Written for presentation at the Russian Academy of Education, Institute of Theoretical Pedagogics and International Research in Education, and International Association--Education and the Future Conference on Adult and Continuing Education Under Conditions of a Free Market Economy, in Moscow and St. Petersburg during July 1994
IntroductionGeopolitical Vision: Make Russia a Modern Republic
Like-Mindedness
Essential Curriculum
Borrowing
Conclusion: Seek a Jeffersonian Educational Vision
Endnotes
Bibliography
Author's Biographical Sketch
This paper suggests that a geopolitical vision, like-mindedness, essential curriculum, and borrowing provide the framework for an educational reform philosophy that might be of use to Russian educators under the conditions of a free market economy. Such a philosophical structure has its roots in a Jeffersonian vision and in professional 20th century American schooling values. It calls for four things: first, set a geopolitical vision; next, achieve like-mindedness at the local school level; third, inspire an essential curriculum that has as its objective continuous instructional improvement; and finally, use a borrowing orientation not too unlike that used by Peter the Great to consolidate the position of Russia as a great and indisputable European power.
Educational reform throughout history has attempted to respond meaningfully when national values become threatened. During the reform process, institutional forces merge in the name of the common good to advance or retard social structure and personal freedoms. In the politics of educational reform under the conditions of a free market economy, leaders and educators need to focus their efforts; they need to be conscious of alternative possibilities; and they need to be aware of the paradox that exists between the granting of total individual freedom and the socializing requirement to make the citizenry want to do what they must do (endnote 1). The extent to which progress is achieved without subjugation depends upon a balanced understanding of two beliefs. First, democracy has to be born anew in each generation with education its midwife (endnote 2). Next, a positive link exists between revolution and an educational reform philosophy that produces common good.
As a result of the breakup of the Soviet Union, educational reform must play a dominant role in creating values and beliefs for the common good, in maintaining talents for the preservation of national interests, in building an educational system to meet the specialized demands of a technologically modern state, and in producing a citizenry capable of holding its own in a geopoliti- cal and socioeconomic sense. This paper submits there is a link between these things and the democracy that is being born anew in Russia to a Jeffersonian educational vision, which centers on a reform philosophy that is sustained under the conditions of a free market economy by a geopolitical vision, like-mindedness, essential curriculum, and borrowing.
The geopolitical vision of making Russia a modern republic rests with seeing the patterns and relationships emerging as a result of the breakup of the Soviet Union. Chief among these is the possible link between the United States, the European Union, and NATO for reconstruction of Eastern Europe. Yesterday The Marshall Plan got Europe on its feet socially and economically; NATO looked after its security (endnote 3). Today the European Union and the United States are the key actors for reconstruction of the East. NATO provides security toward that end.
The chance of the EU evolving into a "superpower" has receded into the distant future (endnote 4). The reasons for this are several and are well documented in the Wilton Park Paper 71, however, they can be understood simply in terms of a present-day reality: the European Union has bloc power. The EU does not need "superpower" status to use its economic weight to influence future aid and trade flows in the Euro-Atlantic area, which in itself will do much to enhance regional security. When its power is affixed with that of the United States, the economic weight to influence future aid and trade intensifies geometrically. Given this understanding, the Western European Union (WEU) role as a defense and security organ of the European Union becomes limited, and the role of NATO becomes broader than it was initially intended. NATO now must provide collective defense plans for its members and for its Partners for Peace while reconstruction of the East is in progress. Some might argue this is not a good idea. "The creation of a unified, non-bloc Europe can best be pursued by upgrading the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) into a broader and more universal organization" (endnote 5). Yet the economics of the matter suggest otherwise.
The CSCE in Europe, as a regional UN organization, could provide a more Euro-Atlantic-based source of legal and moral authority for future collective security actions and peacekeeping, but it is underfunded and understaffed (endnote 6). Furthermore, there is a widely held perception that the organization's large membership precludes its utility as a collective security organization and therefore resources required to strengthen its effectiveness are unlikely to be forthcoming (endnote 7). NATO on the other hand works. It is best placed to take the lead on security and defense issues, especially as they relate to the reconstruction of the East. NATO is best placed to provide effective forces when needed, to include UN efforts designed to improve cooperation between belligerent states when the alliance deems it appropriate. In short, the European Union and the United States are key actors in the reconstruction of Eastern Europe, with NATO positioned to provide the necessary security.
