education. Although
children do not discuss educational and community problems in “town meetings” (one
might argue they are too small for this (2-6 years-old), they do participate in all
decisions concerning their daily learning experiences.
Pedagogical Features
Waldorf
Schools
Montessori
Schools
NHE Schools
Reggio Schools
Democracy in the classroom
Democracy in the school
Low
Moderate
High
Low
Moderate
Low
Very High
High
Table 4.4 Summary of the pedagogical application of democracy across the four school
systems
192
In Montessori Schools, the principle of democracy is applied to a lower extent in
comparison to Reggio Schools. Although inside the classroom, students and teachers
participate democratically in most decisions concerning students’ learning experiences,
outside the classroom, there is very little opportunity for members of the school
community to practice democracy.
In NHE Schools, similar to Montessori Schools, the principle of democracy also
appears to be more present inside the classroom than outside. In NHE Schools, the
participation of parents in the school activities appears to be more extensive than in
Montessori Schools. However, there is no other apparent evidence of democratic
participation, particularly in regards to management and educational issues. Inside the
classroom, however, students do not seem to experience the same level of democratic
participation as students in Montessori Schools. As discussed earlier, the emphasis in
NHE Schools is more on cooperation than on shared decision-making. Although both
elements are important in the exercise of democracy, the key factor of a democratic
ideal is shared decision-making. Without this element one cannot really affirm that
democracy is present.
Waldorf Schools appear to be the least committed to applying the principle of
democracy in their schools. Although the democratic ideal is present among adults,
particularly amongst teachers (in their management of the school), the opportunity even
high school students have to practice “participatory democracy” appears to be minimal.
193
Thus, even though the four school systems advocate for a mode of living based
on democratic and egalitarian principles, only Reggio Schools appear to be fully
committed to applying pedagogically these principles in their approach to education.
194
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Throughout this study I explored the ideas and thoughts advocated by the
holistic education movement and I analyzed their pedagogical application in four
approaches to schooling. I selected eight broad principles, which I argued embrace most
of the philosophical ideas advocated by the holistic education movement. Four of these
principles (spirituality, reverence for life/nature, interconnectedness, and human
wholeness) encompass the spiritual/holistic orientation of holistic education whereas the
other four (individual uniqueness, caring relations, freedom/autonomy, democracy)
embrace the humanistic ideas embedded in their educational paradigm. For every
principle, I examined the philosophical perspectives of holistic education and the four
school systems relative to that principle. I then, investigated and evaluated the ways and
extent to which the selected school systems apply each principle in their educational
approaches.
In this chapter, I synthesize the findings of all eight principles. I first discuss the
philosophical agreement between the ideas advocated by the holistic education
movement and the perspectives of the four school systems relative to the eight
principles. I then discuss and evaluate the results concerning the pedagogical
195
application of the eight principles in the four selected school systems. In the subsequent
sections, I discuss in greater depth the findings concerning the application of the eight
principles in the four selected school systems, describe the limitations of this study,
address the implications for future research, and present a final conclusion.
5.1. Philosophical Agreement Between Holistic Education and the Four School Systems
Table 5.1 summarizes the findings relative to the philosophical agreement
between the ideas advocated by the holistic education movement and the perspectives of
the four school systems relative to the eight principles. I assigned the levels of
agreement shown in table 5.1 according to the following rationale:
Very high = the school system reflects almost all ideas advocated by the holistic
education movement about that particular principle.
High = the school system reflects most of the ideas advocated by the holistic
education movement about that particular principle.
Moderate = the school system reflects partially the ideas advocated by the
holistic education movement about that particular principle.
Low = the school system reflects one or two ideas advocated by the holistic
education movement about that particular principle.
N/R = there is no explicit reference in the school system’s literature to the ideas
advocated by the holistic education movement about that particular principle.
196
Waldorf
Schools
Montessori
Schools
NHE Schools
Reggio Schools
Human Spirituality
Reverence for life/nature
Interconnectedness
Human Wholeness
Very high
Very high
Very high
Very high
Very high
Very high
Very high
Very high
Very high
Very high
Very high
Very high
N/R
N/R
Moderate
Very high
Individual Uniqueness
Caring
Freedom/Autonomy
Democracy
High
Very high
Low
Low
Very high
Very high
High
Moderate
Very high
Very high
Moderate
Low
Very high
Very high
Moderate
Very high
Table 5.1 Philosophical agreement between holistic education and the four school
systems
As the table indicates, Montessori, Waldorf, and NHE Schools’ perspectives
about human spirituality, reverence for life/nature, interconnectedness, human
wholeness are the most aligned with the holistic ideas. These three school systems have
their philosophies grounded in the belief that humans are spiritual beings,
manifestations of a divine source, endowed with inherent knowledge and potentialities.
Like most holistic educators, they too, claim that education must nourish and guide the
child’s inherent possibilities of development and allow its self-unfolding to naturally
take place. Additionally, the three school systems share the holistic perspective about
life, the natural world, and the universe. They recognize all life in the universe as
sacred, divine and intrinsically interconnected. They believe education should cultivate
in children a feeling of reverence for the natural world, teach them about the
interconnectedness of life, and develop responsible adults who care about the
environment. In regards to learning, the three school systems also share the holistic
advocacy for experiential learning and for interdisciplinary approaches to teaching and
197
learning. Finally, like contemporary holistic educators, the three school systems are also
deeply concerned with the overall development of the child.
Reggio Schools, in contrast to the other three systems, agree only partially with
the holistic view about the spiritual/holistic-based principles. Reggio Schools do not
appear to share the spiritual paradigm of holistic education. Their philosophy is
grounded in sociocultural perspectives, 553 which views the self as socially and
culturally constructed rather than spiritually unfolding from within. Additionally,
Reggio educators do not refer to the natural world as sacred; neither do they discuss
universal interconnections or cosmic evolution. Nonetheless, although Reggio Schools
apparently do not share the spiritual orientation of holistic education, they embrace
most of the ideas advocated by the holistic education movement in regards to learning.
They have experiential learning at the heart of their educational approach and they fully
endorse the holistic quest for integrating knowledge from various domains. Also similar
to holistic educators, Reggio Schools are very committed to the overall development of
the child.
In regards to the humanistic-based principles (individual uniqueness, caring
relations, freedom/autonomy, democracy), of the four school systems, Reggio Schools
most reflect the holistic ideas about these principles. Similar to holistic educators,
Reggio educators also have deep trust in the children’s inherent motivation to learn and
in their capability to discover and construct knowledge. Reggio educators regard
children as competent learners who have the right to freely choose their learning
activities, jointly determine their curriculum, and democratically discuss their ideas.
198
They too, value the uniqueness of each child and respect its different languages of
expression. The holistic quest for inner/psychological freedom is perhaps the only factor
in which Reggio Schools appear to differ from holistic education.
Montessori Schools appear to be the second most aligned with the holistic view
of the humanistic-based principles. Similar to Reggio Schools, Montessori Schools also
have deep trust in the child’s inherent motivation to learn and in its ability to make
decisions. Of the four school systems, Montessori Schools most evidently advocate for
the child’s independence and autonomy in the learning process. Montessori Schools
also have the most individualized approach to education to attend the uniqueness of
each student. Nonetheless, Montessori Schools do not appear to give as much primacy
to democracy as Reggio Schools and they do not seem to share the holistic concern for
psychological freedom.
NHE Schools also appear to embrace several ideas argued by the holistic
education movement relative to the humanistic-based principles. They fully endorse the
holistic advocacy for individual uniqueness and caring relations. They advocate for
individualized approaches to learning, for self-directed learning, and for cooperative
learning. Of the four school systems, NHE Schools are the most concerned about
respecting diversity, encouraging critical thinking, and promoting spiritual freedom.
NHE Schools, however, appear to differ in some respects from the holistic view about
freedom/autonomy and democracy in education. They do not seem to value freedom of
choice and the child’s inherent motivation to learn as much as do holistic educators and
199
they do not appear to give much attention to “participatory democracy” in their
educational approach.
Finally, Waldorf Schools least reflect the holistic view about the humanisticbased principles. Although Waldorf Schools fully share the holistic advocacy for caring
relations, they differ considerably from the holistic view about the role of freedom,
autonomy and democracy in education. The Waldorf system strongly disagrees with the
idea of affording undue freedom to children before they reach puberty. Accordingly,
they provide very little opportunity to children to exercise autonomy or make decisions
about their learning. Waldorf Schools also appear to differ to some extent with respect
to some ideas argued by contemporary holistic educators about individual uniqueness.
They do not endorse individualized approaches to learning neither do they appear to
support the idea of creating activities that attend to each child’s different learning styles.
5.2. Pedagogical Application of the Eight Selected Principles in the Four School
Systems
Table 5.2 summarizes the findings relative to pedagogical application of the
eight principles in the four school systems. The levels shown in table 5.2 represent my
attempt to provide a summary statement of the levels assigned to the individual
pedagogical features identified for each principle for each school system.
As the table indicates, NHE Schools are the ones that most foster the
spiritual/holistic-based principles (human spirituality, reverence for life/nature,
200
interconnectedness, human wholeness) in their pedagogical approach in comparison to
the other three school systems. Although they do not appear to apply the principle of
interconnectedness as extensively as the Reggio Schools, they appear very committed to
applying the other three principles, human spirituality, reverence for life/nature, and
human wholeness.
Waldorf
Schools
Montessori
Schools
NHE
Schools
Reggio
Schools
Human Spirituality
Reverence for life/nature
Interconnectedness
Human Wholeness
Very high
High
High
Very High
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
High
Very high
Very high
High
Very High
Low
Low
Very High
Very High
Individual Uniqueness
Caring
Freedom/Autonomy
Democracy
Moderate
Very high
Low
Low
High
Very high
High
Moderate
Moderate
Very high
Very High
Low
Very high
Very high
Very High
Very high
Table 5.2 Summary of the pedagogical application of the eight selected principles
across the four school systems.
Waldorf Schools also appear to be very committed to applying the
spiritual/holistic principles in their approach to education. Although Waldorf Schools
may not apply the principle of interconnectedness as extensively as Reggio Schools and
their attention to reverence to life/nature is not as intensive as NHE Schools, their
commitment to fostering human spirituality and human wholeness is very high.
Of the four school systems, Montessori and Reggio Schools least apply the
spiritual/holistic-based principles in their pedagogical approach. Although Montessori
Schools appear to be committed to applying the principle of human wholeness, their
201
application of the other principles (reverence for life/nature, interconnectedness, human
wholeness) is limited in comparison to Waldorf and NHE Schools. Reggio Schools, on
the other hand, appear to be very committed to applying the principle of
interconnectedness and human wholeness, however their application of the principle of
human spirituality and reverence for life/nature is considerably low in comparison to
the other three systems.
The findings relative to the spiritual/holistic-based principles show significant
inconsistency between the philosophical perspectives of Reggio and Montessori
Schools about these principles and their pedagogical application of them. Namely,
Montessori Schools appear to share the same ideas advocated by the holistic education
movement about these principles. However, they are the least committed of the four
school systems to applying these principles in their pedagogical approaches. Reggio
Schools, on other hand, are the least aligned with the holistic view about these
principles yet still have several pedagogical features in their approach to education that
promote these principles.
In regards to the principles that are more humanistically based, Reggio Schools
appears to be the most committed of the four school systems to applying these
principles in their educational approach, whereas Waldorf Schools appear to be the least
committed to applying them. With the exception of the principle of caring relations,
which all systems are equally devoted to promoting it, Reggio Schools appear to be the
most committed to fostering individual uniqueness, freedom/autonomy, and democracy
whereas Waldorf Schools appear to be the least committed to applying them.
202
Between Montessori and NHE Schools, Montessori Schools appear to apply the
humanistic-based principles more extensively than NHE Schools. Although NHE
Schools have more elements in their pedagogical approach that foster
freedom/autonomy in comparison to Montessori Schools, the latter are more committed
to applying the principles of individual uniqueness and democracy than NHE Schools.
Finally, in contrast to the findings concerning the spiritual/holistic-based
principles, there seem to be no inconsistency between the school systems’ philosophical
perspectives about the humanistic-based principles and their application. Overall, the
four school systems appear to apply the principles of individual uniqueness, caring
relations, freedom/autonomy, and democracy in accordance with their philosophical
perspectives of them. Reggio Schools, for example, appear to be very aligned with the
holistic perspectives about the humanistic principles and also very committed to
promoting them. Waldorf Schools reflect partially the holistic view about the
humanistic principles and they appear to apply these principles partially as well. NHE
and Montessori Schools too, appear to follow similar pattern.
5.3. Discussion
According to the analysis summarized in the previous section, there appears to
be some tension in accommodating pedagogically the spiritual- and humanistic-based
principles within one system of education. The school systems that reflect the highest
commitment to fostering the spiritual/holistic-based principles (Waldorf and NHE
203
Schools) appear to be the least committed to promoting the humanistic-based principles.
The ones that presented the highest commitment to fostering the humanistic principles
(Reggio and Montessori Schools) appear to be the least committed to promoting the
spiritual/holistic-based principles.
Similar tension is found within the Montessori system. Philosophically,
Montessori Schools are very spiritually and humanistically oriented, but pedagogically,
they demonstrate greater commitment to the humanistic- than the spiritual-based
principles. Namely, In Montessori Schools, apart from their theory of development,
which is aimed at the natural/spiritual unfolding of the child, they do not draw on
additional pedagogical features to nurture human spirituality to the same extent as NHE
and Waldorf Schools. They also appear to apply the principles of reverence for
life/nature and interconnectedness to a lower extent in comparison to the other systems.
