Monthly Archives: April 2005

Education and Unitarian Universalism

The April 13, 2005, issue of the Geneva Sun reports that Kane County voters overwhelmingly approved a bond issue to raise money to purchase land for open space.

However, the Sun also reports that voters in the Geneva and St. Charles school districts turned down tax increases to fund public schools. Most other tax increases for public education that were on the ballot in the area also failed (notably, in the Glenbard school district, according to the Chicago Tribune).

While I’m all for preserving open space, I feel schools are an equally high priority. Clearly, voters did not agree with me — the tax increases for schools were voted down by substantial margins. While final vote tabulations are not quite complete, it looks like Geneva voted down additional school funding by a whopping 13% margin.

It’s true that tax increases are not always the answer to better schools. But remember that Unitarians and Universalists have historically supported public education in many ways — pursuing careers in education, serving in policy-making positions, volunteering in the public schools, doing research in education, etc. We believe in democratic principles, both in our religious life but also in public life, and we have long held that good education is essential to a working democracy.

Unitarian Horace Mann advocated for public education in the 19th C., and his Unitarian sister-in-law, Elizabeth Palmer Peabody, brought kindergarten to the United States to improve the chances of inner city children. A century and a half later, it’s time we Unitarian Universalists got more involved in education policy.

B. F. Skinner and the inherent worth and dignity…

Notes from my week of study leave

The April 1, 2005, edition of The Chronicle of Higher Education has a good essay on the work of B. F. Skinner by David Barash, professor of psychology at the University of Washington. Barash reflects, among other things, on how it is that we can see ourselves as we truly are:

The problem is not simply one of seeing ourselves as others see us, but as we really are. Thus for a long time the best view in the city of Warsaw has been from the top of the Ministry of Culture. Why? Because this is practically the only place in that otherwise appealing city from which it is impossible to see the Ministry of Culture (a thoroughly regrettable example of Stalinist architecture at its worst). By the same token, we all see the world from the ministry of our own perceptions, having only this very limited viewpoint from which to see ourselves.

It was Skinner who identified, more clearly than anyone before — or after — the key stumbling block for those of us trying to see ourselves accurately; namely, a reluctance to countenance that human actions are caused, because the more causation, the less credit. ‘We recognize a person’s dignity or worth,’ writes Skinner, ‘when we give him credit for what he has done. The amount we give is inversely proportional to the conspicuousness of the causes of his behavior. If we do not know why a person acts as he does, we attribute his behavior to him. We try to gain additional credit for ourselves by concealing the reasons why we behave in given ways or by claiming to have acted for less powerful reasons.’ Ironically, there is something flattering and legitimizing in actions or thoughts that spring unbidden from our ‘self’ — whatever that may be — and that aren’t otherwise explicable. By the same token, the more our actions are caused, the less are we credited for them.

Skinner, again: ‘Any evidence that a person’s behavior may be attributed to external circumstances seems to threaten his dignity or worth. We are not inclined to give a person credit for achievements which are in fact due to forces over which he has no control. We tolerate a certain amount of such evidence, as we accept without alarm some evidence that a man is not free. No one is greatly disturbed when important details of works of art and literature, political careers, and scientific discoveries are attributed to ‘influences’ in the lives of artists, writers, statesmen, and scientists respectively. But as an analysis of behavior adds further evidence, the achievements for which a person himself is to be given credit seem to approach zero, and both the evidence and the science which produces it are then challenged.’ And not only achievements: The quotidian events of normal living also qualify.”

Isn’t that an interesting reflection on our much-used phrase “inherent worth and dignity”? That phrase — “inherent worth and dignity” — is one we Unitarian Universalists toss around without really thinking about it. I strongly believe that the real task of congregations is to do theology — which means to reflect carefully on our religious faith, to reflect carefully on words and phrases and texts we use regularly.

David Barash shows us that the phrase “inherent worth and dignity” must lead us to reflections on free will, consciousness and subjectivity, and the mind/body “split.” But read it for yourself, and then start really thinking about what Unitarian Unviersalists mean when they off-handedly mention “the inherent worth and dignity of all individuals — what does that actually mean?!

To read the article, point your browser to:
http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=rus8zx389vmlru6y5azc2lehaybc71

Unitarian Jihad name

Will Shetterly points out that you can be assigned your very own Unitarian Jihad name. Simply point your Web browser to:

http://homepage.mac.com/whump/ujname.html

You will automatically be assigned your very own Unitarian Jihad name. If you feel your name is too gender-specific, you have the option of changing your gender identity.