The fruit or danger of NATO becoming the security arm for the reconstruction of the East must not be overlooked. Many agree the end of the Cold War means that conflict intervention is now possible without the danger of an escalation to war between the nuclear superpowers (endnote 8). Given this understanding and the limits of NATO's reconstruction mission, does it not follow that no direct intervention should be condoned unless conflicts represent a direct threat to the economic and political objective of getting the East on its feet? Stated differently, one, NATO more than likely will be reluctant to become embroiled in UN efforts to settle regional disputes when such involvement distracts from NATO's reconstruction security role? Next, NATO more than likely will be reluctant to guarantee stable borders when an individual state has just cause to do so and is willing to accept the responsibility in doing it? The answers to these questions have special meaning when leaders and decision makers evaluate Russia's geopolitical interests and options. It is quite possible now for Russia to make geographical distinctions between what the West might permit or might not allow. For example, it is likely the West would adopt a "permissive" attitude toward "peacekeeping" imperatives in the Near Abroad while overtly rejecting Russian unilateral intervention in Eastern Europe including the Baltic republics, the Visegrad countries, the Balkans and Ukraine (endnote 9).
The recent entry of Russia into the Partnership for Peace in Brussels on June 22, 1994, and its more recent signed pact with the European Union in Corfu, Greece, on June 24, 1994, give Russia strategic balance and make it less treating in the eyes of the world community as reconstruction of the East proceeds. If Russia is sincere in its pronouncement concerning the creation of "a single security space from Vancouver to Vladivostok," it will see that partnerships are an effort by the West to assist and support the building of a successful and stable Russian economy and society. The worse thing that could happen to Russia now is its failure to seize the moment so as to insure that it doesn't fragment further, either through divisiveness abroad or at home.
"A fragmentation of Russia is seen in the West as inherently destabilising; fears include a possible mass migration of displaced people to Western Europe and, even more threatening, a possible breakdown of command and control over the nuclear forces of the former Soviet arsenal. But Western goals should include more than the merely negative. The West has also an interest in the development of a democratic, stable Russia; the existence of shared democratic and liberal values between the Old West and Old East would offer the prospect of finally banishing the possibility of military conflict. For democracy to flourish, decentralisation and devolution of political and economic power from the Centre to the regions of Russia is essential. Such a "normal" Russian society, which is favoured by the West and to which Russian Democrats are committed, would be an enduring safeguard against Russia's reversion to dictatorship, to neo- imperialism and any renewed hostility against the democratic world beyond" (endnote 10).
Given an appreciation for these things and an understanding of their correlation, Russia should see the relationship emerging between the cooperative efforts of the U.S., EU, and NATO to effect reconstruction. It should also see that it is unlikely NATO will convert from an alliance focused on reconstruction to a pact for cross-continental integration, so as to create "a single security space from Vancouver to Vladivostok." Such a security concept requires the efforts of many nations and is an ideal that should be sought through meaningful multilateral and bilateral relationships that focus on modern nation building.
The signing of the Partnership for Peace by Russia and its historical pact with the European Union ushers in a new opportunity for the construction of a cooperative and peaceful new world order, one that replaces the economic strain associated with the armed confrontation of the Cold War. The hope of those with vision see a new Community of Nations coming into being that extend not only from the Atlantic to the Urals but from Vancouver to Vladivostok. The need now and for the future is to concentrate on developing policies in a cooperative and positive framework.
Russia is behind understandably when it comes to these things. It is behind when it comes to modern nation building: the process for developing democracy and private enterprise values; the process for crafting a strategy for linking the growing interdependence of Europe, Asia and the United States; and the process of harnessing the fruits of emerging technological advancement through cooperative institutional efforts. Russia lacks a focused work force, trained civil servants, journalists, parliamentary committees and non-governmental organizations which, in combination, oversee the work of private enterprise and democratic development. In the days, months, and years ahead, education will play a crucial role in making Russia a modern republic, with an ability to overcome deficiencies and function representatively in a multipolar world.
Plato, and Aristotle after him, identified three types of states and the rule they extend. In evolutionary sequence these are: monarchy, or the rule of one; aristocracy, or the rule of the best or for the best purpose; and polity (democracy), or rule of the people in a small city-state for the common good. The Greek writers went on to warn about the specific perversions of these categories of rule respectively into tyranny, oligarchy, and mob control.