Children in Montessori schools do not have as much contact with nature as children in
NHE and Waldorf Schools. The “cosmic curriculum,” which is a strong spiritual feature
of Montessori Schools, is introduced once a year. Religion is not constant across all
their schools and the arts are limited to elementary and upper grades and offered once a
day or once a week (depending on the age group) as a separate subject. Human
Wholeness is the only spiritual/holistic-based principle, which Montessori Schools
appear to apply to a high extent. In regards to the humanistic-based principles,
Montessori Schools appear to apply all of them extensively, with the exception of
democracy, which is applied to a moderate extent (although Montessori Schools apply
the principle of democracy to a high extent inside the classroom, there is little
204
opportunity for members of the school community to practice democracy outside the
classroom). Montessori Schools have an individualized approach to learning in order to
attend the uniqueness of the child. There is a strong atmosphere of friendship and
respect in their schools. Children exercise great autonomy and independence in their
activities and they are encouraged to democratically discuss their plans and projects
with the teacher. Hence, although philosophically, Montessori Schools seem to embrace
both paradigms, pedagogically, they appear to apply the humanistic principles to a
higher extent than the spiritually oriented principles.
The tension in applying these two groups of principles does not seem to involve
all principles. As table 5.2 indicates, there seem to be no apparent conflict across the
school systems to apply the principles of caring relations, human wholeness, and
interconnectedness. The principle of caring relations, for example, is extensively
applied by the four school systems. Although each system applies this principle in slight
different ways, the four systems appear to be committed to fostering caring relations in
their schools. The principle of human wholeness is also extensively applied by the four
school systems. Montessori Schools may not apply this principle to the same extent as
Waldorf, NHE, and Reggio Schools (primarily because the arts are not central to their
curriculum) but they still appear to be committed to promoting human wholeness in
their schools. Namely, the four school systems offer supplementary activities to foster
the overall growth of the child. They try to provide a natural outdoor environment and a
nutritious diet to children. They give primacy to experiential learning in their approach
to education and they have a very comprehensive form of assessment. In short, the four
205
school systems try to provide a comprehensive education that nurtures the wholeness of
the child.
These two principles, human wholeness and caring relations, do not seem to be
conflicting principles in themselves. They seem to be easily adaptable to either
paradigm, humanistic or spiritual. Although I placed the principle of human wholeness
in the spiritual/holistic group principles (due to the spiritual element attached to it and
the concept of wholeness being central to holistic education), educating the whole child
has always been a concern of humanistic educators as well.
The principle of interconnectedness, which could have caused some tension in
its application because of the spiritual values attached to it (within the holistic view),
presented no major conflict across the school systems. Reggio Schools, for example, a
system that apparently does not endorse the spiritual paradigm advocated by
contemporary holistic educators, applies the principle of interconnectedness very
extensively. Of the four school systems, Reggio Schools have the most integrated and
transdiciplinary approach to learning. They have an emergent curriculum based on
project themes and a system of documentation that connects the whole cycle of inquiry
involved in the children’s projects. They use the arts as a medium to enable children to
communicate their thinking, develop ideas, create meaning, and construct their projects.
Reggio Schools also have their physical space specially designed to facilitate the
interrelation among students, educators, staff, the community, and the natural
environment. Hence, although Reggio Schools do not appear to explicitly teach about
the principle of interconnectedness to children, as the other three school systems do
206
(such as the cosmic curriculum in Montessori Schools), they extensively apply this
principle through their interconnected approach to education.
In regards to the principle of individual uniqueness, there appears to be some
tension within the more spiritually oriented school systems (Waldorf and NHE) to
accommodate this humanistic principle. As table 5.2 indicates, Waldorf and NHE
Schools do not appear to apply the principle of individual uniqueness very extensively.
In Waldorf Schools, for example, teachers know their students deeply, watch their
development closely through various years, and try to guide and assist each student
according to their needs. However, they do not alter their approach to teaching and
learning to accommodate students’ different learning styles. In Waldorf Schools,
instruction is typically performed by the class teacher and directed to the whole class.
All students participate in the same learning activities, regardless of their particular
learning styles. In NHE Schools, the scenario is somehow different. Like Waldorf
Schools, NHE Schools also appear to apply the principle of individual uniqueness to a
moderate extent. However, unlike the former, NHE Schools advocate for individualized
approaches to learning to attend the uniqueness of each child. The main factor,
therefore, that affected NHE Schools’ level of application of this principle was not that
they do not endorse (or apply) the principle of individual uniqueness but the fact that
not all their schools have individualized approaches to learning (due to the flexible
methodology of NHE Schools). As the constancy of a pedagogical feature was an index
that I took into consideration in my interpretation of the extent of each application, the
findings of some pedagogical features of NHE Schools were affected (see limitations).
207
Had this factor not been present, NHE Schools would have demonstrated higher level of
application of this principle. Thus, the principle of individual uniqueness does not seem
to be a conflicting principle as it is indicated in table 5.2. The fact that NHE Schools, a
very spiritually oriented school system, can extensively apply this principle in some of
their schools indicates that there is no tension in applying the principle of individual
uniqueness alongside spiritual principles.
The principle of freedom/autonomy is complex because the holistic education
movement incorporates both humanistic and spiritual perspectives of freedom. In
holistic education, the principle of freedom/autonomy represents inner freedom,
freedom of mind and expression, and freedom of action. Contemporary holistic
educators value both freedom of choice (a more humanistic orientation) and the
attainment of inner/spiritual freedom (a spiritual orientation). As a result, with the
exception of Waldorf Schools, three of the school systems appear to be very committed
to applying the principle of freedom/autonomy in their approach to education. NHE and
Reggio Schools appear to be more committed than Montessori Schools to apply this
principle. In Reggio Schools, children (as well as teachers) have high level of freedom
and autonomy in their learning experiences and they are constantly encouraged to freely
express their ideas and thoughts. Although, Reggio Schools do not appear to be
concerned with the attainment of inner/spiritual freedom, the presence of the arts
(regarded an essential element for spiritual freedom in Eastern thinking) throughout
their curriculum and the freedom children have to express themselves in their learning
experiences indirectly promote the development of inner freedom. NHE Schools,
208
contrary to Reggio Schools, are highly committed to guiding the child into the path of
spiritual freedom through the practice of meditation, the arts, and “critical spirituality.”
Additionally, children in NHE Schools also enjoy some level of freedom and autonomy
in their learning activities. Hence, overall, both Reggio and NHE Schools appear to
apply this principle at very high extent. The high commitment of NHE Schools to apply
the principle of freedom/autonomy, therefore, indicates that this principle can be
pedagogically applied alongside spiritual principles.
We are now left with three principles, which seem to be the most conflicting
principles across the four school systems, human spirituality, reverence for life/nature,
and democracy. None of the four school systems appear to fully apply these three
principles in their approach to education. NHE and Waldorf Schools appear to apply the
principle of human spirituality and reverence for life/nature extensively but their
application of democracy is very low. Both Waldorf and NHE Schools have their
curriculum oriented to fostering the child’s spiritual development (through their
developmental theories, meditation, religion, development of morality, and the arts).
They are also very committed to nurturing the children’s connection with the natural
world, to fostering a feeling of reverence for life and nature in children, and to
developing responsible young adults who care about the environment. Nonetheless, in
Waldorf and NHE Schools, there is very little opportunity for children to practice
democracy. In Waldorf Schools, only high school students experience some democratic
participation in their learning experiences and in NHE Schools, the emphasis appears to
be more on cooperation than on shared decision-making. In both schools systems, but
209
particularly in Waldorf Schools, democracy appears to be a principle shared by adults
rather an activity practiced by children.
In Reggio Schools, the level of application of these three principles is exactly
the opposite. Reggio Schools appear to be very committed to applying the principle of
democracy but their application of the principles of human spirituality and reverence
for life/nature is very low. Reggio Schools do not appear to endorse the spiritual
paradigm advocated by the holistic education movement, which could be a reason for
the limited application of these principles in their schools. Although they have some
pedagogical features that indirectly promote these principles (the arts, the contact
children have with nature, and the nature projects), overall, Reggio Schools appear to
apply these two principles to a low extent. In regards to democracy, however, Reggio
Schools apply this principle to a very high extent. Almost all issues concerning the
children’s education are democratically discussed among Reggio educators and parents.
Children are constantly involved in shared decision-making as they participate in all
decisions concerning their learning experiences.
Montessori Schools appear to apply the three principles, human spirituality,
reverence for life/nature, and democracy, to a moderate extent. Although Montessori
Schools have their theory of development, which is aimed at the natural/spiritual
unfolding of the child, they do not draw on other activities to foster human spirituality
as much as NHE and Waldorf Schools (meditation, development of morality, the arts).
Additionally, Montessori Schools appear to promote earth connection, environmental
education, and cosmic awareness to a lower extent than Waldorf and NHE Schools. The
210
principle of democracy, however, is applied to a higher extent in Montessori Schools
than in Waldorf and NHE Schools. Although Montessori Schools appear to apply the
principle of democracy to a moderate extent in comparison to Reggio Schools (that is,
there is little opportunity outside the classroom for members of the school community
to practice democracy), children still participate in democratic decisions about their
learning experiences.
Hence, none of the four school systems appear to fully apply the principles of
human spirituality, reverence for life/nature, and democracy in their approach to
education. Reggio Schools do not appear to share the spiritual paradigm advocated by
the holistic education movement, at least explicitly, which might be a reason for what
appears to be their low application of the two spiritually oriented principles. In regards
to Montessori Schools, further investigation of their schools is required in order to
examine why their pedagogical application of the spiritually oriented principles does
not reflect their spiritual philosophical orientation. In reference to the principle of
democracy, Montessori Schools appear to be more committed to providing children
with opportunities to practice democracy in their daily activities than to promoting the
principle of democracy in a larger scale (e.g. involving all members of the school
community to discuss management or educational issues). As a result, Montessori
Schools appear to apply this principle to a moderate extent.
With respect to NHE and Waldorf schools, I wonder why both school systems
appear to have such low commitment to foster democracy. What is embedded in the
principle of democracy that may preclude these two school systems to fully embrace
211
this principle? To answer these questions, I want to revisit the concept of democracy
again.
Democracy, * according to Dewey, is essentially “a mode of associated living,”
where individuals have to learn to adjust their needs to meet the interests of the
group. 554 It is a conjoint experience, which involves the participation of all members in
the production and management of the social institutions of which they are part. 555 In a
democratic system, individuals have the freedom to introduce new ideas, propose
changes, and make decisions. Power is no longer in the hands of a few, but is equally
distributed across all those involved in the social experience.
Having democracy in education literarily means giving students equal authority
to make decisions, change rules, and implement new ideas. In free/democratic schools,
students have the power, together with adults, to create and transform the school
community rules, to produce and manage school’s policy (with certain limitations), and
to determine the activities in which they want to participate. In Reggio Schools,
children may not enjoy that extensive degree of democracy, but they do have the
freedom to choose the activities they want to engage in and they have the authority
along with teachers to determine the curriculum of their own education. Similarly, in
Montessori Schools, children also have great level of autonomy to plan and choose their
*
Democracy is a very complex and debatable concept, especially when referred to governmental and political issues.
For this study, therefore, I limit my discussion of democracy to issues that are directly related to education. More
specifically, I concentrate on issues that are related to children’s education. There is a difference between applying
democratic ideas among children and practicing it among adults. Adults do not require the same kind of guidance as
children, as they have already passed through the “growth process.” Hence, allowing democracy to children in
schools (or even at home) is rather more complicated than promoting it in higher education. As the focus of this study
is the education of the child, I will limit the discussion of democracy to school age children.
212
learning activities. In both school systems, children are in charge of their learning
experiences, either individually (Montessori Schools) or in groups (Reggio Schools).
There is a profound trust in the children’s inherent potential to learn and in their
competence to guide their own learning.
In Waldorf and NHE Schools, the scenario is different. Children may be allowed
some freedom of choice in their learning experiences (particularly in NHE Schools) but
there is a preset curriculum to be followed, even for young children. Both school
systems have a fixed philosophical curriculum and firm beliefs about the practices
needed in education for the overall development of the child. They offer yoga,
meditation, rituals, singing, eurythmy, painting, drawing, drama, and so forth in their
curriculum because it is believed that these activities are critical to the development of
the child. They teach morality and/or universal values because they are regarded
essential to the children’s spiritual development. The arts are at the center of their
curriculum because they are considered an important medium to connect children with
their inner selves, to develop a sense of aesthetic, and to make children more sensitive
to the wonders and the mysteries of the world. In short, both Waldorf and NHE Schools
have a curriculum, which they believe is the best for children. In a democratic school,
however, or any school that fully incorporates the democratic ideal, it is the children
who determine what is best for them. It is the children who know what they need and
how best they can meet their needs. 556 The central belief underpinning the democratic
movement is that
213
Children are born with a very accurate inner guidance system, an inner wisdom.
They know better than anyone else what they need and are perfectly capable of
making the right choices. 557
In Waldorf and NHE Schools, it is the adult who knows how to best guide the
education of the child. If Waldorf and NHE Schools allow the democratic ideal to be
fully implemented in their schools, they run the risk of having an entire different
curriculum. Children may decide that meditation or eurythmy should be optional or
eliminated because they do not find much relevance in it; or they could decide that they
should choose the stories (main vehicle for teaching moral values in both school
systems) to be read in the classroom. In other words, children would have the potential
to make changes that would deeply affect the philosophical curriculum of both school
systems.
Thus, I argue that neither Waldorf nor NHE Schools could fully apply the
principle of democracy in their approach to education because it would interfere with
their vision of education, with their pedagogical ideology. In Reggio Schools, it is
possible to apply the principle of democracy because there is no preset curriculum.
Educators, parents, and children jointly decide the content and the process of the
curriculum. Together they create the opportunities for learning and growth.
214
5.4. Limitations
The first limitation of this study that may have affected the findings concerning
the pedagogical application of the principles is the flexible methodology of NHE
Schools in their approach to teaching and learning. Because of the inconsistency in
learning methodology across NHE Schools, they did not manifest high commitment in
certain areas (transdiciplinary approach, learn by doing, individualized approach,
independence, and freedom of choice). As the purpose of this analysis was to examine
the extent to which each principle is applied, I took into account the inconsistency of a
particular feature. Had this factor not existed, NHE Schools would have shown higher
level of commitment in the areas referred to above. Consequently, there would be a
relative increase in their overall pedagogical application of the following principles:
interconnectedness, human wholeness, individual uniqueness, and freedom/autonomy.