My Unitarian Jihad name is “The Broadsword of Reasoned Discussion.” I’m more of a Universalist these days than a Unitarian, which leads me to wonder what my Universalist Jihad name would be. Since I’m an Ultra-Universalist, how about “The Scimitar of Death and Glory”? Lindsay Bates, the senior minister here in Geneva, is also a Universalist, but she is a Restorationist. This implies that her Universalist Jihad name would be something like “The Purifying Fire of Ultimate Redemption.”

(Alas, many of my readers are probably not Universalists, so I guess I had better explain these Universalist Jihad names. All 19th C. Universalists believed that everyone gets to go to heaven. But the Ultra-Universalists believed that as soon as you die, you get to go straight to heaven [do not pass go] so they were known as the “death and glory” Universalists; whereas the Restorationists believed that before ultimately being restored to God’s presence, you would spend a certain amount of time in Purgatory having your evil deeds purified out of you by fire or some similar nasty punishment. Don’t worry, the explanation doesn’t spoil the joke, the Universalist Jihad names weren’t any funnier for those who are Universalists.)

untitled

My alter ego, Mr. Crankypants, has requested — no, demanded — that he be allowed to take over the blog today. Before he rudely pushes me out of the chair in front of the computer, let me introduce Mr. Crankypants:

Mr. Crankypants is getting tired of all this talk about Unitarian Universalism. It is too easy to get cranky about Unitarian Universalism. Mr. Crankypants needs a more challenging subject today. So let’s get all cranky about the new design for the United States nickel.

And don’t even think of saying, “Oh no Mr. Crankypants, talking about the nickel means talking about Unitarian Universalism because Thomas Jefferson was a Unitarian.” Mr. Crankypants regrets to inform you that Thomas Jefferson was not a Unitarian — not ever, not even a little bit. Thomas Jefferson went to an Episcopalian church.

Yes, Mr. Jefferson did write something to the effect that Unitarianism should be the religion of the future for the United States (that was before we Unitarian Universalists got sidetracked into believing we are a kind of asylum for freethinkers and rebels and we’ve been declining ever since, but we digress). And yes, Mr. Crankypants knows that old T. J. cut up a Bible, which makes many Unitarian Universalists today think he was a Unitarian, but just because you cut up a Bible doesn’t mean you’re a Unitarian. Let’s just admit it — Thomas Jefferson was a Deist and maybe an Episcopalian, but he was not a Unitarian.

Now that that non-issue has been disposed of, let’s start attacking the new nickel. The new nickel is an abomination. Look at the back — what is that bison standing on, anyway? It looks like two rather large meadow muffins. And why are the two meadow muffins floating in midair like that?

Turn the nickel over and look at the obverse side. Old T. J. looks like he had recently eaten something that didn’t sit quite well on his stomach. What’s worse, something appears to have happened to his upper lip and jaw, which are canted at a peculiar angle to the rest of his face. And what’s up with the word “Liberty” which hangs off his chin? It’s supposed to be in T. J.’s actual handwriting, but instead it looks like that cheesy typeface used on cheap wedding invitations.

The Mint should have learned that you can’t delegate coin design to just anyone. Just look at the designs of the state quarters, which are nearly all ugly. The new nickel was designed by a graphic designer, and the design probably looked good on paper, but it did not translate well to three-dimensional metal. Mr. Crankypants would like to remind the boneheads at the Mint that the finest U. S. coins ever made were designed — not by a graphic artist, not by a state legislature, not by Governor Arnold Schwarzenneger — but by a sculptor, Augustus St. Gaudens.

(Oops. Without realizing it, Mr. Crankypants wound up relating this whole diatribe to Unitarian Universalists because Augustus St. Gaudens was a Unitarian. Worse yet, by praising St. Gaudens, it sounds as if Mr. Crankypants is kind of proud of being a Unitarian Universalist. It is just so hard to remain cranky all the time.)

Religious education for adults

Trying to plan out an integrated religious education curriculum across the life span raises a difficult questions: what are the learning goals for Unitarian Universalist adults?

Most UU congregations have the start of a pretty good curriculum for newcomers — the “New UU” class (it’s known under different names in different congregations). But when newcomers get beyond that, what then? Do they need more education, or do we just let them go?

In general, our UU congregations put together a miscellaneous or random collection of offerings for adults. Usually, it’s based on the time-worn”Open University” approach — if you can get someone to lead it, and you can get someone to teach it, then offer it. This is the easy way out — but is it the best way? If that’s what we’re doing, how is adult religious education offered at church any different than the adult education courses offered at the local community college?