Each of these basic forms of rule can be beneficial if directed toward the common good, if they are not perverted by selfish private interests. In Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Paulo Freire warns about the dangers of selfish private interests and the revolution of the have-nots it can engender. He believes every human being, no matter how ignorant or oppressed, is capable of looking critically at his world. Given the proper education he or she can perceive his or her personal and social reality and deal with it meaningfully. Freire cautions leaders, however, to avoid organizing themselves apart from the people and encourages people to educate themselves so as to find truth (endnote 11). The construct that keeps the balance between people organizing themselves apart and people finding truth through education is like-mindedness (endnote 12).
Like the Russian word vospitania which doesn't translate into English literally, the word like-mindedness doesn't translate easily into Russian. But both words are similar in nature. In general terms they are processes affiliated with "upbringing."
Vospitania is a planned process involving the cooperative efforts of the home, the community, and the school. Yet it is the school that is charged with the task of coordinating the efforts of the family and the community in the moral upbringing of children. Vospitania has its roots in the teachings of Vladimir Il'ich Lenin and soviet child psychology; namely, by creating the proper group atmosphere, the school insures that children will grow up properly. The challenge has been to produce good soviet citizens, for the good of the state; to teach those skills required by the economy, for that classic socialist goal of production for use. And vospitania has facilitated this effort.
There is no doubt that vospitania is an integral part of the soviet culture and educational system. In the years to come, the extent to which vospitania moves away from its past administered model to a system wherein individuals and groups are allowed to govern their own interest in a free market economy will define the degree of transition to democracy that has taken place. But for the immediate future such movement will be slow. The bridge that could span this period is the construct identified earlier: it is that which keeps the balance between people organizing themselves apart and people finding truth through education. It is like-mindedness.
Like-mindedness has it origin in the rule of law and a common identity for the common good. For many the rule of law and a common identity have their foundation in a just constitution, which keeps things in a steady-state equilibrium. For educators seeking reform, like-mindedness keeps things in balance. It's a process and unity model where conviction and credibility support integrity, vision, and competency. Its objective is to net school effectiveness based upon personal and social reality. In the like-minded model, conviction is the unifying dimension that guides choices of action regardless of the situation; credibility is the unifying dimension that signals others that ones behavior is consistent with his or her beliefs. In education, the unity that is sought through like-mindedness is to sustain policy that advances the conditions necessary for continuous instructional improvement; that makes difficult tasks seem simple because people pull together; and that inspires others to extraordinary performance. The key is to ensure that like-mindedness occurs not as a product of top-down proscription but bottom-up harmony. Stated differently, like-mindedness occurs when it produces focused reform and unwavering commitment at the local school level, for the building of a learning structure that has a commitment for continuous instructional improvement, that makes difficult tasks seem simple because people pull together, and that inspires others to extraordinary performance.
The notion that building an effective learning structure begins with a focused reform and unwavering commitment at the local school level has the support of authors such as Theodore Sizer, former dean of the Harvard Graduate School of Education and author of Horace's Compromise: The Dilemma of the American High School, and John Goodlad, former dean of education at UCLA and author of A Place Called School. Rather than legislate longer hours that might result in more of the same, Sizer suggests "the weakness of the high school lie deeper, in how it is organized and in the attitudes of those who work there" (endnote 13). He shares with Goodlad, who also favors a strong academic core for all pupils at the local level, the idea that school problems cannot be fixed from the top because they require changes of structure from within, and that students need deeper and more carefully structured engagement in learning rather than longer doses of what they had been getting (endnote 14). Both Sizer and Goodlad agree that an effective learning structure begins with a systems approach at the local school level for shaping the core of serious learning in the basic disciplines for all students.
An effective learning structure is achieved when leaders and educators accept the fact that they are a system. When they accept the fact that their primary task is to remain focused on what their job is while being tolerant of what others are attempting to do. Using the views of Senge and the essence of like-mindedness, an effective learning structure is that which makes educators researchers and designers (endnote 15). What is it they research? They investigate the fact that an educational structure is a system, and they explore the internal and external forces that drive this system toward change to achieve school effectiveness. What is it they design? They design the learning process, which advances the internal balance that brings individual vision, integrity, and competency into harmony with conviction and credibility. They design a curriculum that sustains a commitment for continuous instructional improvement.