The second limitation of this study, which might have also influenced the results
concerning the pedagogical application of the principles, is the fact that Reggio Schools
are limited to early childhood education whereas Waldorf, Montessori, and NHE are
comprehensive schools. Although it can be argued that the quality of learning in Reggio
Schools can be applied in the upper grades, we cannot deny that their early childhood
program facilitates investment in certain areas (transdiciplinary approach, learn by
doing, emergent curriculum) because they do not have to meet the same level of
demand the upper grades are obliged to follow (curriculum, academic skills). As a
result, Reggio Schools demonstrated high level of commitment in some areas
215
(transdiciplinary approach, learn by doing, child-centered approach to learning), which
in turn, determined their overall outcome related to the principles of interconnectedness,
human wholeness, and individual uniqueness.
The third limitation of this study concerns the literature I used for the analysis of
the school systems. Most of the literature employed in this study is conceptual in nature,
with the exception of the literature about the Reggio Schools, which is primarily
empirical research. Thus, the analysis of the pedagogical approach of these school
systems was primarily drawn from their “ideal practice” rather than from descriptions of
their “actual practice.” In the case of Waldorf and Montessori Schools, I used my
personal experiences with these two school systems to validate the information
provided in the description of their pedagogical practices. I am a former Waldorf
teacher, my children were educated in both systems of education, and I observed
instruction at few Montessori Schools in the United States.
With respect to Montessori Schools, I noticed some variation in their
pedagogical approach across the schools I observed, particularly in the elementary and
upper grades (Maria Montessori did not give specific guidelines for these grade levels
as she did for her early childhood program) but nothing that would compromise what
has been discussed about their school system.
With regards to Waldorf Schools, there appears to be very little variation in their
pedagogical approach across schools. Teachers might differ in the way they handle their
classes and lessons but they must follow the Waldorf curriculum and its pedagogy,
which is the same for all schools around the world. Hence, the pedagogical practices
216
representing Waldorf Schools in this study are very similar to what I have observed and
experienced about Waldorf education.
With respect to NHE Schools, I used their bi-annual newsletters as a source to
supplement my knowledge about their school system. As all their literature is
conceptual in nature and written by the leaders of the movement, the newsletters were
an important source that helped me evaluate whether the “ideal practices” they advocate
are in fact constantly present in their schools.
The fourth limitation of this study is the unavoidable disconnect between what is
“explicit” in the literature and the actual practice in the schools. Every teacher,
regardless of the institution in which s/he works, leads and guides his/her class of
students differently. Every school, regardless of the system it follows, manages its
educational environment uniquely. Thus, some of what is referenced in the literature
might not actually be present in a school. Likewise, some pedagogical activities may be
present in a school but they are not referenced in the literature. Even in the case of
Reggio Schools, in which I used mostly empirical studies, there might be many other
activities in their schools that are not documented. Hence, in interpreting the pedagogy
of each school system according to the literature, I might have missed pedagogical
activities that are present in the school but are not documented.
The fifth limitation of this study concerns the identification of pedagogical
features. To make this study feasible, I had to limit the identification of the features to
the general curriculum or the general practices of the school systems, which was
explicit in the literature. One may imagine how many possibilities there are, for
217
example, to promote human wholeness or caring relations. Anyone who reads this work
and has some knowledge of these four school systems could think of different
pedagogical features, which I have not identified. Thus, by limiting the identification of
the pedagogical features to the general curriculum or the general practices, I limited the
possibilities for including other features.
The sixth and final limitation of this study concerns the researcher’s subjectivity
in the process of data generation and analysis. As discussed in Chapter 1, this work
involved a great measure of subjectivity and inference. I analyzed and interpreted the
holistic education movement and selected eight principles that I judged encompass most
of the philosophical ideas advocated by the theorists of the movement. I selected the
school systems and identified the pedagogical features relative to each principle
according to my interpretation of the literature. Finally, I interpret and evaluated the
school systems’ pedagogical application of the principles based on my interpretation of
the literature.
Although I tried to foreground my subjectivity by describing the pedagogical
features with reasonable detail so the analysis would be transparent, and by explaining
the method of analysis used to interpret each pedagogical feature so the reader could
evaluate my own interpretation, this study still reflects my subjective interpretation of
the literature gathered.
218
5.5. Implications for Future Research
This study revealed that there is some tension in accommodating what emerged
as competing principles into a single approach to education. The recurrence of the
findings in the four selected school systems suggest that there is indeed tension in
pedagogically accommodating spiritual principles with democratic principles. Yet, the
findings of this study are the result of my interpretation of the literature. To further
investigate the findings of the present study, we need to conduct research in these
schools to examine whether my findings are borne out in empirical studies of practices
as observed over time. Other future research might also include empirical studies in
other schools with similar assumptions and/or individual practices. Finally, my
interpretation of the literature indicated some inconsistency between the spiritual
philosophy of Montessori education and its application. Further investigation of the
literature and the organizations supporting the movement, as well as empirical research
and interviews with educators and leaders of the movement are needed to examine this
finding. That is, one needs to examine first, whether my interpretations are indeed
warranted. * If they are, one could investigate why the spiritual principles of Montessori
philosophy are not very apparent in their pedagogical practices.
*
Montessori educators or other advocates of the movement might disagree with my interpretation of the literature
and claim that Montessori Schools are very spiritually oriented (Ron Miller, "Nourishing the Spiritual Embryo”).
They may argue that Montessori’s theory of development, the “cosmic curriculum,” or the care children have for the
environment are strong indicators of spiritual practices in Montessori Schools. Adams, for example, in her
dissertation “Education: From Conception to Graduation,” argues that the Montessori curriculum is very conducive to
promoting “spiritual intelligence.” She draws her analysis from interviews that she conducted with high school
seniors and their parents. Her dissertation is a good starting point for further investigation in this area.
219
5.6. Conclusion
In this dissertation, I examined, interpreted, and evaluated the pedagogical
application of the philosophical ideas advocated by the holistic education movement in
four approaches to schooling. The findings, according to my interpretation, indicated
tension in the application of three principles of holistic education in the school systems
selected for this study. None of the four school systems appeared to fully apply the two
spiritually oriented principles (human spirituality, reverence for life/nature) and the
democratic principle in their approach to education. Although the findings reflect the
philosophy and pedagogy of each school system, the recurrence of the findings in four
school systems supports my argument that there is tension in accommodating spiritual
and democratic principles in one approach to education.
As I argued previously, neither Waldorf nor NHE Schools could fully apply the
principle of democracy in their approach to education because it would interfere with
their vision of education, with their ideology. Both school systems have very firm
beliefs about the practices needed in education to guide the child through the process of
development. The full implementation of a democratic ideal would threaten their
pedagogical practices and would potentially undermine their philosophical curriculum.
In Reggio Schools, the principle of democracy is more easily applied because there is
no pre-specified curriculum and their pedagogical practices are not fixed but are jointly
220
and continuously constructed and reconstructed as members of the school community
interact with each other.
Nevertheless, although this study indicates that there might be some tension in
fully applying these two principles pedagogically in one single system of education, this
does not mean that they cannot be applied at all. A school may be very spiritually
oriented, I argue, and still allow a substantial measure of democratic participation
without risking its philosophical curriculum. The exercise of democracy in Montessori
Schools, for example, does not appear to generate conflict to their philosophical
curriculum. In Montessori Schools, students practice shared-decision making while they
work in groups or participate in discussions. They are encouraged to discuss their plans
of study and projects with their teacher and jointly reach decisions. There also several
opportunities for group discussion, in which students are invited to share their ideas,
express their opinions as well as respect and consider each other’s points of view, ideas,
and contributions. Hence, in Montessori Schools, although students participate
democratically in their learning experiences, they are not given the authority to change
the philosophical curriculum of the school.
A spiritually oriented school could also have “town meetings,” where students
and adults (educators, staff, and parents) would participate in the decisions about the
community life of the school. Students would be allowed more opportunities to
participate democratically in the decisions concerning their life at school without
altering the philosophical curriculum of the school (e.g. discussions would not include
curriculum decisions).
221
Hence, there are ways to reconcile spiritual and democratic principles in
pedagogical practices. However, some adjustments need to be made in order to
accommodate both principles. This leads me to conclude that the educational paradigm
advocated by contemporary holistic educators is not a utopian paradigm impossible to
apply. Rather, it is a challenging educational paradigm that, I believe, is well worth
pursuing.
222
Notes
1
Miller, “Educational Alternatives.”
Nakagawa, Education for Awakening, 71.
3
Clark, “Holistic Education: A Search for Wholeness,” 55.
4
Nakagawa, Education for Awakening, 71.
5
Miller, “Defining a Common Vision,” 21.
6
Miller, What are Schools for?, 201.
7
Ibid.
8
In addition to the Holistic Education Review, Miller has also launched other
publishing ventures, including Holistic Education Press, the Resource Center for
Redesigning Education, and the Foundation for Educational Renewal.
9
Ibid., 205.
10
Miller, New Directions in Education; “Making Connections to the World;”
Nakagawa, Education for Awakening; Nava, Holistic Education: A Pedagogy of Love;
Forbes, Holistic Education; Flake, Holistic Education: Principles, Perspectives, and
Practices.
11
Paths of Learning. Holistic Education. http://www.pathsoflearning.net/ (accessed Dec
20, 2007).
12
Both Ron Miller in What are Schools for? And Scott Forbes in Holistic Education,
claim that Rousseau, Pestalozzi, and Froebel were the first educators to express the
ideas embedded in holistic education.
13
Building on the work of Hadot (What is Ancient Philosophy?) and McEvilley (The
Shape of Ancient Thought), John Miler in “Ancient Roots of Holistic Education,” argues
that the ancient Greeks already held holistic practices in their form of education.
14
Nakagawa, Education for Awakening, 73-90.
15
Miller, The Holistic Curriculum; Palmer, To Know as We are Known; The Courage
to Teach.
16
Huxley, The Perennial Philosophy; Wilber, The Eye of the Spirit; Lemkow, The
Wholeness Principle.
17
Huxley, The Perennial Philosophy, 2.
18
Ibid., vii.
19
Kessler, The Soul of Education; Cajete, Look to the Mountain.
20
Nakagawa, Education for Awakening, 78.
21
Ibid.
22
Ibid., 79.
23
Miller, What are Schools for?, 79.
24
Ibid.
2
223
25
Nakagawa, Education for Awakening, 78-79.
Ibid., 80.
27
Naess, Ecology, Community and Lifestyle; “The Shallow and the Deep, Long-range
ecology movements; Capra, The Web of Life; The Turning Point; “Ecoliteracy.”
28
Nakagawa, Education for Awakening, 80.
29
Clark, Designing and Implementing and Integrated Curriculum; “How do you design
an ecoliteracy curriculum?”; Orr, Ecological Literacy: Education and the Transition to
a Postmodern World; “Ecological Literacy: Education for the Twenty-First Century;
Nava, Holistic Education: A Pedagogy of Love.
30
Nakagawa, Education for Awakening, 84
31
Ibid.
32
Ibid.
33
Miller, Caring for New Life, “Holism and Meaning.”
34
Clark, Designing and Implementing and Integrated Curriculum.
35
Noddings, Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics & Moral Education; To
Challenge to Care in Schools.
36
Eisler, Tomorrow’s Children.
37
“Education 2000: A Holistic Perspective,” 240-241.
38
Nakagawa, Education for Awakening; Forbes, Holistic Education.
39
Nakagawa, Education for Awakening.
40
Ibid., 68.
41
Forbes, Holistic Education, 17; “What Holistic Education Claims About Itself.”
42
Miller, What are Schools for?; Miller, “Introduction: Holistic Learning,” 2; Nava,
Holistic Education: Pedagogy of Universal Love, 46.
43
Taggart, “Dewey and the Romanticism of Holistic Education”.
44
Huxley, The Perennial Philosophy, 2.
45
Hill, “Changes of the Human Mind”.
46
Clark, “Holistic Education: A Search for Wholeness,” 53.
47
Clark, Designing and Implementing an Integrated Curriculum.
48
Ibid, 29.
49 49
Clark, Designing and Implementing an Integrated Curriculum, 35.
50
Nakagawa uses this expression when defining the worldview underlying
contemporary holistic education, Education for Awakening, 72.
51
Miller, The Holistic Curriculum.
52
Miller, What are Schools for?; Caring for New Life.
53
Miller, What are Schools for?, 83.
54
Miller expresses his view in a dialogue with Koegel in “The Heart of Holistic
Education,” 15.
55
Ibid.
56
Gang, “Holistic Education.”
57
Ibid., 87.
58
Adapted from “Education 2000: A Holistic Perspective,” 240-247.
26
224
59
Miller, The Holistic Curriculum; Worldviews, Educational Orientations, and Holistic
Education.
60
Miller, The Holistic Curriculum; “Making Connections Through Holistic Learning.”
61
Nava, Holistic Education: Pedagogy of Universal Love, 44-46.
62
Ibid., 46.
63
Paths of Learning. Holistic Education. http://www.pathsoflearning.net/ (accessed July
1, 2007).
64
Miller, Caring for New Life, 102.
65
Miller, Introduction to New Directions in Education; “Philosophical Foundations;”
“Introduction: Holistic Learning,” 2-3.
66
Miller, What are Schools for?, 221.
67
Miller, Holistic Curriculum; Miller, Caring for New Life, New Directions in
Education; Flake, Holistic Education: Principles, Perspectives and Practices.
68
Rocha, Schools Where Children Matter; Flake, Holistic education: Principles,
perspectives, and practices; Ruenzel, “A school with balance;” Looper, "Metanoia" for
Montessorians."
69
Miller, “Introduction: Vital Voices of educational Dissent,” 20.