If you read my post from yesterday, you’ll know I’m moving towards setting learning goals first, then coming up with acceptable evidence to determine if the learning goals have been met, and only then planning specific activities and instructional methods. If that’s the approach, my first question has to be — what are the learning goals we have for Unitarian Universalist adults?

I don’t really know. I have a pretty good idea of learning goals for adults who are new to Unitarian Universalism, but what about those of us who have been around for a long time?

Trying to plan religious education

Yesterday, I met with Elba and Jen from the Lifespan Religious Education Committee to come up with a curriculum plan for next church year. We were all a little apprehensive, but it turned out to be a relatively painless process. Partly I think it was painless because we had done the hard work ahead of time. In the last meeting of the Lifespan Religious Education Committee, we spent an hour going over the learning goals for the coming year, and that was the hard work.

More and more, I am convinced that the right way to go about planning curriculum is to start with the overall goals for our learners. And recently, I have been reading “Understanding by Design” by Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe, a book donated by Audris G., one of our church school teachers. Wiggins and McTighe confirm what I’ve been thinking. They say to begin by identifying the desired results. Then they contend the next step is to determine what the acceptable evidence will be that learners have reached the desired results. Only after that should we plan learning experiences and instructional methods.

But the way we usually go about things in a church school is that we pick curriculum books or programs that we like, and use them. For example, the most recent conference of the Liberal Religious Educators Association, the professional association of Unitarian Universalist religious educators, presented four different ways you can plan learning experiences. In other words, they were starting with the learning experiences and instructional methods, and skipping right over setting goals and determining how we know learners have learned anything. The way I see it now, that’s really all backwards. But that’s the way we’ve always done it.

Here in our church, I think we’re moving towards a better approach. The Lifespan Religious Education Committee is working at further refining the learning goals for all ages. We have begun to figure out good ways to determine if anyone is actually learning anything. We’re slowly breaking the old habits of planning things backwards. And it’s starting to pay off for us — curriculum planning was much easier than we had expected this year.

For more about “Understanding by Design,” visit the Web site of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum design at:
http://www.ascd.org/portal/site/ascd/menuitem.b66696ac45f924addeb3ffdb62108a0c/

Good advice

I came across an old Unitarian Universalist curriculum pamphlet the other day, A Guide to the Study of Jesus To Be Used with “Who Do Men [sic] Say That I Am?” by Susanna Wilder Heinz, published by Beacon Press in 1966. Ms. Heinz writes:

The study of the life and teachings of Jesus is best left for the adolescent years…. This is not to say that we should remain completely silent about Jesus until a child reaches his [sic] teens. To do so is to permit the teaching about Jesus to be done by default. If we remain silent, the neighbor’s children won’t! It is with dismay that some parents who follow the laissez faire method of ‘let him make up his own mind when he is old enough,’ discover that they no longer have a child grown into a liberal religious adult, but a child grown into his neighbor’s religion.

Seems to me this remains good advice today, nearly four decades later.

Great stories for UU kids (and adults)

I recently found The Baldwin Project, a Web site dedicated to publishing children’s literature which has entered the public domain. As you may know, in the United States the rights of copyright holders end after 75 years (assuming the copyright holder does not renew the copyright in his or her lifetime), and after that time copyright-protected material enters the public domain. While I have just begun to explore the Baldwin Project Web site, I already found Ellen C. Babbit’s retellings of the Jataka Tales.

The Jataka Tales, as you may know, are more than 500 stories that tell about earlier incarnations of Siddhartha Gautama, who became the Buddha, the Enlightened One. I’ve been using some of these stories in church school sessions. After telling the children a little about what Buddhists believe about reincarnation, I tell them that each story is like a puzzle — their job is to figure out which of the characters in the story is the Buddha in an earlier incarnation, and why. Then I read the story, and we talk about whom we each think the Buddha is. On Sunday, this prompted a good discussion with one of the 3rd/4th grade groups. We figured out one story, but when we came to “The Woodpecker, Turtle, and Deer,” we couldn’t come to agreement (read the story yourself, and you’ll see why!).

The children learned some more about Buddhism, and more importantly they learned a little bit about how to make moral judgements which may not have one best answer. What could be better in a Unitarian Universalist church school than to run up against a puzzle story where there is no one best answer? You can learn more about the Baldwin Project at:

http://www.mainlesson.com/main/displayarticle.php?article=mission