To develop to their fullest potential, free of ignorance and with an ability to contribute meaningfully, pupils and students need a curriculum that focuses on the essentials (endnote 16). Theodore Sizer and John Goodlad, who are essentialists, believe students do best when challenged by rigorous academic courses. They suggest the elimination of electives and useless vocational programs so learners can concentrate on thinking skills and core concepts. For like-minded educators such a focus intensifies the reality that going to school has meaning and being there genuinely quenches the natural thirst to learn. It elicits the best from students and guides them in becoming life-long learners. It empowers educators to hold the conviction that schools are capable of improving themselves and that changes only emanating and sustained from within produce conditions necessary for good teaching. It fosters community and a healthy work place where students, teachers, parents, and administrators share the opportunities and responsibilities for making decisions that affect all the occupants of the school because the focus is the awakening of minds. It is a commitment to continuous instructional improvement, which is essential to the success of a nation and the evolution of man.
Pupils and students should be taught to be intellectually competent, socially adept, and emotionally secure. Schools should be expected to take the responsibility for such outcomes, and parents must participate fully in the creation of goals, methods and content of schooling.
Russia as a nation must remain focused. It must insist that educators teach that which enables those under their charge to use their minds well in the day to day interaction with others and their surroundings. Pupils and students need to be taught Russian. They need to be taught subjects that train their intellect, hone their analytic powers, cultivate their ability to express themselves effectively, and advance the saving of beliefs and attitudes about human behavior that characterized their earlier culture. Beyond this, students must achieve cognitive learning, with intellectual skills and academic knowledge being realized through an essential curriculum consisting of language, math, science, and social science which includes history and geography. These things aren't all there is to education, but they are the singular province of the institution called school (endnote 17).
The challenge for Russian educators today and in the years to come is to create such a curriculum and to use best teaching practices so as to meet the cognitive learning needs of a modern society and those of its individual students, even when societal conditions are wanting and unhealthy. Such a challenge requires leaders and educators not only to facilitate a pupil's transition from childhood to the adult world, but to accomplish this by holding a learning theory conviction that inspires a coherent curriculum that recognizes three beliefs. First, to be effective, education must go beyond an understanding of how humans learn and develop. Next, education must champion the truth that each of us is a unique person, requiring age and individual appropriate education. Third, education must center on a learning theory that is not only psychological but multidimensional (endnote 18).
Building a curriculum centered on the essentials and the use of best practices must be attempted, else parents, teachers and administrators may fail to evolve an instructional environment that balances child-initiated and teacher-directed activity pertaining to basic skill, cultural literacy and experiential learning. Even when money and assets are limited, requiring teachers and administrators to focus on knowledge concerning how people learn and develop, by age groups and as individuals, forces evolutionary change and hard decisions concerning social structure and personal freedoms (endnote 19). Further, a curriculum is essential when it nets a common good, when it produces school effectiveness, and when it creates the wherewithal to train the intellect and hone analytic powers, to cultivate the ability to express oneself, and to advance a belief and values system built upon culture and national heritage.
Like-mindedness and essential curriculum enable us to take charge and produce these things as well as school effectiveness. Like- mindedness and essential curriculum force evolutionary change and hard decisions, which permit us to exercise the function of education: namely, to ensure the transition of a student from childhood to the adult world, the success of the nation, and the evolution of mankind. The end game in all this is growth as defined in John Dewey's dictum: Education ought to lead only to more education, growth to more growth (endnote 20). The end game in all this is the axiom that man exists to evolve; and the end game in that understanding is the axiom that if something works, use it!
Educational reform by nature is inevitably highly pragmatic, since it is a function of the realities of geography, society, economics and politics, as well as other often fleeting factors that give rise to the issues and conflicts education is meant to resolve. Educators cannot ignore either these realities or factors. They must be aware of the world about them and must be skilled in analyzing the varied context of education. They must see the manner in which context and ideas act on each other, so as to trace the development of reforms over time from idea to doctrine to implementation, a progression that clearly houses many secrets which once examined exposes insightful answers. The history of educational thought is a history not of pure but of applied reason. Things change over time due more to the outcries of society as perceived by leaders than out of necessity. The borrowing by leaders of great ideas and the putting of a local spin on them is called vision and facilitates the realization of what society desires.