70
Nava, Holistic Education: Pedagogy of Universal Love; Clark, “Environmental
Education as an Integrative Study.”
71
“Education 2000: A Holistic Perspective,” 245-246.
72
Miller, Holistic Curriculum, 162-177; Education and the Soul, 93-108.
73
Miller, Caring for New Life, 23-24.
74
“Education 2000: A Holistic Perspective,” 241; Miller, What are schools for?;
“Making Connections to the World,” 21.
75
Ibid.
76
Forbes, Holistic Education; Nakagawa, Education for Awakening; “Education 2000:
A Holistic Perspective;” Miller, Caring for New Life.
77
Miller, “Making Connections to the World;” “Partial Vision;” Caring for New Life;
“Nourishing the Spiritual Embryo;” Nakagawa, Education for Awakening; Clark,
Designing and Implementing an Integrated Curriculum.
78
Miller, What are schools for? Miller, The Holistic Curriculum; Forbes, Holistic
Education.
79
Forbes, Holistic Education.
80
Noddings, Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics & Moral Education; The
Challenge to Care in Schools.
81
Nava, Holistic Education: Pedagogy of Universal Love; Eisler, Tomorrow’s
Children; Miller, Caring for New Life; “Philosophical Foundations;” Koegel, “The
Heart of Holistic Education.”
82
“Education 2000: A Holistic Perspective,” 244.
83
Eisler, Tomorrow’s Children.
84
Martin, “Alternatives in Education;” Miller, “Educational Alternatives.”
85
NCES, Homeschooling in the United States: 2003.
225
86
France, “A Class of Their Own.”
In 1995 it was estimated that in Australia some 20,000 families are homeschooling
their children whereas in Canada about 20,000 students are homeschooled. Several
other countries have also reported initiatives of homeschooling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeschooling (accessed Jan 5, 2007)
88
Holt, How Children Fail
89
Ibid, 167-9.
90
Ibid.
91
Farenga, “John Holt and the Origins of Contemporary Homeschooling,” 3.
92
Ron Miller in “Educational Alternatives” and Free Schools, Free People, classify this
trend in education as “the free school movement”, while Martin in “Alternatives in
Education,” uses both terminologies to address these kinds of schools. A third position
comes from The Alternative Education Resource Organization (AERO - an organization
dedicated to support the educational alternatives around the world)
(http://www.educationrevolution.org/), which lists all these schools under “democratic
schools.”
93
Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_school
(accessed Jan 5, 2007)
94
A detailed and historical account of the free school movement is provided by Ron
Miller in his book Free Schools, Free People.
95
Neill and Lamb, Summerhill School.
96
Miller, Free Schools, Free People.
97
For a complete list of the democratic schools registered with AERO, visit
http://www.edrev.org/lisofdemscho.html (accessed Nov 3, 2006).
98
Miller, “Educational Alternatives.”
99
A list of Sudbury schools can be found at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Sudbury_Schools
100
The Website of AERO – The Alternative Education Resource Organization.
Democratic Education. http://www.edrev.org/demschool.html (accessed Nov 3, 2006).
101
Bader and Blackmon, Open Education.
102
In a research brief submitted to The Principals’ Partnership and the Union Pacific
Foundation on July 11, 2005, Mike Muir provides a summary of findings about the
Open Schools, which also includes a list of Open Schools in the United States. For more
information visit http://www.principalspartnership.com/openschools.pdf
103
Information about the last three schools can be found online directly from their
website.
104
Friends Council on Education. What Does a Friend School has to Offer?:
Beginnings. http://www.friendscouncil.org/ (accessed November 08, 2006).
105
Quaker Schools in England. Education in a Quaker School.
http://www.quakerschools.co.uk/qeducation.htm (accessed October 20, 2006)
106
Friends Council on Education. What Does a Friend School has to Offer?:
Beginnings. http://www.friendscouncil.org/ (accessed November 08, 2006).
87
226
107
A list of Quaker schools throughout the world can be found at
http://www.friends.org.uk/quakers/qschools.htm. For a complete list of Quaker schools
in the United States visit http://www.friends.org.uk/quakers/qschools.htm.
108
James Peterson describes Krishnamurti Schools as methodless in his article “The
Methodless Approach.” His visits to several Krishnamurti schools and his interviews
with various teachers are reported in this article.
109
Ibid., 55.
110
Jiddu Krishnamurti, Education and the Significance of Life, 21.
111
Krishnamurti gave this talk in 1984 in Ojai, California. Most of Krishnamurti
Schools use this talk as an illustration of the intent of Krishnamurti Schools. For a full
text go Krishnamurti Foundation India. Journal Of The Krishnamurti Schools: Intent of
the Krishnamurti Schools. http://www.journal.kfionline.org/intent.asp (accessed
November 15, 2006).
112
Peterson, “The Methodless Approach,” 55.
113
Ibid.
114
The list of Krishnamurti schools can be found at
http://www.kinfonet.org/Community/Schools/School_Listings/ .To learn more about the
activities involving Krishnamurti schools, you can access The Journal of Krishnamurti
Schools online at http://www.journal.kfionline.org/
115
For more information about the KPM Schools visit http://www.kpmapproach.org/
116
KPM Approach to Children: Atma Vidya Educational Foundation. History.
http://www.kpmapproach.org/index.php?/pages/44 (accessed November 16, 2006)
117
Ibid.
118
Borich, Vital Impressions. This is an excellent book to learn about the KPM
Approach to Children and their integrated method of learning.
119
Ibid., 145.
120
Ibid., 30.
121
Ibid., 25.
122
Muller, “Spiritual Education.”
123
Framework adapted from Robert Muller’s “World Core Curriculum.” A summary of
his vision can be found in his article “Spiritual Education,” 7-15.
124
Gloria Crook, e-mail message to author, Oct. 20, 2006.
125
Robert Muller Schools International Coordinating Center. How to Start a Robert
Muller School: Is There any Special Training Necessary?
http://www.unol.org/rms/trng.html (accessed Oct. 1, 2006).
126
More information about the GEMUN can be found at http://www.unol.org/gemun/
127
More information about The Robert Muller School in Texas can be found at
http://www.unol.org/rms/index.html
128
Gloria Crook, e-mail message to author, Oct. 19, 2006.
129
Martin, “Alternatives in Education.”
130
Nakagawa, Education for Awakening.
131
Peterson, “The Methodless Approach.”
227
132
Hill, “Changes of the Human Mind”.
Although Waldorf Schools are the most cited schools in the holistic education
movement (John Miller, Holistic Curriculum; Ron Miller, What are Schools for? Trosti,
“Educating as an Art: The Waldorf Approach”), Montessori schools have also been
listed as representatives of the holistic movement (Ron Miller, What are Schools for?;
Martin, “Alternatives in Education”).
134
Miller, “Educational Alternatives.”
135
Earl Ogletree, “Waldorf Schools”
136
For information on Waldorf/Steiner schools and international associations
worldwide, visit http://www.waldorfschule.info/index.71.0.3.html. For information on
teacher-training centers for Waldorf education around the world, go to
http://www.waldorfschule.info/index.52.0.3.html. Information about Steiner schools
and institutes within North America, can be obtained at the Association of Waldorf
Schools of North America (AWSNA) website,
http://www.members.awsna.org/Public/SchoolListPage.aspx.
137
Ogletree, “Waldorf Schools.”
138
Ogletree, The Comparative Status of the Creative Thinking Ability of Waldorf
Education Students.
139
Childs, Steiner Education in Theory and Practice, 68.
140
Steiner, The Education of the Child in the Light of Anthroposophy.
141
For more information on the Art of Eurythmy developed by Steiner, see Steiner,
Eurythmy as Visible Music; and Steiner, Eurythmy as Visible Speech.
142
Information about the Waldorf curriculum can be found at AWSNA,
http://www.awsna.org/education-k12.html
143
Ogletree, “Waldorf Schools.”
144
Ogletree, “Waldorf Schools,” 5.
145
Coulter, “Montessori and Steiner.”
146
Edwards, “Three Approaches from Europe, 2.
147
American Montessori Society. Maria Montessori.
http://www.amshq.org/montessori.htm (accessed April 9, 2007).
148
American Montessori Society. History of Movement.
http://www.amshq.org/montessori_history.htm (accessed April 9, 2007).
149
Edwards, “Three Approaches from Europe,” 3.
150
American Montessori Society. History of Movement.
http://www.amshq.org/montessori_history.htm (accessed April 9, 2007).
151
Further information on affiliated schools, accredited teacher-training centers, the
history of the movement and published resources, can be obtained in the websites of the
American Montessori Society at http://www.amshq.org/ or the Association Montessori
Internationale at http://www.montessori-ami.org/.
152
American Montessori Society: Public School Montessori. AMS Supports Public
Montessori Schools. http://www.amshq.org/schools_public.htm (accessed April 10,
2007).
133
228
153
See note 152 above.
Montessori, Education for a New World; Montessori, Education for Human
Development.
155
Montessori, The Montessori Method.
156
Lillard, Montessori Today, 29.
157
Standing, Maria Montessori.
158
Association Montessori Internationale. Montessori Approach.
http://www.montessori-ami.org/ (accessed April 10, 2007).
159
Lillard, Montessori Today.
160
See note 159 above.
161
Ibid.
162
Lillard, Montessori Today.
163
Edwards, “Three Approaches from Europe,” 7.
164
Rama, Neo-Humanist Education, 92.
165
Bussey, “Neo-Humanist Philosophy.”
166
Ibid., 84.
167
Arete Brim (international coordinator of NHE schools), e-mail message to author,
April 13, 2007.
168
Rama, Neo-Humanist Education, 85.
169
Brim, e-mail message to author, April 13, 2007.
170
Information about the programs offered at Ánanda Marga Gurukula can be obtained
at their website at http://www.gurukul.edu/instit_distancelearning.php
171
Rama, Neo-Humanist Education, 23.
172
Ibid., 78.
173
Ibid., 7-10.
174
Ibid., 20-21.
175
Anandarama, “Neohumanist Education for All,” 47.
176
Ibid., 30-31.
177
Ibid., 41, 50.
178
General information about NHE schools’ curriculum can be found at
http://nhe.gurukul.edu/curriculum.htm
179
Rama, Neo-Humanist Education, 70.
180
Ibid., 48.
181
Ibid., 77.
182
Rebecca New, Reggio Emilia: Catalyst for Change and Conversation, 1.
183
40 Years: Reggio Emilia one city many children.
184
Bredekamp, “Reflections on Reggio Emilia,” 15.
185
North American Reggio Emilia Alliance. Schools of Reggio.
http://www.reggioalliance.org/schools/index.html
186
Edwards, “Three Approaches from Europe”, 3; See also note 184 above.
187
See note 184 above.
154
229
188
For information about professional development, conferences, Reggio Emilia
schools, etc. visit the Reggio Children website at
http://zerosei.comune.re.it/inter/reggiochildren.htm.
189
New, Reggio Emilia: Some Lessons for U.S. Educators, 1.
190
Ibid.
191
Rabitti, “An Integrated Art Approach in a Preschool,” 76.
192
Bredekamp, “Reflections on Reggio Emilia,” 13.
193
Lilian Katz, “Images from the World.”
194
Edwards, Gandini, and Forman, The Hundred Languages of Children, 44.
195
Malaguzzi, “For an Education Based on Relationships.”
196
Edwards, “Three Approaches from Europe”, 5.
197
Ibid; Gandini, “Fundamentals of the Reggio Emilia Approach to Early Childhood
Education,” 5.
198
Krechevsky, “Form, Function, and Understanding in Learning Groups,” 248.
199
Gandini, “Educational and Caring Spaces,” 177.
200
Edwards, “Three Approaches from Europe”, 6.
201
Gandini, “Fundamentals of the Reggio Emilia Approach to Early Childhood
Education,” 5-6.
202
Rinaldi, “Staff Development in Reggio Emilia.”
203
Miller, What are Schools for?; Miller, “Introduction: Holistic Learning, 2; Nava,
Holistic Education: Pedagogy of Universal Love, 46.
204
Hill, “Changes of the Human Mind”.
205
Miller, New Directions in Education, 2.
206
Miller, What are Schools for?, 79.
207
Wilber, “An Integral Theory of Consciousness.”
208
Ibid., 80.
209
Ibid., 81.
210
Miller, What are Schools for?, 58.
211
Although Ron Miller uses this expression in “Nourishing the Spiritual Embryo,” 18
to explain Montessori’s spiritual vision, the same idea is found in contemporary holistic
education.
212
Miller, Education and the Soul.
213
Forbes, Holistic Education; Miller, What are Schools for?
214
Plato, The Republic; Barnes, Aristotle.
215
Ibid.
216
Poletti, “Plato’s Vowels,” 2-3.
217
Miller, “Ancient Roots of Holistic Education,” 2.
218
Rousseau, Émile
219
Ibid., 93.
220
Froebel, The Education of Man.
221
Pestalozzi, The Education of Man: Aphorisms
222
Miller, What are Schools for?; Miller, The Holistic Curriculum.
230
223
Nakagawa, Education for Awakening, 68.
Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding.
225
Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed; Gatto, Against School; Illich, Deschooling
Society.
226
Edwards, “Three Approaches from Europe”, 5.
227
Rinaldi, “Infant-toddler Centers and preschools as places of culture,” 39.
228
Montessori, Peace and Education, 14; To Educate the Human Potential; Steiner,
The Education of the Child in the Light of Anthroposophy.
229
Rama, Neo-Humanist Education, 13.
230
Glassman, “Universalism;” “What is Universalism Really About?”
231
See Steiner, Occult Science for a general outline of his view.
232
As described by Childs in Steiner Education,31.
233
Steiner, The Education of the Child in the Light of Anthroposophy.
234
Childs, Steiner Education in Theory and Practice.
235
Miller, “Nourishing the Spiritual Embryo.”
236
Ibid.
237
Montessori, To Educate the Human Potential; Peace and Education.