Peter Mogila, the most influential ecclesiastical leader in Orthodox Slavdom between 1633 and 1647, had vision. He was a well-educated progeny of a Moldavian noble family and had fought with the Poles against the Turks in battle at Khotin in 1620. He was moved by the five pilgrimages he had made to the Monastery of the Caves in Kiev, and settled in that Polish-controlled city. He became a monk, then archimandrite of the monastery, Metropolitan of Kiev, and founder of the Kievan academy "for the teaching of free sciences in the Greek, Slavonic, and Latin languages" (endnote 21). He knew the importance of an essential curriculum and the importance of science and language in education.
As early as April 1640, Mogila communicated his conviction concerning the importance of an essential curriculum with Tsar Michael. Mogila urged the establishment of a special school in a Moscow monastery where his pupils could teach Orthodox theology and classical languages to the Muscovite nobility (endnote 22). His motivation in this was focused and rationalistic, since he gave the Russian Church priests capable of holding their own in discourse with Westerners and infected the Russian hierarchy with some of his own passion for order and reason (endnote 23). His vision was beyond his time. Yet, his endeavor represented a borrowed understanding from other lands of the reality of the schism between Russian Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism and Protestant sectarianism. His efforts set the stage for three yet to come irreversible changes in Russian life. First, theological education, which was almost the only form of education in eighteenth-century Russia, became more Western in content with the decision to replace Greek with Latin as the main language of philosophic and scientific discourse. Second, Russia adopted through its church school a more sympathetic attitude toward secular learning and scholastic theology than previously tolerated. And third, Russia turned to the West for the secular and political solutions of Peter the Great.
In all this is borrowing: the recognition of the importance of that which works as a prerequisite to secular modernization. Peter used language, science and borrowing during the first quarter of the eighteenth century to such an advantage that it effected administrative reforms and military campaigns that were to consolidate the position of Russia as a great and indisputable European power. Military expediency and affairs of the state were abiding considerations of Peter. From the practical-minded, shipbuilding countries of the Protestant North he borrowed ideas and techniques. "Sweden (and to a lesser extent Prussia) provided him with quasi-military administrative ideas....Holland provided him with the models (and much of the nautical terminology) for the new Russian navy. Saxony and the Baltic German provinces provided most of the teachers for his military training schools and the staff for the new academy of sciences that was set up immediately after his death" (endnote 24). Peter's efforts to advance Russian learning were almost completely concentrated on scientific, technical or linguistic matters of direct military or diplomatic value. In his mind, the process of making Russia not a civilization completely distinct from that of the West involved the borrowing of that which worked or that which would work given the proper spin.
The problem facing Russian education today, and during the years to come, is not too unlike that which Peter the Great faced. Namely, how to educate the citizenry to a high basic standard, while at the same time raising it most talented citizens to an even higher level. The answer to this dilemma rests with borrowing; it rests with a vision similar to that which Thomas Jefferson held for the United States at the turn of the nineteenth century. Back then, Thomas Jefferson advanced free public education for all our children to a level of proficiency that was much higher than the level attained by children of European farmers and laborers. Beyond that, he advocated still higher levels of free public education for the ablest and most diligent students (endnote 25). Today, Russia has an opportunity to embark upon a quest to achieve Jefferson's aim better than we have done in America. The journey may be slow due to limited resources, but educational structures already exist. In place is an educational structure for vospitania. In place is an educational structure for general useful labor (to include military service). In place is an educational structure for higher levels of education. If focused properly (with a reform philosophy that supports a geopolitical vision, like-mindedness, essential curriculum, and borrowing) these in place educational structures could blossom so as to flower the beginning of a Jeffersonian educational vision that stimulates change under conditions of a free market economy. At least this is a thought that Russian educational reformist and policy decision makers might want to explore.
1. Insight gained at a University of Virginia lecture on 8 October 1993 concerning political perspective in education from Dr. Valerie Sutter, Acting Director of Social Foundations of Education, and Dr. Gary Theisen, Vice President, Institute of International Education.