238
Montessori, The Montessori Method.
239
Lillard, Montessori Today.
240
Standing, Maria Montessori.
241
Rama, Neo-Humanist Education, 13; Alister, “Weaving the Magic Circle: Teaching
Spirituality to Children.”
242
Ibid., 10.
243
Ibid., 16-17.
244
Ibid.
245
Steiner, The Roots of Education, 56; “The Science of Spirit, Education and Practical
Life,” 60-62.
246
Sarkar, Discourses on Neohumanist Education.
247
Childs, Steiner Education in Theory and Practice
248
Ibid., 69.
249
Rama, Neo-Humanist Education, 66-67.
250
Steiner, The Arts and Their Mission, 45.
251
Childs, Steiner Education in Theory and Practice, 188.
252
Rama, Neo-Humanist Education, 50-51.
253
Ibid., 51.
254
Giudici, Rinaldi, & Krechevsky, Making Learning Visible.
255
Sarkar, Discourses on Neohumanist Education; Steiner, “Anthroposophy and the
Visual Arts;” Schiller, On the Aesthetic Education of Man; Goethe, Essays on Art and
Literature.
256
Sogyal, The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying, Doumoulin, Zen Buddhism; Burley,
Hatha Yoga.
257
Rama, Neo-Humanist Education, 30-31.
224
231
258
Standing, Maria Montessori, 226.
Author’s observational notes from visits and talks to Montessori teachers.
260
Ibid., 175-177.
261
Nakagawa, Education for Awakening, 68.
262
Miller, New Directions in Education, 2; Flake, Holistic Education: Principles,
Perspectives and Practices, 245.
263
Miller, “Introduction: Vital Voices of Educational Dissent”, 20.
264
Nakagawa, Education for Awakening.
265
Miller, What are Schools for?
266
Nava, Holistic Education: Pedagogy of Universal Love; Clark, “Environmental
Education as an Integrative Study.”
267
Miller, “Introduction: Vital Voices of Educational Dissent”
268
Naess, Ecology, Community and Lifestyle; “The Shallow and the Deep, Long-range
ecology movements; Capra, The Web of Life; The Turning Point; “Ecoliteracy.”
269
Miller, Education and the Soul; The Holistic Curriculum.
270
Clark, “Environmental Education as an Integrative Study,” 42.
271
Ibid., 44.
272
Nava, Nava, Holistic Education: Pedagogy of Universal Love.
273
Ibid., 95.
274
Ibid., 96.
275
Sarkar, Discourses on Neohumanist Education.
276
Sarkar, The Liberation of the Intellect.
277
Rama, Neo-Humanist Education.
278
Steiner, Universe, Earth, and Man.
279
Childs, Steiner Education in Theory and Practice.
280
Ibid., 124-125.
281
Montessori, To Educate the Human Potential.
282
Montessori, The Montessori Method.
283
Rama, Neo-Humanist Education, 52-53.
284
Strozzi, “Daily Life at School.”
285
Childs, Steiner Education in Theory and Practice.
286
Alister, “Why Teach Meditation?”
287
Childs, Steiner Education in Theory and Practice
288
Steiner, The Festivals and their Meaning.
289
Rama, Neo-Humanist Education, 52-53.
290
Krechevsky, “Form, Function, and Understanding in Learning Groups.”
291
Barnes, “Learning that Grows with the Learner.”
292
Agnew, The Universe is a Horse; NAMC (North American Montessori Center)
http://montessoritraining.blogspot.com/
293
Alister, “Why Teach Meditation?”
294
Rama, Neo-Humanist Education
295
Montessori, To Educate the Human Potential.
259
232
296
Lillard, Montessori Today.
Barnes, “Learning that Grows with the Learner.”
298
Steiner and Howard, Art as Spiritual Activity; Sarkar, Discourses on Neohumanist
Education.
299
Steiner, “Anthroposophy and the Visual Arts,” 271.
300
Montessori, To Educate the Human Potential.
301
Nakagawa, Education for Awakening.
302
Nakagawa, Education for Awakening; Miller, “Making Connections to the World;”
Miller, The Holistic Curriculum.
303
Clark, “Holistic Education: A Search for Wholeness,” 53.
304
Miller, New Directions in Education, 62.
305
Ibid.
306
Hill, “Changes of the Human Mind”, 58.
307
Ibid.
308
Gang, “Holistic Education,” 87; Clark, Designing and Implementing an Integrated
Curriculum, 47.
309
Clark, Designing and Implementing an Integrated Curriculum; Miller, The Holistic
Curriculum.
310
Miller, The Holistic Curriculum.
311
Clark, Designing and Implementing an Integrated Curriculum, 29.
312
Ibid.
313
Dewey, Education Today; How we Think.
314
Dewey, Education Today, 151.
315
Nakagawa, Education for Awakening, 72.
316
Montessori, Education for a New World; Steiner, Universe, Earth, and Man; Sarkar,
The Liberation of the Intellect.
317
Ibid.
318
Bussey, “Neo-Humanist Philosophy,” 84.
319
Rama, Neo-Humanist Education, 14-15.
320
Montessori, To Educate the Human Potential.
321
Ibid., 82.
322
Steiner, The Roots of Education.
323
Malaguzzi, “For an Education Based on Relationships.”
324
Edwards, Gandini, and Nimmo, “Promoting Collaborative Learning in the Early
Childhood Classroom,” 79.
325
Rabitti, “An Integrated Art Approach in a Preschool.”
326
Rama, Neo-Humanist Education,70-71; Childs, Steiner Education in Theory and
Practice, 135-136; Lillard, Montessori Today.
327
Alister, “Why Teach Meditation?”
328
Bussey, “Neo-Humanist Philosophy.”
329
Jacobson, “Interview with Director of the Progressive School of Long Island;”
Lillard, Montessori Today; AWSNA (Association of Waldorf Schools in North
297
233
America). The Arts and Practical Skills. http://www.awsna.org/education-arts.html
(Accessed May 15, 2007); Edwards, Gandini, and Forman, The Hundred Languages of
Children.
330
Bruder, “Working with Members of Other Disciplines;” Linder, “Read, Play, and
Learn!”
331
Woods, “Researching and Developing Interdisciplinary Teaching;” Barisonzi and
Thorn, “Teaching Revolution: Issues in Interdisciplinary Education.”
332
Bussey, “A Trans-disciplinary Approach.”
333
Jacobson, “Interview with Director of the Progressive School of Long Island;”
Wood, “Ananda Marga Neohumanist school, Korle Gonno, Accra, Ghana.”
334
Standing, Maria Montessori, 361-362.
335
Ibid.
336
Lillard, Montessori Today.
337
Childs, Steiner Education in Theory and Practice.
338
Gandini, “Fundamentals of the Reggio Emilia Approach to Early Education,” 7.
339
Forman, “Different Media, Different Languages”; Rabitti, “An Integrated Art
Approach in a Preschool.”
340
Edwards, Gandini, and Forman, The Hundred Languages of Children.
341
Childs, Steiner Education in Theory and Practice; Rama, Neo-Humanist Education;
Edwards, Gandini, and Forman, The Hundred Languages of Children.
342
Forman, “Different Media, Different Languages.”
343
Rinaldi, “Documentation and Assessment”; Hendrick, First Steps Toward Teaching
the Reggio Way.
344
Ceppi and Zinni, Children, Spaces, Relations; Strozzi, “Daily Life at School.”
345
New, “Reggio Emilia: Some Lessons for U.S. Educators.”
346
Miller, Caring for New Life, 23-24.
347
Miller, What are Schools for? Nava, Holistic Education: Pedagogy of Universal
Love
348
Miller, The Holistic Curriculum.
349
This quest for balance in contemporary holistic education echoes the work of Carl
Rogers, who fiercely argued for an integrated approach to learning that would combine
our masculine (intellectual and logical) and feminine (intuition and feelings) capacities.
(Rogers, Freedom to Learn).
350
Miller, New Directions in Education, 2.
351
Ibid., 53-57.
352
Ibid., 54.
353
Ibid. Contemporary holistic educators’ claim that learning is a whole act is reflected
in Goleman’s work on Emotional Intelligence and Social Intelligence, which they often
cite in their argument for whole learning.
354
Clark, Designing and Implementing an Integrated Curriculum.
355
Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics; Rousseau, Émile; Pestalozzi, Letters on Early
Education; How Gertrude Teaches her Children; Froebel, Froebel; The Education of
234
Man; Dewey, Democracy and Education; Art as Experience; Rogers, Freedom to
Learn; Parker, Studies in Education.
356
Pestalozzi, Letters on Early Education;
357
Steiner, The Education of the Child in the Light of Anthroposophy.
358
Edwards, “Three Approaches from Europe;” Rama, Neo-Humanist Education, 78.
359
Montessori, The Discovery of the Child; Childs, Steiner Education in Theory and
Practice; Edwards, Gandini, and Forman, The Hundred Languages of Children.
360
Lillard, Montessori Today.
361
AWSNA (Association of Waldorf Schools in North America). Classroom and
Curriculum. http://www.awsna.org/education-class.html (Accessed May 15, 2007)
362
Rama, Neo-Humanist Education.
363
Edwards, Gandini, and Forman, The Hundred Languages of Children.
364
Rama, Neo-Humanist Education, 10-11.
365
Ceppi and Zinni, Children, Spaces, Relations; Montessori, The Montessori Method.
366
Gandini, “Fundamentals of the Reggio Emilia Approach to Early Childhood
Education;” Forman, “Different Media, Different Languages;” Montessori, Education
for Human Development, 42-43; Lillard, Montessori Today, 35.
367
Montessori, The Montessori Method; Krechevsky, “Form, Function, and
Understanding in Learning Groups.”
368
Childs, Steiner Education in Theory and Practice, 113; Lillard, Montessori Today.
369
Montessori, The Discovery of the Child.
370
Jacobson, “Interview with Director of the Progressive School of Long Island;”
371
Childs, Steiner Education in Theory and Practice, 94-97; Montessori, To Educate
the Human Potential, 14-17.
372
Rama, Neo-Humanist Education, 40-41.
373
Gandini, “Fundamentals of the Reggio Emilia Approach to Early Childhood
Education.”
374
Steiner, Art as Spiritual Activity
375
Childs, Steiner Education in Theory and Practice, 84.
376
Sarkar, Discourses on Neohumanist Education.
377
Rama, Neo-Humanist Education; Bussey, “Mapping Neohumanist Futures in
Education.”
378
Childs, Steiner in Theory and Practice; Lillard, Montessori Today; Edwards,
Gandini, and Forman, The Hundred Languages of Children.
379
Gandini, “Fundamentals of the Reggio Emilia Approach to Early Childhood
Education,” 8.
380
“Education 2000: A Holistic Perspective,” 241.
381
“Education 2000: A Holistic Perspective,” 241; Miller, Educating for a Culture of
Peace.
382
Miller, Educating for a Culture of Peace.
383
Ibid.
384
“Education 2000: A Holistic Perspective,” 241-242.
235
385
Although holistic educators usually do not support Gardner’s emphasis on
distinguishing intelligences (Frames of Mind), they do endorse his argument that
intelligence is not only located in the brain.
386
Miller, What are Schools for?
387
Rousseau, Émile.
388
Ibid., 189.
389
Rinaldi, “Infant-toddler Centers and preschools as places of culture; Montessori, To
Educate the Human Potential; Steiner, The Education of the Child in the Light of
Anthroposophy; Rama, Neo-Humanist Education.
390
Montessori, The Discovery of the Child.
391
Giudici, Rinaldi, and Krechevsky, Making Learning Visible; Vecchi, “The Curiosity
to Understand.”
392
Childs, Steiner Education in Theory and Practice.
393
Steiner, The Roots of Education.
394
Rama, Neo-Humanist Education, 21; Montessori, Education for Human
Development, 24-25.
395
Montessori, The Montessori Method, 80.
396
Giudici, Rinaldi, and Krechevsky, Making Learning Visible.
397
Gandini, “Fundamentals of the Reggio Emilia Approach to Early Childhood
Education,” 8.
398
Rama, Neo-Humanist Education, 10.
399
Glassman, “Universalism.”
400
Montessori, The Montessori Method; New, Reggio Emilia: Some Lessons for U.S.
Educators, 1.
401
Childs, Steiner Education in Theory and Practice.
402
Montessori, Education for Human Development, 24-25.
403
Standing, Maria Montessori.
404
Rama, Neo-Humanist Education, 21.
405
Rinaldi, “The Courage of Utopia,” 148.
406
Rinaldi, “Infant-toddler Centers and Preschools as Places of Culture,” 42.
407
Rinaldi, “Staff Development in Reggio Emilia,” Krechevsky, “Form, Function, and
Understanding in Learning Groups.”
408
Edwards, Gandini, and Forman, The Hundred Languages of Children, 44.
409
Forman, “Different Media, Different Languages.”
410
Montessori, Peace and Education; Rama, Neo-Humanist Education; Steiner, Roots
of Education; Edwards, Gandini, and Forman, The Hundred Languages of Children.
411
Glassman, “Universalism.”
412
Montessori, The Montessori Method.
413
Edwards, “Three Approaches from Europe.”
414
Information collected from various visits to Waldorf Schools.
236
415
Noddings, Caring, a Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education; Starting at
Home; The Challenge to Care in Schools; An Ethic of Caring and its Implication for
Instructional Arrengements.
416
Noddings, Caring, a Feminine Approach to ethics and Moral Education, 4-5.
417
Forbes, Holistic Education.
418
Rousseau, Émile; Pestalozzi, How Gertrude Teaches her Children; Froebel, The
Education of Man; Rogers, Freedom to Learn, Miller, What are Schools for? Koegel,
“The Heart of Holistic Education,” 11.
419
Miller, What are Schools for?Caring for a New Life; Nava, Holistic Education:
Pedagogy of Universal Love.
420
Miller, The Holistic Curriculum; Soul in Education; The Compassionate Teacher;
Kessler, The Soul of Education; Brown, “The Teacher as Contemplative Observer.”
421
Palmer, The Courage to Teach.
422
See note 418 above.
423
Bussey, “A Trans-disciplinary Approach;” Edwards, Gandini, and Forman, The
Hundred Languages of Children; Montessori, Education for Human Development;
Childs, Steiner Education in Theory and Practice.
424
Steiner, “Education and the Science of the Spirit,” 36.
425
Montessori, Education for Human Development, 27.
426
Montessori, Peace and Education.
427
Hendrick, First steps teaching the Reggio Way.
428
Rama, Neo-Humanist Education, 12.
429
Ogletree, “Waldorf Schools;” American Montessori Society. Parents and the
American Montessori Society. http://www.amshq.org/parentsPublic.htm (Accessed June
23, 2007); Cagliari and Giudici, “School as a Place of Group Learning for Parents;”
Rama, Neo-Humanist Education.
430
Childs, Steiner Education in Theory and Practice; Rama, Neo-Humanist Education,
23.
431
Information collected from the various schools I visited in diverse countries.
432
Ogletree, “Waldorf Schools.”
433
Montessori, Education for Human Development.
434
Lillard, Montessori Today; Standing, Maria Montessori.
435
Gandini, “Fundamentals of the Reggio Emilia Approach to Early Education,” 5-6.
436
Edwards, Gandini, and Nimmo, “Promoting Collaborative Learning in the Early
Childhood Classroom,” 97; Rinaldi, “Infant-toddler Centers and Preschools as Places of
Culture,” 44.
437
Rama, Neo-Humanist Education, 12, 32.
438
Ibid; Alister, Why Teach Meditation?”
439
Steiner, The Roots of Education.
440
Childs, Steiner Education in Theory and Practice, 67.
441
Montessori, Peace and Education; Montessori, Education for Human Development.
237
442
Edwards, Gandini, and Forman, The Hundred Languages of Children; Hendrick,
First steps teaching the Reggio Way.
443
Rama, Neo-Humanist Education, 20-21, 54, 76,78.
444
Childs, Steiner Education in Theory and Practice; Rama, Neo-Humanist Education.
445
Milojevic, “The River School.”
446
American Montessori Society. Parents and the American Montessori Society.
http://www.amshq.org/parentsPublic.htm (Accessed June 23, 2007)
447
New, “Reggio Emilia: Catalyst for Change and Conversation;” Cagliari and Giudici,
“School as a Place of Group Learning for Parents.
448
Miller, “Making Connections to the World;” “Partial Vision;” Caring for New Life;
“Nourishing the Spiritual Embryo;” Nakagawa, Education for Awakening; Clark,
Designing and Implementing an Integrated Curriculum.
449
Miller, What are schools for? Miller, The Holistic Curriculum; Forbes, Holistic
Education.
450
Forbes, Holistic Education; Nakagawa, Education for Awakening; “Education 2000:
A Holistic Perspective;” Miller, Caring for New Life.
451
Nakagawa, Education for Awakening.
452
Ibid., 68.
453
Forbes, Holistic Education, 33.
454
Miller, Free Schools, Free People.
455
Rousseau, Émile; Neill, Summerhill.
456
Krishnamurti, Freedom from the Known; Education and the Significance of Life.
457
Illich, Deschooling Society.
458
Krishnamurti, Freedom from the Known; The Future of Humanity; The First and
Last Freedom.
459
Krishnamurti, Think on these Things, 12.
460
Rousseau, Emile.
461
Ibid., 255.
462
Ibid.
463
Neill, Summerhill.
464
Illich, Deschooling Society.
465
Forbes, Holistic Education.
466
Holt, Growing Without Schooling, 3-4.
467
Holt, How Children Learn; How Children Fail; Mel Allen, “The Education of John
Holt;” Rousseau, Émile; Pestalozzi, Letters on Early Education; How Gertrude Teaches
her Children; Froebel, The Education of Man; Montessori, The Montessori Method;
Rogers, Freedom to Learn; Neill, Summerhill; Illich, Deschooling Society.
468
Dewey, Democracy and Education; Clark, Designing and Implementing an
Integrated Curriculum.
469
View note 466 above.
470
Miller, “Making Connections to the World,” 32.
471
Ibid.
238
472
Nakagawa, Education for Awakening; Milojevic, “Collective Violence Pedagogy
and the Neohumanist Peace,” 160.
473
Rama, Neo-Humanist Education, 7.
474
Ibid., 10, 60-61.
475
Ibid., 68-69.
476
Milojevic, “The River School,” 316.
477
Rama, Neo-Humanist Education,18.
478
Steiner was deeply concerned with idea of freedom and the necessary steps to reach
that state. The beginning of his work is marked by his effort in conceptualizing
freedom, which culminated in his book Die Philosophie der Freiheit. This book was
first translated as The Philosophy of Freedom, however from 1922-1963, English
translations of this book were published as The Philosophy of Spiritual Activity.
479
Steiner, The Science of Spirit, Education and Practical Life; Discussions with
Teachers.
480
Rocha, Schools Where Children Matter, 127.
481
Montessori, Education for a New World; The Discovery of the Child.
482
Standing, Maria Montessori, 281.
483
Montessori, Peace and Education, 17.
484
Montessori, The Discovery of the Child, 302-307; The Montessori Method, 86.
485
Edwards, Gandini, and Forman, The Hundred Languages of Children, 44.
486
Cagliari and Giudici, “School as a Place of Group Learning for Parents,” 136.
487
Edwards, Gandini, and Forman, The Hundred Languages of Children.
488
Edwards, Gandini, and Nimmo, “Promoting Collaborative Learning in the Early
Childhood Classroom.”
489
Montessori, The Discovery of the Child.
490
Lillard, Montessori Today.
491
Rama, Neo-Humanist Education, 68-69.
492
Rocha, Schools Where Children Matter, 117-128.
493
Montessori, The Montessori Method; Lillard, Montessori Today; Edwards, Gandini,
and Forman, The Hundred Languages of Children.
494
Standing, Maria Montessori, 364.
495
Edwards, Gandini, and Nimmo, “Promoting Collaborative Learning in the Early
Childhood Classroom.”
496
Rama, Neo-Humanist Education.
497
Childs, Steiner in Theory and Practice.
498
Giudici, Rinaldi, and Krechevsky, Making Learning Visible.
499
Forman, “Different Media, Different Languages.”
500
Lillard. Montessori Today.
501
Milojevic, “Visions of Education: Neohumanism and Critical Spirituality;” Bussey,
“Neohumanism: Critical Spirituality, Tantra, and Education.”
502
Rama, Neo-Humanist Education,60-61.
503
Rama, Neo-Humanist Education, 58-59; Rocha, Schools Where Children Matter.
239
504
Nakagawa, Education for Awakening.
Rama, Neo-Humanist Education, 10.
506
Montessori, Education for a New World, 68.
507
Lillard, Montessori Today, 60.
508
Montessori, Education for a New World, 89.
509
Edwards, Gandini, and Forman, The Hundred Languages of Children.
510
The “scaffolding” notion was first introduced by Brunner, Actual Minds, Possible
Worlds.
511
This concept was first discussed by Vygotsky (Mind in Society) in his definition of
the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD).
512
Glassman, “Universalism;” Rama, Neo-Humanist Education, 60-61.
513
Ibid., 7-10.
514
Childs, Steiner Education in Theory and Practice, 136.
515
Edwards, Gandini, and Forman, The Hundred Languages of Children.
516
Lillard, Montessori Today.
517
Anandarama, “Neohumanist Education for All,” 47.
518
Rocha, Schools Where Children Matter.
519
Miller, “Partial Vision.”
520
Rocha, Schools Where Teacher Matter, 120.
521
Childs, Steiner Education in Theory and Practice, 126.
522
Nava, Holistic Education: Pedagogy of Universal Love; Miller, Caring for New Life;
Free School, Free People.
523
“Education 2000,” 244.
524
Miller, “Toward Participatory Democracy.”
525
As discussed by Miller in “Toward Participatory Democracy.”
526
Dewey, Democracy and Education.
527
Ibid., 86-87.
528
Miller, “What is Democratic Education?”
529
Ibid.
530
Miller, “Philosophical Foundations,” 78-79.
531
Eisler, Tomorrow’s Children.
532
Eisler, “Partnership Education.”
533
Gandini, “Fundamentals of the Reggio Emilia Approach to Early Education,” 5-6.
534
New, “Reggio Emilia: Some Lessons for U.S. Educators”, 4; Cagliari and Giudici,
“School as a Place for Group Learning for Parents”, 136.
535
Montessori, Education for Human Development.
536
Ibid., 26.
537
Ogletree, “Waldorf Schools”; The comparative status of the creative thinking ability
of Waldorf education students.
538
Eisler, Tomorrow’s Children.
539
Inayatullah, Bussey, and Milojevic, Neohumanist Educational Futures.
505
240
540
New, “Reggio Emilia: Some Lessons for U.S. Educators”, 4; Cagliari and Giudici,
“School as a Place for Group Learning for Parents”, 136.
541
Rinaldi, “Staff Development in Reggio Emilia,” 56.
542
Montessori, Education for Human Development, 26.
543
Ibid., 28.
544
Milojevic, “The River School;” Jacobson, “Interview with Director of the
Progressive School of Long Island.”
545
Rocha, Where Children Matter.
546
Childs, Steiner Education in Theory and Practice.
547
American Montessori Society. Parents and the American Montessori Society.
http://www.amshq.org/parentsPublic.htm (Accessed June 23, 2007).
548
Milojevic, “The River School.”
549
Rama, Neo-Humanist Education, 81.
550
Reggio Emilia: The municipal Infant-toddler centers and preschools of Reggio
Emilia. http://zerosei.comune.re.it/inter/nidiescuole.htm
551
Ogletree, “Waldorf Schools”; The comparative status of the creative thinking ability
of Waldorf education students.
552
Hendrick, First Steps Towards Teaching the Reggio Way.
553
Edwards, “Three Approaches from Europe”, 5.
554
Dewey, Democracy in Education, 86-87.
555
Ratner, Intelligence in the Modern World: John Dewey’s Philosophy.
556
Mercogliano, “On the Road,” 33.
557
Crain, “Fulfilling One’s Calling,” 9.
241
LIST OF REFERENCES
"Education 2000: A Holistic Perspective." In Holistic Education: Principles,
Perspectives, and Practices, edited by Carol L. Flake, 24-247. Brandon, VT:
Holsitic Education Press.
40 Years: Reggio Emilia One City Many Children. Reggio Emilia, Italy: Reggio
Children. http://zerosei.comune.re.it/inter/convegno2004/pressfolder.pdf, 2004.
(NCES), National Center for Education Statistics. Homeschooling in the United States:
2003 (Statistical Analysis Report). Washington, DC: GPO, 2006.
Adams, Anne. "Education: From Conception to Graduation. A Systemic, Integral
Approach." California Institute of Integral Studies, 2006.
Agnew, Wendy Jane. "The Universe Is a Horse: Autopoietic for Technoprosaic Times.
An Applied Mythology." University of Toronto, 2007.
Ahmadi, Zia. "The Montessori Method." Journal of Educational Computing, Designing
& Online Learning 4 (2003): 1-16.
Alister, Kamala. "Weaving the Magic Circle: Teaching Spirituality to Children."
Neohumanist Education Open Resources.
http://www.nhe.gurukul.edu/openresources/magiccircle.htm.
———. "Why Teach Meditation." Neohumanist Education Open Resources.
http://www.nhe.gurukul.edu/openresources/bnk.htm.
Allen, Mell. "The Education of John Holt." Yankee Magazine, December 1981, 66-71,
150-55.
Anandarama, Didi. "Neohumanist Education for All." Gurukula Network 21 (2005): 47.
Aristotle, and Martin Ostwald. Nicomachean Ethics. Translated by J. A. K. Thomson.
Indianapolis [Ind.]: Bobbs-Merrill, 1962.
242
Bader, Carol H., and C. Robert Blackmon. Open Education: A Review of the Literature.
Research Report; V8 N1. Baton Rouge, LA: Bureau of Educational Materials
and Research, Louisiana State University, College of Education, text-fiche,
ED148830, 1978.
Barisonzi, Judith, and Michael Thorn. "Teaching Revolution: Issues in
Interdisciplinary Education." College Teaching 51, no. 1 (2003): 5-8.
Barnes, Henry. "Learning That Grows with the Learner." Educational Leadership 49,
no. 2 (1991): 52-54.
Barnes, Jonathan. Aristotle. New York: Oxford University Press, 1982.
Blavatsky, H. P. The Secret Doctrine: The Sysnthesis of Science, Religion, and
Philosophy. Vol. I & II. Pasadena, CA: Theosophical University Press, 1977.
Borich, Gary D. Vital Impressions: The Kpm Approach to Children. Malakkara, India:
Atma Vidya Educational Foundation, 2004.
Bredekamp, Sue. "Reflections on Reggio Emilia." Young Children 49, no. 1 (1993): 1317.
Brown, Richard C. "The Teacher as a Contemplative Observer." Educational
Leadership 56, no. 4 (1999): 70-73.
Bruder, M.B. "Working with Members of Other Disciplines." In Including Children
with Special Needs in Early Childhood Programs, edited by M Wolery and J.S
Wilbers, 45-70. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of
Young Children, 1994.
Bruner, Jerome S. Actual Minds, Possible Worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 1986.
Burley, Mikel. Hatha-Yoga: Its Contexts, Theory, and Practice. Delhi: Motilal
Banarsidass Publishers, 1972.
Bussey, Marcus. "Neo-Humanist Philosophy." Neohumanist Education Open
Resources. http://www.nhe.gurukul.edu/openresources/neohuman.htm.
243
———. "A Trans-Diciplinary Approach." Neohumanist Education Open Resources.
http://nhe.gurukul.edu/openresources/trans.htm.