2. A John Dewey conviction.
3. Henry KISSINGER, Diplomacy, Simon Schuster, New York, 1994, page 473.
4. Richard LATTER, "The Future of Transatlantic Relations," Wilton Park Paper 71: Conference Report 395 of 29 March - 2 April 1993, concerning "The Euro-Atlantic Community and the Continuing US Role in Europe," page 23.
5. Andrei KOZYREV, "The Lagging Partnership," Foreign Affairs, May/June 1994, page 65.
6. Richard LATTER, "The Future of Transatlantic Relations," Wilton Park Paper 71: Conference Report 395 of 29 March - 2 April 1993, concerning "The Euro-Atlantic Community and the Continuing US Role in Europe," page 24.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid. page 16.
9. Richard LATTER, "Internal Security in Russia and its Regions," Wilton Park Paper 80: Conference Report on 25-29 October 1993, concerning "Russia and its Regions: Can its Centre Hold?", page 15.
10. Ibid. page 14.
11. PAULO FREIRE, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, The Continuum Publishing Company: New York, 1992, page 183.
12. Like-mindedness is a process and a unity model developed by the author under the tutelage of Dr. George Thoms, University of Virginia, to describe that which keeps the balance between people organizing themselves apart and people finding truth through education.
13. THEODORE SIZER, Horace's Compromise: The Dilemma of the American High School, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1984, page 223.
14. GERALD GRANT, The World We Created at Hamilton High, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1988, pages 218 and 224.
15. PETER M. SENGE, The Fifth Discipline, New York: Doubleday, page 296.
16. The words "pupils" and "students" in this paper reflect a Russian orientation. "Pupils" are those who receive a free, compulsory education in a nine-year general schools program, starting at age six. Graduation from the general schools program is considered an incomplete secondary education. A complete secondary education is optional. "Students" are those who matriculate beyond the general schools program and into higher educational endeavors.
17. Finn, Chester, E., We Must Take Charge. New York: The Free Press (A Division of Macmillan, Inc.), 1991, page 21. 18. Pursuit to the thinking of the Russian psychologist L. S. Vygotsky, this means an individual actively modifies a stimulus situation as part of the process of responding to it.
19. There is limited evidence to support that high per-pupil spending in poor schools will turn students around academically. The Washington Post, "What Will an Extra Billion Buy?", page C8.
20. Dewey on Education, Selections with an Introduction and Notes by Martin S. Dworkin, New York:Teachers College Press, page 13.
21. JAMES H. BILLINGTON, The Icon and The Axe: An Interpretive History of Russian Culture, New York: Vintage Books, A Division of Random House, 1970, page 128.
22. Ibid.
23. Ibid. Further, Though such an institution did not formally come into being until the creation of the Slavonic-Greek-Latin Academy in 1689, considerable informal instruction occurred in Moscow in the 1640's and beyond by Mogila's pupils.
24. Ibid. page 182.
25. For a greater understanding of Jefferson's vision as it relates to general level of educational proficiency and still higher levels of free public education, see E. D. Hirsch, Jr., professor of English at the University of Virginia, "A Fast Track For Everyone," The Washington Post, October 31, 1993, Education Review Section.
BARTH, ROLAND, S., Improving Schools from Within, San Francisco: Jossey-bass Publishers, 1990.
BILLINGTON, JAMES, H., The Icon and The Axe: An Interpretive History of Russian Culture, New York: Vintage Books, 1970.
BRACEY, GERALD, W., "The Third Bracey Report on the Condition of Public Education," Phi Delta Kappan, October 1993.
DEWEY, JOHN, Dewey on Education, Selection with an Introduction and Notes by Martain S. Dworkin, New York: Teachers College Press.
DUKE, DANIEL, L., School Leadership and Instructional Improvement New York: Random House, 1987.
FINN, CHESTER, E., We Must Take Charge, New York: The Free Press, A Division of Macmillian, Inc., 1991.
FREIRE, PAULO, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, New York: The Continuum Publishing Company, 1992.
GRANT, GERALD, The World We Created at Hamilton High, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1988.
HIRSCH, E. D., JR., Cultural Literacy, New York: Vintage Books, A Division of Random House, 1988.
HIRSCH, E. D., JR., The Washington Post, "A Fast Track For Everyone," Education Review Section, October 31, 1993.
KOZOL, JOHNATHAN, Savage Inequalities, New York: Harper Perennial, 1992.