———. "The Neohumanist Way: Preparing School Staff and Families as
Neohumanists." Gurukula Network, no. 20 (2005): 23-24.
———. "Mapping Neohumanist Futures in Education." In Neohumanist Educational
Futures: Liberating the Pedagogical Intellect, edited by Sohail Inayatullah,
Marcus Bussey and Ivana Milojevic, 7-24. Tansui, Taipei: Tamkang University
Press, 2006.
———. "Neohumanism: Critical Spirituality, Tantra and Education." In Neohumanist
Educational Futures: Liberating the Pedagogical Intellect, edited by Sohail
Inayatullah, Marcus Bussey and Ivana Milojevic, 80-96. Tansui, Taipei:
Tamkang University Press, 2006.
Cagliari, Paola, and Claudia Giudici. "School as a Place of Group Learning for
Parents." In Making Learning Visible: Children as Individual and Group
Learners, edited by Claudia Giudici, Carla Rinaldi and Mara Krechevsky, 13641. Cambridge, MA: Project Zero, Harvard Graduate School of Education;
Reggio Emilia, Italy: Reggio Children, 2001.
Cajete, Gregory A. Look to the Mountain: An Ecology of Indigenous Education.
Durango, CO: Kivaki Press, 1994.
Capra, Fritjof. The Turning Point: Science, Society, and the Rising Culture. New York:
Bantam Books, 1983.
———. The Web of Life: A New Scientific Understanding of Living Systems. New
York: Anchor Books, 1996.
———. "Ecoliteracy: The Challenge for Education in the Next Century." In Liverpool
Schumacher Lectures. Berkeley, CA: Center for Ecoliteracy, 1999.
Ceppi, Giulio, and Michele Zini, eds. Children, Spaces, Relations: Metaproject for an
Environment for Young Children. Reggio Emilia, Italy: Reggio Children, 1998.
Childs, Gilbert. Steiner Education in Theory and Practice. Edinburgh, UK: Floris
Books, 1991.
244
Clark, Edward T. "Holistic Education: A Search for Wholeness." In New Directions in
Education, edited by Ron Miller, 53-62. Brandon, Vermont: Holistic Education
Press, 1991.
———. "Envoironmental Education as an Integrative Study." In New Directions in
Education: Selections from Holistic Education Review, 38-52. Brandon, VT:
Holistic Education Press, 1991.
———. "How Do You Design an Ecoliteracy Curriculum?" In Guide to Ecoliteracy,
edited by F. Capra, C. Cooper, Edward T. Clark and R. Doughty. Berkeley, CA:
Center for Ecoliteracy, 1993.
———. Designing and Implementing an Integrated Curriculum: A Student-Centered
Approach Brandon, VT: Holistic Education Press, 2001.
Coulter, Dee Joy. "Montessori and Steiner: A Pattern of Reverse Symmetries." Holistic
Education Review 4, no. 2 (1991): 30-32.
Crain, William. "Fulfilling One's Calling: An Interview with Free School Educator
Chris Mercogliano." Encounter: Education for Meaning and Social Justice 21,
no. 1 (2008): 5-11.
Dewey, John. Education Today. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1940.
———. Art as Experience. New York: Capricorn Books, 1958.
———. How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the
Educative Process. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company, 1960.
———. Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education.
New York: The Free Press, 1996.
Dumoulin, Heinrich. Zen Buddhism: A History. Translated by James W. Heisig and
Paul F. Knitter. New York: Macmillan, 1988.
Edwards, Carolyn, Lella Gandini, and George Forman, eds. The Hundred Languages of
Children: The Reggio Emilia Approach--Advanced Reflections. Greenwich, CT:
Ablex Pub. Corp., 1998.
245
Edwards, Carolyn, Lella Gandini, and John Nimmo. "Promoting Collaborative
Learning in the Early Childhood Classroom: Teacher's Contrasting
Conceptualizations in Two Communities." In Reflections on the Reggio Emilia
Approach, edited by Lilian G. Katz and Bernard Cesarone, 81-104. UrbanaChampaign, IL: ERIC/EECE, text-fiche, ED375986, 1994.
Edwards, Carolyn Pope. "Three Approaches from Europe: Waldorf, Montessori, and
Reggio Emilia." Early Childhood Research & Practice 4, no. 1 (2002): 1-11.
http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v4n1/edwards.html.
Eisler, Riane. Tomorrow's Children: A Blueprint for Partnership Education in the 21st
Century. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2000.
———. "Partnership Education: Nurturing Children's Humanity." In Neohumanist
Educational Futures: Liberating the Pedagogical Intellect, edited by Sohail
Inayatullah, Marcus Bussey and Ivana Milojevic, 181-201. Tansui, Taipei:
Tamkang University Press, 2006.
Eisler, Riane , and Ron Miller, eds. Educating for a Culture of Peace. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann, 2004.
Farenga, Patrick. "John Holt and the Origins of Contemporary Homeschooling." Paths
of Learning 1, no. 1 (2003): 1-11.
http://www.pathsoflearning.net/library/Paths01-Farenga.pdf.
Flake, Carol L., ed. Holistic Education: Principles, Perspectives, and Practices.
Brandon, VT: Holistic Education Press, 1993.
Forbes, Scott. Holistic Education: An Analysis of Its Ideas and Nature. Brandon, VT:
Foundation for Educational Renewal, 2003.
Forbes, Scott, and Robin Martin. "What Holistic Education Claims About Itself: An
Analysis of Holistic Schools Literature." Holistic Education Inc (2004): 1-26.
http://www.holistic-education.net/articles/articles.htm.
Forman, George. "Different Media, Different Languages." In Reflections on the Reggio
Emilia Approach, edited by Lilian G. Katz and Bernard Cesarone, 41-54.
Urbana-Champaign, IL: ERIC/EECE, text-fiche, ED375986, 1994.
France, Louise. "A Class of Their Own." Guardian Newspaper, April 17 2005.
Freire, Paulo. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum, 1970.
246
Fröbel, Friedrich. The Education of Man. Translated by William Nicholas Hailmann.
New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1887.
Fuller, Bruce, and Richrad Rubinson, eds. The Political Construction of Education:
The State, School Expansion, and Economic Change. New York: Praeger,
1992.
Gandini, Lella. "Fundamentals of the Reggio Emilia Approach to Early Childhood
Education." Young Children 49, no. 1 (1993): 4-8.
———. "Educational and Caring Spaces." In The Hundred Languages of Children:
The Reggio Emilia Approach--Advanced Reflections, edited by Carolyn
Edwards, Lella Gandini and George Forman, 161-78. Greenwich, CT: Ablex
Pub. Corp., 1998.
Gang, Phil. "Holistic Education." In Holistic Education: Principles, Perspectives, and
Practices, edited by Carol L. Flake, 86-91. Brandon, VT: Holistic Education
Press, 1993.
Gardner, Howard. Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York:
Basic Books, 1983.
Gatto, John Taylor. "Against School: How Public Education Cripples Our Kids, and
Why." Harpers Magazine 2003, 33-38.
Giudici, Claudia, Carla Rinaldi, and Mara Krechevsky, eds. Making Learning Visible:
Children as Individual and Group Learners. Cambridge, MA: Project Zero,
Harvard Graduate School of Education; Reggio Emilia, Italy: Reggio Children,
2001.
Glassman, Mahajyoti. "Universalism." Neohumanist Education Open Resources.
http://www.nhe.gurukul.edu/openresources/universalim.htm.
———. "What Is Universalism Really About?" In Neohumanist Educational Futures:
Liberating the Pedagogical Intellect, edited by Sohail Inayatullah, Marcus
Bussey and Ivana Milojevic, 322-34. Tansui, Taipei: Tamkang University
Press, 2006.
Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von, and John Gearey. Essays on Art and Literature. New
York: Suhrkamp Publishers New York, 1986.
247
Goleman, Daniel. Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam Books, 1995.
———. Social Intelligence. New York: Bantam Books, 2006.
Hadot, Pierre. What Is Ancient Philosophy? Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2002.
Hendrick, Joanne, ed. Firths Steps Teaching the Reggio Way. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall, 1997.
Hill, Lilian H. "Changes of the Human Mind." Adult Education Quarterly 49, no. 1
(1998): 56-64.
Holt, John C. How Children Fail. New York: Dell Publishing Co., 1964.
———. How Children Learn. New York: Pitman Publishing Co., 1969.
———, ed. Growing without Schooling: A Record of a Grassroots Movement. Vol.
One. Cambridge, MA: Holt Associates Inc., 1999.
Huxley, Aldous. The Perennial Philosophy. London: Chatto and Windus, 1945.
Illich, Ivan. Deschooling Society. New York: Harper & Row, 1970.
Inayatullah, Sohail, Marcus Bussey, and Ivana Milojevic, eds. Neohumanist
Educational Futures: Liberating the Pedagogical Intellect. Tansui, Taipei:
Tamkang University Press, 2006.
Jacobson, Eric. "Interview with Director of the Progressive School of Long Island."
Gurukula Network, no. 21 (2005): 33-38.
Katz, Lilian. "Images from the World: Study Seminar on the Experience of the
Municipal Infant-Toddler Centers and Preprimary Schools of Reggio Emilia,
Italy." In Reflections on the Reggio Emilia Approach, edited by Lilian G. Katz
and Bernard Cesarone, 1-18. Urbana-Champaign, IL: ERIC/EECE, text-fiche,
ED375986, 1994.
Kessler, Rachel. The Soul of Education: Helping Students Find Connection,
Compassion, and Character at School. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development, 2000.
248
Koegel, Rob, and Ron Miller. "The Heart of Holistic Education: A Reconstructed
Dialogue between Ron Miller and Rob Koegel." Encounter: Education for
Meaning and Social Justice 16, no. 2 (2003): 11-18.
Krechevsky, Mara. "Form, Function, and Understanding in Learning Groups:
Propositions from the Reggio Classrooms." In Making Learning Visible:
Children as Individual and Group Learners, edited by Claudia Giudici, Carla
Rinaldi and Mara Krechevsky, 246-68. Cambridge, MA: Project Zero, Harvard
Graduate School of Education; Reggio Emilia, Italy: Reggio Children, 2001.
Krishnamurti, Jiddu. Education and the Significance of Life. New York: Harper, 1953.
———. Think on These Things. New York: Harper & Row, 1964.
———. The First and Last Freedom. Wheaton, Ill.: Theosophical Publishing Co.,
1968.
———. Freedom from the Known. New York: Harper & Row, 1969.
Krishnamurti, Jiddu, and David Bohm. The Future of Humanity. New York, NY:
Harper & Row Publishers, 1986.
Lemkow, Anna. The Wholeness Principle: Dynamics of Unity within Science, Religion
& Society. Wheaton, IL: Quest Books, Theosophical Publishing House, 1990.
Lillard, Paula Polk. Montessori Today: A Comprehensive Approach to Education from
Birth to Adulthood. New York: Schocken Books, 1996.
Linder, Toni W. Read, Play, and Learn! Storybook Activities for Young Children. The
Transdisciplinary Play-Based Curriculum. Teacher's Guide. Baltimore, MD:
Brookes Publishing Company, 1999.
Locke, John. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Chicago, IL: Gateway
Editions, 1956.
Looper, Gary. ""Metanoia" For Montessorians." NAMTA Journal 25, no. 1 (2000):
231-40.
Malaguzzi, Loris. "For an Education Based on Relationships." Young Children 49,
no. 1 (1993): 9-12.
249
Martin, Robin Ann. "Alternatives in Education: An Exploration of Learner-Centered,
Progressive, and Holistic Education." Paper presented at the AERA, New
Orleans, LA 2002.
McEvilley, Thomas. The Shape of Ancient Thought: Comparative Studies of Greek and
Indian Philosophies. New York: Allworth Press, 2002.
Mercogliano, Chris. "Chris Column: On the Road." Encounter: Education for Meaning
and Social Justice 21, no. 1 (2008): 31-33.
Miller, John. The Compassionate Teacher: How to Teach and Learn with Your Whole
Self. Englewood, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1981.
———. The Compassionate Teacher: How to Teach and Learn with Your Whole Self.
Englewood Clifs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1981.
———. The Holistic Curriculum. Toronto: OISE Press, 1988/2007.
———. "Worldviews, Educational Orientations, and Holistic Education." In The
Renewal of Meaning in Education: Responses to the Cultural and Ecological
Crises of Our Times, edited by Ron Miller, 53-67. Brandon, VT: Holistic
Education Press, 1993.
———. "Making Connections through Holistic Learning." Educational Leadership 56,
no. 4 (1999): 46-48.
———. Education and the Soul: Toward a Spiritual Curriculum. Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press, 2000.
———. "Introduction: Holistic Learning." In Holistic Learning and Spirituality in
Education: Breaking New Ground, edited by J. Miller, S. Karsten, D. Denton
and J. C. Kates, 1-6. Albany, N.Y: State University of New York Press, 2005.
———. "Ancient Roots of Holistic Education." Encounter: Education for Meaning
and Social Justice 19, no. 2 (2006): 55-59.
Miller, Ron. What Are Schools For? Holistic Education in American Culture. Vermont:
Holistic Education Press, 1990.
———, ed. New Directions in Education: Selections from Holistic Education Review.
Brandon, VT: Holistic Education Press, 1991.
250
———. "Introduction " In New Directions in Education: Selections from Holistic
Education Review, edited by Ron Miller, 1-5. Brandon, VT: Holistic Education
Press, 1991.
———. "Holism and Meaning: Foundations for a Coherent Holistic Theory." Holistic
Education Review 4, no. 3 (1991): 23-32.
———. "Defining a Common Vision: The Holistic Education Movement in the U.S."
Orbit, Special Issue: Holistic Education in Practice 23, no. 2 (1992): 20-21.
Edited by J. Miller and S. Drake. Toronto: OISE Press.
———. "Philosophical Foundations." In Holistic Education: Principles, Perspectives
and Practices, edited by Carol Flake, 78-79. Brandon, VT: Holistic Education
Press, 1993.
———. "Introduction: Vital Voices of Educational Dissent." In The Renewal of
Meaning in Education: Responses to the Cultural and Ecological Crises of Our
Times., edited by Ron Mileer, 6-24. Brandon, VT: Holistic Education Press,
1993.
———. ""Partial Vision" In Alternative Education." SKOLE: The Journal of
Alternative Education XIV, no. 14 (1998): 27-33.
———. Caring for New Life: Essays on Holistic Education. Brandon, VT: Foundation
for Educational Renewal, 2000.
———. Free Schools, Free People: Education and Democracy after the 1960s.
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2002.
———. "Educational Alternatives: A Map of the Territory." Paths of Learning 20
(2004): 20-27.
———. "Nourishing the Spiritual Embryo: The Educational Vision of Maria
Montessori." Encounter: Education for Meaning and Social Justice 17, no. 2
(2004): 14-21.
———. "Toward Participatory Democracy." Free Voices Summer, no. 2 (2005):
http://www.pathsoflearning.org.
———. "Making Connections to the World: Some Thoughts on Holistic Curriculum."
Encounter: Education for Meaning and Social Justice 19, no. 4 (2006): 19-24.
251
———. "What Is Democratic Education?" Paths of Learning (2007):
http://www.pathsoflearning.org.
Milojevic, Ivana. "The River School: Exploring Racism in a Neohumanist School." In
Neohumanist Educational Futures: Liberating the Pedagogical Intellect, edited
by Sohail Inayatullah, Marcus Bussey and Ivana Milojevic, 307-21. Tansui,
Taipei: Tamkang University Press, 2006.
———. "Collective Violence Pedagogy and the Neohumanist Peace-Oriented
Response." In Neohumanist Educational Futures: Liberating the Pedagogical
Intellect, edited by Sohail Inayatullah, Marcus Bussey and Ivana Milojevic,
146-68. Tansui, Taipei: Tamkang University Press, 2006.
———. "Visions of Education: Neohumanism and Critical Spirituality." In
Neohumanist Educational Futures: Liberating the Pedagogical Intellect, edited
by Sohail Inayatullah, Marcus Bussey and Ivana Milojevic, 55-79. Tansui,
Taipei: Tamkang University Press, 2006.
Montessori, Maria. Peace and Education. Geneva: International Bureau of Education,
1932.
———. Education for a New World. Madras, India: Kalakshetra Publications, 1946.
———. To Educate the Human Potential. Madras, India: Kalakshetra Publications,
1961.
———. The Discovery of the Child. New York: Ballantine Books, 1967.
———. The Montessori Method. Bristol, UK: Thoemmes Press, 1995.
Montessori, Mario M. Education for Human Development: Understanding Montessori.
New York: Schocken Books, 1976.
Moore, David W., and James W. Cunningham. "Agency and Adolescents Literacy." In
Reconceptualizing the Literacies in Adolescents' Lives, edited by D. E.
Alverman, K. A. Hinchman, D. W. Moore, S. F. Phelps and D. R. Waff, 283303. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, 1998.
Muller, Robert. "Spiritual Education: A World of Difference." In The World Core
Curriculum: Foundations, Implementation and Resources, 7-15. Arlington, TX:
Robert Muller School, 1991.
252
———. "Spiritual Education: A World of Difference." In The World Core Curriculum:
Foundation, Implementation, and Resources, 7-15. Arlington, TX: The Robert
Muller School, 1991.
Naess, Arne. Ecology, Community and Lifestyle: Outline for an Ecosophy. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
———. "The Shallow and the Deep, Long-Range Ecology Movements: A Summary."
In Deep Ecology for the 21st Century, edited by Sessions G. Boston:
Shambhala, 1995.
Nakagawa, Yoshiharu. Education for Awakening: An Eastern Approach to Holistic
Education. Brandon, VT: Foundation for Educational Renewal, 2000.
Nava, Ramón Gallegos. Holistic Education: Pedagogy of Universal Love. Brandon,
VT: Foundation for Educational Renewal, 2001.
Neill, A. S., and Albert Lamb. Summerhill School: A New View of Childhood. New
York: St. Martin’s Press, 1993.
New, Rebecca S. Reggio Emilia: Some Lessons for U.S. Educators. Urbana, IL: Eric
Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education, text-fiche,
ED354988, 1993.
———. Reggio Emilia: Catalyst for Change and Conversation. Champaign, IL:
University of Illinois, text-fiche, ED447971, 2000.
Noddings, Nel. Caring, a Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1984.
———. The Challenge to Care in Schools: An Alternative Approach to Education.
New York: Teachers College Press, 1992.
———. "An Ethic of Caring and Its Implication for Instructional Arrangements." In
The Education of Feminism Reader, edited by L. Stone. New York: Routeledge,
1994.
———. Starting at Home: Caring and Social Policy. Berkeley: University of
California Press, 2002.
253
Ogletree, Earl J. "Waldorf Schools: The Largest Non-Denominational Private School
System in the World." Trans Intelligence Magazine 8 (2000): 1-6.
www.transintelligence.org/articles/Waldorf%20Schools.htm.
———. The Comparative Status of the Creative Thinking Ability of Waldorf Education
Students: A Survey.: Trans Intelligence Magazine, text-fiche, ED400948, 2000.
Orr, David. "Ecological Literacy: Education for the Twenty-First Century " In New
Directions in Education, edited by Ron Miller. Brandon, VT: Holistic
Education Press, 1991.
———. Ecological Literacy: Education and the Transition to a Postmodern World.
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1992.
Palmer, Parker. To Know as We Are Known: Education as a Spiritual Journey. San
Francisco: Harper Collins, 1983.
———. The Courage to Teach: Exploring the Inner Landscape of a Teacher's Life.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1998.
Parker, Francis W. Studies in Education. Chicago: Francis W. Parker school, 1912.
Pestalozzi, Johann Heinrich. Letters on Early Education Addressed to J. P. Greaves.
Syracuse, NY: C.W. Bardeen, 1827.
———. How Gertrude Teaches Her Children: An Attempt to Help Mothers to Teach
Their Own Children. Translated by Lucy E. Holland and Francis C. Turner.
Fifth edition ed. Syracuse, N.Y: C.W. Bardeen, 1907.
———. The Education of Man: Aphorisms. Translated by William H. Kilpatrick. New
York: Greenwood Press, 1969.
Peterson, James W. "The Methodless Approach: Krishnamurti Education." Paths of
Learning 5, no. Summer (2000): 54-59.
Plato. The Republic. Translated by H.P.D. Lee. London: Penguin, 1955.
Poletti, Frank. "Plato's Vowels: How the Alphabet Influenced the Evolution of
Consciousness." Articles and Papers, Esalen Center for Theory and Research
(2000): 1-8. http://esalenctr.org/display/paper.cfm?ID=8.
254
Rabitti, Giordana. "An Integrated Art Approach in a Preschool." In Reflections on the
Reggio Emilia Approach, edited by Lilian G. Katz and Bernard Cesarone, 6180. Urbana-Champaign, IL: ERIC/EECE, text-fiche, ED375986, 1994.
Rama, Avtk. Ananda, ed. Neo-Humanist Education: Documentation on Neo-Humanist
Education Propounded by Prabhat Rainjan Sarkar. Mainz, Germany: Ananda
Marga Gurukula Publications, 2000.
Ratner, Joseph. Intelligence in the Modern World: John Dewey's Philosophy. New
York: Modern Library, 1939.
Rinaldi, Carla. "Staff Development in Reggio Emilia." In Reflections on the Reggio
Emilia Approach, edited by Lilian G. Katz and Bernard Cesarone, 55-60.
Urbana-Champaign, IL: ERIC/EECE, text-fiche, ED375986, 1994.
———. "Infant-Toddler Centers and Preschools as Places of Culture." In Making
Learning Visible: Children as Individual and Group Learners, edited by
Claudia Giudici, Carla Rinaldi and Mara Krechevsky, 38-46. Cambridge, MA:
Project Zero, Harvard Graduate School of Education; Reggio Emilia, Italy:
Reggio Children, 2001.
———. "Documentation and Assessment: What Is the Relationship." In Making
Learning Visible: Children as Individual and Group Learners, edited by
Claudia Giudici, Carla Rinaldi and Mara Krechevsky, 78-89. Cambridge, MA:
Project Zero, Harvard Graduate School of Education; Reggio Emilia, Italy:
Reggio Children, 2001.
———. "The Courage of Utopia." In Making Learning Visible: Children as Individual
and Group Learners, edited by Claudia Giudici, Carla Rinaldi and Mara
Krechevsky, 148-53. Cambridge, MA: Project Zero, Harvard Graduate School
of Education; Reggio Emilia, Italy: Reggio Children, 2001.
Rocha, Doralice S. School Where Children Matter: Exploring Educational Alternatives.
Brandon, VT: The Foundation for Educational Renewal, 2003.
Rogers, Carl R., and H. Jerome Freiberg. Freedom to Learn. 3rd ed. New York: Merrill
Publishing Company, 1994.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. Emile or on Education. Translated by Allan Bloom. New
York: Basic Books Inc. Publishers, 1979.
Ruenzel, David. "A School with Balance." Education Week 15, no. 7 (1995): 25-30.
255
Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan. Discourses on Neohumanist Education. Anandanagar: Ananda
Marga Publications, 1998.
———. The Liberation of Intellect: Neo-Humanism. Calcutta: Ananda Marga
Pracaraka Samgha, 1999.
Schiller, Frederick. On the Aesthetic Education of Man, in a Series of Letters. New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1954.
Sogyal, Rinpoche. The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying. San Francisco, CA: Harper,
1992.
Standing, E. Mortimer. Maria Montessori: Her Life and Work. New York: Plume,
1998.
Steiner, Rudolf. Universe, Earth and Man, in Their Relationship to Egyptian Myths
and Modern Civilization: A Course of Eleven Lectures Given in Stuttgart, 4th16th August, 1908. London: Rudolph Steiner Pub. Co, 1955.
———. Eurythmy as Visible Speech. Translated by V. &. J. Compton-Burnett and S. &
C. Dubrovik. London: Anthroposophical Publishing Co., 1956.
———. The Arts and Their Mission. New York: Anthroposophic Press, 1964.
———. The Education of the Child in the Light of Anthroposophy. Translated by
George and Mary Adams. London: Rudolf Steiner Press, 1965.
———. The Festivals and Their Meaning. London: Rudolf Steiner Press, 1967.
———. "The Science of Spirit, Education and Practical Life." In Education as an Art,
edited by P. M. Allen, 50-83. Blauvelt, NY: Rudolf Steiner Publications, 1970.
———. "Education and the Science of Spirit." In Education as an Art, edited by P. M.
Allen, 19-49. Blauvelt, NY: Rudolf Steiner Publications, 1970.
———. Theosophy; an Introduction to the Supersensible Knowledge of the World and
the Destination of Man. Translated by Henry B. Monges. New York:
Anthroposophic Press, 1971.
———. Eurythmy as Visible Music. Translated by V. & J. Compton-Burnett. London:
Rudolf Steiner Press, 1977.
256
———. Occult Science: An Outline. London: Rudolf Steiner Press, 1979.
———. The Philosophy of Spiritual Activity. Translated by William Lindeman. New
York: Anthroposophic Press, 1986.
———. The Roots of Education. Translated by unknown. Hudson, NY: Antroposophic
Press, 1997.
———. Discussions with Teachers : Fifteen Discussions with the Teachers of the
Stuttgart Waldorf School from August 21 to September 6, 1919 and Three
Lectures on the Curriculum Given on September 6, 1919. Translated by Helen
Fox. Hudson, NY: Anthroposophic Press, 1997.
———. "Anthroposophy and the Visual Arts." In Art as Spiritual Activity: Rudolf
Steiner's Contribution to the Visual Arts, edited by Rudolf Steiner and Michael
Howard. Hudson, NY: Anthroposophic Press, 1998.
Steiner, Rudolf, and Michael Howard. Art as Spiritual Activity: Rudolf Steiner's
Contribution to the Visual Arts. Vol. 3, Vista. Hudson, NY: Anthroposophic
Press, 1998.
Strozzi, Paola. "Daily Life at School: Seeing the Extrordinary in the Ordinary." In
Making Learning Visible: Children as Individual and Group Learners, edited
by Carla Rinaldi Claudia Giudici, Mara Krechevsky, 58-77. Cambridge, MA:
Project Zero, Harvard Graduate School of Education, 2001.
Taggart, Geoff. "Dewey and the Romanticism of Holistic Education." Encounter:
Education for Meaning and Social Justice 14, no. 2 (2001): 17-22.
Trostli, Roberto. "Educating as an Art: The Waldorf Approach." In New Directions in
Education, edited by Ron Miller, 338-51. Brandon, VT: Holistic Education
Press, 1991.
Vecchi, Vea. "The Curiosity to Understand." In Making Learning Visible: Children as
Individual and Group Learners, edited by Claudia Giudici, Carla Rinaldi and
Mara Krechevsky, 158-213. Cambridge, MA: Project Zero, Harvard Graduate
School of Education; Reggio Emilia, Italy: Reggio Children, 2001.
Vygotsky, L. S. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes.
Cmabridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978.
Watson, Burton. The Lotus Sutra. New York: Columbia University Press, 1993.
257
Wilber, Ken. The Eye of the Spirit: An Integral Vision for a World Gone Slightly Mad.
boston: Shambhala, 1997.
———. "An Integral Theory of Consciousness." Journal of Consciousness Studies 4,
no. 1 (1997): 71-92.
Wood, Sari. "Ananda Marga Neohumanist School, Korle Gonno, Accra, Ghana:
Making a Good Thing Even Better." Gurukula Network, no. 22 (2006): 31-32.
Woods, Charlotte. "Researching and Developing Interdisciplinary Teaching: Towards
a Conceptual Framework for Classroom Communication." Higher Education,
54, no. 6 (2007): 853-66.
258