LEVITAN, LAWRENCE, and HIXSON, SHEILA, The Washington Post, "What Will An Extra Billion Buy?", C8, November 28, 1993.
ROHLEN, THOMAS, P., Japan's High Schools, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983.
SARASON, SEYMOUR B., The Predictable Failure of Educational Reform, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1990.
SENGE, PETER, M., The Fifth Discipline, New York: Doubleday, 1990.
SIZER, THEODORE, B., Horace's Compromise: The Dilemma of the American High School, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1984.
TYACK, DAVID, B., The One Best System: A History of American Urban Education, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1974.
VYGOTSKY, L., S., Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978.
Charles T. SWEENEY, 12560 McIntire Drive, Woodbridge, VA 22192, (703) 494-4193, holds a BS in Physical Education and an MBA. In addition to being a full-time teacher working with at risk students at the Alternative Learning Center, Prince William County Public Schools, he is doing graduate work at The University of Virginia's Curry School of Education. Chuck Sweeney's academic interests are in comparative education, especially as they relate to Russian history, culture, pedagogy and their emerging educational system as a result of the breakup of the former Soviet Union. He is a former recipient of a Washington Post Grant for taking a holistic approach to education and past selectee to the Prince William County Public Schools' Design Team, which was charged with the task of creating a plan which articulated a new generation of American schools that are light years beyond the existing education practices of today. His imaginativeness in presenting a thematic approach to the study of Russia, which spanned Alfred, Lord Tennyson' The Charge of the Light Brigade and the history of the Ukraine and the Crimean War, to Napoleon and the Invasion of Russia in 1812, to the works of Tolstoy and Tchaikovsky, to the major geopolitical events of the 1990's, earned him an International Education Center fellowship to study in St. Petersburg and Moscow during the summer of 1992 and 1993. During April 1994 he was selected by the World Affairs Council of Philadelphia, in collaboration with the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, to participate in The Wilton Park International Conference, at the Wiston House outside of London. Conference participants discussed whether ties of friendship and shared democratic values can be sustained in the face of economic competition and political preoccupation on both sides of the ocean with domestic agendas. More specifically, conferees focused on European views of the state of America today and the question whether the Continent should seek to become an independent superpower while America concentrates on domestic, economic and social problems. During April 1994 he also participated in The Harvard World Model United Nations conference in Luxembourg, serving on the Political and Security Committee of the General Assembly. Chief focus: the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which comes up for review in 1995 and will either continue tenuously, continue strongly, die or be replaced by a new agreement. In July 1994 he'll present a paper in Moscow and do subsequent research in St. Petersburg in association with an international scientific conference entitled "Adult and Continuing Education Under Conditions of a Free Market Economy." His previous experience includes nearly 27 years of officer service with the United States Marine Corps, during which time he saw combat in the Republic of Vietnam in 1966 as an Infantry Officer and in 1970 as a Naval Aviator. During 1990 and 1991 he served in Southwest Asia, participating in Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. He has broad experience with the U.S. Government planning and budgeting process; has examined specific Hi-tech electronic industries vital to U.S. national security both in the United States and in the former Soviet Union; and has consulted with the Department of State on sensitive personnel issues, receiving a commendation from Secretary George Schultz in a private ceremony. Further, he has been a Senior Fellow at the National Defense University where his academic interests have been in economics, emerging technological advancement, education and the growing interdependence of Asia, Europe and the United States. He has been a frequent selectee to interact with distinguished civilians both here and abroad, for the purposes of integrating their perspectives with our judgements and insights concerning world order. During September 1987 he did individual research in the Philippines, which culminated in a strategy toward a successful outcome of the Philippines Base-Rights negotiations of 1988. During August 1988 he was one of 12 Americans--the only U.S. military officer so designated--to attend a conference in Bangkok on "Private Enterprise and Democratic Development in East Asia." His purpose in attending was to contribute meaningfully to the process for developing democracy and private enterprise values in East Asia. Participants included about 40 international business leaders, academicians and think-tank representatives from Asia and the United States. During 1989 he met with representatives from civilian scientific, business and research centers in New York and Hawaii, producing an eighteen month plan which articulated an effort to enhance our strategic policies with Japan. During June 1991 he was invited by the Association of Independent Publications to speak at a conference in Moscow and Kiev.